Geographic disparities in COVID-19 case rates are not reflected in seropositivity rates using a neighborhood survey in Chicago

METHODS

All research activities were implemented under conditions of informed consent with protocols approved by the institutional review board of the university where the authors are primarily affiliated. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools (28).

To select ZIP code pairs, COVID-19 cumulative case rates by ZIP code were obtained from Chicago Department of Public Health’s COVID-19 website (2). Additional health, socio-economic, and demographic ZIP code level data were selected from US Census Bureau American Community Survey (29) and the Chicago Health Atlas (listed in Table 2) (30). ZIP codes were ranked based on the CDPH COVID-19 cumulative case rate for the week of 4/26/20-5/2/20. Low case rate ZIP codes (category 1 or 2) that were adjacent to high case rate ZIP codes (category 4 or 5) were selected for review. In cases were multiple touching ZIPs met the criteria, a ZIP was selected based on additional criteria listed in Table 2. Five ZIP code pairs were chosen based on geographic location, highest case rates, and these additional socio-economic, health, and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Table 1 reports sample characteristics. A slight majority of the sample was non-Latinx white (54.3%), most had never tested for COVID-19 (71.4%), and the sample was heterogenous in terms of employment-based SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk. Overall, the seroprevalence in the sample was 18.7%. As indicated by non-overlapping confidence intervals in estimates in Table 1, seroprevalence was significantly higher in Latinx (25.9%) than White non-Latinx (15.6%), and in those who had previously tested COVID-19 positive (90.2%) than those who had never tested (17.2%) or tested negative (16.1%).

Figure 1 shows a map with the distribution of seropositive and seronegative negative participants within the 10 ZIP codes. Finer grain maps of participants’ residential locations with geographic features overlayed (e.g., highways, train yards, waterways, etc.; not shown to protect participant confidentiality) suggested an even distribution of participants within residential spaces in each ZIP code, with the exception of 60643 in which there were few cases in residential areas east of the interstate highway. This even distribution suggests a lack of clustering of participants along paired ZIP code boundaries in a way that would have confounded our analyses of similarities between case rates and seroprevalence. Multiple approaches to geospatial hotspot analyses did not demonstrate significant cluster of seroprevalence within ZIP codes.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: GIS plot of SARS-Cov-2 cases within 10 zip codes included in the sampling frame, Chicago, IL 2020.

Source: ESRI, TomTom North America, Inc, United States Postal Service

Table 2 presents characteristics of the 10 ZIP codes included in the study. In each pair, the ZIP code with the higher case rate is in the column to the left of the ZIP code with the lower case rate. Cumulative case rates in all ZIP codes increased from the time when ZIP codes were first selected to the end of data collection, and most ZIP code pairs were relatively stable in terms of the ratio of reported cases across pairs, with the exception of pair 5 (60643 and 60655). In this pair, 60655 had a much larger increase in the case rate than any other ZIP code. Rates of COVID-19 testing by ZIP code were not available at the time of ZIP code selection, but were subsequently released. Across pairs, cumulative test numbers in April/May were higher (pairs 1, 2, 4) in ZIP codes with more cases or similar across pairs (pairs 3, 5). By November, number of cumulative tests became more similar across pairs. Zip code pairs varied considerably in certain observed characteristics, such as population size, markers of healthcare accessibility (i.e., rates of avoidable emergency department visits), transportation-based exposure risk (i.e., use of public transportation to work), poverty, and race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity of study participants also varied by ZIP code, but non-white participants were underrepresented in each. Better representation was achieved with Latinx participants.

Figure 2 plots SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence vs. cumulative COVID-19 case rates for each ZIP code pair. Table 3 shows odds ratios of seroprevalence within each of the 5 ZIP code pairs, none of which were significant; even trends across pairs did not support the hypothesis that adjacent ZIP codes with higher case rates trended towards a higher seroprevalence based on antibody testing. Adjustments with individual-level covariates that differ across ZIP codes (e.g., race/ethnicity) did alter some point estimates but did not change the pattern of significance of results. Analyses weighting data to census characteristics (not shown) also did not alter the pattern or significance of findings.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. SARS-Cov-2 Seroprevalence rates vs. cumulative COVID-19 case rate by ZIP code pair.

Adjacent ZIP codes with substantial differences in cumulative case rates were selected and surveyed for seroprevalence. We did not detect statistically significant differences in seroprevalence between the high case rate ZIP code and the low case rate ZIP code for any of the pairs surveyed. This suggests that the prevalence of SARS-Cov-2 exposure does not account for neighborhood differences in COVID-19 case rates.

DISCUSSION

In this study we sought to test the hypothesis that geographic differences in epidemiology of COVID-19 based on case reports would be confirmed in a seroprevalence study of IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Our comparison of 5 adjacent ZIP codes with substantially different COVID-19 case rates at the time of selection did not confirm this hypothesis. In unadjusted, adjusted, and weighted analyses, there were no significant differences in seroprevalence between ZIP codes in the same pair. This suggests little association between case rates by ZIP code and infection rates as estimated by serosurveillance.

There are several possible explanations for why seroprevalence may not track case rates. First, it is possible that our seroprevalence study provided a better representation of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology than case rates. We used a highly sensitive assay (27), and therefore likely detected positive individuals who were asymptomatic and never sought testing. At times, diagnostic testing in Chicago was unavailable or extremely restricted, and therefore even symptomatic individuals were not tested; these untested individuals would have been identified as having had COVID-19 with this antibody screen. Further, participants in the current study could be screened for antibodies by providing a sample they collect at home, and even when diagnostic testing was available, some individuals feared leaving their home to go to testing spaces. Along these same lines, serological antibody testing is a marker of past infections, whereas PCR diagnostic testing only detects active infections. If serology is indeed a more accurate representation of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, it would suggest that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 may have been more widespread than is indicated by case rates. This conclusion is also supported by a recent study comparing seroprevalence to case rates in 10 sites in the U.S. (36).

Second, it is possible that, due to the sensitivity of the assay used in our study, we detected individuals who had lower doses of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time of exposure, which may be associated with an asymptomatic or less intense clinical presentation (37, 38). If this is true, then observed variation in case rates across ZIP codes may actually represent differences in severity of illness. Individuals with a larger exposure doses may have an increased likelihood of experiencing symptoms and subsequently receiving diagnostic testing. Thus, individuals across these ZIP code pairs may not differ in their rates of actual exposure, but instead in their dose of exposure. If this is the case, it suggests that the use of serosurveillance studies to inform public health action may need to consider the disconnect between detection of any exposure and clinical risk. Quantitative antibody assays linking levels of antibody response to clinical presentation may be particularly useful for such research. At the same time, larger exposure doses would likely be tied to a close proximity between an infected and uninfected individual, such as those sharing a room in the same home. While 10 ZIP codes is too few for a formal statistical test, in our study a widely used metric of residential crowding (% of housing with 1.51+ occupants per room) showed little-to-no association with ZIP code seroprevalence. Of course, ZIP code level living density is not synonymous with density assessed at the level of a single home, so future research should assess number of people in home and in a shared bedroom.

A third possibility is that case rates are closely tied to symptoms, and symptoms are tied to older age and underlying comorbidities (39), so even in conditions of constant levels of exposure/infection/transmission across neighborhoods, those with more social determinants of chronic diseases would tend to have higher case rates— assuming equal access to testing. When study ZIP codes were selected in April/May, testing as a proportion of the population was low across all ZIP codes (mean = 8.3% range 3.1-16.0%), but increased until at study completion most ZIP codes had more cumulative tests than residents. While the current sample size of 10 ZIP codes is too small to compute a correlation, the pattern of results does not suggest that diagnostic testing rates are positively associated with seropositivity. Census markers of poor healthcare access also did not show a strong positive trend with seropositivity. Admittedly, these are crude markers of presence of chronic diseases so future studies should examine additional markers. Overall, this pattern is consistent with more uniform spread of infections, including those that are asymptomatic, across Chicago ZIP codes than would be suggested by case surveillance data.

Our study also examined the relationship between individual characteristics and seropositivity. Differences by age, gender groups, and employment status stratified by possible exposure risk were not significant. As an epidemiological confirmation of the validity of the antibody assay used in this study, participants who self-reported a prior positive COVID test were substantially more likely to be seropositive than those who did not (90.2% versus 16.1-17.2%). Most racial minority groups trended toward higher seropositivity, but the only significant difference was between Latinx and White, non-Latinx participants (25.9% versus 15.6%). These findings are consistent with case surveillance in Chicago, which indicated that at the time of the launch of data collection, case rates were surging in the Latinx community. As of February 5, 2021, the infection case rate in the Latinx population was higher than non-Latinx White and Black combined (10,797.4, 4,851.2, and 5,227.8, respectively)(2). Test positivity rates showed a similar pattern. Cumulative deaths since the beginning of the pandemic have occurred substantially more among Black Chicagoans; in fact, this alarming pattern is what inspired the focus of this study seeking to understand disparities in SARS-CoV-2 spread. Fortunately, these inequities in deaths from COVID-19 have shrunk over time as death rates overall have declined in the context of more effective prevention and treatment. This pattern is consistent with some partial role of pre-existing comorbidities in explaining racial disparities in COVID-19 disease and death; the magnitude or existence of such an effect is still contested in the existing literature and will require further research (3, 7, 8). Such an effect would support repeating again the call to urgently address social determinants of health that produce inequities in chronic diseases that will exacerbate medical disparities when pandemic occur (40, 41).

Findings must be considered in the context of study limitations. This was not a probability sample, but instead obtained through social and news media, community outreach, and employees of a large medical school. Our goal was not to provide population estimates of seroprevalence, rather we sought to look at relative rates within pairs of carefully selected adjacent ZIP codes with differing case rates. Nevertheless, our estimation of seroprevalence within ZIP codes may be biased by our sampling approach. For example, despite attempts to target recruitment from Black communities, the proportion of Black participants in the study underrepresented the demographics of Chicago. We sought to partially correct for this with sensitivity analyses that included demographic covariates and weighting. Further, individuals who opted to volunteer to participate when reading about the study through widespread coverage in local news, social media ads, or community outreach may not represent the entire community. Second, participants were required to self-collect a DBS sample. Through well-produced videos and collection materials we hoped to minimize concerns, but selection biases may still have operated.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 may be more consistent across neighborhoods within Chicago than was previously thought based on reported COVID-19 case rates. This suggests that factors other than differential seroprevalence may play a role in driving disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. One possibility is that pre-existing chronic conditions are associated with greater risks of symptomatic infection, leading to higher rates of symptomatic illness and case detection in groups with higher rates pre-existing chronic conditions. Another possibility is that the average dose of exposure is higher in some neighborhoods compared to others, leading higher rates of symptomatic illness and case detection in areas where the intensity of exposure is greater. Differences in viral dose may occur for a variety of reasons including differences in adherence to preventive behaviors, work environments, or living situations. Our results highlight the importance of investigating other factors besides differential exposure as potential drivers of inequity in COVID-19 outcomes.