SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in a University Community: A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Student Return to Campus on Infection Risk Among Community Members

Background

Demographic shifts, high population densities, and population mobility are known to impact the spread of infectious diseases [1–5]. While this has been well characterized at large scales [6–8], it has proved more challenging to demonstrate at smaller geographic scales [9–11]. The return of college and university students to in-person and hybrid (in-person and online) instruction in the Fall 2020 term during the COVID-19 pandemic represented a massive demographic shift in many communities in the United States (US); specifically, increased population and proportion living in high density living facilities, with a concomitant increase in person-to-person interactions [12]. This shift had the potential to increase SARS-CoV-2 transmission in returning students and to surrounding communities, particularly for non-urban campuses where incidence lagged larger population centers [13]. Modeling analyses conducted prior to student return raised concerns that university re-opening would result in significant SARS-CoV-2 transmission in both the returning student and community resident populations [14,15].

During the Fall 2020 term, many universities in the US experienced high rates of COVID-19 cases among students [16], with a 56% increase in incidence among counties home to large colleges or universities relative to matched counties without such institutions [12]. While there is strong evidence of high incidence rates associated with a return to campus at US colleges and universities [12], the increase in risk in surrounding communities, and transmission rate from campuses to communities, have been less well characterized. The observed increases in COVID-19 cases in these communities cannot be explicitly attributed to campus origin, absent detailed contact tracing.

This investigation reports the results of a longitudinal serosurvey of community residents in Centre County, Pennsylvania, USA, which is home to The Pennsylvania State University (PSU), University Park (UP) campus. The return of approximately 35,000 students to the UP campus in August 2020 represented a nearly 20% increase in the county population [17]. During the Fall 2020 term, more than 4,500 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected among the student population [18]. Between 7 August and 2 October 2020 (before and just after student return), we enrolled a cohort of community residents and tested serum for the presence of anti-Spike Receptor Binding Domain (S/RBD) IgG, which would indicate prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure [19]. This was repeated in the same cohort during December 2020 (post-departure of students), and we present seroprevalence for both sampling waves. Additionally, returning students were enrolled in a longitudinal cohort, and IgG seroprevalence results are presented from the first wave of sampling (between October and November 2020, prior to the end of the term). The hypothesis tested was that the influx of students during the Fall 2020 term would be correlated with increased SARS-CoV-2 community prevalence.

Methods

Results

A total of 9299 community residents were identified through an initial REDCap survey that collected eligibility, demographic, and contact information. 1531 were eligible, indicated willingness to participate, and were enrolled. 1462 completed a first clinic visit between 07 August and 02 October 2020, and 1313 of those completed a second clinic visit between 30 November and 19 February 2020 and for whom both visit 1 and visit 2 samples were analysed. 1410 returning students were recruited using volunteer sampling and 725 enrolled; of these, 684 completed clinic visits for serum collection between 26 October and 21 December 2020.

Among participants with serum samples: the median age community residents was 47 years (IQR: 36-58), with 86.5% between the ages 18-65 years, and for the returning students the median age was 20 years (IQR: 19-21), with 99.7% between the ages 18-65 years; 66.9% of the community residents identified as female and 32.3% as male; 64.5% of the returning students identified as female and 34.6% as male; 92.9% of the community residents identified as white, as did 81.9% of the students. Similar proportions were seen in those enrolled without samples, and among the initial survey respondents (Table 1; Table 2). Although all county residents were eligible for participation, 74.9% of community resident participants were from the 5 townships (College, Ferguson, Harris, Half Moon, Patton) and 1 borough (State College) that form the “Centre Region” and account for ∼59% of Centre County’s population [17] (Figure 1). The median household income group in the community residents providing samples was $100,000 to $149,999 USD (IQR: $50,000 to $74,999; $150,000 to $199,999). The median household income in the county is $60,403 [17]. 47.4% of the county is female, 87.9% white, and 70.3% are between the ages of 18-65 years old [17]. The study cohort is moderately older and more affluent (in part because of the exclusion of returning students), and disproportionately female compared to the general Centre County population.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Map of Centre County, Pennsylvania, USA. Blue indicates the 5 townships and 1 borough that comprise the Centre Region. Red indicates the location of The Pennsylvania State University (PSU), University Park (UP) Campus. Inset illustrates the proportion of the county population in each region; PSU indicates the estimated student population that returned to campus for the Fall 2020 term.

Of the returning student participants, 673 (92.8%) had at least one test prior to enrollment in the study; of these, 107 (15.9%) self-reported a positive result (Table 3). Of these, 100 (93.5%) indicated that this test result occurred after their return to campus (median: 25 September; IQR: 10 September, 07 October). Of the 684 returning students with an ELISA result, 95 of the 102 (93.1%) with a self-reported prior positive test result were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Of the 582 returning students with ELISA results who did not report a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 113 (16.5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Of the total 684 returning students with ELISA results, 208 (30.41%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (Figure 2). Among the community resident participants, 42 of 1313 (3.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at their first visit (Figure 2). Between their first and second visit, 54 participants converted from negative to positive and 19 converted from positive to negative; 96 (7.3%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies at either visit.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Raw seroprevalence (circles) with 95% binomial confidence intervals for the community residents at the first visit at the start of the Fall 2020 term (light blue), returning students at the end of the fall 2020 term (red), and community residents at either the first or the second visit after student departure (dark blue).

Of the returning students with a self-reported prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 93.1% (95% CrI: 86.4-97.2%) had positive IgG antibodies; this was used as an estimate of sensitivity of the IgG assay for detecting previously detectable infection (see Supplement for an alternative calculation of sensitivity that includes community resident responses). For all values of specificity below 0.95, the 95% credible intervals for the prevalence in the community residents overlapped for the pre- and post-term time points, and neither overlapped with the returning student subgroup (Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Estimated true prevalence (circles, with 95% confidence intervals) among participants at each sampling interval corrected for estimated assay sensitivity as a function of the assumed assay specificity (x-axis). Light blue indicates community residents at the first visit at the start of the Fall 2020 term, red indicates returning students at the end of the Fall 2020 term, and dark blue indicates community residents at the second visit after student departure.

Among the returning students, only close proximity to a known SARS-CoV-2-positive individual (aOR: 3.1, 2.07-4.64) and attending small gatherings in the past 3 months (aOR: 1.52, 1.03-2.24) were significantly associated with a positive ELISA classification in the multivariable model (Table 4). Attending medium gatherings (OR: 1.78, 1.17-2.69), and close proximity to an individual showing key COVID-19 symptoms (OR: 1.67, 1.19-2.36) were also associated with the IgG positivity in crude calculations of association. Among the community cohort, the amount of student contact was not associated with cumulative IgG positivity. However, PSU employees experienced reduced odds of positivity (OR: 0.56, 0.35-0.9). Neither AIC or BIC were improved by the addition of student contact as a variable over employment status only, or using student contact as the only variable.

Both the returning students and community residents self-reported high masking compliance; 86.7% and 75.9%, respectively, reported always wearing mask or cloth face covering when in public (Table S1, Table S2). Less than one third of both groups (28.9% and 29.8%, respectively) self-reported always maintaining 6-feet of distance from others in public. Less than half (42.8%) of returning students indicated that they always avoided groups of 25 or greater, in contrast with 65.7% of community residents.

Discussion

The return of students to in-person instruction on the PSU UP campus was associated with a large increase in COVID-19 incidence in the county, evidenced by over 4,500 student cases at PSU [18]. In a sample of 684 returning students, 30.4% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Out of approximately 35,000 students who returned to campus, this implies that the detected cases may account for ∼40% of all infections among PSU UP students. Despite this high overall incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the county during the Fall 2020 term, the studied cohort of community residents (who disproportionately identified as female and lived in close proximity to campus) saw only a modest increase in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (3.2 to 7.3%) between September and December 2020; consistent with a nation-wide estimate of seroprevalence for the summer of 2020 [23]. The true prevalence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the cohorts depends on the assumed sensitivity and specificity. However, for most realistic values of sensitivity and specificity there was little evidence of a significant increase among the community resident sample. While in-person student instruction has been associated with an increase in per-capita COVID-19 incidence [12], these results suggest that outbreaks in the returning student and community resident cohorts we studied were asynchronous, implying limited between-cohort transmission. A recent analysis of age-specific movement and transmission patterns in the US suggested that individuals between the ages of 20-34 disproportionately contributed to spread of SARS-CoV-2 [28]. Despite close geographic proximity to a college-aged population, transmission in our community resident sample appears distinctly lagged; suggestive of the potential for health behaviours to prevent infection.

Within the student group, presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly associated with close proximity to known SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals and attendance of small events. No other risk factors were correlated with an increase in IgG test positivity, aligning with other research [23]. It is not possible to discern how much the likelihood of contact with a SARS-CoV-2 positive individual is due to the high campus prevalence versus individual behaviours.

Considered independently, eating in dining halls within the past 7 days was weakly associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and participation in medium-sized events (51-1000 individuals) and close proximity to a symptomatic individual were significantly associated, which is consistent with patterns observed elsewhere [26,27]. Within the community group, being a PSU employee was significantly associated with lower odds of IgG positivity. There were no significant differences in the age distributions by employment status. Bharti et al. [29] identified lower per-capita incidence in Centre County residents relative to the 5 surrounding counties, as well as a greater movement restriction and less time spent outside the home. Whilst this paper only examined Centre County residents, it is plausible that PSU employees were more able to work remotely and similarly reduced their movement and non-household contacts, relative to non-PSU employees. The low number of positive community cases meant that it was not possible to identify other associations with IgG positivity.

Neither the resident nor the student participants were selected using a probability-based sample. Thus, these participants may not be representative of the populations. Those who chose to participate in this study may have been more cognizant and compliant with public health mitigation measures. Specifically, the resident participants disproportionately lived in the townships immediately surrounding the UP campus, where extensive health messaging [30] and preventative campaigns were enacted, and they have a higher median income than the residents of Centre County overall.

Though the participants reflect a convenience sample, the large differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence suggest that the cohorts did not experience a synchronous, well-mixed epidemic despite their close geographic proximity. College campuses have been observed to have high COVID-19 attack rates, and counties containing colleges and universities have been observed to have significantly higher COVID-19 incidence than demographically matched counties without such institutions [12]. Thus, while college and university operations may present a significant exposure risk, this analysis suggests the possibility that local-scale heterogeneity in mixing may allow for asynchronous transmission dynamics despite close geographic proximity. Thus, the disproportionately high incidence in the student population, which comprises less than one quarter of the county population, may bias assessment of risk in the non-student population. Risk assessment in spatial units (e.g., counties) that have strong population sub-structuring should consider these heterogeneities and their consequences to inform policy.

While SARS-CoV-2 transmission between the student and community resident populations is likely to have occurred (perhaps multiple times), the large difference in seroprevalence between the student and resident participants after the Fall term are consistent with either rare or non-persistent transmission events between students and residents, or both. This suggests that it is possible to minimize risks brought about by sub-populations with high SARS-CoV-2 incidence using behavioural interventions. This observation may have implications for outbreak management in other high risk, highly mobile populations (e.g., displaced populations, seasonal workers, military deployment). However, we note that this was achieved in the context of disproportionate investment in prevention education, testing, contact tracing, and infrastructure for isolation and quarantine by PSU in the high-prevalence sub-population (students).

With respect to the health behaviours measured, both students and community residents reported high masking rates (>75%) and low distancing rates in public (<30%). However, students had significantly higher masking and gathering rates than community residents, thus a next step is to identify factors that may explain these differences. Minimizing risk, however, may come at significant social, psychological, educational, economic, and societal costs [31]. Thus, operational planning for both institutions of higher education and their resident communities should consider both the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and the costs of mitigation efforts.

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the Office of the Provost and the Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Huck Life Sciences Institute, and Social Science Research Institutes at the Pennsylvania State University. The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant UL1 TR002014. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The funding sources had no role in the collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: MJF, NB, MS, AR, VK

Data curation: MJF, CA

Formal analysis: CA, MJF, CMH

Funding acquisition: MJF, AR

Investigation: SS, AG, MMS, CJR

Methodology: CA, MJF

Project administration: MJF, MMS

Software: CA, MJF, CMH

Supervision: MJF, VK, SK

Validation: CA, MJF, CMH, SS

Visualization: CA, MJF

Writing - original draft: CA, SS, CMH, VK, MJF

Writing - review and editing: all authors.

Conflicts of Interest and Financial Disclosures

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Access, Responsibility, and Analysis

Callum Arnold and Dr. Matthew J. Ferrari had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Callum Arnold, Dr. Matthew J. Ferrari (Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University), and Dr. Catherine M. Herzog (Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University) conducted the data analysis.

Collaborators

1. Florian Krammer, Mount Sinai, USA for generously providing the transfection plasmid pCAGGS-RBD

2. Scott E. Lindner, Allen M. Minns, Randall Rossi produced and purified RBD

3. The D4A Research Group: Dee Bagshaw, Clinical & Translational Science Institute, Cyndi Flanagan, Clinical Research Center and the Clinical & Translational Science Institute, Thomas Gates, Social Science Research Institute, Margeaux Gray, Dept. of Biobehavioral Health, Stephanie Lanza, Dept. of Biobehavioral Health and Prevention Research Center, James Marden, Dept. of Biology and Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Susan McHale, Dept. of Human Development and Family Studies and the Social Science Research Institute, Glenda Palmer, Social Science Research Institute, Rachel Smith, Dept. of Communication Arts and Sciences and Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, and Charima Young, Penn State Office of Government and Community Relations.

4. The authors thank the following for their assistance in the lab: Liz D. Cambron, Elizabeth M. Schwartz, Devin F. Morrison, Julia Fecko, Brian Dawson, Sean Gullette, Sara Neering, Mark Signs, Nigel Deighton, Janhayi Damani, Mario Novelo, Diego Hernandez, Ester Oh, Chauncy Hinshaw, B. Joanne Power, James McGee, Riëtte van Biljon, Andrew Stephenson, Alexis Pino, Nick Heller, Rose Ni, Eleanor Jenkins, Julia Yu, Mackenzie Doyle, Alana Stracuzzi, Brielle Bellow, Abriana Cain, Jaime Farrell, Megan Kostek, Amelia Zazzera, Sara Ann Malinchak, Alex Small, Sam DeMatte, Elizabeth Morrow, Ty Somberger, Haylea Debolt, Kyle Albert, Corey Price, Nazmiye Celik