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     

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.     

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.     

Diversity among health care leaders in Canada: a cross-sectional study of perceived gender and race

Background:Diverse health care leadership teams may improve health care experiences and outcomes for patients. We sought to explore the race and gender of hospital and health ministry executives in Canada and compare their diversity with that of the populations they serve.Methods:This cross-sectional study included leaders of Canada’s largest hospitals and all provincial and territorial health ministries. We included individuals listed on institutional websites as part of the leadership team if a name and photo were available. Six reviewers coded and analyzed the perceived race and gender of leaders, in duplicate. We compared the proportion of racialized health care leaders with the race demographics of the general population from the 2016 Canadian Census.Results:We included 3056 leaders from 135 institutions, with reviewer concordance on gender for 3022 leaders and on race for 2946 leaders. Reviewers perceived 37 (47.4%) of 78 health ministry leaders as women, and fewer than 5 (< 7%) of 80 as racialized. In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, provinces with a centralized hospital executive team, reviewers coded 36 (50.0%) of 72 leaders as women and 5 (7.1%) of 70 as racialized. In British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, provinces with hospital leadership by region, reviewers perceived 120 (56.1%) of 214 leaders as women and 24 (11.5%) of 209 as racialized. In Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, where leadership teams exist at each hospital, reviewers perceived 1326 (49.9%) of 2658 leaders as women and 243 (9.2%) of 2633 as racialized. We calculated the representation gap between racialized executives and the racialized population as 14.5% for British Columbia, 27.5% for Manitoba, 20.7% for Ontario, 12.4% for Quebec, 7.6% for New Brunswick, 7.3% for Prince Edward Island and 11.6% for Newfoundland and Labrador.Interpretation:In a study of more than 3000 health care leaders in Canada, gender parity was present, but racialized executives were substantially under-represented. This work should prompt health care institutions to increase racial diversity in leadership.

Race and gender-based disparities in health care leadership^1–4 may negatively affect the health of marginalized patients.^5,6 Diverse leadership is an integral step in establishing equitable health care institutions that serve the needs of all community members.⁷ Many barriers prevent racialized people, women and gender nonbinary individuals from attaining leadership positions, including reduced access to networking opportunities, ^8–10 discrimination from patients and colleagues^2,11–13 and an institutional culture that views white, male leaders as most effective. ^14,15 The intersectional effects of discrimination may intensify these barriers for racialized women and nonbinary people.^16,17 Fundamentally, diversity and inclusion in our institutions is important on the basis of basic human rights for all people.¹⁸Health care leadership in Europe and the United States is thought to lack gender and racial diversity.^19–22 The degree to which these imbalances exist across Canadian health care institutions is not clear. Despite past evidence that men hold a disproportionate number of health care leadership positions in Canada,^23,24 a recent study noted gender parity among leaders of provincial and territorial ministries of health.²⁵ Among university faculty^26,27 and administration, ²⁸ racialized individuals appear to be under-represented, suggesting that a similar trend may exist in health care leadership.Race and gender can be studied in many ways.²⁹ Perceived race is a measure of “the race that others believe you to be,” and these assessments “influence how people are treated and form the basis of racial discrimination including nondeliberate actions that nonetheless lead to socioeconomic inequities.”²⁹ Similarly, perceived gender refers to an observer’s assumptions about a person’s gender, which can lead to differential and unfair treatment. ³⁰ Assessing perceived race and gender provides crucial insights into the ways in which social inequalities are informed and produced.²⁹ In this study, we sought to identify the perceived race and gender of hospital executive leaders in Canada and of nonelected leaders of the provincial and territorial health ministries. Furthermore, we wanted to analyze how the perceived racial composition of health care leadership compares with the racial composition of the population in the geographic areas that these leaders serve.     

Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission

Background:The speed of vaccine development has been a singular achievement during the COVID-19 pandemic, although uptake has not been universal. Vaccine opponents often frame their opposition in terms of the rights of the unvaccinated. We sought to explore the impact of mixing of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated people.Methods:We constructed a simple susceptible–infectious–recovered compartmental model of a respiratory infectious disease with 2 connected subpopulations: people who were vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated. We simulated a spectrum of patterns of mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups that ranged from random mixing to complete like-with-like mixing (complete assortativity), in which people have contact exclusively with others with the same vaccination status. We evaluated the dynamics of an epidemic within each subgroup and in the population as a whole.Results:We found that the risk of infection was markedly higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people under all mixing assumptions. The contact-adjusted contribution of unvaccinated people to infection risk was disproportionate, with unvaccinated people contributing to infections among those who were vaccinated at a rate higher than would have been expected based on contact numbers alone. We found that as like-with-like mixing increased, attack rates among vaccinated people decreased from 15% to 10% (and increased from 62% to 79% among unvaccinated people), but the contact-adjusted contribution to risk among vaccinated people derived from contact with unvaccinated people increased.Interpretation:Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to people who are unvaccinated, their choices affect risk of viral infection among those who are vaccinated in a manner that is disproportionate to the portion of unvaccinated people in the population.

The remarkable speed of vaccine development, production and administration during the COVID-19 pandemic is a singular human achievement.¹ While the ability to vaccinate to herd immunity has been held back by the increasing transmissibility of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (e.g., Delta and Omicron variants),^2,3 and global distribution of vaccines is inequitable,⁴ the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in reducing severity of disease and disrupting onward transmission even when breakthrough infections occur is likely to have saved many lives. The emergence of the immune-evasive Omicron variant may undermine some of these gains, although provision of booster vaccine doses may restore vaccination to a high level of potency, and vaccines developed specifically to enhance immunity to the Omicron variant may emerge in 2022.^3,5–7However, antivaccine sentiment, fuelled in part by organized disinformation efforts, has resulted in suboptimal uptake of readily available vaccines in many countries, with adverse health and economic consequences.^8–10 Although the decision not to receive vaccination is often framed in terms of the rights of individuals to opt out,^11,12 such arguments neglect the potential harms to the wider community that derive from poor vaccine uptake. Nonvaccination is expected to result in amplification of disease transmission in unvaccinated subpopulations, but the communicable nature of infectious diseases means that this also heightens risk for vaccinated populations, when vaccines confer imperfect immunity. Although assortative (like-with-like) mixing¹³ is characteristic of many communicable disease systems and may be expected to limit interaction between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations to some degree, the normal functioning of society means that complete like-with-like mixing is not observed in reality. Furthermore, the airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2^14–20 means that close-range physical mixing of people from vaccinated and unvaccinated groups is not necessary for between-group disease transmission.Historically, behaviours that create health risks for the community as well as individuals have been the subject of public health regulation. This is true of communicable infectious diseases but also applies to public health statutes that limit indoor cigarette smoking²¹ and legal restrictions on driving under the influence of alcohol and other intoxicants.^22,23Simple mathematical models can often provide important insights into the behaviour of complex communicable diseases systems.^13,24,25 To better understand the implications of the interplay between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations under different assumptions about population mixing, we constructed a simple susceptible–infectious–recovered model to reproduce the dynamics of interactions between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations in a predominantly vaccinated population. We sought to contrast contribution to epidemic size and risk estimates by subpopulation, and to understand the impact of mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups on expected disease dynamics.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Illuminating and mitigating the evolving impacts of COVID-19 on ethnocultural communities: a participatory action mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated disparities in poverty and illness for people in vulnerable circumstances in ethnocultural communities. We sought to understand the evolving impacts of COVID-19 on ethnocultural communities to inform intersectoral advocacy and community action.METHODS:The Illuminate Project used participatory action research, with cultural health brokers as peer researchers, from Sept. 21 to Dec. 31, 2020, in Edmonton, Alberta. Twenty-one peer researchers collected narratives from members of ethnocultural communities and self-interpreted them as they entered the narratives into the SenseMaker platform, a mixed-method data collection tool. The entire research team analyzed real-time, aggregate, quantitative and qualitative data to identify emerging thematic domains, then visualized these domains with social network analysis.RESULTS:Brokers serving diverse communities collected 773 narratives. Identified domains illuminate the evolving and entangled impacts of COVID-19 including the following: COVID-19 prevention and management; care of acute, chronic and serious illnesses other than COVID-19; maternal care; mental health and triggers of past trauma; financial insecurity; impact on children and youth and seniors; and legal concerns. We identified that community social capital and cultural brokering are key assets that facilitate access to formal health and social system supports.INTERPRETATION:The Illuminate Project has illustrated the entangled, systemic issues that result in poor health among vulnerable members of ethnocultural communities, and the exacerbating effects of COVID-19, which also increased barriers to mitigation. Cultural brokering and community social capital are key supports for people during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings can inform policy to reduce harm and support community resiliency.

Mahatma Gandhi observed that “the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” Ethnocultural communities, defined by their unique shared characteristics (e.g., cultural traditions, language, country of origin),¹ face greater challenges and have higher rates of poverty and illness than the general Canadian population. Migration results in conditions that affect all social determinants of health and disproportionally affect health outcomes, herein referred to as vulnerable circumstances.^2,3 The emergence of major outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infections in ethnocultural communities highlights both the vulnerable circumstances of these communities and the disparities they face in accessing high-quality, culturally appropriate information and support.^4–7 Studies have shown substantial variation in deaths attributed to COVID-19 based on factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, length of time in Canada, income and education.^8–11 However, given the well-known gap in reporting comprehensive COVID-19 data in relation to race and ethnicity, efforts to measure its impact are hampered.^8–12 There is an urgent need to understand the evolving challenges of COVID-19 to inform action and public policy that can mitigate these challenges.To understand evolving situations of complexity and crisis, sensemaking, defined as “a continuous process to establish situational awareness,”¹³ is a crucial undertaking.¹⁴ Using participatory action research,^15–18 we sought to understand the evolving impacts of COVID-19 on ethnocultural communities to inform broader national efforts to migitate the impacts of COVID-19. Particularly, we sought to understand how the challenges of COVID-19 are entangled with contextual factors at multiple levels, how families and communities are leveraging strengths and social capital to adapt, and the role of cultural brokers in managing the crisis.     

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.     

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.     

Safety of withholding anticoagulation in pregnant women with suspected deep vein thrombosis following negative serial compression ultrasound and iliac vein imaging

Background:

Compression ultrasonography performed serially over a 7-day period is recommended for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic pregnant women, but whether this approach is safe is unknown. We evaluated the safety of withholding anticoagulation from pregnant women with suspected deep vein thrombosis following negative serial compression ultrasonography and iliac vein imaging.

Methods:

Consecutive pregnant women who presented with suspected deep vein thrombosis underwent compression ultrasonography and Doppler imaging of the iliac vein of the symptomatic leg(s). Women whose initial test results were negative underwent serial testing on 2 occasions over the next 7 days. Women not diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis were followed for a minimum of 3 months for the development of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.

Results:

In total, 221 pregnant women presented with suspected deep vein thrombosis. Deep vein thrombosis was diagnosed in 16 (7.2%) women by initial compression ultrasonography and Doppler studies; none were identified as having deep vein thrombosis on serial testing. One patient with normal serial testing had a pulmonary embolism diagnosed 7 weeks later. The overall prevalence of deep vein thrombosis was 7.7% (17/221); of these, 65% (11/17) of cases were isolated to the iliofemoral veins and 12% (2/17) were isolated iliac deep vein thromboses. The incidence of venous thromboembolism during follow-up was 0.49% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09%–2.71%). The sensitivity of serial compression ultrasonography with Doppler imaging was 94.1% (95% CI 69.2%–99.7%), the negative predictive value was 99.5% (95% CI 96.9%–100%), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.068 (95% CI 0.01–0.39).

