Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Euro Surveill ; 28(18)2023 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2319661

ABSTRACT

BackgroundFollowing the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant spread, the use of unsupervised antigenic rapid diagnostic tests (self-tests) increased.AimThis study aimed to measure self-test uptake and factors associated with self-testing.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study from 20 January to 2 May 2022, the case series from a case-control study on factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were used to analyse self-testing habits in France. A multivariable quasi-Poisson regression was used to explore the variables associated with self-testing among symptomatic cases who were not contacts of another infected individual. The control series from the same study was used as a proxy for the self-test background rate in the non-infected population of France.ResultsDuring the study period, 179,165 cases who tested positive through supervised tests were recruited. Of these, 64.7% had performed a self-test in the 3 days preceding this supervised test, of which 79,038 (68.2%) were positive. The most frequently reported reason for self-testing was the presence of symptoms (64.6%). Among symptomatic cases who were not aware of being contacts of another case, self-testing was positively associated with being female, higher education, household size, being a teacher and negatively associated with older age, not French by birth, healthcare-related work and immunosuppression. Among the control series, 12% self-tested during the 8 days preceding questionnaire filling, with temporal heterogeneity.ConclusionThe analysis showed high self-test uptake in France with some inequalities which must be addressed through education and facilitated access (cost and availability) for making it a more efficient epidemic control tool.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Female , Male , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Self-Testing , France/epidemiology
2.
Lancet Microbe ; 4(6): e409-e417, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2295288

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 has been estimated for the known variants of concern. However, differences in study designs and settings make comparing variants difficult. We aimed to estimate the incubation period for each variant of concern compared with the historical strain within a unique and large study to identify individual factors and circumstances associated with its duration. METHODS: In this case series analysis, we included participants (aged ≥18 years) of the ComCor case-control study in France who had a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis between Oct 27, 2020, and Feb 4, 2022. Eligible participants were those who had the historical strain or a variant of concern during a single encounter with a known index case who was symptomatic and for whom the incubation period could be established, those who reported doing a reverse-transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) test, and those who were symptomatic by study completion. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, exposure information, circumstances of infection, and COVID-19 vaccination details were obtained via an online questionnaire, and variants were established through variant typing after RT-PCR testing or by matching the time that a positive test was reported with the predominance of a specific variant. We used multivariable linear regression to identify factors associated with the duration of the incubation period (defined as the number of days from contact with the index case to symptom onset). FINDINGS: 20 413 participants were eligible for inclusion in this study. Mean incubation period varied across variants: 4·96 days (95% CI 4·90-5·02) for alpha (B.1.1.7), 5·18 days (4·93-5·43) for beta (B.1.351) and gamma (P.1), 4·43 days (4·36-4·49) for delta (B.1.617.2), and 3·61 days (3·55-3·68) for omicron (B.1.1.529) compared with 4·61 days (4·56-4·66) for the historical strain. Participants with omicron had a shorter incubation period than participants with the historical strain (-0·9 days, 95% CI -1·0 to -0·7). The incubation period increased with age (participants aged ≥70 years had an incubation period 0·4 days [0·2 to 0·6] longer than participants aged 18-29 years), in female participants (by 0·1 days, 0·0 to 0·2), and in those who wore a mask during contact with the index case (by 0·2 days, 0·1 to 0·4), and was reduced in those for whom the index case was symptomatic (-0·1 days, -0·2 to -0·1). These data were robust to sensitivity analyses correcting for an over-reporting of incubation periods of 7 days. INTERPRETATION: SARS-CoV-2 incubation period is notably reduced in omicron cases compared with all other variants of concern, in young people, after transmission from a symptomatic index case, after transmission to a maskless secondary case, and (to a lesser extent) in men. These findings can inform future COVID-19 contact-tracing strategies and modelling. FUNDING: Institut Pasteur, the French National Agency for AIDS Research-Emerging Infectious Diseases, Fondation de France, the INCEPTION project, and the Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases project.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases, Emerging , Male , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Adult , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Case-Control Studies , Infectious Disease Incubation Period , Research Design , France/epidemiology
3.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 28(11): 1471-1476, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1906906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on healthcare workers' (HCWs) risk of COVID-19 working in primary care, long-term-care facilities or hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April through 9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) were invited by E-mail to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use over the 10-day period preceding inclusion. Risk factors were analysed using multivariable conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2076 cases and 2076 matched controls were included. The analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted OR 19.9 (95% CI, 12.4-31.9)), an infected colleague (OR 2.26 (95% CI, 1.53-3.33)) or COVID-19 patients (OR 2.37 (95% CI, 1.66-3.40)), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial (OR 0.30 (95% CI, 0.22-0.40)) or complete (OR 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14-0.27)) immunisation was protective. Eye protection (OR 0.57 (95% CI, 0.37-0.87)) and wearing a gown (OR 0.58 (95% CI, 0.34-0.97)) for COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (OR 1.47 (95% CI, 1.00-2.18)). Protection of N95 respirators and surgical face masks did not differ. Compared to medical professions, being a nurse (OR 3.79 (95% CI, 2.50-5.76)) or a nurse's aide (OR 9.08 (95% CI, 5.30-15.5)) was associated with COVID-19. Results were consistent across all healthcare settings. DISCUSSION: HCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Long-Term Care , Health Personnel , Hospitals
4.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 13: 100278, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1536945

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the settings and activities associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the context of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulation in France, as well as the protection against symptomatic Delta infection. METHODS: In this nationwide case-control study, cases were SARS-CoV-2 infected adults recruited between 23 May and 13 August 2021. Controls were non-infected adults from a national representative panel matched to cases by age, sex, region, population density and calendar week. Participants completed an online questionnaire and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and recent activity-related exposures, past history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 vaccination. FINDINGS: We did not find any differences in the settings and activities associated with Delta versus non-Delta infections and grouped them for subsequent analyses. In multivariable analysis involving 12634 cases (8644 Delta and 3990 non-Delta) and 5560 controls, we found individuals under 40 years and attending bars (aOR:1.9; 95%CI:1.6-2.2) or parties (aOR:3.4; 95%CI:2.8-4.2) to be at increased risk of infection. In those aged 40 years and older, having children attend daycare (aOR:1.9; 95%CI:1.1-3.3), kindergarten (aOR:1.6; 95%CI:1.2-2.1), primary school (aOR:1.4; 95%CI:1.2-1.6) or middle school (aOR:1.3; 95%CI:1.2-1.6) were associated with increased risk of infection. We found strong protection against symptomatic Delta infection for those with prior infection whether it was recent (2-6 months) (95%; 95%CI:90-97) or associated with one dose (85%; 95%CI:78-90) or two doses of mRNA vaccine (96%; 95%CI:87-99). For those without past infection, protection was lower with two doses of mRNA vaccine (67%; 95%CI:63-71). INTERPRETATION: In line with other observational studies, we find reduced vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Delta infections. The settings and activities at increased risk of infection indicate where efforts to reinforce individual and public health measures need to be concentrated.

5.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 8: 100171, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397543

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19 with the original virus and other lineages circulating in France. METHODS: In this nationwide case-control study, cases were SARS-CoV-2 infected adults with onset of symptoms between 14 February and 3 May 2021. Controls were non-infected adults from a national representative panel matched to cases by age, sex, region, population density and calendar week. Participants completed an online questionnaire on recent activity-related exposures and vaccination history. Information about the infecting virus was based on a screening RT-PCR for either B.1.1.7 or B.1.351/P.1 variants. FINDINGS: Included in our analysis were 7 288 adults infected with the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, 31 313 with the B.1.1.7 lineage, 2 550 with B.1.351/P1 lineages, and 3 644 controls. In multivariable analysis, the vaccine effectiveness (95% confidence interval) seven days after the second dose of mRNA vaccine was estimated at 88% (81-92), 86% (81-90) and 77% (63-86) against COVID-19 with the original virus, the B.1.1.7 lineage, and the B.1.351/P.1 lineages, respectively. Recent (2 to 6 months) history of virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was found to be 83% (76-88), 88% (85-91) and 83% (71-90) protective against COVID-19 with the original virus, the B.1.1.7 lineage, and the B.1.351/P.1 lineages, respectively; and more distant (> 6 months) infections were 76% (54-87), 84% (75-90), and 74% (41-89) protective against COVID-19 with the original virus, the B.1.1.7 lineage, and the B.1.351/P.1 lineages, respectively. INTERPRETATION: In real-life settings, two doses of mRNA vaccines proved to be effective against COVID-19 with the original virus, B.1.1.7 lineage and B.1.351/P.1 lineages. FUNDING: Institut Pasteur, Research & Action Emerging Infectious Diseases (REACTing), Fondation de France (Alliance "Tous unis contre le virus").

6.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 7: 100148, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1260818

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the role of different setting and activities in acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: In this nationwide case-control study, cases were SARS-CoV-2 infected adults recruited between 27 October and 30 November 2020. Controls were individuals from the Ipsos market research database matched to cases by age, sex, region, population density and time period. Participants completed an online questionnaire on recent activity-related exposures. FINDINGS: Among 3426 cases and 1713 controls, in multivariable analysis, we found an increased risk of infection associated with any additional person living in the household (adjusted-OR: 1•16; 95%CI: 1•11-1•21); having children attending day-care (aOR: 1•31; 95%CI: 1•02-1•62), kindergarten (aOR: 1•27; 95%CI: 1•09-1•45), middle school (aOR: 1•30; 95%CI: 1•15-1•47), or high school (aOR: 1•18; 95%CI: 1•05-1•34); with attending professional (aOR: 1•15; 95%CI: 1•04-1•26) or private gatherings (aOR: 1•57; 95%CI: 1•45-1•71); and with having frequented bars and restaurants (aOR: 1•95; 95%CI: 1•76-2•15), or having practiced indoor sports activities (aOR: 1•36; 95%CI: 1•15-1•62). We found no increase in risk associated with frequenting shops, cultural or religious gatherings, or with transportation, except for carpooling (aOR: 1•47; 95%CI: 1•28-1•69). Teleworking was associated with decreased risk of infection (aOR: 0•65; 95%CI: 0•56-0•75). INTERPRETATION: Places and activities during which infection prevention and control measures may be difficult to fully enforce were those with increased risk of infection. Children attending day-care, kindergarten, middle and high schools, but not primary schools, were potential sources of infection for the household. FUNDING: Institut Pasteur, Research & Action Emerging Infectious Diseases (REACTing), Fondation de France (Alliance" Tous unis contre le virus").

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL