Breakthroughs Blog: Congress

Over the past seven decades, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has played a vital role in global health, responding to the world’s most deadly disease outbreaks and advancing critical research that promotes health and security of communities around the world while protecting the lives of Americans.This makes it all the more distressing to see the US Administration and Congress call for significant cuts to CDC in Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18).The President’s FY18 budget proposal called for US$1.2 billion in reductions for CDC, including over a $100 million cut to CDC’s global health work. While the House of Representatives did not propose the same cuts—and largely supported CDC’s global health activities—the House is still considering a $200 million cut to CDC’s topline funding, straining key operations that protect Americans from deadly threats.Here’s why CDC’s operations are vital, and why cuts would severely curtail critical activities that protect everyone, including Americans:1. CDC is the world’s leading disease surveillance program. CDC responders, including former director Dr. Tom Frieden, exit an Ebola treatment unit in Monrovia, Liberia, during the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak. Photo: Sally Ezra/CDCCDC’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Atlanta is at the forefront of tracking disease outbreaks and public health events both within the United States and abroad. Since its inception in September 2001, the EOC has responded to more than 60 public health threats around the world including Ebola, Zika, and anthrax. The surveillance and tracking data generated inform states, other countries, and international bodies like the World Health Organization as they make critical decisions on response and intervention. 2. CDC trains and deploys “disease detectives” to stop outbreaks faster. CDC plays an unparalleled role in training and deploying epidemiologists and other “disease detectives”—US citizens and those in partner countries—to monitor and respond to infectious disease threats. CDC’s Global Rapid Response Team of 350 US public health experts is ready to deploy anywhere in the world on short notice. Their Field Epidemiology Training Program has trained more than 3,100 people in over 72 countries, ensuring that experts are present and prepared to keep deadly outbreaks from turning into pandemics on US shores.3. Scientists at the CDC lead long-term research in deadly and unexplained diseases to ensure we understand long-term effects and develop the best treatment methods. A CDC researcher works with an HIV sample to extract DNA. Photos: CDC/James Gathany.Though the Ebola outbreak in West Africa has subsided, scientists from CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) continue to conduct follow-up studies with survivors to learn what long-term symptoms they face, how long the virus can persist, and how some people are better able to survive Ebola. This work is important so that we are better prepared when and if there is another Ebola outbreak. 4. Their overseas labs lead the world in disease discovery and learning. Since 2005, CDC’s 10 Global Disease Detection Centers have discovered 12 pathogens and organisms. These discoveries help us understand new diseases and disease mutations, and protect all of us from emerging diseases. 5. CDC pioneers cutting-edge research and development of innovative diagnostics for infectious diseases. For instance, CDC HIV and AIDS labs created a novel diagnostic that can identify if a person is HIV positive and, for the first time, if the infection is recent or longstanding. This innovation promises to be a game changer in efforts to end the AIDS epidemic through better, more rapid contract tracing to contain the virus’s spread. NCEZID also developed the Triloplex test early in the Zika outbreak that detects and differentiates between three similar mosquito-borne viruses: Zika, dengue, and chikungunya.6. They’re a critical partner in flagship US global health programs. In June, a group of global health advocates led by the Global Health Council, Global Health Technologies Coalition, and PATH visited the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, to learn more about the agency’s work in global health. Photo: PATH.CDC’s contributions to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2015 provided antiretroviral treatment for 5.8 million people, prevented mother-to-child transmission of HIV in over 420,000 women, and supported voluntary male circumcision to prevent the spread of the virus in more than 1.3 million men. CDC’s PEPFAR work has also supported lab quality improvements in more than 1,000 labs worldwide, expanded access to HIV screening, and helped countries build better HIV surveillance systems. 7. CDC’s global work has health and economic benefits to Americans at home. CDC’s global health security work helps 49 countries detect, prevent, and respond to emerging outbreaks of diseases—which not only protects citizens of these countries but also prevents diseases from entering the US. This important work also helps strengthen economies overseas and develop trading partners for the US. According to 2015 US Department of Commerce data, all 49 global health security partner countries spent over $308.5 billion annually on American exports, supporting 1.6 million American jobs.As the US Senate considers FY18 funding for CDC, we hope they will recognize that CDC’s work to protect global and American health is unique, matters, and warrants robust funding. Ongoing investment is critical to maintain CDC infrastructure at home and overseas, which gives us the capacity we need to respond to diseases we know—and those we haven’t heard of yet. Without appropriate funding, we risk losing ground in our global fight against infectious diseases—and we risk lives.

