key: cord-0728222-b6pfphos authors: Mettler, Sofia K.; Park, Jewel; Özbek, Orhun; Mettler, Linus K.; Ho, Po-Han; Rhim, Hye Chang; Maathuis, Marloes. H. title: Diagnostic Serial Interval as an Indicator for Effectiveness of Contact Tracing in the COVID-19 Pandemic - A Simulation Study date: 2021-04-13 journal: Int J Infect Dis DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.029 sha: 34616e81e0c13270ce2993f64f712f70443f0cf1 doc_id: 728222 cord_uid: b6pfphos BACKGROUND While the role of contact tracing in the containment of the COVID-19 epidemic remains important until vaccines are widely available, literature on objectively measurable indicators for the effectiveness of contact tracing is scarce. We suggest the diagnostic serial interval, the time between the diagnosis of the infector and infectee, as a new indicator for the effectiveness of contact tracing. METHODS Using an agent-based simulation model, we demonstrate how the diagnostic serial interval correlates with the course of the epidemic. We consider four scenarios of how diagnosis and subsequent isolation are triggered: 1. never, 2. by symptoms, 3. by symptoms and loose contact tracing, 4. by symptoms and tight contact tracing. We further refine scenario 3 and 4 with different lengths of target diagnostic serial intervals. RESULTS Scenarios 1 and 2 did not yield a notable difference. In scenarios 3 and 4, however, contact tracing led to a decrease of the height of the epidemic as well as the cumulative proportion of infected agents. Generally, the shorter the diagnostic serial interval was, the smaller the peak of the epidemic became, and the more proportion of the population remained susceptible at the end of the epidemic. CONCLUSION A short target diagnosis interval is critical for contact tracing to be effective in the epidemic control. The diagnosis interval can be used to assess and guide the contact tracing strategy. In many countries that managed to contain the earlier COVID-19 outbreaks through extensive social distancing or a large-scale lock-down, a second or third wave of the outbreak took place. Although a lock-down or strict social distancing seem to be effective in containing the epidemic, they come with very high socioeconomic costs. The contact tracing strategy of "Diagnose, Trace, Isolate" has been highlighted as a more sustainable alternative in addition to personal hygiene measures such as wearing masks and washing hands (Rajan et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2020a) . While the importance of contact tracing has been emphasized, little literature is available on how to assess the effectiveness of contact tracing. Furthermore, many countries have experienced a surge of new infections even though they have implemented contact tracing strategies, casting doubt around the usefulness of contact tracing (Mueller, 2020) . Some authors suggested that reducing the delay from infection to diagnosis or from symptom onset to diagnosis is key (Rong et al., 2020) . However, these approaches do not offer an objectively measurable parameter to assess the effectiveness of contact tracing, as J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f the time of infection is often unknown and pre-or asymptomatic carriers may account for more than 50% of all transmission events (Moghadas et al., 2020) . The total number of infected individuals or disease mortality also do not provide reliable information on the effectiveness of contact tracing since they may depend on other factors such as the number of tests performed, compliance of the public with mitigation measures, the variation in viral strains, weather, the age distribution of the population and medical care quality. The controversial change of testing guidelines by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to not test asymptomatic patients, which was reversed after heavy criticism (Sun, 2020) , demonstrated how the absence of an objectively measurable quantity for the effectiveness and usefulness of contact tracing complicates political decision making. We have previously suggested a novel indicator for the effectiveness of contact tracing that can be easily measured, namely the diagnostic serial interval, which we define as the time between the infector's diagnosis and the infectee's diagnosis (Mettler et al., 2020) . In this paper, we study the relationship between the diagnostic serial interval and the growth of the epidemic using an agent-based simulation model. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is assumed to be made either via contact tracing and subsequent serial lateral flow antigen (LFA) testing or via symptomatic presentation and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. We find that short diagnostic serial intervals correlate with a successful containment of the epidemic. Our findings imply that (1) fast contact tracing is important, and (2) diagnostic serial intervals can be used as an indicator for the speed of contact tracing. J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Methods While the majority of currently published simulation studies on COVID-19 are equationbased (Adam, 2020) , such models typically do not allow for simulation of infection chains. We therefore employ an agent-based model, by modifying an existing simulation design and code (Silva et al., 2020) . Our modifications entail both simplifications and additional features as described in the following paragraphs. We simulate the movements of 1000 agents in a two-dimensional space and track the spread of the epidemic within the population. Agents are in one of four states, namely, susceptible, infected, recovered/immune or dead. Unless dead, agents make a random move at every iteration within the predefined space. When susceptible agents come into close contact with an infected agent, they become infected at a given transmission probability. Infected agents develop symptoms after a random incubation time. According to the diagnostic testing triggering condition of the simulation scenario, infected agents may be diagnosed either via contact tracing and daily LFA testing for 5 days or via symptomatic presentation and PCR testing. Diagnosed agents are subsequently placed in isolation for 14 days and released if no longer symptomatic. The symptom status, diagnosis status, and isolation status are updated when certain conditions are fulfilled. One iteration corresponds to one day, and one simulation run (experiment) contains 100 iterations. Algorithm 1 is a pseudocode description of our simulation design. Each operation is explained in detail in Appendix A. J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f liquid sample along a surface with reactive molecules. We assumed the use of LFA testing for daily testing for its affordability, detection speed, and ease of use compared to traditional PCR testing (Mina et al., 2020) . In December 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for a commercially available LFA test (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2020). to the infectiousness at time t relative to the maximum infectiousness ( ) = 1. Here, t is the number of days since the onset of symptoms and can be negative. The probability that an agent infects their close contacts at time t is given by the maximum secondary attack rate of 0.35 multiplied by the relative infectiousness at time t. The detection probability can be thought of as the sensitivity of diagnostic testing. The detection probability by LFA testing is assumed to depend on the relative infectiousness (Quilty et al., 2021) . Although the true detection probability may remain high even after the agent is no longer infectious (Wölfel et al., 2020) , this assumption does not significantly alter our results as we are mainly interested in case detection during the infectious phase. The detection probability by PCR testing during the symptomatic phase is assumed to be 100% for simplicity. For the purpose of simplicity, we did not consider truly asymptomatic transmissions, i.e., agents who never develop symptoms. Also, we assume that every symptomatic patient either recovers and becomes immune or dies after 11.5 days of symptom duration. Furthermore, isolated agents are assumed not to infect others. We do not consider isolation of individuals without a diagnostic confirmation nor precautionary quarantine. J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f We consider the following four scenarios as diagnostic testing triggering conditions. Scenario 1 Never (do nothing). Scenario 2 Time since symptom onset is ≥ 3 days (only symptom-based testing). As the detection probability of the virus by LFA testing is relatively low (65%) during the early phase of infection, not all infectees are diagnosed on the day they are contact-traced. For example, even though infectees are contact-traced 2 days after the infector's diagnosis in scenario 4, the observed diagnostic serial interval may be greater than 2 days, because the virus was not detected by earlier tests. We call this contact-tracing interval of 2 days for J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f scenario 4, or 5 days for scenario 3, the target diagnostic serial interval. We use the terms observed diagnostic serial interval and diagnostic serial interval interchangeably. After 100 iterations, two data sets are returned. The first data set contains all agent variables at every iteration. The second data set contains summary statistics of the overall population at each iteration. Using the first data set, the clinical onset serial intervals and diagnostic serial intervals are calculated. The second data set is used to visualize the dynamic development of the epidemic over time. All simulations are performed using Python version 3.7.1. The resulting simulated data are analyzed using the software R version 4.0.2. All code is available on our github repository (https://github.com/DSI-COVID-Simulation/code/). The basic reproductive numbers, effective reproductive numbers, and distribution of contacts in scenario 1 can be found in Appendix B. The epidemic development in each scenario is shown in Figure 1 . As each simulation run entails a certain degree of randomness, each scenario is run 100 times with the same initial conditions to show stochastic variation. The ranges between the 5th and 95th percentiles as well as the median values are shown. J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f The first scenario we consider is the "do nothing" scenario. As shown in Figure 1 (a) the epidemic reaches a peak when 49.0% of the population are infected. The epidemic ends with no infected individuals when immunity is at 84.1% of the population, which is often referred to as herd immunity, leaving only 15.1% of the population susceptible. Assuming an infection fatality ratio of 1%, 0.8% of the population die in this scenario. In the second scenario patients are diagnosed and subsequently isolated if they had symptoms for 3 days. The epidemic reaches its peak when 45.0% of the population are In the last scenario the target diagnostic serial interval is shortened to 2 days. The outbreak peaks with 4.2% of the population infected and 4.2% of the population isolated. The epidemic ends after infecting only 10.5% of the population and causing death in 0.1% of the population. Interesting to note in Figure 1 is the time shift between the curve of infected agents and that of isolated agents in scenarios 2, 3 and 4. It visualizes that the shortened target diagnostic serial interval leads to a smaller time shift between the curves of infected and isolated agents. This leads to the containment of the epidemic without reaching herd immunity. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the three types of serial intervals. The distribution of the diagnostic serial interval in scenario 2 (Figure 3(b) ) is similar to that of the clinical onset serial interval. This is expected as diagnostic testing is only triggered by a symptom duration of 3 days or longer in scenario 2. In scenarios 3 and 4, the diagnostic serial intervals are targeted to be at 5 days and 2 days, respectively, and accordingly result in distributions shown in Figure 3 We ran a series of simulations with varying target diagnostic serial intervals from 0 day to 10 days while keeping the symptom-based testing condition at a symptom duration of 3 days or longer as in scenarios 3 and 4. For each target diagnostic serial interval, 100 simulations were performed. Simulation studies are a valuable tool for planning public health interventions and assessing their potential impacts. They are especially useful when dealing with imminent public health crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Our simulation study shows how timely contact tracing can help contain the current pandemic, the effectiveness of which can be measured by the diagnostic serial interval together with the proportion of cases with unknown transmission routes. We conjectured in our previous publication that shortening the diagnostic serial interval below the transmission serial interval will break the infection chain and contribute to the containment of the epidemic (Mettler et al., 2020) . The results of this simulation study are in line with this conjecture. Our study suggests that once the number of daily infection cases is brought down by a lock-down and extensive social distancing measures, the strategy of "Diagnose, Trace, Isolate" can be employed as a sustainable long-term measure for epidemic containment in addition to continuing personal hygiene measures. Considering that large-scale quarantine and isolation of individuals correlates with socioeconomic costs (Chu et al., 2020) , extensive contact tracing efforts would inflict the least socioeconomic consequences by reducing the number of individuals put in isolation/quarantine. The second scenario, in which diagnostic testing is triggered after three days of symptom onset, was the strategy implemented in some parts of the world in the early phase of the pandemic. Using the most recently reported information on the epidemiological characteristics of the virus (incubation and infectiousness profile), our simulation shows that a mere symptom-based approach brings little benefit compared to the "do nothing" strategy, albeit perhaps reducing the strain on the health care system by delaying the peak of the epidemic and reducing its height. While there have been promising results regarding possible vaccines, contact tracing will remain important until vaccines are widely administered. In particular, many low income countries will not be able to vaccinate most of their populations in 2021 (Dyer, 2020) , and contact tracing will continue to be one of the few sustainable measures available against the COVID-19 pandemic in these countries. Our study underlines the importance of fast We have assumed that LFA testing was used for serial testing of those who have been identified through contact tracing. Nasopharyngeal PCR testing is considered a gold standard in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, it is not suitable for daily testing due to its high cost and turnaround time. Although LFA is less sensitive than PCR, this is not so important if the goal is to detect actively infectious patients (Mina et al., 2020) . While LFA testing is inexpensive and quick, its effect in reducing transmission may be comparable to a 14-day quarantine, when used as daily serial testing accompanied by isolation of positive individuals (Quilty et al., 2020) . LFA testing is a critical component in the response against COVID-19 pandemic especially in resource-limited settings (Boum et al., 2021) . There are several limitations to our simulation study. First, we considered a simplified setting with a small population and a two-dimensional space without complex social structures that can lead to super-spreading events. Second, we use the same maximum secondary attack rate of 35% for all infector-infectee contacts, regardless of the duration and nature of the contact. Current literature suggests a wide range of secondary attack rates ranging from 0.46% to 63.87% (Huang et al., 2020) . This is likely due to different definitions of what constitutes close contact. For future studies, we may sub-categorize types of contacts and apply the contact-type specific secondary attack rate accordingly. Third, we assumed all contacts can be traced. The effect of this assumption may be partly offset by lowering the detection probability of LFA testing. Fourth, we did not consider asymptomatic carriers who never develop symptoms. According to recent literature, a J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f significant portion of asymptomatic carriers remain asymptomatic (Zhou et al., 2020) . However, asymptomatic carriers are less likely to form neutralizing antibodies and any antibodies formed tend to disappear quickly (Lei et al., 2020) . Thus, we conjectured that asymptomatic carriers will contribute minimally in forming herd immunity. In addition, asymptomatic carriers are 65% less likely to transmit the virus than those with symptomatic infections (Buitrago-Garcia et al, 2020) . For these reasons we decided to exclude truly asymptomatic carriers from our analysis. Furthermore, the number of deaths in our simulation is not a reliable estimate of the mortality for the following reasons. First, age is not considered for the purpose of simplicity. Second, the infection fatality ratio of 1% (World Health Organization, 2020b) is based on the assumption that proper medical care is provided. Our simulation, however, did not take medical care capacity into account. A two-dimensional space is defined and populated with a given number of agents. Each agent has several attributes as listed in Table 3 . J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f At every iteration the functions move, update, contact and diagnosis are executed. This is repeated for a given number of iterations which reflects the number of days of observation. We set the number of iterations to be 100. We simulate the movements of agents in a simplified manner. At each iteration every agent moves vertically and horizontally by a distance randomly chosen from the standard normal distribution (0,1) multiplied by the status-based amplitude of movement and the activity degree of the agent. The activity degree is randomly chosen at the beginning of the At every iteration afterwards. New contacts occur at every iteration as a result of agents' movements. If a susceptible agent is located within the predefined contagion distance of an infected agent who is not isolated, the susceptible agent becomes infected at a given probability, namely, the maximum secondary attack rate multiplied by infectiousness as defined in Table 1 Undiagnosed to Diagnosed and from No isolation to Isolated. Table 6 summarizes the response variables of the simulation. Response Modelling the pandemic -the simulations driving the world's response to COVID-19 COVID-19 infectivity profile correction Performance and operational feasibility of antigen and antibody rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in Cameroon: a clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A living systematic review and meta-analysis Social consequences of mass quarantine during epidemics: a systematic review with implications for the COVID-19 response Covid-19: Many poor countries will see almost no vaccine next year, aid groups warn The timing of covid-19 transmission How long are you infectious when you have coronavirus? The Conversation Estimation of the secondary attack rate of COVID-19 using proportional meta-analysis of nationwide contact tracing data in taiwan Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of 1420 european patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 Antibody dynamics to SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic COVID-19 infections Secondary attack rate and superspreading events for SARS-CoV-2 Incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research Diagnostic serial interval as a novel indicator for contact tracing effectiveness exemplified with the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 outbreak in south korea Rethinking Covid-19 test sensitivity-A strategy for containment The implications of silent transmission for the control of covid-19 outbreaks Contact tracing, key to reining in the virus, falls flat in the west What do countries need to do to implement effective 'find, test, trace, isolate and support' systems? Effect of delay in diagnosis on transmission of COVID-19 COVID-ABS: an agentbased model of COVID-19 epidemic to simulate health and economic effects of social distancing interventions CDC reverses controversial coronavirus guidelines for testing people without symptoms. The Washington Post Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 working group Quarantine and testing strategies in contact tracing for SARS-CoV-2: a modelling study COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Antigen Test as First Over-the-Counter Fully At-Home Diagnostic Test for COVID-19 World Health Organization. Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 World Health Organization. Estimating mortality from COVID-19 Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with covid-2019 Follow-up of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection Our research is based on simulation data and does not require to involve patients or the public in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans. Our research does not require ethics committee approval. All authors declare no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. There is no funding source to declare.