Cited by 586SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study

Open access
Hansen, Christian Holm, Michlmayr, Daniela, Gubbels, Sophie Madeleine, Mølbak, Kåre, Ethelberg, Steen·2021·The Lancet

Abstract

Background The degree to which infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers protection towards subsequent reinfection is not well described. In 2020, as part of Denmark's extensive, free-of-charge PCR-testing strategy, approximately 4 million individuals (69% of the population) underwent 10·6 million tests. Using these national PCR-test data from 2020, we estimated protection towards repeat infection with SARS-CoV-2.Methods In this population-level observational study, we collected individual-level data on patients who had been tested in Denmark in 2020 from the Danish Microbiology Database and analysed infection rates during the second surge of the COVID-19 epidemic, from Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020, by comparison of infection rates between individuals with positive and negative PCR tests during the first surge (March to May, 2020). For the main analysis, we excluded people who tested positive for the first time between the two surges and those who died before the second surge. We did an alternative cohort analysis, in which we compared infection rates throughout the year between those with and without a previous confirmed infection at least 3 months earlier, irrespective of date. We also investigated whether differences were found by age group, sex, and time since infection in the alternative cohort analysis. We calculated rate ratios (RRs) adjusted for potential confounders and estimated protection against repeat infection as 1 - RR.Findings During the first surge (ie, before June, 2020), 533 381 people were tested, of whom 11 727 (2·20%) were PCR positive, and 525 339 were eligible for follow-up in the second surge, of whom 11 068 (2·11%) had tested positive during the first surge. Among eligible PCR-positive individuals from the first surge of the epidemic, 72 (0·65% [95% CI 0·51-0·82]) tested positive again during the second surge compared with 16 819 (3·27% [3·22-3·32]) of 514 271 who tested negative during the first surge (adjusted RR 0·195 [95% CI 0·155-0·246]). Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4-84·5). The alternative cohort analysis gave similar estimates (adjusted RR 0·212 [0·179-0·251], estimated protection 78·8% [74·9-82·1]). In the alternative cohort analysis, among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection was 47·1% (95% CI 24·7-62·8). We found no difference in estimated protection against repeat infection by sex (male 78·4% [72·1-83·2] vs female 79·1% [73·9-83·3]) or evidence of waning protection over time (3-6 months of follow-up 79·3% [74·4-83·3] vs ≥7 months of follow-up 77·7% [70·9-82·9]).Interpretation Our findings could inform decisions on which groups should be vaccinated and advocate for vaccination of previously infected individuals because natural protection, especially among older people, cannot be relied on.Funding None.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00575-4

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hansen, C. H., Michlmayr, D., Gubbels, S. M., Mølbak, K., & Ethelberg, S.
Affiliations
Statens Serum Institut (DK)
Corresponding author
Ethelberg, Steen
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
397
Issue
10280
Pages
1204-1212
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W3137307037
Cited by
586
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 217 · 2021: 214 · 2020: 1
FWCI
44.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, reinfection, seroprevalence, PCR testing, Denmark, time since infection, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies
MeSH terms
Reinfection, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Testing, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Denmark, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Cohort Studies, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Databases, Factual

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review