Ensuring progress on sustainable access to effective antibiotics at the 2024 UN General Assembly: a target-based approach.

Rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health crisis for countries of all economic levels, alongside the broader challenge of access to antibiotics. As a result, development goals for child survival, healthy ageing, poverty reduction, and food security are at risk. Preserving antimicrobial effectiveness, a global public good, requires political will, targets, accountability frameworks, and funding. The upcoming second high-level meeting on AMR at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in September, 2024, is evidence of political interest in addressing the problem of AMR, but action on targets, accountability, and funding, absent from the 2016 UNGA resolution, is needed. We propose ambitious yet achievable global targets for 2030 (relative to a prepandemic 2019 baseline): a 10% reduction in mortality from AMR; a 20% reduction in inappropriate human antibiotic use; and a 30% reduction in inappropriate animal antibiotic use. Given national variation in current levels of antibiotic use, these goals (termed the 10-20-30 by 2030) should be met within a framework of universal access to effective antibiotics. The WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWARE) system can be used to define, monitor, and evaluate appropriate levels of antibiotic use and access. Some countries should increase access to narrow-spectrum, safe, and affordable (Access) antibiotics, whereas others should discourage the inappropriate use of broader-spectrum (Watch) and last-resort (Reserve) antibiotics; AWARE targets should use a risk-based, burden-adjusted approach. Improved infection prevention and control, access to clean water and sanitation, and vaccination coverage can offset the selection effects of increased antibiotic use in low-income settings. To ensure accountability and global scientific guidance and consensus, we call for the establishment of the Independent Panel on Antimicrobial Access and Resistance and the support of leaders from low-income and middle-income countries.

International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects.

There are over 250,000 international treaties that aim to foster global cooperation. But are treaties actually helpful for addressing global challenges? This systematic field-wide evidence synthesis of 224 primary studies and meta-analysis of the higher-quality 82 studies finds treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects. The only exceptions are treaties governing international trade and finance, which consistently produced intended effects. We also found evidence that impactful treaties achieve their effects through socialization and normative processes rather than longer-term legal processes and that enforcement mechanisms are the only modifiable treaty design choice with the potential to improve the effectiveness of treaties governing environmental, human rights, humanitarian, maritime, and security policy domains. This evidence synthesis raises doubts about the value of international treaties that neither regulate trade or finance nor contain enforcement mechanisms.

Implementation of a centralized pharmacovigilance system in academic pan-European clinical trials: Experience from EU-Response and conect4children consortia.

Setting-up a high quality, compliant and efficient pharmacovigilance (PV) system in multi-country clinical trials can be more challenging for academic sponsors than for companies. To ensure the safety of all participants in academic studies and that the PV system fulfils all regulations, we set up a centralized PV system that allows sponsors to delegate work on PV. This initiative was put in practice by our Inserm-ANRS MIE PV department in two distinct multinational European consortia with 19 participating countries: conect4children (c4c) for paediatrics research and EU-Response for Covid-19 platform trials. The centralized PV system consists of some key procedures to harmonize the complex safety processes, creation of a local safety officer (LSO) network and centralization of all safety activities. The key procedures described the safety management plan for each trial and how tasks were shared and delegated between all stakeholders. Processing of serious adverse events (SAEs) in a unique database guaranteed the full control of the safety data and continuous evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio. The LSO network participated in efficient regulatory compliance across multiple countries. In total, there were 1312 SAEs in EU-Response and 83 SAEs in c4c in the four trials. We present here the lessons learnt from our experience in four clinical trials. We managed heterogeneous European local requirements and implemented efficient communication with all trial teams. Our approach builds capacity for PV that can be used by multiple academic sponsors.

Evaluating official development assistance-funded granting mechanisms for global health and development research that is initiated in high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Several countries allocate official development assistance (ODA) for research on global health and development issues that is initiated in the donor country. The integration of such research within domestic research systems aligns with efforts to coordinate ODA investments with science, technology and innovation policies towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). METHODS: Through a document synthesis and interviews with research funders in ODA donor and recipient countries, we evaluated the performance of this funding approach across seven donor-country programmes from five donor countries and examined the institutional design elements that increase its chances of advancing development goals and addressing global challenges. RESULTS: We found that carefully designed programmes provide a promising pathway to producing valuable and contextually relevant knowledge on global health and development issues. To achieve these outcomes and ensure they benefit ODA-receiving countries, programmes should focus on recipient-country priorities and absorptive capacity; translate research on global public goods into context-appropriate technologies; plan and monitor pathways to impact; structure equitable partnerships; strengthen individual and institutional capacity; and emphasize knowledge mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: Global health and development research programmes and partnerships have an important role to play in achieving the SDGs and addressing global challenges. Governments should consider the potential of ODA-funded research programmes to address gaps in their global health and development frameworks. In the absence of concrete evidence of development impact, donor countries should consider making increases in ODA allocations for research additional to more direct investments that have demonstrated effectiveness in ODA-receiving countries.

Developing vaccines against epidemic-prone emerging infectious diseases.

Today's world is characterized by increasing population density, human mobility, urbanization, and climate and ecological change. This global dynamic has various effects, including the increased appearance of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs), which pose a growing threat to global health security.Outbreaks of EIDs, like the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa or the current Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), have not only put populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) at risk in terms of morbidity and mortality, but they also have had a significant impact on economic growth in affected regions and beyond.The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI) is an innovative global partnership between public, private, philanthropic, and civil society organizations that was launched as the result of a consensus that a coordinated, international, and intergovernmental plan was needed to develop and deploy new vaccines to prevent future epidemics.CEPI is focusing on supporting candidate vaccines against the World Health Organization (WHO) Blueprint priority pathogens MERS-CoV, Nipah virus, Lassa fever virus, and Rift Valley fever virus, as well as Chikungunya virus, which is on the WHO watch list. The current vaccine portfolio contains a wide variety of technologies, ranging across recombinant viral vectors, nucleic acids, and recombinant proteins. To support and accelerate vaccine development, CEPI will also support science projects related to the development of biological standards and assays, animal models, epidemiological studies, and diagnostics, as well as build capacities for future clinical trials in risk-prone contexts.

Correction to: Developing vaccines against epidemic-prone emerging infectious diseases.

In the original publication of this article, the author name Richard Hatchett was incorrectly published.

Diagnostic preparedness for infectious disease outbreaks.

Diagnostics are crucial in mitigating the effect of disease outbreaks. Because diagnostic development and validation are time consuming, they should be carried out in anticipation of epidemics rather than in response to them. The diagnostic response to the 2014-15 Ebola epidemic, although ultimately effective, was slow and expensive. If a focused mechanism had existed with the technical and financial resources to drive its development ahead of the outbreak, point-of-care Ebola tests supporting a less costly and more mobile response could have been available early on in the diagnosis process. A new partnering model could drive rapid development of tests and surveillance strategies for novel pathogens that emerge in future outbreaks. We look at lessons learned from the Ebola outbreak and propose specific solutions to improve the speed of new assay development and ensure their effective deployment.

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).

Pull Incentives for Antibacterial Drug Development: An Analysis by the Transatlantic Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance.

New alternative market models are needed to incentivize companies to invest in developing new antibacterial drugs. In a previous publication, the Transatlantic Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (TATFAR) summarized the key areas of consensus for economic incentives for antibacterial drug development. That work determined that there was substantial agreement on the need for a mixture of push and pull incentives and particularly those that served to delink the revenues from the volumes sold. Pull incentives reward successful development by increasing or ensuring future revenue. Several pull incentives have been proposed that could substantially reward the development of new antibacterial drugs. In this second article authored by representatives of TATFAR, we examine the advantages and disadvantages of different pull incentives for antibacterial drug development. It is TATFAR's hope that this analysis, combined with other related analyses, will provide actionable information that will shape policy makers' thinking on this important issue.

Antimicrobial resistance: The complex challenge of measurement to inform policy and the public.

Didier Wernli and colleagues discuss the role of monitoring in countering antimicrobial resistance.

Access to effective antimicrobials: a worldwide challenge.

Recent years have seen substantial improvements in life expectancy and access to antimicrobials, especially in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, but increasing pathogen resistance to antimicrobials threatens to roll back this progress. Resistant organisms in health-care and community settings pose a threat to survival rates from serious infections, including neonatal sepsis and health-care-associated infections, and limit the potential health benefits from surgeries, transplants, and cancer treatment. The challenge of simultaneously expanding appropriate access to antimicrobials, while restricting inappropriate access, particularly to expensive, newer generation antimicrobials, is unique in global health and requires new approaches to financing and delivering health care and a one-health perspective on the connections between pathogen transmission in animals and humans. Here, we describe the importance of effective antimicrobials. We assess the disease burden caused by limited access to antimicrobials, attributable to resistance to antimicrobials, and the potential effect of vaccines in restricting the need for antibiotics.

Maximising access to achieve appropriate human antimicrobial use in low-income and middle-income countries.

Access to quality-assured antimicrobials is regarded as part of the human right to health, yet universal access is often undermined in low-income and middle-income countries. Lack of access to the instruments necessary to make the correct diagnosis and prescribe antimicrobials appropriately, in addition to weak health systems, heightens the challenge faced by prescribers. Evidence-based interventions in community and health-care settings can increase access to appropriately prescribed antimicrobials. The key global enablers of sustainable financing, governance, and leadership will be necessary to achieve access while preventing excess antimicrobial use.

International cooperation to improve access to and sustain effectiveness of antimicrobials.

Securing access to effective antimicrobials is one of the greatest challenges today. Until now, efforts to address this issue have been isolated and uncoordinated, with little focus on sustainable and international solutions. Global collective action is necessary to improve access to life-saving antimicrobials, conserving them, and ensuring continued innovation. Access, conservation, and innovation are beneficial when achieved independently, but much more effective and sustainable if implemented in concert within and across countries. WHO alone will not be able to drive these actions. It will require a multisector response (including the health, agriculture, and veterinary sectors), global coordination, and financing mechanisms with sufficient mandates, authority, resources, and power. Fortunately, securing access to effective antimicrobials has finally gained a place on the global political agenda, and we call on policy makers to develop, endorse, and finance new global institutional arrangements that can ensure robust implementation and bold collective action.

Exploring the evidence base for national and regional policy interventions to combat resistance.

The effectiveness of existing policies to control antimicrobial resistance is not yet fully understood. A strengthened evidence base is needed to inform effective policy interventions across countries with different income levels and the human health and animal sectors. We examine three policy domains-responsible use, surveillance, and infection prevention and control-and consider which will be the most effective at national and regional levels. Many complexities exist in the implementation of such policies across sectors and in varying political and regulatory environments. Therefore, we make recommendations for policy action, calling for comprehensive policy assessments, using standardised frameworks, of cost-effectiveness and generalisability. Such assessments are especially important in low-income and middle-income countries, and in the animal and environmental sectors. We also advocate a One Health approach that will enable the development of sensitive policies, accommodating the needs of each sector involved, and addressing concerns of specific countries and regions.