[ Silence ] >> Welcome to the third lecture in the series
Global Diseases Voices from the Vanguard. Voices from the Vanguard is a joint
effort between the Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases and the Knight
Chair in Health and Medical Journalism, Pat Thomas for the Grady College
of Journalism and Mass Communications with assistance from the office
of Provost and I'm very glad that all of you are here tonight. Thank you for coming, it
is a very lovely spring evening. As most of you know this lecture
series is intended to help create and strengthen the interest
in global health that exists across the breadth of the UGA campus. Both speakers thus far in
this year's series Eric Gotteson and Zeda Rosenberg have provided their front line
visions of how they think people can make a difference in global health and tonight Dr. Roger Glass the director of
the NIH's Fogarty International Center and a world renown expert on rotaviruses is
here to share his insights into the realities, the challenges and the opportunities
to improve global health. Before I ask Dr. Phil Williamson the dean of UGA's
College of Public Health to introduce Dr. Glass, I'd like to first remind you of
two things, actually three things and one is this is a blue card event and
so seek out the person for that, second on April 24th we will wind up this
years Voices from the Vanguard with one of the actual voices, someone who speaks
on this, Nick Thompson the spokesperson for the World Health Organization in the area
of global infectious diseases will be here, that's April 24th and I hope you will all
plan to be here and just respect him. And then the last thing is as always
there will be a reception next door and that will be following tonight's lecture. Now I am pleased to ask Dean
Williams to introduce our speaker. [ Pause ] >> We are very pleased to have Dr.
Roger Glass visit UGA and I would like to tell you just a little bit about him. He received his undergraduate degree
from Harvard College and his MD degree from Harvard Medical School
and his Masters of Public Health from Harvard School of Public Health. He also earned a PhD in microbiology in Sweden. He has spent the last 30 years working in
several positions between the CDC and NIH. Through both the good times and the bad
times Dr. Glass has been on the front line of rotavirus research and provided [inaudible]
public health including working with [inaudible] scientists and epidemiologists and some public health policy majors. His research is targeted at the
neurological studies for the introduction of rotavirus vaccine and he has maintained field
studies throughout the world including studies in countries such as India,
Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Vietnam, and China just to name a few. A complete listing of his awards and memberships
would be too extensive to do here tonight. But just to give you a few of them, he is a member of the Institute
of Medicine and National Academy, a member of the American Academy of Microbiology
and he received the outstanding service medal from the US Public Health Service. He has authored and coauthored over 400 publications and
he is fluent in lectures in five languages. Last June, Dr. Glass began his current duties as
Director for the Fogarty International Center and Associate Director for
International research at NIH. As many of you know the
Fogarty International Center, is the international component of the NIH
and address global health challenges. Tonight Dr. Glass will be discussing global
health and the 21st Century: Lessons from Rotavirus. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Glass. [ Applause ] >> Thank you. Thank you very much dean. I'm delighted to be
here today particularly because when I came in the door I saw the writing in chalk on the
door step that said, "For Everything in Love." Is that why you came? How many of you have actually
heard of rotavirus? Raise your hands, oh my gosh I'm amazed. You know when I went back to
the CDC in 1986 to talk about, to having worked in Bangladesh and NIH. I went to the director of the CDC and I asked
him about rotavirus and he was welcoming me back and I spent an hour telling him all
about rotavirus the disease and its prevention with my work in Bangladesh and afterwards he
wrote me a note welcoming me back and he wrote to me as the chief of the retrovirus laboratory. He didn't know the difference
between a retrovirus and a rotavirus and when they both start with R and I realized
that I had an upward battle to attack. So I am going to talk to you a little bit
about my love of rotavirus if you will. The lessons that I've learned from rotavirus
and global health and how that's led me to my current job, but before I begin,
I'm amazed that you've all come to hear about diarrheal diseases before
dinner so we'll move on. My undergraduate major was in the history of medicine and
history of science and I was very interested in the epidemiology of Cholera because cholera
is at the basis of epidemiology and global health. You know the quarantine system and the public
health service hospitals in the US were all based around cholera and epidemiology really came from
John Snow identifying the broad street pump here in London in 1854 plotting out these little cases of Cholera
and showing that epidemiology could link these to the pump and that by removing the pump
handle you could actually stop the disease and stop an epidemic. So I figured that epidemiology was really simple
and I should go off and study cholera and see why we still had a problem of cholera in
the world today and also from the early studies of cholera there was a first vaccine for enteric
disease, a cholera vaccine here developed in 1893, never very effective but it was still
the basis of immunology of an enteric disease of a potentially vaccine preventable disease
and finally it was because of this pump that I thought that if I went to a
cholera endemic area like Bangladesh, like Ganges Delta I might actually be able to take the handle off the pump
if you will and stop cholera. So after I was at CDC for a couple of
years I went off to Bangladesh with my wife to see what we could do to
stop cholera in the world. This was a naive mission of a young
person, so it's not so bad to be naive and young and here's what we saw. It's basically the same pump and
the same children getting the same water and getting cholera so I figured that this would be an easy match. A patient with cholera has severe
dehydrating diarrhea, they can lose 10 percent of their weight in liquids in 12 to 24 hours. So if you're a 60 kg person and you
lose 6 liters you're on deaths doorstep and this is what happens with the disease. It's now completely treatable by rehydration
with intravenous fluids and water and salt solutions but in 1960 this was
not so, it was a highly fatal disease. So here's a young girl and you can see
that she is so depleted that she's shocky, her eyes are sunkin, she
has tinting of her skin under the doctor's hand and
she's at death's doorstep. With oral rehydration she can get up and
walk away, so it's with this that I got into diarrheal diseases and tried to look at
how important were diarrheal diseases in the world today. Now when you listen to CDC and
our spokesmen around the country, every year we have had a different
epidemic, Smallpox, Ebola, West Nile fever, and the like, anthrax. But in fact these
are not the real killers in the world. The real killers are the diarrheal
diseases, Malaria, Tuberculosis, acute respiratory diseases, things that are
much less sexy but much more important. So here I began to look at where diarrhea fit
into the, into the leading causes of mortality and after ARI in children, diarrhea is the next
major cause of disease in the world and of these about 20 to 45 percent of these diarrheal deaths
are from rotavirus, much more them cholera. So I scratch my head and I think a lesson for
you all is where's your next job going to take you and how are you going to earn money and
I decided that if I was going to work on cholera it would be hard to find a
lot of cholera cases when I came back to the United States, I better work on something
that was global and that which is global is rotavirus. So this background really led me to go to NIH
and then to begin to work on rotaviruses. Well and the one feature of
rotavirus which is very important is that it's a democratic disease,
and what do I mean by democratic? It affects blacks and whites, rich
and poor, everyone gets rotavirus. In fact every one of you in the audience has
had rotavirus in your first few years of life and probably have been infected multiple
times since, although without any symptoms. But that first infection can cause a severe
dehydrating diarrhea that can be lethal in a small percentage of cases, well
here's rotavirus, it's the most common cause of severe diarrhea in children, it's
a democratic virus and of course in this republican administration, I was
advised that I should call it an equal opportunity virus, not a democratic virus so
I have to change this slide or leave it till the next
administration perhaps. First infections are asymptomatic, there's
good evidence of natural immunity, there're limited strains in circulation and of course
my son got rotavirus the day I started the rotavirus lab at the CDC and why would my son
get rotavirus, you know we have a clean house, we wash our hands, there's
clean water, there's good food. Why does my son get rotavirus? It's not clearly from clean water,
poor sanitation or anything like that, we really don't know enough about
transmission of this virus but we do know that because we can't stop it in our
country with clean water and clean food, that vaccines represent a
way to prevent this disease. So here's a child in Mexico with, a
cute, unhappy child who had for 12 hours, severe vomiting episodes, 8 episodes of
vomiting, couldn't hold a thing down. Followed by diarrheal episodes,
about 20 in the 12 hour period and here the child is getting IV's to
prevent shock and to be rehydrated. It's a very severe disease in the small
number of children and here when this child, this is an autopsy from a child who died and the
intestine is all broken up and what you see in the intestinal cells, all of these
little dots here are the viruses, they completely invaded and taken over the
cell of this child's intestine causing death. So it can be a very severe and fatal disease. Well where does rotavirus kill? And here is the distribution of diarrheal deaths
from rotavirus and you can see that there are about a 100 thousand in India alone. Most of the deaths are in South Asia about
150 thousand in Sub Saharan Africa, about 20 thousand in Latin America. So if we had a vaccine and we have vaccines now. These vaccines will be most helpful to prevent
death in Sub Saharan Africak, Asia, South Asia. But in the US and Europe and Australia, Japan,
they would really not stop diarrheal deaths, we don't have them, but they would
stop hospitalizations, clinic visits, doctor visits and the cost incurred. Well here's the disease burden and as
I look around now at the importance of diarrheal diseases in general,
this is really key Every child here, gets rotavirus. About 114 million episodes a
year of rotavirus diarrhea. About one in five children will have to go
to a doctor or clinic to get rehydrated because the disease is that severe. About one in fifty or so will need treatment as
inpatients because the disease is severe enough to require intravenous and about
1 in 200 to 1 in 300 will die of their disease in their developing world. So this is clearly an important cause of death,
about five percent of all deaths in children under five will be from rotavirus, so
it's because of this huge disease burden that I really saw this as a priority. Well when I went back to CDC we had no
data on rotavirus in the United States, and you know in the government if you can't document
how important your disease is compared to someone else's disease, you know, you're
cooked, you just can't make it. So we had to go out with few resources
and few people and figure out what the burden of rotavirus was in the US,
so here's what we did. We looked at hospitalizations for children under
five years of age, here you see it here by month for a 20 year period from about 1979 to, 79 to
1998, 1997 and you can see each year there are about 200 thousand children
hospitalized for diarrheal diseases, that's about 10 to 12 percent of all
hospitalizations of children in the US, a huge number. And of those there's this winter
seasonal pattern each year in children under 5 and that's seasonality is most
apparent in children from 6 months, 7 months, to 2 years of age
and there's a little bit at two2br/>
to 3 years and then it goes away. So a big seasonal peak in
winter, and we've now learned that, that seasonal peak of winter
diarrhea is rotavirus. Well if we were to have a vaccine, and we have
a vaccine this year 2006 for the first time, what would we expect to happen in a few
years. Well if we're right and you can watch this in the next few years, we would
expect this curve to flatten out, those big winter seasonal peaks of
diarrhea hospitalizations to go away and we would have a nice flat
line where a third lesser, 40 percent fewer cases,
hospitalization for diarrhea. Furthermore in the first year of this program
we hope that these, this light blue curve of children under 1 year will go away by the end
of this year or sometime next year, so this is one of the ways we
are going to monitor the impact of a national immunization program. So our disease burden in the US has very
few deaths but lots of hospitalizations at an incredible cost about, over a billion
dollars a year. And it's with this type of data that we were able to convince American
pediatricians and the advisory committee on immunization policy in the US
to take rotavirus vaccines for, as a program for a globe, for US immunization,
universal immunization of all children, so if any of you have small brothers or
sisters or nieces or nephews who are just born or under 1 they should be getting
a rotavirus vaccine this year. Well let's go on to the virology and
how we get to this, the vaccines. Here's a picture of a rotavirus, a schematic of
a rotavirus here and it's a virus that's made up of a shell, a protein shell, an outer coat
like a basketball and inside are 11 segments of double stranded RNA, nucleic acid and
each of these can be separated on a gel and each one codes for a separate
protein, a different protein. Well what does your body
see when it sees this virus, what does your gut see when it sees this virus? It sees what's on the outer coat just
like what I see when I look at you is I see your outer clothing, I see your
clothes, I don't see anything underneath, okay. What your body sees to get an immune
response is a reaction to your clothes, an antibody to your clothes if you will. And
in this virus those clothes are on the outside, this bright yellow, the VP7, it's a
neutralization intergen and these little spikes that allow the virus to attach to
your intestine and go to work. Well this is important because it's against
this outer coat that your body makes antibodies and if we want to develop a vaccine we
have to entice your body to make antibodies to these two proteins. And if we can do
that then when your body sees the virus from the natural setting
it will neutralize that, it'll kill it and you won't get the disease. So that's the idea of a live oral vaccine. So the vaccines that we'll talk about are
live viruses that have been attentuated, they're not pathogenic, they're given orally
and they give you a good immune response. Well the other thing that's important to know
is that rotavirus comes in different flavors that we call serotypes and these serotypes are
defined by the clothing that the virus wears, again that VP7, the G protein and the P protein and
they're basically four different types of flavors of rotavirus, one, two, three, and four,
they're very creative names, okay, and if we have a vaccine against these
four strains we think we'll have a vaccine against most rotaviruses. Just like Polio vaccine, includes three
serotypes of rotavirus, three flavors. But also rotaviruses can evolve and
new strains can always come into the, into the virus from rotaviruses from pigs,
rabbits, cows, monkeys, dogs, and cats and the like. So even if we have a vaccine there's
the possibility of new viruses evolving, and in fact in places like Argentina, all
the cows are immunized against rotavirus to prevent neonatal calf diarrhea
virus, a disease that kills about 10 percent of calves that are infected. So there are already vaccines for cows,
now we're working on vaccines for people. Well we're going to go on and talk
about vaccines, and when I was at NIH in the early 80's my mentor Dr. Kapikian
was working on his first rotavirus vaccine. He took a strain of rotavirus from a monkey, he re-assorted it so that it would have the
outer coat from different serotypes of human rotaviruses, one, two and four, and
he made up a re-assortment vaccine of four different strains that
was called a rhesus tetravalent vaccine and that was the first vaccine
licensed in the US. It took 20 years, about almost 20 years to develop
this vaccine from isolation of the strains to understanding the principles
of vaccine development. As soon as it was licensed, August of
1998, it went right into approved by FDA, the Food and Drug Administration. It was heralded as the first vaccine to stop
those half a million deaths from diarrhea around the world and the
about 5 percent of children in the U.S. hospitalized for rotavirus. It was a big thing. It went right, immediately into the routine
schedule for childhood immunizations at 2, 4 and 6 months of age so that every child
would get this and we were really ecstatic. Dr. Kapikian and Ruth Bishop, who discovered
the vaccine, and myself, we were overjoyed and we received the Pasteur Award
of the Children's Vaccine Initiative. And we really thought we had won the world
with a great vaccine and with the ability to have a new tool to stop a
half a million deaths a year. It was an exhilarating moment. Well, you know, you can't be
exhilarated for too long and in 1999 when this happened, I had a full head of hair. I want you to know, I was really, you
know, almost an afro, it was huge, I lost it all in the next two
years, and this is why I lost it, after 9 months of immunizing the
U.S. public, 600,000 children immunized, a million and a half doses distributed,
a great success in this program, we identified fifteen cases of a rare, adverse
event called inteceception in a few children in the two weeks
after they had received this vaccine. Half a million kids, 600,000
kids, 15 adverse events, and everybody raised the red flag
and said, what's going on here? Well, inteceception here caused, main cause of
intestinal obstruction in small children. Their bowel gets blocked at
the ileocecal junction. It telescopes on itself, becomes
obstructed and can be a lethal complication. You don't want this to happen in the
U.S., let alone in a developing country. So we did an investigation to find
out if this was linked to the vaccine, if so what we could do about it, and
whether we could get around this problem. And in the investigation, there was a
cluster of cases of inteceception right after the two weeks after the first dose of the
vaccine, a smaller, but insignificant cluster after the second, and we really
knew the association was real, but we didn't know the level of risk,
whether this was one in 2,000 here, as it was first thought, or one
in 28,000 as it was later thought. A very important difference. Why is it important? Well, in developing countries where one and two
hundred children will die of rotavirus, to have an adverse event of one in 30,000 would
mean that if you save 150 children's lives for every case of inteceception
that might occur. So it's, it might be that in a developing world
this would still be a very useful vaccine. Well, my real target was the developing
world that I lived in, Bangladesh, and this is where I was interested
in protecting children primarily. So we called the ministers of
many developing countries together to say we've got this rotavirus
vaccine, fabulous vaccine for protecting kids against diarrheal diseases, rotavirus
virus, but it has this rare, adverse event. Would you still use it? Would you still see the benefit
of this for your population? What would you say? You'd save a couple hundred
children for every adverse event? Clearly in the U.S. where the disease is
not fatal, the adverse event that might lead to surgery or obstruction is pretty bad,
but in a country where one in 200 kids dies of the disease, where there'd be
thousands of hospitalizations. Well the ministers thought there and scratched
their head and finally one of them, from India, came back to me and said Roger, great vaccine,
we would love to use it tomorrow, but, but the first time we identify a case
of inteceception in one of our children who was vaccinated, the newspapers
will be all over me and they'll ask the question how could I permit
this vaccine to be used when it was withdrawn from use in the United States
for this very complication. If it had been tested here and
licensed it would be one thing, but it hadn't been used, so I better step back. And so we lost the first vaccine almost
10 years ago and in that 10 years about four million children have died of this
diseases who might have been saved by a vaccine. Well, what we learned in the process
was that inteceception spares children in the first 3 months of life
and then part of our problem was that we vaccinated children up to six months. From three to six months the rate of
inteceception for whatever reason in natural goes up about 10 fold. Half the children we vaccinated
were over 4 months of age, they were in catch up phase, half were under. And most of the intececeptions, 80
percent, were in these older children. So we told the other manufacturers that if
they ever wanted to use a live oral vaccine, they should probably restrict its use to
those children under 3 months of age, for reasons that were not completely obvious. So here was our balance, our scale,
should we use the vaccine or not? One death in 250 children,
lots of deaths and admissions or intececeptions and we threw the vaccine out. Well this has been an incredible year for
rotavirus and in 2006, last year, two new vaccines were finally
came forward and were licensed. And these are, one is a single strain
rotavirus, common human strain, that was attenuated because
it was passage for a long time. The other was a strain, a vaccine just
like the rhesus strain, the first vaccine, but made with a bovine rotavirus virus that
was much weaker and didn't cause, we think, the same, wouldn't cause the same problems,
and so these were both licensed in January of last year, 2006, major clinical trials of over 60,000 children were
published in the New England Journal. For each of these, the pentavalent vaccine
here and the monovalent vaccine here, and they were really success and a beginning. And these were nominated by Lancet as the best
papers of last year in the medical literature. Well, let's look at these
two and see where we are. The pentavalent, just like the rhesus is given
in actually three doses, grows poorly and was highly successful, 98 percent
protection against severe disease in Finnish children and American children. So it was a good vaccine and it was safe. The other vaccine, a monovalent,
also grows well and it was very safe as well, and this one was tested
in Latin American and Finland, so it's gone, it could go forward. In March of last year, here's
the president of Panama roling out the first national immunization
program for rotavirus in Panama. Another program took place in Brazil last year. So now there're over 90 countries that
have a licensed rotavirus vaccine. But are we home yet? Do we raise the flag again and greet success? Even though I don't have much of my
hair left, is it time to celebrate? Well, the vaccines are licensed in many countries,
but we still can't celebrate completely. Well, why not? You know? As I get older you'd always
like to move the celebration date up, but sometimes it's hard. We've tested these vaccines
in the U.S. and Latin America. We haven't tested them on African
children or on Asian children, for instance in Bangladesh or India. And for oral vaccines, for parenteral vaccines,
injectable vaccines, all children behave more or less the same in their
immune response and the routine vaccines that we give to children
are all work pretty well. Oral vaccines are different. You know, the virus has to be swallowed, it has to
go through the stomach's acid and survive, it has to be given in the presence of breast
milk, in breast milk and neutralize the virus. Mothers in Bangladesh and in South Africa
have high titers of maternal antibody that can make the immune
response work less well. So until we get a global
recommendation for these vaccines, we really have to know if they work. Trials of the Merck vaccine are just starting
in five countries in Africa and Asia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kenya, Mali and Ghana. And trials of the GSK vaccine, that monovalent,
has just been completed in South Africa. So we hope that these will work, but the
immune response in the South African trial is about half of what it is in Finland, and
that suggested the efficacy may be less than we want, less than anticipated. If we have a vaccine that's
only 50 percent protective, 30 percent protective, would we use it? And what could we do to improve it? So that's the next challenge before us now
and whether by withholding breast feeding, by raising the dose of the vaccine by
giving it a little bit later, we can do, by changing the buffer, by changing
the dose, we might make it better. Alternatively, like with polio, we might try
a parenteral vaccine, an inactivated vaccine, and see if we can induce the same
immunity that we get with polio with an inactivated parenteral vaccine. So here's where we are now with vaccines,
we have two vaccines, the Merck and the GSK that have been tested and licensed but
they still are waiting a WHO recommendation for global use until these trials are completed. And a bunch of other trials of other
vaccines that are in development and we hope that by having vaccines made in China
and Australia and India, in Germany, that we might have cheaper vaccines that
would be suitable for the world's children. So we have now six candidate vaccines being made
by 12 companies in five countries with a hope that in a few years, we might have vaccines for
the world that will be cheap and affordable. And that's our current research agenda. Well, when I went to ask ministers of health
if rotavirus was important for them, most of them had never heard
of rotavirus. So in Vietnam, I went in 1978,
1998 and I asked the minister if he was interested in
rotavirus vaccine. He said we don't have rotavirus here. I said have you ever tested
for rotavirus? He said no. So he said well, why don't we do a little study
and we got a grant from WHO to do this study. We looked at four cities of Vietnam, north
and south, six hospitals, and we went out and we screened 5700 children under
five who came in with diarrheal disease for rotavirus with a
very simple, but sensitive test. 56 percent of those children were positive. So the minister saw this and he
scratched his head and he said this means that if I use the vaccine, I could decrease
my diarrhea hospitalizations in half. I could cut my diarrhea mortality
in half or some fraction of that. So this would be a fabulous
and important vaccine for us. So part of our efforts at CDC was then to go out
and set up surveillance and let many ministers of health, like the minister in Vietnam know
the importance of this disease in his setting. We started out with nine countries
of Asia and again, Myanmar,Malaysia, 56 percent of their children had rotavirus
as a cause of diarrhea hospitalizations. And the like high rates from 39 to
60 percent all around Asia. We now have surveillance all around
the world in more than 50 countries that report monthly their
rate of rotavirus detection and their rates are averaging 40 to 50 percent. So this is clearly a global disease and just
by doing surveillance we've educated ministers and pediatricians of the importance
of this disease in their setting. We've also educated Bill Gates. You know, Bill Gates in 1997 was trying
to figure out what to do with his money. He read the World Development Report and in that report it said rotavirus
kills a half a million people a year. Our data from CDC put into
the World Development Report. He says I don't believe rotavirus
can, well, what's rotavirus? I've never heard of it. How can it kill this many people? What's going on here? He also said if a 747 crashed today,
you'd hear it around the world. If rotavirus kills a half
a million, no one hears about it. What's wrong with this picture? And so it was rotavirus that
got him to invest the first time in the accelerated development
and introduction of four vaccines. Well, after Bill and Melinda
Gates got interested in this, they put some of their money, 750 million
dollars into the Global Alliance for Vaccines. And that went to, and rotavirus
was prioritized with pneumococcal vaccine, as one of two vaccines for accelerated
development and introduction. And, of course, the international
finance committee, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair have gotten the
Europeans behind financing this. So we've gone from an impoverished
activity for a very important global disease to an activity now which is well
funded for further development and introduction, should the vaccine
test show that the vaccine is effective in those poor, developing countries. So that answer is gonna wait for us all to see. So we're beginning now a great experiment
now to see if we can control and perhaps eliminate rotavirus
through the use of vaccines. And for future funding, I thought we might
call upon the Rotarians, for instance. Doesn't that look like a Rotary sign? I thought that after the polio
eradication, I need your approval on this, because I haven't shown this to the
Rotarians yet, but they've done so well with polio eradication that I thought we might
just change it to the Rotary Virus and continue their global efforts. Now, with that said, I wanted to go on and
just give you a little, I've made a change of careers this year, and I'm still
working on rotavirus at CDC, but I've decided after 30 years of
CDC, I should try to, I was an inch wide in rotavirus and a mile deep. We've worked on rotavirus
and we've gotten it into national use in the U.S. It was licensed and used now. We have global clinical trials. What else could I do to improve
the impact of global health and to make global health an important
study, even on the campus of UGA, what could you do for global health here? I think part of the reason I'm here is to
get you all excited about global health. I hope I can do this. So I went on to, I went on to the
Fogarty position, where I'm the director of the Fogarty International Center at NIH. This center is really dedicated to address
global health challenges through innovative and collaborative programs
for research and training. All stemming from the work of a bricklayer,
John Fogarty, who became a union representative and then went to congress, and his passion was
global health, for reasons we don't understand. But because of him, we got a program 39
years ago at the Fogarty on the NIH campus that addressed issues of global health. Well on the campus at NIH there
are 27 institutes and centers like the National Cancer Center,
the Heart and Lung Institute. Fogarty is the smallest, oops, let's see,
Fogarty is the smallest of all the centers. We have a budget of about 70 million dollars,
which represents, get this, for global health, one quarter of one percent of our NIH budget. This is global health. This is what we have for global health. So it's a nice budget, but it really
means that we have to be pointed in what we do and how we address this. And we also have to work with all the other
centers because what part of healthcare and health research is not
global in some aspect. It's gotta be everything. So we have to deal with everyone
and be really creative and partner. Well, we have research activities in over 100
foreign institutions and 60 US institutions, but ours are primarily in the developing world. Well, I got to Fogarty in June of
last year and I was greeted by this portfolio that I call alphabet soup. You see all these different
letters and acronyms in here, I didn't know what they all were
and you probably won't either. But I did know that coming out of
this soup was collaborative research, research training for foreigners in the U.S.,
research training for U.S. students overseas and development of institutional capacities. About 68 million dollars in
budget with 400 grants overall. So I said well, what does this mean? Let me put some flesh on to all
of these alphabet soups, okay? And so the first thing we did was to
look at the first program that we started in 1988, which was called the AITRP. I didn't know what AITRP meant either. But it's our Aids International
Training and Research Program. We started in 1988, if you'll remember,
maybe before some of you were aware of AIDS, AIDS was a disease of the United States,
of Haitians, of homosexuals and of hemophiliacs. And we don't think beyond
our borders of the important, that AIDS would have that we know today. So Fogarty, as a center for global health,
got a grant to invest in AIDS education and the importance of AIDS overseas. And we invested in some of
these young researchers. Well these researchers have stayed with AIDS and AIDS has become an incredibly
important disease globally, as you all know. And these youngsters who we invested in 18
years ago have really become the leaders in their field today. So when you look at PEFAR programs, the
president's emergency fund for AIDS relief and many other AIDS research activities,
these people who had early grants from Fogarty are now the leaders. They were very important grants. Well, when we look at American leaders
today in global health, what do we see? There's a common feature
just like my own experience. One is that they all had what I
call early childhood experience. And I would encourage all of you, if you're
interested at all in global health, to travel, to find someplace to sit yourself in an
international setting and spend some time to gain the experience of what it
is to work in a developing country or to address a problem that's really a
problem of child survival or adult survival, something that's really important. That experience will open your eyes, will
open your hearts, it will open your careers to opportunities that you probably have
never thought about before and engage you. And I would, the first thing I would say is
that all of the people who are now leaders in global health have had, like Al Sommer, who
was the dean at Hopkins, spent a couple of years in Bangladesh and Indonesia
before early on in his career. Jeff Koplan, the former head of CDC
also spent time in Bangladesh early on. Helene Gayle was in Uganda as a baby, as a
young physician epidemiologist working on HIV. So the first important point is
that early childhood experience. You're all children, you're all students. Look and seek for these opportunities
because they will really change your career and what you wanna do, especially
when you're trying to scratch what would be
important or interesting. These opportunities are huge and
they will entertain you for a career. The second is that all of these people
up here work in infectious diseases. Aren't there genetic diseases overseas? How about cancers? How about heart disease? All of that. In the past, infectious diseases have
been king of international health. But I'm gonna tell you why that's
changing in the 21st century. And third, what's the gender
of all these people? They're all men. And there are tremendous opportunities today. When these people were in medical school,
women were an incredible minority. Today, women are about half of the medical
students we have around the country and so I expect that in the future women will
play a much greater role in these activities. Well we have a program at Fogarty to
send medical students between their third and fourth year overseas. About 25 students a year
matched with a student in a developing country. 16 placements in India, Asia, Africa, Latin
America and these kids go off for a year to do a mentored research project. When they come back, they
are different students. Their orientation as to what we can do to
go back and solve the problems we solved. So again, this is, opportunities are
building and in fact, about 50 percent, over half of medical students entering school
today want an international experience as well as many people in residencies and fellowships. Well the second area that we tried to build
up is to build up the constituency of universities around the world. We have about 19 programs in the U.S. and this
isn't the idea of bringing together schools of public health, schools of nursing, graduate
schools, schools of veterinary medicine, journalism, medical schools, all together
around the theme of global health. And I think this is an incredibly important way
to build a constituency in the United States. Global health isn't just medicine. If we want to deliver vaccines, you need
a business approach, you need ethics and legal questions addressed, you have
the ecology of these infectious diseases that requires ecologists and you
need nurses to deal with the issue of administering anti-retro virals. Everyone can be involved in this. And journalists to take out the messages
of advocacy and alert the public. Behavioral and social scientists to figure
out why people won't take their AIDS drugs or how to deal with the stigma of a disease
like AIDS, which is incredibly stigmatizing. Here's what one physician
can do working overseas. Denis Burkitt, everyone wonders
is it only infectious disease? Here, a surgeon went off to Uganda in
the late 60's and discovered a disease, a big lymphoma, an African lymphoma of children. He didn't know what it was, but it was very
common and through going to scientific meetings, he was able to link this with Ebstein Barr
virus, a new virus at the time. It's the first viral cause of cancer identified. So he did a great thing for
oncology and for cancer. He then went to a meeting at Sloan Kettering
in New York and found out they were working on anti-cancer drugs in the 60's. Let's try it. He was in Africa. He tried them out. It melted the cancer away in
a few weeks and was the first, one of the earliest successful
uses of cancer chemotherapy. So a lot can be done. And where's Burkitt's lymphoma now? Well, there's an African
lymphoma belt of Africa. These kids still fill the
wards with Burkitt's lymphoma. He was disappointed that this
lymphoma took his name, by the way. And we don't have a public health approach to
treating the children with Burkitt's lymphoma or to understanding the mechanisms
of their disease. So a lot can be done in other aspects of
medicine, not only infectious diseases. So Fogarty is really funding
other projects and trying to stimulate institutional capacity
and long term collaborations. This year at Fogarty we asked the
question, we completed a project that asked the question how can the world
tackle it's most challenging problems? What would you do as a minister of health
if you were given a million dollars? Where would you put your money? Would you put it into surgery? Would you put it into treatment hospitals? Would you put it into prevention programs? Where would you put your money? Done by the World Bank, WHO, population
reference bureau and centered at the Fogarty, this report came out and behind
the report was this graph, which should be incredibly encouraging to all of
you, it shows the aging of the U.S. population. If you're Japanese today, you can
expect to live about 85 years. An American, somewhere between 76 and
85, and in all the areas of the world, life expectancy has gotten greater. Let me explain to you what
this means in real terms. If you were born in China, 1960,
your life expectancy was 39 years. In the year 2000, your life
expectancy, 71 years. Okay? So the Chinese have gained eight years of life expectancy per decade
for the last four decades, okay? The longest, largest prolongation of
human life in the history of humanity. What does that mean for disease
patterns and priorities? 40 years ago, cancer wasn't a problem in China, because many people didn't
live long enough to get cancer. Today, if you're a smoker, cancer will kill
an estimated third of the Chinese population by 2050, so as the population ages, cancer,
heart disease, genetic diseases, obesity, traffic accidents will all take a huge toll
on the population and the infectious diseases in that setting will become less significant. The only place where prolongation
of life has not occurred in the developing world is in Africa. And it has gone down. And we were just in South Africa,
life expectancy in 1975 was 53 years. By 1992 it had gone up to 62
years, 63 years, it's peak. And from 1993 to today, 2004, it's dropped 18
years in the last 12 years, the biggest decline in life expectancy outside of war. Okay? So clearly HIV has to be
reckoned with as a major force in population dynamics and in development. Well, this means that when
we think about the best buys in this disease control priority
project, some have an infectious basis like stopping the AIDS pandemic
and tuberculosis, malaria, some that are very cheap are combating
tobacco use, reducing injuries, reducing deaths from cardiovascular disease. So we really need to think about
new strategies for public health and global health as we think forward. And the website for this book, it's a 250 dollar
book, but you can get it for free by downloading it from the website and reading
the chapters that you want. DCP2.org.
Lancet said in the October issue, health is now the most important
foreign policy issue of our time. And I was struck by this, because
here we're doing global health. Foreign policy, global health, today? I mean, you think of different
things for foreign policy. And then I began to think, and actually, in this administration there's
been the largest investment in major overseas programs of
any administration ever. The PEPFAR program committed 15
billion dollars to treatment of AIDS. The President's Emergency Program for AIDS
Research, AIDS relief, 15 billion dollars over five years to introduce anti-retro
viral treatment throughout Africa. The president's malaria initiative, 1.2 billion
dollars for malaria bed nets and treatment in Africa, efforts to control
emerging infections in avian flu. So there have been tremendous investments,
even by this government in global health. So where's this led us? We also have worked intensively
with the Indians and the Chinese. These were countries, that 40
years ago, were impoverished. And today, tehy're major economic middle income
countries with funds to invest in research. And the Indians and Chinese are
both investing heavily in research. What they need are ideas and direction. And so we have lots of collaborations with both the
Indian government and with the Chinese to enrich and direct programs and research priorities
in health, areas where we can all benefit. Here's a group of Iranians. We had a delegation of Iranians
who came to visit NIH, Arash Alaei was the leader of the delegation. We discussed what are we gonna do with research in Iran? We think about Iran in different
terms, as you know. It turns out that they are a
centerpiece for surveillance of extremely drug resistant tuberculosis. It's the newest pandemic on the
planet, tuberculosis strains that resist all antibiotics, so if we had it
here we would have a hard time stopping its spread or getting rid of it. No antibiotics work. In Iran they form a window on the surrounding
countries, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan. They get refugees in and they have
the diagnostic ability to make, to identify extremely drug resistant
TB, make a diagnosis and think about clinical trials when new antibiotics. If we wanna stop XTB in the world, we
have to open up our eyes to all sentinels. And so whether this is in our own
self interest to know where XTB is, or because of the possibility
of research opportunities to test new antibiotics,
this would be a place to go. So even in places like Iran, there're
opportunities for research. Well, Fogarty, I said, is not a rounding
error of our budget, it's a , we have a budget but because it's small we have to
work with all of these partners. And it's really through partnerships with all
the money that's now going into global health that we can provide some
direction and some leadership. We have foundations like the Gates
and the Wellcome, the private sector, multinationals working overseas, government
agencies, universities, and the like, as well as our own institutes on the NIH campus. So we are really trying to
help, from our leadership and coordination for these global efforts. Dr. Zerhouni, when he
recruited me, is an Algerian by birth. He speaks French and Arabic and is
really committed to global health. And so I was delighted that he has taken this
upon himself as a mission for the future. My own experience, will this help? When I went to Bangladesh in 1980, under five mortality was about 120 per 1000. One in six or seven children died
before they reached the age of five. Family size was about six and there were
over half a billion dollars invested in family planning programs to no real avail. There was not having an impact. Immunization coverage was under five percent. Lots of diarrheal deaths and
ARI deaths due to malnutrition. It was a terribly poor developing country. I've been going back every year or two
and working with Bangladeshis. In 2005, the pattern is quite different. Under five mortality has been
reduced almost in half in 25 years. Family size has gone from 6.3 to 2.6. how did that happen in 25 years in a
society where women have been kept indoors, they didn't go out after menarche,
they stayed at home, they were uneducated. What happened? One thing that happened was that women
entered into the garment industry at the age of 13 to 21, they had a job, they had a reason to be
with other women, to talk, they had healthcare on the job, they had a reason not to get
married at 13 because they had a salary. They had a reason not to marry
a man who didn't have a salary. They had a way to say no, because
they were empowered by a little money. They had a reason to delay pregnancy
until they really wanted to get married. So I've seen this major change in
Bangladesh society in 25 years, just watching. It's been nothing
less than a real miracle. Diarrheal deaths have come down. Women only have two or three children. And the causes of death are changing. And some of these chronic
diseases are becoming important. So now, at Fogarty, we're involved in
our strategic plan and it really is based on my own experience, as I
told you, from Bangladesh. First, that we really see what is critically
important is to train the next generation of American and foreign researchers. And this is what I call early
childhood education. This is all of you in the audience. Okay? There is a future in global health. There's a lot to be done in the
developing world, and I would encourage you to seek opportunities, which are
becoming more numerous, and funding, which is skimpy, but which is available. Because these are opportunities that'll
change the way you think about the world. We wanna build sustainable capacity for health science research in overseas,
building centers of excellence. In your group here at UGA
are working intensively, for instance in Kenya on parasitic diseases. And those centers of excellence
will be wonderful places to be mentored for research careers. Implementation, we have lots of tools in
science that we don't use, new vaccines, an understanding of the hazards of smoking, how to control hypertension,
how to treat Burkitt's lymphoma. All of these need to be implemented
if we're going to have their impact. If they don't come out of our tool
chest, they're not of great use. We're trying to provide reentry support
for foreign scientists to go home and make an impact in their home countries. Training, institutional capacity, and providing
leadership and collaboration for the future. Well, Tony Fauci, head of allergy and infectious
disease has always said why do we get involved in global health, why should we be
interested? And he presents this slide which is very important of all the emerging
infections that have arisen around the world which are a threat to the United States, to our
homeland and I've scratched my head with this because this is clearly a high priority. But beyond that when we think about
genes, if you look around at all of your neighbors and students here. 400 years ago there were very few Americans
in Georgia, okay, all of us brought our genes from Africa, from Asia, from Europe
and it's those genetic diseases that we're now understanding are the basis
for many of the illnesses in our society today. If we're going to understand these genetic
diseases, it's really through global health. If you think of one in particular,
Huntington's chorea, a terrible genetic disease, spread in family, a dominant gene. Where were the genes identified?
Venezuela, offspring of a single woman who had Huntington's genes
who went to Venezuela in 1824 and has had several thousand offspring, infected and expressing the disease or not
infected and it's by understanding the gene in this type of population that with
the sequencing of the human genome, we've actually been able to identify the gene, begin to think about what we
could do about the disease. When a therapy becomes developed
and available for testing, Maracaibo area of Venezuela may be one
of the first places to have an impact and see if it works, they are genetic diseases. How about environmental diseases? You know
when I worked in Bangladesh on that tube well, remember the tube well? We put in the tube well
to stop cholera. It turns out that a quarter of those tube wells have high levels of arsenic
in that water, heavy metal, that's a poison. We never thought of this 25 years
ago, but with arsenic in the water, if we ever want to study a problem of
chronic arsenic poisoning and figure out how to address it, to cure it, to remove
arsenic, to remove the risk in the water. Bangladesh is where we would have to go
and this is true for many other diseases. Remember the problems in Bhopal with
Chernobyl with the radiation disaster. Where disasters occur, we can actually learn a
lot about the diseases that will be important for those people as well as for ourselves. And of course adult cancers that I just shaded
in the Burkitt's area red and as one of many cancers which have high incidence,
high incidence areas, where by going to these areas and studying high risk cancers,
we can understand the etiology of the cancer, whether it's genetic or environmental and
we can think about new modes of treatment. 10 years ago the Institute of Medicine came
out with a report on America's Vital Interest in Global Health. We're back with the IOM
updating this report because much has happened in the visibility of global
health issues in the world today. We think that global health is now at a tipping
point, a time when major things will happen because so much has changed in the society.
The introduction of the Gates funding and the other foundation funding,
of the rise of India and China as contributors to global health research, the visibility of global health
problems, the idealism of youth, that we can really make things happen in global
health as we've never seen before. So some themes for Fogarty, we've
been working on our strategic plan, one is that science anywhere
helps people everywhere. Do you like that one or should
we try the other one, take science where the problems
are or science for global health. We're having an award for whoever comes up
with our best brandname and we're trying to get our strategic plan done by June or July of
this year, so any ideas will be accepted for brands and we'd be happy to see them. This is my, I've lived in Georgia for 30 years
and this is my first visit to UGA. So I want to thank all of you crazy people who invited
me here to speak to you, I'm really delighted to be here and I'm amazed at the
quality of the research and the efforts that are going on in global health. I wish you well and I would encourage all of you
to go over to that department and see the dean and make sure you sign up for some kind of a
project in global health and most important, go overseas to some project or some place where
you can actually learn from your experiences. Thanks so much for letting me speak with you. [ Applause ]