Effectiveness of Primary and Booster COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination against Infection Caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in People with a Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection ===================================================================================================================================================================== * Margaret L. Lind * Alexander Robertson * Julio Silva * Frederick Warner * Andreas C. Coppi * Nathan Price * Chelsea Duckwall * Peri Sosensky * Erendira C. Di Giuseppe * Ryan Borg * Mariam Fofana * Otavio T. Ranzani * Natalie E. Dean * Jason R. Andrews * Julio Croda * Akiko Iwasaski * Derek A.T. Cummings * Albert I. Ko * Matt DT Hitchings * Wade L. Schulz ## Abstract **Importance** The benefit of primary and booster vaccination in people who experienced prior SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unclear. **Objective** To estimate the effectiveness of a primary (two-dose) and booster (third dose) vaccination against Omicron infection among previously infection people. **Design** Test-negative case-control study. **Setting** Yale New Haven Health System facilities serving southern Connecticut communities. **Participants** Vaccine eligible people who received SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing between November 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022. **Exposure** COVID-19 mRNA primary and booster vaccination. **Main Outcomes and Measures** We conducted two analyses, each with an outcome of Omicron BA.1 variant infection (S-gene target failure defined) and each stratified by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status. We estimated the effectiveness of primary vaccination during the period before and during booster eligibility (14-149 and ≥150 days, respectively, after 2nd dose) and of booster vaccination (≥14 days after booster dose). To test whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of infection beyond that of the primary series, we compared the odds among boosted and booster eligible people. **Results** Overall, 10,676 cases and 119,397 controls were included (median age: cases: 35 years, controls: 39 years). Among cases and controls, 6.1% and 7.8% had a prior infection. The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14-149 days after 2nd dose was 36.1% (95% CI, 7.1-56.1%) and 28.5% (95% CI, 20.0-36.2%) for people with and without prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination was 45.8% (95% CI, 20.0-63.2%) and 56.9% (95% CI, 52.1-61.2%) in people with and without prior infection, respectively. The odds ratio comparing boosted and booster eligible people with prior infection was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.56-1.23), whereas the odds ratio comparing boosted and booster eligible people without prior infection was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.46-0.56). **Conclusions and Relevance** Primary vaccination provided significant but limited protection against Omicron BA.1 infection among people with and without prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with additional protection in people without prior infection, it was not associated with additional protection among people with prior infection. These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of prior infection status but suggest that infection history should be considered when evaluating the need for booster vaccination. ## Introduction Although COVID-19 vaccines provide lower levels of protection against the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) than the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2, current evidence indicates that primary and booster (third) vaccination significantly reduces the risk of Omicron related outcomes in the general population.1–5 However, the benefit of vaccination in people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection remains uncertain. Previous studies, conducted prior to the Omicron epidemic wave, found that primary vaccination (two doses) afforded protection against reinfection beyond that provided by a prior infection6–9 and that a booster dose significantly increase such protection.10 In contrast, Shrestha et al. found that primary vaccination did not provide additional protection (Hazard Ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12) against SARS-CoV-2 re-infection among previously infected people during the first month of the Omicron wave.11 Furthermore, evidence is lacking for the additional benefit of booster vaccination against Omicron infection in individuals with a prior infection, which is needed to inform vaccination policies for this sub-population. In this study, we analyzed data from a large cohort of people from the Yale New Haven Health system who underwent molecular testing for S-gene target failure (SGTF) to evaluate the benefit of primary series and booster doses in the context of the Omicron wave. Specifically, we estimated the effectiveness of primary and booster vaccination against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with and without a documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also examined whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of Omicron infection beyond that afforded by primary vaccination among people with and without a prior documented infection. ## Methods ### Study Setting and Population We conducted a test-negative case-control (TNCC) analysis using data collected as part of the Studying COVID-19 Outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccination (SUCCESS) Study at the Yale New Haven Health System (YNHH). The YNHH is a large academic health system comprising five hospital delivery networks and associated outpatient clinics in Connecticut and Rhode Island. We chose the TNCC design because it has been shown to provide effectiveness estimates consistent with those from randomized control trials, has been widely applied to estimate real-world effectiveness for COVID-19 vaccines, and mitigates