Quantification of Occupational and Community Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Among Health Care Workers in a Large U.S. Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Identifying occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care workers (HCWs) can improve HCW and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To quantify demographic, occupational, and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCWs in a large health care system. DESIGN: A logistic regression model was fitted to data from a cross-sectional survey conducted in April to June 2020, linking risk factors for occupational and community exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. SETTING: A large academic health care system in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Employees and medical staff members elected to participate in SARS-CoV-2 serology testing offered to all HCWs as part of a quality initiative and completed a survey on exposure to COVID-19 and use of personal protective equipment. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic risk factors for COVID-19, residential ZIP code incidence of COVID-19, occupational exposure to HCWs or patients who tested positive on polymerase chain reaction test, and use of personal protective equipment as potential risk factors for infection. The outcome was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. RESULTS: Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was estimated to be 3.8% (95% CI, 3.4% to 4.3%) (positive, n = 582) among the 10 275 HCWs (35% of the Emory Healthcare workforce) who participated in the survey. Community contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.9 [CI, 1.4 to 2.6]; 77 positive persons [10.3%]) and community COVID-19 incidence (aOR, 1.5 [CI, 1.0 to 2.2]) increased the odds of infection. Black individuals were at high risk (aOR, 2.1 [CI, 1.7 to 2.6]; 238 positive persons [8.3%]). LIMITATIONS: Participation rates were modest and key workplace exposures, including job and infection prevention practices, changed rapidly in the early phases of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Demographic and community risk factors, including contact with a COVID-19-positive person and Black race, are more strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCWs than is exposure in the workplace. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Emory COVID-19 Response Collaborative.

A modeling study to inform screening and testing interventions for the control of SARS-CoV-2 on university campuses.

University administrators face decisions about how to safely return and maintain students, staff and faculty on campus throughout the 2020-21 school year. We developed a susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered (SEIR) deterministic compartmental transmission model of SARS-CoV-2 among university students, staff, and faculty. Our goals were to inform planning at our own university, Emory University, a medium-sized university with around 15,000 students and 15,000 faculty and staff, and to provide a flexible modeling framework to inform the planning efforts at similar academic institutions. Control strategies of isolation and quarantine are initiated by screening (regardless of symptoms) or testing (of symptomatic individuals). We explored a range of screening and testing frequencies and performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. We found that among students, monthly and weekly screening can reduce cumulative incidence by 59% and 87%, respectively, while testing with a 2-, 4- and 7-day delay between onset of infectiousness and testing results in an 84%, 74% and 55% reduction in cumulative incidence. Smaller reductions were observed among staff and faculty. Community-introduction of SARS-CoV-2 onto campus may be controlled with testing, isolation, contract tracing and quarantine. Screening would need to be performed at least weekly to have substantial reductions beyond disease surveillance. This model can also inform resource requirements of diagnostic capacity and isolation/quarantine facilities associated with different strategies.

Estimating the Unknown: Greater Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Burden After Accounting for Missing Race and Ethnicity Data.

BACKGROUND: Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous persons in the United States have an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death from COVID-19, due to persistent social inequities. However, the magnitude of the disparity is unclear because race/ethnicity information is often missing in surveillance data. METHODS: We quantified the burden of SARS-CoV-2 notification, hospitalization, and case fatality rates in an urban county by racial/ethnic group using combined race/ethnicity imputation and quantitative bias analysis for misclassification. RESULTS: The ratio of the absolute racial/ethnic disparity in notification rates after bias adjustment, compared with the complete case analysis, increased 1.3-fold for persons classified Black and 1.6-fold for those classified Hispanic, in reference to classified White persons. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight that complete case analyses may underestimate absolute disparities in notification rates. Complete reporting of race/ethnicity information is necessary for health equity. When data are missing, quantitative bias analysis methods may improve estimates of racial/ethnic disparities in the COVID-19 burden.

Measuring the missing: greater racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 burden after accounting for missing race/ethnicity data.

Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous persons in the United States have an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death from COVID-19, due to persistent social inequities. The magnitude of the disparity is unclear, however, because race/ethnicity information is often missing in surveillance data. In this study, we quantified the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and case fatality rates in an urban county by racial/ethnic group using combined race/ethnicity imputation and quantitative bias-adjustment for misclassification. After bias-adjustment, the magnitude of the absolute racial/ethnic disparity, measured as the difference in infection rates between classified Black and Hispanic persons compared to classified White persons, increased 1.3-fold and 1.6-fold respectively. These results highlight that complete case analyses may underestimate absolute disparities in infection rates. Collecting race/ethnicity information at time of testing is optimal. However, when data are missing, combined imputation and bias-adjustment improves estimates of the racial/ethnic disparities in the COVID-19 burden.