Exploring the acceptability of controlled human infection with SARSCoV2—a public consultation
D. Gbesemete,
M. Barker,
W. T. Lawrence,
D. Watson,
H. de Graaf,
R. C. Read
Affiliations
D. Gbesemete
Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, School of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, NIHR Clinical Research Facility and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Mailpoint 218, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Tremona Road
M. Barker
MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, D08 Institute of Developmental Science and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
W. T. Lawrence
MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, D08 Institute of Developmental Science and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
D. Watson
School of Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, D08 Institute of Developmental Science, University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
H. de Graaf
Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, School of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, NIHR Clinical Research Facility and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Mailpoint 218, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Tremona Road
R. C. Read
Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, School of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, NIHR Clinical Research Facility and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital
Abstract Rapid development of an effective vaccine for SARSCoV2 is a global priority. A controlled human infection model (CHIM) would accelerate the efficacy assessment of candidate vaccines. This strategy would require deliberate exposure of volunteers to SARSCoV2 with no currently available treatment and a small but definite risk of serious illness or death. This raises complex questions about the social and ethical acceptability of risk to individuals, given the potential benefit to the wider population, and as such, a study cannot be done without public involvement. We conducted a structured public consultation with 57 individuals aged 20–40 years to understand public attitudes to a CHIM, and pre-requisites for enrolment. The overall response to this strategy was positive, and many would volunteer altruistically. Carefully controlled infection is viewed as safer than natural exposure to wild virus. The prolonged social isolation required for the proposed CHIM is considered an obstacle but not insurmountable, with reasonable compensation and supportive care. Given the significant level of public interest, a CHIM should be done as open science with regular, controlled dissemination of information into the public domain. Importantly, there was a strong view that the final decision whether to conduct a CHIM should be in the hands of qualified and experienced clinician-scientists and the authorities.
