Detection of Antinuclear Antibodies Targeting Intracellular Signal Transduction, Metabolism, Apoptotic Processes and Cell Death in Critical COVID-19 Patients.

Background and Objectives: The heterogeneity of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) lies within its diverse symptoms and severity, ranging from mild to lethal. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of mortality in COVID-19 patients, characterized by a hyper cytokine storm. Autoimmunity is proposed to occur as a result of COVID-19, given the high similarity of the immune responses observed in COVID-19 and autoimmune diseases. Here, we investigate the level of autoimmune antibodies in COVID-19 patients with different severities. Results: Initial screening for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) IgG using ELISA revealed that 1.58% (2/126) and 4% (5/126) of intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 cases expressed strong and moderate ANA levels, respectively. An additional sample was positive with immunofluorescence assays (IFA) screening. However, all the non-ICU cases (n=273) were ANA negative using both assays. Samples positive for ANA were further confirmed with large-scale autoantibody screening by phage immunoprecipitation-sequencing (PhIP-Seq). The majority of the ANA-positive samples showed "speckled" ANA pattern by microscopy and revealed autoantibody specificities that targeted proteins involved in intracellular signal transduction, metabolism, apoptotic processes, and cell death by PhIP-Seq; further denoting reactivity to nuclear and cytoplasmic antigens. Conclusion: Our results further support the notion of routine screening for autoimmune responses in COVID-19 patients, which might help improve disease prognosis and patient management. Further, results provide compelling evidence that ANA-positive individuals should be excluded from being donors for convalescent plasma therapy in the context of COVID-19.

Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are higher but decline faster in mRNA vaccinees compared to individuals with natural infection.

BACKGROUND: Waning protection against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants by pre-existing antibodies elicited due to current vaccination or natural infection is a global concern. Whether this is due to the waning of immunity to SARS-COV-2 remains unclear. AIM: We aimed to investigate the dynamics of antibody isotype responses among vaccinated naïve (VN) and naturally infected (NI) individuals. METHODS: We followed up antibody levels in COVID-19 mRNA-vaccinated subjects without prior infection (VN, n = 100) in two phases: phase-I (P-I) at ~ 1.4 and phase-II (P-II) at ~ 5.3 months. Antibody levels were compared to those of unvaccinated and naturally infected subjects (NI, n = 40) at ~ 1.7 (P-1) and 5.2 (P-II) months post-infection. Neutralizing antibodies (NTAb), anti-S-RBD-IgG, -IgM, and anti-S-IgA isotypes were measured. RESULTS: The VN group elicited significantly greater antibody responses (p < 0.001) than the NI group at P-I, except for IgM. In the VN group, a significant waning in antibody response was observed in all isotypes. There was about ~ a 4-fold decline in NTAb levels (p < 0.001), anti-S-RBD-IgG (~5-folds, p < 0.001), anti-S-RBD-IgM (~6-folds, p < 0.001), and anti-S1-IgA (2-folds, p < 0.001). In the NI group, a significant but less steady decline was notable in S-RBD-IgM (~2-folds, p < 0.001), and a much smaller but significant difference in NTAb (<2-folds, p < 0.001) anti-S-RBD IgG (<2-folds, p = 0.005). Unlike the VN group, the NI group mounted a lasting anti-S1-IgA response with no significant decline. Anti-S1-IgA, which were ~ 3 folds higher in VN subjects compared to NI in P-1 (p < 0.001), dropped to almost the same levels, with no significant difference observed between the two groups in P-II. CONCLUSION: While double-dose mRNA vaccination boosted antibody levels, vaccinated individuals' 'boost' was relatively short-lived.

Evaluation of commercially available fully automated and ELISA-based assays for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies.

Rapid and accurate measurement of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2)-specific neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) is paramount for monitoring immunity in infected and vaccinated subjects. The current gold standard relies on pseudovirus neutralization tests which require sophisticated skills and facilities. Alternatively, recent competitive immunoassays measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 nAbs are proposed as a quick and commercially available surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Here, we report the performance evaluation of three sVNTs, including two ELISA-based assays and an automated bead-based immunoassay for detecting nAbs against SARS-CoV-2. The performance of three sVNTs, including GenScript cPass, Dynamiker, and Mindray NTAb was assessed in samples collected from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (n = 160), COVID-19 vaccinated individuals (n = 163), and pre-pandemic controls (n = 70). Samples were collected from infected patients and vaccinated individuals 2-24 weeks after symptoms onset or second dose administration. Correlation analysis with pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) and immunoassays detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies was performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was generated to assess the optimal threshold for detecting nAbs by each assay. All three sVNTs showed an excellent performance in terms of specificity (100%) and sensitivity (100%, 97.0%, and 97.1% for GenScript, Dynamiker, and Mindray, respectively) in samples collected from vaccinated subjects. GenScript demonstrated the strongest correlation with pVNT (r = 0.743, R2 = 0.552), followed by Mindray (r = 0.718, R2 = 0.515) and Dynamiker (r = 0.608, R2 = 0.369). Correlation with anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies was variable, but the strongest correlations were observed between anti-RBD IgG antibodies and Mindray (r = 0.952, R2 = 0.907). ROC curve analyses demonstrated excellent performance for all three sVNT assays in both groups, with an AUC ranging between 0.99 and 1.0 (p < 0.0001). Also, it was shown that the manufacturer's recommended cutoff values could be modified based on the tested cohort without significantly affecting the sVNT performance. The sVNT provides a rapid, low-cost, and scalable alternative to conventional neutralization assays for measuring and expanding nAbs testing across various research and clinical settings. Also, it could aid in evaluating actual protective immunity at the population level and assessing vaccine effectiveness to lay a foundation for boosters' requirements.

Validation of a Novel Fluorescent Lateral Flow Assay for Rapid Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Total Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD Binding Antibody Units (BAU) from Plasma or Fingerstick Whole-Blood of COVID-19 Vaccinees.

Background: Limited commercial LFA assays are available to provide a reliable quantitative measurement of the total binding antibody units (BAU/mL) against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-RBD). Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the fluorescence LFA FinecareTM 2019-nCoV S-RBD test along with its reader (Model No.: FS-113) against the following reference methods: (i) the FDA-approved GenScript surrogate virus-neutralizing assay (sVNT); and (ii) three highly performing automated immunoassays: BioMérieux VIDAS®3, Ortho VITROS®, and Mindray CL-900i®. Methods: Plasma from 488 vaccinees was tested by all aforementioned assays. Fingerstick whole-blood samples from 156 vaccinees were also tested by FinecareTM. Results and conclusions: FinecareTM showed 100% specificity, as none of the pre-pandemic samples tested positive. Equivalent FinecareTM results were observed among the samples taken from fingerstick or plasma (Pearson correlation r = 0.9, p < 0.0001), suggesting that fingerstick samples are sufficient to quantitate the S-RBD BAU/mL. A moderate correlation was observed between FinecareTM and sVNT (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001), indicating that FinecareTM can be used for rapid prediction of the neutralizing antibody (nAb) post-vaccination. FinecareTM BAU results showed strong correlation with VIDAS®3 (r = 0.6, p < 0.0001) and moderate correlation with VITROS® (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001) and CL-900i® (r = 0.4, p < 0.0001), suggesting that FinecareTM can be used as a surrogate for the advanced automated assays to measure S-RBD BAU/mL.

Performance evaluation of novel fluorescent-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for rapid detection and quantification of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD binding antibodies in infected individuals.

BACKGROUND: A vast majority of the commercially available lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies qualitatively. Recently, a novel fluorescence-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test was developed for quantitative measurement of the total binding antibody units (BAUs) (BAU/mL) against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (S-RBD). AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the fluorescence LFIA FinecareTM 2019-nCoV S-RBD test along with its reader (Model No.: FS-113). METHODS: Plasma from 150 reverse trancriptase-PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed positive individuals and 100 prepandemic samples were tested by FincareTM to access sensitivity and specificity. For qualitative and quantitative validation of the FinCareTM measurements, BAU/mL results of FinCareTM were compared with results of 2 reference assays: the surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT, GenScript Biotech, USA) and the VIDAS®3 automated assay (BioMérieux, France). RESULTS: FinecareTM showed 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared with PCR. Cohen's Kappa statistic denoted moderate and excellent agreement with sVNT and VIDAS®3, with values being 0.557 (95% CI: 0.32-0.78) and 0.731 (95% CI: 0.51-0.95), respectively. A strong correlation was observed between FinecareTM/sVNT (r = 0.7, p < 0.0001) and FinecareTM/VIDAS®3 (r = 0.8, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: FinecareTM is a reliable assay and can be used as a surrogate to assess binding and neutralizing antibody response after infection or vaccination, particularly in none or small laboratory settings.

Challenges in Laboratory Diagnosis of the Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

The recent outbreak of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has quickly spread worldwide since its discovery in Wuhan city, China in December 2019. A comprehensive strategy, including surveillance, diagnostics, research, clinical treatment, and development of vaccines, is urgently needed to win the battle against COVID-19. The past three unprecedented outbreaks of emerging human coronavirus infections at the beginning of the 21st century have highlighted the importance of readily available, accurate, and rapid diagnostic technologies to contain emerging and re-emerging pandemics. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) based assays performed on respiratory specimens remain the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnostics. However, point-of-care technologies and serologic immunoassays are rapidly emerging with high sensitivity and specificity as well. Even though excellent techniques are available for the diagnosis of symptomatic patients with COVID-19 in well-equipped laboratories; critical gaps still remain in screening asymptomatic people who are in the incubation phase of the virus, as well as in the accurate determination of live viral shedding during convalescence to inform decisions for ending isolation. This review article aims to discuss the currently available laboratory methods and surveillance technologies available for the detection of COVID-19, their performance characteristics and highlight the gaps in current diagnostic capacity, and finally, propose potential solutions. We also summarize the specifications of the majority of the available commercial kits (PCR, EIA, and POC) for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19.

Low Risk of Serological Cross-Reactivity between the Dengue Virus and SARS-CoV-2-IgG Antibodies Using Advanced Detection Assays.

Several studies have reported serological cross-reactivity of the immune responses between SARS-CoV-2 and DENV. Most of the available studies are based on the point-of-care rapid testing kits. However, some rapid test kits have low specificity and can generate false positives. Hence, we aimed to investigate the potential serological cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and DENV-IgG antibodies using advanced assays including chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test. A total of 90 DENV-IgG-ELISA-positive and 90 DENV-IgG-ELISA-negative prepandemic sera were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG using the automated CL-900i CLIA assay. Furthermore, a total of 91 SARS-CoV-2-IgG-CLIA-positive and 91 SARS-CoV-2-IgG-CLIA-negative postpandemic sera were tested for anti-DENV-IgG using the NovaLisa ELISA kit. The DENV-IgG-positive sera resulted in five positives and 85 negatives for SARS-CoV-2-IgG. Similarly, the DENV-IgG-negative sera also resulted in 5 positives and 85 negatives for SARS-CoV-2-IgG. No statistically significant difference in specificity between the DENV-IgG-positive and DENV-IgG-negative sera was found (p value = 1.00). The SARS-CoV-2-IgG-positive sera displayed 43 positives, 47 negatives, and 1 equivocal for DENV-IgG, whereas the SARS-CoV-2-IgG-negative sera resulted in 50 positives, 40 negatives, and 1 equivocal for DENV-IgG. No statistically significant difference in the proportion that is DENV-IgG positive between the SARS-CoV-2-IgG-positive and SARS-CoV-2-IgG-negative sera (p value = 0.58). In conclusion, there is a low risk of serological cross-reactivity between the DENV and SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies when using advanced detection assays.

Comparison of antibody immune responses between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in naïve and previously infected individuals.

BACKGROUND: Two mRNA vaccines, Pfizer-BNT162b2 and Moderna-mRNA-1273, obtained the Emergency Use Listing by WHO for preventing COVID-19. However, little is known about the difference in antibody responses induced by these two mRNA vaccines in naïve and previously infected (PI) individuals. METHOD: We investigated the levels of anti-S-RBD (total, IgG and IgA) levels in naïve and PI individuals, 1-13 (median = 6) weeks following the second dose of either vaccine. Results in the naïve-vaccinated group, the mRNA-1273 vaccine induced significantly higher levels of anti-S-RBD total antibodies (3.5-fold; P < 0.001), IgG (2-fold, P < 0.01) and IgA (2.1-fold, P < 0.001) as compared with the BNT162b2 vaccine. In addition, both vaccines produced significantly higher anti-S-RBD total antibody levels in the PI-group compared with naïve-vaccinated group. The PI group elicited a higher level of anti-S-RBD IgG than the naïve-BNT162b2 (P = 0.05), but not more than the naïve-mRNA-1273 (P = 0.9) group. Interestingly, the PI vaccinated group elicited a comparable level of IgA ratio to the naïve-mRNA-1273 group but significantly higher than the naïve-BNT162b2 group (1.6-fold, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the PI-vaccinated group produces a higher level of antibodies than the naïve vaccinated group, particularly for those vaccinated with BNT162b2.

Effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycles on the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.

Several studies have investigated the effect of repeated freeze-thaw (F/T) cycles on RNA detection for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, no data are available regarding the effect of repeated F/T cycles on SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection in serum. We investigated the effect of multiple F/T cycles on anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection using an ELISA test targeting the nucleocapsid antibodies. Ten positive and 1 negative SARS-CoV-2 IgG sera from 11 participants, in replicates of 5, were subjected to a total of 16 F/T cycles and stored at 4 °C until tested by ELISA. Statistical analysis was performed to test for F/T cycle effect. None of the 10 positive sera became negative after 16 F/T cycles. There was no significant difference in the OD average reading between the first and last F/T cycles, except for one serum with a minimal decline in the OD. The random effect linear regression of log (OD) on the number of cycles showed no significant trend, with a slope consistent with zero (B=-0.0001; 95 % CI -0.0008; 0.0006; P-value=0.781). These results suggest that multiple F/T cycles had no effect on the ability of the ELISA assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.

Can commercial automated immunoassays be utilized to predict neutralizing antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection? A comparative study between three different assays.

Background: High-throughput assays that can infer neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 are of great importance for assessing the immunity induced by natural infection and COVID-19 vaccines. We aimed to evaluate the performance and degree of correlation of three fully automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays with neutralization activity using a surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT) from GenScript, targeting the receptor-binding domain. Methods: 110 sera collected from PCR-confirmed asymptomatic COVID-19 individuals were tested for neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) using the sVNT. Positive samples were tested on three automated immunoassays targeting different viral antigens: Mindray CL-900i®, Abbott Architect, and Ortho VITROS®. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and correlation with the sVNT were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine optimal thresholds for predicting the presence of neutralizing activity by each assay. Results: All three assays showed 100% specificities. The highest sensitivity was 99.0%, demonstrated by VITROS®, followed by 94.3%, for CL-900i®, and 81.0%, for Architect. Both VITROS® and CL-900i® had the strongest correlation with the sVNT (ρ = 0.718 and ρ = 0.712, respectively), while Architect showed a moderate correlation (ρ = 0.618). ROC curve analysis indicated that the manufacturer's recommended cutoff values are adequate for predicting the presence of nAbs and providing a strong correlation with the sVNT. Conclusion: VITROS® and CL-900i® serological assays, which detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, could serve as reliable assays to predict neutralization activity after infection or vaccination.

Epidemiology of SARS-CoV2 in Qatar's primary care population aged 10 years and above.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to elucidate the epidemiology of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) and characterize its potential impact. Investing in characterising the SARS-CoV2 will help plan and improve the response to the pandemic. Furthermore, it will help identify the most efficient ways of managing the pandemic, avoiding public health policies and interventions that may be unduly restrictive of normal activity or unnecessarily costly. This paper describes the design and reports findings of a population based epidemiological study undertaken to characterise SARS-CoV2 in Qatar using limited resources in a timely manner. METHODS: Asymptomatic individuals ≥10 years registered with Qatar's publicly funded primary health provider were eligible. A stratified random sampling technique was utilized to identify the study sample. Participants were invited to an appointment where they completed a questionnaire and provided samples for polymerase chain reaction and Immunoglobulin M and G immunoassay tests. Data collected were analyzed to calculate point and period prevalence by sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 18,918 individuals invited for the study, 2084 participated (response rate 10.8%). The overall point prevalence and period prevalence were estimated to be 1.6% (95% CI 1.1-2.2) and 14.6% (95% CI 13.1-16.2) respectively. Period prevalence of SARS-CoV2 infection was not considerably different across age groups (9.7-19.8%). It was higher in males compared to females (16.2 and 12.7% respectively). A significant variation was observed by nationality (7.1 to 22.2%) and municipalities (6.9-35.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The study provides an example of a methodologically robust approach that can be undertaken in a timely manner with limited resources. It reports much-needed epidemiological data about the spread of SARS-CoV2. Given the low prevalence rates, majority of the population in Qatar remains susceptible. Enhanced surveillance must continue to be in place, particularly due to the large number of asymptomatic cases observed. Robust contact tracing and social distancing measures are key to prevent future outbreaks.

Analytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population.

Performance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 "ever" (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting. PCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals. SARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1-47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9-45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6-47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2-95.7%, 89.3-92.8%, and 93.8-97.8%, respectively; Cohen's kappa statistic ranged from 0.86 to 0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6-16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9-48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9-59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. All three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high.

Diagnostic Efficiency of Three Fully Automated Serology Assays and Their Correlation with a Novel Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 Individuals.

To support the deployment of serology assays for population screening during the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared the performance of three fully automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays: Mindray CL-900i® (target: spike [S] and nucleocapsid [N]), BioMérieux VIDAS®3 (target: receptor-binding domain [RBD]) and Diasorin LIAISON®XL (target: S1 and S2 subunits). A total of 111 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR- positive samples collected at ≥ 21 days post symptom onset, and 127 pre-pandemic control samples were included. Diagnostic performance was assessed in correlation to RT-PCR and a surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT). Moreover, cross-reactivity with other viral antibodies was investigated. Compared to RT-PCR, LIAISON®XL showed the highest overall specificity (100%), followed by VIDAS®3 (98.4%) and CL-900i® (95.3%). The highest sensitivity was demonstrated by CL-900i® (90.1%), followed by VIDAS®3 (88.3%) and LIAISON®XL (85.6%). The sensitivity of all assays was higher in symptomatic patients (91.1-98.2%) compared to asymptomatic patients (78.4-80.4%). In correlation to sVNT, all assays showed excellent sensitivities (92.2-96.1%). In addition, VIDAS®3 demonstrated the best correlation (r = 0.75) with the sVNT. The present study provides insights on the performance of three fully automated assays, which could help diagnostic laboratories in the choice of a particular assay according to the intended use.

Performance evaluation of five ELISA kits for detecting anti-SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the performances of five commercial ELISA assays (EDI, AnshLabs, Dia.Pro, NovaTec, and Lionex) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. METHODS: Seventy negative control samples (collected before the COVID-19 pandemic) and samples from 101 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected at different time points from symptom onset: ≤7, 8-14 and >14 days) were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and positive and negative predictive values of each assay with RT-PCR. A concordance assessment between the five assays was also conducted. Cross-reactivity with other HCoV, non-HCoV respiratory viruses, non-respiratory viruses, and nuclear antigens was investigated. RESULTS: Lionex showed the highest specificity (98.6%; 95% CI 92.3-99.8), followed by EDI and Dia.Pro (97.1%; 95% CI 90.2-99.2), NovaTec (85.7%; 95% CI 75.7-92.1), then AnshLabs (75.7%; 95% CI 64.5-84.2). All ELISA kits cross-reacted with one anti-MERS IgG-positive sample, except Lionex. The sensitivity was low during the early stages of the disease but improved over time. After 14 days from symptom onset, Lionex and NovaTec showed the highest sensitivity at 87.9% (95% CI 72.7-95.2) and 86.4% (95% CI 78.5-91.7), respectively. The agreement with RT-PCR results based on Cohen's kappa was as follows: Lionex (0.89) > NovaTec (0.70) > Dia.Pro (0.69) > AnshLabs (0.63) > EDI (0.55). CONCLUSION: The Lionex and NovaLisa IgG ELISA kits, demonstrated the best overall performance.

The incidence of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The recent outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has quickly spread globally since its discovery in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. A comprehensive strategy - including surveillance, diagnostics, research, and clinical treatment - is urgently needed to win the battle against COVID-19. Recently, numerous studies have reported the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic patients. Yet, the incidence and viral transmission from the asymptomatic cases are not yet apparent. AIM: To estimate the incidence of COVID-19 among asymptomatic cases and describe its epidemiological and clinical significance this review systematically examined the published literature on SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic patients. METHODS: The literature was searched through four scientific databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct. RESULTS: Sixty-three studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The majority of the reported studies were from China. However, there was a lack of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiological studies, from several countries worldwide, tracing the actual incidence of COVID-19, especially in asymptomatic patients. Studies with a large sample size (>1000) estimated that the percentage of people contracting SARS-CoV-2 and likely to be asymptomatic ranged from 1.2-12.9%. However, other studies with a smaller sample size reported a much higher incidence and indicated that up to 87.9% of COVID-19 infected individuals could be asymptomatic. Most of these studies indicated that asymptopatics are a potential source of infection to the community. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted the need for more robust and well-designed studies to better estimate COVID-19 incidence among asymptomatic patients worldwide. Early identification of asymptomatic cases, as well as monitoring and tracing close contacts, could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.