- Home
- Eurosurveillance
- Previous Issues
- Volume 27, Issue 32, 11/Aug/2022
Eurosurveillance - Volume 27, Issue 32, 11 August 2022
Volume 27, Issue 32, 2022
- Research
-
-
-
SARS-CoV-2 infection in households with and without young children: Nationwide cohort study, Denmark, 27 February 2020 to 26 February 2021
BackgroundInfections with seasonally spreading coronaviruses are common among young children during winter months in the northern hemisphere; the immunological response lasts around a year. However, it is not clear if living with young children changes the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among adults.
AimOur aim was to investigate the association between living in a household with younger children and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalisation.
MethodsIn a nationwide cohort study, we followed all adults in Denmark aged 18 to 60 years from 27 February 2020 to 26 February 2021. Hazard ratios of SARS-CoV-2 infection by number of 10 months to 5 year-old children in the household were estimated using Cox regression adjusted for adult age, sex and other potential confounders. In a sensitivity analysis, we investigated the effect of the children's age.
ResultsAmong 450,007 adults living in households with young children, 19,555 were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, while among 2,628,500 adults without young children in their household, 110,069 were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08–1.12). Among adults with young children, 620 were hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2, while 4,002 adults without children were hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 (aHR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88–1.08). Sensitivity analyses found that an increasing number of younger children substantially increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection but not hospitalisation.
ConclusionLiving in a household with young children was associated with a small increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
-
-
-
Epidemiology of Lyme borreliosis based on outpatient claims data of all people with statutory health insurance, Germany, 2019
IntroductionEvidence of nationwide and regional morbidity of Lyme borreliosis (LB) in Germany is lacking.
AimsWe calculated the total number of incident LB cases in Germany in 2019, compared regional variations, investigated the extent of possible under-reporting in notification data and examined the association between high incidence areas and land cover composition.
MethodsWe used outpatient claims data comprising information for people with statutory health insurance who visited a physician at least once between 2010 and 2019 in Germany (n = 71,411,504). The ICD-10 code A69.2 was used to identify incident LB patients. Spatial variations of LB were assessed by means of Global and Local Moran’s Index at district level. Notification data were obtained for nine federal states with mandatory notification from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI).
ResultsOf all insured, 128,177 were diagnosed with LB in 2019, corresponding to an incidence of 179 per 100,000 insured. The incidence varied across districts by a factor of 16 (range: 40–646 per 100,000). We identified four spatial clusters with high incidences. These clusters were associated with a significantly larger proportion of forests and agricultural areas than low incidence clusters. In 2019, 12,264 LB cases were reported to the RKI from nine federal states, while 69,623 patients with LB were found in claims data for those states. This difference varied considerably across districts.
ConclusionsThese findings serve as a solid basis for regionally tailored population-based intervention programmes and can support modelling studies assessing the development of LB epidemiology under various climate change scenarios.
-
- Top
-
- Perspective
-
-
-
Monkeypox: another test for PCR
Monkeypox was declared a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 23 July 2022. Between 1 January and 23 July 2022, 16,016 laboratory confirmed cases of monkeypox and five deaths were reported to WHO from 75 countries on all continents. Public health authorities are proactively identifying cases and tracing their contacts to contain its spread. As with COVID-19, PCR is the only method capable of being deployed at sufficient speed to provide timely feedback on any public health interventions. However, at this point, there is little information on how those PCR assays are being standardised between laboratories. A likely reason is that testing is still limited on a global scale and that detection, not quantification, of monkeypox virus DNA is the main clinical requirement. Yet we should not be complacent about PCR performance. As testing requirements increase rapidly and specimens become more diverse, it would be prudent to ensure PCR accuracy from the outset to support harmonisation and ease regulatory conformance. Lessons from COVID-19 should aid implementation with appropriate material, documentary and methodological standards offering dynamic mechanisms to ensure testing that most accurately guides public health decisions.
-
-
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 29 (2024)
-
Volume 28 (2023)
-
Volume 27 (2022)
-
Volume 26 (2021)
-
Volume 25 (2020)
-
Volume 24 (2019)
-
Volume 23 (2018)
-
Volume 22 (2017)
-
Volume 21 (2016)
-
Volume 20 (2015)
-
Volume 19 (2014)
-
Volume 18 (2013)
-
Volume 17 (2012)
-
Volume 16 (2011)
-
Volume 15 (2010)
-
Volume 14 (2009)
-
Volume 13 (2008)
-
Volume 12 (2007)
-
Volume 11 (2006)
-
Volume 10 (2005)
-
Volume 9 (2004)
-
Volume 8 (2003)
-
Volume 7 (2002)
-
Volume 6 (2001)
-
Volume 5 (2000)
-
Volume 4 (1999)
-
Volume 3 (1998)
-
Volume 2 (1997)
-
Volume 1 (1996)
-
Volume 0 (1995)
Most Read This Month
-
-
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
Victor M Corman , Olfert Landt , Marco Kaiser , Richard Molenkamp , Adam Meijer , Daniel KW Chu , Tobias Bleicker , Sebastian Brünink , Julia Schneider , Marie Luisa Schmidt , Daphne GJC Mulders , Bart L Haagmans , Bas van der Veer , Sharon van den Brink , Lisa Wijsman , Gabriel Goderski , Jean-Louis Romette , Joanna Ellis , Maria Zambon , Malik Peiris , Herman Goossens , Chantal Reusken , Marion PG Koopmans and Christian Drosten
-
- More Less