The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Public Health
Sec. Infectious Diseases: Epidemiology and Prevention
Volume 12 - 2024 |
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1457266
Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection
Provisionally accepted- 1 Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
- 2 School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province, China
- 3 Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Background: Hybrid immunity (a combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity) provides additional immune protection against COVID-19 reinfection. This meta-analysis aims to explore hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection and its protective durability to provide a new evidence-based basis for the development and optimization of immunization strategies and improve the public's awareness and participation in COVID-19 vaccination, especially in vulnerable and at-risk populations.Methods: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for publicly available literature up to 10 June 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed the risk of bias in included cohort and case-control studies, while criteria recommended by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) evaluated cross-sectional studies. The outcome was Omicron variant reinfection, reported as an Odds Ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and Protective Effectiveness (PE) with 95% CI. The data were pooled using a random-or fixed-effects model based on the I 2 test. The PROSPERO registration ID is CRD42024539682.Results: A total of 33 articles were included. Compared with the natural immunity group, the hybrid immunity (booster vaccination) group had the highest level of mitigation in the risk of reinfection (OR=0.43, 95% CI:0.34-0.56), followed by the complete vaccination group (OR=0.58, 95% CI:0.45-0.74). Compared with the complete vaccination-only group, the hybrid immunity (complete vaccination) group mitigated the risk of reinfection by 65% (OR=0.35, 95% CI:0.27-0.46), and the hybrid immunity (booster vaccination) group mitigated the risk of reinfection by an additional 29% (OR=0.71, 95% CI:0.61-0.84) compared with the hybrid immunity (complete vaccination) group. The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI: 28.88%-46.89%) within 270-364 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI: 50.82%-57.90%) within 270-364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI: 68.95%-78.04%) within 90-119 days.Conclusions: Hybrid immunity was significantly more protective than natural or vaccinationinduced immunity, and booster doses were associated with enhanced protection against Omicron. Although its protective effects waned over time, vaccination remains a crucial measure for controlling COVID-19.
Keywords: hybrid immunity, Omicron reinfection, Meta-analysis, SARS-CoV-2, prevention
Received: 08 Jul 2024; Accepted: 13 Aug 2024.
Copyright: © 2024 Zheng, Wu, Chen, Cai, Zhan, Chen, Lin, Xie, Ou and Ye. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Shenggen Wu, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Wu Chen, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Shaojian Cai, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Meirong Zhan, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Cailin Chen, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Jiawei Lin, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Zhonghang Xie, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Jianming Ou, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Wenjing Ye, Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China, Fuzhou City, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Shenggen Wu
3*