Estimating the Proportion of COVID-19 Contacts Among Households Based on Individuals With Myocardial Infarction History: Cross-sectional Telephone Survey

  1. Laurie Fraticelli
  2. Julie Freyssenge
  3. Clément Claustre
  4. Mikaël Martinez
  5. Abdesslam Redjaline
  6. Patrice Serre
  7. Thomas Bochaton
  8. Carlos El Khoury

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Adults with cardiovascular diseases were disproportionately associated with an increased risk of a severe form of COVID-19 and all-cause mortality.

Objective

The aims of this study are to report the associated symptoms for COVID-19 cases, to estimate the proportion of contacts, and to describe the clinical signs and behaviors among individuals with and without myocardial infarction history among cases and contacts.

Methods

A 2-week cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted during the first lockdown period in France, from May 4 to 15, 2020. A total of 668 households participated, representing 703 individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular disease in the past 2 years and 849 individuals without myocardial infarction history.

Results

High rates of compliance with health measures were self-reported, regardless of age or risk factors. There were 4 confirmed COVID-19 cases that were registered from 4 different households. Based on deductive assumptions of the 1552 individuals, 9.73% (n=151) were identified as contacts, of whom 71.52% (108/151) were asymptomatic. Among individuals with a myocardial infarction history, 2 were COVID-19 cases, and the estimated proportion of contacts was 8.68% (61/703), of whom 68.85% (42/61) were asymptomatic. The cases and contacts presented different symptoms, with more respiratory signs in those with a myocardial infarction history.

Conclusions

The telephone survey could be a relevant tool for reporting the number of contacts during a limited period and in a limited territory based on the presence of associated symptoms and COVID-19 cases in the households. This study advanced our knowledge to better prepare for future crises.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.2196/26955
  2. Version published to 10.2196/preprints.26955
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.19.20135418: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: The OSCAR registry was approved by the French National Commission of Informatics and Liberties (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés [CNIL]) (number 2013090 v0) and all the participants gave informed and oral consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Definitions and assumptions: We defined a suspected COVID-19 case when the individual was living with at least one individual who tested positive to COVID-19 [11], or when had been in contact with a suspected or confirmed case since March 1, or when a relative from the same household, not present at the time of the survey, was hospitalized or deceased of COVID-19.
    COVID-19
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data collection: The survey was based on a scoping review of the PubMed scientific literature.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.19.20135418v1 on medRxiv