Decolonising human rights: how intellectual property laws result in unequal access to the COVID-19 vaccine

The ethics of knowledge sharing: a feminist examination of intellectual property rights and open-source materials in gender transformative methodologies

Debates on intellectual property rights and open source frequently stem from the business sector and higher education, where goals are typically oriented toward profit, academic status, credit, and/or reputation. What happens if we reconsider the ethics of intellectual property rights and open source when our driving motivation is advancing women's health and rights? How does this prioritization complicate our assumptions of copyright and open access? How can we embark on a journey that validates the complex realities of multiple stakeholders who have good intent, but do not always consider the unintended impacts and the broader power dynamics at play? This paper explores the tensions and nuances of sharing methodologies that aim to transform harmful gender norms in an ecosystem that does not always consider the complex challenges behind intellectual property and open-source material. As a thought-collective dedicated to using a feminist approach to unpack and promote the principles of ethical, effective, and sustainable scale, we hope to underscore how the current research and debates on intellectual property rights and open-source material have good aims but may also fall short in encompassing the realities of gendered social norms change in and with communities around the world. We conclude with key recommendations for donors, researchers, International Development Corporations, International Non-Governmental Organizations, and those interested in using or adapting dynamic, gender transformative materials created by others.

Pandemic preparedness and response: a new mechanism for expanding access to essential countermeasures

As the world comes together through the WHO design and consultation process on a new medical counter-measures platform, we propose an enhanced APT-A (Access to Pandemic Tools Accelerator) that builds on the previous architecture but includes two new pillars - one for economic assistance and another to combat structural inequalities for future pandemic preparedness and response. As part of the APT-A, and in light of the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparation & Response's call for an enhanced end-to-end platform for access to essential health technologies, we propose a new mechanism that we call the Pandemic Open Technology Access Accelerator (POTAX) that can be implemented through the medical countermeasures platform and the pandemic accord currently under negotiation through the World Health Assembly and supported by the High-Level Meeting review on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response at the United Nations. This mechanism will provide (1) conditional financing for new vaccines and other essential health technologies requiring companies to vest licenses in POTAX and pool intellectual property and other data necessary to allow equitable access to the resulting technologies. It will also (2) support collective procurement as well as measures to ensure equitable distribution and uptake of these technologies.

Landscapes of inequities, structural racism, and disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of immigrant and racialized populations in Canada

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected immigrant and racialized communities globally and revealed another public health crisis - structural racism. While structural racism is known to foster discrimination via mutually reinforcing systems, the unevenness of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths across societies has precipitated attention to the impacts of structural racism. Research highlights the inequitable burden of COVID-19 among immigrant and racialized groups; however, little is known about the synergistic impacts of structural racism and COVID-19 on the health and wellbeing of these groups. Fewer studies examine how structural racism and COVID-19 intersect within neighbourhoods to co-produce landscapes of disease exposure and management. This article examines the pathways through which structural racism shapes access, use, and control of environmental resources among immigrant and racialized individuals in the neighbourhoods of the Peel Region and how they converged to shape health and disease dynamics during the height of Canada's COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from in-depth interviews reveal that mutually reinforcing inequitable systems created environments for COVID-19 to reinscribe disparities in access, use, and control of key resources needed to manage health and disease, and created new forms of disparities and landscapes of inequality for immigrants and racialized individuals. We close with a discussion on the impacts for policy and practice.

Which roads lead to access? A global landscape of six COVID-19 vaccine innovation models

BACKGROUND

Unequal and inequitable access to Covid-19 vaccines in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs) was a major political, ethical and public health failure in the pandemic. However, vaccine developers' practices were not monolithic, but rather, took diverse approaches to supplying different countries, with important implications for global access.

RESULTS

Using data on R&D investments, regulatory approvals, manufacturing and purchase agreements, and vaccine deliveries, we identified six distinct innovation models that apply across the 14 COVID-19 vaccines with more international presence from 2020-2022. "Western Early Arrivers" Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna supplied the largest volumes quickly and prioritized high-income countries (HICs) from registration to vaccine delivery. "Western Latecomers" Janssen and Novavax supplied intermediate volumes later, also prioritizing HICs but with a greater proportion to L&MICs. "Major Chinese Developers" Sinopharm and Sinovac supplied intermediate volumes early, primarily to middle-income countries (MICs). "Russian Developer" Gamaleya completed development early but ultimately supplied small volumes, primarily to middle-income countries (MICs). "Cosmopolitan Developer" Oxford/AstraZeneca supplied large volumes early to HICs and MICs at the lowest prices. Finally, "Small MIC Developers" CanSino, Bharat Biotech, Medigen, Finlay Institute and the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CGEB), exported relatively small volumes to a few MICs. Low-income countries (LICs) were not targeted by any developer, and received far fewer doses, later, than any other income group. Almost all developers received public funding and other forms of support, but we found little evidence that such support was leveraged to expand global access.

CONCLUSIONS

Each of the six innovation models has different implications for which countries get access to which vaccines, how quickly, and at which prices. Each offers different strengths and weaknesses for achieving equitable access. Our findings also suggest that Western firms had the greatest capacity to develop and deliver vaccines quickly during the pandemic, but such capacity is rapidly becoming more globally distributed with MICs playing a significant role, especially in supplying other MICs. Given the critical role of public support in enabling pandemic vaccine development and supply, governments have both the capacity and responsibility to craft international rules that will make responses to future pandemics more equitable and effective.

Colonialism in the new digital health agenda

The advancement of digital technologies has stimulated immense excitement about the possibilities of transforming healthcare, especially in resource-constrained contexts. For many, this rapid growth presents a 'digital health revolution'. While this is true, there are also dangers that the proliferation of digital health in the global south reinforces existing colonialities. Underpinned by the rhetoric of modernity, rationality and progress, many countries in the global south are pushing for digital health transformation in ways that ignore robust regulation, increase commercialisation and disregard local contexts, which risks heightened inequalities. We propose a decolonial agenda for digital health which shifts the liner and simplistic understanding of digital innovation as the magic wand for health justice. In our proposed approach, we argue for both conceptual and empirical reimagination of digital health agendas in ways that centre indigenous and intersectional theories. This enables the prioritisation of local contexts and foregrounds digital health regulatory infrastructures as a possible site of both struggle and resistance. Our decolonial digital health agenda critically reflects on who is benefitting from digital health systems, centres communities and those with lived experiences and finally introduces robust regulation to counter the social harms of digitisation.

COVAX - Time to reconsider the strategy and its target

COVAX, the international initiative supporting COVID-19 vaccination campaigns globally, is budgeted to be the costliest public health initiative in low- and middle-income countries, with over 16 billion US dollars already committed. While some claim that the target of vaccinating 70% of people worldwide is justified on equity grounds, we argue that this rationale is wrong for two reasons. First, mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns do not meet standard public health requirements for clear expected benefit, based on costs, disease burden and intervention effectiveness. Second, it constitutes a diversion of resources from more cost-effective and impactful public health programmes, thus reducing health equity. We conclude that the COVAX initiative warrants urgent review.

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.

Human in vitro modeling of adjuvant formulations demonstrates enhancement of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigen

Adjuvants can enhance vaccine immunogenicity, but their mechanism of action is often incompletely understood, hampering rapid applicability for pandemic vaccines. Herein, we characterized the cellular and molecular activity of adjuvant formulations available for pre-clinical evaluation, including several developed for global open access. We applied four complementary human in vitro platforms to assess individual and combined adjuvants in unformulated, oil-in-water, and liposomal delivery platforms. Liposomal co-formulation of MPLA and QS-21 was most potent in promoting dendritic cell maturation, selective production of Th1-polarizing cytokines, and activation of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in a co-culture assay. Select formulations also significantly enhanced Spike antigen-specific humoral immunity in vivo. This study confirms the utility of the cumulative use of human in vitro tools to predict adjuvanticity potential. Thus, human in vitro modeling may advance public health by accelerating the development of affordable and scalable adjuvants for vaccines tailored to vulnerable populations.

