USA stockpiling of remdesivir: How should the world respond?

The race to find an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still on, with only two treatment options currently authorized for emergency use and/or recommended for patients hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms: low-dose dexamethasone and remdesivir. The USA decision to stockpile the latter has resulted in widespread condemnation and in similar action being taken by some other countries. In this commentary we discuss whether stockpiling remdesivir is justified in light of the currently available evidence.

Recalibrating the notion of modelling for policymaking during pandemics.

COVID-19 disease models have aided policymakers in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with many critical decisions. Many challenges remain surrounding their use, from inappropriate model selection and adoption, inadequate and untimely reporting of evidence, to the lack of iterative stakeholder engagement in policy formulation and deliberation. These issues can contribute to the misuse of models and hinder effective policy implementation. Without guidance on how to address such challenges, the true potential of such models may not be realised. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was formed to address this gap. CMCC is a global collaboration between decision-makers from LMICs, modellers and researchers, and development partners. To understand the limitations of existing COVID-19 disease models (primarily from high income countries) and how they could be adequately support decision-making in LMICs, a desk review of modelling experience during the COVID-19 and past disease outbreaks, two online surveys, and regular online consultations were held among the collaborators. Three key recommendations from CMCC include: A 'fitness-for-purpose' flowchart, a tool that concurrently walks policymakers (or their advisors) and modellers through a model selection and development process. The flowchart is organised around the following: policy aims, modelling feasibility, model implementation, model reporting commitment. Holmdahl and Buckee (2020) A 'reporting standards trajectory', which includes three gradually increasing standard of reports, 'minimum', 'acceptable', and 'ideal', and seeks collaboration from funders, modellers, and decision-makers to enhance the quality of reports over time and accountability of researchers. Malla et al. (2018) A framework for "collaborative modelling for effective policy implementation and evaluation" which extends the definition of stakeholders to funders, ground-level implementers, public, and other researchers, and outlines how each can contribute to modelling. We advocate for standardisation of modelling processes and adoption of country-owned model through iterative stakeholder participation and discuss how they can enhance trust, accountability, and public ownership to decisions.

The journey to UHC: how well are vertical programmes integrated in the health benefits package? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Countries are recommended to progressively work towards universal health coverage (UHC), and to make explicit choices regarding the expansion of priority services. However, there is little guidance on how to manage the inclusion of vertical programmes, funded by external partners, in health benefits packages (HBP) in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review to map the inclusion of six vertical programmes (HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, contraceptives, immunisation) in 26 LMICs. METHODS: We identified 26 LMICs with an HBP that was not aspirational (eg, with evidence of implementation or funding). For each HBP, we collected information on the corresponding UHC scheme, health financing at the time of establishment, revisions since inception and entitlements. For each vertical programme, we developed a list of tracer interventions based on the Disease Control Priorities 3 and the 100 Core Health Indicators List. We then used this list of tracer interventions to map the coverage of the six vertical programmes. RESULTS: The review shows that there is no common starting point for countries embarking into UHC. Some HBPs were almost three decades old. Whole package revisions are rare. The inclusion of vertical programme does not follow a given pattern based on health financing indicators or country's income group. Maternal child health services are the most often included and family planning the least. Six countries in our sample covered all vertical programmes, while one covered only one of six. CONCLUSIONS: This review has shown that there has been a long history of countries facing this question and we have provided the first mapping of inclusion of vertical programmes in UHC. The results of the mapping can inform decisions in countries embarking in UHC.

Ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030: Time to reset targets for 2025.

Paul De Lay and co-authors introduce a Collection on the design of targets for ending the AIDS epidemic.

Economic impact of avoidable cancer deaths caused by diagnostic delay during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national population-based modelling study in England, UK.

INTRODUCTION: Delays in cancer diagnosis arose from the commencement of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) introduced in the UK in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our earlier work predicted this will lead to approximately 3620 avoidable deaths for four major tumour types (breast, bowel, lung, and oesophageal cancer) in the next 5 years. Here, using national population-based modelling, we estimate the health and economic losses resulting from these avoidable cancer deaths. We also compare these with the impact of an equivalent number of COVID-19 deaths to understand the welfare consequences of the different health conditions. METHODS: We estimate health losses using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lost economic productivity using the human capital (HC) approach. The analysis uses linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 2010, with follow-up data until 31st Dec 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 31 2012, with follow-up data until 31st Dec 2015. Productivity losses are based on the estimation of excess additional deaths due to cancer at 1, 3 and 5 years for the four cancer types, which were derived from a previous analysis using this dataset. A total of 500 random samples drawn from the total number of COVID-19 deaths reported by the Office for National Statistics, stratified by gender, were used to estimate productivity losses for an equivalent number of deaths (n = 3620) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: We collected data for 32,583 patients with breast cancer, 24,975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29,305 with lung cancer. We estimate that across the four site-specific cancers combined in England alone, additional excess cancer deaths would amount to a loss of 32,700 QALYs (95% CI 31,300-34,100) and productivity losses of £103.8million GBP (73.2-132.2) in the next five years. For breast cancer, we estimate a loss of 4100 QALYS (3900-4400) and productivity losses of £23.2 m (18.2-28.6); for colorectal cancer, 15,000 QALYS (14,100-16,000) lost and productivity losses of £35.7 m (22.4-48.7); for lung cancer 10,900 QALYS (9,900-11,700) lost and productivity losses of £38.3 m (14.0-59.9) for lung cancer; and for oesophageal cancer, 2700 QALYS (2300-3,100) lost and productivity losses of £6.6 m (-6 to -17.6). In comparison, the equivalent number of COVID-19 deaths caused approximately 21,450 QALYs lost, as well as productivity losses amounting to £76.4 m (73.5-79.2). CONCLUSION: Premature cancer deaths resulting from diagnostic delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK will result in significant economic losses. On a per-capita basis, this impact is, in fact, greater than that of deaths directly attributable to COVID-19. These results emphasise the importance of robust evaluation of the trade-offs of the wider health, welfare and economic effects of NPI to support both resource allocation and the prioritisation of time-critical health services directly impacted in a pandemic, such as cancer care.

How Should the World Pay for a Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine?

The potential health and economic value of a vaccine for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is self-evident given nearly 2 million deaths, "collateral" loss of life as other conditions go untreated, and massive economic damage. Results from the first licensed products are very encouraging; however, there are important reasons why we will likely need second and third generation vaccines. Dedicated incentives and funding focused explicitly on nurturing and advancing competing second and third generation vaccines are essential. This article proposes a collaborative, market-based financing mechanism for the world to incentivize and pay for the development of, and provide equitable access to, second and third generation COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, we propose consideration of a Benefit-Based Advance Market Commitment (BBAMC). The BBAMC uses health technology assessment to determine value-based prices to guarantee overall market revenues, not revenue for any specific product or company. The poorest countries would not pay a value-based price but a discounted "tail-price." Innovators must agree to supply them at this tail price or to facilitate technology transfer to local licensees at low or zero cost to enable them to supply at this price. We expect these purchases to be paid for in full or large part by global donors. The BBAMC therefore sets prices in relation to value, protects intellectual property rights, encourages competition, and ensures all populations get access to vaccines, subject to agreed priority allocation rules.

COVID-19 and Budgetary Space for Health in Developing Economies

From the Document: The sizeable economic and health consequences of COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] are clear as the pandemic spreads, translating into additional burden on health systems not just now but for years to come. But given cratering revenues and the long shadow of COVID-19 on discretionary public expenditure, what will be the budgetary space for spend on healthcare? In this note we outline the potential shortfalls in domestic health spending in developing economies over the coming years, discuss potential options, and offer one immediate action: the need to protect and expand essential spend on health during crisis and beyond.COVID-19 (Disease);Economics

Leave No One Behind: Using a Benefit-Based Advance Market Commitment to Incentivise Development and Global Supply of COVID-19 Vaccines

From the Executive Summary: The global effort to control the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic has seen an exceptional allocation of public and philanthropic funds to advance the development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines as quickly as possible. While critical, even these significant commitments represent only a 'down payment' on a price tag that could eventually exceed $50 billion just to scale the production of vaccines to control this global pandemic--amounts that cannot be raised through traditional donor and philanthropic commitments. High-income countries (HICs) can afford to compete for products, and if their taxpayers are willing to contribute, traditional donor funding approaches can help low-income countries (LICs) through mechanisms such as the GAVI [Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance]-proposed Advance Market Commitment (AMC). However, billions of poor people who live in middle-income countries (MICs) ineligible for donor funding are at risk of being left out. Any exclusion will undermine the effort to control the virus. Further, MICs are key actors in the global supply and production chain, and we will require an unprecedented level of collaboration between governments and with industry to develop and rapidly manufacture global supplies of a vaccine. No country has all the science, equipment, and capacity on its own soil to research, develop, manufacture, and supply a vaccine to all its citizens, let alone the whole world.COVID-19 (Disease);Vaccines;International cooperation