The outbreak is centered in Ituri and other affected areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The response also involves Uganda and Germany after an evacuated U.S. humanitarian worker was confirmed infected and treated in Germany.

An evacuated worker tested positive

Germany notified the WHO on July 13 that the humanitarian worker, who had been evacuated from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, had a laboratory-confirmed Bundibugyo virus infection. The worker was treated in Germany.

The case brought the outbreak response across national borders, but the WHO identified it as an evacuated case connected to the outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It was not reported as evidence of community transmission in Germany.

The Congo figures are a reported tally as of July 15, rather than a final outcome. The WHO said transmission remained active, meaning investigations and reporting could change the number of cases and deaths as the response continues.

Uganda reports no new cases since June 21

Uganda reported no new cases after June 21, according to the WHO. The country’s latest case was discharged on July 16 after receiving two negative test results.

The Ugandan update came as health authorities continued monitoring the cross-border outbreak. The reported lack of new cases after June 21 and the discharge of the latest patient provided the latest status available for Uganda in the WHO update, while transmission continued in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The WHO assessed the risk to the rest of Africa and to the global population as low. That assessment describes the organization’s current evaluation of wider risk; it does not mean that international spread is impossible while the outbreak remains active.

The agency advised against imposing travel or trade restrictions on the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Uganda. Its guidance indicates that broader restrictions are not warranted by the current risk assessment.

Testing and countermeasure work

The WHO is assessing candidate vaccines and therapeutics for Bundibugyo virus disease. The update did not announce a final vaccine or treatment decision.

On July 2, the WHO added the first molecular diagnostic test for Bundibugyo virus to its Emergency Use Listing. The test detects viral genetic material in blood samples.

The listing is intended to accelerate the use of testing for detection, clinical care, surveillance and outbreak response. It gives health authorities a diagnostic tool as they track infections and manage the continuing response.

The outbreak’s current picture therefore combines a large and still-active outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a confirmed evacuated case treated in Germany and no newly reported Ugandan cases since June 21. The WHO’s low assessment for wider regional and global risk stands alongside its advice against travel and trade restrictions and its continuing work on diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics.

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026, produced by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organization, says hunger affected 7.8% of the world’s population last year.

The findings point to limited progress rather than a broad reversal of the global food crisis. Improvements were uneven across regions and insufficient to meet the world’s 2030 hunger and nutrition targets, according to the report.

Progress remains uneven

Africa showed the first signs of improvement since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the report says. But the region continues to face a severe affordability problem: Two-thirds of people in Africa could not afford a healthy diet.

That measure is central to the report’s assessment of food security. A decline in hunger does not necessarily mean households can consistently obtain the varied and nutritious foods associated with a healthy diet. The report links the continuing burden to persistent disparities affecting women, young children and rural communities.

The global figures also distinguish between hunger and broader food insecurity. The report’s estimate of 2.1 billion people covers people experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity, while the 7.8% figure refers specifically to the share of the world’s population affected by hunger. Those measures describe related but different dimensions of the food crisis.

At 249 pages, the report presents a worldwide assessment of hunger, food insecurity, nutrition and the affordability of diets. Its central message is that modest improvement in the global totals has not removed the barriers that keep healthy food out of reach for large parts of the population.

Food prices and global shocks

Food affordability is also shaped by the way food moves through international markets. The FAO has reported that food and agricultural trade rose fivefold since 2000, reaching about $2 trillion. That expansion can connect consumers and producers across borders, but it also leaves some countries exposed when trade routes, supplies or prices are disrupted.

The FAO says disruptions can produce persistent movements in food prices and create food-security risks, particularly in low-income countries that import more food than they export. For households already unable to afford a healthy diet, those shocks can make access to nutritious food even more difficult.

Why the figures matter

The report’s regional and demographic findings make affordability a policy issue as well as a measure of hunger. Governments and international institutions face the challenge of improving food systems while ensuring that households can pay for nutritious diets. The figures for Africa show why global averages can obscure serious regional gaps.

The report also places the 2025 results against a fixed timeline. Progress remains insufficient to meet the 2030 targets, meaning that the modest improvement recorded last year does not establish that the world is on course. The remaining gap is particularly significant for groups identified as facing persistent disparities, including women, young children and rural communities.

The new assessment therefore presents a mixed picture: Hunger affected a smaller share of the global population than the report’s broader food-insecurity measure, and overall conditions improved modestly in 2025. Yet billions still faced moderate or severe food insecurity, while the cost of a healthy diet remained prohibitive for two-thirds of people in Africa.

