Strongyloidiasis-related lung involvement: too much of a bad thing.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Strongyloidiasis is a soil-transmitted helminthiasis, a neglected tropical disease that affects 300-900 million individuals globally. Strongyloides stercoralis is associated with cutaneous, respiratory, and gastrointestinal clinical manifestations. Chronicity is due to an autoinfective cycle, and host immunosuppression can lead to severe and fatal disease. Lung involvement is significant in severe strongyloidiasis, and Strongyloides has a complex association with a number of lung diseases, which will be discussed in this review. RECENT FINDINGS: The treatment of chronic lung diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with corticosteroids is an important risk factor for Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome (SHS)/disseminated strongyloidiasis. The use of corticosteroids in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and potentially COVID-19-induced eosinopenia are risk factors for severe strongyloidiasis. Recent findings have demonstrated a significant immunomodulatory role of Strongyloides in both latent and active pulmonary tuberculosis associated to an impaired immune response and poor outcomes in active pulmonary tuberculosis. SUMMARY: Strongyloides lung involvement is a common finding in severe infection. Prompt recognition of Strongyloides infection as well as prevention of severe disease by screening or presumptive treatment are important goals in order to improve Strongyloides outcomes in at-risk population.

Protection against omicron (B.1.1.529) BA.2 reinfection conferred by primary omicron BA.1 or pre-omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection among health-care workers with and without mRNA vaccination: a test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on vaccine-induced or infection-induced (hybrid or natural) immunity against omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariant BA.2, particularly in comparing the effects of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection with the same or different genetic lineage. We aimed to estimate the protection against omicron BA.2 associated with previous primary infection with omicron BA.1 or pre-omicron SARS-CoV-2, among health-care workers with and without mRNA vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study among health-care workers aged 18 years or older who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 in Quebec, Canada, between March 27 and June 4, 2022, when BA.2 was the predominant variant and was presumptively diagnosed with a positive test result. We identified cases (positive test during study period) and controls (negative test during study period) using the provincial laboratory database that records all nucleic acid amplification testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Quebec, and used the provincial immunisation registry to determine vaccination status. Logistic regression models compared the likelihood of BA.2 infection or reinfection (second positive test ≥30 days after primary infection) among health-care workers who had previous primary infection and none to three mRNA vaccine doses versus unvaccinated health-care workers with no primary infection. FINDINGS: 258 007 SARS-CoV-2 tests were done during the study period. Among those with a valid result and that met the inclusion criteria, there were 37 732 presumed BA.2 cases (2521 [6·7%] reinfections following pre-omicron primary infection and 659 [1·7%] reinfections following BA.1 primary infection) and 73 507 controls (7360 [10·0%] had pre-omicron primary infection and 12 315 [16·8%] had BA.1 primary infection). Pre-omicron primary infection was associated with a 38% (95% CI 19-53) reduction in BA.2 infection risk, with higher BA.2 protection among those who had also received one (56%, 95% CI 47-63), two (69%, 64-73), or three (70%, 66-74) mRNA vaccine doses. Omicron BA.1 primary infection was associated with greater protection against BA.2 infection (risk reduction of 72%, 95% CI 65-78), and protection was increased further among those who had received two doses of mRNA vaccine (96%, 95-96), but was not improved with a third dose (96%, 95-97). INTERPRETATION: Health-care workers who had received two doses of mRNA vaccine and had previous BA.1 infection were subsequently well protected for a prolonged period against BA.2 reinfection, with a third vaccine dose conferring no improvement to that hybrid protection. If this protection also pertains to future variants, there might be limited benefit from additional vaccine doses for people with hybrid immunity, depending on timing and variant. FUNDING: Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux du Québec.

Estimated Protection of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection Against Reinfection With the Omicron Variant Among Messenger RNA-Vaccinated and Nonvaccinated Individuals in Quebec, Canada.

