Free access
Reviews
22 January 2021

The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic: A Systematic ReviewFREE

Publication: Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 174, Number 5

Abstract

Background:

Asymptomatic infection seems to be a notable feature of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the pathogen that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the prevalence is uncertain.

Purpose:

To estimate the proportion of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 who never develop symptoms.

Data Sources:

Searches of Google News, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and PubMed using the keywords antibodies, asymptomatic, coronavirus, COVID-19, PCR, seroprevalence, and SARS-CoV-2.

Study Selection:

Observational, descriptive studies and reports of mass screening for SARS-CoV-2 that were either cross-sectional or longitudinal in design; were published through 17 November 2020; and involved SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid or antibody testing of a target population, regardless of current symptomatic status, over a defined period.

Data Extraction:

The authors collaboratively extracted data on the study design, type of testing performed, number of participants, criteria for determining symptomatic status, testing results, and setting.

Data Synthesis:

Sixty-one eligible studies and reports were identified, of which 43 used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of nasopharyngeal swabs to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection and 18 used antibody testing to detect current or prior infection. In the 14 studies with longitudinal data that reported information on the evolution of symptomatic status, nearly three quarters of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing remained asymptomatic. The highest-quality evidence comes from nationwide, representative serosurveys of England (n = 365 104) and Spain (n = 61 075), which suggest that at least one third of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic.

Limitation:

For PCR-based studies, data are limited to distinguish presymptomatic from asymptomatic infection. Heterogeneity precluded formal quantitative syntheses.

Conclusion:

Available data suggest that at least one third of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic. Longitudinal studies suggest that nearly three quarters of persons who receive a positive PCR test result but have no symptoms at the time of testing will remain asymptomatic. Control strategies for COVID-19 should be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Primary Funding Source:

National Institutes of Health.
The asymptomatic fraction of infection is the proportion of infected persons who never develop, perceive, and report symptoms (1). Among common pathogens, the asymptomatic fraction varies widely. For example, an asymptomatic carrier state has not been documented for measles virus infection (2), whereas a significant proportion of persons with cytomegalovirus or poliovirus infection have no symptoms and are unaware of infection (3, 4). The asymptomatic fraction of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection seems to be sizable (5). The range of severity of illness associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is noteworthy because it spans asymptomatic infection; mild illness; and severe, life-threatening illness.
Perhaps because of this broad spectrum of presentation, the topic of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection has generated some controversy (6). Imprecise use of the term “asymptomatic” is partly to blame. “Asymptomatic” should be reserved for persons who never develop symptoms, whereas “presymptomatic” is a better description of those who have no symptoms when they receive a positive test result but who eventually develop symptoms. We know for certain who is asymptomatic only in retrospect. On the basis of our current knowledge of the natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), after a person is infected with SARS-CoV-2, we must wait approximately 14 days to determine whether symptoms have developed (7). Infection without symptoms, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic, is important because infected persons can transmit the virus to others even if they have no symptoms (8, 9).
In June 2020, we published a review of the limited data then available on the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (5). Since then, considerable new data have become available. The present review summarizes currently available data that might allow us to estimate the proportion of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 who are asymptomatic.

Methods

Data Sources, Search Terms, and Study Selection

Using the keywords antibodies, asymptomatic, coronavirus, COVID-19, PCR, seroprevalence, and SARS-CoV-2, we periodically searched Google News, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and PubMed for observational, descriptive studies and reports of mass screening for SARS-CoV-2 that were either cross-sectional or longitudinal in design; were published through 17 November 2020; and involved SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid or antibody testing of a target population, regardless of current symptomatic status, over a defined period.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

We recorded the total number of persons tested, the number that tested positive, the number of positive cases without symptoms, the criteria for determining symptomatic status, whether the data were cross-sectional or longitudinal in nature, whether random selection techniques were used to achieve a representative sample of a target population, and whether the testing involved polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of a nasopharyngeal swab or serologic analysis of antibodies in a blood sample. For longitudinal studies that provided information on the evolution of symptomatic status, we recorded the proportion of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing and who then remained asymptomatic during a follow-up period. In addition, we flagged studies that required clarification of ambiguous details.
Studies or reports that are based on PCR results and include only cross-sectional data do not make it possible to distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection because symptomatic status is observed on only 1 occasion, which may occur before the development of symptoms, if any. In contrast, we can distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic infection with either antibody-based studies, in which an interview or questionnaire gathers information about symptoms reported at the time a blood sample is taken and during a prior period, or PCR-based studies that include longitudinal data.
In assessing quality, we put the greatest emphasis on random selection of participants to achieve a representative sample of a regional or national population, a large number of study participants (n > 10 000), and study designs that make it possible to distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic infection. Evaluated in this manner, the highest-quality evidence comes from large-scale, national studies with representative samples that include data from either antibody or longitudinal PCR testing. In Tables 1 and 2, we show in boldface the details that increase a study's likelihood of providing higher-quality evidence.
Table 1. Nucleic Acid PCR Testing
Table 2. Antibody Testing

Data Synthesis and Analysis

We synthesized evidence qualitatively by evaluating study design, including whether data were collected longitudinally; testing methods; number of participants; and setting. We compared the range and consistency of estimates of the proportion of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing.

Role of the Funding Source

The National Institutes of Health played no role in the design, conduct, or analysis of this review or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Results

We identified 61 studies or reports that met eligibility criteria. Table 1 (10–54) summarizes data from the 43 that used PCR testing, and Table 2 (55–72) summarizes data from the 18 that used antibody testing. The heterogeneity of the studies—in particular, disparate settings and populations—precluded quantitative summaries using meta-analysis. We summarize the evidence in terms of the number of studies and the range, median, and interquartile range (IQR) for persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of PCR testing or who reported having had no symptoms before or at the time of antibody testing. Thirty of the studies included a list of specific symptoms, independent of signs, used to determine symptomatic status (10–14, 17, 18, 22–28, 35, 36, 38, 42, 49, 51, 55–57, 60–62, 64). Many of the remaining studies used some variation of the catch-all phrase “symptoms compatible with COVID-19.”

Nucleic Acid PCR Testing

Among the 43 studies using PCR testing (10–54), the proportion of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing ranged from 6.3% to 100%, with a median of 65.9% (IQR, 42.8% to 87.0%).
Nineteen of the PCR-based studies collected data on symptoms longitudinally after testing, making it possible to distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic infection (15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32, 37–40, 45, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54). The follow-up period in these studies ranged from 2 to 70 days, with a median of 14 days (IQR, 14.0 to 15.8 days). The proportion of persons who tested positive and remained asymptomatic ranged from 6.3% to 91.7%, with a median of 42.5% (IQR, 29.6% to 77.8%).
Of the 19 longitudinal studies, 14 provided information on the evolution of symptomatic status (Table 3) (15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 32, 37–40, 47, 51, 53, 54). Among persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing, the proportion who remained asymptomatic during a follow-up period ranged from 11.1% to 100%, with a median of 72.3% (IQR, 56.7% to 89.7%).
Table 3. Evolution of Symptomatic Status
Of the 43 studies that used PCR testing, 24 collected cross-sectional data and reported only the symptomatic status at the time of testing, so we could not distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases (10–14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28–31, 33–36, 41–44, 46, 49, 50, 52). In these studies, the proportion of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing ranged from 40.7% to 100%, with a median of 75.5% (IQR, 50.3% to 86.2%).
Of the 43 studies that used PCR testing, 4 used random selection of participants to achieve a representative sample of their target population: residents of England (10–12, 14), Iceland (16), or Indiana (23). Proportions of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing ranged from 43.0% to 76.5%, with a median of 45.6% (IQR, 43.6% to 61.8%). None of the PCR testing studies that used random selection of participants collected longitudinal data on symptoms, so we could not distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases.
The largest of the representative data sets, and the largest study identified in our search, was from the REACT (Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission) program. REACT has implemented nationwide nucleic acid and antibody testing (discussed later) for SARS-CoV-2 of persons in England aged 5 years and older in multiple phases since May 2020 (10–12). In Table 1, we have combined the results of 6 phases of nucleic acid testing from REACT, yielding data for 932 072 persons (England residents 1). At the time of testing, 1425 of 3029 persons (47.0%) who tested positive had no symptoms. The study did not collect longitudinal data on symptoms, so we could not distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases.
The second largest of the representative studies was also from England; it included 36 061 persons tested between 26 April and 27 June 2020 (14). The proportion of persons who tested positive was 0.3%, identical to that reported by REACT, but the proportion of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing was 74.8%, much larger than in the REACT study. The study did not collect longitudinal data on symptoms, so we could not distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases.
In the cross-sectional study of Belgian long-term care facilities (n = 280 427), age did not seem to affect the proportion of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing (13). The study tested 138 327 staff and 142 100 residents. Median age was 42 years for staff and 85 years for residents; despite this considerable difference, the proportion of those who tested positive without symptoms was 74.0% for staff and 75.3% for residents. This finding is consonant with the finding of a longitudinal study from Vo’, Italy, in which more than 85% of the town's 3275 residents were tested: “Among confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, we did not observe significant differences in the frequency of asymptomatic infection between age groups” (17).
Of the 43 studies that used PCR testing, 21 involved high-density living or working environments, such as nursing homes and factories (13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24–28, 30, 38, 40, 42, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54). The settings with the highest proportion of persons who tested positive without symptoms included prisons (19) and poultry processing plants (21). Yet, the data seem to be insufficient to conclude that setting was a causative factor. In the 21 studies of high-density environments, the proportion of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing ranged from 6.3% to 96.0%, with a median of 62.8% (IQR, 40.6% to 87.0%). In the remaining 22 studies that did not involve such high-density environments, the proportion ranged from 27.3% to 100%, with a median of 67.2% (IQR, 43.5% to 84.7%).

Antibody Testing

In the 18 studies based on antibody testing (Table 2) (55–72), the proportion of persons who tested positive but did not report having had symptoms ranged from 21.7% to 85.0%, with a median of 41.2% (IQR, 32.6% to 48.1%).
Among the 18 antibody testing studies, 6 used random selection of participants to achieve a representative sample of their target population: residents of England (55); Spain (56); Bavaria, Germany (59); Louisiana (60); Maranhão, Brazil (64); or Connecticut (68). In these antibody studies with representative samples, the proportion of persons who tested positive but did not report having had symptoms ranged from 21.7% to 47.3%, with a median of 32.7% (IQR, 28.7% to 43.4%).
The 2 largest studies based on antibody testing were nationwide serosurveys from England (55) and Spain (56), both designed to achieve representative samples of community-dwelling persons. The English data, from the REACT program described earlier, were collected during 3 rounds of testing from June through September 2020 and include 365 104 persons. The Spanish data were collected 27 April to 11 May 2020 and include 61 075 persons. The proportion of persons who tested positive but did not report having had symptoms was 32.4% in England and 33.0% in Spain.

