COVID-19 susceptibility and severity risks in a survey of over 500,000 individuals

Ethics approval

All data for this research project were from subjects who have provided informed consent to participate in AncestryDNA’s Human Diversity Project, as reviewed and approved by our external institutional review board, Advarra (formerly Quorum, IRB approval number: Pro00034516). Advarra operates under ethical principles underlying the involvement of human subjects in research, including the Declaration of Helsinki. All data were de-identified prior to use.

Survey description

Survey responses were collected from AncestryDNA customers consented to research in the U.S. between April 22 and July 6, 2020. The survey consisted of 50+ questions about COVID-19 test results, 15 symptoms among those who tested positive or who tested negative and had flu-like symptoms, disease progression for positive testers, age, height, weight, known exposures to biological relatives, household members, patients or any other contacts with COVID-19, and 11 underlying health conditions (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). Collection of self-reported COVID-19 outcomes from U.S. AncestryDNA customers who consented to research for the study, and the survey design are described in more detail in a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on a very similar AncestryDNA dataset [5]. Here, participants reporting a negative test result were also assessed for symptoms and clinical outcomes.

Outcome definitions

The study assessed three outcomes: one for susceptibility and two for severity of COVID-19 infection. Cases for COVID-19 susceptibility were individuals who responded, “Yes, and was positive” to the question, “Have you been swab tested for COVID-19, commonly referred to as coronavirus?” Responders who answered, “Yes, and was negative” were used as controls for the susceptibility analysis.

The hospitalization outcome was defined among COVID-19-positive cases if a participant responded “Yes” to a binary question about experiencing symptoms due to COVID-19 illness and “Yes” to the hospitalization question (“Were you hospitalized due to these symptoms?). Controls were defined by a response of “No” to the symptoms question or a response of “No” to the hospitalization question in addition to reporting a self-reported positive COVID-19 test result [5].

Critical cases of COVID-19 were defined via a response of “Yes” to one or more questions about ICU admittance or, alternatively, self-reported septic shock, organ failure, or respiratory failure resulting from a COVID-19 infection [14]. Controls were defined by a response of “No” across all of these questions in addition to self-reporting a positive COVID-19 test result.

Genetic sex and ancestry definitions

All individuals were genotyped, using previously described general genotyping and quality control procedures [21]. Both sex and genetic ancestry were defined for individuals based on their genotypes. Genetic ancestry was estimated using a proprietary algorithm to estimate continental admixture proportions [22]. All participants were assigned to one of four broad genetic ancestry groups: European ancestry, admixed African-European ancestry, admixed Amerindian ancestry, or other ancestry combinations.

Data preparation for analysis

Multiple-choice categorical questions were one-hot (“dummy”) encoded as binary risk factors. We considered several risk factors and outcomes questions in our association analyses and risk modeling efforts, some of which are summarized in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2. Based on the dependency structure of the survey, we made the following inferences:

• Participants reporting “No” to a binary question about symptoms arising from COVID-19 infection were designated as negatives for dependent questions about individual symptoms, hospitalization due to symptoms, and ICU admittance due to symptoms.

• Participants reporting “No” to a binary question about hospitalization were assigned to a hospital duration of 0 days and designated as negative for ICU admittance due to symptoms.

For association analyses, responses to a question about individual symptoms (“Between the beginning of February 2020 and now, have you had any of the following symptoms?”) were converted to a binary variable based on the following mapping: 0 = None, Very Mild, Mild; 1 = Moderate, Severe, Very Severe.

Association analysis

Analyses were performed either with the statsmodels package in Python3 or in base R with the glm function. For each susceptibility and severity outcome and risk factor of interest, a simple logistic regression (LR) model was fit using unpenalized maximum likelihood (Supplementary Tables 6-14) [23]. Multiple logistic regression was used to adjust the ORs for known COVID-19 exposures and potentially confounding risk factors. The adjusted model included age, sex, and four known exposures (Y/N if any) for susceptibility outcomes; and age, sex, obesity (binarized if BMI >= 30), and health conditions (binarized if any) for severity outcomes (Figures 1 and 2). Individual adjustment variables were omitted when analyzing associations for risk factors within equivalent categories (e.g., age was not included in adjusted models for age bin risk factors).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Susceptibility odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated from simple (“Unadjusted models,” grey) and multiple (“Adjusted models,” black) logistic regression with adjustment for other risk factors.

Open circles indicate not significant (p-value > 0.05) after accounting for multiple hypothesis tests using Bonferroni correction. Age, sex, genetic ancestry, and obesity ORs were estimated in relation to the reference variables indicated. Exposure, health, and symptom ORs were each estimated separately as binary variables. Symptom ORs were estimated as binary variables among symptomatic testers only (Methods). Risk factor adjustments for susceptibility include: sex, age, and at least one known COVID-19 exposure. Where applicable, individual adjustment variables were omitted to avoid duplicate adjustment (Methods).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Severity (hospitalization) odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated from simple (“Unadjusted models,” grey) and multiple (“Adjusted models,” black) logistic regression with adjustment for other risk factors.

Open circles indicate not significant (p-value > 0.05) after accounting for multiple hypothesis tests using Bonferroni correction. Age, sex, genetic ancestry, and obesity ORs were estimated in relation to the reference variables indicated. Exposure, health, and symptom ORs were each estimated separately as binary variables. Symptom ORs were estimated as binary variables among symptomatic testers only (Methods). Risk factor adjustments for severity include: sex, age, obesity (Y/N), and underlying health conditions (Y/N if any). Where applicable, individual adjustment variables were omitted to avoid duplicate adjustment (Methods). See Supplementary Figure 1 for critical case severity ORs.

For each risk factor, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the log odds ratio were estimated under the normal approximation. The significance threshold was Bonferroni-corrected for the 42 different risk factors examined (adjusted threshold of 0.05/42=0.0012) [23].

Risk factor selection and risk model training

Prior to model training, the data were split with a fixed random seed into training and holdout datasets. We chose risk factors based on a minimal subset of nominally significant ORs within our training data as well as literature guidance [3,4,7,9,11,12,14,15]. For the susceptibility models without symptoms, we included a subset of exposure-related questions, based on the training OR analyses, as well as two demographic variables (age and sex, Supplementary Tables 15-17). For susceptibility models with symptoms, we additionally included the five symptoms most differentiated between symptomatic negative and positive testers from our training ORs. For the severity models, we included pre-existing conditions, based on the training OR analyses, predictive symptoms within our training dataset, morbid obesity (BMI >= 40), age, and sex (Supplementary Table 18).

Once final risk factors were selected, we trained LR models with 5-fold cross-validated grid search on the training dataset to select an optimal lasso regularization parameter lambda [23]. For the grid search, we scanned 8 different values for lambda, equally partitioned geometrically across a 4-log space. We then re-trained on the entire training dataset with the optimal lambda and evaluated the final model on the holdout dataset.

Model thresholding

Phenotypes were predicted from the output of trained models based on a 50% probability threshold (i.e., logistic model output > 0.5). Sensitivity and specificity were then calculated based on the true vs. predicted binary outcomes.

Estimation of performance error

To estimate error in model performances, we bootstrapped our holdout dataset 1,000 times to generate a sampling distribution for each evaluation metric. We estimated the mean and 95% CIs for each metric based on the mean and standard deviation of this sampling distribution [23].

Survey response and study population

A total of 563,141 responses were collected, with 4,726 individuals reporting a COVID-19 positive test result, 28,872 a negative test result, 71,761 no COVID-19 test but flu-like symptoms, and 454,542 no COVID-19 and no flu-like symptoms. 3,240 reported pending test results and were excluded from further analyses. The survey completion rate was approximately 95%. In general, the COVID-19 positive test rate and self-reported clinical outcomes were consistent with those reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) over a similar period (Supplementary Note 1) [24]. The majority of participants were female (67.5%) and of European ancestry (75.4%), with some individuals of Admixed Amerindian (6.5%) or Admixed African-European (3.0%) ancestries. The median age of the entire cohort was 56, and the median age of those reporting a positive test result was 49 (Table 1 and Supplementary Tables 1-5).

Susceptibility associations: replicated and novel

We replicated many previously reported literature associations for susceptibility. The strongest associations for a positive COVID-19 test result were known COVID-19 exposures, either through a household case (OR=26.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]=(22.26, 30.43)), biological relative (OR=5.77; 95% CI=(4.99, 6.68)), or other source of “direct” exposure (OR=6.94; 95% CI=(6.02, 7.99)) (Figure 1, Supplementary Table 6). In general, adjusting for known exposures, age, and sex resulted in attenuation of the ORs, with many associations becoming insignificant after adjustment (Figure 1, Supplementary Table 7).

One novel result was that the OR for males was not attenuated after adjustment, and males remained at elevated odds after adjusting for known exposures and age (aOR=1.36; 95% CI=(1.19, 1.55); Figure 1, Supplementary Table 7). We also note that males and females reported comparable exposure burden, with males slightly more likely to report a household case of COVID-19 but less likely to report a case of COVID-19 among biological relatives (Supplementary Tables 9 and 10).

Consistent with previous reports [25–29], younger individuals (ages 18-29; OR=1.51; 95% CI=(1.26, 1.81)) were significantly more likely to test positive compared to older individuals (ages 50-64, the largest age group in this cohort), and individuals of admixed African-European (OR=1.48; 95% CI=(1.18, 1.85)) or admixed Amerindian ancestry (OR=1.49; 95% CI=(1.26, 1.77)) were more likely to test positive compared to those of European ancestry (Supplementary Table 6). Individuals in all three of these groups reported higher levels of COVID-19 cases within the household, cases among biological relatives, and/or other known “direct” COVID-19 exposures (Supplementary Tables 8-10). Adjusting for age (ancestry groups only), sex, and known exposures attenuated the OR for all of these groups (younger aOR=1.28; 95% CI=(1.03, 1.59), African-European aOR=1.23; 95% CI=(0.94, 1.62), and Amerindian aOR=1.27; 95% CI=(1.04, 1.57); Figure 1, Supplementary Table 7).

Individuals reporting pre-existing medical conditions (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease [CKD], diabetes, hypertension) were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 (Figure 1, Supplementary Table 6). We observed significantly decreased odds of a known “direct” exposure to COVID-19, as well as significantly decreased odds of a household case of COVID-19, among such individuals relative to those without any health conditions (OR=0.71; 95% CI=(0.65, 0.78) and OR=0.74; 95% CI=(0.65, 0.84), respectively; Supplementary Tables 8 and 9).

Replicated associations for COVID-19 severity

Consistent with previous reports [7,9,12,14,15], we observed positive associations between certain health conditions and COVID-19 severity outcomes; many of these associations remained significant after adjustment for age, sex, and obesity (BMI >= 30) (Figure 2, Supplementary Tables 11-14). COVID-19 cases reporting at least one underlying health condition were significantly more likely to progress to a critical case (OR=2.85; 95% CI=(1.78, 4.57); Figure 2, Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Table 13). Specific underlying health conditions that were associated with hospitalization and/or critical case progression included CKD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension (Figure 2, Supplementary Figure 1, Tables S12 and S14). Among individuals testing positive for COVID-19, the oldest (≥65 years) were significantly more likely to be hospitalized compared to those aged 50-64 (OR=1.70; 95% CI=(1.13, 2.56); Figure 2, Supplementary Table 11). Individuals of admixed African-European ancestry who tested positive were significantly more likely to report progression to a critical case, compared to those with European ancestry (OR=2.07; 95% CI=(1.03, 4.17); Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Table 13). Among COVID-19 cases, males were significantly more likely than females to report progression to a critical case (OR=1.54, 95%; CI=(1.00, 2.37); Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Table 13); these findings are consistent with CDC reports of increased ICU admittance rates in males (3% vs. 2%) [24].

Differential symptomology between susceptibility and severity

We compared associations between susceptibility and severity to provide a more nuanced view of symptoms associated with a positive test result versus those associated with severe illness progression (Figure 3) [17,18,30]. Among symptomatic people reporting a COVID-19 test result, those reporting change in taste or smell (OR=7.26; 95% CI=(5.54, 9.50)), fever (OR=1.60; 95% CI=(1.28, 2.01)), or feeling tired or fatigue (OR=1.41; 95% CI=(1.05, 1.89)) were more likely to test positive (Figure 3, Supplementary Table 6). Those reporting runny nose (OR=0.59; 95% CI=(0.47, 0.75)) or sore throat (OR=0.49; 95% CI=(0.39, 0.62)) were more likely to test negative, consistent with previous reports that these symptoms are more indicative of influenza or the common cold (Figure 3, Supplementary Table 6) [17,18,30]. Change in taste or smell, a hallmark symptom of COVID-19 infection, was not associated with hospitalization (OR=0.77, 95% CI=(0.55, 1.07); Figure 3, Supplementary Table 11). By contrast, dyspnea (shortness of breath) was strongly associated with hospitalization and critical case progression (OR=7.52; 95% CI=(4.92, 11.49) and OR=11.55; 95% CI=(5.91, 22.59), respectively) [31], but was not associated with a positive test result (OR=1.14; 95% CI=(0.91, 1.44); Figure 3, Supplementary Tables 6, 11, and 13).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Comparison of susceptibility adjusted ORs (horizontal axis) and severity adjusted ORs (vertical axis) for symptoms in Figures 1 and 2.

Severity aORs are for hospitalization. Note that aORs for susceptibility and severity are adjusted differently according to descriptions in Figure 1 and 2 captions. Adjusted ORs are plotted on a log scale for visibility. Shortness of breath is the strongest indicator of increased severity, while change in taste or smell is the strongest indicator for testing positive for COVID-19 among symptomatic individuals (Methods). Refer to Supplementary Figure 2 for demographic, health condition, and exposure aORs.

Predictive risk models

We further developed risk models that predict an individual’s COVID-19 risk (positive test result or severity, Methods) [7,16–18,32,33]. The susceptibility models were designed to predict a COVID-19 result (positive or negative) from risk factors among testers. We compared four models: our model based on demographics and exposures only (“Dem + Exp”); our model based on demographics, exposures, and symptoms (“Dem + Exp + Symp”); and for benchmarking purposes, a replication of a previously published model called “How We Feel” based on nearly identical self-reported symptoms (“HWF Symp”), and one which also included self-reported exposures (“HWF Exp + Symp”) (Supplementary Note 2, Supplementary Table 18) [18].

All four susceptibility models performed robustly; the three models that included one or more symptoms outperformed the model without symptoms (Dem + Exp), underscoring the value of self-reported symptoms for discriminating between cases and controls (Figure 4, see Supplementary Tables 19-22 for detailed model performance data). The model with demographics, exposures, and symptoms (Dem + Exp + Symp) achieved the highest overall performance with an AUC of 0.94 ± 0.02, a sensitivity of 85%, and a specificity of 91% (Supplementary Note 3). Each of the models performed comparably across different age, sex, and genetic ancestry cohorts (Figure 4, Supplementary Tables 19-22). We observed no significant overfitting in any of the models as evidenced by comparable train-test performances (Supplementary Table 23).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Performance of risk models on independent holdout data.

A) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for susceptibility models to predict COVID-19 cases among testers reporting a result (positive or negative). B) Area under the curve (AUC) for the four susceptibility models in A), stratified by cohort. “All” represents everyone in A). C) ROC curves for severity models to predict either hospitalization (red) or critical illness progression (black) among COVID-19 cases. D) Area under the curve (AUC) for the two severity models in B), stratified by cohort. “All” represents everyone in C). Refer to Methods as well as Supplementary Figure 3 and Supplementary Tables 18-25 for additional model performance data and model risk factor information.

We trained two severity models, designed to predict either hospitalization or progression to critical illness among COVID-19 cases. We included a number of risk factors and symptoms most associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes from the literature and/or our training dataset (Figure 3, Supplementary Tables 16 and 17); these included age [7–9,14], sex [4,7,11,12,14], morbid obesity (BMI >= 40) [7, 34], and health conditions [7,9,12,14,15], as well as symptoms including shortness of breath [31], fever, feeling tired or fatigue, dry cough, and diarrhea. Both models performed robustly on an independent holdout dataset (AUCs of 0.87 +/− 0.03 and 0.90 +/− 0.03 for the hospitalization and critical models, respectively, Figure 4). The severity models performed comparably when stratifying by age, sex, and genetic ancestry (Figure 4, Supplementary Tables 24 and 25), and there was no significant overfitting bias as evidenced by comparable train-test performances (Supplementary Table 23).

Limitations

We note that there are some inherent limitations of self-reported data for studying COVID-19 risk factors. The most severe cases, especially those resulting in mortality, were not sampled. As a result, many of the risk factor effect estimates may be underestimated. Additionally, the AncestryDNA cohort is self-selected, slightly older, more European, and more female than the broader U.S. population. Another potential issue is that those who reported a negative test may have underestimated their exposures and symptoms relative to those who tested positive, leading to upwardly biased exposure effect estimates. Finally, misclassification of COVID-19 positive status is likely given the uneven availability of tests over the time period surveyed, potentially leading to susceptibility effect estimates that are biased toward the null. However, the fact that most of the associations observed in this study were similar to those previously reported in the literature and the fact that risk model performance remained high when data were stratified by age, sex, and genetic ancestry lends confidence to our findings in spite of limitations.