Review Of WHO Pandemic Flu Sharing System Moves Ahead

Members of a team reviewing at the World Health Organization framework for ensuring global pandemic influenza preparedness moved ahead with their proceedings last week. They found both support for the framework, and also concerns.

The Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework was adopted in 2011. The objective was to improve timely sharing of flu viruses with pandemic potential with the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS). The second was to ensure access to vaccines and other life-saving products during a pandemic.

The WHO director general formed the expert group to review it, and during this year they are analysing every aspect of framework, virus sharing, benefit sharing, and governance of the framework.

This was the first face-to-face meeting of the review committee as the first two meetings starting in January were by teleconference, Review Chair Christine Mwelwa Kaseba-Sata noted. Reports from the meetings are being made available online.

The review took place at WHO from 30 March to 1 April. A closing briefing on the meeting was held by the committee chair on 1 April. The webcast of the first day and the closing briefing were available here.

The closing public briefing started with a full summary of the first day’s public session in which stakeholders were heard from. Intellectual Property Watch wrote a summary of the first session (IPW, WHO, 31 March 2016).

“The PIP Framework was really held in good esteem,” the meeting chair said about the first day. There was an “outpouring of support” for the framework. But there were also some concerns, as noted in the IP-Watch story.

On the morning of 31 March, the committee received as series of technical briefings on virus sharing, benefit chairing, and genetic sequence data and sharing of data.

Then in the afternoon, the committee conducted a “SWOT” analysis assessing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the PIP Framework. Through this, some key questions emerged, the chair said.

The questions included how to improve stakeholder understanding of key aspects of the framework. For instance, she said, the “misconception” that the low signing of companies to the latest standard material transfer agreements (SMTA2s) was equal to delays in sharing the benefits with countries.

The significant progress of the secretariat in signing with the largest vaccine producers was noted, she added.

Another point was the importance of clarifying a trigger mechanism for switching from seasonal to pandemic vaccine production in the event of a pandemic.

A further question was how to address a perception that some stakeholder have that partnership contribution funds are being used too slowly.

And there was a question that the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS) running cost needs updating and the potential implications of recalculating the partnership contributions.

The group also felt the PIP Framework’s advisory group’s work in addressing the challenge of sharing of genetic sequence data – given that the mechanism for sharing and implication for benefit-sharing are not identical to those of sample sharing.

Also raised was whether the principle of equitably balancing virus and data sharing with benefit-sharing could be applied to other pathogens, and to what extent the PIP Framework can act as a model for new agreements.

And the last question was how to measure collateral benefits from the framework’s capacity building such as whether it has improved International Health Regulations (IHR) surveillance and detection.

On the final day, the committee held interview with different high-level experts from WHO. These included: Dr Guénaël Rodier, director of the Department of Global Capacities Alert and Response; the head of the Pandemic and Epidemics Department; and Dr Bruce Aylward, head of the Outbreaks and Health Emergencies Cluster.

And they got a briefing on a WHO study on the relationship of the framework to the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing of genetic materials. The review group noted that the secretariat is taking action on the Executive Board request by making a study.

“We underscored the importance of the study to examine how the objectives of the framework [virus-sharing and benefit-sharing] are supportive of, and consistent with, the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol. We further recommend that the secretariat take forward the Executive Board’s request on Nagoya as expeditiously as possible so that it meets the deadlines requested by the Executive Board.

Next steps were then identified by the chair. There will be in-person meeting of the committee in May, June and August, with communications in between.

Member states have made clear they want to be “highly involved” in the review, she said, so consultations are being planned. The chair will give an update to the annual World Health Assembly in late May, and the June meeting with include a webcast mission briefing. And the September meeting will include a briefing for member states and other stakeholders.

Ahead of the August meeting, the committee will send a preview document with their draft recommendations to member states.

Furthermore, the committee is open to submissions from member states until July. And additional interviews will be held with key experts along the way.

 

Image Credits: WHO