Heterogeneity in testing, diagnosis and outcome in SARS-CoV-2 infection across outbreak settings in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada: an observational study

Infectious Diseases Among People Experiencing Homelessness: A Systematic Review of the Literature in the United States and Canada, 2003-2022

Homelessness increases the risk of acquiring an infectious disease. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify quantitative data related to infectious diseases and homelessness. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed, and SCOPUS for quantitative literature published from January 2003 through December 2022 in English from the United States and Canada. We excluded literature on vaccine-preventable diseases and HIV because these diseases were recently reviewed. Of the 250 articles that met inclusion criteria, more than half were on hepatitis C virus or Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Other articles were on COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus, Staphylococcus aureus, group A Streptococcus, mpox (formerly monkeypox), 5 sexually transmitted infections, and gastrointestinal or vectorborne pathogens. Most studies showed higher prevalence, incidence, or measures of risk for infectious diseases among people experiencing homelessness as compared with people who are housed or the general population. Although having increased published data that quantify the infectious disease risks of homelessness is encouraging, many pathogens that are known to affect people globally who are not housed have not been evaluated in the United States or Canada. Future studies should focus on additional pathogens and factors leading to a disproportionately high incidence and prevalence of infectious diseases among people experiencing homelessness.

Analysis of Concentrated COVID-19 Outbreaks in Elderly Facilities in Suita City, Osaka Prefecture, Japan

There are several types of facilities for elderly individuals in Japan. Infection control efforts, such as care provision and medical care access, differ according to the type of facility. Elderly individuals at these facilities who were infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experienced severe illness and mortality. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of concentrated COVID-19 outbreaks that occurred in nursing homes and care facilities in Suita City. During this study, twenty-five elderly facilities in Suita City with a capacity of 40 or more individuals where an outbreak occurred during the sixth or seventh wave of infection were included. We investigated whether there was a difference in the COVID-19 incidence and the percentage of positive cases according to the type of facility. We also investigated the relationship between the facility capacity and positive case rate and that between the number of positive cases and outbreak duration. The incidence rate of COVID-19 was significantly different according to the facility type (p < 0.001). No association was found between the facility capacity and positive case rate. The outbreak duration increased as the number of positive cases increased (p = 0.004).

SARS-CoV-2 incidence, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in the homeless population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination of homeless people are a serious public health concern during COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to systematically assess SARS-CoV-2 incidence, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in homeless people, which are important to inform resource allocation and policy adjustment for the prevention and control of COVID-19.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database for the studies of SARS-CoV-2 incidence, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in the homeless population. Subgroup analyses were conducted to pool SARS-CoV-2 incidence and seroprevalence in sheltered homeless, unsheltered homeless, and mixed population, respectively. Potential sources of heterogeneity in the estimates were explored by meta-regression analysis.

Results

Forty-nine eligible studies with a total of 75,402 homeless individuals and 5,000 shelter staff were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 10% (95% CI: 7 to 12%) in the homeless population and 8% (5 to 12%) for shelter staff. In addition, the overall estimated SARS-CoV-2 specific seroprevalence was 19% (8 to 33%) for homeless populations and 22% (3 to 52%) for shelter staff, respectively. Moreover, for the homeless subjects, the pooled incidence was 10% (4 to 23%) for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, 6% (1 to 12%) for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, 3% (1 to 4%) for hospitalization for COVID-19, and 1% (0 to 2%) for severe COVID-19 cases, respectively while no COVID-19-related death was reported. Furthermore, the data derived from 12 included studies involving 225,448 homeless individuals revealed that the pooled proportion of one dose COVID-19 vaccination was 41% (35 to 47%), which was significantly lower than those in the general population.

Conclusion

Our study results indicate that the homeless people remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower than the general population, underscoring the need for prioritizing vaccine deployment and implementing enhanced preventive measures targeting this vulnerable group.

SARS-CoV-2 control on a large urban college campus without mass testing

OBJECTIVE

A small percentage of universities and colleges conducted mass SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, universal testing is resource-intensive, strains national testing capacity, and false negative tests can encourage unsafe behaviors.

