Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 Catalonia contact tracing program: evaluation of key performance indicators.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidance on SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing indicators have been recently revised by international public health agencies. The aim of the study is to describe and analyse contact tracing indicators based on Catalonia's (Spain) real data and proposing to update them according to recommendations.

Methods

Retrospective cohort analysis including Catalonia's contact tracing dataset from 20 May until 31 December 2020. Descriptive statistics are performed including sociodemographic stratification by age, and differences are assessed over the study period.

Results

We analysed 923,072 contacts from 301,522 SARS-CoV-2 cases with identified contacts (67.1% contact tracing coverage). The average number of contacts per case was 4.6 (median 3, range 1-243). A total of 403,377 contacts accepted follow-up through three phone calls over a 14-day quarantine period (84.5% of contacts requiring follow-up). The percentage of new cases declared as contacts 14 days prior to diagnosis evolved from 33.9% in May to 57.9% in November. All indicators significantly improved towards the target over time (p < 0.05 for all four indicators).

Conclusions

Catalonia's SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing indicators improved over time despite challenging context. The critical revision of the indicator's framework aims to provide essential information in control policies, new indicators proposed will improve system delay's follow-up. The study provides information on COVID-19 indicators framework experience from country's real data, allowing to improve monitoring tools in 2021-2022. With the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic being so harmful to health systems and globally, is important to analyse and share contact tracing data with the scientific community.

SUBMITTER: Herrero M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9299963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContact tracing is one of the main public health tools in the control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A centralized contact tracing system was developed in Belgium in 2020. We aim to evaluate the performance and describe the results, between January 01, 2021, and September 30, 2021. The characteristics of COVID-19 cases and the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on testing and tracing are also described.MethodsWe combined laboratory diagnostic test data (molecular and antigen test), vaccination data, and contact tracing data. A descriptive analysis was done to evaluate the performance of contact tracing and describe insights into the epidemiology of COVID-19 by contact tracing.ResultsBetween January and September 2021, 555.181 COVID-19 cases were reported to the central contact center and 91% were contacted. The average delay between symptom onset and contact tracing initiation was around 5 days, of which 4 days corresponded to pre-testing delay. High-Risk Contacts (HRC) were reported by 49% of the contacted index cases. The mean number of reported HRC was 2.7. In total, 666.869 HRC were reported of which 91% were successfully contacted and 89% of these were tested at least once following the interview. The estimated average secondary attack rate (SAR) among the contacts of the COVID-19 cases who reported at least one contact, was 27% and was significantly higher among household HRC. The proportion of COVID-19 cases who were previously identified as HRC within the central system was 24%.ConclusionsThe contact-tracing system contacted more than 90% of the reported COVID-19 cases and their HRC. This proportion remained stable between January 1 2021 and September 30 2021 despite an increase in cases in March-April 2021. We report high SAR, indicating that through contact tracing a large number of infections were prospectively detected. The system can be further improved by (1) reducing the delay between onset of illness and medical consultation (2) having more exhaustive reporting of HRC by the COVID-19 case.

