Abstract
Background Between February and June 2020, 917 COVID-19 cases and 14 COVID-19-related deaths were reported in Georgia. Early on, Georgia implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) including extensive contact tracing and restrictions on movement.
Aim To characterize the demographics of those tested and infected with COVID-19 in Georgia; to evaluate factors associated with transmission between cases and their contacts; and to determine how transmission varied due to NPI up to 24 June 2020.
Methods We use data gathered by the Georgian National Center for Disease Control on all polymerase chain reaction tests conducted (among symptomatic patients, through routine testing and contact tracing); hospitalization data for confirmed cases, and contact tracing data. We calculated the number of contacts per index case, the secondary attack rate (% contacts infected), and effective R number (new cases per index case), and used logistic regression to estimate how age, gender, and contact type affected transmission.
Results Most contacts and transmission events were between family members. Contacts <40 years were less likely to be infected, while infected individuals >50 were more likely to die than younger patients. Contact tracing identified 917 index cases with mean 3.1 contacts tested per case, primarily family members. The overall secondary attack rate was 28% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26-29%) and effective R number was 0.87 (95%CI 0.81-0.93), peaking at 1.1 (95%CI 0.98-1.2) during the period with strongest restrictions.
Conclusion Georgia effectively controlled the COVID-19 epidemic in its early stages, although evidence does not suggest transmission was reduced during the strict lockdown period.
Evidence before this study We searched PubMed and MedRxiv for papers reporting research using contact tracing data to evaluate the characteristics of the COVID-19 epidemic in any country. A number of analyses were identified from Asia, including China, Taiwan, Maldives, Thailand, South Korea, and India, but none from other regions other than one previous analysis conducted in Europe, focusing on the first two months of the COVID-19 epidemic in Cyprus. Studies evaluated number of contacts and different contact types, secondary attack rate, and effective R number. However, none of these studies compared characteristics between different time periods or under varied levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions or restrictions on social mixing.
Added value of this study In this study, we use contact tracing data from Georgia from all cases identified in the first four months of the epidemic, as well as testing and hospitalization data, to evaluate the number and type of contacts, effective R number (new cases per index case), and secondary attack rate (proportion of contacts infected) in this population, and whether these measures changed before, during, and after the lockdown period. We also evaluated how the chance of transmission varied by type of index case and contact. Our results indicate that number of contacts remained relatively low throughout the study period, so although the secondary attack rate was relatively high (28%) compared to that seen in studies in Asia (10-15%), the effective R number was less than one overall, peaking at 1.1 (0.98-1.2) during the strictest lockdown period, with easing of restrictions corresponding to a lower effective R of 0.87 (0.77-0.97). Most transmission occurred between family members with transmission very low between co-workers, friends, neighbours, and medical personnel, indicating that the restrictions on social mixing were effective at keeping the epidemic under control during this period.
Implications of all the available evidence Our study presents the first analysis of the successful control of a COVID-19 epidemic in a European country, indicating that despite a high secondary attack rate, reduction in contacts outside the home, and a well-timed lockdown, were able to keep transmission under control.
Competing Interest Statement
JGW and PV have received unrestricted research grants from Gilead Sciences unrelated to this work. All authors declare no other conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Global Public Health strand of the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, funded under the University of Bristol's QR GCRF strategy. PV also acknowledges support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval (exemption) was obtained for this study from the National Center for Disease Control (NCDC) institutional review board (IRB), under reference # 2020-027, 02 June 2020. The study was deemed exempt from IRB due to using retrospective anonymized data. The study was also registered with University of Bristol's research governance database.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵^ PV and AG should be considered joint senior authors.
Funding: This work was supported by the Global Public Health strand of the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, funded under the University of Bristol’s QR GCRF strategy. PV also acknowledges support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol.
Conflicts of Interest: JGW and PV have received unrestricted research grants from Gilead Sciences unrelated to this work. All authors declare no other conflicts of interest.
Data Availability
Data used in the study will be made available upon publication, including the de-identified contact database, de-identified hospital outcome data, and de-identified test data.