SHORT ABSTRACT
Epidemiologic risk factors for incident SARS-CoV-2 infection are best characterized via prospective cohort studies, complementing case-based surveillance and cross-sectional seroprevalence studies. In March 2020, we launched the CHASING COVID Cohort Study, a national, community-based prospective cohort study of 6,745 U.S. adults who underwent at-home specimen collection for repeat serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We identify and quantify several policy-sensitive risk factors for recent SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, highlight persistent racial/ethnic disparities in incidence, document continued elevated risk among essential workers, and call attention to major gaps in the coverage of public health interventions aimed at testing, isolation, and contact tracing. We conclude that modifiable risk factors and poor reach of public health strategies drive SARS-CoV-2 transmission and inequities across the U.S.
LONG ABSTRACT
Background
Epidemiologic risk factors for incident SARS-CoV-2 infection are best characterized via prospective cohort studies, complementing case-based surveillance and cross-sectional seroprevalence studies.
Methods
We estimated the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and incidence rates of seroconversion in a national prospective online cohort of 6,745 U.S. adults, enrolled March-July 2020. A subset (n=4,459) underwent serologic testing (Bio-Rad Platelia Total Ab, IgA/IgM/IgG), offered initially May-September 2020 and again November 2020-January 2021.
Results
A total of 303 of 4,459 individuals showed serologic evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection (cumulative incidence of 6.8%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 6.1%-7.6% [6.3%, 95% CI 5.7%- 7.1% adjusting for laboratory test error]). Among 3,280 initially seronegative participants with a subsequent serologic test, we observed 145 seroconversions during 1,562 person years of follow-up (incidence rate of 9.3 per 100 person-years [95% CI 17.9-11.0]). Racial/ethnic disparities in crude incidence rates were apparent through January 2021 (rate ratio [RRHispanic vs Whites]=2.1; 95% CI 1.4-3.1; RRnon-Hispanic Blacks vs Whites=1.8; 95% CI 0.96-3.1). Incidence was higher in the southern (RRSouth vs Northeast=1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.8) and midwestern (RRMidwest vs Northeast=1.6; 95% CI 0.98-2.7) regions, in rural vs urban areas (RR=1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.2), and among essential workers (RR=1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.5). Household crowding (RR=1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3), dining indoors at restaurants/bars (RR=2.0; 95% CI 1.4-2.8), visiting places of worship (RR=2.0; 95% CI 1.3-2.9), wearing masks sometimes vs always while grocery shopping (RR=2.5; 95% CI 1.3-4.4), indoor visits with people outside the household with masks (RRalways mask vs no visit=2.6; 95% CI 1.6-4.4) and without masks (RRsometimes mask vs no visit=3.5; 95% CI 2.7-5.7; RRnever mask vs no visit=5.3; 95% CI 3.1-8.9); working indoors at a place of employment with masks (RRalways mask vs no in-person=2.0, 95% CI 1.4-2.8) and without masks (RRsometimes mask vs no in-person= 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.5; RRnever mask vs no in-person=3.7, 95% CI 1.3-8.5); attending a salon or gym with masks (RRalways mask vs no salon/gym=1.7 (95% CI 1.1-2.4), gathering indoors and outdoors in groups of >10 (RR=1.9, 95% CI 1.2-2.0); and air travel during the pandemic (RR=1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.6) were also associated with higher incidence rates. Among 303 seropositive individuals, 27.4% had asymptomatic infection, and 32% reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test or provider diagnosis of COVID-19. In this group, there were major gaps in the coverage of public health interventions aimed at isolation (31% isolated) and contact tracing (asked about contacts [18%]; told about exposure to a confirmed case [7.6%]).
Conclusions
Modifiable risk factors and low reach of public health strategies drive SARS-CoV-2 transmission across the U.S. It is critical to address inequities in incidence, reduce risk factors, and improve the reach of public health strategies in the vaccine era.
