Covid: asymptomatic cases, a review
A
recent systematic review documented the high proportion of patients with
SARS-CoV-2 infection who are asymptomatic (see covid asymptomatic system
review AIM2021 in dropbox, or doi:10.7326/M20-6976)
Details:
--
61 studies were identified, 43 using PCR testing of nasopharyngeal swabs, 18
using antibody testing
--
14 studies had longitudinal data that reported the evolution of symptoms
--it is very important to differentiate those truly “asymptomatic” from
those who are ”presymptomatic”, since clinical SARS-CoV-2 infections are
typically asymptomatic in the beginning but those infected later develop symptoms.
“Asymptomatic” refers to people who remain without symptoms for at least
14 days
Results:
--
PCR studies:
-- 19 studies had longitudinal data on symptoms, with 14 providing information
on the evolution of whether they subsequently developed symptoms
--
proportion of persons who tested positive and remained asymptomatic ranged from
11.1% to 100%, median 72.3% (interquartile range, IQR 56.7%-89.7%) [the
interquartile range is the middle 50% of values, ranging from the 25th
to the 75th percentile]
-- 4 of the studies (England, Iceland, and Indiana) had representative
population samples and found that 43.0% to
76.5% of people had no symptoms at the time
of testing, with median of 45.6% (IQR 43.6%
to 61.8%).
-- unfortunately, these studies did not have longitudinal followup, so unclear
if these were asymptomatic or presymptomatic
--but,
from the data above from the 14 studies, a median of 72.3% who tested positive
by PCR who were asymptomatic at testing and remained so, would suggest that about
72.3% of the 45.6% who had no symptoms at time of testing might remain
asymptomatic (ie, about 33%)
--
antibody testing:
--
18 studies, 6 used random selection of participants to achieve a representative
sample
-- 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%-43.4%)
-- the highest quality data came from the 2 largest studies in England
(365,104) people and Spain (61,075 people) which found that asymptomatic
SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 32.4% in England and 33.0% in Spain [pretty
strikingly similar numbers…]
Commentary:
-- this systematic review did not include a meta-analysis since
the studies were so disparate that the authors felt they could not elicit a
quantitative summary (as done in meta-analyses), and instead provided a range
of results
-- other blogs have reviewed some of the articles on asymptomatic
infections: eg see http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/2020/08/covid-asymptomatic-people-have-high.html
, which also found that some asymptomatic patients have very high viral loads
and therefore might have quite transmissible virus. (other studies have found
lower viral loads in some patients with mild infections)
--another blog reviewed an Antarctic cruise ship which had pretty
impressive epidemiologic data, and found lots of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2
(81%!!) and pretty
clear asymptomatic transmission: see http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/2020/06/covid-asymptomatic-infections-and-viral.html
-- a Chinese study also found a 33% rate of asymptomatic
infections
-- a recent nursing home study noted high levels of asymptomatic
infections, on the order of 60-80%, and noted the recent decrease in cases of
covid is perhaps
best explained by herd immunity (see http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/2021/05/covid-herd-immunity-in-nursing-homes.html
)
Limitations:
--
as with any systematic review (or meta-analysis for that matter), they are
including studies that have very different populations, different outcomes
measured, different times that these outcomes were measured (and the disease
may change over time because of different prevalences, mutations, treatments,
or even human biases that might evolve over time). Therefore, the summary data
may obscure how disparate the studies were and challenge the accuracy of the
analysis. It is notable, however, how consistently high the number of
asymptomatic patients were over the diverse studies.
--
there are issues/concerns regarding the antibody test:
-- these likely reflect older infections, so a positive antibody without
symptoms is highly suggestive of an asymptomatic infection
-- but, some patients who have clinical SARS-CoV-2 infections never develop
detectable antibodies, perhaps because the infection was without an adaptive
immune response. There also may be a role in mucosal immunity in clearing
infection, though IgA antibodies are not routinely assessed
-- a Swiss study, for example, found that antibodies remain negative or became
positive 12 to 14 days after symptom onset
-- this lack of antibodies, especially common in those with milder infections
(and probably also in those who are asymptomatic) would likely underestimate
asymptomatic disease. the above data suggests that the percentage of
those with asymptomatic disease ascertained by antibody testing may be
lower than by PCR testing
-- defining symptoms of Covid in those with positive antibody tests may not be
so accurate:
-- this may require recall of symptoms many months prior, and minor symptoms
may not be remembered, falsely raising the reported % of asymptomatic
infections
-- but, the contrary might also happen, where patients might have mild symptoms
from another viral upper respiratory infection and misidentified as covid
infection because of heightened covid awareness. And falsely lowering the
reported % of asymptomatic infections
--this
study does not address transmissibility of infection from those with
asymptomatic infection, which has been reported as noted above, though hard to
know the rate, given the lack of large-scale community data on asymptomatic
infections and longitudinal followup
So,
this study does add some numbers to the incidence of asymptomatic disease,
suggesting (as we knew) that it is quite common, with some clear implications:
--our
estimates of covid cases clearly underestimates the true number, since
asymptomatics typically are not counted
--the
lack of clear numbers of asymptomatic infections blunts our ability to
determine what is “herd immunity” in different populations . herd immunity may
be different with different SARS-CoV-2 variants, some of which may be more
transmissible and require a higher population immunity by prior infection
(including asymptomatic) plus vaccination rates to achieve sufficient
population immunity to progressively decrease infection prevalence
--this
asymptomatic cohort can continue to be a source of viral transmission (and this
may well happen in those vaccinated, though not clear in the literature). Which
does suggest that mask wearing may still be useful in those vaccinated but in
higher risk situations (indoors, closed windows/doors) and in higher risk
people (comorbidities, or older age). Though it is clear that vaccination is
the primary way to decrease our current scourge: see http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/2021/05/covid-herd-immunity-in-nursing-homes.html
geoff
If you would like to be on the regular email list for upcoming blogs, please contact me at gmodest@uphams.org
to get access
to all of the blogs (2 options):
1. go to http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/ to see them in reverse chronological order
2. click on 3
parallel lines top left, if you want to see blogs by category, then click on
"labels" and choose a category
3. or you can
just click on the magnifying glass on top right, then type in a name in
the search box and get all the blogs with that name in them
or: go to https://www.bucommunitymedicine.org/ ,
a website from the Community Medicine section at Boston Medical Center.
This site does have a very searchable and accessible list of my blogs (though
there have been a few that did not upload over the last year or two). but
overall it is much easier to view blogs and displays more at a time.
please feel
free to circulate this to others. also, if you send me their emails, i can add
them to the list
Comments
Post a Comment
if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org