The Epidemiology of Long Coronavirus Disease in US Adults.

BACKGROUND: We estimated the prevalence of long COVID and impact on daily living among a representative sample of adults in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a population-representative survey, 30 June-2 July 2022, of a random sample of 3042 US adults aged 18 years or older and weighted to the 2020 US population. Using questions developed by the UK's Office of National Statistics, we estimated the prevalence of long COVID, by sociodemographics, adjusting for gender and age. RESULTS: An estimated 7.3% (95% confidence interval: 6.1-8.5%) of all respondents reported long COVID, corresponding to approximately 18 828 696 adults. One-quarter (25.3% [18.2-32.4%]) of respondents with long COVID reported their day-to-day activities were impacted "a lot" and 28.9% had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection more than 12 months ago. The prevalence of long COVID was higher among respondents who were female (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.84 [1.40-2.42]), had comorbidities (aPR: 1.55 [1.19-2.00]), or were not (vs were) boosted (aPR: 1.67 [1.19-2.34]) or not vaccinated (vs boosted) (aPR: 1.41 [1.05-1.91]). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high burden of long COVID, substantial variability in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, and risk factors unique from SARS-CoV-2 risk, suggesting areas for future research. Population-based surveys are an important surveillance tool and supplement to ongoing efforts to monitor long COVID.

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long COVID in U.S. adults during the BA.4/BA.5 surge, June-July 2022.

Due to changes in SARS-CoV-2 testing practices, passive case-based surveillance may be an increasingly unreliable indicator for monitoring the burden of SARS-CoV-2, especially during surges. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a population-representative sample of 3042 U.S. adults between June 30 and July 2, 2022, during the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 surge. Respondents were asked about SARS-CoV-2 testing and outcomes, COVID-like symptoms, contact with cases, and experience with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms following prior infection. We estimated the weighted age and sex-standardized SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, during the 14-day period preceding the interview. We estimated age and gender adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for current SARS-CoV-2 infection using a log-binomial regression model. An estimated 17.3% (95% CI 14.9, 19.8) of respondents had SARS-CoV-2 infection during the two-week study period-equating to 44 million cases as compared to 1.8 million per the CDC during the same time period. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was higher among those 18-24 years old (aPR 2.2, 95% CI 1.8, 2.7) and among non-Hispanic Black (aPR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4,2.2) and Hispanic adults (aPR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0, 2.9). SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was also higher among those with lower income (aPR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5, 2.3), lower education (aPR 3.7 95% CI 3.0,4.7), and those with comorbidities (aPR 1.6, 95% CI 1.4, 2.0). An estimated 21.5% (95% CI 18.2, 24.7) of respondents with a SARS-CoV-2 infection >4 weeks prior reported long COVID symptoms. The inequitable distribution of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence during the BA.4/BA.5 surge will likely drive inequities in the future burden of long COVID.

Estimating the period prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron (BA.1) surge in New York City (NYC), January 1-March 16, 2022.

In a population-based survey of NYC adults, we assessed positive SARS-CoV-2 tests (including via exclusive at-home testing) and possible cases among untested respondents. An estimated 27.4% (95%CI: 22.8%-32.0%) or 1.8 million adults (95%CI: 1.6-2.1 million) had SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1 and March 16, 2022.

Psychosocial Stressors and Maternal Mental Health in the U.S. During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID pandemic has had widespread impacts on maternal mental health. This research aims to examine the relationship between psychosocial stressors and symptoms of depression and anxiety and the extent to which emotional support or resilient coping moderates the relationship between psychosocial stressors and maternal mental health during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. METHODS: This analysis includes data collected in October and November 2020 from a geographically and sociodemographically diverse sample of 776 mothers in the U.S. with children ≤ 18 years of age. Log binomial models were used to estimate the association between moderate or severe symptoms of anxiety and depression and psychosocial stressors. RESULTS: Symptoms of moderate or severe anxiety and depression were reported by 37.5% and 37.6% of participants, respectively. Moderate (aRR 2.76 [95% CI 1.87, 4.07]) and high (aRR 4.95 [95% CI 3.40, 7.20]) levels of perceived stress were associated with greater risk of moderate or severe anxiety symptoms. Moderate and high levels of parental burnout were also associated with greater prevalence of moderate or severe anxiety symptoms in multivariable models. Results were similar when examining the relationship among stress, parental burnout, and depressive symptoms. Neither resilient coping nor social support modified the relationship between psychosocial stressors and mental health. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Evidence-based strategies to reduce stress and parental burnout and improve the mental health of mothers are urgently needed. Strategies focused on bolstering coping and social support may be insufficient to improve maternal mental health during acute public health emergencies.

Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in an urgent care setting.

BACKGROUND: It is critical to monitor changes in vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 outcomes for various vaccine products in different population subgroups. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in patients ≥12 years who underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 virus from April 14 through October 25, 2021, at urgent care centers in the New York metropolitan area. Patients self-reported vaccination status at the time of testing. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) by comparing odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated (n = 474,805), partially vaccinated (n = 87,834), and unvaccinated (n = 369,333) patients, adjusted for demographic factors and calendar time. RESULTS: VE against symptomatic infection after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine was 96% (95% Confidence Interval: 95%, 97%) in the pre-delta period and reduced to 79% (95% CI: 77%, 81%) in the delta period. In the delta period, VE for 12-15-year-olds (85%; [95% CI: 81%, 88%]) was higher compared to older age groups (<65% for all other age groups). VE estimates did not differ by sex and race/ethnicity. VE against symptomatic infection was the highest for individuals with a prior infection followed by full vaccination. VE against symptomatic infection after the 2-dose mRNA-1273 vaccine (82% [95% CI: 80%, 84%]) was higher compared to the BNT162b2 vaccine (76% [95% CI: 74%, 78%]) in the delta period. VE after 1-dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was the lowest compared to other vaccines (19% [95% CI: 15%, 23%]) in the delta period. CONCLUSIONS: VE against infection after two doses of the mRNA vaccines was high initially, but significantly reduced against the delta variant for both FDA-approved vaccines.

The Importance of Incorporating At-Home Testing into SARS-CoV-2 Point Prevalence Estimates: Findings from a U.S. National Cohort, February 2022.

BACKGROUND: Passive case-based surveillance underestimates the true extent of active infections in the population due to undiagnosed and untested cases, the exclusion of probable cases diagnosed point-of-care rapid antigen tests, and/or the exclusive use of at-home rapid tests which are not reported as part of case-based surveillance. The extent in which COVID-19 surveillance may be underestimating the burden of infection is likely due to time-varying factors such as decreased test-seeking behaviors and increased access to and availability of at-home testing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 based on different definitions of a case to ascertain the extent to which cases of SARS-CoV-2 may be underestimated by case-based surveillance. METHODS: A survey on COVID-19 exposure, infection, and testing was administered to calculate point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among a diverse sample of cohort adults between 8-22 February 2022. Three-point prevalence estimates were calculated among the cohort 1) proportion positives based on PCR and/or rapid antigen tests, 2) proportion positive based on testing exclusively with rapid at-home tests, and 3) proportion of probable undiagnosed cases. Test positivity and prevalence differences across booster status were also examined. RESULTS: Among a cohort of 4328, there were a total of 644 cases. The point prevalence estimate based on PCR and/or rapid antigen tests was 5.5% (95% CI: 4.8% - 6.2%), 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1%- 4.2%) based on at-home rapid tests and 5.7% (95% CI: 5.0% - 6.4%) based on the case definition of a probable case. The total point prevalence across all definitions was 14.9% (95% CI: 13.8% - 16.0%). The percent positivity among PCR and/or rapid tests was 50.2%. No statistically significant differences were observed in prevalence between participants with a COVID-19 booster compared to fully vaccinated and non-boosted participants except among exclusive at-home rapid testers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a substantial proportion of cases were missed by case-based surveillance systems during the Omicron BA.1 surge, when at-home testing was common. Point prevalence surveys may be a rapid tool to be used to understand SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and would be especially important during case surges to measure the scope and spread of active infections in the population.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Exposure, Disease Susceptibility, and Clinical Outcomes during COVID-19 Pandemic in National Cohort of Adults, United States.

We examined racial/ethnic disparities for COVID-19 seroconversion and hospitalization within a prospective cohort (n = 6,740) in the United States enrolled in March 2020 and followed-up through October 2021. Potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure, susceptibility to COVID-19 complications, and access to healthcare varied by race/ethnicity. Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic participants had more exposure risk and difficulty with healthcare access than white participants. Participants with more exposure had greater odds of seroconversion. Participants with more susceptibility and more barriers to healthcare had greater odds of hospitalization. Race/ethnicity positively modified the association between susceptibility and hospitalization. Findings might help to explain the disproportionate burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections and complications among Hispanic/Latino/a and Black non-Hispanic persons. Primary and secondary prevention efforts should address disparities in exposure, vaccination, and treatment for COVID-19.

Household factors and the risk of severe COVID-like illness early in the U.S. pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of children in the home and household crowding as risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease. METHODS: We used interview data from 6,831 U.S. adults screened for the Communities, Households and SARS/CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort Study in April 2020. RESULTS: In logistic regression models, the adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of hospitalization due to COVID-19 for having (versus not having) children in the home was 10.5 (95% CI:5.7-19.1) among study participants living in multi-unit dwellings and 2.2 (95% CI:1.2-6.5) among those living in single unit dwellings. Among participants living in multi-unit dwellings, the aOR for COVID-19 hospitalization among participants with more than 4 persons in their household (versus 1 person) was 2.5 (95% CI:1.0-6.1), and 0.8 (95% CI:0.15-4.1) among those living in single unit dwellings. CONCLUSION: Early in the US SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, certain household exposures likely increased the risk of both SARS-CoV-2 acquisition and the risk of severe COVID-19 disease.

Patterns of SARS-CoV-2 Testing Preferences in a National Cohort in the United States: Latent Class Analysis of a Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate screening and diagnostic testing in the United States throughout the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic led to undetected cases transmitting disease in the community and an underestimation of cases. Though testing supply has increased, maintaining testing uptake remains a public health priority in the efforts to control community transmission considering the availability of vaccinations and threats from variants. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify patterns of preferences for SARS-CoV-2 screening and diagnostic testing prior to widespread vaccine availability and uptake. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among participants in the national, prospective CHASING COVID (Communities, Households, and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology) Cohort Study from July 30 to September 8, 2020. The DCE elicited preferences for SARS-CoV-2 test type, specimen type, testing venue, and result turnaround time. We used latent class multinomial logit to identify distinct patterns of preferences related to testing as measured by attribute-level part-worth utilities and conducted a simulation based on the utility estimates to predict testing uptake if additional testing scenarios were offered. RESULTS: Of the 5098 invited cohort participants, 4793 (94.0%) completed the DCE. Five distinct patterns of SARS-CoV-2 testing emerged. Noninvasive home testers (n=920, 19.2% of participants) were most influenced by specimen type and favored less invasive specimen collection methods, with saliva being most preferred; this group was the least likely to opt out of testing. Fast-track testers (n=1235, 25.8%) were most influenced by result turnaround time and favored immediate and same-day turnaround time. Among dual testers (n=889, 18.5%), test type was the most important attribute, and preference was given to both antibody and viral tests. Noninvasive dual testers (n=1578, 32.9%) were most strongly influenced by specimen type and test type, preferring saliva and cheek swab specimens and both antibody and viral tests. Among hesitant home testers (n=171, 3.6%), the venue was the most important attribute; notably, this group was the most likely to opt out of testing. In addition to variability in preferences for testing features, heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of certain demographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, education, and employment), history of SARS-CoV-2 testing, COVID-19 diagnosis, and concern about the pandemic. Simulation models predicted that testing uptake would increase from 81.6% (with a status quo scenario of polymerase chain reaction by nasal swab in a provider's office and a turnaround time of several days) to 98.1% by offering additional scenarios using less invasive specimens, both viral and antibody tests from a single specimen, faster turnaround time, and at-home testing. CONCLUSIONS: We identified substantial differences in preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing and found that offering additional testing options would likely increase testing uptake in line with public health goals. Additional studies may be warranted to understand if preferences for testing have changed since the availability and widespread uptake of vaccines.