Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among the general population and healthcare workers in India,June–July 2021: A population-based cross-sectional study

BackgroundIndia began COVID-19 vaccination in January 2021, initially targeting healthcare and frontline workers. The vaccination strategy was expanded in a phased manner and currently covers all individuals aged 18 years and above. India experienced a severe second wave of COVID-19 during March–June 2021. We conducted a fourth nationwide serosurvey to estimate prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the general population aged ≥6 years and healthcare workers (HCWs).Methods and findingsWe did a cross-sectional study between 14 June and 6 July 2021 in the same 70 districts across 20 states and 1 union territory where 3 previous rounds of serosurveys were conducted. From each district, 10 clusters (villages in rural areas and wards in urban areas) were selected by the probability proportional to population size method. From each district, a minimum of 400 individuals aged ≥6 years from the general population (40 individuals from each cluster) and 100 HCWs from the district public health facilities were included. The serum samples were tested for the presence of IgG antibodies against S1-RBD and nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 using chemiluminescence immunoassay. We estimated the weighted and test-adjusted seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, along with 95% CIs, based on the presence of antibodies to S1-RBD and/or nucleocapsid protein. Of the 28,975 individuals who participated in the survey, 2,892 (10%) were aged 6–9 years, 5,798 (20%) were aged 10–17 years, and 20,285 (70%) were aged ≥18 years; 15,160 (52.3%) participants were female, and 21,794 (75.2%) resided in rural areas. The weighted and test-adjusted prevalence of IgG antibodies against S1-RBD and/or nucleocapsid protein among the general population aged ≥6 years was 67.6% (95% CI 66.4% to 68.7%). Seroprevalence increased with age (p < 0.001) and was not different in rural and urban areas (p = 0.822). Compared to unvaccinated adults (62.3%, 95% CI 60.9% to 63.7%), seroprevalence was significantly higher among individuals who had received 1 vaccine dose (81.0%, 95% CI 79.6% to 82.3%, p < 0.001) and 2 vaccine doses (89.8%, 95% CI 88.4% to 91.1%, p < 0.001). The seroprevalence of IgG antibodies among 7,252 HCWs was 85.2% (95% CI 83.5% to 86.7%). Important limitations of the study include the survey design, which was aimed to estimate seroprevalence at the national level and not at a sub-national level, and the non-participation of 19% of eligible individuals in the survey.ConclusionsNearly two-thirds of individuals aged ≥6 years from the general population and 85% of HCWs had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by June–July 2021 in India. As one-third of the population is still seronegative, it is necessary to accelerate the coverage of COVID-19 vaccination among adults and continue adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions.

Manoj Murhekar and co-workers report on the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in India.     

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in health care workers from 10 hospitals in Quebec,Canada: a cross-sectional study

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. We sought to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital health care workers in Quebec, Canada, after the first wave of the pandemic and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.Methods:Between July 6 and Sept. 24, 2020, we enrolled health care workers from 10 hospitals, including 8 from a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 (the Montréal area) and 2 from low-incidence regions of Quebec. Eligible health care workers were physicians, nurses, orderlies and cleaning staff working in 4 types of care units (emergency department, intensive care unit, COVID-19 inpatient unit and non-COVID-19 inpatient unit). Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. We identified factors independently associated with higher seroprevalence.Results:Among 2056 enrolled health care workers, 241 (11.7%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. Of these, 171 (71.0%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Seroprevalence varied among hospitals, from 2.4% to 3.7% in low-incidence regions to 17.9% to 32.0% in hospitals with outbreaks involving 5 or more health care workers. Higher seroprevalence was associated with working in a hospital where outbreaks occurred (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63–6.57), being a nurse or nursing assistant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03–1.74) or an orderly (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12–1.97), and Black or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13–1.76). Lower seroprevalence was associated with working in the intensive care unit (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.71) or the emergency department (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.98).Interpretation:Health care workers in Quebec hospitals were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in outbreak settings. More work is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in health care settings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. In France, Spain, Italy, Germany and the United States, at least 10% of cases reported in spring 2020 were in health care workers.¹ In Quebec, 25% (14 177 of 56 565) of all cases declared during the first wave of the pandemic, from March to July 2020, were in health care workers,² about one-third of whom were working in acute care hospitals.¹ The Montréal area was the most affected region in Quebec and Canada during the first wave, reaching a COVID-19 incidence rate of 1336 per 100 000 population.²The number of COVID-19 cases reported among health care workers underestimated the number of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 during that period, given limited testing leading to undiagnosed asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic infections.³ Seroprevalence studies are an important tool to determine the proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2, both in the general population and among health care workers.⁴ After the first wave in Quebec, SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in adults aged 18–69 years was found to be low (3.1% in Montréal and 1.3% in less affected regions), but this proportion could be much higher among health care workers who had to work despite the general shutdown of social and economic activities, especially if they were exposed to major outbreaks.⁵Only 2 other Canadian studies provide SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates among health care workers, and both studies were from a single centre.^6,7 Outside Canada, most seroprevalence studies among health care workers include a single site and do not provide a representative estimate for a defined region.⁸ Several studies have reported a higher seroprevalence among health care workers from units treating patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 units) compared with other units (non–COVID-19 units), emergency departments or intensive care units.^9,10 Other studies have not identified such associations.^11,12 In this study, we aimed to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody among hospital health care workers from a variety of settings after the first pandemic wave in Quebec, and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.     

The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among asymptomatic blood donors in Saudi Arabia

BackgroundIn late 2019, cases of severe pneumonia with unidentified etiology began to emerge in Wuhan, China, before progressively spreading first nationally and then globally.The current study sought to investigate the seroprevalence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among blood donors in Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia. To our knowledge, this is the first study in Saudi Arabia to screen blood donors who were not known to be previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional study to assess individuals who donated blood to the central blood bank in Al-Madinah between mid-May and mid-July 2020. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was designed and established to detect antibodies directed against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in serum samples. A total of 1,212 healthy blood donors participated in this study. The donors were males and met the requirements for blood donation during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Saudi Arabia.ResultsThe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among blood donors in Al-Madinah was 19.31% (n = 234/1212; 95% confidence interval: 17.12%–21.64%). No statistically significant difference was identified in seropositivity according to age. However, significant differences (p < 0.001) were identified according to ABO blood groups, with those with type A blood presenting the highest rate of seropositivity (29.18%) compared with the other blood groups (12.65% for type B, 16.36% for type AB, and 15.11% for type O).ConclusionA high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was detected among blood donors in Al-Madinah, which indicated a high level of exposure to the virus within the population. This further suggested that as high as one-fifth of the population may have acquired innate immunity against the virus.     

High SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in persons experiencing homelessness and shelter workers from a day-shelter in São Paulo,Brazil

Brazil presents one of the highest COVID-19 death tolls in the world. The initial SARS-CoV-2 epicenter was São Paulo city. As of 2019, the homeless population of São Paulo city was estimated at 24,344 individuals, the largest national homeless population. The present study aimed to concomitantly assess the molecular and serological prevalence and associated risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a homeless population and related shelter workers from a day-shelter. Serum samples, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs of persons who are homeless and shelter workers collected from August 25^th to 27^th, 2020 were tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-qPCR, respectively. All swab samples tested negative by RT-qPCR. Seropositivity of IgM and IgG was 5/203 (2.5%) and 111/203 (54.7%) in persons who are homeless, and 5/87 (5.7%) and 41/87 (47.1%) in shelter workers, respectively, with no statistical differences between groups. The high seroprevalence found herein indicates early environmental and urban spreading of SARS-CoV-2, associated with sociodemographic and economic vulnerability.     

