Dataset Information

What we know so far about Coronavirus Disease 2019 in children: A meta-analysis of 551 laboratory-confirmed cases.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To summarize what we know so far about coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in children.

Method

We searched PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online, and Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information from 1 January 2020 to 4 May 2020. We selected randomized trials, observational studies, case series or case reports, and research letters of children ages birth to 18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the weighted mean prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) or the weighted average means and 95% CI.

Result

Forty-six articles reporting 551 cases of COVID-19 in children (aged 1 day-17.5 years) were included. Eighty-seven percent (95% CI: 77%-95%) of patients had household exposure to COVID-19. The most common symptoms and signs were fever (53%, 95% CI: 45%-61%), cough (39%, 95% CI: 30%-47%), and sore throat/pharyngeal erythema (14%, 95% CI: 4%-28%); however, 18% (95% CI: 11%-27%) of cases were asymptomatic. The most common radiographic and computed tomography (CT) findings were patchy consolidations (33%, 95% CI: 23%-43%) and ground glass opacities (28%, 95% CI: 18%-39%), but 36% (95% CI: 28%-45%) of patients had normal CT images. Antiviral agents were given to 74% of patients (95% CI: 52%-92%). Six patients, all with major underlying medical conditions, needed invasive mechanical ventilation, and one of them died.

Conclusion

Previously healthy children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms. The diagnosis is generally suspected from history of household exposure to COVID-19 case. Children with COVID-19 and major underlying condition are more likely to have severe/critical disease and poor prognosis, even death.

SUBMITTER: Zhang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7300763 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:A novel human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in China in December 2019. There is limited support for many of its key epidemiologic features, including the incubation period for clinical disease (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]), which has important implications for surveillance and control activities. Objective:To estimate the length of the incubation period of COVID-19 and describe its public health implications. Design:Pooled analysis of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between 4 January 2020 and 24 February 2020. Setting:News reports and press releases from 50 provinces, regions, and countries outside Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Participants:Persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection outside Hubei province, China. Measurements:Patient demographic characteristics and dates and times of possible exposure, symptom onset, fever onset, and hospitalization. Results:There were 181 confirmed cases with identifiable exposure and symptom onset windows to estimate the incubation period of COVID-19. The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10 000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine. Limitation:Publicly reported cases may overrepresent severe cases, the incubation period for which may differ from that of mild cases. Conclusion:This work provides additional evidence for a median incubation period for COVID-19 of approximately 5 days, similar to SARS. Our results support current proposals for the length of quarantine or active monitoring of persons potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2, although longer monitoring periods might be justified in extreme cases. Primary Funding Source:U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Project description:In late December 2019, patients of atypical pneumonia due to an unidentified microbial agent were reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. Subsequently, a novel coronavirus was identified as the causative pathogen which was named SARS-CoV-2. As of 12 February 2020, more than 44 000 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been confirmed in China and continue to expand. Provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions of China have launched first-level response to major public health emergencies one after another from 23 January 2020, which means restricting movement of people among provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. The aim of this study was to explore the correlation between the migration scale index and the number of confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and to depict the effect of restricting population movement. In this study, Excel 2010 was used to demonstrate the temporal distribution at the day level and SPSS 23.0 was used to analyse the correlation between the migration scale index and the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. We found that since 23 January 2020, Wuhan migration scale index has dropped significantly and since 26 January 2020, Hubei province migration scale index has dropped significantly. New confirmed COVID-19 cases per day in China except for Wuhan gradually increased since 24 January 2020, and showed a downward trend from 6 February 2020. New confirmed COVID-19 cases per day in China except for Hubei province gradually increased since 24 January 2020, and maintained at a high level from 24 January 2020 to 4 February 2020, then showed a downward trend. Wuhan migration scale index from 9 January to 22 January, 10 January to 23 January and 11 January to 24 January was correlated with the number of new confirmed COVID-19 cases per day in China except for Wuhan from 22 January to 4 February. Hubei province migration scale index from 10 January to 23 January and 11 January to 24 January was correlated with the number of new confirmed COVID-19 cases per day in China except for Hubei province from 22 January to 4 February. Our findings suggested that people who left Wuhan from 9 January to 22 January, and those who left Hubei province from 10 January to 24 January, led to the outbreak in the rest of China. The 'Wuhan lockdown' and the launching of the first-level response to this major public health emergency may have had a good effect on controlling the COVID-19 epidemic. Although new COVID-19 cases continued to be confirmed in China outside Wuhan and Hubei provinces, in our opinion, these are second-generation cases.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have focused on populations with normal immunity, but lack data on immunocompromised populations.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia in kidney transplant recipients.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 10 renal transplant recipients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled in this retrospective study. In addition, 10 of their family members diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia were included in the control group.InterventionImmunosuppressant reduction and low-dose methylprednisolone therapy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe clinical outcomes (the severity of pneumonia, recovery rate, time of virus shedding, and length of illness) were compared with the control group by statistical analysis.Results and limitationsThe clinical symptomatic, laboratory, and radiological characteristics of COVID-19 pneumonia in the renal transplant recipients were similar to those of severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the general population. The severity of COVID-19 pneumonia was greater in the transplant recipients than in the control group (five severe/three critical cases vs one severe case). Five patients developed transient renal allograft damage. After a longer time of virus shedding (28.4 ± 9.3 vs 12.2 ± 4.6 d in the control group) and a longer course of illness (35.3 ± 8.3 vs 18.8 ± 10.5 d in the control group), nine of the 10 transplant patients recovered successfully after treatment. One patient developed acute renal graft failure and died of progressive respiratory failure.ConclusionsKidney transplant recipients had more severe COVID-19 pneumonia than the general population, but most of them recovered after a prolonged clinical course and virus shedding. Findings from this small group of cases may have important implications for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia in immunosuppressed populations.Patient summaryImmunosuppressed transplant recipients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection had more severe pneumonia, but most of them still achieved a good prognosis after appropriate treatment.

