×

Loading...

Topic

This topic has been archived. It cannot be replied.
  • 枫下家园 / 医药保健 / 南非Omicron的初步研究结果来了,可能有ADE,再感染几率是没有感染过人群的2.39倍 +5
    Objective: To examine whether SARS-CoV-2 reinfection risk has changed through time in South Africa, in the context of the emergence of the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants Design: Retrospective analysis of routine epidemiological surveillance data Setting: Line list data on SARS-CoV-2 with specimen receipt dates between 04 March 2020 and 27 November 2021, collected through South Africa's National Notifiable Medical Conditions Surveillance System Participants 2,796,982 individuals with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who had a positive test result at least 90 days prior to 27 November 2021. Individuals having sequential positive tests at least 90 days apart were considered to have suspected reinfections. Main outcome measures: Incidence of suspected reinfections through time; comparison of reinfection rates to the expectation under a null model (approach 1); empirical estimates of the time-varying hazards of infection and reinfection throughout the epidemic (approach 2) Results: 35,670 suspected reinfections were identified among 2,796,982 individuals with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who had a positive test result at least 90 days prior to 27 November 2021. The number of reinfections observed through the end of the third wave was consistent with the null model of no change in reinfection risk (approach 1). Although increases in the hazard of primary infection were observed following the introduction of both the Beta and Delta variants, no corresponding increase was observed in the reinfection hazard (approach 2). Contrary to expectation, the estimated hazard ratio for reinfection versus primary infection was lower during waves driven by the Beta and Delta variants than for the first wave (relative hazard ratio for wave 2 versus wave 1: 0.75 (CI95: 0.59-0.97); for wave 3 versus wave 1:0.71 (CI95: 0.56-0.92)). In contrast, the recent spread of the Omicron variant has been associated with a decrease in the hazard of primary infection and an increase in reinfection hazard. The estimated hazard ratio for reinfection versus primary infection for the period from 1 November 2021 to 27 November 2021 versus wave 1 was 2.39 (CI95: 1.88-3.11). Conclusion: Population-level evidence suggests that the Omicron variant is associated with substantial ability to evade immunity from prior infection. In contrast, there is no population-wide epidemiological evidence of immune escape associated with the Beta or Delta variants. This finding has important implications for public health planning, particularly in countries like South Africa with high rates of immunity from prior infection. Urgent questions remain regarding whether Omicron is also able to evade vaccine-induced immunity and the potential implications of reduced immunity to infection on protection against severe disease and death. ### Competing Interest Statement All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. CC and AvG have received funding from Sanofi Pasteur in the past 36 months. JRCP and KM serve on the Ministerial Advisory Committee on COVID-19 of the South African National Department of Health. The authors have declared no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. ### Funding Statement This work was supported by the South African Department of Science and Innovation and the National Research Foundation and the Wellcome Trust (grant number 221003/Z/20/Z) in collaboration with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, United Kingdom. ### 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: This study has received ethical clearance from University of the Witwatersrand (Clearance certificate number M210752, formerly M160667) and approval under reciprocal review from Stellenbosch University (Project ID 19330, Ethics Reference Number N20/11/074\_RECIP\_WITS\_M160667\_COVID-19). 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 and code will be made available at https://github.com/jrcpulliam/reinfections. The following data are included in the repository: - Counts of reinfections and primary infections by province, age group (5-year bands), and sex (M, F, U) - Daily time series of primary infections and suspected reinfections by specimen receipt date (national) - Model output: posterior samples from the MCMC fitting procedure and simulation results Requests for additional data must be made in writing to the National Institute for Communicable Diseases, South Africa.
    • 再感染不等于ADE。再感染高说明之前感染产生的抗体不足以抵抗新变种;再感染比没有感染过的人群高原因有可能是非医学的, +3
      譬如说有些人的工作环境生活方式比有些人更容易感染上,一个感染过的公交车司机比一个没感染过的宅男被感染的机会高。当然,这只是一种可能。这就和流感很像了,得过还会再得,疫苗也只能降低感染机会不能完全防住,共存是必然的结果了
      • ADE的全名就是抗体增强效应,抗体帮助病毒增强感染。感染过其他变种的人,比从来没有感染过的人,更容易感染Omicron显然就是ADE了。否则没有其他解释。 +4
        • 其他的解释我已经说了,可能是非医学的
          • 印度病毒时也是这样迅猛也是夏天,类似?
      • 嗯。目前看,应该是以前打过疫苗没有用,并不是以前打过疫苗更容易中招
    • 南非的曲线相当吓人 +1


      :

    • 这个坛子总有一些文盲/科盲的反疫苗人士胡下结论,得出自己想要的结果。人家文章写得一清二楚:这个hazard ratio =2.39是指在新变种下 重新被感染的可能性与第一波重新被感染可能性两者相比,增加的比率。 +10
      • 【hazard ratio for reinfection versus primary infection】说的就是免疫逃逸率正相关的一个比例。【Omicron is also able to evade vaccine-induced immunity】包括在这里面了。 +1
        • 过去 relative hazard ratio for wave 2 versus wave 1 是 0.7,现在 是 2.39 +2
          • 这个说的是两件事。0.7是相对的,这个2.39是本次的绝对数 +1
            • 我已解释过了,结果你还没看明白,再点一下吧:“...versus wave 1 was 2.39 ”。如果谁还看不明白,我只能认定他是文盲,先去学英文吧。 +2
              • 因为你误导了我,这个明显是反对你的结论的,你竟然引用。这个与beta, delta比较的数据说明这次的免疫逃逸率极其高(wave 1这个共同分母不需要考虑)。你先搞懂啥是reinfection再argue比较好 +1
                • 首先,推卸责任就不仅是英文的问题了。现在你已跑到另一个话题了,而且又错了,两者根本不是共同分母,新变种的时间线与旧变种的时间线完全不同,请再看原文吧。 +3
                  • 所有的比较都是versus wave 1。除以同一个数据等于不除,除的目的是使数值区间重叠。 +1
                • 所谓高,当然是文章所说的2.39,但与楼主所说的风马牛不相及。另外,15分钱(新reinfection可能性)比5分钱(旧reinfection可能性)即使高出3倍,也不可怕,因为仅是一块钱(首次infection基数)的15% +1
                  • 这个变化率如果放在传播过程里,用微分方程表述最后的原函数是这个变化率数值的指数函数,说明这个比例一旦变化可以造成极大的感染率,这也是上面cyy123的图表里反映出来的。 +2
        • 我上面这句话一点问题都没有 +1
    • 怎么还没研究出打了疫苗的感染风险更高?