SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in secondary school settings in the Netherlands during fall 2020; silent circulation.

BACKGROUND: In fall 2020 when schools in the Netherlands operated under a limited set of COVID-19 measures, we conducted outbreaks studies in four secondary schools to gain insight in the level of school transmission and the role of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via air and surfaces. METHODS: Outbreak studies were performed between 11 November and 15 December 2020 when the wild-type variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infections within schools were identified through a prospective school surveillance study. All school contacts of cluster cases, irrespective of symptoms, were invited for PCR testing twice within 48 h and 4-7 days later. Combined NTS and saliva samples were collected at each time point along with data on recent exposure and symptoms. Surface and active air samples were collected in the school environment. All samples were PCR-tested and sequenced when possible. RESULTS: Out of 263 sampled school contacts, 24 tested SARS-CoV-2 positive (secondary attack rate 9.1%), of which 62% remained asymptomatic and 42% had a weakly positive test result. Phylogenetic analysis on 12 subjects from 2 schools indicated a cluster of 8 and 2 secondary cases, respectively, but also other distinct strains within outbreaks. Of 51 collected air and 53 surface samples, none were SARS-CoV-2 positive. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed within school SARS-CoV-2 transmission and substantial silent circulation, but also multiple introductions in some cases. Absence of air or surface contamination suggests environmental contamination is not widespread during school outbreaks.

Longitudinal Household Assessment of Respiratory Illness in Children and Parents During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: In the early COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 testing was only accessible and recommended for symptomatic persons or adults. This restriction hampered assessment of the true incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children as well as detailed characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 disease spectrum and how this spectrum compared with that of other common respiratory illnesses. Objective: To estimate the community incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and parents and to assess the symptoms and symptom severity of respiratory illness episodes involving SARS-CoV-2-positive test results relative to those with SARS-CoV-2-negative test results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study randomly selected Dutch households with at least 1 child younger than 18 years. A total of 1209 children and adults from 307 households were prospectively followed up between August 25, 2020, and July 29, 2021, covering the second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participation included SARS-CoV-2 screening at 4- to 6-week intervals during the first 23 weeks of participation (core study period; August 25, 2020, to July 29, 2021). Participants in all households finishing the core study before July 1, 2021, were invited to participate in the extended follow-up and to actively report respiratory symptoms using an interactive app until July 1, 2021. At new onset of respiratory symptoms or a SARS-CoV-2 positive test result, a household outbreak study was initiated, which included daily symptom recording, repeated polymerase chain reaction testing (nose-throat swabs and saliva and fecal samples), and SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement (paired dried blood spots) in all household members. Outbreaks, households, and episodes of respiratory illness were described as positive or negative depending on SARS-CoV-2 test results. Data on participant race and ethnicity were not reported because they were not uniformly collected in the original cohorts and were therefore not representative or informative. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2-positive and SARS-CoV-2-negative respiratory illness episodes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age-stratified incidence rates, symptoms, and symptom severity for SARS-CoV-2-positive and SARS-CoV-2-negative respiratory illness episodes. Results: Among 307 households including 1209 participants (638 female [52.8%]; 403 [33.3%] aged <12 years, 179 [14.8%] aged 12-17 years, and 627 [51.9%] aged ≥18 years), 183 household outbreaks of respiratory illness were observed during the core study and extended follow-up period, of which 63 (34.4%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive (59 outbreaks [32.2%] during the core study and 4 outbreaks [2.2%] during follow-up). SARS-CoV-2 incidence was similar across all ages (0.24/person-year [PY]; 95% CI, 0.21-0.28/PY). Overall, 33 of 134 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 episodes (24.6%) were asymptomatic. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2-negative respiratory illness episodes was highest in children younger than 12 years (0.94/PY; 95% CI, 0.89-0.97/PY). When comparing SARS-CoV-2-positive vs SARS-CoV-2-negative respiratory illness episodes in children younger than 12 years, no differences were observed in number of symptoms (median [IQR], 2 [2-4] for both groups), symptom severity (median [IQR] maximum symptom severity score, 6 [4-9] vs 7 [6-13]), or symptom duration (median [IQR], 6 [5-12] days vs 8 [4-13] days). However, among adults, SARS-CoV-2-positive episodes had a significantly higher number (median [IQR], 6 [4-8] vs 3 [2-4]), severity (median [IQR] maximum symptom severity score, 15 [9-19] vs 7 [6-11]), and duration (median [IQR] 13 [8-29] days vs 5 [3-11] days; P < .001 for all comparisons) of symptoms vs SARS-CoV-2-negative episodes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, during the first pandemic year when mostly partial or full in-person learning occurred, the SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate in children was substantially higher than estimated from routine testing or seroprevalence data and was similar to that of adult household members. Unlike in unvaccinated adults, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms and symptom severity in children were similar to other common respiratory illnesses. These findings may prove useful when developing pediatric COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within households: a remote prospective cohort study in European countries.

Household transmission studies are useful to quantify SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. We conducted a remote prospective household study to quantify transmission, and the effects of subject characteristics, household characteristics, and implemented infection control measures on transmission. Households with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 index case were enrolled < 48 h following test result. Follow-up included digitally daily symptom recording, regular nose-throat self-sampling and paired dried blood spots from all household members. Samples were tested for virus detection and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Secondary attack rates (SARs) and associated factors were estimated using logistic regression. In 276 households with 920 participants (276 index cases and 644 household members) daily symptom diaries and questionnaires were completed by 95%, and > 85% completed sample collection. 200 secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected, yielding a household SAR of 45.7% (95% CI 39.7-51.7%) and per-person SAR of 32.6% (95%CI: 28.1-37.4%). 126 (63%) secondary cases were detected at enrollment. Mild (aRR = 0.57) and asymptomatic index cases (aRR = 0.29) were less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared to index cases with an acute respiratory illness (p = 0.03 for trend), and child index cases (< 12 years aRR = 0.60 and 12-18 years aRR = 0.85) compared to adults (p = 0.03 for trend). Infection control interventions in households had no significant effect on transmission. We found high SARs with the majority of transmissions occuring early after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into the household. This may explain the futile effect of implemented household measures. Age and symptom status of the index case influence secondary transmission. Remote, digitally-supported study designs with self-sampling are feasible for studying transmission under pandemic restrictions.

Experiences and needs of persons living with a household member infected with SARS-CoV-2: A mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Households are important sites for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and preventive measures are recommended. This study aimed to 1) investigate the impact of living with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2; 2) understand how household members implemented infection control recommendations in their home; and 3) identify the information and support needs of household members. METHODS: For this observational mixed-methods study, households with a person with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited via drive-through testing sites of Municipal Health Services, healthcare worker screening or hospital emergency visits in the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands and via primary care physicians, hospital emergency visits or preoperative screening in the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium. We recorded household characteristics, including characteristics of all household members, together with their views on prevention measures. In a subset of households one adult household member was asked to participate in an interview investigating their views on preventive measures. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data by rapid framework analysis. A triangulation protocol was used to integrate findings. RESULTS: Thirty-four households (120 household members) were included in the quantitative survey. Twenty-two households were invited to be interviewed, of which 18 completed an interview (response 81.8%). Survey data showed that almost all households implemented some preventive measures, the use of face masks being least frequently reported. Measures taken depended on what was physically possible, the perceived severity of illness of the index patient and to what extent household members were willing to limit social interaction. Respondents did not believe in the effectiveness of wearing face masks within the house, and from the interviews this was explained by media coverage of face masks, impracticality and the stigma associated with wearing masks. Interviewees reported that quarantine had a high emotional burden and wished to have more information about the exact duration of quarantine, their own COVID-19 status, symptoms and when to seek medical help. CONCLUSION: People were willing to implement prevention measures, however actual adherence depended on perceived severity of illness and the perceived risk of becoming infected. Homes are social environments and recommendations for infection prevention should account for this context. Incorporating our findings into policy making could provide households with more relevant and actionable advice.