WHO in retreat: is it losing its influence?

WHO says it has three main functions: to set normative standards; to provide technical advice and assistance on medical matters; and to advocate changes in health policy. During its 46 year history the first two functions have been a constant and uncontroversial backbone through which WHO has earned its reputation for scientific excellence. The third function, advocacy, came to the fore with the launch of Health for All in 1977, after which WHO took a key role in influencing international health policy. WHO''s friends and critics alike now say that the organisation is losing its influence and retreating into its technical and biomedical shell. This article maps the changes in WHO''s approach over the past 46 years and considers whether fears about its loss of influence are justified.     

Global immunization policies and recommendations: objectives and process

The World Health Organization (WHO) has a dual mandate of providing global policies, standards and norms as well as support for member countries in applying such policies and standards to national programmes with the aim to improve health. The vaccine world is changing and with it the demands and expectations of the global and national policy makers, donors, and other interested parties. Changes pertain to : new vaccines and technologies developments, vaccine safety issues, regulation and approval of vaccines, and increased funding flowing through new financing mechanisms. This places a special responsibility on WHO to respond effectively. WHO has recently reviewed and optimized its policy making structure for vaccines and immunization and adjusted it to the new Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, which broadens the scope of immunization efforts to all age groups and vaccines with emphasis on integration of immunization delivery with other health interventions. This includes an extended consultation process to promptly generate evidence base recommendations, ensuring transparency of the decision making process and added communication efforts. This article presents the objectives and impact of the process set to develop global immunization policies, norms, standards and recommendations. The key advisory committees landscape contributing to this process is described. This includes the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety and the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. The elaboration of WHO vaccine position papers is also described.     

WHO in crisis.

Media attention has been focused on the leadership of the World Health Organisation, rather than on the real factors that limit WHO''s effectiveness. These factors relate to the organisation''s structure and also to its current priorities, methods, and management. This article examines the objectives and strategy of WHO in view of financial constraints and donor countries'' demands; WHO''s stated goal of integrated primary health care; staff morale; and the growing dislocation between the regions and headquarters.     

Stability evaluation of vaccines: WHO approach

The stability of vaccines has a major impact on the success of immunization programmes worldwide. In line with this, clear definition of the stability characteristics of a vaccine is of critical importance. One of the concerns at country level is whether vaccines will remain potent on its way from the manufacturer, through the distribution channels, to the final users and vaccine recipients. In response to the requests for assistance in defining stability profile of vaccines, the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in October 2006 agreed that new WHO guidelines be established on stability evaluation of vaccines (http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/trs/areas/vaccines/stability/en/index.html). This document applies to all vaccines against infectious diseases. The aim of this guideline is to provide the scientific basis and guiding principles for evaluation of vaccine stability for the purpose of clinical trial approval, licensing, and post-licensure monitoring. As part of its initiative to promote use of vaccines of assured quality, WHO emphasizes the role of National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) and National Control Laboratories (NCLs) in overall vaccine evaluation, including stability assessment. While recognizing that manufacturers are responsible for the quality of the vaccines they produce, compliance with vaccine quality specifications is part of regulatory oversight. This article provides basic information about WHO international standards as well as key definitions and principles for stability evaluation of vaccines that are elaborated in detail in the above mentioned guidance document.     

Evaluation of cell substrates for the production of biologicals: Revision of WHO recommendations: Report of the WHO Study Group on Cell Substrates for the Production of Biologicals, 22–23 April 2009, Bethesda,USA

Evaluating cell substrates for producing vaccines and other biologicals is one of the critical aspects in assuring quality and safety of these products. As part of its mission in setting standards for biological products, WHO provides recommendations for manufacturing and evaluating biologicals. Regular updates of the guidance documents are important to manufacturers and regulators worldwide. WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) identified a need for revising the requirements for cell substrates (WHO TRS 878, annex 1). In response, WHO established a Study Group (SG) in 2006 that prepared an updated set of recommendations for using cell substrates for the production of biologicals. A summary of the proposed changes that the SG made in 2007 is available at WHO web site (http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/meetings/areas/vaccines/cells/en/index.html). Draft revised recommendations were circulated to regulators, manufacturers and other experts for comments in April 2009.The SG held its third meeting on 22–23 April 2009 to review progress in the revision and to propose further improvements. In addition, the experts discussed the need for reference preparations, reference cell banks, and standardization of testing methodologies. The SG proposed clarifications of the rationale for in vivo testing as well as the potential for applying new methods for in vitro testing for detecting microbial agents. In line with this, WHO should conduct review of the current manufacturers' practice in using tests for microbial agents and interpreting these results. Additionally, WHO should take a lead in developing an International Standard for nucleic acid amplification test (NAT) for detecting mycoplasma contamination in cell substrates. WHO Collaborating Centers will lead this initiative, involving other relevant institutions in this area. Finally, advice on the replacement of the WHO Vero reference cell bank 10–87 with respect to the source of cells and re-characterization of the bank was provided. The intended use of the replacement cell bank would be the same as for the current cell bank, which is to serve as a source of well-characterized cells for establishing master cell banks for the production of biologicals. The SG will report outcomes of its discussion to the ECBS at its next meeting in October 2009 for further considerations and advice regarding the proposed course of action.     

WHO Study Group on cell substrates for production of biologicals, Geneva, Switzerland, 11–12 June 2007

For many years, the World Health Organization (WHO) has provided global leadership in defining technical specifications for quality assurance and safety of biological medicines produced in cell substrates. Current WHO requirements for the use of animal cells as substrates for production of vaccines and other biologicals were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization in 1996 (WHO TRS 878). Since then, significant progress especially in the development of vaccines in novel continuous cell lines of mammalian origin as well as in insect cells has been made and consequently there is an increasing need for the re-evaluation of existing criteria for the acceptability of such cell lines. In addition there is also a need to consider new issues in cell substrate safety arising from these new cell types and developments in technology and scientific knowledge. In response to these demands, the WHO Study Group on Cell Substrates was formed in 2006 to initiate revision of WHO requirements and to address the need for further research in this area. At its second meeting on 11-12 June 2007, the Study Group reviewed scientific data that would form the basis for new recommendations and made a number of proposals for further investigations. The Study Group is working on the preparation of a revised WHO document, and a broad consultation with regulators, manufacturers, and other relevant parties is planned for 2008.     

The World Health Organization's Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of AIDS

The magnitude of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pandemic and its broad impact have been seriously underestimated and underappreciated. The Special Programme on AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) of the World Health Organization (WHO) was created on February 1, 1987, as the architect and keystone of the global AIDS plan. The Special Programme on AIDS has designed the global strategy, has raised sufficient funds to begin implementing the strategy and, for this effort, has marshalled the support of every nation in the world. AIDS affects both the developing and the industrialized worlds; therefore, every country will need a national AIDS program. This is vital not only for national interests but also because ultimately AIDS cannot be stopped in any one country unless it is stopped in all countries. National AIDS programs are being rapidly established throughout the world with the technical and financial support of WHO''s Special Programme on AIDS. At the global level, the Special Programme is responsible for strategic leadership, developing consensus, coordinating scientific research, exchanging information, assuring technical cooperation and mobilizing and coordinating resources. National AIDS committees have already been established in more than 150 countries and, by the end of 1988, the Special Programme will support every country in the world that requests collaboration.     

Cooperation in Health: Mapping Collaborative Networks on the Web

Objective

To map and investigate the relationships established on the web between leading health-research institutions around the world.

Methods

Sample selection was based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centres (CCs). Data on the 768 active CCs in 89 countries were retrieved from the WHO''s database. The final sample consisted of 190 institutions devoted to health sciences in 42 countries. Data on each institution''s website were retrieved using webometric techniques (interlinking), and an asymmetric matrix was generated for social network analysis.

Findings

The results showed that American and European institutions, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), are the most highly connected on the web and have a higher capacity to attract hyperlinks. The Karolinska Institute (KI-SE) in Sweden is well placed as an articulation point between several integrants of the network and the component''s core but lacks general recognition on the web by hyperlinks. Regarding the north-south divide, Mexico and Brazil appear to be key southern players on the web. The results showed that the hyperlinks exchanged between northern and southern countries present an abysmal gap: 99.49% of the hyperlinks provided by the North are directed toward the North itself, in contrast to 0.51% that are directed toward the South. Regarding the South, its institutions are more connected to its northern partners, with 98.46% of its hyperlinks directed toward the North, and mainly toward the United States, compared with 1.54% toward southern neighbors.

Conclusion

It is advisable to strengthen integration policies on the web and to increase web networking through hyperlink exchange. In this way, the web could actually reflect international cooperation in health and help to legitimize and enhance the visibility of the many existing south-south collaboration networks.     

WHO at country level--a little impact,no strategy.

The acid test of WHO''s effect on the world''s health is its impact at country level. Unless it has an impact there, all of its declarations, its debates at the World Health Assembly, its conferences, its pamphlets, its political manouvering in Geneva and the regions, all of these come to nothing. Working as it does through national governments, WHO insists that it has no role in directly managing or delivering health care. Judging WHO''s impact in individual countries is therefore difficult--its approaches are largely indirect, and initiatives may take years to bear fruit. But from the meagre resources that WHO makes available at country level it is clear why its country operations are criticised as the weakest link in an already weak chain of influence from its headquarters in Geneva to the people in its member states. Poorly funded, undertrained, and with no clear strategy to follow, its staff at country level stand little chance of making an impact.     

WHO technical workshop on stability of reference materials for biological medicines and in vitro diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland, 28–29 November 2005

In November 2005, the World Health Organization convened an informal technical workshop on the stability of reference materials for biological medicines and in vitro diagnostics. The meeting was attended by experts from WHO collaborating centres in the area of biological standardization, national control laboratories, industries and other relevant organizations. The consultation group discussed current practices and approaches to predicting and monitoring the stability of biological reference materials. The group agreed to the need for establishing a working group (i) to continue dialogue on potential issues encompassing the principles, strategies and practicality for assuring the stability of WHO international reference standards for biological medicines and in vitro diagnostics and (ii) to develop more detailed guidance for assessment of the stability of WHO international biological reference materials.     

WHO working group on the quality,safety and efficacy of Japanese encephalitis vaccines (live attenuated) for human use,Bangkok, Thailand, 21–23 February 2012

Japanese encephalitis (JE) is one of the most important viral encephalitides in Asia. Two live-attenuated vaccines have been developed and licensed for use in countries in the region. Given the advancement of immunization of humans with increasing use of live-attenuated vaccines to prevent JE, there is increased interest to define quality standards for their manufacture, testing, nonclinical studies, and clinical studies to assess their efficacy and safety in humans. To this end, WHO convened a meeting with a group of international experts in February 2012 to develop guidelines for evaluating the quality, safety and efficacy of live-attenuated JE virus vaccines for prevention of human disease. This report summarizes collective views of the participants on scientific and technical issues that need to be considered in the guidelines.     

A review of malaria vaccine clinical projects based on the WHO rainbow table

Development and Phase 3 testing of the most advanced malaria vaccine, RTS,S/AS01, indicates that malaria vaccine R&D is moving into a new phase. Field trials of several research malaria vaccines have also confirmed that it is possible to impact the host-parasite relationship through vaccine-induced immune responses to multiple antigenic targets using different platforms. Other approaches have been appropriately tested but turned out to be disappointing after clinical evaluation. As the malaria community considers the potential role of a first-generation malaria vaccine in malaria control efforts, it is an apposite time to carefully document terminated and ongoing malaria vaccine research projects so that lessons learned can be applied to increase the chances of success for second-generation malaria vaccines over the next 10 years. The most comprehensive resource of malaria vaccine projects is a spreadsheet compiled by WHO thanks to the input from funding agencies, sponsors and investigators worldwide. This spreadsheet, available from WHO's website, is known as "the rainbow table". By summarizing the published and some unpublished information available for each project on the rainbow table, the most comprehensive review of malaria vaccine projects to be published in the last several years is provided below.     

