Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bender JK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8007320 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC7310638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We report a 2-family cluster of persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in the city of Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province, China, during January 2020. The infections resulted from contact with an infected but potentially presymptomatic traveler from the city of Wuhan in Hubei Province.
| S-EPMC7181913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), might pose challenges for disease control. The first case of COVID-19 in Singapore was detected on January 23, 2020, and by March 16, a total of 243 cases had been confirmed, including 157 locally acquired cases. Clinical and epidemiologic findings of all COVID-19 cases in Singapore through March 16 were reviewed to determine whether presymptomatic transmission might have occurred. Presymptomatic transmission was defined as the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from an infected person (source patient) to a secondary patient before the source patient developed symptoms, as ascertained by exposure and symptom onset dates, with no evidence that the secondary patient had been exposed to anyone else with COVID-19. Seven COVID-19 epidemiologic clusters in which presymptomatic transmission likely occurred were identified, and 10 such cases within these clusters accounted for 6.4% of the 157 locally acquired cases. In the four clusters for which the date of exposure could be determined, presymptomatic transmission occurred 1-3 days before symptom onset in the presymptomatic source patient. To account for the possibility of presymptomatic transmission, officials developing contact tracing protocols should strongly consider including a period before symptom onset. Evidence of presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 underscores the critical role social distancing, including avoidance of congregate settings, plays in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7147908 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7508369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDebate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?Methods and findingsThe protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. 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 a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.ConclusionsBased on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.Review protocolOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).
| S-EPMC9135333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aims at providing estimates on the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 in schools and day-care centres. We calculated secondary attack rates (SARs) using individual-level data from state-wide mandatory notification of index cases in educational institutions, followed by contact tracing and PCR-testing of high-risk contacts. From August to December 2020, every sixth of overall 784 independent index cases was associated with secondary cases in educational institutions. Monitoring of 14 594 institutional high-risk contacts (89% PCR-tested) of 441 index cases during quarantine revealed 196 secondary cases (SAR 1.34%, 0.99-1.78). SARS-CoV-2 infection among high-risk contacts was more likely around teacher-indexes compared to student-/child-indexes (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 3.17, 1.79-5.59), and in day-care centres compared to secondary schools (IRR 3.23, 1.76-5.91), mainly due to clusters around teacher-indexes in day-care containing a higher mean number of secondary cases per index case (142/113 = 1.26) than clusters around student-indexes in schools (82/474 = 0.17). In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk in educational settings was low overall, but varied strongly between setting and role of the index case, indicating the chance for targeted intervention. Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in educational institutions can powerfully inform public health policy and improve educational justice during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8503068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection that can occur, and the timing of transmission relative to symptom onset.Setting/designSecondary analysis of international published data.Data sourcesMeta-analysis of COVID-19 incubation period and a rapid review of serial interval and generation time, which are published separately.ParticipantsData from China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Vietnam from December 2019 to May 2020.MethodsSimulations were generated of incubation period and of serial interval or generation time. From these, transmission times relative to symptom onset, and the proportion of presymptomatic transmission, were estimated.Outcome measuresTransmission time of SARS-CoV-2 relative to symptom onset and proportion of presymptomatic transmission.ResultsBased on 18 serial interval/generation time estimates from 15 papers, mean transmission time relative to symptom onset ranged from -2.6 (95% CI -3.0 to -2.1) days before infector symptom onset to 1.4 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.8) days after symptom onset. The proportion of presymptomatic transmission ranged from 45.9% (95% CI 42.9% to 49.0%) to 69.1% (95% CI 66.2% to 71.9%).ConclusionsThere is substantial potential for presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 across a range of different contexts. This highlights the need for rapid case detection, contact tracing and quarantine. The transmission patterns that we report reflect the combination of biological infectiousness and transmission opportunities which vary according to context.
| S-EPMC8245290 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC9830934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Older adults are susceptible to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes as a consequence of their age and, in some cases, underlying health conditions (1). A COVID-19 outbreak in a long-term care skilled nursing facility (SNF) in King County, Washington that was first identified on February 28, 2020, highlighted the potential for rapid spread among residents of these types of facilities (2). On March 1, a health care provider at a second long-term care skilled nursing facility (facility A) in King County, Washington, had a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, after working while symptomatic on February 26 and 28. By March 6, seven residents of this second facility were symptomatic and had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. On March 13, CDC performed symptom assessments and SARS-CoV-2 testing for 76 (93%) of the 82 facility A residents to evaluate the utility of symptom screening for identification of COVID-19 in SNF residents. Residents were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic at the time of testing, based on the absence or presence of fever, cough, shortness of breath, or other symptoms on the day of testing or during the preceding 14 days. Among 23 (30%) residents with positive test results, 10 (43%) had symptoms on the date of testing, and 13 (57%) were asymptomatic. Seven days after testing, 10 of these 13 previously asymptomatic residents had developed symptoms and were recategorized as presymptomatic at the time of testing. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing cycle threshold (Ct) values indicated large quantities of viral RNA in asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic residents, suggesting the potential for transmission regardless of symptoms. Symptom-based screening in SNFs could fail to identify approximately half of residents with COVID-19. Long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to prevent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 (3). Once a confirmed case is identified in an SNF, all residents should be placed on isolation precautions if possible (3), with considerations for extended use or reuse of personal protective equipment (PPE) as needed (4).
| S-EPMC7119514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSuperspreading events are important drivers of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and long-range (LR) transmission is believed to play a major role. We investigated two choir outbreaks with different attack rates (AR) to analyze the contribution of LR transmission and highlight important measures for prevention.MethodsWe conducted two retrospective cohort studies and obtained demographic, clinical, laboratory and contact data, performed SARS-CoV-2 serology, whole genome sequencing (WGS), calculated LR transmission probabilities, measured particle emissions of selected choir members, and calculated particle air concentrations and inhalation doses.ResultsWe included 65 (84%) and 42 (100%) members of choirs 1 and 2, respectively, of whom 58 (89%) and 10 (24%) became cases. WGS confirmed strain identity in both choirs. Both primary cases transmitted presymptomatically. Particle emission rate when singing was 7 times higher compared to talking. In choir 1, the median concentration of primary cases' emitted particles in the room was estimated to be 8 times higher, exposure at least 30 minutes longer and room volume smaller than in choir 2, resulting in markedly different estimated probabilities for LR transmission (mode: 90% vs. 16%, 95% CI: 80-95% vs. 6-36%). According to a risk model, the first transmission in choir 1 occurred likely after 8 minutes of singing.ConclusionsThe attack rate of the two choirs differed significantly reflecting the differences in LR transmission risks. The pooled proportion of cases due to LR transmission was substantial (81%; 55/68 cases) and was facilitated by likely highly infectious primary cases, high particle emission rates, and indoor rehearsing for an extended time. Even in large rooms, singing of an infectious person may lead to secondary infections through LR exposure within minutes. In the context of indoor gatherings without mask-wearing and waning or insufficient immunity, these results highlight the ongoing importance of non-pharmaceutical interventions wherever aerosols can accumulate.
| S-EPMC9671375 | biostudies-literature