Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 104
Filter
2.
Arch Dis Child ; 2022 Jul 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20241792

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To understand community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents. This is vital to understanding the susceptibility of this cohort to COVID-19 and to inform public health policy for disease control such as immunisation. DESIGN: We conducted a community-based cross-sectional seroprevalence study in participants aged 0-18 years old recruiting from seven regions in England between October 2019 and June 2021 and collecting extensive demographic and symptom data. Serum samples were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins using Roche assays processed at UK Health Security Agency laboratories. Prevalence estimates were calculated for six time periods and were standardised by age group, ethnicity and National Health Service region. RESULTS: Post-first wave (June-August 2020), the (anti-spike IgG) adjusted seroprevalence was 5.2%, varying from 0.9% (participants 10-14 years old) to 9.5% (participants 5-9 years old). By April-June 2021, this had increased to 19.9%, varying from 13.9% (participants 0-4 years old) to 32.7% (participants 15-18 years old). Minority ethnic groups had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity than white participants (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.0), after adjusting for sex, age, region, time period, deprivation and urban/rural geography. In children <10 years, there were no symptoms or symptom clusters that reliably predicted seropositivity. Overall, 48% of seropositive participants with complete questionnaire data recalled no symptoms between February 2020 and their study visit. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants aged 15-18 years old had evidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 prior to the introduction of widespread vaccination. These data demonstrate that ethnic background is independently associated with risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04061382.

3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2023 Mar 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2328027

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed unnecessarily in outpatients with COVID-19. We sought to evaluate factors associated with antibiotic prescribing in those with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We performed a population-wide cohort study of outpatients 66 years or older with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 from January 1st 2020 to December 31st 2021 in Ontario, Canada. We determined rates of antibiotic prescribing within 1-week before (pre-diagnosis) and 1-week after (post-diagnosis) reporting of the positive SARS-CoV-2 result, compared to a self-controlled period (baseline). We evaluated predictors of prescribing, including a primary series COVID-19 vaccination, in univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: We identified 13,529 eligible nursing home residents and 50,885 eligible community dwelling adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the nursing home and community residents, 3,020 (22%) and 6,372 (13%) received at least one antibiotic prescription within 1 week of a SARS-CoV-2 positive result, respectively. Antibiotic prescribing in nursing home and community residents occurred at 15.0 and 10.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days pre-diagnosis and 20.9 and 9.8 per 1000 person-days post-diagnosis, higher than the baseline rates of 4.3 and 2.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with reduced prescribing in nursing home and community residents, with adjusted post-diagnosis IRRs of 0.7 (95%CI 0.4-1) and 0.3 (95%CI 0.3-0.4) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing was high and with little or no decline following SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, though was reduced in COVID-19 vaccinated individuals, highlighting the importance of vaccination and antibiotic stewardship in older adults with COVID-19.

5.
N Engl J Med ; 385(7): 585-594, 2021 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2251957

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), has contributed to a surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the United Kingdom. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against this variant has been unclear. METHODS: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant or the predominant strain (B.1.1.7, or alpha variant) over the period that the delta variant began circulating. Variants were identified with the use of sequencing and on the basis of the spike (S) gene status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of Covid-19 in England were used to estimate the proportion of cases with either variant according to the patients' vaccination status. RESULTS: Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant. CONCLUSIONS: Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose. This finding would support efforts to maximize vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable populations. (Funded by Public Health England.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Vaccine Potency , Young Adult
6.
Nat Commun ; 14(1): 1273, 2023 03 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2261286