A critical analysis of COVAX alliance and corresponding global health governance and policy issues: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The COVAX alliance is a novel approach to international partnership in global health intended to achieve the worthy goal of 'COVID-19 vaccine equity'. This study aimed to identify the implementation challenges and framework gaps of COVAX and to explore the interconnected global health policy and governance gaps in ensuring equity, accessibility and affordability of vaccines.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify the implementation challenges and framework gaps of COVAX and related global health policy and governance gaps. A search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Springer Link and Embase databases. Manually searched the grey literature, such as official reports and articles. EndNote V.20 was used to manage the evidence screening, and data extraction was carried out in Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Searches of four electronic databases and official UN, GAVI and WHO websites identified 4686 pieces of evidence. The 937 duplicates were removed, and the remaining 3749 articles were screened for the title and abstract. Most articles were eliminated as they do not address global COVAX or COVID-19 vaccine equity. The remaining 53 pieces of evidence were reviewed for full text, and ultimately 40 articles found eligible were included in the scoping review.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation challenges of COVAX were attributed mainly to the phenomenon of vaccine nationalism by rich countries. The future global health policy and governance structure must be re-examined to address the inadequacies of such novel super public-and-private partnership models.

Expanding global vaccine manufacturing capacity: Strategic prioritization in small countries

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted significant gaps in equitable access to essential medical countermeasures such as vaccines. Manufacturing capacity for pandemic vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics is concentrated in too few countries. One of the major hurdles to equitable vaccine distribution was "vaccine nationalism", countries hoarded vaccines to vaccinate their own populations first which significantly reduced global vaccine supply, leaving significant parts of the world vulnerable to the virus. As part of equitably building global capacity, one proposal to potentially counter vaccine nationalism is to identify small population countries with vaccine manufacturing capacity, as these countries could fulfill their domestic obligations quickly, and then contribute to global vaccine supplies. This cross-sectional study is the first to assesses global vaccine manufacturing capacity and identifies countries with small populations, in each WHO region, with the capacity and capability to manufacture vaccines using various manufacturing platforms. Twelve countries were identified to have both small populations and vaccine manufacturing capacity. 75% of these countries were in the European region; none were identified in the African Region and South-East Asia Region. Six countries have facilities producing subunit vaccines, a platform where existing facilities can be repurposed for COVID-19 vaccine production, while three countries have facilities to produce COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Although this study identified candidate countries to serve as key vaccine manufacturing hubs for future health emergencies, regional representation is severely limited. Current negotiations to draft a Pandemic Treaty present a unique opportunity to address vaccine nationalism by building regional capacities in small population countries for vaccine research, development, and manufacturing.

Newspaper coverage on solidarity and personal responsibility in the COVID-19 pandemic: A content analysis from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland

Solidarity and personal responsibility have been repeatedly called upon during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study quantifies and contextualizes the use of these terms in newspaper coverage in Germany and German-speaking Switzerland based on n = 640 articles from six functionally equivalent newspapers. The term solidarity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was mentioned in 541/640 articles (84.5%) and was primarily used during phases with high death rates and comparatively stringent policies in place, supporting the idea that solidarity was used to explain restrictive measures to the population and motivate people to comply with these measures. German newspapers published more articles on solidarity than Swiss-German newspapers, consistent with more stringent COVID-19 policies in Germany. Personal responsibility was mentioned in 133/640 articles (20.8%), meaning that the term was less frequently discussed than solidarity. Articles covering personal responsibility included more negative evaluations during phases of high infection rates as compared to phases of low infection rates. Findings indicate that the two terms were, at least to some extent, used in newspaper reporting to contextualize and justify COVID-19 policy during phases of high infection rates. Moreover, the term solidarity was used in a high variety of different contexts and the inherent limits of solidarity were rarely mentioned. Policymakers and journalists need to take this into account for future crises to not jeopardize the positive effects of solidarity.

