Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2; a prospective longitudinal study showing higher viral load and transmissibility of the Alpha variant compared to previous strains

Study design and study population

The design of this prospective longitudinal study was based on the WHO Household Transmission Investigation protocol (11). From May to June 2020, and from September 2020 to May 2021, we recruited households of laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases in the capital/county Oslo and the surrounding county Viken. The course of the pandemic in Oslo/Viken, and of recruitment in this period, are shown in Figure 1A and Figure 1B, respectively. All households with a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 case aged ≥12 years, living with at least one other person aged ≥2 years, were eligible for participation. To avoid recruitment of households with co-primary cases, households with more than two members who tested positive on the same date were not eligible, unless the transmission dynamics were known. A further exclusion criterion was added when COVID-19 vaccines became available, whereby households with vaccinated individuals were not eligible.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: The course of the COVID-19 pandemic in Oslo/Viken, Norway, and the number of participants included in the study, from May 1 2020 to April 3 2021.

A) The number of all reported laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases in Oslo/Viken, Norway, during the study recruitment period. Participating households were recruited from these two counties. The daily number of cases is shown in grey, while the cumulative number of cases is shown in green. Source: Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS).

B) The number of included participants during the study recruitment period. The weekly number of participants included is shown in blue, while the cumulative number is shown in green. Three recruitment pauses are indicated.

Primary cases and their household contacts were identified by the municipalities’ infection control teams following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and were subsequently contacted by the study team. Households willing to participate were visited at home, and written informed consent was obtained from the participants and/or their guardians before study inclusion.

The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee in Norway (#118354).

National COVID-19 isolation and quarantine regulations

According to the Norwegian COVID-19 regulations, isolation was mandatory for persons with confirmed COVID-19. The isolation should be implemented at home or similar for at least 8-10 days after symptom debut (recommendations varied throughout the study period), lasting at least three days after symptom relief. Asymptomatic cases had to isolate for 10 days after their initial positive PCR-test. In isolation, positive cases were instructed to stay ≥2 meters from other household members, use separate bathrooms, towels, and bedrooms if possible. Household contacts were instructed to quarantine in their homes, maintaining an increased distance to other adults in the household.

Sampling and data collection

The first home visit for inclusion and sampling was termed Day0, and seven further home visits for sampling were performed during the following 6 weeks (i.e. termed Day3, Day7, Day10, Day14, Day21, Day28, and Day42) (Supplementary Figure 1).

Oropharyngeal (OP) samples and neat saliva samples were gathered from eligible participants on each visit to test for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. Health care workers collected OP samples using OP flocked swabs (FLOQSwabs™Copan, Italy), in 3 ml UTM (Universal Transport Medium, Copan Italy). Whole blood (Vacuette®EDTA-k2) was collected once for each participant aged ≥18 years for blood typing. Saliva and blood for immunological analyses were also collected at Day0, Day7, Day14, Day28, Day42 and Day180 (not subject of this publication).

All participants were asked to answer a questionnaire on Day0 (Q-D0), to obtain information about the household in general, transmission risk factors, clinical symptoms, and general health status. This questionnaire was adapted from the WHO protocol. The questions on behavioral risk factors in the Q-D0 related to the period up to 10 days prior to SARS-CoV-2 confirmation of the primary case, and precautionary practices after confirmation. An additional questionnaire (Q-DX) asking about the suspected source of transmission, adherence to isolation/quarantine regulations and self-report of the severity of disease, was answered by participants at the home visit on Day28/Day42 or collected through phone interviews. In addition, a symptom diary adapted from the WHO protocol was completed daily from Day0 to Day28 by all participants.

Laboratory testing

The laboratory analysis and interpretations were conducted by NIPH. All OP and saliva samples were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. The positive samples were further analyzed by amplicon-based whole genome sequencing (WGS) of SARS-CoV-2 and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) for absolute quantification, as described in Supplementary Methods. To estimate the viral load, SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per µl eluate was determined by ddPCR using the saliva sample with the lowest cycle of threshold (Ct) value for each participant, if sufficient material was available.

Definition of cases and contacts

Household contacts were defined as individuals aged ≥2 years who resided with the primary case. A household contact was considered a secondary case if they had a positive PCR test (OP and/or saliva), and their symptom onset/PCR positive test (which ever came first; defined as T0) was within 14 days after T0 of the primary case. If a household contact had a T0 ≥2 days prior to T0 of the original primary case, the household contact was defined as an alternative primary case. If household members had the same T0, or +/-1 day, they were re-defined as co-primary cases, unless the original primary case had a known source of infection outside of the household.

Study samples included in analysis

For the main overall SAR analysis, households containing co-primary cases were excluded. Households with alternative primary cases were included in the overall SAR analysis but excluded from the analysis on behavioral factors and preventive measures due to lack of data from the Q-D0 questionnaire (Figure 2). For comparisons between genetic variants, households with the Alpha lineages were compared with non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 viruses, hereby referred to as non-VOC viruses (12), while households with other VOCs were excluded from the analyses (i.e. one household with the Beta variant). One household contact lacked variant data and was assigned the same variant as the primary case.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Flow chart of participant selection for the different analyses.

Abbreviations: HH contact, household contact; non-VOC, non-Variant of Concern

^a recruited participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR and provided information on symptom onset (Q-D0 questionnaire)

^b includes household contacts that were SARS-CoV-2 negative

Data analysis and statistical methods

The SAR was estimated as the proportion (%) of household contacts that were defined as confirmed cases (11). Cluster robust standard errors were used to calculate 95% confidence intervals. The proportion of households with secondary transmission was also estimated. To test for differences in proportions, the Pearson chi-square test statistics was corrected with the second-order correction of Rao and Scott and converted into an F statistic (13).

To account for dependencies within households, a mixed-effect logistic regression model with a household-level random intercept was used to study the associations between potential risk factors for transmission and of infection among the household contacts. The multivariable models were adjusted for age and sex of the household contacts and of the primary cases, and household size. The analysis on associations between SARS-CoV-2 viral load (SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ul eluate measured by ddPCR) and symptoms was limited to the confirmed cases. For analyses with all cases, a mixed-effect logistic regression adjusted for age and sex was used, whereas for analyses only done on primary cases logistic regression was used. To study the association between genetic variant and viral load, a mixed-effect linear regression adjusted for age and sex was used. The mean duration of detectable SARS-CoV-2 was estimated for household contacts only, as described in Supplementary Methods for children (<18 years) and adults (≥ 18 years), and cluster robust standard errors were used to calculate 95% confidence intervals. Primary cases were not included in this analysis as the majority were adults (due to the inclusion criteria of the study) and infection was likely detected later in the course of disease for these participants. To estimate the association between duration of detectable SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR (in days) and age group, a mixed-effect linear regression was used.

All analyses were performed in STATA/SE 15.0 (StataCorp. College Station, Texas USA). A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant (shown in bold in the tables).

Baseline characteristics of households and participants

We recruited 70 households, including 216 participants (Figure 2). Ninety eight percent of eligible household members agreed to participate in the study. Five cases were co-primary cases and were excluded together with their 11 household contacts. A total of 65 primary cases/households and their 135 household contacts (200 participants) were thus eligible for the evaluation of secondary transmission. Among the 65 households, 18 of the primary cases were infected with the Alpha variant, one with the Beta variant and 40 with other circulating non-VOC viruses (Supplementary Table S1). Households with the Alpha variant were recruited between March and May 2021, while households with non-VOC viruses were mainly recruited before February 2021, reflecting the viral circulation in the study area during the recruitment period (Supplementary Figure 2). Sequence data showed the same genetic lineage for all sequenced members within individual households. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants in the SAR analyses are shown in Table 1. The median age of the participants was 31 years, and primary cases were generally older than household contacts (38 and 24 years, respectively). About 1/3^rd of the participants were children aged <18 years, while only six were older than 65. The proportion of males and females was equal, and 51% were of Nordic ethnicity (but there was considerable missing data for this variable).

The median household size was four, ranging from two to six people, and families with young children constituted 43% of the households (Table 1). The household size was slightly smaller in households where participants were infected with the Alpha genetic variant (median = 3), compared with households infected with non-VOC viruses (median = 4). The remaining characteristics were broadly similar between these two groups.

Of the 200 participants 132 (66%) were infected. Fourteen percent of the confirmed cases were asymptomatic, while 43% had mild disease and 42% had a moderate disease, based on their reported symptoms within 14 days of their first positive PCR sample. Few study participants were hospitalized, and all were discharged the following day. There were slightly more asymptomatic cases (22%) among the Alpha variant participants compared with participants with non-VOC viruses (9%), although the difference was not significant (p=0.09) (Supplementary Table S2). Severity also varied with age, with 36% of children (<18 years) being asymptomatic compared to 8% of adults (p<0.01). Children were SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR positive for a shorter time period than adults (mean number of days 11.3 (95% CI 7.6-15.1) and 16.4 (95% CI 13.5-19.3) respectively, p=0.03).

Secondary transmission of COVID-19 in households

Secondary transmission occurred in 60.0 % of the households in the study (95% CI 47.4-71.4) (Table 2). The secondary attack rate (SAR) among all household contacts was 49.6% (95% CI 37.8–61.5). Secondary transmission was significantly higher in households with the Alpha variant (83.3%, 95% CI 55.9–95.2) compared with non-VOC viruses (55.0% (95% CI 39.8–70.1), p=0.04). For household contacts, SAR was 77.8% (95% CI 49.4-92.6) in households with the Alpha variant, compared with 42.5% (95% CI 28.7-57.7) in households with non-VOC viruses, resulting in a significantly higher adjusted odds ratio (OR) for secondary transmission in households with the Alpha variant (p=0.03) (Table 2).

