Reinfection rates among patients previously infected by SARS-CoV-2: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Asymptomatic or symptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be followed by reinfection. The protection conferred by prior infection among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is unclear. We assessed the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and the protection effect of previous infection against reinfection.Methods
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for publications up until the end date of May 1, 2021. The reinfection rate of recovered patients and the protection against reinfection were analyzed using meta-analysis.Results
Overall, 19 studies of 1096 reinfection patients were included. The pooled reinfection rate was 0.65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.98%). The symptomatic reinfection rate was a bit lower (0.37% [95% CI 0.11-0.78%], I2 = 99%). The reinfection rate was much higher in high-risk populations (1.59% [95% CI 0.30-3.88%], I2 = 90%). The protection against reinfection and symptomatic reinfection was similar (87.02% [95% CI 83.22-89.96%] and 87.17% [95% CI 83.09-90.26%], respectively).Conclusions
The rate of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is relatively low. The protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable to that estimated for vaccine efficacy. These data may help guide public health measures and vaccination strategies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. High-quality clinical studies are needed to establish the relevant risk factors in recovered patients.
SUBMITTER: Mao Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8769121 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The diversity of SARS-CoV-2 mutations raises the possibility of reinfection of individuals previously infected with earlier variants, and this risk is further increased by the emergence of the B.1.1.529 Omicron variant. In this study, we used an in vivo, hamster infection model to assess the potential for individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be reinfected with Omicron variant and we also investigated the pathology associated with such infections. Initially, Syrian hamsters were inoculated with a lineage A, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.617.2 or a subvariant of Omicron, BA.1 strain and then reinfected with the BA.1 strain 5 weeks later. Subsequently, the impact of reinfection with Omicron subvariants (BA.1 and BA.2) in individuals previously infected with the BA.1 strain was examined. Although viral infection and replication were suppressed in both the upper and lower airways, following reinfection, virus-associated RNA was detected in the airways of most hamsters. Viral replication was more strongly suppressed in the lower respiratory tract than in the upper respiratory tract. Consistent amino acid substitutions were observed in the upper respiratory tract of infected hamsters after primary infection with variant BA.1, whereas diverse mutations appeared in hamsters reinfected with the same variant. Histopathology showed no acute pneumonia or disease enhancement in any of the reinfection groups and, in addition, the expression of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in the airways of reinfected animals was only mildly elevated. These findings are important for understanding the risk of reinfection with new variants of SARS-CoV-2. IMPORTANCE The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines has resulted in individual differences in immune status against SARS-CoV-2. A decay in immunity over time and the emergence of variants that partially evade the immune response can also lead to reinfection. In this study, we demonstrated that, in hamsters, immunity acquired following primary infection with previous SARS-CoV-2 variants was effective in preventing the onset of pneumonia after reinfection with the Omicron variant. However, viral infection and multiplication in the upper respiratory tract were still observed after reinfection. We also showed that more diverse nonsynonymous mutations appeared in the upper respiratory tract of reinfected hamsters that had acquired immunity from primary infection. This hamster model reveals the within-host evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and its pathology after reinfection, and provides important information for countermeasures against diversifying SARS-CoV-2 variants.
| S-EPMC9888231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This meta-analysis aims to synthesize global evidence on the risk of reinfection among people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science as of April 5, 2021. We conducted: (1) meta-analysis of cohort studies containing data sufficient for calculating the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection; (2) systematic review of case reports with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases. The reinfection incidence was pooled by zero-inflated beta distribution. The hazard ratio (HR) between reinfection incidence among previously infected individuals and new infection incidence among infection-naïve individuals was calculated using random-effects models. Of 906 records retrieved and reviewed, 11 studies and 11 case reports were included in the meta-analysis and the systematic review, respectively. The pooled SARS-CoV-2 reinfection incidence rate was 0.70 (standard deviation [SD] 0.33) per 10,000 person-days. The incidence of reinfection was lower than the incidence of new infection (HR = 0.12, 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.17). Our meta-analysis of studies conducted prior to the emergency of the more transmissible Omicron variant showed that people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection could be re-infected, and they have a lower risk of infection than those without prior infection. Continuing reviews are needed as the reinfection risk may change due to the rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants.
