Sharing a household with children and risk of COVID-19: a study of over 300,000 adults living in healthcare worker households in Scotland

Introduction

Children are relatively protected from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). When exposed, children are less likely to develop symptomatic infection (COVID-19), and when infected they are less like to become seriously ill.¹ This difference is large; in the UK over the peak 9 weeks of the epidemic, the mortality in the UK population for SARS-CoV-2 was 0.0005% among children aged 0 to 14, compared to 0.003% for adults aged 25-44 and 0.11% for adults aged 65 to 74.²

The reasons why COVID-19 is milder in childhood are not well understood, and differences in both the innate and acquired immune systems have been implicated.³ While developmental factors alone may account for any differences, pre-exposure to antigenically-similar infectious agents may also be relevant. Evidence of B and T-cell cross-reactivity between endemic coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 has been demonstrated in independent studies,^4–10 and children may have higher levels of exposure to endemic coronaviruses than adults.^11,12 Alternatively, there may be non-specific “ training” of the innate immune response as a result of increased exposure to childhood vaccinations and respiratory viruses.¹³

If differential exposure to infectious agents is an important mechanism, adults who are close contacts of children, such as childcare providers, teachers and parents may also benefit. Despite a lack of empirical evidence that children are important in the transmission of COVID-19, schools and nurseries throughout the world have been closed, resulting in substantial harms to the health and wellbeing of children,¹⁴ while a substantial proportion of staff who work in schools have reported feeling unsafe about the reopening of educational establishments.¹⁵ Consequently, if exposure to children was found to be protective, rather than harmful, this would have important implications for policy. Few studies, however, have examined this question.¹⁶

We recently reported the risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19 in around 160,000 healthcare workers and 250,000 members of their households in Scotland.¹⁷ Using this cohort, who are at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, we now test the hypothesis that the risk of COVID-19 is attenuated where adults share households with children aged 11 and younger.

Methods

Results

Of the 310,097 adults living in a healthcare worker household, 241,266 (78%), 41,198 (13%), 23,783 (7.8%) and 3,850 (1.2%) shared a household with 0, 1, 2 and 3 or more young children respectively. The proportion of women were similar across these categories. Those who did not share a household with young children were on average 5-years older than those who did; were more likely to live in the most deprived areas. However, adults who were of non-white ethnicity were more likely to share a household with young children (Table 1) than were those of white ethnicity.

Comorbidity was less common among adults sharing households with young children, and the proportion with comorbid diseases fell as the number of young children in the household increased (Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1).

Household composition differed according to the number of younger children. Households with more children were more likely to include 2 or more adults. More than a quarter of adults who shared a household with a single child under 12 also shared a household with a child aged 12-17. Fewer than 1 in 10 adults in a household with young children also shared a household with anyone over the age of 65 (Supplementary Table S2).

COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation

Compared to those in households without children, the risk of COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation was lower in those with one child and lower still in those with two or more children (Figure 1). In unadjusted analyses, the hazard ratio (HR) for this association was 0.72 per child (95% CI 0.60-0.85, p <0.001, Table 2) - ie the risk of COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation fell, on average, by 0.72-fold per each additional young child in the household. On adjusting for the adult’s own age (ie not the age of the children in the household), this association was attenuated (HR per child 0.83; 95% CI 0.70-0.99), with further smaller changes after adjusting for remaining pre-specified potential confounders (sex, socioeconomic deprivation, occupation, professional role, staff/non-staff status, the number of adolescents in the household, the number of adults in each household, and the comorbidity counts plus selected comorbidities - see Table S1) and for whether or not the healthcare worker in the adult’s household was part-time or full time, which was not pre-specified. For this fully adjusted analysis, the confidence interval included the null, and so was consistent with no beneficial effect of sharing a household with young children (HR per child 0.89; 95% CI 0.74-1.06).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2.

Risk and hazard ratios for COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation for adults living in healthcare worker households by number of young children in household

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Risk of COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation in adults living in healthcare worker households by number of young children (aged 0 to 11) in household

Similar, but slightly stronger associations were found when the analysis was restricted to households where at least one member of staff had a patient-facing role (fully adjusted model, HR per child 0.83; 95% CI 0.68-1.02, Supplementary Table S3), a group with greater occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 than non-patient facing healthcare workers, although on formally testing for an interaction between patient facing and non-patient facing groups, the coefficient included the null, (P-value for interaction = 0.80). There was also a clearer “ dose response” across categories from 0 to ≥3 children in both the unadjusted and adjusted models for adults in patient facing compared to adults in non-patients facing households (Supplementary Table S3).

To explore whether there was residual confounding even after adjusting for part-time working (i.e. in case part-time workers with more children worked fewer hours and hence had less exposure to people with COVID-19) we also stratified adults by whether or not they shared a household with a healthcare worker who worked part-time. We found an inverse association between the number of young children in the household and risk of COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation in the part-time stratum (HR per child 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.92) but not in the whole time stratum (1.04; 95% CI 0.84-1.28, P-interaction = 0.007). Separately, to examine for residual confounding by comorbidity, we restricted the analyses to adults who had no known comorbidities, finding similar effect measure estimates to those seen in the main analysis (HR per child on adjusting for demographic and occupational factors 0.83; 95% CI 0.68-1.03). Similar results were also obtained on restricting to adults who had 2 or fewer prescriptions within the previous 9 months (HR per child was 0.91; 95% CI 0.71-1.18, 1.34; 95% CI 0.84-2.15).

Discussion

We found that among a cohort of over 300,000 adults living in a household containing a healthcare worker in Scotland, the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was lower for individuals living with young children (0-11 years), and that this persisted after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19 (our primary outcome) was similarly lower for those living with young children, although this finding did not reach statistical significance.

To support decision making concerning the closure of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies have examined the transmission of COVID-19 from children to adults. A community surveillance study in England and Wales conducted by Public Health England found that children rarely tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, even when they had symptoms of acute respiratory infection; this was particularly true for younger children¹⁹ Studies examining contacts of younger children with SARS-CoV-2 have also shown low rates of secondary cases, particularly in non-household settings, consistent with minimal or no transmission from children to adults.²⁰ Although we were mainly concerned with testing the hypothesis that contact with children might exert a protective effect in a high-risk population (healthcare workers), our study is also consistent with the findings that children do not pose a substantial risk of infection to adults with whom they share a household.

Our pre-specified hypothesis, that close contact with young children may actually protect against the risk of COVID-19 among adults, has not been extensively studied. We only found one study which touched on this question, a survey of exposures among people who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2.¹⁶ Ours is the first cohort study of which we are aware to formally test this hypothesis, for which the findings provide a degree of support.

A number of limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the observed inverse association may be a chance finding. For the primary outcome, on including in our regression models the potential confounders which we had pre-specified, the confidence interval included the null.

Although we knew that statistical power would be limited, we had decided, a priori, to use COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation as the primary outcome rather than any COVID-19 (which was much commoner), as we were concerned that high rates of (non-SARS-CoV-2) acute respiratory infection in households with small children may cause ascertainment bias, increasing the apparent rate of any COVID-19 in these groups as a result of increased testing. The level of testing was indeed higher among those adults who shared a household with young children, suggesting that there may be increased ascertainment. Despite this, in the fully adjusted models, we found similar point estimates regardless of whether the outcome was hospitalisation or any COVID-19. For the commoner outcome these estimates were more precise with confidence intervals that did not include the null, which suggests that the finding for the primary outcome may be real, rather than a chance observation.

Another possibility is that the identified association may have been confounded by part-time working. For the primary outcome, on stratifying the analysis into households where healthcare workers did and did not work part time, the association was evident in the former group but null in the latter. Since within part-time healthcare workers those with more children may work fewer hours (and therefore have lower exposure to SARS-CoV-2), and since we lacked accurate data on hours worked during the pandemic, the apparent effect of sharing a household with young children may be due to unmeasured confounding. Nonetheless, the association between the number of children and the risk of any case of COVID-19 – a much commoner outcome – did persist on stratifying for part-time/whole-time status. Consequently, unmeasured confounding by time spent in high-risk occupational settings seems unlikely.

Residual confounding due to better health in those households with more children (perhaps affecting the decision to have more children) is also an unlikely explanation because the observed associations were also found on restricting the analyses to healthier adults.

From first principles, any protective effect of children on COVID-19 rate and severity in their household contacts would seem likely to involve cross-reactive immunity to endemic coronavirus infections acquired outside the home, e.g. at nursery or school. Evidence of antigenic similarity between N proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and those of endemic beta coronaviruses (strains Cov-OC43 and Cov-NL63) have now been shown in studies of cell-mediated immunity, and there is also evidence of cross-reactivity in antibody-mediated immunity, although it is currently uncertain how well this protects against COVID-19.^4–9 Secondly, children who had respiratory samples (sputum, broncho-alveolar washings etc) obtained for clinical reasons (e.g. respiratory tract infection) have previously been found to have high levels of seasonal coronaviruses,¹¹ and a similar study identified that CoV-OC43 which like SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus, was commonest in children under 5.¹² Thirdly, as well as having higher rates of infection (or asymptomatic carriage) children must also be capable of transmitting seasonal coronaviruses to adults with whom they share households. Younger adults (aged 15-44) which includes those ages most likely to share households with young children, have higher levels of antibodies to N proteins of CoV-OC43 than do older adults,²¹ but whether this reflects exposure at home via contact with children, or elsewhere, is unknown.

Alternatively, children could exert a protective effect through stimulation of the innate immune system of adults with whom they are close contacts¹³ Children positive for seasonal coronaviruses often test positive for unrelated respiratory viruses. It is likely that any such effect would be shorter-term than one based on changes in specific acquired immunity. Two clinical trials are currently underway involving vaccination with BCG for COVID-19,^22,23 which will help determine whether such an effect is plausible.

Notwithstanding possible mechanisms, our findings provide sufficient evidence of a potentially interesting protective effect against COVID-19 infection in households with young children to warrant further study in other settings. High exposure settings, such as occupational groups or populations which have had increased exposure to SARS-CoV-2, would be of particular interest. Other adults that could usefully be studied are those who have had contact with large numbers of children, such as those who work in primary schools and nurseries, particularly in geographical settings where exposure to SARS-CoV-2 has also been common. As reliable population screening for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 becomes widespread, another interesting test of our hypothesis would be to compare the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and in parallel antibodies to seasonal antibodies viz. Cov-OC43, in those with and without substantive exposure to children of different age groups.

Our findings also raise intriguing questions around the design and evaluation of future vaccination programmes against SARS-CoV-2. For example, it would be important to examine the differential production of IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in adults and children to evaluate the possibility that children might ‘pre-immunize’ adults with endemic coronaviruses. Subsequent vaccination could then trigger a more rapid secondary immune response. This is an important practical point, since recent studies of antibody kinetics following natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 have indicated that antibodies are generally not detectable for 10-14 days, and in some patients are never detectable.²⁴ This lag time may be too long to ensure protection against severe COVID-19. Could exposure to children perhaps enhance the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines? Further, although long-term studies are not yet feasible with SARS-CoV-2, follow-up after experimental Cov-OC43 infection indicates that seropositivity wanes fairly rapidly over time, with many volunteers becoming negative within a year.¹⁰ This raises the possible risk of re-infection, and the consequent need for follow-up vaccination, in which case any possible role of children acting as ‘natural vaccine boosters;’ should be taken into consideration.

Conclusion

In a large occupational cohort, increased household exposure to young children was associated with an attenuated risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and appeared to also be associated with (non-statistically-significant) attenuated risk of COVID-19 disease severe enough to require hospitalisation. Verification of this finding is needed in other settings where both exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and contact with young children are common. These findings have potentially important implications for future control of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example through informing policy on nursery and school closure and vaccination.