Incidence Rates of Medically Attended COVID-19 in Infants Less Than 6 Months of Age.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest infants may be at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relative to older children, but few data exist regarding the incidence of COVID-19 episodes and associated risk factors. We estimate incidence rates and describe characteristics associated with medically attended COVID-19 episodes among infants younger than 6 months of age. METHODS: We analyzed electronic medical record data from a cohort of infants born March 1, 2020-February 28, 2021. Data from 3 health care delivery systems included demographic characteristics, maternal and infant outpatient visit and hospitalization diagnoses and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test results. Medically attended COVID-19 episodes were defined by positive SARS-CoV-2 clinical tests and/or COVID-19 diagnosis codes during medical care visits. Unadjusted and site-adjusted incidence rates by infant month of age, low and high SARS-CoV-2 circulation periods and maternal COVID-19 diagnosis were calculated. RESULTS: Among 18,192 infants <6 months of age whose mothers received prenatal care within the 3 systems, 173 (1.0%) had medically attended COVID-19 episodes. Incidence rates were highest among infants under 1 month of age (2.0 per 1000 person-weeks) and 1 month (2.0 per 1000 person-weeks) compared with older infants. Incidence rates were also higher for infants born to women with postpartum COVID-19 compared with women without known COVID-19 and women diagnosed with COVID-19 during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Infants of women with postpartum COVID-19 had a higher risk of medically attended COVID-19 than infants born to mothers who were diagnosed during pregnancy or never diagnosed underscoring the importance of COVID-19 prevention measures for their household members and caregivers to prevent infections in infants.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Testing and Detection During Peripartum Hospitalizations Among a Multicenter Cohort of Pregnant Persons: March 2020-February 2021.

BACKGROUND: Identifying severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections during peripartum hospitalizations is important to guide care, implement prevention measures, and understand infection burden. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used electronic health record data from hospitalizations during which pregnancies ended (peripartum hospitalizations) among a cohort of pregnant persons at 3 US integrated healthcare networks (sites 1-3). Maternal demographic, medical encounter, SARS-CoV-2 testing, and pregnancy and neonatal outcome information was extracted for persons with estimated delivery and pregnancy end dates during March 2020-February 2021 and ≥1 antenatal care record. Site-stratified multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with testing and compare pregnancy and neonatal outcomes among persons tested. RESULTS: Among 17 858 pregnant persons, 10 863 (60.8%) had peripartum SARS-CoV-2 testing; 222/10 683 (2.0%) had positive results. Testing prevalence varied by site and was lower during March-May 2020. Factors associated with higher peripartum SARS-CoV-2 testing odds were Asian race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.79; referent: White) (site 1), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (aOR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08-1.64) (site 2), peripartum Medicaid coverage (aOR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06-1.66) (site 1), and preterm hospitalization (aOR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.19-2.39 [site 1]; aOR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.03-1.88 [site 2]). CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight potential disparities in SARS-CoV-2 peripartum testing by demographic and pregnancy characteristics. Testing practice variations should be considered when interpreting studies relying on convenience samples of pregnant persons testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Efforts to address testing differences between groups could improve equitable testing practices and care for pregnant persons with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The Clinical Respiratory Score: investigating the reliability of an asthma scoring tool across a multidisciplinary team.

BACKGROUND: Asthma scoring tools are used by emergency department (ED) teams to communicate severity of illness. Although most have been validated, none has been found to be sufficiently valid to allow for use across a multidisciplinary team managing pediatric asthma exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the Clinical Respiratory Score (CRS) among all members of an ED care team. DESIGN/METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of children aged 2 to 18 years presenting with an acute asthma exacerbation to an urban pediatric ED over a 2-year period. We determined reliability using two CRS measurements independently documented by two separate providers, 15 min apart. An inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine overall reliability among users. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine reliability between types of providers and the six components of the CRS. RESULTS: A total of 9,749 patient encounters were identified and 1,562 (16%) met our inclusion criteria. The majority of score pairings (n = 1096, 70.2%) were documented by a registered nurse followed by a respiratory therapist. The overall reliability of the CRS, when documented by two providers, was acceptable with an ICC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74-0.78, p < 0.001). Removing CRS components with the lowest agreement did not affect the overall ICC when re-calculated. CONCLUSION(S): The CRS is a reliable asthma severity scoring tool for pediatric patients presenting with an acute asthma exacerbation when utilized across care team members. Simplifying the CRS by removing the color and mental status components did not affect its reliability.