Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Tensions between research and public health: modelling the risks and benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine field trials versus human infection challenge studies

View ORCID ProfileGeorge S Heriot, View ORCID ProfileEuzebiusz Jamrozik, View ORCID ProfileMichael J Selgelid
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.18.20106187
George S Heriot
1School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne VIC 3004, Australia
2Department of General Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan St, Parkville VIC 3050, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for George S Heriot
  • For correspondence: george.heriot@monash.edu
Euzebiusz Jamrozik
2Department of General Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan St, Parkville VIC 3050, Australia
3Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Wellington Rd, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Euzebiusz Jamrozik
Michael J Selgelid
3Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Wellington Rd, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael J Selgelid
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Human infection challenge studies (HICS) with SARS-CoV-2 are under consideration as a way of accelerating vaccine development. We evaluate potential vaccine research strategies under a range of epidemic conditions determined, in part, by the intensity of public health interventions.

Methods We constructed a compartmental epidemiological model incorporating public health interventions, vaccine efficacy trials and a post-trial population vaccination campaign. The model was used to estimate the duration and benefits of large-scale field trials in comparison with HICS accompanied by an expanded safety trial, and to assess the marginal risk faced by HICS participants.

Results Field trials may demonstrate vaccine efficacy more rapidly than a HICS strategy under epidemic conditions consistent with moderate mitigation policies. A HICS strategy is the only feasible option for testing vaccine efficacy under epidemic suppression, and maximises the benefits of post-trial vaccination. Less successful or absent mitigation results in minimal or no benefit from post-trial vaccination, irrespective of trial design.

Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 HICS are the optimal method of vaccine testing for populations maintained under epidemic suppression, where vaccination offers the greatest benefits to the local population.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

N/A

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All input data and model specifications are provided in the manuscript.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted May 27, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Tensions between research and public health: modelling the risks and benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine field trials versus human infection challenge studies
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Tensions between research and public health: modelling the risks and benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine field trials versus human infection challenge studies
George S Heriot, Euzebiusz Jamrozik, Michael J Selgelid
medRxiv 2020.05.18.20106187; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.18.20106187
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Tensions between research and public health: modelling the risks and benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine field trials versus human infection challenge studies
George S Heriot, Euzebiusz Jamrozik, Michael J Selgelid
medRxiv 2020.05.18.20106187; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.18.20106187

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (216)
  • Allergy and Immunology (495)
  • Anesthesia (106)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1099)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (196)
  • Dermatology (141)
  • Emergency Medicine (274)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (502)
  • Epidemiology (9781)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (481)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2317)
  • Geriatric Medicine (223)
  • Health Economics (462)
  • Health Informatics (1563)
  • Health Policy (737)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (606)
  • Hematology (238)
  • HIV/AIDS (506)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11655)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (617)
  • Medical Education (239)
  • Medical Ethics (67)
  • Nephrology (258)
  • Neurology (2146)
  • Nursing (134)
  • Nutrition (338)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (427)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (518)
  • Oncology (1183)
  • Ophthalmology (365)
  • Orthopedics (128)
  • Otolaryngology (220)
  • Pain Medicine (147)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (312)
  • Pediatrics (698)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (302)
  • Primary Care Research (267)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2187)
  • Public and Global Health (4672)
  • Radiology and Imaging (781)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (457)
  • Respiratory Medicine (624)
  • Rheumatology (274)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (226)
  • Sports Medicine (210)
  • Surgery (252)
  • Toxicology (43)
  • Transplantation (120)
  • Urology (94)