Ethical considerations of the vaccine development process and vaccination: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Various vaccines have been developed and distributed worldwide to control and cope with COVID-19 disease. To ensure vaccines benefit the global community, the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence, and autonomy should be examined and adhered to in the process of development, distribution, and implementation. This study, therefore, aimed to examine ethical considerations of vaccine development and vaccination processes.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature was conducted based on the Arkesy and O'Malley protocol to identify eligible studies published until November 2021. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and SciELO databases. The search was conducted using combinations of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms and keywords for Ethics, COVID-19, and vaccines in abstract, keywords, and title fields to retrieve potentially relevant publications. We included any study that reported one of the four principles of medical ethics: autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence in the COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution and implementation of vaccinations. Letters, notes, protocols, and brief communications were excluded. In addition, we searched gray literature to include relevant studies (ProQuest database, conferences, and reports). Data were analyzed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 43 studies were included. Ethical considerations concluded two themes: (1) production and (2) distribution and vaccination. The production process consisted of 16 codes and 4 main Categories, distribution and vaccination process consisted of 12 codes and 4 main Categories. Moreover, the ethical considerations of special groups were divided into four main groups: health care workers (HCWs) (five codes), children and adolescents (five codes), the elderly (one code), and ethnic and racial minorities (three codes).

CONCLUSION

Due to the externalities of pandemics and the public and social benefits and harms of vaccination, it is not feasible to adhere to all four principles of medical ethics simultaneously and perfectly. This issue confronts individuals and policymakers with several moral dilemmas. It seems that decision-making based on the balance between social benefit and social harm is a better criterion in this regard, and the final decision should be made based on maximizing the public benefit and minimizing the public harm.

Exposed and unprotected: Sex worker vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 health emergency in Mozambique

Measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 have been shown to disproportionately affect the marginalised groups in our societies. We studied the impacts of national restrictions on young adult sex workers in Mozambique, and actions at individual, governmental and civil society level to mitigate against these impacts. The country case study was part of a multi-country qualitative research, including fifty-four semi-structured interviews with female sex workers (N = 38), outreach workers (N = 10) in Maputo and Quelimane, and informants with key positions in national COVID coordination bodies, the Ministry of Health and civil society organisations (N = 7). While restrictions impacted all sex worker participants, the COVID crisis was found to deepen existing class differences and further incite violence against the most visible and economically vulnerable category of street-based sex workers. Parallel enforcement of morals against this group of 'urban undesirables' resulted in bodily harm and further degradation of the female sex worker under the guise of COVID emergency decrees, while restrictions weakened protection from peers and outreach workers against abuse by the police and other perpetrators. The State needs to act against unlawful police action and include impact mitigation strategies in its public health response to COVID in order to protect the most vulnerable.

Vaccine equity in COVID-19: a meta-narrative review

The topic of inequitable vaccine distribution has been widely discussed by academics, journalists and policy-makers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, research into perceptions of vaccine equity has been particularly neglected, resulting in a lack of universal understanding of vaccine equity. To address this, we conducted a meta-narrative review on COVID-19 vaccine equity according to the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standard. The review included articles published between January 2020 and September 2021. It aims to (1) identify research traditions that have considered this topic and investigate how it has been conceptualised; (2) explore any potential differences in understandings of the concept of vaccine equity adopted by distinct research groups; and (3) investigate the angles from which authors based their recommendations on how vaccine equity can be achieved. Five meta-narratives from the literature across various research traditions are identified, contextualised and discussed: frameworks and mechanisms for vaccine allocation, global health law, vaccine nationalism, ethics and morality, and reparative justice. Our findings indicate the need for a comparative review of existing global COVID-19 allocation frameworks, with a focus on explicating understandings of vaccine equity. COVID-19 will not be the last health crisis the world confronts. Heterogeneity in the academic literature is part of the way concepts are debated and legitimised, but in the interests of global public health policy-making, it is desirable to reach a consensus on what constitutes progress on equitable development, production, distribution and research.

