Health inequities in SARS-CoV-2 infection, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination: Results from the East Bay COVID-19 study

Recruitment and participants

Recruitment and selection of study participants was completed using a screening phase followed by a longitudinal study phase with three rounds of data collection. In the screening phase, all residential addresses within the East Bay cities and communities of Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Emeryville, Hercules, Kensington, Oakland, Piedmont, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo (∼307,000 residential households) were mailed an invitation to complete a consent form and screening questionnaire. In a household, the individual aged 18 years or older with the next birthday was eligible to participate. Additional eligibility criteria included living within the study region, willingness to provide biospecimens and questionnaire responses, ability to read and speak English or Spanish, and having internet access and an email address.

The target sample size was 5,500 participants. The distribution of racial and ethnic identification in the screening questionnaire responses was more White and non-Hispanic than the region population. To obtain a sample that resembled the racial and ethnic proportions in the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) for the study region, we ranked assigned ranks for order of inclusion to all eligible individuals who responded to the screening questionnaire. Black and/or Hispanic individuals were ranked the highest followed by other non-Whites. Order of inclusion for Whites was randomly sampled. In Round 1, individuals ranked between 1 and 5,500 were offered study enrollment. Those who declined to enroll were replaced with next highest ranked individuals who had not been offered study entry. In subsequent rounds, individuals who had participated in the previous round(s) were offered participation in the next round. If participation was declined, individuals from the pool of participants who had not participated in a study round were invited. Approximate dates for each round were July-September 2020, October-December 2020, and February-March 2021.

All participants provided their informed consent for the screening phase. All participants in the study phase provided their informed consent for each study round. The study was approved by the University of California, Berkeley Committee on Protection of Human Subjects (Protocol #2020-03-13121).

Study procedures

At the start of each round, eligible participants were invited to participate. Those who agreed to participate received a kit via FedEx containing materials for self-collection of biospecimens, pre-paid return shipping labels, and instructions to complete an online-administered questionnaire at the same time as biospecimen collection.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire addressed sex, gender, age, race/ethnicity, income, employment, physical and mental health, as well as symptoms potentially related to COVID-19 within the previous 2 weeks, and SARS-CoV-2 testing outside of the study. Participants were also asked about transmission mitigation behaviors including physical distancing practices, close contacts with others, and mask wearing. Questionnaires were available in English or Spanish.

SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody testing

Anterior nasal nare swabs for viral RNA testing and dried blood spots (DBS) for antibody testing were collected from participants at each study round. Quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) was used to identify SARS-CoV-2 viral infection. Three tests were used to assess anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in DBS: Ortho VITROS® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total IgG and spike IgG ELISA targeted antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (indicating prior natural infection or vaccination), and Roche-NC Total IgG targeted antibodies against the nucleocapsid (NC) protein (indicating prior natural infection only).[13] Before COVID-19 vaccines were available in the study region during rounds 1 and 2, detection of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was considered evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During Round 3, vaccinations were widely available, therefore detection of antibodies against the NC protein were considered evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, while detection of antibodies against the spike protein were considered evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination (Supplement S-4.2, Figure S-1).

SARS-CoV-2 outcomes

The following outcomes were investigated in each round: (1) cumulative SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity, (2) participants’ self-reported history of SARS-CoV-2 positivity from RT-qPCR testing outside the study, (3) and a surveillance definition of “probable COVID-19 case” derived from self-reported symptoms and close contact with infected individuals[14], and (4) viral SARS-CoV-2 positivity from RT-qPCR testing of nasal swabs (Supplement 4.2). We also investigated antibodies induced by COVID-19 vaccination only in Round 3. SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity was defined as having detectable antibodies in the current and/or previous round(s). DBS samples that tested negative for anti-NC antibodies and positive for anti-spike antibodies in Round 3 were considered to have antibodies from COVID-19 vaccination alone. Self-reported COVID-19 viral positivity prevalence was defined as the proportion of participants reporting a positive viral test among all participants who reported being tested within a study round. Probable COVID-19 case prevalence was defined as the proportion of participants identified as a probable COVID-19 case among all participants who provided valid responses within a study round. Viral positivity prevalence was defined as testing positive by RT-qPCR from nasal swab samples.

Population-adjusted seroprevalence and other SARS-CoV-2 outcomes

Bayesian multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) was used to estimate population-adjusted cumulative seroprevalence, self-reported SARS-CoV-2 viral positivity prevalence at each study round, and “probable COVID-19” prevalence at each study round. MRP is a regression-based method for estimating population and sub-population averages from survey data that has been shown to perform better than survey weighting, particularly with sparse data [15,16].

