Cargando…

Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland

Based on data collected as part of the contact tracing activity of the City of Helsinki Epidemiological Operations Unit, we evaluated the efficacy and effectiveness of isolating SARS-CoV-2 cases and quarantining their exposed contacts during a mildly growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Auranen, Kari, Shubin, Mikhail, Erra, Elina, Isosomppi, Sanna, Kontto, Jukka, Leino, Tuija, Lukkarinen, Timo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9817446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36609431
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27227-2
_version_ 1784864756070350848
author Auranen, Kari
Shubin, Mikhail
Erra, Elina
Isosomppi, Sanna
Kontto, Jukka
Leino, Tuija
Lukkarinen, Timo
author_facet Auranen, Kari
Shubin, Mikhail
Erra, Elina
Isosomppi, Sanna
Kontto, Jukka
Leino, Tuija
Lukkarinen, Timo
author_sort Auranen, Kari
collection PubMed
description Based on data collected as part of the contact tracing activity of the City of Helsinki Epidemiological Operations Unit, we evaluated the efficacy and effectiveness of isolating SARS-CoV-2 cases and quarantining their exposed contacts during a mildly growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland in autumn 2020. Based on the observed symptom-to-symptom intervals in 1016 pairs of primary and secondary cases, we estimated that without case isolation or quarantine 40[Formula: see text] (90[Formula: see text] credible interval, CI 25–59) of transmission would have occurred on the day of or after symptom onset. One third of SARS-CoV-2 cases (N = 1521) had initially been quarantined, with a self-reported time until isolation (quarantine) of 0.8 days before symptom onset. This delay translates into an efficacy of 50[Formula: see text] (90[Formula: see text] CI 40–63) of averting secondary infections per quarantined case. Due to later isolation (mean 2.6 days after symptoms), the efficacy was smaller (24[Formula: see text] ; 90[Formula: see text] CI 12–41) in those two third of the cases (N = 3101) whose isolation was prompted by their symptoms, i.e. without being previously quarantined. At the population level, we evaluated the effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine on the growth rate of the COVID-19 epidemic in the autumn of 2020. Under a wide range of underlying assumptions, the rate would have been at least 2 times higher without case isolation and quarantine. The numbers needed to isolate or quarantine to prevent one secondary case were 2 and 20, respectively.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9817446
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98174462023-01-06 Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland Auranen, Kari Shubin, Mikhail Erra, Elina Isosomppi, Sanna Kontto, Jukka Leino, Tuija Lukkarinen, Timo Sci Rep Article Based on data collected as part of the contact tracing activity of the City of Helsinki Epidemiological Operations Unit, we evaluated the efficacy and effectiveness of isolating SARS-CoV-2 cases and quarantining their exposed contacts during a mildly growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland in autumn 2020. Based on the observed symptom-to-symptom intervals in 1016 pairs of primary and secondary cases, we estimated that without case isolation or quarantine 40[Formula: see text] (90[Formula: see text] credible interval, CI 25–59) of transmission would have occurred on the day of or after symptom onset. One third of SARS-CoV-2 cases (N = 1521) had initially been quarantined, with a self-reported time until isolation (quarantine) of 0.8 days before symptom onset. This delay translates into an efficacy of 50[Formula: see text] (90[Formula: see text] CI 40–63) of averting secondary infections per quarantined case. Due to later isolation (mean 2.6 days after symptoms), the efficacy was smaller (24[Formula: see text] ; 90[Formula: see text] CI 12–41) in those two third of the cases (N = 3101) whose isolation was prompted by their symptoms, i.e. without being previously quarantined. At the population level, we evaluated the effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine on the growth rate of the COVID-19 epidemic in the autumn of 2020. Under a wide range of underlying assumptions, the rate would have been at least 2 times higher without case isolation and quarantine. The numbers needed to isolate or quarantine to prevent one secondary case were 2 and 20, respectively. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9817446/ /pubmed/36609431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27227-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Auranen, Kari
Shubin, Mikhail
Erra, Elina
Isosomppi, Sanna
Kontto, Jukka
Leino, Tuija
Lukkarinen, Timo
Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland
title Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland
title_full Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland
title_fullStr Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland
title_short Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland
title_sort efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the covid-19 epidemic in finland
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9817446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36609431
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27227-2
work_keys_str_mv AT auranenkari efficacyandeffectivenessofcaseisolationandquarantineduringagrowingphaseofthecovid19epidemicinfinland
AT shubinmikhail efficacyandeffectivenessofcaseisolationandquarantineduringagrowingphaseofthecovid19epidemicinfinland
AT erraelina efficacyandeffectivenessofcaseisolationandquarantineduringagrowingphaseofthecovid19epidemicinfinland
AT isosomppisanna efficacyandeffectivenessofcaseisolationandquarantineduringagrowingphaseofthecovid19epidemicinfinland
AT konttojukka efficacyandeffectivenessofcaseisolationandquarantineduringagrowingphaseofthecovid19epidemicinfinland
AT leinotuija efficacyandeffectivenessofcaseisolationandquarantineduringagrowingphaseofthecovid19epidemicinfinland
AT lukkarinentimo efficacyandeffectivenessofcaseisolationandquarantineduringagrowingphaseofthecovid19epidemicinfinland