Search

The PERFORM study aimed to understand causes of febrile childhood illness by comparing molecular pathogen detection with current clinical practice. Methods. Febrile children and controls were recruited on presentation to hospital in 9 European countries 2016-2020. Each child was assigned a standardized diagnostic category based on retrospective review of local clinical and microbiological data. Subsequently, centralised molecular tests (CMTs) for 19 respiratory and 27 blood pathogens were performed. Findings. Of 4,611 febrile children, 643 (14%) were classified as definite bacterial infection (DB), 491 (11%) as definite viral infection (DV), and 3,477 (75%) had uncertain aetiology. 1,061 controls without infection were recruited. CMTs detected blood bacteria more frequently in DB than DV cases for N.meningitidis (OR: 3.37, 95% CI: 1.92 – 5.99), S.pneumoniae (OR: 3.89, 95% CI: 2.07 – 7.59), Group A streptococcus (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.13 – 6.09) and E.coli (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.02 – 6.71). Respiratory viruses were more common in febrile children than controls, but only influenza A (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 – 0.46), Influenza B (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 – 0.37) and RSV (OR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.06 – 0.36) were less common in DB than DV cases. Of 16 blood viruses, enterovirus (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 – 0.72) and EBV (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 – 0.90) were detected less often in DB than DV cases. Combined local diagnostics and CMTs respectively detected blood viruses and respiratory viruses in 360 (56%) and 161 (25%) of DB cases, and virus detection ruled-out bacterial infection poorly, with predictive values of 0.64 and 0.68 respectively. Interpretation. Most febrile children cannot be conclusively defined as having bacterial or viral infection when molecular tests supplement conventional approaches. Viruses are detected in most patients with bacterial infections, and the clinical value of individual pathogen detection in determining treatment is low. New approaches are needed to help determine which febrile children require antibiotics.

Objective Most studies on febrile children have focused on infants and young children with serious bacterial infection (SBI). Although population studies have described an increased risk of sepsis in adolescents, little is known about febrile adolescents attending the emergency department (ED). We aimed to describe patient characteristics and management of febrile adolescents attending the ED. Design and setting The MOFICHE/PERFORM study (Management and Outcome of Febrile Children in Europe/Personalised Risk assessment in Febrile illness to Optimise Real-life Management across the European Union), a prospective multicentre study, took place at 12 European EDs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were performed, comparing febrile adolescents (12-18 years) with younger children in terms of patient characteristics, markers of disease severity (vital signs, clinical alarming signs), management (diagnostic tests, therapy, admission) and diagnosis (focus, viral/bacterial infection). Results 37 420 encounters were included, of which 2577 (6.9%) were adolescents. Adolescents were more often triaged as highly urgent (38.9% vs 34.5%) and described as ill appearing (23.1% vs 15.6%) than younger children. Increased work of breathing and a non-blanching rash were present less often in adolescents, while neurological signs were present more often (1% vs 0%). C reactive protein tests were performed more frequently in adolescents and were more often abnormal (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.7, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.9). Adolescents were more often diagnosed with SBI (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.0) and sepsis/meningitis (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 5.0) and were more frequently admitted (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4) and treated with intravenous antibiotics (aOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.0). Conclusions Although younger children presented to the ED more frequently, adolescents were more often diagnosed with SBI and sepsis/meningitis. Our data emphasise the importance of awareness of severe infections in adolescents. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

ObjectivesChildren have been disproportionately affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Novel test strategies are urgently needed to ensure safe operation of schools and childcare institutions and to avoid prolonged closures. MethodsA weekly SARS-CoV-2 sentinel study in primary schools, kindergartens and childcare facilities over a 12-week-period was conducted. In total, 3123 concurrent oropharyngeal and saliva samples were processed for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR testing in both children (n=2104) and staff (n=1019). Saliva sampling was optimised, and a novel sampling system was introduced and assessed for feasibility, the Salivette(R) system. ResultsFor children across all age groups a mean of 1,18 ml saliva could be obtained with this easy-to-handle system. Using 1293 concurrent oropharyngeal swabs from children, staff and participants of a positive control cohort as reference, the Salivette testing method could be assigned an overall specificity of 99.8% and sensititity of 95.1%. Of note, clinical sensitivity, defined as detection of positive cases with an oropharyngeal-swab derived Ct-value < 33, was 100%. Comparative analysis of Ct-values derived from saliva vs. oropharyngeal swabs demonstrated a significant difference (mean difference 4.23 (95% CI 2.48-6.00). ConclusionsThe Salivette system is an easy-to-use, safe and feasible collection method for saliva sampling and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 testing in children aged 3 years and above. In view of the excellent sensitivity and specificity documented in our study, this novel testing approach is a very reliable and much more pleasant alternative to oropharyngeal swab based testing, particularly in children and for self-testing in the home setting.