ABSTRACT

We estimated the effectiveness of booster doses of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron-associated severe outcomes among adults in Ontario, Canada. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization or death among SARS-CoV-2-tested adults aged ≥50 years from January 2 to October 1, 2022, stratified by age and time since vaccination. We also compared VE during BA.1/BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 sublineage predominance. We included 11,160 cases and 62,880 tests for test-negative controls. Depending on the age group, compared to unvaccinated adults, VE was 91-98% 7-59 days after a third dose, waned to 76-87% after ≥240 days, was restored to 92-97% 7-59 days after a fourth dose, and waned to 86-89% after ≥120 days. VE was lower and declined faster during BA.4/BA.5 versus BA.1/BA.2 predominance, particularly after ≥120 days. Here we show that booster doses of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines restored strong protection against severe outcomes for at least 3 months after vaccination. Across the entire study period, protection declined slightly over time, but waned more during BA.4/BA.5 predominance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , Ontario/epidemiology , RNA, Messenger
7.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 4(3): e107-e114, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2268366

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that crowding in nursing homes is associated with high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections, but this effect has not been shown for other respiratory pathogens. We aimed to measure the association between crowding in nursing homes and outbreak-associated respiratory infection incidence and related mortality before the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of nursing homes in Ontario, Canada. We identified, characterised, and selected nursing homes through the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care datasets. Nursing homes that were not funded by the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care and homes that closed before January, 2020 were excluded. Outcomes consisting of respiratory infection outbreaks were obtained from the Integrated Public Health Information System of Ontario. The crowding index equalled the mean number of residents per bedroom and bathroom. The primary outcomes were the incidence of outbreak-associated infections and mortality per 100 nursing home residents per year. We examined the incidence of infections and deaths as a function of the crowding index by use of negative binomial regression with adjustment for three home characteristics (ie, ownership, number of beds, and region) and nine mean resident characteristics (ie, age, female sex, dementia, diabetes, chronic heart failure, renal failure, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and activities of daily living score). FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2019, 5107 respiratory infection outbreaks in 588 nursing homes were recorded, of which 4921 (96·4%), involving 64 829 cases of respiratory infection and 1969 deaths, were included in this analysis. Nursing homes with a high crowding index had higher incidences of respiratory infection (26·4% vs 13·8%; adjusted rate ratio per one resident per room increase in crowding 1·89 [95% CI 1·64-2·17]) and mortality (0·8% vs 0·4%; 2·34 [1·88-2·92]) than did homes with a low crowding index. INTERPRETATION: Respiratory infection and mortality rates were higher in nursing homes with high crowding index than in homes with low crowding index, and the association was consistent across various respiratory pathogens. Decreasing crowding is an important safety target beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to help to promote resident wellbeing and decrease the transmission of prevalent respiratory pathogens. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Activities of Daily Living , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Ontario , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Nursing Homes , Disease Outbreaks
8.
Eur Respir J ; 2022 Sep 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2256981

ABSTRACT

Childhood interstitial lung disease comprises a spectrum of rare ILDs affecting infants, children and adolescents. Nintedanib is a licensed treatment for pulmonary fibrosis in adults. The primary objectives of the InPedILD trial were to determine the dose-exposure and safety of nintedanib in children and adolescents with fibrosing ILD. Patients aged 6-17 years with fibrosing ILD on HRCT and clinically significant disease were randomised 2:1 to receive nintedanib or placebo for 24 weeks then open-label nintedanib. Dosing was based on weight-dependent allometric scaling. Co-primary endpoints were the area under the plasma concentration-time curve at steady state (AUCτ,ss) at weeks 2 and 26 and the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events at week 24. Twenty-six patients received nintedanib and 13 placebo. The geometric mean (gCV%) AUCτ,ss for nintedanib was 175 µg×h·L-1 (85.1) in patients aged 6-11 years and 160 µg×h·L-1 (82.7) in patients aged 12-17 years. In the double-blind period, adverse events were reported in 84.6% of patients in each treatment group. Two patients discontinued nintedanib due to adverse events. Diarrhoea was reported in 38.5% and 15.4% of the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively. Adjusted mean (se) changes in FVC % predicted at week 24 were 0.3 (1.3) in the nintedanib group and -0.9 (1.8) in the placebo group. In conclusion, in children and adolescents with fibrosing ILD, a weight-based dosing regimen resulted in exposure to nintedanib similar to adults and an acceptable safety profile. These data provide a scientific basis for the use of nintedanib in this patient population.

9.
Pediatr Infect Dis J ; 42(6): 496-502, 2023 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2248375

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antibodies are a measure of immunity after primary infection, which may help protect against further SARS-CoV-2 infections. They may also provide some cross-protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants. There are limited data on antibody persistence and, especially, cross-reactivity against different SARS-CoV-2 variants after primary infection in children. METHODS: We initiated enhanced surveillance in 18 secondary schools to monitor SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in September 2020. Students and Staff provided longitudinal blood samples to test for variant-specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using in-house receptor binding domain assays. We recruited 1189 students and 1020 staff; 160 (97 students, 63 staff) were SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid-antibody positive at baseline and had sufficient serum for further analysis. RESULTS: Most participants developed sustained antibodies against their infecting [wild-type (WT)] strain as well as cross-reactive antibodies against the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants but at lower titers than WT. Staff had significantly lower antibodies titers against WT as cross-reactive antibodies against the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants than students (all P < 0.01). In participants with sufficient sera, only 2.3% (1/43) students and 17.2% (5/29) staff had cross-reactive antibodies against the Omicron variant; they also had higher antibody titers against WT (3042.5; 95% confidence interval: 769.0-12,036.2) than those who did not have cross-reactive antibodies against the Omicron variant (680.7; 534.2-867.4). CONCLUSIONS: We found very high rates of antibody persistence after primary infection with WT in students and staff. Infection with WT induced cross-reactive antibodies against Alpha, Beta and Delta variants, but not Omicron. Primary infection with WT may not be cross-protective against the Omicron variant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Child , Adolescent , Humans , Prospective Studies , Antibodies, Viral , Antibodies, Neutralizing
10.
CMAJ ; 195(6): E220-E226, 2023 02 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2244999

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial involving a high-risk, unvaccinated population that was conducted before the Omicron variant emerged found that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in preventing progression to severe COVID-19. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing severe COVID-19 while Omicron and its subvariants predominate. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario that included all residents who were older than 17 years of age and had a positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between Apr. 4 and Aug. 31, 2022. We compared patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with patients who were not treated and measured the primary outcome of hospital admission from COVID-19 or all-cause death at 1-30 days, and a secondary outcome of all-cause death. We used weighted logistic regression to calculate weighted odds ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (CIs) using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding. RESULTS: The final cohort included 177 545 patients, 8876 (5.0%) who were treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 168 669 (95.0%) who were not treated. The groups were well balanced with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics after applying stabilized IPTW. We found that the occurrence of hospital admission or death was lower in the group given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir than in those who were not (2.1% v. 3.7%; weighted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47-0.67). For death alone, the weighted OR was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39-0.62). Our findings were similar across strata of age, drug-drug interactions, vaccination status and comorbidities. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 case of severe COVID-19 was 62 (95% CI 43-80), which varied across strata. INTERPRETATION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with significantly reduced odds of hospital admission and death from COVID-19, which supports use to treat patients with mild COVID-19 who are at risk for severe disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Cohort Studies , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Hospitals , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use
11.
BMJ ; 380: e074035, 2023 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2231534

