Perceived Risk for Severe COVID-19 and Oral Antiviral Use Among Antiviral-Eligible US Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Oral antiviral medications are important tools for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, their uptake remains low for reasons that are not entirely understood. Our study aimed to assess the association between perceived risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and oral antiviral use among those who were eligible for treatment based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. METHODS: We surveyed 4034 non-institutionalized US adults in April 2023, and report findings from 934 antiviral-eligible participants with at least one confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection since December 1, 2021 and no current long COVID symptoms. Survey weights were used to yield nationally representative estimates. The primary exposure of interest was whether participants perceived themselves to be "at high risk for severe COVID-19." The primary outcome was use of a COVID-19 oral antiviral within 5 days of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Only 18.5% of antiviral-eligible adults considered themselves to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 and 16.8% and 15.9% took oral antivirals at any time or within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively. In contrast, 79.8% were aware of antiviral treatments for COVID-19. Perceived high-risk status was associated with being more likely to be aware (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.20]), to be prescribed (aPR 1.47 [95% CI 1.08-2.01]), and to take oral antivirals at any time (aPR 1.61 [95% CI 1.16-2.24]) or within 5 days of infection (aPR 1.72 [95% CI 1.23-2.40]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread awareness of the availability of COVID-19 oral antivirals, more than 80% of eligible US adults did not receive them. Our findings suggest that differences between perceived and actual risk for severe COVID-19 (based on current CDC guidelines) may partially explain this low uptake.

The association between emotional and physical intimate partner violence and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in a community-based U.S. Cohort.

Objective: To estimate risk of being unvaccinated against COVID-19 by experience of intimate partner violence (IPV). Methods: Among 3,343 partnered individuals in a community-based U.S. cohort, we quantified emotional and physical IPV experienced between March and December 2020 and estimated risk of being unvaccinated against COVID-19 through June 2021 by experience of IPV. Experience of recent IPV was defined as endorsement of more frequent or severe IPV since the start of the pandemic or report of any past-month IPV in at least one of four follow-up surveys conducted by the end of December 2020. We created a three-level composite variable - no experience of IPV, experience of emotional but not physical IPV, and experience of physical IPV. Results: Cisgender women, non-binary, or transgender individuals who reported experiencing emotional, but not physical, IPV and those who reported experiencing physical IPV were both at significantly higher risk of being unvaccinated for COVID-19 compared to those who reported experiencing no IPV (ARRemotional violence: 1.28 [95 % CI: 1.09 - 1.51]; ARRphysical violence: 1.70 [95 % CI: 1.41 - 2.05]). Cisgender men who reported experiencing physical IPV were also at significantly higher risk of being unvaccinated for COVID-19 (ARRphysical violence: 1.52 [95 % CI: 1.15 - 2.02]). Conclusions: IPV may increase the risk of low vaccine uptake. Results highlight the need to incorporate IPV prevention and support into public health responses, with targeted resources and consideration for reducing barriers to public health interventions among those impacted.

Oral COVID-19 Antiviral Uptake Among a Highly Vaccinated US Cohort of Adults With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Between December 2021 and October 2022.

Background: We described the oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and molnupiravir (MOV) uptake among a subgroup of highly vaccinated adults in a US national prospective cohort who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 12/2021 and 10/2022. Methods: We estimate antiviral uptake within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as age- and gender-adjusted antiviral uptake prevalence ratios by antiviral eligibility (based on age and comorbidities), sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical characteristics including vaccination status and history of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID). Results: NMV/r uptake was 13.6% (95% CI, 11.9%-15.2%) among 1594 participants, and MOV uptake was 1.4% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.1%) among 1398 participants. NMV/r uptake increased over time (1.9%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.9%; between 12/2021 and 3/2022; 16.5%; 95% CI, 13.0%-20.0%; between 4/2022 and 7/2022; and 25.3%; 95% CI, 21.6%-29.0%; between 8/2022 and 10/2022). Participants age ≥65 and those who had comorbidities for severe COVID-19 had higher NMV/r uptake. There was lower NMV/r uptake among non-Hispanic Black participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 2.4%-12.0%; relative to other racial/ethnic groups) and among individuals in the lowest income groups (10.6%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.8%; relative to higher income groups). Among a subset of 278 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12/2021 who also had a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with (vs without) a history of long COVID reported greater NMV/r uptake (22.0% vs 7.9%; P = .001). Among those prescribed NMV/r (n = 216), 137 (63%; 95% CI, 57%-70%) reported that NMV/r was helpful for reducing COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusions: Despite proven effectiveness against severe outcomes, COVID-19 antiviral uptake remains low among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United States. Further outreach to providers and patients to improve awareness of COVID-19 oral antivirals and indications is needed.

Seroincidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to and during the rollout of vaccines in a community-based prospective cohort of U.S. adults.

This study used repeat serologic testing to estimate infection rates and risk factors in two overlapping cohorts of SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative U.S. adults. One mostly unvaccinated sub-cohort was tracked from April 2020 to March 2021 (pre-vaccine/wild-type era, n = 3421), and the other, mostly vaccinated cohort, from March 2021 to June 2022 (vaccine/variant era, n = 2735). Vaccine uptake was 0.53% and 91.3% in the pre-vaccine and vaccine/variant cohorts, respectively. Corresponding seroconversion rates were 9.6 and 25.7 per 100 person-years. In both cohorts, sociodemographic and epidemiologic risk factors for infection were similar, though new risk factors emerged in the vaccine/variant era, such as having a child in the household. Despite higher incidence rates in the vaccine/variant cohort, vaccine boosters, masking, and social distancing were associated with substantially reduced infection risk, even through major variant surges.

Heterogeneity of provider preferences for HIV Care Coordination Program features: latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment.

The PROMISE study assessed revisions designed to facilitate implementation of an HIV care coordination program (CCP) addressing gaps in care and treatment engagement among people living with HIV in New York City (NYC). Through latent class analysis (LCA) of a discrete choice experiment (DCE), we explored heterogeneity of provider preferences regarding CCP features. From January-March 2020, 152 NYC CCP providers completed a DCE with 3-4 levels on each of 4 program attributes: 1) Help with Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy (ART), 2) Help with Primary Care Appointments, 3) Help with Issues Other than Primary Care, and 4) Where Program Visits Happen. We used LCA to assess patterns of preference, and choice simulation to estimate providers' endorsement of hypothetical CCPs. LCA identified three subgroups. The two larger subgroups (n = 133) endorsed more intensive individual program features, including directly observed therapy, home visits, and appointment reminders with accompaniment of clients to their appointments. The smallest subgroup (n = 19) endorsed medication reminders only, appointment reminders without accompaniment, and meeting at the program location rather than clients' homes. Choice simulation analysis affirmed the highest degree of endorsement (62%) for hypothetical programs combining the intensive features described above. Results indicated providers' preference for intensive program features and also reinforced the need for flexible service delivery options. Provider perspectives on service delivery approaches can inform program adjustments for successful long-term implementation, which in turn can improve patient outcomes.

Seroincidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to and during the rollout of vaccines in a community-based prospective cohort of U.S. adults.

Background: Infectious disease surveillance systems, which largely rely on diagnosed cases, underestimate the true incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, due to under-ascertainment and underreporting. We used repeat serologic testing to measure N-protein seroconversion in a well-characterized cohort of U.S. adults with no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection to estimate the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and characterize risk factors, with comparisons before and after the start of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and variant eras. Methods: We assessed the incidence rate of infection and risk factors in two sub-groups (cohorts) that were SARS-CoV-2 N-protein seronegative at the start of each follow-up period: 1) the pre-vaccine/wild-type era cohort (n=3,421), followed from April to November 2020; and 2) the vaccine/variant era cohort (n=2,735), followed from November 2020 to June 2022. Both cohorts underwent repeat serologic testing with an assay for antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 N protein (Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 total Ab). We estimated crude incidence and sociodemographic/epidemiologic risk factors in both cohorts. We used multivariate Poisson models to compare the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pre-vaccine/wild-type era cohort (referent group) to that in the vaccine/variant era cohort, within strata of vaccination status and epidemiologic risk factors (essential worker status, child in the household, case in the household, social distancing). Findings: In the pre-vaccine/wild-type era cohort, only 18 of the 3,421 participants (0.53%) had ≥1 vaccine dose by the end of follow-up, compared with 2,497/2,735 (91.3%) in the vaccine/variant era cohort. We observed 323 and 815 seroconversions in the pre-vaccine/wild-type era and the vaccine/variant era and cohorts, respectively, with corresponding incidence rates of 9.6 (95% CI: 8.3-11.5) and 25.7 (95% CI: 24.2-27.3) per 100 person-years. Associations of sociodemographic and epidemiologic risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 incidence were largely similar in the pre-vaccine/wild-type and vaccine/variant era cohorts. However, some new epidemiologic risk factors emerged in the vaccine/variant era cohort, including having a child in the household, and never wearing a mask while using public transit. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR), with the entire pre-vaccine/wild-type era cohort as the referent group, showed markedly higher incidence in the vaccine/variant era cohort, but with more vaccine doses associated with lower incidence: aIRRun/undervaccinated=5.3 (95% CI: 4.2-6.7); aIRRprimary series only=5.1 (95% CI: 4.2-7.3); aIRRboosted once=2.5 (95% CI: 2.1-3.0), and aIRRboosted twice=1.65 (95% CI: 1.3-2.1). These associations were essentially unchanged in risk factor-stratified models. Interpretation: In SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative individuals, large increases in incidence and newly emerging epidemiologic risk factors in the vaccine/variant era likely resulted from multiple co-occurring factors, including policy changes, behavior changes, surges in transmission, and changes in SARS-CoV-2 variant properties. While SARS-CoV-2 incidence increased markedly in most groups in the vaccine/variant era, being up to date on vaccines and the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as masking and social distancing, remained reliable strategies to mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, even through major surges due to immune evasive variants. Repeat serologic testing in cohort studies is a useful and complementary strategy to characterize SARS-CoV-2 incidence and risk factors.

Integrating a Resilience Framework to Assess Implementation of a Novel HIV Care Re-Engagement Model in NYC.

BACKGROUND: The Bottom Up Project, a collaboration of clinical, community, and academic partners, consists of 7 major steps that leverage a health information exchange, a system for sharing patient health information, with real-time alerts to mobilize peer outreach workers to find and re-engage persons with HIV disconnected from care. Bottom Up faced implementation challenges in its start-up phase and produced effective responses leading to Project maturation, which we explore using a novel implementation science framework incorporating resilience. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with implementation staff (N = 6) and meeting minutes and protocols document reviews (N = 35). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a novel resilience framework guided thematic and process analyses. The resilience framework consisted of the following 3 resilience types: absorptive to cope with adversity, adaptive to adjust as short-term solutions, and transformative to structurally change. RESULTS: The Project experienced 20 major challenges, 2-5 challenges per step. Challenges were multilevel and of chronic and crisis intensities. Implementers overcame challenges by leveraging multilevel factors that were absorptive, adaptive (most common), and transformative. DISCUSSION: Bottom Up matured by practicing consistency and flexibility. The Project maintained core operations while under crisis-level stress by strategically simplifying or "downshifting" activities. Transformational responses suggest that specific initiatives can catalyze organizational change. CONCLUSIONS: Bottom Up implementation demonstrates using diverse tactics to respond to challenges, thereby shaping Project development and in turn organizations. Applying resilience to Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research helps build awareness of active and dynamic processes promoting or impeding the growth and success of intervention-oriented Projects.

Client preferences for HIV Care Coordination Program features in New York City: latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment.

INTRODUCTION: The PROMISE study, launched in 2018, evaluates the implementation of revisions to the HIV Care Coordination Program (CCP) designed to minimize persistent disparities in HIV outcomes among high-need persons living with HIV in New York City. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) assessing the preferences of CCP clients to inform improvements to the program's design. METHODS: Clients chose between two hypothetical CCP options that varied across four program attributes: help with antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence (directly observed therapy [DOT] vs. remind via phone/text vs. adherence assessment), help with primary care appointments (remind and accompany vs. remind and transport vs. remind only), help with issues other than primary care (coverage and benefits vs. housing and food vs. mental health vs. specialty medical care) and visit location (meet at home vs. via phone/video vs. program visit 30 or 60 minutes away). The latent class analysis identified different preference patterns. A choice simulation was performed to model client preferences for hypothetical CCPs as a whole. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-one CCP clients from six sites implementing the revised CCP completed the DCE January 2020-March 2021. Most clients had stable housing (68.5%), reported no problem substance use in the last 3 months (72.4%) and achieved viral suppression (78.5) with only 26.5% receiving DOT within a CCP. 77.3% of responses were obtained before the COVID-19 pandemic. Preferences clustered into three groups. Visit location and ART adherence support were the most important attributes. Group 1 (40%) endorsed telehealth for visit location; telehealth for ART adherence support; and help with securing housing/food; Group 2 (37%) endorsed telehealth for visit location; telehealth for ART adherence support; and staff reminding/arranging appointment transportation; Group 3 (23%) endorsed staff meeting clients at program location and staff working with clients for medication adherence. In the choice simulation, Basic and Medium hypothetical CCPs were endorsed more than Intensive CCPs. CONCLUSIONS: This DCE revealed a strong preference for telehealth and a relatively low preference for intensive services, such as DOT and home visits; preferences were heterogeneous. The findings support differentiated care and remote service delivery options in the NYC CCP, and can inform improvements to CCP design.

Study protocol for data to suppression (D2S): a cluster-randomised, stepped-wedge effectiveness trial of a reporting and capacity-building intervention to improve HIV viral suppression in housing and behavioural health programmes in New York City.

INTRODUCTION: With progress in the 'diagnose', 'link' and 'retain' stages of the HIV care continuum, viral suppression (VS) gains increasingly hinge on antiretroviral adherence among people with HIV (PWH) retained in care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that unsuppressed viral load among PWH in care accounts for 20% of onward transmission. HIV intervention strategies include 'data to care' (D2C)-using surveillance to identify out-of-care PWH for follow-up. However, most D2C efforts target care linkage, not antiretroviral adherence, and limit client-level data sharing to medical (versus support-service) providers. Drawing on lessons learnt in D2C and successful local pilots, we designed a 'data-to-suppression' intervention that offers HIV support-service programmes surveillance-based reports listing their virally unsuppressed clients and capacity-building assistance for quality-improvement activities. We aimed to scale and test the intervention in agencies delivering Ryan White HIV/AIDS Programme-funded behavioural health and housing services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To estimate intervention effects, this study applies a cross-sectional, stepped-wedge design to the intervention's rollout to 27 agencies randomised within matched pairs to early or delayed implementation. Data from three 12-month periods (pre-implementation, partial implementation and full implementation) will be examined to assess intervention effects on timely VS (within 6 months of a report listing the client as needing follow-up for VS). Based on projected enrolment (n=1619) and a pre-implementation outcome probability of 0.40-0.45, the detectable effect size with 80% power is an OR of 2.12 (relative risk: 1.41-1.46). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's institutional review board (protocol: 21-036) with a waiver of informed consent. Findings will be disseminated via publications, conferences and meetings including provider-agency representatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05140421.

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and other public health outcomes during the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 surge, New York City, April-May 2022.

BACKGROUND: Routine case surveillance data for SARS-CoV-2 are incomplete, unrepresentative, missing key variables of interest, and may be increasingly unreliable for timely surge detection and understanding the true burden of infection. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 1030 New York City (NYC) adult residents ≥18 years on May 7-8, 2022. We estimated the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the preceding 14-day period. Respondents were asked about SARS-CoV-2 testing, testing outcomes, COVID-like symptoms, and contact with SARS-CoV-2 cases. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates were age- and sex-adjusted to the 2020 U.S. POPULATION: We triangulated survey-based prevalence estimates with contemporaneous official SARS-CoV-2 counts of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations. RESULTS: We show that 22.1% (95% CI 17.9-26.2%) of respondents had SARS-CoV-2 infection during the two-week study period, corresponding to ~1.5 million adults (95% CI 1.3-1.8 million). The official SARS-CoV-2 case count during the study period is 51,218. Prevalence is estimated at 36.6% (95% CI 28.3-45.8%) among individuals with co-morbidities, 13.7% (95% CI 10.4-17.9%) among those 65+ years, and 15.3% (95% CI 9.6-23.5%) among unvaccinated persons. Among individuals with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, hybrid immunity (history of both vaccination and infection) is 66.2% (95% CI 55.7-76.7%), 44.1% (95% CI 33.0-55.1%) were aware of the antiviral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 15.1% (95% CI 7.1-23.1%) reported receiving it. Hospitalizations, deaths and SARS-CoV-2 virus concentrations in wastewater remained well below that during the BA.1 surge. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the true magnitude of NYC's BA.2/BA.2.12.1 surge may have been vastly underestimated by routine case counts and wastewater surveillance. Hybrid immunity, bolstered by the recent BA.1 surge, likely limited the severity of the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 surge.

It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, due to changes in testing practices and behaviors, including increasing at-home testing and decreasing healthcare provider-based testing. We conducted a population-representative survey in New York City to estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 during the second Omicron surge in spring 2022. We compared survey-based SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates with data on diagnosed cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and SARS-CoV-2 concentration in wastewater. Our survey-based estimates were nearly 30 times higher than official case counts and estimates of immunity among those with active infection were high. Taken together, our results suggest that the magnitude of the second Omicron surge was likely significantly underestimated, and high levels of immunity likely prevented a major surge in hospitalizations/deaths. Our findings might inform future work on COVID-19 surveillance and how to mitigate its spread.

Food Insecurity During the First Year of COVID-19: Employment and Sociodemographic Factors Among Participants in the CHASING COVID Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: While much has been reported about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food insecurity, longitudinal data and the variability experienced by people working in various industries are limited. This study aims to further characterize people experiencing food insecurity during the pandemic in terms of employment, sociodemographic characteristics, and degree of food insecurity. METHODS: The study sample consisted of people enrolled in the Communities, Households and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING) COVID Cohort Study from visit 1 (April-July 2020) through visit 7 (May-June 2021). We created weights to account for participants with incomplete or missing data. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression models to determine employment and sociodemographic correlates of food insecurity. We also examined patterns of food insecurity and use of food support programs. RESULTS: Of 6740 participants, 39.6% (n = 2670) were food insecure. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic (vs non-Hispanic White) participants, participants in households with children (vs no children), and participants with lower (vs higher) income and education levels had higher odds of food insecurity. By industry, people employed in construction, leisure and hospitality, and trade, transportation, and utilities industries had the highest prevalence of both food insecurity and income loss. Among participants reporting food insecurity, 42.0% (1122 of 2670) were persistently food insecure (≥4 consecutive visits) and 43.9% (1172 of 2670) did not use any food support programs. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic resulted in widespread food insecurity in our cohort, much of which was persistent. In addition to addressing sociodemographic disparities, future policies should focus on the needs of those working in industries vulnerable to economic disruption and ensure those experiencing food insecurity can access food support programs for which they are eligible.

Evaluation of the Revised Versus Original Ryan White Part A HIV Care Coordination Program in a Cluster-Randomized, Stepped-Wedge Trial.

BACKGROUND: To address challenges with delivery of an evidence-based HIV care coordination program (CCP), the New York City Health Department initiated a CCP redesign. We conducted a site-randomized stepped-wedge trial to evaluate effectiveness of the revised versus the original model. SETTING: The CCP is delivered in New York City hospitals, community health centers, and community-based organizations to people experiencing or at risk for poor HIV outcomes. METHODS: The outcome, timely viral suppression (TVS), was defined as achievement of viral load <200 copies/mL within 4 months among enrollees with unsuppressed viral load (≥200 copies/mL). Seventeen original-CCP provider agencies were randomized within matched pairs to early (August 2018) or delayed (May 2019) starts of revised-model implementation. Data from 3 periods were examined to compare revised versus original CCP effects on TVS. The primary analysis of the intervention effect applied fully conditional maximum likelihood estimation together with an exact, conditional P -value and an exact test-based 95% CI. We assigned each trial enrollee the implementation level of their site (based on a three-component measure) and tested for association with TVS, adjusting for period and study arm. RESULTS: Over 3 nine-month periods, 960 individuals were eligible for trial inclusion (intention to treat). The odds ratio of TVS versus no TVS comparing revised with original CCP was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.7). Thus, the revised program yielded slightly lower TVS, although the effect was statistically nonsignificant. TVS was not significantly associated with revised-CCP implementation level. CONCLUSION: Program revisions did not increase TVS, irrespective of the implementation level.

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.

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.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Incidence and Risk Factors in a National, Community-Based Prospective Cohort of US Adults.

BACKGROUND: Prospective cohort studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) incidence complement case-based surveillance and cross-sectional seroprevalence surveys. METHODS: We estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a national cohort of 6738 US adults, enrolled in March-August 2020. Using Poisson models, we examined the association of social distancing and a composite epidemiologic risk score with seroconversion. The risk score was created using least absolute shrinkage selection operator (LASSO) regression to identify factors predictive of seroconversion. The selected factors were household crowding, confirmed case in household, indoor dining, gathering with groups of ≥10, and no masking in gyms or salons. RESULTS: Among 4510 individuals with ≥1 serologic test, 323 (7.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.5%-8.1%]) seroconverted by January 2021. Among 3422 participants seronegative in May-September 2020 and retested from November 2020 to January 2021, 161 seroconverted over 1646 person-years of follow-up (9.8 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 8.3-11.5]). The seroincidence rate was lower among women compared with men (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.69 [95% CI, .50-.94]) and higher among Hispanic (2.09 [1.41-3.05]) than white non-Hispanic participants. In adjusted models, participants who reported social distancing with people they did not know (IRR for always vs never social distancing, 0.42 [95% CI, .20-1.0]) and with people they knew (IRR for always vs never, 0.64 [.39-1.06]; IRR for sometimes vs never, 0.60 [.38-.96]) had lower seroconversion risk. Seroconversion risk increased with epidemiologic risk score (IRR for medium vs low score, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.03-2.81]; IRR for high vs low score, 3.49 [2.26-5.58]). Only 29% of those who seroconverted reported isolating, and only 19% were asked about contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable risk factors and poor reach of public health strategies drove SARS-CoV-2 transmission across the United States.

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.

Estimating the Period Prevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection During the Omicron (BA.1) Surge in New York City (NYC), 1 January to 16 March 2022.

In a population-based survey of adults in New York City, we assessed positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests (including via exclusive at-home testing) and possible cases among untested respondents. An estimated 27.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.8%-32.0%) or 1.8 million adults (95% CI: 1.6-2.1 million) had SARS-CoV-2 infection between 1 January and 16 March 2022.

The Importance of Incorporating At-Home Testing Into SARS-CoV-2 Point Prevalence Estimates: Findings From a US 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 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 is 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 from February 8, 2022, to February 22, 2022. Three-point prevalence estimates were calculated among the cohort, as follows: (1) proportion positives based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and rapid antigen tests; (2) proportion positives 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 (14.9%) cases. The point prevalence estimate based on PCR 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 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 nonboosted participants except among exclusive at-home rapid testers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a substantial number of cases were missed by case-based surveillance systems during the Omicron B.1.1.529 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.