SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology on a Public University Campus in Washington State
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
We aimed to evaluate a testing program to facilitate control of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission at a large university and measure spread in the university community using viral genome sequencing.
Methods
Our prospective longitudinal study used remote contactless enrollment, daily mobile symptom and exposure tracking, and self-swab sample collection. Individuals were tested if the participant was exposed to a known SARS-CoV-2-infected person, developed new symptoms, or reported high-risk behavior (such as attending an indoor gathering without masking or social distancing), if a member of a group experiencing an outbreak, or at enrollment. Study participants included students, staff, and faculty at an urban public university during the Autumn quarter of 2020.
Results
We enrolled 16 476 individuals, performed 29 783 SARS-CoV-2 tests, and detected 236 infections. Seventy-five percent of positive cases reported at least 1 of the following: symptoms (60.8%), exposure (34.7%), or high-risk behaviors (21.5%). Greek community affiliation was the strongest risk factor for testing positive, and molecular epidemiology results suggest that specific large gatherings were responsible for several outbreaks.
Conclusions
A testing program focused on individuals with symptoms and unvaccinated persons who participate in large campus gatherings may be effective as part of a comprehensive university-wide mitigation strategy to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.15.21253227: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: Eligibility criteria included living on-campus or within the main or satellite campus geographic area (approximately 100-mile radius), a valid university identification number, the ability to consent in English, and university attendance for class or work at least one day per month, either in-person or remotely.
IRB: All analyses were performed in R version 3.6.1 Human Subjects: The University of Washington Institutional Review Board approved this study.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Study data were managed … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.15.21253227: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: Eligibility criteria included living on-campus or within the main or satellite campus geographic area (approximately 100-mile radius), a valid university identification number, the ability to consent in English, and university attendance for class or work at least one day per month, either in-person or remotely.
IRB: All analyses were performed in R version 3.6.1 Human Subjects: The University of Washington Institutional Review Board approved this study.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Study data were managed using Project REDCap software [12][13]. Project REDCapsuggested: NoneResults from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Our large-scale COVID-19 longitudinal cohort study of students, faculty, and staff at a university campus allocated testing based on estimated risk of infection, rather than mass surveillance, a strategy that could be utilized in a pandemic setting with resource limitations. Most cases were identified through daily attestation surveys, and participants reporting a recent exposure to a case had the highest positivity rate of 2.4%, followed by 1.4% for participants reporting symptoms. We found that baseline testing had a much lower positivity rate of 0.6%, and identified only 15% of cases. Consistent with our findings, random testing of asymptomatic people at the University of Pittsburgh yielded a positivity rate of only 0.4% [5]. In contrast, at Duke University, surveillance testing of asymptomatic persons identified half of all cases [4]. Several college campus outbreaks have been linked to spread in communities and high-risk groups such as long-term care facility residents, and campus outbreaks are known indicators of broader community transmission [27][28]. In our study, SARS-CoV-2 test positivity rates in the university community were substantially lower than in the surrounding areas. This is likely due in part to increased testing availability, particularly for those without symptoms. However, it is also possible that focused testing of high-risk groups prevented and mitigated campus-wide outbreaks. Outbreak testing was an essential part of our testing strategy. In our st...
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.
-
