Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Ford, Nathan and Buitrago-Garcia, Diana and Ipekci, Aziz Mert and Heron, Leonie and Imeri, Hira and Araujo-Chaveron, Lucia and Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid and Ciapponi, Agustín and Cevik, Muge and Hauser, Anthony and Alam, Muhammad Irfanul and Meili, Kaspar and Meyerowitz, Eric A. and Prajapati, Nirmala and Qiu, Xueting and Richterman, Aaron and Robles-Rodriguez, William Gildardo and Thapa, Shabnam and Zhelyazkov, Ivan and Salanti, Georgia and Low, Nicola (2022) Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 19 (5). e1003987. ISSN 1549-1676

[thumbnail of journal.pmed.1003987.pdf] Text
journal.pmed.1003987.pdf - Published Version

Download (2MB)

Abstract

Debate 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 findings
The 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.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: ArticleGate > Medical Science
Depositing User: APLOS Lib
Date Deposited: 09 Jul 2022 12:15
Last Modified: 09 Jul 2022 12:15
URI: http://ebooks.pubstmlibrary.com/id/eprint/278

Actions (login required)

View Item
View Item