Dataset Information

Factors associated with the time to return negative RT-PCR from COVID-19 in paediatric patients: a retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to describe the epidemiological and clinical features and potential factors related to the time to return negative reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR in discharged paediatric patients with COVID-19.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Unscheduled admissions to 12 tertiary hospitals in China.

Participants

Two hundred and thirty-three clinical charts of paediatric patients with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted from 1 January 2020 to 17 April 2020.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Primary outcome measures: factors associated with the time to return negative RT-PCR from COVID-19 in paediatric patients. Secondary outcome measures: epidemiological and clinical features and laboratory results in paediatric patients.

Results

The median age of patients in our cohort was 7.50 (IQR: 2.92–12.17) years, and 133 (57.1%) patients were male. 42 (18.0%) patients were evaluated as asymptomatic, while 162 (69.5%) and 25 (10.7%) patients were classified as mild or moderate, respectively. In Cox regression analysis, longer time to negative RT-PCR was associated with the presence of confirmed infection in family members (HR (95% CI): 0.56 (0.41 to 0.79)). Paediatric patients with emesis symptom had a longer time to return negative (HR (95% CI): 0.33 (0.14 to 0.78)). During hospitalisation, the use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and antiviral drugs at the same time is less conducive to return negative than antiviral drugs alone (HR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.64 to 1.13)).

Conclusions

The mode of transmission might be a critical factor determining the disease severity of COVID-19. Patients with emesis symptom, complications or confirmed infection in family members may have longer healing time than others. However, there were no significant favourable effects from TCM when the patients have received antiviral treatment.

SUBMITTER: Shao J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557243 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients that arrive in the emergency department (ED) with COVID-19-like syndromes testing negative at the first RT-PCR represent a clinical challenge because of the lack of evidence about their management available in the literature. Our first aim was to quantify the proportion of patients testing negative at the first RT-PCR performed in our Emergency Department (ED) that were confirmed as having COVID-19 at the end of hospitalization by clinical judgment or by any subsequent microbiological testing. Secondly, we wanted to identify which variables that were available in the first assessment (ED variables) would have been useful in predicting patients, who at the end of the hospital stay were confirmed as having COVID-19 (false-negative at the first RT-PCR).MethodsWe retrospectively collected data of 115 negative patients from2020, March 1st to 2020, May 15th. Three experts revised patients' charts collecting information on the whole hospital stay and defining patients as COVID-19 or NOT-COVID-19. We compared ED variables in the two groups by univariate analysis and logistic regression.ResultsWe classified 66 patients as COVID-19 and identified the other 49 as having a differential diagnosis (NOT-COVID), with a concordance between the three experts of 0.77 (95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.66- 0.73). Only 15% of patients tested positive to a subsequent RT-PCR test, accounting for 25% of the clinically suspected. Having fever (odds ratio (OR) 3.32, (95%CI 0.97-12.31), p = 0.06), showing a typical pattern at the first lung ultrasound (OR 6.09, (95%CI 0.87-54.65), p = 0.08) or computed tomography scan (OR 4.18, (95%CI 1.11-17.86), p = 0.04) were associated with a higher probability of having COVID-19.ConclusionsIn patients admitted to ED with COVID-19 symptoms and negative RT-PCR a comprehensive clinical evaluation integrated with lung ultrasound and computed tomography could help to detect COVID-19 patients with a false negative RT-PCR result.

Project description:BackgroundA false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.ResultsWe included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.ConclusionsThere is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).Systematic review registrationProtocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.