Abstract
Given the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant and the roll-out of booster COVID-19 vaccination, evidence is needed on protection conferred by primary vaccination, booster vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection against Omicron BA.1 compared with Delta infection.
We employed a test-negative design and used multinomial logistic regression on data from community PCR testing in the Netherlands, from 22 November 2021 to 19 January 2022. S-gene target failure (SGTF) was used as proxy for Omicron BA.1 infection versus Delta.
A total of 528,488 tests were included, of which 38,975 SGTF and 41,245 non-SGTF infections. Protection from primary vaccination was 33% (95% confidence interval (CI): 31-35) and from previous infection 25% (95% CI: 21-29) against Omicron BA.1 infection. Protection against Delta infection was higher with 76% (95% CI: 75-76) for primary vaccination and 78% (95% CI: 76-80) for previous infection. Higher protection was observed in individuals with both primary vaccination and earlier infection compared with either one. Waning of vaccine- or infection-induced protection over time was observed against both variants. Booster vaccination considerably increased vaccine effectiveness against Omicron BA.1 to 76% (95% CI: 72-79) and 68% (95% CI: 67-69) with and without previous infection, respectively.
Primary vaccination with current COVID-19 vaccines and pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infections offer low protection against Omicron BA.1 infection. Booster vaccination considerably increases protection against Omicron BA.1, although protection remains lower than against Delta.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Centre for Clinical Expertise at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) assessed the research proposal following the specific conditions as stated in the law for medical research involving human subjects. The work described was exempted for further approval by the ethical research committee. Pathogen surveillance is a legal task of the RIVM and is carried out under the responsibility of the Dutch Minister of Health, Welfare and Sports. The Public Health Act (Wet Publieke Gezondheid) provides that RIVM may receive pseudonymised data for this task without informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
