Breakthrough infection and reinfection in patients with mpox.

Recently, patients with Mpox breakthrough infection or reinfection were constantly reported. However, the induction, risk factors, and important clinical symptoms of breakthrough infection and reinfection of Mpox virus (MPXV), as well as the factors affecting the effectiveness of Mpox vaccine are not characterized. Herein, a literature review was preformed to summarize the risk factors and important clinical symptoms of patients with Mpox breakthrough infection or reinfection, as well as the factors affecting the effectiveness of smallpox vaccine against Mpox. Results showed that MSM sexual behavior, condomless sexual behavior, multiple sexual partners, close contact, HIV infection, and the presence of comorbidity are important risk factors for Mpox breakthrough infection and reinfection. Genital ulcers, proctitis, and lymphadenopathy are the important clinical symptoms of Mpox breakthrough infection and reinfection. The effectiveness of emergent vaccination of smallpox vaccine for post-exposure of MPXV is associated with smallpox vaccination history, interval between exposure and vaccination, and history of HIV infection. This review provides a better understanding for the risk factors and important clinical symptoms of Mpox breakthrough infection and reinfection, as well as the formulation of Mpox vaccine vaccination strategies.

Impact on the time elapsed since SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination history, and number of doses, on protection against reinfection.

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections have been frequent, even among those vaccinated. The aim of this study is to know if hybrid immunity (infection + vaccination) is affected by the moment of vaccination and number of doses received. We conducted a retrospective study in 746 patients with a history of COVID-19 reinfection and recovered the dates of infection and reinfection and vaccination status (date and number of doses). To assess differences in the time to reinfection(tRI) between unvaccinated, vaccinated before 6 months, and later; and comparing one, two or three doses (incomplete, complete and booster regime) we performed the log-rank test of the cumulative incidence calculated as 1 minus the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Also, an adjusted Cox-regression was performed to evaluate the risk of reinfection in all groups. The tRI was significantly higher in those vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated (p < 0.001). However, an early incomplete regime protects similar time than not receiving a vaccine. Vaccination before 6 months after infection showed a lower tRI compared to those vaccinated later with the same regime (adj-p < 0.001). Actually, early vaccination with complete and booster regimes provided lower length of protection compared to vaccinating later with incomplete and complete regime, respectively. Vaccination with complete and booster regimes significantly increases the tRI (adj-p < 0.001). Vaccination increases the time it takes for a person to become reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Increasing the time from infection to vaccination increases the time in which a person could be reinfected and reduces the risk of reinfection, especially in complete and booster regimes. Those results emphasize the role of vaccines and boosters during the pandemic and can guide strategies on future vaccination policy.

SARS-CoV-2 immune response and reinfection in vaccinated Maya and mestizo in Southeast of Mexico.

Immune response to pathogens, including coronaviruses, is influenced by HLA haplotypes. 1,2. Maya ethnic group is predominant in Yucatan peninsula, this Amerindian group present allele frequency  HLA-G*01:01:02, HLA-G*01:01:01, HLA-G*01:04:01, HLA-A*68  not found in another Amerindians.3-5 Immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and reinfection particularly after Omicron variant appeared was explored in 118 vaccinated subjects with complete two shots immunization in Maya ascendant and mestizo no-Maya. 1172 epidemiological survey applied to university staff in Campeche, Mexico to evaluate reinfection, co-morbidities, variant virus, disease severity, aftermaths, clinical outcomes, age, sex, ethnicity, and vaccination shots. Multiple logistic regression, correspondence analysis, and association tests were used to analysis data.   Sixteen percent  of vaccinated subjects became seronegative after 11 months. We found that vaccinated Maya subjects respond with higher IgG immune response compared to no-Maya subjects, similarly women respond with higher IgG response than men (p<0.05). During an eleven-month period and after two vaccination shots, 7% of the vaccinated subjects reported a confirmed positive infection, and after the third vaccine shot a higher IgG immune response than two vaccination shots or natural infection was detected. However, we observed 23.7% reinfection in people after the third shot. This data represents almost three times  the reinfection rate reported when compared to  previous third vaccine shots. The increase of reinfection in vaccinated subjects was associated with circulation of Omicron variant by 71.5%. Others have reported  reinfection of 40% and vaccine effectiveness of 60% during Omicron dominance.6 To understand COVID-19 severity after reinfection in vaccinated subjects and the associated variables, we carried out a multiple logistic regression, and found a strong association between less severe symptoms with Alfa and Omicron variants (B 5.3; Error 0.39; Wald 0.00; Significance 0.00; OR201).  However, subjects with severe symptoms and or hospitalization correspondent to individuals with multiplex comorbidities and  Gamma SARS-CoV-2 variants (B 5.06; Error 0.97; Wald 26.8; Significance 0.00; OR 158). A follow-up survey of COVID-19 recovered patients experienced diverse digestive, respiratory, cardiac, neurological, or joints involvement sequelae. We looked for SARS-CoV-2 variant and COVID-19 sequelae in a correspondence analysis. Our data suggest that Beta and Delta variants are associated with respiratory and digestive symptoms, whereas Omicron was more closely associated with joints and digestive symptoms, and finally the Gamma variant displayed wider and more diverse symptoms. Our results suggest that genetic background and gender influence IgG response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and  Maya ascendant has higher immune IgG response to vaccine than mestizos. Reinfection in our population studied fluctuate from 7% to 23.7% nevertheless is higher if Omicron variant is involved, but symptoms are less severe and more closely associated with joints and digestive symptoms.

