Six dilemmas for stakeholders inherently affecting data sharing during a zoonotic (re-)emerging infectious disease outbreak response.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to outbreak related data, particularly in the early events of a spillover, is important to support evidence based control measures in response to outbreaks of zoonotic Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID). Yet, this is impeded by several barriers that need to be understood to promote timely sharing of data. Using the MERS epidemic as a model for a zoonotic EID outbreak, this study sought to provide an in-depth understanding of data sharing practices. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 25 experts were conducted, along with Focus Group Discussions with 15 additional experts. A root-cause analysis was performed to examine the causal relationships between barriers. Enablers were mapped to the root-cause analysis to understand their influence on the barriers. Finally, root causes were placed in context of core dilemmas identified from the qualitative analysis. FINDINGS: Eight barriers to data sharing were identified, related to collaboration, technical preparedness, regulations, and (conflict of) interests, and placed in the context of six dilemmas inherent to the multi-stakeholder collaboration required for a zoonotic outbreak response. Fourteen identified enablers showed the willingness of stakeholders to overcome or circumvent these barriers, but also indicated the inherent trial and error nature of implementing such enablers. INTERPRETATION: Addressing the barriers requires solutions that must consider the complexity and interconnectedness of the root causes underlying them, and should consider the distinct scopes and interests of the different stakeholders. Insights provided by this study can be used to encourage data sharing practices for future outbreaks FUNDING: Wellcome Trust and UK Aid; EU-H2020 Societal Challenges (grant agreement no. 643476), Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VI.Veni.201S.044).

Access and benefit-sharing by the European Virus Archive in response to COVID-19.

Biobanking infrastructures, which are crucial for responding early to new viral outbreaks, share pathogen genetic resources in an affordable, safe, and impartial manner and can provide expertise to address access and benefit-sharing issues. The European Virus Archive has had a crucial role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic by distributing EU-subsidised (free of charge) viral resources to users worldwide, providing non-monetary benefit sharing, implementing access and benefit-sharing compliance, and raising access and benefit-sharing awareness among members and users. All currently available SARS-CoV-2 material in the European Virus Archive catalogue, including variants of concern, are not access and benefit-sharing cases per se, but multilateral benefit-sharing has nevertheless occurred. We propose and discuss how a multilateral system enabling access and benefit-sharing from pathogen genetic resources, based on the European Virus Archive operational model, could help bridge the discrepancies between the current bilateral legal framework for pathogen genetic resources and actual pandemic response practices.

A framework for measuring timeliness in the outbreak response path: lessons learned from the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemic, September 2012 to January 2019.

BackgroundEpidemics are a constant threat in the 21st century, particularly disease outbreaks following spillover of an animal virus to humans. Timeliness, a key metric in epidemic response, can be examined to identify critical steps and delays in public health action.AimTo examine timeliness, we analysed the response to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemic, with a focus on the international and One Health response efforts.MethodsWe performed a historical review of the MERS epidemic between September 2012 and January 2019 in three steps: (i) the construction of a timeline identifying critical events in the global response, (ii) the performance of a critical path analysis to define outbreak milestones and (iii) a time gap analysis to measure timeliness in the execution of these milestones.ResultsWe proposed 14 MERS-specific milestones at different phases of the epidemic, assessing timeliness of the public health response as well as at the animal-human interface, where we identified the most significant delays.ConclusionsWhen comparing timeliness across three coronavirus epidemics, i.e. MERS (2012), SARS (2002) and COVID-19 (2019), we identified clear improvements over time for certain milestones including laboratory confirmation and diagnostics development, while this was not as apparent for others, as the identification of zoonotic hosts. To more efficiently respond to emerging threats, the global health community should widely assess and tackle specific delays in implementing response interventions by addressing challenges in the sharing of information, data and resources, as well as efficiency, quality, transparency and reliability of reporting events.

The COMPARE Data Hubs.

Data sharing enables research communities to exchange findings and build upon the knowledge that arises from their discoveries. Areas of public and animal health as well as food safety would benefit from rapid data sharing when it comes to emergencies. However, ethical, regulatory and institutional challenges, as well as lack of suitable platforms which provide an infrastructure for data sharing in structured formats, often lead to data not being shared or at most shared in form of supplementary materials in journal publications. Here, we describe an informatics platform that includes workflows for structured data storage, managing and pre-publication sharing of pathogen sequencing data and its analysis interpretations with relevant stakeholders.

How ownership rights over microorganisms affect infectious disease control and innovation: A root-cause analysis of barriers to data sharing as experienced by key stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Genetic information of pathogens is an essential input for infectious disease control, public health and for research. Efficiency in preventing and responding to global outbreaks relies on timely access to such information. Still, ownership barriers stand in the way of timely sharing of genetic data from pathogens, frustrating efficient public health responses and ultimately the potential use of such resources in innovations. Under a One Health approach, stakeholders, their interests and ownership issues are manifold and need to be investigated. We interviewed key actors from governmental and non-governmental bodies to identify overlapping and conflicting interests, and the overall challenges for sharing pathogen data, to provide essential inputs to the further development of political and practical strategies for improved data sharing practices. METHODS & FINDINGS: To identify and prioritize barriers, 52 Key Opinion Leaders were interviewed. A root-cause analysis was performed to identify causal relations between barriers. Finally, barriers were mapped to the innovation cycle reflecting how they affect the range of surveillance, innovation, and sharing activities. Four main barrier categories were found: compliance to regulations, negative consequences, self-interest, and insufficient incentives for compliance. When grouped in sectors (research institutes, public health organizations, supra-national organizations and industry) stakeholders appear to have similar interests, more than when grouped in domains (human, veterinary and food). Considering the innovation process, most of barriers could be mapped to the initial stages of the innovation cycle as sampling and sequencing phases. These are stages of primary importance to outbreak control and public health response. A minority of barriers applied to later stages in the innovation cycle, which are of more importance to product development. CONCLUSION: Overall, barriers are complex and entangled, due to the diversity of causal factors and their crosscutting features. Therefore, barriers must be addressed in a comprehensive and integrated manner. Stakeholders have different interests highlighting the diversity in motivations for sharing pathogen data: prioritization of public health, basic research, economic welfare and/or innovative capacity. Broad inter-sectorial discussions should start with the alignment of these interests within sectors. The improved sharing of pathogen data, especially in upstream phases of the innovation process, will generate substantial public health benefits through increased availability of data to inform surveillance systems, as well as to allow the (re-)use of data for the development of medical countermeasures to control infectious diseases.

To notify or not to notify: decision aid for policy makers on whether to make an infectious disease mandatorily notifiable.

Mandatory notification can be a useful tool to support infectious disease prevention and control. Guidelines are needed to help policymakers decide whether mandatory notification of an infectious disease is appropriate. We developed a decision aid, based on a range of criteria previously used in the Netherlands or in other regions to help decide whether to make a disease notifiable. Criteria were categorised as being effective, feasible and necessary with regard to the relevance of mandatory notification. Expert panels piloted the decision aid. Here we illustrate its use for three diseases (Vibrio vulnificus infection, chronic Q fever and dengue fever) for which mandatory notification was requested. For dengue fever, the expert panel advised mandatory notification; for V. vulnificus infection and chronic Q fever, the expert panel concluded that mandatory notification was not (yet) justified. Use of the decision aid led to a structured, transparent decision making process and a thorough assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory notification of these diseases. It also helped identify knowledge gaps that required further research before a decision could be made. We therefore recommend use of this aid for public health policy making.

Pandemic influenza control in Europe and the constraints resulting from incoherent public health laws.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of influenza H1N1v the world is facing its first 21st century global pandemic. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza H5N1 prompted development of pandemic preparedness plans. National systems of public health law are essential for public health stewardship and for the implementation of public health policy. International coherence will contribute to effective regional and global responses. However little research has been undertaken on how law works as a tool for disease control in Europe. With co-funding from the European Union, we investigated the extent to which laws across Europe support or constrain pandemic preparedness planning, and whether national differences are likely to constrain control efforts. METHODS: We undertook a survey of national public health laws across 32 European states using a questionnaire designed around a disease scenario based on pandemic influenza. Questionnaire results were reviewed in workshops, analysing how differences between national laws might support or hinder regional responses to pandemic influenza. Respondents examined the impact of national laws on the movements of information, goods, services and people across borders in a time of pandemic, the capacity for surveillance, case detection, case management and community control, the deployment of strategies of prevention, containment, mitigation and recovery and the identification of commonalities and disconnects across states. RESULTS: Results of this study show differences across Europe in the extent to which national pandemic policy and pandemic plans have been integrated with public health laws. We found significant differences in legislation and in the legitimacy of strategic plans. States differ in the range and the nature of intervention measures authorized by law, the extent to which borders could be closed to movement of persons and goods during a pandemic, and access to healthcare of non-resident persons. Some states propose use of emergency powers that might potentially override human rights protections while other states propose to limit interventions to those authorized by public health laws. CONCLUSION: These differences could create problems for European strategies if an evolving influenza pandemic results in more serious public health challenges or, indeed, if a novel disease other than influenza emerges with pandemic potential. There is insufficient understanding across Europe of the role and importance of law in pandemic planning. States need to build capacity in public health law to support disease prevention and control policies. Our research suggests that states would welcome further guidance from the EU on management of a pandemic, and guidance to assist in greater commonality of legal approaches across states.

[Changes in the duty of notification of infectious diseases via the Dutch Public Health Act]. / Veranderingen in de meldingsplicht voor infectieziekten door de Wet Publieke Gezondheid.

The Dutch Public Health Act, which came into force on 1 December 2008, replaces the existing laws concerning the combating of infectious diseases. Important changes have been incorporated in the new Public Health Act in comparison with the previous law on infectious diseases. Diseases which are probably infectious in nature and caused by as yet unknown pathogens are now notifiable, laboratories also have a nominal duty of notification and the list of notifiable diseases has been extended with 10 new infectious diseases. The provisions in the law comply with the International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization. The Centre for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has issued a booklet for all Dutch physicians and laboratories providing background information on notifiable diseases. This can be useful in daily practice for helping to decide whether a disorder or cluster of infections is notifiable.