The WHO Guideline Development Group is due to meet on August 11 and 12, 2026. The meeting is the next step in a global guideline process whose recommendations are intended for implementation across countries. It is not itself a change in WHO guidance.

As of August 8, the meeting had not taken place, and WHO had not issued a revised recommendation or final evidence conclusion. The review could influence future international maternal-health guidance, but it does not establish a new instruction for clinicians or patients.

What WHO will review

The group will examine evidence on calcium supplementation provided before and during pregnancy in relation to the prevention of pre-eclampsia and its complications. The review concerns both the timing of supplementation and its potential role in preventing a serious pregnancy-related condition.

The subject has implications beyond a single clinical decision. WHO describes its guideline process as a global normative effort, meaning that recommendations are intended to help inform implementation across countries. A future update could therefore be relevant to health systems reviewing maternal and newborn care policies.

The meeting notice does not settle what any eventual recommendation would contain. It does not specify a final calcium dose, the population that a potential recommendation would target or the implementation approach WHO might ultimately endorse. Those questions remain part of the guideline-development process rather than established policy.

How the review reached this point

WHO says it prioritized the guideline update in November 2023. The organization also says that evidence synthesis was completed in 2026, setting the stage for the guideline-development group’s scheduled review in August.

The process includes public disclosure about the proposed experts. WHO posted biographies and declarations-of-interest information for the people proposed for the group. That information is intended to make the composition of the panel and relevant conflict-of-interest disclosures visible before the evidence review begins.

The meeting itself is by invitation only. WHO invited public feedback on the proposed experts and the review process through August 7, 2026. That deadline had passed as of August 8, leaving the invited group’s August meeting as the next scheduled step identified in the organization’s announcement.

Why the decision matters

Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy-related condition that can lead to serious complications, making prevention an important question for maternal-health policy. Calcium supplementation is the intervention under review; the scheduled meeting will assess the evidence rather than assume that a particular dose, target population or delivery strategy should be adopted.

For countries that use WHO recommendations when developing or revising health guidance, a later update could affect how calcium supplementation is considered in care before and during pregnancy. The meeting may also clarify how WHO assesses the evidence supporting prevention of pre-eclampsia and related complications.

That potential significance should not be confused with a completed policy decision. WHO has not, as of August 8, announced that it has changed its guidance. The scheduled review does not show that calcium supplementation prevents every case of pre-eclampsia or guarantees improved outcomes.

The next known event is the two-day Guideline Development Group meeting on August 11–12. WHO’s announcement does not give a date for publication of any resulting recommendation. Until the group completes its review and WHO communicates a final decision, the scope and content of any future update remain unresolved.

Both DTP measures increased by one percentage point from the previous year. Even so, global coverage remained one percentage point below 2019 levels, before the disruption associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The figures cover a 2025 birth cohort across 195 WHO and UNICEF Member States.

Millions of children remain outside routine protection

The estimates show that the global increase did not reach every child. WHO and UNICEF calculated that 13.5 million children received no vaccine dose during their first year in 2025. That was nearly 750,000 fewer zero-dose children than the previous year, but the number remains large.

Zero-dose children are those who received no vaccine dose; the measure does not include all children who are partially vaccinated. A further 7.3 million infants received a first DTP dose but did not complete the schedule before the first measles dose.

WHO and UNICEF described vaccination gaps as associated with conditions including conflict, poverty, displacement and hesitancy. The release does not quantify how much each factor contributed globally. The agencies’ recommendations include maintaining services in conflict settings, addressing misinformation, sustaining funding and strengthening disease surveillance.

Measles coverage remains below the outbreak threshold

The measles figures are a central warning in the new estimates. Coverage reached 84% for the first measles vaccine dose and 77% for the second dose in 2025. WHO and UNICEF said both levels were below the 95% threshold they identify as necessary to prevent outbreaks.

Fifty-seven countries reported large or disruptive measles outbreaks during 2025. The figures do not establish that vaccination gaps alone caused every outbreak, but they indicate continued susceptibility where coverage is below the stated threshold.

WHO’s accompanying immunization fact sheet said nearly 21 million children missed the routine first measles dose in 2025. It also reported that first-dose human papillomavirus vaccine coverage among girls was 33%, adding another measure of uneven protection across the life course.

What the data does—and does not—show

The estimates are known as WUENIC, the WHO and UNICEF Estimates of National Immunization Coverage. The underlying data came from 195 countries, including 185 that supplied 2025 coverage data. WHO’s global immunization data portal identifies the figures as the 2025 revision completed on July 15, 2026.

For some calculations involving countries that did not report, WHO and UNICEF used the previous year’s estimate. The organizations also revise WUENIC annually as additional country data become available. That means the July release is the current estimate for 2025, not necessarily the final number that will appear in future revisions.

The immediate policy question is whether the modest gains can be extended while closing the remaining gaps. The agencies’ data show progress from 2024, but also a global DTP rate still below 2019 and measles coverage far below the level they say is needed to prevent outbreaks. The next known step is continued annual updating of the estimates, alongside the recommended work on access, financing, misinformation and surveillance.

The international distribution has expanded the reach of a food-safety response involving recalls, product testing, traceability work and risk communication. WHO said the overall public-health risk was moderate, while emphasizing that infants are especially vulnerable and that the full scope of the event is not yet known.

From Jan. 1 through Feb. 25, 2026, countries reported 144 suspected and confirmed cases across 10 countries in three WHO regions. Belgium had eight laboratory-confirmed intoxications linked to implicated products as of Feb. 25.

Those figures should not be read as 144 laboratory-confirmed cases. WHO said countries used different case definitions and surveillance methods, making the reported totals less directly comparable.

How the recall developed

The first recalls began Dec. 10, 2025. The products at issue included infant formula and other nutritional products containing the implicated arachidonic-acid oil, which was contaminated with cereulide toxin.

Cereulide is the specific contaminant identified in the WHO report. The report describes implicated products and recalled batches, but distribution to a country does not mean that every product, batch or brand sold there was contaminated.

WHO said recalled products had moved through 99 countries and territories, creating a cross-border challenge for national food-safety authorities, retailers and supply chains. Officials must determine where implicated batches were sent, while testing and surveillance help establish whether reported illnesses are connected to those products.

The agency said recall effectiveness and product traceability remained uneven. Additional affected batches could still be identified, and the full root cause of the contamination had not been established.

Why the international response matters

Infant formula is a critical product for families who depend on it, and a disruption can have consequences beyond the withdrawal of a single item from store shelves. WHO warned that localized shortages could occur in places where consumers rely heavily on particular products.

The distribution figure also illustrates why national action alone may not be enough. A product or ingredient can cross multiple borders before authorities identify a problem, requiring information to move between governments and food-safety networks.

The response involves WHO, the International Food Safety Authorities Network, national food-safety authorities and the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. These systems support information-sharing, distribution tracing and action on products identified as implicated.

WHO’s moderate risk assessment reflects several factors described in its report: the vulnerability of infants, uncertainty about how widely affected products were distributed and gaps in the detection of cases. The assessment is not a declaration that the event has ended or that all risks have been resolved.

What happens next

Recalls, testing, traceability work and risk communication were still ongoing in WHO’s March 13 notice. Authorities are expected to continue matching implicated batches to distribution records, investigating reported illnesses and communicating with consumers and the food-supply sector.

Investigators also must clarify the contamination’s full cause and scope. WHO said the complete root cause and traceability picture remained under investigation, leaving open the possibility that further affected batches or cases could emerge.

The case total is based on situation data through Feb. 25, while the WHO notice was published March 13. The available report therefore provides a snapshot of an active international recall rather than a final count or a completed investigation.

For consumers, retailers and public-health officials, the practical issue remains identifying the specific products and batches covered by official recall information in each market. The presence of recalled products in 99 countries and territories does not establish that every formula product in those markets is affected, but it does show the scale of the traceability and communication task still facing authorities.

The seventh meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group ran from July 6 through July 17, 2026. In a July 20 update, the World Health Organization said countries streamlined parts of the draft Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing, or PABS, annex while continuing discussions on several politically and technically difficult issues.

What the July talks changed

The proposed system is designed to encourage countries and laboratories to share pathogen materials and genetic sequence information quickly during a potential pandemic. In return, the framework would connect that sharing to fair access to benefits developed from the information, including vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics.

WHO said negotiations focused on the contracts that would support the system, the structure of laboratory networks handling pathogen materials and sequence information, recognized sequence databases, and how benefits should be defined and distributed.

Those details matter because they would help determine who can access shared materials, what participating manufacturers would be expected to provide, and how quickly countries could use scientific information during a health emergency. The practical effects, however, depend on the final text, later adoption and implementation, and participation by manufacturers and other institutions.

Why the broader agreement is still pending

The World Health Assembly adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement on May 20, 2025, but the agreement’s process is not complete. The PABS annex remains a required part of the package. WHO’s explanation of the process says the agreement can open for signature only after the annex is adopted by the Health Assembly.

That means the July outcome was progress in negotiations, not approval or completion of the agreement. A PABS document issued before the July session remains a draft negotiating text rather than an adopted legal instrument.

The WHO Secretariat is facilitating and reporting on the process, but member states—not WHO officials acting independently—are negotiating and deciding the text.

What happens next

The next scheduled negotiating session is set for September 14 through September 18, 2026. That meeting is not a guaranteed deadline for completion. The outcome is expected to go to the Eightieth World Health Assembly in May 2027, or earlier if a special Health Assembly session is convened in 2026.

For the public, there is no immediate change to vaccine access, national pandemic rules or emergency health procedures from the July meeting alone. The significance is procedural but consequential: countries are still trying to settle the terms of a future bargain in which faster sharing of pathogen information is tied to clearer and more equitable access to the products developed from it.

Sources

• WHO July 20 negotiating-session update
• WHO draft PABS Annex and A79/8 report

What WHO’s new report covers (and the key data lag)

WHO’s update uses surveillance data with a specific cut-off: data as of May 31, 2026. Later developments may not be reflected yet, and WHO cautions that underreporting and reporting delays can affect how quickly and consistently case counts are recorded across countries.

What changed since the prior month

For May 2026 (epidemiological weeks 19 to 22), WHO says 29,610 new cholera and AWD cases were reported from 16 countries, territories, and areas across four WHO regions—a 43% increase from the previous month. During the same period, WHO reports 271 cholera-related deaths globally, a 30% increase from the previous month.

WHO also frames the overall situation as a “very high” global risk, estimating a population at risk of 1 billion in the update.

Why WHO says conditions are making outbreaks harder to control now

In its risk framing, WHO points to compounding drivers that can both accelerate transmission and slow response—especially where outbreaks intersect with humanitarian crises. WHO links elevated outbreak risk to conflict and mass displacement, disasters associated with natural hazards, and climate-related events.

WHO’s practical mechanism is straightforward: these pressures can create conditions that facilitate cholera transmission, while poor infrastructure and limited access to healthcare can delay treatment.

WHO also highlights field constraints tied to insecurity and chronic WASH gaps—such as insufficient safe water, poor WASH conditions, and challenges accessing “hotspot” areas due to insecurity and conflict.

Sudan example: what “access is very limited” looks like on the ground

To illustrate what elevated risk means in operational terms, UN Geneva’s newsroom relayed a WHO briefing on July 10, 2026 about Sudan. WHO’s Sudan representative said cholera was affecting several western states and reported more than 1,330 confirmed cases and 114 deaths. The briefing also emphasized that access was particularly limited for El-Obeid in North Kordofan, where health facilities were described as overwhelmed and access to care as “very, very limited.”

WHO also warned that the rainy season is expected to worsen the situation.

Where risk concentrates in WHO’s regional picture

WHO’s regional overviews show the month’s reported burden concentrating mainly in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and the African Region, with no cases reported during the same period from the European Region or the Western Pacific Region.

In May 2026, WHO reports the Eastern Mediterranean Region registered 15,312 new cholera and AWD cases across four countries (including Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan). The African Region reported 14,230 new cholera cases across 10 countries, with the highest number of cases reported from Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, and South Sudan.

What to watch next (next days and next surveillance cycles)

Because WHO’s update is anchored to a May 31 surveillance cut-off, the near-term question is whether new surveillance reports show continued increases—or whether response measures are helping limit further spread in the most stressed settings.

Across updates, readers can look for:

• Updated case and death trends by country (noting WHO’s caution about underreporting and differences in surveillance systems).
• Signals of whether WASH constraints and access limits are easing or worsening, especially in displacement-affected areas.
• New outbreak alerts or expansions of affected geographic areas—along the lines of WHO-linked alerts highlighted in recent UN Geneva briefings.
• Status context from the WHO Health Emergency Dashboard (supporting verification for where events are active, not the only source for epidemiological trend numbers).

