Dataset Information

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.

SUBMITTER: Sah P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8403749 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sah Pratha P Fitzpatrick Meagan C MC Zimmer Charlotte F CF Abdollahi Elaheh E Juden-Kelly Lyndon L Moghadas Seyed M SM Singer Burton H BH Galvani Alison P AP

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20210801 34

Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported si ...[more]

PMID: 34376550

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobal evidence on the transmission of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be synthesized.MethodsA search of 4 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases) as of January 24, 2021 was performed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies which reported the transmission rate among close contacts with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases were included, and transmission activities occurred were considered. The transmission rates were pooled by zero-inflated beta distribution. The risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models.ResultsOf 4923 records retrieved and reviewed, 15 studies including 3917 close contacts with asymptomatic indexes were eligible. The pooled transmission rates were 1.79 per 100 person-days (or 1.79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41%-3.16%) by asymptomatic index, which is significantly lower than by presymptomatic (5.02%, 95% CI 2.37%-7.66%; p<0.001), and by symptomatic (5.27%, 95% CI 2.40%-8.15%; p<0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that the household transmission rate of asymptomatic index was (4.22%, 95% CI 0.91%-7.52%), four times significantly higher than non-household transmission (1.03%, 95% CI 0.73%-1.33%; p=0.03), and the asymptomatic transmission rate in China (1.82%, 95% CI 0.11%-3.53%) was lower than in other countries (2.22%, 95% CI 0.67%-3.77%; p=0.01).ConclusionsPeople with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection are at risk of transmitting the virus to their close contacts, particularly in household settings. The transmission potential of asymptomatic infection is lower than symptomatic and presymptomatic infections. This meta-analysis provides evidence for predicting the epidemic trend and promulgating vaccination and other control measures. Registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42021269446; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=269446.

Project description:Background Understanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850). Findings We identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3–76·1) and 44·0% (26·5–65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8–93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4–51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7–97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7–90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks. Interpretation Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom.

Project description:BackgroundThe protective effectiveness provided by naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection remain controversial.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the protective effect of natural immunity against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection with different variants.MethodsWe searched for related studies published in seven databases before March 5, 2023. Eligible studies included in the analysis reported the risk of subsequent infection for groups with or without a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was the overall pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection/infection between the two groups. We also focused on the protective effectiveness of natural immunity against reinfection/infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants. We used a random-effects model to pool the data, and obtained the bias-adjusted results using the trim-and-fill method. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding included studies one by one to evaluate the stability of the results.ResultsWe identified 40 eligible articles including more than 20 million individuals without the history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The bias-adjusted efficacy of naturally acquired antibodies against reinfection was estimated at 65% (pooled IRR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.26-0.47), with higher efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 cases (pooled IRR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.08-0.26) than asymptomatic infection (pooled IRR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.29-0.54). Meta-regression revealed that SARS-CoV-2 variant was a statistically significant effect modifier, which explaining 46.40% of the variation in IRRs. For different SARS-CoV-2 variant, the pooled IRRs for the Alpha (pooled IRR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06-0.19), Delta (pooled IRR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.15-0.24) and Omicron (pooled IRR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.42-0.87) variant were higher and higher. In other subgroup analyses, the pooled IRRs of SARS-CoV-2 infection were statistically various in different countries, publication year and the inclusion end time of population, with a significant difference (p = 0.02, p < 0.010 and p < 0.010), respectively. The risk of subsequent infection in the seropositive population appeared to increase slowly over time. Despite the heterogeneity in included studies, sensitivity analyses showed stable results.ConclusionPrevious SARS-CoV-2 infection provides protection against pre-omicron reinfection, but less against omicron. Ongoing viral mutation requires attention and prevention strategies, such as vaccine catch-up, in conjunction with multiple factors.

Project description:BackgroundAsymptomatic infections are potential sources of transmission for coronavirus disease 2019, especially during the epidemic of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. We aimed to assess the percentage of asymptomatic infections among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals detected by gene sequencing or specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR).MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 26 November 2021 to 13 April 2022. This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022327894). Three researchers independently extracted data and two researchers assessed quality using pre-specified criteria. The pooled percentage with 95% confidence interval (CI) of asymptomatic infections of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron was estimated using random-effects models.ResultsOur meta-analysis included eight eligible studies, covering 7640 Omicron variant-positive individuals with 2190 asymptomatic infections. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 32.40% (95% CI: 25.30-39.51%) among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals, which was higher in the population in developing countries (38.93%; 95% CI: 19.75-58.11%), with vaccine coverage ≥ 80% (35.93%; 95% CI: 25.36-46.51%), with a travel history (40.05%; 95% CI: 7.59-72.51%), community infection (37.97%; 95% CI: 10.07-65.87%), and with a median age < 20 years (43.75%; 95% CI: 38.45-49.05%).ConclusionIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 32.40% among SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-positive individuals. The people who were vaccinated, young (median age < 20 years), had a travel history, and were infected outside of a clinical setting (community infection) had higher percentages of asymptomatic infections. Screening is required to prevent clustered epidemics or sustained community transmission caused by asymptomatic infections of Omicron variants, especially for countries and regions that have successfully controlled SARS-CoV-2.

Dataset Information

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets