Incidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among unvaccinated US adults during the Omicron wave

  1. Jennifer L. Alejo
  2. Teresa P. Y. Chiang
  3. Jonathan Mitchell
  4. Aura T. Abedon
  5. Alexa A. Jefferis
  6. William Werbel
  7. Allan B. Massie
  8. Martin A. Makary
  9. Dorry L. Segev

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1111/joim.13555
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.27.22275630: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins institutional review board.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    2] Anti-spike serologic testing was performed prior to the Omicron wave (9/23/21-11/5/21), and categories of antibody titers were created based on reported associations with neutralization.[3-4] Participants completed a follow-up questionnaire (1/19/2022-2/7/2022) about COVID-19 test status and symptoms (since 12/1/2021): tested positive for COVID-19, suspected COVID-19 but never tested positive, or no suspected infection or positive test, and classified symptoms as severe, moderate, mild, or none.
    Anti-spike
    suggested: (Imported from the IEDB Cat# S34, RRID:AB_2833227)
    9/23/21-11/5/21
    suggested: None

    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:
    Recently, reduced vaccine efficacy against Omicron has been described among 4x-vaccinated Israelis, and the additional protection of a 4th dose peaked four weeks post-fourth dose and waned in later weeks.[4-5] Our results add valuable information to the discussion of vaccine versus infection-derived immune protection against Omicron.[6-7] Study limitations include lack of information about direct neutralization against Omicron (though anti-RBD correlation with neutralization is described), lack of viral sequencing (though follow-up occurred when Omicron became the dominant strain in the US), self-reported COVID-19 test results, limited availability of COVID-19 testing during the follow-up period which could lead to underreporting of COVID-confirmed cases, and survivor bias.[3] In conclusion, the presence of anti-RBD antibodies in an unvaccinated healthy adult (natural immunity) was associated with 23% decreased relative risk for COVID-19 reinfection and shorted symptom duration versus those without pre-existing anti-RBD antibodies during the Omicron wave. Among people with antibodies, titer did not appear to be associated with risk of test-confirmed Omicron infection, although our sample size for those ≥1000 U/mL may have been inadequate to detect such a difference in that range. It is important to note that while disease severity for hospitalized Omicron patients was somewhat lower for Omicron versus other variants, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remain at substantial r...

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2022.05.27.22275630v1 on medRxiv