A Surge in Pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 Cases: The Experience of Texas Children's Hospital From March to June 2020

Epidemiology and clinical features of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents in the pre-Omicron era: A global systematic review and meta-analysis

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, CQvip, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 global literature databases for primary studies recruiting children aged ≤18 years with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed either by molecular or antigen tests. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools to appraise the study quality and conducted meta-analyses using the random effects model for all outcomes except for race/ethnicity as risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results

We included 237 studies, each reporting at least one of the study outcomes. Based on data from 117 studies, the pooled SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was 9.30% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 7.15-11.73). Having a comorbidity was identified as a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio (RR) = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.04-1.71) based on data from 49 studies. Most cases in this review presented with mild disease (n = 50; 52.47% (95% CI = 44.03-60.84)). However, 20.70% of paediatric SARS-CoV-2 infections were hospitalised (67 studies), 7.19% required oxygen support (57 studies), 4.26% required intensive care (93 studies), and 2.92% required assisted ventilation (63 studies). The case fatality ratio (n = 119) was 0.87% (95% CI = 0.54-1.28), which included in-hospital and out-of-hospital deaths.

Conclusions

Our data showed that children were at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections and severe outcomes in the pre-Omicron era. These findings underscore the need for effective vaccination strategies for the paediatric population to protect against the acute and long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42022327680.

Clinical and laboratory characteristics of children with severe and nonsevere COVID-19 in Kermanshah, west of Iran: A retrospective study

Background and Aims

The study aimed to collect and compare clinical and laboratory findings of children with severe and nonsevere COVID-19 in Kermanshah City, located in the west of Iran.

Methods

The study was conducted on 500 children with COVID-19 hospitalized in Mohammad-Kermanshahi Hospital in Kermanshah City. Pediatric COVID-19 was confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test using respiratory secretion samples. Medical records were reviewed and information related to demographic characteristics, underlying diseases, clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and chest computed tomography (CT) scans were all extracted from electronic and paper records. Patients were divided into three groups according to the severity of the disease: mild, moderate, and severe. Clinical and laboratory findings were compared between the groups and the collected data were analyzed by statistical methods.

Results

Out of 500 patients, 286 were boys and 214 were girls. Of the patients, 321 cases were only COVID-19, while 179 patients were diagnosed as Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) positive. The average age of COVID-19 patients was 3.85 ± 4.48 and of MIS-C patients was 3.1 ± 3.5. In order, fever, cough, and heart disorders were the most common symptoms in patients with COVID-19 and MIS-C, respectively. In terms of disease severity, 246 patients had mild disease, 19 patients had moderate disease, and 56 patients had severe disease. In severe patients, the average number of white blood cells (WBC) was higher, while the average number of lymphocytes was lower. Also, in these patients, the average age was lower, and most of them had respiratory distress. In mild patients, often cough, diarrhea, and vomiting were observed.

Conclusion

The results of our study showed that laboratory factors such as WBC count, lymphocyte count, CT findings, Respiratory distress, cough, diarrhea, and vomiting can be used to evaluate the severity of COVID-19 in children.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of otorhinolaryngological manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 in paediatric patients

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis provides a quantitative measure of the otorhinolaryngological manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 in children.

METHODS

A structured literature review was carried out using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central, employing pertinent search terms. The statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 14.2 software, and the analysed data were expressed as the pooled prevalence of the symptoms with 95 per cent confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The commonest symptoms noted were cough (38 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval = 33-42; I² = 97.5 per cent)), sore throat (12 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval =10-14; I² = 93.7 per cent)), and nasal discharge (15 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval = 12-19; I² = 96.9 per cent)). Anosmia and taste disturbances showed a pooled prevalence of 8 per cent each. Hearing loss, vertigo and hoarseness were rarely reported.

CONCLUSION

Cough, sore throat and nasal discharge were the commonest otorhinolaryngological symptoms in paediatric patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Compared with adults, anosmia and taste disturbances were infrequently reported in children.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.

Management of acute abdomen during the active disease course of COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children

Purpose

To evaluate the management of children with severe gastrointestinal symptoms during the disease course of COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C).

Methods

After ethical approval, we reviewed the medical records, retrospectively, of children with COVID-19 or MIS-C requiring surgical consultation for severe gastrointestinal symptoms.

Results

The subjects comprised 15 children, 13 with MIS-C and 2 with COVID-19. Twelve children (80%) had been in known close contact with a person with SARS-CoV-19 and 13 were positive for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. All the children had experienced fever for at least 1 day and had signs of involvement of two or more systems. Three patients required surgical intervention: one underwent surgical exploration with a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the referring center and was transported to our center following clinical deterioration, where a diagnosis of MIS-C was confirmed; and the remaining two developed appendicitis during hospitalization for COVID-19. All three patients had a longer duration of abdominal pain, a higher number of lymphocytes, and a lower level of inflammatory markers than the non-surgically managed patients. None of the patients presenting with MIS-C underwent surgical exploration.

Conclusion

Gastrointestinal involvement may mimic acute abdomen in children with COVID-19. Thus, children presenting with acute abdomen in the pandemic era require careful evaluation and prompt diagnosis to avoid unnecessary surgical intervention.

Evaluation of Epidemiological, Demographic, Clinical Characteristics and Laboratory Findings of COVID-19 in the Pediatric Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the epidemiological, demographic, clinical characteristics and laboratory findings of pediatric COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Patients with a positive COVID-19 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test between 11 March 2020 and 31 December 2020 were evaluated.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3118 patients underwent PCR tests, and 621 of them (19.9%) were positive. Of the patients with a positive test result, 335 were male (53.9%), the median age was 11 years. There were 308 (49.6%) patients that had a history of household exposure. The mean time between the onset of the patients complaints and the diagnosis was 1.88 ± 1.16 days. The most common symptoms were: fever (n = 424), cough (n = 419) and nasal symptoms (n = 157); loss of smell (3.5%) and taste (4.3%) were other symptoms observed in only patients aged 10 years or older. The most common abnormal laboratory finding was lymphopenia (n = 29, 36.7%). Of the 621 patients, the vast majority (n = 546, 87.9%) were classified as mild COVID-19 disease. There was a significant relationship between disease severity and age and comorbidity (p = 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). Only 34 patients (5.5%) were admitted to hospital, and two patients were followed-up with a diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. The mortality rate was 0.32%.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 can cause different symptoms in children. Although the disease generally causes a mild clinic presentation, it should be kept in mind that it may be more severe especially in children with comorbidities.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing Trends Among Persons Aged <18 Years in an Outpatient Pediatric Practice - Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, May-December 2020

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and test positivity among persons aged <18 years in a three-site outpatient pediatric practice in Atlanta, Georgia, serving approximately 35,000 pediatric patients.

METHODS

Using electronic medical records, weekly trends in SARS-CoV-2 tests performed and the 14-day moving average of test positivity were examined, overall and by age group, during May 24-December 5, 2020.

RESULTS

Among 4,995 patients who received at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 test, 6,813 total tests were completed. Overall test positivity was 5.4% and was higher among older pediatric patients (<5 years: 3.3%; 5-11 years: 4.1%; 12-17 years: 8.6%). The number of tests and test positivity increased after holidays and school breaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Families might benefit from communication focused on reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission during holidays. In addition, given higher test positivity in children aged 12-17 years, tailoring public health messaging to older adolescents could help limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk in this population.