ABSTRACT
In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the All of Us Research Program longitudinal cohort study developed the COVID-19 Participant Experience (COPE) survey to better understand the pandemic experiences and health impacts of COVID-19 on diverse populations within the United States. Six survey versions were deployed between May 2020 and March 2021, covering mental health, loneliness, activity, substance use, and discrimination, as well as COVID-19 symptoms, testing, treatment, and vaccination. A total of 104,910 All of Us Research Program participants, of whom over 73% were from communities traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, completed 275,201 surveys; 9,693 completed all 6 surveys. Response rates varied widely among demographic groups and were lower among participants from certain racial and ethnic minority populations, participants with low income or educational attainment, and participants with a Spanish language preference. Survey modifications improved participant response rates between the first and last surveys (13.9% to 16.1%, P < 0.001). This paper describes a data set with longitudinal COVID-19 survey data in a large, diverse population that will enable researchers to address important questions related to the pandemic, a data set that is of additional scientific value when combined with the program's other data sources.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Humans , United States/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethnicity , SARS-CoV-2 , Longitudinal Studies , Minority GroupsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
The National Institutes of Health's (NIH) All of Us Research Program aims to enroll at least one million US participants from diverse backgrounds; collect electronic health record (EHR) data, survey data, physical measurements, biospecimens for genomics and other assays, and digital health data; and create a researcher database and tools to enable precision medicine research [1]. Since inception, digital health technologies (DHT) have been envisioned as essential to achieving the goals of the program [2]. A "bring your own device" (BYOD) study for collecting Fitbit data from participants' devices was developed with integration of additional DHTs planned in the future [3]. Here we describe how participants can consent to share their digital health technology data, how the data are collected, how the data set is parsed, and how researchers can access the data.
Subject(s)
Population Health , Humans , Computational Biology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Precision MedicineABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Prior studies of the relationship between physical activity and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) relied primarily on questionnaires at a single time point. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the relationship between physical activity and incident T2DM with an innovative approach using data from commercial wearable devices linked to electronic health records in a real-world population. METHODS: Using All of Us participants' accelerometer data from their personal Fitbit devices, we used a time-varying Cox proportional hazards models with repeated measures of physical activity for the outcome of incident T2DM. We evaluated for effect modification with age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and sedentary time using multiplicative interaction terms. RESULTS: From 5677 participants in the All of Us Research Program (median age 51 years; 74% female; 89% White), there were 97 (2%) cases of incident T2DM over a median follow-up period of 3.8 years between 2010 to 2021. In models adjusted for age, sex, and race, the hazard of incident diabetes was reduced by 44% (95% CI, 15%-63%; P = 0.01) when comparing those with an average daily step count of 10 700 to those with 6000. Similar benefits were seen comparing groups based on average duration of various intensities of activity (eg, lightly active, fairly active, very active). There was no evidence for effect modification by age, sex, BMI, or sedentary time. CONCLUSION: Greater time in any type of physical activity intensity was associated with lower risk of T2DM irrespective of age, sex, BMI, or sedentary time.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Population Health , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , United States/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Body Mass Index , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , IncidenceABSTRACT
Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test. IMPORTANCE What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness. In a subset analysis, quantified antinucleocapsid and antispike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies do not suggest the need to specify the antigen targets of the sequential assays in the CDC's recommendation because false positivity varied as much between assays targeting the same antigen as it did between assays targeting different antigens.