BACKGROUND

There 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 FINDINGS

We 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

/pdf/occurrence-and-transmission-potential-of-asymptomatic-and-27ou6uv041.pdf

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

Importance The degree to which children and adolescents are infected by and transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. The role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent on susceptibility, symptoms, viral load, social contact patterns, and behavior. Objective To systematically review the susceptibility to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and adolescents compared with adults. Data Sources PubMed and medRxiv were searched from database inception to July 28, 2020, and a total of 13 926 studies were identified, with additional studies identified through hand searching of cited references and professional contacts. Study Selection Studies that provided data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents (younger than 20 years) compared with adults (20 years and older) derived from contact tracing or population screening were included. Single-household studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis PRISMA guidelines for abstracting data were followed, which was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using a critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Main Outcomes and Measures Secondary infection rate (contact-tracing studies) or prevalence or seroprevalence (population screening studies) among children and adolescents compared with adults. Results A total of 32 studies comprising 41 640 children and adolescents and 268 945 adults met inclusion criteria, including 18 contact-tracing studies and 14 population screening studies. The pooled odds ratio of being an infected contact in children compared with adults was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37-0.85), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 94.6%). Three school-based contact-tracing studies found minimal transmission from child or teacher index cases. Findings from population screening studies were heterogenous and were not suitable for meta-analysis. Most studies were consistent with lower seroprevalence in children compared with adults, although seroprevalence in adolescents appeared similar to adults. Conclusions and Relevance In this meta-analysis, there is preliminary evidence that children and adolescents have lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, with an odds ratio of 0.56 for being an infected contact compared with adults. There is weak evidence that children and adolescents play a lesser role than adults in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at a population level. This study provides no information on the infectivity of children.

/pdf/susceptibility-to-sars-cov-2-infection-among-children-and-2nd22wt2tu.pdf

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance Crowded indoor environments, such as households, are high-risk settings for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Objectives To examine evidence for household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, disaggregated by several covariates, and to compare it with other coronaviruses. Data Source PubMed, searched through October 19, 2020. Search terms includedSARS-CoV-2orCOVID-19withsecondary attack rate,household,close contacts,contact transmission,contact attack rate, orfamily transmission. Study Selection All articles with original data for estimating household secondary attack rate were included. Case reports focusing on individual households and studies of close contacts that did not report secondary attack rates for household members were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis Meta-analyses were done using a restricted maximum-likelihood estimator model to yield a point estimate and 95% CI for secondary attack rate for each subgroup analyzed, with a random effect for each study. To make comparisons across exposure types, study was treated as a random effect, and exposure type was a fixed moderator. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures Secondary attack rate for SARS-CoV-2, disaggregated by covariates (ie, household or family contact, index case symptom status, adult or child contacts, contact sex, relationship to index case, adult or child index cases, index case sex, number of contacts in household) and for other coronaviruses. Results A total of 54 relevant studies with 77 758 participants reporting household secondary transmission were identified. Estimated household secondary attack rate was 16.6% (95% CI, 14.0%-19.3%), higher than secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV (7.5%; 95% CI, 4.8%-10.7%) and MERS-CoV (4.7%; 95% CI, 0.9%-10.7%). Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%), to adult contacts (28.3%; 95% CI, 20.2%-37.1%) than to child contacts (16.8%; 95% CI, 12.3%-21.7%), to spouses (37.8%; 95% CI, 25.8%-50.5%) than to other family contacts (17.8%; 95% CI, 11.7%-24.8%), and in households with 1 contact (41.5%; 95% CI, 31.7%-51.7%) than in households with 3 or more contacts (22.8%; 95% CI, 13.6%-33.5%). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this study suggest that given that individuals with suspected or confirmed infections are being referred to isolate at home, households will continue to be a significant venue for transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

/pdf/household-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-a-systematic-review-and-37h1fw1k9z.pdf

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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.

/pdf/proportion-of-asymptomatic-infection-among-covid-19-positive-1apdzusv0p.pdf

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

Funding: This work was supported by Award Number U54GM088558 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (ML, EG) and the US National Institutes of Health cooperative agreement U01 CA261277 (ML).

/pdf/on-the-effect-of-age-on-the-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-in-43azayl97g.pdf

On the effect of age on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in households, schools and the community.

Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Secreted proteins are important proteins in the human proteome, accounting for approximately one-tenth of the proteome. However, the prognostic value of secreted protein-related genes has not been comprehensively explored in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). In this study, we screened 379 differentially expressed secretory protein genes (DESPRGs) by analyzing the expression profile in patients with LUAD from The Cancer Genome Atlas database. Following univariate Cox regression and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method regression analysis, 9 prognostic SPRGs were selected to develop secreted protein-related risk score (SPRrisk), including CLEC3B, C1QTNF6, TCN1, F2, FETUB, IGFBP1, ANGPTL4, IFNE, and CCL20. The prediction accuracy of the prognostic models was determined by Kaplan–Meier survival curve analysis and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Moreover, a nomogram with improved accuracy for predicting overall survival was established based on independent prognostic factors (SPRrisk and clinical stage). The DESPRGs were validated by quantitative real-time PCR and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay by using our clinical samples and datasets. Our results demonstrated that SPRrisk can accurately predict the prognosis of patients with LUAD. Patients with a higher risk had lower immune, stromal, and ESTIMATE scores and higher tumor purity. A higher SPRrisk was also negatively associated with the abundance of CD8+ T cells and M1 macrophages. In addition, several genes of the human leukocyte antigen family and immune checkpoints were expressed in low levels in the high-SPRrisk group. Our results provided some insights into assessing individual prognosis and choosing personalized treatment modalities.

/pdf/a-novel-secreted-protein-related-gene-signature-predicts-3nzbbbir.pdf

Wanli Ma

Papers

Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

A Novel Secreted Protein-Related Gene Signature Predicts Overall Survival and Is Associated With Tumor Immunity in Patients With Lung Adenocarcinoma