EU Malaria Vector Workshop EVEC Report

Transcription

1 EU Malaria Vector Workshop EVEC Report Joint workshop EU Commission (RTD F3 & B3) & Imperial College (INFRAVEC) on EU-funded Research for Malaria Vector Control London September, 2009 External Vector Experts Committee (EVEC): Carlo Constantini, IRD/OCEAC Yaoundé Marc Coosemans, ITM Antwerp Virgilio Do Rosario Univ of Lisboa Gabriella Gibson, Greenwich University Tom Mc Lean (for Janet Hemingway), LSTM, Liverpool Marcelo Jacobs-Lorena, John Hopkins University, Baltimore Anthony James, UCL Irvine Stephanie James, FNIH/Grand Challenges, Bethesda Giovanni Putoto, Padua Teaching Hospital N'fale Sagnon, CNRFP, Ouagadougou Yeya Touré, WHO, Geneva Sékou Traore, MRTC, Bamako Larry Zwiebel, Vanderbilt University, Nashville I. General observations, recommendations, opinions concerning EU-funded malaria vector research First, it is very commendable that the overall area of malaria vectors has been strongly supported recently within the FP7. Although African partners are participants in the current projects, there was little mention of training, capacity building locally, the nature of the interaction with EU partners and how the research would be pursued in African institutions after the end of the project. It is advisable that the EU's research support programs should have a major role in establishing smaller follow-up financing grants aimed at supporting trainees (e.g., PhD graduates) in reputed Southern institutions in order to guarantee no loss of critical mass in some areas. Such efforts will obviously be limited by the allowable extent of training and capacity building support and training under EU projects. It is also recommended that, depending on the quality of data or results produced by the current projects, the EU should consider that future calls should include other vectors or vector-borne diseases to capitalize on the acquired experience demonstrated here. In addition, the EDCTP's scope of activities should be extended to include vector control trials. Further discussions should consider the applicability of the project deliverables. This requires that the EU, together with other significant funders, such as WHO/TDR, FNIH and B & M Gates, develop a better interaction with policy makers so that application of research is of use to the people it is meant to protect. Further research is required to develop validation and monitoring tools, to assess the merits and efficacy of new control tools that emerge from current projects, when applied to field 1

2 situations 1) on their own, 2) in relation to existing control tools, and 3) when used in combinations, e.g. as part of integrated control programs. EU funding should be available to monitor and evaluate the capacity of all types of tools to control malaria, whether or not they involve molecular biology methodologies. It is known that classic methods may well reduce malaria prevalence in many regions and projects comparing the efficacy of control methods in different geographical areas and climatic environments simultaneously and with standardized assays are strongly recommended. It is also advisable that future calls on malaria vectors should address a wider range of malaria species than just P. falciparum. This would broaden the relevance to Latin America and Asia, and be of great importance to global health. For future calls, it would be advisable that applicants be encouraged to include fewer objectives in their project plans, even if only few very large proposals are to be supported, to increase the probability that projects can indeed successfully be completed within the designated funding period. The EU should insist on realistic deliverables before accepting projects. The development of drug resistance to ACT in Southeast Asia and the possibility that it will spread elsewhere is of significance to the EU vector-borne diseases research programs. Although this development is of specific significance to malaria, support for research on parasite resistance to drugs is of importance to a wide range of vector-borne parasitic diseases. Therefore, research on drug resistance, mechanisms and identification of genes associated with resistance and faster diagnostic methods to identify the presence of drug resistant parasites may need more support from the EU. Furthermore, in this era of vaccine development, further support is needed in particular for research on the transmission of selected strains of parasites. Finally, with respect to vector control programs that have been shown to successfully reduce vector populations to acceptable levels, support is needed to identify mechanisms that will ensure sustainability of vector control, which may be best done in partnership with other donors as such support may not be obtained under funding programmes supporting only research. II. Presentations of ongoing EU-funded malaria vector projects and recommendations for future project review meetings, general opinions by EVEC General comments on projects & follow-up: 1. Format of the meeting: It was considered that the EVEC members would have been in a better position to comment more comprehensively on existing projects (i.e. on all aspects of the projects) if summary information had been available in advance of the meetings. We appreciate that this was not possible on this occasion, but recommend that in future, a 5-10 page summary + appendixes would be adequate to inform our comments on the objectives, deliverables and milestones at each review. Ideally, this should be circulated to EVEC members at least 4 weeks before the meeting. To minimise the burden of paperwork for each project, we suggest that summary information could be derived from annual reports, and that future meetings of EVEC should fit in with the annual reporting cycles of existing projects. 2. It was also considered that EVEC would gain a clearer working knowledge of each project if at least one member of the committee were assigned to each project, to establish an interactive mechanism between EVEC members and projects coordinators/teams in a manner 2