Incidence of Omicron Variant Reinfection and Reduction of Reinfection Risk After Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Children.

Data are limited on the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfection in children. This population-based cohort study in Niigata, Japan from January to November 2022 demonstrated the incidence of reinfection was 1337/48 099 (2.8%), and the hazard ratio for reinfection in vaccinated children was 0.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.40).

History of primary-series and booster vaccination and protection against Omicron reinfection.

Laboratory evidence suggests a possibility of immune imprinting for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We investigated the differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a cohort of persons who had a primary Omicron infection, but different vaccination histories using matched, national, retrospective, cohort studies. Adjusted hazard ratio for reinfection incidence, factoring adjustment for differences in testing rate, was 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39 to 0.49] comparing history of two-dose vaccination to no vaccination, 1.47 (95% CI: 1.23 to 1.76) comparing history of three-dose vaccination to two-dose vaccination, and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.68) comparing history of three-dose vaccination to no vaccination. Divergence in cumulative incidence curves increased markedly when the incidence was dominated by BA.4/BA.5 and BA.2.75* Omicron subvariants. The history of primary-series vaccination enhanced immune protection against Omicron reinfection, but history of booster vaccination compromised protection against Omicron reinfection. These findings do not undermine the public health utility of booster vaccination.

[Epidemiological characteristics of reinfection of 2019-nCoV and influencing factors in Ningbo].

Objective: To analyze the epidemiological characteristics of reinfection of 2019-nCoV and influencing factors, and provide evidence for effective prevention and control of COVID-19 epidemic. Methods: The incidence data of COVID-19 in Ningbo from January 1, 2020 to November 30, 2022 were collected from the infectious disease surveillance system of Chinese information system for disease control and prevention. The incidence of reinfection of 2019-nCoV was investigated by using questionnaire. logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the influences of gender, age, time interval from the first infection, history of underlying disease, 2019-nCoV vaccination dose and disease severity on the reinfection. Results: A total of 897 previous 2019-nCoV infection cases were investigated, of which 115 experienced the reinfection of 2019-nCoV, the reinfection rate was 12.82%. The interval between the two infections M(Q1, Q3) was 1 052 (504, 1 056) days. Univariate analysis showed that age, 2019-nCoV vaccination dose, history of underlying disease, type of 2019-nCoV variant causing the first infection, time interval from the first infection and severity of the first infection were associated with the reinfection rate (all P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the risk for reinfection in age group 30- years was higher than that in age group ≥60 years (OR=2.10, 95%CI: 1.11-3.97). No reinfection occurred in those with time interval from the first infection of <6 months, and the risk for reinfection was higher in those with the time interval of ≥12 months than in those with the time interval of 6- months (OR=6.68, 95%CI: 3.46-12.90). The risk for reinfection was higher in the common or mild cases than in the asymptomatic cases (OR=2.64, 95%CI: 1.18-5.88; OR=2.79, 95%CI: 1.27-6.11). Conclusion: The time interval from the first infection was an important influencing factor for the reinfection of 2019-nCoV, and the probability of the reinfection within 6 months was low.

Effectiveness of natural immune protection against COVID-19 reinfection: systematic review with meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The future of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on the evolution of the virus and immune protection stimulated by vaccination or upon exposure to natural infection. While most research focuses on vaccine efficacy, data remain unclear on the efficacy and duration of natural immune protection against infection. AIM: In this article, we aim to determine the efficacy of natural immune protection against reinfection with COVID-19 or severe COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of available studies in electronic databases followed by a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of natural immune protection against COVID-19 reinfection and severe infection. RESULTS: Of the 414 studies identified for the full review, 8 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The total number of individuals participating in the 8 studies included 19,837,147 people. Individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (1,9% [0,6%-3,1%]) had a lower rate of infection than individuals without a history of infection (7,1% [3,9%-10,1%]). The mean efficacy of natural immune protection against reinfection was 84,7% [78,5%-90,9%], while the mean efficacy of natural immune protection against severe COVID-19 infection was 96,9% [94%-99,6%]. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that natural immune protection against reinfection is high, particularly against severe COVID-19. However, further research is needed to determine the duration of natural immune protection and the impact of different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Role of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 in protecting against omicron reinfections and severe complications of COVID-19 compared to pre-omicron variants: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 virus elicited a major public concern worldwide since December 2019 due to the high number of infections and deaths caused by COVID-19. The Omicron variant was detected in October 2021 which evolved from the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and was found to possess many mutations. Omicron exhibited high transmissibility and immune evasion as well as reduced severity when compared to the earlier variants. Although vaccinated individuals were largely protected against infections in previous waves, the high prevalence of both reinfections and breakthrough infections with Omicron was observed. The aim of this review is to understand the effectiveness of previous infection on subsequent reinfection, given its significance in driving public health policy, including vaccination prioritization and lockdown requirements. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using several databases to target studies reporting data related to the effectiveness of the previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 in protecting against the Omicron variant. Screening of the studies, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers for each study. RESULTS: Only 27 studies met our inclusion criteria. It was observed that previous infection was less effective in preventing reinfections with the Omicron variant compared to the Delta variant irrespective of vaccination status. Furthermore, being fully vaccinated with a booster dose provided additional protection from the Omicron variant. Additionally, most infections caused by Omicron were asymptomatic or mild and rarely resulted in hospitalizations or death in comparison to the Delta wave. CONCLUSION: A majority of the studies reached a consensus that although previous infection provides some degree of immunity against Omicron reinfection, it is much lower in comparison to Delta. Full vaccination with two doses was more protective against Delta than Omicron. Receiving a booster dose provided additional protection against Omicron. It is therefore clear that neither vaccination nor previous infection alone provide optimal protection; hybrid immunity has shown the best results in terms of protecting against either Omicron or Delta variants. However, additional research is needed to quantify how long immunity from vaccination versus previous infection lasts and whether individuals will benefit from variant-specific vaccinations to enhance protection from infection.

Hybrid immunity against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 following a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine in children and adolescents: a target trial emulation.

BACKGROUND: Although most children and adolescents have had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and many continue to receive COVID-19 vaccinations, studies of the effectiveness of hybrid immunity against reinfection with the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant are scarce. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of vaccination in convalescent children and adolescents against reinfection with the delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the BA.1 and BA.2 and BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was devised to emulate a target randomised control trial using a retrospective dataset of anonymised health records of children (5-11 years old) and adolescents (12-16 years old) who were members of the Maccabi Healthcare Services, Israel. The design emulated 91 randomised trials by devising a series of multiple nested trials, compiling the results into a single dataset, and fitting Cox proportional hazards models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs of each measured outcome. The primary aim was to assess the protection from reinfection with the delta variant and the BA.1 and BA.2 and BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants associated with hybrid immunity as a result of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection followed by vaccination with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine. FINDINGS: Data from between from March 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022, for 163 812 individuals (120 721 children [59 404 girls and 61 317 boys], median age 8·0 years [IQR 6·7 to 10·2]; and 43 091 adolescents [21 239 girls and 21 852 boys], median age 13·5 years [12·6 to 14·8]) were included in at least one trial. A single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine in convalescent children and adolescents confers statistically significant protection against the delta variant (78% [95% CI 72 to 83] in adolescents and 64% [3 to 87] in children) and the omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants (54% [50 to 57] in adolescents and 71% [67 to 73] in children) compared with children who had a previous infection but were unvaccinated. However, the vaccine was not found to confer statistically significant protection against the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants in adolescents (8% [-18 to 29]) and children (12% [-6 to 27]). INTERPRETATION: Decision makers in BA.4 and BA.5 dominant regions should re-examine whether convalescent individuals aged 5-16 years should receive the BNT162b2 vaccine to prevent future reinfection, especially in light of reports that show that most children and adolescents have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: None.

