ABSTRACT
BackgroundEffective pandemic preparedness requires robust severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) surveillance. However, identifying SARI patients based on symptoms is time-consuming. Using the number of reverse transcription (RT)-PCR tests or contact and droplet precaution labels as a proxy for SARI could accurately reflect the epidemiology of patients presenting with SARI.AimWe aimed to compare the number of RT-PCR tests, contact and droplet precaution labels and SARI-related International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes and evaluate their use as surveillance indicators.MethodsPatients from all age groups hospitalised at Leiden University Medical Center between 1 January 2017 up to and including 30 April 2023 were eligible for inclusion. We used a clinical data collection tool to extract data from electronic medical records. For each surveillance indicator, we plotted the absolute count for each week, the incidence proportion per week and the correlation between the three surveillance indicators.ResultsWe included 117,404 hospital admissions. The three surveillance indicators generally followed a similar pattern before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The correlation was highest between contact and droplet precaution labels and ICD-10 diagnostic codes (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.84). There was a strong increase in the number of RT-PCR tests after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.DiscussionAll three surveillance indicators have advantages and disadvantages. ICD-10 diagnostic codes are suitable but are subject to reporting delays. Contact and droplet precaution labels are a feasible option for automated SARI surveillance, since these reflect trends in SARI incidence and may be available real-time.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Male , Female , Adult , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Middle Aged , Aged , Pandemics , Child , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Population Surveillance/methods , Adolescent , Child, Preschool , Incidence , International Classification of Diseases , Infant , Proof of Concept Study , Young Adult , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/diagnosis , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Since the first reports of COVID-19 cases, sex-discrepancies have been reported in COVID-19 mortality. We provide a detailed description of these sex differences in relation to age and comorbidities among notified cases as well as in relation to age and sex-specific mortality in the general Dutch population. METHODS: Data on COVID-19 cases and mortality until May 31st 2020 was extracted from the national surveillance database with exclusion of healthcare workers. Association between sex and case fatality was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Subsequently, male-female ratio in standardized mortality ratios and population mortality rates relative to all-cause and infectious disease-specific mortality were computed stratified by age. RESULTS: Male-female odds ratio for case fatality was 1.33 [95% CI 1.26-1.41] and among hospitalized cases 1.27 [95% CI 1.16-1.40]. This remained significant after adjustment for age and comorbidities. The male-female ratio of the standardized mortality ratio was 1.70 [95%CI 1.62-1.78]. The population mortality rate for COVID-19 was 35.1 per 100.000, with a male-female rate ratio of 1.25 (95% CI 1.18-1.31) which was higher than in all-cause population mortality and infectious disease mortality. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms male sex is a predisposing factor for severe outcomes of COVID-19, independent of age and comorbidities. In addition to general male-female-differences, COVID-19 specific mechanisms likely contribute to this mortality discrepancy.