In addition to estimation of regional prevalence of our outcomes, we estimated prevalence within demographic groups and geographic areas in the study region. Variables of interest were gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, income, education, household size, and ZIP code. We used a method described by Leeman and colleagues to generate a synthetic population for poststratification using data from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) and the Public Use Microdata Sample.[16] Poststratification was done using binary sex because gender is not reported by the ACS. Race and ethnicity were combined into a single variable to reduce the number of poststratification strata.

At each study round, binary SARS-CoV-2 outcomes were modeled as a function of geographic and demographic characteristics using multilevel logistic regression models. Participant sex was included as a fixed effect. Vectors of random intercepts were defined for each category of race/ethnicity, age, education, income, household size, and ZIP code and two-way interactions between ZIP code, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, income, and age. To improve estimation of geographic effects we allowed for spatial correlations using the modified Besag-York-Mollié model and included the proportion of Spanish speaking households within the ZIP code of residence from the ACS as a fixed effect (Supplement S-6).[17]

SARS-CoV-2 outcome prevalence and measures of association

We report populated-adjusted prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 outcomes across the study region and within geographic and demographic groups of interest. To calculate prevalence estimates, posterior distributions of the relevant poststratification stratum were aggregated. We also estimated prevalence differences (PD) and prevalence ratios (PR) for the association between populated-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 outcomes and race/ethnicity, education, and sex. For each parameter of interest, the mean of the posterior distribution was the point estimate, and the 95% credible interval (CI) was the 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles of a posterior distribution.

SARS-CoV-2 test-kit bias corrected seroprevalence

We estimated cumulative SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence at each study round adjusted for the net sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing algorithm in each study round (Supplement S-6).

Transmission mitigation behavior analyses

In each round, participants were asked about physical distancing practices, recent close contacts with others, mask wearing, and other behaviors and activities that might affect the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We classified participants into two behavior categories, “high-risk” and “low-risk”, with those responses using latent class analysis.[18] Crude associations between behavior categories and characteristics such as sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, and income were assessed with χ² tests. Associations between high-risk vs. low-risk behavior and within round SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and self-reported test positivity were estimated using the MRP model described above with random intercepts for behavior categories and interactions between the behavior categories and ZIP code, age, race/ethnicity, education, and income (Supplement S-5 and S-6).

Statistical analyses were completed in R 4.0.2. NIMBLE was used to implement MRP models.[19] Detailed descriptions of MRP methods and code are provided in Supplementary Methods and at github.com/adams-cam/ebcovid_prev.

Enrollment and characteristics of study participants

Of the 16,115 residents who consented and completed the screening procedures between May-July 2020, 1,777 did not satisfy inclusion criteria and were excluded (Fig 1). Characteristics of participants are presented in Table 1 and Table S-1. Participation rates were high (Round 1: 76.8%, Round 2: 89.8%, and Round 3: 87.3%), and participants identified predominantly as female (∼63%). Those aged 45-64 years were the largest age group of participants across all study rounds (ranging from 37.3% to 39.4%). Most participants identified as White (52.5% to 63.3%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (13.9% to 15.7%), Hispanic (11.0% to 15.6%), two or more races (6.9% to 9.1%), African American or Black (3.0% to 4.9%), and Native American/Alaska Native or other (1.7% to 2.2%).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1. Study flow chart.

Of those who completed the questionnaire, 87.3%, 95.3%, and 96.6% provided DBS and 93.6%, 98.1% and 98.5% provided nasal swabs in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Table 2). Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were detected in 29 (0.6%) and 33 (0.6%) of DBS in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. In Round 3, NC antibodies from natural infection alone were detected in 84 participants (1.8% of 4,806) and spike antibodies from natural infection or vaccination were detected in 1,452 participants (31.3% of 4,806). Viral infection was detected in less than three nasal swabs in each round. The proportion of participants reporting both being SARS-CoV-2 tested outside the study and testing positive increased over the study period: 10/1,030 (1.0%) participants reporting a positive COVID-19 result in Round 1, 19/2,059 (0.9%) in Round 2, and 53/1,892 (2.8%) in Round 3. Few participants met the criteria for being a COVID-19 probable case (<0.5%) (Table S-2).

