SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: a prospective cohort study

  1. Andrew G Letizia
  2. Yongchao Ge
  3. Sindhu Vangeti
  4. Carl Goforth
  5. Dawn L Weir
  6. Natalia A Kuzmina
  7. Corey A Balinsky
  8. Hua Wei Chen
  9. Dan Ewing
  10. Alessandra Soares-Schanoski
  11. Mary-Catherine George
  12. William D Graham
  13. Franca Jones
  14. Preeti Bharaj
  15. Rhonda A Lizewski
  16. Stephen E Lizewski
  17. Jan Marayag
  18. Nada Marjanovic
  19. Clare M Miller
  20. Sagie Mofsowitz
  21. Venugopalan D Nair
  22. Edgar Nunez
  23. Danielle M Parent
  24. Chad K Porter
  25. Ernesto Santa Ana
  26. Megan Schilling
  27. Daniel Stadlbauer
  28. Victor A Sugiharto
  29. Michael Termini
  30. Peifang Sun
  31. Russell P Tracy
  32. Florian Krammer
  33. Alexander Bukreyev
  34. Irene Ramos
  35. Stuart C Sealfon

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/s2213-2600(21)00158-2
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.26.21250535: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the Naval Medical Research Center (protocol number NMRC.2020.0006) in compliance with all applicable U.S. federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects.
    Consent: All participants provided written informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Other limitations in our study include not being able to investigate the exposure event during a seropositive participant’s initial infection prior to arrival at quarantine, the inability to confirm initial SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR in the seropositive group, and potentially missing detectable infections that occurred between biweekly sampling. Our investigation is likely to underestimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in previously infected individuals because the seronegative group includes an unknown number of previously infected participants who did not have significant IgG titers in their baseline serum sample. Despite this underestimation, we found that previously infected participants identified by seropositivity are susceptible to repeat infection, with nearly one-fifth the incidence rate of those without evidence of previous infection. This suggests that COVID-19 vaccination may be necessary for control of the pandemic in previously infected young adults.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.26.21250535 on medRxiv