Reports of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection have raised important questions about the strength and durability of the immune response to primary infection, which are key factors in predicting the course of the pandemic. Identifying reinfection requires detecting the virus at two different time points and using viral genomic data to distinguish reinfection from persistent viral carriage. This process is hindered by challenges of logistics and capacity, such as banking samples from primary infection and performing viral genome sequencing. These challenges may help to explain why very few cases have been described to date. In addition, reinfection may be a rare phenomenon, but detailed prospective studies are needed to rigorously assess its frequency. To provide context for future investigations of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, we review 16 cases that have been published to date or are available in pre-print. Reinfection occurred across demographic spectra and in patients whose initial infections were both asymptomatic/mild and moderate/severe. For cases in which severity could be compared between episodes, half of reinfections were less severe, raising the possibility of partial immune protection. Although many patients had a positive total immunoglobulin or IgG result at the time of reinfection, very little examination of their immune response was performed. Further work is needed to elucidate the frequency, determinants, and consequences of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Establishing the necessary frameworks for surveillance and investigation will rely heavily on clinical laboratories and clinical investigators, and we propose several considerations to guide the medical community in identifying and characterizing SARS-CoV-2 reinfections.

We performed an epidemiological investigation and SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing to define the source and scope of an outbreak in a cluster of hospitalized patients. Lack of appropriate respiratory hygiene led to SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients and healthcare workers during a single hemodialysis session, highlighting the importance of infection prevention precautions.

Human neutrophils are highly sensitive to the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb), the agent of Lyme disease (LD), in tissues. Although Bb is also found in the blood of LD patients, far less is known about how neutrophils respond to Bb in the presence of blood. In this study, we employed microfluidic tools to probe the interaction between human neutrophils and Bb and measured the activation of human neutrophils in blood samples from patients. We found that neutrophils migrate vigorously toward Bb in the presence of serum, and this process was complement-dependent. Preventing complement factor 5 cleavage or blocking complement receptors decreased neutrophil’s ability to interact with Bb. We also found that spiking Bb directly into the blood from healthy donors induced spontaneous neutrophil motility. This response to Bb was also complement-dependent. Preventing complement factor 5 cleavage decreased spontaneous neutrophil motility in Bb-spiked blood. Moreover, we found that neutrophils in blood samples from acute LD patients displayed spontaneous motility patterns similar to those observed in Bb-spiked samples. Neutrophil motility was more robust in blood samples from LD patients than that measured in healthy and ill controls, validating the utility of the microfluidic assay for the study of neutrophil-Bb interactions in the presence of blood.