Surveillance of noninvasive group A Streptococcus infections in French ambulatory pediatrics before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective multicenter study from 2018-2022.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the burden of noninvasive group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections in ambulatory pediatrics before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in France. METHODS: We analyzed data from a national network of ambulatory pediatricians between 2018 and 2022. Clinicians evaluating children ≤15 years old for tonsillopharyngitis, perianal infections, paronychia/blistering dactylitis, and scarlet fever were invited to perform a rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for GAS. Monthly incidence of noninvasive GAS infections per 10,000 visits was modeled using time series analysis, considering two breakpoints: March 2020 (first national lockdown) and March 2022 (end of mandatory mask-wearing in schools). RESULTS: Over the study period, 125 pediatricians recorded 271,084 infectious episodes. GAS-related illnesses represented 4.3% of all infections. In March 2020, the incidence of GAS diseases decreased by 84.5% (P <0.001), with no significant trend until March 2022. After March 2022, the incidence significantly increased (+23.8% per month, P <0.001), with similar patterns across all monitored GAS-related diseases. CONCLUSION: By using routine clinical data and RADTs, we have monitored changes in the incidence of noninvasive GAS infections in ambulatory pediatrics. COVID-19 mitigation measures have had a major impact on the epidemiology of noninvasive GAS infections, but their relaxation was followed by a surge above baseline levels.

Severe Bacterial Infection Initially Misdiagnosed as MIS-C: Caution Needed.

Working in the era of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 can predispose to cognitive bias. We present a case of life-threatening bacterial infection misdiagnosed as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. While multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children-related myocardial dysfunction is now a well-recognized complication of coronavirus disease 2019, a rigorous differential diagnosis approach, notably for infectious etiologies, is paramount.

Abusive Head Trauma in Infants During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Paris Metropolitan Area.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic and the containment and mitigation measures taken were feared to be associated with increased child abuse. Objective: To investigate the trend of abusive head trauma (AHT) incidence and severity in infants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a time-series analysis of a longitudinal, population-based, cohort study, all consecutive cases of AHT in infants younger than 12 months old referred between January 2017 and December 2021 to Necker Hospital for Sick Children, the single regional pediatric neurosurgery center for the Paris metropolitan area, were included. AHT was defined as 1 or more subdural hemorrhage and a positive multidisciplinary evaluation after a social, clinical, biological, and radiological workup. Data were analyzed from January to March 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the monthly incidence of AHT, which was analyzed using Poisson regression modeling. Secondary outcomes included mortality and severe morbidity and were studied with logistic and linear regressions. The monthly incidence of neurosurgical interventions for hydrocephalus was used as a control series. Results: Among the 99 included infants with AHT (median [IQR] age, 4 [3-6] months; 64 boys [65%]), 86 of 99 (87%) had bridging vein thrombosis, 74 of 99 (75%) had retinal hemorrhages, 23 of 72 (32%) had fractures, 26 of 99 (26%) had status epilepticus, 20 of 99 (20%) had skin injuries, 53 of 99 (54%) underwent neurosurgical interventions, and 13 of 99 (13%) died. Compared with the prepandemic period (2017-2019), AHT incidence was stable in 2020 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.59-1.77) and then significantly increased in 2021 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23-2.99). The severity of AHT worsened in 2021 in terms of mortality (odds ratio 9.39; 95% CI, 1.88-47.00). Other secondary outcomes and the control series were not significantly modified. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a marked increase in AHT incidence and severity occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Paris metropolitan area. These results suggest the need for clinical awareness and preventive actions.

Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and pertussis derived from multiple nationwide data sources, France, 2013 to 2020.

BackgroundInterventions to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic may impact other respiratory diseases.AimsWe aimed to study the course of pertussis in France over an 8-year period including the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with COVID-19 mitigation strategies, using multiple nationwide data sources and regression models.MethodsWe analysed the number of French pertussis cases between 2013 and 2020, using PCR test results from nationwide outpatient laboratories (Source 1) and a network of the paediatric wards from 41 hospitals (Source 2). We also used reports of a national primary care paediatric network (Source 3). We conducted a quasi-experimental interrupted time series analysis, relying on negative binomial regression models. The models accounted for seasonality, long-term cycles and secular trend, and included a binary variable for the first national lockdown (start 16 March 2020).ResultsWe identified 19,039 pertussis cases from these data sources. Pertussis cases decreased significantly following the implementation of mitigation measures, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.10 (95% CI: 0.04-0.26) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.07-0.66) for Source 1 and Source 2, respectively. The association was confirmed in Source 3 with a median of, respectively, one (IQR: 0-2) and 0 cases (IQR: 0-0) per month before and after lockdown (p = 0.0048).ConclusionsThe strong reduction in outpatient and hospitalised pertussis cases suggests an impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on pertussis epidemiology. Pertussis vaccination recommendations should be followed carefully, and disease monitoring should be continued to detect any resurgence after relaxation of mitigation measures.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.

COVID-19-Related Fatalities and Intensive-Care-Unit Admissions by Age Groups in Europe: A Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: Precise international estimates of the age breakdown of COVID-19-related deaths and intensive-care-unit (ICU) admissions are lacking. We evaluated the distribution of COVID-19-related fatalities and ICU admissions by age groups in Europe. Materials and methods: On April 6, 2020, we systematically reviewed official COVID-19-related data from 32 European countries. We included countries that provided data regarding more than 10 COVID-19-related deaths stratified by age according to pre-specified age groups (i.e., <40, 40-69, ≥70 years). We used random-effects meta-analysis to summarize the data. Results: Thirteen European countries were included in the review, for a total of 31,864 COVID-19-related deaths (range: 27-14,381 per country). In the main meta-analysis (including data from Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland; 21,522 COVID-19-related fatalities), the summary proportions of individuals <40, 40-69, and ≥70 years old among all COVID-19-related deaths were 0.1% (0.0-0.2; I 2 28.6%), 13.0% (10.8-15.4; I 2 91.5%), and 86.6% (84.2-88.9; I 2 91.5%), respectively. ICU data were available for four countries (France, Greece, Spain, Sweden). The summary proportions of individuals around <40-50, around 40-69, and around ≥60-70 years old among all COVID-19-related ICU admissions were 5.4% (3.4-7.8; I 2 89.0%), 52.6% (41.8-63.3; I 2 98.1%), and 41.8% (32.0-51.9; I 2 99%), respectively. Conclusions: People under 40 years old represent a small fraction of most severe COVID-19 cases in Europe. These results may help health authorities respond to public concerns and guide future physical distancing and mitigation strategies. Specific measures to protect older people should be considered.

Distinctive Features of Kawasaki Disease Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: a Controlled Study in Paris, France.

BACKGROUND: An outbreak of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, including Kawasaki disease (KD), emerged during COVID-19 pandemic. We explored whether Kawasaki-like disease (KD), when associated with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, has specific characteristics. METHODS: We included children and adolescents with KD criteria admitted in the department of general pediatrics of a university hospital in Paris, France, between January 1, 2018, and May 26, 2020. The incidence of KD was compared between the outbreak and a pre-outbreak control period (January 1, 2018, to April 25). Characteristics of patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 testing (KD-SARS-CoV-2) were compared to those of the pre-outbreak period (classic KD). RESULTS: A total of 30 and 59 children with KD were admitted during the outbreak and pre-outbreak periods, respectively (incidence ratio 13.2 [8.3-21.0]). During the outbreak, 23/30 (77%) children were diagnosed as KD-SARS-CoV-2. When compared with patients with classic KD, those with KD-SARS-CoV-2 were more frequently of sub-Saharan African ancestry (OR 4.4 [1.6-12.6]) and older (median 8.2 vs. 4.0 years, p < 0.001), had more often initial gastrointestinal (OR 84 [4.9-1456]) and neurological (OR 7.3 [1.9-27.7] manifestations, and shock syndrome (OR 13.7 [4.2-45.1]). They had significantly higher CRP and ferritin levels. Noticeably, they had more frequently myocarditis (OR 387 [38-3933]). CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents with KD-SARS-CoV-2 have specific features when compared with those with classic KD. These findings should raise awareness and facilitate the study of their pathogenesis.

Association between suicide behaviours in children and adolescents and the COVID-19 lockdown in Paris, France: a retrospective observational study.

This retrospective observational study conducted in Necker Hospital for Sick Children, France (January 2018-June 2020) evaluated a potential temporal association between admissions for suicide behaviours in children and adolescents and the national COVID-19 lockdown (March-May 2020). During the study period, 234 patients were admitted for suicide behaviours (28% male; mean age 13.4 years). Using Poisson regression, we found a significant decrease in the incidence of admissions for suicide behaviour during the lockdown (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86). This association might result from reduced help-seeking and decreased hospital admission rates during the lockdown, as well as cognitive and environmental factors. Further multicentre studies should be conducted to confirm these findings and investigate whether a compensatory rise in admissions for suicide behaviour occurred in the postlockdown period.

Association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome: a retrospective matched case-control study, Paris, France, April to May 2020.

We assessed the association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and Kawasaki disease (KD)-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in a retrospective case-control study in France. RT-PCR and serological tests revealed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 17/23 cases vs 11/102 controls (matched odds ratio: 26.4; 95% confidence interval: 6.0-116.9), indicating strong association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and KD-like illness. Clinicians should keep a high level of suspicion for KD-like illness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Early research showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive but not specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, this is a rapidly developing field and these findings need to be re-evaluated in the light of new research. This is the first update of this 'living systematic review'. This update focuses on people suspected of having COVID-19 and excludes studies with only confirmed COVID-19 participants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 22 June 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19, and which reported estimates of test accuracy, or provided data from which estimates could be computed. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we retained the classification of participants as COVID-19 positive or negative as used in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list independently, in duplicate. We categorised included studies into three groups based on classification of index test results: studies that reported specific criteria for index test positivity (group 1); studies that did not report specific criteria, but had the test reader(s) explicitly classify the imaging test result as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 2); and studies that reported an overview of index test findings, without explicitly classifying the imaging test as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 3). We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies: 30 were cross-sectional studies with 8491 participants suspected of COVID-19, of which 4575 (54%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19; four were case-control studies with 848 cases and controls in total, of which 464 (55%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest CT was evaluated in 31 studies (8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases), chest X-ray in three studies (1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases), and ultrasound of the lungs in one study (100 participants, 31 (31%) cases). Twenty-six per cent (9/34) of all studies were available only as preprints. Nineteen studies were conducted in Asia, 10 in Europe, four in North America and one in Australia. Sixteen studies included only adults, 15 studies included both adults and children and one included only children. Two studies did not report the ages of participants. Twenty-four studies included inpatients, four studies included outpatients, while the remaining six studies were conducted in unclear settings. The majority of included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias with respect to participant selection, index test, reference standard, and participant flow. For chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants (31 studies, 8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 57.4% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 0% to 96.0%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants was 89.9% (95% CI 85.7 to 92.9) and the pooled specificity was 61.1% (95% CI 42.3 to 77.1). Sensitivity analyses showed that when the studies from China were excluded, the studies from other countries demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. When studies that did not classify index tests as positive or negative for COVID-19 (group 3) were excluded, the remaining studies (groups 1 and 2) demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. Sensitivity analyses limited to cross-sectional studies, or studies where at least two reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were conducted if the first was negative, did not substantively alter the accuracy estimates. We did not identify publication status as a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray in suspected COVID-19 participants (3 studies, 1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 56.9% to 89.0% and specificity from 11.1% to 88.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound of the lungs in suspected COVID-19 participants (1 study, 100 participants, 31 (31%) cases) were 96.8% and 62.3%, respectively. We could not perform a meta-analysis for chest X-ray or ultrasound due to the limited number of included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may have limited capability in differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. However, we are limited in our confidence in these results due to the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 cases should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest on the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for chest CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X-rays and ultrasound; and obtain data to further fulfil secondary objectives (e.g. 'threshold' effects, comparing accuracy estimates across different imaging modalities) to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of infection by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents major challenges. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing is used to diagnose a current infection, but its utility as a reference standard is constrained by sampling errors, limited sensitivity (71% to 98%), and dependence on the timing of specimen collection. Chest imaging tests are being used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 disease, or when RT-PCR testing is unavailable. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of chest imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 5 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that produce estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which estimates can be computed. We included two types of cross-sectional designs: a) where all patients suspected of the target condition enter the study through the same route and b) where it is not clear up front who has and who does not have the target condition, or where the patients with the target condition are recruited in a different way or from a different population from the patients without the target condition. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we included all of them. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies and extracted data independently, in duplicate. We also assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns independently, in duplicate, using the QUADAS-2 checklist and presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 84 studies, falling into two categories: studies with participants with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19 at the time of recruitment (71 studies with 6331 participants) and studies with participants suspected of COVID-19 (13 studies with 1948 participants, including three case-control studies with 549 cases and controls). Chest CT was evaluated in 78 studies (8105 participants), chest X-ray in nine studies (682 COVID-19 cases), and chest ultrasound in two studies (32 COVID-19 cases). All evaluations of chest X-ray and ultrasound were conducted in studies with confirmed diagnoses only. Twenty-five per cent (21/84) of all studies were available only as preprints, 15/71 studies in the confirmed cases group and 6/13 of the studies in the suspected group. Among 71 studies that included confirmed cases, 41 studies had included symptomatic cases only, 25 studies had included cases regardless of their symptoms, five studies had included asymptomatic cases only, three of which included a combination of confirmed and suspected cases. Seventy studies were conducted in Asia, 2 in Europe, 2 in North America and one in South America. Fifty-one studies included inpatients while the remaining 24 studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. Risk of bias was high in most studies, mainly due to concerns about selection of participants and applicability. Among the 13 studies that included suspected cases, nine studies were conducted in Asia, and one in Europe. Seven studies included inpatients while the remaining three studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. In studies that included confirmed cases the pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 93.1% (95%CI: 90.2 - 95.0 (65 studies, 5759 cases); and for X-ray 82.1% (95%CI: 62.5 to 92.7 (9 studies, 682 cases). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the ROC plots was considerable. Two studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound and both reported zero false negatives (with 10 and 22 participants having undergone ultrasound, respectively). These studies only reported True Positive and False Negative data, therefore it was not possible to pool and derive estimates of specificity. In studies that included suspected cases, the pooled sensitivity of CT was 86.2% (95%CI: 71.9 to 93.8 (13 studies, 2346 participants) and specificity was 18.1% (95%CI: 3.71 to 55.8). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the forest plots was high. Chest CT may give approximately the same proportion of positive results for patients with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection: the chances of getting a positive CT result are 86% (95% CI: 72 to 94) in patient with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and 82% (95% CI: 44 to 96) in patients without. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty resulting from the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results. Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may not be capable of differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. This low specificity could also be the result of the poor sensitivity of the reference standard (RT-PCR), as CT could potentially be more sensitive than RT-PCR in some cases. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19 should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should avoid cases-only studies and pre-define positive imaging findings. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X rays and ultrasound; and continue to search for studies that fulfil secondary objectives to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.

Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children during the covid-19 pandemic in Paris, France: prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of children and adolescents affected by an outbreak of Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome and to evaluate a potential temporal association with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: General paediatric department of a university hospital in Paris, France. PARTICIPANTS: 21 children and adolescents (aged ≤18 years) with features of Kawasaki disease who were admitted to hospital between 27 April and 11 May 2020 and followed up until discharge by 15 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were clinical and biological data, imaging and echocardiographic findings, treatment, and outcomes. Nasopharyngeal swabs were prospectively tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and blood samples were tested for IgG antibodies to the virus. RESULTS: 21 children and adolescents (median age 7.9 (range 3.7-16.6) years) were admitted with features of Kawasaki disease over a 15 day period, with 12 (57%) of African ancestry. 12 (57%) presented with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome and 16 (76%) with myocarditis. 17 (81%) required intensive care support. All 21 patients had noticeable gastrointestinal symptoms during the early stage of illness and high levels of inflammatory markers. 19 (90%) had evidence of recent SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive RT-PCR result in 8/21, positive IgG antibody detection in 19/21). All 21 patients received intravenous immunoglobulin and 10 (48%) also received corticosteroids. The clinical outcome was favourable in all patients. Moderate coronary artery dilations were detected in 5 (24%) of the patients during hospital stay. By 15 May 2020, after 8 (5-17) days of hospital stay, all patients were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing outbreak of Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome among children and adolescents in the Paris area might be related to SARS-CoV-2. In this study an unusually high proportion of the affected children and adolescents had gastrointestinal symptoms, Kawasaki disease shock syndrome, and were of African ancestry.