On Tuesday, the Trump Administration released its full fiscal year 2018 (FY18) budget proposal, “A New Foundation for American Greatness.” As foretold by the “skinny budget” proposal released in March, this budget proposes dramatic increases in defense spending and border security, offset by cuts to discretionary spending—including significant cuts to programs that support global health and medical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Dramatic cuts to global health programs at the State Department & USAID At a high-level, President Trump proposed roughly a 25 percent cut to global health programs at the State Department and USAID, when compared to final fiscal year 2017 (FY17) funding levels. Looking just at USAID global health programs, funding levels were reduced over 50 percent from FY17 levels, from US$3.05 billion to $1.5 billion. The Administration also used the budget proposal to advance goals of streamlining USAID and State Department operations to find cost savings and efficiencies. Despite strong bipartisan support for the United States’ flagship global HIV and AIDS program, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), HIV and AIDS programs across State and USAID were targeted for cuts and consolidation. Direct funding for PEPFAR through the State Department received a $477 million cut, dropping to $3.85 billion from $4.32 billion, and USAID funding for complementary HIV and AIDS programs was zeroed—reflecting a funding cut of $330 million. The zeroing of HIV and AIDS programs at USAID also means associated research and development (R&D) funding for HIV vaccines and microbicides was eliminated. Man and woman standing in front of a sign that reads "USAID." (PATH/Felix Masi)Other funding cuts include a $62 million cut to global tuberculosis (TB) programs—including cuts to the TB drug facility and multidrug-resistant TB financing—a $65 million cut to maternal and child health programs, a $47 million cut to nutrition programs, and a $25 million cut to programs for neglected tropical diseases. USAID malaria programs (the President’s Malaria Initiative) received an $81 million cut, after factoring in a proposed $250 million transfer of remaining Ebola funds. USAID family planning programs were eliminated.Slashed funding for medical research at NIH and public health protection at CDC Biomedical research also saw significant cuts, with a proposed $7 billion or 21 percent cut to NIH. Of particular importance to global health R&D, the Administration proposed a $1.1 billion cut to the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases—which leads research in infectious diseases like HIV and AIDS, Ebola, and Zika—and elimination of the $70 million Fogarty International Center, which builds partnerships and trains researchers around the world. Instead, the Administration allocated $25 million to the Office of the NIH Director to coordinate global health research. At the CDC—our lead agency for preventing, detecting, and responding to public health threats at home and abroad—overall budgets were cut by $1.3 billion, over 15 percent. This included a $70 million cut to CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases and an $85 million cut to the Center for Global Health.What happens next for global health R&D?These broad and wide-ranging cuts proposed for global health and medical research programs are deeply concerning, and threaten to reverse gains achieved through our landmark global health programs, stall progress in promising research, and ultimately jeopardize lives at home and abroad. They also are in stark contrast to stated goals of the Trump Administration to honor our commitments to global health, bolster global health security, and support high-priority biomedical science.Fortunately, Congress has ultimate control over government spending, and leadership on both sides of the aisle has asserted that dramatic cuts to foreign aid, global health, and medical research will not pass muster. As FY18 negotiations continue in Congress, GHTC will continue to stress the importance of global health R&D programs across the US government and highlight the critical role US-supported research plays in saving lives at home and around the world.

Office of Management and BudgetLast Thursday, the Trump Administration released an outline of its budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2018, proposing dramatic cuts to US agencies involved in global health research and development (R&D) including the State Department (State) and US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). If enacted, these cuts would have significant impact on programs that advance global health innovation and protect the world and Americans from global disease threats. As an introduction to the Trump Administration’s budget priorities, this short and “skinny” budget outline lays out only high-level issues and proposes spending levels for top-line accounts. A more detailed funding proposal is expected in May that will include funding levels for individual agencies and programs. Still, while short on detail, the proposal is clear on targets for proposed reductions: the budget calls for nearly a one-third reduction in funding to State and USAID (cuts of $10.1 billion) and an 18 percent reduction in overall funding for HHS (cuts of $15.1 billion). Within HHS, a one-fifth reduction in funding (cuts of $5.8 billion) is proposed for NIH. The only US agency involved in global health R&D to receive a proposed increase in funding is the Department of Defense (DoD)—which is proposed to receive a 9 percent ($54 billion) boost. It remains unclear whether any of this increased funding would be directed to medical and infectious disease research. Reading between the lines, the President’s “skinny” budget foretells a challenging funding climate for global health R&D at State, USAID, and HHS: State Department and US Agency for International DevelopmentFunding for State and USAID was among the hardest hit in the President’s proposed budget. The blueprint calls for a 28 percent cut to State and USAID base funding, which grows to 30 percent when reductions to overseas contingency funds are included. USAID is a critical component of the US government’s support for global health R&D: In 2015, USAID provided nearly US$80 million in funding to support global health R&D. Cuts to USAID funding could stall promising innovations under development and halt efforts to roll out new technologies in USAID programs. While the President’s proposal does express support for US global health initiatives including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEFPAR); the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and US malaria programs; the level of support proposed for these programs remains unclear. Language in the blueprint does not indicate if these programs would continue robust or expanded activities, or indicate whether these programs would be supported at current funding levels. It is also important to note that not all global health programs were called out in the budget, leaving uncertainties about how critical programs supporting maternal and child health, nutrition, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases will be prioritized by the Administration. The budget also articulates a dramatic overall shift in America’s approach to diplomacy and development assistance with specific proposals calling for consolidation of State and USAID activities, linking aid and assistance to strategic interests, and reducing funding for the United Nations and affiliated agencies. It will be important to continue to monitor the impact of these proposals. Department of Health and Human Services The Administration’s budget proposes an 18 percent reduction to HHS funding across the board—cuts that if enacted would bring HHS to its lowest level of funding in nearly two decades. This would significantly reduce funding for HHS agencies engaged in global health R&D, including NIH, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Not only would cuts of this level have real impact on ongoing and future research needs, they could also undermine America’s leadership in global health R&D and diminish our ability to prevent, detect, and respond to emerging health threats. A full picture of the President’s proposal for HHS is not yet available, but limited details follow below: National Institutes of Health The President’s budget proposes a 19 percent cut to the NIH budget. NIH leads the world in financial support and technical expertise for global health R&D—so cuts of this magnitude would have a detrimental and lasting global impact on ongoing and future research projects. The budget also proposes a reorganization of NIH Institutes and Centers and calls for the elimination of the Fogarty International Center. Fogarty plays an important role in global health R&D. Its programs build partnerships between US and international researchers and strengthen the capacity of scientists in low-income countries to address critical global threats like HIV and AIDS, Ebola, and other emerging infectious diseases. Calls to eliminate this center are concerning. Cutting the Fogarty Center—a small center with a $70 million budget—would save little in the overall federal budget, while increasing our vulnerability to global disease threats. The President’s blueprint also calls for a “rebalance” of federal contributions to NIH research funding, which warrants careful consideration and further monitoring. If NIH research priorities are shifted to align only with disease burden in the United States—as is sometimes proposed—important research on neglected diseases and conditions will be jeopardized, ceding US leadership in this arena and potentially leaving Americans more vulnerable to infectious and emerging disease threats. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health preparedness The President’s budget proposal does not include overall funding levels for CDC, nor does it call out specific CDC programs for support or reductions. However, given the magnitude of cuts in the overall HHS budget, it is clear CDC funding is also at risk. The only CDC mention in the blueprint is a proposal to shift $500 million in CDC funding to block grants to be administered by the states. While details on this proposal are scarce, it’s likely these funds would be repurposed from within CDC’s budget, rather than represent new funding. CDC leads the United States’ public health defense system against infectious diseases, so robust funding for the agency is a global health and national security imperative. The agency plays a unique and important role in global health R&D by developing new tools and techniques for disease surveillance, training researchers and health workers overseas, and developing new health tools to advance disease detection, prevention, and response efforts. The budget also proposes the creation of a new Federal Emergency Respond Fund to enable rapid response to public health threats like Zika or Ebola. Such a dedicated fund has been championed by many public health leaders, including former CDC Director Tom Frieden. However, in the President’s request, there are few details regarding the fund’s approach or operations. It remains unclear how large the fund would be, whether it would support preventative R&D, or whether funding for the program would come at the expense of current US government emergency response and preparedness initiatives. As the budget proposal also call for reforms to “key public health, emergency preparedness, and prevention programs” under HHS—which could include CDC and other global health security programs—there remains more questions than answers. Food and Drug Administration The FDA also plays an important role in global health R&D by facilitating the review of new global health products to ensure they are safe and effective before entering the market. While the President acknowledged the need to direct more funding to the FDA, the budget blueprint does not propose increased government support for the agency, but rather calls for doubling user fees paid by healthcare companies for the regulatory review of their products—from $1 billion to $2 billion. Noting the constrained budget environment, the proposal says that companies benefiting from FDA approval “can and should pay for their share.” In addition to user fee increases, the Administration also proposes to take new, unspecified actions to speed the development and approval process for drugs and other medical products. Patient advocate groups and the private sector alike have stressed their belief that current review procedures appropriately balance thorough review of safety and efficacy with efforts to expedite products through the review process. Department of Defense The Presidential budget proposes a 9 percent ($54 billion) increase to discretionary funding for DoD. DoD plays a critical role in R&D for infectious diseases; however, the budget blueprint does not address DoD’s medical research activities and provides little information about what increased defense funding may be targeted. Congressional response and next steps The President’s budget proposal is the first official declaration of policy and spending priorities for the Administration and marks the beginning of months of discussions within Congress and the Administration on how best to allocate funds. Congress ultimately controls government spending, and many members on both sides of the aisle have expressed skepticism or criticism about the Administration’s budget blueprint, including its proposed cuts to foreign assistance and medical research. While there are calls in Congress to reduce government spending, and we may see cuts to US agencies engaged in global health R&D, the spending bills passed by Congress will likely look much different than the President’s proposal. GHTC will continue to monitor the FY18 budget and appropriations process and advocate for robust funding for all programs that support global health R&D.

Earlier this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of Zika in Latin America a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. The virus, spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, was once considered innocuous, causing a mild illness and lasting for only a handful of days. However, the virus has since been linked to devastating birth defects and neurological complications and has spread to more than 60 countries. The virus’s virulence took the research community by storm: although it was discovered in 1947, only 25 scientific papers were published on the topic prior to the current outbreak. As the scientific community learns more about the virus and the disease, the need for tools to prevent, detect, and treat it has become undeniable. On February 22, US President Barack Obama submitted a request to Congress for US$1.9 billion in emergency funding to combat the virus, a critical move, as the US government is unrivaled as the largest funder of global health research and development (R&D). However, 146 days later, Congress has yet to reach a deal, and the US agencies leading the fight against Zika are running out of money. In the meantime, these agencies have made impressive strides in advancing Zika R&D using limited funding and leveraging cross-sector partnerships. An unprecedented number of private-sector partners have also entered the hunt for Zika countermeasures, building out a robust pipeline in record time. Below, we highlight the most promising vaccine, drug, and diagnostic candidates as well as vector control approaches. Vaccines There are currently more than 35 Zika vaccine projects underway, and at least 3 have completed successful animal trials. Inovio Pharmaceuticals and GeneOne Life Sciences partnered to develop a DNA-based vaccine, using a unique delivery approach—electroporation—in which a device is applied to the injection site, sending out electrical pulses that enhance the vaccine’s ability to enter human cells. The vaccine successfully prompted an immune response, including the production of protective antibodies, in both mice and monkeys. In late June, the experimental