Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma for severe COVID-19 based on evidence in other severe respiratory viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. To support a guideline on COVID-19 management, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory viral infections.METHODS:In March 2020, we searched international and Chinese biomedical literature databases, clinical trial registries and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing patients receiving and not receiving convalescent plasma. We included patients with acute coronavirus, influenza and Ebola virus infections. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.RESULTS:Of 1099 unique records, 6 studies were eligible, and none of these included patients with COVID-19. One nonrandomized study (n = 40) on convalescent plasma in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) provided uninformative results regarding mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.01 to 1.70). Pooled estimates from 4 RCTs on influenza (n = 572) showed no convincing effects on deaths (4 RCTs, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81), complete recovery (2 RCTs, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.64) or length of stay (3 RCTs, mean difference −1.62, 95% CI −3.82 to 0.58, d). The quality of evidence was very low for all efficacy outcomes. Convalescent plasma caused few or no serious adverse events in influenza RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29, low-quality evidence).INTERPRETATION:Studies of non-COVID-19 severe respiratory viral infections provide indirect, very low-quality evidence that raises the possibility that convalescent plasma has minimal or no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and low-quality evidence that it does not cause serious adverse events.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been diagnosed in nearly 3 million individuals around the globe, of whom around 0.2 million have died.¹ Many patients with COVID-19 develop severe acute respiratory illness requiring admission to intensive care units (ICU) and often mechanical ventilation.² The case fatality rate in COVID-19 may be as high as 2.3% overall² and from 10% to 40% among severely affected individuals. ^3,4 There is an urgent need for effective therapies.Emerging epidemiologic and clinical data show both similarities and differences between severe COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).⁵ Similarly, treatment strategies for severe influenza infections tested during the H1N1 pandemic and H5N1 and H7N9 outbreaks could inform the care of patients with severe COVID-19.⁶Of the treatment options proposed for COVID-19,⁷ convalescent plasma has evidence suggesting a mortality benefit for Ebola virus infection.⁸ This intervention has also been tested in other severe acute viral respiratory infections.^6,9,10 “Convalescent plasma” refers to plasma obtained from individuals recently recovered from a viral illness, which is expected to contain the highest levels of polyclonal antibodies directed against the virus.¹¹ Similarly, “hyperimmune plasma” is collected from donors exhibiting high titres of neutralizing antibodies, independent of time elapsed since viral illness. Authors have used the terms interchangeably, and because viral neutralization is only one of the postulated mechanisms by which antibodies exert their antiviral effect, the importance of the distinction between the 2 products remains unclear (Figure 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1:Potential mechanisms of action of anti–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This figure illustrates the normal entry of SARS-CoV-2 in a host cell, in which membrane fusion is mediated by the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (red) and the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor (green) on the host cell, either through the cytoplasmic or endosomal route. Antibodies directed against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein can interfere with its interaction with the ACE2 receptor and prevent viral entry in the host cell (panel A). Antibodies directed against epitopes outside the RBD can also exert antiviral functions through other mechanisms (panels B, C and D). The relative importance of these various functions in rescuing patients from an active SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. Importantly, neutralization assays generally used to qualify hyperimmune products measure only 1 of the 4 mechanisms depicted here and do not necessarily correlate with the others.Clinicians have typically administered convalescent plasma to patients with viral infections whose condition deteriorated despite supportive care.⁶ Although the primary postulated mechanism of action of convalescent plasma is reduction in viremia (passive immunity),¹² an increase in host immune response (active immunity) has also been proposed.¹³ We describe in Figure 1 the possible mechanisms by which convalescent plasma inhibits severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Systematic summaries of the available evidence regarding safety and effectiveness can inform the use of convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. We therefore conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence for convalescent plasma to support a guideline on COVID-19 management.¹⁴ Because we anticipated a paucity of direct evidence addressing the use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19, we summarized the available evidence addressing convalescent plasma in the treatment of SARS, MERS and influenza, including H1N1, H7N9 and H5N1, as well as addressing possible adverse effects in patients with Ebola disease.     

Temporal estimates of case-fatality rate for COVID-19 outbreaks in Canada and the United States

BACKGROUND:Estimates of the case-fatality rate (CFR) associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary widely in different population settings. We sought to estimate and compare the COVID-19 CFR in Canada and the United States while adjusting for 2 potential biases in crude CFR.METHODS:We used the daily incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in Canada and the US from Jan. 31 to Apr. 22, 2020. We applied a statistical method to minimize bias in the crude CFR by accounting for the survival interval as the lag time between disease onset and death, while considering reporting rates of COVID-19 cases less than 50% (95% confidence interval 10%–50%).RESULTS:Using data for confirmed cases in Canada, we estimated the crude CFR to be 4.9% on Apr. 22, 2020, and the adjusted CFR to be 5.5% (credible interval [CrI] 4.9%–6.4%). After we accounted for various reporting rates less than 50%, the adjusted CFR was estimated at 1.6% (CrI 0.7%–3.1%). The US crude CFR was estimated to be 5.4% on Apr. 20, 2020, with an adjusted CFR of 6.1% (CrI 5.4%–6.9%). With reporting rates of less than 50%, the adjusted CFR for the US was 1.78 (CrI 0.8%–3.6%).INTERPRETATION:Our estimates suggest that, if the reporting rate is less than 50%, the adjusted CFR of COVID-19 in Canada is likely to be less than 2%. The CFR estimates for the US were higher than those for Canada, but the adjusted CFR still remained below 2%. Quantification of case reporting can provide a more accurate measure of the virulence and disease burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

The risk of death associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is fundamental to the disease burden imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Quantification of this risk can provide critical information on the health and socioeconomic impact of the pandemic and identify population subgroups at highest risk for severe outcomes. The risk of death from a diagnosed infection, often referred to as the case-fatality rate (CFR), is the proportion of people who die from a disease among all those diagnosed with the disease over a certain period.Estimates of the COVID-19 CFR vary in different populations and at different stages of the outbreak, ranging from 0.4% in China¹ to 31.4% in the northwest region of Italy.² From individual-level data for patients in Hubei Province, Mainland China,³ an adjusted CFR of 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6%–3.8%) was estimated. For the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, the age-adjusted CFR was estimated at 2.6% (95% CI 0.9%–6.7%) in all age groups but was substantially higher (13.0%, 95% CI 5.2%–26.0%) among those aged 70 years or older.⁴For ongoing outbreaks and especially during the exponential growth phase, the delay between onset of disease and knowledge of the final outcome may result in biased estimates of the CFR.⁵ Furthermore, underestimation of the number of COVID-19 cases will inflate the CFR. Limited ability to test or recognize mildly or moderately symptomatic people in both the United States and Canada has likely led to substantial underestimation of the rate of infection in affected communities.^6,7Given the importance of the CFR in public health planning, we sought to estimate the CFR for ongoing COVID-19 outbreaks in the US and Canada while accounting for preferential ascertainment of severe cases (leading to underestimation) and the lag time between disease onset and death.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A population-based analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on common abdominal and gynecological emergency department visits

BACKGROUND:Reduced use of the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic may result in increased disease acuity when patients do seek health care services. We sought to evaluate emergency department visits for common abdominal and gynecologic conditions before and at the beginning of the pandemic to determine whether changes in emergency department attendance had serious consequences for patients.METHODS:We conducted a population-based analysis using administrative data to evaluate the weekly rate of emergency department visits pre-COVID-19 (Jan. 1–Mar. 10, 2020) and during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar. 11–June 30, 2020), compared with a historical control period (Jan. 1–July 1, 2019). All residents of Ontario, Canada, presenting to the emergency department with appendicitis, cholecystitis, ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage were included. We evaluated weekly incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of emergency department visits, management strategies and clinical outcomes.RESULTS:Across all study periods, 39 691 emergency department visits met inclusion criteria (40.2 % appendicitis, 32.1% miscarriage, 21.3% cholecystitis, 6.4% ectopic pregnancy). Baseline characteristics of patients presenting to the emergency department did not vary across study periods. After an initial reduction in emergency department visits, presentations for cholecystitis and ectopic pregnancy quickly returned to expected levels. However, presentations for appendicitis and miscarriage showed sustained reductions (IRR 0.61–0.80), with 1087 and 984 fewer visits, respectively, after the start of the pandemic, relative to 2019. Management strategies, complications and mortality rates were similar across study periods for all conditions.INTERPRETATION:Although our study showed evidence of emergency department avoidance in Ontario during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, no adverse consequences were evident. Emergency care and outcomes for patients were similar before and during the pandemic.

Avoidance of the emergency department for conditions that may require urgent surgery has been a global concern during the COVID-19 pandemic, and could result in higher case severity and morbidity.^1–3 Resource constraints and provider concerns around the safety of surgery^4–6 may influence rates of nonoperative management for abdominal and gynecological emergencies,⁷ even when existing nonoperative options are not optimal. Limited data suggest that patients with appendicitis and cholecystitis, the 2 most common abdominal emergencies that routinely require operative management,^8,9 may be more likely to avoid the hospital,¹⁰ present with more severe illness^9,10 and be managed nonoperatively during the pandemic, with uncertain consequences for patient outcomes.^10–13 Similarly, the management of early pregnancy complications (i.e., miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy) may be medical or surgical, depending on patient preference and pregnancy characteristics (e.g., stability, gestational age).¹⁴ Up to 80% of women experiencing miscarriage routinely access emergency services; however, there are concerns that women requiring emergency care for miscarriages are avoiding the emergency department.¹⁵ Reduced access to emergency care for early pregnancy complications may result in more adverse outcomes; a study in Italy found an increased rate of ruptured ectopic pregnancy in the early months of the pandemic.¹⁶We sought to characterize the impact of COVID-19 on emergency department visits for and management of appendicitis, cholecystitis, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy. We aimed to determine if there was a difference in the rate of patients presenting to the emergency department before and during the pandemic, whether a reduction in emergency department visits for these conditions resulted in adverse patient outcomes and whether the proportion of patients undergoing operative management differed before and during the pandemic.     

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

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

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

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     

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.     

Preoperative levels of natriuretic peptides and the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation after noncardiac surgery: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND:Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is associated with clinically significant short- and long-term complications after noncardiac surgery. Our aim was to describe the incidence of clinically important POAF after noncardiac surgery and establish the prognostic value of N-terminal pro–brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in this context.METHODS:The Vascular events In noncardiac Surgery patIents cOhort evaluatioN (VISION) Study was a prospective cohort study involving patients aged 45 years and older who had inpatient noncardiac surgery that was performed between August 2007 and November 2013. We determined 30-day incidence of clinically important POAF (i.e., resulting in angina, congestive heart failure, symptomatic hypotension or requiring treatment) using logistic regression models to analyze the association between preoperative NT-proBNP and POAF.RESULTS:In 37 664 patients with no history of atrial fibrillation, we found that the incidence of POAF was 1.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9%–1.1%; 369 events); 3.2% (95% CI 2.3%–4.4%) in patients undergoing major thoracic surgery, 1.3% (95% CI 1.2%–1.5%) in patients undergoing major nonthoracic surgery and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1%–0.3%) in patients undergoing low-risk surgery. In a subgroup of 9789 patients with preoperative NT-proBNP measurements, the biomarker improved the prediction of POAF risk over conventional prognostic factors (likelihood ratio test p < 0.001; fraction of new information from NT-proBNP was 16%). Compared with a reference NT-proBNP measurement set at 100 ng/L, adjusted odds ratios for the occurrence of POAF were 1.31 (95% CI 1.15–1.49) at 200 ng/L, 2.07 (95% CI 1.27–3.36) at 1500 ng/L and 2.39 (95% CI 1.26–4.51) at 3000 ng/L.INTERPRETATION:We determined that the incidence of clinically important POAF after noncardiac surgery was 1.0%. We also found that preoperative NT-proBNP levels were associated with POAF independent of established prognostic factors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00512109","term_id":"NCT00512109"}}NCT00512109

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common arrhythmia that occurs after noncardiac surgery¹ and is associated with prolonged hospital stays and an increased risk of stroke and death,^2–8 both of which raise societal costs.⁹ The reported incidence of POAF ranges from 3.7% to 21.0% in patients undergoing thoracic surgery^3,10 and from less than 0.5% to 10.0% in patients undergoing noncardiac, nonthoracic surgery (Appendix 1, Supplementary Table 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.200840/tab-related-content).^6,11Brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is a neurohormone released by cardiomyocytes in response to volume and pressure overload.¹² This biomarker has an established role in the diagnosis and management of heart failure and in predicting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.¹³ Although natriuretic peptides have been shown to predict new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in the nonsurgical setting reliably,^14–18 their value in predicting POAF after noncardiac surgery is unclear.^19–21The Vascular events In non-cardiac Surgery patIents cOhort evaluatioN (VISION) Study was a prospective international cohort study involving a representative sample of adults who underwent noncardiac surgery that required an overnight hospital stay. One of the predefined objectives in VISION was to determine the incidence of new-onset, clinically important POAF. We aimed to describe the overall and surgery-specific incidence of POAF after noncardiac surgery and to investigate the association between preoperative N-terminal pro–brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and POAF. We hypothesized that measurement of NT-proBNP would improve POAF risk prediction beyond conventional prognostic factors.     

Prepregnancy renal function and risk of preterm birth and related outcomes

BACKGROUND:Prepregnancy kidney dysfunction has been associated with preterm birth, which is the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality; however, the relation is not well understood. We determined the risk of preterm birth in women with prepregnancy kidney dysfunction, defined using pregnancy-specific serum creatinine cut points.METHODS:This population-based cohort study in the province of Ontario, Canada, involved women aged 16 to 50 years who had a singleton birth between 2006 and 2016 and measurement of serum creatinine within 10 weeks preceding their estimated conception date. The exposure was abnormally elevated prepregnancy serum creatinine, defined as greater than the 95th percentile (> 77 μmol/L), a value derived from a population-based sample of women without known kidney disease who became pregnant soon after the measurement was obtained. The main outcome was any preterm birth from 23 to 36 weeks’ gestation. Secondary outcomes included provider-initiated preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation and spontaneous preterm birth before 37 weeks.RESULTS:Among 55 946 pregnancies, preterm birth before 37 weeks’ gestation occurred in 3956 women (7.1%). The risk of preterm birth before 37 weeks was higher among women with prepregnancy creatinine above the 95th percentile, relative to those with prepregnancy creatinine at or below the 95th percentile (9.1% v. 7.0%; adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 1.38). The effect was significant for provider-initiated preterm birth (adjusted RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52) but not for spontaneous preterm birth (adjusted RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37).INTERPRETATION:Given that prepregnancy kidney dysfunction conferred an increased risk of preterm birth, measurement of serum creatinine (a relatively inexpensive blood test) may form part of the assessment of risk for preterm birth among those planning pregnancy.

Prepregnancy kidney dysfunction may perturb the normal physiologic adaptations of pregnancy, predisposing a woman and her fetus to adversity, at least partly mediated by placental and endothelial dysfunction.¹ Complications such as preeclampsia² and poor fetal growth³ may necessitate provider-initiated preterm birth. Preterm birth of any form before 37 weeks’ gestation occurs in 6% to 11% of viable pregnancies and is the leading cause of infant death.⁴Prepregnancy kidney dysfunction has been associated with preterm birth.^5–7 Prior studies of the relation between prepregnancy kidney dysfunction and preterm birth were primarily case series and thus had inadequate statistical power to differentiate between the outcomes of spontaneous versus provider-initiated preterm birth. In addition, arbitrary cut points were used in these studies to define prepregnancy kidney dysfunction, and there was no accounting for important confounders.^5,8–14In an effort to overcome the aforementioned limitations, we completed a large cohort study in a setting where prenatal and obstetric care is covered under a provincial health insurance plan. Using population-derived cut points for prepregnancy serum creatinine to define kidney dysfunction, we examined the risk of preterm birth and other related outcomes.     

Physician choices in pulmonary embolism testing

BACKGROUND:Evidence-based guidelines advise excluding pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using d-dimer in patients with a lower probability of PE. Emergency physicians frequently order computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography without d-dimer testing or when d-dimer is negative, which exposes patients to more risk than benefit. Our objective was to develop a conceptual framework explaining emergency physicians’ test choices for PE.METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews of emergency physicians in Canada. A nonmedical researcher conducted in-person interviews. Participants described how they would test simulated patients with symptoms of possible PE, answered a knowledge test and were interviewed on barriers to using evidence-based PE tests.RESULTS:We interviewed 63 emergency physicians from 9 hospitals in 5 cities, across 3 provinces. We identified 8 domains: anxiety with PE, barriers to using the evidence (time, knowledge and patient), divergent views on evidence-based PE testing, inherent Wells score problems, the drive to obtain CT rather than to diagnose PE, gestalt estimation artificially inflating PE probability, subjective reasoning and cognitive biases supporting deviation from evidence-based tests and use of evidence-based testing to rule out PE in patients who are very unlikely to have PE. Choices for PE testing were influenced by the disease, environment, test qualities, physician and probability of PE.INTERPRETATION:Analysis of structured interviews with emergency physicians provided a conceptual framework to explain how these physicians use tests for suspected PE. The data suggest 8 domains to address when implementing an evidence-based protocol to investigate PE.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) occurs when a blood clot lodges in the pulmonary arteries. If left untreated, the disorder can progress, causing worsening morbidity and may become fatal.¹ Because of the acute nature of this condition, many patients with PE present to the emergency department.Diagnosing and excluding PE using computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) alone can be problematic because of radiation exposure, anaphylaxis to contrast, misdiagnosis and “overdiagnosis” of inconsequential PE² (leading to unnecessary anticoagulation therapy and psychological distress³). Choosing Wisely^4,5 and the guideline from the American College of Physicians⁶ recommend the use of risk stratification tools, including the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) clinical decision rule,⁷ the Wells score⁸ and blood concentration of d-dimer. These tools use different predetermined diagnostic algorithms to indicate the need for CTPA.^8–11 Evidence-based guidelines discourage further testing in patients at lower risk who have normal d-dimer levels, where imaging can cause more harm than benefit.^12,13 However, many emergency physicians opt for CTPA as a stand-alone test for PE.^14–17It remains unclear why emergency physicians sometimes do not use validated diagnostic PE tools. Furthermore, implementation of computerized decision support systems has had little success in modifying this behaviour.^18,19 We sought to develop a conceptual framework to describe how Canadian emergency physicians test for PE, and to document the cognitive and contextual barriers to using existing evidence-based diagnostic PE pathways.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagnosis-wide analysis of COVID-19 complications: an exposure-crossover study

BACKGROUND:Many studies reporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complications have involved case series or small cohorts that could not establish a causal association with COVID-19 or provide risk estimates in different care settings. We sought to study all possible complications of COVID-19 to confirm previously reported complications and to identify potential complications not yet known.METHODS:Using United States health claims data, we compared the frequency of all International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes occurring before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in an exposure-crossover design. We included patients who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Mar. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2020, and computed risk estimates and odds ratios (ORs) of association with COVID-19 for every ICD-10-CM diagnosis code.RESULTS:Among 70 288 patients with COVID-19, 69 of 1724 analyzed ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes were significantly associated with COVID-19. Disorders showing both strong association with COVID-19 and high absolute risk included viral pneumonia (OR 177.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 147.19–214.37, absolute risk 27.6%), respiratory failure (OR 11.36, 95% CI 10.74–12.02, absolute risk 22.6%), acute kidney failure (OR 3.50, 95% CI 3.34–3.68, absolute risk 11.8%) and sepsis (OR 4.23, 95% CI 4.01–4.46, absolute risk 10.4%). Disorders showing strong associations with COVID-19 but low absolute risk included myocarditis (OR 8.17, 95% CI 3.58–18.62, absolute risk 0.1%), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR 11.83, 95% CI 5.26–26.62, absolute risk 0.1%) and pneumothorax (OR 3.38, 95% CI 2.68–4.26, absolute risk 0.4%).INTERPRETATION:We confirmed and provided risk estimates for numerous complications of COVID-19. These results may guide prognosis, treatment decisions and patient counselling.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel strain of coronavirus that has been identified as the cause of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As of Nov. 20, 2020, more than 50 million people have received a diagnosis of COVID-19 globally.¹ The clinical spectrum of disease is wide and can range from symptoms typical of the common cold to respiratory failure and death.² Most patients have mild symptoms and can be managed as outpatients, but as many as 20% have a severe form of the disease requiring admission to hospital, commonly presenting with hypoxia secondary to pneumonia.³Studies also show that COVID-19 is associated with a wide variety of nonrespiratory sequelae, including endothelial, thrombotic, cardiac, inflammatory, neurologic and other complications. ^4–9 Whether these associations are causal is not well established, as many of these findings originate from case reports, which are prone to publication bias and cannot provide risk estimates, or from cohort studies that often do not provide relative risk estimates.An alternative strategy for identifying potential complications of COVID-19 is studying all possible complications as captured in International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10 CM) diagnosis codes, which allows for the discovery of unreported complications and can confirm previously identified ones. The objective of our study was to analyze all diagnoses associated with COVID-19, to identify those that could be complications of the disease and to present both the absolute risk and relative odds of any complications identified.