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of maternal mRNA covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy against delta and omicron severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and hospital admission in infants. DESIGN: Test negative design study. SETTING: Community and hospital testing in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Infants younger than six months of age, born between 7 May 2021 and 31 March 2022, who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between 7 May 2021 and 5 September 2022. INTERVENTION: Maternal mRNA covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Laboratory confirmed delta or omicron infection or hospital admission of the infant. Multivariable logistic regression estimated vaccine effectiveness, with adjustments for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with vaccination and infection. RESULTS: 8809 infants met eligibility criteria, including 99 delta cases (4365 controls) and 1501 omicron cases (4847 controls). Infant vaccine effectiveness from two maternal doses was 95% (95% confidence interval 88% to 98%) against delta infection and 97% (73% to 100%) against infant hospital admission due to delta and 45% (37% to 53%) against omicron infection and 53% (39% to 64%) against hospital admission due to omicron. Vaccine effectiveness for three doses was 73% (61% to 80%) against omicron infection and 80% (64% to 89%) against hospital admission due to omicron. Vaccine effectiveness for two doses against infant omicron infection was highest with the second dose in the third trimester (53% (42% to 62%)) compared with the first (47% (31% to 59%)) or second (37% (24% to 47%)) trimesters. Vaccine effectiveness for two doses against infant omicron infection decreased from 57% (44% to 66%) between birth and eight weeks to 40% (21% to 54%) after 16 weeks of age. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal covid-19 vaccination with a second dose during pregnancy was highly effective against delta and moderately effective against omicron infection and hospital admission in infants during the first six months of life. A third vaccine dose bolstered protection against omicron. Effectiveness for two doses was highest with maternal vaccination in the third trimester, and effectiveness decreased in infants beyond eight weeks of age.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , Infant , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , RNA, Messenger, Stored , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Hospitals , Ontario/epidemiology
12.
Heliyon ; 9(1): e12744, 2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2165334

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 depends on host cell components for infection and replication. Identification of virus-host dependencies offers an effective way to elucidate mechanisms involved in viral infection and replication. If druggable, host factor dependencies may present an attractive strategy for anti-viral therapy. In this study, we performed genome wide CRISPR knockout screens in Vero E6 cells and four human cell lines including Calu-3, UM-UC-4, HEK-293 and HuH-7 to identify genetic regulators of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our findings identified only ACE2, the cognate SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor, as a common host dependency factor across all cell lines, while other host genes identified were largely cell line specific, including known factors TMPRSS2 and CTSL. Several of the discovered host-dependency factors converged on pathways involved in cell signalling, immune-related pathways, and chromatin modification. Notably, the chromatin modifier gene KMT2C in Calu-3 cells had the strongest impact in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection when perturbed.

13.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0264240, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2109283

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the demographic and clinical characteristics, in-hospital care, and outcomes of long-term care residents admitted to general medicine wards for non-COVID-19 reasons. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of long-term care residents admitted to general medicine wards, for reasons other than COVID-19, in four hospitals in Toronto, Ontario between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We used an autoregressive linear model to estimate the change in monthly admission volumes during the pandemic period (March-December 2020) compared to the previous two years, adjusting for any secular trend. We summarized and compared differences in the demographics, comorbidities, interventions, diagnoses, imaging, psychoactive medications, and outcomes of residents before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Our study included 2,654 long-term care residents who were hospitalized for non-COVID-19 reasons between January 2018 and December 2020. The crude rate of hospitalizations was 79.3 per month between March-December of 2018-2019 and 56.5 per month between March-December of 2020. The was an adjusted absolute difference of 27.0 (95% CI: 10.0, 43.9) fewer hospital admissions during the pandemic period, corresponding to a relative drop of 34%. Residents admitted during the pandemic period had similar demographics and clinical characteristics but were more likely to be admitted for delirium (pandemic: 7% pre-pandemic: 5%, p = 0.01) and were less likely to be admitted for pneumonia (pandemic: 3% pre-pandemic: 6%, p = 0.004). Residents admitted during the pandemic were more likely to be prescribed antipsychotics (pandemic: 37%, pre-pandemic: 29%, p <0.001) and more likely to die in-hospital (pandemic:14% pre-pandemic: 10%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Better integration between long-term care and hospitals systems, including programs to deliver urgent medical care services within long-term care homes, is needed to ensure that long-term care residents maintain equitable access to acute care during current and future public health emergencies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Long-Term Care , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Ontario/epidemiology , Hospitalization
14.
PLoS One ; 17(10): e0276507, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2079771

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate associations between COVID-19 incidence and mortality with neighbourhood-level immigration, race, housing, and socio-economic characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of 28,808 COVID-19 cases in the provincial reportable infectious disease surveillance systems (Public Health Case and Contact Management System) which includes all known COVID-19 infections and deaths from Ontario, Canada reported between January 23, 2020 and July 28, 2020. Residents of congregate settings, Indigenous communities living on reserves or small neighbourhoods with populations <1,000 were excluded. Comparing neighbourhoods in the 90th to the 10th percentiles of socio-demographic characteristics, we estimated the associations between 18 neighbourhood-level measures of immigration, race, housing and socio-economic characteristics and COVID-19 incidence and mortality using Poisson generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of immigrants (relative risk (RR): 4.0, 95%CI:3.5-4.5) and visible minority residents (RR: 3.3, 95%CI:2.9-3.7) showed the strongest association with COVID-19 incidence in adjusted models. Among individual race groups, COVID-19 incidence was highest among neighbourhoods with the high proportions of Black (RR: 2.4, 95%CI:2.2-2.6), South Asian (RR: 1.9, 95%CI:1.8-2.1), Latin American (RR: 1.8, 95%CI:1.6-2.0) and Middle Eastern (RR: 1.2, 95%CI:1.1-1.3) residents. Neighbourhoods with the highest average household size (RR: 1.9, 95%CI:1.7-2.1), proportion of multigenerational families (RR: 1.8, 95%CI:1.7-2.0) and unsuitably crowded housing (RR: 2.1, 95%CI:2.0-2.3) were associated with COVID-19 incidence. Neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of residents with less than high school education (RR: 1.6, 95%CI:1.4-1.8), low income (RR: 1.4, 95%CI:1.2-1.5) and unaffordable housing (RR: 1.6, 95%CI:1.4-1.8) were associated with COVID-19 incidence. Similar inequities were observed across neighbourhood-level sociodemographic characteristics and COVID-19 mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Neighbourhood-level inequities in COVID-19 incidence and mortality were observed in Ontario, with excess burden experienced in neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of immigrants, racialized populations, large households and low socio-economic status.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Incidence , Ontario/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Residence Characteristics , Family Characteristics , Socioeconomic Factors
15.
PLoS One ; 17(2): e0262515, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1688746

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Following the full re-opening of schools in England and emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant, we investigated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in students and staff who were contacts of a confirmed case in a school bubble (school groupings with limited interactions), along with their household members. METHODS: Primary and secondary school bubbles were recruited into sKIDsBUBBLE after being sent home to self-isolate following a confirmed case of COVID-19 in the bubble. Bubble participants and their household members were sent home-testing kits comprising nasal swabs for RT-PCR testing and whole genome sequencing, and oral fluid swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. RESULTS: During November-December 2020, 14 bubbles were recruited from 7 schools, including 269 bubble contacts (248 students, 21 staff) and 823 household contacts (524 adults, 299 children). The secondary attack rate was 10.0% (6/60) in primary and 3.9% (4/102) in secondary school students, compared to 6.3% (1/16) and 0% (0/1) among staff, respectively. The incidence rate for household contacts of primary school students was 6.6% (12/183) and 3.7% (1/27) for household contacts of primary school staff. In secondary schools, this was 3.5% (11/317) and 0% (0/1), respectively. Household contacts were more likely to test positive if their bubble contact tested positive although there were new infections among household contacts of uninfected bubble contacts. INTERPRETATION: Compared to other institutional settings, the overall risk of secondary infection in school bubbles and their household contacts was low. Our findings are important for developing evidence-based infection prevention guidelines for educational settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Adolescent , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/virology , Child , Contact Tracing , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Nasopharynx/virology , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/metabolism , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Schools/statistics & numerical data , Students/statistics & numerical data
17.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(9): ofac449, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2037503

ABSTRACT

Background: Waning protection from 2 doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines led to third dose availability in multiple countries even before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Methods: We used the test-negative study design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against any severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, any symptomatic infection, and severe outcomes (COVID-19-related hospitalizations or death) by time since second dose of any combination of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 between January 11, and November 21, 2021, for subgroups based on patient and vaccine characteristics. Results: We included 261 360 test-positive cases (of any SARS-CoV-2 lineage) and 2 783 699 individuals as test-negative controls. VE of 2 mRNA vaccine doses decreased from 90% (95% CI, 90%-90%) 7-59 days after the second dose to 75% (95% CI, 72%-78%) after ≥240 days against infection, decreased from 94% (95% CI, 84%-95%) to 87% (95% CI, 85%-89%) against symptomatic infection, and remained stable (98% [95% CI, 97%-98%] to 98% [95% CI, 96%-99%]) against severe outcomes. Similar trends were seen with heterologous ChAdOx1 and mRNA vaccine schedules. VE estimates for dosing intervals <35 days were lower than for longer intervals (eg, VE of 2 mRNA vaccines against symptomatic infection at 120-179 days was 86% [95% CI, 85%-88%] for dosing intervals <35 days, 92% [95% CI, 91%-93%] for 35-55 days, and 91% [95% CI, 90%-92%] for ≥56 days), but when stratified by age group and subperiod, there were no differences between dosing intervals. Conclusions: Before the emergence of Omicron, VE of any 2-dose primary series, including heterologous schedules and varying dosing intervals, decreased over time against any infection and symptomatic infection but remained high against severe outcomes.

18.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(9): e2232760, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2034686

ABSTRACT

Importance: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including among individuals who have received 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine, increased substantially following the emergence of the Omicron variant in Ontario, Canada. Understanding the estimated effectiveness of 2 or 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine against outcomes associated with Omicron and Delta infections may aid decision-making at the individual and population levels. Objective: To estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic infections due to the Omicron and Delta variants and severe outcomes (hospitalization or death) associated with these infections. Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative case-control study used linked provincial databases for SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing, reportable disease, COVID-19 vaccination, and health administration in Ontario, Canada. Participants were individuals aged 18 years or older who had COVID-19 symptoms or severe outcomes (hospitalization or death) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between December 6 and 26, 2021. Exposures: Receipt of 2 or 3 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and time since last dose. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were symptomatic Omicron or Delta infection and severe outcomes (hospitalization or death) associated with infection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effectiveness of 2 or 3 COVID-19 vaccine doses by time since the latest dose compared with no vaccination. Estimated VE was calculated using the formula VE = (1 - [adjusted odds ratio]) × 100%. Results: Of 134 435 total participants, 16 087 were Omicron-positive cases (mean [SD] age, 36.0 [14.1] years; 8249 [51.3%] female), 4261 were Delta-positive cases (mean [SD] age, 44.2 [16.8] years; 2199 [51.6%] female), and 114 087 were test-negative controls (mean [SD] age, 42.0 [16.5] years; 67 884 [59.5%] female). Estimated VE against symptomatic Delta infection decreased from 89% (95% CI, 86%-92%) 7 to 59 days after a second dose to 80% (95% CI, 74%-84%) after 240 or more days but increased to 97% (95% CI, 96%-98%) 7 or more days after a third dose. Estimated VE against symptomatic Omicron infection was 36% (95% CI, 24%-45%) 7 to 59 days after a second dose and 1% (95% CI, -8% to 10%) after 180 days or longer, but 7 or more days after a third dose, it increased to 61% (95% CI, 56%-65%). Estimated VE against severe outcomes was high 7 or more days after a third dose for both Delta (99%; 95% CI, 98%-99%) and Omicron (95%; 95% CI, 87%-98%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, in contrast to high estimated VE against symptomatic Delta infection and severe outcomes after 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine, estimated VE was modest and short term against symptomatic Omicron infection but better maintained against severe outcomes. A third dose was associated with improved estimated VE against symptomatic infection and with high estimated VE against severe outcomes for both variants. Preventing infection due to Omicron and potential future variants may require tools beyond the currently available vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hepatitis D , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Male , Ontario/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Can J Public Health ; 113(6): 898-903, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2030411

ABSTRACT

SETTING: Rapid antigen screening can be effective in identifying infectious individuals in occupational settings to reduce transmission and outbreaks. We report results from a pilot project at the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) and describe the operationalization. Toronto Pearson is a large international airport encompassing over 400 employers and, pre-pandemic, with approximately 50,000 employees. INTERVENTION: An employee screening program was piloted between March 8 and May 28, 2021, to implement rapid antigen testing for asymptomatic employees. Recruitment targeted enrolment of 400 employees and yielded participation of 717 from 58 companies. Employees were recommended to book three times per week for nasal swabs on site, and were tested on the Abbot PanbioTM rapid antigen test. No action was taken from a negative result, and if positive, the employee was told to isolate at home and obtain a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test. OUTCOMES: A total of 5117 tests were performed on 717 individuals over 12 weeks; 5091 tests were negative (99.5%), and 22 individuals tested positive (3.1% positivity rate). One hundred twenty-four (17%) completed the post-participation survey. All respondents reported that testing did not change their behaviour at work with respect to public health recommendations, and only 1 (1%) reported behaviour change outside of work (socializing with family) as a result of the program. IMPLICATIONS: This pilot program identified 22 (3.1%) potentially infectious employees. Onsite testing was feasible and highly accepted by this group of employees who completed the survey. Education resulted in reasonable uptake and no substantial change in behaviour, although the survey response rate may limit generalizability. Home-based testing may facilitate larger recruitment.


RéSUMé: LIEU: Le dépistage antigénique rapide peut être efficace pour repérer les personnes infectieuses en milieu de travail afin de réduire la transmission et les éclosions. Nous rendons compte des résultats d'un projet pilote mené par l'Autorité aéroportuaire du Grand Toronto (GTAA) et nous en décrivons l'opérationnalisation. L'aéroport Toronto Pearson est un vaste aéroport international qui compte plus de 400 employeurs et, avant la pandémie, environ 50 000 employés. INTERVENTION: Un programme de dépistage au travail a fait l'objet d'un projet pilote entre le 8 mars et le 28 mai 2021 pour mettre en œuvre le dépistage antigénique rapide chez les employés asymptomatiques. Le recrutement visait l'inscription de 400 employés et a donné lieu à une participation de 717 personnes dans 58 entreprises. Il était recommandé aux employés de s'inscrire à un prélèvement nasal sur place trois fois par semaine; le test antigénique rapide d'Abbot PanbioTM était utilisé pour les prélèvements. Un résultat négatif ne donnait lieu à aucune mesure, mais si le résultat était positif, l'employé recevait l'instruction de s'isoler à la maison et d'obtenir un test de réaction de polymérisation en chaîne pour confirmer. RéSULTATS: En tout, 5 117 tests ont été effectués sur 717 personnes sur une période de 12 semaines; 5 091 tests (99,5 %) ont été négatifs, et 22 ont été positifs (taux de positivité de 3,1 %). Cent vingt-quatre personnes (17 %) ont répondu au sondage après la participation. Tous les répondants ont déclaré que le dépistage n'avait pas changé leur comportement au travail en ce qui a trait aux recommandations sanitaires, et une seule personne (1 %) a déclaré avoir changé ses comportements en dehors du travail (sa socialisation en famille) en raison du programme. CONSéQUENCES: Ce programme pilote a repéré 22 employés potentiellement infectieux (3,1 %). Le dépistage sur place était faisable et a été bien accepté par le groupe d'employés ayant répondu au sondage. La sensibilisation a donné lieu à une participation raisonnable sans modification sensible des comportements, mais le faible taux de réponse au sondage pourrait limiter la généralisabilité des résultats. Le dépistage à domicile pourrait favoriser un meilleur recrutement.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Pilot Projects , COVID-19/diagnosis , Pandemics , COVID-19 Testing
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL