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

Clinical and Pharmacologic Study of the Novel Prodrug Delimotecan (MEN 4901/T-0128) in Patients with Solid Tumors

Purpose: To investigate i.v. administration of delimotecan (MEN 4901/T-0128), a carboxymethyldextran polymer prodrug of the active camptothecin derivative T-2513, and to assess the maximum tolerated dose, safety profile, clinical pharmacology, and antitumor activity of delimotecan and metabolites. Experimental Design: Patients with solid tumors refractory to standard therapy received i.v. delimotecan as 3-hour infusion once every 6 weeks. The starting dose was 150 mg/m(2), followed by an accelerated dose escalation with at least one patient per dose level. The pharmacokinetics of delimotecan, T-2513, and its metabolites, SN-38, SN-38G, T-1335, T-0055, and T-3921, were assessed in plasma and urine, and their pharmacodynamics were determined by measuring the effect of the treatment on hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity. Results: Twenty-two patients received 35 courses. Dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 5,400 mg/m(2) (n = 1), 3,600 mg/m(2) (n = 1), and 2,400 mg/m(2) (n = 2). The dose level of 1,800 mg/m(2) was determined as maximum tolerated dose. Two partial responses were observed in patients with anal cancer (1800 mg/m(2)) and head and neck cancer (2400 mg/m(2)). Delimotecan had a long terminal half-life of 109 h, and relatively high exposures to T-2513 and SN-38 were obtained. The percentage decrease in WBC and absolute neutrophil count significantly correlated with the dose of delimotecan. Conclusions: Based on its preliminary antitumor activity, safety profile, and pharmacokinetic profile, we recommend to evaluate delimotecan given as 3-hour infusion once every 6 weeks at a dose level of 1,800 mg/m(2) in a phase II study