Discussion

Symptom detection relies on the subjective reports of patients (73). For example, anosmia has turned out to be a distinctive symptom of COVID-19 (74), and we depend on patients to perceive and report a diminution, however slight, of their normal olfactory abilities. But such self-reports are influenced by many factors, including variability in the ability to recall symptoms and idiosyncratic awareness of bodily sensations.
Current data suggest that infected persons without symptoms—including both presymptomatic and asymptomatic persons—account for more than 40% of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission (75–77). The proportion of new infections caused by asymptomatic persons alone is uncertain, but when researchers in Wanzhou, China, analyzed epidemiologic data for “183 confirmed COVID-19 cases and their close contacts from five generations of transmission,” they determined that the asymptomatic cases, which made up 32.8% of infected persons, caused 19.3% of infections (78).
The 61 studies and reports that we have collected provide compelling evidence that the asymptomatic fraction of SARS-CoV-2 infection is sizable. These data enable us to make reasonable inferences about the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic.
Studies designed to achieve representative samples of large populations provide useful data because they may accurately reflect human populations in general. Four of the PCR-based studies are in this category, with target populations of England (10–12, 14), Iceland (16), and Indiana (23). The proportion of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing ranged from 43.0% to 76.5%, with a median of 45.6% (IQR, 43.6% to 61.8%). However, these studies fall short of providing the highest-quality evidence because they collected only cross-sectional data. As a result, we cannot distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases.
In 14 longitudinal studies that reported information on the evolution of symptomatic status, a median of 72.3% of persons who tested positive but had no symptoms at the time of testing remained asymptomatic during a follow-up period (15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 32, 37–40, 47, 51, 53, 54). If a similar proportion remained asymptomatic in the 4 large, representative, PCR-based studies, in which the median was 45.6%, the asymptomatic fraction of SARS-CoV-2 infection would be 33.0%.
Among the data that we have assembled here, the highest-quality evidence comes from the large-scale studies using antibody testing that were designed to achieve representative samples of nationwide populations in England (n = 365 104) (55) and Spain (n = 61 075) (56). It is remarkable that these independently conducted serosurveys yielded nearly identical proportions of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: 32.4% in England and 33.0% in Spain.
We may infer that persons who receive positive antibody test results can be classified accurately as asymptomatic because such results are likely to occur only after the onset of symptoms, if any. In a study of 222 hospitalized patients in Wuhan, China, IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were first detected 3 and 4 days, respectively, after symptomatic onset of COVID-19 (79). In a study of 109 health care workers and 64 hospitalized patients in Zurich, Switzerland, the severity of illness seemed to affect how quickly SARS-CoV-2 antibodies appeared (80). Patients with severe COVID-19 had detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers after symptom onset, but those with mild cases “remained negative or became positive [for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies] 12 to 14 days after symptom onset” (80). These data suggest that positive antibody test results are unlikely to occur during the period when it is uncertain whether an infected person is presymptomatic or asymptomatic.
However, serosurveys do have significant limitations for the purpose of estimating the asymptomatic fraction. Not all persons who are believed to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 later have a positive result for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (81). The reasons may include a false-positive result on the initial PCR test; a false-negative result on the antibody test; or the absence of detectable antibodies, perhaps because the infection was cleared without requiring adaptive immunity. In addition, the role of mucosal immunity in clearing SARS-CoV-2 infection has not yet been fully elucidated (82), and a nasal wash to detect the IgA antibodies active in mucosal immunity is not part of standard testing practice. Persons who clear SARS-CoV-2 infection through innate or mucosal immunity might be more likely to be asymptomatic but would not be categorized as such in a serosurvey, possibly contributing to an underestimate of the asymptomatic fraction.
Another limitation of serosurveys is the requirement that an interview or questionnaire about symptomatic status accompany the blood sample. The onus is on the study participant to accurately recall symptoms, if any, from weeks or even months earlier. In the midst of a pandemic that has transformed everyday life around the globe, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that awareness of and memory for symptoms possibly related to COVID-19 are heightened. This might result in a greater likelihood of noticing and reporting symptoms that would otherwise be missed or ignored, thereby leading to a lower estimate of the asymptomatic fraction. For these reasons, we have evaluated serosurveys in the context of other results and found them to be concordant.
When estimates from large-scale, cross-sectional, PCR-based studies with representative samples; longitudinal PCR-based studies; and nationwide serosurveys with representative samples are combined, it seems that the asymptomatic fraction of SARS-CoV-2 infection is at least one third. To confirm this estimate, large-scale longitudinal studies using PCR testing with representative samples of national populations would be useful. As SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns are implemented worldwide, though, the window for such research may be closing.
In light of the data presented here, we believe that COVID-19 control strategies must be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Frequent, inexpensive, rapid home tests (83) to identify and contain presymptomatic or asymptomatic cases—along with government programs that provide financial assistance and, if necessary, housing to enable infected persons to isolate themselves (84)—may be a viable option. And as the first generation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is deployed, more research will be needed to determine their efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection (85).

