Treatment of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children: Understanding Differences in Results of Comparative Effectiveness Studies.

objectiveTwo 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.

methodsThe 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionGreater 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.