Association between long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and COVID-19 severity: a prospective cohort study

Background:The tremendous global health burden related to COVID-19 means that identifying determinants of COVID-19 severity is important for prevention and intervention. We aimed to explore long-term exposure to ambient air pollution as a potential contributor to COVID-19 severity, given its known impact on the respiratory system.Methods:We used a cohort of all people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, aged 20 years and older and not residing in a long-term care facility in Ontario, Canada, during 2020. We evaluated the association between long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and ground-level ozone (O₃), and risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. We ascertained individuals’ long-term exposures to each air pollutant based on their residence from 2015 to 2019. We used logistic regression and adjusted for confounders and selection bias using various individual and contextual covariates obtained through data linkage.Results:Among the 151 105 people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Ontario in 2020, we observed 8630 hospital admissions, 1912 ICU admissions and 2137 deaths related to COVID-19. For each interquartile range increase in exposure to PM_2.5 (1.70 μg/m³), we estimated odds ratios of 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.12), 1.09 (95% CI 0.98–1.21) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.90–1.11) for hospital admission, ICU admission and death, respectively. Estimates were smaller for NO₂. We also estimated odds ratios of 1.15 (95% CI 1.06–1.23), 1.30 (95% CI 1.12–1.50) and 1.18 (95% CI 1.02–1.36) per interquartile range increase of 5.14 ppb in O₃ for hospital admission, ICU admission and death, respectively.Interpretation:Chronic exposure to air pollution may contribute to severe outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly exposure to O₃.

By November 2021, COVID-19 had caused more than 5 million deaths globally¹ and more than 29 400 in Canada.² The clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection range from being asymptomatic to multiple organ failure and death. Identifying risk factors for COVID-19 severity is important to better understand etiological mechanisms and identify populations to prioritize for screening, vaccination and medical treatment. Risk factors for severity of COVID-19 include male sex, older age, pre-existing medical conditions and being from racialized communities.^3–5 More recently, ambient air pollution has been implicated as a potential driver of COVID-19 severity.^6–10Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution, a major contributor to global disease burden,¹¹ could increase the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes by several mechanisms. Air pollutants can reduce individuals’ pulmonary immune responses and antimicrobial activities, boosting viral loads.⁸ Air pollution can also induce chronic inflammation and overexpression of the alveolar angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE) receptor,⁷ the key receptor that facilitates SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells.^12,13 Exposure to air pollution contributes to chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, that are associated with unfavourable COVID-19 prognosis, possibly owing to persistent immune activation and excessive amplification of cytokine development.¹⁰ Thus, greater exposure to long-term air pollution may lead to severe COVID-19 outcomes.Reports exist of positive associations between long-term exposure to particulate matter with diameters equal to or smaller than 2.5 or 10 μm (PM_2.5 and PM₁₀), ground-level ozone (O₃) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and metrics of COVID-19 severity (e.g., mortality and case fatality rate).^8–10 However, most studies to date have used ecological and cross-sectional designs, owing to limited access to individual data, which leads to ambiguity in interpreting the results, thus hindering their influence on policy. ^6,14 Ecological designs do not allow for disentangling the relative impacts of air pollution on individual susceptibility to infection and disease severity.¹⁴ Residual confounding by factors such as population mobility and social interactions is also problematic. Therefore, a cohort study with data on individuals with SARS-CoV-2 is a more appropriate design.^6,14 Studies that have used individual data were conducted in specific subpopulations^15,16 or populations with few severe cases,¹⁷ or had limited data on individual exposure to air pollutants.¹⁸ In Canada, 1 ecological study found a positive association between long-term exposure to PM_2.5 and COVID-19 incidence,¹⁹ but no published study has explored the association between air pollution and COVID-19 severity.We aimed to examine the associations between long-term exposure to 3 common air pollutants (PM_2.5, NO₂ and O₃) and key indicators of COVID-19 severity, including hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death, using a large prospective cohort of people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Ontario, Canada, in 2020. The air contaminants PM_2.5, NO₂ and O₃ are regularly monitored by the Canadian government, and are key pollutants that are considered when setting air-quality policies. They originate from varying sources (NO₂ is primarily emitted during combustion of fuel, O₃ is primarily formed in air by chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, and PM_2.5 can be emitted during combustion or formed by reactions of chemicals like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in air) and they may affect human health differently.^20,21,22     

Evaluation of the relative virulence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants: a retrospective cohort study in Ontario,Canada

Background:Between February and June 2021, the initial wild-type strains of SARS-CoV-2 were supplanted in Ontario, Canada, by new variants of concern (VOCs), first those with the N501Y mutation (i.e., Alpha/B1.1.17, Beta/B.1.351 and Gamma/P.1 variants) and then the Delta/B.1.617 variant. The increased transmissibility of these VOCs has been documented, but knowledge about their virulence is limited. We used Ontario’s COVID-19 case data to evaluate the virulence of these VOCs compared with non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, as measured by risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death.Methods:We created a retrospective cohort of people in Ontario who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were screened for VOCs, with dates of test report between Feb. 7 and June 27, 2021. We constructed mixed-effect logistic regression models with hospitalization, ICU admission and death as outcome variables. We adjusted models for age, sex, time, vaccination status, comorbidities and pregnancy status. We included health units as random intercepts.Results:Our cohort included 212 326 people. Compared with non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42%–63%) for hospitalization, 89% (95% CI 67%–117%) for ICU admission and 51% (95% CI 30%–78%) for death. Increased risk with the Delta variant was more pronounced at 108% (95% CI 78%–140%) for hospitalization, 235% (95% CI 160%–331%) for ICU admission and 133% (95% CI 54%–231%) for death.Interpretation:The increasing virulence of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs will lead to a considerably larger, and more deadly, pandemic than would have occurred in the absence of the emergence of VOCs.

Novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs), including viral lineages carrying the N501Y (Alpha/B.1.1.7) or both the N501Y and E484K mutations (Beta/B.1.351 and Gamma/P.1), were first identified in Ontario, Canada, in December 2020.¹ Although initially uncommon in Ontario, these VOCs outcompeted earlier SARS-CoV-2 lineages and, as of late April 2021, were responsible for almost all new infections in Ontario, with Alpha the most prevalent lineage.¹ In April 2021, the B.1.617.2 variant, now known as Delta under the revised nomenclature from the World Health Organization, emerged in the province, outcompeted earlier VOCs and, by July 2021, represented most infections in the province.^2,3This serial replacement by emerging variants reflects progressively higher effective reproduction numbers that allow novel variants to outcompete previously dominant strains in the face of identical measures to control spread of infection.^4–6 However, VOCs are also concerning because emerging evidence points to increased virulence, with increased risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death, after adjustment for age and other predictive factors among patients with VOC infections.^7–10 Although the increased virulence of strains with the N501Y mutation relative to strains that lack this mutation has been described,^7–9 only limited information is available on the virulence of infection with the Delta variant, relative to earlier N501Y-positive VOCs (i.e., Alpha, Beta and Gamma).^10–12 Our objectives were to evaluate the virulence of N501Y-positive variants relative to earlier SARS-CoV-2 lineages and to evaluate the virulence of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 relative to N501Y-positive VOCs using Ontario’s COVID-19 case data.     

Outcomes in patients with and without disability admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Background:Disability-related considerations have largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, despite evidence that people with disabilities are at elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19. We evaluated clinical outcomes in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with a disability compared with patients without a disability.Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and discharged between Jan. 1, 2020, and Nov. 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared in-hospital death, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmission among patients with and without a physical disability, hearing or vision impairment, traumatic brain injury, or intellectual or developmental disability, overall and stratified by age (≤ 64 and ≥ 65 yr) using multivariable regression, controlling for sex, residence in a long-term care facility and comorbidity.Results:Among 1279 admissions to hospital for COVID-19, 22.3% had a disability. We found that patients with a disability were more likely to die than those without a disability (28.1% v. 17.6%), had longer hospital stays (median 13.9 v. 7.8 d) and more readmissions (17.6% v. 7.9%), but had lower ICU admission rates (22.5% v. 28.3%). After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences between those with and without disabilities for in-hospital death or admission to ICU. After adjustment, patients with a disability had longer hospital stays (rate ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19–1.56) and greater risk of readmission (relative risk 1.77, 95% CI 1.14–2.75). In age-stratified analyses, we observed longer hospital stays among patients with a disability than in those without, in both younger and older subgroups; readmission risk was driven by younger patients with a disability.Interpretation:Patients with a disability who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 had longer stays and elevated readmission risk than those without disabilities. Disability-related needs should be addressed to support these patients in hospital and after discharge.

A successful public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic requires accurate and timely identification of, and support for, high-risk groups. There is increasing recognition that marginalized groups, including congregate care residents, racial and ethnic minorities, and people experiencing poverty, have elevated incidence of COVID-19.^1,2 Older age and comorbidities such as diabetes are also risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes.^3,4 One potential high-risk group that has received relatively little attention is people with disabilities.The World Health Organization estimates there are 1 billion people with disabilities globally.⁵ In North America, the prevalence of disability is 20%, with one-third of people older than 65 years having a disability.⁶ Disabilities include physical disabilities, hearing and vision impairments, traumatic brain injury and intellectual or developmental disabilities.^5,6 Although activity limitations experienced by people with disabilities are heterogeneous,^5,6 people with disabilities share high rates of risk factors for acquiring COVID-19, including poverty, residence in congregate care and being members of racialized communities.^7–9 People with disabilities may be more reliant on close contact with others to meet their daily needs, and some people with disabilities, especially intellectual developmental disabilities, may have difficulty following public health rules. Once they acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with disabilities may be at risk for severe outcomes because they have elevated rates of comorbidities.¹⁰ Some disabilities (e.g., spinal cord injuries and neurologic disabilities) result in physiologic changes that increase vulnerability to respiratory diseases and may mask symptoms of acute respiratory disease, which may delay diagnosis.^11–13 There have also been reports of barriers to high-quality hospital care for patients with disabilities who have COVID-19, including communication issues caused by the use of masks and restricted access to support persons.^14–17Some studies have suggested that patients with disabilities and COVID-19 are at elevated risk for severe disease and death, with most evaluating intellectual or developmental disability.^13,18–26 Yet, consideration of disability-related needs has largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, with vaccine eligibility driven primarily by age and medical comorbidity, limited accommodations made for patients with disabilities who are in hospital, and disability data often not being captured in surveillance programs.^14–17 To inform equitable pandemic supports, there is a need for data on patients with a broad range of disabilities who have COVID-19. We sought to evaluate standard clinical outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19²⁷ (i.e., in-hospital death, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-d readmission) for patients with and without a disability, overall and stratified by age. We hypothesized that patients with a disability would have worse outcomes because of a greater prevalence of comorbidities,¹⁰ physiologic characteristics that increase morbidity risk^11–13 and barriers to high-quality hospital care.^14–17     

Changes in ischemic stroke presentations,management and outcomes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta: a population study

Background:Pandemics may promote hospital avoidance, and added precautions may exacerbate treatment delays for medical emergencies such as stroke. We sought to evaluate ischemic stroke presentations, management and outcomes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods:We conducted a population-based study, using linked administrative and stroke registry data from Alberta to identify all patients presenting with stroke before the pandemic (Jan. 1, 2016 to Feb. 27, 2020) and in 5 periods over the first pandemic year (Feb. 28, 2020 to Mar. 31, 2021), reflecting changes in case numbers and restrictions. We evaluated changes in hospital admissions, emergency department presentations, thrombolysis, endovascular therapy, workflow times and outcomes.Results:The study included 19 531 patients in the prepandemic period and 4900 patients across the 5 pandemic periods. Presentations for ischemic stroke dropped in the first pandemic wave (weekly adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 0.59). Population-level incidence of thrombolysis (adjusted IRR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.62) and endovascular therapy (adjusted IRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84) also decreased during the first wave, but proportions of patients presenting with stroke who received acute therapies did not decline. Rates of patients presenting with stroke did not return to prepandemic levels, even during a lull in COVID-19 cases between the first 2 waves of the pandemic, and fell further in subsequent waves. In-hospital delays in thrombolysis or endovascular therapy occurred in several pandemic periods. The likelihood of in-hospital death increased in Wave 2 (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.74) and Wave 3 (adjusted OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.00). Out-of-hospital deaths, as a proportion of stroke-related deaths, rose during 4 of 5 pandemic periods.Interpretation:The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic saw persistently reduced rates of patients presenting with ischemic stroke, recurrent treatment delays and higher risk of in-hospital death in later waves. These findings support public health messaging that encourages care-seeking for medical emergencies during pandemic periods, and stroke systems should re-evaluate protocols to mitigate inefficiencies.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, affected countries implemented various public health measures to decrease viral transmission. An unintended consequence of these measures could be hospital avoidance by patients with medical emergencies, as observed during other outbreaks in the 2000s.^1,2 Some public health messaging specifically warned groups at high cardiovascular risk, such as older people or those with heart disease, that they were at elevated risk of severe COVID-19.³ Physical distancing may also result in loss of services and support networks, impairing patients’ ability to seek medical assistance.⁴ Furthermore, pandemics generate new challenges of managing personal protective equipment and cleaning protocols,⁵ and additional information bottlenecks, which could result in workflow delays for emergencies like stroke.⁶Previous studies have reported declines in patients presenting to hospital with stroke or acute coronary syndrome during the pandemic.^7,8 A World Stroke Organization survey of members in several countries indicated a sharp reduction in stroke admissions by 50%–80% in the first weeks of the pandemic.⁹ A cross-sectional study reported a global decline in hospital admissions for stroke.¹⁰ Patients who present to hospital seem to be doing so later than usual, perhaps waiting until their condition becomes more severe.^11–14 However, studies have not been at a population level, consequently suffering from selection bias, and have generally focused only on the first wave of the pandemic. As the associations between the pandemic and the incidence, treatment, workflow and outcomes of stroke are likely to be modified by several events — including changing COVID-19 case counts, public health restrictions and health system strains — it is important to explore population data from pandemic periods beyond the first wave to better understand these phenomena.Verifying and quantifying the pandemic’s effect on stroke presentations and workflow can help tailor public health messaging to continue emphasizing the time-critical nature of emergencies like stroke. Such data may also help optimize pandemic stroke workflow protocols. We sought to explore patterns of hospital admissions, treatment rates, workflow delays and outcomes for ischemic stroke during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada.     

Patient–physician language concordance and quality and safety outcomes among frail home care recipients admitted to hospital in Ontario,Canada

Background:When patients and physicians speak the same language, it may improve the quality and safety of care delivered. We sought to determine whether patient–physician language concordance is associated with in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes among home care recipients who were admitted to hospital.Methods:We conducted a population-based study of a retrospective cohort of 189 690 home care recipients who were admitted to hospital in Ontario, Canada, between 2010 and 2018. We defined patient language (obtained from home care assessments) as English (Anglophone), French (Francophone) or other (allophone). We obtained physician language from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. We defined hospital admissions as language concordant when patients received more than 50% of their care from physicians who spoke the patients’ primary language. We identified in-hospital (adverse events, length of stay, death) and post-discharge outcomes (emergency department visits, readmissions, death within 30 days of discharge). We used regression analyses to estimate the adjusted rate of mean and the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of each outcome, stratified by patient language, to assess the impact of language-concordant care within each linguistic group.Results:Allophone patients who received language-concordant care had lower risk of adverse events (adjusted OR 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15–0.43) and in-hospital death (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29–0.66), as well as shorter stays in hospital (adjusted rate of mean 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.83) than allophone patients who received language-discordant care. Results were similar for Francophone patients, although the magnitude of the effect was smaller than for allophone patients. Language concordance or discordance of the hospital admission was not associated with significant differences in postdischarge outcomes.Interpretation:Patients who received most of their care from physicians who spoke the patients’ primary language had better in-hospital outcomes, suggesting that disparities across linguistic groups could be mitigated by providing patients with language-concordant care.

A growing number of people in Canada (more than 6.1 million in 2016) are faced with the challenge of living in a situation in which their primary language is not spoken by most of the population and is not recognized as an official provincial or territorial language. ^1,2 We refer to this as a minority language situation, and such people include Francophones living outside of Quebec, Anglophones living in Quebec, and all residents of Canada whose primary language is a language other than English or French (allophones). Numerous studies have shown that people in North America with limited English proficiency generally have poorer access to health care and receive health care services of lower quality and safety, resulting in higher risk of adverse events and increased health resource use.^3–8 Despite these findings, few authors have considered the impact of patient–provider language concordance, whereby patients and providers have proficiency in a shared language.⁹ Studies in the United States have shown that patients with asthma who receive language-concordant primary care are less likely to omit medications, miss appointments or visit the emergency department.¹⁰ Patients with diabetes who receive language-concordant care have improved glycemic and low-density-lipoprotein control,^11,12 as well as increased participation in diabetic foot care programs.¹³ Although patient language is generally considered to be a nonmodifiable risk factor, language discordance represents a potentially modifiable variable, which could be the target of interventions (e.g., by referring patients to providers who have proficiency in their primary language).Frail patients are more likely to have communication problems and poor health outcomes than the general population; thus, language concordance may be particularly important in this patient population.^14,15 The risk of harm for frail, older patients has been attributed to medical complexity and multi-morbidity; ^16–18 however, since communication barriers also increase with age, older patients may also be more likely to experience harm because of poor patient–provider communication. ¹⁹ Most studies of language concordance have been limited to the primary care setting. We are aware of 2 studies conducted in the acute care setting, with 1 showing that Francophones residing in Ontario were less likely to experience harm when they were treated in hospitals that were required by law to provide services French. ^20,21We sought to compare the risk of adverse, hospital-related outcomes among frail patients living in Ontario, Canada, after stratifying by patient language and patient–physician language concordance or discordance. We hypothesized that patients receiving language-concordant care would have better outcomes than those receiving language-discordant care.     

Suicidality among sexual minority and transgender adolescents: a nationally representative population-based study of youth in Canada

Background:Very little research has described risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempt among transgender youth using high-quality, nationally representative data. We aimed to assess risk of suicidality among transgender and sexual minority adolescents in Canada.Methods:We analyzed a subsample of adolescents aged 15–17 years from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth, a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey. We defined participants’ transgender identity (self-reported gender different from sex assigned at birth) and sexual minority status (self-reported attraction to people of the same gender) as exposures, and their self-reported previous-year suicidal ideation and lifetime suicide attempt as outcomes.Results:We included 6800 adolescents aged 15–17 years, including 1130 (16.5%) who indicated some degree of same-gender attraction, 265 (4.3%) who were unsure of their attraction and 50 (0.6%) who reported a transgender identity. Compared with cisgender, heterosexual adolescents, transgender adolescents showed 5 times the risk of suicidal ideation (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.63 to 6.75; 58% v. 10%) and 7.6 times the risk of suicide attempt (95% CI 4.76 to 12.10; 40% v. 5%). Among cisgender adolescents, girls attracted to girls had 3.6 times the risk of previous-year suicidal ideation (95% CI 2.59 to 5.08) and 3.3 times the risk of having ever attempted suicide (95% CI 1.81 to 6.06), compared with their heterosexual peers. Adolescents attracted to multiple genders had 2.5 times the risk of suicidal ideation (95% CI 2.12 to 2.98) and 2.8 times the risk of suicide attempt (95% CI 2.18 to 3.68). Youth questioning their sexual orientation had twice the risk of having attempted suicide in their lifetime (95% CI 1.23 to 3.36).Interpretation:We observed that transgender and sexual minority adolescents were at increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempt compared with their cisgender and heterosexual peers. These findings highlight the need for inclusive prevention approaches to address suicidality among Canada’s diverse youth population.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 15–24 years in Canada.^1,2 Suicidal ideation and suicide attempt are common among adolescents³ and are risk factors for death by suicide.⁴ Sexual minority youth (i.e., youth who are attracted to the same gender or multiple genders, or who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or queer)⁵ are known to be at increased risk of poor mental health,^6–8 including suicidal ideation and attempt.^5–10 Over the previous 2 decades, stigma around identifying as a sexual minority has reduced;⁷ however, the risk of poor mental health and of suicidality remains high among sexual minority youth.^7,11 This population is still more likely to experience bullying and peer victimization,^9,12,13 which is associated with suicidality among sexual minority adolescents.⁵Transgender youth are those whose gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth.¹⁴ Among other terms, gender-nonconforming, nonbinary, genderqueer and genderfluid are used to describe the gender identity of a subset of young people who identify outside the gender binary (i.e., as neither male nor female) or who experience fluidity between genders.⁹ Suicidality among transgender and gender-nonconforming adolescents is not as well studied. In a Canadian survey of transgender and gender-nonconforming youth aged 14–25 years, 64% of participants reported that they had seriously considered suicide in the previous 12 months.¹⁵ Transgender and gender-nonconforming youth seem to have a higher probability of many risk factors for suicidality, including peer victimization,^8,16 family dysfunction^7,17 and barriers to accessing mental health care.¹⁸ However, the epidemiology of suicidality among transgender and gender-nonconforming youth remains understudied in population-based samples; most research on the mental health of transgender youth comes from small community samples of help-seeking youth or targeted surveys of transgender adolescents.^5,19,20 Two population-based studies from California²¹ and New Zealand²² suggested that transgender youth are at increased risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempt. However, only the New Zealand study²² used the gold-standard measure of gender identity, contrasting adolescents’ sex assigned at birth with their self-identified gender.²³Further epidemiological research employing large, representative samples and adequate measures of gender identity is needed to understand the burden of suicidality among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth. We sought to build on existing evidence to assess risk of suicidal ideation and attempt among transgender and sexual minority adolescents in Canada, as compared with their cisgender and heterosexual peers, as well as to explore the relation between suicidality and experience of bullying.     

The link between medical conditions and fatal drownings in Canada: a 10-year cross-sectional analysis

Background:Drowning accounts for hundreds of preventable deaths in Canada every year, but the impact of preexisting medical conditions on the likelihood of death from drowning is not known. We aimed to describe the prevalence of pre-existing medical conditions among people who fatally drowned in Canada and evaluate the risk of fatal drowning among people with common pre-existing medical conditions.Methods:We reviewed all Canadian unintentional fatal drownings (2007–2016) in the Drowning Prevention Research Centre Canada’s database. For each fatal drowning we established whether the person had pre-existing medical conditions and whether those conditions contributed to the drowning. We calculated relative risk (RR) of fatal drowning stratified by age and sex for each pre-existing medical condition using data from the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System.Results:During 2007–2016, 4288 people fatally drowned unintentially in Canada, of whom one-third had a pre-existing medical condition. A pre-existing medical condition contributed to drowning in 43.6% (n = 616) of cases. Fatal drowning occurred more frequently in people with ischemic heart disease (RR 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–3.0) and seizure disorders (RR 6.3, 95% CI 5.4–7.3) but less frequently in people with respiratory disease (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.10–0.15). Females aged 20–34 years with a seizure disorder had a 23 times greater risk than their age- and sex-matched cohort (RR 23, 95% CI 14–39). In general, fatal drowning occurred more often while people were bathing (RR 5.9, 95% CI 4.8–7.0) or alone (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.32–2.97) and less often in males (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88–0.95) or in those who had used alcohol (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65–0.80), among those with pre-existing medical conditions.Interpretation:The risk of fatal drowning is increased in the presence of some preexisting medical conditions. Tailored interventions aimed at preventing drowning based on pre-existing medical conditions and age are needed. Initial prevention strategies should focus on seizure disorders and bathtub drownings.

Drowning is an important cause of death in Canada and some aspects of its epidemiology have been characterized.^1,2 Identifying and addressing risk factors for fatal drowning can save lives. For example, after research showed a considerable proportion of child drownings occurred in unsecured household pools and the effectiveness of pool fencing at reducing these deaths, legislative changes were introduced in Quebec.^3–5Although studies evaluating risk factors frequently focus on modifiable environmental or behavioural factors (e.g., infant bath seats, supervision status or alcohol and drug use),^6–11 limited research has evaluated the relation between pre-existing medical conditions and the risk of drowning.Studies that have evaluated the association between pre-existing medical conditions and drowning are limited by small sample sizes and narrow focus on certain conditions (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, epilepsy), or are age-specific (e.g., children).^12–17 The association between various pre-existing medical conditions and drowning in different age groups is not well understood. This information could assist with the development of targeted drowning prevention strategies and prioritizing of resources spent on prevention.Forty-four percent of Canadian adults have at least 1 chronic disease, which suggests that millions of Canadians with conditions that potentially impair their heart, lungs or brain participate in water activities.¹⁸ Furthermore, swimming and aquatic fitness is often encouraged for those with chronic illness to promote health.^19,20 However, the public and physicians should be aware of pre-existing medical conditions that might place people at a higher risk of drowning, so that appropriate precautions can be taken to ensure safety while participating in aquatic activities.We sought to describe pre-existing medical conditions by age group among people who fatally drowned in Canada and to evaluate the risk of fatal drowning among people with common conditions to inform future public health interventions.     

Antiviral drug treatment for nonsevere COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background:Randomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in nonsevere COVID-19 is unclear.Methods:We searched the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database for randomized trials comparing antiviral treatments, standard care or placebo in adult patients with nonsevere COVID-19 up to Apr. 25, 2022. Reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Results:We identified 41 trials, which included 18 568 patients. Compared with standard care or placebo, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir each reduced risk of death with moderate certainty (10.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6 to 4.5 fewer for molnupiravir; 11.7 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 13.1 fewer to 2.6 more). Compared with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir–ritonavir probably reduced risk of hospital admission (27.8 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 32.8 to 18.3 fewer; moderate certainty). Remdesivir probably has no effect on risk of death, but may reduce hospital admissions (39.1 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 48.7 to 13.7 fewer; low certainty).Interpretation:Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir probably reduce risk of hospital admissions and death among patients with nonsevere COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir is probably more effective than molnupiravir for reducing risk of hospital admissions. Most trials were conducted with unvaccinated patients, before the emergence of the Omicron variant; the effectiveness of these drugs must thus be tested among vaccinated patients and against newer variants.

Most trials addressing the treatment of patients with COVID-19 have targeted patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical disease.¹ However, more recently, several treatments, including antiviral drugs, antidepressants, monoclonal antibodies and inhaled corticosteroids, have been studied for patients with nonsevere COVID-19.² Preliminary evidence from ongoing or recently completed trials suggests that 2 novel antiviral drugs — molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid) — may be effective at reducing risk of hospital admission.^3–5 To date, evidence on antiviral drugs for nonsevere COVID-19 has not been systematically synthesized or appraised. Furthermore, although efficacy data from trials of molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and remdesivir are promising, no head-to-head trials have compared these drugs.A network meta-analysis allows for comparison of treatments that have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using pooled estimates from direct and indirect evidence. They can provide guidance to clinicians and evidence users in determining which treatments are superior. This is particularly important as health care systems attempt to prioritize access to effective COVID-19 treatments in the early stages of the disease.We sought to compare the effectiveness of antiviral drugs for patients with nonsevere COVID-19.     

Rates of health services use among residents of retirement homes in Ontario: a population-based cohort study

Background:Because there are no standardized reporting systems specific to residents of retirement homes in North America, little is known about the health of this distinct population of older adults. We evaluated rates of health services use by residents of retirement homes relative to those of residents of long-term care homes and other populations of older adults.Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using population health administrative data from 2018 on adults 65 years or older in Ontario. We matched the postal codes of individuals to those of licensed retirement homes to identify residents of retirement homes. Outcomes included rates of hospital-based care and physician visits.Results:We identified 54 733 residents of 757 retirement homes (mean age 86.7 years, 69.0% female) and 2 354 385 residents of other settings. Compared to residents of long-term care homes, residents of retirement homes had significantly higher rates per 1000 person months of emergency department visits (10.62 v. 4.48, adjusted relative rate [RR] 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.55 to 2.67), hospital admissions (5.42 v. 2.08, adjusted RR 2.77, 95% CI 2.71 to 2.82), alternate level of care (ALC) days (6.01 v. 2.96, adjusted RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.54), and specialist physician visits (6.27 v. 3.21, adjusted RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.61 to 1.68), but a significantly lower rate of primary care visits (16.71 v. 108.47, adjusted RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.14).Interpretation:Residents of retirement homes are a distinct population with higher rates of hospital-based care. Our findings can help to inform policy debates about the need for more coordinated primary and supportive health care in privately operated congregate care homes.

In the continuum of care services and settings for older adults lies home care at one end and long-term care at the other.¹ Home care services may include, but are not limited to, nursing care, personal care, homemaking services, and physiotherapy and occupational therapy for older adults who live independently in their community. Home care services are publicly funded under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP).^2,3 Long-term care homes provide access to 24-hour nursing and personal care and operate at full capacity in Ontario, with waiting lists of 6 months or longer before an older adult in the community could receive an offer for a bed.^2,4 Retirement homes are thought to fit between home care and long-term care in this continuum.¹Retirement homes are referred to as assisted-living facilities in other North American jurisdictions, and they are private, congregate living environments that deliver supportive care to adults who are 65 years of age and older.^3,5,6 These homes are often marketed to provide a lifestyle and community, and they provide a range of assisted-living care services (e.g., meals, nursing services, etc.).^5,7 Retirement homes predominately operate on a private, for-profit business model, and the room, board and services are purchased by residents.^3,5 In Ontario, retirement homes are regulated through an independent, not-for-profit regulator (i.e., Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority [RHRA]).⁵ There are more than 700 licensed retirement homes in Ontario with over 70 000 available beds occupied by over 55 000 residents, which is comparable to the number of available beds in the long-term care sector.^3,5,6,8 Retirement homes are legislated differently from long-term care homes and primarily cater to adults who do not require 24-hour nursing care.^1,5,9 Unlike long-term care homes, no standardized reporting system is available to identify and describe residents of retirement homes.¹⁰ These residents are conceptualized as having fewer needs for care because they reside in a congregate care home to support independent living; however, this has been difficult to verify given there are no population-level data.A body of literature from the United States has described residents of assisted-living facilities and the sector,^11–17 but Canadian literature is comparatively nascent. Canadian studies have investigated transitions to a long-term care home, risk of hospital admission among those who live with dementia, and life events and health conditions associated with the transition to a congregate care setting.^7,9,18–20 At present, a Canadian population-level cohort of residents of retirement homes that describes the individual-level characteristics and use of health services of the older adults who reside in these homes appears to be lacking. Therefore, it is difficult to position this sector in the gradient of services and housing options for older adults in Canada.We created a population-level cohort of residents in retirement homes and sought to evaluate their rates of health services utilization relative to residents of long-term care homes and other populations of older adults (i.e., home care recipients and community-dwelling older adults) in Ontario.     

Severity of COVID-19 among solid organ transplant recipients in Canada, 2020–2021: a prospective,multicentre cohort study

Background:Severe COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect people who are immunocompromised, although Canadian data in this context are limited. We sought to determine factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes among recipients of organ transplants across Canada.Methods:We performed a multicentre, prospective cohort study of all recipients of solid organ transplants from 9 transplant programs in Canada who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 from March 2020 to November 2021. Data were analyzed to determine risk factors for oxygen requirement and other metrics of disease severity. We compared outcomes by organ transplant type and examined changes in outcomes over time. We performed a multivariable analysis to determine variables associated with need for supplemental oxygen.Results:A total of 509 patients with solid organ transplants had confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Risk factors associated with needing (n = 190), compared with not needing (n = 319), supplemental oxygen included age (median 62.6 yr, interquartile range [IQR] 52.5–69.5 yr v. median 55.5 yr, IQR 47.5–66.5; p < 0.001) and number of comorbidities (median 3, IQR 2–3 v. median 2, IQR 1–3; p < 0.001), as well as parameters associated with immunosuppression. Recipients of lung transplants (n = 48) were more likely to have severe disease with a high mortality rate (n = 15, 31.3%) compared with recipients of other organ transplants, including kidney (n = 48, 14.8%), heart (n = 1, 4.4%), liver (n = 9, 11.4%) and kidney–pancreas (n = 3, 12.0%) transplants (p = 0.02). Protective factors against needing supplemental oxygen included having had a liver transplant and receiving azathioprine. Having had 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine did not have an appreciable influence on oxygen requirement. Multivariable analysis showed that older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.07) and number of comorbidities (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30–2.04), among other factors, were associated with the need for supplemental oxygen. Over time, disease severity did not decline significantly.Interpretation:Despite therapeutic advances and vaccination of recipients of solid organ transplants, evidence of increased severity of COVID-19, in particular among those with lung transplants, supports ongoing public health measures to protect these at-risk people, and early use of COVID-19 therapies for recipients of solid organ transplants.

Recipients of solid organ transplants take life-long immunosuppressive agents to prevent rejection. In Canada, an estimated 3000 transplant procedures are performed annually and 40 000 people are living with a transplant. Early studies from Europe and the United States suggested that transplant recipients were at greater risk of severe COVID-19, with a two- to fivefold greater mortality than the general population.^1–3 It is unclear whether the increased risk is owing to multiple comorbidities, immunosuppression or a combination of both factors.Initial trials of therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2, including remdesivir, dexamethasone and tocilizumab, did not formally include transplant recipients.^4–6 Similarly, pivotal studies of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines did not include immunocompromised populations.^7,8 Therefore, the use of COVID-19 therapeutics and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the transplant population has been extrapolated from the general population. Commonly used COVID-19 therapies such as dexamethasone and tocilizumab may place transplant recipients at risk of over-immunosuppression, which may result in secondary infections. In addition, withdrawal of standard immunosuppression may result in organ rejection.Previous cohort studies of transplant recipients with COVID-19 have primarily focused on the early phase of the pandemic, when therapeutics and vaccinations were limited.^2,9,10 These have generally been single-centre studies with short-term follow-up. Canadian data may differ from that of other countries owing to differences in timing and strategy of vaccine rollouts, as well as use and availability of certain therapeutics. Moreover, current data are limited with regard to longer-term outcomes of COVID-19 in transplant recipients up to 90 days postinfection, especially for the development of graft rejection.We sought to determine factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes, to estimate the impact of available therapeutics on COVID-19 severity and to determine whether disease severity changed over the course of the pandemic among recipients of solid organ transplants from 9 centres in Canada.     

Geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by social determinants of health in metropolitan areas in Canada: a cross-sectional study

Background:Understanding inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with the social determinants of health could help the development of effective mitigation strategies that are responsive to local transmission dynamics. This study aims to quantify social determinants of geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases across 16 census metropolitan areas (hereafter, cities) in 4 Canadian provinces, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.Methods:We used surveillance data on confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and census data for social determinants at the level of the dissemination area (DA). We calculated Gini coefficients to determine the overall geographic heterogeneity of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in each city, and calculated Gini covariance coefficients to determine each city’s heterogeneity by each social determinant (income, education, housing density and proportions of visible minorities, recent immigrants and essential workers). We visualized heterogeneity using Lorenz (concentration) curves.Results:We observed geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases in cities, as half of the cumulative cases were concentrated in DAs containing 21%–35% of their population, with the greatest geographic heterogeneity in Ontario cities (Gini coefficients 0.32–0.47), followed by British Columbia (0.23–0.36), Manitoba (0.32) and Quebec (0.28–0.37). Cases were disproportionately concentrated in areas with lower income and educational attainment, and in areas with a higher proportion of visible minorities, recent immigrants, high-density housing and essential workers. Although a consistent feature across cities was concentration by the proportion of visible minorities, the magnitude of concentration by social determinant varied across cities.Interpretation:Geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases was observed in all of the included cities, but the pattern by social determinants varied. Geographically prioritized allocation of resources and services should be tailored to the local drivers of inequalities in transmission in response to the resurgence of SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 epidemic in Canada has varied in size and trajectory across provinces and large cities.^1,2 At the national level³ and within regions,^4,5 the burden of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and severe COVID-19 outcomes has fallen disproportionately on socially and economically marginalized communities. ⁶ Social determinants of health refer to nonmedical factors influencing health outcomes, and structural determinants encompass cultural norms, policies and institutions that generate social stratification and determine socioeconomic position.^7,8 In Canada and elsewhere, data have consistently highlighted the importance of determinants such as household size and density, work in essential services and structural racism (measured by proxy) in the relative risk of COVID-19.^9–17Understanding the factors associated with geographic patterns of transmission within cities can help identify the populations and, specifically, the contexts with the greatest risks. Geographic analyses can enable better allocation of resources, tailoring of policies and implementation of context-specific strategies to more effectively and efficiently curb local transmission. ¹⁸ Although respiratory virus transmission is often geographically clustered within a city,¹⁹ the early public health response to SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Canada did little to take within-city clustering into account.^20,21 Similarly, few studies have quantified and compared the geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by social determinants across Canada, and the extent to which the magnitude of inequalities might vary among cities and provinces.^19,22 We therefore sought to quantify and compare the magnitude of geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by area-level social determinants of health across metropolitan areas in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, Canada.     

Maternal and neonatal separation and mortality associated with concurrent admissions to intensive care units

Background:

Concurrent admission of a mother and her newborn to separate intensive care units (herein referred to as co-ICU admission), possibly in different centres, can magnify family discord and stress. We examined the prevalence and predictors of mother–infant separation and mortality associated with co-ICU admissions.

Methods:

We completed a population-based study of all 1 023 978 singleton live births in Ontario between Apr. 1, 2002, and Mar. 31, 2010. We included data for maternal–infant pairs that had co-ICU admission (n = 1216), maternal ICU admission only (n = 897), neonatal ICU (NICU) admission only (n = 123 236) or no ICU admission (n = 898 629). The primary outcome measure was mother–infant separation because of interfacility transfer.

Results:

The prevalence of co-ICU admissions was 1.2 per 1000 live births and was higher than maternal ICU admissions (0.9 per 1000). Maternal–newborn separation due to interfacility transfer was 30.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.9–35.3) times more common in the co-ICU group than in the no-ICU group and exceeded the prevalence in the maternal ICU group and NICU group. Short-term infant mortality (< 28 days after birth) was higher in the co-ICU group (18.1 per 1000 live births; maternal age–adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 27.8, 95% CI 18.2–42.6) than in the NICU group (7.6 per 1000; age-adjusted HR 11.5, 95% CI 10.4–12.7), relative to 0.7 per 1000 in the no-ICU group. Short-term maternal mortality (< 42 days after delivery) was also higher in the co-ICU group (15.6 per 1000; age-adjusted HR 328.7, 95% CI 191.2–565.2) than in the maternal ICU group (6.7 per 1000; age-adjusted HR 140.0, 95% CI 59.5–329.2) or the NICU group (0.2 per 1000; age-adjusted HR 4.6, 95% CI 2.8–7.4).

Interpretation:

Mother–infant pairs in the co-ICU group had the highest prevalence of separation due to interfacility transfer and the highest mortality compared with those in the maternal ICU and NICU groups.Admission of a newborn to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) produces a great deal of stress for the parents.¹ A new mother who also falls ill may be unable to care for, or bond with, her newborn during the time of her illness.² Although the father will experience a sense of loss of control when his infant is admitted to the NICU,^3,4 this feeling is conceivably worsened when the mother too requires intensive care. In this situation of concurrent ICU admission (herein referred to as “co-ICU”), the mother and newborn may be in different areas of the same hospital or in different facilities. This separation would magnify the degree of mother–infant and family discord and stress and could create competing priorities for family members in terms of decision-making and support. Moreover, the situation would be made more devastating if the mother or newborn died in hospital and the other remained critically ill, or after discharge of one, the other required continuing hospital care or died.Because of the serious, potentially negative consequences of co-ICU admissions, we examined the prevalence and predictors of mother–infant separation and mortality associated with co-ICU admissions.     

Characteristics and outcomes of hospital admissions for COVID-19 and influenza in the Toronto area

BACKGROUND:Patient characteristics, clinical care, resource use and outcomes associated with admission to hospital for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Canada are not well described.METHODS:We described all adults with COVID-19 or influenza discharged from inpatient medical services and medical–surgical intensive care units (ICUs) between Nov. 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario. We compared patient outcomes using multivariable regression models, controlling for patient sociodemographic factors and comorbidity level. We validated the accuracy of 7 externally developed risk scores to predict mortality among patients with COVID-19.RESULTS:There were 1027 hospital admissions with COVID-19 (median age 65 yr, 59.1% male) and 783 with influenza (median age 68 yr, 50.8% male). Patients younger than 50 years accounted for 21.2% of all admissions for COVID-19 and 24.0% of ICU admissions. Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had significantly greater in-hospital mortality (unadjusted 19.9% v. 6.1%, adjusted relative risk [RR] 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.56–4.68), ICU use (unadjusted 26.4% v. 18.0%, adjusted RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.25–1.80) and hospital length of stay (unadjusted median 8.7 d v. 4.8 d, adjusted rate ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.25–1.69). Thirty-day readmission was not significantly different (unadjusted 9.3% v. 9.6%, adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70–1.39). Three points-based risk scores for predicting in-hospital mortality showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] ranging from 0.72 to 0.81) and calibration.INTERPRETATION:During the first wave of the pandemic, admission to hospital for COVID-19 was associated with significantly greater mortality, ICU use and hospital length of stay than influenza. Simple risk scores can predict in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 with good accuracy.

International studies report that patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have high rates of critical illness and mortality.^1–5 Two small Canadian case series have described care for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and found mortality rates of up to 25%.^6,7 However, outcomes of patients admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in Canada are not well described, particularly outside of intensive care units (ICUs). Case fatality rates for COVID-19 vary dramatically worldwide,⁸ and outcomes of patients admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in Canada may differ from other countries because of differences in populations, public health and health care systems.Seasonal influenza is a useful comparator for COVID-19^9–11 as it is another respiratory virus, familiar to the general public, with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to describe patient characteristics, resource use, clinical care and outcomes for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada, using influenza as a comparator. We also validated the performance of various prognostic risk scores for in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19.     

Correlates of severe disease in patients with 2009 pandemic influenza (H1N1) virus infection

Background

In the context of 2009 pandemic influenza (H1N1) virus infection (pandemic H1N1 influenza), identifying correlates of the severity of disease is critical to guiding the implementation of antiviral strategies, prioritization of vaccination efforts and planning of health infrastructure. The objective of this study was to identify factors correlated with severity of disease in confirmed cases of pandemic H1N1 influenza.

Methods

This cumulative case–control study included all laboratory-confirmed cases of pandemic H1N1 influenza among residents of the province of Manitoba, Canada, for whom the final location of treatment was known. Severe cases were defined by admission to a provincial intensive care unit (ICU). Factors associated with severe disease necessitating admission to the ICU were determined by comparing ICU cases with two control groups: patients who were admitted to hospital but not to an ICU and those who remained in the community.

Results

As of Sept. 5, 2009, there had been 795 confirmed cases of pandemic H1N1 influenza in Manitoba for which the final treatment location could be determined. The mean age of individuals with laboratory-confirmed infection was 25.3 (standard deviation 18.8) years. More than half of the patients (417 or 52%) were female, and 215 (37%) of 588 confirmed infections for which ethnicity was known occurred in First Nations residents. The proportion of First Nations residents increased with increasing severity of disease (116 [28%] of 410 community cases, 74 [54%] of 136 admitted to hospital and 25 [60%] of 42 admitted to an ICU; p < 0.001), as did the presence of an underlying comorbidity (201 [35%] of 569 community cases, 103 [57%] of 181 admitted to hospital and 34 [76%] of 45 admitted to an ICU; p < 0.001). The median interval from onset of symptoms to initiation of antiviral therapy was 2 days (interquartile range, IQR 1–3) for community cases, 4 days (IQR 2–6) for patients admitted to hospital and 6 days (IQR 4–9) for those admitted to an ICU (p < 0.001). In a multivariable logistic model, the interval from onset of symptoms to initiation of antiviral therapy (odds ratio [OR] 8.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.82–24.1), First Nations ethnicity (OR 6.52, 95% CI 2.04–20.8) and presence of an underlying comorbidity (OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.07–9.52) were associated with increased odds of admission to the ICU (i.e., severe disease) relative to community cases. In an analysis of ICU cases compared with patients admitted to hospital, First Nations ethnicity (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.04–10.1) was associated with increased severity of disease.

Interpretation

Severe pandemic H1N1 influenza necessitating admission to the ICU was associated with a longer interval from onset of symptoms to treatment with antiviral therapy and with the presence of an underlying comorbidity. First Nations ethnicity appeared to be an independent determinant of severe infection. Despite these associations, the cause and outcomes of pandemic HINI influenza may involve many complex and interrelated factors, all of which require further research and analysis.In April 2009, Canada’s first wave of pandemic influenza (H1N1) virus infections (pandemic H1N1 influenza) began. The highest burden of severe illness in Canada occurred in the province of Manitoba, where 45 Manitobans and 9 out-of-province patients were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). In this first wave, ICU staff and equipment were mobilized to expand bed capacity and ventilator capabilities to accommodate clinical need.Although many individuals presented with mild, self-limited symptoms and no sign of pulmonary involvement, some people required admission to an ICU and received maximal life support measures.^1–3 Predicting disease and mitigating hazard in at-risk populations is an important aim of public heath epidemiology, and in preparation for future waves of pandemic H1N1 influenza, determining correlates of the severity of disease may be very important. Initial reports have suggested that, in addition to many of the previously known risk factors for complications of seasonal influenza, obesity⁴ and other underlying comorbidities^3,5 may be risk factors for severe disease. The interval from onset of symptoms to initiation of antiviral therapy or other treatment and supportive care was also associated with adverse outcome in a recent case series.⁶ In a Canadian study of severe pandemic H1N1 influenza, First Nations people were proportionally overrepresented among patients in the ICU.² However, it is unclear if this association was independent of potential confounding factors. The ability to determine correlates of severe pandemic H1N1 disease and subsequent need for ICU resources in at-risk populations would provide opportunities for public and population health analysis and action, public education, strategic prioritization of vaccination efforts, efficient and equitable allocation and use of antiviral drugs, and development of infrastructure within the health system.The objectives of this study were to identify factors that were correlated with severity of disease in confirmed cases of pandemic H1N1 influenza. Our hypothesis, which was based on existing literature, was that obesity, First Nations ethnicity and longer interval from onset of symptoms to treatment would be important determinants of the severity of disease.     

Impact of cancer surgery slowdowns on patient survival during the COVID-19 pandemic: a microsimulation modelling study

Background:With the declaration of the global pandemic, surgical slowdowns were instituted to conserve health care resources for anticipated surges in patients with COVID-19. The long-term implications on survival of these slowdowns for patients with cancer in Canada is unknown.Methods:We constructed a microsimulation model based on real-world population data on cancer care from Ontario, Canada, from 2019 and 2020. Our model estimated wait times for cancer surgery over a 6-month period during the pandemic by simulating a slowdown in operating room capacity (60% operating room resources in month 1, 70% in month 2, 85% in months 3–6), as compared with simulated prepandemic conditions with 100% resources. We used incremental differences in simulated wait times to model survival using per-day hazard ratios for risk of death. Primary outcomes included life-years lost per patient and per cancer population. We conducted scenario analyses to evaluate alternative, hypothetical scenarios of different levels of surgical slowdowns on risk of death.Results:The simulated model population comprised 22 799 patients waiting for cancer surgery before the pandemic and 20 177 patients during the pandemic. Mean wait time to surgery prepandemic was 25 days and during the pandemic was 32 days. Excess wait time led to 0.01–0.07 life-years lost per patient across cancer sites, translating to 843 (95% credible interval 646–950) life-years lost among patients with cancer in Ontario.Interpretation:Pandemic-related slowdowns of cancer surgeries were projected to result in decreased long-term survival for many patients with cancer. Measures to preserve surgical resources and health care capacity for affected patients are critical to mitigate unintended consequences.

Declaration of the global COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of several clinical and policy-related measures to mitigate risk to vulnerable populations and conserve health care resources. Literature from early waves of the pandemic characterized patients with cancer as a vulnerable population.^1,2 Moreover, cancer surgery can be highly resource intensive, which could strain the health care system’s ability to respond to the pandemic. Accordingly, in March 2020, the Ontario government recommended reducing the number of cancer surgeries, along with other elective surgeries performed in the province. These measures were aimed at reducing both patient morbidity and use of health care resources, primarily by decreasing routine postoperative admissions to wards and intensive care units, in anticipation of a potential surge of patients with COVID-19.³Although necessary, this initial strategy resulted in a backlog of cancer surgeries, and some patients faced longer wait times to surgical treatment.⁴ Given clear evidence showing that longer surgical wait times can increase cancer-related risk of death, there is concern for the unintended consequences of the surgical slowdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic.^5–8 International data have projected the negative impact on long-term survival associated with potential delays to cancer diagnosis or surgery across various cancer types.^9–11 Recognizing the global differences in level of infection, response to the COVID-19 pandemic and cancer survival rates, country-specific data are required to understand local consequences and better guide future responses to times of resource constraint. As such, the objective of the current study was to evaluate the long-term implications of pandemic–related cancer surgery slowdowns on cancer survival in Ontario, Canada.     

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