Introduction: Human rights and global health special issue

The emergence of the field of health and human rights during the closing decades of the twentieth century offered the promise of an important shift of perspective within global health. It has been increasingly questioned, however, to what extent the health and human rights framework has indeed succeeded in ushering in a new era of global health governance and justice, as the topic has remained marginalised, marked by regional inequalities, and often dominated by legalist visions and global North perspectives. The articles and commentaries in this special issue seek to create a space where a number of other perspectives and voices can be part of the discussion. They add new perspectives and offer roadmaps for how to rewire the ways in which knowledge is constructed and relationships are formed in the field of health and human rights. In doing so, they present important possibilities for how to build a more just and egalitarian field.

Barriers to COVID-19 Health Products in Low-and Middle-Income Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has intensified the urgency in addressing pressing global health access challenges and has also laid bare the pervasive structural and systemic inequities that make certain segments of society more vulnerable to the tragic consequences of the disease. This rapid systematic review analyses the barriers to COVID-19 health products in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). It does so from the canon of global health equity and access to medicines by proposing an access to health products in low-and middle-income countries framework and typology adapted to underscore the complex interactive and multiplicative nature and effects of barriers to health products and their root cause as they coexist across different levels of society in LMICs.

Methods

Modified versions of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) reviewers' manual for evidence synthesis of systematic reviews and the PRISMA-ScR framework were used to guide the search strategy, identification, and screening of biomedical, social science, and gray literature published in English between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2021.

Results

The initial search resulted in 5,956 articles, with 72 articles included in this review after screening protocol and inclusion criteria were applied. Thirty one percent of the articles focused on Africa. The review revealed that barriers to COVID-19 health products were commonly caused by market forces (64%), the unavailability (53%), inaccessibility (42%), and unaffordability (35%), of the products, incongruent donors' agenda and funding (33%) and unreliable health and supply systems (28%). They commonly existed at the international and regional (79%), health sectoral (46%), and national cross-sectoral [public policy] (19%) levels. The historical heritage of colonialism in LMICs was a commonly attributed root cause of the barriers to COVID-19 health products in developing countries.

Conclusion

This review has outlined and elaborated on the various barriers to health products that must be comprehensively addressed to mount a successful global, regional, national and subnational response to present and future epidemics and pandemics in LMICs.

A framework for the promotion of ethical benefit sharing in health research

There is an increasing recognition of the importance of including benefit sharing in research programmes in order to ensure equitable and just distribution of the benefits arising from research. Whilst there are global efforts to promote benefit sharing when using non-human biological resources, benefit sharing plans and implementation do not yet feature prominently in research programmes, funding applications or requirements by ethics review boards. Whilst many research stakeholders may agree with the concept of benefit sharing, it can be difficult to operationalise benefit sharing within research programmes. We present a framework designed to assist with identifying benefit sharing opportunities in research programmes. The framework has two dimensions: the first represents microlevel, mesolevel and macrolevel stakeholders as defined using a socioecological model; and the second identifies nine different types of benefit sharing that might be achieved during a research programme. We provide an example matrix identifying different types of benefit sharing that might be undertaken during genomics research, and present a case study evaluating benefit sharing in Africa during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This framework, with examples, is intended as a practical tool to assist research stakeholders with identifying opportunities for benefit sharing, and inculcating intentional benefit sharing in their research programmes from inception.

Understanding and addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in low and middle income countries and in people with severe mental illness: Overview and recommendations for Latin America and the Caribbean

Despite the speedy development of vaccines for COVID-19, their rollout has posed a major public health challenge, as vaccine hesitancy (VH) and refusal are high. Addressing vaccine hesitancy is a multifactorial and context-dependent challenge. This perspective focuses on VH in the world region of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and includes people suffering from severe mental illness, therefore covering populations and subpopulations often neglected in scientific literature. We present an overview of VH in LAC countries, discussing its global and historical context. Vaccine uptake has shown to widely vary across different subregions of LAC. Current data points to a possible correlation between societal polarization and vaccination, especially in countries going through political crises such as Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela. Poor accessibility remains an additional important factor decreasing vaccination rollout in LAC countries and even further, in the whole Global South. Regarding patients with severe mental illness in LAC, and worldwide, it is paramount to include them in priority groups for immunization and monitor their vaccination coverage through public health indicators.