Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
1.
J Med Virol ; 2022 Jun 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1894609

ABSTRACT

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen tests have been used extensively for screening during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemics. However, the real-world sensitivity and specificity of the two testing procedures in the field have not yet been estimated without assuming that the PCR constitutes a gold standard test. We use latent class models to estimate the in situ performance of both tests using data from the Danish national registries. We find that the specificity of both tests is very high (>99.7%), while the sensitivities are 95.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.8%-98.4%) and 53.8% (95% CI: 49.8%-57.9%) for the PCR and antigen tests, respectively. These findings have implications for the use of confirmatory PCR tests following a positive antigen test result: we estimate that serial testing is counterproductive at higher prevalence levels.

2.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(7): 967-976, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1799640

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant (B.1.1.529) are crucial to assess the public health impact associated with its rapid global dissemination. We estimated the risk of SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalisations after infection with omicron compared with the delta variant (B.1.617.2) in Denmark, a country with high mRNA vaccination coverage and extensive free-of-charge PCR testing capacity. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, we included all RT-PCR-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Denmark, with samples taken between Nov 21 (date of first omicron-positive sample) and Dec 19, 2021. Individuals were identified in the national COVID-19 surveillance system database, which included results of a variant-specific RT-PCR that detected omicron cases, and data on SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalisations (primary outcome of the study). We calculated the risk ratio (RR) of hospitalisation after infection with omicron compared with delta, overall and stratified by vaccination status, in a Poisson regression model with robust SEs, adjusted a priori for reinfection status, sex, age, region, comorbidities, and time period. FINDINGS: Between Nov 21 and Dec 19, 2021, among the 188 980 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 38 669 (20·5%) had the omicron variant. SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalisations and omicron cases increased during the study period. Overall, 124 313 (65·8%) of 188 980 individuals were vaccinated, and vaccination was associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation (adjusted RR 0·24, 95% CI 0·22-0·26) compared with cases with no doses or only one dose of vaccine. Compared with delta infection, omicron infection was associated with an adjusted RR of hospitalisation of 0·64 (95% CI 0·56-0·75; 222 [0·6%] of 38 669 omicron cases admitted to hospital vs 2213 [1·5%] of 150 311 delta cases). For a similar comparison by vaccination status, the RR of hospitalisation was 0·57 (0·44-0·75) among cases with no or only one dose of vaccine, 0·71 (0·60-0·86) among those who received two doses, and 0·50 (0·32-0·76) among those who received three doses. INTERPRETATION: We found a significantly lower risk of hospitalisation with omicron infection compared with delta infection among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, suggesting an inherent reduced severity of omicron. Our results could guide modelling of the effect of the ongoing global omicron wave and thus health-care system preparedness. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hepatitis D , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
3.
Acta Derm Venereol ; 102: adv00704, 2022 May 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785286

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to determine whether COVID-19 restrictions had an impact on Chlamydia trachomatis infections compared with 2018 and 2019. A retrospective nationwide observational study was performed using monthly incidences of laboratory-confirmed chlamydia cases and number of tests, obtained from Danish national surveillance data. Testing rates and positivity rates were compared using Poisson and logistic regression. The first Danish COVID-19 lockdown (12 March to 14 April 2020) resulted in a reduction in the number of chlamydia tests performed (rate ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval  0.71-0.73) and a consequent reduction in the number of laboratory-identified cases (66.5 vs 88.3 per 100,000 population during the same period in 2018 to 2019). This period was followed by a return of testing and test positivity close to the level seen in 2018 to 2019. The second Danish COVID-19 lockdown (17 December to 31 March 2021) resulted in crude incidence rates of laboratory-confirmed chlamydia infection that were similar to the crude incidence rates seen during same period in 2018 to 2019. In conclusion, the Danish COVID-19 restrictions have had negligible effects on laboratory-confirmed C. trachomatis transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chlamydia Infections , COVID-19/epidemiology , Chlamydia Infections/diagnosis , Chlamydia Infections/epidemiology , Chlamydia trachomatis , Communicable Disease Control , Denmark/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-326420

