RESUMO
BackgroundSurveillance data in high-income countries have reported more frequent SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses in ethnic minority groups. We examined the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 and its determinants in six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. MethodsWe analyzed participants enrolled in the population-based HELIUS cohort, who were tested for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and answered COVID-19-related questions between June 24-October 9, 2020 (after the first wave) and November 23, 2020-March 31, 2021 (during the second wave). We modeled SARS-CoV-2 incidence from January 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 using Markov models adjusted for age and sex. We compared incidence between ethnic groups over time and identified determinants of incident infection within ethnic groups. Findings2,497 participants were tested after the first wave; 2,083 (83{middle dot}4%) were tested during the second wave. Median age at first visit was 54 years (interquartile range=44-61); 56{middle dot}6% were female. Compared to Dutch-origin participants (15{middle dot}9%), cumulative SARS-CoV-2 incidence was higher in participants of South-Asian Surinamese (25{middle dot}0%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=1{middle dot}66;95%CI=1{middle dot}16-2{middle dot}40), African Surinamese (28{middle dot}9%;aHR=1{middle dot}97;95%CI=1{middle dot}37-2{middle dot}83), Turkish (37{middle dot}0%;aHR=2{middle dot}67;95%CI=1{middle dot}89-3{middle dot}78), Moroccan (41{middle dot}9%;aHR=3{middle dot}13;95%CI=2{middle dot}22-4{middle dot}42), and Ghanaian (64{middle dot}6%;aHR=6{middle dot}00;95%CI=4{middle dot}33-8{middle dot}30) origin. Compared to those of Dutch origin, differences in incidence became wider during the second versus first wave for all ethnic minority groups (all p for interaction<0.05), except Ghanaians. Having household members with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, larger household size, and low health literacy were common determinants of SARS-CoV-2 incidence across groups. InterpretationSARS-CoV-2 incidence was higher in the largest ethnic minority groups of Amsterdam, particularly during the second wave. Prevention measures, including vaccination, should be encouraged in these groups. FundingZonMw, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Dutch Heart Foundation, European Union, European Fund for the Integration of non-EU immigrants.
RESUMO
BackgroundEthnic minorities have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses, but little is known about ethnic differences in past exposure. We aimed to determine whether prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure varied between six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. MethodsParticipants aged 25-79 years enrolled in a population-based prospective cohort were randomly selected within ethnic groups and invited to test for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and answer COVID-19 related questions. We estimated prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure within ethnic groups using survey-weighted logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and calendar time. ResultsBetween June 24-October 9, 2020, we included 2497 participants. Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was comparable between ethnic-Dutch (25/498; 5.5%, 95%CI=3.2-7.9), South-Asian Surinamese (22/451; 4.8%, 95%CI=2.1-7.5), African Surinamese (22/400; 8.2%, 95%CI=3.0-13.4), Turkish (30/408; 7.8%, 95%CI=4.3-11.2) and Moroccan (32/391; 7.0%, 95%CI=4.0-9.9) participants, but higher among Ghanaians (95/327; 26.5%, 95%CI=18.7-34.4). 57.1% of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants did not suspect or were unsure of being infected, which was lowest in African Surinamese (18.2%) and highest in Ghanaians (90.5%). Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure varied across ethnic groups, while the most common determinant was having a household member suspected of infection. In Ghanaians, seropositivity was associated with older age, larger household sizes, living with small children, leaving home to work and attending religious services. ConclusionsNo remarkable differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence were observed between the largest ethnic groups in Amsterdam after the first wave of infections. The higher infection seroprevalence observed among Ghanaians, which passed mostly unnoticed, warrants wider prevention efforts and opportunities for non-symptom-based testing.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To investigate the association between the 5-HT-transporter-gene-linked promoter region (5-HTTLPR) polymorphism and 20-mg paroxetine-induced ejaculation delay in men with lifelong premature ejaculation (LPE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of 10 weeks of paroxetine treatment in 54 men with LPE. Intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT) was measured by stopwatch. Controls consisted of 92 Caucasian men. All men with LPE were genotyped for the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism. Allele frequencies and genotypes of short (S) and long (L) variants of the polymorphism were compared between patients and controls. Associations between the LL, SL, and SS genotypes and fold increase of mean IELT were investigated. RESULTS: Of the 54 patients, 43 (79.6%) responded to 20-mg paroxetine treatment with an ejaculation delay, whereas 11 patients (20.4%) did not respond; 44%, 18%, and 18% of the patients showed a fold increase in mean IELT of 2-10, 10-20, and more than 20, respectively. Of the 54 men, 14 (25.9%) had the LL genotype, 29 (53.7%) had the SL genotype, and 11 (20.4%) had the SS genotype. In the 92 controls, the LL, SL, and SS genotypes were present in 27 (29.3%), 41 (44.6%), and 24 (26.1%), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in 5-HTTLPR allelic variations or in 5-HTTLPR gene variations. In all men treated with 20 mg paroxetine, analysis of variance of the natural logarithm of fold increase in the IELT showed no statistically significant difference according to genotype (p=0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-HTTLPR polymorphism is not associated with daily 20-mg paroxetine treatment-induced ejaculation delay in men with LPE.
