Isolation and quarantine for COVID-19 in the United States, 2020-2022.

BACKGROUND: Public health programs varied in ability to reach people with COVID-19 and their contacts to encourage separation from others. For both adult cases of COVID-19 and contacts, we estimated the impact of contact tracing activities on separation behaviors from January, 2020 until March, 2022. METHODS: We used a probability-based panel survey of a nationally representative sample to gather data for estimates and comparisons. RESULTS: An estimated 64,255,351 adults reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result; 79.6% isolated for >5 days, 60.2% isolated for >10 days, and 79.2% self-notified contacts. 24,057,139 (37.7%) completed a case investigation and 46.2% reported contacts to health officials. More adults who completed a case investigation isolated than adults who did not (>5 days, 82.6%; >10 days, 69.8% versus >5 days, 78.2% and >10 days 54.8%; p-values for both measures <0.05).84,946,636 adults were a contact to a COVID-19 case; 73.1% learned of their exposure directly from a case; 49.4% quarantined for >5 days, 18.7% quarantined for >14 days, and 13.5% completed a contact tracing call. More who completed a contact tracing call quarantined than those who did not (>5 days, 61.2%; >14 days, 25.2% versus >5 days, 48.5%; >14 days, 18.0%; p-values for both measures <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Engagement in contact tracing positively correlated with isolation and quarantine. However, most adults with COVID-19 isolated and self-notified contacts regardless of whether the public health workforce was able to reach them. Identifying and reaching contacts was challenging, and limited the ability to promote quarantining, and testing.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing Outcomes in Washington State, August and October 2020.

Introduction: Case investigation and contact tracing are important tools to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, particularly when implemented efficiently. Our objective was to evaluate participation in and timeliness of COVID-19 contact tracing and whether these measures changed over time. Methods: We retrospectively assessed COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing surveillance data from the Washington State centralized program for August 1-31, 2020 and October 1-31, 2020. We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing reports with contact tracing data to compare completeness, reporting of contacts, and program timeliness. Results: For August and October respectively, 4,600 (of 12,521) and 2,166 (of 16,269) individuals with COVID-19 were referred to the state program for case investigation. Investigators called 100% of referred individuals; 65% (August) and 76% (October) were interviewed. Of individuals interviewed, 33% reported contacts in August and 45% in October, with only mild variation by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. In August, 992 individuals with COVID-19 reported a total of 2,584 contacts (mean, 2.6), and in October, 739 individuals reported 2,218 contacts (mean, 3.0). Among contacts, 86% and 78% participated in interviews for August and October. The median time elapsed from specimen collection to contact interview was 4 days in August and 3 days in October, and from symptom onset to contact interview was 7 days in August and 6 days in October. Conclusions: While contact tracing improved with time, the proportion of individuals disclosing contacts remained below 50% and differed minimally by demographic characteristics. The longest time interval occurred between symptom onset and test result notification. Improving elicitation of contacts and timeliness of contact tracing may further decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Estimates of Cases and Hospitalizations Averted by COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in 14 Health Jurisdictions in the United States.

CONTEXT: The implementation of case investigation and contact tracing (CICT) for controlling COVID-19 (caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus) has proven challenging due to varying levels of public acceptance and initially constrained resources, especially enough trained staff. Evaluating the impacts of CICT will aid efforts to improve such programs. OBJECTIVES: Estimate the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations averted by CICT and identify CICT processes that could improve overall effectiveness. DESIGN: We used data on the proportion of cases interviewed, contacts notified or monitored, and days from testing to case and contact notification from 14 jurisdictions to model the impact of CICT on cumulative case counts and hospitalizations over a 60-day period. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVIDTracer Advanced tool, we estimated a range of impacts by assuming either contacts would quarantine only if monitored or would do so upon notification of potential exposure. We also varied the observed program metrics to assess their relative influence. RESULTS: Performance by jurisdictions varied widely. Jurisdictions isolated between 12% and 86% of cases (including contacts that became cases) within 6 to 10 days after infection. We estimated that CICT-related reductions in transmission ranged from 0.4% to 32%. For every 100 remaining cases after other nonpharmaceutical interventions were implemented, CICT averted between 4 and 97 additional cases. Reducing time to case isolation by 1 day increased averted case estimates by up to 15 percentage points. Increasing the proportion of cases interviewed or contacts notified by 20 percentage points each resulted in at most 3 or 6 percentage point improvements in averted cases. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated that CICT reduced the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations among all jurisdictions studied. Reducing time to isolation produced the greatest improvements in impact of CICT.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in the US, 2020.

Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in Central Washington State, June-July 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate participation in COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing in central Washington State between June 15 and July 12, 2020. METHODS: In this retrospective observational evaluation we combined SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen test reports from the Washington Disease Reporting System with community case investigation and contact tracing data for 3 health districts (comprising 5 counties) in central Washington State. All 3 health districts have large Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. RESULTS: Investigators attempted to call all referred individuals with COVID-19 (n = 4,987); 71% were interviewed. Of those asked about close contacts (n = 3,572), 68% reported having no close contacts, with similar proportions across ethnicity, sex, and age group. The 968 individuals with COVID-19 who named specific contacts (27% of those asked) reported a total of 2,293 contacts (mean of 2.4 contacts per individual with COVID-19); 85% of listed contacts participated in an interview. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with COVID-19 reported having no close contacts. Increasing community engagement and public messaging, as well as understanding and addressing barriers to participation, are crucial for CICT to contribute meaningfully to controlling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing in Two Counties - North Carolina, June-July 2020.

Contact tracing is a strategy implemented to minimize the spread of communicable diseases (1,2). Prompt contact tracing, testing, and self-quarantine can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (3,4). Community engagement is important to encourage participation in and cooperation with SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing (5). Substantial investments have been made to scale up contact tracing for COVID-19 in the United States. During June 1-July 12, 2020, the incidence of COVID-19 cases in North Carolina increased 183%, from seven to 19 per 100,000 persons per day* (6). To assess local COVID-19 contact tracing implementation, data from two counties in North Carolina were analyzed during a period of high incidence. Health department staff members investigated 5,514 (77%) persons with COVID-19 in Mecklenburg County and 584 (99%) in Randolph Counties. No contacts were reported for 48% of cases in Mecklenburg and for 35% in Randolph. Among contacts provided, 25% in Mecklenburg and 48% in Randolph could not be reached by telephone and were classified as nonresponsive after at least one attempt on 3 consecutive days of failed attempts. The median interval from specimen collection from the index patient to notification of identified contacts was 6 days in both counties. Despite aggressive efforts by health department staff members to perform case investigations and contact tracing, many persons with COVID-19 did not report contacts, and many contacts were not reached. These findings indicate that improved timeliness of contact tracing, community engagement, and increased use of community-wide mitigation are needed to interrupt SARS-CoV-2 transmission.