Ebola crisis: the world must do better

The reputation of the global system for preventing and responding to infectious disease outbreaks has taken a battering in the wake of the west African Ebola epidemic.

Yet a prestigious Independent Panel believes it is possible to rebuild confidence and prevent future disasters, releasing a roadmap of 10 interrelated recommendations for national governments, the World Health Organisation, non-government organisations and researchers.

The Independent Panel on the Global Response to Ebola, launched jointly by the Harvard Global Health Institute and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, spent months reviewing the worldwide response to the outbreak that began in 2013.

“The west African Ebola epidemic … was a human tragedy that exposed a global community altogether unprepared to help some of the world’s poorest countries control a lethal outbreak of infectious disease,” the Panel wrote in The Lancet.

“The outbreak continues … It has infected more than 28,000 people and claimed more than 11,000 lives, brought national health systems to a halt, rolled back hard-won social and economic gains in a region recovering from civil wars, sparked worldwide panic, and cost several billion dollars in short-term control efforts and economic losses.”

The Panel said its goal was to convince high-level political leaders worldwide to make necessary and enduring changes to better prepare for future outbreaks while memories of the human costs of inaction remained vivid and fresh.

It identified four key phases of inaction:

December 2013 to March 2014, when Guinea’s lack of capacity to detect the virus allowed it to spread to neighbouring Liberia and Sierra Leone;
April to July 2014, when intergovernmental and non-government organisations started to respond, health workers struggled to diagnose patients and provide effective care, national authorities played down the scope of the outbreak, and WHO and the US CDC sent expert teams but withdrew them prematurely;
August to October 2014, when global attention and responses grew, but so did panic and misinformation, leading to unnecessary and harmful trade and travel bans; and
October 2014 to September 2015, when cases began to decline, and large-scale global assistance started to arrive, albeit with weak coordination and a lack of accountability for the use of funds.

“This Panel’s overarching conclusion is that the long-delayed and problematic international response to the outbreak resulted in needless suffering and death, social and economic havoc, and a loss of confidence in national and global institutions,” the Panel said.

“Failures of leadership, solidarity and systems came to light in each of the four phases. Recognition of many of these has since spurred proposals for change. We focus on the areas that the Panel identified as needing priority attention and action.”

The Panel made 10 recommendations:

develop a global strategy to invest in, monitor, and sustain national core capacities;
strengthen incentives for early reporting of outbreaks and science-based justifications for trade and travel restrictions;
create a unified WHO Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response with clear responsibility, adequate capacity, and strong lines of accountability;
broaden responsibility for emergency declarations to a transparent, politically protected Standing Emergency Committee;
institutionalise accountability by creating an independent Accountability Commission for Disease Outbreak Prevention and Response;
develop a framework of rules to enable, govern and ensure access to the benefits of research;
establish a global facility to finance, accelerate, and prioritise research and development;
sustain high-level political attention through a Global Health Committee of the Security Council;
a new deal for a more focused, appropriately financed WHO; and
good governance of WHO through decisive, time-bound reform, and assertive leadership.

“The human catastrophe of the Ebola epidemic that began in 2013 shocked the world’s conscience and created an unprecedented crisis,” the Panel concluded.

“The reputation of WHO has suffered a particularly fierce blow. Ebola brought to the forefront a central question: is major reform of international institutions feasible to restore confidence and prevent future catastrophes? Or should leaders conclude the system is beyond repair and take ad hoc measures when the next major outbreak strikes?

“After difficult and lengthy deliberation, our Panel concluded major reforms are warranted and feasible.”

Maria Hawthorne

[Comment] Acute kidney disease and the community

One simple fact has hindered progress in the fight against kidney disease more than any other—unless complete renal failure occurs, kidney disease is almost asymptomatic. Fatal complications such as cardiovascular disease can occur in patients whose kidney disease is completely unknown to them. Not only is kidney disease silent to the patient, the general public knows little about the problem, and health-care providers might also have insufficient knowledge.1 In 2012, we estimated that 3 million deaths would occur from acute kidney injury worldwide, and called for increased public awareness and research investment.

[Comment] 10 years of the UK’s National Institute for Health Research

The revolution in molecular medicine and cell biology that occurred in the late 20th century was a magnet for research funding and continues to advance understanding of disease. By the new millennium, however, the scientific capacity to convert this new information into clinical benefit was in danger of being lost, and there was a need to re-establish expertise in clinical and translational science. In the UK, reports urged the Government to consider how strength in this type of research endeavour could be re-established.

[Comment] New ISSCR guidelines: clinical translation of stem cell research

The potential of cellular therapy is highlighted in trials that show complete remission in acute lymphocytic leukaemia.1,2 But the clinical translation of cell therapy, particularly stem-cell-based interventions, is in its infancy and fraught with ethical challenges that must be met for this research to achieve its promise.

[Editorial] The struggle for better research in surgery

Two decades ago, a Comment in The Lancet questioned the quality of research in surgery. What has changed since then? On the one hand, much has improved; on the other, little. Thanks to initiatives like the IDEAL Collaboration (an indirect outcome of the 1996 Comment), the recognition that evidence is needed to drive improvements in surgical care is broadly recognised; though imperfectly implemented. How evidence is acquired remains problematic, attributable to the paucity of universal outcome measures, a perceived undervaluing of technical skill, and widespread denial of equipoise.

[Correspondence] IST-3 stroke trial data available

The third International Stroke Trial1 was the largest ever randomised controlled trial of intravenous thrombolysis treatment for patients with acute ischaemic stroke. In accordance with our published protocol and statistical analysis plan, we made the patient data available for an individual patient data meta-analysis.2 We now wish to announce that the IST-3 collaborative group has lodged an anonymised version of the dataset with University of Edinburgh DataShare,3 to enable bona fide researchers to obtain access to the data.

[Perspectives] Jim Smith: biologist at the heart of embryonic Francis Crick Institute

“I need to consolidate my life a bit”, says Jim Smith, winding up our conversation in an office on one of the upper floors of the Wellcome Trust building on London’s Euston Road. The consolidation he’s seeking is geographical rather than social: he has three jobs in three separate locations. The task he’s performed longest is running a research group on the molecular basis of mesoderm formation at what was the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) in Mill Hill and is now the north London branch of the Francis Crick Institute.

[World Report] Countries mull over incentives for developing antibiotics

Governments are considering which financial incentives will be the best to boost research and development for much needed new antibiotic drugs. Tatum Anderson reports.

[Comment] Food, hunger, health, and climate change

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the effects of climate change on food security could be some of the most serious in the near-to-medium term, especially if global mean temperature increases by 3–4°C or more.1,2 In The Lancet, Marco Springmann and colleagues3 dig deeper, and report the most advanced projections so far of the effects of climate change on food and health for 155 regions in the year 2050. The researchers drew on a rich mixture of emission trajectories, socioeconomic pathways, and possible climate responses to model effects on global production, trade, and consumption.

[Comment] Mind the gap: jumping from vaccine licensure to routine use

The contribution of immunisation to improving childhood survival is one of the great achievements of global health. Driving down further infectious disease burden will require new vaccines, many of which have taken decades to develop. We are entering an era where the path from licensure to widespread routine vaccine implementation requires more than efficacy and safety data; policy recommendations for new vaccines may only be realised through implementation research to determine how to most effectively ensure widespread use.