Dataset Information

Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2: A Living, Rapid Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points on the Role of the Antibody Response in Conferring Immunity Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The strength and duration of immunity from infection with SARS-CoV-2 are important for public health planning and clinical practice.

Purpose

To synthesize evidence on protection against reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Data sources

MEDLINE (Ovid), the World Health Organization global literature database, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID19reviews.org, and reference lists.

Study selection

Longitudinal studies that compared the risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection versus infection risk in individuals with no prior infection.

Data extraction

Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality.

Data synthesis

Across 18 eligible studies, reinfection risk ranged from 0% to 2.2%. In persons with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals, 80% to 98% of symptomatic infections with wild-type or Alpha variants were prevented (high strength of evidence). In the meta-analysis, previous infection reduced risk for reinfection by 87% (95% CI, 84% to 90%), equaling 4.3 fewer infections per 100 persons in both the general population (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.071 to -0.015]) and health care workers (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.069 to -0.016]), and 26.6 fewer infections per 100 persons in care facilities (risk difference, -0.266 [CI, -0.449 to -0.083]). Protection remained above 80% for at least 7 months, but no study followed patients after the emergence of the Delta or Omicron variant. Results for the elderly were conflicting.

Limitation

Methods to ascertain and diagnose infections varied.

Conclusion

Before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, persons with recent infection had strong protection against symptomatic reinfections for 7 months compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals. Protection in immunocompromised persons, racial and ethnic subgroups, and asymptomatic index case patients is unclear. The durability of protection in the setting of the Delta and Omicron variants is unknown.

Primary funding source

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

SUBMITTER: Helfand M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8791447 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19.Data sourcesSeveral databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020.Study selectionEnglish-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods.Data extractionSingle-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments.Data synthesisFour randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity.LimitationsLow-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease.ConclusionIn hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course.Primary funding sourceU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.

Project description:BackgroundRemdesivir is being studied and used for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).PurposeTo update a previous review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19, including new meta-analyses of patients with COVID-19 of any severity compared with control.Data sourcesSeveral sources from 1 January 2020 through 7 December 2020.Study selectionEnglish-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19. New evidence is incorporated by using living review methods.Data extraction1 reviewer abstracted data; a second reviewer verified the data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used.Data synthesisThe update includes 5 RCTs, incorporating data from a new large RCT and the final results of a previous RCT. Compared with control, a 10-day course of remdesivir probably results in little to no reduction in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.06]; 4 RCTs) but may result in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.71 [CI, 0.56 to 0.90]; 3 RCTs). Remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the percentage of patients who recovered and a moderate decrease in serious adverse events and may result in a large reduction in time to recovery. Effect on hospital length of stay or percentage remaining hospitalized is mixed. Compared with a 10-day course for those not requiring ventilation at baseline, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, the need for ventilation, and serious adverse events while increasing the percentage of patients who recovered or clinically improved.LimitationSummarizing findings was challenging because of varying disease severity definitions and outcomes.ConclusionIn hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably results in little to no mortality difference but probably improves the percentage recovered and reduces serious harms and may result in a small reduction in the proportion receiving ventilation. For patients not receiving ventilation, a 5-day course may provide greater benefits and fewer harms with lower drug costs than a 10-day course.Primary funding sourceU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Project description:BackgroundRemdesivir is approved for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19.PurposeTo update a living review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19.Data sourcesSeveral electronic U.S. Food and Drug Administration, company, and journal websites from 1 January 2020 through 19 October 2021.Study selectionEnglish-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19.Data extractionOne reviewer abstracted, and a second reviewer verified data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used.Data synthesisSince the last update (search date 9 August 2021), 1 new RCT and 1 new subtrial comparing a 10-day course of remdesivir with control (placebo or standard care) were identified. This review summarizes and updates the evidence on the cumulative 5 RCTs and 2 subtrials for this comparison. Our updated results confirm a 10-day course of remdesivir, compared with control, probably results in little to no mortality reduction (5 RCTs). Updated results also confirm that remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the proportion of patients recovered by day 29 (4 RCTs) and may reduce time to clinical improvement (2 RCTs) and hospital length of stay (4 RCTs). New RCTs, by increasing the strength of evidence, lead to an updated conclusion that remdesivir probably results in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at specific follow-up times (4 RCTs). New RCTs also alter the conclusions for harms-remdesivir, compared with control, may lead to a small reduction in serious adverse events but may lead to a small increase in any adverse event.LimitationThe RCTs differed in definitions of COVID-19 severity and outcomes reported.ConclusionIn hospitalized adults with COVID-19, the findings confirm that remdesivir probably results in little to no difference in mortality and increases the proportion of patients recovered. Remdesivir may reduce time to clinical improvement and may lead to small reductions in serious adverse events but may result in a small increase in any adverse event.Primary funding sourceU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection.PurposeTo assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.Data sourcesEpistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.Data extractionOne reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments.Data synthesisThe 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo.LimitationMany outcomes had few events and small samples.ConclusionSome antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited.Primary funding sourceAmerican College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Project description:As public health guidelines throughout the world have relaxed in response to vaccination campaigns against SARS-CoV-2, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 will remain endemic, fueled by the rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants. Moreover, in the setting of waning natural and vaccine immunity, reinfections have emerged across the globe, even among previously infected and vaccinated individuals. As such, the ability to detect reexposure to and reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 is a key component for global protection against this virus and, more importantly, against the potential emergence of vaccine escape mutations. Accordingly, there is a strong and continued need for the development and deployment of simple methods to detect emerging hot spots of reinfection to inform targeted pandemic response and containment, including targeted and specific deployment of vaccine booster campaigns. In this study, we identify simple, rapid immune biomarkers of reinfection in rhesus macaques, including IgG3 antibody levels against nucleocapsid and FcγR2A receptor binding activity of anti-RBD antibodies, that are recapitulated in human reinfection cases. As such, this cross-species analysis underscores the potential utility of simple antibody titers and function as price-effective and scalable markers of reinfection to provide increased resolution and resilience against new outbreaks. IMPORTANCE As public health and social distancing guidelines loosen in the setting of waning global natural and vaccine immunity, a deeper understanding of the immunological response to reexposure and reinfection to this highly contagious pathogen is necessary to maintain public health. Viral sequencing analysis provides a robust but unrealistic means to monitor reinfection globally. The identification of scalable pathogen-specific biomarkers of reexposure and reinfection, however, could significantly accelerate our capacity to monitor the spread of the virus through naive and experienced hosts, providing key insights into mechanisms of disease attenuation. Using a nonhuman primate model of controlled SARS-CoV-2 reexposure, we deeply probed the humoral immune response following rechallenge with various doses of viral inocula. We identified virus-specific humoral biomarkers of reinfection, with significant increases in antibody titer and function upon rechallenge across a range of humoral features, including IgG1 to the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (RBD), IgG3 to the nucleocapsid protein (N), and FcγR2A receptor binding to anti-RBD antibodies. These features not only differentiated primary infection from reexposure and reinfection in monkeys but also were recapitulated in a sequencing-confirmed reinfection patient and in a cohort of putatively reinfected humans that evolved a PCR-positive test in spite of preexisting seropositivity. As such, this cross-species analysis using a controlled primate model and human cohorts reveals increases in antibody titers as promising cross-validated serological markers of reinfection and reexposure.