VE303, a Defined Bacterial Consortium, for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of rationally defined nonpathogenic, nontoxigenic, commensal strains of Clostridia on prevention of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is unknown. Objective: To determine the efficacy of VE303, a defined bacterial consortium of 8 strains of commensal Clostridia, in adults at high risk for CDI recurrence. The primary objective was to determine the recommended VE303 dosing for a phase 3 trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study conducted from February 2019 to September 2021 at 27 sites in the US and Canada. The study included 79 participants aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed CDI with 1 or more prior CDI episodes in the last 6 months and those with primary CDI at high risk for recurrence (defined as aged ≥75 years or ≥65 years with ≥1 risk factors: creatinine clearance <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, proton pump inhibitor use, remote [>6 months earlier] CDI history). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to high-dose VE303 (8.0 × 109 colony-forming units [CFUs]) (n = 30), low-dose VE303 (1.6 × 109 CFUs) (n = 27), or placebo capsules (n = 22) orally once daily for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants with CDI recurrence at 8 weeks using a combined clinical and laboratory definition. The primary efficacy end point was analyzed in 3 prespecified analyses, using successively broader definitions for an on-study CDI recurrence: (1) diarrhea consistent with CDI plus a toxin-positive stool sample; (2) diarrhea consistent with CDI plus a toxin-positive, polymerase chain reaction-positive, or toxigenic culture-positive stool sample; and (3) diarrhea consistent with CDI plus laboratory confirmation or (in the absence of a stool sample) treatment with a CDI-targeted antibiotic. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar across the high-dose VE303 (n = 29; 1 additional participant excluded from efficacy analysis), low-dose VE303 (n = 27), and placebo (n = 22) groups. The participants' median age was 63.5 years (range, 24-96); 70.5% were female; and 1.3% were Asian, 1.3% Black, 2.6% Hispanic, and 96.2% White. CDI recurrence rates through week 8 (using the efficacy analysis 3 definition) were 13.8% (4/29) for high-dose VE303, 37.0% (10/27) for low-dose VE303, and 45.5% (10/22) for placebo (P = .006, high-dose VE303 vs placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with laboratory-confirmed CDI with 1 or more prior CDI episodes in the last 6 months and those with primary CDI at high risk for recurrence, high-dose VE303 prevented recurrent CDI compared with placebo. A larger, phase 3 study is needed to confirm these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03788434.

Importance of Cellular Immunity and IFN-γ Concentration in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Reinfection: A Cohort Study.

Recent studies have highlighted the underestimated importance of the cellular immune response after the emergence of variants of concern (VOCs) of SARS-CoV-2, and the significantly reduced neutralizing power of antibody titers in individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Our study included 303 participants who were tested at St. Catherine Specialty Hospital using the Quan-T-Cell SARS-CoV-2 in combination with the Quan-T-Cell ELISA (Euroimmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika, Lübeck, Germany) for the analysis of IFN-γ concentration, and with Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA IgG (Euroimmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika, Lübeck, Germany) for the detection of human antibodies of the immunoglobulin class IgG against the S1 domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The statistical analysis showed a significant difference in the concentration of IFN-γ between reinfected participants and those without infection (p = 0.012). Participants who were not infected or reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination and/or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection had a significantly higher level of cellular immunity. Furthermore, in individuals without additional vaccination, those who experienced infection/reinfection had significantly lower levels of IFN-γ compared to uninfected participants (p = 0.016). Our findings suggest a long-lasting effect of cellular immunity, measured by IFN-γ concentrations, which plays a key role in preventing infections and reinfections after the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection by vaccination status, predominant variant and time from prior infection: a cohort study, Reggio Emilia province, Italy, February 2020 to February 2022.

BackgroundUnderstanding the epidemiology of reinfections is crucial for SARS-CoV-2 control over a long period.AimTo evaluate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection by vaccination status, predominant variant and time after first infection.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study including all residents in the Reggio Emilia province on 31 December 2019, followed up until 28 February 2022 for SARS-CoV-2 first infection and reinfection after 90 days. Cox models were used to compare risk of first infection vs reinfection, adjusting for age, sex, vaccine doses and comorbidities.ResultsThe cohort included 538,516 residents, 121,154 with first SARS-CoV-2 infections and 3,739 reinfections, most in the Omicron BA.1 period. In the pre-Omicron period, three doses of vaccine reduced risk of reinfection by 89% (95% CI: 87-90), prior infection reduced risk by 90% (95% CI: 88-91), while two doses and infection reduced risk by 98% (95% CI: 96-99). In the Omicron BA.1 period, protection estimates were 53% (95% CI: 52-55), 9% (95% CI: 4-14) and 76% (95% CI: 74-77). Before Omicron, protection from reinfection remained above 80% for up to 15 months; with Omicron BA.1, protection decreased from 71% (95% CI: 65-76) at 5 months to 21% (95% CI: 10-30) at 22 months from the first infection. Omicron BA.1 reinfections showed 48% (95% CI: 10-57) lower risk of severe disease than first infections.ConclusionsNatural immunity acquired with previous variants showed low protection against Omicron BA.1. Combined vaccination and natural immunity seems to be more protective against reinfection than either alone. Vaccination of people with prior infection reduced the risk of severe disease.

Past SARS-CoV-2 infection protection against re-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850). FINDINGS: We identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3-76·1) and 44·0% (26·5-65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8-93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4-51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7-97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7-90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom.

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

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.

Vaccine escape, increased breakthrough and reinfection in infliximab-treated patients with IBD during the Omicron wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs impair serological responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We sought to assess if a third dose of a messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccine substantially boosted anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses and protective immunity in infliximab-treated patients with IBD. DESIGN: Third dose vaccine induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S) receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody responses, breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection, reinfection and persistent oropharyngeal carriage in patients with IBD treated with infliximab were compared with a reference cohort treated with vedolizumab from the impaCt of bioLogic therApy on saRs-cov-2 Infection and immuniTY (CLARITY) IBD study. RESULTS: Geometric mean (SD) anti-S RBD antibody concentrations increased in both groups following a third dose of an mRNA-based vaccine. However, concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, irrespective of whether their first two primary vaccine doses were ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (1856 U/mL (5.2) vs 10 728 U/mL (3.1), p<0.0001) or BNT162b2 vaccines (2164 U/mL (4.1) vs 15 116 U/mL (3.4), p<0.0001). However, no differences in anti-S RBD antibody concentrations were seen following third and fourth doses of an mRNA-based vaccine, irrespective of the combination of primary vaccinations received. Post-third dose, anti-S RBD antibody half-life estimates were shorter in infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (37.0 days (95% CI 35.6 to 38.6) vs 52.0 days (95% CI 49.0 to 55.4), p<0.0001).Compared with vedolizumab-treated, infliximab-treated patients were more likely to experience SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (HR 2.23 (95% CI 1.46 to 3.38), p=0.00018) and reinfection (HR 2.10 (95% CI 1.31 to 3.35), p=0.0019), but this effect was uncoupled from third vaccine dose anti-S RBD antibody concentrations. Reinfection occurred predominantly during the Omicron wave and was predicted by SARS-CoV-2 antinucleocapsid concentrations after the initial infection. We did not observe persistent oropharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2. Hospitalisations and deaths were uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Following a third dose of an mRNA-based vaccine, infliximab was associated with attenuated serological responses and more SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and reinfection which were not predicted by the magnitude of anti-S RBD responses, indicative of vaccine escape by the Omicron variant. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516.

Is it possible to get COVID infection 3 times? Case report

Rare cases of suspected COVID-19 reactivation have been reported. Reactivation is defined by two positive real-time RT-PCR results for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with an interval equal to or greater than 90 days between two episodes of COVID-19. A nurse, started with COVID-19 symptoms in July 2020 and a RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 confirmed the diagnosis. In November 2020, more than 4 months later, she developed a new episode of COVID-19 confirmed by a second RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2. The patient received a first dose of CoronaVac ­ (Sinovac/Butantan) in January 2021 and a second dose in February 2021, but 30 days after a third episode was confirmed. Contrary to what happens with many infectious diseases which generate antibodies and protect people from future episodes, this aspect is still not clear in relation to COVID-19. In addition to vaccination, the use of Personal Protective Equipment is essential for healthcare workers.