SARS-CoV-2 Serological testing in frontline health workers in Zimbabwe

BackgroundIn order to protect health workers from SARS-CoV-2, there is need to characterise the different types of patient facing health workers. Our first aim was to determine both the infection status and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in health workers. Our second aim was to evaluate the occupational and demographic predictors of seropositivity to inform the country’s infection prevention and control (IPC) strategy.Methods and principal findingsWe invited 713 staff members at 24 out of 35 health facilities in the City of Bulawayo in Zimbabwe. Compliance to testing was defined as the willingness to uptake COVID-19 testing by answering a questionnaire and providing samples for both antibody testing and PCR testing. SARS-COV-2 antibodies were detected using a rapid diagnostic test kit and SAR-COV-2 infection was determined by real-time (RT)-PCR. Of the 713 participants, 635(89%) consented to answering the questionnaire and providing blood sample for antibody testing while 560 (78.5%) agreed to provide nasopharyngeal swabs for the PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing. Of the 635 people (aged 18–73) providing a blood sample 39.1% reported a history of past COVID-19 symptoms while 14.2% reported having current symptoms of COVID-19. The most-prevalent co-morbidity among this group was hypertension (22.0%) followed by asthma (7.0%) and diabetes (6.0%). The SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence was 8.9%. Of the 560 participants tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2 participants (0.36%) were positive for SAR-CoV-2 infection by PCR testing. None of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive people were positive for SAR-CoV-2 infection by PCR testing.Conclusion and interpretationIn addition to clinical staff, several patient-facing health workers were characterised within Zimbabwe’s health system and the seroprevalence data indicated that previous exposure to SAR-CoV-2 had occurred across the full spectrum of patient-facing staff with nurses and nurse aides having the highest seroprevalence. Our results highlight the need for including the various health workers in IPC strategies in health centres to ensure effective biosecurity and biosafety.     

Using test positivity and reported case rates to estimate state-level COVID-19 prevalence and seroprevalence in the United States

Accurate estimates of infection prevalence and seroprevalence are essential for evaluating and informing public health responses and vaccination coverage needed to address the ongoing spread of COVID-19 in each United States (U.S.) state. However, reliable, timely data based on representative population sampling are unavailable, and reported case and test positivity rates are highly biased. A simple data-driven Bayesian semi-empirical modeling framework was developed and used to evaluate state-level prevalence and seroprevalence of COVID-19 using daily reported cases and test positivity ratios. The model was calibrated to and validated using published state-wide seroprevalence data, and further compared against two independent data-driven mathematical models. The prevalence of undiagnosed COVID-19 infections is found to be well-approximated by a geometrically weighted average of the positivity rate and the reported case rate. Our model accurately fits state-level seroprevalence data from across the U.S. Prevalence estimates of our semi-empirical model compare favorably to those from two data-driven epidemiological models. As of December 31, 2020, we estimate nation-wide a prevalence of 1.4% [Credible Interval (CrI): 1.0%-1.9%] and a seroprevalence of 13.2% [CrI: 12.3%-14.2%], with state-level prevalence ranging from 0.2% [CrI: 0.1%-0.3%] in Hawaii to 2.8% [CrI: 1.8%-4.1%] in Tennessee, and seroprevalence from 1.5% [CrI: 1.2%-2.0%] in Vermont to 23% [CrI: 20%-28%] in New York. Cumulatively, reported cases correspond to only one third of actual infections. The use of this simple and easy-to-communicate approach to estimating COVID-19 prevalence and seroprevalence will improve the ability to make public health decisions that effectively respond to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.     

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease

BackgroundData regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited.ObjectivesTo compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated.ResultsAmong 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54–74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11–1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31–1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90–1.20], p_interaction <0.001).ConclusionsCo-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).     

Covid-19 in end-stage renal disease patients with renal replacement therapies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe novel coronavirus (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, showed various prevalence and case-fatality rates (CFR) among patients with different pre-existing chronic conditions. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with renal replacement therapy (RRT) might have a higher prevalence and CFR due to reduced immune function from uremia and kidney tropism of SARS-CoV-2, but there was a lack of systematic study on the infection and mortality of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in ESRD patients with various RRT.Methodology/Principal findingsWe searched five electronic databases and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis up to June 30, 2020, to evaluate the prevalence and case fatality rate (CFR) of the COVID-19 infection among ESRD patients with RRT. The global COVID-19 data were retrieved from the international database on June 30, 2020, for estimating the prevalence and CFR of the general population as referencing points. Of 3,272 potential studies, 34 were eligible studies consisted of 1,944 COVID-19 confirmed cases in 21,873 ESRD patients with RRT from 12 countries in four WHO regions. The overall pooled prevalence in ESRD patients with RRT was 3.10% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25–5.72] which was higher than referencing 0.14% global average prevalence. The overall estimated CFR of COVID-19 in ESRD patients with RRT was 18.06% (95% CI 14.09–22.32) which was higher than the global average at 4.98%.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggested high COVID-19 prevalence and CFR in ESRD patients with RRT. ESRD patients with RRT should have their specific protocol of COVID-19 prevention and treatment to mitigate excess cases and deaths.     

