Search

Objectives: To compare symptoms and outcomes among infants aged ≤90 days tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a broad, international sample of emergency departments (EDs)., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of infants aged 0 to 90 days with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections tested using molecular approaches and with 14-day follow-up. The parent studies were conducted at 41 EDs in 10 countries (the global Pediatric Emergency Research Network; March 2020-June 2021) and 14 EDs across Canada (Pediatric Emergency Research Canada network; August 2020-February 2022). Symptom profiles included presence and number of presenting symptoms. Clinical outcomes included hospitalization, ICU admission, and severe outcomes (a composite of intensive interventions, severe organ impairment, or death)., Results: Among 1048 infants tested for SARS-CoV-2, 1007 (96.1%) were symptomatic at presentation and 432 (41.2%) were SARS-CoV-2-positive. A systemic symptom (any of the following: Apnea, drowsiness, irritability, or lethargy) was most common and present in 646 (61.6%) infants, regardless of SARS-CoV-2 status. Although fever and upper respiratory symptoms were more common among SARS-CoV-2-positive infants, dehydration, gastrointestinal, skin, and oral symptoms, and the overall number of presenting symptoms did not differ between groups. Infants with SARS-CoV-2 infections were less likely to be hospitalized (32.9% vs 44.8%; difference -11.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -17.9% to -6.0%]), require intensive care (1.4% vs 5.0%; difference -3.6% [95% CI -5.7% to -1.6%]), and experience severe outcomes (1.4% vs 5.4%; difference -4.0% [95% CI -6.1% to -1.9%])., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infections may be difficult to differentiate from similar illnesses among the youngest infants but are generally milder. SARS-CoV-2 testing can help inform clinical management., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Context: Intranasal dexmedetomidine (IND) is an emerging agent for procedural distress in children., Objective: To explore the effectiveness of IND for procedural distress in children., Data Sources: We performed electronic searches of Medline (1946-2019), Embase (1980-2019), Google Scholar (2019), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1981-2019), and Cochrane Central Register., Study Selection: We included randomized trials of IND for procedures in children., Data Extraction: Methodologic quality of evidence was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with adequate sedation., Results: Among 19 trials ( N = 2137), IND was superior to oral chloral hydrate (3 trials), oral midazolam (1 trial), intranasal midazolam (1 trial), and oral dexmedetomidine (1 trial). IND was equivalent to oral chloral hydrate (2 trials), intranasal midazolam (2 trials), and intranasal ketamine (3 trials). IND was inferior to oral ketamine and a combination of IND plus oral ketamine (1 trial). Higher doses of IND were superior to lower doses (4 trials). Adverse effects were reported in 67 of 727 (9.2%) participants in the IND versus 98 of 591 (16.6%) in the comparator group. There were no reports of adverse events requiring resuscitative measures., Limitations: The adequacy of sedation was subjective, which possibly led to biased outcome reporting., Conclusions: Given the methodologic limitations of included trials, IND is likely more effective at sedating children compared to oral chloral hydrate and oral midazolam. However, this must be weighed against the potential for adverse cardiovascular effects., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)