Heterogeneity in testing, diagnosis and outcome in SARS-CoV-2 infection across outbreak settings in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: an observational study.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
COVID-19
/ diagnosis
COVID-19 Testing
/ methods
Canada
/ epidemiology
Disease Outbreaks
/ prevention & control
Female
Ill-Housed Persons
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Long-Term Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Male
Middle Aged
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Prospective Studies
SARS-CoV-2
/ genetics
Travel
/ statistics & numerical data
Travel-Related Illness
Journal
CMAJ open
ISSN: 2291-0026
Titre abrégé: CMAJ Open
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101620603
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
10
10
2020
pubmed:
11
10
2020
medline:
11
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Congregate settings have been disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to compare testing for, diagnosis of and death after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection across 3 settings (residents of long-term care homes, people living in shelters and the rest of the population). We conducted a population-based prospective cohort study involving individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the Greater Toronto Area between Jan. 23, 2020, and May 20, 2020. We sourced person-level data from COVID-19 surveillance and reporting systems in Ontario. We calculated cumulatively diagnosed cases per capita, proportion tested, proportion tested positive and case-fatality proportion for each setting. We estimated the age- and sex-adjusted rate ratios associated with setting for test positivity and case fatality using quasi-Poisson regression. Over the study period, a total of 173 092 individuals were tested for and 16 490 individuals were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We observed a shift in the proportion of cumulative cases from all cases being related to travel to cases in residents of long-term care homes (20.4% [3368/16 490]), shelters (2.3% [372/16 490]), other congregate settings (20.9% [3446/16 490]) and community settings (35.4% [5834/16 490]), with cumulative travel-related cases at 4.1% (674/16490). Cumulatively, compared with the rest of the population, the diagnosed cases per capita was 64-fold and 19-fold higher among long-term care home and shelter residents, respectively. By May 20, 2020, 76.3% (21 617/28 316) of long-term care home residents and 2.2% (150 077/6 808 890) of the rest of the population had been tested. After adjusting for age and sex, residents of long-term care homes were 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-2.7) times more likely to test positive, and those who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 were 1.4-fold (95% CI 1.1-1.8) more likely to die than the rest of the population. Long-term care homes and shelters had disproportionate diagnosed cases per capita, and residents of long-term care homes diagnosed with COVID-19 had higher case fatality than the rest of the population. Heterogeneity across micro-epidemics among specific populations and settings may reflect underlying heterogeneity in transmission risks, necessitating setting-specific COVID-19 prevention and mitigation strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Congregate settings have been disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to compare testing for, diagnosis of and death after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection across 3 settings (residents of long-term care homes, people living in shelters and the rest of the population).
METHODS
We conducted a population-based prospective cohort study involving individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the Greater Toronto Area between Jan. 23, 2020, and May 20, 2020. We sourced person-level data from COVID-19 surveillance and reporting systems in Ontario. We calculated cumulatively diagnosed cases per capita, proportion tested, proportion tested positive and case-fatality proportion for each setting. We estimated the age- and sex-adjusted rate ratios associated with setting for test positivity and case fatality using quasi-Poisson regression.
RESULTS
Over the study period, a total of 173 092 individuals were tested for and 16 490 individuals were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We observed a shift in the proportion of cumulative cases from all cases being related to travel to cases in residents of long-term care homes (20.4% [3368/16 490]), shelters (2.3% [372/16 490]), other congregate settings (20.9% [3446/16 490]) and community settings (35.4% [5834/16 490]), with cumulative travel-related cases at 4.1% (674/16490). Cumulatively, compared with the rest of the population, the diagnosed cases per capita was 64-fold and 19-fold higher among long-term care home and shelter residents, respectively. By May 20, 2020, 76.3% (21 617/28 316) of long-term care home residents and 2.2% (150 077/6 808 890) of the rest of the population had been tested. After adjusting for age and sex, residents of long-term care homes were 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-2.7) times more likely to test positive, and those who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 were 1.4-fold (95% CI 1.1-1.8) more likely to die than the rest of the population.
INTERPRETATION
Long-term care homes and shelters had disproportionate diagnosed cases per capita, and residents of long-term care homes diagnosed with COVID-19 had higher case fatality than the rest of the population. Heterogeneity across micro-epidemics among specific populations and settings may reflect underlying heterogeneity in transmission risks, necessitating setting-specific COVID-19 prevention and mitigation strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33037070
pii: 8/4/E627
doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20200213
pmc: PMC7567509
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
E627-E636Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 7;9(10):e030221
pubmed: 31594882
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e186-e187
pubmed: 32171054
Lancet. 2008 Aug 9;372(9637):423-6
pubmed: 18687462
Nature. 2005 Nov 17;438(7066):355-9
pubmed: 16292310
Sex Transm Infect. 2011 Feb;87(1):2-3
pubmed: 21126962
Am J Infect Control. 2015 Aug;43(8):839-43
pubmed: 25960384
Emerg Infect Dis. 2018 Mar;24(3):492-497
pubmed: 29460729
JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2191-2192
pubmed: 32338732
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 10;15(3):e0229911
pubmed: 32155208
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;26(8):1930-1933
pubmed: 32330112
J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Jun;53(3):444-446
pubmed: 32303483
Wellcome Open Res. 2020 May 1;5:83
pubmed: 32656368