Elimination of Infectious Diseases from the South-East Asia Region

Front matter

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN PUBLIC HEALTH

Elimination of Infectious Diseases

from the South- East Asia Region Keeping the Promise

Foreword

It gives me immense pleasure to introduce this book that outlines the historical context, country experience and best practices, which led to the elimination of malaria, yaws, lymphatic filariases, trachoma and mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis from one or more geographic regions or countries of the WHO South-East Asia (SEA) Region.

Countries of the SEA Region have been fighting these diseases for decades, and their efforts are showing satisfying and encouraging outcomes. However, the work remains unfinished and much must be done to eliminate them completely not only from South-East Asia but also from the entire world.

As the following pages highlight, the SEA Region has in recent decades made real progress against communicable diseases. The most celebrated is India’s victory over polio, which led to the SEA Region having eliminated polio and being certified as polio free. The following chapters provide a compelling insight into the recent achievements of countries in the SEA Region, and how they have catalyzed a paradigm shift in how stakeholders think about communicable diseases. As the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) highlight, for most diseases, elimination is now the goal.

The emergence and spread of COVID-19 across the SEA Region is providing challenges to achieving the SDG targets due to changing priorities and overstretched health systems. Today the challenge is to harness this crisis to invest in and build health systems that are stronger and more robust, populations that are better able to resist infections, and services that provide for communicable diseases at all levels.

It is my firm belief that as technical advances continue to become available, we will sooner or later be able to sustainably eliminate, and even eradicate some of these communicable diseases, and I am pleased that this book shows so clearly the efforts made in the SEA Region. It should now be used gainfully by researchers and other stakeholders in the Region, and across the globe.

David L. Heymann, M.D.

Professor, Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK v

Preface

National, regional and global campaigns to eliminate or eradicate infectious diseases can galvanize health systems, donors and governments and achieve significant success in easing the disease burdens and reducing the health disparities. From the mid-twentieth century to the present, many countries of the WHO South-East Asia Region have eliminated one or more infectious diseases, from mother-to-child transmission of HIV, to malaria, lymphatic filariasis, yaws and trachoma.

This book examines the historical context, country experiences and best practices that led to disease elimination in select countries and for select diseases. This may prove valuable to other countries still working towards elimination targets. Whatever a country’s status on disease-specific targets, the lessons contained herein may inform disease control and elimination efforts. By 2030, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases, and to combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.

The book has 12 chapters. The first chapter outlines disease elimination as a concept. The remaining chapters document country experiences in disease elimination, which holds important lessons. While campaigns to eliminate or eradicate infectious diseases can achieve great success, they must be technically feasible and must complement overall health systems strengthening and the drive towards universal health coverage—the Flagship Priority and SDG target that underpins all others. In service of that goal and a healthier, more sustainable Region and world, I am certain this book will contribute.

Dr Poonam Khetrapal Singh Regional Director

WHO South-East Asia Region Delhi, India

Vii

Contents

1 A Historic Paradigm Shift in Communicable Diseases Poonam Khetrapal Singh

2 Thailand: Elimination of Mother-to-Child Transmission Rangsima Lolekha, Usa Thisyakorn, and Mukta Sharma

Sujeet Singh, S. K. Jain, and Mohamed A. Jamsheed

Chapter 1 A) A Historic Paradigm Shift get in Communicable Diseases in South-East Asia: From Control to Elimination

Poonam Khetrapal Singh

Abstract Communicable diseases such as HIV, TB, malaria and NTDs are among the leading causes of illness, death and impoverishment in the WHO South-East Asia Region. The SDGs state that the goal of ending these diseases has the potential to have an unprecedented impact on human development. In moving towards UHC, the challenge now is to target several pressing communicable diseases while also building sustainable, people-centered health services for all. Despite the many challenges the Region faces, it has made important progress towards eliminating several communicable diseases. In 2014, the Region was certified polio free and in 2016 it was validated to have eliminated maternal and neonatal tetanus. Measles and rubella have been eliminated from several countries, and yaws has been eliminated from India. Thailand, the Maldives and Sri Lanka have eliminated maternal and child transmission of HIV and syphilis, and the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Thailand have eliminated lymphatic filariasis. The Maldives and Sri Lanka have eliminated malaria, and Nepal has eliminated trachoma. To advance progress towards the complementary goals of disease elimination and UHC, several areas should be of focus: linking disease elimination efforts with UHC; prioritizing multisectoral engagement; ensuring strong subnational action; ensuring the rapid transmission of information; prioritizing disease surveillance; involving communities and people; maximizing access to global public goods; and recognizing the rights of affected people and communities. The global community has committed to making communicable diseases a thing of the past. Disease elimination and eradication are powerful ideas that can galvanize health systems, donors and governments, while easing the disease burden of the poor and the disadvantaged and reducing health disparities.