| S-EPMC9714387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection has brought new challenges to the global prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, current studies suggest that there is still great uncertainty about the risk of severe COVID-19 and poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to evaluate the pooled prevalence (PP) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of severity, outcomes and symptoms of reinfection. Random-effects were used to estimate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and its 95%CI of severity and outcomes between reinfections and primary infections. Nineteen studies involving a total of 34,375 cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and 5,264,720 cases of SARS-CoV-2 primary infection were included in this meta-analysis. Among those SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases, 41.77% (95%CI, 19.23-64.31%) were asymptomatic, and 51.83% (95%CI, 23.90-79.76%) were symptomatic, only 0.58% (95%CI, 0.031-1.14%) manifested as severe illness, and 0.04% (95%CI, 0.009-0.078%) manifested as critical illness. The PPs for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection-related hospitalization, admission to ICU, and death were, respectively, 15.48% (95%CI, 11.98-18.97%), 3.58% (95%CI, 0.39-6.77%), 2.96% (95%CI, 1.25-4.67%). Compared with SARS-CoV-2 primary infection cases, reinfection cases were more likely to present with mild illness (OR = 7.01, 95%CI, 5.83-8.44), and the risk of severe illness was reduced by 86% (OR = 0.14, 95%CI, 0.11-0.16). Primary infection provided some protection against reinfection and reduces the risk of symptomatic infection and severe illness. Reinfection did not contribute to extra risk of hospitalization, ICU, or death. It is suggested to scientifically understand the risk of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2, strengthen public health education, maintain healthy habits, and reduce the risk of reinfection.
| S-EPMC9961977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Considering the indeterminate effects following the administration of three doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to patients under dialysis, the present study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity rates of patients who received the three-dose vaccine. Methods: MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched to select the relevant literature to perform the present review. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, prospective, observational cohort, and case-control studies to assess the humoral and cellular immune responses following the administration of the three-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to patients receiving dialysis. Results: Overall, 38 studies are included in the meta-analysis presented in this paper. For patients on dialysis, the overall humoral antibody response rate is 97% following three doses of mRNA or viral vector vaccines and 100% following four doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. A subgroup analysis shows that the antibody response rate is 96% for patients on hemodialysis (HD) and 100% for those receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). The antibody response rate in the different immunogen-vaccinated groups tends to be higher than that in the same immunogen-vaccinated group (99% vs. 96%). For those who exhibit no response following two doses of the vaccine, the third and fourth doses can elevate the antibody response rate to 81%, and that number for low responders increases to 96%. However, the pooled results obtained from the relatively few trials conducted indicate that the positive T-cell response rate only increases to 59% following three doses of the vaccine. The antibody response rate is not different between dialysis and non-dialysis groups (relative risk = 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.02) following three doses of the vaccine. The relative risks for a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, all-cause mortality, and hospital admissions are 0.59 (95% CI 0.30–1.04), 0.63 (95% CI 0.35–1.12), and 0.53 (95% CI 0.37–0.74), respectively, when comparing three doses with two doses of the vaccine administered to the dialysis population. Conclusions: The third or fourth dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine significantly increases the immunogenicity rates in dialysis patients, and this beneficial effect does not vary with the type of vaccine (the same or different immunogen vaccination), dialysis modality (HD or PD), or previous low response following the administration two doses of the vaccine. We believe that healthcare workers should encourage patients receiving dialysis to receive a third or fourth vaccine dose to strengthen their immunity against SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC9782384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compared the serum neutralizing antibody titers before and after two doses of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in ten individuals who recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination to 20 individuals with no history of infection, against clinical isolates of B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. Vaccination boosted pre-existing levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies 10-fold in previously infected individuals, but not to levels significantly higher than those of uninfected vaccinees. However, neutralizing antibody titers increased in previously infected vaccinees relative to uninfected vaccinees against every variant tested: 5.2-fold against B.1.1.7, 6.5-fold against B.1.351, 4.3-fold against P.1, and 3.4-fold against original SARS-CoV-2. Our study indicates that a first-generation COVID-19 vaccine provides broad protection from SARS-CoV-2variants in individuals with previous infection.
| S-EPMC8095208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMolecular-based tests used to identify symptomatic or asymptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 are characterized by high specificity but scarce sensitivity, generating false-negative results. We aimed to estimate, through a systematic review of the literature, the rate of RT-PCR false negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched Pubmed, Embase and CENTRAL as well as a list of reference literature. We included observational studies that collected samples from respiratory tract to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA using RT-PCR, reporting the number of false-negative subjects and the number of final patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis. Reported rates of false negatives were pooled in a meta-analysis as appropriate. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies and graded the quality of evidence according to the GRADE method. All information in this article is current up to February 2021.ResultsWe included 32 studies, enrolling more than 18,000 patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. The overall false-negative rate was 0.12 (95%CI from 0.10 to 0.14) with very low certainty of evidence. The impact of misdiagnoses was estimated according to disease prevalence; a range between 2 and 58/1,000 subjects could be misdiagnosed with a disease prevalence of 10%, increasing to 290/1,000 misdiagnosed subjects with a disease prevalence of 50%.ConclusionsThis systematic review showed that up to 58% of COVID-19 patients may have initial false-negative RT-PCR results, suggesting the need to implement a correct diagnostic strategy to correctly identify suspected cases, thereby reducing false-negative results and decreasing the disease burden among the population.