Project description:Miltefosine unresponsive and relapse cases of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) are increasingly being reported. However, there has been no laboratory confirmed reports of miltefosine resistance in VL. Here, we report two laboratory confirmed cases of VL from India.Two patients with VL were referred to us with suspected VL. The first patient was a native of the VL endemic state of Bihar, but residing in Delhi, a VL non-endemic area. He was treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics and antipyretics but was unresponsive to treatment. The second patient was from Jharkhand state in eastern India (adjoining Bihar), another endemic state for VL. He was refractory to anti-leishmanial treatment, which included administration of miltefosine. Following investigation, both patients were serologically positive for VL, and blood buffy coat from both patients grew Leishmania donovani. The isolates derived from both cases were characterized for their drug susceptibility, genetically characterised, and SNPs typed for LdMT and LdROS gene expression. Both patients were successfully treated with amphotericin B.The in vitro drug susceptibility assays carried out on both isolates showed good IC50 values to amphotericin B (0.1?±?0.0004 ?g/ml and 0.07?±?0.0019 ?g/ml). One isolate was refractory to SbIII with an IC50 of > 200 ?M while the second isolate was sensitive to SbIII with an IC50 of 36.70?±?3.2 ?M. However, in both the isolates, IC50 against miltefosine was more than 10-fold higher (> 100 ?M) than the standard strain DD8 (6.8?±?0.1181 ?M). Furthermore, genetic analyses demonstrated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (354Tyr?Phe and 1078Phe?Tyr) in the LdMT gene of the parasites.Here, we document two laboratory confirmed cases of miltefosine resistant VL from India. Our finding highlights the urgent need to establish control measures to prevent the spread of these strains. We also propose that LdMT gene mutation analysis could be used as a molecular marker of miltefosine resistance in L. donovani.