1.1 Introduction

From 2000 to 2015, under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the world made unprecedented progress in combating communicable diseases. A confluence

P. K. Singh (BX) WHO South-East Asia Region, New Delhi, India e-mail: serdo@ who. int

© World Health Organization 2021 1 P. K. Singh (ed.), Elimination of Infectious Diseases from the South-East Asia Region, SpringerBriefs in Public Health, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98 1- 16-5566-1_1 of factors made this possible, including better diagnostics, treatments and vaccines, improved health systems surveillance, increased investment in health programmes, and strong and sustained political leadership towards this end. The MDGs themselves both reflected and helped spur progress, with five of the eight MDGs specifically focused on health, including one devoted to communicable diseases. Under the MDGs, antiretroviral therapy averted more than 7.4 million deaths; the global malaria mortality rate declined by 58%; and enhanced TB prevention, diagnosis and treatment saved 37 million lives [1].

Progress against HIV was at the fore of what is often called the golden era of global health. Following the discovery of HIV in 1984, the virus spread rapidly to every corner of the globe, cutting life expectancy, threatening national and regional economies, decimating communities and placing extraordinary burdens on health systems. Many experts predicted that HIV would never be conquered—that it would instead become a fact of life in our increasingly globalized world. To avert this outcome, the global community mounted a concerted response, which also forged new norms, including the right of infected individuals to participate as full and equal partners in society. The 36% drop in new HIV infections worldwide from 2000 to 2017, combined with the earlier elimination of smallpox and the near-elimination of polio, helped to inspire an increasingly ambitious global health agenda [2].

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which United Nations Member States adopted in 2015, embodies this paradigm shift [3]. The health goal, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3, is to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. As part of achieving SDG 3, by 2030 the world must end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria—diseases that the MDGs also targeted. In addition, SDG 3 calls for ending epidemics of neglected tropical diseases and for enhanced action to combat hepatitis, waterborne and other communicable diseases [4].

Whereas the MDGs focused on control or mitigation, the SDGs focus on elimination, which is defined separately for each disease and embedded in the relevant SDG indicators and strategic plans of the World Health Organization (WHO). Embracing the elimination targets reflects a broad recognition that these are technically possible, economically affordable and operationally feasible. But the SDGs mark another important shift. While the MDGs focused on specific diseases and the health needs of specific populations, the SDGs envisage a more integrated approach to health. A key aim of SDG 3 is to achieve universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030. SDG 3 recognizes that there is no either/or choice between broadly accessible health services and enhanced focus on communicable diseases.

Today, our challenge is to do both—to build robust, flexible health systems capable of providing holistic, tailored care to patients and to seize the historic opportunity we have to eliminate several communicable diseases. In examining the paradigm shift that created these imperatives, this book focuses specific attention on the World Health Organization Region of South-East Asia. The Region has made dramatic gains in human health and well-being in recent years, and is determined to continue its progress against communicable diseases as it responds to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and works towards achieving its eight Flagship Priorities, WHO’s “triple billion” targets [5] and the SDGs.

1.2 Disease Elimination as a Goal—The Early Years

While humans have struggled with disease-causing microbes for as long as humanity has existed, only in the past two centuries have humans waged an organized war against them. But it was never just about the science. Early efforts to control or eliminate communicable diseases underscored the global need for a multilateral organization capable of coordinating and strengthening surveillance and control efforts among countries and regions. Founded in 1948, WHO, under the aegis of the United Nations, capitalized and built on the early momentum. The World Health Assembly— WHO’s supreme governing body—calling for the worldwide eradication of malaria in 1955 and smallpox in 1959. The burden of both diseases was unconscionable and unnecessary.

In the years following World War II, malaria persisted as a major public health problem. While the use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for indoor residual spraying (IRS) succeeded in reducing the number of malaria cases, massive population displacement, importation of malaria from troops returning from endemic areas and destruction of key infrastructure contributed to a resurgence. It was against this backdrop that WHO launched the Global Malaria Eradication Programme (GMEP) in 1955, with a focus on IRS with DDT, combined with case detection and treatment [6].

The first-ever global campaign to eradicate a vector-borne disease yielded important but modest results—37 out of 143 countries became malaria free, including 27 countries in Europe and the Americas. But the campaign soon lost momentum owing to a lack of local participation and operational research. Resistance to antimalarial drugs emerged, and mosquitoes developed resistance to DDT and other insecticides. In 1969, WHO changed its approach from worldwide eradication to “malaria control with the ultimate aim of malaria eradication”.

The creation in 2002 of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) kick-started a renewed interest in malaria eradication and infused new funding into national malaria control efforts. The inclusion in the MDGs of the target of “reversing the global malaria epidemic” intensified monitoring and accountability for results in malaria control programmes. SDG 3 calls for the elimination of malaria in at least 35 countries by 2030, including at least 10 countries by 2020. Soon after the SDGs were adopted, Maldives became the first country in the world to be certified malaria-free, as it had not reported a single case of malaria since 1986. Sri Lanka was the second country to apply for certification, which it was awarded in 2016 [7].

The battle against smallpox was a more immediate success. In 1966, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to intensify smallpox eradication, leading to the launch of the Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme in 1967 [8]. Whereas the initial campaigns for yellow fever and malaria failed, the world succeeded in eradicating smallpox in a little over a decade. This was largely because of the broad uptake of an improved vaccine that made vaccination simpler and used a smaller quantity of vaccine. In addition to achieving 100% vaccination, the eradication strategy focused on disease surveillance. The programme benefited from strong political support at the highest levels, which helped secure adequate funding.

One of the most important lessons from the smallpox programme is that the planning of an eradication campaign should be based on clear objectives, and should have a clear strategy and management structure. Eradication programmes should likewise be guided by operational research and be sufficiently flexible to allow for course corrections. Strong political commitment at the national level is crucial, as is effective international coordination.

When WHO launched the smallpox elimination drive, wild poliovirus was endemic in 125 countries and caused paralysis in more than 1000 children every day. In 1988, there were more than 350 000 cases of polio worldwide. Emboldened by their success against smallpox, global partners launched the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPED [9].

Since its inception, the GPEI has focused on maintaining high vaccination coverage—at least three doses of live oral polio vaccine (OPV), providing supplemental rounds of vaccination, establishing mechanisms for surveillance of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), and house-to-house “mop-up” campaigns. It has also emphasized the need for strong outbreak preparedness and laboratory networks. Mobilizing and engaging communities has likewise played a pivotal role in polio eradication strategies, particularly in countries and regions where there has been resistance to vaccine administration to children.

When the deadline for polio eradication ended in 2000, there were 2880 cases a year spread over 20 countries. In 2018, up to November, a total of 27 cases of wild poliovirus were reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although the world has achieved a 99.99% drop in polio cases since the eradication drive began, the campaign has yet to attain its goal of zero cases. Significantly, while polio dropped by 99% from 1988 to 2000, the next 1% decline has taken nearly two decades and roughly US$ 1 billion in expenditure each year.

This highlights an important lesson, which the campaign against smallpox also underscored: the last mile towards eradication relies less on achieving 100% vaccination and more on strong, recalibrated surveillance and containment programmes that identify cases early and enable local vaccination to guard against further transmission. Both campaigns also highlight the critical importance of local planning and the need to make evidence-based adjustments where required.

Another disease targeted for eradication was Guinea worm disease. In 1981, to coincide with the International Water Supply and Sanitation Decade, the global community launched an eradication campaign for Dracunculiasis or Guinea worm disease—the first parasitic disease taken up for eradication. The campaign, which was hoped would promote the broader sanitation agenda, was based on the determination that dracunculiasis was eradicable because it was easy to diagnosis, control interventions were simple and cost-effective, the immediate host of the parasite was not airborne, and the geographical distribution of the disease was limited. In 1986, an estimated 3.5 million new cases of dracunculiasis occurred, and 20 countries were endemic for the disease.

1.3 Disease Elimination and the Push for Universal Health Coverage

Even as the success of the smallpox eradication campaign inspired similar approaches to other vaccine-preventable diseases, the disease-specific approach to elimination attracted its share of criticism. In many respects, this criticism mirrors more recent debates regarding the rapid growth in funding for programmes to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. Critics have asserted that the smallpox programme obtained disproportionate funding and diverted resources from other priority health issues. It was also argued that if health workers could reach children in villages with the smallpox vaccine, they could also immunize children against other diseases.

The thinking behind these critiques led to the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI), which the World Health Assembly recommended for implementation in May 1977 [10]. By leveraging health workers mobilized and trained under the smallpox programme for broader immunization, the EPI aimed to reduce morbidity, disability and mortality from diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, TB, poliomyelitis and measles, in addition to other diseases for which potent, safe and cost-effective vaccines became available. Though countries were keen to launch immunization campaigns, they often lacked sustainable funding, heat-stable vaccines and frameworks, protocols and mechanisms that guaranteed vaccine quality [11]. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) partnered with WHO to implement the EPI in its initial phase and was subsequently joined by other funding partners.

The EPI has been a great success. In 1974, global vaccination coverage was about 5% and it increased to 30% by 1980 for the first dose of diphtheria—tetanus— pertussis vaccine (DTP3). This further increased and by 1990, the global coverage for these vaccinations had reached 88%, and by 2012, it had reached 91%. In 2012, 59 countries, including several low- and middle-income countries, had achieved the target of reaching at least 90% of the population nationally, and at least 80% in every district. Though the EPI is a vertical programme within health systems, it helped to build the necessary capacity in many countries.

The relationship between vertical, disease-specific programmes and national health systems has always been contentious. From the beginning, the malaria eradication programme evolved on its own, distinct from broader national health systems. Malaria activities were carried out by a cadre of specially trained personnel who were deployed to reach the remotest parts of the country to map and spray all houses and structures, perform census counts, conduct mass blood surveys, distribute chloroquine and conduct general surveillance activities. Some have argued that the eradication programme led to the halting of studies that were more closely aligned with the model of health service development compatible with primary health care [12]. The successful use of trained malaria workers for broader health service delivery— as occurred in India—constitutes a good public health practice that nevertheless occurred mostly as an afterthought rather than as an integral component of malaria control efforts.

The initial failure of WHO’s global malaria campaign was a setback for the concept of eradication and led to new thinking that positioned primary health care as the cornerstone for health improvement globally. In 1978, a year after WHO launched the EPI, the Primary Health Care Conference in Alma-Ata recommended the integration of vertical programmes into horizontal, community-based health systems, thereby signaling an end (albeit temporary) to vertical disease control programmes. Although the shift to a primary care approach was appealing to many low- and middle-income countries, the real-world effects of this paradigm shift were limited. Ethiopia’s experience illustrates the challenges of transitioning from vertical to more horizontal approaches. The only country in Africa to take up malaria eradication in the 1960s, Ethiopia attempted, following the failure of malaria eradication, to unify the Malaria Eradication Service and basic health service delivery. This approach ultimately failed, as the two organizations had separate budgets, staff and administration [13].

Under the MDGs, global attention was focused on a limited spectrum of communicable diseases and populations. This revived interest in vertical health programmes, as reflected in the creation of the Global Fund and the launch of the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the largest bilateral health programme ever assembled to address a single disease. The move back towards vertical programmes stemmed from several factors, including the failure of health systems to control malaria in the years following Alma-Ata and the emergence of HIV in the 1980s as a new, globalized health challenge that demanded an emergency response [14].

In the wake of the tremendous progress made by vertical programmes in the MDG era, global health is once again focused on a more integrated approach centred on primary care. The entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including health and non-health goals and targets, is animated by the vision of more integrated systems and responses. The policy goal underpinning SDG 3 is UHC, which will build the foundation for flexible, people-centred systems that are capable of addressing infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases and other health conditions.

In the midst of the increased emphasis on integrated health systems and multipurpose health service delivery, the world has an unprecedented opportunity to banish several communicable diseases as a public health threat. In moving towards UHC, the challenge now is to target several pressing communicable diseases while also building sustainable, people-centred health services for all.

