Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
2.
Hosp Pediatr ; 12(9): 760-783, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1879346

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related pediatric hospitalizations during a period of B.1.617.2 (Δ) variant predominance and to determine age-specific factors associated with severe illness. METHODS: We abstracted data from medical charts to conduct a cross-sectional study of patients aged <21 years hospitalized at 6 United States children's hospitals from July to August 2021 for COVID-19 or with an incidental positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test. Among patients with COVID-19, we assessed factors associated with severe illness by calculating age-stratified prevalence ratios (PR). We defined severe illness as receiving high-flow nasal cannula, positive airway pressure, or invasive mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Of 947 hospitalized patients, 759 (80.1%) had COVID-19, of whom 287 (37.8%) had severe illness. Factors associated with severe illness included coinfection with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (PR 3.64) and bacteria (PR 1.88) in infants; RSV coinfection in patients aged 1 to 4 years (PR 1.96); and obesity in patients aged 5 to 11 (PR 2.20) and 12 to 17 years (PR 2.48). Having ≥2 underlying medical conditions was associated with severe illness in patients aged <1 (PR 1.82), 5 to 11 (PR 3.72), and 12 to 17 years (PR 3.19). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, factors associated with severe illness included RSV coinfection in those aged <5 years, obesity in those aged 5 to 17 years, and other underlying conditions for all age groups <18 years. These findings can inform pediatric practice, risk communication, and prevention strategies, including vaccination against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Infant , Obesity , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(5152): 1766-1772, 2021 12 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1727019

ABSTRACT

During June 2021, the highly transmissible† B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, became the predominant circulating strain in the United States. U.S. pediatric COVID-19-related hospitalizations increased during July-August 2021 following emergence of the Delta variant and peaked in September 2021.§ As of May 12, 2021, CDC recommended COVID-19 vaccinations for persons aged ≥12 years,¶ and on November 2, 2021, COVID-19 vaccinations were recommended for persons aged 5-11 years.** To date, clinical signs and symptoms, illness course, and factors contributing to hospitalizations during the period of Delta predominance have not been well described in pediatric patients. CDC partnered with six children's hospitals to review medical record data for patients aged <18 years with COVID-19-related hospitalizations during July-August 2021.†† Among 915 patients identified, 713 (77.9%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 (acute COVID-19 as the primary or contributing reason for hospitalization), 177 (19.3%) had incidental positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (asymptomatic or mild infection unrelated to the reason for hospitalization), and 25 (2.7%) had multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare but serious inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19.§§ Among the 713 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 24.7% were aged <1 year, 17.1% were aged 1-4 years, 20.1% were aged 5-11 years, and 38.1% were aged 12-17 years. Approximately two thirds of patients (67.5%) had one or more underlying medical conditions, with obesity being the most common (32.4%); among patients aged 12-17 years, 61.4% had obesity. Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 15.8% had a viral coinfection¶¶ (66.4% of whom had respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] infection). Approximately one third (33.9%) of patients aged <5 years hospitalized for COVID-19 had a viral coinfection. Among 272 vaccine-eligible (aged 12-17 years) patients hospitalized for COVID-19, one (0.4%) was fully vaccinated.*** Approximately one half (54.0%) of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 received oxygen support, 29.5% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and 1.5% died; of those requiring respiratory support, 14.5% required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Among pediatric patients with COVID-19-related hospitalizations, many had severe illness and viral coinfections, and few vaccine-eligible patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were vaccinated, highlighting the importance of vaccination for those aged ≥5 years and other prevention strategies to protect children and adolescents from COVID-19, particularly those with underlying medical conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Child , Child, Preschool , Coinfection/epidemiology , Female , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Infant , Male , Pediatric Obesity/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
4.
Future Virol ; 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581479

ABSTRACT

Aim: This study evaluated the real-world performance of six test systems for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 138 pediatric and 110 adult maternal patients. Materials & methods: Nasopharyngeal swabs were tested directly using the Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 (Aptima) and Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct (Simplexa), and with Altona RealStar® RT-PCR and CDC RT-PCR with nucleic acid extracted on the Roche® MagNA Pure 96 (Altona-MP96) or bioMérieux EMAG® (Altona-EMAG). Results/Conclusion: Overall percent-positive and percent-negative agreements among the six test systems were, respectively: Aptima: 94.8 and 100%; Altona-MP96: 96.5 and 99.3%; CDC-MP96: 100 and 99.3%; Altona-EMAG: 86.1 and 100%; CDC-EMAG: 98.2 and 100%; Simplexa: 87 and 99.2%. The six test systems showed agreement ranging from 92.7 (κ = 0.85) to 98.8% (κ = 0.98).

5.
Arch Pathol Lab Med ; 145(7): 821-824, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1339693

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT.­: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the dynamics of health care delivery, shifting patient priorities and deferring care perceived as less urgent. Delayed or eliminated care may place patients at risk for adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE.­: To identify opportunities for laboratory test stewardship to close potential gaps in care created by the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN.­: The study was a retrospective time series design examining laboratory services received before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large metropolitan health system serving women and children. RESULTS.­: Laboratory test volumes displayed 3 distinct patterns: (1) a decrease during state lockdown, followed by near-complete or complete recovery; (2) no change; and (3) a persistent decrease. Tests that diagnose or monitor chronic illness recovered only partially. For example, hemoglobin A1c initially declined 80% (from 2232 for April 2019 to 452 for April 2020), and there was a sustained 16% drop (28-day daily average 117 at August 30, 2019, to 98 at August 30, 2020) 4 months later. Blood lead dropped 39% (from 2158 for April 2019 to 1314 for April 2020) and remained 23% lower after 4 months. CONCLUSIONS.­: The pandemic has taken a toll on patients, practitioners, and health systems. Laboratory professionals have access to data that can provide insight into clinical practice and identify pandemic-related gaps in care. During the pandemic, the biggest patient threat is underuse, particularly among tests to manage chronic diseases and for traditionally underserved communities and people of color. A laboratory stewardship program, focused on peri-pandemic care, positions pathologists and other laboratory professionals as health care leaders with a commitment to appropriate, equitable, and efficient care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Laboratory Services/trends , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/trends , Health Care Rationing/trends , Health Services Accessibility/trends , COVID-19/diagnosis , Clinical Laboratory Services/organization & administration , Health Care Rationing/organization & administration , Health Policy , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Texas
7.
Clin Chim Acta ; 510: 790-795, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-778568

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: While the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is primarily based on detection of viral RNA, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is useful for assessing past prevalence of the disease, and in corroborating a current infection in challenging cases. Sensitive and specific immunoassays provide the ability to identify exposure to SARS-CoV-2, to determine seroconversion, to confirm eligibility for donation of convalescent plasma as well as play an essential part in epidemiological studies. We report on the validation of the Ansh Laboratories SARS-CoV-2 IgG and SARS-CoV-2 IgM ELISA immunoassays. These assays were evaluated for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies for clinical use in our hospital as part of an orthogonal testing algorithm recommended by the CDC. METHODS: Diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of the IgG and IgM ELISA assays were tested using samples confirmed to be negative or positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR. We also evaluated precision, analytical interference, and cross-reactivity with known cases of infection with other viruses. Additionally, we validated concordance with molecular and other serological testing and evaluated seroconversion in our patient population. RESULTS: The IgG and IgM ELISA assays showed acceptable precision, were robust to analytical interference and did not exhibit cross reactivity with specimens positive for common respiratory viruses. Both assays exhibited 95% agreement with a primary screening serological assay utilized at our institution as well as with a reference laboratory semi-quantitative method. Concordance with RT-PCR was excellent > 6 days after symptom onset (100%). CONCLUSIONS: The Ansh SARS-CoV-2 ELISA assays have good analytical performance suitable for clinical use.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/immunology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Immunoglobulin G/analysis , Immunoglobulin M/analysis , Epitopes/immunology , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Am J Clin Pathol ; 154(6): 742-747, 2020 11 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-735674

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of serostatus against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged as an important tool in identification of exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We report on the validation of the Vitros Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total (CoV2T) assay for qualitative serologic testing of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: We performed validation studies according to Commission of Office Laboratories Accreditation guidelines, using samples previously tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We evaluated precision, analytical interferences, and cross-reactivity with other viral infections; evaluated concordance with molecular and other serologic testing; and evaluated seroconversion. RESULTS: The Vitros CoV2T assay exhibited acceptable precision and did not exhibit cross-reactivity with other acute respiratory virus infections. The CoV2T assay exhibited 100% negative predictive agreement (56/56) and 71% positive predictive agreement (56/79) with RT-PCR across all patient samples and was concordant with other serologic assays. Concordance with RT-PCR was 97% more than 7 days after symptom onset. The CoV2T assay was robust to icterus and lipemia but had interference from significant hemolysis. CONCLUSIONS: The Vitros CoV2T assay was successfully validated in our laboratory. We anticipate it will be a useful tool in screening for exposure to SARS-CoV-2; however, the use of the CoV2T and other serologic assays in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 is unknown and must be evaluated in future studies.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Immunoassay/methods , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL