Background The extent to which infection versus vaccination has conferred similarly durable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunity during the Omicron era remains unclear. Methods In a cohort of 4496 adults under continued serological surveillance throughout the first year of Omicron-predominant SARS-CoV-2 transmission, we examined incidence of new infection among individuals whose last known antigenic exposure was either recent (<90 days) or remote (≥90 days) infection or vaccination. Results We adjudicated 2053 new-onset infections occurring between 15 December 2021 through 22 December 2022. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, compared to individuals whose last known exposure was remote vaccination, those with recent vaccination (odds ratio [OR], 0.82 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .73–.93]; P = .002) or recent infection (OR, 0.14 [95% CI, .05–.45]; P = .001) had lower risk for new infection within the subsequent 90-day period. Given a significant age interaction (P = .004), we found that remote infection compared to remote vaccination was associated with significantly greater new infection risk in persons aged ≥60 years (OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.13–3.14]; P = .015) with no difference seen in those <60 years (1.03 [95% CI, .69–1.53]; P = .88). Conclusions During the initial year of Omicron, prior infection and vaccination both offered protection against new infection. However, remote prior infection was less protective than remote vaccination for individuals aged ≥60 years. In older adults, immunity gained from vaccination appeared more durable than immunity gained from infection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ebinger et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: