Protection against Reinfection with the Omicron BA.2.75 Subvariant

SARS-CoV-2 resistance to monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule drugs

Over four years have passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific response has been rapid and effective, with many therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and small molecules developed for clinical use. However, given the ability for viruses to become resistant to antivirals, it is perhaps no surprise that the field has identified resistance to nearly all of these compounds. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the resistance profile for each of these therapeutics. We hope that this resource provides an atlas for mutations to be aware of for each agent, particularly as a springboard for considerations for the next generation of antivirals. Finally, we discuss the outlook and thoughts for moving forward in how we continue to manage this, and the next, pandemic.

Neutralization sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants FL.1 and GE.1 by therapeutic antibodies and XBB sera

Two SARS-CoV-2 XBB sub-variants, FL.1 and GE.1, have been increasing in prevalence worldwide, but limited information is available about their ability to evade the immune system. FL.1 and GE.1 are emerging Omicron XBB variants possessing additional mutations in the spike RBD raising concerns of increased neutralization escape. In this study, we assessed the neutralizing ability of eleven FDA-approved monoclonal antibody combinations against different Omicron variants, including BA.2.75, BA.2.76, BA.4/5, XBB.1.5, and CH.1.1. Among the eleven antibodies, Sotrovimab was the only antibody to show broad neutralization ability against XBB.1.5. However, Sotrovimab showed attenuated neutralization efficiency against recently emerging XBB sub-lineages EG.5, FL.1, and GE.1 compared to XBB.1.5. Additionally, XBB.1.5 seropositive convalescent sera displayed lower neutralization activity against EG.5, FL.1, and GE.1. Overall, our findings present enhanced immune evasion capacity of emerging XBB variants and emphasize the importance of continued monitoring of novel variants.

A mini review of reinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant

Background

COVID-19 has caused severe morbidity and mortality worldwide. After the end of the dynamic zero-COVID policy in China in December, 2022, concerns regarding reinfection were raised while little was known due to the lack of surveillance data in this country.

Aims

This study reviews the probability, risk factors, and severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant reinfection, as well as the interval between infections, risk of onward transmission by reinfected cases, and the role of booster vaccination against reinfection.

Sources

References for this review were identified through searches of PubMed and Web of Science up to September 24, 2023.

Results

The rate of reinfection ranges from 3.1% to 13.0%. Factors associated with a higher risk of reinfection include being female, having comorbidities, and being unvaccinated. Reinfection with the BA.4 or BA.5 variant occurs approximately 180 days after the initial infection. Reinfections are less clinically severe than primary infections, and there is evidence of lower transmissibility. The debate surrounding the effectiveness and feasibility of booster vaccinations in preventing reinfection continues.

Conclusions

The reinfection rate during the Omicron epidemic is significantly higher than in previous epidemic periods. However, the symptoms and infectivity of reinfection were weaker than those of the prior infection. Medical staff and individuals at high risk of reinfection should be vigilant. The efficacy of booster vaccinations in reducing reinfection is currently under debate.

Addressing bias in the definition of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: implications for underestimation

Introduction

Reinfections are increasingly becoming a feature in the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, accurately defining reinfection poses methodological challenges. Conventionally, reinfection is defined as a positive test occurring at least 90 days after a previous infection diagnosis. Yet, this extended time window may lead to an underestimation of reinfection occurrences. This study investigated the prospect of adopting an alternative, shorter time window for defining reinfection.

Methods

A longitudinal study was conducted to assess the incidence of reinfections in the total population of Qatar, from February 28, 2020 to November 20, 2023. The assessment considered a range of time windows for defining reinfection, spanning from 1 day to 180 days. Subgroup analyses comparing first versus repeat reinfections and a sensitivity analysis, focusing exclusively on individuals who underwent frequent testing, were performed.

Results

The relationship between the number of reinfections in the population and the duration of the time window used to define reinfection revealed two distinct dynamical domains. Within the initial 15 days post-infection diagnosis, almost all positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 were attributed to the original infection. However, surpassing the 30-day post-infection threshold, nearly all positive tests were attributed to reinfections. A 40-day time window emerged as a sufficiently conservative definition for reinfection. By setting the time window at 40 days, the estimated number of reinfections in the population increased from 84,565 to 88,384, compared to the 90-day time window. The maximum observed reinfections were 6 and 4 for the 40-day and 90-day time windows, respectively. The 40-day time window was appropriate for defining reinfection, irrespective of whether it was the first, second, third, or fourth occurrence. The sensitivity analysis, confined to high testers exclusively, replicated similar patterns and results.