PARTICIPANTS

A large urban university campus.

METHODS

Virus control centered on three pillars: mitigation, containment, and communication, with testing of symptomatic and a random subset of asymptomatic students.

RESULTS

Random surveillance testing demonstrated a prevalence among asymptomatic students of 0.4% throughout the term. There were two surges in cases that were contained by enhanced mitigation and communication combined with targeted testing. Cumulative cases totaled 445 for the term, most resulting from unsafe undergraduate student behavior and among students living off-campus. A case rate of 232/10,000 undergraduates equaled or surpassed several peer institutions that conducted mass testing.

CONCLUSIONS

An emphasis on behavioral mitigation and communication can control virus transmission on a large urban campus combined with a limited and targeted testing strategy.

Respiratory infectious disease outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness: a systematic review of prevention and mitigation strategies

PURPOSE

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at increased risk of respiratory infections and associated morbidity and mortality. To characterize optimal intervention strategies, we completed a systematic review of mitigation strategies for PEH to minimize the spread and impact of respiratory infectious disease outbreaks, including COVID-19.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (#2020 CRD42020208964) and was consistent with the preferred reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. A search algorithm containing keywords that were synonymous to the terms "Homeless" and "Respiratory Illness" was applied to the six databases. The search concluded on September 22, 2020. Quality assessment was performed at the study level. Steps were conducted by two independent team members.

RESULTS

A total of 4468 unique titles were retrieved with 21 meeting criteria for inclusion. Interventions included testing, tracking, screening, infection prevention and control, isolation support, and education. Historically, there has been limited study of intervention strategies specifically for PEH across the world.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff and organizations providing services for people experiencing homelessness face specific challenges in adhering to public health guidelines such as physical distancing, isolation, and routine hygiene practices. There is a discrepancy between the burden of infectious diseases among PEH and specific research characterizing optimal intervention strategies to mitigate transmission in the context of shelters. Improving health for people experiencing homelessness necessitates investment in programs scaling existing interventions and research to study new approaches.

COVID-19 Cases Among Congregate Care Facility Staff by Neighborhood of Residence and Social and Structural Determinants: Observational Study

Background

Disproportionate risks of COVID-19 in congregate care facilities including long-term care homes, retirement homes, and shelters both affect and are affected by SARS-CoV-2 infections among facility staff. In cities across Canada, there has been a consistent trend of geographic clustering of COVID-19 cases. However, there is limited information on how COVID-19 among facility staff reflects urban neighborhood disparities, particularly when stratified by the social and structural determinants of community-level transmission.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the concentration of cumulative cases by geography and social and structural determinants across 3 mutually exclusive subgroups in the Greater Toronto Area (population: 7.1 million): community, facility staff, and health care workers (HCWs) in other settings.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, observational study using surveillance data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases (January 23 to December 13, 2020; prior to vaccination rollout). We derived neighborhood-level social and structural determinants from census data and generated Lorenz curves, Gini coefficients, and the Hoover index to visualize and quantify inequalities in cases.

Results

The hardest-hit neighborhoods (comprising 20% of the population) accounted for 53.87% (44,937/83,419) of community cases, 48.59% (2356/4849) of facility staff cases, and 42.34% (1669/3942) of other HCW cases. Compared with other HCWs, cases among facility staff reflected the distribution of community cases more closely. Cases among facility staff reflected greater social and structural inequalities (larger Gini coefficients) than those of other HCWs across all determinants. Facility staff cases were also more likely than community cases to be concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods (Gini 0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.38 vs 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) with a higher household density (Gini 0.23, 95% CI 0.17-0.29 vs 0.17, 95% CI 0.12-0.22) and with a greater proportion working in other essential services (Gini 0.29, 95% CI 0.21-0.40 vs 0.22, 95% CI 0.17-0.28).

Conclusions

COVID-19 cases among facility staff largely reflect neighborhood-level heterogeneity and disparities, even more so than cases among other HCWs. The findings signal the importance of interventions prioritized and tailored to the home geographies of facility staff in addition to workplace measures, including prioritization and reach of vaccination at home (neighborhood level) and at work.

Understanding COVID-19 Risk in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Population-Based Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Testing

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 testing and infection in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients versus matched non-IMID comparators from the general population.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based, matched cohort study among adult residents from Ontario, Canada, from January 2020 to December 2020. We created cohorts for the following IMIDs: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases, multiple sclerosis (MS), iritis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), polymyalgia rheumatica, and vasculitis. Each patient was matched with 5 patients without IMIDs based on sociodemographic factors. We estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 testing and infection in IMID patients and non-IMID patients. Multivariable logistic regressions assessed odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

We studied 493,499 patients with IMIDs and 2,466,946 patients without IMIDs. Patients with IMIDs were more likely to have at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 test versus patients without IMIDs (27.4% versus 22.7%), but the proportion testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was identical (0.9% in both groups). Overall, IMID patients had 20% higher odds of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 (odds ratio 1.20 [95% confidence interval 1.19-1.21]). The odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied across IMID groups but was not significantly elevated for most IMID groups compared with non-IMID comparators. The odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection was lower in IBD and MS and marginally higher in RA and iritis.

CONCLUSION

Patients across all IMIDs were more likely to be tested for SARS-CoV-2 versus those without IMIDs. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied across disease subgroups.

Health impact of the first and second wave of COVID-19 and related restrictive measures among nursing home residents: a scoping review

Background and objectives

COVID-19 disproportionally affects older adults living in nursing homes. The purpose of this review was to explore and map the scientific literature on the health impact of COVID-19 and related restrictive measures during the first and second wave among nursing home residents. A specific focus was placed on health data collected among nursing home residents themselves.

Research design and methods

In this study, best practices for scoping reviews were followed. Five databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed empirical studies published up until December 2020 in which data were collected among nursing home residents. Articles were categorized according to the type of health impact (physical, social and/or psychological) and study focus (impact of COVID-19 virus or related restrictive measures). Findings were presented using a narrative style.

Results

Of 60 included studies, 57 examined the physical impact of COVID-19. All of these focused on the direct impact of the COVID-19 virus. These studies often used an observational design and quantitative data collection methods, such as swab testing or reviewing health records. Only three studies examined the psychological impact of COVID-19 of which one study focused on the impact of COVID-19-related restrictive measures. Findings were contradictory; both decreased and improved psychological wellbeing was found during the pandemic compared with before. No studies were found that examined the impact on social wellbeing and one study examined other health-related outcomes, including preference changes of nursing home residents in Advanced Care planning following the pandemic.

Discussion and implications

Studies into the impact of the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among nursing home residents predominantly focused on the physical impact. Future studies into the psychological and social impact that collect data among residents themselves will provide more insight into their perspectives, such as lived experiences, wishes, needs and possibilities during later phases of the pandemic. These insights can inform policy makers and healthcare professionals in providing person-centered care during the remaining COVID-19 pandemic and in future crisis periods.

A Scoping Review of the Health Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Persons Experiencing Homelessness in North America and Europe

Persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at heightened risk for infection, morbidity, and mortality from COVID-19. However, health consequences of the pandemic extend far beyond those directly caused by the virus. This scoping review aimed to explore the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and well-being of PEH in North America and Europe. A systematic search of academic and grey literature was conducted in September 2021. To be included, studies had to include primary data related to the impact of the pandemic on health or well-being of PEH and be written in English. All potentially relevant references were independently screened by two reviewers, and minor conflicts were settled with input of a third reviewer. A total of 96 articles met criteria for inclusion. Data extraction was completed for all included studies, and findings synthesised and presented thematically. Numerous health impacts of the pandemic on PEH were identified, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, morbidity, mortality, and hospitalisation, fear of infection, access to housing, hygiene, PPE, food, as well as mental health, substance use, other health-related outcomes and treatment services. Gaps in the literature relating to persons using alcohol, access to mental health support, and violence were also identified. Implications for future research are discussed.

Geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by social determinants of health in metropolitan areas in Canada: a cross-sectional study

Background:

Understanding inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with the social determinants of health could help the development of effective mitigation strategies that are responsive to local transmission dynamics. This study aims to quantify social determinants of geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases across 16 census metropolitan areas (hereafter, cities) in 4 Canadian provinces, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

Methods:

We used surveillance data on confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and census data for social determinants at the level of the dissemination area (DA). We calculated Gini coefficients to determine the overall geographic heterogeneity of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in each city, and calculated Gini covariance coefficients to determine each city’s heterogeneity by each social determinant (income, education, housing density and proportions of visible minorities, recent immigrants and essential workers). We visualized heterogeneity using Lorenz (concentration) curves.

Results:

We observed geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases in cities, as half of the cumulative cases were concentrated in DAs containing 21%–35% of their population, with the greatest geographic heterogeneity in Ontario cities (Gini coefficients 0.32–0.47), followed by British Columbia (0.23–0.36), Manitoba (0.32) and Quebec (0.28–0.37). Cases were disproportionately concentrated in areas with lower income and educational attainment, and in areas with a higher proportion of visible minorities, recent immigrants, high-density housing and essential workers. Although a consistent feature across cities was concentration by the proportion of visible minorities, the magnitude of concentration by social determinant varied across cities.

Interpretation:

Geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases was observed in all of the included cities, but the pattern by social determinants varied. Geographically prioritized allocation of resources and services should be tailored to the local drivers of inequalities in transmission in response to the resurgence of SARS-CoV-2.

Increasing concentration of COVID-19 by socioeconomic determinants and geography in Toronto, Canada: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Inequities in the burden of COVID-19 were observed early in Canada and around the world, suggesting economically marginalized communities faced disproportionate risks. However, there has been limited systematic assessment of how heterogeneity in risks has evolved in large urban centers over time.

PURPOSE

To address this gap, we quantified the magnitude of risk heterogeneity in Toronto, Ontario from January to November 2020 using a retrospective, population-based observational study using surveillance data.

METHODS

We generated epidemic curves by social determinants of health (SDOH) and crude Lorenz curves by neighbourhoods to visualize inequities in the distribution of COVID-19 and estimated Gini coefficients. We examined the correlation between SDOH using Pearson-correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Gini coefficient of cumulative cases by population size was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]:0.36-0.47) and estimated for: household income (0.20, 95%CI: 0.14-0.28); visible minority (0.21, 95%CI:0.16-0.28); recent immigration (0.12, 95%CI:0.09-0.16); suitable housing (0.21, 95%CI:0.14-0.30); multigenerational households (0.19, 95%CI:0.15-0.23); and essential workers (0.28, 95%CI:0.23-0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

There was rapid epidemiologic transition from higher- to lower-income neighborhoods with Lorenz curve transitioning from below to above the line of equality across SDOH. Moving forward necessitates integrating programs and policies addressing socioeconomic inequities and structural racism into COVID-19 prevention and vaccination programs.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among people experiencing homelessness in Toronto during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

People experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study reports the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during testing conducted at sites serving people experiencing homelessness in Toronto during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explored the association between site characteristics and prevalence rates.

METHODS

The study included individuals who were staying at shelters, encampments, COVID-19 physical distancing sites, and drop-in and respite sites and completed outreach-based testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the period April 17 to July 31, 2020. We examined test positivity rates over time and compared them to rates in the general population of Toronto. Negative binomial regression was used to examine the relationship between each shelter-level characteristic and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. We also compared the rates across 3 time periods (T1: April 17-April 25; T2: April 26-May 23; T3: May 24-June 25).

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 8.5% (394/4657). Site-specific rates showed great heterogeneity with infection rates ranging from 0% to 70.6%. Compared to T1, positivity rates were 0.21 times lower (95% CI: 0.06-0.75) during T2 and 0.14 times lower (95% CI: 0.04-0.44) during T3. Most cases were detected during outbreak testing (384/394 [97.5%]) rather than active case finding.

