Dataset Information

Feasibility of controlling COVID-19 outbreaks by isolation of cases and contacts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Isolation of cases and contact tracing is used to control outbreaks of infectious diseases, and has been used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Whether this strategy will achieve control depends on characteristics of both the pathogen and the response. Here we use a mathematical model to assess if isolation and contact tracing are able to control onwards transmission from imported cases of COVID-19.

Methods

We developed a stochastic transmission model, parameterised to the COVID-19 outbreak. We used the model to quantify the potential effectiveness of contact tracing and isolation of cases at controlling a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-like pathogen. We considered scenarios that varied in the number of initial cases, the basic reproduction number (R₀), the delay from symptom onset to isolation, the probability that contacts were traced, the proportion of transmission that occurred before symptom onset, and the proportion of subclinical infections. We assumed isolation prevented all further transmission in the model. Outbreaks were deemed controlled if transmission ended within 12 weeks or before 5000 cases in total. We measured the success of controlling outbreaks using isolation and contact tracing, and quantified the weekly maximum number of cases traced to measure feasibility of public health effort.

Findings

Simulated outbreaks starting with five initial cases, an R₀ of 1·5, and 0% transmission before symptom onset could be controlled even with low contact tracing probability; however, the probability of controlling an outbreak decreased with the number of initial cases, when R₀ was 2·5 or 3·5 and with more transmission before symptom onset. Across different initial numbers of cases, the majority of scenarios with an R₀ of 1·5 were controllable with less than 50% of contacts successfully traced. To control the majority of outbreaks, for R₀ of 2·5 more than 70% of contacts had to be traced, and for an R₀ of 3·5 more than 90% of contacts had to be traced. The delay between symptom onset and isolation had the largest role in determining whether an outbreak was controllable when R₀ was 1·5. For R₀ values of 2·5 or 3·5, if there were 40 initial cases, contact tracing and isolation were only potentially feasible when less than 1% of transmission occurred before symptom onset.

Interpretation

In most scenarios, highly effective contact tracing and case isolation is enough to control a new outbreak of COVID-19 within 3 months. The probability of control decreases with long delays from symptom onset to isolation, fewer cases ascertained by contact tracing, and increasing transmission before symptoms. This model can be modified to reflect updated transmission characteristics and more specific definitions of outbreak control to assess the potential success of local response efforts.

Funding

Wellcome Trust, Global Challenges Research Fund, and Health Data Research UK.

SUBMITTER: Hellewell J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7097845 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led a global pandemic cross the world. Most countries took two main interventions: suppression like immediate lockdown cities at epicenter or mitigation that slows down but not stopping epidemic for reducing peak healthcare demand. Both strategies have their apparent merits and limitations; it becomes extremely hard to conduct one intervention as the most feasible way to all countries. Targeting at this problem, this paper conducted a feasibility study by defining a mathematical model named SEMCR, it extended traditional SEIR (Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered) model by adding two key features: a direct connection between Exposed and Recovered populations, and separating infections into mild and critical cases. It defined parameters to classify two stages of COVID-19 control: active contain by isolation of cases and contacts, passive contain by suppression or mitigation. The model was fitted and evaluated with public dataset containing daily number of confirmed active cases including Wuhan and London during January 2020 and March 2020. The simulated results showed that 1) Immediate suppression taken in Wuhan significantly reduced the total exposed and infectious populations, but it has to be consistently maintained at least 90 days (by the middle of April 2020). Without taking this intervention, we predict the number of infections would have been 73 folders higher by the middle of April 2020. Its success requires efficient government initiatives and effective collaborative governance for mobilizing of corporate resources to provide essential goods. This mode may be not suitable to other countries without efficient collaborative governance and sufficient health resources. 2) In London, it is possible to take a hybrid intervention of suppression and mitigation for every 2 or 3 weeks over a longer period to balance the total infections and economic loss. While the total infectious populations in this scenario would be possibly 2 times than the one taking suppression, economic loss and recovery of London would be less affected. 3) Both in Wuhan and London cases, one important issue of fitting practical data was that there were a portion (probably 62.9% in Wuhan) of self-recovered populations that were asymptomatic or mild symptomatic. This finding has been recently confirmed by other studies that the seroprevalence in Wuhan varied between 3.2% and 3.8% in different sub-regions. It highlights that the epidemic is far from coming to an end by means of herd immunity. Early release of intervention intensity potentially increased a risk of the second outbreak.

Project description:ObjectiveTo better define the immunopathogenesis of COVID-19, the present study aims to characterize the early immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in household contacts of COVID-19 cases. In particular, innate, T- and B-cell specific responses were evaluated over time.MethodsHousehold contacts of COVID-19 cases screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab for surveillance purposes were enrolled (T0, n=42). Of these, 28 subjects returned for a follow-up test (T1). The innate response was assessed by detecting a panel of soluble factors by multiplex-technology in plasma samples. Cell-mediated response was evaluated by measuring interferon (IFN)-γ levels by ELISA in plasma harvested from whole-blood stimulated with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools, including spike (S), nucleocapsid (N) and membrane (M) proteins. The serological response was assessed by quantifying anti-Receptor-Binding-Domain (RBD), anti-Nucleocapsid (N), whole virus indirect immunofluorescence, and neutralizing antibodies.ResultsAt T0, higher levels of plasmatic IFN-α, IL-1ra, MCP-1 and IP-10, and lower levels of IL-1β, IL-9, MIP-1β and RANTES were observed in subjects with positive swab compared to individuals with a negative one (p<0.05). Plasmatic IFN-α was the only cytokine detectable in subjects with positive SARS-CoV-2 swabs with high accuracy for swab score positivity (0.93, p<0.0001). Among subjects with positive swabs, significant negative correlations were found among the RT-PCR cycle threshold values reported for genes S and N and IFN-α or IP-10 levels. At T0, the IFN-γ T-cell specific response was detected in 50% (5/10) of subjects with positive swab, while anti-RBD/anti-N antibodies showed a positivity rate of 10% (1/10). At T1, the IFN-γ T-cell specific response was detected in most of the confirmed-infection subjects (77.8%, 7/9), whereas the serological response was still observed in a minority of them (44.4%, 4/9). Overall, the swab test showed a moderate concordance with the T-cell response (78.6%, k=0.467), and a scarce concordance with the serological one (72.9%, k=0.194).ConclusionsPlasmatic IFN-α and the IFN-γ T-cell specific response appear early even in the absence of seroconversion, and show a greater positivity rate than the serological response in household contacts with positive swab.

Project description:At-home rapid COVID-19 tests in the U.S. utilize nasal-swab specimens and require high viral loads to reliably give positive results. Longitudinal studies from the onset of infection have found infectious virus can present in oral specimens days before nasal. Detection and initiation of infection-control practices may therefore be delayed when nasal-swab rapid tests are used, resulting in greater transmission to contacts. We assessed whether index cases first identified by rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 tests had more transmission to household contacts than index cases who used other test types (tests with higher analytical sensitivity and/or non-nasal specimen types). In this observational cohort study, 370 individuals from 85 households with a recent COVID-19 case were screened at least daily by RT-qPCR on one or more self-collected upper-respiratory specimen types. A two-level random intercept model was used to assess the association between the infection outcome of household contacts and each covariable (household size, race/ethnicity, age, vaccination status, viral variant, infection-control practices, and whether a rapid nasal-swab test was used to initially identify the household index case). Transmission was quantified by adjusted secondary attack rates (aSAR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR). An aSAR of 53.6% (95% CI 38.8-68.3%) was observed among households where the index case first tested positive by a rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 test, which was significantly higher than the aSAR for households where the index case utilized another test type (27.2% 95% CI 19.5-35.0%, P = 0.003 pairwise comparisons of predictive margins). We observed an aOR of 4.90 (95% CI 1.65-14.56) for transmission to household contacts when a nasal-swab rapid test was used to identify the index case, compared to other test types. Use of nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests for initial detection of infection and initiation of infection control may be less effective at limiting transmission to household contacts than other test types.