Abstract
Background COVID-19 immunity passports could protect the right to free movement but may also critics worry about insufficient evidence, privacy, fraud, and discrimination.
Objective To characterize the global physician community’s opinion regarding immunity passports.
Design Cross sectional, random stratified sample of physicians registered with Sermo, a global networking platform open to verified and licensed physicians.
Main outcome measures The survey asked: “Digital immunity passports, based on antibody testing, are being considered to offer proof (e.g. via an app or QR code) that a person has developed lasting immunity to COVID-19 and hence can return to work or travel freely. In your opinion, do we know enough about COVID-19 immunity and it’s duration to offer such immunity passports at the present time?” Possible answers were YES, NO, and UNCERTAIN.
Results The survey was completed by 1004 physicians (67 specialties, 40 countries, 49% frontline specialties) with a mean (SD) age of 49.14 (12) years. Overall, 52% answered NO, 17% were UNCERTAIN, and 31% answered YES (p<0.05). EU physicians were more likely to say YES but even among them it did not exceed 35% approval. US physicians (60%) were more likely to say NO (p<0.05) (Figure).
Conclusions Our findings suggest a current lack of support among physicians for immunity passports. It is hoped that ongoing research and vaccine trials will provide further clarity.
Competing Interest Statement
PMD has received research grants from and/or served as an advisor or board member to government agencies, technology and healthcare businesses, and advocacy groups for other projects, and owns shares in companies whose products are not discussed here. Professor Bramstedt owns a bioethics consulting company (AskTheEthicist, LLC) with industry clients involved in immunology and COVID-19; however, none of her clients were involved in this project.
Funding Statement
The authors received no external funding support for these analyses and have no financial ties to Sermo. Sermo provided the platform but was not involved in data interpretation, manuscript preparation, or decision to submit. Authors had full access to all the data and accept responsibility to submit for publication.
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:
This anonymous survey was conducted in September 2020 following an online informed consent process. This was a broad survey across many topics of which one question pertained to immunology. De-identified data was analyzed for this report. This was reviewed and deemed exempt research by the Duke University Medical Center Institutional Review Board.
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
Data will be made available upon approval for publication in a peer reviewed journal.