Background: Discriminating viral from bacterial lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in children is challenging thus commonly resulting in antibiotic overuse. The Feverkidstool, a validated clinical decision rule including clinical symptoms and C-reactive protein, safely reduced antibiotic use in children at low/intermediate risk for bacterial LRTIs in a multicentre trial at emergency departments (EDs) in the Netherlands. Objectives: Using routine data from an observational study, we simulated the impact of the Feverkidstool on antibiotic prescriptions compared with observed antibiotic prescriptions in children with suspected LRTIs at 12 EDs in eight European countries. Methods: We selected febrile children aged 1month to 5 years with respiratory symptoms and excluded upper respiratory tract infections. Using the Feverkidstool, we calculated individual risks for bacterial LRTI retrospectively. We simulated antibiotic prescription rates under different scenarios: (1) applying effect estimates on antibiotic prescription from the trial; and (2) varying both usage (50%-100%) and compliance (70%-100%) with the Feverkidstool s advice to withhold antibiotics in children at low/intermediate risk for bacterial LRTI (10%). Results: Of 4938 children, 4209 (85.2%) were at low/intermediate risk for bacterial LRTI. Applying effect estimates from the trial, the Feverkidstool reduced antibiotic prescription from 33.5% to 24.1% [pooled risk difference: 9.4% (95% CI: 5.7%-13.1%)]. Simulating 50%-100% usage with 90% compliance resulted in risk differences ranging from 8.3% to 15.8%. Our simulations suggest that antibiotic prescriptions would be reduced in EDs with high baseline antibiotic prescription rates or predominantly (85%) low/intermediate-risk children. Conclusions: Implementation of the Feverkidstool could reduce antibiotic prescriptions in children with suspected LRTIs in European EDs. © 2021 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Objectives Hospitalisation is frequently used as a marker of disease severity in observational Emergency Department (ED) studies. The comparison of ED admission rates is complex in potentially being influenced by the characteristics of the region, ED, physician and patient. We aimed to study variation in ED admission rates of febrile children, to assess whether variation could be explained by disease severity and to identify patient groups with large variation, in order to use this to reduce unnecessary health care utilization that is often due to practice variation. Design MOFICHE (Management and Outcome of Fever in children in Europe, part of the PERFORM study, www.perform2020.org), is a prospective cohort study using routinely collected data on febrile children regarding patient characteristics (age, referral, vital signs and clinical alarming signs), diagnostic tests, therapy, diagnosis and hospital admission. Setting and participants Data were collected on febrile children aged 0–18 years presenting to 12 European EDs (2017–2018). Main outcome measures We compared admission rates between EDs by using standardised admission rates after adjusting for patient characteristics and initiated tests at the ED, where standardised rates >1 demonstrate higher admission rates than expected and rates

