RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Racialized communities, including Black Canadians, have disproportionately higher COVID-19 cases. We examined the extent to which SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected the Black Canadian community and the factors associated with the infection. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in an area of Ontario (northwest Toronto/Peel Region) with a high proportion of Black residents along with 2 areas that have lower proportions of Black residents (Oakville and London, Ontario). SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were determined using the EUROIMMUN assay. The study was conducted between August 15, 2020, and December 15, 2020. RESULTS: Among 387 evaluable subjects, the majority, 273 (70.5%), were enrolled from northwest Toronto and adjoining suburban areas of Peel, Ontario. The seropositivity values for Oakville and London were comparable (3.3% (2/60; 95% CI 0.4-11.5) and 3.9% (2/51; 95% CI 0.5-13.5), respectively). Relative to these areas, the seropositivity was higher for the northwest Toronto/Peel area at 12.1% (33/273), relative risk (RR) 3.35 (1.22-9.25). Persons 19 years of age or less had the highest seropositivity (10/50; 20.0%, 95% CI 10.3-33.7%), RR 2.27 (1.23-3.59). There was a trend for an interaction effect between race and location of residence as this relates to the relative risk of seropositivity. INTERPRETATION: During the early phases of the pandemic, the seropositivity within a COVID-19 high-prevalence zone was threefold greater than lower prevalence areas of Ontario. Black individuals were among those with the highest seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2.
RESUMO
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the supply, cost, and demand for certain foods, but it is not clear how these changes have affected food-allergic households. Objective: To describe the changes in food-related costs that have followed COVID-19, as reported by higher- and lower-income households with a food-allergic member. Methods: Between May 1-June 30, 2020, Canadian households, with at least one food-allergic member, completed an online survey on food shopping and preparation habits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample was divided into binary groups, either higher or lower than the sample median income. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression. Results: The sample was comprised of 102 participants (i.e., 51/ income group). The three most common food allergies amongst both groups were peanuts, tree nuts and milk. Since the start of the pandemic, both groups reported greater monthly direct grocery costs, although costs amongst the higher-income group were twice as high as the lower-income group ($212.86 vs. $98.89, respectively). Indirect food preparation costs were similarly elevated. Higher-income households with food procurement difficulties reported increased indirect shopping costs following the outbreak of COVID-19, whereas those without such difficulties reported decreased costs. Lower-income households with allergies to milk, wheat, or eggs (i.e., staple allergy) experienced a larger change in indirect food preparation costs following the outbreak of COVID-19 relative to those with other food allergies ($244.58 vs. -$20.28, respectively; p = 0.03). Conclusion: Both higher and lower income households with food allergy reported greater direct food costs and indirect food preparation costs following the COVID-19. Households with staple allergy and those with difficulties finding their typical food items were particularly affected.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Community use of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis is low. Knowledge of rates of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting along with identification of barriers to its use will contribute to the development of policies and guidelines. OBJECTIVES: A search was conducted on PubMed and Embase in April 2020. Our systematic review focused on 4 domains: (1) epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (2) barriers to epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (3) cost evaluation and cost-effectiveness of epinephrine use; and (4) programs and strategies to improve epinephrine use during anaphylaxis. METHODS: Two meta-analyses with logit transformation were conducted to: (1) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting among cases of anaphylaxis and (2) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of biphasic reactions among all cases of anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting was significantly higher for children compared with adults (20.98% [95% confidence interval (CI): 16.38%, 26.46%] vs 7.17% [95% CI: 2.71%, 17.63%], respectively, P = .0027). The pooled estimate of biphasic reactions among all anaphylaxis cases was 3.92% (95% CI: 2.88%, 5.32%). Our main findings indicate that pre-hospital use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. Major barriers to the use of epinephrine were identified as low prescription rates of epinephrine autoinjectors and lack of stock epinephrine in schools, which was determined to be cost-effective. Finally, in reviewing programs and strategies, numerous studies have engineered effective methods to promote adequate and timely use of epinephrine. CONCLUSION: The main findings of our study demonstrated that across the globe, prompt epinephrine use in cases of anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. For practical recommendations, we would suggest considering stock epinephrine in schools and food courts to increase the use of epinephrine in the community. We recommend use of pamphlets in public areas (ie, malls, food courts, etc.) to assist in recognizing anaphylaxis and after that with prompt epinephrine administration, to avoid the rare risk of fatality in anaphylaxis cases.