A longitudinal study of the impact of university student return to campus on the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among the community members.

Returning university students represent large-scale, transient demographic shifts and a potential source of transmission to adjacent communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, we tested for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in a non-random cohort of residents living in Centre County prior to the Fall 2020 term at the Pennsylvania State University and following the conclusion of the Fall 2020 term. We also report the seroprevalence in a non-random cohort of students collected at the end of the Fall 2020 term. Of 1313 community participants, 42 (3.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies at their first visit between 07 August and 02 October 2020. Of 684 student participants who returned to campus for fall instruction, 208 (30.4%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies between 26 October and 21 December. 96 (7.3%) community participants returned a positive IgG antibody result by 19 February. Only contact with known SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals and attendance at small gatherings (20-50 individuals) were significant predictors of detecting IgG antibodies among returning students (aOR, 95% CI 3.1, 2.07-4.64; 1.52, 1.03-2.24; respectively). Despite high seroprevalence observed within the student population, seroprevalence in a longitudinal cohort of community residents was low and stable from before student arrival for the Fall 2020 term to after student departure. The study implies that heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 transmission can occur in geographically coincident populations.

COVID-19 Mitigation Among College Students: Social Influences, Behavioral Spillover, and Antibody Results.

By fall 2020, students returning to U.S. university campuses were mandated to engage in COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, including masking, which was a relatively novel prevention behavior in the U.S. Masking became a target of university mandates and campaigns, and it became politicized. Critical questions are whether the influences of injunctive norms and response efficacy on one behavior (i.e. masking) spill over to other mitigation behaviors (e.g. hand-washing), and how patterns of mitigation behaviors are associated with clinical outcomes. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of college students who returned to campus (N = 837) to explore these questions, and conducted COVID-19 antibody testing on a subset of participants to identify correlations between behaviors and disease burden. The results showed that college students were more likely to intend to wear face masks as they experienced more positive injunctive norms, liberal political views, stronger response efficacy for masks, and less pessimism. Latent class analysis revealed four mitigation classes: Adherents who intended to wear face masks and engage in the other COVID-19 mitigation behaviors; Hygiene Stewards and Masked Symptom Managers who intended to wear masks but only some other behaviors, and Refusers who intended to engage in no mitigation behaviors. Importantly, the Hygiene Stewards and Refusers had the highest likelihood of positive antibodies; these two classes differed in their masking intentions, but shared very low likelihoods of physical distancing from others and avoiding crowds or mass gatherings. The implications for theories of normative influences on novel behaviors, spillover effects, and future messaging are discussed.

Large university with high COVID-19 incidence is not associated with excess cases in non-student population.

Large US colleges and universities that re-opened campuses in the fall of 2020 and the spring of 2021 experienced high per capita rates of COVID-19. Returns to campus were controversial because they posed a potential risk to surrounding communities. A large university in Pennsylvania that returned to in-person instruction for Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters reported high incidence of COVID-19 among students. However, the co-located non-student resident population in the county experienced fewer COVID-19 cases per capita than reported in neighboring counties. Activity patterns from mobile devices indicate that the non-student resident population near the university restricted their movements during the pandemic more than residents of neighboring counties. Respiratory virus prevention and management in student and non-student populations requires different, specifically targeted strategies.

The Effects of Using a Clinical Prediction Rule to Prioritize Diagnostic Testing on Transmission and Hospital Burden: A Modeling Example of Early Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

BACKGROUND: Prompt identification of infections is critical for slowing the spread of infectious diseases. However, diagnostic testing shortages are common in emerging diseases, low resource settings, and during outbreaks. This forces difficult decisions regarding who receives a test, often without knowing the implications of those decisions on population-level transmission dynamics. Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are commonly used tools to guide clinical decisions. METHODS: Using early severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as an example, we used data from electronic health records to develop a parsimonious 5-variable CPR to identify those who are most likely to test positive. To consider the implications of gains in daily case detection at the population level, we incorporated testing using the CPR into a compartmentalized model of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: We found that applying this CPR (area under the curve, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, .68-.70) to prioritize testing increased the proportion of those testing positive in settings of limited testing capacity. We found that prioritized testing led to a delayed and lowered infection peak (ie, "flattens the curve"), with the greatest impact at lower values of the effective reproductive number (such as with concurrent community mitigation efforts), and when higher proportions of infectious persons seek testing. In addition, prioritized testing resulted in reductions in overall infections as well as hospital and intensive care unit burden. CONCLUSION: We highlight the population-level benefits of evidence-based allocation of limited diagnostic capacity.SummaryWhen the demand for diagnostic tests exceeds capacity, the use of a clinical prediction rule to prioritize diagnostic testing can have meaningful impact on population-level outcomes, including delaying and lowering the infection peak, and reducing healthcare burden.

Modeling reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and hospital burden achieved by prioritizing testing using a clinical prediction rule

Prompt identification of cases is critical for slowing the spread of COVID-19. However, many areas have faced diagnostic testing shortages, requiring difficult decisions to be made regarding who receives a test, without knowing the implications of those decisions on population-level transmission dynamics. Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are commonly used tools to guide clinical decisions. We used data from electronic health records to develop a parsimonious 5-variable CPR to identify those who are most likely to test positive, and found that its application to prioritize testing increases the proportion of those testing positive in settings of limited testing capacity. To consider the implications of these gains in daily case detection on the population level, we incorporated testing using the CPR into a compartmentalized disease transmission model. We found that prioritized testing led to a delayed and lowered infection peak (i.e. 'flattens the curve'), with the greatest impact at lower values of the effective reproductive number (such as with concurrent social distancing measures), and when higher proportions of infectious persons seek testing. Additionally, prioritized testing resulted in reductions in overall infections as well as hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) burden. In conclusion, we present a novel approach to evidence-based allocation of limited diagnostic capacity, to achieve public health goals for COVID-19.

Synergistic interventions to control COVID-19: Mass testing and isolation mitigates reliance on distancing.

Stay-at-home orders and shutdowns of non-essential businesses are powerful, but socially costly, tools to control the pandemic spread of SARS-CoV-2. Mass testing strategies, which rely on widely administered frequent and rapid diagnostics to identify and isolate infected individuals, could be a potentially less disruptive management strategy, particularly where vaccine access is limited. In this paper, we assess the extent to which mass testing and isolation strategies can reduce reliance on socially costly non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as distancing and shutdowns. We develop a multi-compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission incorporating both preventative non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and testing and isolation to evaluate their combined effect on public health outcomes. Our model is designed to be a policy-guiding tool that captures important realities of the testing system, including constraints on test administration and non-random testing allocation. We show how strategic changes in the characteristics of the testing system, including test administration, test delays, and test sensitivity, can reduce reliance on preventative NPIs without compromising public health outcomes in the future. The lowest NPI levels are possible only when many tests are administered and test delays are short, given limited immunity in the population. Reducing reliance on NPIs is highly dependent on the ability of a testing program to identify and isolate unreported, asymptomatic infections. Changes in NPIs, including the intensity of lockdowns and stay at home orders, should be coordinated with increases in testing to ensure epidemic control; otherwise small additional lifting of these NPIs can lead to dramatic increases in infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Importantly, our results can be used to guide ramp-up of testing capacity in outbreak settings, allow for the flexible design of combined interventions based on social context, and inform future cost-benefit analyses to identify efficient pandemic management strategies.

Lives saved with vaccination for 10 pathogens across 112 countries in a pre-COVID-19 world.

