Background Although many viral respiratory illnesses are transmitted within households, the evidence base for SARS-CoV-2 is nascent. We sought to characterize SARS-CoV-2 transmission within US households and estimate the household secondary infection rate (SIR) to inform strategies to reduce transmission. Methods We recruited laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients and their household contacts in Utah and Wisconsin during March 22–April 25, 2020. We interviewed patients and all household contacts to obtain demographics and medical histories. At the initial household visit, 14 days later, and when a household contact became newly symptomatic, we collected respiratory swabs from patients and household contacts for testing by SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR and sera for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies testing by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We estimated SIR and odds ratios (OR) to assess risk factors for secondary infection, defined by a positive rRT-PCR or ELISA test. Results Thirty-two (55%) of 58 households had evidence of secondary infection among household contacts. The SIR was 29% (n = 55/188; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 23–36%) overall, 42% among children (<18 years) of the COVID-19 patient and 33% among spouses/partners. Household contacts to COVID-19 patients with immunocompromised conditions had increased odds of infection (OR: 15.9, 95% CI: 2.4–106.9). Household contacts who themselves had diabetes mellitus had increased odds of infection (OR: 7.1, 95% CI: 1.2–42.5). Conclusions We found substantial evidence of secondary infections among household contacts. People with COVID-19, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions or those with household contacts with diabetes, should take care to promptly self-isolate to prevent household transmission.

This is a prepublication version of an article that has undergone peer review and been accepted for publication but is not the final version of record. This paper may be cited using the DOI and date of access. This paper may contain information that has errors in facts, figures, and statements, and will be corrected in the final published version. The journal is providing an early version of this article to expedite access to this information. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the editors, and authors are not responsible for inaccurate information and data described in this version.

Abstract In a household study, loss of taste and/or smell was the fourth most reported symptom (26/42 [62%]) among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case patients and had the highest positive predictive value (83% [95% confidence interval [CI], 55%–95%) among household contacts. Olfactory and taste dysfunctions should be considered for COVID-19 case identification and testing prioritization.

Background Improved understanding of SARS-CoV-2 spectrum of disease is essential for clinical and public health interventions. There are limited data on mild or asymptomatic infections, but recognition of these individuals is key as they contribute to viral transmission. We describe the symptom profiles from individuals with mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods From March 22 to April 22, 2020 in Wisconsin and Utah, we enrolled and prospectively observed 198 household contacts exposed to SARS-CoV-2. We collected and tested nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens by RT-PCR two or more times during a 14-day period. Contacts completed daily symptom diaries. We characterized symptom profiles on the date of first positive RT-PCR test and described progression of symptoms over time. Results We identified 47 contacts, median age 24 (3-75) years, with detectable SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The most commonly reported symptoms on the day of first positive RT-PCR test were upper respiratory (n=32, 68%) and neurologic (n=30, 64%); fever was not commonly reported (n=9, 19%). Eight (17%) individuals were asymptomatic at the date of first positive RT-PCR collection; two (4%) had preceding symptoms that resolved and six (13%) subsequently developed symptoms. Children less frequently reported lower respiratory symptoms (age <18: 21%, age 18-49: 60%, age 50+ years: 69%; p=0.03). Conclusions Household contacts with lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported mild symptoms. When assessed at a single time-point, several contacts appeared to have asymptomatic infection; however, over time all developed symptoms. These findings are important to inform infection control, contact tracing, and community mitigation strategies.

Background To better understand SARS-CoV-2 shedding duration and infectivity, we estimated SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding duration, described characteristics associated with viral RNA shedding resolution1, and determined if replication-competent viruses could be recovered ≥10 days after symptom onset among individuals with mild to moderate COVID-19. Methods We collected serial nasopharyngeal specimens at various time points from 109 individuals with rRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in Utah and Wisconsin. We calculated probability of viral RNA shedding resolution using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and evaluated characteristics associated with shedding resolution using Cox proportional hazards regression. We attempted viral culture for 35 rRT-PCR-positive nasopharyngeal specimens collected ≥10 days after symptom onset. Results The likelihood of viral RNA shedding resolution at 10 days after symptom onset was approximately 3%. Time to shedding resolution was shorter among participants aged <18 years (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR]: 3.01; 95% CI: 1.6–5.6) and longer among those aged ≥50 years (aHR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.3–0.9) compared to participants aged 18–49 years. No replication-competent viruses were recovered. Conclusions Although most patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 for ≥10 days after symptom onset, our findings suggest that individuals with mild to moderate COVID-19 are unlikely to be infectious ≥10 days after symptom onset.

Olfactory and taste dysfunctions have emerged as symptoms of COVID-19. Among individuals with COVID-19 enrolled in a household study, loss of taste and/or smell was the fourth most commonly reported symptom (26/42; 62%), and among household contacts, it had the highest positive predictive value (83%; 95% CI: 55-95%) for COVID-19. These findings support consideration of loss of taste and/or smell in possible case identification and testing prioritization for COVID-19. MainThe global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has prompted robust public health investigations as healthcare workers and epidemiologists attempt to characterize the disease course. Early published reports on symptoms associated with infection focused primarily on cases with hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Among these patients with moderate to severe disease, fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most frequently described symptoms. 1,2 Because recent reports have identified additional symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) updated their list of symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection in March 2020. 3,4 In addition to the classic COVID-19 symptoms of fever, cough, and shortness of breath, loss of taste and smell were added as possible symptoms.Although several reports have described these newly recognized symptoms of loss of taste and smell among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19, 5,6 few studies have prospectively evaluated for use under a CC0 license.

Background:Few epidemiologic studies have investigated health effects of water-soluble fractions of PM2.5 metals, the more biologically accessible fractions of metals, in their attempt to identify health-relevant components of ambient PM2.5.Objectives:In this study, we estimated acute cardiovascular effects of PM2.5 components in an urban population, including a suite of water-soluble metals that are not routinely measured at the ambient level.Methods:Ambient concentrations of criteria gases, PM2.5, and PM2.5 components were measured at a central monitor in Atlanta, Georgia, during 1998–2013, with some PM2.5 components only measured during 2008–2013. In a time-series framework using Poisson regression, we estimated associations between these pollutants and daily counts of emergency department (ED) visits for cardiovascular diseases in the five-county Atlanta area.Results:Among the PM2.5 components we examined during 1998–2013, water-soluble iron had the strongest estimated effect on cardiovascular outcomes [RRfalse^=1.012 (95% CI: 1.005, 1.019), per interquartile range increase (20.46ng/normalm3)]. The associations for PM2.5 and other PM2.5 components were consistent with the null when controlling for water-soluble iron. Among PM2.5 components that were only measured during 2008–2013, water-soluble vanadium was associated with cardiovascular ED visits [RRfalse^=1.012 (95% CI: 1.000, 1.025), per interquartile range increase (0.19ng/normalm3)].Conclusions:Our study suggests cardiovascular effects of certain water-soluble metals, particularly water-soluble iron. The observed associations with water-soluble iron may also point to certain aspects of traffic pollution, when processed by acidifying sulfate, as a mixture harmful for cardiovascular health. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2182

Background The health effects of ambient volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have received less attention in epidemiologic studies than other commonly measured ambient pollutants. In this study, we estimated acute cardiorespiratory effects of ambient VOCs in an urban population. Methods Daily concentrations of 89 VOCs were measured at a centrally-located ambient monitoring site in Atlanta and daily counts of emergency department visits for cardiovascular diseases and asthma in the 5-county Atlanta area were obtained for the 1998–2008 period. To understand the health effects of the large number of species, we grouped these VOCs a priori by chemical structure and estimated the associations between VOC groups and daily counts of emergency department visits in a time-series framework using Poisson regression. We applied three analytic approaches to estimate the VOC group effects: an indicator pollutant approach, a joint effect analysis, and a random effect meta-analysis, each with different assumptions. We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate co-pollutant confounding. Results Hydrocarbon groups, particularly alkenes and alkynes, were associated with emergency department visits for cardiovascular diseases, while the ketone group was associated with emergency department visits for asthma. Conclusions The associations observed between emergency department visits for cardiovascular diseases and alkenes and alkynes, may reflect the role of traffic exhaust, while the association between asthma visits and ketones may reflect the role of secondary organic compounds. The different patterns of associations we observed for cardiovascular diseases and asthma suggest different modes of action of these pollutants or the mixtures they represent.