Vitamin D Levels and SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Medically Underserved Populations in the Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study.

BACKGROUND: Extant literature presents contradictory findings on the role of vitamin D on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study included an examination of the relationship between vitamin D levels and SARS-CoV-2 infection among the Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study (MRCIS) cohort, a diverse population of medically underserved persons presenting at five Federally qualified health centers in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis to explore the relationship between vitamin D levels and SARS-CoV-2 infection among medically underserved participants. A combined molecular and serologic assessment was used to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vitamin D was examined as both a categorical (vitamin D status: deficient, insufficient, optimal) and continuous (vitamin D level) variable. Chi-squared testing, polynomial regression models, and logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: The overall SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among participants was 25.9%. Most participants were either vitamin D deficient (46.5%) or insufficient (29.7%), and 23.8% had an optimal level. Vitamin D status was significantly associated with key SARS-CoV-2 infection risk factors. As mean vitamin D levels increased, the proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased. For every 10 ng/mL increase in vitamin D levels the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased by 12% when adjusting for race/ethnicity and age (main effect model). Participants who identified as Hispanic/Latino or Black non-Hispanic had approximately two times increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection when adjusting for age and vitamin D levels compared to white non-Hispanics. However, when additional factors were added to the main effect model, the relationship between vitamin D levels and SARS-CoV-2 infection did not remain significant. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D levels were associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hispanic/Latino and Black, non-Hispanic compared to White, non-Hispanic participants were at increased odds for infection, after adjusting for race/ethnicity and age.

Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein-Based Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Assay Performance in the Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study: Characteristics of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations with Health Disparities.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on Black, Hispanic, and other underserved, disadvantaged populations. Here anti-SARS-CoV-2 tests are characterized in disadvantaged patients to examine equivalence in US populations. METHODS: Underserved participant adults (age > 18 years) were enrolled before the availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Federal Qualified Health Centers in California, Florida, Louisiana, Illinois, and Ohio and contributed samples to the Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study (MRCIS). A subset coined the MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort of 2365 participants was tested with the Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cobas e601). Five hundred ninety-five of these were also tested with the Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (VITROS-5600); 1770 were also tested with the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (ARCHITECT-2000). Assay-specific cutoffs classified negative/positive results. RESULTS: Eight point four percent (199/2365) of the MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort was SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive at enrollment. Agreement between the Ortho/Roche and the Abbott/Roche antibody testing did not vary by enrollment RNA status. The Ortho (anti-spike protein) vs Roche (anti-nucleocapsid protein) comparison agreed substantially: kappa = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.57-0.69); overall agreement, 83%. However, agreement was even better for the Abbott vs Roche assays (both anti-nucleocapsid protein tests): kappa = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87); overall agreement, 95%. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 comparisons stratified by demographic criteria demonstrated no significant variability in agreement by sex, race/ethnicity, or age. CONCLUSIONS: Analytical agreement is 96.4% for anti-spike-protein vs anti-nucleocapsid-protein comparisons. Physiologically, seroreversion of anti-nucleocapsid reactivity after infection occurred in the disadvantaged population similarly to general populations. No anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays included demonstrated a clinically significant difference due to the demographics of the disadvantaged MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort.