Background Approximately 67% of U.S. households have pets. Limited data are available on SARS-CoV-2 in pets. We assessed SARS-CoV-2 infection in pet cohabitants as a sub-study of an ongoing COVID-19 household transmission investigation.Methods Mammalian pets from households with ≥1 person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion from April–May 2020. Demographic/exposure information, oropharyngeal, nasal, rectal, and fur swabs, feces, and blood were collected from enrolled pets and tested by rRT-PCR and virus neutralization assays.Findings We enrolled 37 dogs and 19 cats from 34 of 41 eligible households. All oropharyngeal, nasal, and rectal swabs tested negative by rRT-PCR; one dog’s fur swabs (2%) tested positive by rRT-PCR at the first animal sampling. Among 47 pets with serological results from 30 households, eight (17%) pets (4 dogs, 4 cats) from 6 (20%) households had detectable SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. In households with a seropositive pet, the proportion of people with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 was greater (median 79%; range: 40–100%) compared to households with no seropositive pet (median 37%; range: 13–100%) (p=0.01). Thirty-three pets with serologic results had frequent daily contact (≥1 hour) with the human index patient before the person’s COVID-19 diagnosis. Of these 33 pets, 14 (42%) had decreased contact with the human index patient after diagnosis and none (0%) were seropositive; of the 19 (58%) pets with continued contact, 4 (21%) were seropositive.Interpretations Seropositive pets likely acquired infection from humans, which may occur more frequently than previously recognized. People with COVID-19 should restrict contact with animals.Funding Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of AgricultureCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission can inform the development of interventions. We evaluated transmission identified by contact tracing investigations between March-May 2020 in Salt Lake County, Utah, to quantify the impact of this intervention and identify risk factors for transmission. METHODS: RT-PCR positive and untested symptomatic contacts were classified as confirmed and probable secondary case-patients, respectively. We compared the number of case-patients and close contacts generated by different groups, and used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with transmission. RESULTS: Data were collected on 184 index case-patients and up to six generations of contacts. Of 1,499 close contacts, 374 (25%) were classified as secondary case-patients. Decreased transmission odds were observed for contacts aged <18 years (OR = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.38-0.79]), versus 18-44 years, and for workplace (OR = 0.36 [95% CI: 0.23-0.55]) and social (OR = 0.44 [95% CI: 0.28-0.66]) contacts, versus household contacts. Higher transmission odds were observed for case-patient's spouses than other household contacts (OR = 2.25 [95% CI: 1.52-3.35]). Compared to index case-patients identified in the community, secondary case-patients identified through contract-tracing generated significantly fewer close contacts and secondary case-patients of their own. Transmission was heterogeneous, with 41% of index case-patients generating 81% of directly-linked secondary case-patients. CONCLUSIONS: Given sufficient resources and complementary public health measures, contact tracing can contain known chains of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Transmission is associated with age and exposure setting, and can be highly variable, with a few infections generating a disproportionately high share of onward transmission.

Outcomes and costs of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) contact tracing are limited. During March-May 2020, we constructed transmission chains from 184 index cases and 1,499 contacts in Salt Lake County, Utah, USA, to assess outcomes and estimate staff time and salaries. We estimated 1,102 staff hours and $29,234 spent investigating index cases and contacts. Among contacts, 374 (25%) had COVID-19; secondary case detection rate was ≈31% among first-generation contacts, ≈16% among second- and third-generation contacts, and ≈12% among fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-generation contacts. At initial interview, 51% (187/370) of contacts were COVID-19-positive; 35% (98/277) became positive during 14-day quarantine. Median time from symptom onset to investigation was 7 days for index cases and 4 days for first-generation contacts. Contact tracing reduced the number of cases between contact generations and time between symptom onset and investigation but required substantial resources. Our findings can help jurisdictions allocate resources for contact tracing.

