Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 412

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Stein, Caroline, Nassereldine, Hasan, Sorensen, Reed J D, Amlag, Joanne O, Bisignano, Catherine, Byrne, Sam, Castro, Emma, Coberly, Kaleb, Collins, James K, Dalos, Jeremy, Daoud, Farah, Deen, Amanda, Gakidou, Emmanuela, Giles, John R, Hulland, Erin N, Huntley, Bethany M, Kinzel, Kasey E, Lozano, Rafael, Mokdad, Ali H, Pham, Tom, Pigott, David M, Reiner Jr., Robert C, Vos, Theo, Hay, Simon I, Murray, Christopher J L, Lim, Stephen S·2023·The Lancet

Abstract

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.

Overview

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(22)02465-5

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 412

Metadata

Authors
Stein, C., Nassereldine, H., Sorensen, R. J. D., Amlag, J. O., Bisignano, C., Byrne, S., Castro, E., Coberly, K., Collins, J. K., Dalos, J., Daoud, F., Deen, A., Gakidou, E., Giles, J. R., Hulland, E. N., Huntley, B. M., Kinzel, K. E., Lozano, R., Mokdad, A. H., Pham, T., Pigott, D. M., Reiner Jr., R. C., Vos, T., Hay, S. I., Murray, C. J. L., & Lim, S. S.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
401
Issue
10379
Pages
833-842
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W4321019564
Cited by
412
References
45
FWCI
24.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Past SARS-CoV-2 infection protection against re-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02465-5
The paper
Stein, C., Nassereldine, H., Sorensen, R. J. D., Amlag, J. O., Bisignano, C., Byrne, S., Castro, E., Coberly, K., Collins, J. K., Dalos, J., Daoud, F., Deen, A., Gakidou, E., Giles, J. R., Hulland, E. N., Huntley, B. M., Kinzel, K. E., Lozano, R., Mokdad, A. H., . . . Lim, S. S. (2023). Past SARS-CoV-2 infection protection against re-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02465-5

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.