Household Exposure to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 and Association With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Severity: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Households are high-risk settings for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is likely associated with the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. We therefore aimed to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 exposure within households and COVID-19 severity. METHODS: We performed a Danish, nationwide, register-based, cohort study including laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from 22 February 2020 to 6 October 2020. Household exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was defined as having 1 individual test positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the household. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between "critical COVID-19" within and between households with and without secondary cases. RESULTS: From 15 063 multiperson households, 19 773 SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were included; 11 632 were categorized as index cases without any secondary household cases; 3431 as index cases with secondary cases, that is, 22.8% of multiperson households; and 4710 as secondary cases. Critical COVID-19 occurred in 2.9% of index cases living with no secondary cases, 4.9% of index cases with secondary cases, and 1.3% of secondary cases. The adjusted hazard ratio for critical COVID-19 among index cases vs secondary cases within the same household was 2.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-3.34), 2.27 (95% CI, 1.77-2.93) for index cases in households with no secondary cases vs secondary cases, and 1.1 (95% CI, .93-1.30) for index cases with secondary cases vs index cases without secondary cases. CONCLUSIONS: We found no increased hazard ratio of critical COVID-19 among household members of infected SARS-CoV-2 index cases.

Psychiatric Admissions, Referrals, and Suicidal Behavior Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Denmark: A Time-Trend Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the patterns in psychiatric admissions, referrals, and suicidal behavior before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study utilized health records from hospitals and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) covering 46% of the Danish population (n = 2,693,924). In a time-trend study, we compared the number of psychiatric in-patients, referrals to mental health services and suicidal behavior in years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to levels during the first lockdown (March 11 - May 17, 2020), inter-lockdown period (May 18 - December 15, 2020), and second lockdown (December 16, 2020 - February 28, 2021). RESULTS: During the pandemic, the rate of psychiatric in-patients declined compared to pre-pandemic levels (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.94 - 0.96, p < 0.01), with the largest decrease of 19% observed three weeks into the first lockdown. Referrals to mental health services were not significantly different (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.92 - 1.10, p = 0.91) during the pandemic; neither was suicidal behavior among hospital contacts (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.94 - 1.14, p = 0.48) nor EMS contacts (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.00 - 1.18, p = 0.06). Similar trends were observed across nearly all age groups, sexes, and types of mental disorders examined. In the age group <18, an increase in the rate of psychiatric in-patients (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.07 - 1.15, p < 0.01) was observed during the pandemic; however, this did not exceed the pre-pandemic, upwards trend in psychiatric hospitalizations in the age group <18 (p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a decrease in psychiatric hospitalizations, while no significant change was observed in referrals to mental health services and suicidal behavior. Psychiatric hospitalizations among children and adolescents increased during the pandemic; however, this appears to be a continuation of a pre-pandemic trend.

Symptom presentation of SARS-CoV-2-positive and negative patients: a nested case-control study among patients calling the emergency medical service and medical helpline.

OBJECTIVE: Currently effective symptom-based screening of patients suspected of COVID-19 is limited. We aimed to investigate age-related differences in symptom presentations of patients tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: SETTING: Calls to the medical helpline (1-8-1-3) and emergency number (1-1-2) in Copenhagen, Denmark. At both medical services all calls are recorded. PARTICIPANTS: We included calls for patients who called for help/guidance at the medical helpline or emergency number prior to receiving a test for SARS-CoV-2 between April 1st and 20th 2020 (8423 patients). Among these calls, we randomly sampled recorded calls from 350 patients who later tested positive and 250 patients tested negative and registered symptoms described in the call. OUTCOME: RESULTS: After exclusions, 544 calls (312 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 232 negative) were included in the analysis. Fever and cough remained the two most common of COVID-19 symptoms across all age groups and approximately 42% of SARS-CoV-2 positive and 20% of negative presented with both fever and cough. Symptoms including nasal congestion, irritation/pain in throat, muscle/joint pain, loss of taste and smell, and headache were common symptoms of COVID-19 for patients younger than 60 years; whereas loss of appetite and feeling unwell were more commonly seen among patients over 60 years. Headache and loss of taste and smell were rare symptoms of COVID-19 among patients over 60 years. CONCLUSION: Our study identified age-related differences in symptom presentations of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients calling for help or medical advice. The specific symptoms of loss of smell or taste almost exclusively reported by patients younger than 60 years. Differences in symptom presentation across age groups must be considered when screening for COVID-19.

Strategies to Handle Increased Demand in the COVID-19 Crisis: A Coronavirus EMS Support Track and a Web-Based Self-Triage System.

BACKGROUND: In emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increased need for contact with emergency medical services (EMS), and call volume might surpass capacity. The Copenhagen EMS operates two telephone line the 1-1-2 emergency number and the 1813 medical helpline. A separate coronavirus support track was implemented on the 1813 medical helpline and a web-based self-triage (web triage) system was created to reduce non-emergency call volume. The aim of this paper is to present call volume and the two measures implemented to handle the increased call volume to the Copenhagen EMS. METHODS: This is a cross sectional observational study. Call volume and queue time is presented in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic (27th of February 2020 to 27th of march) and compared to the equivalent month from the year before (2019). Descriptive statistics are conducted on call volumes and queue times and spearman's rank correlation test are performed to test correlation between web triage and call volume. RESULTS: Total EMS call volume increase by 23.3% between 2019 and 2020 (92.670 vs. 114,250). The 1-1-2 emergency line total call volume increase by 4.4% (8,4942 vs. 8,870) and the 1813 medical helpline increased by 25.1% (84.176 vs. 105.380). The coronavirus support track handled 21,063 calls. The 1813 medical helpline queue time was a mean of 02 minutes and 23 seconds (CI: 2.22-2.25) in 2019 and 12 minutes and 2 seconds (CI 11:55-12:09) in 2020 (P < 0.001). The web triage was used 10,894 times. No correlation between call volume and web triage usage was seen. CONCLUSIONS: In the first month of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic a significant increase in call volume was observed in the 1813 medical helpline compared to 2019. A large number of calls were handled by the additional coronavirus track and diverted away from the regular tracks of the 1813 medical helpline. This likely contributed to mitigating increased call volumes and queue times. The web triage was widely used but no significant correlation was seen with 1813 medical helpline call volume. Other EMS organizations can learn from this to enhance capacity in a future epidemics.