Population adjusted SARS-CoV-2 outcome prevalence in study region

Population adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, self-reported COVID-19 test positivity, and probable COVID-19 cases are reported in Table 3. Overall, populated-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 natural infection seroprevalence was low across the study region: Round 1 (July-September 2020) 1.03% (95% CI 0.50-1.96), Round 2 (October-December 2020 1.37% (0.75-2.39), and Round 3 (February-March 2021) 2.18% (95% CI 1.48-3.17). In Round 3 the populated-adjusted seroprevalence of COVID-19 vaccination was 21.64% (95% CI: 19.2, 24.34). Models incorporating sensitivity and specificity of the antibody assays yielded lower SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates in Round 1, similar estimates in Rounds 2 and 3, and a higher estimate of COVID-19 vaccine seroprevalence in Round 3. Population adjusted self-reported test positivity to SARS-CoV-2 was similar in Rounds 1 (1.11%, 95 CI: 0.39-2.40) and 2 (1.29%, 95% CI: 0.55, 2.17) to seroprevalence estimates and increased to 4.58% (95% CI: 2.56-7.64) in Round 3. Population-adjusted prevalence of being a COVID-19 probable case was <1% across rounds (Figure S-2).

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and infection vary by geographic area

There was evidence for spatial differences in both populated-adjusted seroprevalence and self-reported test positivity (Fig 2). The northern areas (Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, and Hercules) and southern areas (East Oakland) of the study region had higher seroprevalence than Berkeley, El Cerrito, and North/Downtown Oakland. Self-reported test positivity was also higher in the northern and southern areas. These trends were consistent across study rounds.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 2. Population-adjusted prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 outcomes within study region ZIP codes.

(A) Cumulative seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to natural infection. (B) Prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 test positivity across the study region. Data collected in three rounds: Round 1, July-September 2020; Round 2, October-December 2020), and Round 3, February-March 2021.

Population adjusted seroprevalence and self-reported test positivity prevalence within subgroups

Differences in populated-adjusted seroprevalence were observed among demographic groups (Fig 3). In Round 1, those aged less than 45 years had higher likelihood of antibody positivity than those aged 45 or older, but this relationship reversed over time. In general, non-Whites consistently had a higher likelihood of antibody positivity than Whites. The likelihood of antibody positivity also differed by household income and educational attainment, with those reporting a household income <$100,000 and less than a college degree having a higher likelihood of antibody positivity than their comparison groups. Those in households with more than four people had a higher likelihood of antibody positivity than those in households with four or less people. There was no clear relationship between sex and populated-adjusted seroprevalence. Similar relationships were seen between demographic groups and self-reported test prevalence (Figure S-3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 3. Cumulative seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to natural infection among demographic groups.

A) Sex, B) Age, C) Race/ethnicity, D) Income, E) Educational attainment, and F) Household size. Abbreviations: AA, African American; AMI, American Indian or Alaskan Native; PI, Pacific Islander.

COVID-19 vaccination seroprevalence differs by race/ethnicity and age

In Round 3, populated-adjusted COVID-19 vaccination seroprevalence was lower in all non-White groups compared to Whites, (White vs. Non-White, PD: -4.35%, 95% CI: (−9.32, -0.35), Table 4, Figure S-4). The difference between racial/ethnic groups was largest among older participants; non-Whites had a lower COVID-19 vaccination seroprevalence compared to Whites among those aged between 65-74 (PD: -11.67%, 95% CI: (−20.98, -2.49)) and those aged 75 or older (PD: -10.15%, 95% CI: (−22.25, 0.43)).

Mask-wearing and association between high-risk vs. low-risk behavior and seroprevalence

More than 99% of participants reported ever wearing a mask 99% reported wearing a mask during leisure and exercise activities, >91% reported wearing a mask at work, and >88% reported wearing a mask while shopping (Table S-3). After clustering participants into “low-risk” and “high-risk” groups according to self-reported mitigation behaviors, most participants were considered low-risk across the study rounds (70%, 82%, and 77%, respectively; Figure 5A). Behaviors with the largest differences in high-versus low-risk behavior were reporting “yes” to: left home for work, medical/healthcare, care of relative, or other; worked with potential COVID-19 contact; attended gathering; and traveled to county outside of residence within last two weeks (Figure 5B). Age, race/ethnicity, and education were all associated (P<0.001) with high-vs. low-risk groups (Table S-4), but we did not observe strong evidence for an association between mitigation behavior and either seroprevalence or self-reported test positivity (Table 5). Although point estimates indicate that “low-risk” behavior was associated with lower seroprevalence.