Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 140
Filter
1.
Chest ; 161(5): e299-e304, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1866966

ABSTRACT

CASE PRESENTATION: A 31-year-old Asian male never-smoker living in the upper Midwest with a past medical history of congenital bilateral hearing loss sought treatment with a 1-week history of fever, fatigue, right-sided pleuritic chest pain, shortness of breath, productive cough with mild intermittent hemoptysis, night sweats, and unintentional 10-lb weight loss over 4 weeks. He was adopted from South Korea as an infant, and thus the family history was unknown. He worked in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning business, performing installations and repairs. There was no known exposure to animals, caves, rivers, lakes, or wooded areas. He travelled to South Korea and New Hampshire approximately 9 months previously. He did not take any medication.


Subject(s)
Chest Pain , Mediastinal Diseases , Chest Pain/diagnosis , Chest Pain/etiology , Cough/diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Dyspnea/diagnosis , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Humans , Male , Mediastinal Diseases/diagnosis
2.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 26(9): 3342-3350, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1856620

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) can occur in association with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is not easy to differentiate MIS-C from severe COVID-19 or Kawasaki disease based on symptoms. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and laboratory characteristics of MIS-C. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline for case series and reports of MIS-C published until June 20, 2020. From a total of nine articles involving 45 cases, various clinical and laboratory data were extracted. Each target case was evaluated by using different diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: The average age at onset of MIS-C was 8.6 years. In 80% of cases, the age of patients ranged from 5 to 15 years. Fever (100%) and shock (82%) were the most common presenting symptoms. Sixty percent of cases met the diagnostic criteria for typical or atypical Kawasaki disease. Biomarkers indicative of inflammation, coagulopathy, or cardiac injury were characteristically elevated as follows: ferritin (mean: 1,061 ng/mL), CRP (217 mg/L), ESR (69 mm/hr), IL-6 (214.8 pg/mL), TNFα (63.4 pg/mL), D-dimer (3,220 ng/mL), PT (15.5 s), troponin I (1,006 ng/L), and BNP (12,150 pg/mL). Intravenous immunoglobulin was administered in all target cases, and inotropic agents were commonly used as well. No case of death was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that MIS-C is a serious condition that presents with fever, rash, as well as cardiovascular and gastrointestinal symptoms. Although it is challenging to differentiate MIS-C from Kawasaki disease or severe COVID-19, initiation of appropriate treatments through early diagnosis is warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mucocutaneous Lymph Node Syndrome , Adolescent , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Child, Preschool , Fever/diagnosis , Humans , Mucocutaneous Lymph Node Syndrome/diagnosis , Mucocutaneous Lymph Node Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/diagnosis
3.
PLoS One ; 17(4): e0265820, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1855004

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The rapid expansion of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus has raised serious public health concerns due to the possibility of misdiagnosis in regions where arboviral diseases are endemic. We performed the first study in northern Peru to describe the detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies in febrile patients with a suspected diagnosis of dengue and chikungunya fever. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive cross-sectional study was performed in febrile patients attending primary healthcare centers from April 2020 through March 2021. Patients enrolled underwent serum sample collection for the molecular and serological detection of DENV and CHIKV. Also, serological detection of IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was performed. RESULTS: 464 patients were included during the study period, of which (40.51%) were positive for one pathogen, meanwhile (6.90%) presented co-infections between 2 or more pathogens. The majority of patients with monoinfections were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgM with (73.40%), followed by DENV 18.09% and CHIKV (8.51%). The most frequent co-infection was DENV + SARS-CoV-2 with (65.63%), followed by DENV + CHIKV and DENV + CHIKV + SARS-CoV-2, both with (12.50%). The presence of polyarthralgias in hands (43.75%, p<0.01) and feet (31.25%, p = 0.05) were more frequently reported in patients with CHIKV monoinfection. Also, conjunctivitis was more common in patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgM (11.45%, p<0.01). The rest of the symptoms were similar among all the study groups. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies were frequently detected in acute sera from febrile patients with a clinical suspicion of arboviral disease. The presence of polyarthralgias in hands and feet may be suggestive of CHIKV infection. These results reaffirm the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 infection as a main differential diagnosis of acute febrile illness in arboviruses endemic areas, as well as to consider co-infections between these pathogens.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chikungunya Fever , Chikungunya virus , Coinfection , Dengue Virus , Dengue , Zika Virus Infection , Antibodies, Viral , Arthralgia , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Chikungunya Fever/diagnosis , Chikungunya Fever/epidemiology , Coinfection/diagnosis , Coinfection/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dengue/diagnosis , Dengue/epidemiology , Fever/diagnosis , Humans , Immunoglobulin M , Peru/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Zika Virus Infection/epidemiology
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013665, 2022 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1849971

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Ageusia , COVID-19 , Pharyngitis , Aged , Ageusia/complications , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/etiology , Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Cough/etiology , Dyspnea , Fatigue/etiology , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Hospitals , Humans , Outpatients , Primary Health Care , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
Pediatr Ann ; 51(5): e202-e205, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1847428

ABSTRACT

Pediatric patients with "once-daily" fevers are often referred to pediatric infectious disease specialists for evaluation. Often, these fevers occur at nighttime in the absence of additional symptoms and come to the caregiver's attention after a viral illness. It is crucial for caregivers and providers to be able to define and measure fever accurately when trying to ascertain the true etiology of this clinical picture. Fever education is critical in providing reassurance to parents, and fever diaries should be encouraged. In a well-appearing child without any additional symptoms, at least a percentage of these fevers can be explained by normal diurnal variation of temperature. [Pediatr Ann. 2022;51(5):e202-e205.].


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Caregivers , Child , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Fever/therapy , Humans , Parents , Temperature
6.
J Int Med Res ; 50(5): 3000605221096280, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1820035

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the role of objective olfactory dysfunction (OD) and gustatory dysfunction (GD) testing among patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who presented with respiratory symptoms. METHODS: A prospective, blinded, observational study was conducted in the emergency units of two tertiary hospitals. Participants were asked to identify scents in the pocket smell test (PST) and flavors in four different solutions in the gustatory dysfunction test (GDT). We assessed the level of agreement between objective findings and self-reported symptoms. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of chemosensory dysfunction for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. RESULTS: Of 250 participants, 74 (29.6%) were SARS-CoV-2-positive. There was slight agreement between self-reported symptoms and objective findings (kappa = 0.13 and 0.10 for OD and GD, respectively). OD assessed by the PST was independently associated with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio = 1.89, 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.46). This association was stronger when OD was combined with objective GD, cough, and fever (adjusted odds ratio = 7.33, 95% confidence interval, 1.17-45.84). CONCLUSIONS: Neither the PST nor GDT alone are useful screening tools for COVID-19. However, a diagnostic scale based on objective OD, GD, fever, and cough may help triage patients with suspected COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Ageusia , COVID-19 , Olfaction Disorders , Ageusia/diagnosis , Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cough/diagnosis , Emergency Service, Hospital , Fever/diagnosis , Humans , Olfaction Disorders/diagnosis , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Taste Disorders/diagnosis
8.
J Infect Chemother ; 28(8): 1159-1164, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1814722

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: After COVID-19 vaccination was initiated, the number of patients visiting the emergency department (ED) with vaccine-related adverse reactions increased. We investigated the clinical features of older adults (aged 65 years and older) visiting the ED with self-reported COVID-19 postvaccination fever. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study at three EDs between March 2021 and September 2021. Patients who reported adverse reactions, fever (≥37.5 °C) and/or febrile sensation or rigors following COVID-19 vaccination were included. The demographic and clinical data of these patients were collected by reviewing their medical records. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients were selected, and 396 (70.5%) were female. The older adult group included 155 (27.6%) patients, and the median age was 75 (69-79 years). The older adults less frequently had a fever (≥37.5 °C) upon ED presentation (75.5% vs. 85.7%, respectively), used more emergency medical services (43.9% vs. 18.7%, respectively), and visited an ED more frequently during early hours (00:00-06:00) (31% vs. 20.1%, respectively) compared to the younger adults (p = 0.004, p < 0.001 and p = 0.036). Fewer older adults visited an ED within 2 days of fever onset (73.5% vs. 84%) (p = 0.012), and more older adults were admitted for medical conditions other than vaccine-related adverse reactions (32.9% vs. 4.2%) (p < 0.001). Older adults received more thorough testing (laboratory and imaging tests). Among the older adults, the admission rate was associated with age (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Older adults presenting with fever as an adverse reaction following COVID-19 vaccination less frequently had a fever upon visiting the ED, required more ED testing, and had higher admission rates for non-vaccination-related medical conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Fever , Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Fever/chemically induced , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies
9.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(4): e227299, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1787611

