Nancy H L Leung1, Cuiling Xu, Dennis K M Ip, Benjamin J Cowling. 1. From the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The fraction of persons with influenza virus infection, who do not report any signs or symptoms throughout the course of infection is referred to as the asymptomatic fraction. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published estimates of the asymptomatic fraction of influenza virus infections. We found that estimates of the asymptomatic fraction were reported from two different types of studies: first, outbreak investigations with short-term follow-up of potentially exposed persons and virologic confirmation of infections; second, studies conducted across epidemics typically evaluating rates of acute respiratory illness among persons with serologic evidence of infection, in some cases adjusting for background rates of illness from other causes. RESULTS: Most point estimates from studies of outbreak investigations fell in the range 4%-28% with low heterogeneity (I = 0%) with a pooled mean of 16% (95% confidence interval = 13%, 19%). Estimates from the studies conducted across epidemics without adjustment were very heterogeneous (point estimates 0%-100%; I = 97%), while estimates from studies that adjusted for background illnesses were more consistent with point estimates in the range 65%-85% and moderate heterogeneity (I = 58%). Variation in estimates could be partially explained by differences in study design and analysis, and inclusion of mild symptomatic illnesses as asymptomatic in some studies. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of the asymptomatic fraction are affected by the study design, and the definitions of infection and symptomatic illness. Considerable differences between the asymptomatic fraction of infections confirmed by virologic versus serologic testing may indicate fundamental differences in the interpretation of these two indicators.
BACKGROUND: The fraction of persons with influenza virus infection, who do not report any signs or symptoms throughout the course of infection is referred to as the asymptomatic fraction. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published estimates of the asymptomatic fraction of influenza virus infections. We found that estimates of the asymptomatic fraction were reported from two different types of studies: first, outbreak investigations with short-term follow-up of potentially exposed persons and virologic confirmation of infections; second, studies conducted across epidemics typically evaluating rates of acute respiratory illness among persons with serologic evidence of infection, in some cases adjusting for background rates of illness from other causes. RESULTS: Most point estimates from studies of outbreak investigations fell in the range 4%-28% with low heterogeneity (I = 0%) with a pooled mean of 16% (95% confidence interval = 13%, 19%). Estimates from the studies conducted across epidemics without adjustment were very heterogeneous (point estimates 0%-100%; I = 97%), while estimates from studies that adjusted for background illnesses were more consistent with point estimates in the range 65%-85% and moderate heterogeneity (I = 58%). Variation in estimates could be partially explained by differences in study design and analysis, and inclusion of mild symptomatic illnesses as asymptomatic in some studies. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of the asymptomatic fraction are affected by the study design, and the definitions of infection and symptomatic illness. Considerable differences between the asymptomatic fraction of infections confirmed by virologic versus serologic testing may indicate fundamental differences in the interpretation of these two indicators.
Authors: Michael L Jackson; Anne M France; Kathy Hancock; Xiuhua Lu; Vic Veguilla; Hong Sun; Feng Liu; James Hadler; Brian H Harcourt; Douglas H Esposito; Christopher M Zimmerman; Jacqueline M Katz; Alicia M Fry; Stephanie J Schrag Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Steven Riley; Kin O Kwok; Kendra M Wu; Danny Y Ning; Benjamin J Cowling; Joseph T Wu; Lai-Ming Ho; Thomas Tsang; Su-Vui Lo; Daniel K W Chu; Edward S K Ma; J S Malik Peiris Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Vernon J Lee; Mark I Chen; Jonathan Yap; Jocelyn Ong; Wei-Yen Lim; Raymond T P Lin; Ian Barr; Jimmy B S Ong; Tze Minn Mak; Lee Gan Goh; Yee Sin Leo; Paul M Kelly; Alex R Cook Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: James M Simmerman; Piyarat Suntarattiwong; Jens Levy; Richard G Jarman; Suchada Kaewchana; Robert V Gibbons; Ben J Cowling; Wiwan Sanasuttipun; Susan A Maloney; Timothy M Uyeki; Laurie Kamimoto; Tawee Chotipitayasunondh Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Dennis K M Ip; Lincoln L H Lau; Nancy H L Leung; Vicky J Fang; Kwok-Hung Chan; Daniel K W Chu; Gabriel M Leung; J S Malik Peiris; Timothy M Uyeki; Benjamin J Cowling Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Q Sue Huang; Don Bandaranayake; Tim Wood; E Claire Newbern; Ruth Seeds; Jacqui Ralston; Ben Waite; Ange Bissielo; Namrata Prasad; Angela Todd; Lauren Jelley; Wendy Gunn; Anne McNicholas; Thomas Metz; Shirley Lawrence; Emma Collis; Amanda Retter; Sook-San Wong; Richard Webby; Judy Bocacao; Jennifer Haubrock; Graham Mackereth; Nikki Turner; Barbara McArdle; John Cameron; Edwin G Reynolds; Michael G Baker; Cameron C Grant; Colin McArthur; Sally Roberts; Adrian Trenholme; Conroy Wong; Susan Taylor; Paul Thomas; Jazmin Duque; Diane Gross; Mark G Thompson; Marc-Alain Widdowson Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 5.226