1.4 Elimination in the South-East Asia Region

Global campaigns against specific diseases cannot, by definition, succeed without achieving their aims in the South-East Asia Region, which is home to more than a quarter of the world population and bears a disproportionate share of the global disease burden. Despite the many challenges the Region faces, it has made important progress towards eliminating several communicable diseases, and has formally endorsed all major global elimination programmes. Recent progress has been strong.

In 2014, the Region was certified polio free. The Region’s last wild polio case was reported in India in January 2011.

In 2016, the Region was validated to have eliminated maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNTE) as a public health problem, with all districts in all 11 countries having reduced cases to less than one per 1000 live births [15]. The Region is the second after Europe to achieve MNTE.

Since 2014, eliminating measles and controlling rubella and congenital rubella syndrome has been a Flagship Priority. In 2017, Bhutan and Maldives became the first two countries in the Region to eliminate measles. They were followed in 2018 by DPR Korea and Timor-Leste and in 2019 by Sri Lanka. Six countries—Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Timor-Leste—have been certified for controlling rubella and congenital rubella syndrome. The Region is now focuses on eliminating both measles and rubella through wider immunization programmes with support from partners such as UNICEF and GAVI [16].

Yaws

This book focuses on diseases like malaria, lymphatic filariasis, yaws, trachoma and mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDs and syphilis. Chapters highlight the historical context, country experience and the best practices which led to the elimination of these infectious disease by the SEAR Member States.

In May 2016, WHO certified India as yaws free after a team of experts verified interruption of disease transmission [17]. India became the first country under the 2012 WHO neglected tropical diseases (NTD) roadmap to eliminate yaws. Indonesia and Timor-Leste are now the only remaining countries in the Region with yaws transmission, which they are working to halt [18].

Mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis

In 2016, Thailand became the first country in Asia to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis [19]. In 2019, Maldives and Sri Lanka followed, with all countries working towards the target [20].

Lymphatic filariasis

Three countries in the Region—Maldives, Sri Lanka and Thailand—have eliminated lymphatic filariasis (LF) as a public health problem [21, 22]. Six LF-endemic countries in the Region are working towards elimination—Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal and Timor-Leste.

Malaria

Two countries in the Region—Sri Lanka and Maldives—have been certified malaria free [23]. In just two years, India has reduced malaria incidence by half.

Trachoma

In 2018, Nepal became the first country in WHO South-East Asia Region to eliminate trachoma, a neglected tropical disease that leads to blindness, as a public health problem.

Leprosy

Leprosy, which was eliminated as a public health problem globally in 2000 and by 2010 in all countries in the SEA Region, still continues to occur and cause disabilities in large number of people at subnational levels in some countries of this Region. Leprosy elimination offers learning on how to sustain disease elimination.

1.5 The Way Forward

Disease elimination and eradication have returned to the global agenda, along with the need to strengthen primary health care and achieve UHC. Diseases targeted for elimination are typically those that disproportionately affect the poor and disadvantaged and include, but are not limited to, yaws, malaria and polio. Elimination campaigns are often attractive to decision-makers because they can attract substantial external and domestic funding, as in the case of AIDS, TB and malaria currently, and smallpox and polio in the past. Elimination campaigns are often accompanied by a sense of urgency that is seldom attached to health service delivery more generally. Disease elimination typically requires granular planning at the district level.

To drive progress towards the complementary goals of disease elimination and UHC, several areas should be of focus.

Link Disease Elimination Efforts with UHC

Disease elimination programmes have long been seen as distinct from broader health systems architecture. In practice, this distinction is not apparent, nor should it be. Elimination campaigns can, with thoughtful planning, promote service integration and strengthen basic services. This was seen in the smallpox campaign, which was leveraged to promote broader immunization strategies in India. The same can be said of malaria control and HIV programmes. Patient- and community-centric disease elimination efforts can—and should—strengthen health service delivery more generally.

To achieve global elimination targets, the world will need investment in UHC and people-centred primary care systems as well as in focused elimination programmes. While disease control elements are often clear and simple, determinants of health coverage are complex and require multifaceted action along with an extended timeframe. In view of the goals and targets identified in the SDG framework, the global community must remain committed to UHC, with a linked outreach component of disease prevention. Such a linkage is necessary to ensure primary and secondary prevention against disease transmission and early detection, as well as treatment at the community level.

