Screening of SARS-CoV-2 among homeless people, asylum-seekers and other people living in precarious conditions in Marseille, France, March–April 2020

Setting, study design and population

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between 26 March and 17 April 2020 in different populations including homeless people residing in four shelters (A-D) and four hotels (1-4), other people living in precarious condition (housed in residences α and β), asylum-seekers (housed in residence γ), and employees working in these accommodation centres.

Homeless shelters (A-C) include emergency (overnight stay) units with a rapid turnover (7-14 nights), and special (permanent stay) units dedicated to high-risk sedentary homeless persons characterised by a high level of poverty, poor hygiene, alcoholism, mental illness and chronic diseases. Shelters A and B are for men only while shelter C is for women only. Shelter D houses male and female homeless people and offers the possibility to keep their pets when needed. Characteristics of the facilities are described in Table 1. All residents of homeless shelters were placed under strict lockdown since 17 March, in line with the whole French population (=C0), allowing all homeless people to stay in the shelter 24 hours a day. The male population of Shelter B (initial group B) was sub-divided into three groups by the staff of the facility, in order to avoid overcrowding: i) elderly people, those with reduced mobility and those needing medical care were kept in Shelter B, ii) people aged 18-45 were progressively moved to Hotel 1 from C0 to C7, iii) people aged 30-80 years were moved to Hotel 2 from C7 to C14. Similarly, the female population of Shelter C (initial group C) was sub-divided into three groups: elderly people, those with reduced mobility and those needing medical care were kept in Shelter C, ii) pregnant women and those with mental illness were moved to Hotel 3 at C0; iii) others were moved to Hotel 4 at C0. All residents moved to hotels have been kept under relatively strict lockdown since C0, with the exception of the day of transfer.

Residence α is dedicated to individuals characterised by a high level of poverty, poor hygiene, alcoholism, mental illness and chronic diseases including drug addiction. Residence β specialises in housing teenage mothers and their children. Residence γ is dedicated to asylum-seekers, including family groups and single individuals. All three residences offer long-time housing and all residents have been kept under strict lockdown since C0.

Employees of the different facilities working in different sectors (management staff, social workers, nurses, cleaning staff, catering staff and security staff) returned to their homes on a daily basis after finishing work.

Screening for Covid-19

Participants were encouraged by the management staff of the facilities to get tested and were then recruited on a voluntary basis. They were systematically asked to provide basic demographic information (sex, age, country of origin), chronic conditions, and any respiratory symptoms or fever in the two weeks prior to sampling. Body temperature was measured using a forehead infrared thermometer. Nasal samples were systematically collected on transport media using Sigma Transwabs (Medical Wire, Corsham, United Kingdom). For self-sampling, participants were invited to insert the swab into their nostrils (about 2 cm). If individuals were unable to perform self-sampling, trained investigators carried out the sampling. Specimens were immediately processed for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. Homeless peoples, pets were also tested with the approval of their owner and their nasal swabs were collected by vets.

PCR assay

Real-time reverse transcription-PCR amplification was used to confirm the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA targeting the gene coding for the envelope (E) protein, as previously described (15). Results were considered positive when the cycle threshold (CT) value of real-time PCR was ≤35.

Statistical analysis

Statistical procedures were performed using STATA 11.1 software (StataCorp LLC, USA). Percentage differences were tested using Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests when appropriate. Means of quantitative data were compared using Student’s t-test. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. A separate multivariate logistical regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 carriage prevalence among all individuals and in selected groups (when positive cases were found). The results were presented by percentages and odd ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI). The initial model included variables presenting a p-value <0.2. The stepwise regression procedure and likelihood-ratio tests were applied to determine the final model.

Participant characteristics (Tables 1, 2 and 3)

Overall, 885 individuals were present in the various facilities at the time of enrolment, including 716 residents and 169 employees (Table 2). A total of 698 (78.9%) subjects agreed to be tested, including 411/698 homeless people (58.9%), 58 non-homeless people living in precarious conditions (8.3%), 77 asylum-seekers (11.0%), and 152 employees (21.8%). Overall, 38.7% were enrolled before C14, 45.9% between C14 and C20, and 15.4% at C21 and later (Table 1, 3). The overall acceptation rate of SARS-CoV-2 testing varied significantly according to the housing facility, ranging from 41.7 to 91.7%. The overall acceptation rate among homeless individuals was 74.6% and was significantly lower than that of employees working in the homeless centres (88.7%, p=0.0008). The acceptance rate among people housed in other facilities, varied from 75.5 to 100% and tented to be lower than that of employees in these facilities.

The socio-demographic characteristics of the different populations are presented in Table 3. The male to female gender ratio was 3:1 and the median age was 35.0 years (ranging from 0 to 91 years) with significant variations among different populations. A male predominance was observed among homeless persons and asylum seekers. Children ≤15 years old accounted for 7.5% of all residents. Two-thirds of individuals were migrants. A predominance of African origin was found among homeless individuals, while other people living in precarious conditions and employees were more likely to be European. There were only four pregnant women (between 26 and 36 weeks of pregnancy), all housed in Hotel 3.

Regarding clinical findings, among all the participants, 22.1% reported at least one respiratory symptom or fever with significant variations among different populations. The highest prevalence was observed among employees (25.7%) and homeless persons (24.3%). A cough was the most commonly reported symptom (32.7%) followed by rhinorrhoea (20.4%), dyspnoea (12.2%) and fever (12.2%). No deaths were reported during the study period.

SARS-CoV-2 detection (Table 2, 4, 5)

In total, 49 participants (7.0%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 37 homeless people (of 441, 9.0%) and 12 employees (of 152, 7.9%, including seven security staff from Shelters A, B and C and residence γ, four nurses from Shelter A and one management staff member from Shelter C). Only two female homeless people tested positive, including one woman who was 36 weeks pregnant and who frequently attended the hospital during the lockdown and one person with mental illness who did not comply with lockdown measures.

Two dogs belonging to two different homeless people in Shelter D tested negative. With regard to the housing facilities, the highest SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates were observed in homeless persons in Hotel 1 (39.1%), in Shelter B (18.5%) and in Hotel 2 (14.3%). Among employees, the highest positive rates were in those working at homeless Shelters A (14%) and B (12.5%).

Of the 49 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, 51.0% were asymptomatic. Positive participants were more likely to be symptomatic compared to negative participants (Odd-ratio OR=3.8 95%CI [2.1-6.9], p<10^-4). There was no significant difference of PCR CT values between asymptomatic (mean CT [±SD]: 26.9±5.0) and symptomatic individuals (25.7±5.4, p=0.43). The overall proportion of asymptomatic carriers among all tested individuals was 3.6% and that of symptomatic carriers was 3.4%.

Table 3 shows SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates among homeless people according to the time of screening, demographics and housing facility, using univariate analysis. No significant differences were observed according to gender and country of origin regarding SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. Screening between C14 and C20 and screening in the group B population (Shelter B and hotels to which people from Shelter B were moved) resulted in a significantly higher proportion of positive PCR as compared to screening before C14 or screening in other homeless facilities, respectively. In addition, being young (18-34 years) was associated with an increased prevalence of virus detection. Cough, rhinorrhoea and fever were associated with viral carriage. Using multivariate analysis (Table 4), being young and screening conducted in the group B population remained significantly associated with a higher likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 detection.