Risk factors associated with occurrence of COVID‐19 among household persons exposed to patients with confirmed COVID‐19 in Qingdao Municipal, China

Xin, Hualei; Jiang, Fachun; Xue, Anke; Liang, Jiwei; Zhang, Jingfei; Yang, Feng; Han, Yang

doi:10.1111/tbed.13743

Cited by 21 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondary attack rates were not significantly different when restricting to 38 studies 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 72 with low or moderate risk of bias (15.6%; 95%, 12.8%-18.5%) (eFigure 4 in the Supplement ). There were no significant differences in secondary attack rates between 21 studies in China 22 , 27 , 31 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 70 , …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…We identified 54 relevant published studies that reported household secondary transmission, with 77 758 participants (eTable 1 in the Supplement ). 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 A total of 16 of 54 studies (29.6%) were at high risk of bias, 27 (50.0%) were moderate, and 11 (20.4%) were low (eTable 2 in the Supplement ). Lower quality was attributed to studies with 1 or fewer test per contact (35 studies [64.8%]), small sample sizes (31 [57.4%]), a...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 1 summarizes secondary attack rates for 44 studies 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 70 of household contacts and 10 of family contacts. 26 , 31 , 37 , 45 , 58 , 60 , 65 , 68 , 71 , 72 Estimated mean secondary attack rate for household contacts was 16.4% (95% CI, 13.4%-19.6%) and family contacts was 17.4% (95% CI, 12.7%-22.5%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 5 studies, 20,36,39,48,49 individuals older than 60 years were most susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Contact age was not associated with susceptibility in 9 studies, 26,28,32,44,47,58,66,67,70 although these were typically less powered to detect a difference. Figure 3 summarizes 15 studies 22,26,29,37,39,42,44,45,47,49,55,59,60,63,65 The second most examined factor was sex of exposed contacts, which was not associated with susceptibility for most studies 20,22,26,32,36,39,44,45,[47][48][49]58,[65][66][67]70 except 3.…”

Section: Jama Network Open | Global Healthmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Points Question What is the household secondary attack rate for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)? Findings In this meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77 758 participants, the estimated overall household secondary attack rate was 16.6%, higher than observed secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Controlling for differences across studies, secondary attack rates were higher in households from symptomatic index cases than asymptomatic index cases, to adult contacts than to child contacts, to spouses than to other family contacts, and in households with 1 contact than households with 3 or more contacts. Meaning These findings suggest that households are and will continue to be important venues for transmission, even in areas where community transmission is reduced.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Jama Network Open | Global Healthmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We identified only two other studies that considered the impact of testing delays on household transmission; Xin et al 17 and Wang et al 14 examined the time from illness onset to laboratory confirmation. They reported hazard ratios for household transmission of 2·32 (95% CI 0·89 - 6·10) (<7-day delays versus ≥7-day delays) calculated from 106 households, and 2·35 (95% CI 0·63 - 8·77) (<3-day delays versus ≥3-day delays) calculated from 124 households, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics associated with household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario, Canada

Paul¹,

Daneman

Brown

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Within-household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been identified as one of the main sources of spread of COVID-19 after lockdown restrictions and self-isolation guidelines are implemented. Secondary attack rates among household contacts are estimated to be five to ten times higher than among non-household contacts, but it is unclear which individuals are more prone to transmit infection within their households. METHODS: Using address matching, a cohort was assembled of all laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 residing in private households in Ontario, Canada. Descriptive analyses were performed to compare characteristics of cases in households that experienced secondary transmission versus those that did not. Logistic regression models were fit to determine index case characteristics and neighbourhood characteristics associated with transmission. FINDINGS: Between January and July, 2020, there were 26,152 cases of COVID-19 residing in 21,226 households. Longer testing delays (≥5 days versus 0 days OR=3.02, 95% CI: 2.53 - 3.60) and male sex (OR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.18 - 1.38) were associated with greater odds of household secondary transmission, while being a healthcare worker (OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.50 - 0.62) was associated with lower odds of transmission. Neighbourhoods with larger average economic family size and a higher proportion of households with multiple persons per room were also associated with greater odds of transmission. INTERPRETATION: It is important for individuals to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection as soon as symptoms appear, and to isolate away from household contacts; this is particularly important in neighbourhoods with large family sizes and/or crowded households.

show abstract

Factors Associated With Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE A previous systematic review and meta-analysis of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 that summarized 54 published studies through October 19, 2020, found an overall secondary attack rate (SAR) of 16.6% (95% CI, 14.0%-19.3%). However, the understanding of household secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV-2 is still evolving, and updated analysis is needed.OBJECTIVE To use newly published data to further the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the household.

show abstract

Risk factors associated with occurrence of COVID‐19 among household persons exposed to patients with confirmed COVID‐19 in Qingdao Municipal, China

Cited by 21 publications

References 21 publications

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Characteristics associated with household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario, Canada

Factors Associated With Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About