Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39253287›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024

Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.

Huiling Zheng, Shenggen Wu, Wu Chen, Shaojian Cai, Meirong Zhan, Cailin Chen, Jiawei Lin, Zhonghang Xie, Jianming Ou, Wenjing Ye

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Huiling Zheng *Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Shenggen Wu *Institute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Wu ChenInstitute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Shaojian CaiInstitute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Meirong ZhanInstitute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Cailin ChenInstitute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Jiawei LinInstitute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Zhonghang XieInstitute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Jianming OuInstitute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.
Wenjing YeInstitute of Emergency Response and Epidemic Management, Fujian Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Fuzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hybrid immunity (a combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity) provides additional immune protection against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfection. Today, people are commonly infected and vaccinated; hence, hybrid immunity is the norm. However, the mitigation of the risk of Omicron variant reinfection by hybrid immunity and the durability of its protection remain uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to explore hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection and its protective durability to provide a new evidence-based basis for the development and optimization of immunization strategies and improve the public's awareness and participation in COVID-19 vaccination, especially in vulnerable and at-risk populations. Methods: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for publicly available literature up to 10 June 2024. Two researchers independently completed the data extraction and risk of bias assessment and cross-checked each other. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed the risk of bias in included cohort and case-control studies, while criteria recommended by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) evaluated cross-sectional studies. The extracted data were synthesized in an Excel spreadsheet according to the predefined items to be collected. The outcome was Omicron variant reinfection, reported as an Odds Ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and Protective Effectiveness (PE) with 95% CI. The data were pooled using a random- or fixed-effects model based on the Results: Thirty-three articles were included. Compared with the natural immunity group, the hybrid immunity (booster vaccination) group had the highest level of mitigation in the risk of reinfection (OR = 0.43, 95% CI:0.34-0.56), followed by the complete vaccination group (OR = 0.58, 95% CI:0.45-0.74), and lastly the incomplete vaccination group (OR = 0.64, 95% CI:0.44-0.93). Compared with the complete vaccination-only group, the hybrid immunity (complete vaccination) group mitigated the risk of reinfection by 65% (OR = 0.35, 95% CI:0.27-0.46), and the hybrid immunity (booster vaccination) group mitigated the risk of reinfection by an additional 29% (OR = 0.71, 95% CI:0.61-0.84) compared with the hybrid immunity (complete vaccination) group. The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88-46.89%) within 270-364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80-42.66%) within 365-639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82-57.90%) within 270-364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95-78.04%) within 90-119 days. Conclusion: Hybrid immunity was significantly more protective than natural or vaccination-induced immunity, and booster doses were associated with enhanced protection against Omicron. Although its protective effects waned over time, vaccination remains a crucial measure for controlling COVID-19. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier, CRD42024539682.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesReinfectionSARS-CoV-2Adaptive ImmunityHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccineshybrid immunitymeta-analysisOmicron reinfectionprevention and control of infectious diseasesSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID39253287
PMCPMC11381385

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.