References

1.
Champredon D, Moghadas SM. Quantifying the contribution of asymptomatic infection to the cumulative incidence. Epidemiol Infect. 2017;145:1256-1258. [ 28166860] doi: 10.1017/S0950268817000115
2.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html on 24 November 2020.
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About cytomegalovirus (CMV). Accessed at www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html on 24 November 2020.
4.
European Center for Disease Prevention and Control. Disease factsheet about poliomyelitis. Updated 11 July 2018. Accessed at www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/poliomyelitis/facts on 3 October 2020.
5.
Oran DP, Topol EJ. Prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. A narrative review. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:362-367. doi: 10.7326/M20-3012
6.
Apuzzo M, Gebrekidan S, Kirkpatrick DD. How the world missed COVID-19's silent spread. New York Times. 27 June 2020. Accessed at www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/world/europe/coronavirus-spread-asymptomatic.html on 1 October 2020.
7.
Lauer SA, Grantz KH, Bi Q, et al. The incubation period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from publicly reported confirmed cases: estimation and application. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:577-582. doi: 10.7326/M20-0504
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim clinical guidance for management of patients with confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19). 10 September 2020. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html on 4 October 2020.
9.
Furukawa NW, Brooks JT, Sobel J. Evidence supporting transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 while presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26. [ 32364890] doi: 10.3201/eid2607.201595
10.
Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, et al. High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 swab positivity in England during September 2020: interim report of round 5 of REACT-1 study. medRxiv. Preprint posted online 2 October 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.09.30.20204727
11.
Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, et al. High and increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 swab positivity in England during end September beginning October 2020: REACT-1 round 5 updated report. medRxiv. Preprint posted online 14 October 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.10.12.20211227
12.
Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, et al. REACT-1 round 6 updated report: high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 swab positivity with reduced rate of growth in England at the start of November 2020. 12 November 2020. Accessed at https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/83912 on 26 November 2020.
13.
Hoxha A, Wyndham-Thomas C, Klamer S, et al. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in Belgian long-term care facilities [Letter]. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020. [ 32628906] doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30560-0
14.
Petersen I, Phillips A. Three quarters of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic: analysis of English household survey data. Clin Epidemiol. 2020;12:1039-1043. [ 33116898] doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S276825
15.
White EM, Santostefano CM, Feifer RA, et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rates in a multistate sample of skilled nursing facilities. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:1709-1711. [ 33074318] doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5664
16.
Gudbjartsson DF, Helgason A, Jonsson H, et al. Spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the Icelandic population. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2302-2315. [ 32289214] doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2006100
17.
Lavezzo E, Franchin E, Ciavarella C, et al; Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. Suppression of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Italian municipality of Vo’. Nature. 2020;584:425-429. [ 32604404] doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2488-1
18.
Kasper MR, Geibe JR, Sears CL, et al. An outbreak of Covid-19 on an aircraft carrier. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2417-2426. [ 33176077] doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019375
19.
So L, Smith G. In four U.S. state prisons, nearly 3,300 inmates test positive for coronavirus — 96% without symptoms. Reuters. 25 April 2020. Accessed at www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-prisons-testing-in-idUSKCN2270RX on 26 April 2020.
20.
Chamie G, Marquez C, Crawford E, et al; CLIAhub Consortium. SARS-CoV-2 community transmission disproportionately affects Latinx population during shelter-in-place in San Francisco. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. [ 32821935] doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1234
21.
Lush T. Hundreds test positive at Tyson Foods plant in Arkansas. Associated Press. 21 June 2020. Accessed at https://apnews.com/article/9b2b24d3b3ed981041a7fe6ab499100c on 6 October 2020.
22.
Sakurai A, Sasaki T, Kato S, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection [Letter]. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:885-886. [ 32530584] doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2013020
23.
Menachemi N, Yiannoutsos CT, Dixon BE, et al. Population point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on a statewide random sample — Indiana, April 25-29, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:960-964. [ 32701938] doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6929e1
24.
Marossy A, Rakowicz S, Bhan A, et al. A study of universal SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing of residents and staff in a large group of care homes in South London. J Infect Dis. 2020. [ 32889532] doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa565
25.
Letizia AG, Ramos I, Obla A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 transmission among Marine recruits during quarantine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2407-2416. [ 33176093] doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2029717
26.
Centre d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique des Armées. Investigation de l’épidémie de COVID-19 au sein du Groupe Aéronaval: 21 janvier – 13 avril 2020. 4 May 2020. Accessed at www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/583466/9938746/file/20200405_929_ARM_SSA_CESPA_rapport_epidemie_covid19_Gan_VEXP.pdf on 4 June 2020.
27.
Ly TDA, Zanini D, Laforge V, et al. Pattern of SARS-CoV-2 infection among dependant elderly residents living in long-term care facilities in Marseille, France, March-June 2020. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;56:106219. [ 33189890] doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106219
28.
Rogers JH, Link AC, McCulloch D, et al. Characteristics of COVID-19 in homeless shelters: a community-based surveillance study. Ann Intern Med. 2020. doi: 10.7326/M20-3799
29.
Hempel D, Milani V, Kleespies A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infections in outpatients with cancer: most infected patients are asymptomatic carriers without impact on chemotherapy [Abstract]. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(Suppl 4):S995. Abstract no. 1680P. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.1744
30.
Feaster M, Goh YY. High proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in 9 long-term care facilities, Pasadena, California, USA, April 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26:2416-2419. [ 32614768] doi: 10.3201/eid2610.202694
31.
Barrett ES, Horton DB, Roy J, et al. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in previously undiagnosed health care workers at the onset of the U.S. COVID-19 epidemic. med Rxiv. 2020. [ 32511600] doi: 10.1101/2020.04.20.20072470
32.
Lytras T, Dellis G, Flountzi A, et al. High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in repatriation flights to Greece from three European countries. J Travel Med. 2020;27. [ 32297940] doi: 10.1093/jtm/taaa054
33.
Goldfarb IT, Diouf K, Barth WH, et al. Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing on admission to the labor and delivery unit: low prevalence among asymptomatic obstetric patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020;41:1095-1096. [ 32456729] doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.255
34.
Mattar S, Martinez-Bravo C, Rivero R, et al. Epidemiological and viral features of a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in an area of the Colombian Caribbean. Research Square. Preprint posted online 30 October 2020. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-57254/v3
35.
Prabhu M, Cagino K, Matthews KC, et al. Pregnancy and postpartum outcomes in a universally tested population for SARS-CoV-2 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. BJOG. 2020;127:1548-1556. [ 32633022] doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16403
36.
Díaz-Corvillón P, Mönckeberg M, Barros A, et al. Routine screening for SARS CoV-2 in unselected pregnant women at delivery. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0239887. [ 32991621] doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239887
37.
Kutsuna S, Suzuki T, Hayakawa K, et al. SARS-CoV-2 screening test for Japanese returnees from Wuhan, China, January 2020. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7:ofaa243. [ 32754627] doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa243
38.
Ladhani SN, Chow JY, Janarthanan R, et al. Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in six care homes in London, April 2020. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;26:100533. [ 32923993] doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100533
39.
Saurabh S, Kumar R, Kumar N, et al. Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among Indian nationals evacuated from Iran. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020:1-7. [ 33087205] doi: 10.1017/dmp.2020.393
40.
Bigelow BF, Tang O, Barshick B, et al. Outcomes of universal COVID-19 testing following detection of incident cases in 11 long-term care facilities. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:127-129. [ 32662818] doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3738
41.
Kannan NB, Sen S, Reddy H, et al. Preoperative COVID-19 testing for elective vitreoretinal surgeries: experience from a major tertiary care institute in South India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68:2373-2377. [ 33120621] doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2870_20
42.
Baggett TP, Keyes H, Sporn N, et al. COVID-19 outbreak at a large homeless shelter in Boston: implications for universal testing. medRxiv. Preprint posted online 15 April 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618
43.
Cline S. Cases at seafood plant cause spike in Oregon COVID numbers. Associated Press. 9 June 2020. Accessed at https://apnews.com/article/4b9d38f206db9ce5267a5898ac24f238 on 6 October 2020.
44.
Massarotti C, Adriano M, Cagnacci A, et al. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in pregnant patients in an Italian city during the complete lockdown. J Med Virol. 2020. [ 32841411] doi: 10.1002/jmv.26458
45.
Khalil A, Hill R, Ladhani S, et al. COVID-19 screening of health-care workers in a London maternity hospital [Letter]. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21:23-24. [ 32437699] doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30403-5
46.
Ing AJ, Cocks C, Green JP. COVID-19: in the footsteps of Ernest Shackleton. Thorax. 2020;75:693-694. [ 32461231] doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215091
47.
Sutton D, Fuchs K, D’Alton M, et al. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 in women admitted for delivery [Letter]. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2163-2164. [ 32283004] doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009316
48.
Malagón-Rojas J, Gómez-Rendón C, Parra EL, et al. SARS-CoV-2 and RT-PCR in asymptomatic patients: results of a cohort of workers at El Dorado International Airport in Bogotá, 2020. Biomedica. 2020;40:166-172. [ 33152200] doi: 10.7705/biomedica.5802
49.
Figueiredo R, Tavares S, Moucho M, et al. Systematic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in pregnant women admitted for delivery in a Portuguese maternity. J Perinat Med. 2020;48:977-980. [ 33085639] doi: 10.1515/jpm-2020-0387
50.
Chou E. Dozens positive for coronavirus at LA's Skid Row homeless shelter, after all residents tested. Los Angeles Daily News. 21 April 2020. Updated 22 April 2020. Accessed at www.dailynews.com/2020/04/21/dozens-positive-for-coronavirus-at-las-skid-row-homeless-shelter-after-all-residents-tested on 23 April 2020.
51.
Patel MC, Chaisson LH, Borgetti S, et al. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 mortality during an outbreak investigation in a skilled nursing facility. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:2920-2926. [ 32548628] doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa763
52.
Lan FY, Suharlim C, Kales SN, et al. Association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, exposure risk and mental health among a cohort of essential retail workers in the USA. Occup Environ Med. 2020. [ 33127659] doi: 10.1136/oemed-2020-106774
53.
Dora AV, Winnett A, Jatt LP, et al. Universal and serial laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 at a long-term care skilled nursing facility for veterans — Los Angeles, California, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:651-655. [ 32463809] doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6921e1
54.
Arons MM, Hatfield KM, Reddy SC, et al; Public Health–Seattle and King County and CDC COVID-19 Investigation Team. Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and transmission in a skilled nursing facility. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2081-2090. [ 32329971] doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008457
55.
Ward H, Cooke G, Atchison C, et al. Declining prevalence of antibody positivity to SARS-CoV-2: a community study of 365,000 adults. medRxiv. Preprint posted online 27 October 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.10.26.20219725
56.
Pollán M, Pérez-Gómez B, Pastor-Barriuso R, et al; ENE-COVID Study Group. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study. Lancet. 2020;396:535-544. [ 32645347] doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31483-5
57.
