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.

Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability.

The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.

Power in global governance: an expanded typology from global health.

The exercise of power permeates global governance processes, making power a critical concept for understanding, explaining, and influencing the intersection of global governance and health. This article briefly presents and discusses three well-established conceptualizations of power-Dahl's, Bourdieu's, and Barnett and Duvall's-from different disciplines, finding that each is important for understanding global governance but none is sufficient. The conceptualization of power itself needs to be expanded to include the multiple ways in which one actor can influence the thinking or actions of others. I further argue that global governance processes exhibit features of complex adaptive systems, the analysis of which requires taking into account multiple types of power. Building on established frameworks, the article then offers an expanded typology of eight kinds of power: physical, economic, structural, institutional, moral, discursive, expert, and network. The typology is derived from and illustrated by examples from global health, but may be applicable to global governance more broadly. Finally, one seemingly contradictory - and cautiously optimistic - conclusion emerges from this typology: multiple types of power can mutually reinforce tremendous power disparities in global health; but at the same time, such disparities are not necessarily absolute or immutable. Further research on the complex interaction of multiple types of power is needed for a better understanding of global governance and health.

Making technological innovation work for sustainable development.

This paper presents insights and action proposals to better harness technological innovation for sustainable development. We begin with three key insights from scholarship and practice. First, technological innovation processes do not follow a set sequence but rather emerge from complex adaptive systems involving many actors and institutions operating simultaneously from local to global scales. Barriers arise at all stages of innovation, from the invention of a technology through its selection, production, adaptation, adoption, and retirement. Second, learning from past efforts to mobilize innovation for sustainable development can be greatly improved through structured cross-sectoral comparisons that recognize the socio-technical nature of innovation systems. Third, current institutions (rules, norms, and incentives) shaping technological innovation are often not aligned toward the goals of sustainable development because impoverished, marginalized, and unborn populations too often lack the economic and political power to shape innovation systems to meet their needs. However, these institutions can be reformed, and many actors have the power to do so through research, advocacy, training, convening, policymaking, and financing. We conclude with three practice-oriented recommendations to further realize the potential of innovation for sustainable development: (i) channels for regularized learning across domains of practice should be established; (ii) measures that systematically take into account the interests of underserved populations throughout the innovation process should be developed; and (iii) institutions should be reformed to reorient innovation systems toward sustainable development and ensure that all innovation stages and scales are considered at the outset.

Toward a Common Secure Future: Four Global Commissions in the Wake of Ebola.

Lawrence Gostin and colleagues offer a set of priorities for global health preparedness and response for future infectious disease threats.

WHO's role in the global health system: what can be learned from global R&D debates?

Recent global debates on the research and development (R&D) of health technologies, such as drugs, diagnostics and vaccines, can be seen as a microcosm of discussions on the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the global health system more broadly. The global R&D system has come under heightened scrutiny with the publication of a 2012 report by the WHO Consultative Expert Working Group on Research and Development (CEWG), which made a number of recommendations to more equitably meet global health needs. The CEWG report followed a decade-long process of debate at the WHO on the weaknesses of the global R&D system, which include problems of affordability, limited research where market returns are small or uncertain (such as the 'neglected diseases' that predominantly affect the world's poorest), inefficient overlap of research efforts, and overuse of medicines such as antibiotics. The CEWG report called on WHO Member States to develop a global framework to improve monitoring, coordination and financing of R&D efforts through the establishment of a Global Health R&D Observatory and the negotiation of a binding treaty on R&D. While the treaty option has been put on the back-burner for several years, Member States nevertheless agreed at the 2013 World Health Assembly (WHA) on concrete steps towards a global framework. Progress at the 2013 WHA reaffirmed the central role of WHO as a convener, and the WHA's decision to create the Observatory within the WHO Secretariat underscored the organization's role as a source of strategic knowledge in the global health system. However, despite WHO's constitutional mandate as the 'directing and coordinating authority on international health work', in reality it faces major challenges in coordinating autonomous R&D actors such as states, firms and foundations in the global system. Strengthening its ability to do so requires, at a minimum, reforming its financing arrangements to provide it with a greater degree of independence from its largest donors. In addition, WHO may seem to be the natural arena for negotiating a binding R&D treaty, but negotiating new global agreements in other arenas such as the WTO, WIPO, or plurilateral fora offer the possibility of more enforceable and stronger public health norms. Nevertheless, no single arena in the existing system of global governance is perfectly suitable for the negotiation of progressive, inclusive, binding, enforceable, global health rules. While tradeoffs are inherent in the choice of any particular arena, leadership from either the multilateral institutions or influential governments can make a key difference in how beneficial any R&D treaty may be for health. In the coming years, global R&D debates will remain a critical issue to watch. The evolution of the global R&D system will be a harbinger not only of WHO's place in a rapidly-changing global health system, but also of our collective capacity to strengthen institutions of global governance for health.

Estimating The Effects Of COVID-19 On Globalized Markets For Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients.

