SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and transmission risk factors among high-risk close contacts: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Background The proportion of asymptomatic carriers and transmission risk factors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among household and non-household contacts remains unclear. In Singapore, extensive contact tracing by the Ministry of Health for every diagnosed COVID-19 case, and legally enforced quarantine and intensive health surveillance of close contacts provided a rare opportunity to determine asymptomatic attack rates and SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors among community close contacts of patients with COVID-19. Methods This retrospective cohort study involved all close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Singapore, identified between Jan 23 and April 3, 2020. Household contacts were defined as individuals who shared a residence with the index COVID-19 case. Non-household close contacts were defined as those who had contact for at least 30 min within 2 m of the index case. All patients with COVID-19 in Singapore received inpatient treatment, with access restricted to health-care staff. All close contacts were quarantined for 14 days with thrice-daily symptom monitoring via telephone. Symptomatic contacts underwent PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. Secondary clinical attack rates were derived from the prevalence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 among close contacts. Consenting contacts underwent serology testing and detailed exposure risk assessment. Bayesian modelling was used to estimate the prevalence of missed diagnoses and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive cases. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors. Findings Between Jan 23 and April 3, 2020, 7770 close contacts (1863 household contacts, 2319 work contacts, and 3588 social contacts) linked to 1114 PCR-confirmed index cases were identified. Symptom-based PCR testing detected 188 COVID-19 cases, and 7582 close contacts completed quarantine without a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Among 7518 (96·8%) of the 7770 close contacts with complete data, the secondary clinical attack rate was 5·9% (95% CI 4·9–7·1) for 1779 household contacts, 1·3% (0·9–1·9) for 2231 work contacts, and 1·3% (1·0–1·7) for 3508 social contacts. Bayesian analysis of serology and symptom data obtained from 1150 close contacts (524 household contacts, 207 work contacts, and 419 social contacts) estimated that a symptom-based PCR-testing strategy missed 62% (95% credible interval 55–69) of COVID-19 diagnoses, and 36% (27–45) of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection were asymptomatic. Sharing a bedroom (multivariable odds ratio [OR] 5·38 [95% CI 1·82–15·84]; p=0·0023) and being spoken to by an index case for 30 min or longer (7·86 [3·86–16·02]; p<0·0001) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission among household contacts. Among non-household contacts, exposure to more than one case (multivariable OR 3·92 [95% CI 2·07–7·40], p<0·0001), being spoken to by an index case for 30 min or longer (2·67 [1·21–5·88]; p=0·...

Sero-surveillance for IgG to SARS-CoV-2 at antenatal care clinics in two Kenyan referral hospitals

“…The proportion of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections that have been reported as asymptomatic ranges from 36%-49% [1][2][3][4] ; in India 94% of a random population sample who had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 reported having had no symptoms 5 . Symptoms are more common with increasing age and therefore the proportion of infections that are asymptomatic differs with the age-structure of each population.…”

Risk at mass-gathering events and the usefulness of complementary events during COVID-19 pandemic

“…A published study estimated that 36% of infections result in asymptomatic individuals 9 . Although viral transmission from asymptomatic individuals contributes to the disease spread, the relative risk of the transmission from asymptomatic individuals is 35% compared with that of symptomatic people 10 .…”

Occupational hazards in anaesthesiology during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Anaesthesiologists typically work in many different locations and circumstances, thus experiencing different infection risk exposure levels. characteristics of particular tasks and conditions under which they are performed determine the type and extent of risk and prompt specific precautions, which are described below [2,3,26,27].…”

“…Main considerations regard the duration of exposure (the more prolonged the exposure, the higher the risk) [26], the mechanism and intensity of aerosol generation [28][29][30], as well as direct contact with contaminated and potentially contaminated surfaces (such as PPE during doffing) [12]. the importance of the latter is backed by identification of infectious viral particles in some of the samples taken from contaminated surfaces [31].…”