vaccine became the first to be approved for human clinical trials by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase 1 trial, which will enroll 40 healthy adults, is intended to evaluate the safety and tolerability; however, the team will also monitor its ability to induce an immune response. Meanwhile, two more vaccine candidates have proven effective in mice. The candidates include a DNA-based vaccine and one composed of an inactivated version of the Zika virus, the first supported by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the second developed by the US Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. The latter will be tested in phase 1 clinical trials by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and then transferred to French pharmaceutical company Sanofi for further clinical development. Sanofi is also working on a vaccine of its own; however, it won’t enter clinical trials until 2017. After several months of feasibility studies, British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline has announced that it will be partnering with the NIH to test its RNA-based vaccine in animals. To date, no DNA or RNA vaccines have been approved for use in humans, although they are often called the future of vaccines. Drugs Due to the dearth of knowledge about the virus and the difficulty of conducting clinical trials and using novel drugs in pregnant women—a key target population for Zika control—the WHO has stated, “It is unlikely at this stage that therapeutics will constitute a priority activity.” However, efforts are underway, both to discover novel treatments and to repurpose existing medicines. Australian biotech company Biotron announced recently that two compounds in their library have proven effective against Zika in test tubes. They will continue to conduct laboratory tests to better assess the safety and efficacy of the compounds in humans. Researchers at the US National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences are screening their compound library—with half a million entities— and have identified a novel drug, which is safe for use in humans and currently in clinical trials for cancer, that prevented the virus from killing progenitor cells, which play a critical role in the neurological system and fetal development. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego are embarking on an ambitious study to virtually screen more than 20 million compounds against the virus. The program—OpenZika—uses a research collaboration platform to harness the power of volunteers’ computers and smartphones. Participants download the software, and when their computer or phone is inactive, it runs calculations to predict how a compound will interact with the virus in the lab. Researchers are also looking at repurposing existing drugs as Zika treatments. Chloroquine—which both prevents and treats malaria—has successfully protected against Zika virus in vitro. A team at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven has identified an experimental treatment for hepatitis C that delayed the manifestation of Zika-related symptoms in mice. And scientists at the University of California, San Francisco reported that the antibiotic azithromycin—which has long been used in pregnant women—blocked the virus from multiplying in petri dishes. Diagnostics As of March, more than 30 diagnostics for the virus were under development, and the FDA has sanctioned the use of five tests—four that detect current infection and one to assess previous exposure—under its Emergency Use Authorization program. However, rapid, point-of-care diagnostics are desperately needed. Eighty percent of cases are asymptomatic, and initial symptoms—fever, rash, joint pain—are nonspecific. Thus, early and accurate diagnosis is critical to ensure appropriate treatment. A team of Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers have designed a paper-based test that can diagnose cases within a few hours. The device is appropriate for low-resource settings: it’s cheap, it can be stored or shipped at room temperature, and the results are easy to interpret. The tool contains miniscule sensors that change color in the presence of a specific genetic sequence. To ensure accurate detection of the virus, the team developed sensors that can detect 24 different genetic sequences found in the Zika genome. The device has been tested using samples from infected monkeys and has proven to be effective at detecting even low quantities of the virus. Although the results are easy to read—a positive sample turns the strip purple—the team has also created a simple electronic reader that determines the quantity of the virus in the sample. Vector Control As vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics against the virus inch their way through the R&D pipeline, health officials are ramping up vector control efforts against the Aedes aegypti mosquito. New techniques are also underway, and the FDA is currently accepting public comment on a proposal to expand testing of genetically engineered mosquitoes. The mosquitoes mate with the local population, resulting in offspring that die before reaching adulthood and are consequently not able to spread diseases. A trial of the mosquitoes in Brazil led to an 82 percent decrease in the Aedes aegypti population in just nine months. Scientists are using innocuous bacteria and fungi to combat the spread of Zika. Male mosquitoes infected with the Wolbachia bacteria do not produce viable offspring, and tests across the United States have reduced the population of the closely related Aedes albopictus mosquito by an estimated 70 percent. Meanwhile, the Metarhizium brunneum fungus is used as a natural pesticide, killing mosquito larvae. Meanwhile, in North Hempstead, New York, bats have been enlisted in the fight against Zika. The city is building and hanging bat houses in parks to attract the animals, as they can eat more than 1,000 mosquitoes in an hour.