Sex-Based Differences in Severe Outcomes, Including Cardiovascular Hospitalization, in Adults With COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada.

Background: While men have experienced higher risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to women, an analysis of sex differences by age in severe outcomes during the acute phase of infection is lacking. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess heterogeneity in severe outcome risks by age and sex by conducting a retrospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults in Ontario who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 3 waves. Methods: Adjusted odds ratios were estimated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression models including an interaction term for age and sex. The primary outcome was a composite of severe outcomes (hospitalization for a cardiovascular (CV) event, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or death) within 30 days. Results: Among 30,736, 199,132, and 186,131 adults who tested positive during the first 3 waves, 1,908 (6.2%), 5,437 (2.7%), and 5,653 (3.0%) experienced a severe outcome within 30 days. For all outcomes, the sex-specific risk depended on age (all P for interaction <0.05). Men with SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced a higher risk of outcomes than infected women of the same age, except for the risk of all-cause hospitalization being higher for young women than men (ages 18-45 years) during waves 2 and 3. The sex disparity in CV hospitalization across all ages either persisted or increased with each subsequent wave. Conclusions: To mitigate risks in subsequent waves, it is helpful to further understand the factors that contribute to the generally higher risks faced by men across all ages, and the persistent or increasing sex disparity in the risk of CV hospitalization.

The need to streamline approval processes for clinical research in Canada: CMAJ

Lumia et al discuss Murthy and colleagues' commentary highlighting the need to improve Canada's current research infrastructure to support national clinical research studies. Murthy and colleagues note Canada's limited ability to rapidly conduct high-priority research, hindered by the need for separate data-sharing agreements and ethics review at each participating hospital site. They experienced long delays (6 mo to more than 1 yr) in receiving ethics and institutional approvals to conduct our low-risk, multisite observational study evaluating the long-term effects of COVID-19. The main factors that contributed to approval delays included the establishment and approval of data-sharing agreements at each of our 11 study sites (across 6 provinces) and separate, full-board ethics review at 5 study sites. Differences in local requirements for information technology and online security, collection of personal health data, recruitment processes, and data storage and retention also contributed to approval delays.

Association of clinically significant obstructive sleep apnoea with risks of contracting COVID-19 and serious COVID-19 complications: a retrospective population-based study of health administrative data.

RATIONALE/OBJECTIVES: Despite plausible pathophysiological mechanisms, more research is needed to confirm the relationship between obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and the risk of COVID-19 infection or COVID-19-related serious complications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using provincial health administrative data (Ontario, Canada). Adults with physician-diagnosed OSA who received positive airway pressure therapy in the 5 years prepandemic (OSA group) were propensity score matched by baseline characteristics to individuals in the general population at low risk of OSA (non-OSA group) using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Weighted HRs of (1) a positive COVID-19 test and (2) COVID-19-related emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalisations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and mortality, within 12 months of pandemic onset, were compared between groups. We also evaluated the impact of comorbid cardiometabolic or chronic airways disease. RESULTS: We identified and matched 324 029 individuals in the OSA group to 4 588 200 individuals in the non-OSA group. Compared with the non-OSA group, those in the OSA group were at a greater hazard of testing positive for COVID-19 (HR=1.17, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.21), having a COVID-19-related ED visit (HR=1.62, 95% CI 1.51 to 1.73), hospitalisation (HR=1.50, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.65) or ICU admission (HR=1.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.84). COVID-19-related 30-day mortality was not different (HR=0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16).We found that for the OSA group, comorbid airways disease but not cardiometabolic conditions increased the hazards of COVID-19-related outcomes, including mortality. CONCLUSION: In this large population-based study, we demonstrated that a recent diagnosis of OSA requiring treatment was associated with an increased hazard of testing positive for COVID-19 and serious COVID-19-related complications, particularly in those with co-existing chronic airways disease.

Epidemiological and clinical perspectives of long COVID syndrome.

Long COVID, or post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, is characterized by multi-organ symptoms lasting 2+ months after initial COVID-19 virus infection. This review presents the current state of evidence for long COVID syndrome, including the global public health context, incidence, prevalence, cardiopulmonary sequelae, physical and mental symptoms, recovery time, prognosis, risk factors, rehospitalization rates, and the impact of vaccination on long COVID outcomes. Results are presented by clinically relevant subgroups. Overall, 10-35% of COVID survivors develop long COVID, with common symptoms including fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, cough, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, memory loss, and difficulty concentrating. Delineating these issues will be crucial to inform appropriate post-pandemic health policy and protect the health of COVID-19 survivors, including potentially vulnerable or underrepresented groups. Directed to policymakers, health practitioners, and the general public, we provide recommendations and suggest avenues for future research with the larger goal of reducing harms associated with long COVID syndrome.

Trends in all-cause mortality and inpatient and outpatient visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare observed and expected (projected based on previous years) trends in all-cause mortality and healthcare use for ACSCs in the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to March 2021). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a population-based study using provincial health administrative data on general adul population (Ontario, Canada). OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Monthly all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) and outpatient visit rates (per 100,000 people at-risk) for seven combined ACSCs (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, angina, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and epilepsy) during the first year were compared with similar periods in previous years (2016-2019) by fitting monthly time series autoregressive integrated moving-average models. RESULTS: Compared to previous years, all-cause mortality rates increased at the beginning of the pandemic (observed rate in March to May 2020 of 79.98 vs. projected of 71.24 [66.35-76.50]) and then returned to expected in June 2020-except among immigrants and people with mental health conditions where they remained elevated. Hospitalization and ED visit rates for ACSCs remained lower than projected throughout the first year: observed hospitalization rate of 37.29 versus projected of 52.07 (47.84-56.68); observed ED visit rate of 92.55 versus projected of 134.72 (124.89-145.33). ACSC outpatient visit rates decreased initially (observed rate of 4299.57 vs. projected of 5060.23 [4712.64-5433.46]) and then returned to expected in June 2020.

