Asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review

Modeling the health impact of increasing vaccine coverage and nonpharmaceutical interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 in Ghana

Seroprevalence studies assessing community exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Ghana concluded that population-level immunity remained low as of February 2021. Thus, it is important to demonstrate how increasing vaccine coverage reduces the economic and public health impacts associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission. To that end, this study used a Susceptible-Exposed-Presymptomatic-Symptomatic-Asymptomatic-Recovered-Dead-Vaccinated compartmental model to simulate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission and the role of public health interventions in Ghana. The impact of increasing vaccination rates and decline in transmission rates due to nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on cumulative infections and deaths averted was explored under different scenarios. Latin hypercube sampling-partial rank correlation coefficient (LHS-PRCC) was used to investigate the uncertainty and sensitivity of the outcomes to the parameters. Simulation results suggest that increasing the vaccination rate to achieve 50% coverage was associated with almost 60,000 deaths and 25 million infections averted. In comparison, a 50% decrease in the transmission coefficient was associated with the prevention of about 150,000 deaths and 50 million infections. The LHS-PRCC results indicated that in the context of vaccination rate, cumulative infections and deaths averted were most sensitive to vaccination rate, waning immunity rates from vaccination, and waning immunity from natural infection. This study's findings illustrate the impact of increasing vaccination coverage and/or reducing the transmission rate by NPI adherence in the prevention of COVID-19 infections and deaths in Ghana.

Hindsight2020: Characterizing Uncertainty in the COVID-19 Scientific Literature

Following emerging, re-emerging, and endemic pathogen outbreaks, the rush to publish and the risk of data misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and even misinformation puts an even greater onus on methodological rigor, which includes revisiting initial assumptions as new evidence becomes available. This study sought to understand how and when early evidence emerges and evolves when addressing different types of recurring pathogen-related questions. By applying claim-matching by means of deep learning Natural Language Processing (NLP) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) scientific literature against a set of expert-curated evidence, patterns in timing across different COVID-19 questions-and-answers were identified, to build a framework for characterizing uncertainty in emerging infectious disease (EID) research over time. COVID-19 was chosen as a use case for this framework given the large and accessible datasets curated for scientists during the beginning of the pandemic. Timing patterns in reliably answering broad COVID-19 questions often do not align with general publication patterns, but early expert-curated evidence was generally stable. Because instability in answers often occurred within the first 2 to 6 mo for specific COVID-19 topics, public health officials could apply more conservative policies at the start of future pandemics, to be revised as evidence stabilizes.

How Asymptomatic Transmission Influences Mitigation and Suppression Strategies during a Pandemic

Asymptomatic transmission complicates any public health strategies to combat a pandemic, which proved especially accurate in the case of COVID-19. Although asymptomatic cases are not unique to COVID-19, the high asymptomatic case rate raised many problems for developing effective public health interventions. The current modeling effort explored how asymptomatic transmission might impact pandemic responses in four key areas: isolation procedures, changes in reproduction rate, the potential for reduced transmission from asymptomatic cases, and social adherence to public health measures. A high rate of asymptomatic cases effectively requires large-scale public health suppression and mitigation procedures given that quarantine procedures alone could not prevent an outbreak for a virus such as SARS-CoV-2. This problem only becomes worse without lowering the effective reproduction rate, and even assuming the potential for reduced transmission, any virus with a high degree of asymptomatic transmission will likely produce a pandemic. Finally, there is a concern that asymptomatic individuals will also refuse to adhere to public health guidance. Analyses indicate that, given certain assumptions, even half of the population adhering to public health guidance could reduce the peak and flatten the curve by over 90%. Taken together, these analyses highlight the importance of taking asymptomatic cases into account when modeling viral spread and developing public health intervention strategies.

Transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Global evidence on the transmission of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be synthesized.

Methods

A 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.

Results

Of 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).

Conclusions

People 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.

