Abstract
Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccines confer exposure-dependent (“leaky”) protection remains unknown. We examined the effect of prior infection and vaccination on infection risk among residents of Connecticut correctional facilities during periods of predominant Omicron and Delta transmission. Residents with cell, unit, and no documented exposures to SARS-CoV-2 infected residents were matched by facility and date. During the Omicron period, prior infection and vaccination reduced the infection risk of residents without a documented exposure (Hazards ratio: infection, 0.36 [0.25-0.54]; vaccination, 0.57 [0.42-0.78]) and with cellblock exposures (infection, 0.61 [0.49-0.75]; vaccination, 0.69 [0.58-0.83]) but not with cell exposures (infection, 0.89 [0.58-1.35]; vaccination, 0.96 [0.64-1.46]). Associations were similar during the Delta period and when analyses were restricted to residents who underwent testing. These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination may be leaky, highlighting the potential benefits of pairing vaccination with non-pharmaceutical interventions in densely crowded settings.
Background
A fundamental question regarding SARS-CoV-2 immunity is whether infection and vaccination confer all-or-nothing or exposure-dependent (“leaky”) protection. Despite continued evidence that prior SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 vaccines provide protection against infection and COVID-19 related illness, protection is incomplete.1–8 While key reasons for imperfect protection include waning protection and variant-specific immune evasion, differences in the viral dose during an infectious exposure may also contribute.6,9–16 In alignment with this hypothesis, the immunity conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination have been speculated to be “leaky”, whereby protection reduces infection risk on a per-exposure basis.17–20 While there are examples of leaky vaccines for infectious diseases, including the RTS,S/ASO1 vaccine for malaria20,21 and attenuated vaccines for Marek’s disease,22 empirical evidence for this phenomenon has not been reported for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccines.
The key barrier to interrogating leaky protection in SARS-CoV-2 immunity is the inherent challenge of measuring viral dose, whether incident or cumulative over time. Investigations thus rely on evaluating proxies such as proximity and duration of exposure to an infected index case. Yet, the use of such proxies has been limited by the lack of reliable information at required scales and by misclassification due to movement and social interactions in real world settings.
The controlled social structure of correctional facilities provides an opportunity to address these limitations and delineate whether prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination confer leaky protection. As a result of the defined housing of residents, residents can be classified as having close exposures (within cell), moderate exposures (within cellblock), or no documented exposures to a SARS-CoV-2 infected resident on a given day. These exposure categories can serve as a proxy for exposure risk in a high transmission setting where movement is restricted between spatial units. Herein, we leveraged the ability to classify residents by recent SARS-CoV-2 exposures and the high frequency of testing performed by the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) to compare the risk of infection and effects of prior infection and vaccination among residents with cell, cellblock, and no documented exposures to SARS-CoV-2 infections during the periods of Delta and Omicron predominance in Connecticut, USA.
Results
COVID-19 prevention and SARS-CoV-2 infections in the correctional system
The Connecticut DOC system is comprised of 13 facilities with a daily census of approximately 9,300 residents.23 During the study period between June 15, 2021 and May, 10, 2022, a total of 15,444 people spent at least one night housed in a DOC-operated facility, of which, 13,490 and 11,492 were residents during periods, respectively, of predominant Delta variant (June 15 to December 13, 2021) and Omicron variant (December 13, 2021 to May 10, 2022) transmission in Connecticut.24 As of the end of the study, 48% of currently incarcerated residents had completed their primary vaccine series and 27% had received a booster dose (Figure 1.A).
The (A) vaccination coverage, (B) number of SARS-CoV-2 tests by reason for testing, (C) proportion of residents tested during a rolling 14-day period among all residents and resident with cell exposure events, cellblock exposure events, and no documented exposure events, (D) number of SARS-CoV-2 infections by reason for testing among people who resided in Connecticut Department of Correction Facility cells between June 15, 2021, and May 10, 2022. During the study period, RT-PCR were collected for mass testing and rapid antigen tests were collected for the following primary reasons: intakes/transfer, contact tracing, symptom presence, random screening, and employment. Infections were defined as a positive test (RT-PCR or rapid antigen test) collected in the absence of a positive test in the last 90 days. Residents were classified as having a cell exposure event on the day their cellmate tested positive, having a cellblock exposure event the day a resident of their cellblock but not cell tested positive, and having an event without documented exposures if no one in their cellblock tested positive on a given day.
The DOC implemented a SARS-CoV-2 testing program consisting of testing of residents who were symptomatic, were contacts of confirmed cases, were due in court or had employment required testing, and were newly incarcerated or transferred between facilities (Supplement: DOC COVID-19 Testing). In addition, the DOC conducted voluntary, bi-weekly mass screening of 10% of residents. In total, 87,884 SARS-CoV-2 tests were performed during the study period, of which 20,794 were RT-PCRs and 67,090 were rapid antigen tests (Figure 1.B). On average, the DOC tested 25% of residents every two weeks and 65% every three months during the study period (Figure 1.C).
Testing intensified from November 2021 to February 2022 (Figure 1.B) when Delta and Omicron BA.1 variant transmission contributed to an epidemic wave in Connecticut. During this period, the average proportion of residents tested in a 14-day period was 33.6% (red line, Figure 1.C). The testing program identified a total of 5,079 SARS-CoV-2 infections, of which 1,598 and 3,481 occurred during the Delta and Omicron periods, respectively. Among the 4,467 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 57% and 38% were identified through contact tracing and symptomatic testing, respectively (Figure 1.D).
Rolling matched cohort of residents exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection
We conducted a rolling matched cohort study that compared the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and effectiveness of prior infection and vaccination among residents with cell, cell block, and without documented exposures to an infected case. A cell exposure event was defined as having ≥1 cellmate test positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the absence of cellmates testing positive in the prior 14 days. A cellblock exposure events was defined as having ≥1 resident of the same cellblock (but different cell) test positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the absence of a cellmate or resident of the cellblock testing positive in the prior 14 days. Events without documented exposures were defined as days when residents did not have a cell or cellblock exposure event in the prior 14 days. We prevented the inclusion of multiple events without documented exposures from the same person during a 14-day period through random selection. We selected a cohort of residents by cluster matching on facility and calendar day of the event and ascertained infection in the subsequent 14-day period during Delta and Omicron periods.
During the Delta period, we identified 290 cell and 5,805 cellblock exposure events among the 7,389 residents who were incarcerated for ≥14 days and spent ≥1 night in a cell with a roommate (Figure 2.A). Among the 584,629 events without documented exposures, we randomly selected events that occurred in the same person within a 14-day period, resulting in 37,394 unique events. After matching, we identified a sample of 264 cell exposure events (258 residents), 5,616 cellblock exposure events (3,745 residents), and 17,024 events without exposure events (6073 residents).
Flowchart showing how people incarcerated within Connecticut Department of Correction facilities and who resided in cells between June 15, 2021, and May 10, 2022, were included in the analysis. Residents were classified as having a cell exposure event on the day their cellmate tested positive, having a cellblock exposure event the day a resident of their cellblock but not cell tested positive, and having an event without documented exposures if no one in their cellblock tested positive on a given day. Cell exposure events that occurred within 14 days following of a prior cell exposure event were excluded. Cellblock exposure events and events without documented exposures that occurred in the 14 days following a cellblock or cell exposure were excluded. aTo prevent the inclusion of multiples events without documented exposures from the same person during a 14-day period, we randomly selected incarceration events without documented exposures and excluded all others within the prior or following 14 days. bWe defined infections as a positive RT-PCR or rapid antigen test during the 14 days of follow-up.
During the Omicron period, we identified 796 cell and 6,408 cellblock exposure events and 259,320 events without documented exposures among 6,161 residents who were incarcerated for ≥14 days and resided in a cell with a roommate for ≥1 day (Figure 2.B). We randomly selected 20,125 among the 259,320 events without a documented exposure. Following matching, we selected 702 cell exposure events (671 residents), 5,980 cellblock exposure events (4,135 residents), and 13,464 events without documented exposures (5,429 residents).
Characteristics of residents with and without exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infections
During the Delta period, events with and without documented exposures occurred among racially similar residents and residents with similar cell sizes (median: 2 residents). However, cellblock exposure events occurred more frequently among residents of larger median cellblock sizes (107.0 residents) than cell exposure events (73.5 residents) or events without documented exposures (88.0 residents). Cell exposure events occurred more frequently among unvaccinated residents (58.7%) than cellblock exposure events or events without a documented exposure (46.3%). Cell exposure events occurred less frequently among people with recorded prior infections (32.2%) than cellblock exposure events or events without documented exposures (38.8%; Table 1).
During the Omicron period, events with and without documented exposures occurred among racially similar residents and residents with similar cell and cellblock sizes. Cell exposure events occurred with similar frequency among unvaccinated residents (46.0%) as cellblock exposure events (43.1%) and events without documented exposures (42.9%). Cell exposure events occurred less frequently among people with recorded prior infections (36.2%) than cellblock exposure events (43.6%) or events without documented exposures (47.0%; Table 1).
High exposure settings in cells and cellblocks impart increased infection risk
During the Delta period, 122 residents tested positive following an event without documented exposures, 233 residents tested positive following a cellblock exposure event, and 53 residents tested positive following a cell exposure event (Figure 2.B). The hazard of infection was 2.67 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.84-3.88) and 9.70 (6.29-14.96) times higher following cellblock and cell exposure events than events without documented exposures, respectively (Figure 3).
Forest plot depicting the association between documented close exposure to a SARS-CoV-2 infected resident and the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Residents were classified as having a cell exposure event on the day their cellmate tested positive, having a cellblock exposure event the day a resident of their cellblock but not cell tested positive, and having an event without documented exposures if no one in their cellblock tested positive on a given day. Cell exposure events that occurred within 14 days following of a prior cell exposure event were excluded. Cellblock exposure events and events without documented exposures that occurred in the 14 days following a cellblock or cell exposure were excluded. The associations were estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by facility and with robust standard errors. The model was adjusted for adjusted for age, calendar date, race, room and cellblock size, vaccination, and prior infection status of the susceptible person.
We conducted a series of sensitivity analyses to address potential concerns regarding sources of bias (Supplement: Sensitivity Analyses). Of primary concern is the bias resulting from inequal testing and differences in reasons for testing following events with and without documented exposures (Figure 1.C; Supplemental Figure 2). To examine potential testing biases, we performed sensitivity analyses (1) restricted to residents who were tested during follow-up and (2) restricted to residents tested during follow-up in the absence of symptoms. Additionally, because we may overestimate the effect of facility exposures by including residents who were exposed to more than one index case on a given day, we conducted a sensitivity analysis limited to cellblock and cell exposure events with only one index case. To ensure including already infected residents did not drive our findings, we conducted an analysis restricted to residents who tested negative in the prior five days. To ensure our exposures were temporally linked to observed infections, we conducted two sensitivity analyses: one excluding the first 2 days of follow-up, and one limiting follow-up to nine days. We found that cellblock and cell exposure events were significantly associated with the hazards of infection for each scenario (HR range: 1.89-3.64 and 5.23-11.91, respectively; Supplement Figures: 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12).
During the Omicron period, 167 residents tested positive following an event without documented exposures, 502 residents tested positive following a cellblock exposure event, and 109 residents tested positive following a cell exposure event (Figure 2.B). The hazard of infection was 3.34 (2.22-5.00) and 4.73 (3.05-7.36) times higher following cellblock or cell exposure events than an event without documented exposures (Figure 3). We conducted the same sensitivity analyses as for the Delta period. Cellblock and cell exposures were found to be significantly associated with an increased hazard of infection for each scenario (HR range: 1.84-5.75 and 1.87-6.71, respectively; Supplement Figures: 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12).
High exposure setting overcomes the protection afforded by natural infection and vaccination
During the Delta period, the effectiveness of prior infection at reducing the hazard of SARS-CoV-2 infection was highest following events without documented exposures (HR: 0.21 [0.11-0.39]) followed by cellblock exposure events (HR 0.32 [0.24-0.44]) and cell exposure events (HR: 0.59 [0.30-1.16]). Vaccine effectiveness was highest following events without documented exposures (HR: 0.32 [0.21-0.49]) followed by cellblock exposure events (HR: 0.35 [0.26-0.47]) and cell exposure events (HR: 0.74 [0.37-1.48]). The effectiveness of prior infection and vaccination was significantly lower following cell exposure events than following events without documented exposures (Prior infection P=0.029; Vaccination P=0.033; Figure 4.A).
Forest plot depicting the association between vaccination and prior infection and the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection by facility exposure type. Residents were classified as having a cell exposure event on the day their cellmate tested positive, having a cellblock exposure event the day a resident of their cellblock but not cell tested positive, and having an event without documented exposures if no one in their cellblock tested positive on a given day. Cell exposure events that occurred within 14 days following of a prior cell exposure event were excluded. Cellblock exposure events and events without documented exposures that occurred in the 14 days following a cellblock or cell exposure were excluded. Residents were classified as being vaccinated if they had received at least one vaccine dose. Associations were examined using Cox Proportional Hazard Models stratified by facility cellblock with robust standard errors. The models were adjusted for (a) age, date of exposure, race, room size, and vaccination status of the susceptible person, and (b) age, date of exposure, race, room size, and prior infection status of the susceptible resident. Prior infections were defined as a recorded positive SARS-COV-2 test at least 90 days prior to the event and vaccinations was defined as the receipt of at least one COVID-19 dose prior to the event. Boxes indicate point estimates and whiskers indicate 95% confidence intervals. Ratio of HRs refer to the p-value comparing the hazard ratio following cellblock or cell exposure events to the hazard ratio following events without documented exposures. P-values are indicated with *, where * indicates significance with an alpha of 0.1 and ** indicates significance with an alpha of 0.05.
We performed sensitivity analyses that paralleled those described above (also see Supplement: Sensitivity Analyses). The effectiveness of prior infection was highest following events without documented exposures and lowest following cell exposure events under all scenarios (Supplemental Figures 4, 6, 8, 11, 13). Vaccine effectiveness was highest following events without documented exposures for all scenarios, except when we limited follow-up to nine days (Supplemental Figure 13). Under this scenario, vaccination reduced the hazard of infection by 0.31 (0.19-0.51) times following events without documented exposures, 0.31 (0.21-0.46) times following cellblock exposure events, and 0.87 (0.45-1.69) times following cell exposure events. When we restricted to residents tested during follow-up, the effectiveness of prior infection and vaccination following cell exposure events were non-significantly lower than following events without documented exposures (P=0.089 and 0.055, respectively; Supplemental Figure 4).
During the Omicron period, the effectiveness of prior infection was highest following events without documented exposures (HR: 0.36 [0.25-0.54]) followed by cellblock exposure events (HR: 0.61 [0.49-0.75]) and cell exposure events (HR: 0.89 [0.58-1.35]). The effectiveness of prior infection was lower following cellblock (P=0.019) and cell exposure events (P=0.002) than events without documented exposures. Vaccine effectiveness was highest following events without documented exposures (HR: 0.57 [0.42-0.78]) followed by cellblock exposure events (HR: 0.69 [0.59-0.83]) and cell exposure events (HR: 0.96 [0.64-1.46]). The effectiveness of prior infection and vaccination was significantly lower following cell exposure events than events without documented exposures (P=0.002 and 0.041, respectively; Supplemental Table 1).
For each sensitivity analysis, the effectiveness of prior infection was highest following events without documented exposures and lowest following cell exposure events (Supplemental Figures: 4, 6, 8, 11, 13). Vaccine effectiveness was highest following events without documented exposures and lowest following cell exposure events under all scenarios (Supplemental Figures 4, 6, 8, 11, 13). When we restricted to residents tested during follow-up, the effectiveness of prior infection and vaccination following cell exposure events was lower than following events without documented exposures, but the difference was non-significant (P=0.098 and 0.052, respectively; Supplemental Figure 4).
SARS-CoV-2 exposure specific effects of prior infection and vaccination on Infectiousness
As a secondary analysis, we hypothesized that the prior infection and vaccination status of the index cases may influence transmission. We examined this by restricting our sample to cellblock and cell exposure events and comparing the hazards of infection when the index case had and did not have the immunizing event of interest. During the Delta period, the prior infection history of the index case was associated with a non-significantly higher hazard of SARS-CoV-2 transmission following cellblock exposure events (HR: 1.96 [0.93-4.12]) and a non-significantly lower hazard following cell exposure events (HR: 0.91 [95 CI: 0.20-4.18]). The vaccination status of the index case was associated with a non-significantly lower hazard of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among cellblock exposure events (HR: 0.75 [0.18-3.12]) and cell exposure events (HR: 0.71 [0.26-1.93]; Figure 5).
Forest plot depicting the association between vaccination and prior infection and the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection by documented SARS-CoV-2 exposure status. Residents were classified as having a cell exposure event on the day their cellmate tested positive, having a cellblock exposure event the day a resident of their cellblock but not cell tested positive, and having an event without documented exposures if no one in their cellblock tested positive on a given day. Cell exposure events that occurred within 14 days following of a prior cell exposure event were excluded. Cellblock exposure events and events without documented exposures that occurred in the 14 days following a cellblock or cell exposure were excluded. Residents were classified as being vaccinated if they had received at least one vaccine dose. Associations were examined using Cox Proportional Hazard Models stratified by housing cellblock with robust standard errors. The models were adjusted for (a) age, date of exposure, race, room size, vaccination and prior infection status of the susceptible person, and vaccinated status of the index case (limited to exposed residents), (b) age, date of exposure, race, room size, vaccination and prior infection status of the susceptible person, and prior infection status of the index case (limited to exposed residents). Prior infections were defined as a recorded positive SARS-COV-2 test at least 90 days prior to the event and vaccinations was defined as the receipt of at least one COVID-19 dose prior to the event. Boxes indicate point estimates and whiskers indicate 95% confidence intervals. Significant P-values are indicated with *, where * indicates significance with an alpha of 0.1 and ** indicates significance with an alpha of 0.05.
During the Omicron period, the prior infection status of the index case was associated with a non-significantly lower hazard of SARS-CoV-2 transmission following cellblock exposure events (HR: 0.52 [0.27-1.03]) and cell exposure events (HR: 0.72 [95 CI: 0.25-2.03]). The vaccination history of the index case was associated with a non-significantly lower hazard of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among cellblock exposure events (HR: 0.55 [0.24-1.24]) and cell exposure events (HR: 0.52 [0.20-1.36]; Figure 5).
Discussion
Leveraging the controlled social structure and detailed epidemiological data of correctional facilities, we found that residents with close (cell) exposures and moderate (cellblock) exposures to SARS-CoV-2 infected residents had a significantly higher risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 than residents without a documented exposure during Delta and Omicron periods. Further, we found that prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination significantly reduced the risk of infection among residents with cellblock exposures and without documented exposures, but not residents with cell exposures during both periods. Finally, we found that the vaccination status of the index case was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of secondary SARS-CoV-2 cases following cell and cellblock exposures during Delta and Omicron periods.
Our findings indicate that exposure to an infected resident in a cell or cellblock significantly increased the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and supports the benefit of contact tracing within the cell and cellblock of infected residents. These findings held irrespective of the period when differing variants were circulating. However, the magnitude of the cell exposure effect was smaller during the Omicron period than the Delta period, potentially due to the increased transmissibility of the Omicron variant and the high transmission burden during the 2021-2022 Omicron wave in Connecticut.25–27 Despite the observed decline in effect size, cellblock or cell exposures increased the hazard of infection by 3.3 and 4.7 times during the Omicron period, respectively. These findings speak to the continued need for contact tracing within correctional facilities and other high-density settings, including nursing homes and other congregate facilities, and also suggest that contact tracing should not be limited to residents of the same cell and be expanded to residents that interact during recreation and meals, as is the case among residents of the same cellblock within Connecticut DOC facilities.
During both the Delta and Omicron periods, we found that neither prior infection nor vaccination provide significant levels of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection following cell exposure events. Further, we found that these immunity-conferring events had significantly smaller effects following cell exposure events than following events without documented exposures. These findings provide empirical evidence that, while accounting for factors thought to be associated with vaccine acceptance and effectiveness, the protection offered by the vaccine, and prior infections, appears to be leaky. These finding suggest that there may be an additional mechanism, based on the intensity of the infectious exposure, which may explain observed, partial levels of immunity conferred by natural infection and vaccination, in addition to factors such variant-specific immune escape, waning immunity and reduced effectiveness in specific subpopulations, such as older individuals.28–30
Beyond providing an evidence base for the mechanism by which prior SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 vaccines confer immunity, these findings have broad implications on SARS-CoV-2 transmission modeling, vaccine effectiveness analyses, and prevention strategy development. Though SARS-CoV-2 transmission models may incorporate a simplifying assumption that the vaccines provide leaky protection,31,32 the validity of this assumption has not been previously documented with empirical data and model parameterization based examinations were found to be inconclusive.31 Thus, our findings provide evidence that this assumption may be valid. They also indicate that when estimating future disease burdens under scenarios of defined exposures, modelers may need to account for the reduced effectiveness of prior infections and vaccinations among modeled participants with prolonged, close exposures.31,32 Furthermore, theoretical studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of leaky vaccines is underestimated by common study designs, which may contribute to variation in observed vaccine effectiveness across settings.17,33
These findings also suggest the benefit of layered interventions in general, and particularly within densely packed social settings. In the presence of leaky vaccines, non-pharmaceutical interventions have been proposed in tandem with vaccination in order to reduce exposure and mitigate infection spread.34 Such interventions may include social distancing, quarantine and isolation, masking, and improved ventilation and airflow.35,36 While our findings are obtained from the investigation of a correctional facility system, in the presence of a leaky vaccine, layered interventions may afford a benefit in other congregate settings and community settings where prolonged, close contact with infected people may occur, such as mass gatherings.
If the protection offered by vaccination is indeed leaky, the increased transmissibility of the Omicron variant may have contributed to the well documented decline in the effectiveness of vaccination during periods of Omicron predominance.25,27,37 In alignment with prior studies and this speculation, we observed lower levels of protection conferred by prior infection and vaccination during the Omicron period. Though this decline has been primarily attributed to variant specific immune escape due to the large number of mutations present in the spike protein,37–39 the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant may have resulted in high exposure levels (pathogen pressure) in the community to enhance the effects of leaky protection in populations that experienced prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or were vaccinated. This speculation invokes the question of whether layered interventions would provide increased benefit in general settings, not just within densely packed settings, when highly transmissible variants are circulating.
Our effect estimates on infectiousness during the Omicron period, while imprecise, are in alignment with a prior study by Tan et al.41 This study, conducted in California correctional facilities, found that the prior infection and vaccination status of an index case reduced the risk of transmission by 40% (20-55%) and 22% (6-36%), respectively. Similarly, we found that the risk of transmission following a cell exposure was 0.72 (0.25-2.03) times lower among infected residents with a prior infection and 0.52 (0.2-1.36) times lower among infected residents with a history of vaccination than residents without a prior infection or history of vaccination. Though our precision prevents us from making broad conclusions from these findings, they support the findings of Tan et al.41
We acknowledge that our study was subject to several limitations. A key potential limitation stems from testing related differences following events with and without documented exposures. Though the Connecticut DOC has, and continues to, conduct intensive COVID-19 testing, testing is more common among residents with an infected cellmate than residents without a documented exposure (Figure 1.C) and may result in an overestimation of the effect of cell or cellblock exposures. While we did observe an attenuation towards the null following the restriction to people who were tested during follow-up, we found that cell and cellblock exposure events continued to be associated with an increased risk of infection. Further, this restriction did not remove the observed gradient in the levels of protection conferred by prior infection or vaccination by facility exposure.
Beyond testing frequency, differences in reasons for testing following events with and without exposures may have introduced bias into our analysis (Supplement Figure 2). Of specific concern was testing in the presence of symptoms because of the association between symptoms and the level of protection offered by prior infection and vaccination. To account for this, we conducted a sensitivity analysis restricted to people tested in the absence of symptoms (limited to rapid testing due to data). Though we had reduced precision for this analysis, we continued to find the levels of protection to be highest following events without documented exposures and lowest following cell exposure events. While our testing related sensitivity analyses increase our confidence, we recognize that residual testing related biases may be present.
Additionally, our analysis was conducted within a single DOC system and the study findings may not be generalizable to all correctional facility settings. Further, due to data limitations, we did not have symptom data on all tested residents, nor did we have staff testing or infection data or comorbidity and masking data on any residents. The absence of comorbidity data may result in a biased estimate of the vaccine effectiveness as residents with comorbidities are more likely to become vaccinated and may be more or less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2, depending on differential behaviors. However, through adjusting for age and race, we may have accounted for a part of the confounding effect of comorbidities on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We did not have data on prior infection status of residents prior to incarceration. As a result, residents classified as having no prior infection may be misclassified and the effect of prior infection may be conservative. We do not believe, however, that this misclassification would be differentially associated with the type of facility exposure and impact our results. Further, due to sample limitations, we were unable to stratify vaccinated residents by time since vaccination.
Behavioral differences between people with prior infections or who have been vaccinated may differ from people without a prior infection or vaccination. While this may have led to either an over or under estimation of the effect of cell or cellblock exposures, it should not have driven our findings suggesting leakiness. Finally, this analysis is limited to an outcome of infection and the presentation of the leakiness may differ for more severe outcomes.
This study provides empiric evidence that COVID-19 vaccination and prior infection confer exposure dependent (“leaky”) protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections. The findings support the use of leaky vaccine parameters in SARS-CoV-2 transmission modeling and indicate the need for modelers to account for the reduced protection conferred by prior infection and vaccinations among people with prolonged, close exposures. Further, our findings suggest the need for layered interventions to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 spread, especially within dense settings, such as congregate settings and in settings where prolonged contact is likely, such as households with infected people.
Methods
Population and Data
We conducted a rolling matched cohort analysis among residents of Connecticut DOC facilities who were incarcerated between June 15, 2021, when Delta became the predominant variant in Connecticut according to sequenced clinical samples, and May 10, 2022.24 Resident demographic (age, race, sex), housing (daily facility, cellblock [block of cells or dorm], cell or dorm, and bunk), and COVID-19 testing, and vaccination data were extracted from DOC maintained databases containing data collected as part of routine SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. Testing records included all rapid antigen (primarily BinaxNOW) and RT-PCR (primarily analyzed by Quest) tests administered within a DOC operated facility since the beginning of the pandemic. We excluded residents who never spent a night in a cell with at least one cellmate, spent less than 14 days incarcerated, or resided exclusively within a restricted housing cellblock. This project was determined to be a public health surveillance activity by the Yale University Institutional Review Board (ID: 2000031675).
Department of Correction COVID-19 Protocols
Since the introduction of COVID-19 in the winter of 2019-2020, the Connecticut DOC has implemented numerous COVID-19 prevention strategies including testing (rapid antigen and RT-PCR), masking, isolation/quarantine, and vaccination. As part of their COVID-19 mitigation strategy, the DOC restricted the interaction of residents during meal and recreation time to residents of the same cellblock. Thus, during the study period, residents of the same cellblock interacted with other residents of their cellblock during meal and recreation times but, unless their employment required them to move throughout the facility, the residents did not interact with residents of different cellblocks. However, DOC staff continued to move throughout the facilities and were placed in different cellblocks on different days.
Masks are required for all residents while outside of their cell or, if residing in a dorm, moving around their dorm. This is analogous to a non-incarcerated person wearing a mask while socializing in public but not having to wear a mask within their home. Testing with RT-PCRs was and continues to be conducted primarily for mass testing. Testing with rapid antigen test was and continues to be conducted for five primary reasons: intakes/transfers, symptomatic, employment, and contact tracing.41,42 Among residents of cells, contact tracing is conducted among residents of the same cell as the infected residents and among residents of the same cellblock or facility but only if there was known contact with the infected resident. For each testing reason, a resident may have been provided a PCR or rapid antigen test. Resident testing as part of screening is considered optional but regular testing is required for many within facility jobs as well as some community facing jobs. The specific testing requirements vary by position. Residents who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 are moved to isolation the day they test positive.
A detailed description of the vaccination program can be found elsewhere.42,43 Briefly, the DOC began their COVID-19 vaccination program on February 2nd, 2021 and provided vaccines to residents who qualified for vaccination according to state-defined eligibility and were not actively infected. Residents who were partially vaccinated were offered second or subsequent doses of the corresponding vaccine. Vaccinations received prior to incarceration were verified using CT WiZ, Connecticut’s COVID-19 vaccine registry.43
Sample, Type of SARS-CoV-2 Exposure, Follow-up and Matching
For each resident, we identified the days they were housed in a cell. We excluded the first 14 days a person was in the study along with days a resident was housed in a restricted housing cellblock, had an undefined housing location, or did not have at least one roommate. Additionally, to prevent the inclusion of the same infection more than once, we excluded resident days in the 90 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 infection.
On each included day, residents were classified as having one of three facility structure defined SARS-CoV-2 exposure event types: cell exposure event, cellblock exposure event, or events without documented exposures. We classified a resident as having a cell exposure event if at least one of their cellmates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, a cellblock exposure event if at least one resident of the same cellblock but different cell tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, or an event without documented exposures if no one in their cellblock tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Supplemental Figure 1). We excluded cell exposure events that occurred within 14 days of a prior cell exposure event and cellblock exposure events and events without documented exposures that occurred within 14 days of a prior cellblock or cell exposure event. Further, to remove the risk of including multiple events without documented exposures from the same resident during a 14-day period, we randomized the sample of residents with events without documented exposures and dropped all days for each person within 14 days of the selected date. Following this exclusion, we cluster matched the cell exposure events, cellblock exposure events and events without documented exposures on facility (exact) and calendar date (+/- 7 days). This ensured that each exposure group was observed at the same time and in the same facility.
Residents were defined as becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 if they tested positive during the 14 days following inclusion.40 We censored resident time on the date of release or death or when a resident became exposed at a more proximal level (ex. resident with a cellblock exposure was exposed within their cell). This sampling schematic allowed for residents to be included in the analysis multiple times for the same or different facility exposure statuses. The sample was then stratified by variant predominance within Connecticut (Delta: June 15, 2021, through December 12, 2021; Omicron: December 13, 2021, through the end of the study [May 10, 2022]).24 We stratified this analysis by variant predominance due to differences in the transmissibility of the variants and the levels of protection offered by prior infections and vaccinations against the variants.10,25,39
Vaccination and Prior Infection Status
We identified the prior infection and vaccination history of residents with cell exposure events, cellblock exposure events, and events without documented exposures. Additionally, we identified the prior infection and vaccination history of the index cases (infected residents that resulted in all cell and cellblock exposures). We classified a person as being vaccinated if they had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, regardless of the brand or time since the dose was administered. We defined a prior infection as a positive, recorded SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen or RT-PCR test collected in a DOC facility at least 90 days prior to the date of inclusion.
Statistical Analysis
We visually summarized the vaccine coverage, number of COVID-19 tests and number of SARS-CoV-2 infections recorded among DOC residents during the study period. We summarized the resident characteristics of cell exposure events, cellblock exposure events, and events without documented exposures using medians, first and third quartiles, counts and percentages.
Association Between Facility Exposure and SARS-CoV-2 Infection Risk
We estimated the association between known SARS-CoV-2 exposure and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk using a facility stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with an outcome of test positive SARS-CoV-2 infection, a primary exposure of type of facility exposure (cell exposure events, cellblock exposure events, or events without documented exposures). Further, to account for the correlation of events among people residing within the same cellblock, we estimated confidence intervals using robust standard errors. The model was adjusted for the following a priori selected potential confounders (Supplemental Figure 14): calendar time (continuous), age (continuous), self-identified race (non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, Other), and room and cellblock size (continuous). Continuous variables were modeled flexibly using natural splines.
Facility Exposure Specific Effects of Prior Infection and Vaccination on Susceptibility
We estimated the association between prior infection on infection risk using a cellblock stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with robust standard errors, an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a primary exposure of prior infection history, and an interaction term between facility exposure type and prior infection history. The model was adjusted for the calendar time (continuous), age (continuous), staff assigned race, room size (continuous), and the vaccination history of the susceptible resident. The effect of vaccination was examined using the same model but with a primary exposure of vaccination instead of prior infection. We tested if the hazard ratios of cell and cellblock exposure events were significantly different than the hazard ratio for events without documented exposures using two-sided z-tests and defined significance with an alpha of 0.1.
Facility Exposure Specific Effects of Prior Infection and Vaccination on Infectiousness
As a secondary analysis, we were interested in evaluating the impact the index cases’ history of prior infection and vaccination had on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents with cellblock and cell exposure events. For this analysis, we restricted our sample to residents with facility exposures. If residents were exposed to multiple index cases on the same day, we restricted to residents who were exposed to index cases with the same prior infection and vaccination histories. We estimated the effect of prior infection on infectiousness using a cellblock stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with robust standard errors. The model had an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection, an exposure of the index case’s prior infection history, and an interaction term between facility exposure type and the index case’s prior infection history. The model was adjusted for the same factors as the susceptibility analysis model and the vaccination history of the index case. The effect of vaccination was examined using the same model but with a primary exposure of the index case’s vaccination history instead of prior infection history.
Sensitivity Analyses
To test the robustness of our findings to alternative study design, data cleaning, and modeling assumptions, we conducted multiple sensitivity analyses (Supplement: Sensitivity Analyses). Of particular concern was biases due to differences in testing frequency or reasons for testing among residents with and without cell or cellblock exposures. To examine the impact of potential testing bias, we conducted two sensitivity analyses. First, we restricted to residents tested during follow-up. Second, because symptoms are associated with the level of protection conferred by prior infections and vaccinations, we restricted to residents tested in the absence of symptoms. Because symptoms data was only available for rapid testing, this analysis was limited to residents tested using a rapid antigen test during follow-up.
In addition to concerns around testing related biases, we were concerned that we may have overestimated the association between documented SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection risk by including residents’ exposure to multiple infected residents in their cell or cellblock on the same day. To examine this, we conducted a sensitivity analysis restricted to cell and cellblock exposure events where only one index case was observed. Further, to ensure that our decision to include residents without recent negative tests did not drive our findings, we conducted a sensitivity analysis restricted to residents who tested negative in the prior five days. Additionally, we wanted to ensure our exposures were temporally linked to observed infections. To do so, we conducted two sensitivity analyses: one excluding the first 2 days of follow-up, and one limiting follow-up to nine days. For a detailed description of sensitivity analyses performed see Supplement: Sensitivity Analyses.
Data Availability
The data used in this study belongs to the Connecticut Department of Correction. Qualified researchers may submit a data share request for de-identified patient level data by contacting the corresponding author with a detailed description of the research question and setting up a data use agreement with the Department of Corrections. Code used to perform power calculations and conduct statistical analyses is available in the following repository: https://github.com/lindm89/CT_DOC_Dose_Effect_Vax.git.
Author contributions
Margaret L. Lind and Albert Ko have full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. MLL, AIK, RR, and BK conceived the study. The data was collected and processed by MLL, DM, AH, ML, BK, and RR. MLL, MDTH, DATC, RT, and SL performed the analysis. MLL, AIK, BK, MDTH, DATC, JA, and RR drafted the manuscript. All authors provided critical review of the results and contributed to manuscript revision. AH, ML, BK, RR, and AIK supplied administrative, technical, and material support. Supervision was provided by BK, RR, DATC, and AIK.
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
A.I.K is as an expert panel member for Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, and a consultant for Tata Medical and Diagnostics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and has received grants related to COVID-19 research outside the scope of the proposed work from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Tata Medical and Diagnostics. W.L.S. was an investigator for a research agreement, through Yale University, from the Shenzhen Center for Health Information for work to advance intelligent disease prevention and health promotion; collaborates with the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing; is a technical consultant to Hugo Health, a personal health information platform, and co-founder of Refactor Health, an AI-augmented data management platform for healthcare; and has received grants related to COVID-19 research outside the scope of the proposed work from Regeneron Pharmaceutical. Other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data Access
The data used in this study belongs to the Connecticut Department of Correction. Qualified researchers may submit a data share request for de-identified patient level data by contacting the corresponding author with a detailed description of the research question and setting up a data use agreement with the Department of Corrections. Code used to perform power calculations and conduct statistical analyses is available in the following repository: https://github.com/lindm89/CT_DOC_Dose_Effect_Vax.git.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the individuals who provided the information for the analyses and thank the staff of the Connecticut Department of Corrections for their efforts in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and in collecting data for the study. We also thank Ryan Borg and Dava Flowers-Poole for their assistance in the coordination of the study. This work was supported by a contract from the Connecticut Department of Public Health (Emerging Infections Program 2021-0071 to A.I.K.), the Raj and Indra Nooyi Professorship (to A.I.K), and the Merck Investigator Studies Program (to W.L.S. and A.I.K.). The funders did not have a role in the design or implementation of the study nor the decision to publish the study. The study and its findings are the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Connecticut Department of Correction.
References
