skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Which nursing home workers were at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the November 2020–February 2021 winter surge of COVID-1?
Title: Which nursing home workers were at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the November 2020–February 2021 winter surge of COVID-1?
Background: Nursing home (NH) residents and staff were at high risk for COVID-19 early in the pandemic; several studies estimated seroprevalence of infection in NH staff to be 3-fold higher among CNAs and nurses compared to other staff. Risk mitigation added in Fall 2020 included systematic testing of residents and staff (and furlough if positive) to reduce transmission risk. We estimated risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection among NH staff during the first winter surge before widespread vaccination. Methods: Between February and May 2021, voluntary serologic testing was performed on NH staff who were seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 in late Fall 2020 (during a previous serology study at 14 Georgia NHs). An exposure assessment at the second time point covered prior 3 months of job activities, community exposures, and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination, including very recent vaccination (≤4 weeks). Risk factors for seroconversion were estimated by job type using multivariable logistic regression, accounting for interval community-incidence and interval change in resident infections per bed. Results: Among 203 eligible staff, 72 (35.5%) had evidence of interval seroconversion (Fig. 1). Among 80 unvaccinated staff, interval infection was significantly higher among CNAs and nurses (aOR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.4–20.7) than other staff, after adjusting for race and interval community incidence and facility infections. This risk persisted but was attenuated when utilizing the full study cohort including those with very recent vaccination (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9–3.7). Conclusions : Midway through the first year of the pandemic, NH staff with close or common resident contact continued to be at increased risk for infection despite enhanced infection prevention efforts. Mitigation strategies, prior to vaccination, did not eliminate occupational risk for infection. Vaccine utilization is critical to eliminate occupational risk among frontline healthcare providers. Funding: None Disclosures: None  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1806833
NSF-PAR ID:
10461032
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology
Volume:
2
Issue:
S1
ISSN:
2732-494X
Page Range / eLocation ID:
s7 to s7
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al ( , Human Reproduction)
    Abstract STUDY QUESTION

    To what extent is preconception maternal or paternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination associated with miscarriage incidence?

     SUMMARY ANSWER

    COVID-19 vaccination in either partner at any time before conception is not associated with an increased rate of miscarriage.

     WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

    Several observational studies have evaluated the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and found no association with miscarriage, though no study prospectively evaluated the risk of early miscarriage (gestational weeks [GW] <8) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, no study has evaluated the role of preconception vaccination in both male and female partners.

     STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

    An Internet-based, prospective preconception cohort study of couples residing in the USA and Canada. We analyzed data from 1815 female participants who conceived during December 2020–November 2022, including 1570 couples with data on male partner vaccination.

     PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

    Eligible female participants were aged 21–45 years and were trying to conceive without use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Female participants completed questionnaires at baseline, every 8 weeks until pregnancy, and during early and late pregnancy; they could also invite their male partners to complete a baseline questionnaire. We collected data on COVID-19 vaccination (brand and date of doses), history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes/no and date of positive test), potential confounders (demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics), and pregnancy status on all questionnaires. Vaccination status was categorized as never (0 doses before conception), ever (≥1 dose before conception), having a full primary sequence before conception, and completing the full primary sequence ≤3 months before conception. These categories were not mutually exclusive. Participants were followed up from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss to follow-up, 20 weeks’ gestation), whichever occurred first. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for miscarriage and corresponding 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models with GW as the time scale. We used propensity score fine stratification weights to adjust for confounding.

     MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

    Among 1815 eligible female participants, 75% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the time of conception. Almost one-quarter of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 75% of miscarriages occurred <8 weeks’ gestation. The propensity score-weighted IRR comparing female participants who received at least one dose any time before conception versus those who had not been vaccinated was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.14). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of either early miscarriage (GW: <8) or late miscarriage (GW: 8–19). There was no indication of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with male partner vaccination (IRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.44).

     LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

    The present study relied on self-reported vaccination status and infection history. Thus, there may be some non-differential misclassification of exposure status. While misclassification of miscarriage is also possible, the preconception cohort design and high prevalence of home pregnancy testing in this cohort reduced the potential for under-ascertainment of miscarriage. As in all observational studies, residual or unmeasured confounding is possible.

     WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

    This is the first study to evaluate prospectively the relation between preconception COVID-19 vaccination in both partners and miscarriage, with more complete ascertainment of early miscarriages than earlier studies of vaccination. The findings are informative for individuals planning a pregnancy and their healthcare providers.

     STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

    This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Health [R01-HD086742 (PI: L.A.W.); R01-HD105863S1 (PI: L.A.W. and M.L.E.)], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R03-AI154544; PI: A.K.R.), and the National Science Foundation (NSF-1914792; PI: L.A.W.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. She also receives in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (Clearblue home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility apps). M.L.E. received consulting fees from Ro, Hannah, Dadi, VSeat, and Underdog, holds stock in Ro, Hannah, Dadi, and Underdog, is a past president of SSMR, and is a board member of SMRU. K.F.H. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this study. S.H.-D. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from Takeda, unrelated to this study, and a methods consultant for UCB and Roche for unrelated drugs. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

     TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

    N/A.

