Duration of Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection and Associated Risk of Reinfection Assessed with Real-World Data

Rationale and Background

To date, over 329 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been diagnosed globally.¹ Survivors have a risk of reinfection that can be associated with serious clinical outcomes.^{2, 3} Our previous study of a national U.S. cohort found that seropositivity was associated with reduced risk of subsequent infection over a relatively short interval.⁴ That study demonstrated that at >90 days after an index SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, the ratio of positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) results between those who were index SARS-CoV-2 positive versus index negative individuals was 0.1, suggesting prior infection provided ~90% protection from reinfection. Similar results were observed using real-world data (RWD) and different study designs. ^5–9 Research has also demonstrated that serum SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and T cell immunity correlate with protection against infection and reinfection.^{10, 11}

Previous short-term studies relying on RWD indicate prior SARS-CoV-2 infection may offer protection for at least 7 months.^5–9 Existing studies of reinfection have limited follow-up time for observing reinfection and often limited study population size and geography. For instance, many are limited to healthcare workers or students and lack generalizability to other at-risk populations, such as the elderly and individuals with comorbidities.^5–9 Accordingly, it is unclear whether the duration of protection associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity may be substantially longer, and the impact of patient-level characteristics on the risk of reinfection is also unknown.

Large-scale RWD offer an opportunity to study patterns of infection and reinfection, available longitudinally at the individual level, making it possible to study the experiences of a seropositive population with COVID-19 in near-real time. Further advantages of real-world database studies include maximizing sample size, the ability to evaluate risk within subgroups and specific patient characteristics, and greater data capture of the patient experience over time. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the duration of protection provided against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among index SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals compared to the risk of infection among index SARS-CoV-2 negative individuals. The secondary objective was to estimate the rate of reinfection among those previously identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive and evaluate demographic and comorbid characteristics associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

Methods

Results

For the primary objective, 27,070,023 individuals met the inclusion criteria, of which 7,501 died and 4,275,540 disenrolled between index and start of follow-up; 22,786,982 individuals started follow-up 61 days post-index date. Of these, 2,023,341 (9%) were SARS-CoV-2 index-positive and 20,763,641 (91%) were SARS-CoV-2 index-negative. There were similar age and sex distributions between index-positive and index-negative individuals: a mean age of 43 and 45 years with 57% and 60% female, respectively. The index-negative population exhibited slightly worse comorbid illness (average Charlson-Quan score of 0.55 versus 0.49 for the index-positive). Median follow-up time was 149 days and 162 days for index-positive and index-negative groups, respectively. Index-positive individuals had fewer NAAT tests during follow-up than index-negative individuals (mean (SD) 0.40 (2.55) vs. 0.78 (3.29) respectively). All index-positive individuals were matched to an index-negative individual in the propensity-score model, with 2,023,341 individuals in each group. Characteristics were well balanced before and after matching (Table 1).

A total of 737,742 cases of infection were observed in the unmatched population over the follow-up period; 8,869 (1.2%) occurred in the index-positive group. The crude rate of reinfection over follow-up was substantially lower in the index-positive group (9.89 per 1,000-person year) than in the index-negative group (78.39 per 1,000 PY) (Table 2). The cumulative incidence of reinfection was 0.85% (95% CI: 0.82%, 0.88%) among index-positive individuals and for infection the rate was 6.2% (95% CI: 6.1%, 6.3%) among index-negative individuals over a follow-up of 375 days from the index date (Figure 1). The risk of reinfection was stable over the median 5 months of follow-up and up to one year among index-positive individuals (n=1,821,183 at 4 months, n=859,824 at 8 months and n=147,458 at 12 months). After adjustment for baseline demographic and comorbid characteristics, the risk of reinfection in the index-positive group was 87% lower than the risk of infection in the index-negative group (HR= 0.13, 95% CI: (0.13, 0.13)). A propensity-score matched analysis provided a nearly identical estimate of the degree and duration of protection. The adjusted risk of infection over follow-up time was relatively stable (6-8 months post-index (HR=0.12, 95% CI: (0.12, 0.13); 8-10 months post-index (HR=0.17, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.18); 10–12 months post-index (HR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.18)). Stratified by index-test type (antibody only (n=2,617,139), NAAT only (n=19,857,392) or both (n=312,451), the adjusted risk of reinfection was similar to the pooled estimate (HR=0.14, 95% CI: (0.13, 0.15) for antibody only; HR=0.13 95% CI: (0.13, 0.13) for NAAT only; HR=0.13, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.20) for both on index). These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection provides substantial protection from reinfection for at least 5 months and up to one year from recovery.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection from April 30th, 2020 through April 30th, 2021 among SARS-CoV-2 index positive vs SARS-CoV-2 index negative individuals. There were 71,921 individuals who indexed negative but had a subsequent positive test result within the following 60 days. Of the 27,070,023 index positive and negative individuals, within the first 60 days from index date, 7,501 died in an inpatient setting and 4,275,540 were disenrolled or had no additional claims or EHR activity resulting in 22,786,982 who started follow-up on day 61.

To demonstrate the robustness of laboratory-confirmed COVID defining our outcome, a sensitivity analysis incorporating ICD-10 diagnostic codes to the primary outcome was performed in the primary analysis cohort. The direction of the association was consistent with the primary analysis; however, we estimated only a 27% reduction (fully-adjusted HR= 0.73 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.73)) in risk of reinfection among index-positive individuals versus infection among index-negative individuals, compared to an 87% reduction in the main analysis.

To test the robustness of the prolonged viral shedding period definition on outcome estimates and to align to other previously published literature, we examined a 90-day exclusion period in addition to the primary definition of 60 days.^15–17 Findings (not shown) were nearly identical to the primary definition results indicating minimal bias in 60 versus 90-day viral shedding exclusion period definitions.

