Objectives:The purposes of this study were to describe the clinical characteristics of febrile infants younger than 90 days with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, to investigate the prevalence of serious bacterial infections (SBIs) in these infants, and to compare the risk of SBI in SARS-CoV-2-positive febrile infants with sex-and age-matched SARS-CoV-2-negative febrile infants.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from March to November 2020 in a tertiary children's hospital. Patients were identified by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes and included if age was younger than 90 days, a SARS-CoV-2 test was performed, and at least 1 bacterial culture was collected. Positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 were age-and sex-matched to negative controls for analysis. Serious bacterial infection was defined as a urinary tract infection, bacterial enteritis, bacteremia, and/or bacterial meningitis.Results: Fifty-three SARS-CoV-2-positive infants were identified with a higher rate of respiratory symptoms and lower white blood cell and C-reactive protein values than their SARS-CoV-2 matched controls. The rate of SBI in the SARS-CoV-2-positive infants was 8% compared with 34% in the controls; the most common infections were urinary tract infections (6% vs 23%). There were no cases of bacteremia or bacterial meningitis in the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) infants and 2 (4%) cases of bacteremia in the controls. The relative risk of any SBI between the 2 groups was 0.22 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.6; P ≤ 0.001).Conclusions: These results suggest that febrile infants younger than 90 days with COVID-19 have lower rates of SBI than their matched SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. These data are consistent with previous studies describing lower risks of SBI in febrile infants with concomitant viral respiratory tract infections.

OBJECTIVES: Only 4% of brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE) are caused by a serious underlying illness. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines do not distinguish patients who would benefit from further investigation and hospitalization. We aimed to derive and validate a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk of a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence. METHODS: We retrospectively identified infants presenting with a BRUE to 15 children’s hospitals (2015–2020). We used logistic regression in a split-sample to derive and validate a risk prediction model. RESULTS: Of 3283 eligible patients, 565 (17.2%) had a serious underlying diagnosis (n = 150) or a recurrent event (n = 469). The AAP’s higher-risk criteria were met in 91.5% (n = 3005) and predicted a serious diagnosis with 95.3% sensitivity, 8.6% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47–0.57). A derived model based on age, previous events, and abnormal medical history demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.59–0.70). In contrast to the AAP criteria, patients >60 days were more likely to have a serious underlying diagnosis (odds ratio:1.43, 95%CI: 1.03–1.98, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Most infants presenting with a BRUE do not have a serious underlying pathology requiring prompt diagnosis. We derived 2 models to predict the risk of a serious diagnosis and event recurrence. A decision support tool based on this model may aid clinicians and caregivers in the discussion on the benefit of diagnostic testing and hospitalization (https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10400/brief-resolved-unexplained-events-2.0-brue-2.0-criteria-infants).

OBJECTIVES: To examine inequities in pain assessment and management of hospitalized children with limited English proficiency (LEP) as assessed by (1) self-reported pain prevalence and intensity, and (2) nurse-documented pain assessments and analgesia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of hospitalized children and parent proxies examined preferred language and pain prevalence, intensity, and etiology; subsequent electronic medical record chart review examined demographics, nurse-documented pain scores, and analgesia prescribed for children aged ≤21 years at a tertiary care children’s hospital. The primary outcome was a difference of ≥3 points between self-reported and nurse-documented worst pain scores. Descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify differences in outcomes between children with and without LEP. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients (50% children and 50% parental proxies) were interviewed (96% response rate). Of those, 60% (n = 93) reported pain in the previous 24 hours, most frequently because of acute illnesses. Of patients reporting pain, 65% (n = 60) reported a worst pain score of ≥3 points higher than nurse-documented scores; this discrepancy affected more patients with LEP (82%, n = 27) than English-proficient patients (55%, n = 33) (P = .01) with an adjusted odds ratio of 3.2 (95% confidence interval: 1.13–10.31). Patients with LEP were also less likely than English-proficient patients to receive medications at the time of their worst pain (60% vs 82%, P = .03), particularly opioid analgesia (9% vs 22%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Children with LEP were more likely to self-report pain scores that exceeded nurse-documented scores and received less medications, particularly opiates. This population may be particularly vulnerable to underassessment and inadequate management of pain.

No abstract

No abstract