coronavirus

On December 11, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, administered as 2 doses separated by 21 days.1 Shortly after, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for its use.2 Following implementation of vaccination, reports of anaphylaxis after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine emerged.3 Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction that occurs rarely after vaccination, with onset typically within minutes to hours.4

Notifications and reports of suspected severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis following vaccination were captured in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the national passive surveillance (spontaneous reporting) system for adverse events after immunization.5 Physicians at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) evaluated these reports and applied Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria6 to classify case reports as anaphylaxis or not anaphylaxis. Nonallergic adverse events, mostly vasovagal or anxiety-related, were excluded from the analysis. Anaphylaxis and nonanaphylaxis allergic reaction cases with symptom onset occurring later than the day after vaccination were also excluded because of the difficulty in clearly attributing allergic reactions with delayed onset after vaccination. Because the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was only available beginning December 21, 2020, this article focuses on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

During December 14 to 23, 2020, after administration of a reported 1 893 360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (1 177 527 in women, 648 327 in men, and 67 506 with sex of recipient not reported),3 CDC identified 21 case reports submitted to VAERS that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (Table), corresponding to an estimated rate of 11.1 cases per million doses administered. Four patients (19%) were hospitalized (including 3 in intensive care), and 17 (81%) were treated in an emergency department; 20 (95%) are known to have been discharged home or had recovered at the time of the report to VAERS. No deaths from anaphylaxis were reported.

Paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19 (PIMS-TS) is a novel condition that was first reported in April, 2020. We aimed to develop a national consensus management pathway for the UK to provide guidance for clinicians caring for children with PIMS-TS. A three-phase online Delphi process and virtual consensus meeting sought consensus over the investigation, management, and research priorities from multidisciplinary clinicians caring for children with PIMS-TS. We used 140 consensus statements to derive a consensus management pathway that describes the initial investigation of children with suspected PIMS-TS, including blood markers to help determine the severity of disease, an echocardiogram, and a viral and septic screen to exclude other infectious causes of illness. The importance of a multidisciplinary team in decision making for children with PIMS-TS is highlighted throughout the guidance, along with the recommended treatment options, including supportive care, intravenous immunoglobulin, methylprednisolone, and biological therapies. These include IL-1 antagonists (eg, anakinra), IL-6 receptor blockers (eg, tocilizumab), and anti-TNF agents (eg, infliximab) for children with Kawasaki disease-like phenotype and non-specific presentations. Use of a rapid online Delphi process has made it possible to generate a national consensus pathway in a timely and cost-efficient manner in the middle of a global pandemic. The consensus statements represent the views of UK clinicians and are applicable to children in the UK suspected of having PIMS-TS. Future evidence will inform updates to this guidance, which in the interim provides a solid framework to support clinicians caring for children with PIMS-TS. This process has directly informed new PIMS-TS specific treatment groups as part of the adaptive UK RECOVERY trial protocol, which is the first formal randomised controlled trial of therapies for PIMS-TS globally.

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.

Importance: To date, no study has characterized the mucocutaneous features seen in hospitalized children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or the temporal association of these findings with the onset of systemic symptoms.

Objective: To describe the mucocutaneous findings seen in children with MIS-C during the height of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in New York City in 2020.

Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective case series was conducted of 35 children admitted to 2 hospitals in New York City between April 1 and July 14, 2020, who met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and/or epidemiologic criteria for MIS-C.

Main outcomes and measures: Laboratory and clinical characteristics, with emphasis on mucocutaneous findings, of children who met criteria for MIS-C. The characterization of mucocutaneous features was verified by 2 board-certified pediatric dermatologists.

Results: Twenty-five children (11 girls [44%]; median age, 3 years [range, 0.7-17 years]) were identified who met definitional criteria for MIS-C; an additional 10 children (5 girls [50%]; median age, 1.7 years [range, 0.2-15 years]) were included as probable MIS-C cases (patients met all criteria with the exception of laboratory test evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] infection or known exposure). The results of polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2 were positive for 10 patients (29%), and the results of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G tests were positive for 19 patients (54%). Of the 35 patients, 29 (83%) exhibited mucocutaneous changes, with conjunctival injection (n = 21), palmoplantar erythema (n = 18), lip hyperemia (n = 17), periorbital erythema and edema (n = 7), strawberry tongue (n = 8), and malar erythema (n = 6) being the most common findings. Recognition of mucocutaneous findings occurred a mean of 2.7 days (range, 1-7 days) after the onset of fever. The duration of mucocutaneous findings varied from hours to days (median duration, 5 days [range, 0-11 days]). Neither the presence nor absence of mucocutaneous findings was significantly associated with overall disease severity.

Conclusions and relevance: In this case series of hospitalized children with suspected MIS-C during the COVID-19 pandemic, a wide spectrum of mucocutaneous findings was identified. Despite their protean and transient nature, these mucocutaneous features serve as important clues in the recognition of MIS-C.