RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Clinical Risk, Sociodemographic Factors, and SARS-CoV-2 Infection Over Time in Ontario, Canada
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.04.28.21256052
DO 10.1101/2021.04.28.21256052
A1 Jacob A. Udell
A1 Bahar Behrouzi
A1 Atul Sivaswamy
A1 Anna Chu
A1 Laura E. Ferreira-Legere
A1 Jiming Fang
A1 Shaun G. Goodman
A1 Justin A. Ezekowitz
A1 Kevin R. Bainey
A1 Sean van Diepen
A1 Padma Kaul
A1 Finlay A. McAlister
A1 Isaac I. Bogoch
A1 Cynthia Jackevicius
A1 Husam Abdel-Qadir
A1 Harindra C. Wijeysundera
A1 Dennis T. Ko
A1 Peter C. Austin
A1 Douglas S. Lee
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.21256052.abstract
AB Background Sociodemographic and clinical factors are emerging as important predictors for developing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.Objective To determine whether public health interventions that culminated in a stay-at-home lockdown instituted during the first wave of the pandemic in March/April 2020 were effective at mitigating the association of any of these factors with the risk of infection.Design Population-based cohort studySetting Ontario, CanadaPatients All adults that underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1 and June 12, 2020.Measurements The outcome of interest was SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were determined for sociodemographic and clinical risk factors before and after the peak of the pandemic to assess for changes in effect sizes.Results Among 578,263 community-dwelling individuals, 20,524 (3.5%) people tested positive. The association between age and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among tested community-dwelling individuals varied over time (P-interaction <0.0001). Prior to the first-wave peak of the pandemic, the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection increased progressively with age compared with individuals aged 18-45 years (P<0.0001). This association subsequently reversed, with all age groups younger than 85 years at progressively higher risk of infection (P<0.0001) after the peak. Otherwise, risk factors that persisted throughout included male sex, residing in lower income neighborhoods, residing in more racially/ethnically diverse communities, immigration to Canada, and history of hypertension and diabetes. While there was a reduction in infection rates across Ontario after mid-April, there was less impact in regions with higher degrees of racial/ethnic diversity. When considered in an additive risk model, following the initial peak of the pandemic, individuals living in the most racially/ethnically diverse communities with 2, 3, or ≥4 risk factors had ORs of 1.89, 3.07, and 4.73-fold higher for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to lower risk individuals in their community (all P<0.0001). In contrast, in the least racially/ethnically diverse communities, there was little to no gradient in infection rates across risk strata.Conclusion After public health interventions in March/April 2020, people with multiple risk factors residing in the most racially diverse communities of Ontario continued to have the highest likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection while risk was mitigated for people with multiple risk factors residing in less racially/ethnically diverse communities. Further efforts are necessary to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the highest risk individuals residing in these communities.Primary Funding Source Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study received funding from a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Innovative Clinical Trial Multi-year grant (MYG-151211), a Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research Innovation Fund COVID-19 Award, a Peter Munk Cardiac Care Innovation Fund, and a COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding Opportunity Clinical Management and Health Systems Interventions from the Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (ICRH)-CIHR operating grant: (VR4-172736).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:ICES has obtained ethical approval (and repeats this review tri-annually) for its privacy and security policies, procedures, and practices. Each research project that is conducted at ICES is also subject to internal ethical review by the ICES Privacy and Compliance Office. Please find attached to this submission a letter with more information regarding the ethical review and approval process for this research; please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. ICES is a prescribed entity under section 45 of Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA). Section 45 is the provision that enables analysis and compilation of statistical information related to the management, evaluation, and monitoring of, allocation of resources to, and planning for the health system. Section 45 authorizes health information custodians to disclose personal health information to a prescribed entity, like ICES, without consent for such purposes. Projects conducted wholly under section 45, by definition, do not require review by a Research Ethics Board. As a prescribed entity, ICES must submit to trio-annual review and approval of its privacy and security policies, procedures and practices by Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner. These include policies, practices and procedures that require internal review and approval of every project by ICES' Privacy and Compliance Office. ICES was approved by the Commissioner for a fifth time in 2017.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe dataset from this study is held securely in coded form at ICES. While legal data sharing agreements between ICES and data providers (e.g., healthcare organizations and government) prohibit ICES from making the dataset publicly available, access may be granted to those who meet pre-specified criteria for confidential access, available at www.ices.on.ca/DAS (email: das{at}ices.on.ca).