Protection against omicron (B.1.1.529) BA.2 reinfection conferred by primary omicron BA.1 or pre-omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection among health-care workers with and without mRNA vaccination: a test-negative case-control study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274455: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: Ethics statement: The study was conducted under the legal mandate of the National Director of Public Health of Quebec under the Public Health Act and was also approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec-Université Laval.
    IRB: Ethics statement: The study was conducted under the legal mandate of the National Director of Public Health of Quebec under the Public Health Act and was also approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec-Université Laval.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationControls were SARS-CoV-2 test-negative during the study period; for individuals with multiple negative tests, a single negative specimen per individual was randomly selected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has limitations, notably including that unrecognized/undocumented asymptomatic infections may have led to under-estimation of infection-induced protection. Mathematical modeling, however, suggests such misclassification is likely to have had minimal impact on our findings.39 Although we could not control for the bias of differential virus exposure,40 similar patterns when directly comparing protected groups (e.g. previously-infected, vaccinated vs. non-infected, vaccinated), are reassuring. Immuno-compromised people were prioritized for an early third dose in Quebec.12 To limit under-estimation of three-dose VE associated with their potentially sub-optimal immune responses41,42, we excluded specimens from people re-vaccinated at <90-day interval between second and third doses. Our results apply to those surviving their primary infection; with <1% of NAAT-confirmed cases dying, their exclusion will not have meaningfully influenced estimates. Our findings reflect heterologous infection- and/or vaccine-induced protection; homologous protection is anticipated to be higher.43 As they were highly correlated, it was not possible to distinguish variation in protection based on VOC-specific vs. time since primary infection.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.