MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4301372703 · doi:10.1101/2022.10.02.22280610

Protective effectiveness of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against Omicron infection and severe disease: a systematic review and meta-regression

2022· review· en· W4301372703 sur OpenAlexaff
Niklas Bobrovitz, Xiaomeng Ma, Zihan Li, Reza Hosseini, Christian Cao, Anabel Selemon, Mairead Whelan, Zahra Premji, Hanane Issa, Brianna Cheng, Laith J. Abu‐Raddad, David L. Buckeridge, Maria D. Van Kerkhove, Vanessa Piechotta, Melissa M. Higdon, Annelies Wilder‐Smith, Isabel Bergeri, Daniel R. Feikin, Rahul K. Arora, Minal Patel, Lorenzo Subissi

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineVaccinationInternal medicineImmunityMeta-analysisDiseaseMeta-regressionImmunologyImmune system

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Summary Background We aimed to systematically review the magnitude and duration of the protective effectiveness of prior infection (PE) and hybrid immunity (HE) against Omicron infection and severe disease. Methods We searched pre-print and peer-reviewed electronic databases for controlled studies from January 1, 2020, to June 1, 2022. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I)-Tool. We used random-effects meta-regression to estimate the magnitude of protection at 1-month intervals and the average change in protection since the last vaccine dose or infection from 3 months to 6 or 12 months. We compared our estimates of PE and HE to previously published estimates of the magnitude and durability of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against Omicron. Findings Eleven studies of prior infection and 15 studies of hybrid immunity were included. For prior infection, there were 97 estimates (27 at moderate RoB and 70 at serious RoB), with the longest follow up at 15 months. PE against hospitalization or severe disease was 82·5% [71·8-89·7%] at 3 months, and 74·6% [63·1-83·5%] at 12 months. PE against reinfection was 65·2% [52·9-75·9%] at 3 months, and 24·7% [16·4-35·5%] at 12 months. For HE, there were 153 estimates (78 at moderate RoB and 75 at serious RoB), with the longest follow up at 11 months for primary series vaccination and 4 months for first booster vaccination. Against hospitalization or severe disease, HE involving either primary series vaccination or first booster vaccination was consistently >95% for the available follow up. Against reinfection, HE involving primary series vaccination was 69·0% [58·9-77·5%] at 3 months after the most recent infection or vaccination, and 41·8% [31·5-52·8%] at 12 months, while HE involving first booster vaccination was 68·6% [58·8-76·9%] at 3 months, and 46·5% [36·0-57·3%] at 6 months. Against hospitalization or severe disease at 6 months, hybrid immunity with first booster vaccination (effectiveness 95·3% [81·9-98·9%]) or with primary series alone (96·5% [90·2-98·8%]) provided significantly greater protection than prior infection alone (80·1% [70·3-87·2%]), first booster vaccination alone (76·7% [72·5-80·4%]), or primary series alone (64·6% [54·5-73·6%]). Results for protection against reinfection were similar. Interpretation Prior infection and hybrid immunity both provided greater and more sustained protection against Omicron than vaccination alone. All protection estimates waned quickly against infection but remained high for hospitalisation or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection against all outcomes, reinforcing the global imperative for vaccination. Funding WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. Research in context Evidence before this study The global emergence and rapid spread of Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern, characterized by their ability to escape immunity, has required scientists and policymakers to reassess the population protection against Omicron infection and severe disease. So far, few systematic reviews have incorporated data on Omicron, and none have examined the protection against Omicron conferred by hybrid immunity (i.e. the immunity gained from the combination of vaccination and prior infection) which is now widespread globally. While one preprint has recently reported protection from prior infection over time, no systematic review has systematically compared the magnitude and duration of vaccination, prior infection, and hybrid immunity. A large single-country study has reported that protection from either infection or hybrid immunity against Omicron infection wanes to low levels at 15 months, but is relatively stable against severe disease. Added value of this study Prior infection and hybrid immunity both provided greater and more sustained protection against Omicron than vaccination alone. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection against all outcomes; protection against severe disease remained above 95% until the end of available follow-up at 11 months after hybrid immunity with primary series and 4 months after hybrid immunity with booster vaccination, and was sustained at these high levels of protection in projections to 12 months and 6 months, respectively. Implications of all the available evidence These results may serve to tailor guidance on the optimal number and timing of vaccinations. At the public health level, these findings can be combined with data on local infection prevalence, vaccination rates, and their timing. In settings with high seroprevalence, limited resources, and competing health priorities, it may be reasonable to focus on achieving high coverage rates with primary series among individuals who are at higher risk of poor outcome, as this will provide a high level of protection against severe disease for at least one year among those with prior infection. Furthermore, given the waning protection for both infection-and vaccine induced immunity against infection or reinfection, mass vaccination could be timed for roll-out prior to periods of expected increased incidence, such as the winter season. At the individual level, these results can be combined with knowledge of a person’s infection and vaccination history. A six-month delay in booster may be justified after the last infection or vaccination for individuals with a known prior infection and full primary series vaccination. Further follow-up of the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospitalization or severe disease for all vaccines is needed to clarify how much waning of protection might occur with longer duration since the last infection or vaccination. Producing estimates of protection for new variant-containing vaccines will be crucial for COVID-19 vaccine policy and decision-making bodies. Policy makers considering the use and timing of vaccinations should include the local extent of past infection, the protection conferred by prior infection or hybrid immunity, and the duration of this protection as key considerations to inform their decision-making.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,183
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,381
Écart entre enseignants0,309 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxivMême sujetSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchTravaux en français237 207