Optimizing US Global Health Funding.

This Viewpoint recommends increasing US global health funding levels, outlines steps for ensuring optimal integration and coordination of activities, and discusses ways to elevate noncommunicable diseases.

Equity in the Pandemic Treaty: Access and Benefit-Sharing as a Policy Device or a Rhetorical Device?

Equity is a foundational concept for the new World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Treaty. WHO Member States are currently negotiating to turn this undefined concept into tangible outcomes by borrowing a policy mechanism from international environmental law: "access and benefit-sharing" (ABS).

The Global Health Architecture: Governance and International Institutions to Advance Population Health Worldwide.

Policy Points Global health institutions and instruments should be reformed to fully incorporate the principles of good health governance: the right to health, equity, inclusive participation, transparency, accountability, and global solidarity. New legal instruments, like International Health Regulations amendments and the pandemic treaty, should be grounded in these principles of sound governance. Equity should be embedded into the prevention of, preparedness for, response to, and recovery from catastrophic health threats, within and across nations and sectors. This includes the extant model of charitable contributions for access to medical resources giving way to a new model that empowers low- and middle-income countries to create and produce their own diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics-such as through regional messenger RNA vaccine manufacturing hubs. Robust and sustainable funding of key institutions, national health systems, and civil society will ensure more effective and just responses to health emergencies, including the daily toll of avoidable death and disease disproportionately experienced by poorer and more marginalized populations.

The NIH-led research response to COVID-19.

Investment, collaboration, and coordination have been key.

Lack of Alignment Between WHO Joint External Evaluation and State Party Self-Assessment Scores Undermines Utility as Evaluation Tools for the Department of Defense.

The International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR) set standards for countries to detect and respond to public health threats such as COVID-19. The US Department of Defense engages with partner nations to build IHR-related health security capacities. In this article, we compare 2 elements of the IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to determine if they align in a useful way. The version of the State Party Self-Assessment Annual Reporting (SPAR) tool used for this study is a self-assessment of 13 capacities, while the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) requires collaboration with international subject matter experts to evaluate 19 capacities. The SPAR indicators are scored separately from 0% to 100%, whereas the JEE uses a rank-ordered scale from 1 to 5 for variable numbers of indicators in each capacity. Using 2018-2019 data from the World Health Organization, we quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated the alignment of the SPAR and JEE scoring systems, using paired t tests for related capacities and 3 approaches to matching the scales. Whether using a simple, evenly divided scale for the SPAR or downscaling the SPAR scores to match with lower JEE scores, the paired t tests indicate that the JEE and SPAR scoring systems are not aligned. Many of the capacities in the JEE and SPAR are defined differently, pointing to one of the reasons for the discordance. We discuss implications for revision of the JEE and SPAR assessment tools along with ways in which the scores might be used for planning global health engagement capacity-building activities.

A Pandemic Instrument Can Start Turning Collective Problems into Collective Solutions by Governing the Common-Pool Resource of Antimicrobial Effectiveness.

To address the complex challenge of global antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a pandemic treaty should include mechanisms that 1) equitably address the access gap for antimicrobials, diagnostic technologies, and alternative therapies; 2) equitably conserve antimicrobials to sustain effectiveness and access across time and space; 3) equitably finance the investment, discovery, development, and distribution of new technologies; and 4) equitably finance and establish greater upstream and midstream infection prevention measures globally. Biodiversity, climate, and nuclear governance offer lessons for addressing these challenges.

Head and neck cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19-positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. RESULTS: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. LAY SUMMARY: Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment.

[Aids and Covid-19, two emblematic diseases of global health]. / Sida et Covid-19, deux maladies emblématiques de la santé mondiale.

While the concept of "Global Health" has existed since the late 1990s, it is now part of the everyday language of international public health experts, but how can this approach be characterized? Because they transcend borders, because they call for collective and coordinated actions at the global level, and because they require a tripartite approach (multidisciplinary, multi-actor and multisectoral), the AIDS and Covid-19 epidemics illustrate perfectly, each in its own way, this new approach. The fight against AIDS can be considered, in a way, as a laboratory for global health. By provoking, along with others, the reorganization of the international health aid architecture, by stimulating the emergence of new actors on the international scene, and by contributing to the breakdown of borders and disciplines, AIDS has certainly accelerated this new way of thinking about health issues. The Covid-19 crisis is converting the try and forcing the international community to become aware of this new imperative: we have no other choice than global health, cooperation and solidarity on a global scale.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on medical product imports from china from outbreak to stabilization: Monthly panel data regression and instrumental variable test.

This study conduct regressions of panal data with OLS and test with IV, empirically examines the COVID-19 epidemic's impact on the import of medical products from China from the perspective of the importing countries, exporting country, and other trading partners, and analyzes the inter-temporal impact across different product categories. The empirical results reveal that, in importing countries, the COVID-19 epidemic increased the import of medical products from China. In China, as an exporting country, the epidemic inhibited the export of medical products; by contrast, for other trading partners, it promoted the import of medical products from China. Among them, key medical products were most affected by the epidemic, followed by general medical products and medical equipment. However, the effect was generally found to wane after the outbreak period. Additionally, we focus on how political relations shape China's medical product export pattern and how the Chinese government is using trade means to improve external relations. In the post-COVID-19 era, countries should prioritize the stability of supply chains for key medical products and actively engage in international cooperation on health governance to further combat the epidemic.

Embed Multisectoral Governance Mechanisms in the Pandemic Instrument for One Health Action.

Despite recognition of the health threat posed at the human-animal-environment interface long ago, One Health has yet to be meaningfully integrated into global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. With the negotiation of the forthcoming pandemic instrument under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) - which is inherently restricted by its own constitutional mandate of human health - One Health risks being sidelined once again. Genuine integration of a One Health approach into this treaty will require the institutionalization of formal One Health coordination mechanisms.

The Pandemic Treaty, the Pandemic Fund, and the Global Commons: our scepticism.

The call to strengthen global health governance against future outbreaks through a binding treaty on pandemics has attracted global attention and opinion. Yet, few of these perspectives have reflected the voices from early career global health professionals in Africa. We share our perspectives on the Pandemic Treaty, and specifically our scepticism on the limitations of the current top-down approach of the treaty, and the need for the treaty to centre equity, transparency and fairness to ensure equitable and effective cooperation in response to global health emergencies. We also highlight the challenges intergovernmental organisations for health faced in coordinating nation states during the COVID-19 crisis and how a Pandemic Treaty would address these challenges. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic provide a critical opportunity to strengthen regional institutions in Africa-particularly in a multipolar world with huge disparities in power and resources. However, addressing these challenges and achieving this transformation may not be easy. Fiscal space in many countries remains constrained now more than ever. New tools such as the Pandemic Fund should be designed in ways that consider the specific needs and capacities of countries. Therefore, strengthening countries' capacities overall requires an increase in domestic investment. This paper calls for wider structural reforms such as debt restructuring among other tools to strengthen countries' capacities.