For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
1
views
3
references
 Top references
cited by
11
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      141
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Protection against severe COVID-19 after second booster dose of adapted bivalent (original/Omicron BA.4-5) mRNA vaccine in persons ≥ 60 years, by time since infection, Italy, 12 September to 11 December 2022

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Effectiveness against severe COVID-19 of a second booster dose of the bivalent (original/BA.4–5) mRNA vaccine 7–90 days post-administration, relative to a first booster dose of an mRNA vaccine received ≥ 120 days earlier, was ca 60% both in persons ≥ 60 years never infected and in those infected > 6 months before. Relative effectiveness in those infected 4–6 months earlier indicated no significant additional protection (10%; 95% CI: −44 to 44). A second booster vaccination 6 months after the latest infection may be warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against the omicron variant and severe disease: a systematic review and meta-regression

          Niklas Bobrovitz, Harriet Ware, Xiaomeng Ma … (2023)
          Background The global surge in the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has resulted in many individuals with hybrid immunity (immunity developed through a combination of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We aimed to systematically review the magnitude and duration of the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against infection and severe disease caused by the omicron variant. Methods For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched for cohort, cross-sectional, and case–control studies in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO COVID-19 database, and Europe PubMed Central from Jan 1, 2020, to June 1, 2022, using keywords related to SARS-CoV-2, reinfection, protective effectiveness, previous infection, presence of antibodies, and hybrid immunity. The main outcomes were the protective effectiveness against reinfection and against hospital admission or severe disease of hybrid immunity, hybrid immunity relative to previous infection alone, hybrid immunity relative to previous vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity relative to hybrid immunity with fewer vaccine doses. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool. We used log-odds random-effects meta-regression to estimate the magnitude of protection at 1-month intervals. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022318605). Findings 11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1–83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4–35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4–99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9–98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5–52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0–57·3) at 6 months. Interpretation All estimates of protection waned within months against reinfection but remained high and sustained for hospital admission or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection, and as a result might be able to extend the period before booster vaccinations are needed compared to individuals who have never been infected. Funding WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.
          Article 0 comments Cited 170 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk of reinfection, vaccine protection, and severity of infection with the BA.5 omicron subvariant: a nation-wide population-based study in Denmark

            Christian Hansen, Nikolaj Friis, Peter Bager … (2022)
            Background Estimates of immunity and severity for the SARS-CoV-2 omicron subvariant BA.5 are important to assess the public health impact associated with its rapid global spread despite vaccination. We estimated natural and vaccine immunity and severity of BA.5 relative to BA.2 in Denmark, a country with high mRNA-vaccination coverage and free-of-charge RT-PCR testing. Methods This nation-wide population-based study in Denmark included residents aged 18 years or older who had taken an RT-PCR test between 10 April and 30 June, 2022 (ie, the outcome period), and who the national COVID-19 surveillance system identified as having information since February 2020 on RT-PCR tests, whole-genome sequencing, vaccinations, and hospitalisation with a positive RT-PCR test and COVID-19 as the main diagnosis. First, we used a case–control design, in which cases were people infected with BA.5 or BA.2 during the outcome period and controls were people who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the outcome period. We calculated the protection provided by a previous PCR-confirmed omicron infection against BA.5 and BA.2 infection and hospitalisation among triple-vaccinated individuals. Second, we compared vaccination status in people infected with BA.5 versus BA.2 and estimated relative vaccine protection against each subvariant. Third, we compared rates of hospitalisation for COVID-19 among people infected with BA.5 versus BA.2. We estimated effects using logistic regression with adjustment for sex, age, region, PCR-test date, comorbidity and, as appropriate, vaccination and previous infection status. Findings A total of 210 (2·4%) of 8678 of BA.5 cases, 192 (0·7%) of 29 292 of BA.2 cases, and 33 972 (19·0%) of 178 669 PCR-negative controls previously had an omicron infection, which was estimated in the adjusted analyses to offer 92·7% (95% CI 91·6–93·7) protection against BA.5 infection and 97·1% (96·6–97·5) protection against BA.2 infection. We found similarly high amounts of protection against hospitalisation owing to infection with BA.5 (96·4% [95% CI 74·2–99·5]) and BA.2 (91·2% [76·3–96·7]). Vaccine coverage (three mRNA doses vs none) was 9307 (94·2%) of 9878 among BA.5 cases and 30 581 (94·8%) of 32 272 among BA.2 cases, although in the adjusted analysis, there was a trend towards slightly higher vaccination coverage among BA.5 cases than BA.2 cases (OR 1·18 [95% CI 0·99–1·42]; p=0·064), possibly suggesting marginally poorer vaccine protection against BA.5. The rate of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 was higher among the BA.5 cases (210 [1·9%] of 11 314) than among the BA.2 cases (514 [1·4%] of 36 805), with an OR of 1·34 (95% CI 1·14–1·57) and an adjusted OR of 1·69 (95% CI 1·22–2·33), despite low and stable COVID-19 hospitalisation numbers during the study period. Interpretation The study provides evidence that a previous omicron infection in triple-vaccinated individuals provides high amounts of protection against BA.5 and BA.2 infections. However, protection estimates greater than 90% might be too high if individuals with a previous infection were more likely than those without one to come forward for a test for reasons other than suspicion of COVID-19. Our analysis also showed that vaccine protection against BA.5 infection was similar to, or slightly weaker than, protection against BA.2 infection. Finally, there was evidence that BA.5 infections were associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation compared with BA.2 infections. Funding There was no funding source for this study.
            Article 0 comments Cited 48 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Stability of hybrid versus vaccine immunity against BA.5 infection over 8 months

              João Malato, Ruy M Ribeiro, Eugénia Fernandes … (2023)
              Article 0 comments Cited 9 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Euro Surveill
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Euro Surveill
                Journal ID (publisher-id): eurosurveillance
                Title: Eurosurveillance
                Publisher: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
                ISSN (Print): 1025-496X
                ISSN (Electronic): 1560-7917
                Publication date (Print): 23 February 2023
                Volume: 28
                Issue: 8
                Electronic Location Identifier: 2300105
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
                [2 ]European Programme on Intervention Epidemiology Training (EPIET), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden
                [3 ]General Directorate of Prevention, Italian Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy
                [4 ]Office of the President, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
                [5 ]The members of the group are listed under Acknowledgements
                Author notes

                Correspondence: Massimo Fabiani ( massimo.fabiani@ 123456iss.it )

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5893-7117
                Article
                Publisher ID: 2300105 Publisher ID: 2300105
                DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2023.28.8.2300105
                PMC ID: 9951255
                PubMed ID: 36820640
                SO-VID: f107409a-cb9e-47e4-b367-a5e43a8b10c5
                Copyright © This article is copyright of the authors or their affiliated institutions, 2023.
                License:

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Date received : 12 February 2023
                Date accepted : 21 February 2023
                Categories
                Subject: Rapid Communication
                Custom metadata
                sequence 2

                Keywords: sars-cov-2,covid-19,bivalent mrna vaccines,effectiveness,elderly population,italy
                Data availability:
                Keywords: sars-cov-2, covid-19, bivalent mrna vaccines, effectiveness, elderly population, italy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content141

                See all similar

                Cited by11

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors46

                See all reference authors