Pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 (pCOVID-19) is rarely severe; however, a minority of children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might develop multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), with substantial morbidity. In this longitudinal multi-institutional study, we applied multi-omics (analysis of soluble biomarkers, proteomics, single-cell gene expression and immune repertoire analysis) to profile children with COVID-19 (n = 110) and MIS-C (n = 76), along with pediatric healthy controls (pHCs; n = 76). pCOVID-19 was characterized by robust type I interferon (IFN) responses, whereas prominent type II IFN-dependent and NF-κB-dependent signatures, matrisome activation and increased levels of circulating spike protein were detected in MIS-C, with no correlation with SARS-CoV-2 PCR status around the time of admission. Transient expansion of TRBV11-2 T cell clonotypes in MIS-C was associated with signatures of inflammation and T cell activation. The association of MIS-C with the combination of HLA A*02, B*35 and C*04 alleles suggests genetic susceptibility. MIS-C B cells showed higher mutation load than pCOVID-19 and pHC. These results identify distinct immunopathological signatures in pCOVID-19 and MIS-C that might help better define the pathophysiology of these disorders and guide therapy.c g

The American Academy of Pediatrics is dedicated to optimizing the well-being of children and advancing family-centered health care. Related to this mission, the American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes the increasing use of complementary and integrative therapies for children and the subsequent need to provide reliable information and high-quality clinical resources to support pediatricians. This Clinical Report serves as an update to the original 2008 statement on complementary medicine. The range of complementary therapies is both extensive and diverse. Therefore, in-depth discussion of each therapy or product is beyond the scope of this report. Instead, our intentions are to define terms; describe epidemiology of use; outline common types of complementary therapies; review medicolegal, ethical, and research implications; review education and training for select providers of complementary therapies; provide educational resources; and suggest communication strategies for discussing complementary therapies with patients and families.

BackgroundThe prognosis of children with juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) has improved remarkably since the 1960’s with the use of corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapy. Yet there remain a minority of children who have refractory disease. Since 2003 the sporadic use of biologics (genetically-engineered proteins that usually are derived from human genes) for inflammatory myositis has been reported. In 2011–2016 we investigated our collective experience of biologics in JDM through the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA).MethodsThe JDM biologic study group developed a survey on the CARRA member experience using biologics for Juvenile DM utilizing Delphi consensus methods in 2011–2012. The survey was completed online by the CARRA members interested in JDM in 2012. A second survey was similarly developed that provided more opportunity to describe their experiences with biologics in JDM in detail and was completed by CARRA members in Feb 2013. During three CARRA meetings in 2013–2015, nominal group techniques were used for achieving consensus on the current choices of biologic drugs. A final survey was performed at the 2016 CARRA meeting.ResultsOne hundred and five of a potential 231 pediatric rheumatologists (42%) responded to the first survey in 2012. Thirty-five of 90 had never used a biologic for Juvenile DM at that time. Fifty-five of 91 (denominators vary) had used biologics for JDM in their practice with 32%, 5%, and 4% using rituximab, etanercept, and infliximab, respectively, and 17% having used more than one of the three drugs. Ten percent used a biologic as monotherapy, 19% a biologic in combination with methotrexate (mtx), 52% a biologic in combination with mtx and corticosteroids, 42% a combination of a biologic, mtx, corticosteroids (steroids), and an immunosuppressive drug, and 43% a combination of a biologic, IVIG and mtx. The results of the second survey supported these findings in considerably more detail with multiple combinations of drugs used with biologics and supported the use of rituximab, abatacept, anti-TNFα drugs, and tocilizumab in that order. One hundred percent recommended that CARRA continue studying biologics for JDM. The CARRA meeting survey in 2016 again supported the study and use of these four biologic drug groups.ConclusionsOur CARRA JDM biologic work group developed and performed three surveys demonstrating that pediatric rheumatologists in North America have been using multiple biologics for refractory JDM in numerous scenarios from 2011 to 2016. These survey results and our consensus meetings determined our choice of four biologic therapies (rituximab, abatacept, tocilizumab and anti-TNFα drugs) to consider for refractory JDM treatment when indicated and to evaluate for comparative effectiveness and safety in the future.Significance and InnovationsThis is the first report that provides a substantial clinical experience of a large group of pediatric rheumatologists with biologics for refractory JDM over five years.This experience with biologic thera...

Behavioral health providers indicate an unmet need for mental health interventions addressing illness-related issues affecting youth with rheumatologic conditions. Implementation of mental health protocols and optimizing utilization of social workers may improve mental health care for these youth. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.