It is time for ambitious, transformational change to the epidemic countermeasures ecosystem

Life Science 2.0: reframing the life science sector for 'the benefit on mankind'

The COVID-19 pandemic put the life science sector to the test. Vaccines were developed at unprecedented speed, benefiting from decades of fundamental research and now honoured by a Nobel Prize. However, we saw that the fruits of science were inequitably distributed. Most low- and middle-income countries were left behind, deepening the inequalities that the Sustainable Development Goals were set to reduce. We argue that the life science sector must reinvent itself to be better and more equitably prepared for the next health crisis and to ensure fair access to health across current and future generations. Our recommendations include global governance, national strategies and the role of universities and corporations. Improved and more equitable health care should be centre stage for global health action and a core mission of a reframed Life Science sector - what we call Life Science 2.0.Paper ContextMain findings: During the COVID-19 pandemic the Life Science sector stepped up to the challenge, but vaccines and medicines were not equitably distributed.Added knowledge: Obstacles were identified that hindered global access to medical innovations.Global health impact for policy and action: Global and national governance, universities and the private sector should join forces to create a Life Science sector (Life Science 2.0) that affords equitable access to medical advances across geographical and generational boundaries and socio-economic strata.

Why are our medicines so expensive? Spoiler: Not for the reasons you are being told…

Often described as a natural economic trend, the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge for new medicines have skyrocketed in recent years. Companies claim these prices are justified because of the 'value' new treatments represent or that they reflect the high costs and risks associated with the research and development process. They also claim that the revenues generated through these high prices are required to pay for continued innovation.This paper argues that high prices are not inevitable but the result of a societal and political choice to rely on a for-profit business model for medical innovation, selling medicines at the highest price possible. Instead of focusing on therapeutic advances, it prioritises profit maximisation to benefit shareholders and investors over improving people's health outcomes or equitable access.As a result, people and health systems worldwide struggle to pay for the increasingly expensive health products, with growing inequities in access to even life-saving medicines while the biopharmaceutical industry and its financiers are the most lucrative business sectors.As the extreme COVID-19 vaccine inequities once again highlighted, we urgently need to reform the social contract between governments, the biopharmaceutical industry, and the public and restore its original health purpose. Policymakers must redesign policies and financing of the pharmaceutical research and development ecosystem such that public and private sectors work together towards the shared objective of responding to public health and patients' needs, rather than maximising financial return because medicines should not be a luxury.

Exploring the accessibility of primary health care data in Europe's COVID-19 response: developing key indicators for managing future pandemics (Eurodata study)

BACKGROUND

Primary Health Care (PHC) plays a crucial role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, with only 8% of cases requiring hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 data often goes unnoticed on European government dashboards and in media discussions. This project aims to examine official information on PHC patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, with specific objectives: (1) Describe PHC's clinical pathways for acute COVID-19 cases, including long-term care facilities, (2) Describe PHC COVID-19 pandemic indicators, (3) Develop COVID-19 PHC activity indicators, (4) Explain PHC's role in vaccination strategies, and (5) Create a PHC contingency plan for future pandemics.

METHODS

A mixed-method study will employ two online questionnaires to gather retrospective PHC data on COVID-19 management and PHC involvement in vaccination strategies. Validation will occur through focus group discussions with medical and public health (PH) experts. A two-wave Delphi survey will establish a European PHC indicators dashboard for future pandemics. Additionally, a coordinated health system action plan involving PHC, secondary care, and PH will be devised to address future pandemic scenarios.

ANALYSIS

Quantitative data will be analysed using STATA v16.0 for descriptive and multivariate analyses. Qualitative data will be collected through peer-reviewed questionnaires and content analysis of focus group discussions. A Delphi survey and multiple focus groups will be employed to achieve consensus on PHC indicators and a common European health system response plan for future pandemics. The Eurodata research group involving researchers from 28 European countries support the development.

DISCUSSION

While PHC manages most COVID-19 acute cases, data remains limited in many European countries. This study collects data from numerous countries, offering a comprehensive perspective on PHC's role during the pandemic in Europe. It pioneers the development of a PHC dashboard and health system plan for pandemics in Europe. These results may prove invaluable in future pandemics. However, data may have biases due to key informants' involvement and may not fully represent all European GP practices. PHC has a significant role in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, as most of the cases are mild or moderate and only 8% needed hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 activity data is invisible on governments' daily dashboards in Europe, often overlooked in media and public debates.