Background: Vaccination is one of the most effective public health interventions. We investigate the impact of vaccination activities for Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, rotavirus, rubella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and yellow fever over the years 2000-2030 across 112 countries. Methods: Twenty-one mathematical models estimated disease burden using standardised demographic and immunisation data. Impact was attributed to the year of vaccination through vaccine-activity-stratified impact ratios. Results: We estimate 97 (95%CrI[80, 120]) million deaths would be averted due to vaccination activities over 2000-2030, with 50 (95%CrI[41, 62]) million deaths averted by activities between 2000 and 2019. For children under-5 born between 2000 and 2030, we estimate 52 (95%CrI[41, 69]) million more deaths would occur over their lifetimes without vaccination against these diseases. Conclusions: This study represents the largest assessment of vaccine impact before COVID-19-related disruptions and provides motivation for sustaining and improving global vaccination coverage in the future. Funding: VIMC is jointly funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) (BMGF grant number: OPP1157270 / INV-009125). Funding from Gavi is channelled via VIMC to the Consortium's modelling groups (VIMC-funded institutions represented in this paper: Imperial College London, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Public Health England, Johns Hopkins University, The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, Kaiser Permanente Washington, University of Cambridge, University of Notre Dame, Harvard University, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Emory University, National University of Singapore). Funding from BMGF was used for salaries of the Consortium secretariat (authors represented here: TBH, MJ, XL, SE-L, JT, KW, NMF, KAMG); and channelled via VIMC for travel and subsistence costs of all Consortium members (all authors). We also acknowledge funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Department for International Development, which supported aspects of VIMC's work (MRC grant number: MR/R015600/1).JHH acknowledges funding from National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship; Richard and Peggy Notebaert Premier Fellowship from the University of Notre Dame. BAL acknowledges funding from NIH/NIGMS (grant number R01 GM124280) and NIH/NIAID (grant number R01 AI112970). The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) receives funding support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.This paper was compiled by all coauthors, including two coauthors from Gavi. Other funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Impact of COVID-19-related disruptions to measles, meningococcal A, and yellow fever vaccination in 10 countries.

Background: Childhood immunisation services have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. WHO recommends considering outbreak risk using epidemiological criteria when deciding whether to conduct preventive vaccination campaigns during the pandemic. Methods: We used two to three models per infection to estimate the health impact of 50% reduced routine vaccination coverage in 2020 and delay of campaign vaccination from 2020 to 2021 for measles vaccination in Bangladesh, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Sudan, for meningococcal A vaccination in Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria, and for yellow fever vaccination in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, and Nigeria. Our counterfactual comparative scenario was sustaining immunisation services at coverage projections made prior to COVID-19 (i.e. without any disruption). Results: Reduced routine vaccination coverage in 2020 without catch-up vaccination may lead to an increase in measles and yellow fever disease burden in the modelled countries. Delaying planned campaigns in Ethiopia and Nigeria by a year may significantly increase the risk of measles outbreaks (both countries did complete their supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs) planned for 2020). For yellow fever vaccination, delay in campaigns leads to a potential disease burden rise of >1 death per 100,000 people per year until the campaigns are implemented. For meningococcal A vaccination, short-term disruptions in 2020 are unlikely to have a significant impact due to the persistence of direct and indirect benefits from past introductory campaigns of the 1- to 29-year-old population, bolstered by inclusion of the vaccine into the routine immunisation schedule accompanied by further catch-up campaigns. Conclusions: The impact of COVID-19-related disruption to vaccination programs varies between infections and countries. Planning and implementation of campaigns should consider country and infection-specific epidemiological factors and local immunity gaps worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic when prioritising vaccines and strategies for catch-up vaccination. Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Strategic testing approaches for targeted disease monitoring can be used to inform pandemic decision-making.

More than 1.6 million Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests were administered daily in the United States at the peak of the epidemic, with a significant focus on individual treatment. Here, we show that objective-driven, strategic sampling designs and analyses can maximize information gain at the population level, which is necessary to increase situational awareness and predict, prepare for, and respond to a pandemic, while also continuing to inform individual treatment. By focusing on specific objectives such as individual treatment or disease prediction and control (e.g., via the collection of population-level statistics to inform lockdown measures or vaccine rollout) and drawing from the literature on capture-recapture methods to deal with nonrandom sampling and testing errors, we illustrate how public health objectives can be achieved even with limited test availability when testing programs are designed a priori to meet those objectives.

Limited window for donation of convalescent plasma with high live-virus neutralizing antibody titers for COVID-19 immunotherapy.

Millions of individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection may be eligible to participate in convalescent plasma donor programs, yet the optimal window for donating high neutralizing titer convalescent plasma for COVID-19 immunotherapy remains unknown. Here we studied the response trajectories of antibodies directed to the SARS-CoV-2 surface spike glycoprotein and in vitro SARS-CoV-2 live virus neutralizing titers (VN) in 175 convalescent donors longitudinally sampled for up to 142 days post onset of symptoms (DPO). We observed robust IgM, IgG, and viral neutralization responses to SARS-CoV-2 that persist, in the aggregate, for at least 100 DPO. However, there is a notable decline in VN titers ≥160 for convalescent plasma therapy, starting 60 DPO. The results also show that individuals 30 years of age or younger have significantly lower VN, IgG and IgM antibody titers than those in the older age groups; and individuals with greater disease severity also have significantly higher IgM and IgG antibody titers. Taken together, these findings define the optimal window for donating convalescent plasma useful for immunotherapy of COVID-19 patients and reveal important predictors of an ideal plasma donor.

Robust Testing in Outpatient Settings to Explore COVID-19 Epidemiology: Disparities in Race/Ethnicity and Age, Salt Lake County, Utah, 2020.

OBJECTIVE: US-based descriptions of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have focused on patients with severe disease. Our objective was to describe characteristics of a predominantly outpatient population tested for SARS-CoV-2 in an area receiving comprehensive testing. METHODS: We extracted data on demographic characteristics and clinical data for all patients (91% outpatient) tested for SARS-CoV-2 at University of Utah Health clinics in Salt Lake County, Utah, from March 10 through April 24, 2020. We manually extracted data on symptoms and exposures from a subset of patients, and we calculated the adjusted odds of receiving a positive test result by demographic characteristics and clinical risk factors. RESULTS: Of 17 662 people tested, 1006 (5.7%) received a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. Hispanic/Latinx people were twice as likely as non-Hispanic White people to receive a positive test result (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.1), although the severity at presentation did not explain this discrepancy. Young people aged 0-19 years had the lowest rates of receiving a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 (<4 cases per 10 000 population), and adults aged 70-79 and 40-49 had the highest rates of hospitalization per 100 000 population among people who received a positive test result (16 and 11, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found disparities by race/ethnicity and age in access to testing and in receiving a positive test result among outpatients tested for SARS-CoV-2. Further research and public health outreach on addressing racial/ethnic and age disparities will be needed to effectively combat the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the United States.

Modeling reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and hospital burden achieved by prioritizing testing using a clinical prediction rule.

Prompt identification of cases is critical for slowing the spread of COVID-19. However, many areas have faced diagnostic testing shortages, requiring difficult decisions to be made regarding who receives a test, without knowing the implications of those decisions on population-level transmission dynamics. Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are commonly used tools to guide clinical decisions. We used data from electronic health records to develop a parsimonious 5-variable CPR to identify those who are most likely to test positive, and found that its application to prioritize testing increases the proportion of those testing positive in settings of limited testing capacity. To consider the implications of these gains in daily case detection on the population level, we incorporated testing using the CPR into a compartmentalized disease transmission model. We found that prioritized testing led to a delayed and lowered infection peak (i.e. 'flattens the curve'), with the greatest impact at lower values of the effective reproductive number (such as with concurrent social distancing measures), and when higher proportions of infectious persons seek testing. Additionally, prioritized testing resulted in reductions in overall infections as well as hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) burden. In conclusion, we present a novel approach to evidence-based allocation of limited diagnostic capacity, to achieve public health goals for COVID-19.