Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Buitrago-Garcia Diana , Ipekci Aziz Mert , Heron Leonie , Imeri Hira , Araujo-Chaveron Lucia , Arevalo-Rodriguez Ingrid , Ciapponi Agustín , Cevik Muge , Hauser Anthony , Alam Muhammad Irfanul , Meili Kaspar , Meyerowitz Eric A. , Prajapati Nirmala , Qiu Xueting , Richterman Aaron , Robles-Rodríguez William Gildardo , Thapa Shabnam , Zhelyazkov Ivan , Salanti Georgia , Low Nicola 
Published: January 2022

BACKGROUND

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 three questions: (1) Amongst 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 14-50%, prediction interval 2-90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (interquartile range 20-65%, prediction interval 4-94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% CI 15-25%, prediction interval 2-70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16-0.64, prediction interval 0.11-0-95, 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Based 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 PROTOCOL

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/)

AUTHOR SUMMARY

Why was this study done?

▪

The proportion of people who will remain asymptomatic throughout the course of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19), is debated.

▪

Studies that assess people at just one time point overestimate the proportion of true asymptomatic infection because those who go on to develop covid-19 symptoms will be wrongly classified as asymptomatic, but other types of study might underestimate the proportion if, for example, people with symptoms are more likely to be included in a study population.

▪

The number of published studies about SARS-CoV-2 is increasing continuously, types of studies are changing and, since 2021, vaccines have become available, and variants of concern have emerged.

What did the researchers do and find?

▪

We updated a living systematic review through 6 July 2021, using automated workflows that speed up the review processes, and allow the review to be updated when relevant new evidence becomes available.

▪

In 130 studies, we found an interquartile range of 14-50% (prediction interval 2-90%) of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection that was persistently asymptomatic; owing to heterogeneity, we did not estimate a summary proportion.

▪

Contacts of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection are less likely to become infected than contacts of people with symptomatic infection (risk ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.16-0.64, prediction interval 0.11-0.95, 8 studies).

What do these findings mean?

▪

Up to mid-2021, most people with SARS-CoV-2 were not persistently asymptomatic and asymptomatic infection was less infectious than symptomatic infection.

▪

In the presence of high between-study variability, summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading and prediction intervals should be presented.

▪

Future studies about asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection should be specifically designed, using methods to minimise biases in the selection of study participants and in ascertainment, classification and follow-up of symptom status.