INTRODUCTION
As of this writing, about one year after the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States (U.S.), there have been more than 25 million SARS-CoV-2 cases diagnosed, 435,000 deaths recorded, and 23.5 million vaccine doses administered.1 As compared to diagnoses, the true number of infections to date in the U.S. is unknown, but national estimates in the general population as measured by seroprevalence have put the cumulative incidence at 10% in September 20202 and 14% as of November 2020.3 One recent study in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults found that 4.6% had a history of undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 as of July 2020: about 5 undiagnosed infections for every diagnosed case.4
A major challenge of controlling community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is that the virus’ infectious period allows for onward spread prior to recognition of infection, by the substantial proportion of people with asymptomatic infection, and during the pre-symptomatic period among those who go on to develop symptoms.4, 5
While SARS-CoV-2 is understood to be transmitted from person-to-person via droplet and airborne spread, to date, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk factors for incident infection have not been well-characterized by routine case-based surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses or by cross-sectional seroprevalence studies.1–3 As the pandemic progresses through different seasons and stages, it is critical to continue to characterize COVID-19’s evolving epidemiology and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 acquisition, the uptake and impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)6, and the reach of public health strategies aimed at controlling community transmission, including testing, quarantine, isolation, contact tracing, and vaccination.
Researchers and public health practitioners have called for prospective cohort studies to describe incidence rates and how they are influenced by NPI implementation and uptake, sociodemographics, knowledge and behaviors, and other potential risk factors.7 Yet, both the frequency with which many risk factors occur in community samples, as well as the SARS-CoV-2 risk that could be attached to them, still have not been systematically assessed and epidemiologically linked to outcomes like seroconversion. Globally, few prospective epidemiologic studies of SARS-CoV-2 have been published to date. One recent global systematic review of observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 that employed serologic or PCR testing found 18 prospective studies.8 Most were focused on healthcare workers or other occupational groups, individuals in congregate settings, evacuees, or cruise ships; none were community-based (i.e., focused on risk factors in communities vs other higher risk populations/settings).8 A greater understanding of SARS-CoV-2 incidence and risk factors in community samples can substantially complement routine case-based surveillance of new SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses and cross-sectional serosurveys, serving to inform aspects of implementation of the public health response and policies.
In late March 2020, we launched the national, prospective Communities, Households and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort.9 We describe the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, risk factors for recent SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, and, for those with serologic evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the reach and uptake of public health strategies.
METHODS
We used internet-based strategies10–12 to recruit a geographically and socio-demographically diverse cohort of adults in the U.S. and U.S. territories into longitudinal follow-up with at-home specimen collection. To be eligible for inclusion in the cohort, individuals had to: 1) reside in the U.S. or a U.S. territory; 2) be aged 18 years or older; 3) provide a valid email address for follow-up; and 4) demonstrate early engagement in study activities (provided a baseline specimen or completed >1 recruitment/enrollment visits). Details of the study design and recruitment procedures have been described previously.9
Study measurements
Participant interviews
Measures included on the cohort screening, enrollment and follow-up questionnaires were derived from published research10, BRFSS13, 2009 H1N1 influenza studies14, 15, and other COVID-19 studies.16 Measures were also developed de novo. Cohort recruitment and enrollment visits were completed between March 28-August 21, 2020, during which multiple rounds of interviews took place. Essential worker status was defined as working in law enforcement, emergency management, delivery, transportation, construction or healthcare at study enrollment. We separated healthcare workers from other essential workers and treated them as distinct categories in our analyses. From follow-up interviews we obtained repeated measurements of symptoms, testing, hospitalizations, quarantine, isolation, contact tracing encounters, and other time-varying factors.
At-home specimen collection for serologic testing
As part of study assessments during May-August 2020 (Period 1) and November 2020-January 2021 (Period 2), participants were invited to participate in serologic testing using an at-home self-collected dried blood spot (DBS) specimen collection kit. Consenting participants were mailed a specimen collection kit, which included written instructions and a QR code for an instructional video. DBS cards were sent from and returned to the study laboratory (Molecular Testing Laboratories [MTL], Vancouver, Washington) via the U.S. Postal Service (self-addressed, stamped envelope containing a biohazard bag™).
Serologic testing
All DBS specimens were tested by the study laboratory for total antibodies (Total Ab) using the Bio-Rad Platelia test for IgA, IgM, and IgG which targets the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (manufacturer sensitivity 98.0%, specificity 99.3%).17 Specimens that were reactive on the Total Ab test were tested further using the Euroimmun IgG test which targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (manufacturer sensitivity 100%; specificity 99%).17 Both assays received Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and were further validated for use with DBS by the study laboratory using confirmed, true positive and negative patient specimens. In these local validations, both assays were found to have 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity (MTL, personal communication).
Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection
Among participants who underwent serologic testing, we estimated the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 as the proportion of individuals with a positive Total Ab test in either of the two time periods (i.e., number of participants ever-positive) divided by the total number of persons with one or more Total Ab tests (i.e., number of participants ever tested). We adjusted cumulative incidence estimates for laboratory test error as reported by the kit manufacturer. Crude cumulative incidence estimates are presented alongside adjusted estimates in supplemental tables. Unless otherwise specified, all cumulative incidence estimates presented are adjusted for laboratory test error using the following formula18:
Observed SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion and seroreversion
Among those individuals with two Total Ab tests, an observed seroconversion was defined as a negative Total Ab test in Period 1 followed by a positive Total Ab test in Period 2. We estimated the rate of seroconversion per 100 person years of follow-up using the collection dates for each specimen. Person-time at risk began at the time of dried blood spot sample collection for the first serologic test or date the lab received the sample if collection date was missing. The seroconversion date was assigned as the midpoint between the first and second sample collection dates. Observed seroreversion was defined as a positive Total Ab test in Period 1 followed by a negative Total Ab test in Period 2.
Statistical analysis
Cumulative incidence estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were stratified by enrollment characteristics and risk factors acertained prior to specimen collection. Incidence proportions (observed seroconversions) were also stratified by risk factors measured prior to the date of specimen collection in Period 2. All data were cleaned and analyzed in R (version 4.0.3) and SAS (V9.4). Data were geocoded based on a self-reported ZIP code, and maps were created in ArcGIS 10.7. For categorical variables with missing data frequency <5%, we imputed missing data for participants using the most common value among all participants for a given variable.
Ethical Approval
The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate School for Public Health and Health Policy.
RESULTS
The characteristics of the cohort are shown in Table 1, which includes participants from all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam (see Fig. S1). Of the 6,745 participants enrolled in the cohort, 4,459 (66%) had at least one serologic test (Table 1). Compared with the entire cohort, those who underwent any serologic testing were older and more likely to be non-Hispanic White, college educated, and less likely to be healthcare workers or essential workers. 4,235 persons underwent serologic testing in Period 1, and 3,615 persons tested in Period 2. A total of 3,339 persons tested at both time points, including 3,280 who were seronegative on their antibody test in Period 1 and who could be followed prospectively for the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion based on their subsequent serologic test result in the study. Differences between those testing in Period 1 and Period 2 were negligible (Table S1). The median time between specimen collection dates for both serologic tests was 190 days (IQR 152-201) (Figure S2).
Cumulative incidence since the beginning of the pandemic and potential risk factors
The crude and adjusted serology-based estimates of cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through the end of observation (January 31, 2021) were 6.8% (95% CI 6.1%-7.6%) and 6.3% (95% CI 5.5%-7.1%), respectively (Table S2). Cumulative incidence rates declined in dose-response fashion with increasing age, with substantially lower incidence in those aged 60 years and older (Figure 1). Higher cumulative incidence estimates were observed among males (7.8%, 95% CI 6.6%-9.0%), Hispanics 10.2% (95% CI 7.8%-12.6%), non-Hispanic Blacks (7.9%, 95% CI 5%-10.8%), those with a high school education (9.1%, 95% CI 0.9-20.9) or less (8.0%, 95% CI 5.2-10.9%), and those in the Northeast (7.8%, 95% CI 6.3%-9.4%). Lower cumulative incidence estimates were observed among persons aged 60 years and over (3.8%, 95% CI 2.5%-5.2%), those whose gender identity was non-binary (2.5%, 95% CI 0.4%-5.5%), and those who were retired (3.4%, 95% CI 1.7%-4.9%).
The estimated cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by epidemiologic risk factors reported at enrollment are shown in Figure 2 (and in Table S3). Higher cumulative incidence estimates were observed among those who, at cohort enrollment, reported having attended mass gatherings (8.6%, 95% CI 5.8%-12.4%), and lived in more crowded households (8.7%, 95% CI 5.7%-13.2%). Those who thought they had COVID-19 in the past, and in Period 2, those who had a known SARS-CoV-2 exposure, sought a test, had a self-reported SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis or COVID-19-related hospitalization also had markedly higher cumulative incidence (Table S3). People living with HIV had the highest cumulative incidence among those with comorbidities (8.8%, 95% CI 5.5%-13.6%) over the entire study period, however, those with diabetes had the highest cumulative incidence in Period 2 (Table S3). In terms of other potential risk factors, those who reported recently drinking more than 6 alcoholic drinks on one occasion (9.9%, 95% CI 6.6%-14.3%) and those who used public transportation (8.6%, 95% CI 5.7%-12.6%) had higher cumulative incidence (Fig. 2, Table S3). Lower cumulative incidence was observed among those who, at enrollment, reported having asthma, immunosuppression, and depression.
Incidence of recent SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion and potential risk factors
Figure 3 (and Table S4) shows more recent seroconversions and incidence rates among 3,280 initially seronegative persons who had a subsequent serologic test during November 2020-January 2021 (Fig. S2), stratified by risk factors that were present prior to or between serologic tests. There were 145 observed seroconversions over 1,562 person years of follow-up among the 3,280 participants, for an overall incidence rate of 9.3 per 100 person years (PY) (95% CI 7.9-11.0). The rate ratio (RR) for incident SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher for males than females (RR: 1.34, 95% CI 0.96-1.87), Hispanics (RR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.40-3.12) and non-Hispanic Blacks (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.96-3.13) compared with non-Hispanic Whites. In contrast to cumulative incidence estimates, incidence rates reflecting more recent seroconversions were higher among those in rural versus urban areas (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.04-2.22), those in the Midwest (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.98-2.69), the South (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.1-2.75), and the West (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.79-2.2) compared to the Northeast. Of note, essential workers had higher incidence than non-essential workers (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.09--2.46).
Figure 4 (and Table S5) shows recent seroconversions and incidence rates for epidemiologic risk factors. Living in more crowded households was associated with higher incidence than living in less crowded households (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08-2.32). Compared with referent groups in Figure 4, there was also higher incidence among those who dined indoors at restaurants/bars (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.38-2.83); those who visited a place of worship (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.25-2.93); those who wore a mask only sometimes while grocery shopping (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.31-4.36); those who visited indoors with people not in their own household while always wearing a mask (RR=2.6; 95% CI 1.6-4.4), while sometimes wearing a mask (RR=3.5; 95% CI 2.7-5.7 or while never wearing a mask (RR=5.3; 95% CI 3.1-8.9); those working indoors at a place of employment while always wearing a mask (RR=2.0, 95% CI 1.4-2.8), while sometimes wearing a mask (RR=2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.5), or while never wearing a mask RR=3.7, 95% CI 1.3-8.5); those attending a salon or gym with masks (RR=1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.4); those who gathered indoors and outdoors in groups of >10 (RR=1.9, 95% CI 1.2-2.0); and those that traveled by air during the pandemic (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.12-2.55).
Clinical and public health outcomes among persons with serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection
Among the 303 individuals who were positive for Total Ab during the study, only 121 (39.9%) were aware that they had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (Table S6). A substantial proportion of the 303 (27.4%) recalled no symptoms of COVID-like illness (i.e., were asymptomatic cases). Among the 145 more recent seroconverters in Period 2, the proportion reporting no symptoms was 25.5%, and another 60% reported milder symptoms that did not result in seeking care.
In terms of public health outcomes, 64.4% (195/303) said that they were tested for SARS-CoV-2 outside the study (Table S6), half of them (32% of total) reported having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. However, only 30.7% of all 303 seropositives said that they had isolated themselves from people outside their household because of their infection, and, among those who did not live alone, even fewer (13.5% overall) said they isolated themselves from others within their household. In terms of contact tracing, 17.8% of all seropositives were asked about contacts following diagnosis and only 12.2% of all seropositives had been informed by a contact tracer that they may have had contact with someone confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2. Only 5.3% of those diagnosed (3.3% of all seropositives) were told by a contact tracer to stay home for a period of time because they had COVID-19.
Repeat serologic testing outcomes
A total of 303 persons who were ever seropositive by the Total Ab test contributed 392 seropositive Total Ab test results over the course of the study (Table S7). This included 134 persons with a positive Total Ab test in Period 1 and 258 in Period 2. Of the 258 Total Ab positives in Period 2, 145 were recent seroconverters. There were 20 individuals who were Total Ab positive in Period 1 but Total Ab negative in Period 2 (i.e., seroreverters and/or false positives). Specifically, of 134 persons who tested Total Ab positive in Period 1 and had a second test in Period 2, only 114 (85%) were still seropositive in Period 2. The median time between specimen collection for these 20 individuals was 197 days (IQR 187-201 days). Of the 392 specimens that were positive on the Total Ab test from Period 1 or 2, 361 had sufficient specimen quantity for further testing. Of these, 63.4% (201/361) were also positive on the spike protein-based IgG test, including 65.7% (88/127) in Period 1, and 42.1% (113/234) in Period 2 (Table S7).
DISCUSSION
We report findings from one of the first community-based prospective epidemiologic studies of SARS-CoV-2 incidence and risk factors, globally. We have prospectively characterized the risk of incident SARS-CoV-2 infection in relation to a range of modifiable risk factors in the U.S., using information on both past infection and recent seroconversion. With a well-characterized sample of participants with evidence of prior infection, our study suggests that public health strategies being widely used with the aim of reducing onward transmission (quarantine, testing, isolation, and contact tracing) do not have high enough coverage during the infectious period of SARS-CoV-2 to be effective at controlling community spread.
These are among the principal reasons why the U.S. has seen unmitigated increases in community transmission, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19. Unless and until herd immunity can be achieved through a combination of natural infection and vaccine-induced immunity, more nuanced understanding of the actual contribution of these factors over time is needed. This in turn will facilitate more effective government and community public health policies, actions and implementation strategies to control community spread, which is key to preventing avoidable hospitalizations and deaths, and ultimately maximizing the impact of vaccines. In areas where there is not an enforced lock down, our findings provide an evidence-base for federal, state, and local policy focus on risk factors that appear to be potential drivers of late-phase pandemic spread, such as indoor dining, mass gatherings, or not wearing masks when outside the home.
Data on more recent seroconversions occurring between May 2020 and January 2021 in our cohort suggest that elevated risk among essential workers, observed early in the U.S. pandemic, has persisted. Essential workers risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2 not only in their workplace(s), but also in their communities and as part of their commutes to and from work if they need to use public transportation. The increased burden of risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in essential workers is then shared with their household members, among whom transmission is very efficient.19 Along with this comes a higher burden of stress and anxiety among essential workers.20 The most immediate action that governments can take to help keep essential workers safe is to minimize community transmission so that they are less likely to be exposed in the workplace or as part of their commutes. Policies and other strategies should be considered and implemented to ensure workplace safety (high quality masks, distancing, ventilation, paid sick leave for those that cannot afford to miss work) and the safety of public transportation. Any strategies should include prioritized access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for essential workers and, until or in the absence of vaccination, rapid testing for essential workers and members of their households. FDA-approved fully at-home rapid testing options are becoming more readily available with or without a prescription, and past research has indicated an overall increase in the uptake of testing with the addition of at-home testing options,21, 22 making them a potentially important strategy to increase early identification of new infections and subsequent interventions to prevent onward transmission. In this later phase of the pandemic, healthcare workers in our cohort had borderline elevated risk. Healthcare workers in the U.S. could be expected to have lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in the workplace due to focused efforts to mitigate risk via improved access to personal protective equipment and engineering controls. However, healthcare workers also have ongoing community exposure, including possibly during their commutes to and from work, that could put them at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and acquisition.
Our study provides epidemiologic evidence of increased risk for a number of key exposures. Living in more crowded households, defined as living in a multi-unit (i.e., apartment) building with 4 or more household members, was associated with a 60% higher incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with those living in less crowded households. Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs with very high attack rates, and may also increase the risk of more severe COVID-19 disease, requiring hospitalization.23 Household crowding, more than population density, was shown to be a characteristic of community transmission ‘hotspots’ in a recent ecological analysis from the early phase of the pandemic.24 When there are possible or confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 among household members, when background community transmission is substantial, or when the possibility of exposure outside the household is high (e.g., essential workers), our study and others25 suggest mask use in the household should be considered, especially when it is otherwise not possible to limit potential exposure and spread in the household by isolating or sequestering away from others. As the vaccine rollout continues, this is particularly important to protect unvaccinated household members who may be at high risk for a severe COVID-19 outcome.
We characterized the potential contribution of several other key risk factors, some of which have been, or could be, the focus of state and federal policies, including dining indoors at a restaurant/bar, visiting a place of worship, inconsistent mask use while grocery shopping or visiting non-household members indoors (especially without masks), visiting a salon/gym, gathering indoors in groups of 10 or more, and recent travel by airplane during the pandemic. Working indoors, even while always masking but especially while never wearing a mask, was strongly associated with higher infection rates. In addition to being potential individual policy focus areas, we note that all of these risks can be mitigated by social distancing, workplace safety, increased mask use, use of more effective masks (e.g., KN95), and use of more than one mask.26–28
Finally, detailed examination of 303 individuals with serologic evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection showed major gaps in the reach of public health interventions aimed at testing, self-isolation, and contact tracing for people with SARS-CoV-2 (and their contacts). Indeed, many with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection did not report a prior positive PCR test, and a substantial proportion were asymptomatic, both greatly hindering the ability of public health efforts to control spread. Furthermore, few people who had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in our study reported having been reached by contact tracers. When considering the large proportion of people with SARS-CoV-2 who have asymptomatic infection, undiagnosed infection (with or without symptoms), the low likelihood of diagnosis during the pre-symptomatic phase, the high number of new daily diagnoses and the often long delay between testing and return of results, contact tracing (a strategy that requires rapid response and action with high coverage early in the infectious period) is likely not a feasible strategy to control community spread in the U.S.. Limited public health resources may be better spent instead on messaging that emphasizes the importance of self-isolation after symptom onset or a positive test. Verbal, written and electronic (SMS text, email) messaging should occur at the time of the test, rather than after results are returned. In the event of a positive result, messaging at the time of testing should also include instructions to notify close contacts, including in workplaces, that they should quarantine and, if symptoms develop, self-isolate.
A shift in emphasis and resources away from contact tracing as a strategy to control community spread would provide much needed resources at the state and local level to facilitate more rapid and targeted delivery of vaccination, which has faltered in many areas to date. Many in our cohort, as across the U.S., are not yet vaccinated, not yet eligible for or are not currently willing to undergo vaccination29, and will remain at risk for months to come. Accelerating vaccine rollout, especially among those at high risk for a severe SARS-CoV-2 outcome and essential workers, has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives.
All of the potential risk factors described in our study and the low uptake of public health strategies conspire to create a perpetually disparate burden of risk among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black persons and essential workers, as well as their household members and their communities. Our study suggests these inequalities have not been addressed to date in the U.S., and the ultimate drivers, which relate to structural racism and possibly other factors, need to be unpacked by health departments and researchers.30 There has been much research focused on comorbid medical conditions and other biologic factors that may increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition or severity.31–33 However, non-biological structural factors are the major drivers of COVID-19 infection and severe outcomes, and the inequities by race/ethnicity, occupation, geography, and income. These non-biological structural factors, such as household crowding, the need to go to work to avoid income loss, and inequitable access to SARS-CoV-2 testing34, create a disparate burden of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and incidence.35 To date, no targeted strategies or policies have been deployed that aim to protect those who cannot afford missing work, including, but not only, essential workers. These disparities in SARS-CoV-2 exposure, incidence, hospitalization and death will likely be perpetuated and likely exacerbated by differential uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines, driven by potentially flawed implementation strategies that prevent equitable access to vaccination. It is incumbent upon public health leaders, decision makers, and policy makers to anticipate and proactively design pandemic response implementation strategies, including metrics, that account for and counteract the fundamental and prevailing structural forces that without fail will otherwise create, perpetuate, or exacerbate inequities in safety, health and well-being.36–39
Strengths of our cohort study include its prospective design, allowing direct observation of seroconversions and incident COVID-19 infection among those who had no serologic evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, with and without risk factors. Our cohort is also geographically and sociodemographically diverse, facilitating assessment of geographic differences and racial/ethnic disparities. We also measured and were able to estimate incidence rates associated with a range of relevant epidemiologic risk factors.
Our study also has limitations worth noting. Most research studies deployed in the middle of a pandemic, including ours, may produce biased estimates since they may not include complete information on participants who died from COVID-19, or were too sick or otherwise too busy to participate in the research activities, or enrolled but became lost to follow-up. Moreover, it is possible that those who thought they had SARS-CoV-2 or were tested outside the study may have been more or less likely to participate in follow-up serologic testing, which would lead our seroincidence estimates to be biased in either direction. However, there was no systematic difference between those who tested in Period 1 and Period 2 (Table S1). Separately, while we have corrected our cumulative incidence estimates for laboratory test error18, the observed cumulative incidence in our cohort may be lower than the true cumulative incidence in our cohort because of waning of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Recent studies suggest waning of antibodies to both nucleocapsid and spike proteins2, which combined with the timing of specimen collection relative to infection for many participants in our cohort (median of 190 days)9, could mean that we have underestimated the true cumulative incidence. Next, as with any observational cohort study, estimated associations between SARS-CoV-2 risk factors and incidence are subject to confounding. The crude associations we presented could be over- or underestimated, and also may vary by setting. For example, the effect of indoor dining may be different in areas of lower versus higher levels of community transmission. Our study also had limited statistical power due to our sample size and the relatively short duration of follow-up. Finally, while our study is well-suited to characterize the risks related to SARS-CoV-2 acquisition, it is less well-suited to examine factors related to onward transmission from participants who had SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in lieu of this, we have endeavored to describe the coverage of public health-related outreach to persons in our cohort who had evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection and identified some areas in need of improvement, such as the need for improvements in the uptake of testing and self-isolation.
Conclusion
Modifiable risk factors and poor reach of public health strategies continue to drive transmission of SARS-CoV-2 across the U.S.. It is critical to address inequities in incidence, reduce risk factors, and improve the reach of public health strategies of testing and self-isolation in the vaccine era. Given the properties of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including the substantial asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic phases during the SARS-CoV-2 infectious period, the magnitude of cases and the need to act quickly, contact tracing is not a viable public health strategy to control the spread of the pandemic in the U.S.. Our cumulative incidence estimates suggest that many in our cohort remain at risk for SARS-CoV-2, including those with risk factors for infection and severe disease. While SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely reduce the risk of COVID-19 disease and possibly SARS-CoV-2 acquisition substantially for this group, this will likely take some time due to both the pace of the vaccine rollout and vaccine hesitancy. The CHASING COVID Cohort Study will continue to monitor SARS-CoV-2 outcomes, including vaccine uptake, through December 2021.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [DN]. The data are not yet publicly available, but we are preparing to post a deidentified, HIPAA compliant, public use version of our baseline and follow-up data on GitHub.
CONTRIBUTORS
DN, MR, SGK, MMR, conceptualized the study. MR, MC and DN performed statistical analyses. DN and MR wrote the first draft of the paper. DN, MR, MC, SGK, and AP contributed to interpreting the data, DN, RZ, MR, MC, SGK, WY, AB, CM, SK, AM, MMR, DW, AP, LW, CG and to the writing and revising of the manuscript, SGK, WY, AB, CM, SK, and DN contributed to data collection, cleaning and management. DN, SGK, MMR and CG contributed to obtaining funding for the research.
FUNDING
Funding for this project is provided by The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), award number 3UH3AI133675-04S1 (MPIs: D Nash and C Grov), the CUNY Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health (cunyisph.org) and the COVID-19 Grant Program of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant P2C HD050924 (Carolina Population Center).
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the participants of the CHASING COVID Cohort Study. We are grateful to you for your contributions to the advancement of science around the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We thank Prof. Patrick Sullivan and MTL for local validation work on the serologic assays for use with DBS that greatly benefited our study. We are also grateful to MTL Labs for processing specimen collection kits and serologic testing of our cohort’s specimens.