COVID‐19 test positivity by occupation using the Delphi US COVID‐19 trends and impact survey, September–November 2020

SARS-CoV-2 infection among Colorado adults working outside the home: Occupation, race and ethnicity and mask use

OBJECTIVES

The workplace is an important setting for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure and transmission. Using data from a large case-control study in Colorado during 2021 and 2022, we aimed to evaluate working outside the home and SARS-CoV-2 infection, the racial and ethnic distribution of workers in occupations associated with infection, and workplace face mask use.

METHODS

Cases were Colorado adults with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) reported to Colorado's COVID-19 surveillance system selected from surveillance data ≤12 days after their specimen collection date. Control participants were randomly selected adult Coloradans with a RT-PCR-confirmed negative SARS-CoV-2 test result reported to the same surveillance system.

RESULTS

Working outside the home was associated with infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39-1.54). Among participants working outside the home, "Food Preparation and Serving Related" (aOR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.80-3.06), "Transportation and Material Moving" (aOR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.62-2.69), "Construction and Extraction" (aOR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.36-2.59), "Protective Service" (aOR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.15-2.24), and "Sales and Related" (aOR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.22-1.69) were occupational categories most strongly associated with infection. American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Hispanic/Latino participants were more likely than others to work in occupational categories with the highest odds of infection (p < 0.05). Cases were less likely than controls to report always wearing a mask (31.9% vs. 41.5%) and wearing a KN95/N95/KF94 mask (16.8% vs. 27.2%) at work.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasize the importance of occupation and workplace mask use in the COVID-19 pandemic and its disproportionate racial/ethnic impact on workers.

COVID-19 deaths in dental occupations and other healthcare occupations among U.S. decedents in 2020

BACKGROUND

Early studies during the COVID-19 pandemic suggested dental occupations were among the highest risk for exposure to SARs-CoV-2 because of multiple factors increasing exposure, including close proximity to unmasked patients and performance of aerosol-generating procedures. However, to date, few studies have investigated COVID-19 deaths in United States dental occupations, and compared COVID-19 deaths among healthcare occupations.

METHODS

We analyzed 2020 mortality data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics' National Vital Statistics System. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death in relation to occupation in working-age decedents (≤65 years), after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and medical conditions associated with severe COVID-19.

RESULTS

Dental occupations did not have significantly higher risk for COVID-19 death when compared to all other occupations combined. Among healthcare occupations with frequent, direct patient- or client interactions, LPNs and LVNs, and speech and language pathologists had significantly elevated adjusted ORs for COVID-19 death when compared to dentists, dental hygienists, or dental assistants. Similarly, nurse practitioners had significantly higher ORs for COVID-19 mortality than dentists or dental hygienists, and approached significance when compared to dental assistants. Conversely, massage therapists and other health diagnosing and treating practitioners had significantly lower adjusted ORs for COVID-19 death compared with dental occupations.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights potential differences in work-related transmission of SARs-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 deaths in healthcare occupations, and furthers a previously limited understanding of COVID-19 deaths in healthcare occupations in 2020, before COVID-19 vaccine availability. Our results indicate that dental occupations were not among the highest, nor lowest risk, healthcare occupations for COVID-19 deaths in 2020, despite their known risks of direct exposure.

Occupation and COVID-19: Lessons From the Pandemic

Recognition that an individual's job could affect the likelihood of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 created challenges for investigators who sought to understand and prevent the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Considerable research resources were devoted to separating the effects of occupational from nonoccupational risk factors. This commentary highlights results from studies that adjusted for multiple nonoccupational risk factors while estimating the effects of occupations and occupational risk factors. Methods used in these studies will prove useful in future infectious disease epidemics and pandemics and may potentially enrich studies of other occupational infectious and noninfectious respiratory diseases.

Impact of a pandemic shock on unmet medical needs of middle-aged and older adults in 10 countries

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to explore the impact of the pandemic shock on the unmet medical needs of middle-aged and older adults worldwide.

METHODS

The COVID-19 pandemic starting in 2020 was used as a quasiexperiment. Exposure to the pandemic was defined based on an individual's context within the global pandemic. Data were obtained from the Integrated Values Surveys. A total of 11 932 middle-aged and older adults aged 45 years and above from 10 countries where the surveys conducted two times during 2011 and 2022 were analysed. We used logistic regression models with the difference-in-difference method to estimate the impact of pandemic exposure on unmet medical needs by comparing differences before and after the pandemic across areas with varying degrees of severity.

RESULTS

Among the 11 932 middle-aged and older adults, 3647 reported unmet medical needs, with a pooled unmet rate of 30.56% (95% CI: 29.74% to 31.40%). The pandemic significantly increased the risk of unmet medical needs among middle-aged and older adults (OR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.94 to 2.79). The deleterious effect of the pandemic on unmet medical needs was prevalent among middle-aged adults (2.53, 2.00 to 3.20) and older adults (2.00, 1.48 to 2.69), as well as among men (2.24, 1.74 to 2.90) and women (2.34, 1.82 to 3.03). The results remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that efforts should be made by policymakers and healthcare professionals to balance healthcare resources to adequately address the comprehensive healthcare demands of individuals regarding multiple health issues, taking into account the challenges posed by pandemics.

COVID-19 mortality among Massachusetts workers and the association with telework ability, 2020

BACKGROUND

Working outside the home put some workers at risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure and might partly explain elevated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality rates in the first months of the pandemic in certain groups of Massachusetts workers. To further investigate this premise, we examined COVID-19 mortality among Massachusetts workers, with a specific focus on telework ability based on occupation.

METHODS

COVID-19-associated deaths between January 1 and December 31, 2020 among Massachusetts residents aged 18-64 years were analyzed. Deaths were categorized into occupation-based quadrants (Q) of telework ability. Age-adjusted rates were calculated by key demographics, industry, occupation, and telework quadrant using American Community Survey workforce estimates as denominators. Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals comparing rates for quadrants with workers unlikely able to telework (Q2, Q3, Q4) to that among those likely able to telework (Q1) were calculated.

RESULTS

The overall age-adjusted COVID-19-associated mortality rate was 26.4 deaths per 100,000 workers. Workers who were male, Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, born outside the US, and with lower than a high school education level experienced the highest rates among their respective demographic groups. The rate varied by industry, occupation and telework quadrant. RRs comparing Q2, Q3, and Q4 to Q1 were 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-1.2), 3.2 (95% CI: 2.6-3.8) and 2.5 (95% CI: 2.0-3.0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest a positive association between working on-site and COVID-19-associated mortality. Work-related factors likely contributed to COVID-19 among Massachusetts workers and should be considered in future studies of COVID-19 and similar diseases.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence by industry, workplace characteristics, and workplace infection prevention and control measures, North Carolina, 2021 to 2022

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected workers in certain industries and occupations, and the workplace can be a high risk setting for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In this study, we measured SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence and identified work-related risk factors in a population primarily working at industrial livestock operations.

Methods

We used a multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay to determine infection-induced antibody prevalence among 236 adult (≥18 years) North Carolina residents between February 2021 and August 2022. We used the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Industry and Occupation Computerized Coding System (NIOCCS) to classify employed participants' industry and compared infection-induced IgG prevalence by participant industry and with the North Carolina general population. We also combined antibody results with reported SARS-CoV-2 molecular test positivity and vaccination history to identify evidence of prior infection. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of prior infection by potential work-related risk factors, adjusting for industry and date.

Results

Most participants (55%) were infection-induced IgG positive, including 71% of animal slaughtering and processing industry workers, which is 1.5 to 4.3 times higher compared to the North Carolina general population, as well as higher than molecularly-confirmed cases and the only other serology study we identified of animal slaughtering and processing workers. Considering questionnaire results in addition to antibodies, the proportion of participants with evidence of prior infection increased slightly, to 61%, including 75% of animal slaughtering and processing workers. Participants with more than 1000 compared to 10 or fewer coworkers at their jobsite had higher odds of prior infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 21.0).

Conclusions

This study contributes evidence of the severe and disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on animal processing and essential workers and workers in large congregate settings. We also demonstrate the utility of combining non-invasive biomarker and questionnaire data for the study of workplace exposures.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among US blood donors by industry, May-December 2021

BACKGROUND

Work is a social determinant of health that is often overlooked. There are major work-related differences in the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and death, but there have been few analyses of infection rates across industry groups. To date, only one national assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence by industry based on self-report has been completed. No study has looked at seroprevalence of COVID-19 by industry.

METHODS

During May-December 2021, blood donors with SARS-CoV-2 antinucleocapsid testing were sent an electronic survey about their work. Free-text industry responses were classified using the North American Industry Classification System. We estimated seroprevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of SARS-CoV-2 infection by industry.

RESULTS

Of 57,726 donors, 7040 (12%, 95% CI: 11.9%-12.5%) had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seroprevalence was highest among Accommodation & Food Services (19.3%, 95% CI: 17.1%-21.6%), Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (19.2%, 95% CI: 12.8%-27.8%), Healthcare & Social Assistance (15.6%, 95% CI: 14.9%-16.4%), and Construction (14.7%, 95% CI: 13.1%-16.3%). Seroprevalence was lowest among Management of Companies & Enterprises (6.5%, 95% CI: 3.5%-11.5%), Professional Scientific & Technical Services (8.4%, 95% CI: 7.7%-9.0%), and Information (9.9%, 95% CI: 8.5%-11.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

While workers in all industries had serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, certain sectors were disproportionately impacted. Disease surveillance systems should routinely collect work characteristics so public health and industry leaders can address health disparities using sector-specific policies.

The Impact of Repeating COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests on Prevalence Boundary Performance and Missed Diagnoses

A prevalence boundary (PB) marks the point in prevalence in which the false omission rate, RFO = FN/(TN + FN), exceeds the tolerance limit for missed diagnoses. The objectives were to mathematically analyze rapid antigen test (RAgT) performance, determine why PBs are breeched, and evaluate the merits of testing three times over five days, now required by the US Food and Drug Administration for asymptomatic persons. Equations were derived to compare test performance patterns, calculate PBs, and perform recursive computations. An independent July 2023 FDA-NIH-university-commercial evaluation of RAgTs provided performance data used in theoretical calculations. Tiered sensitivity/specificity comprise the following: tier (1) 90%, 95%; tier (2) 95%, 97.5%; and tier (3) 100%, ≥99%. Repeating a T2 test improves the PB from 44.6% to 95.2% (RFO 5%). In the FDA-NIH-university-commercial evaluation, RAgTs generated a sensitivity of 34.4%, which improved to 55.3% when repeated, and then improved to 68.5% with the third test. With RFO = 5%, PBs are 7.37/10.46/14.22%, respectively. PB analysis suggests that RAgTs should achieve a clinically proven sensitivity of 91.0-91.4%. When prevalence exceeds PBs, missed diagnoses can perpetuate virus transmission. Repeating low-sensitivity RAgTs delays diagnosis. In homes, high-risk settings, and hotspots, PB breaches may prolong contagion, defeat mitigation, facilitate new variants, and transform outbreaks into endemic disease. Molecular diagnostics can help avoid these potential vicious cycles.

Evaluating the association between in-person work and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection through June 2021

OBJECTIVES

Recent studies have evaluated COVID-19 outbreaks and excess mortality by occupation sectors. Studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection across occupation and occupation-related factors remain lacking. In this study, we estimate the effect of in-person work on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk and describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among working adults.

METHODS

We used Wave 1 data (May to June 2021) from CalScope, a population-based seroprevalence study in California. Occupation data were coded using the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Industry and Occupation Computerized Coding System. Dried blood spot specimens were tested for antibodies to establish evidence of prior infection. We estimated the causal effect of in-person work on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk using the g-formula and describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence across occupation-related factors.

RESULTS

Among 4335 working adults, 53% worked in person. In-person work was associated with increased risk of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk difference: 0.03; [95% CI: 0.02-0.04]) compared with working remotely. Workers that reported job loss or who were without medical insurance had higher evidence of prior infection. Amongst in-person workers, evidence of prior infection was highest within farming, fishing, and forestry (55%; [95% CI: 26%-81%]); installation, maintenance, and repair (23%; [12%-39%]); building and grounds cleaning and maintenance (23%; [13%-36%]); food preparation and serving related (22% [13%-35%]); and healthcare support (22%; [13%-34%]) occupations. Workers who identified as Latino, reported a household income of <$25K, or who were without a bachelor's degree also had higher evidence of prior infection.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 infection risk varies by occupation. Future vaccination strategies may consider prioritizing in-person workers.