Pharmaceutical Industry's Engagement in the Global Equitable Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines: Corporate Social Responsibility of EUL Vaccine Developers.

(1) Objectives: Inequality in the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has brought about great challenges in terms of resolving the pandemic. Although vaccine manufacturers are undoubtedly some of the most influential players, studies on their role in global vaccine distribution have been scarce. This study examined whether the pharmaceutical industry is acting according to the principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR) during the pandemic. (2) Methods: Three categories were used to analyze the CSR of vaccine developers. The first was research and development: effectiveness, funding, and profits were measured. The second was transparency and accountability: the transparency of clinical trials and vaccine contracts was analyzed. The final was vaccine delivery: the status of the provision of vaccines to COVAX and lower-income countries, intellectual property management, manufacturing agreements, and equitable pricing were measured. (3) Results: Vaccine developers have acquired large profits. The vaccine delivery category faces the most challenges. Participation of pharmaceutical companies through COVAX was significantly low, and most vaccine supply agreements were secretive, bilateral deals. It was not clear if companies were maintaining equitable pricing. The evaluation indicated that the companies' CSR practices have differed during the pandemic. (4) Conclusions: Our study contributes to the methodology of assessing the CSR of vaccine developers. This would help understand the current COVID-19 vaccine distribution inequality and propose that pharmaceutical companies re-examine their roles and social responsibilities.

Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination among Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries: The Mediating Role of Vaccination Policy.

Inequity in the access to and deployment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has brought about great challenges in terms of resolving the pandemic. Aiming to analyze the association between country income level and COVID-19 vaccination coverage and explore the mediating role of vaccination policy, we conducted a cross-sectional ecological study. The dependent variable was COVID-19 vaccination coverage in 138 countries as of May 31, 2021. A single-mediator model based on structural equation modeling was developed to analyze mediation effects in different country income groups. Compared with high-income countries, upper-middle- (ß = -1.44, 95% CI: -1.86--1.02, p < 0.001), lower-middle- (ß = -2.24, 95% CI: -2.67--1.82, p < 0.001), and low- (ß = -4.05, 95% CI: -4.59--3.51, p < 0.001) income countries had lower vaccination coverage. Vaccination policies mediated 14.6% and 15.6% of the effect in upper-middle- (ß = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.39--0.03, p = 0.020) and lower-middle- (ß = -0.35, 95% CI: -0.56--0.13, p = 0.002) income countries, respectively, whereas the mediation effect was not significant in low-income countries (ß = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.43-0.01, p = 0.062). The results were similar after adjusting for demographic structure and underlying health conditions. Income disparity remains an important cause of vaccine inequity, and the tendency toward "vaccine nationalism" restricts the functioning of the global vaccine allocation framework. Stronger mechanisms are needed to foster countries' political will to promote vaccine equity.

State fragility and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: an ecologic analysis of data from 146 countries.

BACKGROUND: Global spread and impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are determined to a large extent, by resistance to the pandemic and public response of all countries in the world; while a country's resistance and response are in turn determined by its political and socio economic conditions. To inform future disease prevention and control, we analyzed global data to exam the relationship between state vulnerabilities and COVID-19 incidences and deaths. METHODS: Vulnerability was measured using the Fragile States Index (FSI). FSI is created by the Fund for Peace to assess levels of fragility for individual countries. Total FSI score and scores for 12 specific indicators were used as the predictor variables. Outcome variables were national cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths up to September 16, 2020, derived from the World Health Organization. Cumulative incidence rates were computed using 2019 National population derived from the World Bank, and case fatality rates were computed as the ratio of deaths/COVID-19 cases. Countries with incomplete data were excluded, yielding a final sample of 146 countries. Multivariate regression was used to examine the association between the predictor and the outcome measures. RESULTS: There were dramatic cross-country variations in both FSI and COVID-19 epidemiological measurements. FSI total scores were negatively associated with both COVID-19 cumulative incidence rates (ß = -0.0135, P < 0.001) and case fatality rates (ß = -0.0147, P < 0.05). Of the 12 FSI indicators, three negatively associated with COVID-19 incidences were E1(Economic Decline and Poverty), E3 (Human Flight and Brain Drain), and S2 (Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons); two positively associated were P1 (State Legitimacy) and X1 (External Intervention). With regard to association with case fatality rates, C1 (Security Apparatus) was positive, and P3 (Human Rights and Rule of Law) and X1 was negative. CONCLUSION: With FSI measures by the Fund of Peace, overall, more fragile countries are less likely to be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and even if affected, death rates were lower. However, poor in state legitimacy and lack of external intervention are risk for COVID-19 infection and lack of security apparatus is risky for COVID-19 death. Implications of the study findings are discussed and additional studies are needed to examine the mechanisms underpinning these relationships.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: how countries should build more resilient health systems for preparedness and response.

OBJECTIVE: A resilient health system plays a crucial role in pandemic preparedness and response. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) has required all states parties to strengthen core capacities to respond to public health emergencies under the International Health Regulations (2005), the actions of most countries to combating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has showed that they are not well-prepared. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the health system resilience of selected countries and analyze their strategies and measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study selected five countries including the Iran, Japan, Republic of Korea (South Korea), the U.K., and the U.S., based on the severity of the national epidemic, the geographical location, and the development level. Cumulative number of death cases derived from WHO COVID-19 dashboard was used to measure the severity of the impact of the pandemic in each country; WHO State Parties Self-Assessment Annual Reporting (SPAR) Scores and Global Health Security (GHS) Index were applied to measure the national health system resilience; and research articles and press materials were summarized to identify the strategies and measures adopted by countries during response to COVID-19. This study applied the resilient health systems framework to analyze health system resilience in the selected countries from five dimensions, including awareness, diversity, self-regulation, integration and adaptation. RESULTS: The SPAR Scores and GHS Index of the four developed countries, Japan, South Korea, the U.K. and the U.S. were above the global and regional averages; the SPAR Scores of Iran were above the global average while the GHI Index lain below the global average. In terms of response strategies, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S. invested more health resources in the treatment of severe patients, while South Korea and Iran had adopted a strategy of extensive testing and identification of suspected patients. In terms of specific measures, all the five countries adopted measures such as restrictions on entry and international travel, closure of schools and industries, lockdown and quarantine. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of implementing these measures varied across countries, based on the response strategies. CONCLUSION: Although SPAR Scores and GHS Index have evaluated the national core capacities for preparedness and response, the actions to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the fact that most countries still do not build resilient health systems in response to public health emergencies. Health system strengthening and health security efforts should be pursued in tandem, as part of the same mutually reinforcing approach to developing resilient health systems.