Modeling Supply and Demand Dynamics of Vaccines against Epidemic-Prone Pathogens: Case Study of Ebola Virus Disease

Health emergencies caused by epidemic-prone pathogens (EPPs) have increased exponentially in recent decades. Although vaccines have proven beneficial, they are unavailable for many pathogens. Furthermore, achieving timely and equitable access to vaccines against EPPs is not trivial. It requires decision-makers to capture numerous interrelated factors across temporal and spatial scales, with significant uncertainties, variability, delays, and feedback loops that give rise to dynamic and unexpected behavior. Therefore, despite progress in filling R&D gaps, the path to licensure and the long-term viability of vaccines against EPPs continues to be unclear. This paper presents a quantitative system dynamics modeling framework to evaluate the long-term sustainability of vaccine supply under different vaccination strategies. Data from both literature and 50 expert interviews are used to model the supply and demand of a prototypical Ebolavirus Zaire (EBOV) vaccine. Specifically, the case study evaluates dynamics associated with proactive vaccination ahead of an outbreak of similar magnitude as the 2018-2020 epidemic in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. The scenarios presented demonstrate how uncertainties (e.g., duration of vaccine-induced protection) and design criteria (e.g., priority geographies and groups, target coverage, frequency of boosters) lead to important tradeoffs across policy aims, public health outcomes, and feasibility (e.g., technical, operational, financial). With sufficient context and data, the framework provides a foundation to apply the model to a broad range of additional geographies and priority pathogens. Furthermore, the ability to identify leverage points for long-term preparedness offers directions for further research.

Designing the global vaccine supply chain: balancing intellectual property rights with post COVID-19 vaccine equity

This article aims to propose practical solutions that coordinate the conflicting interests between the global community and the pharmaceutical industry on the intellectual property (IP) waiver for COVID-19 vaccines and facilitate a more equitable vaccine supply chain in the post-COVID-19 world. We critically conducted a narrative literature review to identify procedural and practical issues in the current vaccine supply chain. The search was conducted across various academic disciplines, including biomedical science, life science, law and social science, using resources such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Westlaw. After screening 731 articles, 55 studies were selected for review. The narrative review revealed several critical barriers that hinder vaccine supply in less-developed countries (LDCs) as follows: (1) WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) waiver requests may not be granted due to its stringent consensus rule; (2) the current compulsory license system may not work due to the complexity of IP rights covering COVID-19 vaccine technologies; (3) only a few LDCs have domestic companies capable of manufacturing vaccines, and (4) political and economic tensions among countries exacerbate existing barriers to vaccine distribution in LDCs. Based on these findings, we proposed a comprehensive compulsory license system, which combines TRIPS's compulsory license system with the third-party beneficiary mechanism under Common Law. This integrated approach offers a balanced solution that ensures fair compensation for vaccine developers while facilitating broader vaccine access.

From private incentives to public health need: rethinking research and development for pandemic preparedness

Pandemic preparedness and response have relied primarily on market dynamics to drive development and availability of new health products. Building on calls for transformation, we propose a new value proposition that instead prioritises equity from the research and development (R&D) stage and that strengthens capacity to control outbreaks when and where they occur. Key elements include regional R&D hubs free to adapt well established technology platforms, and independent clinical trials networks working with researchers, regulators, and health authorities to better study questions of comparative benefit and real-world efficacy. Realising these changes requires a shift in emphasis: from pandemic response to outbreak control, from one-size-fits-all economies of scale to R&D and manufacture for local need, from de novo product development to last-mile innovation through adaptation of existing technologies, and from proprietary, competitive R&D to open science and financing for the common good that supports collective management and sharing of technology and know-how.

Evolving market-shaping strategies to boost access to essential medical products in developing countries with HIV self-testing as a case study

The COVID-9 pandemic has exacerbated health inequities among countries in the Global South with limited access to essential medical products, leading to a higher infection and mortality rate, especially among vulnerable populations. Despite tremendous progress in global health financing, the estimated annual financing gap in developing countries is projected to reach US$371 billion per year by 2030. Therefore, developing market-shaping strategies is of great importance in ensuring adequate supply, affordable prices, and equitable access to essential medical products in low-and middle-income countries. We propose a strategic and appropriate market-shaping intervention framework for governments, international organizations, and NGOs to maximize access to essential medical products in developing countries. In the health field, we believe that market shaping strategy could be defined as a set of purposeful activities that market forces may intervene with to advance the development, production, supply, and distribution of global goods for health, making essential medical products more affordable, accessible, innovative, sustainable and quality assured. We argue that when designing a market-shaping strategy, policy or decision-makers must take full advantage of the key drivers to keep the market dynamic, interactive, and constantly evolving to meet the unmet medical needs. In addition, different forms of market-shaping interventions are determined by objectives and specific issues to be addressed. More comprehensive market shaping strategies, including the strategic use of market expansion, market disruption, market maintenance, and market contraction alone or together, deserve to be explored and key stakeholders are also expected to join forces to make the intervention more efficient and productive.