ABSTRACT

Antigen test kits have been used extensively as a screening tool during the worldwide pandemic of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). While it is generally expected that taking samples for analysis with PCR testing gives more reliable results than using antigen test kits, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the two protocols in the field have not yet been estimated without assuming that the PCR test constitutes a gold standard. We use latent class models to estimate the in situ performance of both PCR and antigen testing, using data from the Danish national registries. The results are based on 240,000 paired tests results sub-selected from the 55 million test results that were obtained in Denmark during the period from February 2021 until June 2021. We found that the specificity of both tests is very high in our data sample (>99.7%), while the sensitivity of PCR sampling was estimated to be 95.7% (95% CI: 92.8-98.4%) and that of the antigen test kits used in Denmark over the study period was estimated at 53.8% (95% CI: 49.8-57.9%). Our findings can be used as supplementary information for consideration when implementing serial testing strategies that employ a confirmatory PCR sample following a positive result from an antigen test kit, such as the policy used in Denmark. We note that while this strategy reduces the number of false positives associated with antigen test screening, it also increases the false negatives. We demonstrate that the balance of trading false positives for false negatives only favours the use of serial testing when the expected true prevalence is low. Our results contain substantial uncertainty in the estimates for sensitivity due to the relatively small number of positive test results over this period: validation of our findings in a population with higher prevalence would therefore be highly relevant for future work.

5.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 7251, 2021 12 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1569250

ABSTRACT

New lineages of SARS-CoV-2 are of potential concern due to higher transmissibility, risk of severe outcomes, and/or escape from neutralizing antibodies. Lineage B.1.1.7 (the Alpha variant) became dominant in early 2021, but the association between transmissibility and risk factors, such as age of primary case and viral load remains poorly understood. Here, we used comprehensive administrative data from Denmark, comprising the full population (January 11 to February 7, 2021), to estimate household transmissibility. This study included 5,241 households with primary cases; 808 were infected with lineage B.1.1.7 and 4,433 with other lineages. Here, we report an attack rate of 38% in households with a primary case infected with B.1.1.7 and 27% in households with other lineages. Primary cases infected with B.1.1.7 had an increased transmissibility of 1.5-1.7 times that of primary cases infected with other lineages. The increased transmissibility of B.1.1.7 was multiplicative across age and viral load.


Subject(s)
Age Factors , COVID-19/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult
6.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-295360

ABSTRACT

Aim The objective of this nationwide study was to investigate the association between SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, viral load, and age of primary cases in Danish households. Background Spread in households represents a major mode of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In order to take proper action against the spread of the disease, it is important to have a better understanding of transmission in the household domain—including the role of viral load of primary cases. Methods The study was designed as an observational cohort study, using detailed administrative register data. We included the full population of Denmark and all SARS-CoV-2 tests (August 25, 2020 to February 10, 2021) to estimate transmissibility in house-holds comprising 2-6 people. RT-PCR Cycle threshold (Ct) values were used as a proxy for viral load. Results We identified 63,657 primary cases and 139,882 household members of which 21% tested positive by RT-PCR within a 1-14 day period after the primary case. There was an approximately linear association between Ct value of the sample and transmissibility, implying that cases with samples having a higher viral load were more transmissible than cases with samples having a lower viral load. However, even for primary cases with relatively high sample Ct values, the transmissibility was not negligible, e.g., for primary cases with a sample Ct value of 38, we found that 13% of the primary cases had at least one secondary household case. Moreover, 34% of all secondary cases were found in households with primary cases having sample Ct values >30. An increasing transmissibility with age of the primary cases for adults (≥20 years) and a decreasing transmissibility with age for children (<20 years) were found. Conclusions Although primary cases with sample high viral loads (low Ct values) were associated with higher SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, we found no obvious cut-off for sample Ct values to eliminate transmissibility and a substantial amount of household transmission occurred in households where the primary cases had high sample Ct values (low viral load), The study further showed that transmissibility increases with age. These results have important public health implications, as they suggest that contact tracing should prioritize cases according to Ct values and age, and underline the importance of quick identification and isolation of cases. Furthermore, the study highlights that households can serve as a transmission bridge by creating connections between otherwise separate domains.