3 to be agreed between the EU, project PI s and EVEC. We suggest, for example, that an EVEC person attend at least one annual review meeting of their assigned project, and report back to the committee prior to the next meeting of EVEC. This would help to overcome differences in the timing of the meeting cycles of projects. Since some projects maintain scientific working groups or committees, the selection of an EVEC member as a consulting expert should be agreed by the PI of the project with due regard to potential conflicts of interest. 3. The members of EVEC also agreed that regular presentations, mainly in the area of vector borne diseases, should take place, preferably every 1-2 years, perhaps as satellite meetings of relevant existing events. This would facilitate efficient use of travel funds and time of committee members, PIs and researchers. 4. The EVEC committee did not feel that the legal and regulatory aspects of some existing projects were as well developed as they need to be, although this may be due to lack of time to present detailed aspects of the projects. Regarding the transportation of GM mosquitoes between and within countries, international customs and safety regulations must be adhered to. Policies on ethical aspects of the transfer of biotechnology-based products must be clearly established, e.g., how is it to be established that not only producers but also recipients and handlers of genetically modified material are aware of and take responsibility for known and unknown risks? There may be guidelines available in relation to transfer of genetically modified agricultural products. Finally, the transfer of genetically modified products from the project of origin to other researchers or end users will require clear guidelines and legally binding agreements in relation to patent rights and/or intellectual property rights. Regulations on these issues must be an integral part of each project, and clearly communicated to all participants. In general, societal acceptance of specific vector control methods (e.g. release of Genetic Modified Insects) should be duly addressed. It was noted that specific aspects of certain projects were left unclear, such as identification of the mechanisms of resourcesharing throughout the community, risk assessment and bio-safety in general, and in some cases translational aspects were not clearly elaborated. 5. Although it is recognised that the aims and objectives of each funded project are independent of the other projects, at some level it would be advisable for the EU to link the various research agendas of these projects concerning vector control with concepts and principles of Integrated Vector Control Management, as it is unlikely that any single control tool will be sufficient to control malaria on its own. Future research effort should also address Monitoring and Evaluation Tools to better assess the effective impact of new vector control technologies on rates of transmission and on reduced morbidity and mortality. 6. The degree of involvement of disease-endemic countries needs to be more clearly defined, and probably enhanced, and the training components need to be clarified, mainly with respect to follow-up support for current project trainees. It was proposed that further support from the EU should be available to ensure the sustainability of the trainee s careers, which would be mutually beneficial to the trainee and capacity building in DECs. The current trend is for trainees to leave their home countries in response to the job market, leading to a loss in the building up of a critical mass of trained researchers in DECs. The current EU support for research on vector-borne diseases provides an ideal opportunity to establish a scheme for longer-term career-building of trainees, alongside sustainable support for capacity building in terms of equipment and research infrastructure in DECs. We also propose that the new phase of EU vector-oriented research projects could benefit from linking up with appropriate malaria control projects, which does not appear to part of the plans so far. 3

4 7. Finally, for the most part, the existing projects seem to include complex and ambitious work agendas, with a large number of intermediate milestones. The committee recommends that each project should prioritise among the many objectives, and for product-oriented programs particular thought should be given to develop the target product profile, and plans for early proof-of-concept should be specified. The members of EVEC acknowledge the fact that the projects under review had been approved by the EU as presented, but consider that all of the EVEC comments are offered in the spirit of support to help achieve success during the lifetime of the project, and to minimise potential long lasting financial commitments after the end of the present contracts. III. Currently open FP7 call topics related to vector research, EVEC opinions IIIa. Current malaria vector call topic (part of call FP7-AFRICA-2010) HEALTH : Controlling malaria by hitting the vector: New or improved Vector Control Tools. FP7 CALL FOR-AFRICA An integrated research effort shall deliver new or improved tools and methods which can contribute to interrupting mosquito-mediated transmission of malaria. The research plan may comprise vector biology, including behavioural and population studies, but it must keep a clear translational focus on generating new or improved measures to prevent malaria infection of human populations through mosquito bites. Research into new or improved, environmentally sustainable insecticides (including larvicides) and repellents is encouraged. The major focus of the project shall be on vector control in Africa, where the disease burden is highest and the need for malaria control most pressing. Inclusion of African research groups is essential to ensure needs and realities of the target countries are met. The aim is to synergistically contribute to on-going European and global research efforts on vector control. Therefore, expertise in supranational coordination of large research consortia must be ensured. The aim is to achieve a balanced level of participation for African countries in collaboration with their European partners and it will be considered in the evaluation. Funding scheme: Specific International Cooperation Action (SICA) Collaborative project (large scale integrating project) Target region: International cooperation partner countries (ICPC) from African ACP and the following Mediterranean Partner countries (African MPC), Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia EC contribution per project: min. EUR max. EUR Only up to one proposal can be selected. EVEC opinions: - The training aspect although not specifically stated in the text of the call, is highly recommended to be addressed by new projects, especially for DEC African countries. - The term 'vector control tools' in fact includes (i) the intervention tool/method itself (indoor residual spraying, insecticide-treated nets, insecticide-treated cattle, attractant/repellent devices, sterile insect technique, genetically-modified mosquitoes, etc.), (ii) how to use the intervention methods in different circumstances (different agro-ecological regions, densities of human habitation, ratios of vector species, degrees of insecticide resistance, dynamics of parasite transmission, etc) either on their own or in combination, and (iii) decision support systems which allow malaria control efforts to access and apply knowledge generated concerning (i) and (ii). Thus, in addition to developing new vector control tools and 4

5 methods, there is also an evident need for comparative evaluation of existing vector control tools applied under different environmental and social circumstances. - The programme should also address attractants, in addition to repellents and insecticide resistance. - The scope of the topic so broad, so it will be a challenge for a single funded project to integrate component research projects in different subject areas and their respective objectives, all under one project. - New or improved tools able to stop or substantially reduce malaria transmission can only be evaluated with large studies able to provide the necessary information for their large scale deployment, which is the final aim: scale up of new tools and improved vector control strategies to ensure the needs and realities of the target countries are met TODAY and not in a distant future. If such large studies cannot be fully covered under the present call topic, such studies should become part of EDCTP s scope in the future. IIIb. Current European vectors/non-malaria topic (FP7: HEALTH : Biology and control of vector-borne infections in Europe. FP7- HEALTH-2010-single-stage. Research should aim to engage a broad scope of basic and translational biological and health research on vectors of existing or potentially emerging relevant human and veterinary infections in Europe. The emphasis should be on the infection's natural cycle, including basic biology of vectors and diseases reservoirs, and on vector control interventions and their systematic evaluation. Given the distribution of vector-borne diseases, participation of researchers from Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) countries could lead to an increased impact of the research proposed, and this will be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Public Health actors and decision makers will be important users of the project results and interaction with these stakeholders should be addressed in project proposals. Malaria vectors are not addressed under this topic, since they are covered in other topic of this programme ( ). Funding scheme: Collaborative project (Large scale integrating project) EC contribution per project: min. EUR max. EUR Only up to one proposal can be selected. EVEC Opinions: - The scope of the topic is wide. Success of funded project will rely on a programme design based on sound concepts to better organise objectives and deliverables. IIIc. Current call Environmental Research: water-related vector-borne diseases, part of call FP7-AFRICA-2010 ENV The effect of environmental change on the occurrence and distribution of water related vector-borne diseases in Africa The aim will be to investigate how environmental change, including changing climatic conditions affect the spatial and temporal distribution and dynamics of water related vectors and vectorborne diseases in Africa. The interaction with socio-economic developments, such as urbanisation or migration, will be taken into account. The project should examine past and current evidence, but produce also predictive emergence and spread models. The proposal shall address at least three different water related vector-borne diseases. Implications resulting for Europe from the changing distribution of water related vector-borne diseases in Africa will be examined. Participation of African partners in the project is essential as is strong 5

6 stakeholder involvement in order to ensure effective transfer and use of research results. The aim is to achieve a fair level of participation for African countries in collaboration with their European partners. This will be considered in the evaluation. Funding scheme: Collaborative project (small or medium-scale focused research project) for specific cooperation actions (SICA) dedicated to international cooperation partner countries, up to one project will be retained for this topic. EC contribution per project: max EUR EVEC Opinions: - It is not entirely clear which diseases are covered by the term at «water related vector-borne diseases». 6