Dataset Information

Proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The study objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the proportion of asymptomatic infection among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive persons and their transmission potential.

Methods

We searched Embase, Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv up to 22 June 2020. We included cohorts or cross-sectional studies which systematically tested populations regardless of symptoms for COVID-19, or case series of any size reporting contact investigations of asymptomatic index patients. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality using pre-specified criteria. Only moderate/high quality studies were included. The main outcomes were proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons at testing and through follow-up, and secondary attack rate among close contacts of asymptomatic index patients. A qualitative synthesis was performed. Where appropriate, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis to estimate proportions and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Results

Of 6,137 identified studies, 71 underwent quality assessment after full text review, and 28 were high/moderate quality and were included. In two general population studies, the proportion of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection at time of testing was 20% and 75%, respectively; among three studies in contacts it was 8.2% to 50%. In meta-analysis, the proportion (95% CI) of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in obstetric patients was 95% (45% to 100%) of which 59% (49% to 68%) remained asymptomatic through follow-up; among nursing home residents, the proportion was 54% (42% to 65%) of which 28% (13% to 50%) remained asymptomatic through follow-up. Transmission studies were too heterogenous to meta-analyse. Among five transmission studies, 18 of 96 (18.8%) close contacts exposed to asymptomatic index patients were COVID-19 positive.

Conclusions

Despite study heterogeneity, the proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons appears high and transmission potential seems substantial. To further our understanding, high quality studies in representative general population samples are required.

SUBMITTER: Yanes-Lane M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7608887 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is disagreement about the level of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We conducted a living systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions: (1) Amongst people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) Amongst people with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are asymptomatic when diagnosed, what proportion will develop symptoms later? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is accounted for by people who are either asymptomatic throughout infection or presymptomatic?Methods and findingsWe searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv using a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature that is updated daily, on 25 March 2020, 20 April 2020, and 10 June 2020. Studies of people with SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) that documented follow-up and symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up or modelling studies were included. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with an adapted checklist for case series, and the relevance and credibility of modelling studies were assessed using a published checklist. We included a total of 94 studies. The overall estimate of the proportion of people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and remain asymptomatic throughout infection was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-25) with a prediction interval of 3%-67% in 79 studies that addressed this review question. There was some evidence that biases in the selection of participants influence the estimate. In seven studies of defined populations screened for SARS-CoV-2 and then followed, 31% (95% CI 26%-37%, prediction interval 24%-38%) remained asymptomatic. The proportion of people that is presymptomatic could not be summarised, owing to heterogeneity. The secondary attack rate was lower in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection than those with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0.35, 95% CI 0.10-1.27). Modelling studies fit to data found a higher proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting from transmission from presymptomatic individuals than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the review include that most included studies were not designed to estimate the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and were at risk of selection biases; we did not consider the possible impact of false negative RT-PCR results, which would underestimate the proportion of asymptomatic infections; and the database does not include all sources.ConclusionsThe findings of this living systematic review suggest that most people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 will not remain asymptomatic throughout the course of the infection. The contribution of presymptomatic and asymptomatic infections to overall SARS-CoV-2 transmission means that combination prevention measures, with enhanced hand hygiene, masks, testing tracing, and isolation strategies and social distancing, will continue to be needed.

Project description:Background & aimsIn 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended peripartum antiviral prophylaxis (PAP) for pregnant women infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) with high viremia (≥200,000 IU/ml). Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) was also recommended as an alternative when HBV DNA is unavailable. To inform policymaking and guide the implementation of prevention of mother-to-child transmission strategies, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the proportion of HBV-infected pregnant women eligible for PAP at global and regional levels.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL for studies involving HBV-infected pregnant women. We extracted proportions of women with high viremia (≥200,000 IU/ml), proportions of women with positive HBeAg, proportions of women cross-stratified based on HBV DNA and HBeAg, and the risk of child infection in these maternal groups. Proportions were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsOf 6,999 articles, 131 studies involving 71,712 HBV-infected pregnant women were included. The number of studies per WHO region was 66 (Western Pacific), 21 (Europe), 17 (Africa), 11 (Americas), nine (Eastern Mediterranean), and seven (South-East Asia). The overall pooled proportion of high viremia was 21.27% (95% CI 17.77-25.26%), with significant regional variation: Western Pacific (31.56%), Americas (23.06%), Southeast Asia (15.62%), Africa (12.45%), Europe (9.98%), and Eastern Mediterranean (7.81%). HBeAg positivity showed similar regional variation. After cross-stratification, the proportions of high viremia and positive HBeAg, high viremia and negative HBeAg, low viremia and positive HBeAg, and low viremia and negative HBeAg were 15.24% (95% CI 11.12-20.53%), 2.70% (95% CI 1.88-3.86%), 3.69% (95% CI 2.86-4.75%), and 75.59% (95% CI 69.15-81.05%), respectively. The corresponding risks of child infection following birth dose vaccination without immune globulin and PAP were 14.86% (95% CI 8.43-24.88%), 6.94% (95% CI 2.92-15.62%), 7.14% (95% CI 1.00-37.03%), and 0.14% (95% CI 0.02-1.00%).ConclusionsApproximately 20% of HBV-infected pregnant women are eligible for PAP. Given significant regional variations, each country should tailor strategies for HBsAg screening, risk stratification, and PAP in routine antenatal care.Impact and implicationsIn 2020, the WHO recommended that pregnant women who test positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) undergo HBV DNA testing or HBeAg and those with high viremia (≥200,000 IU/ml) or positive HBeAg receive PAP. To effectively implement new HBV PMTCT interventions and integrate HBV screening, risk stratification, and antiviral prophylaxis into routine antenatal care services, estimating the proportion of HBV-infected pregnant women eligible for PAP is critical. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that approximately one-fifth of HBV-infected pregnant women are eligible for PAP based on HBV DNA testing, and a similar proportion is eligible based on HBeAg testing. Owing to substantial regional variations in eligibility proportions and the availability and costs of different tests, it is vital for each country to optimize strategies that integrate HBV screening, risk stratification, and PAP into routine antenatal care services.Systematic review registrationThis study was registered with PROSPERO (Protocol No: CRD42021266545).

Project description:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a global challenge. Corticosteroids constitute a group of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs that are widely used in the treatment of COVID-19. Comprehensive reviews investigating the comparative proportion and efficacy of corticosteroid use are scarce. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials to evaluate the proportion and efficacy of corticosteroid use for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of research articles, including observational studies and clinical trials, by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and China Academic Journal Network Publishing databases. Patients treated between December 1, 2019, and January 1, 2021, were included. The outcome measures were the proportion of patients treated with corticosteroids, viral clearance and mortality. The effect size with the associated 95% confidence interval is reported as the weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes and the odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes.ResultsFifty-two trials involving 15710 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the proportion of COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of patients who did not receive corticosteroids (35.19% vs. 64.49%). In addition, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the proportions of severe and nonsevere cases treated with corticosteroids (27.91% vs. 20.91%). We also performed subgroup analyses stratified by whether patients stayed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and found that the proportion of patients who received corticosteroids was significantly higher among those who stayed in the ICU than among those who did not. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroid treatment significantly delayed the viral clearance time. Finally, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 between patients who died and those who survived. This result indicates that mortality is not correlated with corticosteroid therapy.ConclusionThe proportion of COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of patients who did not receive corticosteroids. Corticosteroid use in subjects with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections delayed viral clearance and did not convincingly improve survival; therefore, corticosteroids should be used with extreme caution in the treatment of COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundAsymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections are responsible for potentially significant transmission of COVID-19. Worldwide, a number of studies were conducted to estimate the magnitude of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. However, there is a need for more robust and well-designed studies to have a relevant public health intervention. Synthesis of the available studies significantly strengthens the quality of evidences for public health practice. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the overall magnitude of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases throughout the course of infection using available evidences.MethodsWe followed the PRISMA checklist to present this study. Two experienced review authors (MA and DBK) were systematically searched international electronic databases for studies. We performed meta-analysis using R statistical software. The overall weighted proportion of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases throughout the course infection was computed. The pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were presented using forest plot. Egger's tests were used to assess publication bias, and primary estimates were pooled using a random effects model. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assure the robustness of the result.ResultsA total of 28 studies that satisfied the eligibility criteria were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Consequently, in the meta-analysis, a total of 6,071 COVID-19 cases were included. The proportion of asymptomatic infections among the included studies ranged from 1.4% to 78.3%. The findings of this meta-analysis showed that the weighted pooled proportion of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases throughout the course of infection was 25% (95%CI: 16-38). The leave-one out result also revealed that the weighted pooled average of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was between 28% and 31.4%.ConclusionsIn conclusion, one-fourth of SARS-CoV-2 infections are remained asymptomatic throughout the course infection. Scale-up of testing, which targeting high risk populations is recommended to tackle the pandemic.