7.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(11): 1507-1517, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1492844

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The more infectious SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 rapidly spread in Europe after December, 2020, and a concern that B.1.1.7 could cause more severe disease has been raised. Taking advantage of Denmark's high RT-PCR testing and whole genome sequencing capacities, we used national health register data to assess the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation in individuals infected with B.1.1.7 compared with those with other SARS-CoV-2 lineages. METHODS: We did an observational cohort study of all SARS-CoV-2-positive cases confirmed by RT-PCR in Denmark, sampled between Jan 1 and March 24, 2021, with 14 days of follow-up for COVID-19 hospitalisation. Cases were identified in the national COVID-19 surveillance system database, which includes data from the Danish Microbiology Database (RT-PCR test results), the Danish COVID-19 Genome Consortium, the National Patient Registry, the Civil Registration System, as well as other nationwide registers. Among all cases, COVID-19 hospitalisation was defined as first admission lasting longer than 12 h within 14 days of a sample with a positive RT-PCR result. The study population and main analysis were restricted to the proportion of cases with viral genome data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) of admission according to infection with B.1.1.7 versus other co-existing lineages with a Poisson regression model with robust SEs, adjusted a priori for sex, age, calendar time, region, and comorbidities. The contribution of each covariate to confounding of the crude RR was evaluated afterwards by a stepwise forward inclusion. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1 and March 24, 2021, 50 958 individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and at least 14 days of follow-up for hospitalisation were identified; 30 572 (60·0%) had genome data, of whom 10 544 (34·5%) were infected with B.1.1.7. 1944 (6·4%) individuals had a COVID-19 hospitalisation and of these, 571 (29·4%) had a B.1.1.7 infection and 1373 (70·6%) had an infection with other SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Although the overall number of hospitalisations decreased during the study period, the proportion of individuals infected with B.1.1.7 increased from 3·5% to 92·1% per week. B.1.1.7 was associated with a crude RR of hospital admission of 0·79 (95% CI 0·72-0·87; p<0·0001) and an adjusted RR of 1·42 (95% CI 1·25-1·60; p<0·0001). The adjusted RR was increased in all strata of age and calendar period-the two covariates with the largest contribution to confounding of the crude RR. INTERPRETATION: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation compared with that of other lineages in an analysis adjusted for covariates. The overall effect on hospitalisations in Denmark was lessened due to a strict lockdown, but our findings could support hospital preparedness and modelling of the projected impact of the epidemic in countries with uncontrolled spread of B.1.1.7. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Genome, Viral/genetics , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/genetics , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Whole Genome Sequencing/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
8.
Thorax ; 76(4): 370-379, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388537

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of ACE inhibitor (ACE-I)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use on rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse outcomes. METHODS: This nationwide case-control and cohort study included all individuals in Denmark tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA with PCR from 27 February 2020 to 26 July 2020. We estimated confounder-adjusted ORs for a positive test among all SARS-CoV-2 tested, and inverse probability of treatment weighted 30-day risk and risk ratios (RRs) of hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality comparing current ACE-I/ARB use with calcium channel blocker (CCB) use and with non-use. RESULTS: The study included 13 501 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive and 1 088 695 PCR-negative individuals. Users of ACE-I/ARB had a marginally increased rate of a positive PCR when compared with CCB users (aOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37), but not when compared with non-users (aOR 1.00 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09).Among PCR-positive individuals, 1466 (11%) were ACE-I/ARB users. The weighted risk of hospitalisation was 36.5% in ACE-I/ARB users and 43.3% in CCB users (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02). The risk of ICU admission was 6.3% in ACE-I/ARB users and 5.4% in CCB users (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.16), while the 30-day mortality was 12.3% in ACE-I/ARB users and 13.9% in CCB users (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.30). The associations were similar when ACE-I/ARB users were compared with non-users. CONCLUSIONS: ACE-I/ARB use was associated neither with a consistently increased rate nor with adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our findings support the current recommendation of continuing use of ACE-Is/ARBs during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUPAS34887.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , Pandemics , Population Surveillance , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged
9.
APMIS ; 129(7): 438-451, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1291686

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented demand for real-time surveillance data in order to inform critical decision makers regarding the management of the pandemic. The aim of this review was to describe how the Danish national microbiology database, MiBa, served as a cornerstone for providing data to the real-time surveillance system by linkage to other nationwide health registries. The surveillance system was established on an existing IT health infrastructure and a close network between clinical microbiologists, information technology experts, and public health officials. In 2020, testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 was ramped up from none to over 10,000 weekly PCR tests per 100,000 population. The crude incidence data mirrored this increase in testing. Real-time access to denominator data and patient registries enabled adjustments for fluctuations testing activity, providing robust data on crude SARS-CoV-2 incidence during the changing diagnostic and management strategies. The use of the same data for different purposes, for example, final laboratory reports, information to the public, contact tracing, public health, and science, has been a critical asset for the pandemic response. It has also raised issues concerning data protection and critical capacity of the underlying technical systems and key resources. However, even with these limitations, the setup has enabled decision makers to adopt timely interventions. The experiences from COVID-19 may motivate a transformation from traditional indicator-based public health surveillance to an all-encompassing information system based on access to a comprehensive set of data sources, including diagnostic and reference microbiology.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Basic Reproduction Number , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Databases, Factual , Denmark/epidemiology , Electronics , Health Care Sector , Humans , Registries
10.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 65(9): 1345-1350, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280261

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Superinfection following viral infection is a known complication, which may lead to longer hospitalisation and worse outcome. Empirical antibiotic therapy may prevent bacterial superinfections, but may also lead to overuse, adverse effects and development of resistant pathogens. Knowledge about the incidence of superinfections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. METHODS: We will conduct a nationwide cohort study comparing the incidence of superinfections in patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU compared with ICU patients with influenza A/B in Denmark. We will include approximately 1000 patients in each group from the time period of 1 October 2014 to 30 April 2019 and from 10 March 2020 to 1 March 2021 for patients with influenza and COVID-19, respectively. The primary outcome is any superinfection within 90 days of admission to the ICU. We will use logistic regression analysis comparing COVID-19 with influenza A/B after adjustment for relevant predefined confounders. Secondarily, we will use unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses to assess six potential risk factors (sex, age, cancer [including haematological], immunosuppression and use of life support on day 1 in the ICU) for superinfections and compare outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with/without superinfections, and present descriptive data regarding the superinfections. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important knowledge about superinfections in ICU patients with severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Superinfection , Cohort Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Humans , Influenza, Human/complications , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2 , Superinfection/epidemiology
11.
Int J Epidemiol ; 49(5): 1468-1481, 2020 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1207290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Population-level knowledge on individuals at high risk of severe and fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is urgently needed to inform targeted protection strategies in the general population. METHODS: We examined characteristics and predictors of hospitalization and death in a nationwide cohort of all Danish individuals tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from 27 February 2020 until 19 May 2020. RESULTS: We identified 11 122 SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction-positive cases of whom 80% were community-managed and 20% were hospitalized. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 5.2%. Age was strongly associated with fatal disease {odds ratio [OR] 15 [95% confidence interval (CI): 9-26] for 70-79 years, increasing to OR 90 (95% CI: 50-162) for ≥90 years, when compared with cases aged 50-59 years and adjusted for sex and number of co-morbidities}. Similarly, the number of co-morbidities was associated with fatal disease [OR 5.2 (95% CI: 3.4-8.0), for cases with at least four co-morbidities vs no co-morbidities] and 79% of fatal cases had at least two co-morbidities. Most major chronic diseases were associated with hospitalization, with ORs ranging from 1.3-1.4 (e.g. stroke, ischaemic heart disease) to 2.6-3.4 (e.g. heart failure, hospital-diagnosed kidney disease, organ transplantation) and with mortality with ORs ranging from 1.1-1.3 (e.g. ischaemic heart disease, hypertension) to 2.5-3.2 (e.g. major psychiatric disorder, organ transplantation). In the absence of co-morbidities, mortality was <5% in persons aged ≤80 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide population-based COVID-19 study, increasing age and multimorbidity were strongly associated with hospitalization and death. In the absence of co-morbidities, the mortality was, however, <5% until the age of 80 years.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , Cause of Death , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
13.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(7): e2013880, 2020 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-621959

ABSTRACT

Importance: During the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, case reports have suggested that the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may lead to adverse outcomes. Objective: To study the association of NSAID use with adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized with influenza or influenza pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used propensity score matching among 7747 individuals aged 40 years or older who were hospitalized with influenza, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction or antigen testing, between 2010 and 2018. Data were collected using Danish nationwide registers. All analyses reported were performed on May 29, 2020. Exposures: Prescription fill of an NSAID within 60 days before admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% CIs for intensive care unit admission and death within 30 days of admission. Results: A total of 7747 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 71 [59-80] years, 3980 [51.4%] men) with confirmed influenza were identified. Of these, 520 (6.7%) were exposed to NSAIDs. In the unmatched cohorts, 104 of 520 patients (20.0%) who used NSAIDs and 958 of 7227 patients (13.3%) who did not use NSAIDs were admitted to the intensive care unit. For death within 30 days of admission, we observed 37 events (7.1%) among those who used NSAIDs compared with 563 events (7.8%) among those who did not. Current NSAID use was associated with intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.81; RD, 6.7%; 95% CI, 3.2% to 10.3%), while NSAID use was not associated with death (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.26; RD, -0.7%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 1.6%). In the matched cohorts, risks were unchanged for patients who used NSAIDs, while 83 ICU admissions (16.0%) and 36 deaths (6.9%) were observed among matched individuals who did not use NSAIDs. Matched (ie, adjusted) analyses yielded attenuated risk estimates for intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.63; RD, 4.0%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 8.7%) and death (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.60; RD, 0.2%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 3.3%). Associations were more pronounced among patients who used NSAIDs for a longer period (eg, for intensive care unit admission: RR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.19 to 3.06; RD, 13.4%; 95% CI, 4.0% to 22.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with influenza, the use of NSAIDs was not associated with 30-day intensive care unit admission or death in adjusted analyses. There was an association between long-term use of NSAIDs and intensive care unit admission.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/pharmacology , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Intensive Care Units , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Denmark/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Pandemics , Pneumonia , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Clin Epidemiol ; 12: 875-881, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-729591

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To facilitate research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a prospective cohort of all Danish residents tested for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark is established. DATA STRUCTURE: All Danish residents tested by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark are included. The cohort is identified using the Danish Microbiology Database. Individual-level record linkage between administrative and health-care registries is facilitated by the Danish Civil Registration System. Information on outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2 infection includes hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and death and is retrieved from the five administrative Danish regions, the Danish National Patient Registry, and the Danish Register of Causes of Death. The Patient Registry further provides a complete hospital contact history of somatic and psychiatric conditions and procedures. Data on all prescriptions filled at community pharmacies are available from the Danish National Prescription Registry. Health-care authorization status is obtained from the Danish Register of Healthcare Professionals. Finally, selected laboratory values are obtained from the Register of Laboratory Results for Research. The cohort is governed by a steering committee with representatives from the Danish Medicines Agency, Statens Serum Institut, the Danish Health Authority, the Danish Health Data Authority, Danish Patients, the Faculties of Health Sciences at the Danish universities, and Danish regions. The steering committee welcomes suggestions for research studies and collaborations. Research proposals will be prioritized based on timeliness and potential clinical and public health implications. All research protocols assessing specific hypotheses for medicines will be made publicly available using the European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies. CONCLUSION: The Danish COVID-19 cohort includes all Danish residents with an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. Through individual-level linkage with existing Danish health and administrative registries, this is a valuable data source for epidemiological research on SARS-CoV-2.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL