Using Survey Data to Estimate the Impact of the Omicron Variant on Vaccine Efficacy against COVID-19 Infection

  1. Jesús Rufino
  2. Carlos Baquero
  3. Davide Frey
  4. Christin A. Glorioso
  5. Antonio Ortega
  6. Nina Reščič
  7. Julian Charles Roberts
  8. Rosa E. Lillo
  9. Raquel Menezes
  10. Jaya Prakash Champati
  11. Antonio Fernádez Anta

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Data collected in the Global COVID-19 Trends and Impact Surveys (UMD Global CTIS), and data on variants sequencing from GISAID, are used to evaluate the impact of the Omicron variant (in South Africa and other countries) on the prevalence of COVID-19 among unvaccinated and vaccinated population, in general and discriminating by the number of doses. In South Africa, we observe that the prevalence of COVID-19 in December (with strong presence of Omicron) among the unvaccinated population is comparable to the prevalence during the previous wave (in August-September), in which Delta was the variant with the largest presence. However, among vaccinated, the prevalence of COVID-19 in December is much higher than in the previous wave. In fact, a significant reduction of the vaccine efficacy is observed from August-September to December. For instance, the efficacy drops from 0.81 to 0.30 for those vaccinated with 2 doses, and from 0.51 to 0.09 for those vaccinated with one dose. The study is then extended to other countries in which Omicron has been detected, comparing the situation in October (before Omicron) with that of December. While the reduction measured is smaller than in South Africa, we still found, for instance, an average drop in vaccine efficacy from 0.53 to 0.45 among those vaccinated with two doses. Moreover, we found a significant negative (Pearson) correlation of around − 0.6 between the measured prevalence of Omicron and the vaccine efficacy.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.21.22269636: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    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 10.1101/2022.01.21.22269636v1 on medRxiv