For the secondary study objective, 3,213,214 individuals met the criteria for the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort, of whom 2,535,887 individuals were not censored due to death, disenrollment, or the end of data prior to beginning follow-up 61 days after their index date. The mean age was 44 years, 58.1% were female and the average Charlson-Quan score was 0.51 (Table 3). Median follow-up time was 155 days. Characteristics were similar between patients who were reinfected and those who were not.

During follow-up, the crude rate of reinfection was 11.75 (CI: 11.55, 11.96) per 1,000 PY; 12,642 cases over 1,075,563 PY. Individuals ≥85 years of age were more likely to be reinfected compared to those aged 18-29 years. This was particularly true in the Midwest and South regions. Additionally, individuals living in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or in congregate care settings were 1.5 and 2.8 times as likely to be reinfected compared to those not residing in these settings on the index date, respectively. In the South and Midwest geographies, those in congregate care settings had a 4-times higher risk compared to those not living in congregate care settings. Patients with comorbid immunologic conditions had a 37% higher risk of being reinfected than those without. The risk of reinfection among other comorbid conditions, such as heart failure, varied by geographic region. Healthcare workers were less than half as likely to be reinfected compared to the general population. (Table 4). These results suggest that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection may be less durable in elderly patients, those living in congregate setting, and in individuals with impaired immune function.

Discussion

Among a cohort of >22 million individuals with SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results, the risk of reinfection in index-positive individuals was 87% lower compared to risk of infection among index-negative individuals. This association was consistent in unadjusted, fully-adjusted, and among propensity-score matched model estimates. The observed protection against reinfection was durable for at least one year. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of reinfection included older age, comorbid immunological conditions, and living in congregate care setting. Consistent with other studies, healthcare workers were half as likely to be reinfected compared to the general population, which may be associated with lifestyle factors and/or activities to reduce transmission, such as social distancing and use of mask wearing.^18–20

Our prior work suggested 90% protection in a real-world cohort of 3.2 million individuals.⁴ In this current analysis, the observed magnitude of the decreased risk of infection is consistent with other limited published estimates that have been obtained with smaller cohorts that mainly examined shorter periods of protection.^{15, 19, 21} This work adds to our prior findings showing that the real-world use of widely available diagnostics (antibody assays and NAAT) can identify individuals with prior infection and reliably predict long-term risk of reinfection.

Consistent with findings from this study, in a recent US study among over 325,000 patients from a health system spanning two states who were PCR tested for SARS-CoV-2 between March 2020 and September 2021, the duration of long-term protection afforded from primary SARS-CoV-2 infection was up to 13 months.²² A population-based study of over 500,000 individuals in Denmark evaluating infection measured by PCR testing during the second COVID-19 surge among patients who were tested in the first COVID-19 surge, suggest duration lasting at least 7 months, as no waning immunity was observed when comparing results at 3-6 months vs. ≥7 months.²¹ Further, a meta-analysis conducted in 2021 suggested that immunity from primary SARS-COV-2 infection likely persists through one year.²³ This present study now extends those observations by examining a much larger, real-world population followed for over a year.

The stable level of protection from reinfection observed in this study through the first year after SARS-CoV-2 infection differs from the duration of protection after two doses of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, which has been reported to decrease after a few months.²⁴ This difference may not be surprising, given what is known about duration of protection from other subunit vaccines compared with duration of protection following viral infection²⁵, and the much more rapid reported decrease in antibody titer following two doses of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine compared with the rate of decrease after viral infection.²⁶

Of importance to future studies utilizing real-world evidence and diagnostic codes where more reliable laboratory data aren’t readily available as in our study, when ICD-10 diagnostic codes were added to the primary outcome definition, we found a notably lower risk reduction (27%) for reinfection vs. infection. This suggests the lack of specificity in COVID-19 ICD-10 codes. Other studies have found variable positive predictive value of COVID ICD-10 codes based on care setting (i.e., inpatient or outpatient).^27–30

The present study identified a large national population using data from medical and pharmacy claims, retail pharmacy data, and electronic medical records. This large size and broad representation across many evaluated attributes allowed better characterization of subgroups. These data are not specifically intended for research purposes; thus, the completeness of medical information is unknown. Additionally, certain risk factors for infection, such as frequency of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 are not captured in the RWD. We were, therefore, not able to assess social and behavioral factors that likely influence risk of reinfection, which may be why we observe the same effect estimates in the crude and adjusted models

These data are mainly drawn from a medically insured individuals, except for laboratory or retail pharmacy data coming directly from available clinical laboratory and retail pharmacy sources. As such, these data may not be representative of the medically uninsured individuals, although there is no a priori reason to believe their results would be different. During follow-up, index negative individuals had slightly more follow-up time and NAAT tests than index-positive, which may overestimate the true protective effect observed. Further, false-negative NAAT test results among the index-negative may underestimate the true protective effect observed.³¹. Study data aren’t inclusive of time periods of variant circulation (i.e. Delta, Omicron); durability of protection may vary for these and future SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The primary outcome definition inherently required individuals to be observable, and without evidence of positive test results if in the index-negative group, until 61 days following their index date, thereby introducing immortal time bias (i.e. bias in the estimator due to exclusion of time intervals, in this case 60 days post-index). However, this decision was warranted to ensure residual viral shedding wasn’t captured during a primary infection, creating a more specific outcome definition. ^9–11

In summary, this large US population-based study demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is uncommon among individuals with laboratory evidence of a previous infection. Protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is stable for up to one year. Reinfection risk was primarily associated with age 85+ years, comorbid immunologic conditions and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers demonstrated a decreased reinfection risk. These findings suggest that infection induced immunity is durable for variants circulating prior to Delta.