Search

Competing Interests: The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Pediatric COVID-19 studies exploring the relationships between NPS and saliva viral loads, clinical and immunological profiles are lacking., Methods: Demographics, immunological profiles, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and saliva samples collected on admission, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were assessed in children below 18 years with COVID-19., Findings: 91 patients were included between March and August 20 20. NPS and saliva viral loads were correlated ( r  = 0.315, p  = 0.01). Symptomatic patients had significantly higher NPS and saliva viral loads than asymptomatic patients. Serial NPS and saliva viral load measurements showed that the log 10 NPS ( r  = -0.532, p  < 0.001) and saliva ( r  = -0.417, p  < 0.001) viral loads for all patients were inversely correlated with the days from symptom onset with statistical significance. Patients with cough, sputum, and headache had significantly higher saliva, but not NPS, viral loads. Higher saliva, but not NPS, viral loads were associated with total lymphopenia, CD3 and CD4 lymphopenia (all p  < 0.05), and were inversely correlated with total lymphocyte ( r  = -0.43), CD3 ( r  = -0.55), CD4 ( r  = -0.60), CD8 ( r  = -0.41), B ( r  = -0.482), and NK ( r  = -0.416) lymphocyte counts (all p  < 0.05)., Interpretation: Saliva viral loads on admission in children correlated better with clinical and immunological profiles than NPS.

Importance: Schools were closed intermittently across Hong Kong to control the COVID-19 outbreak, which led to significant physical and psychosocial problems among children and youths., Objective: To compare the clinical characteristics and sources of infection among children and youths with COVID-19 during the 3 waves of outbreaks in Hong Kong in 2020., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study involved children and youths aged 18 years or younger with COVID-19 in the 3 waves of outbreaks from January 23 through December 2, 2020. Data were analyzed from December 2020 through January 2021., Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics, travel and contact histories, lengths of hospital stay, and symptoms were captured through the central electronic database. Individuals who were infected without recent international travel were defined as having domestic infections., Results: Among 397 children and youths confirmed with COVID-19 infections, the mean (SD) age was 9.95 (5.34) years, 220 individuals (55.4%) were male, and 154 individuals (38.8%) were asymptomatic. There were significantly more individuals who were infected without symptoms in the second wave (59 of 118 individuals [50.0%]) and third wave (94 of 265 individuals [35.5%]) than in the first wave (1 of 14 individuals [7.1%]) (P = .001). Significantly fewer individuals who were infected in the second and third waves, compared with the first wave, had fever (first wave: 10 individuals [71.4%]; second wave: 22 individuals [18.5%]; third wave: 98 individuals [37.0%]; P < .001) or cough (first wave: 6 individuals [42.9%]; second wave: 15 individuals [12.7%]; third wave: 52 individuals [19.6%]; P = .02). Among all individuals, 394 individuals (99.2%) had mild illness. One patient developed chilblains (ie, COVID toes), 1 patient developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and 1 patient developed post-COVID-19 autoimmune hemolytic anemia. In all 3 waves, 204 patients with COVID-19 (51.4%) had domestic infections. Among these individuals, 186 (91.2%) reported having a contact history with another individual with COVID-19, of which most (183 individuals [90.0%]) were family members. In the third wave, 18 individuals with domestic infections had unknown contact histories. Three schoolmates were confirmed with COVID-19 on the same day and were reported to be close contacts., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that nearly all children and youths with COVID-19 in Hong Kong had mild illness. These findings suggest that household transmission was the main source of infection for children and youths with domestic infections and that the risk of being infected at school was small.

Background: Adrenaline autoinjectors (AAInj) facilitates early administration of adrenaline and remains the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. However, only a minority of anaphylaxis survivors in Hong Kong are prescribed AAInj and formal guidance do not exist. International anaphylaxis guidelines have been largely based on Western studies, which may not be as relevant for non-Western populations., Objective: To formulate a set of consensus statements on the prescription of AAInj in Hong Kong., Methods: Consensus statements were formulated by the Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium by the Delphi method. Agreement was defined as greater than or equal to 80% consensus. Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate differences between allergy and emergency medicine physicians., Results: A total of 7 statements met criteria for consensus with good overall agreement between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. AAInj should be used as first-line treatment and prescribed for all patients at risk of anaphylaxis. This should be prescribed prior to discharge from the Accident and Emergency Department together with an immediate referral to an allergy center. The decision for prescribing AAInj should be based on the severity of previous reactions; including objective signs of respiratory involvement, objective signs of cardiovascular involvement and multiorgan involvement (regardless of severity). Patient demographics and comorbidities, specifically history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, should also be considered. Patients deemed eligible for AAInj should be offered avoidance advice and prescribed one AAInj while awaiting review by allergists. AAInj technique should be demonstrated by a healthcare professional or instruction video, and a return demonstration by the patient is required. The patient should also be counseled that the decision on the continued need of AAInj prescription in the long-term should be reviewed by an allergist., Conclusion: Consensus statements support the prescription of AAInj by front-line physicians with subsequent allergist review when treating patients at risk of anaphylaxis in Hong Kong., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Dr. Adrian Y.Y. Wu is a consultant of ALK-Abelló A/S and director of Ksena Healthcare Ltd., (Copyright © 2021. Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology.)