Waning immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination or infection

  1. Carlos Hernandez-Suarez
  2. Efrèn Murillo-Zamora

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We use survival analysis to analyze the decay in the protection induced by eight SARS-CoV-2 vaccines using data from 33,418 fully anonymized patients from the IMSS public health system in Mexico, including only previously vaccinated, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive with a PCR test. We analyze the waning effect in those with complete vs. incomplete dose fitting a Weibull distribution. We compare these results with an estimate of the waning effect due to active infection. In two-dose vaccines, we found that the average protection time of a complete dose increases 2.6 times compared to that of an incomplete dose. All analyzed vaccines provided a protection that lasted longer than the protection due to active infection, except in those patients that did not fulfilled the complete dose. The average protection of a full dose is 2.2 times larger than that provided by active infection. The average protection of active infection is about the same as the average protection of an incomplete dose. All evaluated vaccines had lost most of their protective effect between 8 and 11 months of application of first shot. Our results highly correlate with NT 50 and other estimates of vaccine efficacy. We found that on average, vaccination increases Age 50 , the age at which there is a 50% probability of severe disease if infected, in 15 years. We also found that Age 50 increases with mean protection time.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fmed.2022.972083
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.17.22273854: (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

    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: 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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.17.22273854v1 on medRxiv