Inequality in COVID-19 mortality in Quebec associated with neighbourhood-level vulnerability domains.

OBJECTIVES: We measured disparities in COVID-19 mortality associated with increasing vulnerability to severe outcomes of infectious disease at the neighbourhood level to identify domains for prioritization of public interventions. METHODS: In this retrospective ecological study, we calculated COVID-19 mortality rate ratios (RR) comparing neighbourhoods with the greatest vulnerability relative to lowest vulnerability using the five domains from the COVID-19 vulnerability index for Quebec using hospital data from the first year of the pandemic and vulnerability levels from 13,182 neighbourhoods. We estimated the attributable fraction to assess disparities in COVID-19 mortality associated with vulnerability. Domains covered biological susceptibility, sociocultural characteristics, socioeconomic characteristics, and indoor and outdoor risk factors for exposure to SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Vulnerable neighbourhoods accounted for 60.7% of COVID-19 deaths between March 2020 and February 2021. Neighbourhoods with biological susceptibility accounted for 46.1% and indoor exposure for 44.6% of deaths. Neighbourhoods with socioeconomic vulnerability experienced 23.5%, outdoor exposure 14.6%, and sociocultural vulnerability 9.0% of deaths. Neighbourhoods with high relative vulnerability had 4.66 times greater risk of COVID-19 mortality compared with those with low vulnerability (95%CI 3.82-5.67). High vulnerability in the biological (RR 3.33; 95%CI 2.71-4.09), sociocultural (RR 1.50; 95%CI 1.27-1.77), socioeconomic (RR 2.08; 95%CI 1.75-2.48), and indoor (RR 3.21; 95%CI 2.74-3.76) exposure domains were associated with elevated risks of mortality compared with the least vulnerable neighbourhoods. Outdoor exposure was unassociated with mortality (RR 1.17; 95%CI 0.96-2.43). CONCLUSION: Public intervention to protect vulnerable populations should be adapted to focus on domains most associated with COVID-19 mortality to ensure addressing local needs.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Nous avons mesuré les inégalités de mortalité de COVID-19 associées à la vulnérabilité croissante des conséquences sévères de maladies infectieuses au Québec. L'échelle de quartier permet d'identifier des domaines à prioriser lors d'interventions publiques. MéTHODES: Dans cette étude écologique rétrospective, nous avons calculé des ratios des taux (RT) en comparant les territoires de plus grande vulnérabilité avec ceux de plus faible vulnérabilité à l'aide de données d'hospitalisation de la première année de la pandémie et de mesures de vulnérabilité de 13 182 aires de diffusion (AD). Nous avons estimé la fraction attribuable pour évaluer les disparités de mortalité par la COVID-19. Les domaines examinés concernaient la susceptibilité biologique, les caractéristiques socioculturelles et socioéconomiques ainsi que des facteurs de risque d'exposition au SRAS-CoV-2 à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur. RéSULTATS: Dans l'ensemble, les territoires vulnérables couvraient 60,7 % des cas de mortalité de COVID-19 pendant la première année de la pandémie. Les AD avec une vulnérabilité élevée avaient un risque de mortalité par la COVID-19 4,66 fois plus élevé comparé aux territoires de faible vulnérabilité (IC de 95% 3,82-5,67). Les aires de diffusion avec une susceptibilité biologique comptaient pour 46,1 % des décès et celles avec une exposition au SRAS-CoV-2 à l'intérieur pour 44,6 %. La vulnérabilité socioéconomique comptait pour 23,5 %, l'exposition à l'extérieur pour 14,6 %, et la vulnérabilité socioculturelle pour 9,0 % des décès. Les domaines biologique (RT 3,33; IC de 95% 2,71-4,09), socioculturel (RT 1,50; IC de 95% 1,27-1,77), socioéconomique (RT 2,08; IC de 95% 1,75-2,48), et d'exposition intérieure (RT 3,21; IC de 95% 2,74-3,76) étaient associés à un risque élevé de mortalité par la COVID-19 comparé aux territoires les moins vulnérables. L'exposition extérieure n'était pas associée avec un risque de mortalité par la COVID-19 (RT 1,17; IC de 95% 0,96-2,43). CONCLUSION: Les interventions publiques visant à protéger les populations vulnérables devraient être adaptées aux domaines les plus associés avec la mortalité par la COVID-19 au Québec et ce, à l'échelle de quartier pour s'assurer que les besoins locaux soient couverts.

Lockdowns and cycling injuries: temporal analysis of rates in Quebec during the first year of the pandemic. / Les confinements et les blessures à vélo : une analyse temporelle des taux de blessures au Québec au cours de la première année de la pandémie.

INTRODUCTION: Cycling increased in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the impact on cycling injuries is not known. We examined the effect of lockdowns on cycling injury hospitalizations. METHODS: We identified hospitalizations for cycling injuries in Quebec, Canada, between April 2006 and March 2021. We used rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare hospitalization rates by type of cycling injury and anatomical site during two waves of the pandemic. We performed interrupted time series regression to assess the effect of lockdowns on monthly cycling injury hospitalization rates, according to age, sex and other characteristics. RESULTS: There were 2020 hospitalizations for cycling injuries between March 2020 and March 2021, including 617 during the first lockdown and 67 during the second lockdown. Compared with the period before the pandemic, risk of cycling-related injuries during the first lockdown increased the most for fractures (RR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.26- 1.64) and head and neck injuries (RR = 1.59; 95% CI: 1.19-2.12). Cycling injury hospitalization rates increased significantly among adults, adolescents and individuals from socioeconomically advantaged neighbourhoods or those with low concentrations of racialized people every month of the first lockdown. The second lockdown was not associated with cycling injuries. CONCLUSION: The first lockdown triggered a sharp increase in cycling injury hospitalizations, especially among adults, adolescents and individuals from socioeconomically advantaged and less racialized neighbourhoods.

Hospitalization for child maltreatment and other types of injury during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The possibility that child maltreatment was misclassified as unintentional injury during the COVID-19 pandemic has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We assessed if child maltreatment hospitalizations changed during the pandemic, and if the change was accompanied by an increase in unintentional injuries. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: This study included children aged 0-4 years who were admitted for maltreatment or unintentional injuries between April 2006 and March 2021 in hospitals of Quebec, Canada. METHODS: We used interrupted time series regression to estimate the effect of the pandemic on hospitalization rates for maltreatment, compared with unintentional transport accidents, falls, and mechanical force injuries. We assessed if the change in maltreatment hospitalization was accompanied by an increase in specific types of unintentional injury. RESULTS: Hospitalizations for child maltreatment decreased from 16.3 per 100,000 (95 % CI 9.1-23.4) the year before the pandemic to 13.2 per 100,000 (95 % CI 6.7-19.7) during the first lockdown. Hospitalizations for most types of unintentional injury also decreased, but injuries due to falls involving another person increased from 9.0 to 16.5 per 100,000. Hospitalization rates for maltreatment and unintentional injury remained low during the second lockdown, but mechanical force injuries involving another person increased from 3.8 to 8.1 per 100,000. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalizations for child maltreatment may have been misclassified as unintentional injuries involving another person during the pandemic. Children admitted for these types of unintentional injuries may benefit from closer assessment to rule out maltreatment.

Myocarditis and/or pericarditis risk after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination: A Canadian head to head comparison of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Canadian and international data suggest the risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis is elevated during the week after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in younger age groups, in males, and after second doses. OBJECTIVES: This article examines whether there is a product-specific difference in the risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis between the two mRNA vaccines administered in Canada: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna Spikevax). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reporting rates of myocarditis and/or pericarditis were calculated from reports received by the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System from December 2020-March 2022. Excess cases and attributable incidence among individuals aged 18-39 were estimated for each vaccine in comparison with background rates from 2015 to 2019. Head-to-head comparisons used Poisson regression, conditioned on week of vaccine administration, to estimate rate ratios for the week after mRNA-1273 vaccination versus the week after BNT162b2, by age and sex as well as overall. Analyses were restricted to May 30-March 13, 2021, when heightened media awareness was unlikely to have affected reporting rates for the two products differentially. RESULTS: In 18-29 year-old males who received a second dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, attributable risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis was found to be 5.69 (95% CI: 4.07 - 7.95; p < 0.001) times higher among mRNA-1273 recipients (n = 106) as compared to BNT162b2 recipients (n = 33). In the same group, Poisson regression modelling estimated that the risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis was 4.72 (p-value = <0.001) times higher after mRNA-1723 compared to BNT162b2 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis is higher after mRNA-1723 vaccination than BNT162b2 vaccination in those aged 18-39 years, especially in males aged 18-29 years, where the risk is several times higher.

Disadvantageous Socioeconomic Position at Specific Life Periods May Contribute to Prostate Cancer Risk and Aggressiveness.

Background: Previous studies on socioeconomic position (SEP) and risk of prostate cancer (PCa) have produced contradictory results. Most measured SEP only once during the individuals' life span. The aim of the study was to identify life course models that describe best the relationship between SEP measured during childhood/adolescence, early- and late-adulthood, and risk of PCa overall as well as according to tumor aggressiveness at diagnosis. Methods: We used data from a population-based case-control study of PCa conducted in the predominantly French-speaking population in Montreal, Canada. Cases (n = 1,930) with new, histologically-confirmed PCa were ascertained across hospitals deserving the French-speaking population in 2005-2009. Controls (n = 1,991), selected from Quebec's list of French-speaking electors, were frequency-matched to cases (±5 years). In-person interviews collected information on socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics, and a complete occupational history. Measures of SEP during childhood/adolescence included parents' ownership of a car and father's longest occupation, while the subject's first and longest occupations were used to indicate early- and late-adulthood SEP, respectively. We used the Bayesian relevant life course exposure model to investigate the relationship between lifelong SEP and PCa risk. Results: Cumulative exposure to disadvantageous SEP was associated with about a 50% increase in odds of developing PCa. Late-adulthood SEP was identified as a sensitive period for aggressive PCa. Childhood/adolescence SEP based on parents' ownership of a car was associated with non-aggressive PCa. Associations were independent from PCa screening. Conclusion: Disadvantageous SEP over the life course was associated with higher PCa incidence, with consistent evidence of sensitive time periods for cancer aggressiveness. The mechanisms through which disadvantageous SEP relates to PCa risk need to be further elucidated.