Interpretation:

Serial compression ultrasonography with Doppler imaging of the iliac vein performed over a 7-day period excludes deep-vein thrombosis in symptomatic pregnant women.Over the last 2 decades, venous compression ultrasonography has become the imaging test of choice for diagnosing deep vein thrombosis in the lower extremities of men and nonpregnant women.^1–4 Although this test is highly sensitive (about 97%) for deep vein thrombosis involving the femoral and popliteal veins, compression ultrasonography is less sensitive for the detection of isolated deep vein thrombosis in the calf.⁵ Because proximal propagation of isolated calf deep vein thrombosis occurs in about 20% of cases, serial compression ultrasonography performed over a 7-day period is recommended to definitely exclude such thromboses if the results of the initial compression ultrasound are negative.⁶The use of serial compression ultrasonography in symptomatic men and nonpregnant women has been validated in prospective studies,^1,7 suggesting that withholding anticoagulation from symptomatic patients whose serial compression ultrasound results are negative is safe, with less than 2% of patients subsequently being diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis.^1,7,8 Although the use of serial compression ultrasonography has not been validated in pregnant women, this strategy is also advocated for symptomatic pregnant women.⁹The appeal of using compression ultrasonography for diagnosing deep vein thrombosis in pregnant women is obvious: it is noninvasive, widely available and does not expose the fetus to ionizing radiation. However, generalizing results from studies involving men and nonpregnant women to pregnant women is problematic because of differences in clinical presentation and anatomic distribution of deep vein thromboses.¹⁰ Compared with men and nonpregnant women, pregnant women more often present with very proximal deep vein thrombosis (including isolated iliac vein deep vein thrombosis); isolated distal calf deep vein thromboses are infrequent.¹⁰ In a recent review of the literature, we found that 62% of all deep vein thromboses in symptomatic pregnant women were in the iliofemoral veins, 17% were in the iliac vein alone, and 6% were in the calf veins.¹⁰ In contrast, in the general population, more than 80% of deep vein thromboses involved calf veins, and iliofemoral deep vein thromboses or isolated iliac veins are uncommon (< 5%).^1–4Physiologic changes associated with pregnancy might affect blood flow patterns and normal compressibility of the proximal veins, thereby affecting the diagnostic accuracy of compression ultrasonograpy. This technique cannot be used to detect isolated deep vein thromboses in the iliac vein; these veins are not compressible because of their intrapelvic location. Whether Doppler studies are sensitive for detecting deep vein thromboses in these high proximal veins (i.e., iliac veins) has not been well studied, but data suggest that this method of detection compares favourably to compression ultrasonography in men and nonpregnant women for proximal deep vein thromboses.¹¹ The use of Doppler imaging in pregnant women for the purpose of detecting iliac vein deep vein thromboses has been reported in the literature,^12,13 but it has not been adequately evaluated.Currently, the standard practice of diagnosing deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic pregnant women is by compression ultrasonography. If the results of the compression ultrasound are negative, Doppler imaging of the iliac vein (with or without vagal manoeuvres) is recommended, particularly for women with a high clinical probability of deep vein thrombosis in the iliac vein.^9,12,13 This diagnostic approach is advocated despite the absence of any prospective studies validating its use. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of serial compression ultrasonography and Doppler imaging of the iliac veins over a 7-day period among symptomatic pregnant women.     

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial

Background:The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems.Methods:We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation.Results:Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups.Interpretation:Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT04330690","term_id":"NCT04330690"}}NCT04330690.

The role of remdesivir in treating patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined.¹ Remdesivir, a repurposed antiviral medication, has full or emergency approval from a number of regulators — including Health Canada — for the treatment of COVID-19, based on clinical trial data documenting a benefit on improving time to recovery.² An interim report of the larger World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trial showed no difference regarding mortality or need for mechanical ventilation, with a number of smaller trials being inconclusive on these important outcomes.^3–6 Recommendations of clinical guidelines are mixed, with some recommending remdesivir as standard of care, and others weakly recommending against.^7,8 Its impact on other clinical outcomes, including resource utilization and post–hospital stay outcomes, has not been fully defined, and there remains a possibility of an important treatment effect, particularly in certain groups of patients.⁹Solidarity is a global pragmatic clinical trial examining the effects of various therapeutics in patients with COVID-19.^3,10 Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) is a substudy of Solidarity, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), in which added data elements are collected to better understand the effects of specific agents. We aimed to estimate the effect of treatment with remdesivir compared with standard care, for patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada; global data, which include Canadian patients randomized before Jan. 29, 2021, will also be available in a separate publication.     

Preterm birth and stillbirth rates during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND:Conflicting reports have emerged for rates of preterm births and stillbirths during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of these reports did not account for natural variation in these rates. We aimed to evaluate variations in preterm birth and stillbirth rates before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked population health administrative databases of pregnant people giving birth in any hospital in Ontario between July 2002 and December 2020. We calculated preterm birth and stillbirth rates. We assessed preterm birth at 22–28, 29–32 and 33–36 weeks’ gestation, and stillbirths at term and preterm gestation. We used Laney control P′ charts for the 18-year study period (6-mo observation periods) and interrupted time-series analyses for monthly rates for the most recent 4 years.RESULTS:We evaluated 2 465 387 pregnancies, including 13 781 that resulted in stillbirth. The mean preterm birth rate for our cohort was 7.96% (range 7.32%–8.59%). From January to December 2020, we determined that the preterm birth rate in Ontario was 7.87%, with no special cause variation. The mean stillbirth rate for the cohort was 0.56% (range 0.48%–0.70%). From January to December 2020, the stillbirth rate was 0.53%, with no special cause variation. We did not find any special cause variation for preterm birth or stillbirth subgroups. We found no changes in slope or gap between prepandemic and pandemic periods using interrupted time-series analyses.INTERPRETATION:In Ontario, Canada, we found no special cause variation (unusual change) in preterm birth or stillbirth rates, overall or by subgroups, during the first 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the previous 17.5 years.

Preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks’ gestation) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidities in the neonatal period,¹ childhood and adulthood.² Stillbirth has devastating consequences for families.³ The causes of both preterm birth and stillbirth are multifactorial. During the pandemic, reports described reductions in preterm birth rates in Denmark,⁴ the Netherlands,⁵ Ireland⁶ and the United States.⁷ At the same time, increases in stillbirth rates were reported from the United Kingdom,⁸ Italy,⁹ Nepal¹⁰ and India,¹¹ with or without changes in rates of preterm births. Meta-analyses have emerged with differing conclusions.^12,13 Some speculated reasons for reductions in preterm births included reductions in physical activity during pregnancy, reduced stress related to work–life balance, less exposure to infection, fewer medical interventions, reduced travel and pollution,¹⁴ and improved hygiene and rest. Proposed reasons for increases in preterm birth rates include higher stress due to worry about the pandemic, employment or financial challenges, home schooling and reduced maternity services.¹⁵ Less stringent fetal surveillance from reduced attendance at medical appointments for fear of infection, cancellation of face-to-face appointments and reduced staffing for maternity services are possible reasons for increased rates of stillbirths. Thus, it is important to evaluate preterm births and stillbirths simultaneously to understand the true impact.¹⁶Some previous reports compared preterm birth and stillbirth rates during the pandemic to similar time periods in the past few years. However, within a jurisdiction, these rates are known to fluctuate between epochs¹⁷ and, thus, it is preferable to evaluate rates over longer periods to establish whether observed variations are usual (common cause variation) or unusual (special cause variation). Our objective was to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected preterm birth or stillbirth rates in Ontario by comparing rates for the early COVID-19 pandemic time period with rates from the previous 17.5 years to identify patterns of variation.     

Characteristics of children admitted to hospital with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canada in 2020

Background:Risk factors for severe outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection are not well established in children. We sought to describe pediatric hospital admissions associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canada and identify risk factors for more severe disease.Methods:We conducted a national prospective study using the infrastructure of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP). Cases involving children who were admitted to hospital with microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported from Apr. 8 to Dec. 31 2020, through weekly online questionnaires distributed to the CPSP network of more than 2800 pediatricians. We categorized hospital admissions as related to COVID-19, incidental, or for social or infection control reasons and determined risk factors for disease severity in hospital.Results:Among 264 hospital admissions involving children with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 9-month study period, 150 (56.8%) admissions were related to COVID-19 and 100 (37.9%) were incidental infections (admissions for other reasons and found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on screening). Infants (37.3%) and adolescents (29.6%) represented most cases. Among hospital admissions related to COVID-19, 52 (34.7%) had critical disease, 42 (28.0%) of whom required any form of respiratory or hemodynamic support, and 59 (39.3%) had at least 1 underlying comorbidity. Children with obesity, chronic neurologic conditions or chronic lung disease other than asthma were more likely to have severe or critical COVID-19.Interpretation:Among children who were admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canada during the early COVID-19 pandemic period, incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection was common. In children admitted with acute COVID-19, obesity and neurologic and respiratory comorbidities were associated with more severe disease.

As of Dec. 31, 2020, Canada had 581 427 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection.¹ Similar to other countries, most confirmed infections were in adults, in part because of initial testing policies that targeted older and at-risk populations, as well as prolonged societal containment measures to minimize children’s risk of exposure. Although fewer SARS-CoV-2 infections in children were reported relative to adults during Canada’s first waves of the pandemic,² recent surges in pediatric cases across North America have challenged the notion that children are infected at a lower frequency than adults.^3,4 However, the severity of infection in children appears to be substantially lower, with fewer overall hospital admissions reported and substantially lower mortality compared with adults.^5,6Although risk factors for more severe outcomes of COVID-19 have been well described in adults,⁷ similar risks are less well described in children.⁸ Experience with other viral respiratory infections, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, has shown that patient-level factors can increase risk for severe disease in children.^9,10 Understanding populations at risk for severe disease is essential for developing evidence-informed testing strategies, recommendations around reducing exposure (including guidance informing in-person schooling) and potential prioritization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in children.To date, few published data have characterized admissions to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection among children in Canada. We sought to describe pediatric hospital admissions associated with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canada and identify risk factors for severe disease among children admitted to hospital.     

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in health care workers from 10 hospitals in Quebec,Canada: a cross-sectional study

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. We sought to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital health care workers in Quebec, Canada, after the first wave of the pandemic and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.Methods:Between July 6 and Sept. 24, 2020, we enrolled health care workers from 10 hospitals, including 8 from a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 (the Montréal area) and 2 from low-incidence regions of Quebec. Eligible health care workers were physicians, nurses, orderlies and cleaning staff working in 4 types of care units (emergency department, intensive care unit, COVID-19 inpatient unit and non-COVID-19 inpatient unit). Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. We identified factors independently associated with higher seroprevalence.Results:Among 2056 enrolled health care workers, 241 (11.7%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. Of these, 171 (71.0%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Seroprevalence varied among hospitals, from 2.4% to 3.7% in low-incidence regions to 17.9% to 32.0% in hospitals with outbreaks involving 5 or more health care workers. Higher seroprevalence was associated with working in a hospital where outbreaks occurred (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63–6.57), being a nurse or nursing assistant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03–1.74) or an orderly (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12–1.97), and Black or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13–1.76). Lower seroprevalence was associated with working in the intensive care unit (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.71) or the emergency department (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.98).Interpretation:Health care workers in Quebec hospitals were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in outbreak settings. More work is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in health care settings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. In France, Spain, Italy, Germany and the United States, at least 10% of cases reported in spring 2020 were in health care workers.¹ In Quebec, 25% (14 177 of 56 565) of all cases declared during the first wave of the pandemic, from March to July 2020, were in health care workers,² about one-third of whom were working in acute care hospitals.¹ The Montréal area was the most affected region in Quebec and Canada during the first wave, reaching a COVID-19 incidence rate of 1336 per 100 000 population.²The number of COVID-19 cases reported among health care workers underestimated the number of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 during that period, given limited testing leading to undiagnosed asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic infections.³ Seroprevalence studies are an important tool to determine the proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2, both in the general population and among health care workers.⁴ After the first wave in Quebec, SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in adults aged 18–69 years was found to be low (3.1% in Montréal and 1.3% in less affected regions), but this proportion could be much higher among health care workers who had to work despite the general shutdown of social and economic activities, especially if they were exposed to major outbreaks.⁵Only 2 other Canadian studies provide SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates among health care workers, and both studies were from a single centre.^6,7 Outside Canada, most seroprevalence studies among health care workers include a single site and do not provide a representative estimate for a defined region.⁸ Several studies have reported a higher seroprevalence among health care workers from units treating patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 units) compared with other units (non–COVID-19 units), emergency departments or intensive care units.^9,10 Other studies have not identified such associations.^11,12 In this study, we aimed to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody among hospital health care workers from a variety of settings after the first pandemic wave in Quebec, and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.     

A population-based profile of adult Canadians living with participation and activity limitations

Background:

Currently, one out of every seven Canadians is affected by limitations to their participation and activity. This study describes the self-reported main causes of these limitations in a national sample.

Methods:

The 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey was a two-phase stratified survey based on filter questions posed in the 2006 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada. Respondents to the survey represent 5 185 980 Canadian adults with activity and participation limitations. We used these data to develop a profile of our population of interest: adult Canadians with activity and participation limitations. Associations between demographic variables and self-reported causes of activity and participation limitations were assessed using multiple logistic regression.

Results:

One quarter of participants did not attribute their disability to any medical cause. The most prevalent medical conditions to which disabilities were attributed were musculoskeletal (46.1%), cardio/cerebrovascular (12.3%), mental health (8.4%), neurologic (6.0%), endocrine (6.0%) and respiratory (4.5%) conditions. Significant associations were noted between sociodemographic variables and participants’ attributions of medical conditions as cause of disability. Multiple logistic regression with bootstrapping showed that people who reported a medical cause for their limitation were more likely (p < 0.05) to be female, widowed, 40 years of age or older, born in Canada or white and were less likely (p < 0.05) to be in the highest income category or to be employed (i.e., to work more than 0 h/w).

Interpretation:

Most people living with activity and participation limitations report having a musculoskeletal disorder. However, a significant proportion of respondants did not attribute their limitations to a medical cause.Disabilities affect close to five million, or one in seven, Canadians.¹ Between 2001 and 2006, the number of Canadians living with a disability increased by 21.2%, rising from 12.4% to 14.3% of the population.¹ Given that the number of adults reporting a disability is expected to continue to rise sharply in the coming years as more people enter the highest-risk age group (≥ 65 yr), the concomitant need for additional and appropriate disability-related health services will exert greater pressure on health care systems.² Data on disabilities are increasingly used to monitor and evaluate public health as a reflection of the burden of health problems in relation to chronic diseases and aging³ and to identify the resources needed to ameliorate the impact of disabilities.⁴“Disablement” was coined by Verbrugge and Jette in 1994⁵ to refer to the impacts that chronic and acute conditions have on the functioning of specific body systems and on people’s abilities to act in necessary, usual, expected and personally desired ways in society. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) took a broader view, defining disability from a biopsychosocial perspective as the interaction between features of the person and features of the context in which he or she lives.⁴ Disability is conceptualized to involve dysfunction at the level of body functions or structures, limitations to activity or restrictions on participation. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health,⁴ is based on an integrated biopsychosocial model and incorporates the following elements under activities and participation: learning and applying knowledge; general tasks and demands; communication; mobility; self care; domestic life; interpersonal interactions and relationships; major life areas; and community, social and civic life. Statistics Canada^5,6 views disability as an activity limitation or participation restriction associated with long-term physical or mental conditions or health-related conditions. The Statistics Canada definition also incorporates all of the elements listed in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.⁶There have been substantial efforts to fight the automatic identification of disability with illness and to frame disability as a purely social construct.^6–8 However, many people have participation and activity limitations as a result of chronic illnesses. In addition, many people with participation and activity limitations not caused by illnesses have chronic health problems as a direct result of their restrictions.⁹ Whether a person attributes his or her disability to a medical diagnosis or to another cause has implications for that person’s adherence to treatment, self-management and care-seeking behaviours¹⁰.Using a validated national sample, this survey study describes the types of medical conditions reported by adult Canadians living with participation and activity limitations.