Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(10): e2236670, 2022 10 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2074855

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Quebec/epidemiology , RNA, Messenger , Reinfection/epidemiology , Reinfection/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
2.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 2022 Sep 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2042237

ABSTRACT

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.

3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Apr 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1927303

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Canadian COVID-19 immunization strategy deferred second doses and allowed mixed schedules. We compared two-dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) by vaccine type (mRNA and/or ChAdOx1), interval between doses, and time since second dose in two of Canada's larger provinces. METHODS: Two-dose VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection or hospitalization among adults ≥18-years-old, including due to Alpha, Gamma and Delta variants of concern (VOC), was assessed at ≥14 days post-vaccination by test-negative design studies separately conducted in British Columbia and Quebec, Canada between May 30 and November 27 (epi-weeks 22-47), 2021. RESULTS: In both provinces, all homologous or heterologous mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 two-dose schedules were associated with ≥90% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization risk for at least 7 months. With slight decline from a peak of >90%, VE against infection was ≥80% for at least 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 vs. manufacturer-specified 3-4-week interval 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.

4.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-335250

ABSTRACT

Importance Omicron 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 re-infection, and the added value of vaccination, require quantification. Objective To estimate protection against Omicron re-infection and hospitalization conferred by prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 (non-Omicron) infection and/or up to three doses of (ancestral, Wuhan-like) mRNA vaccine. Design Test-negative study between December 26 (epi-week 52), 2021 and March 12 (epi-week 10), 2022. Setting Population-based, province of Quebec, Canada Participants Community-dwelling ≥12-year-olds tested for SARS-CoV-2. Exposures Prior laboratory-confirmed infection with/without mRNA vaccination. Outcomes Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and hospitalization, presumed Omicron by genomic surveillance. The odds of prior non-Omicron infection with/without vaccination were compared among Omicron cases/hospitalizations versus test-negative controls (single randomly-selected per individual). Adjusted odds ratios controlled for age, sex, testing-indication and epi-week. Analyses were stratified by severity and time since last non-Omicron infection or vaccine dose. Results Without vaccination, prior non-Omicron infection reduced the Omicron re-infection risk by 44% (95%CI:38-48), decreasing from 66% (95%CI:57-73) at 3-5 months to 35% (95%CI:21-47) at 9-11 months post-infection and <30% thereafter. The more severe the prior infection, the greater the risk reduction: 8% (95%CI:17-28), 43% (95%CI:37-49) and 68% (95%CI:51-80) for prior asymptomatic, symptomatic ambulatory or hospitalized infections. mRNA vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection was consistently significantly higher among previously-infected vs. non-infected individuals at 65% (95%CI:63-67) vs. 20% (95%CI:16-24) for one-dose;68% (95%CI:67-70) vs. 42% (95%CI:41-44) for two doses;and 83% (95%CI:81-84) vs. 73% (95%CI:72-73) for three doses. Infection-induced protection against Omicron hospitalization was 81% (95%CI: 66-89) increasing to 86% (95%CI:77-99) with one, 94% (95%CI:91-96) with two and 97%(95%CI:94-99) with three mRNA vaccine doses. Two-dose effectiveness against hospitalization among previously-infected individuals did not wane across 11 months and did not significantly differ from three-dose effectiveness despite longer follow-up (median 158 and 27 days, respectively). Conclusions and relevance Prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection provided substantial and sustained protection against Omicron hospitalization, greatest among those also vaccinated. In the context of program goals to prevent severe outcomes and preserve healthcare system capacity, >2 doses of ancestral Wuhan-like vaccine may be of marginal incremental value to previously-infected individuals.

5.
CMAJ ; 194(9): E350-E360, 2022 03 07.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731613

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quebec/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies
6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Aug 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1708191

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In Canada, first and second doses of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 were uniquely spaced 16 weeks apart, but the duration of single-dose protection remains uncertain. We estimated one- and two-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Quebec, Canada including protection against varying outcome severity, variants of concern (VOC), and the stability of single-dose protection out to 16 weeks post-vaccination. 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 one dose ≥14 days or two doses ≥7 days before illness onset or specimen collection. Adjusted VE was estimated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Primary analysis included 5,316 cases and 53,160 controls. Single-dose VE was 70% (95%CI: 68-73) against SARS-CoV-2 infection, 73% (95%CI: 71-75) against COVID-19 illness and 97% (95%CI: 92-99) against associated hospitalization. Two-dose VE was 86% (95%CI: 81-90) and 93% (95%CI: 89-95), respectively, with no associated hospitalizations. VE was higher for non-VOC than VOC (73% Alpha) among single-dose (77%, 95%CI: 73-81 versus 63%, 95%CI: 57-67) but not two-dose recipients (87%, 95%CI: 57-96 versus 94%, 95%CI: 89-96). Across 16 weeks, no decline in single-dose VE was observed with appropriate stratification based upon prioritized vaccination determined by higher versus lower likelihood of direct patient contact. CONCLUSION: One mRNA vaccine dose provided substantial and sustained protection to HCWs extending at least four months post-vaccination. In circumstances of vaccine shortage, delaying the second dose may be a pertinent public health strategy to consider.

7.
Microb Cell ; 9(1): 1-20, 2022 Jan 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622900

ABSTRACT

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.

8.
CMAJ ; 193(49): E1868-E1877, 2021 12 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591952

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/etiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Demography , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Humans , Incidence , Occupational Diseases/blood , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Pandemics , Quebec/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires
9.
Can Commun Dis Rep ; 47(10): 430-434, 2021 Oct 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504549

ABSTRACT

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.

10.
Vaccine ; 39(50): 7300-7307, 2021 12 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397725

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , BCG Vaccine , Case-Control Studies , Humans , Quebec/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
11.
J Med Microbiol ; 70(8)2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1348099

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , Saliva/virology , Adult , Aged , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/analysis , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Specimen Handling
12.
J Assoc Med Microbiol Infect Dis Can ; 5(4): 235-238, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1050568

ABSTRACT

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.

13.
CMAJ ; 192(46): E1487-E1492, 2020 11 16.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1041398

ABSTRACT

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.

14.
CMAJ ; 192(26): E702-E707, 2020 06 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-423000

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Dysgeusia/etiology , Olfaction Disorders/etiology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Case-Control Studies , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Quebec , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL