Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

First genotype characterization of Argentinean FAP patients: identification of 14 novel APC mutations

We examined the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene for disease-causing mutations in 51 unrelated Argentinean probands affected by familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Using a combination of the protein truncation test, the single strand conformation polymorphism technique, DNA sequencing and quantitative PCR analysis, we identified the specific mutation in 39 (average age: 28.4 years) of the 51 probands (detection rate: 76.47%); 13 are novel germline mutations and one is a novel sequence variant. There were 27 small deletions, four small duplications, five nonsense mutations in exon 15, three nonsense mutations in exons 6, 11, and 12, and one sequence variant in exon 3 identified in a patient bearing a truncating mutation in exon 15. The most common mutation (found in 10 cases) was at codon 1309. All patients negative for APC mutations were also negative for the MutY homolog (MYH) gene mutation, as expected because of fully penetrant FAP cases. This study enlarges the spectrum of APC gene mutations, and reinforces the concept of mutation heterogeneity. It also sheds light on correlations between the site of APC germline mutations and the clinical manifestations of FAP. Our data indicate that the genotype/phenotype correlations in Argentinean patients are similar to those observed in other populations

Análisis de variantes genéticas en pacientes con Síndrome Polipósico Hereditario de Argentina y Chile: identificación de 4 alteraciones no descriptas

Examinamos genes asociados al desarrollo desíndromes polipósicos hereditarios (poliposisadenomatosa familiar (PAF) y hamartomatosa), afin de identificar alteraciones genéticas causales deenfermedad en 81 casos afectados no relacionadosde Argentina (Arg) y Chile (Chi). Utilizando unacombinación de secuenciación exómica completa(WES) y MLPA para grandes rearreglos, se identificóla alteración específica en 40,7% (33/81) de los casosanalizados. Se detectaron 27 variantes en el gen APC,3 en MUTYH, 2 en SMAD4 y 1 en POLE. Un 50% de lasvariantes fueron clasificadas clínicamente comoPatogénicas (Clase 5) y el otro 50% como variantesde significado incierto (VUS, Clase 3). Se identificaron4 variantes no descriptas a nivel germinal, 3 en APC(NM_000038.6): c.1271dupA (p.E425Gfs*4), Arg;c.532T>A (p.F178I), Chi; c.4948A>T (p.N1650Y), Chi; y1 en SMAD4 (NM_005359.5): c.742C>T (p.Q248*), Arg.Para MUTYH (NM_001128425.1) 2/3 casos presentaron2 SNVs patogénicos en estado de heterocigosiscompuesta: c.289C>T (p.R97*) / c.1227_1228dupGG(p.E410Gfs*), Arg; c.536A>G (p.Y179C) / c.1187G>A(p.G396D), Chi. El tercer caso presentó un SNV enhomocigosis, c.1187G>A (p.G396D) [Arg]. En la totalidadde casos la clínica del paciente se correlacionó con laalteración genética identificada. En particular para APC,el presente estudio amplía el espectro de alteraciones,y refuerza el concepto de heterogeneidad de variantescausales para el gen. Nuestros datos confirman que lacorrelación genotipo/fenotipo en pacientes argentinosy chilenos es similar a la observada en otras poblaciones.Fil: Mayordomo, Andrea Constanza. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular; ArgentinaFil: Cerliani, María Belén. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Celular; ArgentinaFil: Olikuona, A.. University of Helsinki; FinlandiaFil: Piñero, Tamara Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Oficina de Coordinacion Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica. - Hospital Italiano. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica. - Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica.; ArgentinaFil: Cajal, Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Oficina de Coordinacion Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica. - Hospital Italiano. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica. - Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica.; ArgentinaFil: Coraglio, M.. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Gastroenterología "Dr. Carlos B. Udaondo"; ArgentinaFil: Alvarez, K.. No especifíca;Fil: Cisterna, D.. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Gastroenterología "Dr. Carlos B. Udaondo"; ArgentinaFil: Collia Avila, A.. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Gastroenterología "Dr. Carlos B. Udaondo"; ArgentinaFil: Gutiérrez, A.. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Gastroenterología "Dr. Carlos B. Udaondo"; ArgentinaFil: López Kostner, F.. No especifíca;Fil: Peltomaki, Paivi. University of Helsinki; FinlandiaFil: Vaccaro, Carlos. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Pavicic, Walter Hernan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Oficina de Coordinacion Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica. - Hospital Italiano. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica. - Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica.; ArgentinaXVII Congreso latinoamericano de genética; XLVII Congreso argentino de genética; LII Reunión anual de la sociedad de genética de Chile; VI Congreso de la sociedad uruguaya de genética; V Congreso latinoamericano de genética humana y V Simposio latinoamericano de citogenética y evoluciónMendozaArgentinaSociedad Argentina de Genétic

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

BackgroundMultisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments.MethodsThe Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370.FindingsWe enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2-11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75-1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58-1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91-1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70-1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11-0·20]; p&lt;0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50-0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38-0·67]; p&lt;0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45-0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups.InterpretationRecovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries.FundingImperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health