Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36270311›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2023

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

Christian Holm Hansen, Nikolaj Ulrik Friis, Peter Bager, Marc Stegger, Jannik Fonager, Anders Fomsgaard, Mie Agermose Gram, Lasse Engbo Christiansen, Steen Ethelberg, Rebecca Legarth and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Update on Omicron variant and its threat to vulnerable populations.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian Holm HansenDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Prevention, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark; Medical Reseasrch Council International Statistics and Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Nikolaj Ulrik FriisDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Prevention, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter BagerDepartment of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: pbg@ssi.dk.
Marc SteggerDepartment of Bacteria, Parasites, and Fungi, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jannik FonagerDepartment of Virus and Microbiological Special Diagnostics, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anders FomsgaardDepartment of Virus and Microbiological Special Diagnostics, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mie Agermose GramDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Prevention, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lasse Engbo ChristiansenDepartment of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Steen EthelbergDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Prevention, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Public Health, Global Health Section, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rebecca LegarthDivision of Infectious Disease Preparedness, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tyra Grove KrauseDivision of Infectious Disease Preparedness, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik UllumDivision of Infectious Disease Preparedness, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Palle Valentiner-BranthDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Prevention, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Statens Serum Institut · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimates 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.

methodsThis 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.

findingsA 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.

interpretationThe 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.

fundingThere was no funding source for this study.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesDenmarkHumansReinfectionRNA, MessengerSARS-CoV-2RNA, MessengerVaccines

Identifiers

PMID36270311
PMCPMC9578720
OpenAlexW4306722717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.