Background The prescription rate of antibiotics is high for febrile children visiting the emergency department (ED), contributing to antimicrobial resistance. Large studies at European EDs covering diversity in antibiotic and broad-spectrum prescriptions in all febrile children are lacking. A better understanding of variability in antibiotic prescriptions in EDs and its relation with viral or bacterial disease is essential for the development and implementation of interventions to optimise antibiotic use. As part of the PERFORM (Personalised Risk assessment in Febrile illness to Optimise Real-life Management across the European Union) project, the MOFICHE (Management and Outcome of Fever in Children in Europe) study aims to investigate variation and appropriateness of antibiotic prescription in febrile children visiting EDs in Europe. Methods and findings Between January 2017 and April 2018, data were prospectively collected on febrile children aged 0–18 years presenting to 12 EDs in 8 European countries (Austria, Germany, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands [n = 3], Spain, Slovenia, United Kingdom [n = 3]). These EDs were based in university hospitals (n = 9) or large teaching hospitals (n = 3). Main outcomes were (1) antibiotic prescription rate; (2) the proportion of antibiotics that were broad-spectrum antibiotics; (3) the proportion of antibiotics of appropriate indication (presumed bacterial), inappropriate indication (presumed viral), or inconclusive indication (unknown bacterial/viral or other); (4) the proportion of oral antibiotics of inappropriate duration; and (5) the proportion of antibiotics that were guideline-concordant in uncomplicated urinary and upper and lower respiratory tract infections (RTIs). We determined variation of antibiotic prescription and broad-spectrum prescription by calculating standardised prescription rates using multilevel logistic regression and adjusted for general characteristics (e.g., age, sex, comorbidity, referral), disease severity (e.g., triage level, fever duration, presence of alarming signs), use and result of diagnostics, and focus and cause of infection. In this analysis of 35,650 children (median age 2.8 years, 55% male), overall antibiotic prescription rate was 31.9% (range across EDs: 22.4%–41.6%), and among those prescriptions, the broad-spectrum antibiotic prescription rate was 52.1% (range across EDs: 33.0%–90.3%). After standardisation, differences in antibiotic prescriptions ranged from 0.8 to 1.4, and the ratio between broad-spectrum and narrow-spectrum prescriptions ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 across EDs. Standardised antibiotic prescription rates varied for presumed bacterial infections (0.9 to 1.1), presumed viral infections (0.1 to 3.3), and infections of unknown cause (0.1 to 1.8). In all febrile children, antibiotic prescriptions were appropriate in 65.0% of prescriptions, inappropriate in 12.5% (range across EDs: 0.6%–29.3%), and inconclusive in 22.5% (range across EDs: 0.4%–60.8%). Prescriptions were of inappropriate duration in 20% of oral prescriptions (range across EDs: 4.4%–59.0%). Oral prescriptions were not concordant with the local guideline in 22.3% (range across EDs: 11.8%–47.3%) of prescriptions in uncomplicated RTIs and in 45.1% (range across EDs: 11.1%–100%) of prescriptions in uncomplicated urinary tract infections. A limitation of our study is that the included EDs are not representative of all febrile children attending EDs in that country. Conclusions In this study, we observed wide variation between European EDs in prescriptions of antibiotics and broad-spectrum antibiotics in febrile children. Overall, one-third of prescriptions were inappropriate or inconclusive, with marked variation between EDs. Until better diagnostics are available to accurately differentiate between bacterial and viral aetiologies, implementation of antimicrobial stewardship guidelines across Europe is necessary to limit antimicrobial resistance. Copyright: © 2020 Hagedoorn et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Objective To provide an overview of care in emergency departments (EDs) across Europe in order to interpret observational data and implement interventions regarding the management of febrile children. Design and setting An electronic questionnaire was sent to the principal investigators of an ongoing study (PERFORM (Personalised Risk assessment in Febrile illness to Optimise Real-life Management), www.perform2020.eu) in 11 European hospitals in eight countries: Austria, Germany, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. Outcome measures The questionnaire covered indicators in three domains: local ED quality (supervision, guideline availability, paper vs electronic health records), organisation of healthcare (primary care, immunisation), and local factors influencing or reflecting resource use (availability of point-of-care tests, admission rates). Results Reported admission rates ranged from 4% to 51%. In six settings (Athens, Graz, Ljubljana, Riga, Rotterdam, Santiago de Compostela), the supervising ED physicians were general paediatricians, in two (Liverpool, London) these were paediatric emergency physicians, in two (Nijmegen, Newcastle) supervision could take place by either a general paediatrician or a general emergency physician, and in one (München) this could be either a general paediatrician or a paediatric emergency physician. The supervising physician was present on site in all settings during office hours and in five out of eleven settings during out-of-office hours. Guidelines for fever and sepsis were available in all settings; however, the type of guideline that was used differed. Primary care was available in all settings during office hours and in eight during out-of-office hours. There were differences in routine immunisations as well as in additional immunisations that were offered; immunisation rates varied between and within countries. Conclusion Differences in local, regional and national aspects of care exist in the management of febrile children across Europe. This variability has to be considered when trying to interpret differences in the use of diagnostic tools, antibiotics and admission rates. Any future implementation of interventions or diagnostic tests will need to be aware of this European diversity. © © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Introduction | Relapsing fevers, transmitted by arthropods, are rarely encountered in Germany, thus they are often not considered as differential diagnosis in febrile patients. In the last months, more than fourty cases of louse-borne relapsing fever were diagnosed in asylum seekers in Germany. Some of the patients had to be admitted to intensive care units, one patient died despite therapy. Pathogen, disease and diagnosis | The causative agents are spirochetes of the genus borrelia, which can reach high densities in patient blood. Depending on the vector and the region, different species are prevalent worldwide. For diagnosis, appropriate techniques include direct detection by microscopy or PCR from EDTA-blood. Ordering such tests should not be delayed when there is suspicion for relapsing fever. Besides, malaria can also be excluded with microscopy of blood smears. Therapy | First-line antibiotics include tetracyclines and penicillin, acquired resistance has not yet been observed. Frequently patients develop a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction shortly after initiation of therapy, requiring hospitalization or intensive care treatment. Managing the treatment exclusively in an outpatient setting is not recommended. Especially in migrants with febrile illness, relapsing fever is an important differential diagnosis.

Severe ulcerous cytomegalovirus pancolitis developed during primary human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in a patient who underwent early combination antiretroviral treatment. This massive inflammatory process led to acute colon perforation. Serological testing demonstrated cytomegalovirus reactivation. Severe immunosuppression caused by primary HIV infection resulted in cytomegalovirus colitis, and initiation of early combination antiretroviral therapy triggered an immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome potentially leading to colonic perforation.