Diagnostic accuracy of subjective dyspnoea in detecting hypoxaemia among outpatients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The majority of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 can be managed using virtual care. Dyspnoea is challenging to assess remotely, and the accuracy of subjective dyspnoea measures in capturing hypoxaemia have not been formally evaluated for COVID-19. We explored the accuracy of subjective dyspnoea in diagnosing hypoxaemia in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who met criteria for home oxygen saturation monitoring at a university-affiliated acute care hospital in Toronto, Canada from 3 April 2020 to 13 September 2020. Dyspnoea measures were treated as diagnostic tests, and we determined their sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), negative/positive predictive value (NPV/PPV) and positive/negative likelihood ratios (+LR/-LR) for detecting hypoxaemia. In the primary analysis, hypoxaemia was defined by oxygen saturation <95%; the diagnostic accuracy of subjective dyspnoea was also assessed across a range of oxygen saturation cutoffs from 92% to 97%. RESULTS: During the study period, 89/501 (17.8%) of patients met criteria for home oxygen saturation monitoring, and of these 17/89 (19.1%) were diagnosed with hypoxaemia. The presence/absence of dyspnoea had limited accuracy for diagnosing hypoxaemia, with SN 47% (95% CI 24% to 72%), SP 80% (95% CI 68% to 88%), NPV 86% (95% CI 75% to 93%), PPV 36% (95% CI 18% to 59%), +LR 2.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.7) and -LR 0.7 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1). The SN of dyspnoea was 50% (95% CI 19% to 81%) when a cut-off of <92% was used to define hypoxaemia. A modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score >1 (SP 98%, 95% CI 88% to 100%), Roth maximal count <12 (SP 100%, 95% CI 75% to 100%) and Roth counting time <8 s (SP 93%, 95% CI 66% to 100%) had high SP that could be used to rule in hypoxaemia, but displayed low SN (≤50%). CONCLUSIONS: Subjective dyspnoea measures have inadequate accuracy for ruling out hypoxaemia in high-risk patients with COVID-19. Safe home management of patients with COVID-19 should incorporate home oxygenation saturation monitoring.

The Effects of the Health System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic on Chronic Disease Management: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with chronic conditions require ongoing disease management to reduce risks of adverse health outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care for non-COVID-19 cases was affected due to the reallocation of resources towards urgent care for COVID-19 patients, resulting in inadequate ongoing care for chronic conditions. METHODS: A keyword search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Scopus for English language articles published between January 2020 and January 2021. FINDINGS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person care for individuals with chronic conditions have decreased due to government restriction of elective and non-urgent healthcare visits, greater instilled fear over potential COVID-19 exposure during in-person visits, and higher utilization rates of telemedicine compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. Potential benefits of a virtual-care framework during the pandemic include more effective routine disease monitoring, improved patient satisfaction, and increased treatment compliance and follow-up rates. However, more needs to be done to ensure timely and effective access to telemedicine, particularly for individuals with lower digital literacy. Capitation primary care models have been proposed as a more financially-robust approach during the COVID-19 pandemic than fee-for-service primary care models; however, the interplay between different primary models and the health outcomes is still poorly understood and warrants further investigation. Shortages of medication used to manage chronic conditions were also observed at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic due to global supply chain disruptions. Finally, patients with chronic conditions faced lifestyle disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in physical activity, sleep, stress, and mental health, which need to be better addressed. INTERPRETATION: Overall, this review elucidates the disproportionately greater barriers to primary and specialty care that patients with chronic diseases face during the COVID-19 pandemic and emphasizes the urgent need for better chronic disease management strategies moving forward.

Addressing Reduced Laboratory-Based Pulmonary Function Testing During a Pandemic.

To reduce the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, many pulmonary function testing (PFT) laboratories have been closed or have significantly reduced their testing capacity. Because these mitigation strategies may be necessary for the next 6 to 18 months to prevent recurrent peaks in disease prevalence, fewer objective measurements of lung function will alter the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic respiratory diseases. PFT, which includes spirometry, lung volume, and diffusion capacity measurement, is essential to the diagnosis and management of patients with asthma, COPD, and other chronic lung conditions. Both traditional and innovative alternatives to conventional testing must now be explored. These may include peak expiratory flow devices, electronic portable spirometers, portable exhaled nitric oxide measurement, airwave oscillometry devices, and novel digital health tools such as smartphone microphone spirometers and mobile health technologies along with integration of machine learning approaches. The adoption of some novel approaches may not merely replace but could improve existing management strategies and alter common diagnostic paradigms. With these options comes important technical, privacy, ethical, financial, and medicolegal barriers that must be addressed. However, the coronavirus disease 19 pandemic also presents a unique opportunity to augment conventional testing by including innovative and emerging approaches to measuring lung function remotely in patients with respiratory disease. The benefits of such an approach have the potential to enhance respiratory care and empower patient self-management well beyond the current global pandemic.