Discussion

A 40-day time window is optimal for defining reinfection, providing an informed alternative to the conventional 90-day time window. Reinfections are prevalent, with some individuals experiencing multiple instances since the onset of the pandemic.

Previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and their impact on the protection from reinfection during the Omicron BA.5 wave - a nested case-control study among vaccinated adults in Sweden

Objectives

We evaluated the protection afforded by SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced immunity against reinfection among working-age vaccinated individuals during a calendar period from June to December 2022 when Omicron BA.5 was the dominating subvariant in Scania County, Sweden.

Methods

The study cohort (n = 71,592) mainly consisted of health care workers. We analyzed 4144 infected cases during the Omicron BA.5 dominance and 41,440 sex- and age-matched controls with conditional logistic regression.

Results

The average protection against reinfection was marginal (16%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7-23%) during the study period but substantially higher for recent infections. Recent infection (3-6 months) with Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 offered strong protection (86%, 95% CI 68-94% and 78%, 95% CI 69-84%), whereas more distant infection (6-12 months) with Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and the variants before Omicron offered marginal or no protection.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that infection-induced immunity contributes to short-term population protection against infection with the subvariant BA.5 among working-age vaccinated individuals but wanes considerably with time, independent of the virus variant.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during multiple Omicron variant waves in the UK general population

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections increased substantially after Omicron variants emerged. Large-scale community-based comparisons across multiple Omicron waves of reinfection characteristics, risk factors, and protection afforded by previous infection and vaccination, are limited. Here we studied ~45,000 reinfections from the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey and quantified the risk of reinfection in multiple waves, including those driven by BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5, and BQ.1/CH.1.1/XBB.1.5 variants. Reinfections were associated with lower viral load and lower percentages of self-reporting symptoms compared with first infections. Across multiple Omicron waves, estimated protection against reinfection was significantly higher in those previously infected with more recent than earlier variants, even at the same time from previous infection. Estimated protection against Omicron reinfections decreased over time from the most recent infection if this was the previous or penultimate variant (generally within the preceding year). Those 14-180 days after receiving their most recent vaccination had a lower risk of reinfection than those >180 days from their most recent vaccination. Reinfection risk was independently higher in those aged 30-45 years, and with either low or high viral load in their most recent previous infection. Overall, the risk of Omicron reinfection is high, but with lower severity than first infections; both viral evolution and waning immunity are independently associated with reinfection.

Extensive transmission of SARS-CoV-2 BQ.1* variant in a population with high levels of hybrid immunity: A prevalence survey

OBJECTIVES

The SARS-CoV-2 BQ.1* variant rapidly spread globally in late 2022, posing a challenge due to its increased immune evasion.

METHODS

We conducted a prevalence survey in Brazil from November 16 to December 22, 2022, as part of a cohort study. We conducted interviews and collected nasal samples for reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and whole-genome sequencing. Cumulative incidence was estimated using RT-PCR positivity, cycle threshold values, and external data on the dynamics of RT-PCR positivity following infection.

RESULTS

Among 535 participants, 54% had documented SARS-CoV-2 exposure before this outbreak and 74% had received COVID-19 vaccination. In this study, 14.8% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with BQ.1* identified in 90.7% of cases. Using case data and cycle threshold values, cumulative incidence was estimated at 56% (95% confidence interval, 36-88%). Of the 79 positive participants, 48.1% had a symptomatic illness, with a lower proportion fulfilling the World Health Organization COVID-19 case definition compared to prior Omicron waves. No participants required medical attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high population-level hybrid immunity, the BQ.1* variant attacked 56% of our population. Lower disease severity was associated with BQ.1* compared to prior Omicron variants. Hybrid immunity may provide protection against future SARS-CoV-2 variants but in this case was not able to prevent widespread transmission.

Responses to Common Misconceptions Relating to COVID-19 Variant-Adapted mRNA Vaccines

The evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the waning of immunity over time has necessitated the use of booster doses of original coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This has also led to the development and implementation of variant-adapted messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines that include an Omicron sub-lineage component in addition to the antigen based on the wild-type virus spike protein. Subsequent emergence of the recombinant XBB sub-lineages triggered the development of monovalent XBB-based variant-adapted mRNA vaccines, which are available for vaccination campaigns in late 2023. Misconceptions about new variant-adapted vaccines may exacerbate vaccine fatigue and drive the lack of vaccine acceptance. This article aims to address common concerns about the development and use of COVID-19 variant-adapted mRNA vaccines that have emerged as SARS-CoV-2 has continued to evolve.

