Using sero-epidemiology to monitor disparities in vaccination and infection with SARS-CoV-2

  1. Isobel Routledge
  2. Saki Takahashi
  3. Adrienne Epstein
  4. Jill Hakim
  5. Owen Janson
  6. Keirstinne Turcios
  7. Jo Vinden
  8. John Tomas Risos
  9. Margaret Rose Baniqued
  10. Lori Pham
  11. Clara Di Germanio
  12. Michael Busch
  13. Margot Kushel
  14. Bryan Greenhouse
  15. Isabel Rodríguez-Barraquer

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

As SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread and vaccines are rolled-out, the “double burden” of disparities in exposure and vaccination intersect to determine patterns of infection, immunity, and mortality. Serology provides a unique opportunity to measure prior infection and vaccination simultaneously. Leveraging algorithmically-selected residual sera from two hospital networks in the city of San Francisco, cross-sectional samples from 1,014 individuals from February 4–17, 2021 were each tested on two assays (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2), capturing the first year of the epidemic and early roll-out of vaccination. We estimated, using Bayesian estimation of infection and vaccination, that infection risk of Hispanic/Latinx residents was five times greater than of White residents aged 18–64 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): 3.2–10.3), and that White residents over 65 were twice as likely to be vaccinated as Black/African American residents (95% CrI: 1.1–4.6). We found that socioeconomically-deprived zipcodes had higher infection probabilities and lower vaccination coverage than wealthier zipcodes. While vaccination has created a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ for this pandemic, ongoing challenges in achieving and maintaining equity must also be considered.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41467-022-30051-x
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.06.21264573v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.06.21264573: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.06.21264573v1 on medRxiv