The median interval from the date of the first positive SARS-CoV-2 test (collected by the municipality for the primary case) and the Day0 visit in the study was 3 days (IQR; 2-4 days). A large proportion of the secondary cases (38.5%) were already infected at Day0, while 61.5% of the secondary cases were detected during study follow-up. The overall serial interval (the number of days between symptom onset of the primary case and of a household contact) was estimated to 4 days (range 1-11, n=50). The median serial interval was similar for the Alpha variant (4 days, range 2-11, n=17) and non-VOC viruses (4 days, range 1-9 days, n=31). The overall median interval between symptom onset of the primary case and the first RT-qPCR-positive test of a household contact was 3 days (range 1-12, n=60), and this interval was the same for Alpha (3 days, range 1-11, n=25) and non-VOC viruses (4 days, range 1-9 days, n=33).

Effect of host and household characteristics on secondary transmission

Neither age (12-39 years compared to ≥40 years) nor sex of the primary case appeared to have an impact on SAR (Table 3). Notably there were few primary cases under the age of 18, therefore it was not possible to study the effect of age on transmission for primary cases aged 12-18 years.

Secondary infection amongst children aged 2-17 years was similar for those aged 18-39 (SAR 47% and 40%, respectively), while household contacts aged ≥40 years were more likely to be infected (69%) (Table 3). The sex and blood type of the household contacts did not impact the infection risk. Household contacts living in overcrowded houses had a higher infection risk than those not living in overcrowded houses (SAR 90% and 52%, respectively), but the difference was not significant when adjusted for age, sex, and household size. However, the number of overcrowded households was small. Secondary transmission did not differ with household size or number of bathrooms in the household.

Both fever and loss of taste/smell were significantly more common in primary cases with the Alpha variant compared to others (Supplementary Table S3). In addition, the SAR was higher if these symptoms were present (Table 4). If the primary case reported loss of taste/smell, the SAR was 60% versus 27%, and there was a similar trend for fever (61% versus 39%), and a weak trend for cough. Dyspnea in the primary case did not appear to influence the SAR, nor clinical severity.

Role of viral load measured by ddPCR

As expected, the correlation between viral load (SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/µl eluate) determined by ddPCR and the RT-qPCR Ct-values was strong (r = -0.859, p < 0.001). There was a trend that higher viral load measured by ddPCR was associated with increased risk of secondary infection (adjusted OR 3.05 (95% CI 0.84-11.0), p=0.089). Higher viral load was also associated with increased risk of loss of taste/smell (adjusted OR = 1.4 (95% CI 1.06-1.85), p=0.02), and possibly dyspnea (OR = 1.34 (95% CI 0.96-1.86), p=0.08) and cough (adjusted OR 1.37 (95% CI 0.93-2.01), p=0.11) (Supplementary Table S4). However, despite an OR larger than 1, these associations were not significant when looking at only the primary cases, possibly because of the lower sample size.

The viral load was significantly higher for the Alpha variant than for non-VOC viruses (mean 3.24 log₁₀ and 2.48 log₁₀ RNA copies/µl eluate, respectively) (Figure 3A). We also found a significantly lower viral load in children than in adults (mean 2.09 log₁₀ copies/µl RNA and 2.98 log₁₀ copies/µl RNA, respectively) (Figure 3B), irrespective of virus variant (Figure 3C). The association between viral load and the Alpha variant remained significant in a mixed-effect linear regression model when adjusted for age and sex (adjusted regression coefficient of 0.87 (95% CI 0.34-1.40), p= 0.001).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Comparison of viral load (log10 RNA copies/µl eluate) measured by ddPCR for genetic variant and age groups

Abbreviations: non-VOC, non-Variant of Concern

A) Comparison of viral load between non-VOC (n=71) and Alpha viruses (n=42)

B) Comparison of viral load between children (n=28) and adults (n=85) for all genetic variants combined

C) Comparison of viral load for genetic variants and age groups: non-VOC; children (n=14) versus adults (n=57), and Alpha variant; children (n=14) versus adults (n=28)

* p < 0.05. P-values were estimated using a mixed-effects linear regression.

The impact of behavioral factors and precautionary practices on secondary transmission

None of the contact behaviors between the primary case and the household contacts prior to confirmation of infection of the primary case were significantly associated with SAR (Table 5). Nevertheless, there was a trend that the SAR was higher for contacts who shared a toilet, hugged, kissed, shook/ held hands, slept in the same room and shared a bed with the primary case before infection was confirmed.

After confirmation of the infection of the primary case, the only precautionary practice to significantly prevent household transmission was sleeping in a separate room from the primary case, with a SAR of 38 %, compared to 67% for those who slept in the same room (p=0.048) (Table 5). All other precautionary practices tended to lower the SAR, particularly isolation of the primary case, but associations were not statistically significant.