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

Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality. Methods Prospective cohort study in 109 institutions in 41 countries. Inclusion criteria: children &lt;18 years who were newly diagnosed with or undergoing active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, Wilms tumour, glioma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma. Of 2327 cases, 2118 patients were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 12 months. Results All-cause mortality was 3.4% (n=71/2084) at 30-day follow-up, 5.7% (n=113/1969) at 90-day follow-up and 13.0% (n=206/1581) at 12-month follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary team (MDT) plan was longest in low-income countries (7 days, IQR 3-11). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with 12-month mortality, including low-income (OR 6.99 (95% CI 2.49 to 19.68); p&lt;0.001), lower middle income (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.96 to 5.61); p&lt;0.001) and upper middle income (OR 3.49 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.03); p&lt;0.001) country status and chemotherapy (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86); p=0.008) and immunotherapy (OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.91); p=0.035) within 30 days from MDT plan. Multivariable analysis revealed laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 23.84); p=0.029) was associated with 30-day mortality. Conclusions Children with cancer are more likely to die within 30 days if infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, timely treatment reduced odds of death. This report provides crucial information to balance the benefits of providing anticancer therapy against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer

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

Differences in platelet-rich plasma composition influence bone healing

Aim: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood-derived material that has been used to enhance bone regeneration. Clinical studies, however, reported inconsistent outcomes. This study aimed to assess the effect of changes in leucocyte and PRP (L-PRP) composition on bone defect healing. Materials and Methods: L-PRPs were prepared using different centrifugation methods and their regenerative potential was assessed in an in-vivo rat model. Bilateral critical-size tibial bone defects were created and filled with single-spin L-PRP, double-spin L-PRP, or filtered L-PRP. Empty defects and defects treated with collagen scaffolds served as controls. Rats were euthanized after 2 weeks, and their tibias were collected and analysed using micro-CT and histology. Results: Double-spin L-PRP contained higher concentrations of platelets than single-spin L-PRP and filtered L-PRP. Filtration of single-spin L-PRP resulted in lower concentrations of minerals and metabolites. In vivo, double-spin L-PRP improved bone healing by significantly reducing the size of bone defects (1.08 � 0.2 mm3) compared to single-spin L-PRP (1.42 � 0.27 mm3) or filtered L-PRP (1.38 � 0.28 mm3). There were fewer mast cells, lymphocytes, and macrophages in defects treated with double-spin L-PRP than in those treated with single-spin or filtered L-PRP. Conclusion: The preparation method of L-PRP affects their composition and potential to regenerate boneScopu

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with paediatric cancer in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric cancer is a leading cause of death for children. Children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were four times more likely to die than children in high-income countries (HICs). This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected the delivery of healthcare services worldwide, and exacerbated the disparity in paediatric cancer outcomes between LMICs and HICs. DESIGN: A multicentre, international, collaborative cohort study. SETTING: 91 hospitals and cancer centres in 39 countries providing cancer treatment to paediatric patients between March and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were included if they were under the age of 18 years, and newly diagnosed with or undergoing active cancer treatment for Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms' tumour, sarcoma, retinoblastoma, gliomas, medulloblastomas or neuroblastomas, in keeping with the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality at 30 days and 90 days. RESULTS: 1660 patients were recruited. 219 children had changes to their treatment due to the pandemic. Patients in LMICs were primarily affected (n=182/219, 83.1%). Relative to patients with paediatric cancer in HICs, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 12.1 (95% CI 2.93 to 50.3) and 7.9 (95% CI 3.2 to 19.7) times the odds of death at 30 days and 90 days, respectively, after presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 15.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 65.8) times the odds of death at 30 days (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected paediatric oncology service provision. It has disproportionately affected patients in LMICs, highlighting and compounding existing disparities in healthcare systems globally that need addressing urgently. However, many patients with paediatric cancer continued to receive their normal standard of care. This speaks to the adaptability and resilience of healthcare systems and healthcare workers globally

Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality