PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Andeweg, Stijn P. AU - de Gier, Brechje AU - Vennema, Harry AU - van Walle, Ivo AU - van Maarseveen, Noortje AU - Kusters, Nina E. AU - de Melker, Hester E. AU - Hahné, Susan J.M. AU - van den Hof, Susan AU - Eggink, Dirk AU - Knol, Mirjam J. TI - Higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/5 infection than of BA.2 infection after previous BA.1 infection, the Netherlands, 2 May to 24 July 2022 AID - 10.1101/2022.09.21.22280189 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.09.21.22280189 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/23/2022.09.21.22280189.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/23/2022.09.21.22280189.full AB - We investigate differences in protection from previous infection and/or vaccination against infection with Omicron BA.4/5 or BA.2. We observed a higher percentage of registered previous SARS-CoV-2 infections among 19836 persons infected with Omicron BA.4/5 compared to 7052 persons infected with BA.2 (31.3% vs. 20.0%) between 2 May and 24 July 2022 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for testing week, age group and sex: 1.4 (95%CI: 1.3-1.5)). No difference was observed in the distribution of vaccination status between BA.2 and BA.4/5 cases (aOR: 1.1 for primary and booster vaccination). Among reinfections, those newly infected with BA4/5 had a shorter interval between infections and the previous infection was more often caused by BA.1, compared to those newly infected with BA.2 (aOR: 1.9 (1.5-2.6). This suggests immunity induced by BA.1 is less effective against a BA.4/5 infection than against a BA.2 infection.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Centre for Clinical Expertise at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) assessed the research proposal following the specific conditions as stated in the law for medical research involving human subjects. The work described was exempted for further approval by the ethical research committee. Pathogen surveillance is a legal task of the RIVM and is carried out under the responsibility of the Dutch Minister of Health, Welfare and Sports. The Public Health Act (Wet Publieke Gezondheid) provides that RIVM may receive pseudonymised data for this task without informed consent.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. Restrictions apply to the availability of case-based data.