Saliva viral load better correlates with clinical and immunological profiles in children with coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric COVID-19 studies exploring the relationships between NPS and saliva viral loads, clinical and immunological profiles are lacking. METHODS: Demographics, immunological profiles, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and saliva samples collected on admission, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were assessed in children below 18 years with COVID-19. FINDINGS: 91 patients were included between March and August 20 20. NPS and saliva viral loads were correlated (r = 0.315, p = 0.01). Symptomatic patients had significantly higher NPS and saliva viral loads than asymptomatic patients. Serial NPS and saliva viral load measurements showed that the log10 NPS (r = -0.532, p < 0.001) and saliva (r = -0.417, p < 0.001) viral loads for all patients were inversely correlated with the days from symptom onset with statistical significance. Patients with cough, sputum, and headache had significantly higher saliva, but not NPS, viral loads. Higher saliva, but not NPS, viral loads were associated with total lymphopenia, CD3 and CD4 lymphopenia (all p < 0.05), and were inversely correlated with total lymphocyte (r = -0.43), CD3 (r = -0.55), CD4 (r = -0.60), CD8 (r = -0.41), B (r = -0.482), and NK (r = -0.416) lymphocyte counts (all p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: Saliva viral loads on admission in children correlated better with clinical and immunological profiles than NPS.

Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium Consensus Statements on prescription of adrenaline autoinjectors in the acute care setting.

BACKGROUND: Adrenaline autoinjectors (AAInj) facilitates early administration of adrenaline and remains the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. However, only a minority of anaphylaxis survivors in Hong Kong are prescribed AAInj and formal guidance do not exist. International anaphylaxis guidelines have been largely based on Western studies, which may not be as relevant for non-Western populations. OBJECTIVE: To formulate a set of consensus statements on the prescription of AAInj in Hong Kong. METHODS: Consensus statements were formulated by the Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium by the Delphi method. Agreement was defined as greater than or equal to 80% consensus. Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate differences between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. RESULTS: A total of 7 statements met criteria for consensus with good overall agreement between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. AAInj should be used as first-line treatment and prescribed for all patients at risk of anaphylaxis. This should be prescribed prior to discharge from the Accident and Emergency Department together with an immediate referral to an allergy center. The decision for prescribing AAInj should be based on the severity of previous reactions; including objective signs of respiratory involvement, objective signs of cardiovascular involvement and multiorgan involvement (regardless of severity). Patient demographics and comorbidities, specifically history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, should also be considered. Patients deemed eligible for AAInj should be offered avoidance advice and prescribed one AAInj while awaiting review by allergists. AAInj technique should be demonstrated by a healthcare professional or instruction video, and a return demonstration by the patient is required. The patient should also be counseled that the decision on the continued need of AAInj prescription in the long-term should be reviewed by an allergist. CONCLUSION: Consensus statements support the prescription of AAInj by front-line physicians with subsequent allergist review when treating patients at risk of anaphylaxis in Hong Kong.