IMPORTANCE Refinement of criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may inform efforts to improve health outcomes. OBJECTIVE To compare clinical characteristics and outcomes of children and adolescents with MIS-C vs those with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SETTING, DESIGN, AND PARTICIPANTS Case series of 1116 patients aged younger than 21 years hospitalized between March 15 and October 31, 2020, at 66 US hospitals in 31 states. Final date of follow-up was January 5, 2021. Patients with MIS-C had fever, inflammation, multisystem involvement, and positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or antibody test results or recent exposure with no alternate diagnosis. Patients with COVID-19 had positive RT-PCR test results and severe organ system involvement. EXPOSURE SARS-CoV-2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Presenting symptoms, organ system complications, laboratory biomarkers, interventions, and clinical outcomes. Multivariable regression was used to compute adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) of factors associated with MIS-C vs COVID-19. RESULTS Of 1116 patients (median age, 9.7 years; 45% female), 539 (48%) were diagnosed with MIS-C and 577 (52%) with COVID-19. Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-C were more likely to be 6 to 12 years old (40.8% vs 19.4%; absolute risk difference [RD], 21.4% [95% CI, 16.1%-26.7%]; aRR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.33-1.72] vs 0-5 years) and non-Hispanic Black (32.3% vs 21.5%; RD, 10.8% [95% CI, 5.6%-16.0%]; aRR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.17-1.76] vs White). Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-C were more likely to have cardiorespiratory involvement (56.0% vs 8.8%; RD, 47.2% [95% CI, 42.4%-52.0%]; aRR, 2.99 [95% CI,] vs respiratory involvement), cardiovascular without respiratory involvement (10.6% vs 2.9%; RD, 7.7% [95% CI, 4.7%-10.6%]; aRR, 2.49 [95% CI, 2.05-3.02] vs respiratory involvement), and mucocutaneous without cardiorespiratory involvement (7.1% vs 2.3%; RD, 4.8% [95% CI, 2.3%-7.3%]; aRR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.84-2.85] vs respiratory involvement). Patients with MIS-C had higher neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (median, 6.4 vs 2.7, P < .001), higher C-reactive protein level (median, 152 mg/L vs 33 mg/L; P < .001), and lower platelet count (<150 ×10 3 cells/μL [212/523 {41%} vs 84/486 {17%}, P < .001]). A total of 398 patients (73.8%) with MIS-C and 253 (43.8%) with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 10 (1.9%) with MIS-C and 8 (1.4%) with COVID-19 died during hospitalization. Among patients with MIS-C with reduced left ventricular systolic function (172/503, 34.2%) and coronary artery aneurysm (57/424, 13.4%), an estimated 91.0% (95% CI, 86.0%-94.7%) and 79.1% (95% CI, 67.1%-89.1%), respectively, normalized within 30 days.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This case series of patients with MIS-C and with COVID-19 identified patterns of clinical presentation and organ system involvement. These patterns may help differentiate between MIS-C and COVID-...
Background The assessment of real-world effectiveness of immunomodulatory medications for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may guide therapy. Methods We analyzed surveillance data on inpatients younger than 21 years of age who had MIS-C and were admitted to 1 of 58 U.S. hospitals between March 15 and October 31, 2020. The effectiveness of initial immunomodulatory therapy (day 0, indicating the first day any such therapy for MIS-C was given) with intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids, as compared with IVIG alone, was evaluated with propensity-score matching and inverse probability weighting, with adjustment for baseline MIS-C severity and demographic characteristics. The primary outcome was cardiovascular dysfunction (a composite of left ventricular dysfunction or shock resulting in the use of vasopressors) on or after day 2. Secondary outcomes included the components of the primary outcome, the receipt of adjunctive treatment (glucocorticoids in patients not already receiving glucocorticoids on day 0, a biologic, or a second dose of IVIG) on or after day 1, and persistent or recurrent fever on or after day 2. Results A total of 518 patients with MIS-C (median age, 8.7 years) received at least one immunomodulatory therapy; 75% had been previously healthy, and 9 died. In the propensity-score–matched analysis, initial treatment with IVIG plus glucocorticoids (103 patients) was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than IVIG alone (103 patients) (17% vs. 31%; risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.94). The risks of the components of the composite outcome were also lower among those who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids: left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.15), and shock resulting in vasopressor use in 13% and 24% (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.00). The use of adjunctive therapy was lower among patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids than among those who received IVIG alone (34% vs. 70%; risk ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.65), but the risk of fever was unaffected (31% and 40%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.13). The inverse-probability-weighted analysis confirmed the results of the propensity-score–matched analysis. Conclusions Among children and adolescents with MIS-C, initial treatment with IVIG plus glucocorticoids was associated with a lower risk of new or persistent cardiovascular dysfunction than IVIG alone. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Background Spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant, which led to increased U.S. hospitalizations for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), generated concern about immune evasion and the duration of protection from vaccines in children and adolescents. Methods Using a case–control, test-negative design, we assessed vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 leading to hospitalization and against critical Covid-19 (i.e., leading to receipt of life support or to death). From July 1, 2021, to February 17, 2022, we enrolled case patients with Covid-19 and controls without Covid-19 at 31 hospitals in 23 states. We estimated vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of antecedent full vaccination (two doses of BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine) at least 14 days before illness among case patients and controls, according to time since vaccination for patients 12 to 18 years of age and in periods coinciding with circulation of B.1.617.2 (delta) (July 1, 2021, to December 18, 2021) and omicron (December 19, 2021, to February 17, 2022) among patients 5 to 11 and 12 to 18 years of age. Results We enrolled 1185 case patients (1043 [88%] of whom were unvaccinated, 291 [25%] of whom received life support, and 14 of whom died) and 1627 controls. During the delta-predominant period, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for Covid-19 among adolescents 12 to 18 years of age was 93% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89 to 95) 2 to 22 weeks after vaccination and was 92% (95% CI, 80 to 97) at 23 to 44 weeks. Among adolescents 12 to 18 years of age (median interval since vaccination, 162 days) during the omicron-predominant period, vaccine effectiveness was 40% (95% CI, 9 to 60) against hospitalization for Covid-19, 79% (95% CI, 51 to 91) against critical Covid-19, and 20% (95% CI, −25 to 49) against noncritical Covid-19. During the omicron period, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization among children 5 to 11 years of age was 68% (95% CI, 42 to 82; median interval since vaccination, 34 days). Conclusions BNT162b2 vaccination reduced the risk of omicron-associated hospitalization by two thirds among children 5 to 11 years of age. Although two doses provided lower protection against omicron-associated hospitalization than against delta-associated hospitalization among adolescents 12 to 18 years of age, vaccination prevented critical illness caused by either variant. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Background The increasing incidence of pediatric hospitalizations associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) caused by the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the United States has offered an opportunity to assess the real-world effectiveness of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine in adolescents between 12 and 18 years of age. Methods We used a case–control, test-negative design to assess vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 resulting in hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of life-supporting interventions (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), or death. Between July 1 and October 25, 2021, we screened admission logs for eligible case patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 at 31 hospitals in 23 states. We estimated vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of antecedent full vaccination (two doses of BNT162b2) in case patients as compared with two hospital-based control groups: patients who had Covid-19–like symptoms but negative results on testing for SARS-CoV-2 (test-negative) and patients who did not have Covid-19–like symptoms (syndrome-negative). Results A total of 445 case patients and 777 controls were enrolled. Overall, 17 case patients (4%) and 282 controls (36%) had been fully vaccinated. Of the case patients, 180 (40%) were admitted to the ICU, and 127 (29%) required life support; only 2 patients in the ICU had been fully vaccinated. The overall effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against hospitalization for Covid-19 was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90 to 96); the effectiveness was 95% (95% CI, 91 to 97) among test-negative controls and 94% (95% CI, 89 to 96) among syndrome-negative controls. The effectiveness was 98% against ICU admission and 98% against Covid-19 resulting in the receipt of life support. All 7 deaths occurred in patients who were unvaccinated. Conclusions Among hospitalized adolescent patients, two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine were highly effective against Covid-19–related hospitalization and ICU admission or the receipt of life support. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Background Improving the resiliency of healthcare workers is a national imperative, driven in part by healthcare workers having minimal exposure to the skills and culture to achieve work–life balance (WLB). Regardless of current policies, healthcare workers feel compelled to work more and take less time to recover from work. Satisfaction with WLB has been measured, as has work–life conflict, but how frequently healthcare workers engage in specific WLB behaviours is rarely assessed. Measurement of behaviours may have advantages over measurement of perceptions; behaviours more accurately reflect WLB and can be targeted by leaders for improvement. Objectives To describe a novel survey scale for evaluating work–life climate based on specific behavioural frequencies in healthcare workers. To evaluate the scale’s psychometric properties and provide benchmarking data from a large healthcare system. To investigate associations between work–life climate, teamwork climate and safety climate. Methods Cross-sectional survey study of US healthcare workers within a large healthcare system. Results 7923 of 9199 eligible healthcare workers across 325 work settings within 16 hospitals completed the survey in 2009 (86% response rate). The overall work–life climate scale internal consistency was Cronbach α=0.790. t-Tests of top versus bottom quartile work settings revealed that positive work–life climate was associated with better teamwork climate, safety climate and increased participation in safety leadership WalkRounds with feedback (p<0.001). Univariate analysis of variance demonstrated differences that varied significantly in WLB between healthcare worker role, hospitals and work setting. Conclusions The work–life climate scale exhibits strong psychometric properties, elicits results that vary widely by work setting, discriminates between positive and negative workplace norms, and aligns well with other culture constructs that have been found to correlate with clinical outcomes.
BackgroundHealthcare is approaching a tipping point as burnout and dissatisfaction with work-life integration (WLI) in healthcare workers continue to increase. A scale evaluating common behaviours as actionable examples of WLI was introduced to measure work-life balance.Objectives(1) Explore differences in WLI behaviours by role, specialty and other respondent demographics in a large healthcare system. (2) Evaluate the psychometric properties of the work-life climate scale, and the extent to which it acts like a climate, or group-level norm when used at the work setting level. (3) Explore associations between work-life climate and other healthcare climates including teamwork, safety and burnout.MethodsCross-sectional survey study completed in 2016 of US healthcare workers within a large academic healthcare system.Results10 627 of 13 040 eligible healthcare workers across 440 work settings within seven entities of a large healthcare system (81% response rate) completed the routine safety culture survey. The overall work-life climate scale internal consistency was α=0.830. WLI varied significantly among healthcare worker role, length of time in specialty and work setting. Random effects analyses of variance for the work-life climate scale revealed significant between-work setting and within-work setting variance and intraclass correlations reflected clustering at the work setting level. T-tests of top versus bottom WLI quartile work settings revealed that positive work-life climate was associated with better teamwork and safety climates, as well as lower personal burnout and burnout climate (p<0.001).ConclusionProblems with WLI are common in healthcare workers and differ significantly based on position and time in specialty. Although typically thought of as an individual difference variable, WLI appears to operate as a climate, and is consistently associated with better safety culture norms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.