Akira Endo1,2,3, Quentin J Leclerc1,3, Gwenan M Knight1,3, Graham F Medley3,4, Katherine E Atkins1,3,5, Sebastian Funk1,3, Adam J Kucharski1,3. 1. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. 2. The Alan Turing Institute, London, NW1 2DB, UK. 3. Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. 4. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. 5. Centre for Global Health Research, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK.
Abstract
Introduction: Contact tracing has the potential to control outbreaks without the need for stringent physical distancing policies, e.g. civil lockdowns. Unlike forward contact tracing, backward contact tracing identifies the source of newly detected cases. This approach is particularly valuable when there is high individual-level variation in the number of secondary transmissions (overdispersion). Methods: By using a simple branching process model, we explored the potential of combining backward contact tracing with more conventional forward contact tracing for control of COVID-19. We estimated the typical size of clusters that can be reached by backward tracing and simulated the incremental effectiveness of combining backward tracing with conventional forward tracing. Results: Across ranges of parameter values consistent with dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, backward tracing is expected to identify a primary case generating 3-10 times more infections than a randomly chosen case, typically increasing the proportion of subsequent cases averted by a factor of 2-3. The estimated number of cases averted by backward tracing became greater with a higher degree of overdispersion. Conclusion: Backward contact tracing can be an effective tool for outbreak control, especially in the presence of overdispersion as is observed with SARS-CoV-2. Copyright:
Introduction: Contact tracing has the potential to control outbreaks without the need for stringent physical distancing policies, e.g. civil lockdowns. Unlike forward contact tracing, backward contact tracing identifies the source of newly detected cases. This approach is particularly valuable when there is high individual-level variation in the number of secondary transmissions (overdispersion). Methods: By using a simple branching process model, we explored the potential of combining backward contact tracing with more conventional forward contact tracing for control of COVID-19. We estimated the typical size of clusters that can be reached by backward tracing and simulated the incremental effectiveness of combining backward tracing with conventional forward tracing. Results: Across ranges of parameter values consistent with dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, backward tracing is expected to identify a primary case generating 3-10 times more infections than a randomly chosen case, typically increasing the proportion of subsequent cases averted by a factor of 2-3. The estimated number of cases averted by backward tracing became greater with a higher degree of overdispersion. Conclusion: Backward contact tracing can be an effective tool for outbreak control, especially in the presence of overdispersion as is observed with SARS-CoV-2. Copyright:
Authors: Adam J Kucharski; Petra Klepac; Andrew J K Conlan; Stephen M Kissler; Maria L Tang; Hannah Fry; Julia R Gog; W John Edmunds Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Marcel Salathé; Maria Kazandjieva; Jung Woo Lee; Philip Levis; Marcus W Feldman; James H Jones Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Max S Y Lau; Bryan Grenfell; Michael Thomas; Michael Bryan; Kristin Nelson; Ben Lopman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Akira Endo; Quentin J Leclerc; Gwenan M Knight; Graham F Medley; Katherine E Atkins; Sebastian Funk; Adam J Kucharski Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2021-03-31
Authors: Tapio Schneider; Oliver R A Dunbar; Jinlong Wu; Lucas Böttcher; Dmitry Burov; Alfredo Garbuno-Inigo; Gregory L Wagner; Sen Pei; Chiara Daraio; Raffaele Ferrari; Jeffrey Shaman Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.779
Authors: Akira Endo; Quentin J Leclerc; Gwenan M Knight; Graham F Medley; Katherine E Atkins; Sebastian Funk; Adam J Kucharski Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2021-03-31
Authors: Martyn Fyles; Elizabeth Fearon; Christopher Overton; Tom Wingfield; Graham F Medley; Ian Hall; Lorenzo Pellis; Thomas House Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Kyra H Grantz; Elizabeth C Lee; Lucy D'Agostino McGowan; Kyu Han Lee; C Jessica E Metcalf; Emily S Gurley; Justin Lessler Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 11.069