An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients ============================================================================================================================================================ * Bronner P. Gonçalves * Matthew Hall * Waasila Jassat * Valeria Balan * Srinivas Murthy * Christiana Kartsonaki * Malcolm G. Semple * Amanda Rojek * Joaquín Baruch * Luis Felipe Reyes * Abhishek Dasgupta * Jake Dunning * Barbara Wanjiru Citarella * Mark Pritchard * Alejandro Martín-Quiros * Uluhan Sili * J. Kenneth Baillie * Diptesh Aryal * Yaseen Arabi * Aasiyah Rashan * Andrea Angheben * Janice Caoili * François Martin Carrier * Ewen M. Harrison * Joan Gómez-Junyent * Claudia Figueiredo-Mello * James Joshua Douglas * Mohd Basri Mat Nor * Yock Ping Chow * Xin Ci Wong * Silvia Bertagnolio * Soe Soe Thwin * Anca Streinu-Cercel * Leonardo Salazar * Asgar Rishu * Rajavardhan Rangappa * David S.Y. Ong * Madiha Hashmi * Gail Carson * Janet Diaz * Rob Fowler * Moritz U.G. Kraemer * Evert-Jan Wils * Peter Horby * Laura Merson * Piero L. Olliaro * ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group ## Abstract **Background** Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. **Methods** Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. **Results** Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61 – 0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. **Conclusions** Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome. ## Introduction The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants represents a threat to the long-term control of COVID-191. Whilst efforts to develop vaccines that protect against severe disease have been successful2–4, mutations in the viral genome that lead to ability to escape immunity, and increased transmissibility and/or clinical severity, either via intrinsic virulence or reduced vaccine effectiveness5, have the potential to cause substantial disease burden despite high vaccine coverage in many countries6. These concerns motivated the prompt reporting, initially from South Africa7, 8, of clinical characteristics of infection with the Omicron variant only weeks after its emergence9–11, which provided key information for risk assessment and health policies worldwide. Early data from South Africa showed reduced severity of Omicron lineage BA.1 and similar results were reported in the United Kingdom and the United States9, 12, 13. However, the impact, in terms of clinical consequences (i.e., disease severity), of new variants has been shown to be context-specific, due to regional differences in disease epidemiology, including local circulation of previous variants and their cumulative incidences, variable vaccination coverages, and heterogeneity in population-level frequencies of risk factors (*e.g.* frequency of comorbidities) for severe disease and mortality. For this reason, international studies with standardised protocols are necessary to allow comparative assessments across different countries and epidemiological contexts. To understand the impact of the emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 at the global level, in this study, we report multi-country data, from all six World Health Organization regions, on clinical characteristics and outcomes of Omicron variant infections in hospitalised patients and compare with infections in patients admitted with other SARS-CoV-2 variants. For that, we use publicly available population-level data on relative frequencies of the Omicron variant to determine periods when infections were likely to be caused by Omicron versus other variants/lineages and compare infections descriptively and using multivariable statistical models. In addition, we present an analysis that only includes patients with individual-level data on the infecting variant and paired clinical information. ## Methods ### ISARIC Clinical Characterisation protocol Analyses presented in this manuscript use the ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium) COVID-19 database, which includes prospectively collected data from countries where ISARIC partner institutions are located (see a global map of all ISARIC partner institutions here [https://isaric.org/about-us/membership/](https://isaric.org/about-us/membership/)). A full description of the data collection protocol and database can be found here [https://isaric.org/research/covid-19-clinical-research-resources/](https://isaric.org/research/covid-19-clinical-research-resources/). In short, data collection for this initiative was standardised, using the ISARIC case report forms, and pivoted into pandemic mode in January 2020 to enable rapid characterisation of the clinical presentation and severity of COVID-19. After the emergence of the Omicron variant, first reported in November 202114, a call was launched to encourage international investigators partnering with ISARIC to rapidly share data on patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 to describe the clinical characteristics of Omicron variant infection in different settings; recommendations on possible hospitalised population sampling approaches were shared. Patients admitted to hospital from 1st October 2021 to 28th February 2022 were included in this analysis. More information on ISARIC can be found in 15–17. ### Population-level SARS-CoV-2 variant data Two statistical analysis plans (SAPs) were developed in December 2021 with approaches to be used in the characterisation of Omicron variant infection. Analyses described in the first SAP required individual-level data on the clinical presentation and paired data on the variant causing the infection. In the second SAP we used population-level frequencies of SARS-CoV-2 lineages to infer individual infecting variant during different time periods as Omicron or non-Omicron variants (Figure 1). Since individual-level data on the infecting variant were limited to a few countries, these data are presented for comparison with the analysis performed using population-level variant data. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F1) Figure 1. Population-level relative frequency of Omicron variant infections by country and time. Here, data aggregated by epidemiological week and country were used to calculate the proportions of infections caused by the Omicron variant. For analyses reported in the *Results* section, two epidemiological periods were defined: the first corresponds to the two months before the Omicron variant reaches a threshold frequency of 10% (blue area in each panel; the *pre-Omicron period*); the second period corresponds to the two months after Omicron variant frequency reaches 90% (red area in each panel; the *Omicron period*). Sensitivity analyses, using other relative frequencies for defining periods, are presented in the *Supplementary Appendix*. Each panel presents data for a country (ISO3 code as title) contributing clinical data for this analysis; y-axes represent proportions in each epidemiological week (x-axes). Data for Laos are not shown as, at the time of the analysis, samples were not included in the database that informed population-level frequency of Omicron variant during the study period. In Pakistan, due to fluctuations in Omicron variant frequency in the dataset, study periods were not defined. More information on the spread of the Omicron variant in Laos and analysis of the clinical data from Pakistan are presented in the *Supplementary Appendix*. For the analysis that required information on population-level variant frequency, for countries contributing clinical data to this analysis, data from the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) on each of the main SARS-CoV-2 variants were collated. These data were aggregated by sample collection date and variant using a computational pipeline available here: [https://github.com/globaldothealth/covid19-variants-summary](https://github.com/globaldothealth/covid19-variants-summary). The GISAID data were downloaded on 11 April 2022; Pango lineage designation v1.2.133 was used18. We used these data to define calendar time periods when the Omicron variant represented the majority of infections in each country, and also periods during which the Omicron variant represented only a small (<10%) fraction of infections. For each country, the period during which infections were assumed to be caused by other variants ended in the epidemiological week before the Omicron variant relative frequency crossed a low threshold percentage (*e.g.*, 10%) (see Figure 1). The first epidemiological week when Omicron variant frequency, as a proportion of all circulating variants, was higher than a given threshold percentage (90% in analyses presented in the *Results* section and 80% in sensitivity analyses) was used as the start date of the period during which all admissions were considered to be caused by the Omicron variant. Note (i) that amongst different countries these two study periods started in different calendar weeks, depending on when the Omicron variant was introduced to the location and on the rate of its local spread, and (ii) that in this analysis all Omicron sub-lineages are included (*e.g.,* BA.1.1, BA.2). ### Statistical analysis We report the frequencies of symptoms, comorbidities and vaccination status stratified by country and time periods (before and after Omicron emergence). We also assessed the case fatality risk and the frequency of a composite outcome that combined death and invasive mechanical ventilation use during the two study periods; in this analysis, patients who were discharged from hospital before the end of the follow-up period used in the definition of the outcome (14 or 28 days) were assumed to have been alive at the end of that period. When estimating risk of death by day 14 after admission or onset of symptoms, whichever happened later, numerators were numbers of patients who died before or on day 14 after admission; denominators in this calculation included those who died by day 14, those discharged at any time during follow-up, and those who were followed at least for 2 weeks, regardless of final outcome, including those who died after 14 days. The same approach was used to analyse the 28-day fatality risk. Note that for 35.5% of patients admitted to hospital during the two study periods defined by Omicron variant frequency, date of onset of symptoms was missing; for these patients we assumed onset of clinical disease happened before admission – *i.e.* that these were not hospital acquired infections. Furthermore, for 7.2% of patients, outcome date (date of death or discharge or latest date with follow-up information) was missing and 0.4% had an outcome date that was earlier than date of admission or of symptoms onset; except for those who were discharged and had missing outcome date, these two groups of patients were not included in analyses on the frequencies of clinical outcomes but were included in analyses describing distributions of symptoms and comorbidities. As described in the *Results* section, some patients included in this study were admitted for treatment of a medical condition other than COVID-19 but tested positive incidentally during hospitalisation. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models to assess the association between study period, *i.e.* periods defined by the Omicron variant frequency at the population level, and 14-day death risk, adjusting for age, sex, and vaccination status. Age was included with the following categories: patients younger than 18 years, aged between 18 and 60 years, and older than 60 years. Random intercepts were used to account for potential variation in the risk of death between study sites in different countries. We also present models that adjust for the most commonly reported comorbidities; for each comorbidity included in the analysis, a binary variable was used to indicate presence or absence of the condition. Cox proportional hazards models on time to death, adjusted for age and sex and stratified by country and previous vaccination, were also fit; results of survival analyses are shown in the *Supplementary Appendix*. Note that vaccination status was used as a binary variable in these models, without dose counts or timing of vaccination, and due to limited information on dates of doses we did not adjust for time since the most recent vaccination. R and Python were used for data processing and descriptive analyses19, 20. Code used for analyses and aggregated data used to generate figures are available21 (see also *Data availability statement*). Stata 17 was used to fit mixed-effects logistic models and perform survival analysis. ## Results ### Description of study population and study periods Overall, 129,196 records from patients admitted to hospital between 1st October 2021 and 28th February 2022 were included in this analysis. Clinical centres in 30 countries contributed data (median 53 observations per country, interquartile range [IQR] 18 – 162); 11 countries contributed data on more than 100 hospitalised clinical cases (Table S1). 54.0% and 42.6% of records were from South Africa and the United Kingdom, respectively. Tables S2 and S3 show information on missing data for both symptoms and comorbidities. In addition to the clinical data contributed by the collaborating centres, population-level variant frequency data were used to define time periods when most infections in a country were assumed to be caused by Omicron versus other lineages. As presented in Figure 1, different countries reached the threshold relative frequencies of 10 and 90% of infections being caused by the Omicron variant at different times. Similar plots are presented in Figures S1A and S1B for other threshold frequencies. In Table S4, we list limitations in the use of these data to define time periods when infections were more likely caused by Omicron versus previous variants. Using information presented in Figure 1, 103,061 patients, from 28/30 countries, were admitted either in the two months before the Omicron variant represented 10% of infections at the country-level (N = 22,921; henceforth, the *pre-Omicron period*) or in the two months after (N = 80,140) the Omicron variant was responsible for at least 90% of the infections; for ease of reference, the latter period will be referred to as the *Omicron period*. Note that 12,085 patients were admitted during weeks between the end of the *pre-Omicron period* and the start of the *Omicron period* and are not included in analyses presented in the following subsections (Figure 2); and 12,560 records of patients admitted two months after Omicron variant represented 90% of infections were not analysed. All patients from South Africa, the United Kingdom and Malaysia were assumed to be SARS-CoV-2 positive, as this is one criterion for inclusion in their databases. Of the 2,296 records from other countries, information on SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing was available for 1,999 observations; whilst patients with negative PCR test result (N=10) were excluded from the rest of the analysis, those with missing PCR data (N=297) were assumed positive (see Table S5 for distribution by country). Of note, clinical data from Laos were not included in comparative analyses as there was only limited evidence of increase in local Omicron variant relative frequency during the study period (additional information is provided in the *Supplementary Appendix*). For Pakistan, population-level data available at the time of the analysis indicate increasing Omicron variant frequency during the study period, but the proportion of local infections caused by this variant fluctuated; analyses of clinical data from that country are described in the *Supplementary Appendix*. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F2) Figure 2. Study flowchart. In this figure, we present the numbers of observations included in analyses in the different subsections of the *Results* section. The median (IQR) ages of patients during the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods* were 62 (43 – 76) and 50 (30 – 72) years, respectively; however, country-specific medians suggest that the younger age of patients after Omicron variant emergence in the combined dataset is at least partially explained by an increase in the proportion of data contributed by South Africa, relative to the proportion of data contributed by other countries (Table S6). 48.3% and 54.8% of patients admitted during these periods, respectively, were female. 5.2% and 9.1% of patients in the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods*, respectively, had the date of disease onset after admission date. In some countries, information on whether COVID-19 was the main reason for hospitalisation was also collected: 70.1% (N = 2,248) and 69.0% (N = 27,804) of patients during the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods* respectively were admitted to hospital due to COVID-19; patients for whom this information was available were primarily from South Africa (94.9%). There was no consistent pattern of within-country changes related to this variable (Table S7). Of note, 465/36,761 (1.3%) individuals reported a history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection before the acute episode leading to hospitalisation included in this analysis (128/15,563 [0.8%] and 337/21,198 [1.6%] in the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods*, respectively). ### Temporal changes in frequencies of symptoms and comorbidities Figure 3 shows age distributions of hospitalised patients before versus after Omicron variant emergence; only countries with at least 10 observations in each period are included. Despite similar medians of age in the two periods within countries, in some, but not all, country-specific datasets, an increase in the proportion of the study population from younger ages was observed, although the number of patients in some age categories is small. Furthermore, there were differences between countries with regard to age distribution of cases, which could reflect either epidemiological differences between settings or else differences in recruitment of patients for this analysis. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F3) Figure 3. Age distributions by study period and country. Age distributions (x-axes show proportions; y-axes, age groups) when Omicron variant relative frequency was below 10 % (blue bars) and when the frequency was 90% or higher (red bars). Data from different countries are shown in different panels; only countries with 10 or more records in each period are presented. Numbers of observations with age information are shown for each study period next to country names. For all countries except Spain and Malaysia, x-axes range from 0 to 0.3 for the two study time periods. The frequencies of the five most commonly reported symptoms and comorbidities in the combined (all countries) dataset during the two study periods are presented in Figure 4A and 4B, by country and study period. When analysing the combined dataset, there was a decrease in the percentage of patients with at least one of the comorbidities listed in Table S3 before versus during Omicron variant dominance (78.9% [N = 15,574] and 59.6% [N = 60,625], respectively); however country-specific data show variable patterns (Table S8). With a total of 14 comorbidities being considered, median (IQR) numbers of comorbidity variables with non-missing information in the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods* were 11 (0 – 12) and 9 (1 – 11), respectively. Whilst the directions of changes (increase or decrease) in frequencies of comorbidities were not consistent across countries, for many symptoms frequencies were lower during the *Omicron period* versus the *pre-Omicron period*. As can be seen in Figure S2, this pattern was consistent after stratifying frequencies of symptoms by age groups. The percentage of patients during the *pre-Omicron period* with at least one of the symptoms in Table S2 was 96.6% (N = 11,683); this percentage was 88.6% (N = 17,859) during the *Omicron period* (see Table S9 for country-specific numbers). These numbers refer to records from countries other than South Africa, where data on symptoms were not systematically available. The median (IQR) numbers of variables with non-missing data on symptoms were 14 (0 – 19) and 17 (0 – 19) for the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods*, respectively. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F4/graphic-4.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F4/graphic-4) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F4/graphic-5.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F4/graphic-5) Figure 4. Frequencies of symptoms and comorbidities by study period and country. Frequencies of the five most common symptoms (**A**) and comorbidities (**B**) during the *pre-Omicron* (blue bars) and *Omicron* (red bars) *periods*. 95% confidence intervals are shown. Note that South Africa is included in panel B but not panel A. For panel **A**, only data from the *pre-Omicron period* were used to identify the most frequent symptoms; for panel **B**, as data on comorbidities were available in the two countries contributing most records, the United Kingdom and South Africa, and since their relative contributions to the study population changed in the two study periods, the dataset including both the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods* was used to identify most common comorbidities. Only countries with at least 10 observations during each study period are included. For each symptom or comorbidity, whenever fewer than 5 observations without missing data were available, bars were not shown and the text “NS” (not shown) was included. ### Vaccination history in hospitalised patients Data on vaccination status were available for 42,850/103,051 hospitalised patients (8,952 during the *pre-Omicron period* and 33,898 during the *Omicron period*). In Table 1, we present vaccination status for study participants in each of the two periods by country. As expected, there is considerable inter-country variation in the frequency of vaccination. Age-stratified vaccination frequencies are shown in Figure S3 and suggest increases in frequency of previous vaccination during the period after Omicron variant emergence. However, as shown in Figure S4, with population-level vaccination coverage from before Omicron variant emergence up to the end of February 2022, in many countries contributing data to this study there was an increase in vaccination coverage over time, including in the periods during and after the emergence of the Omicron variant. Note that 55.8% of vaccinated patients received two or more doses before hospital admission. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T1) Table 1. Vaccination status by country and study period. Data for period-country combinations with less than 10 observations are not presented. Data on vaccination status were not available for patients from Saudi Arabia. ### Clinical outcomes Overall, 11,314 patients admitted during the two study periods died during hospitalisation: 8,517/94,524 by day 14 after hospital admission or disease onset, whichever occurred latest, and 10,530/94,461 by day 28; 738 patients died after day 28 and 46 patients who died did not have an outcome date recorded. As explained in the *Methods* section, denominators for fatality risks included patients who were discharged or still in hospital by day 14 or 28. Median (IQR) times to death were 10 (5 – 17) and 6 (3 – 12) days for the periods before and after Omicron emergence, respectively; similar information, on time from admission or symptoms onset to death, stratified by country is shown in Table S10. In some countries (see Figure 5 for comparisons on 14-day fatality risk, and Figure S5 for comparisons using the 28-day period), during the *Omicron period*, a lower proportion of patients died during hospitalisation, compared to the period before Omicron emergence; in India, the opposite pattern was observed although numbers for that country were limited. ![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F5) Figure 5. Risk of death (y-axes) in the first 14 days after hospital admission or disease onset, whichever occurred latest, during the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods*. In each panel, the x-axis shows countries (ISO3 codes are presented), with different periods represented by circles with different colours (blue circles for the *pre-Omicron period*; red circles, for the *Omicron period*). 95% confidence intervals are also presented. The top panel shows data for individuals of all ages; the bottom panels, data for patients aged less than 18 years, between 18 and 60 years, and older than 60 years. Only countries with at least 10 observations in the corresponding age group in both study periods are included. In a mixed-effects logistic model on 14-day fatality risk that adjusted for sex, age categories, and vaccination status, hospitalisations during the *Omicron period* were associated with lower risk of death (see Table 2). The inclusion of common comorbidities in the model did not change the estimated association. Similar results were obtained when using 28-day fatality risk as the outcome. We repeated the 14-day fatality risk analysis excluding patients who reported being admitted to hospital due to a medical condition other than COVID-19; the estimated odds ratio for the association between study period and the outcome was similar to those reported in Table 2. Cox proportional hazards models were also fit, and similar results were obtained (Table S11). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T2) Table 2. Odds ratio for the association between study period and mortality outcome. Results of multivariate logistic models, with random intercepts for countries, on 14-day fatality risk are presented. Different models were fit that included different variables. Model III adjusts for all variables in the table, however due to missing data in the vaccination and comorbidity variables, less than a third of the study population was included in the estimation of that model; models I and II were thus fit that did not adjust for these variables and included more individuals. In model IV, a category for missing data was created for the variable on previous vaccination; individuals in that category had an odds ratio of 0.74 (0.69 – 0.80; reference group in this comparison is the non-vaccinated group). Note that similar results were obtained when finer categorisation of the age variable, 10-year intervals, was used. As previous SARS-CoV-2 infection has been shown to reduce severity of COVID-1922, a multivariable model that also adjusted for this variable was fit; in that model, the odds ratio for the association between study period and fatality risk was 0.70 (0.61 – 0.80). As in other epidemiological studies, estimates for covariates other than the primary exposure (study period) should be carefully interpreted23. In addition to using fatality risk in our analyses, we also considered the composite outcome of death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Data on IMV were available in 74,563 records. 3,111/74,563 patients required IMV during hospitalisation; the date when IMV was initiated was reported for 1,070/3,111 patients. Of those patients with data on IMV, 10,049/67,383 patients either died or required IMV. Figure S6 shows proportions of patients with this outcome by country and study period. Since date of IMV initiation was only available for 1,070/3,111 records, we do not present graphs by time since admission date. ### Comparison with individual-level variant data Whilst our approach of using population-level variant composition information allowed inclusion in this analysis of data from settings where it was not feasible to systematically identify the infecting SARS-CoV-2 variant, the use of aggregated data to infer the infecting variant has limitations, including the possibility of misclassification (see Table S4 for a list of limitations of this approach). To assess whether patterns described in previous subsections are generally consistent with analyses using individual-level variant information, we repeated comparisons for countries where information on the infecting variant was collected; data on variant were available for 1,275 records. Of these, 852 patients were admitted either during the *pre-Omicron period* or the *Omicron period*: whilst only 1.9% (16/827) of those admitted during the *Omicron period* were infected by a variant other than Omicron, 4.0% (1/25) of patients during the *pre*-*Omicron period* had Omicron as the causative virus variant; for the calculation of these percentages data from a participating institution that prioritised contributing Omicron variant cases were not included. Except for six clinical cases in South Africa and Saudi Arabia, all infections were caused either by Delta or Omicron variants, and for this reason only data on these two variants are presented (Table S12). Figures similar to Figures 3-5 but stratified by infecting variant, rather than study period, are shown in the *Supplementary Appendix* (Figure S7). The numbers of participants included in the latter comparisons are lower than the numbers included in the comparisons using population-level variant data; for countries with ten or more observations of both Omicron and Delta variants, the patterns observed are broadly consistent with results obtained using the population-level approach. We also performed sensitivity analyses using different population-level threshold frequencies for the Omicron variant (10% and 80%, rather than 10% and 90%); these are shown in Figure S8 and are consistent with findings described in the *Results* section. ## Discussion When new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerge during the COVID-19 pandemic, several critical questions are asked by public health authorities as to differences in disease severity and risk factors, and vaccine protection. Here, we leveraged data from multiple sources, from population-level variant frequency information to individual-level data on the clinical journey of hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and from multiple countries, to compare characteristics of patients with infection during periods before Omicron emergence versus when this variant became locally dominant. We observed that when the relative frequency of the Omicron variant was high, the proportions of patients with some of the most common COVID-19 symptoms were lower compared to the *pre-Omicron period*. In most but not all countries, patients presenting to hospital during the *Omicron period* had better outcomes (lower fatality risk), compared to those hospitalised before Omicron emergence, which could be related to lower variant virulence, prior immunity or residual confounding. In summary, our approach, which was consistent with analyses that used individual-level variant data from a subset of the study population, suggest clinical differences in patients hospitalised with the Omicron variant versus those admitted before this variant spread, and these differences vary by country. Our finding that mortality was generally lower during the period when the Omicron variant was dominant is consistent with data from South Africa reported earlier this year9. In that study, which included more than 30,000 patients with individual-level information on the infecting variant, individuals infected with the Omicron variant had a lower risk of disease progression that required hospital admission than individuals infected with other variants; amongst hospitalised patients, the odds ratio for the association between Omicron variant infection and severe disease was 0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3 – 1.4), which is similar to that observed in this study using death as the outcome. A lower risk of death in Omicron variant-infected versus Delta variant-infected patients was also observed in a recent study in the United Kingdom, although that analysis did not assess risk of death conditional on hospitalisation but rather on infection13. In our analyses, statistical models were adjusted for vaccination history, which is a potential confounder of the association between dominant variant period and risk of death. However, the simplistic approach of using vaccination as a binary variable may be subject to residual confounding by time since vaccination, number of doses, or vaccine type. Moreover, as part of the effort to characterise Omicron variant infection, information on whether COVID-19 was the main reason for hospitalisation was collected during the study period and suggests that for a non-negligible proportion of patients other clinical conditions might have prompted hospital admission. All these factors might have contributed to the observed association, possibly to different degrees in different countries, reason for which this result should not be assumed to necessarily relate to differences in variant virulence. During the period of Omicron variant dominance, fewer patients presented with the symptoms most commonly reported earlier. For example, we observed in the United Kingdom that shortness of breath was present in about three-quarters of patients before Omicron variant emergence and in about half of patients during the *Omicron period*. Notably, a similar pattern was observed in Nepal, where patients were more often recruited from critical care settings. One possible explanation for this finding would be if incidental SARS-CoV-2 infections, *i.e.* infections that were not the primary reason for hospitalisation, were more frequent during the *Omicron period*; the high transmissibility of this variant, and the consequent peaks in numbers of infections, together with its reported association with lower severity, provides support for this hypothesis. However, in the subset of patients with data on the reason for hospitalisation there was no decrease in the proportion of admissions thought to be directly caused by COVID-19. An alternative and less plausible explanation would be that some of these patients developed symptoms other than those presented here, and which are severe enough to prompt hospital admission. Finally, it is also possible that the question on the primary reason for hospitalisation might have been interpreted differently in different countries and even in different hospitals in the same country, which would complicate its use in identifying incidental infections. We also observed that history of COVID-19 vaccination was more frequent during the *Omicron period*. Whilst this would be expected if current vaccines were less effective against the Omicron variant compared to previously circulating variants, as suggested by a recent study in England analysing symptomatic disease24, there were changes in vaccination coverage in many settings during the second half of 2021 and early 2022, including in response to the reports of Omicron variant cases. Since non-COVID-19 patients (*e.g.*, patients with respiratory infections caused by other pathogens) were not systematically recruited for this multi-country study, it is not possible to estimate vaccine effectiveness during the two study periods and assess its change25. The major strength of our study relates to inclusion of data from all WHO geographic regions, collected with standardised forms, with over 100,000 records. However we note that 96.6% of patients were from two countries - South Africa and the United Kingdom - and that the relative contributions of these countries to the study data were different in the two study periods (Table S5); to avoid misinterpretations linked to changes in country-specific contributions to data in the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods* we present descriptive analyses by country and use statistical models that adjust for country-level variation. Other limitations of our study relate, as mentioned in Table S4, to the use of population-level variant data to define periods when infections were likely caused by Omicron variant. For example, if infection by Omicron variant is associated with lower severity and if samples used to inform population-level frequency were often from community cases, then these aggregated data might not represent variant frequency in the hospitalised population. However, despite potential weaknesses in this approach, our results are consistent with reports from South Africa and elsewhere9, and individual-level variant data available for this study population often matched the two study periods defined by Omicron variant frequency. In conclusion, we believe our approach of comparing changes in clinical characteristics of COVID-19 using multi-country standardised data, especially when combined with smaller scale studies that collect individual-level data on infecting variants for validation, will be useful in understanding the impact of new variants in the future. Another application will be in using routinely collected health data for cross-country comparisons of variant characteristics. ## Data Availability The data that underpin this analysis are highly detailed clinical data on individuals hospitalised with COVID-19. Due to the sensitive nature of these data and the associated privacy concerns, they are available via a governed data access mechanism following review of a data access committee. Data can be requested via the IDDO COVID-19 Data Sharing Platform (http://www.iddo.org/covid-19). The Data Access Application, Terms of Access and details of the Data Access Committee are available on the website. Briefly, the requirements for access are a request from a qualified researcher working with a legal entity who have a health and/or research remit; a scientifically valid reason for data access which adheres to appropriate ethical principles. The full terms are at https://www.iddo.org/document/covid-19-data-access-guidelines. A small subset of sites who contributed data to this analysis have not agreed to pooled data sharing as above. In the case of requiring access to these data, please contact the corresponding author in the first instance who will look to facilitate access. Code used for statistical analysis and aggregated data used to generate figures are available: https://github.com/ISARICDataPlatform/Omicron. ## Funding This works was made possible with the support of UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z and 225288/Z/22/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and was coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute; Wellcome Trust fellowship [205228/Z/16/Z] and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907) at the University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford; Institute for Clinical Research (ICR), National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported by the Ministry of Health Malaysia; a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; MUGK acknowledges funding from the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) data was collated by ISARIC4C Investigators. Data provision was supported by grants from: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. ## Supplementary Appendix ### Acknowledgements (Partner institutions) This work was supported by endorsement of the Irish Critical Care-Clinical Trials Group, co-ordinated in Ireland by the Irish Critical Care-Clinical Trials Network at University College Dublin and funded by the Health Research Board of Ireland [CTN-2014-12]; grants from Rapid European COVID-19 Emergency Response research (RECOVER) [H2020 project 101003589] and European Clinical Research Alliance on Infectious Diseases (ECRAID) [965313]; Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre; The dedication and hard work of the Groote Schuur Hospital Covid ICU Team, supported by the Groote Schuur nursing and University of Cape Town registrar bodies coordinated by the Division of Critical Care at the University of Cape Town; The dedication and hard work of the Norwegian SARS-CoV-2 study team. Research Council of Norway grant no 312780, and a philanthropic donation from Vivaldi Invest A/S owned by Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner; PJMO is supported by the UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) via Imperial’s Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR Imperial BRC), Imperial’s Health Protection Research Unit in Respiratory Infections (NIHR HPRU RI), the Comprehensive Local Research Networks (CLRNs) and is an NIHR Senior Investigator (NIHR201385); Gender Equity Strategic Fund at University of Queensland, Artificial Intelligence for Pandemics (A14PAN) at University of Queensland, The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems (EQUS, CE170100009), The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation, Australia; the South Eastern Norway Health Authority and the Research Council of Norway; and a grant from the Oxford University COVID-19 Research Response fund (grant 0009109). ### Supplementary results #### Epidemiology of Omicron variant in Laos Population-level variant data from Laos were not available in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) platform that covered the period between October 2021 and February 2022, and for this reason clinical data from this country were not included in analyses presented in the *Results* section of the manuscript. Local data suggest that Omicron variant spread in the country only after this period. Indeed, unpublished data from the Lao-Oxford-Mahosot Hospital-Wellcome Trust Research Unit indicate that Omicron variant was responsible for a large proportion of infections in March but not February 2022, although the numbers of infections genotyped were limited (Elizabeth Ashley, personal communication). #### Clinical data from Pakistan In Pakistan, there was an increase in the relative frequency of Omicron variant during the period from October 2021 to February 2022. However, despite causing 96.1% of infections in the GISAID data from the country in mid-January 2022, throughout February this percentage fluctuated. Data from Pakistan were thus not included in the *Results* section. Here, we discuss clinical data from this country; for that, we used as the start of the *Omicron period* the first week when this variant was responsible for more than 90% of infections, regardless of whether this percentage was lower in the following weeks. Data from 929 patients from Pakistan were contributed to the study; 249 records were from the *pre-Omicron period*, and 478, from the *Omicron period*. The percentage of patients in the country with at least one symptom was 83.9% in the *pre-Omicron period*, and 57.9%, in the *Omicron period*. 52.2% and 59.2% had at least one comorbidity during these two periods, respectively. Vaccination data were available for 474 patients admitted during the study periods: 37.7% and 62.9% had history of COVID-19 vaccination during the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods*. The 14-day fatality risk for hospitalised patients during the *pre-Omicron period* was 52.5%, and during the *Omicron period*, 45.4%. #### Sensitivity analysis that excludes patients with other primary reason for hospitalisation For 30,052 patients admitted during the two study periods, information was available on whether COVID-19 was the primary medical reason for hospitalisation; most of these patients were from South Africa. As a sensitivity analysis, we fit a mixed-effects logistic regression model on the 14-day fatality risk excluding patients who had reported that COVID-19 was not the reason for hospitalisation; patients for whom this information was missing were included. The odds ratio for the association between study period and 14-day fatality risk was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.61 – 0.75). ### Supplementary Tables View this table: [Table S1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T3) Table S1. Numbers of records contributed by partner institutions in different countries between 01/10/2021 and 28/02/2022. View this table: [Table S2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T4) Table S2. Missing data on symptoms. Note that this information was not systematically recorded in South Africa, and for this reason data from that country are not included in this table. View this table: [Table S3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T5) Table S3. Missing data on comorbidities. In this table, data from all countries are included. View this table: [Table S4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T6) Table S4. Potential limitations of population-level variant data used to determine time periods when Omicron variant was dominant. View this table: [Table S5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T7) Table S5. Numbers of records in the *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods* by country. View this table: [Table S6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T8) Table S6. Medians (interquartile ranges [Q1 - Q3]) of age by study period and country. Only countries with 10 or more observations in both study periods are shown. View this table: [Table S7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T9) Table S7. Numbers of hospitalised patients admitted due to COVID-19. For country-time period combinations with less than 10 observations, numbers are not presented. View this table: [Table S8.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T10) Table S8. Percentages of patients with at least one comorbidity by country and study period. Only countries with at least 10 patients in each study period are included. View this table: [Table S9.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T11) Table S9. Percentages of patients with at least one symptom by country and study period. Only countries with at least 10 patients in each study period are included. View this table: [Table S10.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T12) Table S10. Medians (interquartile ranges [Q1 - Q3]) of time from admission or disease onset to death by study period and country. Only countries with 10 or more observations in both study periods are presented. View this table: [Table S11.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T13) Table S11. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by country, on time to death in the first 28 days since hospital admission or onset of symptoms, which happened latest. For this analysis, if follow-up duration was longer than 28 days, it was set to 28 days, and patients who were discharged were censored on the day of discharge. The assumption of proportional hazards was violated for the variable on previous vaccination; for this reason, the model was also stratified by this variable. An alternative analysis assumed that patients discharged from hospital were censored on day 28; in this analysis, the hazard ratio for the variable corresponding to study period was 0.68 (0.63 – 0.74); for this model, the proportional hazards assumption did not hold for the study period variable. View this table: [Table S12.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/T14) Table S12. Distribution of infections with individual-level variant information by country and variant. Only countries with at least 10 observations for Delta and Omicron variants are listed. Note that other countries had limited numbers for both or one of the two variants. ### Supplementary Figures ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F6/graphic-21.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F6/graphic-21) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F6/graphic-22.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F6/graphic-22) Figure S1. In this figure, population-level variant data are presented for countries with clinical data included in our analysis. The same structure of Figure 1 was used but different cut-off frequencies for Omicron variant were applied: in **A**, the lower and upper threshold frequencies were 10% and 80%; in **B**, these frequencies were 5% and 90%. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F7/graphic-23.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F7/graphic-23) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F7/graphic-24.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F7/graphic-24) Figure S2. Distributions of the five most common symptoms during the period before (blue bars) and after (red bars) Omicron variant frequency reached 10% and 90%, respectively. 95% confidence intervals are also shown. In **A**, data from individuals aged between 18 and 60 years; and **B** shows the same information for individuals older than 60 years. Data from children are not presented. ![Figure S3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F8.medium.gif) [Figure S3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F8) Figure S3. Frequency of previous vaccination by study period, age category and country. Only data from countries with at least 10 observations during both study periods defined by Omicron variant frequency are shown. In each panel, the x-axis shows different age categories, with blue bars corresponding to the *pre-Omicron period* and red bars, to the period after Omicron variant frequency, relative to other variants, reaches 90%. Above each bar, the total number of records included in the calculation of the proportions (y-axes) are presented. ![Figure S4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F9.medium.gif) [Figure S4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F9) Figure S4. Population-level vaccination coverage. Data from different countries are presented in different panels; x-axes show epidemiological weeks since the first epidemiological week of 2020. As in Figure 1, continuous black lines represent frequency of Omicron variant relative to the other variants. In addition to information on Omicron variant frequency, each panel also shows data on vaccination: the dashed line shows proportion of population vaccinated relative to the maximum number vaccinated in each country at the time of the analysis (March 2022). Data used to generate this figure were downloaded from [https://ourworldindata.org/](https://ourworldindata.org/). ![Figure S5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F10.medium.gif) [Figure S5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F10) Figure S5. Risk of death in the first 28 days after hospital admission or disease onset, whichever occurred latest, during *pre-Omicron* and *Omicron periods*. In each panel, the x-axis shows countries, with different periods represented by circles with different colours (blue circles for the *pre-Omicron period*; red circles, for period after Omicron variant frequency reaches 90%). 95% confidence intervals are presented. The top panel shows data for individuals of all ages; the bottom panels, data for patients aged less than 18 years, between 18 and 60 years, and older than 60 years. Only countries with at least 10 observations in each study period and corresponding age group are included. ![Figure S6.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F11.medium.gif) [Figure S6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F11) Figure S6. Risk of death or invasive mechanical ventilation by study period. In each panel, the x-axis shows countries, with different periods represented by circles with different colours (blue circles for *pre-Omicron period*; red circles, for the *Omicron period*). 95% confidence intervals are presented. The top panel shows data for individuals of all ages; the bottom panels, data for patients aged less than 18 years, between 18 and 60 years, and older than 60 years. Only countries with at least 10 observations in each study period are included. Different from Figures 5 and S5, time since hospital admission or onset of symptoms was not used since for most patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation the start date of the therapeutic approach was not available. Only patients with information on invasive mechanical ventilation use and who were either discharged or died were included. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-29.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-29) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-30.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-30) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-31.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-31) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-32.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-32) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-33.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F12/graphic-33) Figure S7. This figure shows in different panels similar information to that presented in the following Figures: Figure 3 corresponds here to panel **A**; Figure 4A, to panel B; Figure 4B, panel C; Figure S3, panel D, Figure 5, panel E. The legends of those figures apply to the corresponding panels in this figure, except that instead of referring to time periods, the panels below show data for Delta and Omicron variants. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-34.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-34) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-35.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-35) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-36.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-36) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-37.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-37) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-38.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/22/2022.06.22.22276764/F13/graphic-38) Figure S8. This figure shows in different panels similar information to that presented in the following Figures: Figure 3 corresponds to panel **A**; Figure 4A, to panel **B**; Figure 4B, panel **C**; Figure S3, panel **D**; Figure 5, panel **E**. The legends of those figures apply to the corresponding panels in this figure. Here the upper threshold frequency used to define Omicron variant dominance was 80% rather than 90%. ## ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group Sheryl Ann Abdukahil, Audrey Dubot-Pérès, José Antonio Lepe, Ali Abbas, Kamal Abu Jabal, Nashat Abu Salah, Francisca Adewhajah, Enrico Adriano, Marina Aiello, Kate Ainscough, Eman Al Qasim, Angela Alberti, Beatrice Alex, Abdulrahman Al-Fares, Phoebe Ampaw, Sophia Ankrah, Ardiyan Apriyana, Yaseen Arabi, Antonio Arcadipane, Patrick Archambault, Lukas Arenz, Christel Arnold-Day, Ana Aroca, Rakesh Arora, Diptesh Aryal, Elizabeth A Ashley, AM Udara Lakshan Attanyake, Benjamin Bach, J. Kenneth Baillie, Valeria Balan, Irene Bandoh, Renata Barbalho, Wendy S. Barclay, Michaela Barnikel, Joaquín Baruch, Diego Fernando Bautista Rincon, Abigail Beane, John Beca, Netta Beer, Husna Begum, David Bellemare, Anna Berenguera, Hazel Bergin, Amar Bhatt, Claudia Bianco, Moirangthem Bikram Singh, Felwa Bin Humaid, Jonathan Bitton, Catherine Blier, Lucille Blumberg, Debby Bogaert, Patrizia Bonelli, Dounia Bouhmani, Thipsavanh Bounphiengsy, Latsaniphone Bountthasavong, Bianca Boxma, Kathy Brickell, Aidan Burrell, Ingrid G. Bustos, Eder Caceres, Caterina Caminiti, João Camões, Cecilia Canepa, Janice Caoili, Francesca Carlacci, Gayle Carney, Inês Carqueja, François Martin Carrier, Gail Carson, Silvia Castañeda, Nidyanara Castanheira, Roberta Cavalin, Muge Cevik, Bounthavy Chaleunphon, Adrienne Chan, Meera Chand, Alfredo Antonio Chetta, Julian Chica, Danoy Chommanam, Yock Ping Chow, Nathaniel Christy, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, Sara Clohisey, Perren J. Cobb, Cassidy Codan, Marie Connor, Graham S. Cooke, Mary Copland, Amanda Corley, Gloria Crowl, Paula Custodio, Ana da Silva Filipe, Andrew Dagens, Peter Daley, Heidi Dalton, Jo Dalton, Nick Daneman, Emmanuelle A Dankwa, Frédérick D’Aragon, Thushan de Silva, Jillian Deacon, William Dechert, Emmanuelle Denis, Santi Dewayanti, Pathik Dhanger, Yael Dishon, Annemarie B. Docherty, Arjen M Dondorp, Maria Donnelly, Christl A. Donnelly, Chloe Donohue, Peter Doran, Phouvieng Douangdala, James Joshua Douglas, Joanne Downey, Tom Drake, Murray Dryden, Susanne Dudman, Jake Dunning, Lucian Durham III, Anne Margarita Dyrhol-Riise, Marco Echeverria-Villalobos, Giorgio Economopoulos, Michael Edelstein, Martina Escher, Mariano Esperatti, Lorinda Essuman, Amna Faheem, Arabella Fahy, Cameron J. Fairfield, Laura Feeney, Carlo Ferrari, Sílvia Ferreira, Claudia Figueiredo-Mello, Juan Fiorda, Tom Fletcher, Brigid Flynn, Federica Fogliazza, Patricia Fontela, Simon Forsyth, Robert A. Fowler, Marianne Fraher, Diego Franch-Llasat, John F Fraser, Christophe Fraser, Ana Freitas Ribeiro, Nora Fuentes, Argin G, Sérgio Gaião, Linda Gail Skeie, Phil Gallagher, Carrol Gamble, Julia Garcia-Diaz, Esteban Garcia-Gallo, Federica Garofalo, Jess Gibson, Michelle Girvan, Geraldine Goco, Joan Gómez-Junyent, Bronner P. Gonçalves, Alicia Gonzalez, Patricia Gordon, Margarite Grable, Christopher A. Green, William Greenhalf, Fiona Griffiths, Anja Grosse Lordemann, Anne-Marie Guerguerian, Daniel Haber, Hannah Habraken, Matthew Hall, Sophie Halpin, Summer Hamza, Rashan Haniffa, Hayley Hardwick, Ewen M. Harrison, Janet Harrison, Alan Hartman, Madiha Hashmi, Leanne Hays, Lars Hegelund, Lars Heggelund, Ross Hendry, Liv Hesstvedt, Astarini Hidayah, Rupert Higgins, Samuel Hinton, Antonia Ho, Jan Cato Holter, Peter Horby, Juan Pablo Horcajada, Abby Hurd, Samreen Ijaz, Clare Jackson, Nina Jamieson, Waasila Jassat, Synne Jenum, Philippe Jouvet, Dafsah Juzar, Chris Kandel, Christiana Kartsonaki, Anant Kataria, Kevin Katz, Hannah Keane, Seán Keating, Yvelynne Kelly, Sadie Kelly, Kalynn Kennon, Sharma Keshav, Imrana Khalid, Michelle E Kho, Saye Khoo, Peter Kiiza, Beathe Kiland Granerud, Anders Benjamin Kildal, Anders Kildal, Paul Klenerman, Gry Kloumann Bekken, Stephen R Knight, Robin Kobbe, Paa Kobina Forson, Chamira Kodippily, Franklina Korkor Abebrese, Volkan Korten, Karolina Krawczyk, Deepali Kumar, Demetrios Kutsogiannis, Ama Kwakyewaa Bedu-Addo, François Lamontagne, Marina Lanza, Nicola Latronico, Andy Law, Teresa Lawrence, James Lee, Jennifer Lee, Gary Leeming, Amy Lester-Grant, Andrew Letizia, Gianluigi Li Bassi, Janet Liang, Wei Shen Lim, Andreas Lind, Ruth Lyons, Giuseppe Maglietta, Maria Majori, Paddy Mallon, Patrizia Mammi, Frank Manetta, Ceila Maria Sant’Ana Malaque, Daniel Marino, Carlos Cañada Illana, Catherine Marquis, Hannah Marrinan, Laura Marsh, John Marshall, Dori-Ann Martin, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Alejandro Martin-Quiros, Alejandro Martín-Quiros, Caroline Martins Rego, Gennaro Martucci, Eva Miranda Marwali, David Maslove, Sabina Mason, Henrique Mateus Fernandes, Romans Matulevics, Mayfong Mayxay, Colin McArthur, Anne McCarthy, Rachael McConnochie, Sarah E. McDonald, Allison McGeer, Johnny McKeown, Kenneth A. McLean, Elaine McPartlan, Edel Meaney, Kusum Menon, Alexander J. Mentzer, Laura Merson, Tiziana Meschi, Dan Meyer, Alison M. Meynert, Efstathia Mihelis, Elena Molinos, Brenda Molloy, Claudia Montes, Shona C. Moore, Sarah Moore, Lina Morales Cely, Caroline Mudara, Fredrik Müller, Karl Erik Müller, Laveena Munshi, Lorna Murphy, Srinivas Murthy, Himed Musaab, Carlotta Mutti, Himasha Muvindi, Mangala Narasimhan, Matthew Nelder, Emily Neumann, Alistair Nichol, Lisa Norman, Mahdad Noursadeghi, Giovanna Occhipinti, Derbrenn OConnor, Katie O’Hearn, Piero L. Olliaro, David S.Y. Ong, Wilna Oosthuyzen, Peter Openshaw, Linda O’Shea, Massimo Palmarini, Giovanna Panarello, Prasan Kumar Panda, Hem Paneru, Paolo Parducci, Rachael Parke, Melissa Parker, Laura Patrizi, Lisa Patterson, Mical Paul, William A. Paxton, Mare Pejkovska, Luis Periel, Michele Petrovic, Frank Olav Pettersen, Scott Pharand, Ooyanong Phonemixay, Soulichanya Phoutthavong, Roberta Pisi, Riinu Pius, Simone Piva, Georgios Pollakis, Andra-Maris Post, Jeff Powis, Viladeth Praphasiri, Mark G. Pritchard, Gamage Dona Dilanthi Priyadarshani, Matteo Puntoni, Vilmaris Quinones-Cardona, Else Quist-Paulsen, Anais Rampello, Rajavardhan Rangappa, Elena Ranza, Aasiyah Rashan, Thalha Rashan, Indrek Rätsep, Cornelius Rau, Francesco Rausa, Brenda Reeve, Liadain Reid, Dag Henrik Reikvam, Jordi Rello, Oleksa Rewa, Luis Felipe Reyes, Asgar Rishu, Maria Angelica Rivera Nuñez, Stephanie Roberts, David L. Robertson, Ferran Roche-Campo, Amanda Rojek, Roberto Roncon-Albuquerque Jr, Matteo Rossetti, Sandra Rossi, Clark D. Russell, Aleksander Rygh Holten, Luca Sacchelli, Musharaf Sadat, Valla Sahraei, Leonardo Salazar, Kizy Sanchez de Oliveira, Vanessa Sancho-Shimizu, Gyan Sandhu, Zulfiqar Sandhu, Oana Sandulescu, Marlene Santos, Shirley Sarfo-Mensah, Iam Claire E. Sarmiento, Sree Satyapriya, Rumaisah Satyawati, Egle Saviciute, Gary Schwartz, Janet T. Scott, James Scott-Brown, Malcolm G. Semple, Ellen Shadowitz, Shaikh Sharjeel, Catherine A. Shaw, Victoria Shaw, Dr. Rajesh Mohan Shetty, Haixia Shi, Mohiuddin Shiekh, Sally Shrapnel, Moses Siaw-Frimpong, Bountoy Sibounheuang, Louise Sigfrid, Piret Sillaots, Budha Charan Singh, Pompini Agustina Sitompul, Vegard Skogen, Sue Smith, Michelle Smyth, Tom Solomon, Rima Song, B. P. Sanka Ruwan Sri Darshana, Shiranee Sriskandan, Stephanie-Susanne Stecher, Trude Steinsvik, Birgitte Stiksrud, Adrian Streinu-Cercel, Anca Streinu-Cercel, David Stuart, Jacky Y. Suen, Charlotte Summers, Jaques Sztajnbok, Maria Lawrensia Tampubolon, Richard S. Tedder, Hubert Tessier-Grenier, Shaun Thompson, David Thomson, Emma C. Thomson, Ryan S. Thwaites, Andrea Ticinesi, Paul Tierney, Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Kristian Tonby, Rosario Maria Torres Santos-Olmo, Lance C.W. Turtle, Anders Tveita, PG Ishara Udayanga, Alberto Uribe, Timothy M. Uyeki, Ilaria Valzano, Pooja Varghese, Michael Varrone, Sebastian Vencken, James Vickers, José Ernesto Vidal, Judit Villar, Andrea Villoldo, Chiara Vitiello, Manivanh Vongsouvath, Steve Webb, Jia Wei, Sanne Wesselius, Murray Wham, Nicole White, Surya Otto Wijaya, Evert-Jan Wils, Xin Ci Wong, Stephanie Yerkovich, Touxiong Yiaye, Obada Yousif, Saptadi Yuliarto, Maram Zahran, Maria Zambon. ## Conflict of Interest Declarations Angheben, A. declares support from Italian Ministry of Health - “Fondi Ricerca Corrente” Line1 Project 5 to IRCCS Sacro Cuore – Don Calabria Hospital. Carrier, F.M. declares a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dalton, H. declares personal fees for medical director of Innovative ECMO Concepts and honorarium from Abiomed/BREETHE Oxi-1 and Instrumentation Labs. Consultant fee, Entegrion Inc., Medtronic and Hemocue. Dyrhol-Riise, AM, declares grants from Gilead outside this work. Donnelly, C.A. declares research funding from the UK Medical Research Council and the UK National Institute for Health Research. Douglas, J.J. declares personal fees from lectures from Sunovion and Merck; consulting fees from Pfizer. Fowler, R. declares a peer reviewed research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Gómez-Junyent, J. declares support by Pfizer, Angelini and MSD to attend meetings (registration to meetings only). Guerguerian AM. Participated as site investigator for the Hospital For Sick Children, Toronto, Canada as a site through SPRINT-SARI Study via the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group sponsored in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Ho, A. declares grant funding from Medical Research Council UK, Scottish Funding Council - Grand Challenges Research Fund, and the Wellcome Trust, outside this submitted work. Holter, J.C. reports grants from Research Council of Norway grant no 312780, and from Vivaldi Invest A/S owned by Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner, during the conduct of the study. Kumar, D. declares grants and personal fees from Roche, GSK and Merck; and personal fees from Pfizer and Sanofi. Kutsogiannis, D.J. declares personal fees for a lecture from Tabuk Pharmaceuticals and the Saudi Critical Care Society Lee, J. reports grants from European Commission PREPARE grant agreement No 602525, European Commission RECOVER Grant Agreement No 101003589 and European Commission ECRAID Grant Agreement 965313 supporting the conduct, coordination and management of the work. Lim, W.S. declares his institution has received unrestricted investigator-initiated research funding from Pfizer for an unrelated multicentre cohort study in which he is the Chief Investigator, and research funding from the National Institute for Health Research, UK for various clinical trials outside the submitted work. Martin-Loeches I. declared lectures for Gilead, Thermofisher, MSD; advisory board participation for Fresenius Kabi, Advanz Pharma, Gilead, Accelerate, Merck; and consulting fees for Gilead outside of the submitted work. Martín-Quiros, A. declares consulting fees for Gilead and MSD, presentation fees for GILEAD, Pfizer and MSD, support for attending ECCMID from Gilead, and advisory board fees for MSD and Gilead. Murthy, S declares receiving salary support from the Health Research Foundation and Innovative Medicines Canada Chair in Pandemic Preparedness Research. Nichol, A. declares a grant from the Health Research Board of Ireland to support data collection in Ireland (CTN-2014-012), an unrestricted grant from BAXTER for the TAME trial kidney substudy and consultancy fees paid to his institution from AM-PHARMA. Openshaw, P. has served on scientific advisory boards for Janssen/J&J, Oxford Immunotech Ltd, GSK, Nestle and Pfizer (fees to Imperial College). He is Imperial College lead investigator on EMINENT, a consortium funded by the MRC and GSK. He is a member of the RSV Consortium in Europe (RESCEU) and Inno4Vac, Innovative Medicines Initiatives (IMI) from the European Union. Parke, R. declares that the Cardiothoracic and Vascular Intensive Care Unit, Auckland City Hospital, receives support by way of an unrestricted grant from Fisher and Paykel Healthcare New Zealand Ltd. Rewa, O. declares honoraria from Baxter Healthcare Inc and Leading Biosciences Inc. Săndulescu, O. has been an investigator in COVID-19 clinical trials by Algernon Pharmaceuticals, Atea Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Diffusion Pharmaceuticals, Celltrion, Inc. and Atriva Therapeutics, outside the scope of the submitted work. Semple, M.G. reports grants from DHSC National Institute of Health Research UK, from the Medical Research Council UK, and from the Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging & Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool, supporting the conduct of the study; other interest in Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA, outside the submitted work. Shrapnel, S. participated as an investigator for an observational study analysing ICU patients with COVID-19 (for the Critical Care Consortium including ECMOCARD) funded by The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation during the conduct of this study. Streinu-Cercel, Adrian has been an investigator