Importance: The Omicron variant is phylogenetically and antigenically distinct from earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants and the original vaccine strain. Protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against Omicron reinfection, with and without vaccination, requires quantification. Objective: To estimate the protection against Omicron reinfection and hospitalization conferred by prior heterologous non-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or up to 3 doses of an ancestral, Wuhan-like messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative, population-based case-control study was conducted between December 26, 2021, and March 12, 2022, and included community-dwelling individuals aged 12 years or older who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the province of Quebec, Canada. Exposures: Prior laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without mRNA vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and associated hospitalization, presumed to be associated with the Omicron variant according to genomic surveillance. The odds of prior infection with or without vaccination were compared for case participants with Omicron infection and associated hospitalizations vs test-negative control participants. Estimated protection was derived as 1 - the odds ratio, adjusted for age, sex, testing indication, and epidemiologic week. Analyses were stratified by severity and time since last non-Omicron infection or vaccine dose. Results: This study included 696 439 individuals (224 007 case participants and 472 432 control participants); 62.2% and 63.9% were female and 87.4% and 75.5% were aged 18 to 69 years, respectively. Prior non-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected for 9505 case participants (4.2%) and 29 712 control participants (6.3%). Among nonvaccinated individuals, prior non-Omicron infection was associated with a 44% reduction (95% CI, 38%-48%) in Omicron reinfection risk, which decreased from 66% (95% CI, 57%-73%) at 3 to 5 months to 35% (95% CI, 21%-47%) at 9 to 11 months postinfection and was below 30% thereafter. The more severe the prior infection, the greater the risk reduction. Estimated protection (95% CI) against Omicron infection was consistently significantly higher among vaccinated individuals with prior infection compared with vaccinated infection-naive individuals, with 65% (63%-67%) vs 20% (16%-24%) for 1 dose, 68% (67%-70%) vs 42% (41%-44%) for 2 doses, and 83% (81%-84%) vs 73% (72%-73%) for 3 doses. For individuals with prior infection, estimated protection (95% CI) against Omicron-associated hospitalization was 81% (66%-89%) and increased to 86% (77%-99%) with 1, 94% (91%-96%) with 2, and 97% (94%-99%) with 3 mRNA vaccine doses, without signs of waning. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that vaccination with 2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses among individuals with prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection provided the greatest protection against Omicron-associated hospitalization. In the context of program goals to prevent severe outcomes and preserve health care system capacity, a third mRNA vaccine dose may add limited protection in twice-vaccinated individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Canada: impact of ethnicity, migration status and country of birth.

BACKGROUND: Ethnoracial groups in high-income countries have a 2-fold higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, associated hospitalizations, and mortality than Whites. Migrants are an ethnoracial subset that may have worse COVID-19 outcomes due to additional barriers accessing care, but there are limited data on in-hospital outcomes. We aimed to disaggregate and compare COVID-19 associated hospital outcomes by ethnicity, immigrant status and region of birth. METHODS: Adults with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalized March 1-June 30, 2020, at four hospitals in Montréal, Quebec, Canada, were included. Age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, migration status, region of birth, self-identified ethnicity [White, Black, Asian, Latino, Middle East/North African], intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and mortality were collected. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for ICU admission and mortality by immigrant status, ethnicity and region of birth adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status and comorbidities were estimated using Fine and Gray competing risk models. RESULTS: Of 1104 patients (median [IQR] age, 63.0 [51.0-76.0] years; 56% males), 57% were immigrants and 54% were White. Immigrants were slightly younger (62 vs 65 years; p = 0.050), had fewer comorbidities (1.0 vs 1.2; p < 0.001), similar crude ICU admissions rates (33.0% vs 28.2%) and lower mortality (13.3% vs 17.6%; p < 0.001) than Canadian-born. In adjusted models, Blacks (aHR 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.83) and Asians (1.64, 1.15-2.34) were at higher risk of ICU admission than Whites, but there was significant heterogeneity within ethnic groups. Asians from Eastern Asia/Pacific (2.15, 1.42-3.24) but not Southern Asia (0.97, 0.49-1.93) and Caribbean Blacks (1.39, 1.02-1.89) but not SSA Blacks (1.37, 0.86-2.18) had a higher risk of ICU admission. Blacks had a higher risk of mortality (aHR 1.56, p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Data disaggregated by region of birth identified subgroups of immigrants at increased risk of COVID-19 ICU admission, providing more actionable data for health policymakers to address health inequities.

In-hospital outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-infected health care workers in the COVID-19 pandemic first wave, Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW), particularly immigrants and ethnic minorities are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcomes during a COVID-19 associated hospitalization are not well described among HCW. We aimed to describe the characteristics of HCW admitted with COVID-19 including immigrant status and ethnicity and the associated risk factors for Intensive Care unit (ICU) admission and death. METHODS: Adults with laboratory-confirmed community-acquired COVID-19 hospitalized from March 1 to June 30, 2020, at four tertiary-care hospitals in Montréal, Canada were included. Demographics, comorbidities, occupation, immigration status, country of birth, ethnicity, workplace exposures, and hospital outcomes (ICU admission and death) were obtained through a chart review and phone survey. A Fine and Gray competing risk proportional hazards model was used to estimate the risk of ICU admission among HCW stratified by immigrant status and region of birth. RESULTS: Among 1104 included persons, 150 (14%) were HCW, with a phone survey participation rate of 68%. HCWs were younger (50 vs 64 years; p<0.001), more likely to be female (61% vs 41%; p<0.001), migrants (68% vs 55%; p<0.01), non-White (65% vs 41%; p<0.001) and healthier (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0.3 vs 1.2; p<0.001) compared to non-HCW. They were as likely to be admitted to the ICU (28% vs 31%; p = 0.40) but were less likely to die (4% vs. 17%; p<0.001). Immigrant HCW accounted for 68% of all HCW cases and, compared to Canadian HCW, were more likely to be personal support workers (PSW) (54% vs. 33%, p<0.01), to be Black (58% vs 4%) and to work in a Residential Care Facility (RCF) (59% vs 33%; p = 0.05). Most HCW believed that they were exposed at work, 55% did not always have access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and 40% did not receive COVID-19-specific Infection Control (IPAC) training. CONCLUSION: Immigrant HCW were particularly exposed to COVID-19 infection in the first wave of the pandemic in Quebec. Despite being young and healthy, one third of all HCW required ICU admission, highlighting the importance of preventing workplace transmission through strong infection prevention and control measures, including high COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

Remote Follow-up of Self-isolating Patients With COVID-19 Using a Patient Portal: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Pilot Study (Opal-COVID Study).

BACKGROUND: People with COVID-19 are instructed to self-isolate at home. During self-isolation, they may experience anxiety and insufficient care. Patient portals can allow patients to self-monitor and remotely share their health status with health care professionals, but little data are available on their feasibility. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol of the Opal-COVID Study. Its objectives are to assess the implementation of the Opal patient portal for distance monitoring of self-isolating patients with COVID-19, identify influences on the intervention's implementation, and describe service and patient outcomes of this intervention. METHODS: This mixed methods pilot study aims to recruit 50 patient participants with COVID-19 tested at the McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, Canada) for 14 days of follow-up. With access to an existing patient portal through a smartphone app, patients will complete a daily self-assessment of symptoms, vital signs, and mental health monitored by a nurse, and receive teleconsultations as needed. Study questionnaires will be administered to collect data on sociodemographic characteristics, medical background, implementation outcomes (acceptability, usability, and respondent burden), and patient satisfaction. Coordinator logbook entries will inform on feasibility outcomes, namely, on recruitment, retention, and fidelity, as well as on the frequency and nature of contacts with health care professionals. The statistical analyses for objectives 1 (implementation outcomes), 3 (service outcomes), and 4 (patient outcomes) will evaluate the effects of time and sociodemographic characteristics on the outcomes. For objectives 1 (implementation outcomes) and 4 (patient outcomes), the statistical analyses will also examine the attainment of predefined success thresholds. As for the qualitative analyses, for objective 2 (influences on implementation), semistructured qualitative interviews will be conducted with 4 groups of stakeholders (ie, patient participants, health care professionals, technology developers, and study administrators) and submitted for content analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to help identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. For objective 3 (service outcomes), reasons for contacting health care professionals through Opal will also be submitted for content analysis. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and March 2021, a total of 51 patient participants were recruited. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 39 stakeholders from April to September 2021. Delays were experienced owing to measures taken at the McGill University Health Centre to address COVID-19. The quantitative and qualitative analyses began in May 2022. As of June 2022, a total of 2 manuscripts (on the implementation and the patient outcomes) were being prepared, and 3 conference presentations had been given on the study's methods. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol is designed to generate multidisciplinary knowledge on the implementation of a patient portal-based COVID-19 care intervention and will lead to a comprehensive understanding of feasibility, stakeholder experience, and influences on implementation that may prove useful for scaling up similar interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04978233; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04978233. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35760.