For affected communities and for public-health observers outside outbreak zones, the throughline remains consistent with WHO’s framing: cholera risk rises when safe water and sanitation are compromised and when timely treatment and access to care become difficult. The next surveillance updates should show whether those constraints are intensifying—or starting to improve—in the countries carrying most of the reported burden.

Sources

• World Health Organization (WHO): Multi-country outbreak of cholera — Epidemiological update #38 (30 June 2026) (publication page)
• WHO: Epidemiological update #38 PDF (30 June 2026) — multi-country outbreak of cholera
• WHO Health Emergency Dashboard
• UN Geneva newsroom: Sudan cholera alert — WHO (10 July 2026)
• WHO AFRO: Cholera situation report (July 2026) landing page (Africa region)

What changed in WHO’s risk picture

In WHO’s assessment across Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan, more than 37.8 million people are experiencing or projected to experience acute food insecurity. WHO also projects over 4.9 million children will suffer acute malnutrition, including more than 1.5 million children who will require treatment for severe acute malnutrition (SAM).

WHO links these numbers to a broader health chain reaction: as acute malnutrition rises—especially among children under five and pregnant and lactating women—weakened immunity and worsening living conditions increase vulnerability to communicable diseases and other causes of preventable mortality. WHO also highlights the combined pressure of recurrent outbreaks and reduced access to essential health services, especially for displaced populations, refugees, returnees, pastoralist communities, and people in hard-to-reach or insecure areas.

Climate-related shocks are part of this mix. Separately, WHO’s climate/heat-and-health materials note pathways by which heat stress and extreme heat can worsen underlying illness risks and affect health service delivery capacity—an illustration of why climate impacts can amplify convergence risk for vulnerable communities.

The disease risks WHO flags (and why malnutrition amplifies them)

WHO says countries are responding to multiple epidemic-prone illnesses at the same time, including cholera/acute watery diarrhoea, measles, malaria, dengue, mpox, and other communicable disease risks. The core warning is not only that these outbreaks can spread, but that nutrition deterioration and disrupted health systems increase the chance that infections become severe and life-threatening—especially where early detection and timely referral are weak.

Operational reality check: treatment capacity and referrals are not keeping up

WHO highlights that the practical bottleneck is often not demand—it is functional capacity. The report notes a multi-factor overlap problem: several areas facing high acute food insecurity and malnutrition have limited access to functional stabilization capacity needed to manage SAM with medical complications. WHO also points to recurring operational constraints:

• Insufficient and unpredictable funding that limits the scale, speed and continuity of life-saving interventions.
• Insecurity and restricted humanitarian access that delay or prevent service delivery.
• Overstretched health systems and shortages of trained health workers.
• Supply chain disruptions (pipeline breaks, shipping delays, increased fuel/transport costs, and limited stock of SAM-related kits and essential medicines).
• Inadequate stabilization-centre functionality and referral pathways in high-risk areas, especially where access is restricted.
• Surveillance and reporting gaps (including nutrition surveillance and outbreak alert verification), increasing the risk of under-detection of malnutrition and outbreaks.

The near-term “test” for prevention and treatment: $25.4 million for July–December 2026

WHO says it requires approximately US$25.4 million over the next six months (July–December 2026) to sustain priority life-saving health and nutrition interventions. Importantly, WHO frames this as needed support for the period ahead—not as money already secured.

WHO’s estimated budget allocations are:

• US$3.5 million for emergency coordination, technical leadership and IMST support
• US$5.0 million for surveillance, EWARS, and outbreak preparedness/response
• US$9.7 million for essential health and nutrition services, including Nutrition Stabilization Centres and capacity building
• US$4.7 million for emergency supplies, logistics and operational support
• US$2.5 million for cross-cutting functions (information management, RCCE, PSEAH, monitoring and evaluation, surge deployments and technical backstopping)

What to watch next

Over the coming months, WHO’s report points to three practical pressure points to monitor: (1) whether stabilization centres and referral pathways regain adequate functionality for children with SAM plus medical complications; (2) whether surveillance and early warning improve enough to detect outbreaks before they overwhelm services; and (3) whether funding continuity preserves essential health and nutrition services while outbreak response remains active.

Sources

• WHO, Greater Horn of Africa Food Insecurity and Health Crisis — Situation Report No. 1 (April–June 2026; published July 2026)
• WHO Fact Sheet: Climate change, heat and health

What changed in WHO’s latest numbers

WHO published this as epidemiological update #38 on June 30, 2026, with data as of 31 May 2026. The report frames the pattern as part of an ongoing cholera upsurge, not a one-off flare.

There’s also an important context note: WHO says these month-over-month comparisons can be affected by underreporting, reporting delays, and differences in surveillance and case definitions across countries. WHO cautions that those factors can limit direct comparability across settings.

Even with the rise versus the previous month, WHO reported that cases in May 2026 were 59% lower than the same period last year, and deaths were 61% lower—suggesting the current wave is “up” relative to recent gains, while still below last year’s levels for the same months.

Where the rise is showing up

For the May 2026 period, WHO said cases were reported from 16 countries, territories, and areas across four WHO regions, with the Eastern Mediterranean Region recording the highest case counts, followed by the African Region, then South-East Asia, and the Region of the Americas.

Eastern Mediterranean Region (May 2026): WHO reported the most cases from Afghanistan, alongside Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan—and Sudan accounted for most cholera-related deaths in that region.

African Region (May 2026): WHO reported the highest numbers of cases from Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, along with Angola and South Sudan. Cholera-related deaths were concentrated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, and Angola.

Other regions (May 2026): WHO reported cases from Myanmar in South-East Asia and cases from Haiti in the Americas during this period, with no cholera-related deaths reported in those regions in May.

Across the longer window from Jan. 1 to May 31, 2026, WHO reported 114,829 cholera/AWD cases and 1,318 deaths across 23 countries, again concentrated in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Why the upswing is hard to contain

WHO’s cholera upsurge situation page links the repeated waves to conditions that make contamination and rapid spread more likely—especially where safe water and sanitation are limited. WHO notes that climate extremes and conflict can reduce access to clean water and worsen outbreak conditions.

WHO also highlights a practical constraint for response: global capacity is being stretched and there is a shortage of cholera tools, including vaccines. WHO describes the overall global risk as very high and says it is responding urgently to reduce deaths and contain outbreaks.

What this means for U.S. readers—especially travelers and aid workers

Cholera spreads through contaminated food and water, and CDC says cholera activity varies by location even within a country. CDC’s traveler guidance focuses on avoiding unsafe food and water and washing hands frequently in outbreak settings.

CDC also explains that cholera vaccination is not routinely recommended for most travelers because cholera is rare for travelers and most people do not visit areas with active transmission. When vaccine is available, CDC says to consider vaccination based on the destination’s transmission level and the traveler’s exposure risk (for example, longer stays, outbreak-setting work, or limited ability to adhere to food and water precautions). CDC’s guidance references CVD 103-HgR (Vaxchora) for eligible travelers going to areas of active toxigenic Vibrio cholerae O1 transmission.

What to watch next

WHO indicates that starting in July, the cholera epidemiological update will be included on a monthly basis in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (WER), which should make it easier to track whether the renewed rise continues or eases.

Sources

• WHO (30 June 2026): Multi-country outbreak of cholera — Epidemiological update #38
• CDC Travelers’ Health: Cholera information for health care professionals (travel guidance)

What changed this week

The biggest new development is scientific rather than clinical proof: WHO said the PARTNERS trial opened enrollment on July 2 in Congo to test whether remdesivir, the monoclonal antibody MBP134, or both can improve survival. AP reported that the first participant has now been enrolled. That is an important step, but it is not evidence yet that either treatment works.

Why Bundibugyo matters

WHO says the Bundibugyo species of Ebola has no vaccine or specific treatment. For now, control depends on surveillance, contact tracing, infection prevention, clinical care, supplies, and community cooperation. People enrolled in the trial will be followed closely for at least 28 days.

Why it is hard to contain

WHO says the outbreak is unfolding in a remote but densely populated area facing humanitarian crisis, insecurity, and high population and trade movement. Those conditions make it harder to trace contacts, move supplies, isolate patients, and keep health teams ahead of each new transmission chain. WHO says it is scaling up support with Congo and Uganda on surveillance, clinical preparedness, logistics, community engagement, and cross-border readiness.

What to watch next

The main questions are whether case counts slow, whether Uganda avoids renewed spread, and whether the trial expands safely beyond the current treatment center. For readers, the practical takeaway is simple: this outbreak is still active, still cross-border, and still a test of whether health systems can move fast enough in difficult terrain.

Sources

• WHO Disease Outbreak News: Ebola disease caused by Bundibugyo virus
• AP: First Ebola treatment study in Congo