Background
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), linked to antecedent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, is associated with considerable morbidity. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by vaccination might also decrease MIS-C likelihood.
Methods
In a multicenter case-control public health investigation of children ages 5–18 years hospitalized from July 1, 2021 to April 7, 2022, we compared the odds of being fully vaccinated (two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine ≥28 days before hospital admission) between MIS-C case-patients and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. These associations were examined by age group, timing of vaccination, and periods of Delta and Omicron variant predominance using multivariable logistic regression.
Results
We compared 304 MIS-C case-patients (280 [92%] unvaccinated) with 502 controls (346 [69%] unvaccinated). MIS-C was associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (aOR, 0.16 95% CI, 0.10-0.26), including among children ages 5–11 years (aOR, 0.22 95% CI, 0.10-0.52), ages 12–18 years (aOR, 0.10 95% CI, 0.05–0.19), and during the Delta (aOR, 0.06 95% CI, 0.02–0.15) and Omicron (aOR, 0.22 95% CI, 0.11–0.42) variant-predominant periods. This association persisted beyond 120 days after the second dose (aOR, 0.08, 95% CI, 0.03–0.22) in 12–18 year-olds. Among all MIS-C case-patients, 187 (62%) required intensive care unit admission and 280 (92%) vaccine-eligible patients were unvaccinated.
Conclusions
Vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 is associated with reduced likelihood of MIS-C in children ages 5–18 years. Most vaccine eligible hospitalized patients with MIS-C were unvaccinated.
This is a prepublication version of an article that has undergone peer review and been accepted for publication but is not the final version of record. This paper may be cited using the DOI and date of access. This paper may contain information that has errors in facts, figures, and statements, and will be corrected in the final published version. The journal is providing an early version of this article to expedite access to this information. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the editors, and authors are not responsible for inaccurate information and data described in this version.
BACKGROUND:
Many hospitals use rapid response systems (RRSs) to identify and intervene on hospitalized children at risk for deterioration.
OBJECTIVES:
To describe RRS characteristics across hospitals in the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) network.
METHODS:
We developed the survey through a series of prospective respondent, expert, and cognitive interviews. One institutional expert per PRIS hospital (n = 109) was asked to complete the web survey. We summarized responses using descriptive statistics with a secondary analysis of univariate associations between RRS characteristics and perceived effectiveness.
RESULTS:
The response rate was 72% (79 of 109). Respondents represented diverse hospital types and were primarily physicians (97%) with leadership roles in care escalation. Many hospitals used an early warning score (77%) for identification with variable characteristics (46% automated versus 54% full or partially manual calculation; inputs included vital signs [98%], physical examination findings [88%], diagnoses [23%], medications [19%], and diagnostic tests [14%]). Few incorporated a validated prediction model (9%). Similarly, many RRSs used a rapid response team for intervention (93%) with variable team composition (respiratory therapists [94%], ICU nurses [93%], ICU providers [67%], and pharmacists [27%]). Some used the early warning score to trigger the rapid response team (50%). Only a few staffed a clinician to proactively surveil hospitalized children for risk of deterioration (18%), and these tended to be larger hospitals (annual admissions 12 000 vs 6000, P = .007). Most responding experts stated their RRSs improved patient outcomes (92%).
CONCLUSIONS:
RRS characteristics varied across PRIS hospitals.
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.