Abstract
Objectives: Current retrospective study aims to evaluate household Secondary Attack Rate (SAR) of COVID-19 in Gandhinagar (rural) district of Gujarat, India. Methods: Line-listing of 486 laboratory-confirmed patients, tested between 28th March to 2nd July was collected, out of them 80 (15% of overall sample) cases were randomly selected. Demographic, clinical and household details of cases were collected through telephonic interview. During interview 28 more patients were identified from the same household and were added accordingly. So, study included 74 unrelated cluster of households with 74 primary cases and 386 close contacts. Results: SAR in household contacts of COVID-19 in Gandhinagar was 8.8%. Out of 108, 8 patients expired (7.4%), where higher mortality was observed in primary cases (9.5%) as compared to secondary cases (3%). Occupational analysis showed that majority of the secondary cases (88%) were not working and hence had higher contact time with patient. No out-of-pocket expenditure occurred in 94% of the patients, in remaining 6% average expenditure of 1,49,633INR (2027 USD) was recorded. Conclusions: Key observations from the study are 1) SAR of 8.8% is relatively low and hence home isolation of the cases can be continued 2) Primary case is more susceptible to fatal outcome as compared to secondary cases 3) Government has covered huge population of the COVID-19 patients under cost protection. However, more robust studies with larger datasets are needed to further validate the findings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding is involved.
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:
Institutional Ethics Committee; Indian Institute of Public Health
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Data Availability
All the data is available with the authors and can be provided in case of peer-review.