A Hierarchical Framework for Assessing Transmission Causality of Respiratory Viruses

Systematic reviews of 591 primary studies of the modes of transmission for SARS-CoV-2 show significant methodological shortcomings and heterogeneity in the design, conduct, testing, and reporting of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. While this is partly understandable at the outset of a pandemic, evidence rules of proof for assessing the transmission of this virus are needed for present and future pandemics of viral respiratory pathogens. We review the history of causality assessment related to microbial etiologies with a focus on respiratory viruses and suggest a hierarchy of evidence to integrate clinical, epidemiologic, molecular, and laboratory perspectives on transmission. The hierarchy, if applied to future studies, should narrow the uncertainty over the twin concepts of causality and transmission of human respiratory viruses. We attempt to address the translational gap between the current research evidence and the assessment of causality in the transmission of respiratory viruses with a focus on SARS-CoV-2. Experimentation, consistency, and independent replication of research alongside our proposed framework provide a chain of evidence that can reduce the uncertainty over the transmission of respiratory viruses and increase the level of confidence in specific modes of transmission, informing the measures that should be undertaken to prevent transmission.

An in-depth analysis of 10 epidemiological terminologies used in the context of COVID-19

AIM

In this paper, we explore the contextual use of 10 epidemiological terminologies, their significance, and interpretation/misinterpretation in explaining various aspects of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We first establish the different purposes of the terms 'pandemic' and 'Public Health Emergency of International Concern.' We then discuss the confusion caused by using the 'case fatality rate' as opposed to 'infection fatality rate' during the pandemic and the uncertainty surrounding the limited usefulness of identifying someone as 'pre-symptomatic.' We highlight the ambiguity in the 'positivity rate' and the need to be able to generate data on 'excess mortality' during public health emergencies. We discuss the relevance of 'association and causation' in the context of the facemask controversy that existed at the start of the pandemic. We point out how the accepted epidemiological practice of discussing 'herd immunity' in the context of vaccines has been twisted to suit the political motive of a public health approach. Given that a high proportion of COVID-19 cases are asymptomatic, we go on to show how COVID-19 has blurred the lines between 'screening/diagnosis' and 'quarantine/isolation,' while giving birth to the new terminology of 'community quarantine.'

CONCLUSIONS

Applying the lessons learned from COVID-19 to better understand the above terminologies will help health professionals communicate effectively, strengthen the scientific agenda of epidemiology and public health, and support and manage future outbreaks efficiently.

The immunology of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: what are the key questions?

An important challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic has been to understand asymptomatic disease and the extent to which this may be a source of transmission. As asymptomatic disease is by definition hard to screen for, there is a lack of clarity about this aspect of the COVID-19 spectrum. Studies have considered whether the prevalence of asymptomatic disease is determined by differences in age, demographics, viral load, duration of shedding, and magnitude or durability of immunity. It is clear that adaptive immunity is strongly activated during asymptomatic infection, but some features of the T cell and antibody response may differ from those in symptomatic disease. Areas that need greater clarity include the extent to which asymptomatic disease leads to persistent symptoms (long COVID), and the quality, quantity and durability of immune priming required to confer subsequent protection.

Methodological problems of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care tests when used in mass testing

The aim of the current study is to perform model calculations on the possible use of SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as mass tests, using the quality criteria extracted from evidence-based research as an example for the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition to illustrating the problem of false positive test results, these calculations are used to examine their possible influence on the 7-day incidence. For a substantial period of time, this parameter formed the decisive basis for decisions on measures to protect the population in the wake of the COVID pandemic, which were taken by the government. Primarily, model calculations were performed for a base model of 1,000,000 SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests per week using various sensitivities and specificities reported in the literature, followed by sequential testing of the test positives obtained by a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Furthermore, a calculation was performed for an actual maximum model based on self-test contingents by the German Federal Ministry of Health. Assuming a number of 1,000,000 tests per week at a prevalence of 0.5%, a high number of false positive test results, a low positive predictive value, a high negative predictive value, and an increase in the 7-day incidence due to the additional antigen rapid tests of approx. 5/100,000 were obtained. A previous maximum calculation based on contingent numbers for self-tests given by the German Federal Ministry of Health even showed an additional possible influence on the 7-day incidence of 84.6/100,000. The model calculations refer in each case to representative population samples that would have to be drawn if the successive results were comparable which should be given, as far-reaching actions were based on this parameter. The additionally performed SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests increase the 7-day incidence in a clear way depending on the number of tests and clearly show their dependence on the respective number of tests. SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as well as the SARS-CoV-2-PCR test method should both be used exclusively in the presence of corresponding respiratory symptoms and not in symptom-free persons.

Epidemiological evaluation of mass testing in a small municipality in the Netherlands during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic

During 6 weeks in February-March 2021, the Dutch municipal health service Utrecht studied the epidemiological effects on test incidence and the detection of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with mass testing (MT). During MT, inhabitants of Bunschoten could repeatedly test regardless of symptoms and as often as desired at the close-by test facilities in the municipality. Data from the regular COVID-19 registration was used for analysis. In Bunschoten, MT caused a significant increase in test incidence and an immediate increase in the number of detected active infections, in contrast to a stabilisation in the rest of the province of Utrecht. Age distribution of test incidence shifted to the older population in Bunschoten during MT. During MT, there was a 6.8 percentage point increase in detected asymptomatic cases, a 0.4 percentage point increase in pre-symptomatic cases and a decrease of 0.5 days between onset of symptoms and test date. This study has shown that MT increases test incidence and helps to obtain a more complete view of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in a community, which can be useful in specific situations with a defined target group or goal. However, the question remains open whether the use of MT is proportionate to the overall gain.

Policy Design for COVID-19: Worldwide Evidence on the Efficacies of Early Mask Mandates and Other Policy Interventions

To understand the extent to which a policy instrument's early adoption is crucial in crisis management, we leverage unique worldwide data that record the daily evolution of policy mandate adoptions and COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. The analysis shows that the mask mandate is consistently associated with lower infection rates in the short term, and its early adoption boosts the long-term efficacy. By contrast, the other five policy instruments-domestic lockdowns, international travel bans, mass gathering bans, and restaurant and school closures-show weaker efficacy. Governments prepared for a public health crisis with stronger resilience or capacity and those with stronger collectivist cultures were quicker to adopt nationwide mask mandates. From a policy design perspective, policymakers must avoid overreacting with less effective instruments and underreacting with more effective ones during uncertain times, especially when interventions differ in efficacy and cost.

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of airborne transmission: a systematic review

Background: Airborne transmission is the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in the air. We carried out a systematic review to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies of the role of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We searched LitCovid, MedRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database from 1 February to 20 December 2020 and included studies on airborne transmission. Data were dual extracted and we assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool. Results: We included 67 primary studies and 22 reviews on airborne SARS-CoV-2. Of the 67 primary studies, 53 (79%) reported data on RT-PCR from air samples, 12 (18%) report cycle threshold values and 18 (127%) copies per sample volume. All primary studies were observational and of low quality. The research often lacked standard methods, standard sampling sizes and reporting items. We found 36 descriptions of different air samplers deployed. Of the 42 studies conducted in-hospital that reported binary RT-PCR tests, 24 (57%) reported positive results for SARs-CoV-2 (142 positives out of 1,403 samples: average 10.1%, range 0% to 100%). There was no pattern between the type of hospital setting (ICU versus non-ICU) and RT-PCR positivity. Seventeen studies reported potential air transmission in the outdoors or in the community, of which seven performed RT-PCR sampling, and two studies reported weak positive RNA samples for 2 or more genes (5 of 125 samples positive: average 4.0%). Ten studies attempted viral culture with no serial passage. Conclusion:  SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected intermittently in the air in various settings. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on airborne transmission are needed. The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions from being drawn about airborne transmission.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay to RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Peshawar

OBJECTIVES

Antigen based rapid diagnostic tests possesses a potential to be utilized along with Gold standard methods to detect Covid-19 infection to cope with the demand of testing. The aim of this study was to determine diagnostic accuracy of electrochemiluminescence based automated antigen detection immunoassay comparing with molecular based test RT-PCR (Covid-19).

METHODS

It was a cross-sectional study conducted in RMI Peshawar, from 1st April 2021 till 30th April 2021. The study comprised 170 individuals who were suspected of having Covid-19. Nasopharyngeal samples taken from suspected individuals were analyzed by RT-PCR and automated antigen test (Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen) simultaneously. The correlation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen with PCR positive and negative cases was analyzed for specificity, sensitivity respectively.

RESULTS

The ECLIA based Elecsys antigen test (Roche) revealed overall sensitivity 72%, specificity 95% and accuracy of 94.9%. Sensitivity of antigen test progressively declined from 94.3% in Ct <25 to 70.8% in Ct 26-29 and then to 47.2% in Ct 30-35.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of our study we conclude that automated antigen testing (Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen) cannot replace molecular based testing like RT PCR. Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag test should be used complementary to RT-PCR in testing algorithms. Frequent testing strategy should be adopted while using automated antigen testing to overcome its limitation in individuals with low viral loads.

COVID-19: The Disease, the Immunological Challenges, the Treatment with Pharmaceuticals and Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation

The year 2020 will be carved in the history books-with the proliferation of COVID-19 over the globe and with frontline health workers and basic scientists worldwide diligently fighting to alleviate life-threatening symptoms and curb the spread of the disease. Behind the shocking prevalence of death are countless families who lost loved ones. To these families and to humanity as a whole, the tallies are not irrelevant digits, but a motivation to develop effective strategies to save lives. However, at the onset of the pandemic, not many therapeutic choices were available besides supportive oxygen, anti-inflammatory dexamethasone, and antiviral remdesivir. Low-dose radiation (LDR), at a much lower dosage than applied in cancer treatment, re-emerged after a 75-year silence in its use in unresolved pneumonia, as a scientific interest with surprising effects in soothing the cytokine storm and other symptoms in severe COVID-19 patients. Here, we review the epidemiology, symptoms, immunological alterations, mutations, pharmaceuticals, and vaccine development of COVID-19, summarizing the history of X-ray irradiation in non-COVID diseases (especially pneumonia) and the currently registered clinical trials that apply LDR in treating COVID-19 patients. We discuss concerns, advantages, and disadvantages of LDR treatment and potential avenues that may provide empirical evidence supporting its potential use in defending against the pandemic.

Sodium Toxicity in the Nutritional Epidemiology and Nutritional Immunology of COVID-19

Dietary factors in the etiology of COVID-19 are understudied. High dietary sodium intake leading to sodium toxicity is associated with comorbid conditions of COVID-19 such as hypertension, kidney disease, stroke, pneumonia, obesity, diabetes, hepatic disease, cardiac arrhythmias, thrombosis, migraine, tinnitus, Bell's palsy, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, and polycystic ovary syndrome. This article synthesizes evidence from epidemiology, pathophysiology, immunology, and virology literature linking sodium toxicological mechanisms to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sodium toxicity is a modifiable disease determinant that impairs the mucociliary clearance of virion aggregates in nasal sinuses of the mucosal immune system, which may lead to SARS-CoV-2 infection and viral sepsis. In addition, sodium toxicity causes pulmonary edema associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome, as well as inflammatory immune responses and other symptoms of COVID-19 such as fever and nasal sinus congestion. Consequently, sodium toxicity potentially mediates the association of COVID-19 pathophysiology with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sodium dietary intake also increases in the winter, when sodium losses through sweating are reduced, correlating with influenza-like illness outbreaks. Increased SARS-CoV-2 infections in lower socioeconomic classes and among people in government institutions are linked to the consumption of foods highly processed with sodium. Interventions to reduce COVID-19 morbidity and mortality through reduced-sodium diets should be explored further.

Excellent option for mass testing during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: painless self-collection and direct RT-qPCR

The early identification of asymptomatic yet infectious cases is vital to curb the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and to control the disease in the post-pandemic era. In this paper, we propose a fast, inexpensive and high-throughput approach using painless nasal-swab self-collection followed by direct RT-qPCR for the sensitive PCR detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This approach was validated in a large prospective cohort study of 1038 subjects, analysed simultaneously using (1) nasopharyngeal swabs obtained with the assistance of healthcare personnel and analysed by classic two-step RT-qPCR on RNA isolates and (2) nasal swabs obtained by self-collection and analysed with direct RT-qPCR. Of these subjects, 28.6% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using nasopharyngeal swab sampling. Our direct RT-qPCR approach for self-collected nasal swabs performed well with results similar to those of the two-step RT-qPCR on RNA isolates, achieving 0.99 positive and 0.98 negative predictive values (cycle threshold [Ct] < 37). Our research also reports on grey-zone viraemia, including samples with near-cut-off Ct values (Ct ≥ 37). In all investigated subjects (n = 20) with grey-zone viraemia, the ultra-small viral load disappeared within hours or days with no symptoms. Overall, this study underscores the importance of painless nasal-swab self-collection and direct RT-qPCR for mass testing during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and in the post-pandemic era.

Epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentations, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19: a review of current evidence

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a public health crisis, infected millions of people, and caused a significant number of deaths. SARS-CoV-2 transmits from person to person through several routes, mainly via respiratory droplets, which makes it difficult to contain its spread into the community. Here, we provide an overview of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19.

AREAS COVERED

Direct person-to-person respiratory transmission has rapidly amplified the spread of coronavirus. In the absence of any clinically proven treatment options, the current clinical management of COVID-19 includes symptom management, infection prevention and control measures, optimized supportive care, and intensive care support in severe or critical illness. Developing an effective vaccine is now a leading research priority. Some vaccines have already been approved by the regulatory authorities for the prevention of COVID-19.

EXPERT OPINION

General prevention and protection measures regarding the containment and management of the second or third waves are necessary to minimize the risk of infection. Until now, four vaccines reported variable efficacies of between 62-95%, and two of them (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna) received FDA emergency use authorization. Equitable access and effective distribution of these vaccines in all countries will save millions of lives.

Coronavirus 2019 Infectious Disease Epidemic: Where We Are, What Can Be Done and Hope For

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads mainly by means of aerosols (microdroplets) in enclosed environments, especially those in which temperature and humidity are regulated by means of air-conditioning. About 30% of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease. Among them, approximately 25% require hospitalization. In medicine, cases are identified as those who become ill. During this pandemic, cases have been identified as those with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test, including approximately 70% who were asymptomatic-this has caused unnecessary anxiety. Individuals more than 65 years old, those affected by obesity, diabetes, asthma, or are immune-depressed owing to cancer and other conditions, are at a higher risk of hospitalization and of dying of COVID-19. Healthy individuals younger than 40 years very rarely die of COVID-19. Estimates of the COVID-19 mortality rate vary because the definition of COVID-19-related deaths varies. Belgium has the highest death rate at 154.9 per 100,000 persons, because it includes anyone who died with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, even those never tested for SARS-CoV-2. The United States includes all patients who died with a positive test, whether they died because of, or with, SARS-CoV-2. Countries that include only patients in which COVID-19 was the main cause of death, rather than a cofactor, have lower death rates. Numerous therapies are being developed, and rapid improvements are anticipated. Because of disinformation, only approximately 50% of the U.S. population plans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. By sharing accurate information, physicians, health professionals, and scientists play a key role in addressing myths and anxiety, help public health officials enact measures to decrease infections, and provide the best care for those who become sick. In this article, we discuss these issues.

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of airborne transmission: a systematic review

Background: Airborne transmission is the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in the air. We carried out a systematic review to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies of the role of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We searched LitCovid, MedRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database from 1 February to 20 December 2020 and included studies on airborne transmission. Data were dual extracted and we assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool. Results: We included 67 primary studies and 22 reviews on airborne SARS-CoV-2. Of the 67 primary studies, 53 (79%) reported data on RT-PCR air samples, 12 report cycle threshold values and 18 copies per sample volume. All primary studies were observational and of low quality. The research often lacked standard methods, standard sampling sizes and reporting items. We found 36 descriptions of different air samplers deployed. Of the 42 studies conducted in-hospital that reported binary RT-PCR tests, 24 (57%) reported positive results for SARs-CoV-2 (142 positives out of 1,403 samples: average 10.1%, range 0% to 100%). There was no pattern between the type of hospital setting (ICU versus non-ICU) and RT-PCR positivity. Seventeen studies reported potential air transmission in the outdoors or in the community. Seven performed RT-PCR sampling, of which two studies report weak positive RNA samples for 2 or more genes (5 of 125 samples positive: average 4.0%). Ten studies attempted viral culture with no serial passage for viral culture. Conclusion:  SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected intermittently in the air in various settings. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on airborne transmission are needed. The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions over airborne transmission.

Ultrasensitive Measurement of Both SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Antibodies from Saliva

Tests for COVID-19 generally measure SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA from nasal swabs or antibodies against the virus from blood. It has been shown, however, that both viral particles and antibodies against those particles are present in saliva, which is more accessible than both swabs and blood. We present methods for highly sensitive measurements of both viral RNA and antibodies from the same saliva sample. We developed an efficient saliva RNA extraction method and combined it with an ultrasensitive antibody test based on single molecule array (Simoa) technology. We apply our test to the saliva of patients who presented to the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms, some of whom tested positive with a conventional RT-qPCR nasopharyngeal swab test. We demonstrate that combining viral RNA detection by RT-qPCR with antibody detection by Simoa identifies more patients as infected than either method alone. Our results demonstrate the utility of combining viral RNA and antibody testing from saliva, a single easily accessible biofluid.

Effects of latency and age structure on the dynamics and containment of COVID-19

In this paper we develop an SEIR-type model of COVID-19, with account for two particular aspects: non-exponential distribution of incubation and recovery periods, as well as age structure of the population. For the mean-field model, which does not distinguish between different age groups, we demonstrate that including a more realistic Gamma distribution of incubation and recovery periods may not have an effect on the total number of deaths and the overall size of an epidemic, but it has a major effect in terms of increasing the peak numbers of infected and critical care cases, as well as on changing the timescales of an epidemic, both in terms of time to reach the peak, and the overall duration of an outbreak. In order to obtain more accurate estimates of disease progression and investigate different strategies for introducing and lifting the lockdown, we have also considered an age-structured version of the model, which has allowed us to include more accurate data on age-specific rates of hospitalisation and COVID-19 related mortality. Applying this model to three comparable neighbouring regions in the UK has delivered some fascinating insights regarding the effect of lockdown in regions with different population structure. We have discovered that for a fixed lockdown duration, the timing of its start is very important in the sense that the second epidemic wave after lifting the lockdown can be significantly smaller or larger depending on the specific population structure. Also, the later the fixed-duration lockdown is introduced, the smaller is the resulting final number of deaths at the end of the outbreak. When the lockdown is introduced simultaneously for all regions, increasing lockdown duration postpones and slightly reduces the epidemic peak, though without noticeable differences in peak magnitude between different lockdown durations.

Systems dynamics and the uncertainties of diagnostics, testing and contact tracing for COVID-19

The current COVID-19 pandemic contains an unprecedented amount of uncertainty and variability and thus, there is a critical need for understanding of the variation documented in the biological, policy, sociological, and infrastructure responses during an epidemic to support decisions at all levels. With the significant asymptomatic spread of the virus and without an immediate vaccine and pharmaceuticals available, the best feasible strategies for testing and diagnostics, contact tracing, and quarantine need to be optimized. With potentially high false negative test results, infected people would not be enrolled in contact-trace programs and thus, may not be quarantined. Similarly, without broad testing, asymptomatic people are not identified and quarantined. Interconnected system dynamics models can be used to optimize strategies for mitigations for decision support during a pandemic. We use a systems dynamics epidemiology model along with other interconnected system models within public health including hospitals, intensive care units, masks, contact tracing, social distancing, and a newly developed testing and diagnostics model to investigate the uncertainties with testing and to optimize strategies for detecting and diagnosing infected people. Using an orthogonal array Latin Hypercube experimental design, we ran 54 simulations each for two scenarios of 10% and 30% asymptomatic people, varying important inputs for testing and social distancing. Systems dynamics modeling, coupled with computer experimental design and statistical analysis can provide rapid and quantitative results for decision support. Our results show that widespread testing, contacting tracing and quarantine can curtail the pandemic through identifying asymptomatic people in the population.

An Overview of the Ongoing Clinical Issues of COVID-19

Childhood cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are on the rise as the pandemic continues to rage across the globe. Most children acquire infection from an adult household member. Children may stay asymptomatic, have a pre-symptomatic stage, or present with symptoms (fever, cough, and difficulty breathing being the most common). Nearly one-third of the pediatric cases (32%) in the United States occurred in children age 15 to 17 years. Children are also at risk of a postinfectious hyperinflammatory syndrome called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). The risk of vertical transmission is low (2%) in newborns of mothers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the gold standard for (SARS-CoV-2). Serology should be considered in a child with high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when NAAT is negative and at least 2 weeks have passed since symptom onset and for assessment of MIS-C. Easy fatigability after COVID-19 infection is reported in adults; however, data in children are lacking. Implementation of early and robust containment strategies coupled with universal COVID-19 vaccination are vital to halt the spread. [Pediatr Ann. 2021;50(2):e84-e89.].

Transmission dynamics and control measures of COVID-19 outbreak in China: a modelling study

COVID-19 is reported to have been brought under control in China. To understand the COVID-19 outbreak in China and provide potential lessons for other parts of the world, in this study we apply a mathematical model with multiple datasets to estimate the transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the severity of the illness associated with the infection, and how both were affected by unprecedented control measures. Our analyses show that before 19th January 2020, 3.5% (95% CI 1.7-8.3%) of  infected people were detected; this percentage increased to 36.6% (95% CI 26.1-55.4%) thereafter. The basic reproduction number (R0) was 2.33 (95% CI 1.96-3.69) before 8th February 2020; then the effective reproduction number dropped to 0.04(95% CI 0.01-0.10). This estimation also indicates that control measures taken since 23rd January 2020 affected the transmissibility about 2 weeks after they were introduced. The confirmed case fatality rate is estimated at 9.6% (95% CI 8.1-11.4%) before 15 February 2020, and then it reduced to 0.7% (95% CI 0.4-1.0%). This shows that SARS-CoV-2 virus is highly transmissible but may be less severe than SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. We found that at the early stage, the majority of R0 comes from undetected infectious people. This implies that successful control in China was achieved through reducing the contact rates among people in the general population and increasing the rate of detection and quarantine of the infectious cases.

