Abstract:We have read with interest the recent paper of Tu H et al1Tu H Tu S Gao S Shao A Sheng J Current epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19; a global perspective from China.J Infect. 2020; 81 (Epub 2020/04/22PubMed PMID: 32315723; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7166041): 1-9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.011Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (192) Google Scholar, which suggesting that healthcare workers have a high risk of infection when providing clinical care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As of February 12, 2020, more than 3,000 healthcare workers in Hubei Province, China, have been infected, and most of them are from non-infectious disease departments2Network CN.Infection of Over 3000 Medical Staff in Hubei 2020 [cited2020 March 31]. Available from: http://www.chinanews.com/m/sh/2020/03-06/9116170.shtml?ivk_sa=1023197a.Google Scholar. A total of 110 of 9684 healthcare workers were diagnosed with COVID-19 in Tongji Hospital, a large comprehensive tertiary hospital in Wuhan, with an infection rate of 1.1%3Lai X Wang M Qin C Tan L Ran L Chen D et al.Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) infection among health care workers and implications for prevention measures in a tertiary hospital in Wuhan.China. JAMA Network Open. 2020; 3 (e209666–e)https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.9666Crossref Scopus (300) Google Scholar. Here, we would like to share our study that reported the results of mass screenings among healthcare workers from a comprehensive tertiary hospital and assessed the infection status during different periods, which was a key step in tracking hospital infection and preventing the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This single-center study included 1059 cases of healthcare workers in Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. All the subjects had been screened twice for SARS-CoV-2, the first from March 8 to April 19, 2020, and the second from May 13 to June 10, 2020. The blood samples and nasopharyngeal swabs from each participant were collected respectively for the SARS-CoV-2-specific serological test and RT-PCR test. According to the manufacturer's instructions, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM were detected using the Diagnostic Kit for IgM/IgG Antibody to Coronavirus (Colloidal Gold Method) (Livzon Diagnostics Inc.). The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swab samples were detected using real-time RT-PCR assay with the Chinese Control and Prevention (China CDC) recommended Kit (DAAN Gene Co., Ltd. of Sun Yat-sen University). All analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software version 20.0 (IBM Corp). Among the 1059 healthcare workers, 262 were male (24.7%) and 797 were female (75.3%). The median age was 32.69 (± 7.7) years. As shown in Table 1, the positive rates of SARS-CoV-2 RNA among these healthcare workers were 1.8% from March 8 to April 19, and decreased to 0.3% from May 13 to June 10, with significantly statistical difference (χ2 = 11.759, P = 0.001). The positive rates of SARS-CoV-2-IgM antibodies were 3.5% from March 8 to April 19, and decreased to 1.4% from May 13 to June 10, with significantly statistical difference (χ2 = 9.542, P = 0.002). The positive rates of SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies were 11.7% from March 8 to April 19, and decreased to 9.3% from May 13 to June 10, with no statistical difference (χ2 = 3.133, P = 0.077). Among the 19 healthcare workers who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA form March 8 to April 19, only one remained positive form May 13 to June 10, and the rest turned negative (94.7%). Among the 37 healthcare workers with IgM positive from March 8 to April 19, 15 (40.5%) healthcare workers remained positive from May 13 to June 10, and 22 (59.5%) healthcare workers turned negative. Among 124 healthcare workers with IgG positive from March 8 to April 19, 89 (71.8%) healthcare workers remained positive from May 13 to June 10, and 35 healthcare workers turned negative (28.2%). During the second screening from May 13 to June 10, there were 2 new cases positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, 10 new cases positive for IgG, and no new case positive for IgM.Table 1The positive rates of serology and RT–PCR tests among healthcare workers in different periods. (N = 1059)March 8 to April 19May 13 to June 10χ2P valueRNA+ (%)19 (1.8%)3 (0.3%)11.7590.001IgM+ (%)37 (3.5%)15 (1.4%)9.5420.002IgG+ (%)124 (11.7%)99 (9.3%)3.1330.077RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction Open table in a new tab RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction During the prevalence of COVID-19, healthcare workers are at high risk of infection due to exposure to droplets or aerosols from patients' respiratory tracts. This study showed that the positive rates of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and IgM in healthcare workers from March 8 to April 19 were higher than the periods from May 13 to June 10. This is because that people's understanding of the virus and the knowledge of infection control were relatively insufficient during the early outbreak. After the first screening, the routine infection control practices and contact precautions were released and implemented according to the WHO and CDC guidelines4China NHCo. New coronavirus pneumonia prevention and control program (Trial 7th edn). March 3, 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 6]. Available from: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7653p/202003/46c9294a7dfe4cef80dc7f5912eb1989/files/ce3e6945832a438eaae415350a8ce964.pdf.Google Scholar,5Organization WH.The infection prevention and control in medical facilities when novel coronavirus infection is suspected. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 6]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330674/9789240000957-chi.pdf.Google Scholar. The importance of compliance with and proper training in infection control procedures were emphasized during these situations. Healthcare workers were urged to wear the correct personal protective equipment (PPE), such as surgical masks or N-95 respirators, disposable isolation gowns, disposable patient inspection gloves, work hat, goggles or marks and shoe covers, according to the risk level6Notice of the general office of the National Health Commission on Further Strengthening the protection of medical personnel during the period of epidemic prevention and control: National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China; 2020. Available from: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-02/20/content_5481310.htm.Google Scholar. The work schedules with appropriate numbers and lengths of shifts were provided for healthcare workers to ensure that they get adequate rest while coping with the increased workload. As is observed from the second screening, the infection rates were significantly decreased and the nosocomial infection were effectively controlled, which suggested that reasonable medical intervention measures and standardized personal protection protocols are very necessary for infection prevention and control. Hospital services should improve emergency capacity, timely formulate protection guidelines, and provide adequate supplies of protective equipments. In this study, the infections among healthcare workers mainly peaked in the early stage of the Wuhan outbreak. Fewer new infections were detected in the second screening from May 13 to June 10. The presence of IgM antibodies was relatively short-lived and 59.5% cases became seronegative for IgM in the second screening. The presence of IgG antibodies lasted longer and 71.8% cases remained seropositive for IgG in the second screening. Shu H et al. had reported that the IgM fell to below the baseline level at about day 36, while IgG still maintained a relatively high level7Shu H Wang S Ruan S Wang Y Zhang J Yuan Y et al.Dynamic Changes of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients at early stage of outbreak.Virol Sin. 2020; (Epub 2020/07/29PubMed PMID: 32720214; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7383121): 1-8https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-020-00268-5Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar. Therefore, IgM was suitable for the detection of early infections, while IgG was a sensitive indicator for the detection of past infections. Mass screening of healthcare workers and rapid identification of potentially infected staff through serological tests contributed to protecting healthcare workers and reducing cross-infection. In conclusion, early screening and standardized personal protection measures can effectively reduce the risk of cross-infection. The infection control guidelines designed for different levels of exposure risk have important implications for worker protection and nosocomial infection control. None. We would like to thank all participants involved in this study.

Abstract:Asymptomatic people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are of great concern as they undermine control interventions that rely on identifying symptomatic cases. However, current reports of asymptomatic infections were mostly cross-sectional case reports [1Rothe C. Schunk M. Sothmann P. Bretzel G. Froeschl G. Wallrauch C. et al.Transmission of 2019-nCoV infection from an asymptomatic contact in Germany.N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 970-971Crossref PubMed Scopus (2832) Google Scholar, 2Chan J.F. Yuan S. Kok K. To K.K.W. Chu H. Yang J. et al.A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster.Lancet. 2020; 395: 514-523Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6268) Google Scholar, 3Pan X. Chen D. Xia Y. Wu X. Li T. Ou X. et al.Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection.Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; 20: 410-411Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (430) Google Scholar, 4Bai Y. Yao L. Wei T. Tian F. Jin D.Y. Chen L. et al.Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19.JAMA. 2020; (epub ahead of print)Crossref PubMed Scopus (3099) Google Scholar, 5Huang R. Xia J. Chen Y. Shan C. Wu C. A family cluster of SARS-CoV-2 infection involving 11 patients in Nanjing, China.Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; (epub ahead of print)Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (103) Google Scholar]. Do they develop symptoms later? Is an asymptomatic period a part of the natural course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), or a chronic condition? Is the asymptomatic patient in an incubation period or a subclinical infection, or are they a chronic asymptomatic carrier of SARS-CoV-2 like Typhoid Mary? These questions are of great significance for understanding the spectrum, natural history and epidemiology of COVID-19. Therefore, we followed up virologically confirmed COVID-19 patients in Shanghai Public Health Centre who had no subjective symptoms on admission. As of March 4th, 2020, a total of 328 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 in Shanghai. Among them, 13 patients were asymptomatic at the diagnosis (Fig. 1). They also had no subjective symptoms within 2 weeks before admission. Their oral temperature was no more than 37.3°C on admission. All of them were close contacts of the confirmed cases and were admitted to Shanghai Public Health Clinic Centre within 48 h after diagnosis was established. Their mean age was 51.8 years (range: 25–80 years). Six of them were male. On admission, patients revealed slight laboratory abnormalities. Leucocytes were below the normal range in two patients (15.4%). Ten patients (76.9%) had differing degrees of elevation of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Liver function, renal function, and coagulation function were within the normal range, as were the levels of lactate dehydrogenase and procalcitonin. During follow-up, three patients developed symptoms at the second day of hospitalization, including sore throat, non-productive cough, chest distress, and diarrhoea (patients 1–3). The other ten patients remained asymptomatic. All patients underwent chest CT scan at admission and were followed up every 3 days. Twelve of them showed multiple ground-glass opacities that characterized SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia on admission (patients 1–3, 5–13), and four of these showed radiographic progression during hospitalization, but all showed improvement before discharge (patients 1–3 and 12). Patient 4 remained asymptomatic and had no evidence of radiographic abnormalities consistent with COVID-19. All patients tested SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR-negative at a median time of 13 days (range 3–19 days). When we find an RT-PCR-positive patient with no subjective symptoms, there are several possibilities. First, the patient is in the incubation period. The incubation period occurs in an acute disease, and is the time between the moment of exposure to an infectious agent and the appearance of signs and symptoms of the disease. In other words, this patient will develop symptoms or signs later, but has not yet done so. Second, the patient has developed signs, such as pneumonia on chest CT, but has not yet had subjective symptoms. This patient is actually in the period of illness. This is the case for our patients 5–13, and also for patients 1–3 before their symptom onset. Third, if this patient turns RT-PCR-negative later and has never experienced symptoms or signs, this patient should be regarded as having a subclinical infection, like patient 4 in our cohort. Fourth, if this patient continues to be asymptomatic and has no signs, and the RT-PCR remains positive for a long time, then this patient is an asymptomatic chronic carrier. No such cases were found in our cohort as all patients turned RT-PCR-negative in 3 weeks. These four types of asymptomatic patients have completely different significance for the disease spectrum and natural history of COVID-19. If we can make a diagnosis early enough, we should be able to detect patients in the incubation period. In our cohort, three patients (patients 1–3) developed symptoms later and became typical COVID-19 patients. We also found that 2.7% of patients (9/328) continued asymptomatic even with pulmonary involvement (patients 5–13). Although they underwent the pathological process of pneumonia, like most COVID-19 patients, they were blind spots for control interventions based on symptomatic case screening because they never developed symptoms. We did not find chronic asymptomatic carriers in our cohort. There have been no previous cases of human chronic carriers of coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. We think that there is probably no chronic carrier state for SARS-CoV-2. Although subclinical infections accounted for only 0.3% of our cohort (1/328, patient 4), it represents only the tip of the iceberg. The proportion of subclinical infections should be derived from future serological studies. A positive nasopharyngeal-swab or throat-swab RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in an asymptomatic patient suggests that they may have the potential to infect others. However, the viral loads and infectivity of these patients may vary widely. Due to limited resources, we did not perform these tests. Further investigations are needed to determine the potential for and mode of contagion of asymptomatic patients to develop more scientific control strategies. XZ and YL contributed equally to this work. Conception or design of the work: XZ, YL, WZ. Data collection and patient care: TL, WZ. Data analysis and drafting the article: XZ, YL. Critical revision of the article: WZ. Final approval of the version for publication: all of the authors. The authors declare no competing interests. No funding was received for this work. We thank all physicians who participated in this study for patient enrolment and follow-up, and show the greatest appreciation to all people, especially health workers, for their valuable input into disease control.

Asymptomatic infection by SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers: A study in a large teaching hospital in Wuhan, China

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

Mass SARS-CoV-2 Molecular and Serological Screening of Medical Staff and Patients in Hangzhou, China: No Evidence of RNA Detection, Low Seroprevalence, and Limited Exposure Risk in the Hospital Setting.

Tracing Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Carriers among 3674 Hospital Staff:A Cross-Sectional Survey

High SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Prevalence among Healthcare Workers Exposed to COVID-19 Patients.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and asymptomatic viral carriage in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study

Positive Rate of Serology and RT-PCR for COVID-19 among Community Residents and Healthcare Workers in Wuhan, China

Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections

Viral Transmission and Clinical Features in Asymptomatic Carriers of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China.

Clinical Characteristics of 132 Healthcare Worker Cases with COVID‐19: A Retrospective Study from a Single Center in Wuhan, China

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Household Contacts of a Healthcare Provider, Wuhan, China

Characterization of an Asymptomatic Cohort of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (Sars-Cov-2) Infected Individuals Outside of Wuhan, China.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-2019) Infection Among Health Care Workers and Implications for Prevention Measures in a Tertiary Hospital in Wuhan, China

Anti–SARS-CoV Immunoglobulin G in Healthcare Workers, Guangzhou, China

High Incidence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Chongqing, China

Nosocomial Outbreak of COVID-19 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China

Positive Rate of Serology and RT-PCR for COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers During Different Periods in Wuhan, China

Healthcare-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is less symptomatic than community-acquired disease among healthcare workers

The epidemiological and radiographical characteristics of asymptomatic infections with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Follow-up of Asymptomatic Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Analysis of the Infection Status of Healthcare Workers in Wuhan During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-sectional Study.