     
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , PLOS Medicine)
    Low, Nicola (Ed.)
    Background While booster vaccinations clearly reduce the risk of severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death, the impact of boosters on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections has not been fully characterized: Doing so requires understanding their impact on asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections that often go unreported but nevertheless play an important role in spreading SARS-CoV-2. We sought to estimate the impact of COVID-19 booster doses on SARS-CoV-2 infections in a vaccinated population of young adults during an Omicron BA.1-predominant period. Methods and findings We implemented a cohort study of young adults in a college environment (Cornell University’s Ithaca campus) from a period when Omicron BA.1 was the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant on campus (December 5 to December 31, 2021). Participants included 15,800 university students who completed initial vaccination series with vaccines approved by the World Health Organization for emergency use, were enrolled in mandatory at-least-weekly surveillance polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, and had no positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within 90 days before the start of the study period. Robust multivariable Poisson regression with the main outcome of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was performed to compare those who completed their initial vaccination series and a booster dose to those without a booster dose. A total of 1,926 unique SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified in the study population. Controlling for sex, student group membership, date of completion of initial vaccination series, initial vaccine type, and temporal effect during the study period, our analysis estimates that receiving a booster dose further reduces the rate of having a PCR-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to an initial vaccination series by 56% (95% confidence interval [42%, 67%], P < 0.001). While most individuals had recent booster administration before or during the study period (a limitation of our study), this result is robust to the assumed delay over which a booster dose becomes effective (varied from 1 day to 14 days). The mandatory active surveillance approach used in this study, under which 86% of the person-days in the study occurred, reduces the likelihood of outcome misclassification. Key limitations of our methodology are that we did not have an a priori protocol or statistical analysis plan because the analysis was initially done for institutional research purposes, and some analysis choices were made after observing the data. Conclusions We observed that boosters are effective, relative to completion of initial vaccination series, in further reducing the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a college student population during a period when Omicron BA.1 was predominant; booster vaccinations for this age group may play an important role in reducing incidence of COVID-19. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al ( , JMIR Research Protocols)
    null (Ed.)
    Background Health care personnel (HCP) are at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. While personal protective equipment (PPE) may mitigate this risk, prospective data collection on its use and other risk factors for seroconversion in this population is needed. Objective The primary objectives of this study are to (1) determine the incidence of, and risk factors for, SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCP at a tertiary care medical center and (2) actively monitor PPE use, interactions between study participants via electronic sensors, secondary cases in households, and participant mental health and well-being. Methods To achieve these objectives, we designed a prospective, observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCP and their household contacts at an academic tertiary care medical center in North Carolina, USA. Enrolled HCP completed frequent surveys on symptoms and work activities and provided serum and nasal samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing every 2 weeks. Additionally, interactions between participants and their movement within the clinical environment were captured with a smartphone app and Bluetooth sensors. Finally, a subset of participants’ households was randomly selected every 2 weeks for further investigation, and enrolled households provided serum and nasal samples via at-home collection kits. Results As of December 31, 2020, 211 HCP and 53 household participants have been enrolled. Recruitment and follow-up are ongoing and expected to continue through September 2021. Conclusions Much remains to be learned regarding the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCP and their household contacts. Through the use of a multifaceted prospective study design and a well-characterized cohort, we will collect critical information regarding SARS-CoV-2 transmission risks in the health care setting and its linkage to the community. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/25410 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ( , Journal of The Royal Society Interface)
    null (Ed.)
    SARS-CoV-2 is an international public health emergency; high transmissibility and morbidity and mortality can result in the virus overwhelming health systems. Combinations of social distancing, and test, trace, and isolate strategies can reduce the number of new infections per infected individual below 1, thus driving declines in case numbers, but may be both challenging and costly. These interventions must also be maintained until development and (now likely) mass deployment of a vaccine (or therapeutics), since otherwise, many susceptible individuals are still at risk of infection. We use a simple analytical model to explore how low levels of infection, combined with vaccination, determine the trajectory to community immunity. Understanding the repercussions of the biological characteristics of the viral life cycle in this scenario is of considerable importance. We provide a simple description of this process by modelling the scenario where the effective reproduction number R eff is maintained at 1. Since the additional complexity imposed by the strength and duration of transmission-blocking immunity is not yet clear, we use our framework to probe the impact of these uncertainties. Through intuitive analytical relations, we explore how the necessary magnitude of vaccination rates and mitigation efforts depends crucially on the durations of natural and vaccinal immunity. We also show that our framework can encompass seasonality or preexisting immunity due to epidemic dynamics prior to strong mitigation measures. Taken together, our simple conceptual model illustrates the importance of individual and vaccinal immunity for community immunity, and that the quantification of individuals immunized against SARS-CoV-2 is paramount. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al ( , Clinical Infectious Diseases)
    Abstract Background

    Estimating the cumulative incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential for setting public health policies. We leveraged deidentified Massachusetts newborn screening specimens as an accessible, retrospective source of maternal antibodies for estimating statewide seroprevalence in a nontest-seeking population.

     Methods

    We analyzed 72 117 newborn specimens collected from November 2019 through December 2020, representing 337 towns and cities across Massachusetts. Seroprevalence was estimated for the Massachusetts population after correcting for imperfect test specificity and nonrepresentative sampling using Bayesian multilevel regression and poststratification.

     Results

    Statewide seroprevalence was estimated to be 0.03% (90% credible interval [CI], 0.00–0.11) in November 2019 and rose to 1.47% (90% CI: 1.00–2.13) by May 2020, following sustained SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the spring. Seroprevalence plateaued from May onward, reaching 2.15% (90% CI: 1.56–2.98) in December 2020. Seroprevalence varied substantially by community and was particularly associated with community percent non-Hispanic Black (β = .024; 90% CI: 0.004–0.044); i.e., a 10% increase in community percent non-Hispanic Black was associated with 27% higher odds of seropositivity. Seroprevalence estimates had good concordance with reported case counts and wastewater surveillance for most of 2020, prior to the resurgence of transmission in winter.

     Conclusions

    Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 protective antibody in Massachusetts was low as of December 2020, indicating that a substantial fraction of the population was still susceptible. Maternal seroprevalence data from newborn screening can inform longitudinal trends and identify cities and towns at highest risk, particularly in settings where widespread diagnostic testing is unavailable.

     
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email