Low Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Symptomatic Patients Attending a Pediatric Emergency Department

COVID-19 Screening in the Pediatric Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Screening for COVID-19 infection in pediatrics is challenging as its clinical presentation may be asymptomatic or mimic other common childhood infections. We examined the use of a COVID-19 screening protocol (CSP) in the pediatric emergency department (PED) to determine the incidence of positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in patients who are CSP+ and CSP-.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2 testing completed in an urban tertiary care PED from November 1 to December 31, 2020. Demographics, CSP designation, test results, and disposition were compared. Statistical significance was determined using chi-square or a comparison of means. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 1,613 patients had SARS-CoV-2 tests completed with 9.1% (N=147) having positive test results. Of 1,014 (62.9%) patients who were CSP+, 12.9% tested positive. Comparatively, 599 (37.1%) patients were CSP- with only 2.7% positive tests, p<0.0001. The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of the CSP in all tested patients were 89.1%, 39.8%, 97.3%, and 12.9%, respectively. Of tested patients, 887 (55.0%) were admitted to the hospital and were more likely to be positive if CSP+, p≤0.001. Within the admitted group, 16.8% were admitted to the operating room, of whom 83.9% were CSP- with 4.0% testing positive for SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 screening in the pediatric population is a useful modality to risk stratify most patients presenting to the PED for the purpose of selective testing and guiding personal protective equipment use. This may be particularly useful in low-resource settings.

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 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections with focus on patients with chronic lung diseases (as of 10 January 2022) : Updated statement of the Austrian Society of Pneumology (ASP)

The Austrian Society of Pneumology (ASP) launched a first statement on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in May 2020, at a time when in Austria 285 people had died from this disease and vaccinations were not available. Lockdown and social distancing were the only available measures to prevent more infections and the breakdown of the health system. Meanwhile, in Austria over 13,000 patients have died in association with a SARS-CoV‑2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was among the most common causes of death; however, SARS-CoV‑2 has been mutating all the time and currently, most patients have been affected by the delta variant where the vaccination is very effective but the omicron variant is rapidly rising and becoming predominant. Particularly in children and young adults, where the vaccination rate is low, the omicron variant is expected to spread very fast. This poses a particular threat to unvaccinated people who are at elevated risk of severe COVID-19 disease but also to people with an active vaccination. There are few publications that comprehensively addressed the special issues with SARS-CoV‑2 infection in patients with chronic lung diseases. These were the reasons for this updated statement. Pulmonologists care for many patients with an elevated risk of death in case of COVID-19 but also for patients that might be at an elevated risk of vaccination reactions or vaccination failure. In addition, lung function tests, bronchoscopy, respiratory physiotherapy and training therapy may put both patients and health professionals at an increased risk of infection. The working circles of the ASP have provided statements concerning these risks and how to avoid risks for the patients.

Covid-19 Incidence and Mortality by Age Strata and Comorbidities in Mexico City: A Focus in the Pediatric Population

Background: SARS-COV2 appears less frequently and less severely in the pediatric population than in the older age groups. There is a need to precisely estimate the specific risks for each age group to design health and education policies suitable for each population. Objective: This study aimed to describe the risk of death in SARS-COV2 infected subjects by age group and according to the presence of comorbidities. Methods: We analyzed data of confirmed SARS-COV2 infection cases where symptoms began between February 22th, 2020, and April 18th, 2021, as published by the General Epidemiology Direction (DGE) of the Mexican Ministry of Health. We calculated COVID-19 incidence and mortality by age group using population data from the Statistics and Population National Institute (INEGI), and estimated the association between risk of death and the presence of comorbidities. Results: Mortality in SARS-COV2 infected people varied considerably, between 7 and 155 deaths per million per year in the under-20 age groups compared to 441 to 15,929 in the older age groups. Mortality in pediatric populations is strongly associated with comorbidities (OR: 4.6-47.9) compared to the milder association for older age groups (OR: 3.16-1.23). Conclusion: The risk of death from SARS-COV2 infection in children is low and is strongly associated with comorbidities.