Evaluating the Impact of Intervention Strategies on the First Wave and Predicting the Second Wave of COVID-19 in Thailand: A Mathematical Modeling Study

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly worldwide. This study aimed to assess and predict the incidence of COVID-19 in Thailand, including the preparation and evaluation of intervention strategies. An SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered) model was implemented with model parameters estimated using the Bayesian approach. The model's projections showed that the highest daily reported incidence of COVID-19 would be approximately 140 cases (95% credible interval, CrI: 83-170 cases) by the end of March 2020. After Thailand declared an emergency decree, the numbers of new cases and case fatalities decreased, with no new imported cases. According to the model's predictions, the incidence would be zero at the end of June if non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were strictly and widely implemented. These stringent NPIs reduced the effective reproductive number (Rt) to 0.73 per day (95% CrI: 0.53-0.93) during April and May. Sensitivity analysis showed that contact rate, hand washing, and face mask wearing effectiveness were the parameters that most influenced the number of reported daily new cases. Our evaluation shows that Thailand's intervention strategies have been highly effective in mitigating disease propagation. Continuing with these strict disease prevention behaviors could minimize the risk of a new COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand.

The effectiveness of visual triaging and testing of suspected COVID-19 cases in primary care setting in Saudi Arabia

Introduction:

Asymptomatic individuals could be a source of spreading the infection, especially in their households. Triaging and testing an individual for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection rely on the criteria included in the adopted triaging instrument, and adopted case definition of a suspected case. They both may need to be reviewed and modified to make them more effective in making the right decision.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was used to find out the effectiveness of triaging instrument and the case definition used in the fever clinic (FC) in one of our primary care centers. The data of 630 randomly selected participants who were tested in our center between April 12 and August 12 2020 were analyzed.

Results:

About 36.8% of the 630 tested participants were positive for COVID-19. Symptomatic patients were 3.93 (95% CI; 2.58, 5.98; P < 0.001) times more likely to test positive than asymptomatic ones. The participants with a history of contact with a COVID-19 confirmed case were 1.47 (95% CI; 1.03, 2.10; P = 0.032) times more likely to test positive compared to those without such history. Symptomatic with and without history of contact were 8.40 (95% CI; 3.23, 21.86; P < 0.001) and 4.91 (95% CI; 1.84, 13.09; P < 0.001) times more likely to test positive compared to asymptomatic contact, respectively. Moreover, patients with comorbidity were also 1.85 (95% CI; 1.31, 2.60; P < 0.001) times more likely to test positive than healthy ones. The mean of the number of the households, and the mean of the number of households tested positive significantly exceeded the means of those tested negative by 1.03 (95% CI; 0.48, 1.57; P < 0.001), and 0.98 (95% CI; 0.68, 1.28; P < 0.001), respectively. From the studied triaging items only symptoms, comorbidities, and the number of households tested positive were independently associated with testing positive. Moreover, from studied symptoms, only fever, cough, myalgia, and loss of taste and smell were independently associated with testing positive. Finally, from the studied comorbidities, only diabetes mellitus was independently associated with testing positive.

Conclusion:

At the time of outbreak and pandemic, people get worried and need to be reassured, and contacts would then seek testing. However, resources including manpower, material, and money need to be protected and used wisely. Thus, the adoption of an evidence-based updated testing policy is crucially needed. Furthermore, early identification of the potential sources of the infection is also crucially needed to control the spreading of the infection.

Seasonality of Respiratory Viral Infections: Will COVID-19 Follow Suit?

Respiratory viruses, including coronaviruses, are known to have a high incidence of infection during winter, especially in temperate regions. Dry and cold conditions during winter are the major drivers for increased respiratory tract infections as they increase virus stability and transmission and weaken the host immune system. The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in China in December 2020 and swiftly spread across the globe causing substantial health and economic burdens. Several countries are battling with the second wave of the virus after a devastating first wave of spread, while some are still in the midst of their first wave. It remains unclear whether SARS-CoV-2 will eventually become seasonal or will continue to circulate year-round. In an attempt to address this question, we review the current knowledge regarding the seasonality of respiratory viruses including coronaviruses and the viral and host factors that govern their seasonal pattern. Moreover, we discuss the properties of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential impact of meteorological factors on its spread.

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

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.

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

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.