CONTEXT: Studies comparing initial therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) provided conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in MIS-C patients treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), glucocorticoids, or the combination thereof. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and WOS, from January 2020 to February 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized or observational comparative studies including MIS-C patients <21 years. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently selected studies and obtained individual participant data. The main outcome was cardiovascular dysfunction (CD), defined as left ventricular ejection fraction < 55% or vasopressor requirement ≥ day 2 of initial therapy, analyzed with a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: Of 2635 studies identified, 3 nonrandomized cohorts were included. The meta-analysis included 958 children. IVIG plus glucocorticoids group as compared with IVIG alone had improved CD (odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [0.42-0.91]). Glucocorticoids alone group as compared with IVIG alone did not have improved CD (OR 0.57 [0.31-1.05]). Glucocorticoids alone group as compared with IVIG plus glucocorticoids did not have improved CD (OR 0.67 [0.24-1.86]). Secondary analyses found better outcomes associated with IVIG plus glucocorticoids compared with glucocorticoids alone (fever ≥ day 2, need for secondary therapies) and better outcomes associated with glucocorticoids alone compared with IVIG alone (left ventricular ejection fraction < 55% ≥ day 2). LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized nature of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of MIS-C patients, IVIG plus glucocorticoids was associated with improved CD compared with IVIG alone. Glucocorticoids alone was not associated with improved CD compared with IVIG alone or IVIG plus glucocorticoids.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64years, VE was 93% (95% CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91% (95% CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

OBJECTIVE: Two cohort studies in patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) demonstrated contrasting results regarding the benefit of initial immunomodulatory treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) alone versus IVIG and glucocorticoids. We sought to determine whether application of different MIS-C definitions and differing disease severity between cohorts underlay discrepant results. METHODS: The Overcoming COVID-19 Public Health Surveillance Registry (OC-19) included patients meeting the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) MIS-C definition, whereas the Best Available Treatment Study (BATS) applied the World Health Organization (WHO) definition. We applied the WHO definition to the OC-19 cohort and the CDC definition to the BATS cohort and determined the proportion that did not meet the alternate definition. We compared illness severity indicators between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 349 OC-19 patients, 9.5% did not meet the WHO definition. Of 350 BATS patients, 10.3% did not meet the CDC definition. Most organ system involvement was similar between the cohorts, but more OC-19 patients had WHO-defined cardiac involvement (87.1% vs 79.4%, P = 0.008). OC-19 patients were more often admitted to intensive care (61.0% vs 44.8%, P < 0.001) and more often received vasopressors or inotropes (39.5% vs 22.9%, P < 0.001) before immunomodulatory treatment. CONCLUSION: Greater illness severity and cardiovascular involvement in the OC-19 cohort compared with the BATS cohort, and not use of different MIS-C case definitions, may have contributed to differing study conclusions about optimal initial treatment for MIS-C. Disease severity should be considered in future MIS-C study designs and treatment recommendations to identify patients who would benefit from aggressive immunomodulatory treatment.