Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Contact Tracing for Viral Disease Mitigation and Suppression: Evidence-Based Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Contact tracing in association with quarantine and isolation is an important public health tool to control outbreaks of infectious diseases. This strategy has been widely implemented during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The effectiveness of this nonpharmaceutical intervention is largely dependent on social interactions within the population and its combination with other interventions. Given the high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, short serial intervals, and asymptomatic transmission patterns, the effectiveness of contact tracing for this novel viral agent is largely unknown.

Objective

This study aims to identify and synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of contact tracing on infectious viral disease outcomes based on prior scientific literature.

Methods

An evidence-based review was conducted to identify studies from the PubMed database, including preprint medRxiv server content, related to the effectiveness of contact tracing in viral outbreaks. The search dates were from database inception to July 24, 2020. Outcomes of interest included measures of incidence, transmission, hospitalization, and mortality.

Results

Out of 159 unique records retrieved, 45 (28.3%) records were reviewed at the full-text level, and 24 (15.1%) records met all inclusion criteria. The studies included utilized mathematical modeling (n=14), observational (n=8), and systematic review (n=2) approaches. Only 2 studies considered digital contact tracing. Contact tracing was mostly evaluated in combination with other nonpharmaceutical interventions and/or pharmaceutical interventions. Although some degree of effectiveness in decreasing viral disease incidence, transmission, and resulting hospitalizations and mortality was observed, these results were highly dependent on epidemic severity (R0 value), number of contacts traced (including presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases), timeliness, duration, and compliance with combined interventions (eg, isolation, quarantine, and treatment). Contact tracing effectiveness was particularly limited by logistical challenges associated with increased outbreak size and speed of infection spread.

Conclusions

Timely deployment of contact tracing strategically layered with other nonpharmaceutical interventions could be an effective public health tool for mitigating and suppressing infectious outbreaks by decreasing viral disease incidence, transmission, and resulting hospitalizations and mortality.

SUBMITTER: Thomas Craig KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8496751 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContact tracing is used for multiple infectious diseases, most recently for COVID-19, but data regarding its effectiveness in disease control are scarce. To address this knowledge gap and inform public health decision making for COVID-19, we systematically reviewed the existing literature to determine the effectiveness of contact tracing in the control of communicable illness.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception up to Nov 22, 2021, for published studies evaluating associations between provider-initiated contact tracing for transmissible infectious diseases and one of three outcomes of interest: case detection rates among contacts or at the community level, overall forward transmission, or overall disease incidence. Clinical trials and observational studies were eligible, with no language or date restrictions. Reference lists of reviews were searched for additional studies. We excluded studies without a control group, using only mathematical modelling, not reporting a primary outcome of interest, or solely examining patient-initiated contact tracing. One reviewer applied eligibility criteria to each screened abstract and full-text article, and two reviewers independently extracted summary effect estimates and additional data from eligible studies. Only data reported in published manuscripts or supplemental material was extracted. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (randomised studies) or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (non-randomised studies).FindingsWe identified 9050 unique citations, of which 47 studies met the inclusion criteria: six were focused on COVID-19, 20 on tuberculosis, eight on HIV, 12 on curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and one on measles. More than 2 million index patients were included across a variety of settings (both urban and rural areas and low-resource and high-resource settings). Of the 47 studies, 29 (61·7%) used observational designs, including all studies on COVID-19, and 18 (38·3%) were randomised controlled trials. 40 studies compared provider-initiated contact tracing with other interventions or evaluated expansions of provider-initiated contact tracing, and seven compared programmatic adaptations within provider-initiated contact tracing. 29 (72·5%) of the 40 studies evaluating the effect of provider-initiated contact tracing, including four (66·7%) of six COVID-19 studies, found contact tracing interventions were associated with improvements in at least one outcome of interest. 23 (48·9%) studies had low risk of bias, 22 (46·8%) studies had some risk of bias, and two (4·3%) studies (both randomised controlled trials on curable STIs) had high risk of bias.InterpretationProvider-initiated contact tracing can be an effective public health tool. However, the ability of authorities to make informed choices about its deployment might be limited by heterogenous approaches to contact tracing in studies, a scarcity of quantitative evidence on its effectiveness, and absence of specificity of tracing parameters most important for disease control.FundingThe Sullivan Family Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research, and US National Institutes of Health.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review evidence on effectiveness of contact tracing apps (CTAs) for SARS-CoV-2 on epidemiological and clinical outcomes.DesignRapid systematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE (OVID), MEDLINE (PubMed), BioRxiv and MedRxiv were searched up to 28 October 2020.Study selectionStudies, both empirical and model-based, assessing effect of CTAs for SARS-CoV-2 on reproduction number (R), total number of infections, hospitalisation rate, mortality rate, and other epidemiologically and clinically relevant outcomes, were eligible for inclusion.Data extractionEmpirical and model-based studies were critically appraised using separate checklists. Data on type of study (ie, empirical or model-based), sample size, (simulated) time horizon, study population, CTA type (and associated interventions), comparator and outcomes assessed, were extracted. The most important findings were extracted and narratively summarised. Specifically for model-based studies, characteristics and values of important model parameters were collected.Results2140 studies were identified, of which 17 studies (2 empirical, 15 model-based studies) were eligible and included in this review. Both empirical studies were observational (non-randomised) studies and at high risk of bias, most importantly due to risk of confounding. Risk of bias of model-based studies was considered low for 12 out of 15 studies. Most studies demonstrated beneficial effects of CTAs on R, total number of infections and mortality rate. No studies assessed effect on hospitalisation. Effect size was dependent on model parameters values used, but in general, a beneficial effect was observed at CTA adoption rates of 20% or higher.ConclusionsCTAs have the potential to be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 related epidemiological and clinical outcomes, though effect size depends on other model parameters (eg, proportion of asymptomatic individuals, or testing delays), and interventions after CTA notification. Methodologically sound comparative empirical studies on effectiveness of CTAs are required to confirm findings from model-based studies.