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.     

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     

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.     

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.     

Shifts in office and virtual primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario,Canada

BACKGROUND:Globally, primary care changed dramatically as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to understand the degree to which office and virtual primary care changed, and for which patients and physicians, during the initial months of the pandemic in Ontario, Canada.METHODS:This population-based study compared comprehensive, linked primary care physician billing data from Jan. 1 to July 28, 2020, with the same period in 2019. We identified Ontario residents with at least 1 office or virtual (telephone or video) visit during the study period. We compared trends in total physician visits, office visits and virtual visits before COVID-19 with trends after pandemic-related public health measures changed the delivery of care, according to various patient and physician characteristics. We used interrupted time series analysis to compare trends in the early and later halves of the COVID-19 period.RESULTS:Compared with 2019, total primary care visits between March and July 2020 decreased by 28.0%, from 7.66 to 5.51 per 1000 people/day. The smallest declines were among patients with the highest expected health care use (8.3%), those who could not be attributed to a primary care physician (10.2%), and older adults (19.1%). In contrast, total visits in rural areas increased by 6.4%. Office visits declined by 79.1% and virtual care increased 56-fold, comprising 71.1% of primary care physician visits. The lowest uptake of virtual care was among children (57.6%), rural residents (60.6%) and physicians with panels of ≥ 2500 patients (66.0%).INTERPRETATION:Primary care in Ontario saw large shifts from office to virtual care over the first 4 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Total visits declined least among those with higher health care needs. The determinants and consequences of these major shifts in care require further study.

Primary care is considered the cornerstone of most health systems worldwide, and in higher-income countries, primary care visits are about 30 times more frequent than hospital admissions.¹ Health systems with greater availability of primary care are associated with increased access to care, reduced health inequities, better outcomes and lower costs.² Despite the centrality of primary care to health care systems, little is known about how it has been affected by coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19).On Mar. 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.³ On Mar. 15, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health issued a directive to ramp down elective surgeries and other nonemergent health services, and on Mar. 19, health care providers and organizations were directed to stop or substantially reduce all nonessential or elective services until further notice.⁴ The Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association negotiated the addition of temporary billing codes in the province’s schedule of benefits to facilitate virtual care, effective as of Mar. 14 (Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.202303/tab-related-content). In mid to late May 2020, the province undertook a phased resumption of certain in-person health professional services and surgeries.⁴Initial reports from ongoing COVID-19-related surveys of primary care providers in Canada and the United States showed major disruptions to care, decreased payments, challenges keeping offices functioning, lack of personal protective equipment and widespread uptake of virtual care.^5,6 The degree to which virtual care — such as phone calls, video visits and secure text messages — replaced in-person office visits is not known. It is also not known which patients and physicians were most affected by the challenges to office-based practice or the change to virtual visits. We aimed to understand the degree to which office and virtual primary care changed, and for which patients and physicians, during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.     

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.     

Crude and adjusted comparisons of cesarean delivery rates using the Robson classification: A population-based cohort study in Canada and Sweden, 2004 to 2016

BackgroundThe Robson classification has become a global standard for comparing and monitoring cesarean delivery (CD) rates across populations and over time; however, this classification does not account for differences in important maternal, fetal, and obstetric practice factors known to impact CD rates. The objectives of our study were to identify subgroups of women contributing to differences in the CD rate in Sweden and British Columbia (BC), Canada using the Robson classification and to estimate the contribution of maternal, fetal/infant, and obstetric practice factors to differences in CD rates between countries and over time.Methods and findingsWe conducted a population-based cohort study of deliveries in Sweden (January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2016; n = 1,392,779) and BC (March 1, 2004 to April 31, 2017; n = 559,205). Deliveries were stratified into Robson categories and the CD rate, relative size of each group and its contribution to the overall CD rate were compared between the Swedish and the Canadian cohorts. Poisson and log-binomial regression were used to assess the contribution of maternal, fetal, and obstetric practice factors to spatiotemporal differences in Robson group-specific CD rates between Sweden and BC.Nulliparous women comprised 44.8% of the study population, while women of advanced maternal age (≥35 years) and women with overweight/obesity (≥25 kg/m²) constituted 23.5% and 32.4% of the study population, respectively. The CD rate in Sweden was stable at approximately 17.0% from 2004 to 2016 (p for trend = 0.10), while the CD rate increased in BC from 29.4% to 33.9% (p for trend < 0.001). Differences in CD rates between Sweden and BC varied by Robson group, for example, in Group 1 (nullipara with a term, single, cephalic fetus with spontaneous labor), the CD rate was 8.1% in Sweden and 20.4% in BC (rate ratio [RR] for BC versus Sweden = 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.49 to 2.56, p < 0.001) and in Group 2 (nullipara, single, cephalic fetus, term gestation with induction of labor or prelabor CD), the rate of CD was 37.3% in Sweden and 45.9% in BC (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.25, p < 0.001). The effect of adjustment for maternal characteristics (e.g., age, body mass index), maternal comorbidity (e.g., preeclampsia), fetal characteristics (e.g., head position), and obstetric practice factors (e.g., epidural) ranged from no effect (e.g., among breech deliveries; Groups 6 and 7) to explaining up to 5.2% of the absolute difference in the CD rate (Group 2: adjusted CD rate in BC 40.7%, adjusted RR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.12, p < 0.001). Adjustment also explained a substantial fraction of the temporal change in CD rates among some Robson groups in BC. Limitations of the study include a lack of information on intrapartum details, such as labor duration as well as maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with the observed differences in CD rates.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that several factors not included in the Robson classification explain a significant proportion of the spatiotemporal difference in CD rates in some Robson groups. These findings suggest that incorporating these factors into explanatory models using the Robson classification may be useful for ensuring that public health initiatives regarding CD rates are evidence informed.

Giulia Muraca and colleagues examine differences in the rates of cesarean delivery between British Columbia, Canada and Sweden over time using the Robson classification with and without adjusting for maternal, fetal/infant, and obstetric practice factors.     

Risk of primary haematologic cancers following incident non-metastatic breast cancer: A Danish population-based cohort study

BackgroundBreast cancer survivors may have increased risk of subsequent haematologic cancer. We compared their risk of haematologic cancers with the general population during 38 years of follow-up.MethodsUsing population-based Danish medical registries, we assembled a nationwide cohort of women diagnosed with incident non-metastatic breast cancer during 1980–2017, with follow-up through 2018. We compared breast cancer survivors with the general population by computing standardised incidence ratios (SIR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAmong 101,117 breast cancer survivors, we observed 815 incident haematologic cancers (median follow-up: 7.9 years). We observed excess risk of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) (SIR: 1.65, 95%CI: 1.33–2.01), particularly in women who received chemotherapy (SIR: 3.33, 95%CI: 2.24–4.75) and premenopausal women (SIR: 3.23, 95%CI: 2.41–4.25). The risk of acute lymphoid leukaemia (ALL) was increased (SIR: 2.25, 95%CI: 1.29–3.66), whereas the risk of chronic lymphoid leukaemia (CLL) was decreased (SIR: 0.66, 95%CI: 0.53–0.82). An additional analysis showed elevated risk of CLL 0–6 months after breast cancer diagnosis (SIR: 3.00 95%CI: 1.75–4.80).ConclusionCompared to the general population, breast cancer survivors had elevated risk of AML, particularly when treated with chemotherapy. The risk of ALL was elevated, whereas the risk of CLL was lower. The higher risk of CLL in the first six months after diagnosis likely reflects surveillance bias—due to intensified diagnostic efforts at breast cancer diagnosis and treatment—prompting earlier detection. This has likely reduced the long-term risk of CLL in breast cancer survivors.     

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.     

Risk of mycobacterial disease among cancer patients: A population-based cohort study in a TB endemic area

ObjectivesTuberculosis (TB) and nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) disease have similar symptoms, which makes them difficult to distinguish clinically and leads to the danger of NTM disease being neglected. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of developing mycobacterial disease among cancer patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using a population-based database. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was adjusted to identify independent factors contributing to the development of mycobacterial disease in the cancer cohort.ResultsThe results showed that the increased risk of developing TB and NTM disease was 1.84-fold and 4.43-fold, respectively, in cancer patients compared with the general population. Advanced age (≥65years) and being male were risk factors for developing TB disease. There was a 4.09-fold significantly increased risk of TB disease within six months of a cancer diagnosis. Hematological cancer patients were most likely to develop mycobacterial disease. Younger hematological cancer patients (< 45years) had a higher risk of NTM disease development.ConclusionThere is an increasing risk of mycobacterial disease in cancer patients. We suggest that the possibility of mycobacterial disease in cancer patients should be assessed during the period of cancer therapy, particularly in those who have risk factors.     

Cancer risk among young men with weight gain after smoking cessation: A population-based cohort study

BackgroundSmoking cessation may help the current smokers to reduce cancer risk. However, weight gain following smoking cessation may attenuate the protective association of cessation with cancer.Patients and methodsOur study included 1,278,794 men who were aged 20–39 years and underwent two consecutive health examinations by the National Health Insurance Service, without previous diagnosis of cancer. Participants were categorized into continual smokers, quitters with different degree of body weight change, and never smokers based on the biennial national health screening program (2002–2003 and 2004–2005) and were followed from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015. Cox proportional hazard models and restricted cubic spline model was used to evaluate the association of post-cessation weight change and cancer risk after adjustment for potential confounders.ResultsDuring the 10 years of follow-up, the analyses included 1,278,794 men with 21,494 cancer incidences. Compared to continual smokers, quitters without weight gain of 2.0 kg had significantly lower risk of obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97), smoking-related cancer (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98), and gastrointestinal cancer (HR, 89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.98). Weight gain among quitters attenuated the risk reduction of cancer compared to continual smoking. Among quitters, weight gain up to 5.0 kg with smoking cessation showed protective association with cancer risk among quitters without weight gain.ConclusionExcessive weight gain with smoking cessation among quitters was not associated with reduced risk of several cancer types. This association should be taken into account when recommending smoking cessation to prevent cancer     

Mortality and incidence of new primary cancers in men with prostate cancer: A Danish population-based cohort study

Background: Prostate cancer (PC) survivors may have an increased risk of new primary cancers (NPCs) due to shared risk factors or PC-directed treatments. Methods: Using Danish registries, we conducted a cohort study of men with (n = 30,220) and without PC (n = 151,100) (comparators), matched 1:5 on age and PC diagnosis/index date. We computed incidence rates of NPCs per 10,000 person years (PY) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and used Cox proportional hazards regression to compute hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%CI, adjusting for comorbidities. In order to obviate any impact of shorter survival among prostate cancer patients, we censored comparator patients when the matched prostate cancer patient died or was censored. Results: Follow-up spanned 113,487 PY and 462,982 PY in the PC and comparison cohorts, respectively. 65% of the cohorts were aged >70 years at diagnosis. Among PC patients, 51% had distant/unspecified stage, and 63% had surgery as primary treatment. The PC cohort had lower incidence of NPCs than their comparators. The adjusted HR of NPC among men with PC versus the comparators was 0.84 (95%CI = 0.80, 0.88). Lowest HRs were among older men, those with distant stage, and were particularly evident for cancers of the brain, liver, pancreas, respiratory, upper gastrointestinal, and urinary systems. Conclusions: We find no evidence of an increased risk of NPCs among men with PC. The deficit of NPCs among men with PC may be a true effect but is more likely due to lower levels of risk factors (e.g., smoking) in PC patients versus comparators, clinical consideration of cancers at new organs as metastases rather than new primaries, or under-recording/under-reporting of NPCs among PC patients.