Back

Clinical severity of Omicron sub-lineage BA.2 compared to BA.1 in South Africa

Wolter, N.; JASSAT, W.; DATCOV-Gen Author Group, ; von Gottberg, A.; Cohen, C.

2022-02-19 infectious diseases Community evaluation
10.1101/2022.02.17.22271030 medRxiv
Show abstract

Early data indicated that infection with Omicron BA.1 sub-lineage was associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation and severe illness, compared to Delta infection. Recently, the BA.2 sub-lineage has increased in many areas globally. We aimed to assess the severity of BA.2 infections compared to BA.1 in South Africa. We performed data linkages for (i) national COVID-19 case data, (ii) SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test data, and (iii) COVID-19 hospitalisations data, nationally. For cases identified using TaqPath COVID-19 PCR, infections were designated as S-gene target failure (SGTF, proxy for BA.1) or S-gene positive (proxy for BA.2). Disease severity was assessed using multivariable logistic regression models comparing individuals with S-gene positive infection to SGTF-infected individuals diagnosed between 1 December 2021 to 20 January 2022. From week 49 (starting 5 December 2021) through week 4 (ending 29 January 2022), the proportion of S-gene positive infections increased from 3% (931/31,271) to 80% (2,425/3,031). The odds of being admitted to hospital did not differ between individuals with S-gene positive (BA.2 proxy) infection compared to SGTF (BA.1 proxy) infection (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.09). Among hospitalised individuals, after controlling for factors associated with severe disease, the odds of severe disease did not differ for individuals with S-gene positive infection compared to SGTF infection (aOR 0.91, 95%CI 0.68-1.22). These data suggest that while BA.2 may have a competitive advantage over BA.1 in some settings, the clinical profile of illness remains similar.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.8%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.9%
4
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.4%
5
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.4%
6
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
7
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
8
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
9
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
10
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
11
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.8%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.6%
13
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
14
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
15
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
16
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 41%
1.7%
18
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
19
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
20
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
21
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
22
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
26
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
28
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
29
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%