Abstract
Objective We aimed to compare clinical severity of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 infection with BA.1 and earlier variant infections among laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Western Cape, South Africa, using timing of infection to infer the lineage/variant causing infection.
Methods We included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 1-21 May 2022 (BA.4/BA.5 wave) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of (i) death and (ii) severe hospitalization/death (all within 21 days of diagnosis) using Cox regression adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, admission pressure, vaccination and prior infection.
Results Among 3,793 patients from the BA.4/BA.5 wave and 190,836 patients from previous waves the risk of severe hospitalization/death was similar in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 waves (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92; 1.12). Both Omicron waves had lower risk of severe outcomes than previous waves. Prior infection (aHR 0.19, 95% CI 0.16; 0.22) and vaccination (aHR 0.24; 95% CI 0.15; 0.39 for boosted vs. no vaccine) were protective.
Conclusion Disease severity was similar amongst diagnosed COVID-19 cases in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 periods in the context of growing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 due to prior infection and vaccination, both of which were strongly protective.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We acknowledge funding for the Western Cape Provincial Health Data Centre from the Western Cape Department of Health, the US National Institutes for Health (R01 HD080465, U01 AI069924), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (1164272, 1191327), the United States Agency for International Development (72067418CA00023), the European Union (101045989) and the Grand Challenges ICODA pilot initiative delivered by Health Data Research UK and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates and Minderoo Foundations (INV-017293). Funding was also received from Wellcome (203135/Z/16/Z [RJW, GM, WCPHDC], 222574 [RJW, WCPHDC] 214321/Z/18/Z [GM]) and the Medical Research Council of South Africa (RJW, MAD). RJW additionally receives support from the Francis Crick Institute which is funded by Wellcome (FC0010218), MRC (UK) (FC0010218), and Cancer Research UK (FC0010218). GM is also funded by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa (Grant No 64787). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of this report. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this manuscript reflect those of the authors alone.
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 study was approved by the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committees and Western Cape Government: Health. Individual informed consent requirement was waived for this secondary analysis of de-identified data.
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
Footnotes
* Authors are listed in alphabetical order except for the first three and last authors.
Data Availability
The underlying data are de-identified pseudo-anonymised routine patient records for which patients have not consented to their de-identified data being part of publicly accessible repositories with inherent risks of re-identification. The Western Cape Department of Health and Wellness evaluates research proposals for all research in the public health sector in the Province, including those which draw on similar datasets to the current study, based on routine data, subject to standard research ethics, government approval and data governance prescripts.