| S-EPMC8646643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBetween people with and without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there was no statistically significant difference in the probability of contracting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, the risk of adverse outcomes in IBD patients after virus infection remains unclear.MethodsEligible studies conducted from January 1, 2020 to March 17, 2022 were obtained by searching PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Information was collected in tables from the included studies. Random-effects and fixed-effects models were used as measures for the pooled estimates. All data were estimated by R version 4.1.3.ResultsTwenty-four studies were included. The risk ratio (RR) of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients with IBD increased by 32% (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.66) relative to COVID-19 patients without IBD. The RR of mortality was higher in COVID-19 patients with IBD from Europe (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.11-2.67) than in those that were not from Europe (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.79-1.26; χ2 = 4.67; P = 0.03). Patients with ulcerative colitis were at higher risk of adverse outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients with Crohn's disease patients (RR1.38; 95% CI 1.27-1.50). The IBD drugs treatment was associated with the risk of adverse outcomes, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of mesalazine (1.79; 95% CI 1.59-2.02), immunomodulators (1.30; 95% CI 1.10-1.53), and anti-TNF (0.47; 95% CI 0.41-0.53) were assessed.ConclusionCOVID-19 patients with IBD had an increased risk of adverse outcomes than those without IBD, whereas anti-TNF treatment might reduce the risk.
| S-EPMC9589854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Baricitinib is known to reduce mortality and disease progression in COVID-19 patients; however, the data are inconsistent. Therefore, it needs to be explored to further understand the clinical benefits of this drug in the management of COVID-19 patients. Does baricitinib statistically significantly reduce mortality and disease progression in COVID-19 patients? To answer these questions, three databases known as ScienceDirect, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus and other sources, such as preprint (medRxiv) and reference lists, were thoroughly searched. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Based on the meta-analysis, baricitinib statistically significantly reduced mortality with the risk ratio (RR) of RR = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.58 to 0.94; p = 0.01] and moderately high heterogeneity, where I2 = 62% and p = 0.05. On the other hand, RR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.75 to 0.95; p = 0.005] with insignificant heterogeneity of I2 = 20% and p = 0.28 was found for disease progression. Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) analysis revealed that three out of four articles were ranked as high-quality articles with low RoB. Based on the evidence grading, the overall certainty of evidences was moderate. In conclusion, baricitinib statistically significantly reduced mortality and disease progression in COVID-19 patients when the patients were treated with baricitinib at a dosage of 2 mg or 4 mg for a maximum duration of 14 days.
| S-EPMC9346539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Initial management of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection requires removal of the infected CIED system and treatment with systemic antibiotics. However, the optimal timing to device reimplantation is unknown. The aim of this study was to quantify the incidence of reinfection after initial management of CIED infection, and to assess the effect of timing to reimplantation on reinfection rates. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. INTERVENTIONS:A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of studies published up to February 2018. Inclusion criteria were: (a) documented CIED infection, (b) studies that reported the timing to device reimplantation and (c) studies that reported the proportion of participants with device reinfection. A meta-analysis of proportions using a random effects model was performed to estimate the pooled device reinfection rate. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome measure was the rate of CIED reinfection. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS:Of the 280 screened studies, 8 met inclusion criteria with an average of 96 participants per study (range 15-220 participants). The pooled incidence rate of device reinfection was 0.45% (95% CI, 0.02% to 1.23%) per person year. A longer time to device reimplantation >72 hours was associated with a trend towards higher rates of reinfection (unadjusted incident rate ratio 4.8; 95% CI 0.9 to 24.3, p=0.06); however, the meta-regression analysis was unable to adjust for important clinical covariates. There did not appear to be a difference in reinfection rates when time to reimplantation was stratified at 1 week. Heterogeneity was moderate (I2=61%). CONCLUSIONS:The incident rate of reinfection following initial management of CIED infection is not insignificant. Time to reimplantation may affect subsequent rates of device reinfection. Our findings are considered exploratory and significant heterogeneity limits interpretation. PROSERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD4201810960.
| S-EPMC6731831 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic is still spreading worldwide two years after its outbreak. Depression has been reported in around 30% of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. We aim to synthesize the available meta-analytical evidence in an umbrella review exploring the prevalence of depression during and after SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsFirst, we performed a narrative umbrella review including only meta-analyses providing a quantitative summary of the prevalence of depression during or after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Then we extracted the prevalence and sample size from the original studies included in each meta-analysis, and after removing duplicate studies, we performed a random-effects model meta-analysis based on single original study estimates. Heterogeneity, publication bias, leave-one-out sensitivity, and subgroup analyses were performed.Results14 meta-analyses were included in the umbrella review. The prevalence of depression ranged from 12% to 55% in the presence of high heterogeneity. The meta-analysis based on 85 original studies derived from the included 14 meta-analyses showed a pooled prevalence of depression of 31% (95% CI:25-38%) in the presence of high and significant heterogeneity (Q = 8988; p < 10-6; I2 = 99%) and publication bias (p < 0.001).ConclusionThe burden of post-COVID depression substantially exceeds the pre-pandemic prevalence. Health care services for COVID-19 survivors should monitor and treat emergent depression, reducing its potential detrimental long-term effects.
| S-EPMC9727963 | biostudies-literature