ABSTRACT

Importance: Bacterial and viral causes of acute respiratory illness (ARI) are difficult to clinically distinguish, resulting in the inappropriate use of antibacterial therapy. The use of a host gene expression-based test that is able to discriminate bacterial from viral infection in less than 1 hour may improve care and antimicrobial stewardship. Objective: To validate the host response bacterial/viral (HR-B/V) test and assess its ability to accurately differentiate bacterial from viral infection among patients with ARI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolled 755 children and adults with febrile ARI of 7 or fewer days' duration from 10 US emergency departments. Participants were enrolled from October 3, 2014, to September 1, 2019, followed by additional enrollment of patients with COVID-19 from March 20 to December 3, 2020. Clinical adjudication of enrolled participants identified 616 individuals as having bacterial or viral infection. The primary analysis cohort included 334 participants with high-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator concordance and the presence of an identified pathogen confirmed by microbiological testing). A secondary analysis of the entire cohort of 616 participants included cases with low-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator discordance or the absence of an identified pathogen in microbiological testing). Thirty-three participants with COVID-19 were included post hoc. Interventions: The HR-B/V test quantified the expression of 45 host messenger RNAs in approximately 45 minutes to derive a probability of bacterial infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance characteristics for the HR-B/V test compared with clinical adjudication were reported as either bacterial or viral infection or categorized into 4 likelihood groups (viral very likely [probability score <0.19], viral likely [probability score of 0.19-0.40], bacterial likely [probability score of 0.41-0.73], and bacterial very likely [probability score >0.73]) and compared with procalcitonin measurement. Results: Among 755 enrolled participants, the median age was 26 years (IQR, 16-52 years); 360 participants (47.7%) were female, and 395 (52.3%) were male. A total of 13 participants (1.7%) were American Indian, 13 (1.7%) were Asian, 368 (48.7%) were Black, 131 (17.4%) were Hispanic, 3 (0.4%) were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 297 (39.3%) were White, and 60 (7.9%) were of unspecified race and/or ethnicity. In the primary analysis involving 334 participants, the HR-B/V test had sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI, 77.8%-96.2%), specificity of 82.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-86.6%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.3%-99.1%) for bacterial infection. In comparison, the sensitivity of procalcitonin measurement was 28.6% (95% CI, 16.2%-40.9%; P < .001), the specificity was 87.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-90.7%; P = .006), and the NPV was 87.6% (95% CI, 85.5%-89.5%; P < .001). When stratified into likelihood groups, the HR-B/V test had an NPV of 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1%-100%) for bacterial infection in the viral very likely group and a positive predictive value of 63.4% (95% CI, 47.2%-77.9%) for bacterial infection in the bacterial very likely group. The HR-B/V test correctly identified 30 of 33 participants (90.9%) with acute COVID-19 as having a viral infection. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the HR-B/V test accurately discriminated bacterial from viral infection among patients with febrile ARI and was superior to procalcitonin measurement. The findings suggest that an accurate point-of-need host response test with high NPV may offer an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and patient outcomes.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , COVID-19 , Virus Diseases , Adult , Bacteria , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Female , Fever/diagnosis , Gene Expression , Humans , Male , Procalcitonin , Virus Diseases/diagnosis
10.
Respir Med ; 197: 106832, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1778435

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: SARS-CoV-2 continues to cause a global pandemic and management of COVID-19 in outpatient settings remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe characteristics of patients with chronic respiratory disease (CRD) experiencing symptoms consistent with COVID-19, who were seen in a novel Acute Respiratory Clinic, prior to widely available testing, emergence of variants, COVID-19 vaccination, and post-vaccination (breakthrough) SARS-CoV-2 infections. METHODS: Retrospective electronic medical record data were analyzed from 907 adults with presumed COVID-19 seen between March 16, 2020 and January 7, 2021. Data included demographics, comorbidities, medications, vital signs, laboratory tests, pulmonary function tests, patient disposition, and co-infections. The overdispersed data (aod) R package was used to create a logit model using COVID-19 diagnosis by PCR as the dichotomous outcome variable. Univariate, conventional multivariate and elastic net machine learning were used to analyze data. RESULTS: Male gender, elevated baseline temperature, and respiratory rate predicted COVID-19 diagnosis. Eosinopenia, neutrophilia, and lymphocytosis were also associated with COVID-19 diagnosis. However, asthma and COPD diagnoses were not associated with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test. Male gender, low oxygen saturation, and lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were associated with higher hospital referral. CONCLUSIONS: CRD patients with acute respiratory symptoms in the ambulatory setting were more likely to have COVID-19 if male, febrile and tachypneic. Patients with lower pre-morbid FEV1 and lower SPO2 are more likely to be referred to the hospital. A composite of vitals sigs and WBC differential help risk stratify CRD patients seeking care for presumed COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Fever/diagnosis , Humans , Male , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies
14.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0247773, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575465

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus infectious disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in significant morbidities, severe acute respiratory failures and subsequently emergency departments' (EDs) overcrowding in a context of insufficient laboratory testing capacities. The development of decision support tools for real-time clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 is of prime importance to assist patients' triage and allocate resources for patients at risk. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From March 2 to June 15, 2020, clinical patterns of COVID-19 suspected patients at admission to the EDs of Liège University Hospital, consisting in the recording of eleven symptoms (i.e. dyspnoea, chest pain, rhinorrhoea, sore throat, dry cough, wet cough, diarrhoea, headache, myalgia, fever and anosmia) plus age and gender, were investigated during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Indeed, 573 SARS-CoV-2 cases confirmed by qRT-PCR before mid-June 2020, and 1579 suspected cases that were subsequently determined to be qRT-PCR negative for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled in this study. Using multivariate binary logistic regression, two most relevant symptoms of COVID-19 were identified in addition of the age of the patient, i.e. fever (odds ratio [OR] = 3.66; 95% CI: 2.97-4.50), dry cough (OR = 1.71; 95% CI: 1.39-2.12), and patients older than 56.5 y (OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.67-2.58). Two additional symptoms (chest pain and sore throat) appeared significantly less associated to the confirmed COVID-19 cases with the same OR = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.56-0.94). An overall pondered (by OR) score (OPS) was calculated using all significant predictors. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated and the area under the ROC curve was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68-0.73) rendering the use of the OPS to discriminate COVID-19 confirmed and unconfirmed patients. The main predictors were confirmed using both sensitivity analysis and classification tree analysis. Interestingly, a significant negative correlation was observed between the OPS and the cycle threshold (Ct values) of the qRT-PCR. CONCLUSION AND MAIN SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed approach allows for the use of an interactive and adaptive clinical decision support tool. Using the clinical algorithm developed, a web-based user-interface was created to help nurses and clinicians from EDs with the triage of patients during the second COVID-19 wave.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Adult , Aged , Cough/diagnosis , Dyspnea/diagnosis , Female , Fever/diagnosis , Headache/diagnosis , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pharyngitis/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
15.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 25(22): 7115-7126, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1552078

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 is to date a global pandemic that can affect all age groups; gastrointestinal symptoms are quite common in patients with COVID-19 and a new clinical entity defined as Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) has been described in children and adolescents previously affected by COVID-19. Presenting symptoms of this new disease include high fever and severe abdominal pain that can mimic more common causes of abdominal pain; patients can rapidly deteriorate presenting severe cardiac dysfunction and multiorgan failure. Some fatalities due to this serious illness have been reported. We describe the case of a ten-year-old patient presenting with persistent high fever associated with continuous and worsening abdominal pain. Various hypotheses were performed during his diagnostic workup and an initial appendectomy was performed in the suspect of acute appendicitis. As his clinical picture deteriorated, the child was subsequently diagnosed and successfully treated as a case of MIS-C. The objective of this case report and brief review of abdominal pain in children throughout the age groups is to provide the emergency pediatrician with updated suggestions in diagnosing abdominal pain in children during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Abdominal Pain/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Pediatric Emergency Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/diagnosis , Abdominal Pain/diagnosis , Acute Disease , Appendectomy/methods , Appendicitis/diagnosis , Appendicitis/surgery , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Combined Modality Therapy , Conjunctivitis/etiology , Dyspnea/diagnosis , Dyspnea/therapy , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Humans , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/administration & dosage , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Male , Mucositis/etiology , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Pediatric Emergency Medicine/trends , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Steroids/therapeutic use , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/complications , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/pathology , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/therapy , Treatment Outcome
16.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 22079, 2021 11 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510625

ABSTRACT

Non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) are being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic as a temperature-measurement tool for screening and isolating patients in healthcare settings, travelers at ports of entry, and the general public. To understand the accuracy of NCITs, a clinical study was conducted with 1113 adult subjects using six different commercially available NCIT models. A total of 60 NCITs were tested with 10 units for each model. The NCIT-measured temperature was compared with the oral temperature obtained using a reference oral thermometer. The mean difference between the reference thermometer and NCIT measurement (clinical bias) was different for each NCIT model. The clinical bias ranged from just under - 0.9 °C (under-reporting) to just over 0.2 °C (over-reporting). The individual differences ranged from - 3 to + 2 °C in extreme cases, with the majority of the differences between - 2 and + 1 °C. Depending upon the NCIT model, 48% to 88% of the individual temperature measurements were outside the labeled accuracy stated by the manufacturers. The sensitivity of the NCIT models for detecting subject's temperature above 38 °C ranged from 0 to 0.69. Overall, our results indicate that some NCIT devices may not be consistently accurate enough to determine if subject's temperature exceeds a specific threshold of 38 °C. Model-to-model variability and individual model accuracy in the displayed temperature were found to be outside of acceptable limits. Accuracy and credibility of the NCITs should be thoroughly evaluated before using them as an effective screening tool.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fever/diagnosis , Thermometers , Adult , Body Temperature , COVID-19/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Infrared Rays , Male , Pandemics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
17.
PLoS Med ; 18(9): e1003777, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440982

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rapid detection, isolation, and contact tracing of community COVID-19 cases are essential measures to limit the community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to identify a parsimonious set of symptoms that jointly predict COVID-19 and investigated whether predictive symptoms differ between the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage (predominating as of April 2021 in the US, UK, and elsewhere) and wild type. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We obtained throat and nose swabs with valid SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results from 1,147,370 volunteers aged 5 years and above (6,450 positive cases) in the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study. This study involved repeated community-based random surveys of prevalence in England (study rounds 2 to 8, June 2020 to January 2021, response rates 22%-27%). Participants were asked about symptoms occurring in the week prior to testing. Viral genome sequencing was carried out for PCR-positive samples with N-gene cycle threshold value < 34 (N = 1,079) in round 8 (January 2021). In univariate analysis, all 26 surveyed symptoms were associated with PCR positivity compared with non-symptomatic people. Stability selection (1,000 penalized logistic regression models with 50% subsampling) among people reporting at least 1 symptom identified 7 symptoms as jointly and positively predictive of PCR positivity in rounds 2-7 (June to December 2020): loss or change of sense of smell, loss or change of sense of taste, fever, new persistent cough, chills, appetite loss, and muscle aches. The resulting model (rounds 2-7) predicted PCR positivity in round 8 with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77. The same 7 symptoms were selected as jointly predictive of B.1.1.7 infection in round 8, although when comparing B.1.1.7 with wild type, new persistent cough and sore throat were more predictive of B.1.1.7 infection while loss or change of sense of smell was more predictive of the wild type. The main limitations of our study are (i) potential participation bias despite random sampling of named individuals from the National Health Service register and weighting designed to achieve a representative sample of the population of England and (ii) the necessary reliance on self-reported symptoms, which may be prone to recall bias and may therefore lead to biased estimates of symptom prevalence in England. CONCLUSIONS: Where testing capacity is limited, it is important to use tests in the most efficient way possible. We identified a set of 7 symptoms that, when considered together, maximize detection of COVID-19 in the community, including infection with the B.1.1.7 lineage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Models, Biological , Ageusia/diagnosis , Ageusia/etiology , Ageusia/virology , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/etiology , Anosmia/virology , Appetite , Area Under Curve , COVID-19/virology , Chills/diagnosis , Chills/etiology , Chills/virology , Communicable Disease Control , Cough/diagnosis , Cough/etiology , Cough/virology , England , False Positive Reactions , Female , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Fever/virology , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Myalgia/diagnosis , Myalgia/etiology , Myalgia/virology , Pharyngitis/diagnosis , Pharyngitis/etiology , Pharyngitis/virology , Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , State Medicine
18.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 69(11): 3044-3050, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398482