Two-Dose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccine Effectiveness With Mixed Schedules and Extended Dosing Intervals: Test-Negative Design Studies From British Columbia and Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immunization strategy deferred second doses and allowed mixed schedules. We compared 2-dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) by vaccine type (mRNA and/or ChAdOx1), interval between doses, and time since second dose in 2 of Canada's larger provinces. METHODS: Two-dose VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or hospitalization among adults ≥18 years, including due to Alpha, Gamma, and Delta variants of concern (VOCs), was assessed ≥14 days postvaccination by test-negative design studies separately conducted in British Columbia and Quebec, Canada, between 30 May and 27 November (epi-weeks 22-47) 2021. RESULTS: In both provinces, all homologous or heterologous mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 2-dose schedules were associated with ≥90% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization risk for ≥7 months. With slight decline from a peak of >90%, VE against infection was ≥80% for ≥6 months following homologous mRNA vaccination, lower by ∼10% when both doses were ChAdOx1 but comparably high following heterologous ChAdOx1 + mRNA receipt. Findings were similar by age group, sex, and VOC. VE was significantly higher with longer 7-8-week versus manufacturer-specified 3-4-week intervals between mRNA doses. CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of any mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 combination gave substantial and sustained protection against SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization, spanning Delta-dominant circulation. ChAdOx1 VE against infection was improved by heterologous mRNA series completion. A 7-8-week interval between first and second doses improved mRNA VE and may be the optimal schedule outside periods of intense epidemic surge. Findings support interchangeability and extended intervals between SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses, with potential global implications for low-coverage areas and, going forward, for children.

Single-Dose Messenger RNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Healthcare Workers Extending 16 Weeks Postvaccination: A Test-Negative Design From Québec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, first and second doses of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were uniquely spaced 16 weeks apart. We estimated 1- and 2-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Québec, Canada, including protection against varying outcome severity, variants of concern (VOCs), and the stability of single-dose protection up to 16 weeks postvaccination. METHODS: A test-negative design compared vaccination among SARS-CoV-2 test-positive and weekly matched (10:1), randomly sampled, test-negative HCWs using linked surveillance and immunization databases. Vaccine status was defined by 1 dose ≥14 days or 2 doses ≥7 days before illness onset or specimen collection. Adjusted VE was estimated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Primary analysis included 5316 cases and 53 160 controls. Single-dose VE was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-73%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection; 73% (95% CI, 71%-75%) against illness; and 97% (95% CI, 92%-99%) against hospitalization. Two-dose VE was 86% (95% CI, 81%-90%) and 93% (95% CI, 89%-95%), respectively, with no hospitalizations. VE was higher for non-VOCs than VOCs (73% Alpha) among single-dose recipients but not 2-dose recipients. Across 16 weeks, no decline in single-dose VE was observed, with appropriate stratification based upon prioritized vaccination determined by higher vs lower likelihood of direct patient contact. CONCLUSIONS: One mRNA vaccine dose provided substantial and sustained protection to HCWs extending at least 4 months postvaccination. In circumstances of vaccine shortage, delaying the second dose may be a pertinent public health strategy.