Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) was first recognized as a novel illness in 2020 with manifestations similar to other hyperinflammatory syndromes, such as Kawasaki disease or macrophage activation syndrome. Severity varies from a self-limited febrile illness to shock requiring inotropes and mechanical ventilation. Gastrointestinal symptoms and persistent fevers are the most common clinical symptoms, with the addition of cardiac manifestations inclusive of ventricular dysfunction and coronary artery aneurysms. With no controlled trials or comparative effectiveness studies evaluating treatment of MIS-C to date, current treatment with immunomodulatory agents has mainly been derived from previous experience treating Kawasaki disease. This article provides a comprehensive review summarizing published data for the evaluation and management of MIS-C, with a focus on pharmacotherapy treatment considerations.

With the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) virus, the pandemic has resulted in a severe respiratory disease known as COVID-19. Data and literature are limited in the evaluation, treatment, and considerations for pediatric patients including special populations (e.g., neonates, children, immunocompromised patients, and those with sickle cell disease). There exists a need for a comprehensive review of pediatric proven and disproven treatments as therapies continue to emerge. This article evaluates the pharmacologic treatment and prevention therapies used in pediatric patients to date, including emergency use authorizations, as well as rationales for pharmacotherapies not routinely used to treat acute COVID-19 infection. It is important to note this review article is current as of January 25, 2021, given the rapid evolvement of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE With no consensus, the practice of using prophylactic antibiotics prior to central venous catheter (CVC) removal in NICU patients remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of sepsis post–CVC removal in those who received a dose of vancomycin prophylactically with those who did not. METHODS This single-center, retrospective chart review included NICU patients who had CVCs removed. Patients were excluded if they had a confirmed or suspected infection at the time of CVC removal or if the indwelling CVC was removed prior to 30 days from insertion. Primary outcome was the occurrence of a sepsis evaluation within 72 hours from CVC removal. Secondary outcomes included the development of acute kidney injury, source and identification of positive cultures, time to onset of suspected or confirmed sepsis, and the appropriate administration of intravenous vancomycin. RESULTS Eighty-two CVC removals received prophylactic vancomycin (P-VAN), and 22 CVCs did not receive prophylactic vancomycin (NP-VAN) prior to CVC removal. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between groups and median duration of indwelling CVC. Two clinical sepsis evaluations occurred in the P-VAN group compared with none in the NP-VAN group. Of all the P-VAN CVC removals, 45 (55%) received vancomycin appropriately. There were no statistical differences in all evaluated secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Vancomycin administered prophylactically prior to CVC removal did not reduce the number of subsequent clinical sepsis evaluations or infections in NICU patients.