Dataset Information

Risk of reinfection after seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2: A population-based propensity-score matched cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Serological assays detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are being widely deployed in studies and clinical practice. However, the duration and effectiveness of the protection conferred by the immune response remains to be assessed in population-based samples. To estimate the incidence of newly acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections in seropositive individuals as compared to seronegative controls we conducted a retrospective longitudinal matched study.

Methods

A seroprevalence survey including a representative sample of the population was conducted in Geneva, Switzerland between April and June 2020, immediately after the first pandemic wave. Seropositive participants were matched one-to-two to seronegative controls, using a propensity-score including age, gender, immunodeficiency, BMI, smoking status and education level. Each individual was linked to a state-registry of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Our primary outcome was confirmed infections occurring from serological status assessment to the end of the second pandemic wave (January 2021).

Results

Among 8344 serosurvey participants, 498 seropositive individuals were selected and matched with 996 seronegative controls. After a mean follow-up of 35.6 (SD 3.2) weeks, 7 out of 498 (1.4%) seropositive subjects had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, of whom 5 (1.0%) were classified as reinfections. In contrast, the infection rate was higher in seronegative individuals (15.5%, 154/996) during a similar follow-up period (mean 34.7 [SD 3.2] weeks), corresponding to a 94% (95%CI 86% to 98%, P<0.001) reduction in the hazard of having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test for seropositives.

Conclusions

Seroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 infection confers protection against reinfection lasting at least 8 months. These findings could help global health authorities establishing priority for vaccine allocation.

SUBMITTER: Leidi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8241483 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIvermectin is a drug that has been shown to be active against coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) in previous studies. Healthcare personnel are highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Therefore, we decided to offer them ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) method.PurposePrimary outcome was to measure the number of healthcare workers with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 test in the ivermectin group and in the control group. Secondary outcome was to measure the number of sick healthcare workers with a positive RT-PCR COVID-19 test whose condition deteriorated and required hospitalization and/or an Intensive Care Unit (ICU), or who died, in the ivermectin group and in the control group.Material and methodsThis observational and retrospective cohort study was carried out in two medical centers, Centro Medico Bournigal (CMBO) in Puerto Plata and Centro Medico Punta Cana (CMPC) in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. The study began on June 29, 2020, and ended on July 26, 2020. A Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Propensity Score Matching procedure was applied in a 1:1 ratio to homogeneously evaluate 271 healthcare personnel that adhered to a PrEP program with ivermectin at a weekly oral (PO) dose of 0.2 mg/kg, and 271 healthcare personnel who did not adhere to the program were assigned as a control group.ResultsIn 28 days of follow-up, significant protection of ivermectin preventing the infection from SARS-CoV-2 was observed: 1.8% compared to those who did not take it (6.6%; p-value = 0.006), with a risk reduction of 74% (HR 0.26, 95% CI [0.10,0.71]). Conclusions: These results suggest that compassionate use of weekly ivermectin could be an option as a preventive method in healthcare workers and as an adjunct to immunizations, while further well-designed randomized controlled trials are developed to facilitate scientific consensus.

Project description:ObjectivesWe examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).DesignRetrospective propensity-matched cohort study.SettingMechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four Canadian hospital medical/surgical ICUs from 2014 to 2016 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Participants2837 mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) requiring admission to a medical/surgical ICU were evaluated for the relationship between sedation strategy and delirium.InterventionsNone.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary exposure was dominant sedation strategy, defined as the sedative infusion, including midazolam, propofol or fentanyl, with the longest duration before the first delirium assessment. The primary outcome was 'ever delirium' identified using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration and days with delirium. The cohort was analysed in two propensity score (patient characteristics and therapies received) matched cohorts (propofol vs fentanyl and propofol vs midazolam).Results2837 patients (60.7% male; median age 57 years (IQR 43-68)) were considered for propensity matching. In propensity score-matched cohorts(propofol vs midazolam, n=712; propofol vs fentanyl, n=1732), the odds of delirium were significantly higher with midazolam (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.00)) and fentanyl (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48)) compared with propofol dominant sedation strategies. Dominant sedation strategy with midazolam and fentanyl were associated with a longer duration of ventilation compared with propofol. Fentanyl was also associated with increased ICU mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12)) ICU and hospital LOS compared with a propofol dominant sedation strategy.ConclusionsWe identified a novel association between fentanyl dominant sedation strategies and an increased risk of delirium, a composite outcome of delirium or death, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Midazolam dominant sedation strategies were associated with increased delirium risk and mechanical ventilation duration.