This article describes the epidemiology of pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 influenza in all Canadian pregnant women admitted to hospital, and compares it with historical inter-pandemic influenza activity. We used weekly hospitalization and death counts of laboratory-confirmed pandemic A(H1N1) influenza cases reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada's (PHAC) 2009-2010 national pandemic influenza surveillance programme. Pregnant women infected and admitted with the pandemic strain were described and compared with: (1) confirmed admissions of all women of reproductive age; (2) all admitted cases reported to PHAC; and (3) to a historical average of inter-pandemic seasonal influenza admissions, and pneumonia and influenza (P&I) admissions for pregnant women. During the pandemic, 263 pregnant women with confirmed infections were admitted; four died in their third trimester. The median age for admitted pregnant cases was 27.5 years, which is consistent with the median age of the 3-year historical inter-pandemic pregnant comparison group. Aboriginal women appeared to be overrepresented but ethnicity was unavailable for 15.2% of all pregnant cases. Overall admission volumes were higher than those for seasonal influenza in the historical comparison group but were lower than those for P&I admissions. Despite increased admission volumes, severe outcomes in pregnant women were proportionally fewer than in all cases admitted for influenza A(H1N1) infection during the pandemic.

Background An estimated 20–30% of community-dwelling Canadian adults aged 65 years or older experience one or more falls each year. Fall-related injuries are a leading cause of hospitalization and can lead to functional independence. Many fall prevention interventions, often based on modifiable risk factors, have been studied. Apart from the magnitude of the benefits and harms from different interventions, the preferences of older adults for different interventions as well as the relative importance they place on the different potential outcomes may influence recommendations by guideline panels. These reviews on benefits and harms of interventions, and on patient values and preferences, will inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to develop recommendations on fall prevention for primary care providers. Methods To review the benefits and harms of fall prevention interventions, we will update a previous systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptations to modify the classification of interventions and narrow the scope to community-dwelling older adults and primary-care relevant interventions. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ageline), reference lists, trial registries, and relevant websites will be searched, using limits for randomized trials and date (2016 onwards). We will classify interventions according to the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFANE) Group’s taxonomy. Outcomes include fallers, falls, injurious falls, fractures, hip fractures, institutionalization, health-related quality of life, functional status, and intervention-related adverse effects. For studies not included in the previous review, screening, study selection, data extraction on outcomes, and risk of bias assessments will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus used for final decisions. Where quantitative analysis is suitable, network or pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using a frequentist approach in Stata. Assessment of the transitivity and coherence of the network meta-analyses will be undertaken. For the reviews on patient preferences and outcome valuation (relative importance of outcomes), we will perform de novo reviews with searches in three databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and reference lists for cross-sectional, longitudinal quantitative, or qualitative studies published from 2000. Selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments suitable for each study design will be performed in duplicate. The analysis will be guided by a narrative synthesis approach, which may include meta-analysis for health-state utilities. We will use the CINeMa approach to a rate the certainty of the evidence for outcomes on intervention effects analyzed using network meta-analysis and the GRADE approach for all other outcomes. Discussion We will describe the flow of literature and characteristics of all studies and present results of all analyses and summary of finding tables. We will compare our findings to others and discuss the limitations of the reviews and the available literature. Systematic review registration This protocol has not been registered.

ObjectivesThis report estimates the risk of COVID-19 importation and secondary transmission associated with a modified quarantine programme in Canada.Design and participantsProspective analysis of international asymptomatic travellers entering Alberta, Canada.InterventionsAll participants were required to receive a PCR COVID-19 test on arrival. If negative, participants could leave quarantine but were required to have a second test 6 or 7 days after arrival. If the arrival test was positive, participants were required to remain in quarantine for 14 days.Main outcome measuresProportion and rate of participants testing positive for COVID-19; number of cases of secondary transmission.ResultsThe analysis included 9535 international travellers entering Alberta by air (N=8398) or land (N=1137) that voluntarily enrolled in the Alberta Border Testing Pilot Programme (a subset of all travellers); most (83.1%) were Canadian citizens. Among the 9310 participants who received at least one test, 200 (21.5 per 1000, 95% CI 18.6 to 24.6) tested positive. Sixty-nine per cent (138/200) of positive tests were detected on arrival (14.8 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 12.5 to 17.5). 62 cases (6.7 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 5.1 to 8.5; 31.0% of positive cases) were identified among participants that had been released from quarantine following a negative test result on arrival. Of 192 participants who developed symptoms, 51 (26.6%) tested positive after arrival. Among participants with positive tests, four (2.0%) were hospitalised for COVID-19; none required critical care or died. Contact tracing among participants who tested positive identified 200 contacts; of 88 contacts tested, 22 were cases of secondary transmission (14 from those testing positive on arrival and 8 from those testing positive thereafter). SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage was not detected in any of the 200 positive cases.Conclusions21.5 per 1000 international travellers tested positive for COVID-19. Most (69%) tested positive on arrival and 31% tested positive during follow-up. These findings suggest the need for ongoing vigilance in travellers testing negative on arrival and highlight the value of follow-up testing and contact tracing to monitor and limit secondary transmission where possible.

The advent of annual respiratory illness seasons under study here resulted in surge capacity. Data such as these can and should be used for exercises such as seasonal and pandemic forecasting. Also, recent pandemic experience has showed us monitoring both overall exceedances in usage and deviances from established demographic patterns could enhance existing routine surveillance.

No abstract