CONCLUSION

During the first wave of the pandemic, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection at sites for people experiencing homelessness in Toronto varied significantly over time. The observation of lower rates at certain sites may be attributable to overall time trends, expansion of outreach-based testing to include sites without known outbreaks, and/or individual site characteristics.

COVID-19 Testing and Case Rates and Social Contact Among Residential College Students in Connecticut During the 2020-2021 Academic Year

Importance

During the 2020-2021 academic year, many institutions of higher education reopened to residential students while pursuing strategies to mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission on campus. Reopening guidance emphasized polymerase chain reaction or antigen testing for residential students and social distancing measures to reduce the frequency of close interpersonal contact, and Connecticut colleges and universities used a variety of approaches to reopen campuses to residential students.

Objective

To characterize institutional reopening strategies and COVID-19 outcomes in 18 residential college and university campuses across Connecticut.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data on COVID-19 testing and cases and social contact from 18 college and university campuses in Connecticut that had residential students during the 2020-2021 academic year.

Exposures

Tests for COVID-19 performed per week per residential student.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cases per week per residential student and mean (95% CI) social contact per week per residential student.

Results

Between 235 and 4603 residential students attended the fall semester across each of 18 institutions of higher education in Connecticut, with fewer residential students at most institutions during the spring semester. In census block groups containing residence halls, the fall student move-in resulted in a 475% (95% CI, 373%-606%) increase in mean contact, and the spring move-in resulted in a 561% (95% CI, 441%-713%) increase in mean contact compared with the 7 weeks prior to move-in. The association between test frequency and case rate per residential student was complex; institutions that tested students infrequently detected few cases but failed to blunt transmission, whereas institutions that tested students more frequently detected more cases and prevented further spread. In fall 2020, each additional test per student per week was associated with a decrease of 0.0014 cases per student per week (95% CI, -0.0028 to -0.00001).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that, in the era of available vaccinations and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, colleges and universities should continue to test residential students and use mitigation strategies to control on-campus COVID-19 cases.

COVID-19 Case Rates After Surveillance and Vaccinations in a Statewide Psychiatric Hospital System

Individuals with serious mental illness are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. The New York State (NYS) Office of Mental Health implemented patient and staff rapid testing, quarantining, and vaccination to limit COVID-19 spread in 23 state-operated psychiatric hospitals between November 2020 and February 2021. COVID-19 infection rates in inpatients and staff decreased by 96% and 71%, respectively, and the NYS population case rate decreased by 6%. Repeated COVID-19 testing and vaccination should be priority interventions for state-operated psychiatric hospitals. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(10):1780-1783. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306444).

Patterns and descriptors of COVID-19 testing and lab-confirmed COVID-19 incidence in Manitoba, Canada, March 2020-May 2021: A population-based study

Background

We studied lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection (LCCI) testing, incidence, and severity.

Methods

We included all Manitoba residents and limited our severity analysis to LCCI patients. We calculated testing, incidence and vaccination rates between March 8, 2020 and June 1, 2021. We estimated the association between patient characteristics and testing (rate ratio [RR]; Poisson regression), including the reason for testing (screening, symptomatic, contact/outbreak asymptomatic), incidence (hazard ratio [HR]; Cox regression), and severity (prevalence ratio [PR], Cox regression).

Findings

The overall testing rate during the second/third wave was 570/1,000 person-years, with an LCCI rate of 50/1,000 person-years. The secondary attack rate during the second/third wave was 16%. Across regions, young children (<10) had the lowest positivity for symptomatic testing, the highest positivity for asymptomatic testing, and the highest risk of LCCI as asymptomatic contact. People in the lowest income quintile had the highest risk of LCCI, 1.3-6x the hazard of those in the highest income quintile. Long-term care (LTC) residents were particularly affected in the second wave with HRs>10 for asymptomatic residents.

Interpretation

Although the severity of LCCI in children was low, they have a high risk of asymptomatic positivity. The groups most vulnerable to LCCI, who should remain a focus of public health, were residents of Manitoba's North, LTC facilities, and low-income neighbourhoods.

Funding

Canada Research Chair Program

Déterminants individuels et sociaux du test de dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2 et de l’obtention d’un résultat positif en Ontario, au Canada: une étude populationnelle

Contexte:

Optimiser la réponse de la santé publique pour diminuer le fardeau de la COVID-19 nécessite la caractérisation de l’hétérogénéité du risque posé par la maladie à l’échelle de la population. Cependant, l’hétérogénéité du dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2 peut fausser les estimations selon le modèle d’étude analytique utilisé. Notre objectif était d’explorer les biais collisionneurs dans le cadre d’une vaste étude portant sur les déterminants de la maladie et d’évaluer les déterminants individuels, environnementaux et sociaux du dépistage et du diagnostic du SRAS-CoV-2 parmi les résidents de l’Ontario, au Canada.

Méthodes:

Nous avons exploré la présence potentielle de biais collisionneurs et caractérisé les déterminants individuels, environnementaux et sociaux de l’obtention d’un test de dépistage et d’un résultat positif à la présence de l’infection au SRAS-CoV-2 à l’aide d’analyses transversales parmi les 14,7 millions de personnes vivant dans la collectivité en Ontario, au Canada. Parmi les personnes ayant obtenu un diagnostic, nous avons utilisé des études analytiques distinctes afin de comparer les prédicteurs pour les personnes d’obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que négatif, pour les personnes symptomatiques d’obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que négatif et pour les personnes d’obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que de ne pas obtenir un résultat positif (c.-à-d., obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage négatif ou ne pas obtenir de test de dépistage). Nos analyses comprennent des tests de dépistage réalisés entre le 1er mars et le 20 juin 2020.

Résultats:

Sur 14 695 579 personnes, nous avons constaté que 758 691 d’entre elles ont passé un test de dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2, parmi lesquelles 25 030 (3,3 %) ont obtenu un résultat positif. Plus la probabilité d’obtenir un test de dépistage s’éloignait de zéro, plus la variabilité généralement observée dans la probabilité d’un diagnostic était grande parmi les modèles d’études analytiques, particulièrement en ce qui a trait aux facteurs individuels. Nous avons constaté que la variabilité dans l’obtention d’un test de dépistage était moins importante en fonction des déterminants sociaux dans l’ensemble des études analytiques. Les facteurs tels que le fait d’habiter dans une région ayant une plus haute densité des ménages (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,86; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 1,75–1,98), une plus grande proportion de travailleurs essentiels (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,58; IC à 95 % 1,48–1,69), une population atteignant un plus faible niveau de scolarité (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,33; IC à 95 % 1,26–1,41) et une plus grande proportion d’immigrants récents (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,10; IC à 95 % 1,05–1,15), étaient systématiquement corrélés à une probabilité plus importante d’obtenir un diagnostic de SRAS-CoV-2, peu importe le modèle d’étude analytique employé.

Interprétation:

Lorsque la capacité de dépister est limitée, nos résultats suggèrent que les facteurs de risque peuvent être estimés plus adéquatement en utilisant des comparateurs populationnels plutôt que des comparateurs de résultat négatif au test de dépistage. Optimiser la lutte contre la COVID-19 nécessite des investissements dans des interventions structurelles déployées de façon suffisante et adaptées à l’hétérogénéité des déterminants sociaux du risque, dont le surpeuplement des ménages, l’occupation professionnelle et le racisme structurel.

SARS-Cov-2 prevalence, transmission, health-related outcomes and control strategies in homeless shelters: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) may be at risk for COVID19. We synthesised evidence on SARS-Cov-2 infection, transmission, outcomes of disease, effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), and the effectiveness of strategies for infection prevention and control (IPC).

METHODS

Systematic review of articles, indexed in electronic databases (EMBASE, WHO-Covid19, Web of Science), institutional websites and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's live map of COVID-19 evidence, and published from December 1st, 2019, to March 3rd, 2021. Empirical papers of any study design addressing Covid-19 and health(-related) outcomes in PEH or shelters' staff were included. (PROSPERO-2020-CRD42020187033).

FINDINGS

Of 536 publications, 37 studies were included (two modelling, 31 observational, four qualitative studies). Random-effect meta-analysis yields a baseline SARS-Cov-2 prevalence of 2•32% (95% Confidence-Interval, 95%CI=1•30-3•34) in PEH and 1•55% (95%CI=0•79-2•31) in staff. In outbreaks, the pooled prevalence increases to 31•59% (95%CI=20•48-42•71) in PEH and 14•80% (95%CI=10•73-18•87) in staff. Main IPC strategies were universal rapid testing, expansion of non-congregate housing, and in-shelter measures (bed spacing, limited staff rotation, reduction in number of residents).

INTERPRETATION

32% of PEH and 15% staff are infected during outbreaks of SARS-Cov-2 in homeless shelters. Most studies were conducted in the USA. No studies were found quantifying health-related outcomes of NPI. Overview and evaluation of IPC strategies for PEH, a better understanding of disease transmission, and reliable data on PEH within Covid-19 notification systems are needed. Qualitative studies may serve to voice PEH and shelter staff experiences, and guide future evaluations and IPC strategies.

FUNDING

None.

Increasing concentration of COVID-19 by socioeconomic determinants and geography in Toronto, Canada: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Inequities in the burden of COVID-19 were observed early in Canada and around the world suggesting economically marginalized communities faced disproportionate risks. However, there has been limited systematic assessment of how heterogeneity in risks has evolved in large urban centers over time.

PURPOSE

To address this gap, we quantified the magnitude of risk heterogeneity in Toronto, Ontario from January-November, 2020 using a retrospective, population-based observational study using surveillance data.

METHODS

We generated epidemic curves by social determinants of health (SDOH) and crude Lorenz curves by neighbourhoods to visualize inequities in the distribution of COVID-19 and estimated Gini coefficients. We examined the correlation between SDOH using Pearson-correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Gini coefficient of cumulative cases by population size was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]:0.36-0.47) and estimated for: household income (0.20, 95%CI: 0.14-0.28); visible minority (0.21, 95%CI:0.16-0.28); recent immigration (0.12, 95%CI:0.09-0.16); suitable housing (0.21, 95%CI:0.14-0.30); multi-generational households (0.19, 95%CI:0.15-0.23); and essential workers (0.28, 95%CI:0.23-0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

There was rapid epidemiologic transition from higher to lower income neighbourhoods with Lorenz curve transitioning from below to above the line of equality across SDOH. Moving forward necessitates integrating programs and policies addressing socioeconomic inequities and structural racism into COVID-19 prevention and vaccination programs.

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.

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.

Seeking shelter: homelessness and COVID-19

Those experiencing homelessness in Canada are impacted inequitably by COVID-19 due to their increased exposure, vulnerability of environment and medical comorbidities, and their lack of access to preventive care and treatment in the context of the pandemic. In shelter environments one is unable to effectively physically distance, maintain hygiene, obtain a test, or isolate. As a result, unique strategies are required for this population to protect them and those who serve them. Recommendations are provided to reduce or prevent further negative consequences from the COVID-19 pandemic for people experiencing homelessness. These recommendations were informed by a systematic review of the literature, as well as a jurisdictional scan. Where evidence did not exist, expert consensus from key providers and those experiencing homelessness throughout Canada was included. These recommendations recognize the need for short-term interventions to mitigate the immediate risk to this community, including coordination of response, appropriate precautions and protective equipment, reducing congestion, cohorting, testing, case and contact management strategies, dealing with outbreaks, isolation centres, and immunization. Longer-term recommendations are also provided with a view to ending homelessness by addressing the root causes of homelessness and by the provision of adequate subsidized and supportive housing through a Housing First strategy. It is imperative that meaningful changes take place now in how we serve those experiencing homelessness and how we mitigate specific vulnerabilities. These recommendations call for intersectoral, collaborative engagement to work for solutions targeted towards protecting the most vulnerable within our community through both immediate actions and long-term planning to eliminate homelessness.