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Therapy: Long-term Implications

Background

The long-term effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute treatments on postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC) is unknown. The CONTAIN-Extend study explores the long-term impact of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy on postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) symptoms and general health 18 months following hospitalization.

Methods

The CONTAIN-Extend study examined 281 participants from the original CONTAIN COVID-19 trial (CONTAIN-RCT, NCT04364737) at 18 months post-hospitalization for acute COVID-19. Symptom surveys, global health assessments, and biospecimen collection were performed from November 2021 to October 2022. Multivariable logistic and linear regression estimated associations between the randomization arms and self-reported symptoms and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores and adjusted for covariables, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, disease severity, and CONTAIN enrollment quarter and sites.

Results

There were no differences in symptoms or PROMIS scores between CCP and placebo (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of general symptoms, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.67). However, females (aOR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.73-5.34), those 45-64 years (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-6.23), and April-June 2020 enrollees (aOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.10-5.19) were more likely to report general symptoms and have poorer PROMIS physical health scores than their respective reference groups. Hispanic participants (difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -5.82 to -0.27) and Black participants (-4.48; 95% CI, -7.94 to -1.02) had poorer PROMIS physical health than White participants.

Conclusions

CCP demonstrated no lasting effect on PASC symptoms or overall health in comparison to the placebo. This study underscores the significance of demographic factors, including sex, age, and timing of acute infection, in influencing symptom reporting 18 months after acute hypoxic COVID-19 hospitalization.

Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection may not alter the clinical course of COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

In the general population, prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of severe COVID-19; however, studies in lung transplant recipients (LTRs) are lacking. We sought to describe the clinical course of COVID-19 recurrence and compare outcomes between the first and second episodes of COVID-19 in LTRs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, single-center cohort study of LTRs with COVID-19 between January 1, 2022, and September 30, 2022, during the Omicron wave. We compared the clinical course of a second episode of COVID-19 to that of the patients' own first episode and to that of LTRs who developed a first episode during the study period.

RESULTS

During the study period, we identified 24 LTRs with COVID-19 recurrence and another 75 LTRs with a first episode of COVID-19. LTRs who survived the initial episode of COVID-19 had a similar disease course with recurrence, with a trend toward reduced hospitalization (10 (41.6%) vs. 4 (16.7%), p = .114). Furthermore, compared to LTRs with a primary infection during the Omicron wave, those with a reinfection had a non-statistically significant trend toward reduced hospitalizations (aOR .391, 95% CI [.115-1.321], p = .131), shorter lengths-of-stay (median, 4 vs. 9 days, p = .181), and reduced intensive care unit admissions, intubations, and COVID-19-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

LTRs who survive the first episode of COVID-19 are likely to have a similar clinical course with recurrent episodes. Although recurrent COVID-19 may be milder, larger, well-powered studies are needed to confirm this observation. Ongoing precautions are warranted.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and effects of age, sex, comorbidity, and vaccination among older individuals: A national cohort study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the contribution of age, coexisting medical conditions, sex, and vaccination to incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and of severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 in older adults since pandemic onset.

METHODS

A national retrospective cohort study was conducted in the population of Qatar aged ≥50 years between February 5, 2020 and June 15, 2023. Adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for infection and for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were estimated through Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Cumulative incidence was 25.01% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.86-25.15%) for infection and 1.59% (95% CI: 1.55-1.64%) for severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 after a follow-up duration of 40.9 months. Risk of infection varied minimally by age and sex but increased significantly with coexisting conditions. Risk of infection was reduced with primary-series vaccination (AHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.90-0.93) and further with first booster vaccination (AHR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.74-0.77). Risk of severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 increased exponentially with age and linearly with coexisting conditions. AHRs for severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.7-0.97) for one dose, 0.15 (95% CI: 0.13-0.17) for primary-series vaccination, and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.08-0.14) for first booster vaccination. Sensitivity analysis restricted to only Qataris yielded similar results.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of severe COVID-19 in older adults followed a dynamic pattern shaped by infection incidence, variant severity, and population immunity. Age, sex, and coexisting conditions were strong determinants of infection severity. Vaccine protection against severe outcomes showed a dose-response relationship, highlighting the importance of booster vaccination for older adults.

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.

