Cited by 81SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

Risk of BA.5 Infection among Persons Exposed to Previous SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Open access
Malato, João, Ribeiro, Ruy M., Leite, Pedro P., Casaca, Pedro, Fernandes, Eugénia, Antunes, Carlos, Fonseca, Válter R., Gomes, Manuel C. +1 more·2022·New England Journal of Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract The SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.5 subvariant is progressively displacing earlier subvariants, BA.1 and BA.2, in many countries. One possible explanation is the ability of BA.5 to evade immune responses elicited by prior BA.1 and BA.2 infections. The impact of BA.1 infection on the risk of reinfection with BA.5 is a critical issue because adapted vaccines under current clinical development are based on BA.1. We used the national Portuguese COVID-19 registry to analyze the risk of BA.5 infection in individuals without a documented infection or previously infected during periods of distinct variants’ predominance (Wuhan-Hu-1, alpha, delta, BA.1/BA.2). National predominance periods were established according to the national SARS-CoV-2 genetic surveillance data (when one variant represented >90% of the sample isolates). We found that prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reduced the risk for BA.5 infection. The protection effectiveness, related to the uninfected group, for a first infection with Wuhan-Hu-1 was 52.9% (95% CI, 51.9 – 53.9%), for Alpha 54.9% (51.2 – 58.3%), for Delta 62.3% (61.4 – 63.3%), and for BA.1/BA.2 80.0% (79.7 – 80.2%). The results ought to be interpreted in the context of breakthrough infections within a population with a very high vaccine coverage (>98% of the study population completed the primary vaccination series). In conclusion, infection with BA.1/BA.2 reduces the risk for breakthrough infections with BA.5 in a highly vaccinated population. This finding is critical to appraise the current epidemiological situation and the development of adapted vaccines.

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 · 10.1056/nejmc2209479

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Under a sensitivity analysis assuming naturally acquired immunity decayed to 75% in 100 days, population immunity by 31 July 2022 was 36% (31-41%).

    “Sensitivity analyses assuming exponentially decaying immunity from natural infection yielded population immunity of 48% (42–54%) or 36% (31–41%) if such naturally acquired immunity decayed to 85% in 365 days15 or to 75% in 100 days16,17, respectively”

    From Real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron BA.2 variant in a SARS-CoV-2 infection-naive population (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

    The paper’s main text discusses protection against BA.5 after previous infection and mentions immune waning as a possible limitation. Searches for the 75%-in-100-days assumption and the 31 July population-immunity estimate found no sensitivity analysis or 36% (31–41%) estimate in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Malato, J., Ribeiro, R. M., Leite, P. P., Casaca, P., Fernandes, E., Antunes, C., Fonseca, V. R., Gomes, M. C., & Graca, L.
Affiliations
  • Instituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes (PT)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
  • Direcção-Geral da Saúde (PT)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • Instituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes, Lisbon, Portugal
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2022-09-08
Volume
387
Issue
10
Pages
953-954
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W4293843140
Cited by
81
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 31
FWCI
9.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (081_596653860, PTDC/MAT-APL/31602/2017)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (ERA project No 952377 – iSTARS)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-AI116868)
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, reinfection, breakthrough infection, COVID-19 risk
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Humans, Risk

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