Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 Infections Among Children in the Biospecimens from Respiratory Virus-Exposed Kids (BRAVE Kids) Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Children with SARS-CoV-2 infection typically have mild symptoms that do not require medical attention, leaving a gap in our understanding of the spectrum of illnesses that the virus causes in children.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of children and adolescents (<21 years of age) with a SARS-CoV-2-infected close contact. We collected nasopharyngeal or nasal swabs at enrollment and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a real-time PCR assay.

Results

Of 382 children, 293 (77%) were SARS-CoV-2-infected. SARS-CoV-2-infected children were more likely to be Hispanic (p<0.0001), less likely to have asthma (p=0.005), and more likely to have an infected sibling contact (p=0.001) than uninfected children. Children ages 6-13 years were frequently asymptomatic (39%) and had respiratory symptoms less often than younger children (29% vs. 48%; p=0.01) or adolescents (29% vs. 60%; p<0.0001). Compared to children ages 6-13 years, adolescents more frequently reported influenza-like (61% vs. 39%; p<0.0001), gastrointestinal (27% vs. 9%; p=0.002), and sensory symptoms (42% vs. 9%; p<0.0001), and had more prolonged illnesses [median (IQR) duration: 7 (4, 12) vs. 4 (3, 8) days; p=0.01]. Despite the age-related variability in symptoms, we found no differences in nasopharyngeal viral load by age or between symptomatic and asymptomatic children.

Conclusions

Hispanic ethnicity and an infected sibling close contact are associated with increased SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among children, while asthma is associated with decreased risk. Age-related differences in the clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection must be considered when evaluating children for COVID-19 and in developing screening strategies for schools and childcare settings.

SUBMITTER: Hurst JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7665428 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA mismatch between a widespread use of broad-spectrum antibiotic agents and a low prevalence of reported bacterial co-infections in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections has been observed. Herein, we sought to characterize and compare bacterial co-infections at admission in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, influenza or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) positive community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).MethodsA retrospective cohort study of bacterial co-infections at admission in SARS-CoV-2, influenza or RSV-positive adult patients with CAP admitted to Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, from year 2011 to 2020. The prevalence of bacterial co-infections was investigated and compared between the three virus groups. In each virus group, length of stay, ICU-admission and 30-day mortality was compared in patients with and without bacterial co-infection, adjusting for age, sex and co-morbidities. In the SARS-CoV-2 group, risk factors for bacterial co-infection, were assessed using logistic regression models and creation of two scoring systems based on disease severity, age, co-morbidities and inflammatory markers with assessment of concordance statistics.ResultsCompared to influenza and RSV, the bacterial co-infection testing frequency in SARS-CoV-2 was lower for all included test modalities. Four percent [46/1243 (95% CI 3-5)] of all SARS-CoV-2 patients had a bacterial co-infection at admission, whereas the proportion was 27% [209/775 (95% CI 24-30)] and 29% [69/242 (95% CI 23-35)] in influenza and RSV, respectively. S. pneumoniae and S. aureus constituted the most common bacterial findings for all three virus groups. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with and without bacterial co-infection at admission, a relevant association could not be demonstrated nor excluded with regards to risk of ICU-admission (aHR 1.53, 95% CI 0.87-2.69) or 30-day mortality (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 0.66-2.46) in adjusted analyses. Bacterial co-infection was associated with increased inflammatory markers, but the diagnostic accuracy was not substantially different in a scoring system based on disease severity, age, co-morbidities and inflammatory parameters [C statistic 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.74)], compared to using disease severity, age and co-morbidities only [C statistic 0.63 (95% CI 0.56-0.70)].ConclusionsThe prevalence of bacterial co-infections was significantly lower in patients with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 positive pneumonia as compared to influenza and RSV positive pneumonia.

Project description:IntroductionEdinburgh and Lothians' Viral Intervention Study Kids is a parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trial of hypertonic saline (HS) nose drops (~2.6% sodium chloride) vs standard care in children <7 years of age with symptoms of an upper respiratory tract infection (URTI).Methods and analysisChildren are recruited prior to URTI or within 48 hours of developing URTI symptoms by advertising in areas such as local schools/nurseries, health centres/hospitals, recreational facilities, public events, workplaces, local/social media. Willing parents/guardians, of children <7 years of age will be asked to contact the research team at their local site. Children will be randomised to either a control arm (standard symptomatic care), or intervention arm (three drops/nostril of HS, at least four times a day, until 24 hours after asymptomatic or a maximum of 28 days). All participants are requested to provide a nasal swab at the start of the study (intervention arm: before HS drops) and then daily for four more days. Parent/guardian complete a validated daily diary, an end of illness diary, a satisfaction questionnaire and a wheeze questionnaire (day 28). The parent/guardian of a child in the intervention arm is taught to prepare HS nose drops. Parent/guardian of children asymptomatic at recruitment are requested to inform the research team within 48 hours of their child developing an URTI and follow the instructions already provided. The day 28 questionnaire determines if the child experienced a wheeze following illness. Participation in the study ends on day 28.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Service (18/WS/0080). It is cosponsored by Academic and Clinical Central Office for Research and Development-a partnership between the University of Edinburgh and National Health Service Lothian Health Board. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and via the study website.Trial registration numberNCT03463694.

Project description:Background: Testing of possibly infected individuals remains cornerstone of containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Detection dogs could contribute to mass screening. Previous research demonstrated canines' ability to detect SARS-CoV-2-infections but has not investigated if dogs can differentiate between COVID-19 and other virus infections. Methods: Twelve dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive samples. Three test scenarios were performed to evaluate their ability to discriminate SARS-CoV-2-infections from viral infections of a different aetiology. Naso- and oropharyngeal swab samples from individuals and samples from cell culture both infected with one of 15 viruses that may cause COVID-19-like symptoms were presented as distractors in a randomised, double-blind study. Dogs were either trained with SARS-CoV-2 positive saliva samples (test scenario I and II) or with supernatant from cell cultures (test scenario III). Results: When using swab samples from individuals infected with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 as distractors (test scenario I), dogs detected swab samples from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI: 66.0-81.7%) and a specificity of 95.1% (95% CI: 92.6-97.7%). In test scenario II and III cell culture supernatant from cells infected with SARS-CoV-2, cells infected with other coronaviruses and non-infected cells were presented. Dogs achieved mean diagnostic sensitivities of 61.2% (95% CI: 50.7-71.6%, test scenario II) and 75.8% (95% CI: 53.0-98.5%, test scenario III), respectively. The diagnostic specificities were 90.9% (95% CI: 87.3-94.6%, test scenario II) and 90.2% (95% CI: 81.1-99.4%, test scenario III), respectively. Conclusion: In all three test scenarios the mean specificities were above 90% which indicates that dogs can distinguish SARS-CoV-2-infections from other viral infections. However, compared to earlier studies our scent dogs achieved lower diagnostic sensitivities. To deploy COVID-19 detection dogs as a reliable screening method it is therefore mandatory to include a variety of samples from different viral respiratory tract infections in dog training to ensure a successful discrimination process.