Immune Response after SARS-CoV-2 Infection with Residual Post-COVID Symptoms

Many patients develop post-acute COVID syndrome (long COVID (LC)). We compared the immune response of LC and individuals with post-COVID full recovery (HC) during the Omicron pandemic. Two hundred ninety-two patients with confirmed COVID infections from January to May 2022 were enrolled. We observed anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G, surrogate virus neutralization test, T cell subsets, and neutralizing antibodies against Wuhan, BA.1, and BA.5 viruses (NeuT). NeuT was markedly reduced against BA.1 and BA.5 in HC and LC groups, while antibodies were more sustained with three doses and an updated booster shot than ≤2-dose vaccinations. The viral neutralization ability declined at >84-days after COVID-19 onset (PC) in both groups. PD1-expressed central and effector memory CD4+ T cells, and central memory CD8+ T cells were reduced in the first months PC in LC. Therefore, booster vaccines may be required sooner after the most recent infection to rescue T cell function for people with symptomatic LC.

Population immunity of natural infection, primary-series vaccination, and booster vaccination in Qatar during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study

Background

Waning of natural infection protection and vaccine protection highlight the need to evaluate changes in population immunity over time. Population immunity of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19 vaccination are defined, respectively, as the overall protection against reinfection or against breakthrough infection at a given point in time in a given population.

Methods

We estimated these population immunities in Qatar's population between July 1, 2020 and November 30, 2022, to discern generic features of the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. Effectiveness of previous infection, mRNA primary-series vaccination, and mRNA booster (third-dose) vaccination in preventing infection were estimated, month by month, using matched, test-negative, case-control studies.

Findings

Previous-infection effectiveness against reinfection was strong before emergence of Omicron, but declined with time after a wave and rebounded after a new wave. Effectiveness dropped after Omicron emergence from 88.3% (95% CI: 84.8-91.0%) in November 2021 to 51.0% (95% CI: 48.3-53.6%) in December 2021. Primary-series effectiveness against infection was 84.0% (95% CI: 83.0-85.0%) in April 2021, soon after introduction of vaccination, before waning gradually to 52.7% (95% CI: 46.5-58.2%) by November 2021. Effectiveness declined linearly by ∼1 percentage point every 5 days. After Omicron emergence, effectiveness dropped from 52.7% (95% CI: 46.5-58.2%) in November 2021 to negligible levels in December 2021. Booster effectiveness dropped after Omicron emergence from 83.0% (95% CI: 65.6-91.6%) in November 2021 to 32.9% (95% CI: 26.7-38.5%) in December 2021, and continued to decline thereafter. Effectiveness of previous infection and vaccination against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 were generally >80% throughout the study duration.

Interpretation

High population immunity against infection may not be sustained beyond a year, but population immunity against severe COVID-19 is durable with slow waning even after Omicron emergence.

Funding

The Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and the Biomathematics Research Core, both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Ministry of Public Health, Hamad Medical Corporation, Sidra Medicine, Qatar Genome Programme, Qatar University Biomedical Research Center, and Qatar University Internal Grant ID QUCG-CAS-23/24-114.

The Omicron Variant Reinfection Risk among Individuals with a Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection within One Year in Shanghai, China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants due to immune escape is challenging for the global response to the pandemic. We estimated the Omicron reinfection prevalence among people who had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in Shanghai, China. We conducted a telephone survey in December 2022 with those who had previously been infected with Omicron between March and May 2022. Information on their demographics, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing, and vaccination history was collected. The overall and subgroup reinfection rates were estimated and compared. Among the 1981 respondents who were infected between March and May 2022, 260 had positive nucleic acid or rapid antigen tests in December 2022, with an estimated reinfection rate of 13.1% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 11.6-14.6). The reinfection rate for those who had a booster vaccination was 11.4% (95% CI: 9.2-13.7), which was significantly lower than that for those with an incomplete vaccination series (15.2%, 95% CI: 12.3-18.1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.579; 95% CI: 0.412-0.813). Reinfection with the Omicron variant was lower among individuals with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who had a booster vaccination, suggesting that hybrid immunity may offer protection against reinfection with Omicron sublineages.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants: burden of disease, impact on vaccine effectiveness and need for variant-adapted vaccines

The highly transmissible Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first detected in late 2021. Initial Omicron waves were primarily made up of sub-lineages BA.1 and/or BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 subsequently became dominant in mid-2022, and several descendants of these sub-lineages have since emerged. Omicron infections have generally caused less severe disease on average than those caused by earlier variants of concern in healthy adult populations, at least, in part, due to increased population immunity. Nevertheless, healthcare systems in many countries, particularly those with low population immunity, have been overwhelmed by unprecedented surges in disease prevalence during Omicron waves. Pediatric admissions were also higher during Omicron waves compared with waves of previous variants of concern. All Omicron sub-lineages exhibit partial escape from wild-type (Wuhan-Hu 1) spike-based vaccine-elicited neutralizing antibodies, with sub-lineages with more enhanced immuno-evasive properties emerging over time. Evaluating vaccine effectiveness (VE) against Omicron sub-lineages has become challenging against a complex background of varying vaccine coverage, vaccine platforms, prior infection rates, and hybrid immunity. Original messenger RNA vaccine booster doses substantially improved VE against BA.1 or BA.2 symptomatic disease. However, protection against symptomatic disease waned, with reductions detected from 2 months after booster administration. While original vaccine-elicited CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T-cell responses cross-recognize Omicron sub-lineages, thereby retaining protection against severe outcomes, variant-adapted vaccines are required to expand the breadth of B-cell responses and improve durability of protection. Variant-adapted vaccines were rolled out in late 2022 to increase overall protection against symptomatic and severe infections caused by Omicron sub-lineages and antigenically aligned variants with enhanced immune escape mechanisms.

All-cause and COVID-19 mortality in Qatar during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To investigate all-cause mortality, COVID-19 mortality and all-cause non-COVID-19 mortality in Qatar during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A national, retrospective cohort analysis and national, matched, retrospective cohort studies were conducted between 5 February 2020 and 19 September 2022.

RESULTS

There were 5025 deaths during a follow-up time of 5 247 220 person-years, of which 675 were COVID-19 related. Incidence rates were 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) per 1000 person-years for all-cause mortality, 0.13 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.14) per 1000 person-years for COVID-19 mortality and 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.85) per 1000 person-years for all-cause non-COVID-19 mortality. Adjusted HR, comparing all-cause non-COVID-19 mortality relative to Qataris, was lowest for Indians at 0.38 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.44), highest for Filipinos at 0.56 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.69) and was 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.58) for craft and manual workers (CMWs). Adjusted HR, comparing COVID-19 mortality relative to Qataris, was lowest for Indians at 1.54 (95% CI 0.97 to 2.44), highest for Nepalese at 5.34 (95% CI 1.56 to 18.34) and was 1.86 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.60) for CMWs. Incidence rate of all-cause mortality for each nationality group was lower than the crude death rate in the country of origin.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of non-COVID-19 death was low and was lowest among CMWs, perhaps reflecting the healthy worker effect. Risk of COVID-19 death was also low, but was highest among CMWs, largely reflecting higher exposure during first epidemic wave, before advent of effective COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.

Long-term COVID-19 booster effectiveness by infection history and clinical vulnerability and immune imprinting: a retrospective population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA boosters in populations with different previous infection histories and clinical vulnerability profiles is inadequately understood. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a booster (third dose) vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19, relative to that of primary-series (two-dose) vaccination over a follow-up duration of 1 year.

METHODS

This observational, matched, retrospective, cohort study was done on the population of Qatar in people with different immune histories and different clinical vulnerability to infection. The source of data are Qatar's national databases for COVID-19 laboratory testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and death. Associations were estimated using inverse-probability-weighted Cox proportional-hazards regression models. The primary outcome of the study is the effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA boosters against infection and against severe COVID-19.

FINDINGS

Data were obtained for 2 228 686 people who had received at least two vaccine doses starting from Jan 5, 2021, of whom 658 947 (29·6%) went on to receive a third dose before data cutoff on Oct 12, 2022. There were 20 528 incident infections in the three-dose cohort and 30 771 infections in the two-dose cohort. Booster effectiveness relative to primary series was 26·2% (95% CI 23·6-28·6) against infection and 75·1% (40·2-89·6) against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19, during 1-year follow-up after the booster. Among people clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19, effectiveness was 34·2% (27·0-40·6) against infection and 76·6% (34·5-91·7) against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19. Effectiveness against infection was highest at 61·4% (60·2-62·6) in the first month after the booster but waned thereafter and was modest at only 15·5% (8·3-22·2) by the sixth month. In the seventh month and thereafter, coincident with BA.4/BA.5 and BA.2·75* subvariant incidence, effectiveness was progressively negative albeit with wide CIs. Similar patterns of protection were observed irrespective of previous infection status, clinical vulnerability, or type of vaccine (BNT162b2 vs mRNA-1273).

INTERPRETATION

Protection against omicron infection waned after the booster, and eventually suggested a possibility for negative immune imprinting. However, boosters substantially reduced infection and severe COVID-19, particularly among individuals who were clinically vulnerable, affirming the public health value of booster vaccination.

FUNDING

The Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and the Biomathematics Research Core (both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar), Ministry of Public Health, Hamad Medical Corporation, Sidra Medicine, Qatar Genome Programme, and Qatar University Biomedical Research Center.