SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Health Care Workers by Dosing Interval and Time Since Vaccination: Test-Negative Design, British Columbia, Canada.

Background: One- and two-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by dosing interval and time since vaccination were assessed among healthcare workers (HCWs) in publicly funded acute and community (nonresidential) healthcare facilities in British Columbia, Canada. Methods: A test-negative design was used with controls matched to cases (6:1) on epidemiological week of SARS-CoV-2 test date. mRNA vaccination was defined by receipt of the first dose ≥21 days or second dose ≥14 days before the test date. HCWs ≥18 years old tested for SARS-CoV-2 between epi-weeks 3 and 39 (January 17-October 2, 2021) were included, when varying dosing intervals and a mix of circulating variants of concern contributed, including Delta dominance provincially from epi-week 31 (August 1). Results: Single- and two-dose analyses included 1265 and 1246 cases, respectively. The median follow-up period (interquartile range) was 49 (34-69) days for single-dose and 89 (61-123) days for two-dose recipients, with 12%, 31%, and 58% of second doses given 3-5, 6, or ≥7 weeks after the first. Adjusted mRNA VE against SARS-CoV-2 was 71% (95% CI, 66%-76%) for one dose and 90% (95% CI, 88%-92%) for two doses, similar to two heterologous mRNA doses (92%; 95% CI, 86%-95%). Two-dose VE remained >80% at ≥28 weeks post-second dose. Two-dose VE was consistently 5%-7% higher with a ≥7-week vs 3-5-week interval between doses, but with overlapping confidence intervals. Conclusions: Among HCWs, we report substantial single-dose and strong and sustained two-dose mRNA vaccine protection, with the latter maintained for at least 7 months. These findings support a longer interval between doses, with global health and equity implications.

Two-Dose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccine Effectiveness With Mixed Schedules and Extended Dosing Intervals: Test-Negative Design Studies From British Columbia and Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immunization strategy deferred second doses and allowed mixed schedules. We compared 2-dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) by vaccine type (mRNA and/or ChAdOx1), interval between doses, and time since second dose in 2 of Canada's larger provinces. METHODS: Two-dose VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or hospitalization among adults ≥18 years, including due to Alpha, Gamma, and Delta variants of concern (VOCs), was assessed ≥14 days postvaccination by test-negative design studies separately conducted in British Columbia and Quebec, Canada, between 30 May and 27 November (epi-weeks 22-47) 2021. RESULTS: In both provinces, all homologous or heterologous mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 2-dose schedules were associated with ≥90% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization risk for ≥7 months. With slight decline from a peak of >90%, VE against infection was ≥80% for ≥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 versus manufacturer-specified 3-4-week intervals 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.

Why are babies in Canada getting smaller?

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence from the United States and Canada suggests an unexplained increase in small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births (<10th percentile). This study aimed to identify reasons for the recent increase in SGA births in Canada. DATA AND METHODS: Using Canada's Vital Statistics - Birth Database, the study population included all singleton live births, 2000 to 2016, inclusive. Temporal changes in birth weight (grams), birth weight for gestational age z-scores, and SGA births were examined. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if the ncreased risk of an SGA birth over time was eliminated or attenuated by adjusting for selected individual and sociodemographic factors that have previously been associated with SGA births. RESULTS: There were 5,941,820 singleton live births in Canada between 2000 and 2016. Mean birth weight for all births decreased from 3,442 grams in 2000, to 3,367 grams in 2016, while SGA birth increased from 7.2% in 2000 to 8.0% in 2016. The multivariable model showed higher odds of SGA birth among births to parents born outside of Canada, unmarried women, older women, nulliparous women and women residing in low income neighborhoods. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, the crude 12% increase in odds of SGA birth in 2016 compared to 2000 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): [10 to 14%]) was attenuated, ut not eliminated (adjusted odds ratio for calendar time 1.08 (95% CI: [1.06, 1.10])). INTERPRETATION: This study identified a decrease in fetal size in Canada between 2000 and 2016. The rise in SGA births in Canada was explained only partly as a result of concurrent changes in the demography of childbirth.

Comparative Single-Dose mRNA and ChAdOx1 Vaccine Effectiveness Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Including Variants of Concern: Test-Negative Design, British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In British Columbia, Canada, most adults 50-69 years old became eligible for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine in April 2021, with chimpanzee adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1) restricted to ≥55-year-olds and second doses deferred ≥6 weeks to optimize single-dose coverage. METHODS: Among adults 50-69 years old, single-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) and ChAdOx1 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization, including variant-specific, was assessed by test-negative design between 4 April and 2 October 2021. RESULTS: Single-dose VE included 11 861 cases and 99 544 controls. Median of postvaccination follow-up was 32 days (interquartile range, 15-52 days). Alpha, Gamma, and Delta variants comprised 23%, 18%, and 56%, respectively, of genetically characterized viruses. At 21-55 days postvaccination, single-dose mRNA and ChAdOx1 VE (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 74% (71%-76%) and 59% (53%-65%) against any infection and 86% (80%-90%) and 94% (85%-97%) against hospitalization, respectively. VE (95% CI) was similar against Alpha and Gamma infections for mRNA (80% [76%-84%] and 80% [75%-84%], respectively) and ChAdOx1 (69% [60%-76%] and 66% [56%-73%], respectively). mRNA VE was lower at 63% (95% CI, 56%-69%) against Delta but 85% (95% CI, 71%-92%) against Delta-associated hospitalization (nonestimable for ChAdOx1). CONCLUSIONS: A single mRNA or ChAdOx1 vaccine dose gave important protection against SARS-CoV-2, including early variants of concern. ChAdOx1 VE was lower against infection, but 1 dose of either vaccine reduced the hospitalization risk by >85% to at least 8 weeks postvaccination. Findings inform program options, including longer dosing intervals.

Single-dose mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Including Alpha and Gamma Variants: A Test-negative Design in Adults 70 Years and Older in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Randomized-controlled trials of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) included relatively few elderly participants. We assess single-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in adults ≥ 70 years old in British Columbia, Canada, where second doses were deferred by up to 16 weeks and where a spring 2021 wave uniquely included codominant circulation of Alpha (B.1.1.7) and Gamma (P.1) variants of concern (VOC). METHODS: Analyses included community-dwelling adults ≥ 70 years old with specimen collection between 4 April (epidemiological week 14) and 1 May (week 17) 2021. Adjusted VE was estimated by test-negative design. Cases were reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test-positive for SARS-CoV-2, and controls were test-negative. Vaccine status was defined by receipt of a single-dose ≥ 21 days before specimen collection, but a range of intervals was assessed. Variant-specific VE was estimated against viruses genetically characterized as Alpha, Gamma or non-VOC lineages. RESULTS: VE analyses included 16 993 specimens: 1226 (7%) test-positive cases and 15 767 test-negative controls. Of 1131 (92%) genetically characterized viruses, 509 (45%), 314 (28%), and 276 (24%) were Alpha, Gamma, and non-VOC lineages, respectively. At 0-13 days postvaccination, VE was negligible at 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-26) but increased from 43% (95% CI, 30-53) at 14-20 days to 75% (95% CI, 63-83) at 35-41 days postvaccination. VE at ≥ 21 days postvaccination was 65% (95% CI, 58-71) overall: 72% (95% CI, 58-81), 67% (95% CI, 57-75), and 61% (95% CI, 45-72) for non-VOC, Alpha, and Gamma variants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 by about two-thirds in adults ≥ 70 years old, with protection only minimally reduced against Alpha and Gamma variants.

Impact of cancer on income, wealth and economic outcomes of adult cancer survivors: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise peer-reviewed evidence on the effect of a cancer diagnosis on the different sources of income of individuals diagnosed with cancer during adulthood (age ≥18 years). DESIGN: A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews and reporting results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Econ-Lit and Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, and reference lists of evidence syntheses. Published literature of any study type in English was searched from January 2000 to December 2020. ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: Study participants were individuals diagnosed with cancer during adulthood (age ≥18 years). Studies from any country and/or healthcare system were included. Primary outcomes were employment income (eg, individual or household); investment income (eg, stocks/bonds, properties, savings); government transfer payments (eg, disability income/pension); debt and bankruptcy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Findings are summarised descriptively and in tabular form. RESULTS: From 6297 citations retrieved, 63 studies (67 articles) met our inclusion criteria. Most (51%) were published in 2016-2020; 65% were published in the USA or Scandinavia. Survivors incurred debt (24 studies), depleted savings (13 studies) and liquidated stocks/bonds (7 studies) in response to a cancer diagnosis. 41 studies reported changes to employment income; of these, 12 case-control studies reported varying results: 5 reported survivors earned less than controls, 4 reported no significant differences, 2 reported mixed results and 1 reported income increased. Initial declines in income tended to lessen over time. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer's impact on survivors' income is complex and time-varying. Longitudinal studies are needed to document the trend of initial declines in income, with declines lessening over time, and its variations. Study designs using standardised income measures and capturing treatment type and follow-up time will improve our understanding of cancer's impact on survivors' income.

Impact of a cancer diagnosis on the income of adult cancer survivors: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: While the socioeconomic impact of a cancer diagnosis on cancer survivors has gained some attention in the literature, to our knowledge, a review of the evidence on changes in income due to cancer has yet to be undertaken. In this paper, we describe a scoping review protocol to review the evidence on the effect of a cancer diagnosis on the income of individuals diagnosed with cancer during adulthood (≥18 years). The purpose is to summarise existing evidence, identify gaps in current research and highlight priority areas for future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will follow the methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews by the Joanna Briggs Institute In collaboration with a health science librarian, we developed a search strategy to be performed in Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Econ-Literature and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. This scoping review will search the scientific literature published in English from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2020. Studies that measured the impact of cancer on income of adults will be eligible for inclusion. Studies exclusively focused on employment outcomes (eg, return to work, unemployment, productivity loss), financial expenditures, childhood cancer survivors and/or the caregivers of cancer survivors will be excluded. Three independent reviewers will conduct screening and extract data. Descriptive information will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will analyse data from publicly available materials and thus does not require ethics approval. Results from this review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and/or conference presentation with the potential to identify gaps in the literature, suggest strategies for standardised terminology and provide directions for future research.

Dementia and Poor Continuity of Primary Care Delay Hospital Discharge in Older Adults: A Population-Based Study From 2001 to 2016.

OBJECTIVES: Delayed discharge, remaining in acute care longer than medically necessary, reflects less than optimal use of hospital care resources and can have negative implications for patients. We studied (1) the change over time in delayed discharge in people with and without dementia, and (2) the association of delayed discharge with discharge destination and with the continuity of primary care prior to urgent admission. DESIGN: A retrospective population-based study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Delayed discharge after urgent admission and length of delayed discharge were studied in all hospital users aged ≥70 years with at least 1 urgent admission in British Columbia, Canada, in years 2001/02, 2005/06, 2010/11, and 2015/16 (N = 276,299). METHODS: Linked administrative data provided by Population Data BC were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE), logistic regression analysis, and negative binomial regression analyses. RESULTS: Delayed discharge increased among people with dementia and decreased among people without dementia, whereas the length of delay decreased among both. Dementia was the strongest predictor of delayed discharge [odds ratio 4.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.59-4.93], whereas waiting for long-term care placement [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.56; 95% CI 1.50-1.62] and dementia (IRR 1.50; 95% CI 1.45-1.54) predicted a higher number of days of delay. Continuity and quantity of care with the same physician before urgent admission was associated with a decreased risk of delayed discharge, especially in people with dementia. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrates the need for better system integration and patient-centered care especially for people with dementia. Population aging will likely increase the number of patients at risk of delayed discharge. Delayed discharge is associated with both the patient's complex needs and the inability of the system to meet these needs during and after urgent care. Sufficient investments are needed in both primary care and long-term care resources to reduce delayed discharges.