Shenai Mahesh B, Rahme Ralph, Noorchashm Hooman
Neurosurgery, Inova Neuroscience, Falls Church, USA.
Neurosurgery, St. Barnabas Hospital, New York City, USA.
Cureus. 2021 Oct 28;13(10):e19102. doi: 10.7759/cureus.19102. eCollection 2021 Oct.
We present a systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of complete vaccination in the COVID-naive, and (2) the added benefit of vaccination in the COVID-recovered, for prevention of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using the PRISMA 2020 guidance, we first conducted a systematic review of available literature on PubMed, MedRxIV and FDA briefings to identify clinical studies either comparing COVID vaccination to natural immunity or delineating the benefit of vaccination in recovered individuals. After assessing eligibility, studies were qualitatively appraised and formally graded using the NOS system for observational, case-control and RCTs. Incidence rates were tabulated for the following groups: never infected (NI) and unvaccinated (UV), NI and vaccinated (V), previously infected (PI) and UV, PI and V. Pooling were performed by grouping the RCTs and observational studies separately, and then all studies in total. Risk ratios and differences are reported for individual studies and pooled groups, in 1) NPI/V vs PI/UV and 2) PI/UV vs PI/V analysis. In addition, the number needed to treat (NNT) analysis was performed for vaccination in naïve and previously infected cohorts. Nine clinical studies were identified, including three randomized controlled studies, four retrospective observational cohorts, one prospective observational cohort, and a case-control study. The NOS quality appraisals of these articles ranged from four to nine (out of nine stars). All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity. Four observational studies found a statistically significant incremental benefit to vaccination in the COVID-recovered individuals. In a total pooled analysis, the incidence in NPI/V trended higher than PI/UV groups (RR=1.86 [95%CI 0.77-4.51], P=0.17). Vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals provided modest protection from reinfection (RR=1.82 [95%CI 1.21-2.73], P=0.004), but the absolute risk difference was extremely small (AR= 0.004 person-years [95% CI 0.001-0.007], P=0.02). The NNT to prevent one annual case of infection in COVID-recovered patients was 218, compared to 6.5 in COVID-naïve patients, representing a 33.5-fold difference in benefit between the two populations. COVID-recovered individuals represent a distinctly different benefit-risk calculus. While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by complete vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference.
我们对迄今为止的临床研究进行了系统综述和汇总分析,这些研究:(1)具体比较了新冠康复者的自然免疫保护与从未感染新冠者完成疫苗接种的效果,以及(2)新冠康复者接种疫苗在预防后续SARS-CoV-2感染方面的额外益处。我们依据PRISMA 2020指南,首先对PubMed、MedRxIV和FDA简报上的可用文献进行了系统综述,以识别那些将新冠疫苗接种与自然免疫进行比较,或阐述康复个体接种疫苗益处的临床研究。在评估入选资格后,使用NOS系统对观察性研究、病例对照研究和随机对照试验进行定性评估并正式分级。列出以下几组的发病率:从未感染(NI)且未接种疫苗(UV)、NI且接种疫苗(V)、既往感染(PI)且UV、PI且V。分别对随机对照试验和观察性研究进行分组汇总,然后对所有研究进行总体汇总。在1)未感染/接种疫苗组与既往感染/未接种疫苗组以及2)既往感染/未接种疫苗组与既往感染/接种疫苗组的分析中,报告了各单项研究和汇总组的风险比及差异。此外,对未感染人群和既往感染人群队列中的疫苗接种进行了治疗所需人数(NNT)分析。共识别出9项临床研究,包括3项随机对照研究、4项回顾性观察队列研究、1项前瞻性观察队列研究和1项病例对照研究。这些文章的NOS质量评估为4至9星(满分9星)。所有纳入研究均发现,完全接种疫苗的保护效果与自然免疫至少在统计学上相当;且有3项研究发现自然免疫更具优势。4项观察性研究发现,新冠康复者接种疫苗有统计学上显著的额外益处。在总体汇总分析中,未感染/接种疫苗组的发病率高于既往感染/未接种疫苗组(RR = 1.86 [95%CI 0.77 - 4.51],P = 0.17)。新冠康复者接种疫苗对再次感染有一定保护作用(RR = 1.82 [95%CI 1.21 - 2.73],P = 0.004),但绝对风险差异极小(AR = 0.004人年 [95%CI 0.001 - 0.007],P = 0.02)。预防新冠康复患者每年1例感染的NNT为218,而未感染新冠患者为6.5,这表明两组人群的获益差异达33.5倍。新冠康复者的获益 - 风险计算明显不同。虽然疫苗接种在预防感染和重症新冠疾病方面非常有效,但我们的综述表明,新冠康复者的自然免疫至少等同于从未感染新冠人群完成疫苗接种所提供的保护。新冠康复者接种疫苗有一定的相对额外益处;然而,从绝对意义上讲,净益处微乎其微。因此,新冠康复者的疫苗接种应基于临床权衡和个人偏好。