Contact Tracing Different Age Groups During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Study From South-West Germany.

Abstract

Background: Contact tracing was implemented in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent disease spread, reduce mortality, and avoid overburdening health care systems. In several countries, including Germany, new systems were needed to trace potentially infected individuals.

Objective: Using data collected in the Rhine-Neckar and Heidelberg (RNK/HD) districts in southwest Germany (population: 706,974), this study examines the overall effectiveness and efficiency of contact tracing in different age groups and stages of the pandemic.

Methods: From January 27, 2020, to April 30, 2022, the RNK/HD Health Authority collected data on COVID-19 infections, quarantines, and deaths. Data on infection, quarantine, and death was grouped by age (young: 0-19 years; adult: 20-65 years; and senior citizens: >65 years) and pandemic phase (infectious wave plus subsequent lull periods) and analyzed for proportion, risk, and relative risk (RR). The overall effectiveness and efficiency of contact tracing were determined by calculating quarantine sensitivity (proportion of the infected population captured in quarantine), positive predictive value (PPV; proportion of the quarantined population that was infected), and the weighted Fβ-score (combined predictive performance).

Results: Of 706,974 persons living in RNK/HD during the study period, 192,175 (27.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 74,810 (10.4%) were quarantined, and 932 (0.132%) died following infection. Compared with adults, the RR of infection was lower among senior citizens (0.401, 95% CI 0.395-0.407) and while initially lower for young people, was ultimately higher for young people across all 5 phases (first-phase RR 0.502, 95% CI 0.438-0.575; all phases RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.34-1.36). Of 932 COVID-19-associated deaths during the study period, 852 were senior citizens (91.4%), with no deaths reported among young people. Relative to adults, senior citizens had the lowest risk of quarantine (RR 0.436, 95% CI 0.424-0.448), while young people had the highest RR (2.94, 95% CI 2.90-2.98). The predictive performance of contact tracing was highest during the second and third phases of the pandemic (Fβ-score=0.272 and 0.338, respectively). In the second phase of the pandemic, 5810 of 16,814 COVID-19 infections were captured within a total quarantine population of 39,687 (sensitivity 34.6%; PPV 14.6%). In the third phase of the pandemic, 3492 of 8803 infections were captured within a total quarantine population of 16,462 (sensitivity 39.7%; PPV 21.2%).

Conclusions: The use of quarantine aligned with increasing risks of COVID-19 infection and death. High levels of quarantine sensitivity before the introduction of the vaccine show how contact tracing systems became increasingly effective at capturing and quarantining the infected population. High levels of PPV and Fβ-scores indicate, moreover, that contact tracing became more efficient at identifying infected individuals. Additional analysis of transmission pathways is needed to evaluate the application of quarantine in relation to infection and death risks within specific age groups.