Vaccines and global health

Vaccines have made a major contribution to global health in recent decades but they could do much more. In November 2011, a Royal Society discussion meeting, 'New vaccines for global health', was held in London to discuss the past contribution of vaccines to global health and to consider what more could be expected in the future. Papers presented at the meeting reviewed recent successes in the deployment of vaccines against major infections of childhood and the challenges faced in developing vaccines against some of the world's remaining major infectious diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), malaria and tuberculosis. The important contribution that development of more effective veterinary vaccines could make to global health was also addressed. Some of the social and financial challenges to the development and deployment of new vaccines were reviewed. The latter issues were also discussed at a subsequent satellite meeting, 'Accelerating vaccine development', held at the Kavli Royal Society International Centre. Delegates at this meeting considered challenges to the more rapid development and deployment of both human and veterinary vaccines and how these might be addressed. Papers based on presentations at the discussion meeting and a summary of the main conclusions of the satellite meeting are included in this issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.     

WHO informal consultation on regulatory evaluation of therapeutic biological medicinal products held at WHO Headquarters, Geneva, 19-20 April 2007.

This report reflects the discussion and conclusions of an informal consultation held on 19-20 April 2007 at the World Health Organization concerning the regulatory evaluation of therapeutic biological medicinal products. The objectives of this meeting were to discuss the current status of so-called "similar" biological medicinal products (biosimilars) and to review regulatory pathways and challenges in evaluating the quality, safety and efficacy of these products. Biosimilars are products that are subject to licensing with a reduced data package due to a proven 'similarity' to the licensed reference product. The meeting was attended by experts in biotherapeutics from regulatory agencies, industry and academia representing 16 countries worldwide. Dr. Elwyn Griffiths (Canada) acted as Chairman and Dr. James Robertson (UK) was the Rapporteur. The meeting strongly focused on the usage of biosimilars and the current regulatory situation in many different countries. The application of International Nonproprietary Names (INN) to biosimilars, their potential immunogenicity, and WHO international standards and reference materials were also discussed, alongside presentations from the innovator and generic manufacturing industries. The consultation recognized the importance of the terminology as well as a definition of biosimilars for future considerations of these products. However, achieving a global consensus on the terminology for these new challenging products was not attempted at the Consultation, and it was decided that a future WHO working group should act on this issue as a next step. For purposes of this meeting report only, the term 'biosimilars' is temporarily used to refer to this category of products. It became clear that biotherapeutics authorized on the basis of a reduced data package are available and being used in some countries, with more appearing on the market. The existence of divergent approaches to the regulatory oversight of biosimilars in different countries revealed a need for defining regulatory expectations for these products at the global level. While many countries are following the guideline developed within the EU for quality aspects, discrepancies remain regarding the non-clinical and clinical studies of these products. The Consultation recommended that the WHO should develop a guideline in this area in order to provide a framework for the development of regulatory pathways for these products worldwide. For this purpose, agreement on the scope, definition and terminology of these products was deemed necessary. The interchangeability and substitution of products were also flagged as areas in need of harmonization. A WHO working group should be established to develop a guideline that would promote global consensus on the regulation of biosimilars, assist in their registration and enhance the availability of safe and effective biosimilar products worldwide.     

The World Health Organisation. Interview with the director general. Interview by Fiona Godlee.

Dr Hiroshi Nakajima was elected director general of WHO in 1988. Born in Japan, he trained as a psychiatrist before joining WHO in 1973. He was WHO''s regional director for the Western Pacific from 1979 to 1988. His term of office has been marked by criticism of his management style and allegations of misuse of WHO''s funds. I spoke to him at WHO''s headquarters in Geneva in July. I have presented the interview in the form of questions and answers. It would be misleading, however, not to make clear that in doing so I have transcribed conversation which was at times extremely difficult to follow. I feel that it is important to emphasise this in the context of an interview with an international leader, one of whose primary tasks must be to communicate his views on health to people across the world. The interviews gave me first hand experience of the difficulties in communication that staff, diplomats, and others, including Japanese leaders, have consistently commented on since Dr Nakajima took office.     

The contribution of vaccination to global health: past,present and future

Vaccination has made an enormous contribution to global health. Two major infections, smallpox and rinderpest, have been eradicated. Global coverage of vaccination against many important infectious diseases of childhood has been enhanced dramatically since the creation of WHO''s Expanded Programme of Immunization in 1974 and of the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization in 2000. Polio has almost been eradicated and success in controlling measles makes this infection another potential target for eradication. Despite these successes, approximately 6.6 million children still die each year and about a half of these deaths are caused by infections, including pneumonia and diarrhoea, which could be prevented by vaccination. Enhanced deployment of recently developed pneumococcal conjugate and rotavirus vaccines should, therefore, result in a further decline in childhood mortality. Development of vaccines against more complex infections, such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV, has been challenging and achievements so far have been modest. Final success against these infections may require combination vaccinations, each component stimulating a different arm of the immune system. In the longer term, vaccines are likely to be used to prevent or modulate the course of some non-infectious diseases. Progress has already been made with therapeutic cancer vaccines and future potential targets include addiction, diabetes, hypertension and Alzheimer''s disease.     

The World Health Organisation. WHO in Europe: does it have a role?

WHO is under pressure from all sides to justify its existence. Donors want to know what they are getting for their money, and health professionals question the relevance of the organisation''s work. The pressure to justify itself is perhaps strongest of all in Europe, where most member countries have fully fledged health infrastructures and high overall levels of health. Now there is the additional threat of encroachment into the field of public health by the European Union. The disintegration of the Soviet bloc has given WHO''s regional office in Europe a new sense of purpose and led to a major shift in resources towards the countries of central and eastern Europe. But WHO''s critics are calling for a different shift in the way its European office works: from its current concentration on broad based policy issues to the nitty-gritty of health care management and delivery.     

Strategic emphases for tropical diseases research: a TDR perspective

Setting priorities for health research is a difficult task, especially for the neglected diseases of the poor. A new approach to priority setting for tropical diseases research has been adopted by the UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (known as the TDR). Priorities are defined on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of research needs and research opportunities for each of the ten major tropical diseases in the TDR portfolio. The resulting strategic emphases matrix reflects the priorities for tropical diseases research from the perspective of the TDR. Its purpose is not to impose global research priorities, but we believe the results could be useful to other organizations.     

Strategic emphases for tropical diseases research: a TDR perspective

Setting priorities for health research is a difficult task, especially for the neglected diseases of the poor. A new approach to priority setting for tropical diseases research has been adopted by the UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (known as the TDR). Priorities are defined on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of research needs and research opportunities for each of the ten major tropical diseases in the TDR portfolio. The resulting strategic emphases matrix reflects the priorities for tropical diseases research from the perspective of the TDR. Its purpose is not to impose global research priorities, but we believe the results could be useful to other organizations.     

Regulation and standardization of IPV and IPV combination vaccines.

Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is not only increasingly used on a global basis but also is a component of many combination vaccines. Standardization and control of IPV continues to be a challenge for manufacturers and regulators. A rat immunogenicity assay is currently recommended by many authorities, including WHO, as the definitive in vivo potency. Alternative in vitro assays to determine D-antigen content have been developed and are routinely used in some countries to assess IPV potency assay. However, the other less reliable in vivo immunogenicity assays are also used (e.g. monkey, chick). We review some of the regulatory challenges facing current and future IPV assessment, with a focus on the relevance of in vivo and in vitro tests, considerations for Sabin derived IPV and discussion of future efforts for standardization.