Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 34
Filter
1.
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.

4.
Pediatrics ; 151(4):1-12, 2023.
Article in English | CINAHL | ID: covidwho-2276457

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide real-world evidence on coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes caused by Omicron in children aged 5 to 11 years. METHODS: We used the test-negative study design and linked provincial databases to estimate BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes caused by Omicron in children aged 5 to 11 years between January 2 and August 27, 2022 in Ontario. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate VE by time since the latest dose, compared with unvaccinated children, and we evaluated VE by dosing interval. RESULTS: We included 6284 test-positive cases and 8389 test-negative controls. VE against symptomatic infection declined from 24% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8% to 36%) 14 to 29 days after a first dose and 66% (95% CI, 60% to 71%) 7 to 29 days after 2 doses. VE was higher for children with dosing intervals of ≥56 days (57% [95% CI, 51% to 62%]) than 15 to 27 days (12% [95% CI, - 11% to 30%]) and 28 to 41 days (38% [95% CI, 28% to 47%]), but appeared to wane over time for all dosing interval groups. VE against severe outcomes was 94% (95% CI, 57% to 99%) 7 to 29 days after 2 doses and declined to 57% (95%CI, -20% to 85%) after ≥120 days. CONCLUSIONS: In children aged 5 to 11 years, 2 doses of BNT162b2 provide moderate protection against symptomatic Omicron infection within 4 months of vaccination and good protection against severe outcomes. Protection wanes more rapidly for infection than severe outcomes. Overall, longer dosing intervals confer higher protection against symptomatic infection, however protection decreases and becomes similar to shorter dosing interval starting 90 days after vaccination.

5.
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
6.
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
7.
Pediatrics ; 151(4)2023 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2276458

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide real-world evidence on coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes caused by Omicron in children aged 5 to 11 years. METHODS: We used the test-negative study design and linked provincial databases to estimate BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes caused by Omicron in children aged 5 to 11 years between January 2 and August 27, 2022 in Ontario. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate VE by time since the latest dose, compared with unvaccinated children, and we evaluated VE by dosing interval. RESULTS: We included 6284 test-positive cases and 8389 test-negative controls. VE against symptomatic infection declined from 24% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8% to 36%) 14 to 29 days after a first dose and 66% (95% CI, 60% to 71%) 7 to 29 days after 2 doses. VE was higher for children with dosing intervals of ≥56 days (57% [95% CI, 51% to 62%]) than 15 to 27 days (12% [95% CI, -11% to 30%]) and 28 to 41 days (38% [95% CI, 28% to 47%]), but appeared to wane over time for all dosing interval groups. VE against severe outcomes was 94% (95% CI, 57% to 99%) 7 to 29 days after 2 doses and declined to 57% (95%CI, -20% to 85%) after ≥120 days. CONCLUSIONS: In children aged 5 to 11 years, 2 doses of BNT162b2 provide moderate protection against symptomatic Omicron infection within 4 months of vaccination and good protection against severe outcomes. Protection wanes more rapidly for infection than severe outcomes. Overall, longer dosing intervals confer higher protection against symptomatic infection, however protection decreases and becomes similar to shorter dosing interval starting 90 days after vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Child , Humans , BNT162 Vaccine , Vaccine Efficacy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization
8.
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
9.
JAC Antimicrob Resist ; 5(1): dlac134, 2023 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2232403

ABSTRACT

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) continues to be a global public health issue amid the COVID-19 pandemic; however, unprecedented demands on hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) potentially altered their core activities. Objective: We sought to understand how ASPs have been involved in and impacted by the pandemic. Methods: The 2021 Ontario ASP Landscape Survey was developed based on previous provincial questionnaires and emerging literature on the impact of COVID-19 on hospital ASPs. After pre-testing and piloting, the online questionnaire was distributed to hospital antimicrobial stewardship practitioners in the fall of 2021. Descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis were performed. Results: The response rate was 78% (98/125 organizations); 96% (94/98) of organizations had or were in the process of formalizing an ASP and 53% (50/94) reported designated funding/resources. Despite 82% reporting no change in dedicated full-time equivalents during the pandemic, ASPs were frequently involved in developing treatment guidelines/clinical pathways (51%), anticipating/managing drug shortages (46%) and obtaining investigational use drugs (32%). While many core ASP activities continued, prospective audit and feedback and prescriber education were modified or suspended by 43% and 40% of programmes, respectively. Decreased frequency, adaptation of activities (i.e. virtual or other technology) and challenges with staffing/resources were commonly reported themes. Knowledge translation (KT) activities and 'collaboration and coordination' also emerged as salient themes. Conclusions: Hospital antimicrobial stewardship practitioners in Ontario have made significant contributions to the pandemic response while continuing to deliver adapted ASP services, despite resource constraints. Moving forward, ASPs will need to continue building capacity while leveraging broader networks to advance the antimicrobial stewardship agenda.

10.
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
11.
JAMA Pediatr ; 176(12): 1169-1175, 2022 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2084958

ABSTRACT

Importance: Wearing a face mask in school can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission but it may also lead to increased hand-to-face contact, which in turn could increase infection risk through self-inoculation. Objective: To evaluate the effect of wearing a face mask on hand-to-face contact by children while at school. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective randomized clinical trial randomized students from junior kindergarten to grade 12 at 2 schools in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, during August 2020 in a 1:1 ratio to either a mask or control class during a 2-day school simulation. Classes were video recorded from 4 angles to accurately capture outcomes. Interventions: Participants in the mask arm were instructed to bring their own mask and wear it at all times. Students assigned to control classes were not required to mask at any time (grade 4 and lower) or in the classroom where physical distancing could be maintained (grade 5 and up). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of hand-to-face contacts per student per hour on day 2 of the simulation. Secondary outcomes included hand-to-mucosa contacts and hand-to-nonmucosa contacts. A mixed Poisson regression model was used to derive rate ratios (RRs), adjusted for age and sex with a random intercept for class with bootstrapped 95% CIs. Results: A total of 174 students underwent randomization and 171 students (mask group, 50.6% male; control group, 52.4% male) attended school on day 2. The rate of hand-to-face contacts did not differ significantly between the mask and the control groups (88.2 vs 88.7 events per student per hour; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = >.99). When compared with the control group, the rate of hand-to-mucosa contacts was significantly lower in the mask group (RR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.07-0.21), while the rate of hand-to-nonmucosa contacts was higher (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82). Conclusions and Relevance: In this clinical trial of simulated school attendance, hand-to-face contacts did not differ among students required to wear face masks vs students not required to wear face masks; however, hand-to-mucosa contracts were lower in the face mask group. This suggests that mask wearing is unlikely to increase infection risk through self-inoculation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04531254.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Child , Male , Humans , Female , COVID-19/prevention & control , Masks , SARS-CoV-2 , Prospective Studies , Schools , Ontario
12.
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.

13.
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
14.
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
15.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 11(8)2022 Jul 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1957211

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic affected access to care, and the associated public health measures influenced the transmission of other infectious diseases. The pandemic has dramatically changed antibiotic prescribing in the community. We aimed to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting control measures on oral antibiotic prescribing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in Alberta and Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Antibiotic prescription data were collected for LTCF residents 65 years and older in Alberta and Ontario from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2020. Weekly prescription rates per 1000 residents, stratified by age, sex, antibiotic class, and selected individual agents, were calculated. Interrupted time series analyses using SARIMA models were performed to test for changes in antibiotic prescription rates after the start of the pandemic (1 March 2020). The average annual cohort size was 18,489 for Alberta and 96,614 for Ontario. A significant decrease in overall weekly prescription rates after the start of the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic was found in Alberta, but not in Ontario. Furthermore, a significant decrease in prescription rates was observed for antibiotics mainly used to treat respiratory tract infections: amoxicillin in both provinces (Alberta: -0.6 per 1000 LTCF residents decrease in weekly prescription rate, p = 0.006; Ontario: -0.8, p < 0.001); and doxycycline (-0.2, p = 0.005) and penicillin (-0.04, p = 0.014) in Ontario. In Ontario, azithromycin was prescribed at a significantly higher rate after the start of the pandemic (0.7 per 1000 LTCF residents increase in weekly prescription rate, p = 0.011). A decrease in prescription rates for antibiotics that are largely used to treat respiratory tract infections is in keeping with the lower observed rates for respiratory infections resulting from pandemic control measures. The results should be considered in the contexts of different LTCF systems and provincial public health responses to the pandemic.

16.
CMAJ Open ; 10(3): E657-E665, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1954932

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Health care workers have a higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population. Our study reports on SARS-CoV-2 testing, infection and associated outcomes in Ontario physicians before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination became available on Dec. 14, 2020. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, population-based cohort study of physicians in Ontario, Canada, from Jan. 25 to Dec. 31, 2020. We included physicians and postgraduate medical trainees who were residents of Ontario and registrants with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario during the study period. We examined the proportion of physicians tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, the proportion who tested positive, and how testing and infections varied by certain physician characteristics. We reported on clinical outcomes associated with infection, including hospital admission and death. RESULTS: Of 41 208 physicians (mean age 47 yr; 56.1% male), 19 116 (46.4%) were tested at least once for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 358 tested positive (0.9%). No physicians died within 30 days of testing positive; however, 20/358 (5.6%) were admitted to hospital. By specialty, the proportion tested was highest among postgraduate medical trainees (2531/4125 [61.4%]), emergency physicians (281/478 [58.8%]), infectious disease physicians (33/67 [49.3%]) and family physicians (8857/18 553 [47.7%]). The proportion who tested positive was highest among internal medicine physicians (44/3499 [1.3%]), postgraduate medical trainees (47/4125 [1.1%]) and family physicians (171/18 553 [0.9%]). Of 2290 physicians who worked in long-term care, 1636 (71.4%) were tested and 25 (1.1%) tested positive. INTERPRETATION: During the prevaccination period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, nearly half of all physicians in the province were tested at least once for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 0.9% tested positive and none died. These findings may reflect the public health measures that were implemented in the province during this period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
17.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(7): ofac205, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1922312

ABSTRACT

Background: Nonpharmaceutical interventions such as physical distancing and mandatory masking were adopted in many jurisdictions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to decrease spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We determined the effects of these interventions on incidence of healthcare utilization for other infectious diseases. Methods: Using a healthcare administrative dataset, we employed an interrupted time series analysis to measure changes in healthcare visits for various infectious diseases across the province of Ontario, Canada, from January 2017 to December 2020. We used a hierarchical clustering algorithm to group diagnoses that demonstrated similar patterns of change through the pandemic months. Results: We found that visits for infectious diseases commonly caused by communicable respiratory pathogens (eg, acute bronchitis, acute sinusitis) formed distinct clusters from diagnoses that often originate from pathogens derived from the patient's own flora (eg, urinary tract infection, cellulitis). Moreover, infectious diagnoses commonly arising from communicable respiratory pathogens (hierarchical cluster 1: highly impacted diagnoses) were significantly decreased, with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.40; P < .001) after the introduction of public health interventions in April-December 2020, whereas infections typically arising from the patient's own flora (hierarchical cluster 3: minimally impacted diagnoses) did not demonstrate a sustained change in incidence (RR, 0.95 [95% CI, .90-1.01]; P = .085). Conclusions: Public health measures to curtail the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 were widely effective against other communicable respiratory infectious diseases with similar modes of transmission but had little effect on infectious diseases not strongly dependent on person-to-person transmission.

18.
Travel Med Infect Dis ; 47: 102315, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1815223

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Travellers' perception of their risk for acquiring travel-related conditions is an important contributor to decisions and behaviors during travel. In this study, we aimed to assess the differences between traveller-perceived and expert-assessed risk of travel-related conditions in children and adults travelling internationally and describe factors that influence travellers' perception of risk. METHODS: Children and adults were recruited at the Hospital for Sick Children's Family Travel Clinic between October 2014 and July 2015. A questionnaire was administered to participants to assess their perceived risk of acquiring 32 travel-related conditions using a 7-point Likert scale. Conditions were categorized as vector-borne diseases, vaccine-preventable diseases, food and water borne diseases, sexually transmitted infections and other conditions. Two certified travel medicine experts reviewed each patient's chart and assigned a risk score based on the same 7-point Likert scale. Traveller and expert risk scores were compared using paired t-tests. RESULTS: In total, 207 participants were enrolled to participate in this study, 97 children (self-reported, n = 8; parent-reported, n = 89), and 110 adults. Travel-related risk for adults and parents answering for their children were significantly underestimated when compared to expert-assessed risk for 26 of the 32 assessed conditions. The underestimated conditions were the same for both adults and parents answering for children. Travel-related risk was not over-estimated for any condition. CONCLUSIONS: Adults underestimated their children's and their own risk for most travel-related conditions. Strategies to improve the accuracy of risk perception of travel-related conditions by travellers are needed to optimize healthy travel for children and their families.


Subject(s)
Travel Medicine , Travel , Adult , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitals , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL