Protection of COVID-19 vaccination and previous infection against Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and Delta SARS-CoV-2 infections
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Given the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants and the roll-out of booster COVID-19 vaccination, evidence is needed on protection conferred by primary vaccination, booster vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by variant. We employed a test-negative design on S-gene target failure data from community PCR testing in the Netherlands from 22 November 2021 to 31 March 2022 (n = 671,763). Previous infection, primary vaccination or both protected well against Delta infection. Protection against Omicron BA.1 infection was much lower compared to Delta. Protection was similar against Omicron BA.1 compared to BA.2 infection after previous infection, primary and booster vaccination. Higher protection was observed against all variants in individuals with both vaccination and previous infection compared with either one. Protection against all variants decreased over time since last vaccination or infection. We found that primary vaccination with current COVID-19 vaccines and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections offered low protection against Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 infection. Booster vaccination considerably increased protection against Omicron infection, but decreased rapidly after vaccination.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.06.22270457: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:Our data has some limitations. Vaccination status is self-reported and may have led to some misclassification, although we do not expect a differential misclassification effect by variant. Because only the number of doses and brand of last dose was …
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.06.22270457: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:Our data has some limitations. Vaccination status is self-reported and may have led to some misclassification, although we do not expect a differential misclassification effect by variant. Because only the number of doses and brand of last dose was reported, booster vaccinations after primary (single dose) vaccination with the Janssen vaccine could not be distinguished from 2-dose primary series. Also, individuals with a previous infection before onset of primary vaccination were given the choice to forego the first dose. This group could also have been misclassified as having received a primary series while the second dose was a booster dose. In around 6.3% of the Dutch population having received 2 doses the second dose was a booster after a one-dose primary series. This misclassification may have resulted in overestimation of the VE shortly after a primary series. Another source of misclassification is the use of the community testing data to determine previous infection status. A relevant share of previous infections will be missing from this dataset, e.g. because of restrictive testing policy in the early months of the pandemic. For children below the age of 12, testing was not strongly encouraged for a long time, and the mild and often asymptomatic disease course in this age group will further contribute to a large share of undetected infections. This misclassification will have led to an underestimation of the effect of a previous infection. Further, non-SGTF is not a p...
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.
-
