The world has developed an elaborate global health system as a bulwark against known and unknown infectious disease threats. The system consists of various formal and informal networks of organizations that serve different stakeholders; have varying goals, modalities, resources, and accountability; operate at different regional levels (i.e., local, national, regional, or global); and cut across the public, private-for-profit, and private-not-for-profit sectors. The evolving global health system has done much to protect and promote human health. However, the world continues to be confronted by longstanding, emerging, and reemerging infectious disease threats. These threats differ widely in terms of severity and probability. They also have varying consequences for morbidity and mortality, as well as for a complex set of social and economic outcomes. To various degrees, they are also amenable to alternative responses, ranging from clean water provision to regulation to biomedical countermeasures. Whether the global health system as currently constituted can provide effective protection against a dynamic array of infectious disease threats has been called into question by recent outbreaks of Ebola, Zika, dengue, Middle East respiratory syndrome, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and influenza and by the looming threat of rising antimicrobial resistance. The concern is magnified by rapid population growth in areas with weak health systems, urbanization, globalization, climate change, civil conflict, and the changing nature of pathogen transmission between human and animal populations. There is also potential for human-originated outbreaks emanating from laboratory accidents or intentional biological attacks. This paper discusses these issues, along with the need for a (possibly self-standing) multi-disciplinary Global Technical Council on Infectious Disease Threats to address emerging global challenges with regard to infectious disease and associated social and economic risks. This Council would strengthen the global health system by improving collaboration and coordination across organizations (e.g., the WHO, Gavi, CEPI, national centers for disease control, pharmaceutical manufacturers, etc.); filling in knowledge gaps with respect to (for example) infectious disease surveillance, research and development needs, financing models, supply chain logistics, and the social and economic impacts of potential threats; and making high-level, evidence-based recommendations for managing global risks associated with infectious disease.

No abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine development and manufacturing have proceeded at a historically unprecedented pace. This speed may be accounted for by the unprecedented scale of resources being devoted to addressing COVID-19; an unusual intensity of cooperation, encompassing the public and private sectors and occurring both within and across national borders; and innovation with respect to both technologies (for example, new vaccine platforms) and processes (for example, vaccine clinical trials). In this article we describe and analyze how resources, cooperation, and innovation have contributed to the accelerated development of COVID-19 vaccines. Similar levels and types of public investment, models of cooperation, and harnessing of innovative processes and technologies could be applied to future epidemics and other global health challenges. P rogress toward the successful development and manufacture of effective coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has taken place with remarkable speed. In early December 2020 several national regulatory authorities, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), granted emergency or full authorization for a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine developed by BioNTech and Pfizer, following review of results from Phase III clinical trials. These determinations were quickly followed by FDA Emergency Use Authorization for a second mRNA vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US. Top US public health officials have predicted that hundreds of millions of doses of multiple COVID-19 vaccines will be available to the US population by the second half of 2021. 1 The World Health Organization (WHO) has also suggested that widespread vaccination could take place internationally on a similar timeline, 2 although initial delivery has progressed slowly in a number of high-income settings, including the US. Considering the potential for further delay in remaining clinical trials, regulatory approval, manufacturing, and distribution, it is perhaps more reasonable to project that substantial global access to COVID-19 vaccination may be achieved sometime between 2022 and 2024. Competition among (wealthy) countries to secure sufficient supplies of vaccine for their populations with ample room for contingencies may also contribute to slowing global access. Even so, the rapidity with which both development and, likely, access to COVID-19 vaccines has occurred or is anticipated to occur is entirely without precedent. By comparison, development of the mumps vaccine, which holds the current speed record, took four years from isolation of the mumps virus to licensure in 1967. 3 Indeed, vaccine research and development, manufacturing, and delivery typically involves a long, deliberate process that takes a decade or more (see

We discuss the need to make economic evaluations of vaccines antimicrobial resistance (AMR)-sensitive and ways to do so. Such AMR-sensitive evaluations can play a role in value-for-money comparisons of different vaccines within a national immunization program, or in comparisons of vaccine-centric and non-vaccine-centric technologies within an anti-AMR program. In general terms, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and rates of return and their associated decision rules are unaltered by consideration of AMR-related value. The decision metrics need to have their various health, cost, and socioeconomic terms disaggregated into resistance-related subcategories, which in turn have to be measured carefully before they are reaggregated. The fundamental scientific challenges lie primarily in quantifying the causal impact of health technologies on resistance-related health outcomes, and secondarily in ascertaining the economic value of those outcomes. We emphasize the importance of evaluating vaccines in the context of other potentially complementary and substitutable nonvaccine technologies. Complementarity implies that optimal spending on each set of interventions is positive, and substitutability implies that the ratio of spending will depend on relative value for money. We exemplify this general point through a qualitative discussion of the complementarities and (especially the) substitutability between pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and antimicrobial stewardship and between research and development (R&D) of a gonorrhea vaccine versus R&D of a gonorrhea antibiotic. We propose a roadmap for future work, which includes quantifying the causal effects of vaccination and other health technologies on short-term and long-term resistance-related outcomes, measuring the health-sector costs and broader socioeconomic consequences of resistance-related mortality and morbidity, and evaluating vaccines in the context of nonvaccine complements and substitutes.

Given the scarcity of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, a chief policy question is how to allocate them among different sociodemographic groups. This paper evaluates COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies proposed to date, focusing on their stated goals; the mechanisms through which the selected allocations affect the course and burden of the pandemic; and the main epidemiological, economic, logistical, and political issues that arise when setting the prioritization strategy. The paper uses a simple, age-stratified susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered model to quantitatively assess the performance of alternative prioritization strategies with respect to avoided deaths, avoided infections, and life-years gained. We demonstrate that prioritizing essential workers is a viable strategy for reducing the number of cases and years of life lost, while the largest reduction in deaths is achieved by prioritizing older adults in most scenarios, even if the vaccine is effective at blocking viral transmission. Uncertainty regarding this property and potential delays in dose delivery reinforce the call for prioritizing older adults. Additionally, we investigate the strength of the equity motive that would support an allocation strategy attaching absolute priority to essential workers for a vaccine that reduces infection-fatality risk.

In recent years, academics and policymakers have increasingly recognized that the full societal value of vaccination encompasses broad health, economic, and social benefits beyond avoided morbidity and mortality due to infection by the targeted pathogen and limited health care costs. Nevertheless, standard economic evaluations of vaccines continue to focus on a relatively narrow set of health-centric benefits, with consequences for vaccination policies and public investments. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates in stark terms the multiplicity and magnitude of harms that infectious diseases may inflict on society. COVID-19 has overtaxed health systems, disrupted routine immunization programs, forced school and workplace closures, impeded the operation of international supply chains, suppressed aggregate demand, and exacerbated existing social inequities. The obvious nature of the pandemic’s broad effects could conceivably convince more policymakers to identify and account for the full societal impacts of infectious disease when evaluating the potential benefits of vaccination. Such a shift could make a big difference in how we allocate societal resources in the service of population health and in how much we stand to gain from that spending. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print April 15, 2021: e1–e6. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306114 )

No abstract

No abstract