in COVID-19 clinical trials by Algernon Pharmaceuticals, Atea Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Diffusion Pharmaceuticals, and Celltrion, Inc., outside the scope of the submitted work. Streinu-Cercel, Anca has been an investigator in COVID-19 clinical trials by Algernon Pharmaceuticals, Atea Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Diffusion Pharmaceuticals, Celltrion, Inc. and Atriva Therapeutics, outside the scope of the submitted work. Summers, C. reports that she has received fees for consultancy for Abbvie and Roche relating to COVID-19 therapeutics. She was also the UK Chief Investigator of a GlaxoSmithKline plc sponsored study of a therapy for COVID, and is a member of the UK COVID Therapeutic Advisory Panel (UK-CTAP). Outside the scope of this work, Dr Summers’ institution receives research grants from the Wellcome Trust, UKRI/MRC, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca to support research in her laboratory. Susanne Dudman reports grants from Research Council of Norway grant no 312780. Tedder, R. reports grants from MRC/UKRI during the conduct of the study. In addition, R. Tedder has a patent United Kingdom Patent Application No. 2014047.1 “SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection assay” issued. Turtle, L. reports grants from MRC/UKRI during the conduct of the study and fees from Eisai for delivering a lecture related to COVID-19 and cancer, paid to the University of Liverpool. ## Acknowledgements The investigators acknowledge the philanthropic support of the donors to the University of Oxford’s COVID-19 Research Response Fund; COVID clinical management team, AIIMS, Rishikesh, India; COVID-19 Clinical Management team, Manipal Hospital Whitefield, Bengaluru, India; Italian Ministry of Health “Fondi Ricerca corrente–L1P6” to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore–Don Calabria; and Preparedness work conducted by the Short Period Incidence Study of Severe Acute Respiratory Infection. This work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support #DataSavesLives. The data used for this research were obtained from ISARIC4C. We are extremely grateful to the 2648 frontline NHS clinical and research staff and volunteer medical students who collected these data in challenging circumstances; and the generosity of the patients and their families for their individual contributions in these difficult times. We also acknowledge the support of Jeremy J Farrar and Nahoko Shindo. * Received June 22, 2022. * Revision received June 22, 2022. * Accepted June 22, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. Fontanet, A. et al. SARS-CoV-2 variants and ending the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 397, 952–954, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00370-6 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00370-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33581803&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 2. Polack, F. P. et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 383, 2603–2615, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 (2020). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2034577&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33301246&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 3. Voysey, M. et al. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet 397, 99–111, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33306989&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 4. Baden, L. R. et al. Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 384, 403–416, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2035389 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2035389&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33378609&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 5. Lopez Bernal, J., et al. Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant. N Engl J Med 385, 585–594, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2108891&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34289274&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 6. Our World in Data, <[https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations](https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations) > ( 7. Wolter, N. et al. Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in South Africa. medRxiv, 2021.2012.2021.21268116, doi:10.1101/2021.12.21.21268116 (2021). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMS4xMi4yMS4yMTI2ODExNnYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDYvMjIvMjAyMi4wNi4yMi4yMjI3Njc2NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 8. Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern, <[https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern](https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern)> ( 9. Wolter, N. et al. Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa: a data linkage study. Lancet 399, 437–446, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00017-4 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00017-4&link_type=DOI) 10. Ulloa, A. C., Buchan, S. A., Daneman, N. & Brown, K. A. Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Severity in Ontario, Canada. JAMA 327, 1286–1288, doi:10.1001/jama.2022.2274 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2022.2274&link_type=DOI) 11. Veneti, L. et al. Reduced risk of hospitalisation among reported COVID-19 cases infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant compared with the Delta variant, Norway, December 2021 to January 2022. Euro Surveill 27, doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.4.2200077 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.4.2200077&link_type=DOI) 12. Lewnard, J. A. et al. Clinical outcomes associated with Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant and BA.1/BA.1.1 or BA.2 subvariant infection in southern California. medRxiv, 2022.2001.2011.22269045, doi:10.1101/2022.01.11.22269045 (2022). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMi4wMS4xMS4yMjI2OTA0NXYzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDYvMjIvMjAyMi4wNi4yMi4yMjI3Njc2NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 13. Nyberg, T. et al. Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study. Lancet 399, 1303–1312, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00462-7 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00462-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35305296&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 14. Viana, R. et al. Rapid epidemic expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in southern Africa. Nature 603, 679–686, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04411-y (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-022-04411-y&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35042229&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 15. Group, I. C. C. The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC. Lancet Infect Dis 21, 1623–1624, doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00565-X (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00565-X&link_type=DOI) 16. Group, I. C. C. et al. Ten months of temporal variation in the clinical journey of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort. Elife 10, doi:10.7554/eLife.70970 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7554/eLife.70970&link_type=DOI) 17. Reyes, L. F. et al. Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study. ERJ Open Res 8, doi:10.1183/23120541.00552-2021 (2022). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiZXJqb3IiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTQ6IjgvMS8wMDU1Mi0yMDIxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDYvMjIvMjAyMi4wNi4yMi4yMjI3Njc2NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 18. <[https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/releases/tag/v1.2.133](https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/releases/tag/v1.2.133)> ( 19. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). 20. pandas, <[https://pandas.pydata.org/](https://pandas.pydata.org/)> ( 21. [https://github.com/ISARICDataPlatform/Omicron](https://github.com/ISARICDataPlatform/Omicron). 22. Altarawneh, H. N. et al. Protection against the Omicron Variant from Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection. N Engl J Med 386, 1288–1290, doi:10.1056/NEJMc2200133 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMc2200133&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35139269&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 23. Westreich, D. & Greenland, S. The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. Am J Epidemiol 177, 292–298, doi:10.1093/aje/kws412 (2013). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kws412&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23371353&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000314702800006&link_type=ISI) 24. Andrews, N. et al. Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant. N Engl J Med 386, 1532–1546, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2119451 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2119451&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35249272&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F22%2F2022.06.22.22276764.atom) 25. Andrews, N. et al. Duration of Protection against Mild and Severe Disease by Covid-19 Vaccines. N Engl J Med 386, 340–350, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2115481 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2115481&link_type=DOI)