Background Telehealth, the delivery of health care through telecommunication technology, has potential to address multiple health system concerns. Despite this potential, only 15% of pediatric primary care clinicians reported using telemedicine as of 2016, with the majority identifying inadequate payment for these services as the largest barrier to their adoption. The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in payment and regulations surrounding telehealth, enabling its integration into primary care pediatrics. Objective Due to limited use of telemedicine in primary care pediatrics prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, much is unknown about the role of telemedicine in pediatric primary care. To address this gap in knowledge, we examined the association between practice-level telemedicine use within a large pediatric primary care network and practice characteristics, telemedicine visit diagnoses, in-person visit volumes, child-level variations in telemedicine use, and clinician attitudes toward telemedicine. Methods We analyzed electronic health record data from 45 primary care practices and administered a clinician survey to practice clinicians. Practices were stratified into tertiles based on rates of telemedicine use (low, intermediate, high) per 1000 patients per week during a two-week period (April 19 to May 2, 2020). By practice tertile, we compared (1) practice characteristics, (2) telemedicine visit diagnoses, (3) rates of in-person visits to the office, urgent care, and the emergency department, (4) child-level variation in telemedicine use, and (5) clinician attitudes toward telemedicine across these practices. Results Across pediatric primary care practices, telemedicine visit rates ranged from 5 to 23 telemedicine visits per 1000 patients per week. Across all tertiles, the most frequent telemedicine visit diagnoses were mental health (28%-36% of visits) and dermatologic (15%-28%). Compared to low telemedicine use practices, high telemedicine use practices had fewer in-person office visits (10 vs 16 visits per 1000 patients per week, P=.005) but more total encounters overall (in-office and telemedicine: 28 vs 22 visits per 1000 patients per week, P=.006). Telemedicine use varied with child age, race and ethnicity, and recent preventive care; however, no significant interactions existed between these characteristics and practice-level telemedicine use. Finally, clinician attitudes regarding the usability and impact of telemedicine did not vary significantly across tertiles. Conclusions Across a network of pediatric practices, we identified significant practice-level variation in telemedicine use, with increased use associated with more varied telemedicine diagnoses, fewer in-person office visits, and increased overall primary care encounter volume. Thus, in the context of the pandemic, when underutilization of primary care was prevalent, higher practice-level telemedicine use supported pediatric primary care encounter volume closer to usual rates. Child-level telemedicine use differed by child age, race and ethnicity, and recent preventive care, building upon prior concerns about differences in access to telemedicine. However, increased practice-level use of telemedicine services was not associated with reduced or increased differences in use, suggesting that further work is needed to promote equitable access to primary care telemedicine.

Background Most pediatric studies of asthma and COVID‐19 to date have been ecological, which offer limited insight. We evaluated the association between asthma and COVID‐19 at an individual level. Methods Using data from prospective clinical registries, we conducted a nested case‐control study comparing three groups: children with COVID‐19 and underlying asthma (“A+C” cases); children with COVID‐19 without underlying disease (“C+” controls); and children with asthma without COVID‐19 (“A+” controls). Results The cohort included 142 A+C cases, 1110 C+ controls, and 140 A+ controls. A+C cases were more likely than C+ controls to present with dyspnea and wheezing, to receive pharmacologic treatment including systemic steroids (all p < .01), and to be hospitalized (4.9% vs. 1.7%, p = .01). In the adjusted analysis, A+C cases were nearly 4 times more likely to be hospitalized than C+ controls (adjusted OR = 3.95 [95%CI = 1.4–10.9]); however, length of stay and respiratory support level did not differ between groups. Among A+C cases, 8.5% presented with an asthma exacerbation and another 6.3% developed acute exacerbation symptoms shortly after testing positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. Compared to historic A+ controls, A+C cases had less severe asthma, were less likely to be on controller medications, and had better asthma symptom control (all p < .01). Conclusions In our cohort, asthma was a risk factor for hospitalization in children with COVID‐19, but not for worse COVID‐19 outcomes. SARS‐CoV‐2 does not seem to be a strong trigger for pediatric asthma exacerbations. Asthma severity was not associated with higher risk of COVID‐19.

No abstract

Objective: We sought to characterize clinical presentation and healthcare utilization for pediatric COVID-19 in Western Pennsylvania (PA). Methods: We established and analyzed a registry of pediatric COVID-19 in Western PA that includes cases in patients <22 years of age cared for by the pediatric quaternary medical center in the area and its associated pediatric primary care network from March 11 through August 20, 2020. Results: Our cohort included 424 pediatric COVID-19 cases (mean age 12.5 years, 47.4% female); 65% reported exposure and 79% presented with symptoms. The most common initial healthcare contact was through telehealth (45%). Most cases were followed as outpatients, but twenty-two patients (4.5%) were hospitalized: 19 with acute COVID-19 disease, and three for multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children (MIS-C). Admitted patients were younger (p<0.001) and more likely to have pre-existing conditions (p<0.001). Black/Hispanic patients were 5.8 times more likely to be hospitalized than white patients (p=0.012). Five patients (1.2%) were admitted to the PICU, including all three MIS-C cases; two required BiPAP and one mechanical ventilation. All patients survived. Conclusions: We provide a comprehensive snapshot of pediatric COVID-19 disease in an area with low to moderate incidence. In this cohort, COVID-19 was generally a mild disease; however, ~5% of children were hospitalized. Pediatric patients can be critically ill with this infection, including those presenting with MIS-C.

Limitations in timely testing for SARS-CoV-2 drive the need for new approaches in suspected COVID-19 disease. We queried whether viral load (VL) in the upper airways at presentation could improve the management and diagnosis of patients. This study was conducted in a 9 hospital system in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania between March 1-August 31 2020. Viral load was determined by PCR assays for patients presenting to the Emergency Departments (ED), community pediatrics practices and college health service. We found that for the ED patients, VL did not vary substantially between those admitted and not. VL was relatively equivalent across ages, except for the under 25 age groups that tended to present with higher loads. To determine if rapid antigen testing (RAT) could aid diagnosis in certain populations, we compared BD Veritor and Quidel Sofia to SOC PCR-based tests. The antigen assay provided a disease-detection sensitivity of >90% in a selection of 32 positive students and was modeled to have an 80% sensitivity in all positive students. In the outpatient pediatric population, the antigen assay detected 70% of PCR-positives. Extrapolating these findings to viral loads in older hospitalized patients, a minority would be detected by RAT (40%). Higher loads did correlate with death, though the prognostic value was marginal (ROC AUC of only 0.66). VL did not distinguish between those needing mechanical ventilation and routine inpatients. We conclude that VL in upper airways, while not prognostic for disease management, may aid in selecting proper testing methodologies for certain patient populations.