Predictive Value of Isolated Symptoms for Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Children Tested During Peak Circulation of the Delta Variant.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing policies for symptomatic children attending US schools or daycare vary, and whether isolated symptoms should prompt testing is unclear. We evaluated children presenting for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing to determine if the likelihood of having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test differed between participants with 1 symptom vs ≥2 symptoms, and to examine the predictive capability of isolated symptoms. METHODS: Participants aged <18 years presenting for clinical SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing in 6 sites in urban/suburban/rural Georgia (July-October, 2021; Delta variant predominant) were queried about individual symptoms. Participants were classified into 3 groups: asymptomatic, 1 symptom only, or ≥2 symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 test results and clinical characteristics of the 3 groups were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) for isolated symptoms were calculated by fitting a saturated Poisson model. RESULTS: Of 602 participants, 21.8% tested positive and 48.7% had a known or suspected close contact. Children reporting 1 symptom (n = 82; odds ratio [OR], 6.00 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.70-13.33]) and children reporting ≥2 symptoms (n = 365; OR, 5.25 [95% CI, 2.66-10.38]) were significantly more likely to have a positive COVID-19 test than asymptomatic children (n = 155), but they were not significantly different from each other (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, .52-1.49]). Sensitivity and PPV were highest for isolated fever (33% and 57%, respectively), cough (25% and 32%), and sore throat (21% and 45%); headache had low sensitivity (8%) but higher PPV (33%). Sensitivity and PPV of isolated congestion/rhinorrhea were 8% and 9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With high Delta variant prevalence, children with isolated symptoms were as likely as those with multiple symptoms to test positive for COVID-19. Isolated fever, cough, sore throat, or headache, but not congestion/rhinorrhea, offered the highest predictive value.

Evaluating Mortality Risk Adjustment Among Children Receiving Extracorporeal Support for Respiratory Failure.

This study evaluates whether three commonly used pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) severity of illness scores, pediatric risk of mortality score (PRISM) III, pediatric index of mortality (PIM) 2, and pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD), are the appropriate tools to discriminate mortality risk in children receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for respiratory failure. This study also evaluates the ability of the Pediatric Risk Estimate Score for Children Using Extracorporeal Respiratory Support (Ped-RESCUERS) to discriminate mortality risk in the same population, and whether Ped-RESCUERS' discrimination of mortality is improved by additional clinical and laboratory measures of renal, hepatic, neurologic, and hematologic dysfunction. A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted on children aged 29 days to 17 years with respiratory failure requiring respiratory ECMO support. Discrimination of mortality was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC); model calibration was measured by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test and Brier score. Admission PRISM-III, PIM-2, and PELOD were found to have poor ability to discriminate mortality with an AUC of 0.56 [0.46-0.66], 0.53 [0.43-0.62], and 0.57 [0.47-0.67], respectively. Alternatively, Ped-RESCUERS performed better with an AUC of 0.68 [0.59-0.77]. Higher alanine aminotransferase, ratio of the arterial partial pressure of oxygen the fraction of inspired oxygen, and lactic acidosis were independently associated with mortality and, when added to Ped-RESCUERS, resulted in an AUC of 0.75 [0.66-0.82]. Admission PRISM-III, PIM-2, and PELOD should not be used for pre-ECMO risk adjustment because they do not discriminate death. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation population-derived scores should be used to risk adjust ECMO populations as opposed to general PICU population-derived scores.