the risk of confounding introduced by care-seeking and testing access.1,12–15 The study population comprised vaccine eligible (≥5 years of age) people who had at least one SARS-CoV-2 test or mRNA (mRNA-1273 [Moderna] or BNT162b2 [Pfizer]) vaccine dose in the medical records. We identified SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests that were collected from the study population and performed with the TaqPath(tm) COVIDIZ19 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) diagnostic assay between November 1, 2021 and January 31, 2022, the period prior to and during the Omicron epidemic wave in Connecticut (Figure 1A). At the beginning of the study, Delta was the predominant variant in Connecticut, accounting for 99.63% (3,808 of 3,822) of the sequenced samples deposited in the GISAID database that were collected between November 1 and November 28, 2021.16 We used the TaqPath assay to select tests as cases and controls since its S-gene probe, which fails for Omicron (BA.1) but not for Delta, allows for prediction of an Omicron infection when the primary circulating variants are Omicron and Delta.17 ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/20/2022.04.19.22274056/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/20/2022.04.19.22274056/F1) Figure 1: (A) Daily SARS-CoV-2 Infections Caused by Omicron and Delta Variants Identified during TaqPath Testing at the Yale New Haven Hospital System between November 1, 2021 and January 31, 2022 and (B) Selection of Tests for the Case Control Analysis The sample was limited to RT-PCRs run on the TaqPath(tm) COVIDIZ19 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) among vaccine eligible individuals. Case status was defined based on the reflex results. We included all positive tests (cases) and up to three negative tests (controls) per person. Cases and controls were stratified by presence of prior infection, or a positive RT-PCR or rapid antigen test at least 90 days before testing. We excluded tests that were performed after receiving a heterologous primary vaccination (i.e. different first and second dose manufacturers) or an Ad26.COV2 vaccine dose. Additionally, we excluded tests that were performed among people who received booster doses prior to eligibility (defined as five months since 2nd primary vaccine dose and after booster vaccination approval in the US [September 22, 2021]).16 We excluded tests that were performed in the 90 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (rapid antigen or RT-PCR), had a positive reflex result with an inconclusive S-gene target failure (SGTF) finding, or were obtained from people with more than one prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or with missing confounder data (Figure 1). The Yale Computational Health Platform was used to extract demographic, comorbidity, COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 testing data from electronic medical records.18,19 Additional COVID-19 vaccination records from the state vaccination registry were linked to the YNHH medical records and extracted through the same platform. This study was approved by the Yale Institutional Review Board (ID# 2000030222). ### Exposures Our exposure of interest was time from completion of primary (two doses) and booster (third dose) vaccination with mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2. We stratified vaccination by time since dose (<14 days since 2nd dose, 14-149 days since 2nd dose, ≥150 days since 2nd dose but prior to booster dose, <14 days since booster dose, 14-59 days since booster dose, 60-89 days since booster dose and ≥90 days since booster dose). Tests were further stratified by a history of a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as a positive RT-PCR or rapid antigen test result in the medical record ≥90 days before the included test. ### Case and Control Definition and Selection A case of Omicron infection was a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test with SGTF, defined as: 1] an ORF1ab Ct value of < 30 and S-gene Ct – ORF1ab Ct value ≥5; or 2] ORF1ab Ct value <30 and S-gene Ct value ≥40.17,20 An eligible control was a negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test collected ≥7 days prior to a positive test or the end of the study period (to account for non-resulted cases). Our sample included all eligible cases and up to three negative tests (controls) per person during the study period. If an individual had more than one negative test within a seven-day period, one random test was selected during the period as a control. ### Statistical Analysis We conducted two primary analyses, each stratified by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status. First, we estimated vaccine effectiveness as one minus the odds ratio for infection comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people. Second, we examined whether a booster dose was associated with increased protection beyond that afforded by the primary series by comparing the odds of infection among recently boosted people (14-59 days after booster dose) to the odds among booster eligible people. In alignment with CDC booster dose recommendations at the time of analysis,21 we defined booster eligible people as those who completed their primary series ≥150 days (five months) prior to the included test and had not received a booster dose. For this analysis, we were interested in the level of protection associated with a booster dose. For that reason, we excluded tests that were collected among boosted people who experienced a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection after receiving their booster dose. As a secondary analysis, we evaluated whether the odds of infection changed over time after the administration of a booster dose by comparing the odds of infection among recently boosted people (14-59 days after booster dose) to the odds of infection among people who received their booster dose 60-89 and ≥90 days prior to testing.22 Further, to test if changes in the odds of infection over time since booster dose receipt resulted in a loss of protection relative to booster eligible individuals, we compared the odds of infection among people who received their booster dose 60-89 and ≥90 days prior to testing to the odds of infection among booster eligible people. Since there was a limited number of boosted people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=651), the secondary analysis was restricted to people without a prior infection. A mixed effects generalized additive logistic regression was used to evaluate associations. We included the following *a priori* selected covariates: date of test (continuous), age (continuous), sex, race/ethnicity, Charlson comorbidity score (categorized as 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5+)23, number of non-emergent YNHH encounters in the year prior to vaccine rollout in Connecticut (December 2020; categorized as 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5+), insurance group (uninsured, Medicaid, Medicare, other), social vulnerability index (SVI) of residential zip code (continuous)22 and municipality. Continuous factors were modeled using a natural spline with 3 knots and we included a random intercept for municipality.24,25 To account for waning infection-mediated immunity, we included time since prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as a continuous factor in analyses limited to people with prior infection. All analyses were conducted in R, version 4.1.2.26 ### Sensitivity Analyses We performed multiple sensitivity analyses to ensure our findings were robust to alternative study design, data cleaning and modeling assumptions. Specifically, we tested the robustness of our findings to the following scenarios: 1:1 matching with replacement, exclusion of heterologous booster doses, inclusion of tests among people with more than one prior infection, exclusion of discordant test results, inclusion of positive TaqPath results with inconclusive SGTF (included as negative tests), and inclusion of all controls. To examine if the temporality of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinations impacted estimates of vaccine effectiveness among people with a prior infection, we conducted an analysis where we excluded tests performed among people whose prior SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred after the first dose of primary vaccination. Additionally, to evaluate whether waning of protection associated with primary vaccination influenced the risk comparisons between boosted and booster eligible people, we conducted sensitivity analyses that were restricted to tests collected among people who completed primary vaccination ≥150 days prior to testing and adjusted for time since completion of primary vaccination. For a detailed description, see the section on *Sensitivity Analyses* in the *Supplement*. ## Results ### Study Population Between November 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022, we identified 155,827 SARS-CoV-2 tests that were performed with the TaqPath assay on samples obtained from 113,033 unique people in the YNHH system (Figure 1B). The first SGTF defined Omicron infection in the study population was identified on November 11, 2021 (Figure 1A). Of the 138,349 eligible tests, 10,676 were identified as Omicron (BA.1) infections (cases). From the 127,673 negative RT-PCRs, we randomly selected up to three negative tests (controls) per person, resulting in 119,397 controls (Figure 1B). Cases and controls had similar characteristics with respect to age, gender, SVI of residential zip code and Charlson comorbidity score (Table 1). However, a larger proportion of Omicron cases occurred among non-Hispanic Black people (16.6% vs 10.1% in controls) and those who were uninsured (10.2% vs 7.6% in controls) or received Medicaid (23.7% vs 13.4% in controls). Among boosted people, the median time between booster vaccination and testing was similar for cases (53 days [1st-3rd Quartile: 27-77 days]) and controls (41 days [1st-3rd Quartile: 22-64 days]). Among cases and controls, 6.1% and 7.8% had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The time between prior infection and testing was similar for cases (372 days [1st-3rd Quartile: 295-418 days]) and controls (328 days [1st-3rd Quartile: 258-384 days]). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/20/2022.04.19.22274056/T1) Table 1: Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Tests Included as Cases or Controls between November 1, 2021 #### Risk of Omicron Infection among Boosted and Booster Eligible People During the period prior to booster eligibility (14-149 days after 2nd dose), the effectiveness of primary mRNA vaccination against Omicron infection was 36.1% (95% CI, 7.1-56.1%) and 28.5% (95% CI, 20.0-36.2%) for people with and without a prior infection, respectively. During the period of booster eligibility (150+ days after 2nd dose), the effectiveness of primary vaccination was 34.0%; 95% CI, 18.5-46.5%) for people with and 15.3% [95% CI, 10.4-20.2%]) for people without a prior infection. Vaccine effectiveness in the period 14-59 days after a booster dose was 45.8% (95% CI, 20.0-63.2%) and 56.9% (95% CI, 52.1-61.2%) for people with and without a prior infection, respectively (Figure 2). ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/04/20/2022.04.19.22274056/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/20/2022.04.19.22274056/F2) Figure 2: Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Against SARS-COV-2 Omicron Variant Infections, Stratified by the History of a Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Against SARS-COV-2 Omicron Variant Infections, Stratified by the History of a Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection The odds of Omicron infection did not differ significantly between boosted and booster eligible people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR: 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.22). However, among people without a prior infection, the odds of infection were 0.51 (95% CI: 0.46-0.56) times lower for boosted than booster eligible people (Table 2). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/20/2022.04.19.22274056/T2) Table 2: Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Infection among People Who Received Booster Vaccination Relative to Booster Eligible People, According to History of a Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection In the secondary analysis that was restricted to people without a prior infection, the odds of Omicron infection increased over time since booster vaccination and was significantly higher 90+ days after a booster dose relative to the period 14-59 days after the dose (OR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0, eTable1). Yet, the odds of infection among boosted people 90+ days after the booster dose was lower than the odds among booster eligible people (OR: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91, Table 3). View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/20/2022.04.19.22274056/T3) Table 3: Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Infection among People Who Received Booster Vaccination Relative to Booster Eligible Peoplea, According to Time after Receiving a Booster Vaccine Dose #### Sensitivity Analyses In sensitivity analyses, the effectiveness of booster vaccination against Omicron infection (≥14 days after the booster dose) ranged between 35.1-48.5% for people with a prior infection and 55.0-58.5% for people without a prior infection (eFigures1-8). Compared with the primary analysis, we observed lower precision from our matched (1:1 with replacement) analysis (eFigure1). Following the exclusion of tests collected among people whose prior infection occurred after their first vaccine dose, we observed non-significantly lower effectiveness estimates for primary (14-149 days after 2nd dose: 33.5%; 95% CI, 2.7-54.6%) and booster (14+days after booster dose: 41.9%; 95% CI, 12.1-61.6%]) vaccination. Adjusting for time between testing and completion of primary vaccination did not significantly alter the estimated association between booster doses and Omicron infections among people with a prior infection (OR: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.53-1.23)] or without prior infection (OR: 0.55; CI, 0.49-0.61) (eTable2). ## Discussion Leveraging data from a large population of Connecticut residents, we examined the effectiveness of primary series and booster doses against Omicron infections among primary series (2-dose) mRNA recipients with and without a prior infection. We found primary vaccination was associated with significant but low levels of protection among people with and without a prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with protection beyond that afforded by the primary series in people without a prior infection, we did not identify a significant increase in protection among people with a prior infection. Contrary to the findings of Shrestha et al.,11 our analysis, which ascertained Omicron infection in cases by the presence of SGTF and had increased precision for vaccine effectiveness, found that primary vaccination was associated with a significant reduction in the risk (34.0%; 95% CI, 18.5-46.5%) of Omicron infection among people with a prior infection. Though we found the level of protection afforded by primary vaccination to be low, our findings suggest that primary vaccination may be warranted regardless of prior infection status. Our estimate of booster vaccination effectiveness among previously infected people had reduced precision (45.8%; 95% CI, 20.0-63.2%) compared to the estimate for people without a prior infection (56.9%; 95% CI, 52.1-61.2%]). Because the differences in these estimates may be driven by differences in care-seeking behaviors, we caution their direct comparison. However, in a parallel analysis, the odds of infection did not differ significantly (OR: 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.22) between boosted and booster eligible people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Together, these findings suggest that boosters may not confer additional protection beyond that afforded by primary vaccination among previously infected people and that, in vaccine limited scenarios, individuals who received a primary series and have been previously infected should not be prioritized for a booster dose. These findings provide supportive evidence for the inclusion of documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infections in addition to vaccinations for future vaccination requirements and mandatory proof of immunity (such as vaccination cards). 11,27–32 However, given the reduced precision of these estimates, additional research from other regions should be conducted to provide additional clarity on the benefits of boosters within this sub-population. In alignment with prior studies,1,7,33 we found the risk of Omicron infection among boosted people without a prior infection increased significantly three months after booster dose administration. However, the odds of infection among boosted people remained significantly lower than the odds among booster eligible people (OR: 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9). Thus, even with the decline in protection, booster vaccination appears to provide additional protection beyond that conferred by primary vaccination in people without a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Weekly testing for certain unvaccinated professionals, such as employees of healthcare facilities that accept Medicare and/or Medicaid or Connecticut state employees, was required by the state and federal government during the study period.34,35 Because such requirements resulted in increased testing among unvaccinated but not vaccinated persons, our vaccine effectiveness estimates are likely conservative. However, the bias introduced by required testing does not extend to the comparisons among vaccinated groups and our findings comparing boosted to booster eligible people are likely to be unaffected by testing policies. ### Limitations Our analysis was