Comparison of Symptoms Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Variants Among Children in Canada.

Importance: Clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 variants have not been systematically compared in children. Objective: To compare symptoms, emergency department (ED) chest radiography, treatments, and outcomes among children with different SARS-CoV-2 variants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study was performed at 14 Canadian pediatric EDs. Participants included children and adolescents younger than 18 years (hereinafter referred to as children) tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in an ED between August 4, 2020, and February 22, 2022, with 14 days of follow-up. Exposure(s): SARS-CoV-2 variants detected on a specimen collected from the nasopharynx, nares, or throat. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was presence and number of presenting symptoms. The secondary outcomes were presence of core COVID-19 symptoms, chest radiography findings, treatments, and 14-day outcomes. Results: Among 7272 participants presenting to an ED, 1440 (19.8%) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 801 (55.6%) were boys, with a median age of 2.0 (IQR, 0.6-7.0) years. Children with the Alpha variant reported the fewest core COVID-19 symptoms (195 of 237 [82.3%]), which were most often reported by participants with Omicron variant infection (434 of 468 [92.7%]; difference, 10.5% [95% CI, 5.1%-15.9%]). In a multivariable model with the original type as the referent, the Omicron and Delta variants were associated with fever (odds ratios [ORs], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.43-2.80] and 1.93 [95% CI, 1.33-2.78], respectively) and cough (ORs, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.06-1.91] and 1.57 [95% CI, 1.13-2.17], respectively). Upper respiratory tract symptoms were associated with Delta infection (OR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.38-2.79]); lower respiratory tract and systemic symptoms were associated with Omicron variant infection (ORs, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.04-1.92] and 1.77 [95% CI, 1.24-2.52], respectively). Children with Omicron infection most often had chest radiography performed and received treatments; compared with those who had Delta infection, they were more likely to have chest radiography performed (difference, 9.7% [95% CI, 4.7%-14.8%]), to receive intravenous fluids (difference, 5.6% [95% CI, 1.0%-10.2%]) and corticosteroids (difference, 7.9% [95% CI, 3.2%-12.7%]), and to have an ED revisit (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, 3.5%-14.1%]). The proportions of children admitted to the hospital and intensive care unit did not differ between variants. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 variants suggest that the Omicron and Delta variants were more strongly associated with fever and cough than the original-type virus and the Alpha variant. Children with Omicron variant infection were more likely to report lower respiratory tract symptoms and systemic manifestations, undergo chest radiography, and receive interventions. No differences were found in undesirable outcomes (ie, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission) across variants.

Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is crucial to control the COVID-19 pandemic; saliva testing has been proposed as a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. We sought to compare the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using saliva versus nasopharyngeal swab in the pediatric population, and to determine the optimum time of testing for SARS-CoV-2 using saliva. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal diagnostic study in Ottawa, Canada, from Jan. 19 to Mar. 26, 2021. Children aged 3-17 years were eligible if they exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, had been identified as a high-risk or close contact to someone confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 or had travelled outside Canada in the previous 14 days. Participants provided both nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples. Saliva was collected using a self-collection kit (DNA Genotek, OM-505) or a sponge-based kit (DNA Genotek, ORE-100) if they could not provide a saliva sample into a tube. RESULTS: Among 1580 paired nasopharyngeal and saliva tests, 60 paired samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Forty-four (73.3%) were concordant-positive results and 16 (26.6%) were discordant, among which 8 were positive only on nasopharyngeal swab and 8 were positive only on saliva testing. The sensitivity of saliva was 84.6% (95% confidence interval 71.9%-93.1%). INTERPRETATION: Salivary testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population is less invasive and shows similar detection of SARS-CoV-2 to nasopharyngeal swabs. It may therefore provide a feasible alternative for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.

Nasopharyngeal swabs vs. saliva sampling for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A cross-sectional survey of acceptability for caregivers and children after experiencing both methods.

BACKGROUND: Saliva sampling is a promising alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but acceptability data is lacking. We characterize the acceptability of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs for primary decision makers and their children after experiencing both testing modalities. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to participants aged 6-to-17 years and their primary decision makers at an Ottawa community COVID-19 testing centre in March 2021. Included were participants meeting local guidelines for testing. Excluded were those identified prior to participation as having inability to complete the consent, sampling, or survey process. Acceptability in multiple hypothetical scenarios was rated using a 5-point Likert scale. Pain was measured using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). Preference for testing was assessed with direct binary questions. RESULTS: 48 participants and 48 primary decision makers completed the survey. Nasopharyngeal swab acceptability differed between scenarios, ranging 79% [95%CI: 66, 88] to 100% [95%CI: 95, 100]; saliva sampling acceptability was similar across scenarios, ranging 92% [95%CI: 82, 97] to 98% [95%CI: 89, 99]. 58% of youth described significant pain with nasopharyngeal swabbing, versus none with saliva sampling. 90% of children prefer saliva sampling. 66% of primary decision makers would prefer nasopharyngeal swabbing if it were 10% more sensitive. CONCLUSION: Though youth prefer saliva sampling over nasopharyngeal swabs, primary decision makers present for testing remain highly accepting of both. Acceptance of nasopharyngeal swabs, however, varies with the testing indication and is influenced by perceived test accuracy. Understanding factors that influence sampling acceptance will inform more successful testing strategies.

Antibody Seronegativity in COVID-19 RT-PCR-Positive Children.

This substudy of a prospective case-ascertained household transmission study investigated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-positive individuals without antibody development and factors associated with nonseroconversion. Approximately 1 of 8 individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 did not seroconvert. Children, particularly the youngest, were approximately half as likely to seroconvert compared with adults. Apart from the absence of fever/chills, individual symptoms did not strongly predict nonseroconversion.

Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from unvaccinated asymptomatic and symptomatic household members with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: an antibody-surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: Household transmission contributes to SARS-CoV-2 spread, but the role of children in transmission is unclear. We conducted a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic children and adults exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in their households with the objective of determining how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted within households. METHODS: In this case-ascertained antibody-surveillance study, we enrolled households in Ottawa, Ontario, in which at least 1 household member had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. The enrolment period was September 2020 to March 2021. Potentially eligible participants were identified if they had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at an academic emergency department or affiliated testing centre; people who learned about the study through the media could also self-identify for participation. At least 2 participants were required for a household to be eligible for study participation, and at least 1 enrolled participant per household had to be a child (age < 18 yr). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were used to evaluate SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA, IgM and IgG against the spike-trimer and nucleocapsid protein. The primary outcome was household secondary attack rate, defined as the proportion of household contacts positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibody among the total number of household contacts participating in the study. We performed descriptive statistics at both the individual and household levels. To estimate and compare outcomes between patient subgroups, and to examine predictors of household transmission, we fitted a series of multivariable logistic regression with robust standard errors to account for clustering of individuals within households. RESULTS: We enrolled 695 participants from 180 households: 180 index participants (74 children, 106 adults) and 515 of their household contacts (266 children, 249 adults). A total of 487 household contacts (94.6%) (246 children, 241 adults) had SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing, of whom 239 had a positive result (secondary attack rate 49.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 42.9%-55.3%). Eighty-eight (36.8%, 95% CI 29.3%-43.2%) of the 239 were asymptomatic; asymptomatic rates were similar for children (51/130 [39.2%, 95% CI 30.7%-48.5%]) and adults (37/115 [32.2%, 95% CI 24.2%-41.4%]) (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.1). Adults were more likely than children to transmit SARS-CoV-2 (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.6). The odds of transmission from asymptomatic (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.2-1.4) versus symptomatic (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.6-1.4) index participants to household contacts was uncertain. Predictors of household transmission included household density (number of people per bedroom), relationship to index participant and number of cases in the household. INTERPRETATION: The rate of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within households was nearly 50% during the study period, and children were an important source of spread. The findings suggest that children are an important driver of the COVID-19 pandemic; this should inform public health policy.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient Volumes, Acuity, and Outcomes in Pediatric Emergency Departments: A Nationwide Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric emergency department (ED) utilization and outcomes. METHODS: This study is an interrupted-time-series observational study of children presenting to 11 Canadian tertiary-care pediatric EDs. Data were grouped into weeks in 3 study periods: prepandemic (January 1, 2018-January 27, 2020), peripandemic (January 28, 2020-March 10, 2020), and early pandemic (March 11, 2020-April 30, 2020). These periods were compared with the same time intervals in the 2 preceding calendar years. Primary outcomes were number of ED visits per week. The secondary outcomes were triage acuity, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, length of hospital stay, ED revisits, and visits for trauma and mental health concerns. RESULTS: There were 577,807 ED visits (median age, 4.5 years; 52.9% male). Relative to the prepandemic period, there was a reduction [-58%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -63% to -51%] in the number of ED visits during the early-pandemic period, with concomitant higher acuity. There was a concurrent increase in the proportion of ward [odds ratio (OR), 1.39; 95% CI, 1.32-1.45] and intensive care unit (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42) admissions, and trauma-related ED visits among children less than 10 years (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.45-1.56). Mental health-related visits in children declined in the early-pandemic period (in <10 years, -60%; 95% CI, -67% to -51%; in children ≥10 years: -56%; 95% CI, -63% to -47%) relative to the pre-COVID-19 period. There were no differences in mortality or length of stay; however, ED revisits within 72 hours were reduced during the early-pandemic period (percent change: -55%; 95% CI, -61% to -49%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, dramatic reductions in pediatric ED visits occurred across Canada. Children seeking ED care were sicker, and there was an increase in trauma-related visits among children more than 10 years of age, whereas mental health visits declined during the early-pandemic period. When faced with a future pandemic, public health officials must consider the impact of the illness and the measures implemented on children's health and acute care needs.

Virtual care in the pediatric emergency department: a new way of doing business?

OBJECTIVES: To understand the feasibility, utilization rate, and satisfaction of the first Virtual Pediatric ED (V-PED) in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study examining the feasibility and impact of virtual care as an adjunct to in-person emergency care at a tertiary pediatric hospital from May to July 2020. Children (< 18 years) from Ontario and Quebec seeking V-PED care were included. A secure, encrypted, video platform within the hospital's electronic medical record was used. Caregivers self-determined appropriateness of V-PED using a standardized online triage questionnaire to request their appointment. The V-PED is directly launched from the patient's chart and the family joins the portal via hyperlink. Outcome measures included the number of V-PED visits, hospital admission rates, and caregiver satisfaction using a 10-item voluntary post-visit online survey. RESULTS: A total of 1036 V-PED visits were seen of which 176 (17.0%) were referred for further in-person ED assessment, and 8 (0.8%) required hospital admission. Of the 107 completing patient experience surveys (10% response), most respondents (69%) endorsed they "very likely" or "definitely" would have presented in-person to the ED if V-PED were unavailable. Overall satisfaction was rated as excellent (9 or 10 out of 10) in 87% of respondents. CONCLUSION: Our novel V-PED is feasible, has high caregiver satisfaction, and can reduce the burden of in-person ED visits. Future work must ensure the safety of emergency virtual care and examine how to increase capacity and integrate V-PED within traditional emergency medicine.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Comprendre la faisabilité, le taux d'utilisation et la satisfaction du premier service d'urgence pédiatrique virtuel (V-PED) au Canada. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte prospective examinant la faisabilité et l'impact des soins virtuels comme complément aux soins d'urgence en personne dans un hôpital pédiatrique tertiaire de mai à juillet 2020. Les enfants (< 18 ans) de l'Ontario et du Québec cherchant à bénéficier d'une prise en charge par la V-PED ont été inclus. Une plateforme vidéo sécurisée et cryptée a été utilisée dans le dossier médical électronique de l'hôpital. Les soignants ont autodéterminé la pertinence du V-PED à l'aide d'un questionnaire de triage en ligne normalisé pour demander leur rendez-vous. Le V-PED est directement lancé à partir du dossier du patient et la famille rejoint le portail via un lien hypertexte. Les mesures des résultats comprenaient le nombre de visites de V-PED, les taux d'admission à l'hôpital et la satisfaction des soignants à l'aide d'une enquête en ligne volontaire en 10 points après la visite. RéSULTATS: Au total, 1036 visites de DEP-V ont été effectuées, dont 176 (17,0 %) ont fait l'objet d'une évaluation approfondie en personne aux urgences, et 8 (0,8 %) ont nécessité une hospitalisation. Sur les 107 répondants aux enquêtes sur l'expérience des patients (10 % de réponses), la plupart (69 %) ont déclaré qu'ils se seraient "très probablement" ou "certainement" présentés en personne aux urgences si la V-PED n'était pas disponible. La satisfaction globale a été jugée excellente (9 ou 10 sur 10) par 87 % des répondants. CONCLUSION: Notre nouveau V-PED est réalisable, donne une grande satisfaction aux soignants et peut réduire le fardeau des visites en personne aux urgences. Les travaux futurs doivent garantir la sécurité des soins virtuels d'urgence et examiner comment augmenter la capacité et intégrer la V-PED dans la médecine d'urgence traditionnelle.