Dataset Information

The role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infection in SARS-CoV-2 transmission-a living systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reports suggest that asymptomatic individuals (those with no symptoms at all throughout infection) with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are infectious, but the extent of transmission based on symptom status requires further study.

Purpose

This living review aims to critically appraise available data about secondary attack rates from people with asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Data sources

Medline, EMBASE, China Academic Journals full-text database (CNKI), and pre-print servers were searched from 30 December 2019 to 3 July 2020 using relevant MESH terms.

Study selection

Studies that report on contact tracing of index cases with SARS-CoV-2 infection in either English or Chinese were included.

Data extraction

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. We calculated the secondary attack rate as the number of contacts with SARS-CoV-2, divided by the number of contacts tested.

Data synthesis

Of 927 studies identified, 80 were included. Summary secondary attack rate estimates were 1% (95% CI 0%-2%) with a prediction interval of 0%-10% for asymptomatic index cases in ten studies, 7% (95% CI 3%-11%) with a prediction interval of 1%-40% for pre-symptomatic cases in 11 studies and 6% (95% CI 5%-8%) with a prediction interval of 5%-38% for symptomatic index cases in 40 studies. The highest secondary attack rates were found in contacts who lived in the same household as the index case. Other activities associated with transmission were group activities such as sharing meals or playing board games with the index case, regardless of the disease status of the index case.

Limitations

We excluded some studies because the index case or number of contacts were unclear.

Conclusion

Asymptomatic patients can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others, but our findings indicate that such individuals are responsible for fewer secondary infections than people with symptoms.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020188168.

SUBMITTER: Qiu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7825872 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHousehold transmission contributes to SARS-CoV-2 spread, but the role of children in transmission is unclear. We conducted a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic children and adults exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in their households with the objective of determining how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted within households.MethodsIn this case-ascertained antibody-surveillance study, we enrolled households in Ottawa, Ontario, in which at least 1 household member had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. The enrolment period was September 2020 to March 2021. Potentially eligible participants were identified if they had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at an academic emergency department or affiliated testing centre; people who learned about the study through the media could also self-identify for participation. At least 2 participants were required for a household to be eligible for study participation, and at least 1 enrolled participant per household had to be a child (age < 18 yr). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were used to evaluate SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA, IgM and IgG against the spike-trimer and nucleocapsid protein. The primary outcome was household secondary attack rate, defined as the proportion of household contacts positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibody among the total number of household contacts participating in the study. We performed descriptive statistics at both the individual and household levels. To estimate and compare outcomes between patient subgroups, and to examine predictors of household transmission, we fitted a series of multivariable logistic regression with robust standard errors to account for clustering of individuals within households.ResultsWe enrolled 695 participants from 180 households: 180 index participants (74 children, 106 adults) and 515 of their household contacts (266 children, 249 adults). A total of 487 household contacts (94.6%) (246 children, 241 adults) had SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing, of whom 239 had a positive result (secondary attack rate 49.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 42.9%-55.3%). Eighty-eight (36.8%, 95% CI 29.3%-43.2%) of the 239 were asymptomatic; asymptomatic rates were similar for children (51/130 [39.2%, 95% CI 30.7%-48.5%]) and adults (37/115 [32.2%, 95% CI 24.2%-41.4%]) (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.1). Adults were more likely than children to transmit SARS-CoV-2 (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.6). The odds of transmission from asymptomatic (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.2-1.4) versus symptomatic (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.6-1.4) index participants to household contacts was uncertain. Predictors of household transmission included household density (number of people per bedroom), relationship to index participant and number of cases in the household.InterpretationThe rate of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within households was nearly 50% during the study period, and children were an important source of spread. The findings suggest that children are an important driver of the COVID-19 pandemic; this should inform public health policy.

Project description:BackgroundThe huge surge in COVID-19 cases in Karnataka state, India, during early phase of the pandemic especially following return of residents from other states and countries required investigation with respect to transmission dynamics, clinical status, demographics, comorbidities and mortality. Knowledge on the role of symptomatic and asymptomatic cases in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was not available.MethodsThe study included all the cases reported from March 8 - May 31, 2020. Individuals with a history of international or domestic travel from high burden states, Influenza-like Illness or Severe Acute Respiratory Illness and high-risk contacts of COVID-19 cases were included. Detailed analysis based on contact tracing data available from the line-list of state surveillance unit was performed using cluster network analysis software.FindingsAmongst the 3404 COVID-19 positive cases, 3096 (91%) were asymptomatic while 308 (9%) were symptomatic. Majority of asymptomatic cases were in the age range of 16 and 45 years while symptomatic cases were between 31 and 65 years. Mortality rate was especially higher among middle-aged and elderly cases with co-morbidities, 34/38 (89·4%). Cluster network analysis of 822 cases indicated that the secondary attack rate, size of the cluster and superspreading events were higher when the source case was symptomatic as compared to an asymptomatic.InterpretationOur findings indicate that both asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases transmit the infection, although symptomatic cases were the main driving force within the state during the beginning of the pandemic. Considering the large proportion of asymptomatic cases, their ability to spread infection cannot be overlooked. Notwithstanding the limitations and bias in identifying asymptomatic cases, the findings have major implications for testing policies. Active search, early testing and treatment of symptomatic elderly patients with comorbidities should be prioritized for containing the spread of COVID-19 and reducing mortality.FundingIntermediate Fellowship, Wellcome Trust-DBT India Alliance to Giridhara R Babu, Grant number: IA/CPHI/14/1/501499.

Project description:BackgroundInflammatory biomarkers have been used to portend disease severity in nonpregnant individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, currently, limited data are available, and with mixed results, to elucidate which inflammatory biomarkers may be most associated with clinical phenotype in pregnant patients.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare laboratory findings among pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection by symptom status and disease severity.Study designWe retrospectively evaluated pregnant patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed through polymerase chain reaction testing, at an urban academic US hospital between March 2020 and October 2020, performed for reported symptoms or universal screening on admission. In our hospital, all patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recommended to have baseline laboratory testing, including leukocyte, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts; aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase; high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; procalcitonin; lactate dehydrogenase; D-dimer; and ferritin. We performed multivariable logistic regression to evaluate peak laboratory abnormalities significantly associated with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease severity with gestational age at diagnosis, maternal age, and obesity as covariates. The sensitivity and specificity of laboratory abnormalities were calculated to identify symptomatic vs asymptomatic infection and severe to critical disease vs mild to moderate disease.ResultsWe identified 175 pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, of whom 100 (57%) were symptomatic; 17 (17%) of those who were symptomatic had a severe to critical disease. Laboratory data were available for 128 patients, of whom 67 (52%) were symptomatic. Compared with asymptomatic individuals, symptomatic individuals were more likely to exhibit elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels after adjusting for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 5.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-22.52; sensitivity, 81%; specificity, 43%). In symptomatic individuals, transaminitis (adjusted odds ratio, 5.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-25.43), elevated procalcitonin levels (adjusted odds ratio, 16.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.61-105.46), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels (adjusted odds ratio, 17.55; 95% confidence interval, 2.51-122.78) were independently associated with severe to critical disease rather than mild to moderate disease after adjusting for maternal age and obesity. For differentiating disease severity, sensitivity rates for transaminitis, procalcitonin elevation, and lactate dehydrogenase elevation were 47%, 87%, and 53%, respectively, whereas the specificity rates were 89%, 63%, and 90%, respectively.ConclusionInflammatory biomarkers in pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibited vast heterogeneity, poor discriminative ability, and thereby limited clinical utility. Larger registry studies should evaluate which inflammatory biomarkers may be most useful for risk stratification and prognostication of pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, taking into account the physiology of pregnancy.

Project description:Asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections can have different characteristic time scales of transmission. These time-scale differences can shape outbreak dynamics as well as bias population-level estimates of epidemic strength, speed, and controllability. For example, prior work focusing on the initial exponential growth phase of an outbreak found that larger time scales for asymptomatic vs. symptomatic transmission can lead to under-estimates of the basic reproduction number as inferred from epidemic case data. Building upon this work, we use a series of nonlinear epidemic models to explore how differences in asymptomatic and symptomatic transmission time scales can lead to changes in the realized proportion of asymptomatic transmission throughout an epidemic. First, we find that when asymptomatic transmission time scales are longer than symptomatic transmission time scales, then the effective proportion of asymptomatic transmission increases as total incidence decreases. Moreover, these time-scale-driven impacts on epidemic dynamics are enhanced when infection status is correlated between infector and infectee pairs (e.g., due to dose-dependent impacts on symptoms). Next we apply these findings to understand the impact of time-scale differences on populations with age-dependent assortative mixing and in which the probability of having a symptomatic infection increases with age. We show that if asymptomatic generation intervals are longer than corresponding symptomatic generation intervals, then correlations between age and symptoms lead to a decrease in the age of infection during periods of epidemic decline (whether due to susceptible depletion or intervention). Altogether, these results demonstrate the need to explore the role of time-scale differences in transmission dynamics alongside behavioral changes to explain outbreak features both at early stages (e.g., in estimating the basic reproduction number) and throughout an epidemic (e.g., in connecting shifts in the age of infection to periods of changing incidence).

Project description:Background and Purpose Many of the statutes comprising the shelter-in-place and phased-reopening orders are centered around minimizing asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission. Assumptions about the presence and relative importance of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission are based on case reports, the failing of quarantine measures aimed at sequestering ill patients, viral dynamic studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 production peaks before symptoms appear, and modeling evidence that calculates serial interval between successive generations of infection. In aggregate, these data offer compelling evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, but individually these studies have notable shortcomings that undermine their conclusions. The purpose of this review is to discuss the literature of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, highlight limitations of recent studies, and propose experiments that, if conducted, would provide a more definitive analysis of the relative role of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods We conducted a systematic review of literature on PubMed using search filters that relate to asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission as well as serial interval and viral dynamics. We focused on studies that provided primary clinical data. Results 34 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review: 11 case reports pertaining to asymptomatic transmission, 9 viral kinetic studies, 13 serial interval studies, and 1 study with viral kinetics and serial interval. Conclusion Different approaches to determining the presence and prevalence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission have notable shortcomings, which were highlighted in this review and limit our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conducting high quality studies with the aim of understanding the relative role of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission is instrumental to developing the most informed policies on reopening our cities, states, and countries.

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.