An Pan1, Li Liu1, Chaolong Wang1, Huan Guo2, Xingjie Hao1, Qi Wang1, Jiao Huang1, Na He3, Hongjie Yu3, Xihong Lin4,5, Sheng Wei1, Tangchun Wu2. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 2. Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Environment and Health, and State Key Laboratory of Environmental Health (Incubating), School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 3. School of Public Health, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Statistics, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic, and it is unknown whether a combination of public health interventions can improve control of the outbreak. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of public health interventions with the epidemiological features of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan by 5 periods according to key events and interventions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, individual-level data on 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between December 8, 2019, and March 8, 2020, were extracted from the municipal Notifiable Disease Report System, including patients' age, sex, residential location, occupation, and severity classification. EXPOSURES: Nonpharmaceutical public health interventions including cordons sanitaire, traffic restriction, social distancing, home confinement, centralized quarantine, and universal symptom survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections (defined as the number of cases per day per million people), across age, sex, and geographic locations were calculated across 5 periods: December 8 to January 9 (no intervention), January 10 to 22 (massive human movement due to the Chinese New Year holiday), January 23 to February 1 (cordons sanitaire, traffic restriction and home quarantine), February 2 to 16 (centralized quarantine and treatment), and February 17 to March 8 (universal symptom survey). The effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (an indicator of secondary transmission) was also calculated over the periods. RESULTS: Among 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, the median patient age was 56.7 years (range, 0-103; interquartile range, 43.4-66.8) and 16 817 (51.6%) were women. The daily confirmed case rate peaked in the third period and declined afterward across geographic regions and sex and age groups, except for children and adolescents, whose rate of confirmed cases continued to increase. The daily confirmed case rate over the whole period in local health care workers (130.5 per million people [95% CI, 123.9-137.2]) was higher than that in the general population (41.5 per million people [95% CI, 41.0-41.9]). The proportion of severe and critical cases decreased from 53.1% to 10.3% over the 5 periods. The severity risk increased with age: compared with those aged 20 to 39 years (proportion of severe and critical cases, 12.1%), elderly people (≥80 years) had a higher risk of having severe or critical disease (proportion, 41.3%; risk ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 3.31-3.95]) while younger people (<20 years) had a lower risk (proportion, 4.1%; risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.70]). The effective reproduction number fluctuated above 3.0 before January 26, decreased to below 1.0 after February 6, and decreased further to less than 0.3 after March 1. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. These findings may inform public health policy in other countries and regions.
IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic, and it is unknown whether a combination of public health interventions can improve control of the outbreak. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of public health interventions with the epidemiological features of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan by 5 periods according to key events and interventions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, individual-level data on 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between December 8, 2019, and March 8, 2020, were extracted from the municipal Notifiable Disease Report System, including patients' age, sex, residential location, occupation, and severity classification. EXPOSURES: Nonpharmaceutical public health interventions including cordons sanitaire, traffic restriction, social distancing, home confinement, centralized quarantine, and universal symptom survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections (defined as the number of cases per day per million people), across age, sex, and geographic locations were calculated across 5 periods: December 8 to January 9 (no intervention), January 10 to 22 (massive human movement due to the Chinese New Year holiday), January 23 to February 1 (cordons sanitaire, traffic restriction and home quarantine), February 2 to 16 (centralized quarantine and treatment), and February 17 to March 8 (universal symptom survey). The effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (an indicator of secondary transmission) was also calculated over the periods. RESULTS: Among 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, the median patient age was 56.7 years (range, 0-103; interquartile range, 43.4-66.8) and 16 817 (51.6%) were women. The daily confirmed case rate peaked in the third period and declined afterward across geographic regions and sex and age groups, except for children and adolescents, whose rate of confirmed cases continued to increase. The daily confirmed case rate over the whole period in local health care workers (130.5 per million people [95% CI, 123.9-137.2]) was higher than that in the general population (41.5 per million people [95% CI, 41.0-41.9]). The proportion of severe and critical cases decreased from 53.1% to 10.3% over the 5 periods. The severity risk increased with age: compared with those aged 20 to 39 years (proportion of severe and critical cases, 12.1%), elderly people (≥80 years) had a higher risk of having severe or critical disease (proportion, 41.3%; risk ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 3.31-3.95]) while younger people (<20 years) had a lower risk (proportion, 4.1%; risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.70]). The effective reproduction number fluctuated above 3.0 before January 26, decreased to below 1.0 after February 6, and decreased further to less than 0.3 after March 1. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. These findings may inform public health policy in other countries and regions.
Authors: Adam J Kucharski; Timothy W Russell; Charlie Diamond; Yang Liu; John Edmunds; Sebastian Funk; Rosalind M Eggo Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Hongbo Jiang; Yewei Xie; Yuan Xiong; Yi Zhou; Kaihao Lin; Yao Yan; Joseph Tucker; Jason J Ong; Dan Wu; Fan Yang; Weiming Tang Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Peter Jüni; Martina Rothenbühler; Pavlos Bobos; Kevin E Thorpe; Bruno R da Costa; David N Fisman; Arthur S Slutsky; Dionne Gesink Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Virgilio Galvis; Francesca Romana Spinelli; Alejandro Tello; Claudia L Sossa; Juan D Higuera; Edgar D Gómez; Sergio E Serrano; Paul A Camacho; Federico G Velez Journal: Arch Bronconeumol (Engl Ed) Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Katherine A Auger; Samir S Shah; Troy Richardson; David Hartley; Matthew Hall; Amanda Warniment; Kristen Timmons; Dianna Bosse; Sarah A Ferris; Patrick W Brady; Amanda C Schondelmeyer; Joanna E Thomson Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272