Equivalency of Protection From Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons : A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
Copyright © 2021, Shenai et al..
We present a systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of complete vaccination in the COVID-naive, and (2) the added benefit of vaccination in the COVID-recovered, for prevention of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using the PRISMA 2020 guidance, we first conducted a systematic review of available literature on PubMed, MedRxIV and FDA briefings to identify clinical studies either comparing COVID vaccination to natural immunity or delineating the benefit of vaccination in recovered individuals. After assessing eligibility, studies were qualitatively appraised and formally graded using the NOS system for observational, case-control and RCTs. Incidence rates were tabulated for the following groups: never infected (NI) and unvaccinated (UV), NI and vaccinated (V), previously infected (PI) and UV, PI and V. Pooling were performed by grouping the RCTs and observational studies separately, and then all studies in total. Risk ratios and differences are reported for individual studies and pooled groups, in 1) NPI/V vs PI/UV and 2) PI/UV vs PI/V analysis. In addition, the number needed to treat (NNT) analysis was performed for vaccination in naïve and previously infected cohorts. Nine clinical studies were identified, including three randomized controlled studies, four retrospective observational cohorts, one prospective observational cohort, and a case-control study. The NOS quality appraisals of these articles ranged from four to nine (out of nine stars). All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity. Four observational studies found a statistically significant incremental benefit to vaccination in the COVID-recovered individuals. In a total pooled analysis, the incidence in NPI/V trended higher than PI/UV groups (RR=1.86 [95%CI 0.77-4.51], P=0.17). Vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals provided modest protection from reinfection (RR=1.82 [95%CI 1.21-2.73], P=0.004), but the absolute risk difference was extremely small (AR= 0.004 person-years [95% CI 0.001-0.007], P=0.02). The NNT to prevent one annual case of infection in COVID-recovered patients was 218, compared to 6.5 in COVID-naïve patients, representing a 33.5-fold difference in benefit between the two populations. COVID-recovered individuals represent a distinctly different benefit-risk calculus. While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by complete vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:13 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Cureus - 13(2021), 10 vom: 01. Okt., Seite e19102 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Shenai, Mahesh B [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
A systematic review |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 04.04.2024 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.7759/cureus.19102 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM334054745 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM334054745 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240404233408.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.7759/cureus.19102 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1364.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM334054745 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34868754 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Shenai, Mahesh B |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Equivalency of Protection From Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons |b A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 04.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2021, Shenai et al. | ||
| 520 | |a We present a systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of complete vaccination in the COVID-naive, and (2) the added benefit of vaccination in the COVID-recovered, for prevention of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using the PRISMA 2020 guidance, we first conducted a systematic review of available literature on PubMed, MedRxIV and FDA briefings to identify clinical studies either comparing COVID vaccination to natural immunity or delineating the benefit of vaccination in recovered individuals. After assessing eligibility, studies were qualitatively appraised and formally graded using the NOS system for observational, case-control and RCTs. Incidence rates were tabulated for the following groups: never infected (NI) and unvaccinated (UV), NI and vaccinated (V), previously infected (PI) and UV, PI and V. Pooling were performed by grouping the RCTs and observational studies separately, and then all studies in total. Risk ratios and differences are reported for individual studies and pooled groups, in 1) NPI/V vs PI/UV and 2) PI/UV vs PI/V analysis. In addition, the number needed to treat (NNT) analysis was performed for vaccination in naïve and previously infected cohorts. Nine clinical studies were identified, including three randomized controlled studies, four retrospective observational cohorts, one prospective observational cohort, and a case-control study. The NOS quality appraisals of these articles ranged from four to nine (out of nine stars). All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity. Four observational studies found a statistically significant incremental benefit to vaccination in the COVID-recovered individuals. In a total pooled analysis, the incidence in NPI/V trended higher than PI/UV groups (RR=1.86 [95%CI 0.77-4.51], P=0.17). Vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals provided modest protection from reinfection (RR=1.82 [95%CI 1.21-2.73], P=0.004), but the absolute risk difference was extremely small (AR= 0.004 person-years [95% CI 0.001-0.007], P=0.02). The NNT to prevent one annual case of infection in COVID-recovered patients was 218, compared to 6.5 in COVID-naïve patients, representing a 33.5-fold difference in benefit between the two populations. COVID-recovered individuals represent a distinctly different benefit-risk calculus. While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by complete vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a a systematic review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a covid-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a covid-19 vaccines | |
| 650 | 4 | |a natural immunity | |
| 650 | 4 | |a sars-cov-2 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a sars-cov-2 reinfection | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rahme, Ralph |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Noorchashm, Hooman |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Cureus |d 2013 |g 13(2021), 10 vom: 01. Okt., Seite e19102 |w (DE-627)NLM24118083X |x 2168-8184 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:13 |g year:2021 |g number:10 |g day:01 |g month:10 |g pages:e19102 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19102 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 13 |j 2021 |e 10 |b 01 |c 10 |h e19102 | ||