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Among nursing home residents, for whom age and frailty can blunt febrile responses to illness, the temperature used to define fever can influence the clinical recognition of COVID-19 symptoms. To assess the potential for differences in the definition of fever to characterize nursing home residents with COVID-19 infections as symptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or asymptomatic, we conducted a retrospective study on a national cohort of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Living Center (CLC) residents tested for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Residents with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were classified as asymptomatic if they did not experience any symptoms, and as symptomatic or pre-symptomatic if the experienced a fever (>100.4°F) before or following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively. All-cause 30-day mortality was assessed as was the influence of a lower temperature threshold (>99.0°F) on classification of residents with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests. RESULTS: From March 2020 through November 2020, VA CLCs tested 11,908 residents for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR, with a positivity of rate of 13% (1557). Among residents with positive tests and using >100.4°F, 321 (21%) were symptomatic, 425 (27%) were pre-symptomatic, and 811 (52%) were asymptomatic. All-cause 30-day mortality among residents with symptomatic and pre-symptomatic COVID-19 infections was 24% and 26%, respectively, while those with an asymptomatic infection had mortality rates similar to residents with negative SAR-CoV-2 tests (10% and 5%, respectively). Using >99.0°F would have increased the number of residents categorized as symptomatic at the time of testing from 321 to 773. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause 30-day mortality was similar among VA CLC residents with symptomatic or pre-symptomatic COVID-19 infection, and lower than rates reported in non-VA nursing homes. A lower temperature threshold would increase the number of residents recognized as having symptomatic infection, potentially leading to earlier detection and more rapid implementation of therapeutic interventions and infection prevention and control measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , Fever/diagnosis , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/complications , Female , Fever/etiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
19.
J Travel Med ; 27(8)2020 12 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1387946

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Numerous publications focus on fever in returning travellers, but there is no known systematic review considering all diseases, or all tropical diseases causing fever. Such a review is necessary in order to develop appropriate practice guidelines. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives of this review were (i) to determine the aetiology of fever in travellers/migrants returning from (sub) tropical countries as well as the proportion of patients with specific diagnoses, and (ii) to assess the predictors for specific tropical diseases. METHOD: Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched with terms combining fever and travel/migrants. All studies focusing on causes of fever in returning travellers and/or clinical and laboratory predictors of tropical diseases were included. Meta-analyses were performed on frequencies of etiological diagnoses. RESULTS: 10 064 studies were identified; 541 underwent full-text review; 30 met criteria for data extraction. Tropical infections accounted for 33% of fever diagnoses, with malaria causing 22%, dengue 5% and enteric fever 2%. Non-tropical infections accounted for 36% of febrile cases, with acute gastroenteritis causing 14% and respiratory tract infections 13%. Positive likelihood ratios demonstrated that splenomegaly, thrombocytopenia and hyperbilirubinemia were respectively 5-14, 3-11 and 5-7 times more likely in malaria than non-malaria patients. High variability of results between studies reflects heterogeneity in study design, regions visited, participants' characteristics, setting, laboratory investigations performed and diseases included. CONCLUSION: Malaria accounted for one-fifth of febrile cases, highlighting the importance of rapid malaria testing in febrile returning travellers, followed by other rapid tests for common tropical diseases. High variability between studies highlights the need to harmonize study designs and to promote multi-centre studies investigating predictors of diseases, including of lower incidence, which may help to develop evidence-based guidelines. The use of clinical decision support algorithms by health workers which incorporate clinical predictors, could help standardize studies as well as improve quality of recommendations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Fever , Travel Medicine/methods , Tropical Medicine/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Diagnosis, Differential , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Transients and Migrants/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL