We found a significant association between respiratory infections, especially influenza, and acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others.).

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Nursing home residents have been disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 . Prevention recommendations emphasize frequent testing of health care personnel and residents, but additional strategies are needed.OBJECTIVE To develop a reproducible index of nursing home crowding and determine whether crowding was associated with COVID-19 cases and mortality in the first months of the COVID-19 epidemic.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This population-based retrospective cohort study included more than 78 000 residents across more than 600 nursing homes in Ontario, Canada, and was conducted from March 29 to May 20, 2020.EXPOSURES The nursing home crowding index equaled the mean number of residents per bedroom and bathroom. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe cumulative incidence of COVID-19 cases confirmed by a validated nucleic acid amplification assay and mortality per 100 residents; the introduction of COVID-19 into a home (Ն1 resident case) was a negative tracer. RESULTSOf 623 homes in Ontario, we obtained complete information on 618 homes (99%) housing 78 607 residents (women, 54 160 [68.9%]; age Ն85 years, 42 919 [54.6%]). A total of 5218 residents (6.6%) developed COVID-19 infection, and 1452 (1.8%) died of COVID-19 infection as of May 20, 2020. COVID-19 infection was distributed unevenly across nursing homes; 4496 infections (86%) occurred in 63 homes (10%). The crowding index ranged across homes from 1.3 (mainly single-occupancy rooms) to 4.0 (exclusively quadruple occupancy rooms); 308 homes (50%) had a high crowding index (Ն2). Incidence in high crowding index homes was 9.7% vs 4.5% in low crowding index homes (P < .001), while COVID-19 mortality was 2.7% vs 1.3%, respectively (P < .001). The likelihood of COVID-19 introduction did not differ (high = 31.3% vs low = 30.2%; P = .79). After adjustment for regional, nursing home, and resident covariates, the crowding index remained associated with an increased incidence of infection (relative risk [RR] = 1.73, 95% CI, 1.10-2.72) and mortality (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.99-2.87). A propensity score analysis yielded similar conclusions for infection (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.30-3.38) and mortality (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.09-3.08). Simulations suggested that converting all 4-bed rooms to 2-bed rooms would have averted 998 COVID-19 cases (19.1%) and 263 deaths (18.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cohort of Canadian nursing homes, crowding was common and crowded homes were more likely to experience larger and deadlier COVID-19 outbreaks.

Objective To estimate the effectiveness of mRNA covid-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes (hospital admission or death). Design Test negative design study. Setting Ontario, Canada between 14 December 2020 and 19 April 2021. Participants 324 033 community dwelling people aged ≥16 years who had symptoms of covid-19 and were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Interventions BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine. Main outcome measures Laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and hospital admissions and deaths associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multivariable logistic regression was adjusted for personal and clinical characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccine receipt to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes. Results Of 324 033 people with symptoms, 53 270 (16.4%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 21 272 (6.6%) received at least one dose of vaccine. Among participants who tested positive, 2479 (4.7%) were admitted to hospital or died. Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection observed ≥14 days after one dose was 60% (95% confidence interval 57% to 64%), increasing from 48% (41% to 54%) at 14-20 days after one dose to 71% (63% to 78%) at 35-41 days. Vaccine effectiveness observed ≥7 days after two doses was 91% (89% to 93%). Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission or death observed ≥14 days after one dose was 70% (60% to 77%), increasing from 62% (44% to 75%) at 14-20 days to 91% (73% to 97%) at ≥35 days, whereas vaccine effectiveness observed ≥7 days after two doses was 98% (88% to 100%). For adults aged ≥70 years, vaccine effectiveness estimates were observed to be lower for intervals shortly after one dose but were comparable to those for younger people for all intervals after 28 days. After two doses, high vaccine effectiveness was observed against variants with the E484K mutation. Conclusions Two doses of mRNA covid-19 vaccines were observed to be highly effective against symptomatic infection and severe outcomes. Vaccine effectiveness of one dose was observed to be lower, particularly for older adults shortly after the first dose.

Background The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including among those who have received 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines, has increased substantially since Omicron was first identified in the province of Ontario, Canada. Methods Applying the test-negative design to linked provincial data, we estimated vaccine effectiveness against infection (irrespective of symptoms or severity) caused by Omicron or Delta between November 22 and December 19, 2021. We included individuals who had received at least 2 COVID-19 vaccine doses (with at least 1 mRNA vaccine dose for the primary series) and used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the effectiveness of two or three doses by time since the latest dose. Results We included 3,442 Omicron-positive cases, 9,201 Delta-positive cases, and 471,545 test-negative controls. After 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine effectiveness against Delta infection declined steadily over time but recovered to 93% (95%CI, 92-94%) ≥7 days after receiving an mRNA vaccine for the third dose. In contrast, receipt of 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines was not protective against Omicron. Vaccine effectiveness against Omicron was 37% (95%CI, 19-50%) ≥7 days after receiving an mRNA vaccine for the third dose. Conclusions Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against infection by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in the immediate term, but substantially less than against Delta. Our results may be confounded by behaviours that we were unable to account for in our analyses. Further research is needed to examine protection against severe outcomes.

volution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the emergence of four variants of concern (VOC)-Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1) and Delta (B.1.617.2)-to date. Alpha was first detected in the

IMPORTANCE As a result of low numbers of pediatric cases early in the COVID-19 pandemic, pediatric household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 remains an understudied topic.OBJECTIVE To determine whether there are differences in the odds of household transmission by younger children compared with older children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis population-based cohort study took place between June 1 and December 31, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Private households in which the index case individual of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was younger than 18 years were included. Individuals were excluded if they resided in apartments missing suite information, in households with multiple index cases, or in households where the age of the index case individual was missing.EXPOSURES Age group of pediatric index cases categorized as 0 to 3, 4 to 8, 9 to 13, and 14 to 17 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESHousehold transmission, defined as households where at least 1 secondary case occurred 1 to 14 days after the pediatric index case.RESULTS A total of 6280 households had pediatric index cases, and 1717 households (27.3%) experienced secondary transmission. The mean (SD) age of pediatric index case individuals was 10.7 (5.1) years and 2863 (45.6%) were female individuals. Children aged 0 to 3 years had the highest odds of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to household contacts compared with children aged 14 to 17 years (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.75). This association was similarly observed in sensitivity analyses defining secondary cases as 2 to 14 days or 4 to 14 days after the index case and stratified analyses by presence of symptoms, association with a school/childcare outbreak, or school/childcare reopening. Children aged 4 to 8 years and 9 to 13 years also had increased odds of transmission (aged 4-8 years: odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.67; aged 9-13 years: odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.97-1.32). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis study suggests that younger children may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with older children, and the highest odds of transmission was observed for children aged 0 to 3 years. Differential infectivity of pediatric age groups has implications for infection prevention within households, as well as schools/childcare, to minimize risk of household secondary transmission. Additional population-based studies are required to establish the risk of transmission by younger pediatric index cases.