A Scoping Review of Magnetic Resonance Modalities Used in Detection of Persistent Postconcussion Symptoms in Pediatric Populations.

Up to 30% of youth with concussion experience PPCSs (PPCS) lasting 4 weeks or longer, and can significantly impact quality of life. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to increase understanding of causal mechanisms underlying PPCS. However, there are no clear modalities to assist in detecting PPCS. This scoping review aims to synthesize findings on utilization of MRI among children and youth with PPCS, and summarize progress and limitations. Thirty-six studies were included from 4907 identified papers. Many studies used multiple modalities, including (1) structural (n = 27) such as T1-weighted imaging, diffusion weighted imaging, and susceptibility weighted imaging; and (2) functional (n = 23) such as functional MRI and perfusion-weighted imaging. Findings were heterogeneous among modalities and regions of interest, which warrants future reviews that report on the patterns and potential advancements in the field. Consideration of modalities that target PPCS prediction and sensitive modalities that can supplement a biopsychosocial approach to PPCS would benefit future research.

Depressive Symptoms in Individuals With Persistent Postconcussion Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Approximately 15% to 30% of individuals with a history of concussion present with persistent postconcussion symptoms (PPCS). Individuals with PPCS are at greater risk of experiencing depressive symptoms. Objective: To synthesize the association between depressive symptoms and PPCS in children, adolescents, and adults via meta-analysis and to investigate potential moderators of that association. Data Sources: Systematic search of Ovid Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase from 1995 to January 2022 was performed. Additionally, references from included studies were hand-searched to ensure relevant articles were captured in the search. Study Selection: Studies that involved participants who experienced PPCS and quantified depressive symptoms were included. The definition of PPCS was limited to physician-diagnosed or self-reported concussion, with symptoms lasting for a minimum of 4 weeks postinjury. Two authors independently screened all articles to determine study eligibility. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics were extracted independently by 2 trained investigators. Study data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis. Exposure: PPCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: The the primary outcome was depressive symptoms. Results: Data were extracted from 18 studies with a total of 9101 participants. Of the 18 studies, all were cohort studies, and 13 (72%) comprised adult populations. The mean (SD) time since concussion was 21.3 (18.7) weeks. After accounting for potential publication bias, the random-effects meta-analysis found a significant positive association between PPCS and depressive symptoms, (odds ratio, 4.56; 95% CI, 2.82-7.37; P < .001). There were no significant moderators, likely due to the small number of studies included. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, experiencing PPCS was associated with a higher risk of experiencing depressive symptoms. There are several important clinical and health policy implications of the findings. Most notably, the development of strategies for effective prevention and earlier intervention to optimize mental health recovery following a concussion should be supported.

Mental Health Outcomes Across the Lifespan in Individuals With Persistent Post-Concussion Symptoms: A Scoping Review.

Objective: Concussion is a common yet heterogenous injury. Approximately 15-30% of cases present with persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS), continuing 4 weeks or more post-injury in children, youth, and adolescents, and 3 months or more in adults. There are known bidirectional links between PPCS and mental health outcomes. The focus of this scoping review is to explore the literature on mental health outcomes in individuals experiencing PPCS. Research objectives were to explore: (1) the mental health outcomes of individuals with PPCS and types of assessments used to identify mental health outcomes this group, and (2) how mental health outcomes compare in terms of similarities and differences among pediatric and adult populations with PPCS. Method: Ovid MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases were searched. After title and abstract screening of 11,920 studies, 481 articles were reviewed. Twenty-five papers met inclusion criteria. Results were organized by mental health outcomes of pediatric and adult populations, separately. Results: There was a significantly higher number of studies devoted to adult populations. Of the 25 studies, 19 (76%) focused on adults, while six (24%) focused on adolescents. In adult populations, studies focused on symptoms of: anxiety (n = 2), depression (n = 8), and anxiety and depression (n = 9). Two studies assessed other emotional outcomes (10.5%). Within pediatric populations, an equal number of studies explored symptoms of: anxiety (n = 2), depression (n = 2), and anxiety and depression (n = 2). No studies focused on other emotional outcomes. Studies ranged greatly in methods, design, and control group. Most studies reported higher psychiatric symptoms of anxiety and/or depression in those with PPCS compared to individuals with recovered concussion or healthy controls. Discussion: This review contributes to the understanding of mental health outcomes in those experiencing PPCS. Mental health and PPCS requires greater attention in pediatric populations, and consider strategies for those experiencing PPCS and mental health impacts. Future studies should consider including a wider range of emotional outcomes in their design, not limited to anxiety and depression. Study results may lead to improvements and research in the identification, assessment, and management of PPCS and mental health.

One swab, two tests: Validation of dual SARS-CoV-2 testing on the Abbott ID NOW™.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCT) are promising tools to detect SARS-CoV-2 in specific settings. Initial reports suggest the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay (Abbott Diagnostics Inc, USA) is less sensitive than standard real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assays. This has raised concern over false negatives in SARS-CoV-2 POCT. OBJECTIVES: We compared the performance of the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay to our in-house rRT-PCR assay to assess whether dry swabs used in ID NOW™ testing could be stored in transport media and be re-tested by rRT-PCR for redundancy and to provide material for further investigation. METHODS: Paired respiratory swabs collected from patients at three acute care hospitals were used. One swab in transport media (McMaster Molecular Media (MMM)) was tested for SARS-CoV-2 by a laboratory-developed two-target rRT-PCR assay. The second was stored dry in a sterile container and tested by the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay. Following ID NOW™ testing, dry swabs were stored in MMM for up to 48 h and re-tested by rRT-PCR. Serially diluted SARS-CoV-2 particles were used to assess the impact of heat inactivation and storage time. RESULTS: Respiratory swabs (n = 343) from 179 individuals were included. Using rRT-PCR results as the comparator, the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay had positive (PPA) and negative (NPA) percent agreements of 87.0% (95% CI:0.74-0.94) and 99.7% (95% CI:0.98-0.99). Re-tested swabs placed in MMM following ID NOW testing had PPA and NPA of 88.8% (95% CI:0.76-0.95) and 99.7% (95% CI:0.98-0.99), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Storing spent dry swabs in transport media for redundancy rRT-PCR testing is a potential approach to address possible false negatives with the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay.

Detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in outpatients: A multicenter comparison of self-collected saline gargle, oral swab, and combined oral-anterior nasal swab to a provider collected nasopharyngeal swab.

BACKGROUND: Widespread testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary to curb the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but testing is undermined when the only option is a nasopharyngeal swab. Self-collected swab techniques can overcome many of the disadvantages of a nasopharyngeal swab, but they require evaluation. METHODS: Three self-collected non-nasopharyngeal swab techniques (saline gargle, oral swab and combined oral-anterior nasal swab) were compared to a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection at multiple COVID-19 assessment centers in Toronto, Canada. The performance characteristics of each test were assessed. RESULTS: The adjusted sensitivity of the saline gargle was 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), the oral swab was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.89) and the combined oral-anterior nasal swab was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93) compared to a nasopharyngeal swab, which demonstrated a sensitivity of ˜90% when all positive tests were the reference standard. The median cycle threshold values for the SARS-CoV-2 E-gene for concordant and discordant saline gargle specimens were 17 and 31 (P < .001), for the oral swabs these values were 17 and 28 (P < .001), and for oral-anterior nasal swabs these values were 18 and 31 (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Self-collected saline gargle and an oral-anterior nasal swab have a similar sensitivity to a nasopharyngeal swab for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. These alternative collection techniques are cheap and can eliminate barriers to testing, particularly in underserved populations.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Saliva as Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Outpatients.

Widely available and easily accessible testing for COVID-19 is a cornerstone of pandemic containment strategies. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the currently accepted standard for sample collection but are limited by their need for collection devices and sampling by trained healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of saliva to NPS in an outpatient setting. This was a prospective study conducted at three centers, which compared the performance of saliva and NPS samples collected at the time of assessment center visit. Samples were tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and sensitivity and overall agreement determined between saliva and NPS. Clinical data was abstracted by chart review for select study participants. Of the 432 paired samples, 46 were positive for SARS-CoV-2, with seven discordant observed between the two sample types (four individuals testing positive only by NPS and three by saliva only). The observed agreement was 98.4% (kappa coefficient 0.91) and a composite reference standard demonstrated sensitivity of 0.91 and 0.93 for saliva and NPS samples, respectively. On average, the Ct values obtained from saliva as compared to NPS were higher by 2.76. This study demonstrates that saliva performs comparably to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Saliva was simple to collect, did not require transport media, and could be tested with equipment readily available at most laboratories. The use of saliva as an acceptable alternative to NPS could support the use of widespread surveillance testing for SARS-CoV-2.