Examining the Influence of Imbalanced Social Contact Matrices in Epidemic Models.

Transmissible infections such as those caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread according to who contacts whom. Therefore, many epidemic models incorporate contact patterns through contact matrices. Contact matrices can be generated from social contact survey data. However, the resulting matrices are often imbalanced, such that the total number of contacts reported by group A with group B do not match those reported by group B with group A. We examined the theoretical influence of imbalanced contact matrices on the estimated basic reproduction number (R0). We then explored how imbalanced matrices may bias model-based epidemic projections using an illustrative simulation model of SARS-CoV-2 with 2 age groups (<15 and ≥15 years). Models with imbalanced matrices underestimated the initial spread of SARS-CoV-2, had later time to peak incidence, and had smaller peak incidence. Imbalanced matrices also influenced cumulative infections observed per age group, as well as the estimated impact of an age-specific vaccination strategy. Stratified transmission models that do not consider contact balancing may generate biased projections of epidemic trajectory and the impact of targeted public health interventions. Therefore, modeling studies should implement and report methods used to balance contact matrices for stratified transmission models.

Testing Whether Higher Contact Among the Vaccinated Can Be a Mechanism for Observed Negative Vaccine Effectiveness.

Evidence from early observational studies suggested negative vaccine effectiveness (${V}_{Eff}$) for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant. Since true ${V}_{Eff}$ is unlikely to be negative, we explored how differences in contact among vaccinated persons (e.g., potentially from the implementation of vaccine mandates) could lead to observed negative ${V}_{Eff}$. Using a susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered (SEIR) transmission model, we examined how vaccinated-contact heterogeneity, defined as an increase in the contact rate only between vaccinated individuals, interacted with 2 mechanisms of vaccine efficacy: vaccine efficacy against susceptibility ($V{E}_S$) and vaccine efficacy against infectiousness ($V{E}_I$), to produce underestimated and in some cases, negative measurements of ${V}_{Eff}$. We found that vaccinated-contact heterogeneity led to negative estimates when $V{E}_I$, and especially $V{E}_S$, were low. Moreover, we determined that when contact heterogeneity was very high, ${V}_{Eff}$ could still be underestimated given relatively high vaccine efficacies (0.7), although its effect on ${V}_{Eff}$ was strongly reduced. We also found that this contact heterogeneity mechanism generated a signature temporal pattern: The largest underestimates and negative measurements of ${V}_{Eff}$ occurred during epidemic growth. Overall, our research illustrates how vaccinated-contact heterogeneity could have feasibly produced negative measurements during the Omicron period and highlights its general ability to bias observational studies of ${V}_{Eff}$.

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.

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 % 1,75­1,98), une plus grande proportion de travailleurs essentiels (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,58; IC à 95 % 1,48­1,69), une population atteignant un plus faible niveau de scolarité (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,33; IC à 95 % 1,26­1,41) et une plus grande proportion d'immigrants récents (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,10; IC à 95 % 1,05­1,15), 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.

Impact of a vaccine passport on first-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine coverage by age and area-level social determinants of health in the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, all provinces implemented vaccine passports in 2021 to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission in non-essential indoor spaces and increase vaccine uptake (policies active September 2021-March 2022 in Quebec and Ontario). We sought to evaluate the impact of vaccine passport policies on first-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage by age, and area-level income and proportion of racialized residents. METHODS: We performed interrupted time series analyses using data from Quebec's and Ontario's vaccine registries linked to census information (population of 20.5 million people aged ≥ 12 yr; unit of analysis: dissemination area). We fit negative binomial regressions to first-dose vaccinations, using natural splines adjusting for baseline vaccination coverage (start: July 2021; end: October 2021 for Quebec, November 2021 for Ontario). We obtained counterfactual vaccination rates and coverage, and estimated the absolute and relative impacts of vaccine passports. RESULTS: In both provinces, first-dose vaccination coverage before the announcement of vaccine passports was 82% (age ≥ 12 yr). The announcement resulted in estimated increases in coverage of 0.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-1.2) in Quebec and 0.7 percentage points (95% CI 0.5-0.8) in Ontario. This corresponds to 23% (95% CI 10%-36%) and 19% (95% CI 15%-22%) more vaccinations over 11 weeks. The impact was larger among people aged 12-39 years. Despite lower coverage in lower-income and more-racialized areas, there was little variability in the absolute impact by area-level income or proportion racialized in either province. INTERPRETATION: In the context of high vaccine coverage across 2 provinces, the announcement of vaccine passports had a small impact on first-dose coverage, with little impact on reducing economic and racial inequities in vaccine coverage. Findings suggest that other policies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among lower-income and racialized neighbourhoods and communities.

Predictors of all-cause mortality among patients hospitalized with influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, or SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Shared and divergent predictors of clinical severity across respiratory viruses may support clinical and community responses in the context of a novel respiratory pathogen. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to identify predictors of 30-day all-cause mortality following hospitalization with influenza (N = 45,749; 2010-09 to 2019-05), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV; N = 24 345; 2010-09 to 2019-04), or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; N = 8988; 2020-03 to 2020-12; pre-vaccine) using population-based health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Multivariable modified Poisson regression was used to assess associations between potential predictors and mortality. We compared the direction, magnitude, and confidence intervals of risk ratios to identify shared and divergent predictors of mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3186 (7.0%), 697 (2.9%), and 1880 (20.9%) patients died within 30 days of hospital admission with influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2, respectively. Shared predictors of increased mortality included older age, male sex, residence in a long-term care home, and chronic kidney disease. Positive associations between age and mortality were largest for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Few comorbidities were associated with mortality among patients with SARS-CoV-2 as compared with those with influenza or RSV. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings may help identify patients at greatest risk of illness secondary to a respiratory virus, anticipate hospital resource needs, and prioritize local prevention and therapeutic strategies to communities with higher prevalence of risk factors.

Validating International Classification of Disease 10th Revision algorithms for identifying influenza and respiratory syncytial virus hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE: Routinely collected health administrative data can be used to efficiently assess disease burden in large populations, but it is important to evaluate the validity of these data. The objective of this study was to develop and validate International Classification of Disease 10th revision (ICD -10) algorithms that identify laboratory-confirmed influenza or laboratory-confirmed respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) hospitalizations using population-based health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Influenza and RSV laboratory data from the 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respiratory virus seasons were obtained from the Ontario Laboratories Information System (OLIS) and were linked to hospital discharge abstract data to generate influenza and RSV reference cohorts. These reference cohorts were used to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ICD-10 algorithms. To minimize misclassification in future studies, we prioritized specificity and PPV in selecting top-performing algorithms. RESULTS: 83,638 and 61,117 hospitalized patients were included in the influenza and RSV reference cohorts, respectively. The best influenza algorithm had a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI 72% to 74%), specificity of 99% (95% CI 99% to 99%), PPV of 94% (95% CI 94% to 95%), and NPV of 94% (95% CI 94% to 95%). The best RSV algorithm had a sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 68% to 70%), specificity of 99% (95% CI 99% to 99%), PPV of 91% (95% CI 90% to 91%) and NPV of 97% (95% CI 97% to 97%). CONCLUSION: We identified two highly specific algorithms that best ascertain patients hospitalized with influenza or RSV. These algorithms may be applied to hospitalized patients if data on laboratory tests are not available, and will thereby improve the power of future epidemiologic studies of influenza, RSV, and potentially other severe acute respiratory infections.