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 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.

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.

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.

Determinants and Trends of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccine Uptake in a National Cohort of US Adults: A Longitudinal Study.

We estimated the trends and correlates of vaccine hesitancy and its association with subsequent vaccine uptake among 5,458 adults in the United States. Participants belonged to the Communities, Households, and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology COVID (CHASING COVID) Cohort, a national longitudinal study. Trends and correlates of vaccine hesitancy were examined longitudinally in 8 interview rounds from October 2020 to July 2021. We also estimated the association between willingness to vaccinate and subsequent vaccine uptake through July 2021. Vaccine delay and refusal decreased from 51% and 8% in October 2020 to 8% and 6% in July 2021, respectively. Compared with non-Hispanic (NH) White participants, NH Black and Hispanic participants had higher adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for both vaccine delay (for NH Black, aOR = 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 2.7), and for Hispanic, 1.3 (95% CI: 1.0, 1.7)) and vaccine refusal (for NH Black, aOR = 2.5 (95% CI: 1.8, 3.6), and for Hispanic, 1.4 (95% CI: 1.0, 2.0)) in June 2021. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, compared with vaccine-willingness, was associated with lower odds of subsequent vaccine uptake (for vaccine delayers, aOR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.18; for vaccine refusers, aOR = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.03 ), adjusted for sociodemographic factors and COVID-19 history. Vaccination awareness and distribution efforts should focus on vaccine delayers.

HIV Care Coordination promotes care re-engagement and viral suppression among people who have been out of HIV medical care: an observational effectiveness study using a surveillance-based contemporaneous comparison group.

BACKGROUND: Medical care re-engagement is critical to suppressing viral load and preventing HIV transmission, morbidity and mortality, yet few rigorous intervention studies address this outcome. We assessed the effectiveness of a Ryan White Part A-funded HIV Care Coordination Program relative to 'usual care,' for short-term care re-engagement and viral suppression among people without recent HIV medical care. METHODS: The Care Coordination Program was launched in 2009 at 28 hospitals, health centers, and community-based organizations in New York City. Designed for people with HIV (PWH) experiencing or at risk for poor HIV outcomes, the Care Coordination Program provides long-term, comprehensive medical case management utilizing interdisciplinary teams, structured health education and patient navigation. The intervention was implemented as a safety-net services program, without a designated comparison group. To evaluate it retrospectively, we created an observational, matched cohort of clients and controls. Using the HIV surveillance registry, we identified individuals meeting program eligibility criteria from December 1, 2009 to March 31, 2013 and excluded those dying prior to 12 months of follow-up. We then matched clients to controls on baseline status (lacking evidence of viral suppression, consistently suppressed, inconsistently suppressed, or newly diagnosed in the past 12 months), start of follow-up and propensity score. For this analysis, we limited to those out of care at baseline (defined as having no viral load test in the 12 months pre-enrollment) and still residing within jurisdiction (defined as having a viral load or CD4 test reported to local surveillance and dated within the 12-month follow-up period). Using a GEE model with binary error distribution and logit link, we compared odds of care re-engagement (defined as having ≥ 2 laboratory events ≥ 90 days apart) and viral suppression (defined as having HIV RNA ≤ 200 copies/mL on the most recent viral load test) at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among 326 individuals out of care at baseline, 87.2% of clients and 48.2% of controls achieved care re-engagement (Odds Ratio: 4.53; 95%CI 2.66, 7.71); 58.3% of clients and 49.3% of controls achieved viral suppression (Odds Ratio: 2.05; 95%CI 1.30, 3.23). CONCLUSIONS: HIV Care Coordination shows evidence of effectiveness for care and treatment re-engagement.

Come as You Are: Improving Care Engagement and Viral Load Suppression Among HIV Care Coordination Clients with Lower Mental Health Functioning, Unstable Housing, and Hard Drug Use.

Lower mental health functioning, unstable housing, and drug use can complicate HIV clinical management. Merging programmatic and surveillance data, we examined characteristics and outcomes for HIV Care Coordination clients enrolled between December 2009 and March 2013. For clients diagnosed over 12 months before enrollment, we calculated post- versus pre-enrollment relative risks for short-term (12-month) care engagement and viral suppression. Both outcomes significantly improved in all subgroups, including those with lower mental health functioning, unstable housing, or hard drug use. Analyses further stratified within barrier-affected groups showed a tendency toward greater improvement when that barrier was reduced during the follow-up year.

Gender Differences and Psychosocial Factors Associated with Quality of Life Among ART Initiators in Oromia, Ethiopia.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome to assess among persons living with HIV/AIDS, but few studies have been conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. We examined HRQoL among 1180 ART-initiating adults from six clinics in Ethiopia in 2012-2013, and compared the correlates of two subscale scores between women and men. Women scored significantly higher than men on both overall function (8.4 points higher) and life satisfaction (6.3 points higher). In multivariable models, psychological distress, low CD4+ count, unemployment, and food insecurity were associated with lower quality of life scores among women and men. Men whose last sexual encounter occurred 3 months to 1 year from the interview date had lower overall function and life satisfaction scores. Men between the ages of 30-39 had lower overall function scores. Protestant women and women in the low-middle social support category had lower life satisfaction scores. Assessment of HRQoL over time will help inform HIV care and treatment practices to ensure favorable patient outcomes.

Patient Education and Decision Support for Long-Acting Injectable HIV Antiretroviral Therapy: Protocol for Tool Development and Pilot Testing with Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Medical Case Management Programs in New York.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable (LAI) HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) presents a major opportunity to facilitate and sustain HIV viral suppression, thus improving health and survival among people living with HIV and reducing the risk of onward transmission. However, realizing the public health potential of LAI ART requires reaching patients who face barriers to daily oral ART adherence and thus can clinically benefit from alternative treatment modalities. Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Part A medical case management (MCM) programs provide an array of services to address barriers to HIV care and treatment among economically and socially marginalized people living with HIV. These programs have demonstrated effectiveness in improving engagement along the continuum of care, but findings of limited program impact on durable viral suppression highlight the need to further innovate and hone strategies to support long-term ART adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to adapt and expand Ryan White MCM service strategies to integrate LAI ART regimen options, with the larger goal of improving health outcomes in the populations that could most benefit from alternatives to daily oral ART regimens. METHODS: In 3 phases of work involving patient and provider participants, this study uses role-specific focus groups to elicit perceptions of LAI versus daily oral ART; discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys to quantify preferences for different ART delivery options and related supports; and a nonrandomized trial to assess the implementation and utility of newly developed tools at 6 partnering Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Part A MCM programs based in urban, suburban, and semirural areas of New York. Findings from the focus groups and DCEs, as well as feedback from advisory board meetings, informed the design and selection of the tools: a patient-facing, 2-page fact sheet, including frequently asked questions and a side-by-side comparison of LAI with daily oral ART; a patient-facing informational video available on YouTube (Google Inc); and a patient-provider decision aid. Implementation outcomes, measured through provider interviews, surveys, and service reporting, will guide further specification of strategies to integrate LAI ART options into MCM program workflows. RESULTS: The study was funded in late April 2021 and received approval from the institutional review board in May 2021 under protocol 20-096. Focus groups were conducted in late 2021 (n=21), DCEs ran from June 2022 to January 2023 (n=378), and tools for piloting were developed by May 2023. The trial (May 2023 through January 2024) has enrolled >200 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study is designed to provide evidence regarding the acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and utility of a package of patient-oriented tools for comparing and deciding between LAI ART and daily oral ART options. Study strengths include formative work to guide tool development, a mixed methods approach, and the testing of tools in real-world safety-net service settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05833542; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05833542. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56892.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 to COVID-19, susceptibility to COVID-19 and access to health care - findings from a U.S. national cohort.

We examined the influence of racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic position on COVID-19 seroconversion and hospitalization within a community-based prospective cohort enrolled in March 2020 and followed through October 2021 (N=6740). The ability to social distance as a measure of exposure to COVID-19, susceptibility to COVID-19 complications, and access to healthcare varied by race/ethnicity with non-white participants having more exposure risk and more difficulty with healthcare access than white participants. Participants with more (versus less) exposure had greater odds of seroconversion (aOR:1.64, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.18-2.29). Participants with more susceptibility and more barriers to healthcare had greater odds of hospitalization (respective aOR:2.36; 1.90-2.96 and 2.31; 1.69-2.68). Race/ethnicity positively modified the association between susceptibility and hospitalization (aORnon-White:2.79, 2.06-3.78). Findings may explain the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 infections and complications among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black persons. Primary and secondary prevention efforts should address disparities in exposure, COVID-19 vaccination, and treatment.

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.