The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant contains extensive sequence changes relative to the earlier-arising B.1, B.1.1, and Delta SARS-CoV-2 variants that have unknown effects on viral infectivity and response to existing vaccines. Using SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles (VLPs), we examined mutations in all four structural proteins and found that Omicron and Delta showed 4.6-fold higher luciferase delivery overall relative to the ancestral B.1 lineage, a property conferred mostly by enhancements in the S and N proteins, while mutations in M and E were mostly detrimental to assembly. Thirty-eight antisera samples from individuals vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson vaccines and convalescent sera from unvaccinated COVID-19 survivors had 15-fold lower efficacy to prevent cell transduction by VLPs containing the Omicron mutations relative to the ancestral B.1 spike protein. A third dose of Pfizer vaccine elicited substantially higher neutralization titers against Omicron, resulting in detectable neutralizing antibodies in eight out of eight subjects compared to one out of eight preboosting. Furthermore, the monoclonal antibody therapeutics casirivimab and imdevimab had robust neutralization activity against B.1 and Delta VLPs but no detectable neutralization of Omicron VLPs, while newly authorized bebtelovimab maintained robust neutralization across variants. Our results suggest that Omicron has similar assembly efficiency and cell entry compared to Delta and that its rapid spread is due mostly to reduced neutralization in sera from previously vaccinated subjects. In addition, most currently available monoclonal antibodies will not be useful in treating Omicron-infected patients with the exception of bebtelovimab.

We compared self-collected oral fluid swab specimens with and without clinician supervision, clinician-supervised self-collected anterior nasal swab specimens, and clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Supervised oral fluid and nasal swab specimens performed similarly to clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens. No sample type could detect SARS-CoV-2 infections amongst all positive participants.

We systematically reviewed studies to estimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. For this systematic review, we searched scientific publications on PubMed and MedRxiv, a pre-print server, through August 18, 2021. Eligible studies were retrieved on August 18, 2021. The following search term was used on PubMed: (((“Cohort Studies”[Majr]) AND (“COVID-19”[Mesh] OR “SARS-CoV-2”[Mesh])) OR “Reinfection”[Majr]) OR “Reinfection”[Mesh]. The following search term was used on MedRxiv: “Cohort Studies” AND “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” AND “Reinfection”. The search terms were broad to encompass all applicable studies. There were no restrictions on the date of publication. Studies that did not describe cohorts with estimates of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among those with previous infection were excluded. Studies that included vaccinated participants were either excluded or limited to sub-groups of non-vaccinated individuals. To identify relevant studies with appropriate control groups, we developed the following criteria for studies to be included in the systematic analysis: (1) baseline polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, (2) a uninfected comparison group, (3) longitudinal follow-up, (4) a cohort of human participants, i.e. not a case report or case series, and (5) outcome determined by PCR. The review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. We assessed for selection, information, and analysis bias, per PRISMA guidelines. We identified 1,392 reports. Of those, 10 studies were eligible for our systematic review. The weighted average risk reduction against reinfection was 90.4% with a standard deviation of 7.7% (p-value: <0.01). Protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was observed for up to 10 months. Studies had potential information, selection, and analysis biases. The protective effect of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on re-infection is high and similar to the protective effect of vaccination. More research is needed to characterize the duration of protection and the impact of different SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Background: Currently, there is a pandemic caused by the 2019 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes Covid-19. We wanted to compare specimen types and collection methods to explore if a simpler to collect specimen type could expand access to testing. Methods: We recruited individuals recently tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through a “drive-through” testing program. In participants’ homes, we assessed the performance of self-collected oral fluid swab specimens with and without clinician supervision, clinician-supervised self-collected mid-turbinate (nasal) swab specimens, and clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens. We tested specimens with a validated reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and measured cycle threshold values. Symptom status and date of onset of symptoms was also recorded for each participant. Results: We recruited 45 participants. The median age of study participant was 42 years old (Interquartile range, 31 to 52 years). Of the participants, 29 had at least one specimen test positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 21 (73%) of 29 reported active symptoms. By specimen type and home-based collection method, clinician-supervised self-collected oral fluid swab specimens detected 26 (90%) of 29 infected individuals, clinician-supervised self-collected nasal swab specimens detected 23 (85%) of 27, clinician-collected posterior nasopharyngeal swab specimens detected 23 (79%) of 29, and unmonitored self-collected oral fluid swab specimens detected 19 (66%) of 29. Despite nasopharyngeal swabs being considered the gold standard, 4 participants tested negative by clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab and positive by the 3 other specimen types. Additionally, false negative results by each sample type were seen to generally not overlap. Conclusions: Supervised self-collected oral fluid and nasal swab specimens performed similarly to, if not better than clinician-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. No sample type captured all SARS-CoV-2 infections, suggesting potential heterogeneity in the distribution of viral load in different parts of the respiratory tract between individuals. Supervised self-collection performed comparably to clinician collection and would allow for rapid expansion of testing capacity in the United States by reducing the need for trained healthcare workers, reducing exposure of healthcare workers, and reducing the amount of PPE (personal protective equipment) being used for testing during a critical shortage.