SARS-CoV-2

Objectives: To examine whether patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) demonstrated well-defined clinical features distinct from other febrile outpatients, given the difficulties of seeing acute care visits during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and the risks associated with both over- and underdiagnosis of MIS-C.

Study design: This case-controlled study compared patients diagnosed with and treated for MIS-C at a large urban children's hospital with patients evaluated for fever at outpatient acute care visits during the peak period of MIS-C. Symptomatology and available objective data were extracted. Comparisons were performed using t tests with corrections for multiple comparisons, and multivariable logistic regression to obtain ORs.

Results: We identified 44 patients with MIS-C between April 16 and June 10, 2020. During the same period, 181 pediatric patients were evaluated for febrile illnesses in participating outpatient clinics. Patients with MIS-C reported greater median maximum reported temperature height (40°C vs 38.9, P < .0001), and increased frequency of abdominal pain (OR 12.5, 95% CI [1.65-33.24]), neck pain (536.5, [2.23-129,029]), conjunctivitis (31.3, [4.6-212.8]), oral mucosal irritation (11.8, [1.4-99.4]), extremity swelling or rash (99.9, [5-1960]), and generalized rash (7.42, [1.6-33.2]). Patients with MIS-C demonstrated lower absolute lymphocyte (P < .0001) and platelet counts (P < .05) and greater C-reactive protein concentrations (P < .001).

Conclusions: Patients treated for MIS-C due to concern for potential cardiac injury show combinations of features distinct from other febrile patients seen in outpatient clinics during the same period.

Whether and when to mandate the wearing of facemasks in the community to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 remains controversial. Published literature across disciplines about the role of masks in mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is summarized. Growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne indicates that infection control interventions must go beyond contact and droplet measures (such as handwashing and cleaning surfaces) and attend to masking and ventilation. Observational evidence suggests that masks work mainly by source control (preventing infected persons from transmitting the virus to others), but laboratory studies of mask filtration properties suggest that they could also provide some protection to wearers (protective effect). Even small reductions in individual transmission could lead to substantial reductions in population spread. To date, only 1 randomized controlled trial has examined a community mask recommendation. This trial did not identify a significant protective effect and was not designed to evaluate source control. Filtration properties and comfort vary widely across mask types. Masks may cause discomfort and communication difficulties. However, there is no evidence that masks result in significant physiologic decompensation or that risk compensation and fomite transmission are associated with mask wearing. The psychological effects of masks are culturally shaped; they may include threats to autonomy, social relatedness, and competence. Evidence suggests that the potential benefits of wearing masks likely outweigh the potential harms when SARS-CoV-2 is spreading in a community. However, mask mandates involve a tradeoff with personal freedom, so such policies should be pursued only if the threat is substantial and mitigation of spread cannot be achieved through other means.