limited to a population of Connecticut residents and was reliant on medical record data that is subject to misclassification. In the place of whole genome sequence data, we used SGTF status to ascertain Omicron infections as cases. The use of SGTF as a proxy has been widely used during the Omicron epidemic wave and has been recommended as an indicator of Omicron lineage BA.1 infection by the WHO.1,19 While a new sub-lineage of the Omicron variant (BA.2) has been detected in the US without SGTF, sequencing data from YNHH showed 100% agreement between SGTF and whole genome sequence-defined Omicron through December 2021.17 In January 2022, we observed a small number (184) of positive tests that did not have SGTF and were not included as cases in the analyses. Our sample is overly representative of mild cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection since TaqPath testing was primarily employed in the YNHH outpatient setting. Additionally, our sample excluded cases with high Ct values since Ct values of at least 30 were required for SGTF calls. We did not have adequate sample to evaluate the level of protection conferred by two or more prior infections (n=49). We expect a proportion of prior SARS-CoV-2 infections may have gone undetected and that ascertainment of prior infection history may be subject to misclassification. Nevertheless, our analyses of people with documented prior infection are unaffected by such misclassification. Despite accounting for health seeking behavior in our study design and confounder selection, residual behavioral differences may exist. Finally, the analyses were not powered to test associations for severe COVID-19, we therefore cannot exclude that booster vaccination may increase protection against such outcomes in people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. ## Conclusion Primary vaccination with two COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses provided significant but limited protection among people with and without a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. While booster vaccination resulted in additional protection beyond that afforded by the primary vaccination among people without a prior infection, it did not result in additional protection among previously infected people. These findings support primary vaccination regardless of prior infection history but suggest that a person’s history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection should be considered in subsequent vaccination decisions, such as booster vaccination. ## Supporting information Supplement [[supplements/274056_file02.docx]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability The data used in this study belongs to Yale University. Qualified researchers may submit a data share request for de-identified patient level data by contacting the corresponding author with a detailed description of the research question. ## Data Use Agreement The data used in this study belongs to Yale University. Qualified researchers may submit a data share request for de-identified patient level data by contacting the corresponding author with a detailed description of the research question. ## Funding Funding for the Studying COVID-19 Outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccination (SUCCESS) Study was provided by the Beatrice Kleinberg Neuwirth and Sendas Family Funds, Merck and Co through their Merck Investigator Studies Program, and the Yale Schools of Public Health and Medicine. ## Author Contributions Margaret L. Lind, Albert I. Ko and Wade L. Schulz have full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. *Concept and design:* Lind, Hitchings, Robertson, Schulz, Ko, Cummings, Silva *Acquisition and interpretation of data:* Lind, Warner, Coppi, Robertson, Duckwell *Drafting of the manuscript:* Lind, Robertson, Hitchings, Ko *Critical revision of the results:* All authors. *Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:* All authors. *Statistical analysis:* Lind, Robertson *Administrative, technical, or material support:* Duckwall, Borg, Giuseppe, Sosensky *Supervision:* Ko, Hitchings, Schulz, Cummings, Iwasaki ## Conflict of Interest Disclosures A.I.K serves as an expert panel member for Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, scientific advisory board member for Revelar Biotherapeutics and a consultant for Tata Medical and Diagnostics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and has received grants from Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Tata Medical and Diagnostics for research related to COVID-19. W.L.S. was an investigator for a research agreement, through Yale University, from the Shenzhen Center for Health Information for work to advance intelligent disease prevention and health promotion; collaborates with the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing; is a technical consultant to Hugo Health, a personal health information platform, and co-founder of Refactor Health, an AI-augmented data management platform for healthcare; and has received grants from Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceutical for research related to COVID-19. Other authors declare no conflict of interest. * Received April 19, 2022. * Revision received April 19, 2022. * Accepted April 20, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.Accorsi EK, Britton A, Fleming-Dutra KE, et al. Association Between 3 Doses of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine and Symptomatic Infection Caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta Variants. JAMA. Published online January 21, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.0470 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2022.0470&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35060999&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) 2. 2.Andrews N, Stowe J, Kirsebom F, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern. Published online December 14, 2021:2021.12.14.21267615. doi:10.1101/2021.12.14.21267615 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMS4xMi4xNC4yMTI2NzYxNXYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDQvMjAvMjAyMi4wNC4xOS4yMjI3NDA1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 3. 3.Johnson AG. COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated and Fully Vaccinated Adults with and Without Booster Doses During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Emergence — 25 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–December 25, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e2 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35085223&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) 4. 4.Thompson MG. Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19–Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance — VISION Network, 10 States, August 2021– January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e3 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35085224&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) 5. 5.Sheikh A, McMenamin J, Taylor B, Robertson C. SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness. The Lancet. 2021;397(10293):2461–2462. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01358-1 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01358-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34139198&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) 6. 6.Hall V, Foulkes S, Insalata F, et al. Effectiveness and durability of protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by COVID-19 vaccination and previous infection; findings from the UK SIREN prospective cohort study of healthcare workers March 2020 to September 2021. Published online December 1, 2021:2021.11.29.21267006. doi:10.1101/2021.11.29.21267006 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMS4xMS4yOS4yMTI2NzAwNnYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDQvMjAvMjAyMi4wNC4xOS4yMjI3NDA1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 7. 7.Hall V, Foulkes S, Insalata F, et al. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after Covid-19 Vaccination and Previous Infection. N Engl J Med. 2022;():null. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2118691 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2118691&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Nordström P, Ballin M, Nordström A. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and COVID-19 hospitalisation in individuals with natural and hybrid immunity: a retrospective, total population cohort study in Sweden. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;(). doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00143-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00143-8&link_type=DOI) 9. 9.León TM. COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Previous COVID-19 Diagnosis — California and New York, May–November 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e1 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) 10. 10.Cerqueira-Silva T, Andrews JR, Boaventura VS, et al. Effectiveness of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S among individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil. Published online December 27, 2021:2021.12.21.21268058. doi:10.1101/2021.12.21.21268058 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMS4xMi4yMS4yMTI2ODA1OHYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDQvMjAvMjAyMi4wNC4xOS4yMjI3NDA1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 11. 11.Shrestha NK, Burke PC, Nowacki AS, Terpeluk P, Gordon SM. Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Persons Who Have Already Had COVID-19. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. Published online January 13, 2022:ciac022. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac022 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciac022&link_type=DOI) 12. 12.De Serres G, Skowronski DM, Wu XW, Ambrose CS. The test-negative design: validity, accuracy and precision of vaccine efficacy estimates compared to the gold standard of randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials. Euro Surveill Bull Eur Sur Mal Transm Eur Commun Dis Bull. 2013;18(37):20585. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es2013.18.37.20585 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2807/1560-7917.es2013.18.37.20585&link_type=DOI) 13. 13.Dean NE, Longini I. Lecture 9: Study designs for evaluating vaccine efficacy. Presented at: University of Florida. [https://si.biostat.washington.edu/sites/default/files/modules/2019\_SISMID\_06\_9.pdf](https://si.biostat.washington.edu/sites/default/files/modules/2019_SISMID_06_9.pdf) 14. 14.Hitchings MDT, Ranzani OT, Dorion M, et al. Effectiveness of ChAdOx1 vaccine in older adults during SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant circulation in São Paulo. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):6220. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26459-6 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-021-26459-6&link_type=DOI) 15. 15.Ranzani OT, Hitchings MDT, Dorion M, et al. Effectiveness of the CoronaVac vaccine in older adults during a gamma variant associated epidemic of covid-19 in Brazil: test negative case-control study. The BMJ. 2021;374:n2015. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2015 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNzQvYXVnMjBfMjQvbjIwMTUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNC8yMC8yMDIyLjA0LjE5LjIyMjc0MDU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 16. 16.Elbe S, Buckland-Merrett G. Data, disease and diplomacy: GISAID’s innovative contribution to global health. Glob Chall. 2017;1(1):33–46. doi:10.1002/gch2.1018 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/gch2.1018&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31565258&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) 17. 