Sims MD, Maine GN, Childers KL, et al; BLAST COVID-19 Study Group. COVID-19 seropositivity and asymptomatic rates in healthcare workers are associated with job function and masking. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. [ 33150375] doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1684
58.
Zhang S, Guo M, Wu F, et al. Factors associated with asymptomatic infection in health-care workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Wuhan, China: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26:1670-1675. [ 32911080] doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.08.038
59.
Hippich M, Holthaus L, Assfalg R, et al. Public health antibody screening indicates a six-fold higher SARS-CoV-2 exposure rate than reported cases in children. Med (N Y). 2020. [ 33163984] doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2020.10.003
60.
Feehan A, Fort D, Garcia-Diaz J, et al. Frequency of symptoms and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in Louisiana, USA. SSRN. Preprint posted online 2 October 2020. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3702933
61.
Erber J, Kappler V, Haller B, et al. Strategies for infection control and prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in 4,554 employees of a university hospital in Munich, Germany. SSRN. Preprint posted online 13 October 2020. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3678599
62.
Mostafa A, Kandil S, El-Sayed MH, et al. Universal COVID-19 screening of 4040 health care workers in a resource-limited setting: an Egyptian pilot model in a university with 12 public hospitals and medical centers. Int J Epidemiol. 2020. [ 33094320] doi: 10.1093/ije/dyaa173
63.
Self WH, Tenforde MW, Stubblefield WB, et al; CDC COVID-19 Response Team. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among frontline health care personnel in a multistate hospital network — 13 academic medical centers, April–June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1221-1226. [ 32881855] doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6935e2
64.
Silva AMA, Lima Neto LG, Azevedo CMPS, et al. Population-based seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is more than halfway through the herd immunity threshold in the State of Maranhao, Brazil. medRxiv. Preprint posted online 1 September 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.08.28.20180463
65.
Österreichischer Rundfunk. Ischgl: 42,4 prozent haben antikörper. 25 June 2020. Accessed at https://tirol.orf.at/stories/3054826 on 5 October 2020.
66.
Tang H, Tian JB, Dong JW, et al. Serologic detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections in hemodialysis centers: a multicenter retrospective study in Wuhan, China. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;76:490-499.e1. [ 32628990] doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.06.008
67.
Figar S, Pagotto V, Luna L, et al. Community-level SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey in urban slum dwellers of Buenos Aires City, Argentina: a participatory research. medRxiv. Preprint posted online 18 July 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.07.14.20153858
68.
Mahajan S, Srinivasan R, Redlich CA, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies among adults living in Connecticut: post-infection prevalence (PIP) study. Am J Med. 2020. [ 33130124] doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.09.024
69.
Lindahl JF, Hoffman T, Esmaeilzadeh M, et al. High seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in elderly care employees in Sweden. Infect Ecol Epidemiol. 2020;10:1789036. [ 32939231]
70.
Clarke C, Prendecki M, Dhutia A, et al. High prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in hemodialysis patients detected using serologic screening. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;31:1969-1975. [ 32732391] doi: 10.1681/ASN.2020060827
71.
Stubblefield WB, Talbot HK, Feldstein L, et al; Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Critically Ill (IVY) Investigators. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among frontline healthcare personnel during the first month of caring for COVID-19 patients—Nashville, Tennessee. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. [ 32628750] doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa936
72.
Bampoe S, Lucas DN, Neall G, et al. A cross-sectional study of immune seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 in frontline maternity health professionals. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:1614-1619. [ 32777861] doi: 10.1111/anae.15229
73.
Knapp TR. Symptom: cause, effect, both, or neither? [Editorial]. Clin Nurs Res. 2018;27:391-394. [ 29595078] doi: 10.1177/1054773818761904
74.
Aziz M, Goyal H, Haghbin H, et al. The association of “loss of smell” to COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med Sci. 2020. [ 33349441] doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2020.09.017
75.
He X, Lau EHY, Wu P, et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020;26:672-675. [ 32296168] doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0869-5
76.
Ma S, Zhang J, Zeng M, et al. Epidemiological parameters of COVID-19: case series study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e19994. [ 33001833] doi: 10.2196/19994
77.
Zhang H, Hong C, Zheng Q, et al. A multi-family cluster of COVID-19 associated with asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission in Jixi City, Heilongjiang, China, 2020 [Letter]. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9:2509-2514. [ 33238813] doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1837015
78.
Shi Q, Hu Y, Peng B, et al. Effective control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Wanzhou, China. Nat Med. 2020. [ 33257893] doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-01178-5
79.
Zhang B, Zhou X, Zhu C, et al. Immune phenotyping based on the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and IgG level predicts disease severity and outcome for patients with COVID-19. Front Mol Biosci. 2020;7:157. [ 32719810] doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.00157
80.
Cervia C, Nilsson J, Zurbuchen Y, et al. Systemic and mucosal antibody responses specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020. [ 33221383] doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.040
81.
Jiang C, Wang Y, Hu M, et al. Antibody seroconversion in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Transl Immunology. 2020;9:e1182. [ 33005417] doi: 10.1002/cti2.1182
82.
Russell MW, Moldoveanu Z, Ogra PL, et al. Mucosal immunity in COVID-19: a neglected but critical aspect of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Front Immunol. 2020;11:611337. [ 33329607] doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.611337
83.
Mina MJ, Parker R, Larremore DB. Rethinking Covid-19 test sensitivity — a strategy for containment. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:e120. [ 32997903] doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2025631
84.
Stieg C. Could you get paid to quarantine during the Covid-19 pandemic? Some local governments are already doing it. CNBC. 2 September 2020. Accessed at www.cnbc.com/2020/09/02/getting-paid-to-quarantine-during-the-covid-19-pandemic.html on 1 December 2020.
85.
Bleier BS, Ramanathan M Jr, Lane AP. COVID-19 vaccines may not prevent nasal SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic transmission. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020:194599820982633. [ 33320052] doi: 10.1177/0194599820982633

Comments

0 Comments
Sign In to Submit A Comment
Ali Haider Bangash24 January 2021
Should conclusions be based on preprints that have not been peer-reviewed yet?

With great interest, the manuscript of the research article 'The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic: A Systematic Review' was critically evaluated. After expressing commendation for the serious effort by authors to explore the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, the commenter wishes to direct the attention of the Editor towards the fact that data from preprints which have not yet been peer-reviewed have been included in the synthesis of conclusions.

It is true that the COVID-19 pandemic has lead to an immense rise in the amount of literature getting published & preprint servers provide the optimal platform for accelerated dissemination of scientific research around this global health emergency1, one can not deny that no peer-review process whatsoever is adopted while screening submitted manuscripts for publication at a preprint server which has lead to studies with flawed methodologies & biased conclusions getting published by the same preprint servers.2 Thus, when conclusions are synthesized by evaluating data from a preprint alongside that taken from research articles published in peer-reviewed journals which have gone rigorous evaluation reviewers and editors, that significant status which peer-review process maintains in the scientific research publishing global standards gets unintentionally blemished. This may translate into a prediction of the scientific community to disregard the findings of such research studies that take in data from preprints to synthesize conclusions. Consequently, the authors of such studies may not achieve their sincerest objective of positively contributing to the scientific discourse.

The commenter, therefore, suggests revising the methodology of the systematic review under consideration such that only peer-reviewed research articles are included for data extraction & subsequent qualitative systematic review. Including only peer-reviewed studies shall translate into a higher quality of synthesized conclusions which shall be better received by the scientific community. The suggested alternative is to revise the systematic review once all of the included preprints have either been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been retracted secondary to any reason.

 

Regards.

 REFERENCES

1Majumder MS, Mandl KD. Early in the epidemic: the impact of preprints on global discourse about COVID-19 transmissibility. Lancet Glob Health. 2020 May;8(5):e627-e630. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30113-3. Epub 2020 Mar 24. PMID: 32220289; PMCID: PMC7159059.

2Silva JATD. Silently withdrawn or retracted preprints related to Covid-19 are a scholarly threat and a potential public health risk: theoretical arguments and suggested recommendations. Online Information Review. 2020;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).

Disclosures:

I'm a moderator at PsyArXiv Preprints and a student member of the American College of Physicians.

Jyotin Chandarana25 January 2021
Asymtomatic and presymptomatic cases

Concludng remarks should be added.

Eric Topal, Daniel Oran2 February 2021
Author Response to Bangash

We are in the midst of a profound transformation in how scientific knowledge is disseminated. As recently as 30 years ago, the gating factors in scientific publishing were the speed of postal mail and the high costs of printing. Today, ubiquitous access to the Internet allows for nearly instantaneous transmission at an infinitesimal price. The logical and welcome result has been the rise of preprints.

Peer review certainly serves a valuable role in scientific publishing, usually boosting the quality of the output. But in the current publishing environment, it would be a mistake to rely exclusively on peer-reviewed articles as the definitive source of scientific knowledge. Instead, we must become more discriminating consumers of scientific publications -- from both peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers -- and learn to assess for ourselves the quality and merit of the knowledge that is being shared.

In preparing our systematic review, we carefully evaluated the preprints that met our criteria for inclusion. In our opinion, they were of sufficiently high quality to include in our analysis, particularly because they provided knowledge that was not available from peer-reviewed sources. In the midst of a pandemic, in which our findings might be useful to both clinicians and policymakers, we decided that this was the most prudent course of action.

 

Fan Yang, M.D.1,2* Dan Ma, M.D.2* *Author Fan Yang and Dan Ma contributed equally to this work.28 March 2021
New Variants, Vaccines and The Proportion of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections

TO THE EDITOR:

A recent systematic review by Oran and Topol concluded that at least one third of SARS-CoV-2 infections are completely asymptomatic (1). As included large-scale representative data, the conclusion seemed more convincing than the initial narrative review.

Notably, evidence gap was still significant. Except the nationwide program in England, all the other eligible studies included participants prior to September, 2020. Moreover, the vast majority of studies were not as long as 3 months. Therefore, the review was less likely to disclose whether the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 infections would keep stable for a long period.

Since the SARS-COV-2 genome has thrown up numerous variants over one year evolution, it is reasonable to suspect the coronavirus might undergo phenotypic "drift". Circumstantial evidence came from almost 20 million international entrants to China. Between mid-April and mid-October 2020, the proportion of asymptomatic infections among all positive individuals increased significantly over time from 27.8% to 59.4% (2). This finding may signal an increase in asymptomatic infection globally, in which D614-to-G614 transition might have a place.

The viral variant problem became prominent at the end of 2020. Take fast-spreading B.1.1.7 as an example. The tendencies of spike gene dropout transition in the Pillar 2 sample (community testing of people with symptoms) closely matched the trends of a random sampling of the community (3). This might suggest that the proportion of asymptomatic infection in B.1.1.7 variant remained relatively stable, whereas hazard of death was estimated higher compared with previously circulating variants (3).

Further to this, the efficacy of first-generation vaccines on reduction in asymptomatic infections will soon face the imminent challenges of new variants (4), especially more worrisome lineages such as B.1.351 and P.1.

It is vital to keep track of mutations in the genome of SARS-CoV-2. An interactive mutation tracker system based on SARS-CoV-2 isolate genomes deposited to GISAID might provide an option to accrue the clinical metadata. However, with sizable missing data and lack of longitudinal follow-up on symptoms, the tool can only give a patchy understanding of disease severity (5).

Global coordination in productive expansion of sequencing efforts and robust collection of outcome data can allow us to really building the capacity to comprehend new variants and asymptomatic infections. The insight will support meaningful public health actions to choose the highest-efficacy vaccines and to make timely alterations in the existing vaccines, which could reduce selective pressure for emergence of more variants.

References

  1. Oran DP, Topol EJ. The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic : A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med. 2021. [PMID: 33481642] doi: 10.7326/M20-6976
  2. Ren R, Zhang Y, Li Q, McGoogan JM, Feng Z, Gao GF, et al. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections Among Persons Entering China From April 16 to October 12, 2020. JAMA. 2021;325(5):489-92. [PMID: 33528529] doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.23942
  3. Davies NG, Jarvis CI, CMMID COVID-19 Working Group, Edmunds WJ, Jewell NP, Diaz-Ordaz K, et al. Increased mortality in community-tested cases of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7. Nature. 2021. [PMID: 33723411] doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03426-1
  4. Hall VJ, Foulkes S, Saei A, Andrews N, Oguti B, Charlett A, et al. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Against Infection and COVID-19 Vaccine Coverage in Healthcare Workers in England, Multicentre Prospective Cohort Study (the SIREN Study). 2021. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3790399 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3790399 Preprint posted online 22 Feb 2021. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3790399
  5. Alam I, Radovanovic A, Incitti R, Kamau AA, Alarawi M, Azhar EI, et al. CovMT: an interactive SARS-CoV-2 mutation tracker, with a focus on critical variants. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021. [PMID: 33571446] doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00078-5

Disclosures:  No conflicts of interest.

Eric Topol, Daniel Oran1 April 2021
Authors' Response to Yang and Ma

As noted in our review, we included data published as of 17 November 2020. It is inevitable, then, because of typically long lead times in journal publishing, that the data were collected before the widespread circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern mentioned by Drs. Yang and Ma. In addition, all of the studies that they cite were published after our review appeared.

As new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern emerge and the mix of variants in widespread circulation changes, we agree that it will be important to reassess the prevalence of asymptomatic infection.

 

Daniel S. Berman, M.D.2 June 2021
Are "asymptomatic" infections truly "asymptomatic?"

In their recent review article on the incidence of asymptomatic SARS-Co-V-2 infection, Drs. Oran and Topol conclude that at least one third of SARS-Co-V-2 infections are "asymptomatic." The conclusion is based upon a summary of 61 studies and reports.

To arrive at this conclusion, one has to have a clear definition of "asymptomatic" versus “asymptomatic” cases.  The understanding of symptoms related to SARS-Co-V-2 infection has evolved since we began to identify SARS-Co-V-2 infections in March 2020. I have been involved personally, in advising camps, schools and many individuals in managing outbreak situations. Early on in the course of the pandemic, we focused on the symptoms of cough and fever. Later on, we observed that many individuals, especially children and young adults, presented with more subtle symptoms such as nasal stuffiness, headaches, G.I. symptoms or just fatigue. We would sometimes ask individuals who tested positive about their symptoms and were told that they had none. Upon more persistent questioning, we would learn that they had a runny nose or some of the other mentioned symptoms for several days, but did not relate these symptoms to their positive test result.

In addition, it is difficult to define "asymptomatic" among the elderly or debilitated patients. Such patients often lack awareness of symptoms.  Frequently, they are unable able to report subjective symptoms. These patients would not be defined as being "symptomatic," unless they developed fever, cough or shortness of breath.

In order to properly report on the incidence of "asymptomatic" infection, one must know that the individuals were carefully questioned about any symptoms, some of which would be subtle. In addition, it would be reasonable to place elderly debilitated patients in a separate category, as their symptoms can be easily missed.

In this way, I believe strongly that the actual incidence of "asymptomatic" infection is much lower than what Oran and Topol estimate. Summarizing studies without a clear understanding of how a history of symptoms was obtained can lead to false conclusions, which tends to increase the level of anxiety concerning asymptomatic infections. Such anxiety might not be warranted

Eric Topol, Daniel Oran8 June 2021
Authors' Response to Berman

Personal observations are often the starting point of scientific inquiry, so we appreciate that Dr. Berman has shared his experience in advising camps, schools, and others. But he makes no mention of involvement in mass SARS-CoV-2 screening programs that test all persons in a group or locale without regard to symptomatic status. It is only through the study of data from such mass screening that the actual asymptomatic fraction can be ascertained. In our review, we assembled 61 data sets in this category, including more than 1.8 million persons worldwide. Regarding Dr. Berman's concern about ambiguity in defining the asymptomatic condition, we note in our review that "thirty of the studies included a list of specific symptoms, independent of signs, used to determine symptomatic status." In preparing our review, we relied on the competence and veracity of researchers in applying these criteria and assessing the symptomatic status of study participants.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 174Number 5May 2021
Pages: 655 - 662

History

Published online: 22 January 2021
Published in issue: May 2021

Keywords

Authors

Affiliations

Daniel P. Oran, AM
Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, California (D.P.O., E.J.T.).
Eric J. Topol, MD
Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, California (D.P.O., E.J.T.).
Grant Support: By grant UL1TR002550 from the National Institutes of Health.
Disclosures: Authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M20-6976.
Reproducible Research Statement: Study protocol and statistical code: Not applicable. Data set: All of the data on which the authors based their analysis have been published with this review.
Corresponding Author: Eric J. Topol, MD, Scripps Research Translational Institute, 3344 North Torrey Pines Court, 3rd Floor, La Jolla, CA 92037; e-mail, [email protected].
Current Author Addresses: Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol: Scripps Research Translational Institute, 3344 North Torrey Pines Court, 3rd Floor, La Jolla, CA 92037.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: D.P. Oran, E.J. Topol.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: D.P. Oran, E.J. Topol.
Drafting of the article: D.P. Oran, E.J. Topol.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: D.P. Oran, E.J. Topol.
Final approval of the article: D.P. Oran, E.J. Topol.
Statistical expertise: D.P. Oran.
Obtaining of funding: E.J. Topol.
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: D.P. Oran, E.J. Topol.
Collection and assembly of data: D.P. Oran, E.J. Topol.
This article was published at Annals.org on 22 January 2021.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format





Download article citation data for:
Daniel P. Oran, Eric J. Topol. The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med.2021;174:655-662. [Epub 22 January 2021]. doi:10.7326/M20-6976

View Options

Get Access

Login Options:
Purchase

You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.

Create your Free Account

You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media