Global supply chains for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) are highly centralized in certain countries and are susceptible to supply-chain shocks. However, there is no systematic monitoring or global coordination to manage risk and ensure equitable supply continuity during public health emergencies. In this study, we applied quasi-experimental methods on shipment-level customs data to determine how prices and export volume for APIs exported from India were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that API prices for key essential medicines not used for COVID-19 did not change significantly in the year after the World Health Organization pandemic declaration, but volume decreased by 80 percent. Prices for medicines speculatively repurposed for COVID-19, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, increased by as much as 250 percent compared with prices for nonrepurposed medicines, but only ivermectin saw a decrease in volume. Systematic monitoring of API markets, investments to promote supply diversification, and legal and political reforms to disincentivize price speculation could support supply-chain resilience and safeguard access to medicines.

Pharmaceutical policy and innovation for rare diseases: A narrative review.

This article aims to synthesize the existing literature on the implementation of public policies to incentivize the development of treatments for rare diseases, (diseases with very low prevalence and therefore with low commercial interest) otherwise known as orphan drugs. The implementation of these incentives in the United States (US), Japan, and in the European Union (EU) seems to be related to a substantial increase in treatments for these diseases, and has influenced the way the pharmaceutical research & development (R&D) system operates beyond this policy area. Despite the success of the Orphan Drug model, the academic literature also highlights the negative implications that these public policies have on affordability and access to orphan drugs, as well as on the prioritization of certain disease rare areas over others. The synthesis focuses mostly on the United States' Orphan Drug Act (ODA) as a model for subsequent policies in other regions and countries. It starts with a historical overview of the creation of the term "rare diseases", continues with a summary of the evidence available on the US ODA's positive and negative impacts, and provides a summary of the different proposals to reform these incentives in light of the negative outcomes described. Finally, it describes some key aspects of the Japanese and European policies, as well as some of the challenges captured in the literature related to their impact in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs).

Rising pharmaceutical innovation in the Global South: a landscape study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in pharmaceutical innovation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but information on existing activities, capacities, and outcomes is scarce. We mapped available data at the global level, and studied the national pharmaceutical innovation systems of Bangladesh and Colombia to shed light on pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) in the Global South, including challenges and prospects, to help fill existing knowledge gaps. METHODS: We gathered and analyzed data from three types of sources: literature, semi-structured interviews with key informants, and publicly available data on R&D funding, R&D scientific capacity measured by human resources, and clinical trial activities. RESULTS: Pharmaceutical R&D activities are occurring in many LMICs, but 16 countries have emerged as frontrunners. Investment in R&D in LMICs has increased in the past decade, particularly from middle-income countries (MICs). Capacity is also growing, with an increase in the number of research organizations and the amount of funding available from external sources. The total number of clinical trials and the proportion of trials in LMICs increased markedly, and there is also growing activity in the earlier, more innovative and riskier Phase 1 and 2 trials. Non-commercial entities comprise the majority of clinical trial funders and sponsors in LMICs. Finally, investments have borne fruit, as indicated by a number of innovative medicines developed in LMICs. The Bangladesh and Colombia country studies showed that there is still a need for both targeted R&D policies to strengthen capacities in the pharmaceutical sector, and more government support to overcome the challenges of a lack of funding and coordination among different actors. CONCLUSIONS: By triangulating between the data sources, it was possible to paint a broad picture of who was involved in pharmaceutical R&D in LMICs, in which particular countries, for which diseases, in which R&D phases, and with what results-as well as how these trends have changed over time. Prioritizing pharmaceutical R&D is an important strategy for better meeting health needs. The trendlines are promising, but focused attention is still needed to realize the potential for greater innovation in the Global South.

WHO guidance on COVID-19 vaccine trial designs in the context of authorized COVID-19 vaccines and expanding global access: Ethical considerations.

While the degree of COVID-19 vaccine accessibility and uptake varies at both national and global levels, increasing vaccination coverage raises questions regarding the standard of prevention that ought to apply to different settings where COVID-19 vaccine trials are hosted. A WHO Expert Group has developed guidance on the ethical implications of conducting placebo-controlled trials in the context of expanding global COVID-19 vaccine coverage. The guidance also considers alternative trial designs to placebo controlled trials in the context of prototype vaccines, modified vaccines, and next generation vaccines.

Viewing the global health system as a complex adaptive system - implications for research and practice.

The global health system (GHS) is ill-equipped to deal with the increasing number of transnational challenges. The GHS needs reform to enhance global resilience to future risks to health. In this article we argue that the starting point for any reform must be conceptualizing and studying the GHS as a complex adaptive system (CAS) with a large and escalating number of interconnected global health actors that learn and adapt their behaviours in response to each other and changes in their environment. The GHS can be viewed as a multi-scalar, nested health system comprising all national health systems together with the global health architecture, in which behaviours are influenced by cross-scale interactions. However, current methods cannot adequately capture the dynamism or complexity of the GHS or quantify the effects of challenges or potential reform options. We provide an overview of a selection of systems thinking and complexity science methods available to researchers and highlight the numerous policy insights their application could yield.   We also discuss the challenges for researchers of applying these methods and for policy makers of digesting and acting upon them. We encourage application of a CAS approach to GHS research and policy making to help bolster resilience to future risks that transcend national boundaries and system scales.