Protective Effectiveness of Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and XBB Reinfection in Singapore: A National Cohort Study

preprint OA: closed
🔓 Open OA copy View at publisher

Abstract

Background: Despite a large proportion of the population vaccinated and naturally infected, Singapore experienced SARS-CoV-2 waves driven by Omicron BA.5 and XBB sublineages. Data on the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccinations against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and XBB reinfections remain scarce, and can be derived from Singapore’s experience as one of the first countries with an XBB-driven wave.Methods: Using official databases from the Singapore Ministry of Health, we conducted a retrospective cohort study among Singapore residents aged ≥18 years to assess hybrid immunity against BA.4/BA.5 reinfections from 1 October 2022 to 1 November 2022 and XBB reinfections from 18 October 2022 to 1 November 2022. Analysis stratified by time from first infection was also conducted to analyse waning immunity. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were measured by Poisson regressions, with SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals as the reference group. Protective effectiveness (PE) was calculated by taking one minus the risk ratio.Findings: 2,456,791 individuals were included, contributing 53.1 million person-days of observation for the SARS-CoV-2-naive group, and 3.4, 6.6 and 13.7 million person-days to the groups with previous pre-Omicron, BA.1 and BA.2 infections respectively between 1 October 2022 and 1 November 2022. Compared with naïve individuals, first infections with pre-Omicron variants did not confer protection against BA.4/BA.5 (IRR 0.87 [95% CI 0.73–1.05] for pre-Omicron infection with booster) or XBB reinfection (IRR 1.29 [95% CI 1.23–1.35] for pre-Omicron infection with booster). Prior BA.2 infection with boosters provided the greatest protection, but this was lower against reinfection with XBB (PE 51%; 95% CI 49–53%) than BA.4/BA.5 (78%; 95% CI 74–82%). Protection by BA.2 against XBB reinfection also waned faster (74% [95% CI 72–75%) at 3–6 months to 49% [95% CI 47–52%] at 7–8 months) compared with BA.4/BA.5 reinfection (87% [95% CI 82–90%] at 3–6 months to 74% [95% CI 66–80%] at 7–8 months) over time from first infection.Interpretation: Protection from an earlier Omicron infection with vaccination against XBB reinfection was lower and waned faster than that for BA.4/BA.5 reinfection, indicative of XBB’s greater immune evasiveness. Populations remain vulnerable to future reinfection waves from emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants despite high rates of vaccination and natural infection, reflected by high reinfection rates during Singapore’s XBB wave.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-08-08T06:39:30.753600+00:00