Approximately 67% of U.S. households have pets. Limited data are available on SARS-CoV-2 in pets. We assessed SARS-CoV-2 infection in pets during a COVID-19 household transmission investigation. Pets from households with ≥1 person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion from April-May 2020. We enrolled 37 dogs and 19 cats from 34 households. All oropharyngeal, nasal, and rectal swabs tested negative by rRT-PCR; one dog's fur swabs (2%) tested positive by rRT-PCR at the first sampling. Among 47 pets with serological results, eight (17%) pets (four dogs, four cats) from 6/30 (20%) households had detectable SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. In households with a seropositive pet, the proportion of people with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 was greater (median 79%; range: 40-100%) compared to households with no seropositive pet (median 37%; range: 13-100%) (p = 0.01). Thirty-three pets with serologic results had frequent daily contact (≥1 h) with the index patient before the person's COVID-19 diagnosis. Of these 33 pets, 14 (42%) had decreased contact with the index patient after diagnosis and none were seropositive; of the 19 (58%) pets with continued contact, four (21%) were seropositive. Seropositive pets likely acquired infection after contact with people with COVID-19. People with COVID-19 should restrict contact with pets and other animals.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission from contaminated surfaces, or fomites, has been a concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. Households have been important sites of transmission throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is limited information on SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces in these settings. We describe environmental detection of SARS-CoV-2 in households of persons with COVID-19 to better characterize the potential risks of fomite transmission. Ten households with ≥1 person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with ≥2 members total were enrolled in Utah, U.S.A. Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs were collected from members and tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Fifteen surfaces were sampled in each household and tested for presence and viability of SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 23 (15%) of 150 environmental swab samples, most frequently on nightstands (4/6; 67%), pillows (4/23; 17%), and light switches (3/21; 14%). Viable SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from one sample. All households with SARS-CoV-2-positive surfaces had ≥1 person who first tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 ≤ 6 days prior to environmental sampling. SARS-CoV-2 surface contamination occurred early in the course of infection when respiratory transmission is most likely, notably on surfaces in close, prolonged contact with persons with COVID-19. While fomite transmission might be possible, risk is low.

PURPOSE: Contact tracing is intended to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is difficult to conduct among people who live in congregate settings, including people experiencing homelessness (PEH). This analysis compares person-based contact tracing among two populations in Salt Lake County, Utah, from March-May 2020. METHODS: All laboratory-confirmed positive cases among PEH (n=169) and documented in Utah's surveillance system were included in this analysis. The general population comparison group (n=163) were systematically selected from all laboratory-confirmed cases identified during the same period. RESULTS: Ninety-three PEH cases (55%) were interviewed compared to 163 (100%) cases among the general population (p<0.0001). PEH were more likely to be lost to follow-up at end of isolation (14.2%) versus the general population (0%; p-value<0.0001) and provided fewer contacts per case (0.31) than the general population (4.7) (p-value<0.0001). Contacts of PEH were more often unreachable (13.0% vs. 7.1%; p-value<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that contact tracing among PEH should include a location-based approach, along with a person-based approach when resources allow, due to challenges in identifying, locating, and reaching cases among PEH and their contacts through person-based contact tracing efforts alone.

BACKGROUND: To better understand SARS-CoV-2 shedding duration and infectivity, we estimated SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding duration, described characteristics associated with viral RNA shedding resolution1, and determined if replication-competent viruses could be recovered ≥10 days after symptom onset among individuals with mild to moderate COVID-19. METHODS: We collected serial nasopharyngeal specimens at various time points from 109 individuals with rRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in Utah and Wisconsin. We calculated probability of viral RNA shedding resolution using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and evaluated characteristics associated with shedding resolution using Cox proportional hazards regression. We attempted viral culture for 35 rRT-PCR-positive nasopharyngeal specimens collected ≥10 days after symptom onset. RESULTS: The likelihood of viral RNA shedding resolution at 10 days after symptom onset was approximately 3%. Time to shedding resolution was shorter among participants aged <18 years (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR]: 3.01; 95% CI: 1.6-5.6) and longer among those aged ≥50 years (aHR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.3-0.9) compared to participants aged 18-49 years. No replication-competent viruses were recovered. CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 for ≥10 days after symptom onset, our findings suggest that individuals with mild to moderate COVID-19 are unlikely to be infectious ≥10 days after symptom onset.

Virus shedding in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can occur before onset of symptoms; less is known about symptom progression or infectiousness associated with initiation of viral shedding. We investigated household transmission in 5 households with daily specimen collection for 5 consecutive days starting a median of 4 days after symptom onset in index patients. Seven contacts across 2 households implementing no precautionary measures were infected. Of these 7, 2 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR on day 3 of 5. Both had mild, nonspecific symptoms for 1-3 days preceding the first positive test. SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from the fourth-day specimen in 1 patient and from the fourth- and fifth-day specimens in the other. We also describe infection control measures taken in the households that had no transmission. Persons exposed to SARS-CoV-2 should self-isolate, including from household contacts, wear a mask, practice hand hygiene, and seek testing promptly.

BACKGROUND: Although many viral respiratory illnesses are transmitted within households, the evidence base for SARS-CoV-2 is nascent. We sought to characterize SARS-CoV-2 transmission within US households and estimate the household secondary infection rate (SIR) to inform strategies to reduce transmission. METHODS: We recruited laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients and their household contacts in Utah and Wisconsin during March 22-April 25, 2020. We interviewed patients and all household contacts to obtain demographics and medical histories. At the initial household visit, 14 days later, and when a household contact became newly symptomatic, we collected respiratory swabs from patients and household contacts for testing by SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR and sera for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies testing by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We estimated SIR and odds ratios (OR) to assess risk factors for secondary infection, defined by a positive rRT-PCR or ELISA test. RESULTS: Thirty-two (55%) of 58 households had evidence of secondary infection among household contacts. The SIR was 29% (n = 55/188; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 23-36%) overall, 42% among children (<18 years) of the COVID-19 patient and 33% among spouses/partners. Household contacts to COVID-19 patients with immunocompromised conditions had increased odds of infection (OR: 15.9, 95% CI: 2.4-106.9). Household contacts who themselves had diabetes mellitus had increased odds of infection (OR: 7.1, 95% CI: 1.2-42.5). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial evidence of secondary infections among household contacts. People with COVID-19, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions or those with household contacts with diabetes, should take care to promptly self-isolate to prevent household transmission.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Limited data exist on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in children. We described infection rates and symptom profiles among pediatric household contacts of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: We enrolled individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 and their household contacts, assessed daily symptoms prospectively for 14 days, and obtained specimens for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and serology testing. Among pediatric contacts (<18 years), we described transmission, assessed the risk factors for infection, and calculated symptom positive and negative predictive values. We compared secondary infection rates and symptoms between pediatric and adult contacts using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Among 58 households, 188 contacts were enrolled (120 adults; 68 children). Secondary infection rates for adults (30%) and children (28%) were similar. Among households with potential for transmission from children, child-to-adult transmission may have occurred in 2 of 10 (20%), and child-to-child transmission may have occurred in 1 of 6 (17%). Pediatric case patients most commonly reported headache (79%), sore throat (68%), and rhinorrhea (68%); symptoms had low positive predictive values, except measured fever (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 44% to 100%). Compared with symptomatic adults, children were less likely to report cough (odds ratio [OR]: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.57), loss of taste (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.74), and loss of smell (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.96) and more likely to report sore throat (OR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.04 to 11.18). CONCLUSIONS: Children and adults had similar secondary infection rates, but children generally had less frequent and severe symptoms. In two states early in the pandemic, we observed possible transmission from children in approximately one-fifth of households with potential to observe such transmission patterns.

Reports suggest that children aged ≥10 years can efficiently transmit SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). However, limited data are available on SARS-CoV-2 transmission from young children, particularly in child care settings (3). To better understand transmission from young children, contact tracing data collected from three COVID-19 outbreaks in child care facilities in Salt Lake County, Utah, during April 1-July 10, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed to explore attack rates and transmission patterns. A total of 184 persons, including 110 (60%) children had a known epidemiologic link to one of these three facilities. Among these persons, 31 confirmed COVID-19 cases occurred; 13 (42%) in children. Among pediatric patients with facility-associated confirmed COVID-19, all had mild or no symptoms. Twelve children acquired COVID-19 in child care facilities. Transmission was documented from these children to at least 12 (26%) of 46 nonfacility contacts (confirmed or probable cases). One parent was hospitalized. Transmission was observed from two of three children with confirmed, asymptomatic COVID-19. Detailed contact tracing data show that children can play a role in transmission from child care settings to household contacts. Having SARS-CoV-2 testing available, timely results, and testing of contacts of persons with COVID-19 in child care settings regardless of symptoms can help prevent transmission. CDC guidance for child care programs recommends the use of face masks, particularly among staff members, especially when children are too young to wear masks, along with hand hygiene, frequent cleaning and disinfecting of high-touch surfaces, and staying home when ill to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission (4).

BACKGROUND: Improved understanding of SARS-CoV-2 spectrum of disease is essential for clinical and public health interventions. There are limited data on mild or asymptomatic infections, but recognition of these individuals is key as they contribute to viral transmission. We describe the symptom profiles from individuals with mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: From March 22 to April 22, 2020 in Wisconsin and Utah, we enrolled and prospectively observed 198 household contacts exposed to SARS-CoV-2. We collected and tested nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens by RT-PCR two or more times during a 14-day period. Contacts completed daily symptom diaries. We characterized symptom profiles on the date of first positive RT-PCR test and described progression of symptoms over time. RESULTS: We identified 47 contacts, median age 24 (3-75) years, with detectable SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The most commonly reported symptoms on the day of first positive RT-PCR test were upper respiratory (n=32, 68%) and neurologic (n=30, 64%); fever was not commonly reported (n=9, 19%). Eight (17%) individuals were asymptomatic at the date of first positive RT-PCR collection; two (4%) had preceding symptoms that resolved and six (13%) subsequently developed symptoms. Children less frequently reported lower respiratory symptoms (age <18: 21%, age 18-49: 60%, age 50+ years: 69%; p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Household contacts with lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported mild symptoms. When assessed at a single time-point, several contacts appeared to have asymptomatic infection; however, over time all developed symptoms. These findings are important to inform infection control, contact tracing, and community mitigation strategies.