Prevalence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in acute infection and convalescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundIndividuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop neutralising antibodies. We investigated the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how this proportion varies with selected covariates.Methodology/Principal findingsThis systematic review and meta-analysis examined the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how these proportions vary with selected covariates. Three models using the maximum likelihood method assessed these proportions by study group, covariates and individually extracted data (protocol CRD42020208913). A total of 983 reports were identified and 27 were included. The pooled (95%CI) proportion of individuals with neutralising antibodies was 85.3% (83.5–86.9) using the titre cut off >1:20 and 83.9% (82.2–85.6), 70.2% (68.1–72.5) and 54.2% (52.0–56.5) with titres >1:40, >1:80 and >1:160, respectively. These proportions were higher among patients with severe COVID-19 (e.g., titres >1:80, 84.8% [80.0–89.2], >1:160, 74.4% [67.5–79.7]) than those with mild presentation (56.7% [49.9–62.9] and 44.1% [37.3–50.6], respectively) and lowest among asymptomatic infections (28.6% [17.9–39.2] and 10.0% [3.7–20.1], respectively). IgG and neutralising antibody levels correlated poorly.Conclusions/Significance85% of individuals with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection had detectable neutralising antibodies. This proportion varied with disease severity, study setting, time since infection and the method used to measure antibodies.     

Risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multiethnic cohort of United Kingdom healthcare workers (UK-REACH): A cross-sectional analysis

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs), particularly those from ethnic minority groups, have been shown to be at disproportionately higher risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the general population. However, there is insufficient evidence on how demographic and occupational factors influence infection risk among ethnic minority HCWs.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the baseline questionnaire of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study, administered between December 2020 and March 2021. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household, and occupational risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. The primary exposure of interest was self-reported ethnicity.Among 10,772 HCWs who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020, the median age was 45 (interquartile range [IQR] 35 to 54), 75.1% were female and 29.6% were from ethnic minority groups. A total of 2,496 (23.2%) reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fully adjusted model contained the following dependent variables: demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, deprivation, religiosity), household factors (living with key workers, shared spaces in accommodation, number of people in household), health factors (presence/absence of diabetes or immunosuppression, smoking history, shielding status, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status), the extent of social mixing outside of the household, and occupational factors (job role, the area in which a participant worked, use of public transport to work, exposure to confirmed suspected COVID-19 patients, personal protective equipment [PPE] access, aerosol generating procedure exposure, night shift pattern, and the UK region of workplace). After adjustment, demographic and household factors associated with increased odds of infection included younger age, living with other key workers, and higher religiosity. Important occupational risk factors associated with increased odds of infection included attending to a higher number of COVID-19 positive patients (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.18 for ≥21 patients per week versus none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to PPE (1.29, 1.17 to 1.43), and working in an ambulance (2.00, 1.56 to 2.58) or hospital inpatient setting (1.55, 1.38 to 1.75). Those who worked in intensive care units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.64 to 0.92) than those who did not. Black HCWs were more likely to have been infected than their White colleagues, an effect which attenuated after adjustment for other known risk factors. This study is limited by self-selection bias and the cross sectional nature of the study means we cannot infer the direction of causality.ConclusionsWe identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among UK HCWs, and have determined factors that might contribute to a disproportionate odds of infection in HCWs from Black ethnic groups. These findings demonstrate the importance of social and occupational factors in driving ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, and should inform policies, including targeted vaccination strategies and risk assessments aimed at protecting HCWs in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.Trial registrationThe study was prospectively registered at ISRCTN (reference number: ISRCTN11811602).

Christopher A Martin and colleagues investigate associations of demographic, household and occupational risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a diverse group of healthcare workers in the UK.     

Symptoms associated with a positive result for a swab for SARS-CoV-2 infection among children in Alberta

BACKGROUND:Research involving children with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has primarily focused on those presenting to emergency departments. We aimed to determine the symptoms most commonly associated with a positive result for a SARS-CoV-2 swab among community-based children.METHODS:We conducted an observational study among children tested and followed for SARS-CoV-2 infection using nasal, nasopharyngeal, throat or other (e.g., nasopharyngeal aspirate or tracheal secretions, or unknown) swabs between Apr. 13 and Sept. 30, 2020, in Alberta. We calculated positive likelihood ratios (LRs) for self-reported symptoms and a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab result in the entire cohort and in 3 sensitivity analyses: all children with at least 1 symptom, all children tested because of contact tracing whether they were symptomatic or not and all children 5 years of age or older.RESULTS:We analyzed results for 2463 children who underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 1987 children had a positive result and 476 had a negative result. Of children with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, 714 (35.9%) reported being asymptomatic. Although cough (24.5%) and rhinorrhea (19.3%) were 2 of the most common symptoms among children with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they were also common among those with negative test results and were not predictive of a positive test (positive LR 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81–1.14, and 0.87, 95% CI 0.72–1.06, respectively). Anosmia/ageusia (positive LR 7.33, 95% CI 3.03–17.76), nausea/vomiting (positive LR 5.51, 95% CI 1.74–17.43), headache (positive LR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74– 3.57) and fever (positive LR 1.68, 95% CI 1.34–2.11) were the symptoms most predictive of a positive result for a SARS-CoV-2 swab. The positive LR for the combination of anosmia/ageusia, nausea/vomiting and headache was 65.92 (95% CI 49.48–91.92).INTERPRETATION:About two-thirds of the children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection reported symptoms. The symptoms most strongly associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab result were anosmia/ageusia, nausea/vomiting, headache and fever.

The refrain that “children are not small adults” certainly seems to apply in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Children are less likely to become infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) than adults and seem to experience less severe symptoms and have better prognoses.^1–4 However, some studies have suggested that reduced disease severity in children leads to them being less likely to undergo testing.⁵ Three 2020 studies highlighted that COVID-19 symptoms in children are similar to those of other acute respiratory illnesses, with fever, cough, nasal congestion, fatigue and runny nose predominating. ^6–8 On Sept. 15, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported death to be an uncommon outcome in people younger than 21 years of age (0.08% of all deaths).⁹Beyond an understanding of what symptoms most commonly present in children, health care professionals and public health policy-makers could benefit from knowing which presenting symptoms are most likely to be associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many jurisdictions have implemented screening questionnaires for pediatric-dominated settings such as schools. We hypothesized that some symptoms in children are more likely than others to be associated with a positive result for a test for SARS-CoV-2. We therefore assessed symptom patterns among children in Alberta who were followed by Alberta Public Health and who had swabs taken for possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, comparing those with positive results and those with negative results to estimate symptom frequencies and prognostic import of symptoms in a large cohort and in 3 subgroups.     

Income differences in COVID-19 incidence and severity in Finland among people with foreign and native background: A population-based cohort study of individuals nested within households

BackgroundAlthough intrahousehold transmission is a key source of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, studies to date have not analysed socioeconomic risk factors on the household level or household clustering of severe COVID-19. We quantify household income differences and household clustering of COVID-19 incidence and severity.Methods and findingsWe used register-based cohort data with individual-level linkage across various administrative registers for the total Finnish population living in working-age private households (N = 4,315,342). Incident COVID-19 cases (N = 38,467) were identified from the National Infectious Diseases Register from 1 July 2020 to 22 February 2021. Severe cases (N = 625) were defined as having at least 3 consecutive days of inpatient care with a COVID-19 diagnosis and identified from the Care Register for Health Care between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020. We used 2-level logistic regression with individuals nested within households to estimate COVID-19 incidence and case severity among those infected.Adjusted for age, sex, and regional characteristics, the incidence of COVID-19 was higher (odds ratio [OR] 1.67, 95% CI 1.58 to 1.77, p < 0.001, 28.4% of infections) among individuals in the lowest household income quintile than among those in the highest quintile (18.9%). The difference attenuated (OR 1.23, 1.16 to 1.30, p < 0.001) when controlling for foreign background but not when controlling for other household-level risk factors. In fact, we found a clear income gradient in incidence only among people with foreign background but none among those with native background. The odds of severe illness among those infected were also higher in the lowest income quintile (OR 1.97, 1.52 to 2.56, p < 0.001, 28.0% versus 21.6% in the highest quintile), but this difference was fully attenuated (OR 1.08, 0.77 to 1.52, p = 0.64) when controlling for other individual-level risk factors—comorbidities, occupational status, and foreign background. Both incidence and severity were strongly clustered within households: Around 77% of the variation in incidence and 20% in severity were attributable to differences between households. The main limitation of our study was that the test uptake for COVID-19 may have differed between population subgroups.ConclusionsLow household income appears to be a strong risk factor for both COVID-19 incidence and case severity, but the income differences are largely driven by having foreign background. The strong household clustering of incidence and severity highlights the importance of household context in the prevention and mitigation of COVID-19 outcomes.

Sanni Saarinen and colleagues explore the association between income differences and COVID-19 incidence and severity among people with foreign and native background in Finland.     

Seroprevalence and asymptomatic carrier status of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan City and other places of China

Wuhan City (WH) in China was the first place to report COVID-19 in the world and the outbreak of COVID-19 was controlled in March of 2020 in WH. It is unclear what percentage of people were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and what percentage of population is carriers of SARS-CoV-2 in WH. We retrospectively analyzed the SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibody positive rates in 63,107 healthy individuals from WH and other places of China using commercial colloidal gold detection kits from March 6 to May 3, 2020. Statistical approaches were utilized to explore the difference and correlation for the seropositive rate of IgG and IgM antibody on the basis of sex, age group, geographic region and detection date. The total IgG and IgM antibody positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 was 1.68% (186/11,086) in WH, 0.59% (226/38,171) in Hubei Province without Wuhan (HB), and 0.38% (53/13,850) in the nation except for Hubei Province (CN), respectively. The IgM positive rate was 0.46% (51/11,086) in WH, 0.13% (51/38,171) in HB, and 0.07% (10/13,850) in CN. The incidence of IgM positive rates in healthy individuals increased from March 6 to May 3, 2020 in WH. Female and older age had a higher probability of becoming infected than males (OR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.08–1.65) or younger age (OR = 2.25; 95% CI: 1.06–4.78). The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was relatively low in WH and other places of China, but it is significantly high in WH than other places of China; a large amount of asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2 existed after elimination of clinical cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan City. Therefore, SARS-CoV-2 may exist in a population without clinical cases for a long period.     

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection,hospitalization, and death when combining a first dose ChAdOx1 vaccine with a subsequent mRNA vaccine in Denmark: A nationwide population-based cohort study

BackgroundThe recommendations in several countries to stop using the ChAdOx1 vaccine has led to vaccine programs combining different Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine types, which necessitates knowledge on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of heterologous vaccine schedules. The aim of this Danish nationwide population-based cohort study was therefore to estimate the VE against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19–related hospitalization and death following the first dose of the ChAdOx1 vaccine and the combination of the ChAdOx1/mRNA vaccines.Methods and findingsAll individuals alive in or immigrating to Denmark from 9 February 2021 to 23 June 2021 were identified in the Danish Civil Registration System. Information on exposure, outcomes, and covariates was obtained from Danish national registries. Poisson and Cox regression models were used to calculate crude and adjusted VE, respectively, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19–related hospitalization or death comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. The VE estimates were adjusted for calendar time as underlying time and for sex, age, comorbidity, country of origin, and hospital admission. The analyses included 5,542,079 individuals (97.6% of the total Danish population). A total of 144,360 individuals were vaccinated with the ChAdOx1 vaccine as the first dose, and of these, 136,551 individuals received an mRNA vaccine as the second dose. A total of 1,691,464 person-years and 83,034 SARS-CoV-2 infections were included. The individuals vaccinated with the first dose of the ChAdOx1 vaccine dose had a median age of 45 years. The study population was characterized by an equal distribution of males and females; 6.7% and 9.2% originated from high-income and other countries, respectively. The VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection when combining the ChAdOx1 and an mRNA vaccine was 88% (95% CI: 83; 92) 14 days after the second dose and onwards. There were no COVID-19–related hospitalizations or deaths among the individuals vaccinated with the combined vaccine schedule during the study period. Study limitations including unmeasured confounders such as risk behavior and increasing overall vaccine coverage in the general population creating herd immunity are important to take into consideration when interpreting the results.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed a large reduction in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when combining the ChAdOx1 and an mRNA vaccine, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

Mie Agermose Gram and co-workers study the effectiveness of heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccine combinations in the Danish population.     

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundDebate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?Methods and findingsThe protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.ConclusionsBased on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.Review protocolOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/)

Diana Buitrago-Garcia and co-workers update a living systematic review and meta-analysis on occurrence and transmission of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.     

Changes in the associations of race and rurality with SARS-CoV-2 infection,mortality, and case fatality in the United States from February 2020 to March 2021: A population-based cohort study

BackgroundWe examined whether key sociodemographic and clinical risk factors for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and mortality changed over time in a population-based cohort study.Methods and findingsIn a cohort of 9,127,673 persons enrolled in the United States Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, we evaluated the independent associations of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 216,046), SARS-CoV-2–related mortality (n = 10,230), and case fatality at monthly intervals between February 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021. VA enrollees had a mean age of 61 years (SD 17.7) and were predominantly male (90.9%) and White (64.5%), with 14.6% of Black race and 6.3% of Hispanic ethnicity. Black (versus White) race was strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 5.10, [95% CI 4.65 to 5.59], p-value <0.001), mortality (AOR 3.85 [95% CI 3.30 to 4.50], p-value < 0.001), and case fatality (AOR 2.56, 95% CI 2.23 to 2.93, p-value < 0.001) in February to March 2020, but these associations were attenuated and not statistically significant by November 2020 for infection (AOR 1.03 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.07] p-value = 0.05) and mortality (AOR 1.08 [95% CI 0.96 to 1.20], p-value = 0.21) and were reversed for case fatality (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, p-value = 0.005). American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN versus White) race was associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in April and May 2020; this association declined over time and reversed by March 2021 (AOR 0.66 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.85] p-value = 0.004). Hispanic (versus non-Hispanic) ethnicity was associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality during almost every time period, with no evidence of attenuation over time. Urban (versus rural) residence was associated with higher risk of infection (AOR 2.02, [95% CI 1.83 to 2.22], p-value < 0.001), mortality (AOR 2.48 [95% CI 2.08 to 2.96], p-value < 0.001), and case fatality (AOR 2.24, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.60, p-value < 0.001) in February to April 2020, but these associations attenuated over time and reversed by September 2020 (AOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.89, p-value < 0.001 for infection, AOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83, p-value < 0.001 for mortality and AOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93, p-value = 0.006 for case fatality). Throughout the observation period, high comorbidity burden, younger age, and obesity were consistently associated with infection, while high comorbidity burden, older age, and male sex were consistently associated with mortality. Limitations of the study include that changes over time in the associations of some risk factors may be affected by changes in the likelihood of testing for SARS-CoV-2 according to those risk factors; also, study results apply directly to VA enrollees who are predominantly male and have comprehensive healthcare and need to be confirmed in other populations.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that strongly positive associations of Black and AI/AN (versus White) race and urban (versus rural) residence with SARS-CoV-2 infection, mortality, and case fatality observed early in the pandemic were ameliorated or reversed by March 2021.

George Ioannou and co-workers study the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infections and outcomes among the United States population.     

Durability of the humoral immune response in recovered COVID-19 patients

BackgroundThe immunological factors involved in protection against the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 are insufficiently defined and understood. However, previous knowledge pertaining to the related SARS virus and other human coronaviruses may prove useful. Population-based serosurveys measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may provide a pattern for estimating infection degrees and observing the development of the epidemic. In this study, we aimed to investigate the persistence of antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 in recovered patients in Al Madinah region of Saudi Arabia.Materials and methodsA total of 150 recovered COVID-19 patients participated in this study. All the patients tested positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, using qualitative RT-PCR. An ELISA was used to measure anti-Spike (S) IgG antibodies in serum samples and screen for their persistence at various time points post-infection.ResultsThe patients were categorized as asymptomatic (27.3%), mild (28%) and moderate (44.7%) according to the disease severity. Amongst them, 35.3% were females (n = 53) and 64.7% were males (n = 97). Significant anti-S IgG antibody levels were observed among the different groups, with the patients in moderate group exhibiting the highest levels followed by the mild group; while the lowest levels were detected among the asymptomatic. There was a significant positive correlation between the patients’ age and anti-S IgG antibody concentrations (Pearson r = 0.45; p < 0.001).ConclusionOur findings provide a solid evidence to support the use of an anti-S IgG ELISA as a diagnostic tool to indicate SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgG seropositivity was sustained in recovered patients up to a hundred days' post-infection, the latest time point for antibody measurement in our study. Ours is the first report in Saudi Arabia to investigate the durability of humoral immune response in recovered COVID-19 patients.