MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387861183 · doi:10.1101/2023.10.20.23297317

Reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among household contacts with recent vaccination and past COVID-19 infection: results from two multi-site case-ascertained household transmission studies

2023· preprint· en· W4387861183 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa A. Rolfes, H. Keipp Talbot, Kerry Grace Morrissey, Melissa S. Stockwell, Yvonne Maldonado, Huong Q. McLean, Karen Lutrick, Natalie M. Bowman, Suchitra Rao, Héctor S. Izurieta, Yuwei Zhu, James D. Chappell, Steph Battan-Wraith, Lori Merrill, Son McClaren, Ellen Sano, Joshua G. Petrie, Jessica Biddle, Sheroi Johnson, Philip Salvatore, Sarah E. Smith-Jeffcoat, Edwin J. Asturias, Jessica T. Lin, Katherine Ellingson, Edward A. Belongia, Vanessa Olivo, Alexandra M. Mellis, Carlos G. Grijalva

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCenters for Disease Control and PreventionSeqirusVanderbilt University Medical CenterVanderbilt UniversitySanofi
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineImmunityTransmission (telecommunications)Poisson regressionRisk of infectionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)ImmunologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Herd immunityInfection controlDiseaseImmune systemInternal medicineEnvironmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)PopulationIntensive care medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, but it is less clear what effect vaccines have on reducing the risk of infection in high contact settings like households, alone or in combination with prior infection. Methods Households with an individual who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during Sep 2021–May 2023 were screened nationwide and at 7 sentinel sites and enrolled if the index case’s illness onset was ≤6 days prior. Household members had daily self-collected nasal swabs tested by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 vaccination status was assessed by plausible self-report (with date) or vaccination records. Prior infection was assessed by self-reported prior testing and by anti-nucleocapsid antibodies presence at enrollment. The effects of prior immunity, including vaccination, prior infection, or hybrid immunity (both vaccination and prior infection) on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among household contacts were assessed by robust, clustered multivariable Poisson regression. Findings There were 1,532 contacts from 905 households included in this analysis. Of these, 67% were enrolled May–November 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 predominated. Most contacts (89%) had some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 at the time of household exposure: 8% had immunity from prior infection alone, 51% from vaccination alone, and 29% had hybrid immunity. Sixty percent of contacts tested SARS-CoV-2-positive during follow-up. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not significantly reduced by vaccination but was reduced among those with prior infection considering such immunity separately (adjusted relative risk 0.83; 95% confidence interval: 0.77, 0.90); however, when accounting for both sources of immunity, only contacts with vaccination and prior infection had significantly reduced risk of infection (aRR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.93). The risk of infection was lower when the last immunizing event (vaccination or infection) occurred ≤6 months before COVID-19 affected the household (aRR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.83). Interpretation Immunity from COVID-19 vaccination and prior infection was synergistic in protecting household contacts from SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data support COVID-19 vaccination, even for those who have been previously infected. Research in context Evidence before this study We searched PubMed using the terms (“hybrid immunity” or “natural immunity”) AND (“SARS-CoV-2” or COVID*) in October of 2023 to identify previous research into the role of hybrid immunity (defined as immunity from prior infection and vaccination) in susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections. We reviewed 512 articles for estimates of the association between hybrid immunity and susceptibility to illness, infection, or reinfection in humans. Multiple previous meta-analyses were identified, including a meta-regression from 2023 finding that hybrid immunity was associated with 61% reduction in risk of infection compared to immune-naïve individuals 6 months after the immunizing event. The estimates included in this meta-regression were all published before June of 2022, prior to the widespread circulation of Omicron BA.4, BA.5, or recombinant lineages, and none reported on the risk of infection in a setting of household exposures. Added value of the study In a pair of multi-site case-ascertained household transmission investigations with the majority of enrollments occurring during the Omicron BA4/5 predominant periods, the risk of infection among household contacts of a person with SARS-CoV-2 infection was high. In a study design with systematic, daily testing of household contacts regardless of symptoms, serological verification of prior infection, and vaccine verification, the primary result of analyses of infection risk among household contacts was that this risk was lowest among those with hybrid immunity. The estimate of the magnitude of this protection was lower than in previous reports of protection in other settings. Implications of all the available evidence The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among household contacts was lowest among those with hybrid immunity, compared to those with no previous immunity, vaccination alone, or previous infection alone. These findings underscore the importance of staying updated with COVID-19 vaccinations, even for individuals with prior infection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→