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.

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.

Séroprévalence du SRAS-CoV-2 chez les travailleurs de la santé de 10 hôpitaux du Québec, au Canada: étude transversale.

CONTEXTE: La pandémie de COVID-19 a affecté de manière disproportionnée les travailleurs de la santé. Nous avons voulu mesurer la séroprévalence du SRAS-CoV-2 chez les travailleurs de la santé dans les hôpitaux du Québec, au Canada, après la première vague de la pandémie, afin d'explorer les facteurs associés à la SRAS-CoV-2-séropositivité. MÉTHODES: Entre le 6 juillet et le 24 septembre 2020, nous avons recruté des travailleurs de la santé de 10 hôpitaux, dont 8 d'une région où l'incidence de la COVID-19 était élevée (région de Montréal) et 2 de régions du Québec où l'incidence était faible. Les travailleurs de la santé admissibles étaient des médecins, des infirmières, des préposées aux bénéficiaires et des préposés à l'entretien ménager travaillant dans 4 types d'unité de soins (urgences, soins intensifs, unité hospitalière COVID-19 et unité hospitalière non-COVID-19). Les participants ont répondu à un questionnaire et subi un dépistage sérologique du SRAS-CoV-2. Nous avons identifié les facteurs ayant un lien indépendant avec une séroprévalence plus élevée. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 2056 travailleurs de la santé recrutés, 241 (11,7 %) se sont révélés SRAS-CoV-2-positifs. Parmi eux, 171 (71,0 %) avaient déjà reçu un diagnostic de COVID-19. La séroprévalence a varié d'un hôpital à l'autre, de 2,4 %­3,7 % dans les régions où l'incidence était faible, à 17,9 %­32,0 % dans les hôpitaux ayant connu des éclosions touchant 5 travailleurs de la santé ou plus. La séroprévalence plus élevée a été associée au fait de travailler dans un hôpital où des éclosions sont survenues (rapport de prévalence ajusté 4,16, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 2,63­6,57), au fait d'être infirmière ou auxiliaire (rapport de prévalence ajusté 1,34, IC à 95 % 1,03­1,74), préposée aux bénéficiaires (rapport de prévalence ajusté 1,49, IC à 95 % 1,12­1,97) et d'ethnicité noire ou hispanique (rapport de prévalence ajusté 1,41, IC à 95 % 1,13­1,76). La séroprévalence moindre a été associée au fait de travailler dans une unité de soins intensifs (rapport de prévalence ajusté 0,47, IC à 95 % 0,30­0,71) ou aux urgences (rapport de prévalence ajusté 0,61, IC à 95 % 0,39­0,98). INTERPRÉTATION: Les travailleurs de la santé des hôpitaux du Québec ont été exposés à un risque élevé d'infection par le SRAS-CoV-2, particulièrement lors des éclosions. Il faudra travailler à mieux comprendre la dynamique de la transmission du SRAS-CoV-2 dans les milieux de soins.

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.

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its first variants in fourplex real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR assays.

The early diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is required to identify and isolate contagious patients to prevent further transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we present a multitarget real-time TaqMan reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) assay for the quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 and some of its circulating variants harboring mutations that give the virus a selective advantage. Seven different primer-probe sets that included probes containing locked nucleic acid (LNA) nucleotides were designed to amplify specific wild-type and mutant sequences in Orf1ab, Envelope (E), Spike (S), and Nucleocapsid (N) genes. Furthermore, a newly developed primer-probe set targeted human ß2-microglobulin (B2M) as a highly sensitive internal control for RT efficacy. All singleplex and fourplex assays detected ≤ 14 copies/reaction of quantified synthetic RNA transcripts, with a linear amplification range of nine logarithmic orders. Primer-probe sets for detection of SARS-CoV-2 exhibited no false-positive amplifications with other common respiratory pathogens, including human coronaviruses NL63, 229E, OC43, and HKU-1. Fourplex assays were evaluated using 160 clinical samples positive for SARS-CoV-2. Results showed that SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected in all samples, including viral strains harboring mutations in the Spike coding sequence that became dominant in the pandemic. Given the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their rapid spread in some populations, fourplex rRT-PCR assay containing four primer-probe sets represents a reliable approach to allow quicker detection of circulating relevant variants in a single reaction.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in health care workers from 10 hospitals in Quebec, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. We sought to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital health care workers in Quebec, Canada, after the first wave of the pandemic and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. METHODS: Between July 6 and Sept. 24, 2020, we enrolled health care workers from 10 hospitals, including 8 from a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 (the Montréal area) and 2 from low-incidence regions of Quebec. Eligible health care workers were physicians, nurses, orderlies and cleaning staff working in 4 types of care units (emergency department, intensive care unit, COVID-19 inpatient unit and non-COVID-19 inpatient unit). Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. We identified factors independently associated with higher seroprevalence. RESULTS: Among 2056 enrolled health care workers, 241 (11.7%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. Of these, 171 (71.0%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Seroprevalence varied among hospitals, from 2.4% to 3.7% in low-incidence regions to 17.9% to 32.0% in hospitals with outbreaks involving 5 or more health care workers. Higher seroprevalence was associated with working in a hospital where outbreaks occurred (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63-6.57), being a nurse or nursing assistant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.74) or an orderly (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12-1.97), and Black or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13-1.76). Lower seroprevalence was associated with working in the intensive care unit (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.71) or the emergency department (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.98). INTERPRETATION: Health care workers in Quebec hospitals were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in outbreak settings. More work is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in health care settings.

Influenza vaccine during the 2019-2020 season and COVID-19 risk: A case-control study in Québec.

BACKGROUND: We carried out a case-control study that examined whether receipt of the inactivated influenza vaccine during the 2019-2020 season impacted on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as there was a concern that the vaccine could be detrimental through viral interference. METHODS: A total of 920 cases with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (diagnosed between March and October 2020) and 2,123 uninfected controls were recruited from those who were born in Québec between 1956 and 1976 and who had received diagnostic services at two hospitals (Montréal and Sherbrooke, Québec). After obtaining consent, a questionnaire was administered by phone. Data were analyzed by logistic regression. RESULTS: Among healthcare workers, inactivated influenza vaccine received during the previous influenza season was not associated with increased COVID-19 risk (AOR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.69-1.41). Among participants who were not healthcare workers, influenza vaccination was associated with lower odds of COVID-19 (AOR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.96). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that seasonal influenza vaccine increased the risk of developing COVID-19.

Does BCG provide long-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection? A case-control study in Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, before severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines became available, it was hypothesized that BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin), which stimulates innate immunity, could provide protection against SARS-CoV-2. Numerous ecological studies, plagued by methodological deficiencies, revealed a country-level association between BCG use and lower COVID-19 incidence and mortality. We aimed to determine whether BCG administered in early life decreased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adulthood and the severity of COVID-19. METHODS: This case-control study was conducted in Quebec, Canada. Cases were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test performed at two hospitals between March-October 2020. Controls were identified among patients with non-COVID-19 samples processed by the same microbiology laboratories during the same period. Enrolment was limited to individuals born in Quebec between 1956 and 1976, whose vaccine status was accessible in a computerized registry of 4.2 million BCG vaccinations. RESULTS: We recruited 920 cases and 2123 controls. Fifty-four percent of cases (n = 424) and 53% of controls (n = 1127) had received BCG during childhood (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.89-1.21), while 12% of cases (n = 114) and 11% of controls (n = 235) had received two or more BCG doses (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.88-1.46). After adjusting for age, sex, material deprivation, recruiting hospital and occupation there was no evidence of protection conferred by BCG against SARS-CoV-2 (AOR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.84-1.21). Among cases, 77 (8.4%) needed hospitalization and 18 (2.0%) died. The vaccinated were as likely as the unvaccinated to require hospitalization (AOR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.62-1.67) or to die (AOR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.32-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: BCG does not provide long-term protection against symptomatic COVID-19 or severe forms of the disease.

Validation of saliva sampling as an alternative to oro-nasopharyngeal swab for detection of SARS-CoV-2 using unextracted rRT-PCR with the Allplex 2019-nCoV assay.

Introduction. The current severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has stressed the global supply chain for specialized equipment, including flocked swabs.Hypothesis. Saliva could be a potential alternative specimen source for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR).Aim. To compare the detection efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) specimens.Methodology. Patients recruited from hospital provided paired saliva and ONPS specimens. We performed manual or automated RT-PCR with prior proteinase K treatment without RNA extraction using the Seegene Allplex 2019 nCoV assay.Results. Of the 773 specimen pairs, 165 (21.3 %) had at least one positive sample. Additionally, 138 specimens tested positive by both sampling methods. Fifteen and 12 cases were detected only by nasopharyngeal swab and saliva, respectively. The sensitivity of ONPS (153/165; 92.7 %; 95 % CI: 88.8-96.7) was similar to that of saliva (150/165; 90.9 %; 95 % CI: 86.5-95.3; P=0.5). In patients with symptoms for ≤ 10 days, the sensitivity of ONPS (118/126; 93.7 %; 95 % CI: 89.4-97.9) was similar to that of saliva (122/126; 96.8 %; 95 % CI: 93.8-99.9 %; P=0.9). However, the sensitivity of ONPS (20/22; 95.2 %; 95 % CI: 86.1-100) was higher than that of saliva (16/22; 71.4 %; 95 % CI: 52.1-90.8) in patients with symptoms for more than 10 days.Conclusions. Saliva sampling is an acceptable alternative to ONPS for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptomatic individuals displaying symptoms for ≤ 10 days. These results reinforce the need to expand the use of saliva samples, which are self-collected and do not require swabs.

Respiratory tract samples collected from patients in a region of Quebec, Canada, indicate the absence of early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: The first documented case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Quebec was confirmed on February 27, 2020. Retracing the first cases that occur within a geographical region may provide insight regarding the evolution and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in that region because the spread of undiagnosed cases may facilitate the initial community amplification of the virus. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of respiratory tract samples collected for influenza testing in a region of Quebec, Canada, to look for evidence of early circulation of SARS-CoV-2. Frozen nucleic acid extracts initially collected for influenza testing between January 1 and February 20, 2020, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay. Results: During the study period, 1,440 of 2,121 (67.9%) nucleic acid extracts from individual patients were available for retrospective testing. None of the samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: The results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 was not circulating within the region before February 20, 2020, because many samples, representing more than two-thirds of all samples tested for influenza during early 2020, were tested. Further studies using a similar methodology to determine the date of onset of SARS-CoV-2 in different countries and geographic areas could enhance our understanding of the current pandemic.

Historique: Le premier cas démontré d'infection par le syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère à coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) au Québec a été confirmé le 27 février 2020. Le retraçage du premier cas survenu dans une région géographique peut donner un aperçu de l'évolution et de la propagation du virus SARS-CoV-2 dans cette région, car la transmission des cas non diagnostiqués peut favoriser l'amplification initiale du virus dans la communauté. Méthodologie: Les chercheurs ont procédé à l'analyse rétrospective des échantillons respiratoires prélevés pour le dépistage de la grippe dans une région du Québec, au Canada, afin de trouver des preuves de circulation précoce du virus SARS-CoV-2D. Les extraits d'acide nucléique congelés entre le 1er janvier et le 20 février 2020 ont été soumis au dépistage du virus SARS-CoV-2 au moyen de l'amplification en chaîne par polymérase après transcriptase inverse. Résultats: Pendant la période de l'étude, 1 440 des 2 121 extraits d'acide nucléique (67,9 %) provenant de patients différents étaient disponibles en vue de tests rétrospectifs. Aucun n'a été positif au virus SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: D'après les résultats, le virus SARS-CoV-2 n'était pas en circulation dans la région avant le 20 février 2020, car de nombreux échantillons, représentant plus des deux tiers de tous ceux ayant servi au dépistage de la grippe au début de l'année 2020, ont été soumis au dépistage. D'autres études faisant appel à une méthodologie semblable pour déterminer la date d'apparition du virus SARS-CoV-2 dans divers pays et diverses régions géographiques pourraient permettre de mieux comprendre la pandémie en cours.

