Risk Factors for Pediatric Critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is a cornerstone of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society COVID-19 treatment guidance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to define the clinical characteristics and comorbidities associated with critical COVID-19 in children and adolescents. METHODS: Two independent reviewers screened the literature (Medline and EMBASE) for studies published through August 31, 2023, that reported outcome data on patients aged ≤21 years with COVID-19. Critical disease was defined as an invasive mechanical ventilation requirement, intensive care unit admission, or death. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Among 10,178 articles, 136 studies met the inclusion criteria for review. Data from 70 studies, which collectively examined 172,165 children and adolescents with COVID-19, were pooled for meta-analysis. In previously healthy children, the absolute risk of critical disease from COVID-19 was 4% (95% CI, 1%-10%). Compared with no comorbidities, the pooled OR for critical disease was 3.95 (95% CI, 2.78-5.63) for the presence of one comorbidity and 9.51 (95% CI, 5.62-16.06) for ≥2 comorbidities. Key risk factors included cardiovascular and neurological disorders, chronic pulmonary conditions (excluding asthma), diabetes, obesity, and immunocompromise, all with statistically significant ORs > 2.00. CONCLUSIONS: While the absolute risk for critical COVID-19 in children and adolescents without underlying health conditions is relatively low, the presence of one or more comorbidities was associated with markedly increased risk. These findings support the importance of risk stratification in tailoring pediatric COVID-19 management.

Guidance for prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents: A consensus statement from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society Pediatric COVID-19 Therapies Taskforce.

BACKGROUND: Since November 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created challenges for preventing and managing COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Most research to develop new therapeutic interventions or to repurpose existing ones has been undertaken in adults, and although most cases of infection in pediatric populations are mild, there have been many cases of critical and fatal infection. Understanding the risk factors for severe illness and the evidence for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of therapies for COVID-19 in children is necessary to optimize therapy. METHODS: A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacology, and pediatric intensive care medicine from 21 geographically diverse North American institutions was re-convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys and a systematic review with meta-analysis of data for risk factors, a guidance statement comprising a series of recommendations for risk stratification, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 was developed and refined based on expert consensus. RESULTS: There are identifiable clinical characteristics that enable risk stratification for patients at risk for severe COVID-19. These risk factors can be used to guide the treatment of hospitalized and non-hospitalized children and adolescents with COVID-19 and to guide preventative therapy where options remain available.

Risk Factors for Pediatric Critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Risk stratification is a cornerstone of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society COVID-19 treatment guidance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to define the clinical characteristics and comorbidities associated with critical COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Methods: Two independent reviewers screened the literature (Medline and EMBASE) for studies published through August 2023 that reported outcome data on patients aged ≤21 years with COVID-19. Critical disease was defined as an invasive mechanical ventilation requirement, intensive care unit admission, or death. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analyses. Results: Among 10,178 articles, 136 studies met the inclusion criteria for review. Data from 70 studies, which collectively examined 172,165 children and adolescents with COVID-19, were pooled for meta-analysis. In previously healthy children, the absolute risk of critical disease from COVID-19 was 4% (95% CI, 1%-10%). Compared with no comorbidities, the pooled OR for critical disease was 3.95 (95% CI, 2.78-5.63) for presence of one comorbidity and 9.51 (95% CI, 5.62-16.06) for ≥2 comorbidities. Key risk factors included cardiovascular and neurological disorders, chronic pulmonary conditions (excluding asthma), diabetes, obesity, and immunocompromise, all with statistically significant ORs >2.00. Conclusions: While the absolute risk for critical COVID-19 in children and adolescents without underlying health conditions is relatively low, the presence of one or more comorbidities was associated with markedly increased risk. These findings support the importance of risk stratification in tailoring pediatric COVID-19 management.

An Algorithm to Assess Guideline Concordance of Antibiotic Choice in Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate an algorithm to reduce the chart review burden of improvement efforts by automatically labeling antibiotic selection as either guideline-concordant or -discordant based on electronic health record data for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: We developed a 3-part algorithm using structured and unstructured data to assess adherence to an institutional CAP clinical practice guideline. The algorithm was applied to retrospective data for patients seen with CAP from 2017 to 2019 at a tertiary children's hospital. Performance metrics included positive predictive value (precision), sensitivity (recall), and F1 score (harmonized mean), with macro-weighted averages. Two physician reviewers independently assigned "actual" labels based on manual chart review. RESULTS: Of 1345 patients with CAP, 893 were included in the training cohort and 452 in the validation cohort. Overall, the model correctly labeled 435 of 452 (96%) patients. Of the 286 patients who met guideline inclusion criteria, 193 (68%) were labeled as having received guideline-concordant antibiotics, 48 (17%) were labeled as likely in a scenario in which deviation from the clinical practice guideline was appropriate, and 45 (16%) were given the final label of "possibly discordant, needs review." The sensitivity was 0.96, the positive predictive value was 0.97, and the F1 was 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: An automated algorithm that uses structured and unstructured electronic health record data can accurately assess the guideline concordance of antibiotic selection for CAP. This tool has the potential to improve the efficiency of improvement efforts by reducing the manual chart review needed for quality measurement.

Implementation and Perceived Effectiveness of Prospective Audit and Feedback and Preauthorization by US Pediatric Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) promote optimal antimicrobial use to prevent resistance, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. We explored how pediatric ASPs enact prospective audit and feedback (PAF) and preauthorization and characterized programs' perceptions of how these choices affected attainment of stewardship goals. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with US pediatric ASP practitioners, organized by predominant strategy: PAF, preauthorization, or a hybrid. We asked open-ended questions about organization, staffing, and operation of these strategies, as well as rationales for and perceived advantages and disadvantages of these choices. We used applied thematic analysis to analyze transcripts, organizing coded text into themes and categories. We formulated a conceptual model for how the design and performance of PAF and preauthorization affect stewardship goals and stewards' work experiences. RESULTS: Eighteen physicians and 14 pharmacists from 24 hospitals participated in five focus groups. Stewards described myriad advantages and limitations of PAF and preauthorization that support or detract from stewardship goals. For example, PAF uncovered institutional trends in antibiotic use and fostered relationship building but was time-consuming. Preauthorization efficiently reduced broad-spectrum antimicrobial use, yet offered limited educational opportunities. How these strategies facilitated or impeded appropriate antimicrobial use in turn affected stewards' professional satisfaction, creating a feedback loop that could reinforced positive or negative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: ASPs reported differing emphasis on and implementation of PAF and preauthorization. Each strategy entailed contrasting benefits and trade-offs for steward satisfaction and perceived efficacy, suggesting that a hybrid approach could enable ASPs to maximize strengths of each to mitigate drawbacks of the other.