Prioritize Multisectoral Engagement for Disease Elimination

High-level political commitment and the involvement of non-health ministries are critical for most disease elimination efforts. Elimination drives should ideally be led by the office of the head of State or planning through a structure similar to the one used for the AIDS response, which has included national AIDS councils or coordinating bodies. While such platforms have, on occasion, marginalized health system-led responses, some variants of national AIDS councils have empowered health systems rather than weakening them. Such platforms have not yet been developed for the diseases set for elimination under the SDG framework. Doing so could potentially aid efforts to go the last mile, and also protect against disease resurgence and even accommodate campaigns for certain non-communicable diseases, such as the phasing out of trans-fats.

Ensure Strong Subnational Action

Key to the elimination agenda is developing subnational frameworks of validation. Although not all disease elimination efforts have done this (opting instead for a national-level approach), subnational frameworks have demonstrated their utility many times over. In the case of malaria elimination efforts, subnational frameworks have allowed for micro-level planning, local administrative ownership (including through monitoring and validation), and locally led efforts to sustain elimination. Subnational frameworks also facilitate the estimation of local resource needs, in addition to local output and outcome measurements. All countries should develop and implement subnational frameworks to sustain and accelerate progress towards the elimination targets.

Ensure Rapid Transmission of Information

Disease elimination efforts have often been guided and informed by arbitrary national benchmarks. In the case of leprosy, for example, reliance on national benchmarks has allowed all countries in Asia to have technically eliminated leprosy, even as substantial pockets of leprosy persist. The achievement of elimination based on national targets has too often limited the long-term political commitment required to address persistent, localized pockets of disease burden.

Every disease elimination campaign must have the capacity to make course corrections, at both the pre-elimination stage, as well as during the last mile. Real-time reporting can inform strategic decision-making for mid-course corrections, for example, by addressing resource gaps and supply failures. But real-time monitoring has yet to become a reality in all programmes, even with a widespread availability of digital communications networks. This must change.

Prioritize Disease Surveillance

Although elimination efforts underscore the need for robust communicable disease surveillance, this function is typically either absent or too weak. Since surveillance is one of the most essential elements for elimination, health systems must initiate and/or strengthen surveillance.

Involve Communities and People

The involvement of local communities can have a significant impact on the success or otherwise of disease elimination efforts. Community engagement can occur in a number of ways. Traditionally, programmes such as insecticide spraying, and the delivery of condoms or medicines to sex workers, were shaped and administered by actors outside the community. They were often met with resistance. Another approach is to involve the community at different stages of planning, design and evaluation of the programme. For example, opening clinics in times and locations acceptable to drug users or LGBT people are good examples of community-centred and informed interventions that local communities have helped shape. These approaches tend to be more successful, although they may be unsustainable once funding has been exhausted.

Increasingly, and especially in the case of HIV, there is growing emphasis on the need for services that are delivered by members of affected communities. Growing evidence indicates that these community-delivered approaches are sustainable, cost-effective and highly successful in achieving the health goals. All efforts should be made to apply similar programmes where appropriate.

Maximize Access to Global Public Goods

To hasten disease elimination, the global community must link technologies and technical approaches developed in the Global North with technical expertise and local know-how in the Global South. The potential impact of combining the strengths of the Global North and South are evident in successful campaigns against smallpox, polio and Guinea worm disease, and should be applied in the present moment as much as possible.

Recognize the Rights of People Affected by Communicable Diseases

Too often, disease control efforts have been motivated more by a desire to protect the “general” population than a recognition of the rights of every person, including those who are marginalized, to the highest attainable standard of health. The interests of local populations were often regarded as secondary. This approach is both heartless and short-sighted. If the SDGs are to be realized, the world must promote and protect the rights, health and well-being of all communities, rich and poor.

Keep the Promise

The global community has committed to making communicable diseases a thing of the past. Taking account of the extraordinary toll these diseases have taken and the threat they continue to pose to future health and well-being, the world must follow through on its pledge, throughout the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Disease elimination and eradication are powerful ideas that can galvanized health systems, donors and governments, while easing the disease burden of the poor and the disadvantaged and reducing health disparities. It is an idea that must complement health systems strengthening and the drive towards UHC so that the Region—and the world—can achieve SDG 3 and build a healthier and more sustainable future for all.