Anosmie et dysgueusie associées à l'infection au SRAS-CoV-2: étude cas­témoins appariée selon l'âge.

CONTEXTE: On a signalé l'anosmie et la dysgueusie comme symptômes potentiels de la maladie à coronavirus 2019. Cette étude visait à confirmer si ces symptômes sont caractéristiques chez les personnes ayant eu un résultat positif au dépistage du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2). MÉTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une étude cas­témoins appariée selon l'âge dans la région des Cantons-de-l'Est, au Québec, entre le 10 et le 23 mars 2020. Nous avons inclus les adultes (18 ans et plus) ayant obtenu un résultat positif au dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2 par test d'amplification en chaîne par polymérase couplée à une transcription inverse. Les cas ont été appariés (1:1) par tranche d'âge de 5 ans avec des témoins sélectionnés aléatoirement parmi tous les patients ayant eu un résultat négatif au dépistage pendant la même période. Les données démographiques et de laboratoire ont été récupérées dans les dossiers médicaux. Les symptômes cliniques et les comorbidités associés à l'anosmie et à la dysgueusie ont été notés lors d'entrevues téléphoniques faites au moyen d'un questionnaire standardisé. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 2883 personnes soumises au dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2, nous avons recensé 134 cas positifs (70 femmes [52,2 %] et 64 hommes [47,8 %]; âge médian 57,1 ans [intervalle interquartile 41,2­64,5 ans]). Les symptômes indépendamment associés à l'infection confirmée au SRAS-CoV-2 dans une analyse de régression logistique conditionnelle étaient les suivants : anosmie et/ou dysgueusie (rapport de cotes [RC] ajusté 62,9; intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 11,0­359,7), myalgie (RC ajusté 7,6; IC de 95 % 1,9­29,9), vision trouble (RC ajusté 0,1; IC de 95 % 0,0­0,8) et douleur thoracique (RC ajusté 0,1; IC de 95 % 0,0­0,6). INTERPRÉTATION: Nous avons observé un lien étroit entre les symptômes olfactifs et gustatifs et la positivité au SRAS-CoV-2. Ces symptômes devraient être considérés comme une caractéristique fréquente et distinctive de l'infection au SRAS-CoV-2 et devraient servir d'indication de dépistage, et même de répétition du dépistage chez les personnes dont le résultat initial est négatif.

Anosmia and dysgeusia associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an age-matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Anosmia and dysgeusia have been reported as potential symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019. This study aimed to confirm whether anosmia and dysgeusia are specific symptoms among those who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted an age-matched case-control study in the Eastern Townships region of Quebec between Mar. 10 and Mar. 23, 2020. We included adults (age ≥ 18 yr) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Cases were matched (1:1) according to 5-year age groups with control patents selected randomly from among all patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 during the same period. Demographic and laboratory information was collected from medical records. Clinical symptoms and comorbidities associated with anosmia and dysgeusia were obtained by telephone interview with a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Among 2883 people tested for SARS-CoV-2, we identified 134 positive cases (70 women [52.2%] and 64 men [47.8%]; median age 57.1 [interquartile range 41.2-64.5] yr). The symptoms independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in conditional logistic regression were anosmia or dysgeusia or both (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 62.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.0-359.7), presence of myalgia (adjusted OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.9-29.9), blurred vision (adjusted OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.8) and chest pain (adjusted OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.6). INTERPRETATION: We found a strong association between olfactory and gustatory symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 positivity. These symptoms should be considered as common and distinctive features of SARS-CoV-2 infection and should serve as an indication for testing and possible retesting of people whose first test result is negative.