Risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection: a retrospective cohort study based on contacts tracing

Liu, Tao; Liang, Wenjia; Zhong, Huan; He, Jianfeng; Chen, Zihui; He, Guanhao; Song, Tie; Chen, Shaowei; Wang, Ping; Li, Jialing; Lan, Yunhua; Cheng, Mingji; Huang, Jinxu; Niu, J W; Xia, Liang; Xiao, Jianpeng; Hu, Jianxiong; Lin, Lifeng; Huang, Qiong; Rong, Zuhua; Deng, Aiping; Zeng, Weilin; Li, Jiansen; Li, Xing; Tan, Xiaohua; Kang, Min; Guo, Lingchuan; Zhu, Zhihua; Gong, Dexin; Chen, Guimin; Dong, Moran

doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1787799

Cited by 131 publications

(191 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 18 studies were contact-tracing studies (CTSs), 7,10,12,16-31 with 3 based in schools, [29][30][31] and 14 studies were population screening studies. 7, [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] Two were high quality, 33,35 22 were medium quality, 10,12,16,21,22,[24][25][26][27][29][30][31][32]34,36,38,[40][41][42][43][44][45] 7 were low quality, [17][18][19][20]23,28,39 and 1 was uncertain quality. 7,37…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…31 Lower secondary attack rates in children and adolescents compared with adults were reported by 11 studies: 5 from provinces of China, including Hunan, 10,22 Hubei, 16,18 and Beijing, 20 and 6 from other countries, including Taiwan, 17 Japan, 19 the US, 25,26 Israel, 21 and the Netherlands, 7,28 although confidence intervals were wide in some studies. No significant differences in secondary attack rates by age were reported in 3 studies from Guangdong province, China, 24 Brunei, 27 and the states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh in India, 23 with 1 study from South Korea 12 reporting high secondary attack rates in those younger than 19 years. In 3 of these studies, 12,23,27 secondary attack rates in younger children were low compared with adults, but those among teenagers were as high as or higher than adults.…”

Section: Contact-tracing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…χ 2 Test suggested this group difference was significant (χ 2 = 4.54; P = .03). When only the 8 high-quality and medium-quality studies with low risk of bias were examined, 10,12,16,21,[24][25][26][27] this finding was no longer significant (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41-1.11); however, the difference in estimates between low-quality studies and high-quality and medium-quality studies was not significant (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). We hypothesized that CTSs including only household contacts might provide a clearer indication of the relative susceptibility to infection of children vs adults because all contacts within households might be assumed to receive a similar exposure to infection from index cases.…”

Section: Contact-tracing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…A total of 6 studies were from mainland China, 10,16,18,20,22,24 2 from the US, 25,26 and 1 each from Taiwan, 17 Japan, 19 South Korea, 12 Israel, 21 the Netherlands, 7,28 Brunei, 27 and India, 23 with 3 CTSs based in schools from Australia, 29 Ireland, 30 and Singapore. 31 Lower secondary attack rates in children and adolescents compared with adults were reported by 11 studies: 5 from provinces of China, including Hunan, 10,22 Hubei, 16,18 and Beijing, 20 and 6 from other countries, including Taiwan, 17 Japan, 19 the US, 25,26 Israel, 21 and the Netherlands, 7,28 although confidence intervals were wide in some studies.…”

Section: Contact-tracing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The degree to which children and adolescents are infected by and transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. The role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent on susceptibility, symptoms, viral load, social contact patterns, and behavior. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the susceptibility to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and adolescents compared with adults. DATA SOURCES PubMed and medRxiv were searched from database inception to July 28, 2020, and a total of 13 926 studies were identified, with additional studies identified through hand searching of cited references and professional contacts. STUDY SELECTION Studies that provided data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents (younger than 20 years) compared with adults (20 years and older) derived from contact tracing or population screening were included. Single-household studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS PRISMA guidelines for abstracting data were followed, which was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using a critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Secondary infection rate (contact-tracing studies) or prevalence or seroprevalence (population screening studies) among children and adolescents compared with adults. RESULTS A total of 32 studies comprising 41 640 children and adolescents and 268 945 adults met inclusion criteria, including 18 contact-tracing studies and 14 population screening studies. The pooled odds ratio of being an infected contact in children compared with adults was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37-0.85), with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 94.6%). Three school-based contact-tracing studies found minimal transmission from child or teacher index cases. Findings from population screening studies were heterogenous and were not suitable for meta-analysis. Most studies were consistent with lower seroprevalence in children compared with adults, although seroprevalence in adolescents appeared similar to adults. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this meta-analysis, there is preliminary evidence that children and adolescents have lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, with an odds ratio of 0.56 for being an infected contact compared with adults. There is weak evidence that children and adolescents play a lesser role than adults in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at a population level. This study provides no information on the infectivity of children.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contact-tracing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Contact-tracing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Contact-tracing Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These premises include the necessity of accurate information on the number of susceptible, infected, exposed and recovered people, which is extremely difficult to obtain in any country 12 . Among the sources of uncertainty, we have underreporting and delays in reporting cases; inaccuracies in the estimates of the percentage of people that comply with measures of social distancing and wearing masks; unavailability of tests and lack of accuracy of test methods; limited knowledge about herd immunity and the mechanism that enables oligosymptomatic or asymptomatic individuals to transmit the disease; the incubation period of the virus; and other factors 13,14 . Declaring all the mathematical assumptions of a model is essential but is not sufficient for an adequate interpretation of the results.…”

Section: /5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term forecasts of the COVID-19 epidemic: a dangerous idea

Martinez

Aragon

Nunes

2020

Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Mathematical models have been used to obtain long-term forecasts of the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods: The daily COVID-19 case count in two Brazilian states was used to show the potential limitations of long-term forecasting through the application of a mathematical model to the data. Results: The predicted number of cases at the end of the epidemic and at the moment that the peak occurs, is highly dependent on the length of the time series used in the predictive model. Conclusions: Predictions obtained during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic need to be viewed with caution.

show abstract

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Points Question What is the household secondary attack rate for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)? Findings In this meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77 758 participants, the estimated overall household secondary attack rate was 16.6%, higher than observed secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Controlling for differences across studies, secondary attack rates were higher in households from symptomatic index cases than asymptomatic index cases, to adult contacts than to child contacts, to spouses than to other family contacts, and in households with 1 contact than households with 3 or more contacts. Meaning These findings suggest that households are and will continue to be important venues for transmission, even in areas where community transmission is reduced.

show abstract

Risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection: a retrospective cohort study based on contacts tracing

Cited by 131 publications

References 31 publications

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults

Long-term forecasts of the COVID-19 epidemic: a dangerous idea

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About