COVID-19 in patients undergoing long-term dialysis in Ontario

BACKGROUND:Patients undergoing long-term dialysis may be at higher risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and of associated disease and mortality. We aimed to describe the incidence, risk factors and outcomes for infection in these patients in Ontario, Canada.METHODS:We used linked data sets to compare disease characteristics and mortality between patients receiving long-term dialysis in Ontario who were diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 positive and those who did not acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, between Mar. 12 and Aug. 20, 2020. We collected data on SARS-CoV-2 infection prospectively. We evaluated risk factors for infection and death using multivariable logistic regression analyses.RESULTS:During the study period, 187 (1.5%) of 12 501 patients undergoing dialysis were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of those with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 117 (62.6%) were admitted to hospital and the case fatality rate was 28.3%. Significant predictors of infection included in-centre hemodialysis versus home dialysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.59–4.05), living in a long-term care residence (OR 7.67, 95% CI 5.30–11.11), living in the Greater Toronto Area (OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.21–4.80), Black ethnicity (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.95–4.77), Indian subcontinent ethnicity (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02–2.81), other non-White ethnicities (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.38–2.97) and lower income quintiles (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.15–2.89).INTERPRETATION:Patients undergoing long-term dialysis are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death from coronavirus disease 2019. Special attention should be paid to addressing risk factors for infection, and these patients should be prioritized for vaccination.

As of Aug. 20, 2020, in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, almost 41 000 people had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),¹ which represented 0.3% of the provincial population. Close to 2800 people had died, a case fatality rate of 6.8%.²Patients undergoing dialysis have high rates of comorbid conditions, are often older adults, have varying degrees of immunosuppression and are more likely to reside in long-term care, which puts them at risk of both acquiring SARS-CoV-2 and developing complicated disease.^3,4 Furthermore, in Ontario, those who receive in-centre hemodialysis typically have 3 treatments per week in outpatient units located in or affiliated with hospitals, and the consequent inability to fully self-isolate means that patients undergoing hemodialysis likely have an even higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.^3,4 Recent studies support this but do not compare infection rates with those in the local population of patients not undergoing dialysis.^5–10 Several studies have reported SARS-CoV-2 infection in single or multicentre cohorts of patients undergoing dialysis,^5–10 but we are unaware of any that have identified risk factors for infection at the level of a large region. Some studies have found that patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are undergoing dialysis are at high risk of severe illness and death.^6–10     

Individual and social determinants of SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity in Ontario,Canada: a population-wide study

BACKGROUND:Optimizing the public health response to reduce the burden of COVID-19 necessitates characterizing population-level heterogeneity of risks for the disease. However, heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 testing may introduce biased estimates depending on analytic design. We aimed to explore the potential for collider bias in a large study of disease determinants, and evaluate individual, environmental and social determinants associated with SARS-CoV-2 testing and diagnosis among residents of Ontario, Canada.METHODS:We explored the potential for collider bias and characterized individual, environmental and social determinants of being tested and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection using cross-sectional analyses among 14.7 million community-dwelling people in Ontario, Canada. Among those with a diagnosis, we used separate analytic designs to compare predictors of people testing positive versus negative; symptomatic people testing positive versus testing negative; and people testing positive versus people not testing positive (i.e., testing negative or not being tested). Our analyses included tests conducted between Mar. 1 and June 20, 2020.RESULTS:Of 14 695 579 people, we found that 758 691 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 25 030 (3.3%) had a positive test result. The further the odds of testing from the null, the more variability we generally observed in the odds of diagnosis across analytic design, particularly among individual factors. We found that there was less variability in testing by social determinants across analytic designs. Residing in areas with the highest household density (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75–1.98), highest proportion of essential workers (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.48–1.69), lowest educational attainment (adjusted OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26–1.41) and highest proportion of recent immigrants (adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05–1.15) were consistently related to increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis regardless of analytic design.INTERPRETATION:Where testing is limited, our results suggest that risk factors may be better estimated using population comparators rather than test-negative comparators. Optimizing COVID-19 responses necessitates investment in and sufficient coverage of structural interventions tailored to heterogeneity in social determinants of risk, including household crowding, occupation and structural racism.

The spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, has resulted in a pandemic with heterogeneity in exposure and risk of transmission.^1–4Heterogeneity in social determinants of COVID-19 may exist at the individual and community (e.g., by housing density^5–7) levels. In addition, social determinants of health, including barriers to health care, occupation, structural racism and xenophobia, have been implicated in COVID-19 risk.^8,9 Environmental determinants such as ambient air pollution may also play a role, as evidence indicates that higher ambient air pollution increases risk for infection with other respiratory viruses^10,11 and the development of severe COVID-19.^12,13 Environmental factors are linked with structural racism (e.g., in the context of low-quality housing).^12,14Using observational data to identify risk factors for COVID-19 relies on SARS-CoV-2 testing, a service that is not equally distributed.¹⁵ Differential testing introduces the potential for selection biases,^16,17 including collider bias.¹⁷ Collider bias may be introduced into epidemiologic studies of COVID-19 risk factors if the factors under investigation are related both to developing an infection and to the likelihood of being tested.^17–19 For example, data suggest that people with diabetes are more likely to develop severe COVID-19 if infected with SARS-CoV-2.^20,21 Thus, if infected, people with diabetes may be more likely to be tested, and consequently, diabetes may appear to be associated with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in studies of those tested for SARS-CoV-2, even if diabetes is not a risk factor for infection.¹⁷ The opposite may occur with underlying respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma) that have symptoms similar to those caused by SARS-CoV-2, leading to the appearance of potentially “protective” associations with COVID-19.²²Our objectives were to explore the potential for collider bias in a large study of COVID-19 determinants and examine individual, environmental and social determinants associated with testing and diagnosis among 14.7 million people in Ontario, Canada.¹⁷     

The impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on maternal and newborn health is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes.METHODS:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies with comparison data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and severity of COVID-19 during pregnancy. We searched for eligible studies in MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv and Cochrane databases up to Jan. 29, 2021, using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords for “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 OR SARS-CoV-2 OR coronavirus disease 2019 OR COVID-19” AND “pregnancy.” We evaluated the methodologic quality of all included studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Our primary outcomes were preeclampsia and preterm birth. Secondary outcomes included stillbirth, gestational diabetes and other pregnancy outcomes. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis.RESULTS:We included 42 studies involving 438 548 people who were pregnant. Compared with no SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy, COVID-19 was associated with preeclampsia (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.73), preterm birth (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.39) and stillbirth (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.90). Compared with mild COVID-19, severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with preeclampsia (OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.55 to 11.15), preterm birth (OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.41 to 7.63), gestational diabetes (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.64) and low birth weight (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12).INTERPRETATION:COVID-19 may be associated with increased risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and was declared a global pandemic in March 2020.¹ Pregnant people and infants may be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 because the physiologic changes of pregnancy involve cardiorespiratory and immune systems, which may result in an altered response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy. ² Fetuses may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 during critical periods of fetal development.³ The nature of the association between COVID-19 and pregnancy outcomes remains unclear, and meta-analyses involving patients with COVID-19 who are pregnant are limited. Previous reviews have focused mostly on prevalence estimates from case reports or case series that are difficult to interpret and potentially biased.^4,5 A 2020 systematic review suggested that people who are pregnant did not have an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic COVID-19, but they were at risk of severe COVID-19 compared with those who were not pregnant.⁵ However, this review included suspected COVID-19 cases in addition to confirmed cases.⁵ Although some recent observational studies have suggested that people with confirmed asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19,^6–15 as well as mild and severe infections,^{6,8,9,15–22} may be at risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, we are unaware of any systematic reviews that have comprehensively evaluated these data.We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes among pregnant patients with COVID-19. We aimed to determine the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia, preterm birth and stillbirth.     

Risk factors for outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection at retirement homes in Ontario,Canada: a population-level cohort study

BACKGROUND:The epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in retirement homes (also known as assisted living facilities) is largely unknown. We examined the association between home-and community-level characteristics and the risk of outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in retirement homes since the beginning of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.METHODS:We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of licensed retirement homes in Ontario, Canada, from Mar. 1 to Dec. 18, 2020. Our primary outcome was an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection (≥ 1 resident or staff case confirmed by validated nucleic acid amplification assay). We used time-dependent proportional hazards methods to model the associations between retirement home– and community-level characteristics and outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.RESULTS:Our cohort included all 770 licensed retirement homes in Ontario, which housed 56 491 residents. There were 273 (35.5%) retirement homes with 1 or more outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection, involving 1944 (3.5%) residents and 1101 staff (3.0%). Cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were distributed unevenly across retirement homes, with 2487 (81.7%) resident and staff cases occurring in 77 (10%) homes. The adjusted hazard of an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a retirement home was positively associated with homes that had a large resident capacity, were co-located with a long-term care facility, were part of larger chains, offered many services onsite, saw increases in regional incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and were located in a region with a higher community-level ethnic concentration.INTERPRETATION:Readily identifiable characteristics of retirement homes are independently associated with outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can support risk identification and priority for vaccination.

Frail older adults living in congregate care settings have been at the centre of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and internationally.^1,2 Long-term care facilities — whose residents are the congregate living population most affected by COVID-19 — have been the subject of immense scientific and public interest during the pandemic.³ Retirement homes (often known as assisted living facilities) have received far less examination despite also housing many vulnerable older adults.^4–7 In contrast to long-term care facilities, retirement homes are private residential complexes that provide a range of supportive care and lifestyle services that are purchased out of pocket by residents or their families.⁸ Although residents of retirement homes access supportive care services, they are substantially less frail and dependent than residents of long-term care homes.⁵ Inconsistent regulation of these facilities throughout Canada and the United States has limited research into the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in retirement homes.⁹There are 770 licensed retirement homes in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, that house more than 50 000 older adults, a population size that approaches the number of Ontario residents of long-term care homes.¹⁰ Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, the number of positive cases and deaths in retirement homes has continued to grow. As of Apr. 11, 2021, retirement home residents accounted for about 8% of deaths from COVID-19 in Ontario (596/7552).¹¹ Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection surged in retirement homes during the first and second waves in Canada and the US,^11,12 and there has been limited examination in the literature beyond early reports of case surveillance.¹³We examined the association between home- and community-level characteristics and the risk of outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in Ontario’s retirement homes. Consistent with our previous population-level work in Ontario long-term care homes,^2,14 we hypothesized that home size and regional incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection would be associated with the risk of an outbreak.     

Postpartum mental illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based,repeated cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND:It is unclear whether the clinical burden of postpartum mental illness has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to compare physician visit rates for postpartum mental illness in Ontario, Canada, during the pandemic with rates expected based on prepandemic patterns.METHODS:In this population-based, repeated cross-sectional study using linked health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, we used negative binomial regression to model expected visit rates per 1000 postpartum people for March–November 2020 based on prepandemic data (January 2016–February 2020). We compared observed visit rates to expected visit rates for each month of the pandemic period, generating absolute rate differences, incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was a visit to a primary care physician or a psychiatrist for any mental disorder. We stratified analyses by maternal sociodemographic characteristics.RESULTS:In March 2020, the visit rate was 43.5/1000, with a rate difference of 3.11/1000 (95% CI 1.25–4.89) and an IRR of 1.08 (95% CI 1.03–1.13) compared with the expected rate. In April, the rate difference (10.9/1000, 95% CI 9.14–12.6) and IRR (1.30, 95% CI 1.24–1.36) were higher; this level was generally sustained through November 2020. From April–November, we observed elevated visit rates across provider types and for diagnoses of anxiety, depressive and alcohol or substance use disorders. Observed increases from expected visit rates were greater for people 0–90 days postpartum compared with 91–365 days postpartum; increases were small among people living in low-income neighbourhoods. Public health units in the northern areas of the province did not see sustained elevations in visit rates after July; southern health units had elevated rates through to November.INTERPRETATION:Increased visits for mental health conditions among postpartum people during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic suggest an increased need for effective and accessible mental health care for this population as the pandemic progresses.

Postpartum mental illness affects as many as 1 in 5 mothers,¹ and can result in maternal suffering and diminished functioning.² Related impaired mother–infant interactions are linked to poor social, cognitive and behavioural outcomes in children across their lifespan.³ When mental illness becomes chronic and recurrent, its effects can extend to the entire family and across generations.⁴ With emergence of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the World Health Organization declared a global COVID-19 pandemic on Mar. 11, 2020. Globally, efforts to contain the virus have led to widespread travel restrictions, physical distancing and work limitations, causing broad social and financial disruption that has been associated with substantial mental health effects.^5,6During the COVID-19 pandemic, people have been reporting concerns about postpartum infection,⁷ and difficulty accessing the extended postpartum social support networks and key community programs that protect against mental illness, such as home visits from public health nurses, breastfeeding clinics and support groups, owing to public health measures.⁸ In Canadian surveys, about 50% of pregnant people reported psychological distress in spring 2020,⁹ and alcohol use increased among women, particularly among those with young children.¹⁰ Whether this represents an increased clinical burden of mental illness or need for care is unknown.Using routinely collected health care data from Ontario, Canada, (population of about 14.6 million), we aimed to examine whether rates of maternal visits to physicians for postpartum mental illness from March to November 2020 differed from expected visit rates based on pre-COVID-19 patterns, and to identify variation by provider type, clinical diagnosis, postpartum timing, parity, income, ethnicity and region of residence.     

The mobility gap: estimating mobility thresholds required to control SARS-CoV-2 in Canada

BACKGROUND:Nonpharmaceutical interventions remain the primary means of controlling severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) until vaccination coverage is sufficient to achieve herd immunity. We used anonymized smartphone mobility measures to quantify the mobility level needed to control SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., mobility threshold), and the difference relative to the observed mobility level (i.e., mobility gap).METHODS:We conducted a time-series study of the weekly incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in Canada from Mar. 15, 2020, to Mar. 6, 2021. The outcome was weekly growth rate, defined as the ratio of cases in a given week versus the previous week. We evaluated the effects of average time spent outside the home in the previous 3 weeks using a log-normal regression model, accounting for province, week and mean temperature. We calculated the SARS-CoV-2 mobility threshold and gap.RESULTS:Across the 51-week study period, a total of 888 751 people were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Each 10% increase in the mobility gap was associated with a 25% increase in the SARS-CoV-2 weekly case growth rate (ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.20–1.29). Compared to the prepandemic baseline mobility of 100%, the mobility threshold was highest in the summer (69%; interquartile range [IQR] 67%–70%), and dropped to 54% in winter 2021 (IQR 52%–55%); a mobility gap was present in Canada from July 2020 until the last week of December 2020.INTERPRETATION:Mobility strongly and consistently predicts weekly case growth, and low levels of mobility are needed to control SARS-CoV-2 through spring 2021. Mobility measures from anonymized smartphone data can be used to guide provincial and regional loosening and tightening of physical distancing measures.

The global toll of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to grow, despite the promise of recently approved vaccines. A surge is occurring in many countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including Canada, that may take a considerable toll before vaccination is sufficiently widespread to achieve herd immunity. Nonpharmaceutical public health interventions, including physical distancing, remain the primary population-based means of controlling COVID-19.¹ Since early in the second wave, which started in September 2020, polling has suggested that most people in Canada have supported and adhered to government-directed restrictions,² and many favour strengthened measures to control community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative viral agent of COVID-19.³SARS-CoV-2 is spread primarily through close contact with people who are infected.⁴ As with any infectious disease, contact rates are a primary driver of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.⁵ Mobility measures capturing human activity through anonymized tracking of smartphones are believed to be reasonable proxies of contact rates outside of one’s own home; these measures can provide more timely and reliable sources of information on contact rates compared with time-use surveys or contact tracing.^6–8Aggregated smartphone mobility data are provided by a number of software developers and have been used to quantify the impact of policy on mobility in Canada,⁹ the effectiveness of lockdowns aiming to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2^10–12 and loopholes from excessively localized measures.¹³ Mobility metrics are helpful for gauging the effect of restrictions on behaviour, but do not, on their own, show decision-makers whether restrictions in place at the time are sufficient to curtail the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we evaluated the association between smartphone mobility measures and the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Canada, both nationally and provincially, between March 2020 and March 2021. We also sought to quantify the mobility level needed to control COVID-19 (i.e., the mobility threshold), and the difference between observed mobility levels and the threshold (i.e., the mobility gap). We hypothesized that lower mobility levels may be needed in provinces with larger urban populations in the winter compared with more rural provinces in the summer.¹⁴     

Feasibility of a school-based vision screening program to detect undiagnosed visual problems in kindergarten children in Ontario

BACKGROUND:Visual problems can negatively affect visual development and learning but often go undetected. We assessed the feasibility of scaling up a school-based screening program to identify and treat kindergarten children with visual problems.METHODS:We conducted a prospective cohort study offering vision screening to junior (JK) and senior kindergarten (SK) children attending 43 schools in 15 Ontario communities. Screening comprised photoscreeners and tests of visual acuity, stereoacuity and eye alignment. Children who failed any test were referred for a comprehensive eye examination, with treatment as needed (e.g., glasses).RESULTS:Using a passive consent model, 89% of children were screened compared with 62% using an active consent model (p < 0.001). Referral rates to an optometrist varied across schools (mean referral rate for children in JK 53%, range 25%–83%; mean referral rate for children in SK 34%, range 12%–61%). Among 4811 children who were screened, a visual problem was detected in 516 (10.7%), including 164 (3.4%) with amblyopia and 324 (6.7%) with clinically significant refractive errors. For 347 (67.2%) of the children with a visual problem, this was their first eye examination. Rescreening in Year 2 did not lead to detection of additional problems among children who passed screening in Year 1. Regardless of location (child’s school or optometrist’s office), 1563 (68.9%) of children attended the follow-up optometry examination. Most of the children who were surveyed (291 of 322, 90.4%) indicated that they enjoyed vision screening.INTERPRETATION:Many children in Ontario with a visual problem were not being identified by the status quo in 2015–2017. We found that in-school vision screening with follow-up eye examinations is an effective strategy for identifying at-risk children and placing them in eye care before grade 1.

Two previous Canadian studies suggested that about 1 in 5 children aged 3–6 years have a visual problem such as amblyopia or clinically significant refractive errors (i.e., hyperopia, myopia, astigmatism or anisometropia).^1,2 Population-based studies in the United States and other countries have reported similar prevalence.^3–15 The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends at least 1 vision screening in children between the ages of 3 and 5 years.¹⁶ The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends screening for visual problems at well-child visits for children aged 3–5 years;¹⁷ however, this often does not occur.¹⁸ One report from Ontario showed that only 14% of children under 6 years of age had a comprehensive eye examination in 2013, even though examinations are paid for by provincial health insurance.¹⁹ The underutilization of vision care means that children with amblyopia are not receiving treatment when it is most effective (i.e., before 8 yr of age).^20–22 In addition, early visual problems can negatively affect learning — children with amblyopia read more slowly than those with normal vision,^23,24 and refractive errors are associated with poor reading by grade 1.^25–31We are unaware of any studies to date that have examined the scaling and implementation issues associated with a school-based, vision-screening program in kindergarten, or whether such a program could successfully identify and offer treatment (e.g., glasses) to children with previously undiagnosed visual problems.^32–34 In a study¹ in 1 school (n = 709 children), we investigated what combination of screening tools provided the highest sensitivity and specificity. In the current study, we used this information to test the feasibility of scaling up vision screening to multiple schools in diverse Ontario communities. We investigated whether screening should be offered in both junior kindergarten (JK) and senior kindergarten (SK), whether using an active or passive consent model makes a difference, whether offering follow-up eye examinations at the child’s school can reduce barriers to access, and whether children are receptive to a screening program. These are practical details needed by funders to make decisions about implementing school-based vision screening.     

Short-term antibody response after 1 dose of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients receiving hemodialysis

BACKGROUND:Patients receiving in-centre hemodialysis are at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and death if infected. One dose of the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is efficacious in the general population, but responses in patients receiving hemodialysis are uncertain.METHODS:We obtained serial plasma from patients receiving hemodialysis and health care worker controls before and after vaccination with 1 dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, as well as convalescent plasma from patients receiving hemodialysis who survived COVID-19. We measured anti–receptor binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and stratified groups by evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.RESULTS:Our study included 154 patients receiving hemodialysis (135 without and 19 with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection), 40 controls (20 without and 20 with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection) and convalescent plasma from 16 patients. Among those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, anti-RBD IgG was undetectable at 4 weeks in 75 of 131 (57%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 47% to 65%) patients receiving hemodialysis, compared with 1 of 20 (5%, 95% CI 1% to 23%) controls (p < 0.001). No patient with nondetectable levels at 4 weeks developed anti-RBD IgG by 8 weeks. Results were similar in non-immunosuppressed and younger individuals. Three patients receiving hemodialysis developed severe COVID-19 after vaccination. Among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, median anti-RBD IgG levels at 8 weeks in patients receiving hemodialysis were similar to controls at 3 weeks (p = 0.3) and to convalescent plasma (p = 0.8).INTERPRETATION:A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine failed to elicit a humoral immune response in most patients receiving hemodialysis without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, even after prolonged observation. In those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, the antibody response was delayed. We advise that patients receiving hemodialysis be prioritized for a second BNT162b2 dose at the recommended 3-week interval.

Patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving incentre hemodialysis have been uniquely vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. For these patients, unlike for most other people, self-isolation to avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2 is impossible. Most patients receiving hemodialysis must leave their homes 3 times weekly to receive their life-saving treatments, often in shared spaces for hours at a time. COVID-19 case fatality rates are 20%–30% for patients receiving hemodialysis —10 times higher than in the general population.^1,2 Advanced age, multiple comorbidities and blunted immune response likely all contribute to the high COVID-19 death rates in this population. Some hemodialysis centres have thus prioritized these patients for vaccination.To facilitate wider vaccine distribution during current shortages, ³ the National Advisory Committee on Immunization of Canada has recommended delaying the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine from 3 to 16 weeks.⁴ In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the clinical efficacy of the BNT162b2 was reported to be greater than 80% at 3 weeks after the first dose.⁵ However, no patients receiving hemodialysis were enrolled in this trial.⁵ Patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis often have impairments in both humoral and cellular immune responses⁶ and are noted to have lower antibody responses to other vaccines.⁷ Whether patients receiving hemodialysis develop robust immune responses after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains uncertain.⁸ Data are required to better inform Canadian public health policy on whether second doses of vaccine can be safely delayed in this population.Usually, once clinical trials are completed, antibody levels can be used as surrogate measures of vaccine efficacy, such as with hepatitis B⁹ and influenza.¹⁰ With respect to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, although there is increasing understanding of the antibodies that best correlate with viral neutralization and T-cell responses,^11,12 assays vary from laboratory to laboratory and as yet there are no internationally accepted standards defining what antibody levels constitute immunity.¹³ The only way to evaluate vaccine efficacy using antibody levels, therefore, is through direct experimental comparison with controls who are known to reliably develop immunity after vaccination (i.e., healthy individuals similar to those enrolled in the RCT showing vaccine efficacy⁵) or who have developed immunity after natural infection (i.e., survivors of COVID-19).We sought to determine whether short-term antibody responses after a single dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine are comparable between patients receiving hemodialysis and healthy individuals, and how this compares with antibody responses in patients receiving hemodialysis who survived natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.     

Postoperative outcomes for Indigenous Peoples in Canada: a systematic review

Background:Substantial health inequities exist for Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The remote and distributed population of Canada presents unique challenges for access to and use of surgery. To date, the surgical outcome data for Indigenous Peoples in Canada have not been synthesized.Methods:We searched 4 databases to identify studies comparing surgical outcomes and utilization rates of adults of First Nations, Inuit or Métis identity with non-Indigenous people in Canada. Independent reviewers completed all stages in duplicate. Our primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes included utilization rates of surgical procedures, complications and hospital length of stay. We performed meta-analysis of the primary outcome using random effects models. We assessed risk of bias using the ROBINS-I tool.Results:Twenty-eight studies were reviewed involving 1 976 258 participants (10.2% Indigenous). No studies specifically addressed Inuit or Métis populations. Four studies, including 7 cohorts, contributed adjusted mortality data for 7135 participants (5.2% Indigenous); Indigenous Peoples had a 30% higher rate of death after surgery than non-Indigenous patients (pooled hazard ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.54; I² = 81%). Complications were also higher for Indigenous Peoples, including infectious complications (adjusted OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.13–2.34) and pneumonia (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.58–3.19). Rates of various surgical procedures were lower, including rates of renal transplant, joint replacement, cardiac surgery and cesarean delivery.Interpretation:The currently available data on postoperative outcomes and surgery utilization rates for Indigenous Peoples in Canada are limited and of poor quality. Available data suggest that Indigenous Peoples have higher rates of death and adverse events after surgery, while also encountering barriers accessing surgical procedures. These findings suggest a need for substantial re-evaluation of surgical care for Indigenous Peoples in Canada to ensure equitable access and to improve outcomes. Protocol registration:PROSPERO-CRD42018098757

Safe, timely and affordable access to surgical care is essential to overall population health, as conditions amenable to surgical intervention account for one-third of the global burden of disease.^1,2 Surgery is responsible for 65% of cancer cure and control, it is key to trauma management, and access to cesarean delivery reduces neonatal deaths by up to 70%.¹ The magnitude and ubiquity of surgical conditions makes tracking their prevalence and treatment within local and national monitoring systems essential to fully capture the health and welfare of populations in Canada, including Indigenous Peoples.About 1.67 million people in Canada are Indigenous, representing 4.9% of the total population (58% First Nations, 4% Inuit, 35% Métis).³ Health inequities exist for the Indigenous population; life expectancy at birth is 5–11 years shorter than for non-Indigenous Peoples^4,5 and higher rates of communicable and noncommunicable diseases, unintentional injury and suicide are well documented.^4,6–14 These health inequities are direct impacts of the social determinants of health, which are in turn effects of colonialism and government policies, including the Indian residential school system.^8,11 People living in remote regions have less access to publicly funded health care than other people in Canada, with worse outcomes.¹⁵Given the substantial impact of surgical disease on population health and the recognized disparities in health care access for Indigenous Peoples in Canada, understanding access to surgical services and subsequent outcomes is a key step to addressing health inequities. To date, limited research has been conducted on surgical and postoperative care involving Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the available literature has not been synthesized. Our objective was to systematically review studies comparing postoperative outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples in Canada.     

Characteristics of patients with mental illness and persistent high-cost status: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND:Most of the literature on high-cost users of health care has evaluated this population as a whole, but few studies have focused on high-cost patients with mental illness and whether they persist in the high-cost state. We sought to analyze this patient population in depth and determine predictors of persistency in the high-cost state.METHODS:We used 8 years of longitudinal patient-level population data (2010–2017) from Ontario to follow high-cost patients (those in and above the 90th percentile of the cost distribution) with mental illness. We classified high-cost status, based on the proportion of the study period that patients spent in the high-cost state, as persistent (6–8 yr), sporadic (1–2 yr) or moderate (3–5 yr). We compared characteristics between groups and determined predictors of being a patient with mental illness and persistent high-cost status.RESULTS:Among 52 638 patients with mental illness and high-cost status, 18 149 (34.5%) were considered persistent high cost. These patients had higher mean annual costs of care ($44 714, 95% confidence interval [CI] $43 724–$45 703) than patients with sporadic ($23 205, 95% CI $22 741–$23 668) and moderate ($31 055, 95% CI $30 359–31 751) status, largely owing to psychiatric hospital admissions. Patients with mental illness and persistent high-cost status were more likely to be female, older, long-term residents of Ontario (information ascertained from the Immigrants, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Database), living in low-income or urban areas, or to have comorbidities. The strongest predictors of persistent (v. sporadic) high-cost status were HIV (relative risk ratio [RRR] 4.32, 95% CI 3.08–6.06), psychosis (RRR 3.41, 95% CI 3.25–3.58) and dementia (RRR 3.21, 95% CI 2.81–3.68).INTERPRETATION:Among patients with mental illness and high-cost status, persistence in the high-cost state was determined mainly by psychosis and other comorbidities. Quality-of-care interventions directed at managing psychosis and multimorbidity, as well as preventive interventions to target patients with mental illness before they enter the persistent high-cost state, are needed.

To address rising health care costs, it is important to understand the composition of the population of patients with high-cost status. Most work on high-cost patients has considered this population as a whole.^1–3 However, previous work has shown that policies and interventions designed to address quality of care and high health care spending in general will likely not apply to all subgroups of high-cost patients.^4,5 Moreover, research has shown that high-cost patients are a heterogeneous population.⁶ For example, high-cost patients who use mainly mental health services are quite different from other high-cost patients — they are younger, live in poorer neighbourhoods and have different patterns of health care use.^4,6 They also have high levels of comorbidity and incur over 30% more costs than other high-cost patients, suggesting they may be a more complex population with higher needs.^4,6It is also important to understand whether high-cost patients remain in the high-cost state for long periods of time or whether this is a one-time occurrence. The few studies that have examined persistency in the high-cost state evaluated such patients as a whole and followed them for only 3 years.^7,8 Although previous studies have found that individuals with mental illness are more likely to be patients with persistent high-cost status,^9,10 no studies have specifically examined persistency in the high-cost state among patients with mental illness⁴ or followed these patients for long periods of time.¹¹ The goal of this study was to provide an in-depth analysis of patients with mental illness and persistent high-cost status, using administrative health care data from Ontario, Canada’s most populous province.     

Birth outcomes following cesarean delivery on maternal request: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND:Data on the effect of cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR) on maternal and neonatal outcomes are inconsistent and often limited by inadequate case definitions and other methodological issues. Our objective was to evaluate the trends, determinants and outcomes of CDMR using an intent-to-treat approach.METHODS:We designed a population-based retrospective cohort study using data on low-risk pregnancies in Ontario, Canada (April 2012–March 2018). We assessed temporal trends and determinants of CDMR. We estimated the relative risks for component and composite outcomes used in the Adverse Outcome Index (AOI) related to planned CDMR compared with planned vaginal delivery using generalized estimating equation models. We compared the Weighted Adverse Outcome Score (WAOS) and the Severity Index (SI) across planned modes of delivery using analysis of variance.RESULTS:Of 422 210 women, 0.4% (n = 1827) had a planned CDMR and 99.6% (n = 420 383) had a planned vaginal delivery. The prevalence of CDMR remained stable over time at 3.9% of all cesarean deliveries. Factors associated with CDMR included late maternal age, higher education, conception via in vitro fertilization, anxiety, nulliparity, being White, delivery at a hospital providing higher levels of maternal care and obstetrician-based antenatal care. Women who planned CDMR had a lower risk of adverse outcomes than women who planned vaginal delivery (adjusted relative risk 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33 to 0.53). The WAOS was lower for planned CDMR than planned vaginal delivery (mean difference −1.28, 95% CI −2.02 to −0.55). The SI was not statistically different between groups (mean difference 3.6, 95% CI −7.4 to 14.5).Interpretation:Rates of CDMR have not increased in Ontario. Planned CDMR is associated with a decreased risk of short-term adverse outcomes compared with planned vaginal delivery. Investigation into the long-term implications of CDMR is warranted.

Cesarean delivery is the most common inpatient surgical procedure in North America,^1,2 where rates often exceed World Health Organization recommendations (10%–15% of deliveries).³ Given the financial and resource implications of cesarean deliveries on health care systems, the contribution of cesarean deliveries on maternal request (CDMR) to rising cesarean section rates is of ongoing interest. Women may prefer CDMR for many reasons, including scheduling convenience, anxiety regarding labour pain, perceptions that the quality of obstetrical care is better for women who have cesarean deliveries, and concerns about possible urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction after vaginal delivery.^4–7 Challenges in characterizing the epidemiology of CDMR include the lack of internationally accepted case definitions and inconsistencies in documentation that hinder meaningful comparisons across jurisdictions.^8–11 In Canada, the prevalence of CDMR has been estimated at 2% of cesarean deliveries,¹² but robust contemporary data are lacking.The benefits of vaginal delivery are well known and include a lower risk of transient tachypnea of the newborn, newborn exposure to the vaginal microbiome, shorter maternal hospital stays and lower risk of complications associated with abdominal surgeries. The findings of 1 Canadian study suggest that midpelvic operative vaginal delivery is associated with a greater risk of severe birth and obstetric trauma than cesarean delivery.¹³ Evidence on the risks and benefits of CDMR is sparse, and existing data are inconsistent.^14–19 Analyses are frequently limited by inadequate case definitions and unaddressed confounding from baseline maternal and neonatal factors.^4,11 Professional organizations in the United States, Canada and Europe do not recommend CDMR over vaginal delivery.^11,20–22 Patient counselling is suggested to inform patients of pain management options, and of potential benefits and harms related to cesarean deliveries. However, obstetrical care providers often accede to patient preferences, given the ethical imperative of patient autonomy. ^23–27 Contemporary, high-quality observational studies leveraging robust population-based data are required. Our objective was to evaluate the trends, determinants and outcomes of CDMR compared with planned vaginal delivery using an intent-to-treat approach.     

Total knee replacement after high tibial osteotomy: time-to-event analysis and predictors

BACKGROUND:An important aim of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is to prevent or delay the need for total knee replacement (TKR). We sought to estimate the frequency and timing of conversion from HTO to TKR and the factors associated with it.METHODS:We prospectively evaluated patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee who underwent medial opening wedge HTO from 2002 to 2014 and analyzed the cumulative incidence of TKR in July 2019. The presence or absence of TKR on the HTO limb was identified from the orthopedic surgery reports and knee radiographs contained in the electronic medical records for each patient at London Health Sciences Centre. We used cumulative incidence curves to evaluate the primary outcome of time to TKR. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis to assess potential preoperative predictors including radiographic disease severity, malalignment, correction size, pain, sex, age, body mass index (BMI) and year of surgery.RESULTS:Among 556 patients who underwent 643 HTO procedures, the cumulative incidence of TKR was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3%–7%) at 5 years and 21% (95% CI 17%–26%) at 10 years. With the Cox proportional hazards multivariable model, the following preoperative factors were significantly associated with an increased rate of conversion: radiographic OA severity (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.96, 95% CI 1.12–3.45), pain (adjusted HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.96)], female sex (adjusted HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.08–2.58), age (adjusted HR 1.50 per 10 yr, 95% CI 1.17–1.93) and BMI (adjusted HR 1.31 per 5 kng/m², 95% CI 1.12–1.53).INTERPRETATION:We found that 79% of knees did not undergo TKR within 10 years after undergoing medial opening wedge HTO. The strongest predictor of conversion to TKR is greater radiographic disease at the time of HTO.

The burden of knee osteoarthritis (OA) on patients and health care systems is substantial and growing.¹ The current treatment strategy that relies largely on total knee replacement (TKR) for end-stage disease may not be sustainable.^2–5 Reduced quality of life and loss of productivity due to knee OA in middle-aged people in the workforce is particularly problematic.^5–8 The global prevalence of knee OA peaks at about 50 years of age.⁹ Worldwide, the estimated years lived with disability is 2.4 million for people younger than 50 years of age, the approximate age of peak prevalence for knee OA.^9,10 Accordingly, the number of middle-aged patients seeking treatment for knee OA, including TKR, is increasing. ¹¹ Joint replacement may not be the most appropriate treatment for these patients.¹² Earlier TKR is associated with prosthesis infection, ¹³ lower patient satisfaction¹⁴ and revision surgery;^15–18 about 25% of all TKRs are considered “likely inappropriate.”¹⁹ Clinicians have identified a clear treatment gap between exhausting nonoperative management and appropriateness for TKR, resulting in years of pain, decreased function, productivity losses and associated costs.^5–9,20,21 It is therefore imperative to identify additional effective treatments for the large group of patients with knee OA.Medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a limb realignment surgery intended for patients with medial compartment knee OA who are not suitable candidates for TKR because of less severe disease, younger age and greater physical demands. The purpose of HTO is to correct malalignment, thereby shifting load away from the more involved knee compartment and limit OA progression.^22,23 Substantial shifts in knee loading^24,25 have resulted in clinically important improvements in pain and function after HTO^26,27 and the procedure is cost-effective,^28,29 yet the surgery is uncommon in Canada.³⁰ Unlike the high and increasing rates of other knee surgical procedures including arthroscopy³¹ and TKR,³² rates of HTO remain low.^33,34High tibial osteotomy may help fill the treatment gap between nonsurgical treatments and definitive TKR. At the London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, HTO is performed frequently with a goal of preventing or delaying the need for TKR. Thus, it is appropriate to investigate the duration of benefit of HTO, and the preoperative characteristics associated with it. When quantified as conversion from HTO to TKR, registries using administrative data enable large sample sizes (> 2500 patients) to estimate cumulative incidence of TKR.^30,35,36 However, there can be limitations in using only administrative data, including confirming the correct procedure, limb and diagnosis. Administrative data often lack detailed information assessed preoperatively, such as radiographic features (e.g., disease severity and lower limb alignment) and patient-reported outcome measures. Previously reported predictors of conversion to TKR such as female sex and greater age^30,35–39 may be influenced (perhaps confounded) by other clinical characteristics not typically included in administrative data. Therefore, our objective was to investigate the cumulative incidence of TKR after medial opening wedge HTO and potential predictors using data collected prospectively from a single Canadian centre that focuses on HTO. Specifically, we evaluated the time to conversion from HTO to TKR and investigated the association of HTO preoperative characteristics with subsequent TKR.     

Monitoring,treatment and control of blood glucose and lipids in Ontario First Nations people with diabetes

BACKGROUND:Indigenous people worldwide are disproportionately affected by diabetes and its complications. We aimed to assess the monitoring, treatment and control of blood glucose and lipids in First Nations people in Ontario.METHODS:We conducted a longitudinal population-based study using administrative data for all people in Ontario with diabetes, stratified by First Nations status. We assessed age- and sex-specific rates of completion of recommended monitoring for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and glycated hemoglobin (A_1c) from 2001/02 to 2014/15. We used data from 2014/15 to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of rates of achievement of A_1c and LDL targets and use of glucose-lowering medications.RESULTS:The study included 22 240 First Nations people and 1 319 503 other people in Ontario with diabetes. Rates of monitoring according to guidelines were 20%–50% for A_1c and 30%–70% for lipids and were lowest for younger First Nations men. The mean age- and sex-adjusted A_1c level was higher among First Nations people than other people (7.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.57 to 7.61] v. 7.03 [95% CI 7.02 to 7.03]). An A_1c level of 8.5% or higher was observed in 24.7% (95% CI 23.6 to 25.0) of First Nations people, compared to 12.8% (95% CI 12.1 to 13.5) of other people in Ontario. An LDL level of 2.0 mmol/L or less was observed in 60.3% (95% CI 59.7 to 61.6) of First Nations people, compared to 52.0% (95% CI 51.1 to 52.9) of other people in Ontario. Among those aged 65 or older, a higher proportion of First Nations people than other Ontarians were using insulin (28.1% v. 15.1%), and fewer were taking no medications (28.3% v. 40.1%).INTERPRETATION:As of 2014/15, monitoring and achievement of glycemic control in both First Nations people and other people in Ontario with diabetes remained suboptimal. Interventions to support First Nations patients to reach their treatment goals and reduce the risk of complications need further development and study.

Diabetes and its related complications are major contributors to morbidity and mortality worldwide.^1–3 Indigenous populations in Canada and around the world are disproportionately affected by diabetes owing to the complex relations among colonization, social disadvantage, stress, trauma and metabolic health.^4–7 In addition to our own work showing persistently higher rates of peripheral vascular disease, stroke, cardiac disease, renal dysfunction and ophthalmologic complications in Ontario First Nations,^8–12 other Canadian and international studies also showed higher complication rates in diverse Indigenous populations.^6,7,13–15Glycemic control is fundamental to the management of diabetes and the prevention of complications.¹⁶ Glycated hemoglobin (A_1c) is a reliable way to estimate the average level of glucose in the blood.¹⁷ Since A_1c levels higher than 7.0% have been associated with an increased risk of microvascular complications,^18–20 treatment guidelines suggest A_1c should be measured every 3–6 months to ensure that glycemic goals are being met or maintained.²¹ Since people with diabetes also have an elevated risk for cardiovascular disease,^22–24 management and control of cardiovascular risk factors, particularly lipids such as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, are also important.^25–27 Guidelines further recommend that a full lipid profile be measured every 1–3 years, depending on cardiovascular risk, and suggest that LDL be consistently less than 2.0 mmol/L.²⁸ Control of A_1c and lipids has been shown to be associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes.^18,29–32One possible reason for the high burden of complications among Indigenous people with diabetes may be failure to achieve control of these 2 key clinical parameters. We examined differences between Status First Nations people with diabetes in Ontario and all other Ontario residents with diabetes in rates of monitoring of A_1c and lipids, achievement of targets for A_1c and LDL outlined in clinical guidelines, and patterns of medication use to help attain these targets.     

Burden of noninfluenza respiratory viral infections in adults admitted to hospital: analysis of a multiyear Canadian surveillance cohort from 2 centres

BACKGROUND:Data on the outcomes of noninfluenza respiratory virus (NIRV) infections among hospitalized adults are lacking. We aimed to study the burden, severity and outcomes of NIRV infections in this population.METHODS:We analyzed pooled patient data from 2 hospital-based respiratory virus surveillance cohorts in 2 regions of Canada during 3 consecutive seasons (2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18; n = 2119). We included patients aged ≥ 18 years who developed influenza-like illness or pneumonia and were hospitalized for management. We included patients confirmed positive for ≥ 1 virus by multiplex polymerase chain reaction assays (respiratory syncytial virus [RSV], human rhinovirus/enterovirus (hRV), human coronavirus (hCoV), metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus, adenovirus, influenza viruses). We compared patient characteristics, clinical severity conventional outcomes (e.g., hospital length-of stay, 30-day mortality) and ordinal outcomes (5 levels: discharged, receiving convalescent care, acute ward or intensive care unit [ICU] care and death) for patients with NIRV infections and those with influenza.RESULTS:Among 2119 adults who were admitted to hospital, 1156 patients (54.6%) had NIRV infections (hRV 14.9%, RSV 12.9%, hCoV 8.2%) and 963 patients (45.4%) had influenza (n = 963). Patients with NIRVs were younger (mean 66.4 [standard deviation 20.4] yr), and more commonly had immunocompromising conditions (30.3%) and delay in diagnosis (median 4.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.0–7.0] days). Overall, 14.6% (12.4%–19.5%) of NIRV infections were acquired in hospital. Admission to ICU (18.2%, median 6.0 [IQR 3.0–13.0] d), hospital length-of-stay (median 5.0 [IQR 2.0–10.0] d) and 30-day mortality (8.4%; RSV 9.5%, hRV 6.6%, hCoV 9.2%) and the ordinal outcomes were similar for patients with NIRV infection and those with influenza. Age > 60 years, immunocompromised state and hospital-acquired viral infection were associated with worse outcomes. The estimated median cost per acute care admission was $6000 (IQR $2000–$16 000).INTERPRETATION:The burden of NIRV infection is substantial in adults admitted to hospital and associated outcomes may be as severe as for influenza, suggesting a need to prioritize therapeutics and vaccines for at-risk people.

The global burden of lower respiratory tract infections is substantial, leading to many hospital admissions and deaths, especially among young children and older adults.¹ Respiratory viruses are responsible for almost half of such infections in adults that require in-hospital management; previous studies estimate that 28%–62% are caused by noninfluenza respiratory viruses (NIRVs).^2–4 With some geographical and seasonal variations, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human rhinovirus (hRV) and human coronavirus (hCoV) are among the most frequently identified NIRV infections.^1–7 Most infected adults develop mild, self-limiting illnesses, but increasing evidence suggest that NIRVs, either alone or with coinfecting bacteria, can result in severe pneumonia and death.^8,9 For instance, RSV has been shown to cause severe respiratory failure, with fatality rates comparable to or exceeding those observed among adults admitted to hospital with influenza.^10–12 Data on hRV, hCoV and other NIRVs are more limited, owing to the lack of accurate diagnostics and systematic case-finding approaches.^7–9 However, with the increasing availability of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays that can simultaneously detect influenza and NIRVs, these infections are now readily diagnosed as part of a syndromic approach in patients who present with acute respiratory illnesses.^2–5,13,14 The burden, clinical significance and impacts of NIRVs on the health care system remain inadequately characterized.To address this gap, we analyzed the relative frequencies, patient characteristics, location of acquisition (community or hospital), severity and clinical outcomes of patients with NIRV and influenza infections diagnosed by multiplex PCR in a cohort of adults admitted to hospital in 2 large Canadian health care centres during a 3-year surveillance period. The associated health care resource use was also estimated.     

Effectiveness of intrapartum fetal surveillance to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:Cesarean delivery is the most common surgical procedure worldwide. Intrapartum fetal surveillance is routinely offered to improve neonatal outcomes, but the effects of different methods on the risk of emergency cesarean deliveries remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of fetal surveillance.METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL until June 1, 2020, for randomized trials evaluating any intrapartum fetal surveillance method. We performed a network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework. We assessed the quality and network inconsistency of trials. We reported primarily on intrapartum emergency cesarean deliveries and other secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).RESULTS:We included 33 trials (118 863 patients) evaluating intermittent auscultation with Pinard stethoscope/handheld Doppler (IA), cardiotocography (CTG), computerized cardiotocography (cCTG), CTG with fetal scalp lactate (CTG-lactate), CTG with fetal scalp pH analysis (CTG-FBS), CTG with fetal pulse oximetry (FPO-CTG), CTG with fetal heart electrocardiogram (CTG-STAN) and their combinations. Intermittent auscultation reduced the risk of emergency cesarean deliveries compared with other types of surveillance (IA v. CTG: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72–0.97; IA v. CTG-FBS: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63–0.80; IA v.CTG-lactate: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64–0.92; IA v. FPO-CTG: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.87; IA v.FPO-CTG-FBS: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–0.99; cCTG-FBS v. IA: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04–1.42), except STAN-CTG-FBS (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.98–1.40). There was a similar reduction observed for emergency cesarean deliveries for fetal distress. None of the evaluated methods was associated with a reduced risk of neonatal acidemia, neonatal unit admissions, Apgar scores or perinatal death.INTERPRETATION:Compared with other types of fetal surveillance, intermittent auscultation seems to reduce emergency cesarean deliveries in labour without increasing adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

Cesarean delivery is the most common surgical procedure worldwide, performed to expedite delivery and avoid neonatal complications. Fetal surveillance is routinely offered to patients in labour to reduce the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes, as well as the risk of unnecessary emergency cesarean deliveries and other maternal interventions. Fetal surveillance aims to detect intrapartum hypoxia from acute or subacute adverse events in labour requiring medical intervention and to reduce the risk of serious complications such as neonatal cerebral palsy, hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy or stillbirth.Monitoring the fetal heart rate to detect intrapartum hypoxia using simple surveillance techniques, such as the Pinard stethoscope, has been practised for decades.¹ Over the last 50 years, several newer surveillance methods have been evaluated, with varied uptake in practice.² Cardiotocography (CTG) remains the most common surveillance method used in high-risk pregnancies.³ However, given its limited accuracy, many researchers have evaluated its use in combination with other surveillance methods, such as fetal heart electrocardiogram (STAN), fetal scalp pH analysis (FBS) or fetal pulse oximetry (FPO), and with computer-aided decision models (cCTG) to improve its diagnostic value.^4–6 Despite extensive investment in clinical research, the overall effectiveness of such methods in improving maternal and neonatal outcomes remains debatable as stillbirth rates have plateaued worldwide, while cesarean delivery rates continue to rise.^7,8Existing meta-analyses evaluating different intrapartum fetal surveillance methods remain limited to head-to-head comparisons of monitoring techniques, without a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness in improving maternal and neonatal pregnancy outcomes.^4,9–13 We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials and a network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of all available fetal surveillance methods in improving maternal and neonatal outcomes.     

Mortality among patients with frequent emergency department use for alcohol-related reasons in Ontario: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND:Little is known about the risk of death among people who visit emergency departments frequently for alcohol-related reasons, including whether mortality risk increases with increasing frequency of visits. Our primary objective was to describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of this high-risk population and examine their 1-year overall mortality, premature mortality and cause of death as a function of emergency department visit frequency in Ontario, Canada.METHODS:We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative data (Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2016) in Ontario for people aged 16–105 years who made at least 2 emergency department visits for mental or behavioural disorders due to alcohol within 1 year. We subdivided the cohort based on visit frequency (2, 3 or 4, or ≥ 5). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality, adjusted for age, sex, income, rural residence and presence of comorbidities. We examined premature mortality using years of potential life lost (YPLL).RESULTS:Of the 25 813 people included in the cohort, 17 020 (65.9%) had 2 emergency department visits within 1 year, 5704 (22.1%) had 3 or 4 visits, and 3089 (12.0%) had 5 or more visits. Males, people aged 45–64 years, and those living in urban centres and lower-income neighbourhoods were more likely to have 3 or 4 visits, or 5 or more visits. The all-cause 1-year mortality rate was 5.4% overall, ranging from 4.7% among patients with 2 visits to 8.8% among those with 5 or more visits. Death due to external causes (e.g., suicide, accidents) was most common. The adjusted mortality rate was 38% higher for patients with 5 or more visits than for those with 2 visits (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.19–1.59). Among 25 298 people aged 16–74 years, this represented 30 607 YPLL.INTERPRETATION:We observed a high mortality rate among relatively young, mostly urban, lower-income people with frequent emergency department visits for alcohol-related reasons. These visits are opportunities for intervention in a high-risk population to reduce a substantial mortality burden.

Alcohol is a leading driver of morbidity and mortality worldwide.¹ An estimated 3 million deaths in 2016 — 5% of all global deaths — were attributable to alcohol consumption.² The 2016 Global Burden of Disease Study showed that alcohol was the single greatest risk factor for ill health worldwide among people aged 15–49 years.³ In Canada, hospital admissions for alcohol-attributable conditions out-number those for myocardial infarction.⁴ Alcohol-related harms cost Canadians about $14.6 billion annually, with $3.3 billion in health care costs.⁵In addition to the societal impact of mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol (henceforth referred to as alcohol-related) — mainly acute intoxication and withdrawal — these disorders are common reasons for emergency department visits.^6,7 Data from the United States and Canada, furthermore, suggest that alcohol-related emergency department visits have increased in recent years.^8,9 For example, a study in Ontario showed that, between 2003 and 2016, the age-standardized rates of alcohol-attributable emergency department visits increased by 86.5% in women and 53.2% in men.⁸ People who visit emergency departments frequently for alcohol-related reasons have high levels of comorbidity and social disadvantage,^10,11 and represent a readily identifiable patient population for whom interventions to address unmet social and health care needs could be developed.^12–14 A systematic review suggested that screening and brief intervention for alcohol-related problems in the emergency department is a promising approach for reducing problematic alcohol consumption.¹³Despite this, little is known about the risk of death, a key outcome for health system performance, among people who use emergency departments frequently for alcohol-related reasons, including whether mortality risk increases with increasing frequency of visits. To address this gap, our primary objective was to describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of this high-risk population and examine their 1-year overall mortality, premature mortality and cause of death as a function of emergency department visit frequency in Ontario, the most populous Canadian province.¹⁵     

Hyoscine butylbromide versus acetaminophen for nonspecific colicky abdominal pain in children: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND:Less than two-thirds of children with abdominal pain in the emergency department receive analgesia. We sought to determine whether hyoscine butylbromide was superior to acetaminophen for children with nonspecific colicky abdominal pain.METHODS:We randomly allocated children aged 8–17 years with nonspecific colicky abdominal pain who presented to the pediatric emergency department of London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario to receive hyoscine butylbromide, 10 mg given orally, or acetaminophen, 15 mg/kg given orally (maximum 975 mg). We considered the minimal clinically important difference for the primary outcome (self-reported pain at 80 min) to be 13 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included administration of rescue analgesia, adverse effects and pain score less than 30 mm at 80 minutes.RESULTS:A total of 236 participants (120 in the hyoscine butylbromide group and 116 in the acetaminophen group) were included in the trial. The mean visual analogue scale scores at 80 minutes were 29 mm (standard deviation [SD] 26 mm) and 30 mm (SD 29 mm) with hyoscine butylbromide and acetaminophen, respectively (adjusted difference 1, 95% confidence interval −7 to 7). Rescue analgesia was administered to 4 participants (3.3%) in the hyoscine butylbromide group and 1 participant (0.9%) in the acetaminophen groups (p = 0.2). We found no significant differences in rates of adverse effects between hyoscine butylbromide (32/116 [27.6%]) and acetaminophen (28/115 [24.3]) (p = 0.5); no serious adverse effects were observed. The proportion with a pain score less than 30 mm at 80 minutes was 66 (55.0%) with hyoscine butylbromide and 63 (54.3%) with acetaminophen (p = 0.9).INTERPRETATION:Hyoscine butylbromide was not superior to acetaminophen in this setting. Both agents were associated with clinically important pain reduction, and either can be considered for children presenting to the emergency department with nonspecific colicky abdominal pain. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02582307","term_id":"NCT02582307"}}NCT02582307

Abdominal pain is reported by a third of school-aged children¹ and accounts for several visits daily in most emergency departments.^2–5 Although the use of analgesia to treat acute abdominal pain is well-supported,^6,7 there is little evidence to guide the management of nonspecific abdominal pain in the emergency department,⁸ which accounts for two-thirds of cases of abdominal pain presenting to the emergency department.^8,9 Acetaminophen is the most commonly used World Health Organization Step 1 analgesic.¹⁰ In children, it is effective for many painful conditions,^11,12 but data supporting its use for abdominal pain are lacking.^13,14 Despite strong advocacy by the American Academy of Pediatrics¹⁵ for adequate pain management, less than two-thirds of children with abdominal pain in the emergency department receive analgesia,^16,17 and roughly half experience ongoing pain after discharge. ¹⁸ Children with nonspecific abdominal pain are less likely than those with a specific cause to receive analgesia.⁵ Available analgesic options for children with nonspecific abdominal pain in the emergency department may result in greater adherence to the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations.Hyoscine butylbromide is orally administered and available in most Canadian emergency departments. We surmised that it may be effective for colicky abdominal pain owing to its antispasmodic properties.¹⁹ Ten placebo-controlled studies involving 3699 adults with functional abdominal pain showed hyoscine butylbromide to be beneficial, without serious adverse effects.^20–29 In the only pediatric study, hyoscine butylbromide, 10 mg given orally, was found to be beneficial compared to a homeopathic preparation in 204 children, with no serious adverse effects.³⁰ We sought to determine whether hyoscine butylbromide was superior to acetaminophen in relieving pain among children presenting to the emergency department with nonspecific colicky abdominal pain.