Search

Language barriers (LB) contribute to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health inequities. People with LB were more likely to be SARS-CoV-2 positive despite lower testing and had higher rates of hospitalization. Data on hospital outcomes among immigrants with LB, however, are limited. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 cases by LB, immigration status, ethnicity, and access to COVID-19 health information and services prior to admission. Adults with laboratory-confirmed community-acquired COVID-19 hospitalized from March 1 to June 30, 2020, at four tertiary-care hospitals in Montréal, Quebec, Canada were included. Demographics, comorbidities, immigration status, country of birth, ethnicity, presence of LB, and hospital outcomes (ICU admission and death) were obtained through a chart review. Additional socio-economic and access to care questions were obtained through a phone survey. A Fine-Gray competing risk subdistribution hazards model was used to estimate the risk of ICU admission and in-hospital death by immigrant status, region of birth and LB Among 1093 patients, 622 (56.9%) were immigrants and 101 (16.2%) of them had a LB. One third (36%) of immigrants with LB did not have access to an interpreter during hospitalization. Admission to ICU and in-hospital mortality were not significantly different between groups. Prior to admission, one third (14/41) of immigrants with LB had difficulties accessing COVID-19 information in their mother tongue and one third (9/27) of non-white immigrants with a LB had difficulties accessing COVID-19 services. Immigrants with LB were inequitably affected by the first wave of the pandemic in Quebec, Canada. In our study, a large proportion had difficulties accessing information and services related to COVID-19 prior to admission, which may have increased SARS-CoV-2 exposure and hospitalizations. After hospitalization, a large proportion did not have access to interpreters. Providing medical information and care in the language of preference of increasing diverse populations in Canada is important for promoting health equity., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The Canadian coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immunization strategy deferred second doses and allowed mixed schedules. We compared 2-dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) by vaccine type (mRNA and/or ChAdOx1), interval between doses, and time since second dose in 2 of Canada's larger provinces., Methods: Two-dose VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or hospitalization among adults ≥18 years, including due to Alpha, Gamma, and Delta variants of concern (VOCs), was assessed ≥14 days postvaccination by test-negative design studies separately conducted in British Columbia and Quebec, Canada, between 30 May and 27 November (epi-weeks 22-47) 2021., Results: In both provinces, all homologous or heterologous mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 2-dose schedules were associated with ≥90% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization risk for ≥7 months. With slight decline from a peak of >90%, VE against infection was ≥80% for ≥6 months following homologous mRNA vaccination, lower by ∼10% when both doses were ChAdOx1 but comparably high following heterologous ChAdOx1 + mRNA receipt. Findings were similar by age group, sex, and VOC. VE was significantly higher with longer 7-8-week versus manufacturer-specified 3-4-week intervals between mRNA doses., Conclusions: Two doses of any mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 combination gave substantial and sustained protection against SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization, spanning Delta-dominant circulation. ChAdOx1 VE against infection was improved by heterologous mRNA series completion. A 7-8-week interval between first and second doses improved mRNA VE and may be the optimal schedule outside periods of intense epidemic surge. Findings support interchangeability and extended intervals between SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses, with potential global implications for low-coverage areas and, going forward, for children., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. G. D. S. received a grant paid to his institution for a meningococcal seroprevalence study from Pfizer in 2016. M. K. received grants/contracts paid to his institution from Roche (related to human papillomavirus), Hologic (related to human papillomavirus), and Siemens (related to human papillomavirus), unrelated to this work. M. S. has been an investigator on projects, unrelated to the current work, funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, Seqirus, Symvivo, and VBI Vaccines. All funds have been paid to his institute, and he has not received any personal payments. M. S. is also the Chair/Deputy Chair of 2 Data Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine trials, involving different vaccines. R. G. received honoraria for an RSV Coordinators Workshop funded by AbbVie (payment to author). A. N. J. has received funding for other severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing and COVID-19 vaccine projects, paid to her institution and unrelated to the current work, from Genome BC, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. D. M. S. reports contracts or grants, paid to her institution and unrelated to the current work, from Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. G. D. reports a grant or contract paid to his institution from the Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux du Québec. E. G. reports that their spouse is employed by QHR Tech, an electronic medical records company (no payments to author and author owns no stock in the company). All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Importance: The Omicron variant is phylogenetically and antigenically distinct from earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants and the original vaccine strain. Protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against Omicron reinfection, with and without vaccination, requires quantification., Objective: To estimate the protection against Omicron reinfection and hospitalization conferred by prior heterologous non-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or up to 3 doses of an ancestral, Wuhan-like messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine., Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative, population-based case-control study was conducted between December 26, 2021, and March 12, 2022, and included community-dwelling individuals aged 12 years or older who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the province of Quebec, Canada., Exposures: Prior laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without mRNA vaccination., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and associated hospitalization, presumed to be associated with the Omicron variant according to genomic surveillance. The odds of prior infection with or without vaccination were compared for case participants with Omicron infection and associated hospitalizations vs test-negative control participants. Estimated protection was derived as 1 - the odds ratio, adjusted for age, sex, testing indication, and epidemiologic week. Analyses were stratified by severity and time since last non-Omicron infection or vaccine dose., Results: This study included 696 439 individuals (224 007 case participants and 472 432 control participants); 62.2% and 63.9% were female and 87.4% and 75.5% were aged 18 to 69 years, respectively. Prior non-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected for 9505 case participants (4.2%) and 29 712 control participants (6.3%). Among nonvaccinated individuals, prior non-Omicron infection was associated with a 44% reduction (95% CI, 38%-48%) in Omicron reinfection risk, which decreased from 66% (95% CI, 57%-73%) at 3 to 5 months to 35% (95% CI, 21%-47%) at 9 to 11 months postinfection and was below 30% thereafter. The more severe the prior infection, the greater the risk reduction. Estimated protection (95% CI) against Omicron infection was consistently significantly higher among vaccinated individuals with prior infection compared with vaccinated infection-naive individuals, with 65% (63%-67%) vs 20% (16%-24%) for 1 dose, 68% (67%-70%) vs 42% (41%-44%) for 2 doses, and 83% (81%-84%) vs 73% (72%-73%) for 3 doses. For individuals with prior infection, estimated protection (95% CI) against Omicron-associated hospitalization was 81% (66%-89%) and increased to 86% (77%-99%) with 1, 94% (91%-96%) with 2, and 97% (94%-99%) with 3 mRNA vaccine doses, without signs of waning., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that vaccination with 2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses among individuals with prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection provided the greatest protection against Omicron-associated hospitalization. In the context of program goals to prevent severe outcomes and preserve health care system capacity, a third mRNA vaccine dose may add limited protection in twice-vaccinated individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: Health care workers (HCW), particularly immigrants and ethnic minorities are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcomes during a COVID-19 associated hospitalization are not well described among HCW. We aimed to describe the characteristics of HCW admitted with COVID-19 including immigrant status and ethnicity and the associated risk factors for Intensive Care unit (ICU) admission and death., Methods: Adults with laboratory-confirmed community-acquired COVID-19 hospitalized from March 1 to June 30, 2020, at four tertiary-care hospitals in Montréal, Canada were included. Demographics, comorbidities, occupation, immigration status, country of birth, ethnicity, workplace exposures, and hospital outcomes (ICU admission and death) were obtained through a chart review and phone survey. A Fine and Gray competing risk proportional hazards model was used to estimate the risk of ICU admission among HCW stratified by immigrant status and region of birth., Results: Among 1104 included persons, 150 (14%) were HCW, with a phone survey participation rate of 68%. HCWs were younger (50 vs 64 years; p<0.001), more likely to be female (61% vs 41%; p<0.001), migrants (68% vs 55%; p<0.01), non-White (65% vs 41%; p<0.001) and healthier (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0.3 vs 1.2; p<0.001) compared to non-HCW. They were as likely to be admitted to the ICU (28% vs 31%; p = 0.40) but were less likely to die (4% vs. 17%; p<0.001). Immigrant HCW accounted for 68% of all HCW cases and, compared to Canadian HCW, were more likely to be personal support workers (PSW) (54% vs. 33%, p<0.01), to be Black (58% vs 4%) and to work in a Residential Care Facility (RCF) (59% vs 33%; p = 0.05). Most HCW believed that they were exposed at work, 55% did not always have access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and 40% did not receive COVID-19-specific Infection Control (IPAC) training., Conclusion: Immigrant HCW were particularly exposed to COVID-19 infection in the first wave of the pandemic in Quebec. Despite being young and healthy, one third of all HCW required ICU admission, highlighting the importance of preventing workplace transmission through strong infection prevention and control measures, including high COVID-19 vaccination coverage., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: In Canada, first and second doses of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were uniquely spaced 16 weeks apart. We estimated 1- and 2-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Québec, Canada, including protection against varying outcome severity, variants of concern (VOCs), and the stability of single-dose protection up to 16 weeks postvaccination., Methods: A test-negative design compared vaccination among SARS-CoV-2 test-positive and weekly matched (10:1), randomly sampled, test-negative HCWs using linked surveillance and immunization databases. Vaccine status was defined by 1 dose ≥14 days or 2 doses ≥7 days before illness onset or specimen collection. Adjusted VE was estimated by conditional logistic regression., Results: Primary analysis included 5316 cases and 53 160 controls. Single-dose VE was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-73%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection; 73% (95% CI, 71%-75%) against illness; and 97% (95% CI, 92%-99%) against hospitalization. Two-dose VE was 86% (95% CI, 81%-90%) and 93% (95% CI, 89%-95%), respectively, with no hospitalizations. VE was higher for non-VOCs than VOCs (73% Alpha) among single-dose recipients but not 2-dose recipients. Across 16 weeks, no decline in single-dose VE was observed, with appropriate stratification based upon prioritized vaccination determined by higher vs lower likelihood of direct patient contact., Conclusions: One mRNA vaccine dose provided substantial and sustained protection to HCWs extending at least 4 months postvaccination. In circumstances of vaccine shortage, delaying the second dose may be a pertinent public health strategy., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Macaque-related injuries among primate workers can lead to a potentially fatal B virus encephalomyelitis. We describe a decision tool for evaluating the need for antiviral postexposure prophylaxis and provide a retrospective review of the injuries assessed in our center after its implementation in 2010. Among the injuries studied (n = 251), 40.6% were categorized as high-risk (prophylaxis recommended), 44.2% moderate-risk (consider prophylaxis), and 15.1% low-risk (prophylaxis not recommended). Ten percent of low-risk and 98% of high-risk injuries received prophylaxis (p<0.001). Compared with using universal postexposure prophylaxis, using a decision tool can lead to a standardization of practice and a reduction in prescriptions for antiviral medication.

During 2012-2013 in Montreal, Canada, 4 locally acquired Shigella spp. pulse types with the mph(A) gene and reduced susceptibility to azithromycin were identified from 9 men who have sex with men, 7 of whom were HIV infected. Counseling about prevention of enteric sexually transmitted infections might help slow transmission of these organisms.