Abstract Introduction Workplaces requiring in-person attendance of employees for ongoing operations may be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks that impact workers as well as their close contacts. To understand industry sectors impacted by workplace outbreaks in the first wave of the pandemic, and the additional burden of illness through household transmission, we analyzed public health declared workplace outbreaks between January 21 to June 30, 2020, and their associated cases from January 21 to July 28. Methods Number, size and duration of outbreaks were described by sector, and outbreak cases were compared to sporadic cases in the same time frame. Address matching identified household cases with onset ≥2 days before, ≥2 days after, or within 1 day of the workplace outbreak case. Results There were 199 outbreaks with 1245 cases, and 68% of outbreaks and 80% of cases belonged to i) Manufacturing, ii) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, iii) Transportation and Warehousing. Median size of outbreaks was 3 cases (range: 1-140), and lasted median 7days (range: 0-119). Outbreak cases were significantly more likely to be male, younger, healthier, and have better outcomes. There were 608 household cases associated with 339 (31%) outbreak cases with valid addresses, increasing the burden of illness by 56%. The majority of household cases (368, 60%) occurred after the outbreak case. Conclusions Workplace outbreaks primarily occurred in three sectors. COVID-19 prevention measures should target industry sectors at risk by preventing introduction from exposed employees, spread in the workplace, and spread outside of the workplace. What is already known about this topic? COVID-19 outbreaks occur within workplaces and can spread to the community What is added by this report? From January 21 – June 30, 2020, there were 199 workplace outbreaks in Ontario, Canada; 68% of outbreaks and 80% of outbreak-associated COVID-19 case were in three industry sectors: Manufacturing, Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing/Hunting, and Transportation/Warehousing. Household transmission occurred among 31% of outbreak cases, resulting in a 56% increase in workplace outbreak-associated cases when burden of household transmission is considered. What are the implications for public health practice? Workplace outbreak prevention measures should be targeted to industry sectors at risk by preventing introduction from exposed employees, spread in the workplace, and transmission to the greater community.
Les interventions non pharmacologiques demeurent le principal moyen de maîtriser le coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2) d’ici à ce que la couverture vaccinale soit suffisante pour donner lieu à une immunité collective. Nous avons utilisé des données de mobilité anonymisées de téléphones intelligents afin de quantifier le niveau de mobilité requis pour maîtriser le SRAS-CoV-2 (c.-à-d., seuil de mobilité), et la différence par rapport au niveau de mobilité observé (c.-à-d., écart de mobilité).
MÉTHODES:
Nous avons procédé à une analyse de séries chronologiques sur l’incidence hebdomadaire du SRAS-CoV-2 au Canada entre le 15 mars 2020 et le 6 mars 2021. Le paramètre mesuré était le taux de croissance hebdomadaire, défini comme le rapport entre les cas d’une semaine donnée et ceux de la semaine précédente. Nous avons mesuré les effets du temps moyen passé hors domicile au cours des 3 semaines précédentes à l’aide d’un modèle de régression log-normal, en tenant compte de la province, de la semaine et de la température moyenne. Nous avons calculé le seuil de mobilité et l’écart de mobilité pour le SRAS-CoV-2.
RÉSULTATS:
Au cours des 51 semaines de l’étude, en tout, 888 751 personnes ont contracté le SRAS-CoV-2. Chaque augmentation de 10 % de l’écart de mobilité a été associée à une augmentation de 25 % du taux de croissance des cas hebdomadaires de SRAS-CoV-2 (rapport 1,25, intervalle de confiance à 95 % 1,20–1,29). Comparativement à la mobilité prépandémique de référence de 100 %, le seuil de mobilité a été plus élevé au cours de l’été (69 %, écart interquartile [EI] 67 %–70 %), et a chuté à 54 % pendant l’hiver 2021 (EI 52 %–55 %); un écart de mobilité a été observé au Canada entre juillet 2020 et la dernière semaine de décembre 2020.
INTERPRÉTATION:
La mobilité permet de prédire avec fiabilité et constance la croissance des cas hebdomadaires et il faut maintenir des niveaux faibles de mobilité pour maîtriser le SRAS-CoV-2 jusqu’à la fin du printemps 2021. Les données de mobilité anonymisées des téléphones intelligents peuvent servir à guider le relâchement ou le resserrement des mesures de distanciation physique provinciales et régionales.
Objective To examine the association between maternal mRNA covid-19 vaccination during the first trimester of pregnancy and the prevalence of major congenital anomalies in offspring. Design Population based cohort study with sibling matched analysis. Setting Multiple health administrative databases, linked and analysed at ICES, an independent, non-profit research institute that collects and analyses healthcare and demographic data, Ontario, Canada, from 16 October 2021 to 1 May 2023. Population 174 296 singleton live births >20 weeks' gestation with an expected birth date between 16 October 2021 and 1 May 2023: 34 181 (20%) born to mothers who received one or two doses of an mRNA covid-19 vaccine in the first trimester and 34 951 (20%) born to mothers who did not receive a vaccine before or during pregnancy. The sibling matched analysis included 13 312 infants exposed to a covid-19 vaccine in the first trimester and 15 089 matched older siblings with the same mother, with an expected birth date after 16 October 2016 and no reported in utero exposure to a covid-19 vaccine. Main outcome measures Major congenital anomalies, overall and grouped by specific organ systems, diagnosed within 28 days of birth. Results Major congenital anomalies were present in 832 (24.3 per 1000 live births) infants exposed to an mRNA covid-19 vaccine in the first trimester compared with 927 (26.5 per 1000 live births) infants not exposed to a vaccine, resulting in an adjusted prevalence ratio of 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.01). Major congenital anomalies were present in 283 (21.3 per 1000 live births) and 343 (22.7 per 1000 live births) infants exposed to an mRNA covid-19 vaccine in the first trimester and their older siblings not exposed to a vaccine, respectively (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07). First trimester vaccination was not associated with an increase in major congenital anomalies grouped by specific organ system in the primary or sibling matched analyses. Results were similar across a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions In this large population based cohort study and sibling matched analysis, mRNA covid-19 vaccination during the first trimester of pregnancy was not associated with an increase in major congenital anomalies in offspring, overall or grouped by organ system.
To estimate the marginal effectiveness of a fourth versus third dose and the vaccine effectiveness of mRNA covid-19 vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against any infection, symptomatic infection, and severe outcomes (hospital admission or death) related to the omicron variant.
Abstract BACKGROUND Within-household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been identified as one of the main sources of spread of COVID-19 after lockdown restrictions and self-isolation guidelines are implemented. Secondary attack rates among household contacts are estimated to be five to ten times higher than among non-household contacts, but it is unclear which individuals are more prone to transmit infection within their households. METHODS Using address matching, a cohort was assembled of all laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 residing in private households in Ontario, Canada. Descriptive analyses were performed to compare characteristics of cases in households that experienced secondary transmission versus those that did not. Logistic regression models were fit to determine index case characteristics and neighbourhood characteristics associated with transmission. FINDINGS Between January and July, 2020, there were 26,152 cases of COVID-19 residing in 21,226 households. Longer testing delays (≥5 days versus 0 days OR=3·02, 95% CI: 2·53 - 3·60) and male sex (OR=1·28, 95% CI: 1·18 - 1·38) were associated with greater odds of household secondary transmission, while being a healthcare worker (OR=0·56, 95% CI: 0·50 - 0·62) was associated with lower odds of transmission. Neighbourhoods with larger average economic family size and a higher proportion of households with multiple persons per room were also associated with greater odds of transmission. INTERPRETATION It is important for individuals to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection as soon as symptoms appear, and to isolate away from household contacts; this is particularly important in neighbourhoods with large family sizes and/or crowded households. FUNDING This study was supported by Public Health Ontario. Research in Context EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS STUDY We searched PubMed and Google Scholar up to September 3, 2020 to identify individual-level cohort studies or meta-analyses on household transmission of COVID-19. We used the search terms (“COVID” OR “SARS-CoV-2”) AND (“household” [Title]), and also reviewed the reference lists of any studies found during the search to identify additional studies. We considered studies that reported secondary attack rates and/or other measures of association (i.e., relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio) for household transmission. We did not consider any modelling studies, studies that focused specifically on children, or small case studies that included less than three households. The search returned 53 studies, of which 51 were included in three meta-analyses. Pooled household secondary attack rates from the three meta-analyses were 19%, 27%, and 30%; secondary attack rates in households were estimated to be five to ten times as high as in non-household settings. Most studies were conducted in Asia and identified households from contact tracing, with individual studies reporting on fewer than 6000 households. Most studies did not consider households with no secondary transmission, and focused on a limited set of secondary case characteristics. ADDED VALUE OF THIS STUDY We applied an address matching algorithm, which identified 21,226 private households of laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada. Ontario has the advantage of a universal healthcare system and population-wide data for the entire province. To our knowledge, this study contains the largest number of private households with at least one confirmed case of COVID-19. We compared a variety of individual- and neighbourhood-level characteristics of households with and without secondary transmission. We also applied logistic regression models to determine index case characteristics associated with transmission, which gave important insights into factors that may help reduce secondary transmission in households. IMPLICATIONS OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE Findings from this study and existing evidence suggest that testing delays and household crowding play important roles in whether household secondary transmission occurs. Odds of household transmission may be reduced by cases seeking testing as soon as symptoms appear, and self-isolating outside the home or in a room alone if possible. These strategies may be considered by public health officials to reduce household transmission and mitigate local spread of COVID-19. Future research should further investigate the role of children and youth in household transmission.
The aim of the RECCORD registry was to gather real-world UK data on the use of targeted therapies in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and assess clinical outcomes. Here, demographic and outcome data are presented with the treatment patterns and demographic profile of patients on the registry.Patients were retrospectively identified at seven UK hospitals with large cancer centres in England (5), Scotland (1) and Wales (1). Anonymised data were collected through an online registry covering demographics, treatments and outcomes. Five hundred and fourteen UK adult patients with metastatic RCC were included in the study for analysis. Patients were included if they were treated for metastatic RCC at one of the seven centres, and started systemic anti-cancer treatment from March 2009 to November 2012 inclusive. In addition to demographic factors, the principal outcome measures were overall survival (OS), time to disease progression and toxicity.The majority of first-line treatment was with sunitinib; first-line use of pazopanib increased as the study progressed. 15.8% of patients received second-line treatment, half of whom were prescribed everolimus. Median OS (from initiation of first-line treatment) was 23.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 18.6-29.1 months), similar to that reported for clinical trials of targeted RCC therapies [Ljungberg B, Campbell SC, Choi HY et al. The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 615-621; Abe H, Kamai T. Recent advances in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Int J Urol 2013; 20: 944-955; Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P et al. Overall survival and updated results for sunitinib compared with interferon alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3584-3590]. OS was significantly longer for those who received second-line treatment after disease progression (33.0 months; 95% CI 30.8-35.2 months) than those who did not (20.9 months; 95% CI 16.4-25.3 months; P = 0.008).RECCORD is a large 'real-world' database assessing metastatic RCC treatment patterns and outcomes. Treatment patterns changed over time as targeted therapies were approved and became widely available; survival data in RECCORD are consistent with those reported for systemic treatments in clinical trials. Kaplan-Meier analysis of results demonstrated that receiving second-line therapy was a major prognostic factor for longer OS.
Aim: The burden of disease in children attributable to influenza viruses is difficult to quantify given the similarity of symptoms caused by infection due to influenza and other viruses. This uncertainty impacts clinical decision‐making and estimates of burden. We aimed to systematically review the literature to determine the proportion of healthy children presenting for health care with an acute respiratory illness (ARI) who have laboratory‐confirmed seasonal influenza ( PROSPERO ID # CRD 42014013896). Method: We searched Ovid MEDLINE , EMBASE , Scopus, and references of included articles. We included studies that used polymerase chain reaction methods to test for influenza in healthy children aged ≤5 years who presented for health care in high‐income countries with an influenza‐like or ARI. A standardized form was used to collect data on positivity and other relevant study elements. Results Seventeen studies covering 12 different influenza seasons were included. The proportion of influenza positivity ranged from 11% to 56%. Subgroup analyses were performed by influenza season, continent, healthcare setting, age group, and vaccination status. Higher influenza positivity was reported among children aged 3–5 years compared with children aged ≤2 years, and for unvaccinated children. Conclusion The minority of healthy patients aged ≤5 years with medically attended influenza‐like or acute respiratory symptoms have laboratory‐confirmed influenza virus infection, although this varied by influenza season. Prevention efforts should be targeted accordingly. Statement Most influenza‐like illnesses are not laboratory‐confirmed and have similar clinical presentations. Consequently, the true contribution of influenza to acute respiratory infections in children remains uncertain. Our systematic review estimates that this proportion ranges from 11% to 56%. This finding can help both clinicians and public health professionals target prevention.
Abstract While it is now evident that Omicron is rapidly replacing Delta, largely due to immune escape, it is less clear how the severity of Omicron compares to Delta. In Ontario, we sought to examine hospitalization and death associated with Omicron, as compared to cases infected with Delta. We conducted a matched cohort study, considering time to hospitalization or death as the outcome. Cases were matched on gender, age, vaccination status, health region and onset date. We identified 29,594 Omicron cases that met eligibility criteria, of which 11,622 could be matched with at least one Delta case (N=14,181). There were 59 (0.51%) hospitalizations and 3 (0.03%) deaths among matched Omicron cases, compared to 221 (1.6%) hospitalizations and 17 (0.12%) deaths among matched Delta cases. The risk of hospitalization or death was 65% lower (hazard ratio, HR=0.35, 95%CI: 0.26, 0.46) among Omicron cases compared to Delta cases, while risk of intensive care unit admission or death was 83% lower (HR=0.17, 95%CI: 0.08, 0.37). While severity is likely to be reduced, the absolute number of hospitalizations and impact on the healthcare system may nevertheless be significant due to the increased transmissibility of Omicron.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
