The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses several challenges to clinicians. Timely diagnosis and hospitalization, risk stratification, effective utilization of intensive care services, selection of appropriate therapies, monitoring and timely discharge are essential to save the maximum number of lives. Clinical assessment is indispensable, but laboratory markers, or biomarkers, can provide additional, objective information which can significantly impact these components of patient care. COVID-19 is not a localized respiratory infection but a multisystem disease caused by a diffuse systemic process involving a complex interplay of the immunological, inflammatory and coagulative cascades. The understanding of what the virus does to the body and how the body reacts to it has uncovered a gamut of potential biomarkers. This review discusses the different classes of biomarkers – immunological, inflammatory, coagulation, hematological, cardiac, biochemical and miscellaneous – in terms of their pathophysiological basis followed by the current evidence. Differences between children and adults are highlighted. The role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) is reviewed. The correlation of biomarkers with clinical and radiological features and the viral load, temporal evolution and the effect of treatment remain to be studied in detail. Which biomarker needs to be evaluated when and in whom, and how best this information can contribute to patient care are questions which currently lack convincing answers. With the evidence currently available broad guidelines on the rational use of available biomarkers are presented. Integrating clinical and laboratory data, monitoring trends rather than a single value, correlating with the natural course of the disease and tailoring guidelines to the individual patient and healthcare setting are essential.

No abstract

There was no association between BMI SDS and age at diagnosis in children with new onset T1D. Further studies are needed to test whether the accelerator hypothesis is relevant in developing countries.

Objective: To delineate the clinical profile, complications, intensive care needs, and predictors of mortality in children with critical pertussis. Methods: Retrospective analysis of case records of children in the pediatric intensive care unit of a tertiary-care hospital, with a diagnosis of critical pertussis over 3 years. Diagnostic criteria included CDC case definition and confirmation by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), when available. Survivors and nonsurvivors were compared to identify predictors of mortality. Results: 36 records were analysed, most cases were infants (31, 86.1%). 10 (27.7%) were (below 6 weeks of age). In the rest, 16 (61.5%) were partially immunized or unimmunized against pertussis. Rapid breathing (88.9%), paroxysmal cough (86.1%) and apnea (41.7%) were common presenting complaints. Hypoxemia (97.2%), hyperleukocytosis (61.1%) and encephalopathy (52.8%) were common complications. Intensive care needs were mechanical ventilation in 11 (30.6%), vasoactive support in 7 (19.4%) and exchange transfusion in 3 (8.3%). Female gender, apnea, hyperleukocytosis, encephalopathy, need for vasoactive support, and mechanical ventilation predicted mortality. Conclusion: Pertussis demands attention due to its varied presentation, increased complications and higher mortality.

No abstract