Severe Outcomes Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To estimate the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected children experiencing hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, severe outcomes, and death. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, and MedRxiv were searched for studies published between December 1, 2019 and May 28, 2021. References of relevant systematic reviews were also screened. Study Selection: We included cohort or cross-sectional studies reporting on at least one outcome measure (i.e., hospitalization, ICU admission, severe outcomes, death) for ≥100 children ≤21 years old within 28 days of SARS-CoV-2 positivity; no language restrictions were applied. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Estimates were pooled using random effects models. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive children experiencing hospitalization, ICU admission, severe outcome, and death. Results: 118 studies representing 3,324,851 SARS-CoV-2 infected children from 68 countries were included. Community-based studies (N = 48) reported that 3.3% (95%CI: 2.7-4.0%) of children were hospitalized, 0.3% (95%CI: 0.2-0.6%) were admitted to the ICU, 0.1% (95%CI: 0.0-2.2%) experienced a "severe" outcome and 0.02% (95%CI: 0.001-0.05%) died. Hospital-based screening studies (N = 39) reported that 23.9% (95%CI: 19.0-29.2%) of children were hospitalized, 2.9% (95%CI: 2.1-3.8%) were admitted to the ICU, 1.3% (95%CI: 0.5-2.3%) experienced a severe outcome, and 0.2% (95%CI: 0.02-0.5%) died. Studies of hospitalized children (N = 31) reported that 10.1% (95%CI: 6.1-14.9%) of children required ICU admission, 4.2% (95%CI: 0.0-13.8%) had a severe outcome and 1.1% (95%CI: 0.2-2.3%) died. Low risk of bias studies, those from high-income countries, and those reporting outcomes later in the pandemic presented lower estimates. However, studies reporting outcomes after May 31, 2020, compared to earlier publications, had higher proportions of hospitalized patients requiring ICU admission and experiencing severe outcomes. Conclusion and Relevance: Among children tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 3.3% were hospitalized, with rates being higher early in the pandemic. Severe outcomes, ICU admission and death were uncommon, however estimates vary by study population, pandemic timing, study risk of bias, and economic status of the country. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier [CRD42021260164].

Comparison of Publication of Pediatric Probiotic vs Antibiotic Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Importance: The published evidence in support of probiotic use is conflicting, which may be a result of selective publication of probiotic trials. Objectives: To compare the proportion of registered trials that evaluate pediatric probiotics vs those that evaluate antibiotics that are published and to identify study-related factors associated with publication status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated eligible trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trials registry, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2016. Eligible studies included participants younger than 18 years, evaluated a probiotic or 1 of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children and adolescents, and randomized study participants. All searches were updated and finalized as of September 9, 2020. Exposures: Probiotic or antibiotic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was study publication status. In addition, exposure status (probiotic vs antibiotic), trial result, and funding source were assessed for independent association with publication status. Whether study design elements, publication journal impact factor, and the interval from study completion to publication differed by exposure status were also evaluated. Results: A total of 401 unique trials (265 probiotic and 136 antibiotic) met eligibility criteria. A greater proportion of antibiotic compared with probiotic studies were published (83 [61.0%] vs 119 [44.9%]; difference, 16.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-25.9%]). After adjustment for funding source, blinding, and purpose, studies evaluating an antibiotic were more likely to be published (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]). No other covariates included in the model were independently associated with publication status. Antibiotic trials, compared with probiotic trials, were more likely to have a therapeutic purpose (114 [83.8%] vs 117 [44.2%]; difference, 39.6% [95% CI, 31.1%-48.3%]) and to be multicenter (46 [33.8%] vs 46 [17.4%]; difference, 16.5% [95% CI, 7.5%-25.7%]). The median impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published was higher for the antibiotic trials (7.2 [IQR, 2.8-20.5] vs 3.0 [IQR, 2.3-4.2]; P < .001). The median number of days to publication did not differ between the probiotic and antibiotic trials (683 [IQR, 441-1036] vs 801 [IQR, 550-1183]; P = .24). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that probiotic studies are less likely to be published than antibiotic trials. No other study characteristics were associated with publication status. This finding raises concerns regarding the results of meta-analyses of probiotic trials.

Prevalence of Detection of Clostridioides difficile Among Asymptomatic Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Detection of Clostridioides difficile has frequently been described in asymptomatic infants and children, but accurate estimates across the age spectrum are unavailable. Objective: To assess the prevalence of C difficile detection among asymptomatic children across the age spectrum. Data Sources: This systematic review and meta-analysis included a search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020. Search terms included Clostridium difficile, Peptoclostridium difficile, Clostridioides difficile, CDF OR CDI OR c diff OR c difficile, Clostridium infections OR cd positive diarrhea OR cd positive diarrhea OR Clostridium difficile OR Peptoclostridium difficile OR pseudomembranous colitis OR pseudomembranous enterocolitis, enterocolitis, and pseudomembranous. These were combined with the following terms: bacterial colonization and colonization OR colonized OR colonizing OR epidemiology OR prevalence OR seroprevalence. Study Selection: Studies were screened independently by 2 authors. Studies were included if they reported testing for C difficile among asymptomatic children (ie, children without diarrhea) younger than 18 years. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by 2 reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prevalence of C difficile detection among asymptomatic children. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of toxigenic vs nontoxigenic strains of C difficile and prevalence of C difficile detection stratified by geographic region, income status, testing method, and year of testing. Results: A total of 95 studies with 19 186 participants were included. Rates of detection of toxigenic or nontoxigenic C difficile were greatest among infants aged 6 to 12 months (41%; 95% CI, 32%-50%) and decreased to 12% (95% CI, 7%-18%) among children aged 5 to 18 years. The prevalence of toxigenic C difficile colonization was lower, peaking at 14% (95% CI, 8%-21%) among infants aged 6 to 12 months and decreasing to 6% (95% CI, 2%-11%) among children older than 5 years. Although prevalence differed by geographic region (ie, North and South America vs Europe: ß, -0.151, P = .001; North and South America vs Western Pacific: ß, 0.136, P = .007), there was no difference by testing method (ie, culture vs polymerase chain reaction: ß, 0.069, P = .052; culture vs enzyme immunoassay: ß, -0.178, P = .051), income class (low-middle income vs high income: ß, -0.144, P = .23; upper-middle vs high income: ß, -0.020, P = .64), or period (before 1990 vs 2010-2020: ß, -0.125, P = .19; 1990-1999 vs 2010-2020: ß, -0.037, P = .42; 2000-2009 vs 2010-2020: ß, -0.006, P = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, C difficile colonization rates among children were greatest at 6 to 12 months of age and decreased thereafter. These estimates may provide context for interpreting C difficile test results among young children.

Color visual evoked potentials in children with type 1 diabetes: relationship to metabolic control.

PURPOSE: To examine the association between metabolic control (HbA(1c)) and the chromatic mechanisms of children with type 1 diabetes (T1D), by using the color visual evoked potential (VEP). METHODS: Fifty children with T1D (age range, 6-12.9 years) and 33 age-matched control subjects were tested. VEPs were recorded by placing five electrodes on the scalp according to the International 10/20 System of Electrode Placement. Active electrodes O1, O2, and Oz were placed over the visual cortex. Short-wavelength (S), and long- and medium-wavelength (LM) color stimuli consisted of vertical, photometric isoluminant (1 cyc/deg) gratings presented in a pattern onset (100 ms)-offset (400 ms) mode. Achromatic vertical gratings were presented at 3 cyc/deg. Primary outcome measure was VEP latency. The relationship between S, LM, and achromatic VEP latency, and HbA(1c) was determined by ANCOVA regression. RESULTS: S-, LM-, achromatic VEP latencies were not associated significantly with HbA(1c). Pubertal status, however, was associated significantly (P = 0.0114) and selectively with S-VEP latency. Pubertal children with T1D had delayed (mean delay, 9.5 ms) S-VEP latencies when compared with the prepubertal children with T1D. However, there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.1573) in the effect of pubertal status on S-VEP latency between the T1D and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pubertal status rather than HbA(1c) appears to affect selectively the S-VEP latency of preteen children with T1D. Further study is warranted to determine whether the delay in S-VEP latency in pubertal children with T1D changes over time and whether this change could be a predictive marker for future development of background diabetic retinopathy.