Outbreak of Invasive Group A Streptococcus in Children-Colorado, October 2022-April 2023.

BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2022, we observed a sharp rise in pediatric Invasive Group A Streptococcus (iGAS) hospitalizations in Colorado. We compared the epidemiology, clinical features, and patient outcomes in this outbreak to prior years. METHODS: Between October 2022 and April 2023, we prospectively identified and reviewed iGAS cases in hospitalized pediatric patients at Children's Hospital Colorado. Using laboratory specimen records, we also retrospectively compared the number of patients with sterile site GAS-positive cultures across three time periods: pre-COVID-19 (January 2015-March 2020), height of COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020-September 2022), and outbreak (October 2022-April 2023). RESULTS: Among 96 prospectively identified iGAS cases, median age was 5.7 years old; 66% were male, 70% previously healthy, 39% required critical care, and four patients died. Almost 60% had associated respiratory viral symptoms, 10% had toxic shock syndrome, and 4% had necrotizing fasciitis. Leukopenia, bandemia, and higher C-reactive protein values were laboratory findings associated with need for critical care. There were significantly more cases during the outbreak (9.9/month outbreak vs 3.9/month pre-pandemic vs 1.3/month pandemic), including more cases with pneumonia (28% outbreak vs 15% pre-pandemic vs 0% pandemic) and multifocal disease (17% outbreak vs 3% pre-pandemic vs 0% pandemic), P < .001 for all. CONCLUSIONS: Outbreak case numbers were almost triple the pre-pandemic baseline. The high percentage of cases with associated viral symptoms suggests a link to coinciding surges in respiratory viruses during this time. Invasive GAS can be severe and evolve rapidly; clinical and laboratory features may help in earlier identification of critically ill children.

Multidisciplinary Guidance Regarding the Use of Immunomodulatory Therapies for Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Immune-mediated lung injury and systemic hyperinflammation are characteristic of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults. Although the majority of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in pediatric populations result in minimal or mild COVID-19 in the acute phase of infection, a small subset of children develop severe and even critical disease in this phase with concomitant inflammation that may benefit from immunomodulation. Therefore, guidance is needed regarding immunomodulatory therapies in the setting of acute pediatric COVID-19. This document does not provide guidance regarding the recently emergent multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of pediatric subspecialty physicians and pharmacists with expertise in infectious diseases, rheumatology, hematology/oncology, and critical care medicine was convened. Guidance statements were developed based on best available evidence and expert opinion. RESULTS: The panel devised a framework for considering the use of immunomodulatory therapy based on an assessment of clinical disease severity and degree of multiorgan involvement combined with evidence of hyperinflammation. Additionally, the known rationale for consideration of each immunomodulatory approach and the associated risks and benefits was summarized. CONCLUSIONS: Immunomodulatory therapy is not recommended for the majority of pediatric patients, who typically develop mild or moderate COVID-19. For children with severe or critical illness, the use of immunomodulatory agents may be beneficial. The risks and benefits of such therapies are variable and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from appropriate specialty services. When available, the panel strongly favors immunomodulatory agent use within the context of clinical trials. The framework presented herein offers an approach to decision-making regarding immunomodulatory therapy for severe or critical pediatric COVID-19 and is informed by currently available data, while awaiting results of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.

Accuracy of Bedside Ultrasound Femoral Vein Diameter Measurement by PICU Providers.

OBJECTIVES: Perform a needs assessment by evaluating accuracy of PICU provider bedside ultrasound measurement of femoral vein diameter prior to utilization of the catheter-to-vein ratio for central venous catheter size selection. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: PICU within a quaternary care children's hospital. PATIENTS: PICU patients greater than 30 days and less than 6 years without a femoral central venous catheter. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Gold-standard femoral vein diameter measurements were made by a radiologist, sonographer, or bedside ultrasound expert. PICU providers then repeated the femoral vein diameter measurements, and results were compared by Bland-Altman analysis with a priori accuracy goal of limits of agreement ± 15%. Among recruited patients (n = 27), the median age was 1.1 years (interquartile range 0.5-2.3 yr), weight was 9.0 kg (interquartile range 7.0-11.5 kg), and reference femoral vein diameter was 0.36 cm (interquartile range 0.28-0.45 cm). Providers performed 148 femoral vein diameter measurements and did not meet goal accuracy when compared with the reference measurement with a bias of 4% (95% of limits of agreement -62% to 70%). A majority of patients would have a catheter-to-vein ratio greater than 0.5 using either age-based central venous catheter size selection criterion (14/27) or the provider bedside ultrasound femoral vein diameter measurement (18/27). CONCLUSIONS: PICU provider measurement of femoral vein diameter by bedside ultrasound is inaccurate when compared with expert reference measurement. Central venous catheter size selection based on age or PICU provider femoral vein diameter measurement can lead to a catheter-to-vein ratio greater than 0.5 and potentially increase the risk of catheter-associated venous thromboembolism. Structured bedside ultrasound training with assessment of accuracy is necessary prior to implementation of venous thromboembolism reduction efforts based on catheter-to-vein ratio recommendations.

A comparison of different methods of red blood cell leukoreduction and additive solutions on the accumulation of neutrophil-priming activity during storage.

BACKGROUND: Three methods of leukoreduction (LR) are used worldwide: filtration, buffy coat removal (BCR), and a combination of the previous two methods. Additionally, there are a number of additive solutions (ASs) used to preserve red blood cell (RBC) function throughout storage. During RBC storage, proinflammatory activity accumulates; thus, we hypothesize that both the method of LR and the AS affect the accumulation of proinflammatory activity. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten units of whole blood were drawn from healthy donors, the RBC units were isolated, divided in half by weight, and leukoreduced by: 1) BCR, 2) filtration, or 3) BCR and filtration (combination-LR); stored in bags containing AS-3 per AABB criteria; and sampled weekly. The supernatants were isolated and frozen (-80°C). RBC units drawn from healthy donors into AS-1-, AS-3-, or AS-5-containing bags were also stored and sampled weekly, and the supernatants were isolated and frozen. The supernatants were assayed for neutrophil (PMN)-priming activity and underwent proteomic analyses. RESULTS: Filtration and combination LR decreased priming activity accumulation versus buffy coat LR, although the accumulation of priming activity was not different during storage. Combination LR increased hemolysis versus filtration via proteomic analysis. Priming activity from AS-3 units was significant later in storage versus AS-1- or AS-5-stored units. CONCLUSIONS: Although both filtration and combination LR decrease the accumulation of proinflammatory activity versus buffy coat LR, combination LR is not more advantageous over filtration, has increased costs, and may cause increased hemolysis. In addition, AS-3 decreases the early accumulation of PMN-priming activity during storage versus AS-1 or AS-5.