Protective effect of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection from reinfection: a matched retrospective cohort study using PCR testing data in England

  1. Joanne Lacy
  2. Anna Mensah
  3. Ruth Simmons
  4. Nick Andrews
  5. M. Ruby Siddiqui
  6. Antoaneta Bukasa
  7. Shennae O’Boyle
  8. Helen Campbell
  9. Kevin Brown

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The duration of immunity after first SARS-CoV-2 infection and the extent to which prior immunity prevents reinfection is uncertain and remains an important question within the context of new variants.

Using a retrospective population-based matched observational study approach, we identified cases with a first PCR positive test between 01 March 2020 and 30 September 2020 and cases were matched by age, sex, upper tier local authority of residence and testing route to individuals testing negative in the same week (controls) by PCR. After a 90-day pre-follow up period for cases and controls, any subsequent positive tests up to 31 December 2020 and deaths within 28 days of testing positive were identified, this encompassed an essentially vaccine-free period.

There were 517,870 individuals in the matched cohort with 2,815 reinfection cases and 12,098 first infections. The protective effect of a prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive episode was 78% (OR 0.22, 0.21-0.23). Protection rose to 82% (OR 0.18, 0.17-0.19) after a sensitivity analysis excluded 934 individuals with a first test between March and May and a subsequent positive test between June and September 2020.

Amongst individuals testing positive by PCR during follow-up, reinfection cases had 77% lower odds of symptoms at the second episode (adjusted OR 0.23, 0.20-0.26) and 45% lower odds of dying in the 28 days after reinfection (adjusted OR 0.55, 0.42-0.71).

Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection offered protection against reinfection in this population. There was some evidence that reinfections increased with the Alpha variant compared to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 variant highlighting the importance of continued monitoring as new variants emerge.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.10.22268896: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis was carried out in STATA version 15.1, linkage to SGSS and USD datasets was carried out in Microsoft SQL server management studio 18.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.10.22268896v1 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1017/s0950268822000966