17.Chaguza C, Coppi A, Earnest R, et al. Rapid emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is associated with an infection advantage over Delta in vaccinated persons. Published online January 25, 2022:2022.01.22.22269660. doi:10.1101/2022.01.22.22269660 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMi4wMS4yMi4yMjI2OTY2MHYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDQvMjAvMjAyMi4wNC4xOS4yMjI3NDA1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 18. 18.McPadden J, Durant TJ, Bunch DR, et al. Health Care and Precision Medicine Research: Analysis of a Scalable Data Science Platform. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(4):e13043. doi:10.2196/13043 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2196/13043&link_type=DOI) 19. 19.Schulz WL, Durant TJS, Jr CJT, Hsiao AL, Krumholz HM. Agile Health Care Analytics: Enabling Real-Time Disease Surveillance With a Computational Health Platform. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(5):e18707. doi:10.2196/18707 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2196/18707&link_type=DOI) 20. 20.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Europe WHORO for. Methods for the Detection and Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Variants, March 2021. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2021. Accessed April 19, 2022. [https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/340067](https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/340067) 21. 21.CDC. COVID-19 Booster Shot. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published April 1, 2022. Accessed April 5, 2022. [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/booster-shot.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/booster-shot.html) 22. 22.Lipsitch M, Goldstein E, Ray GT, Fireman B. Depletion-of-susceptibles bias in influenza vaccine waning studies: how to ensure robust results. Epidemiol Infect. 2019;147:e306. doi:10.1017/S0950268819001961 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0950268819001961&link_type=DOI) 23. 23.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3558716&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1987G855900002&link_type=ISI) 24. 24.Kahan BC, Rushton H, Morris TP, Daniel RM. A comparison of methods to adjust for continuous covariates in the analysis of randomised trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):42. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0141-3 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12874-016-0141-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) 25. 25.Groenwold RHH, Klungel OH, Altman DG, van der Graaf Y, Hoes AW, Moons KGM. Adjustment for continuous confounders: an example of how to prevent residual confounding. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2013;185(5):401–406. doi:10.1503/cmaj.120592 [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxODUvNS80MDEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNC8yMC8yMDIyLjA0LjE5LjIyMjc0MDU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 26. 26.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. [https://www.R-project.org/](https://www.R-project.org/) 27. 27.Kojima N, Klausner JD. Protective immunity after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):12–14. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00676-9 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00676-9&link_type=DOI) 28. 28.Crotty S. Hybrid immunity. Science. 2021;372(6549):1392–1393. doi:10.1126/science.abj2258 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNzIvNjU0OS8xMzkyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDQvMjAvMjAyMi4wNC4xOS4yMjI3NDA1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 29. 29.McGonagle DG. Health-care workers recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should be exempt from mandatory vaccination edicts. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022;4(3):e170. doi:10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00038-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00038-8&link_type=DOI) 30. 30.Campus France. The health pass becomes the vaccine pass. Published January 24, 2022. Accessed March 25, 2022. [https://www.campusfrance.org/en/the-health-pass-becomes-the-vaccine-pass](https://www.campusfrance.org/en/the-health-pass-becomes-the-vaccine-pass) 31. 31.The Government of the Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region. Government adjusts vaccination requirements of Vaccine Pass. Accessed March 25, 2022. [https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202203/20/P2022032000438.htm](https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202203/20/P2022032000438.htm) 32. 32.German Missions USA. Coronavirus (COVID-19). Accessed March 25, 2022. [https://www.germany.info/us-en/service/covid-19/2321562](https://www.germany.info/us-en/service/covid-19/2321562) 33. 33.Ferdinands JM. Waning 2-Dose and 3-Dose Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19– Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance — VISION Network, 10 States, August 2021–January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7107e2 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm7107e2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35176007&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F04%2F20%2F2022.04.19.22274056.atom) 34. 34.Lamont N. STATE OF CONNECTICUT BY HIS EXCELLENCY NED LAMONT EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13G. Published online September 10, 2021. [https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Office-of-the-Governor/Executive-Orders/Lamont-Executive-Orders/Executive-Order-No-14B.pdf](https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Office-of-the-Governor/Executive-Orders/Lamont-Executive-Orders/Executive-Order-No-14B.pdf) 35. 35.Connecticut Government. Workplaces Subject to COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements. [CT.gov](http://CT.gov) - Connecticut’s Official State Website. Published January 14, 2022. Accessed April 7, 2022. [https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/Covid-19-Knowledge-Base/Workplace-Vaccine-Requirements](https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/Covid-19-Knowledge-Base/Workplace-Vaccine-Requirements)