Dataset Information

Role of efficient testing and contact tracing in mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic: a network modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study quantified how the efficiency of testing and contact tracing impacts the spread of COVID-19. The average time interval between infection and quarantine, whether asymptomatic cases are tested or not, and initial delays to beginning a testing and tracing programme were investigated.

Setting

We developed a novel individual-level network model, called CoTECT (Testing Efficiency and Contact Tracing model for COVID-19), using key parameters from recent studies to quantify the impacts of testing and tracing efficiency. The model distinguishes infection from confirmation by integrating a 'T' compartment, which represents infections confirmed by testing and quarantine. The compartments of presymptomatic (E), asymptomatic (I), symptomatic (Is), and death with (F) or without (f) test confirmation were also included in the model. Three scenarios were evaluated in a closed population of 3000 individuals to mimic community-level dynamics. Real-world data from four Nordic countries were also analysed.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Simulation result: total/peak daily infections and confirmed cases, total deaths (confirmed/unconfirmed by testing), fatalities and the case fatality rate. Real-world analysis: confirmed cases and deaths per million people.

Results

(1) Shortening the duration between Is and T from 12 to 4 days reduces infections by 85.2% and deaths by 88.8%. (2) Testing and tracing regardless of symptoms reduce infections by 35.7% and deaths by 46.2% compared with testing only symptomatic cases. (3) Reducing the delay to implementing a testing and tracing programme from 50 to 10 days reduces infections by 35.2% and deaths by 44.6%. These results were robust to sensitivity analysis. An analysis of real-world data showed that tests per case early in the pandemic are critical for reducing confirmed cases and the fatality rate.

Conclusions

Reducing testing delays will help to contain outbreaks. These results provide policymakers with quantitative evidence of efficiency as a critical value in developing testing and contact tracing strategies.

SUBMITTER: Hu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8266432 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn most countries, contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases are asked to quarantine for 14 days after exposure to limit asymptomatic onward transmission. While theoretically effective, this policy places a substantial social and economic burden on both the individual and wider society, which might result in low adherence and reduced policy effectiveness. We aimed to assess the merit of testing contacts to avert onward transmission and to replace or reduce the length of quarantine for uninfected contacts.MethodsWe used an agent-based model to simulate the viral load dynamics of exposed contacts, and their potential for onward transmission in different quarantine and testing strategies. We compared the performance of quarantines of differing durations, testing with either PCR or lateral flow antigen (LFA) tests at the end of quarantine, and daily LFA testing without quarantine, against the current 14-day quarantine strategy. We also investigated the effect of contact tracing delays and adherence to both quarantine and self-isolation on the effectiveness of each strategy.FindingsAssuming moderate levels of adherence to quarantine and self-isolation, self-isolation on symptom onset alone can prevent 37% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 12-56) of onward transmission potential from secondary cases. 14 days of post-exposure quarantine reduces transmission by 59% (95% UI 28-79). Quarantine with release after a negative PCR test 7 days after exposure might avert a similar proportion (54%, 95% UI 31-81; risk ratio [RR] 0·94, 95% UI 0·62-1·24) to that of the 14-day quarantine period, as would quarantine with a negative LFA test 7 days after exposure (50%, 95% UI 28-77; RR 0·88, 0·66-1·11) or daily testing without quarantine for 5 days after tracing (50%, 95% UI 23-81; RR 0·88, 0·60-1·43) if all tests are returned negative. A stronger effect might be possible if individuals isolate more strictly after a positive test and if contacts can be notified faster.InterpretationTesting might allow for a substantial reduction in the length of, or replacement of, quarantine with a small excess in transmission risk. Decreasing test and trace delays and increasing adherence will further increase the effectiveness of these strategies. Further research is required to empirically evaluate the potential costs (increased transmission risk, false reassurance) and benefits (reduction in the burden of quarantine, increased adherence) of such strategies before adoption as policy.FundingNational Institute for Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, EU Horizon 2021, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundIn countries with declining numbers of confirmed cases of COVID-19, lockdown measures are gradually being lifted. However, even if most physical distancing measures are continued, other public health measures will be needed to control the epidemic. Contact tracing via conventional methods or mobile app technology is central to control strategies during de-escalation of physical distancing. We aimed to identify key factors for a contact tracing strategy to be successful.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of timeliness and completeness in various steps of a contact tracing strategy using a stochastic mathematical model with explicit time delays between time of infection and symptom onset, and between symptom onset, diagnosis by testing, and isolation (testing delay). The model also includes tracing of close contacts (eg, household members) and casual contacts, followed by testing regardless of symptoms and isolation if testing positive, with different tracing delays and coverages. We computed effective reproduction numbers of a contact tracing strategy (RCTS) for a population with physical distancing measures and various scenarios for isolation of index cases and tracing and quarantine of their contacts.FindingsFor the most optimistic scenario (testing and tracing delays of 0 days and tracing coverage of 100%), and assuming that around 40% of transmissions occur before symptom onset, the model predicts that the estimated effective reproduction number of 1·2 (with physical distancing only) will be reduced to 0·8 (95% CI 0·7-0·9) by adding contact tracing. The model also shows that a similar reduction can be achieved when testing and tracing coverage is reduced to 80% (RCTS 0·8, 95% CI 0·7-1·0). A testing delay of more than 1 day requires the tracing delay to be at most 1 day or tracing coverage to be at least 80% to keep RCTS below 1. With a testing delay of 3 days or longer, even the most efficient strategy cannot reach RCTS values below 1. The effect of minimising tracing delay (eg, with app-based technology) declines with decreasing coverage of app use, but app-based tracing alone remains more effective than conventional tracing alone even with 20% coverage, reducing the reproduction number by 17·6% compared with 2·5%. The proportion of onward transmissions per index case that can be prevented depends on testing and tracing delays, and given a 0-day tracing delay, ranges from up to 79·9% with a 0-day testing delay to 41·8% with a 3-day testing delay and 4·9% with a 7-day testing delay.InterpretationIn our model, minimising testing delay had the largest impact on reducing onward transmissions. Optimising testing and tracing coverage and minimising tracing delays, for instance with app-based technology, further enhanced contact tracing effectiveness, with the potential to prevent up to 80% of all transmissions. Access to testing should therefore be optimised, and mobile app technology might reduce delays in the contact tracing process and optimise contact tracing coverage.FundingZonMw, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, and EU Horizon 2020 RECOVER.