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.

Natural spring water gargle samples as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed test.

The objective of this study was to validate the use of spring water gargle (SWG) as an alternative to oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection with a laboratory-developed test. Healthcare workers and adults from the general population, presenting to one of two COVID-19 screening clinics in Montréal and Québec City, were prospectively recruited to provide a gargle sample in addition to the standard ONPS. The paired specimens were analyzed using thermal lysis followed by a laboratory-developed nucleic acid amplification test (LD-NAAT) to detect SARS-CoV-2, and comparative performance analysis was performed. An individual was considered infected if a positive result was obtained on either sample. A total of 1297 adult participants were recruited. Invalid results (n = 18) were excluded from the analysis. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 144/1279 (11.3%) participants: 126 from both samples, 15 only from ONPS, and 3 only from SWG. Overall, the sensitivity was 97.9% (95% CI: 93.7-99.3) for ONPS and 89.6% (95% CI: 83.4-93.6; p = 0.005) for SWG. The mean ONPS cycle threshold (Ct ) value was significantly lower for the concordant paired samples as compared to discordant ones (22.9 vs. 32.1; p < 0.001). In conclusion, using an LD-NAAT with thermal lysis, SWG is a less sensitive sampling method than the ONPS. However, the higher acceptability of SWG might enable a higher rate of detection from a population-based perspective. Nonetheless, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of COVID-19, a repeated analysis with ONPS should be considered. The sensitivity of SWG using NAAT preceded by chemical extraction should be evaluated.

Outcomes of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Canadian first wave epicentre: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial number of Quebec hospitals were hit by hospital-acquired (HA) SARS-CoV-2 infections. Our objective was to assess whether mortality is higher in HA cases than in non-hospital-acquired (NHA) cases and determine the prevalence of HA-SARS-CoV-2 infection in our hospital. METHODS: This retrospective single-centre cohort study included all adults (≥ 18 yr) who had COVID-19, admitted to Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Montréal, Canada) from Mar. 1 to June 30, 2020. We collected data on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, treatment, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilation requirements from electronic health records. We adjudicated hospital acquisition based on the timing of symptom onset, and polymerase chain reaction testing for and exposures to SARS-CoV-2. To evaluate the association between HA-SARS-CoV-2 infection and in-hospital mortality, we computed a multivariable logistic regression analysis including known risk factors for death in patients with COVID-19 as covariates. RESULTS: Among 697 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 253 (36.3%) were classified as HA. The mortality rate was higher in the HA group than in the NHA group (38.2% v. 26.4%, p = 0.001), while the rates of ICU admission (8.3% v. 19.1%, p = 0.001) and requirement for mechanical ventilation (3.6% v. 13.0%, p = 0.001) were lower. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that HA-SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients younger than 75 years is an independent risk factor for death (odds ratio 2.78, 95% confidence interval 1.44-5.38). INTERPRETATION: Our results show that HA-SARS-CoV-2 infection in younger patients was associated with higher mortality. Future studies need to evaluate relevant patient-centred long-term outcomes in this population.

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.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection with the Cobas® 6800/8800 system on gargle samples using two sample processing methods with combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab.

BACKGROUND: Gargle samples have been proposed as a noninvasive method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The clinical performance of gargle specimens diluted in Cobas® PCR Media and in Cobas® Omni Lysis Reagent was compared to oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. STUDY DESIGN: Participants were recruited prospectively in two COVID-19 screening clinics. In addition to the ONPS, participants gargled with 5 ml of natural spring water split in the laboratory as follows: 1 ml was added to 4.3 ml of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) media and 400 µl was added to 200 µl of lysis buffer. Testing was performed with the Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test on the Cobas® 6800 or 8800 platforms. RESULTS: Overall, 134/647 (20.7%) participants were considered infected because the ONPS or at least one gargle test was positive. ONPS had, respectively, a sensitivity of 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.3-98.5); both gargle processing methods were slightly less but equally sensitive (90.3% [95% CI: 83.9-94.3]). When ONPS and gargle specimens were both positive, the mean cycle threshold (Ct ) was significantly higher for gargles, suggesting lower viral loads. CONCLUSION: Gargle specimens directly added in PCR Media provide a similar clinical sensitivity to chemical lysis, both having a slightly, not significantly, lower sensitivity to ONPS.

Colchicine for community-treated patients with COVID-19 (COLCORONA): a phase 3, randomised, double-blinded, adaptive, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests a role for excessive inflammation in COVID-19 complications. Colchicine is an oral anti-inflammatory medication beneficial in gout, pericarditis, and coronary disease. We aimed to investigate the effect of colchicine on the composite of COVID-19-related death or hospital admission. METHODS: The present study is a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, adaptive, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. The study was done in Brazil, Canada, Greece, South Africa, Spain, and the USA, and was led by the Montreal Heart Institute. Patients with COVID-19 diagnosed by PCR testing or clinical criteria who were not being treated in hospital were eligible if they were at least 40 years old and had at least one high-risk characteristic. The randomisation list was computer-generated by an unmasked biostatistician, and masked randomisation was centralised and done electronically through an automated interactive web-response system. The allocation sequence was unstratified and used a 1:1 ratio with a blocking schema and block sizes of six. Patients were randomly assigned to receive orally administered colchicine (0·5 mg twice per day for 3 days and then once per day for 27 days thereafter) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death or hospital admission for COVID-19. Vital status at the end of the study was available for 97·9% of patients. The analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The COLCORONA trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04322682) and is now closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Trial enrolment began in March 23, 2020, and was completed in Dec 22, 2020. A total of 4488 patients (53·9% women; median age 54·0 years, IQR 47·0-61·0) were enrolled and 2235 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine and 2253 to placebo. The primary endpoint occurred in 104 (4·7%) of 2235 patients in the colchicine group and 131 (5·8%) of 2253 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 0·79, 95·1% CI 0·61-1·03; p=0·081). Among the 4159 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, the primary endpoint occurred in 96 (4·6%) of 2075 patients in the colchicine group and 126 (6·0%) of 2084 patients in the placebo group (OR 0·75, 0·57-0·99; p=0·042). Serious adverse events were reported in 108 (4·9%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 139 (6·3%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p=0·051); pneumonia occurred in 63 (2·9%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 92 (4·1%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p=0·021). Diarrhoea was reported in 300 (13·7%) of 2195 patients in the colchicine group and 161 (7·3%) of 2217 patients in the placebo group (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In community-treated patients including those without a mandatory diagnostic test, the effect of colchicine on COVID-19-related clinical events was not statistically significant. Among patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, colchicine led to a lower rate of the composite of death or hospital admission than placebo. Given the absence of orally administered therapies to prevent COVID-19 complications in community-treated patients and the benefit of colchicine in patients with PCR-proven COVID-19, this safe and inexpensive anti-inflammatory agent could be considered for use in those at risk of complications. Notwithstanding these considerations, replication in other studies of PCR-positive community-treated patients is recommended. FUNDING: The Government of Quebec, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the US National Institutes of Health, the Montreal Heart Institute Foundation, the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the Rudin Family Foundation, and philanthropist Sophie Desmarais.

Comparison of saliva with oral and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection on various commercial and laboratory-developed assays.

The accurate laboratory detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a crucial element in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing on combined oral and nasopharyngeal swab (ONPS) suffers from several limitations, including the need for qualified personnel, the discomfort caused by invasive nasopharyngeal sample collection, and the possibility of swab and transport media shortage. Testing on saliva would represent an advancement. The aim of this study was to compare the concordance between saliva samples and ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 on various commercial and laboratory-developed tests (LDT). Individuals were recruited from eight institutions in Quebec, Canada, if they had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected on a recently collected ONPS, and accepted to provide another ONPS, paired with saliva. Assays available in the different laboratories (Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Cobas® SARS-CoV-2, Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, RIDA®GENE SARS-CoV-2, and an LDT preceded by three different extraction methods) were used to determine the concordance between saliva and ONPS results. Overall, 320 tests were run from a total of 125 saliva and ONPS sample pairs. All assays yielded similar sensitivity when saliva was compared to ONPS, with the exception of one LDT (67% vs. 93%). The mean difference in cycle threshold (∆C t ) was generally (but not significantly) in favor of the ONPS for all nucleic acid amplification tests. The maximum mean ∆​​​​​C t was 2.0, while individual ∆C t varied importantly from -17.5 to 12.4. Saliva seems to be associated with sensitivity similar to ONPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by various assays.