Background

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that symptomatic children remain home and get tested to identify potential coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. As the pandemic moves into a new phase, approaches to differentiate symptoms of COVID-19 versus other childhood infections can inform exclusion policies and potentially prevent future unnecessary missed school days.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of standardized symptom and exposure screens in symptomatic children 0-18 years tested for SARS-CoV-2 at three outpatient sites April to November 2020. Likelihood ratios (LR), number needed to screen to identify one COVID-19 case, and estimated missed school days were calculated.

Results

Of children studied (N = 2,167), 88.9% tested negative. Self-reported exposure to COVID-19 was the only factor that statistically significantly increased the likelihood of a positive test for all ages (Positive LR, 5-18 year olds: 5.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.37-6.33; 0-4 year olds: 5.87, 95% CI: 4.67-7.38). Across ages 0-18, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, sore throat, abdominal pain, and nausea/vomiting/diarrhea were commonly reported, and were either not associated or had decreased association with testing positive for COVID-19. The number of school days missed to identify one case of COVID-19 ranged from 19 to 48 across those common symptoms.

Conclusions

We present an approach for identifying symptoms that are non-specific to COVID-19, for which exclusion would likely lead to limited impact on school safety but contribute to school-days missed. As variants and symptoms evolve, students and schools could benefit from reconsideration of exclusion and testing policies for non-specific symptoms, while maintaining testing for those who were exposed.

Objective

We conducted a cluster-randomized, shared decision-making (SDM) trial offering lifestyle change, metformin, or both options, to adults at risk for diabetes in a primary care network (n = 20 practices).

Research design and methods

We used propensity score matching to identify control patients and used electronic health record data to compare weight loss at 24 and 36 months of follow-up and diabetes incidence at 36 months of follow-up.

Results

In adjusted post hoc analyses, SDM participants (n = 489) maintained modestly greater 24-month weight loss of -3.1 lb and 36-month weight loss of -2.7 lb versus controls (n = 1,430, both comparisons P < 0.001). SDM participants who chose both lifestyle change and metformin sustained weight loss at 36 months of -4.1 lb (P < 0.001 vs. controls). We found no differences in incident diabetes (15% of SDM participants, 14% of control participants; P = 0.64).

Conclusions

This is one of the first studies to demonstrate weight loss maintenance up to 36 months after diabetes prevention SDM.