Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 - Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry. RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration. CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).

Postexposure Prophylaxis With rVSV-ZEBOV Following Exposure to a Patient With Ebola Virus Disease Relapse in the United Kingdom: An Operational, Safety, and Immunogenicity Report.

BACKGROUND: In October 2015, 65 people came into direct contact with a healthcare worker presenting with a late reactivation of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in the United Kingdom. Vaccination was offered to 45 individuals with an initial assessment of high exposure risk. METHODS: Approval for rapid expanded access to the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-Zaire Ebola virus (rVSV-ZEBOV) vaccine as an unlicensed emergency medicine was obtained from the relevant authorities. An observational follow-up study was carried out for 1 year following vaccination. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 45 individuals elected to receive vaccination between 10 and 11 October 2015 following written informed consent. By day 14, 39% had seroconverted, increasing to 87% by day 28 and 100% by 3 months, although these responses were not always sustained. Neutralizing antibody responses were detectable in 36% by day 14 and 73% at 12 months. Common side effects included fatigue, myalgia, headache, arthralgia, and fever. These were positively associated with glycoprotein-specific T-cell but not immunoglobulin (Ig) M or IgG antibody responses. No severe vaccine-related adverse events were reported. No one exposed to the virus became infected. CONCLUSIONS: This paper reports the use of the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine given as an emergency intervention to individuals exposed to a patient presenting with a late reactivation of EVD. The vaccine was relatively well tolerated, but a high percentage developed a fever ≥37.5°C, necessitating urgent screening for Ebola virus, and a small number developed persistent arthralgia.

World Health Organization Methodology to Prioritize Emerging Infectious Diseases in Need of Research and Development.

The World Health Organization R&D Blueprint aims to accelerate the availability of medical technologies during epidemics by focusing on a list of prioritized emerging diseases for which medical countermeasures are insufficient or nonexistent. The prioritization process has 3 components: a Delphi process to narrow down a list of potential priority diseases, a multicriteria decision analysis to rank the short list of diseases, and a final Delphi round to arrive at a final list of 10 diseases. A group of international experts applied this process in January 2017, resulting in a list of 10 priority diseases. The robustness of the list was tested by performing a sensitivity analysis. The new process corrected major shortcomings in the pre-R&D Blueprint approach to disease prioritization and increased confidence in the results.

Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine in preventing Ebola virus disease: final results from the Guinea ring vaccination, open-label, cluster-randomised trial (Ebola Ça Suffit!).

BACKGROUND: rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus. We tested the effect of rVSV-ZEBOV in preventing Ebola virus disease in contacts and contacts of contacts of recently confirmed cases in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial (Ebola ça Suffit!) in the communities of Conakry and eight surrounding prefectures in the Basse-Guinée region of Guinea, and in Tomkolili and Bombali in Sierra Leone. We assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular dose of rVSV-ZEBOV (2×107 plaque-forming units administered in the deltoid muscle) in the prevention of laboratory confirmed Ebola virus disease. After confirmation of a case of Ebola virus disease, we definitively enumerated on a list a ring (cluster) of all their contacts and contacts of contacts including named contacts and contacts of contacts who were absent at the time of the trial team visit. The list was archived, then we randomly assigned clusters (1:1) to either immediate vaccination or delayed vaccination (21 days later) of all eligible individuals (eg, those aged ≥18 years and not pregnant, breastfeeding, or severely ill). An independent statistician generated the assignment sequence using block randomisation with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 individuals vs >20 individuals). Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of assignments. After a recommendation by an independent data and safety monitoring board, randomisation was stopped and immediate vaccination was also offered to children aged 6-17 years and all identified rings. The prespecified primary outcome was a laboratory confirmed case of Ebola virus disease with onset 10 days or more from randomisation. The primary analysis compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals assigned to immediate vaccination versus eligible contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to delayed vaccination. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS: In the randomised part of the trial we identified 4539 contacts and contacts of contacts in 51 clusters randomly assigned to immediate vaccination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 4557 contacts and contacts of contacts in 47 clusters randomly assigned to delayed vaccination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation). No cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and contacts of contacts vaccinated in immediate clusters versus 16 cases (7 clusters affected) among all eligible individuals in delayed clusters. Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 68·9-100·0, p=0·0045), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient was 0·035. Additionally, we defined 19 non-randomised clusters in which we enumerated 2745 contacts and contacts of contacts, 2006 of whom were eligible and 1677 were immediately vaccinated, including 194 children. The evidence from all 117 clusters showed that no cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts and contacts of contacts versus 23 cases (11 clusters affected) among all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts in delayed plus all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts never vaccinated in immediate clusters. The estimated vaccine efficacy here was 100% (95% CI 79·3-100·0, p=0·0033). 52% of contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to immediate vaccination and in non-randomised clusters received the vaccine immediately; vaccination protected both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in those clusters. 5837 individuals in total received the vaccine (5643 adults and 194 children), and all vaccinees were followed up for 84 days. 3149 (53·9%) of 5837 individuals reported at least one adverse event in the 14 days after vaccination; these were typically mild (87·5% of all 7211 adverse events). Headache (1832 [25·4%]), fatigue (1361 [18·9%]), and muscle pain (942 [13·1%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events in this period across all age groups. 80 serious adverse events were identified, of which two were judged to be related to vaccination (one febrile reaction and one anaphylaxis) and one possibly related (influenza-like illness); all three recovered without sequelae. INTERPRETATION: The results add weight to the interim assessment that rVSV-ZEBOV offers substantial protection against Ebola virus disease, with no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters. FUNDING: WHO, UK Wellcome Trust, the UK Government through the Department of International Development, Médecins Sans Frontières, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme), and the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development).

Safety and immunogenicity of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine in adults and children in Lambaréné, Gabon: A phase I randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine prevented Ebola virus disease when used at 2 × 107 plaque-forming units (PFU) in a trial in Guinea. This study provides further safety and immunogenicity data. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A randomised, open-label phase I trial in Lambaréné, Gabon, studied 5 single intramuscular vaccine doses of 3 × 103, 3 × 104, 3 × 105, 3 × 106, or 2 × 107 PFU in 115 adults and a dose of 2 × 107 PFU in 20 adolescents and 20 children. The primary objective was safety and tolerability 28 days post-injection. Immunogenicity, viraemia, and shedding post-vaccination were evaluated as secondary objectives. In adults, mild-to-moderate adverse events were frequent, but there were no serious or severe adverse events related to vaccination. Before vaccination, Zaire Ebola virus (ZEBOV)-glycoprotein (GP)-specific and ZEBOV antibodies were detected in 11% and 27% of adults, respectively. In adults, 74%-100% of individuals who received a dose 3 × 104, 3 × 105, 3 × 106, or 2 × 107 PFU had a ≥4.0-fold increase in geometric mean titres (GMTs) of ZEBOV-GP-specific antibodies at day 28, reaching GMTs of 489 (95% CI: 264-908), 556 (95% CI: 280-1,101), 1,245 (95% CI: 899-1,724), and 1,503 (95% CI: 931-2,426), respectively. Twenty-two percent of adults had a ≥4-fold increase of ZEBOV antibodies, with GMTs at day 28 of 1,015 (647-1,591), 1,887 (1,154-3,085), 1,445 (1,013-2,062), and 3,958 (2,249-6,967) for the same doses, respectively. These antibodies persisted up to day 180 for doses ≥3 × 105 PFU. Adults with antibodies before vaccination had higher GMTs throughout. Neutralising antibodies were detected in more than 50% of participants at doses ≥3 × 105 PFU. As in adults, no serious or severe adverse events related to vaccine occurred in adolescents or children. At day 2, vaccine RNA titres were higher for adolescents and children than adults. At day 7, 78% of adolescents and 35% of children had recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus RNA detectable in saliva. The vaccine induced high GMTs of ZEBOV-GP-specific antibodies at day 28 in adolescents, 1,428 (95% CI: 1,025-1,989), and children, 1,620 (95% CI: 806-3,259), and in both groups antibody titres increased up to day 180. The absence of a control group, lack of stratification for baseline antibody status, and imbalances in male/female ratio are the main limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm the acceptable safety and immunogenicity profile of the 2 × 107 PFU dose in adults and support consideration of lower doses for paediatric populations and those who request boosting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201411000919191.

Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine expressing Ebola surface glycoprotein: interim results from the Guinea ring vaccination cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A recombinant, replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus (rVSV-ZEBOV) is a promising Ebola vaccine candidate. We report the results of an interim analysis of a trial of rVSV-ZEBOV in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS: For this open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial, suspected cases of Ebola virus disease in Basse-Guinée (Guinea, west Africa) were independently ascertained by Ebola response teams as part of a national surveillance system. After laboratory confirmation of a new case, clusters of all contacts and contacts of contacts were defined and randomly allocated 1:1 to immediate vaccination or delayed (21 days later) vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV (one dose of 2 × 10(7) plaque-forming units, administered intramuscularly in the deltoid muscle). Adults (age ≥18 years) who were not pregnant or breastfeeding were eligible for vaccination. Block randomisation was used, with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 vs >20 individuals). The study is open label and masking of participants and field teams to the time of vaccination is not possible, but Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of allocation to immediate or delayed vaccination. Taking into account the incubation period of the virus of about 10 days, the prespecified primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease with onset of symptoms at least 10 days after randomisation. The primary analysis was per protocol and compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals in immediate vaccination clusters with the incidence in eligible individuals in delayed vaccination clusters. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and July 20, 2015, 90 clusters, with a total population of 7651 people were included in the planned interim analysis. 48 of these clusters (4123 people) were randomly assigned to immediate vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV, and 42 clusters (3528 people) were randomly assigned to delayed vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV. In the immediate vaccination group, there were no cases of Ebola virus disease with symptom onset at least 10 days after randomisation, whereas in the delayed vaccination group there were 16 cases of Ebola virus disease from seven clusters, showing a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI 74·7-100·0; p=0·0036). No new cases of Ebola virus disease were diagnosed in vaccinees from the immediate or delayed groups from 6 days post-vaccination. At the cluster level, with the inclusion of all eligible adults, vaccine effectiveness was 75·1% (95% CI -7·1 to 94·2; p=0·1791), and 76·3% (95% CI -15·5 to 95·1; p=0·3351) with the inclusion of everyone (eligible or not eligible for vaccination). 43 serious adverse events were reported; one serious adverse event was judged to be causally related to vaccination (a febrile episode in a vaccinated participant, which resolved without sequelae). Assessment of serious adverse events is ongoing. INTERPRETATION: The results of this interim analysis indicate that rVSV-ZEBOV might be highly efficacious and safe in preventing Ebola virus disease, and is most likely effective at the population level when delivered during an Ebola virus disease outbreak via a ring vaccination strategy. FUNDING: WHO, with support from the Wellcome Trust (UK); Médecins Sans Frontières; the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Research Council of Norway; and the Canadian Government through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre, and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost-effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost-effectiveness thresholds allow cost-effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost-effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country's per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this - in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost-effectiveness ratios - can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost-effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations - e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations - in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost-effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair.

Les analyses de rentabilité permettent de comparer les coûts et les résultats de différentes options politiques. Chaque ratio coût-efficacité qui en découle indique l'importance des avantages supplémentaires pour la santé par unité supplémentaire de ressources dépensée. Les seuils de rentabilité permettent de déterminer les ratios coût-efficacité qui représentent une bonne ou une très bonne rentabilité. En 2001, la Commission macroéconomie et santé de l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a suggéré des seuils de rentabilité définis d'après des multiples du produit intérieur brut (PIB) par habitant d'un pays. Dans certains pays, ces seuils ont servi de règles pour décider quelles interventions financer ou non. Cependant, l'expérience d'utilisation de ces seuils fondés sur le PIB dans les processus décisionnels des pays montre qu'ils ne tiennent pas compte des spécificités des pays; cela, ajouté à une certaine incertitude concernant la modélisation des ratios coût-efficacité, peut entraîner la prise de mauvaises décisions quant à l'utilisation des ressources sanitaires. Les informations sur la rentabilité des interventions devraient être prises en compte parallèlement à d'autres considérations, comme l'impact budgétaire et la faisabilité, dans le cadre d'un processus décisionnel transparent et non de façon isolée sur la base d'une seule valeur seuil. Bien que le caractère informatif des ratios coût-efficacité soit indéniable lorsqu'il s'agit d'évaluer la rentabilité des interventions, les pays devraient être encouragés à développer un processus de prise de décision spécifique au contexte, qui soit encadré par la législation et qui ait l'adhésion des parties intéressées, avec par exemple l'implication d'organisations de la société civile et de groupes de patients, et qui soit transparent, cohérent et équitable.

El análisis de rentabilidad se utiliza para comparar los costes y resultados de opciones políticas alternativas. Cada relación de rentabilidad resultante representa la magnitud de sanidad adicional obtenida por unidad adicional de recursos utilizados. Los umbrales de rentabilidad permiten la identificación de las relaciones de rentabilidad que representan un valor bueno o muy bueno del capital. En 2001, los umbrales de rentabilidad propuestos por la Comisión sobre Macroeconomía y Salud de la Organización Mundial de la Salud se basaron en múltiplos del producto interior bruto (PIB) per cápita de un país. En algunos contextos, se han utilizado estos umbrales para decidir qué intervenciones sanitarias financiar y cuáles no. No obstante, la experiencia con el uso de dichos umbrales basados en el PIB en los procesos de toma de decisiones a nivel nacional muestra la ausencia de especificidad según el país. Esto, además de la incertidumbre de las relaciones de rentabilidad modelo, puede dar lugar a una toma de decisiones equivocada sobre cómo emplear los recursos sanitarios. La información relativa a la rentabilidad debería utilizarse teniendo en cuenta otros factores (por ejemplo, el impacto presupuestario y aspectos de viabilidad) en un proceso transparente de toma de decisiones, en lugar de únicamente teniendo como referencia un solo valor del umbral. A pesar de que las relaciones de rentabilidad son indudablemente esclarecedoras a la hora de evaluar el valor del capital, es necesario fomentar que los países desarrollen un proceso específico del contexto apoyado por la legislación para tomar decisiones, como, por ejemplo, si las partes interesadas han aceptado la implicación de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil y grupos de pacientes y si es transparente, coherente y justa.

Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage.

Governments in low- and middle-income countries are legitimizing the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC), following a United Nation's resolution on UHC in 2012 and its reinforcement in the sustainable development goals set in 2015. UHC will differ in each country depending on country contexts and needs, as well as demand and supply in health care. Therefore, fundamental issues such as objectives, users and cost-effectiveness of UHC have been raised by policy-makers and stakeholders. While priority-setting is done on a daily basis by health authorities - implicitly or explicitly - it has not been made clear how priority-setting for UHC should be conducted. We provide justification for explicit health priority-setting and guidance to countries on how to set priorities for UHC.

Les gouvernements des pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire sont en train de légitimer la mise en place de la couverture sanitaire universelle (CSU), suite à une résolution des Nations Unies de 2012 sur la CSU et à son entérinement dans les objectifs de développement durable fixés en 2015. La CSU variera selon les pays, en fonction de leur contexte et de leurs besoins, ainsi qu'en fonction de la demande et de l'offre de soins. Des questions fondamentales ont ainsi été soulevées par les responsables politiques et les parties prenantes, portant notamment sur les objectifs, les utilisateurs et le rapport coût-efficacité de la CSU. Si les autorités sanitaires déterminent quotidiennement des priorités, de façon implicite ou explicite, la marche à suivre pour définir les priorités en matière de CSU n'a pas été clairement établie. Nous justifions ici la nécessité de définir explicitement les priorités dans le domaine de la santé tout en donnant des orientations aux pays pour définir les priorités en matière de CSU.

Los gobiernos de países con ingresos bajos y medios están legitimando la implementación de una cobertura sanitaria universal (CSU) tras un acuerdo de las Naciones Unidas acerca de la cobertura sanitaria universal en 2012 y su consolidación en los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible establecidos en 2015. Cada país tendrá una cobertura sanitaria universal distinta, según el contexto y las necesidades de cada uno, así como la oferta y la demanda de atención sanitaria. Por tanto, los responsables políticos y partes interesadas han abordado los asuntos fundamentales como los objetivos, los usuarios y la rentabilidad de la cobertura sanitaria universal. A pesar de que las autoridades sanitarias han establecido prioridades diarias (de forma implícita o explícita), no se ha aclarado cómo se debería gestionar el establecimiento de prioridades para la cobertura sanitaria universal. Se ofrece una justificación para el establecimiento de prioridades sanitarias explícitas y orientación a los países en la definición de prioridades para la cobertura sanitaria universal.

The Evolution of the Meningitis Vaccine Project.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Meningitis Vaccine Project (MVP) was tasked to develop, test, license, and introduce a group A meningococcal (MenA) conjugate vaccine for sub-Saharan Africa. African public health officials emphasized that a vaccine price of less than US$0.50 per dose was necessary to ensure introduction and sustained use of this new vaccine. METHODS: Initially, MVP envisioned partnering with a multinational vaccine manufacturer, but the target price and opportunity costs were problematic and formal negotiations ended in 2002. MVP chose to become a "virtual vaccine company," and over the next decade managed a network of public-private and public-public partnerships for pharmaceutical development, clinical development, and regulatory submission. MVP supported the transfer of key know-how for the production of group A polysaccharide and a new conjugation method to the Serum Institute of India, Ltd, based in Pune, India. A robust staff structure supported by technical consultants and overseen by advisory groups in Europe and Africa ensured that the MenA conjugate vaccine would meet all international standards. RESULTS: A robust project structure including a team of technical consultants and 3 advisory groups in Europe and Africa ensured that the MenA conjugate vaccine (PsA-TT, MenAfriVac) was licensed by the Drug Controller General of India and prequalified by the World Health Organization in June 2010. The vaccine was introduced in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger in December 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The development, through a public-private partnership, of a safe, effective, and affordable vaccine for sub-Saharan Africa, PsA-TT, offers a new paradigm for the development of vaccines specifically targeting populations in resource-poor countries.

Informing the establishment of the WHO Global Observatory on Health Research and Development: a call for papers.

In May 2013, the WHO Member States requested the WHO to establish a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (R&D), as part of a strategic work-plan to promote innovation, build capacity, improve access, and mobilize resources to address diseases that disproportionately affect the world's poorest countries.The rationale for establishing a Global Observatory on Health R&D is to provide a mechanism to monitor and analyse health R&D resource flows, product pipelines, and research outputs, aiming to contribute to the identification of gaps to inform priority-setting for new R&D investments to be operationalized through a new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D and utilized by all stakeholders informing health research policy decisions in countries, civil society, and the private sector.As one of the mechanisms to achieve the goals of the Global Observatory on Health R&D, the WHO is launching a Call for Papers to be published as a Thematic Series in Health Research Policy and Systems to contribute state-of-the-art knowledge and innovative approaches to analyse, interpret, and report on health R&D information. Further, to serve as a key resource to inform the future WHO-convened coordination mechanism, which will be utilized to generate evidence-informed priorities for new R&D investments to be financed through a proposed new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D.

Monitoring progress towards universal health coverage at country and global levels.

Universal health coverage (UHC) has been defined as the desired outcome of health system performance whereby all people who need health services (promotion, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliation) receive them, without undue financial hardship. UHC has two interrelated components: the full spectrum of good-quality, essential health services according to need, and protection from financial hardship, including possible impoverishment, due to out-of-pocket payments for health services. Both components should benefit the entire population. This paper summarizes the findings from 13 country case studies and five technical reviews, which were conducted as part of the development of a global framework for monitoring progress towards UHC. The case studies show the relevance and feasibility of focusing UHC monitoring on two discrete components of health system performance: levels of coverage with health services and financial protection, with a focus on equity. These components link directly to the definition of UHC and measure the direct results of strategies and policies for UHC. The studies also show how UHC monitoring can be fully embedded in often existing, regular overall monitoring of health sector progress and performance. Several methodological and practical issues related to the monitoring of coverage of essential health services, financial protection, and equity, are highlighted. Addressing the gaps in the availability and quality of data required for monitoring progress towards UHC is critical in most countries.