Project description:BackgroundDigital proximity-tracing apps have been deployed in multiple countries to assist with SARS-CoV-2 pandemic mitigation efforts. However, it is unclear how their performance and effectiveness were affected by changing pandemic contexts and new viral variants of concern.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to bridge these knowledge gaps through a countrywide digital proximity-tracing app effectiveness assessment, as guided by the World Health Organization/European Center for Prevention and Disease Control (WHO/ECDC) indicator framework to evaluate the public health effectiveness of digital proximity-tracing solutions.MethodsWe performed a descriptive analysis of the digital proximity-tracing app SwissCovid in Switzerland for 3 different periods where different SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (ie, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron, respectively) were most prevalent. In our study, we refer to the indicator framework for the evaluation of public health effectiveness of digital proximity-tracing apps of the WHO/ECDC. We applied this framework to compare the performance and effectiveness indicators of the SwissCovid app.ResultsAverage daily registered SARS-CoV-2 case rates during our assessment period from January 25, 2021, to March 19, 2022, were 20 (Alpha), 54 (Delta), and 350 (Omicron) per 100,000 inhabitants. The percentages of overall entered authentication codes from positive tests into the SwissCovid app were 9.9% (20,273/204,741), 3.9% (14,372/365,846), and 4.6% (72,324/1,581,506) during the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variant phases, respectively. Following receipt of an exposure notification from the SwissCovid app, 58% (37/64, Alpha), 44% (7/16, Delta), and 73% (27/37, Omicron) of app users sought testing or performed self-tests. Test positivity among these exposure-notified individuals was 19% (7/37) in the Alpha variant phase, 29% (2/7) in the Delta variant phase, and 41% (11/27) in the Omicron variant phase compared to 6.1% (228,103/3,755,205), 12% (413,685/3,443,364), and 41.7% (1,784,951/4,285,549) in the general population, respectively. In addition, 31% (20/64, Alpha), 19% (3/16, Delta), and 30% (11/37, Omicron) of exposure-notified app users reported receiving mandatory quarantine orders by manual contact tracing or through a recommendation by a health care professional.ConclusionsIn constantly evolving pandemic contexts, the effectiveness of digital proximity-tracing apps in contributing to mitigating pandemic spread should be reviewed regularly and adapted based on changing requirements. The WHO/ECDC framework allowed us to assess relevant domains of digital proximity tracing in a holistic and systematic approach. Although the Swisscovid app mostly worked, as reasonably expected, our analysis revealed room for optimizations and further performance improvements. Future implementation of digital proximity-tracing apps should place more emphasis on social, psychological, and organizational aspects to reduce bottlenecks and facilitate their use in pandemic contexts.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Contact tracing data of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is used to estimate basic epidemiological parameters. Contact tracing data could also be potentially used for assessing the heterogeneity of transmission at the individual patient level. Characterization of individuals based on different levels of infectiousness could better inform the contact tracing interventions at field levels. METHODS:Standard social network analysis methods used for exploring infectious disease transmission dynamics was employed to analyze contact tracing data of 1959 diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 patients from a large state of India. Relational network data set with diagnosed patients as "nodes" and their epidemiological contact as "edges" was created. Directed network perspective was utilized in which directionality of infection emanated from a "source patient" towards a "target patient". Network measures of " degree centrality" and "betweenness centrality" were calculated to identify influential patients in the transmission of infection. Components analysis was conducted to identify patients connected as sub- groups. Descriptive statistics was used to summarise network measures and percentile ranks were used to categorize influencers. RESULTS:Out-degree centrality measures identified that of the total 1959 patients, 11.27% (221) patients have acted as a source of infection to 40.19% (787) other patients. Among these source patients, 0.65% (12) patients had a higher out-degree centrality (>?=?10) and have collectively infected 37.61% (296 of 787), secondary patients. Betweenness centrality measures highlighted that 7.50% (93) patients had a non-zero betweenness (range 0.5 to 135) and thus have bridged the transmission between other patients. Network component analysis identified nineteen connected components comprising of influential patient's which have overall accounted for 26.95% of total patients (1959) and 68.74% of epidemiological contacts in the network. CONCLUSIONS:Social network analysis method for SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing data would be of use in measuring individual patient level variations in disease transmission. The network metrics identified individual patients and patient components who have disproportionately contributed to transmission. The network measures and graphical tools could complement the existing contact tracing indicators and could help improve the contact tracing activities.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can propagate the virus unknowingly and thus have been a focus of public health attentions since the early stages of the pandemic. Understanding viral transmissibility among asymptomatic individuals is critical for successful control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The present study aimed to understand SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility among young asymptomatic individuals and to assess whether symptomatology was associated with transmission of symptomatic vs. asymptomatic infections.MethodsWe analyzed one of the first-identified clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infections with multiple chains of transmission that occurred among university students in March 2020 in Kyoto prefecture, Japan, using discrete and two-type branching process models. Assuming that the number of secondary cases resulting from either primary symptomatic or asymptomatic cases independently followed negative binomial distributions, we estimated the relative reproduction numbers of an asymptomatic case compared with a symptomatic case. To explore the potential association between symptomatology and transmission of symptomatic vs. asymptomatic incident infections, we also estimated the proportion of secondary symptomatic cases produced by primary symptomatic and asymptomatic cases.ResultsThe reproduction number for a symptomatic primary case was estimated at 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-2.09). The relative reproduction number for asymptomatic cases was estimated at 0.19 (95% CI: 0.03-0.66), indicating that asymptomatic primary cases did not result in sufficient numbers of secondary infections to maintain chains of transmission. There was no apparent tendency for symptomatic primary cases to preferentially produce symptomatic secondary cases.ConclusionsUsing data from a transmission network during the early epidemic in Japan, we successfully estimated the relative transmissibility of asymptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection at 0.22. These results suggest that contract tracing focusing on symptomatic index cases may be justified given limited testing capacity.

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.

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.