| Literature DB >> 35482766 |
Amjad Khan1, Muhammad Hassan Mushtaq2, Javed Muhammad3, Anupam Sule4, Ali Akbar5, Khunsa Junaid6, Ali Akram Khan6, Taimoor Akram Khan6, Ubaid Khan6, Fatmee Waqar6, Asghar Khan7, Muhammad Akib Warraich8, Abdul Jabbar9, Abbas Al Mutair10,11,12, Saad Alhumaid13, Maha Al-Mozaini14, Kuldeep Dhama15, Muhammad Fayaz Khan9, Ali A Rabaan1,16,17.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 household transmissibility remains unclear in Pakistan. To understand the dynamics of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus disease epidemiology, this study estimated Secondary Attack Rate (SAR) among household and close contacts of index cases in Pakistan using a statistical transmission model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35482766 PMCID: PMC9049303 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266277
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Description of Covid-19 households and their index cases in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Province of Pakistan, May 17th, 2020—January 15th, 2021.
| Variable | Household Contacts N = 739 (%) | Index cases N = 339 (%) | P-values |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 35.6 + 22.1 | 49.7 + 18.4 | 0.031 |
|
| |||
| Male | 465 (62.92) | 211 (62.24) | <0.001 |
| Female | 274 (37.08) | 128 (37.76) | |
|
| |||
| 1 to 3 | 160 (21.65) | 81 (23.90) | <0.001 |
| 4 to 6 | 218 (29.49) | 107 (31.57) | |
| > 7 | 361 (48.85) | 151 (44.53) | |
|
| |||
| Khyber Pakhtunkhwa | 421 (56.97) | 187 (55.16) | 0.002 |
| Punjab | 318 (43.03) | 152 (44.84) | |
|
| |||
| Urban | 512 (69.29) | 262 (77.29) | <0.001 |
| Rural | 227 (30.71) | 77 (22.71) | |
|
| |||
| Laboratory Confirmed | 117 (15.83) | - | |
| symptoms based | 213 (28.83) | - | |
| All together | 240 (32.48) | - | |
|
| |||
| Hospitalized | 72 (61.53) | 153 (45.13) | 0.001 |
| Pneumonia | 39 (33.33) | 137 (40.41) | |
| Mortality | 6 (5.12) | 22 (6.48) |
*Age missing for 11 household contacts.
** Symptoms data missing for 9 household contacts.
^Percent of 117 confirmed secondary cases.
Confirmed secondary COVID-19 cases risk factors analysis through Univariate Poisson regression in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, Pakistan, Feb 26th-April 8th, 2020.
| Variable | Secondary confirmed cases n = 117 | No cases n = 622 | RR | 95% CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 57.2 + 8.3 | 43.7 + 13.4 | 1.17 | 0.97–1.61 | <0.001 |
|
| |||||
| 0–25 | 0 | 341 | - | - | - |
| 26–40 | 18 | 187 | 15.3 | 2.13–25.1 | 0.003 |
| 41–60 | 67 | 42 | 31.4 | 5.22–53.3 | <0.001 |
| >61 | 32 | 52 | 27.1 | 4.31–44.7 | 0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Male | 77 | 388 | 1.16 | 0.72–1.65 | 0.021 |
| Female | 40 | 234 | - | - | - |
|
| |||||
| 1 to 3 | 11 | 149 | - | - | - |
| 4 to 6 | 40 | 178 | 1.67 | 0.91–2.51 | 0.031 |
| > 7 | 66 | 295 | 5.12 | 2.89–7.21 | <0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Urban | 79 | 433 | 1.08 | 0.41–1.89 | 0.031 |
| Rural | 38 | 189 | - | - | - |
|
| |||||
| Age + SD | - | - | 1.03 | 0.62–1.53 | 0.044 |
|
| |||||
| Male | 81 | 384 | 1.02 | 0.03–1.92 | 0.027 |
| Female | 36 | 238 | - | - | - |
|
| |||||
| Yes | 92 | 412 | 2.11 | 1.18–4.37 | 0.033 |
| No | 25 | 210 | - | - | - |
|
| |||||
| Yes | 34 | 248 | 1.18 | 0.88–2.01 | 0.004 |
| No | 83 | 374 | - | - | - |
|
| |||||
| Yes | 41 | 279 | 1.83 | 0.98–2.82 | <0.001 |
| No | 76 | 343 | - | - | - |
Fig 1Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) of Pakistani household index case (exposure) contacts effect on the COVID-19 secondary cases (outcome).
Ancestors of outcome (red color) and exposure.
Relative risk and adjusted SARs of COVID-19 secondary case using an inverse probability weighting in Pakistani household contacts.
| Variable | Adjusted SAR (%) | Adjusted Relative Risk (RR) | 95% Confidence Interval | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 0–25 | 0.51 | 1.00 | - | - |
| 26–40 | 3.73 | 8.44 | 2.14–21.07 | 0.015 |
| 41–60 | 10.3 | 28.2 | 5.11–32.47 | 0.001 |
| >61 | 21.8 | 42.5 | 13.1–62.5 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Male | 7.21 | 4.88 | 1.71–6.23 | 0.003 |
| Female | 3.70 | 1.00 | - | - |
|
| ||||
| 1 to 3 | 2.12 | 1.00 | - | - |
| 4 to 6 | 9.32 | 3.87 | 2.23–4.91 | 0.008 |
| > 7 | 13.11 | 5.43 | 3.41–6.11 | 0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Urban | 3.67 | 2.15 | 1.70–3.09 | 0.006 |
| Rural | 1.32 | 1.00 | - | - |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Yes | 5.21 | 2.87 | 1.11–3.98 | 0.002 |
| No | 1.07 | 1.00 | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 7.21 | 3.77 | 2.20–4.57 | 0.024 |
| No | 1.71 | 1.00 | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 4.12 | 1.78 | 1.12–2.79 | 0.003 |
| No | 3.11 | 1.00 | - | - |
I Adjusted for the index case age.
II Adjusted for household contacts gender.
III Adjusted for household contacts members.
IV Adjusted for household residence.
V Adjusted for index case (hospitalization, pneumonia, and cough).
Following Raad et al., 2020, Inverse probability weighting technique is used to assess the to estimate the probability of the exposure observed for a particular person, and using the predicted probability as a weight in subsequent analyses.