Skip to main content
Wolters Kluwer - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Wolters Kluwer - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Nov 2;41(1):e21–e25. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000003388

Comparison of First and Second Wave Cohorts of Multisystem Inflammatory Disease Syndrome IN Children

Ashraf S Harahsheh *,, Matthew P Sharron †,, James E Bost †,§, Emily Ansusinha , David Wessel †,, Roberta L DeBiasi †,¶,‖,, on behalf of the Children’s National Hospital MIS-C Taskforce
PMCID: PMC8658056  PMID: 34889874

Abstract

Comparing first and second wave MIS-C cohorts at our quaternary pediatric institution, second wave were older, presented more frequently with shortness of breath, higher maximum troponin and N-terminal BNP, and more frequently required advanced respiratory and inotropic support. Despite increased severity in the second cohort, both cohorts had similar rates of coronary artery abnormalities, systolic dysfunction, and length of stay.

Keywords: pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, PMIS, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, MIS-C, 2019 coronavirus disease, immunomodulation, myocarditis, critical care


Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a newly described severe hyperinflammatory multisystem illness specific to the pediatric population, which is thought to be an immune-mediated complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.1,2 Our center managed 2 distinct cohorts of MIS-C patients, each following periods of maximal virus circulation and surge (waves) in our community by 4–6 weeks. Multiple centers (including ours) and consortia, as well as the CDC, have published key demographic and clinical features of MIS-C following the first wave of patients with this rare presentation. These reports have included patients with varying degrees of severity, cardiac dysfunction, requirement for critical care, respiratory, inotropic, and immunomodulatory support.3,4 The second wave of MIS-C patients at our institution was larger than the first wave, following the largest surge in SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the United States and our community. Herein, we provide the first comparison of clinical features and outcomes for MIS-C patient cohorts treated at our facility during the first and second large waves of presentation, under a standard institutional evaluation and treatment protocol that prioritizes prompt immunomodulatory therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of 106 patients sequentially diagnosed and treated for MIS-C according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention MIS-C case definition and admitted to our quaternary pediatric center in Washington, DC.5 Patients’ demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiographic, including echocardiography, therapies, and outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records. Wave 1 MIS-C Cohort patients (N = 43) were hospitalized between March and October 2020; Wave 2 MIS-Cohort patients (N = 63) were hospitalized between November 2020 and April 2021.

All patients were managed under the same standardized institutional protocol that utilizes intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and aspirin with or without Anakinra as initial therapy, as well as escalation to additional corticosteroid immunomodulation depending on defined clinical parameters. The institutional algorithm was developed by a multidisciplinary committee (Children’s National Hospital MIS-C Task force).3,6 Cardiac complications were defined as abnormal coronary artery (Z score ≥ 2) or decreased systolic function (ejection fraction < 55% or shortening fraction < 28%).7,8

Statistical Analysis

The analysis compared the 2 MIS-C cohorts with respect to demographics, clinical features, diagnostic biomarkers, radiographic procedures including echocardiogram, immunomodulatory and vasopressor support, and clinical outcomes. All data were summarized using descriptive statistics of the median and interquartile (IQR) range and frequency. Continuous variables were analyzed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test as normality was not assumed. Categorical variables were analyzed using the χ2 and Fisher’s exact test. A P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant and P > 0.05 but <0.1 was considered a trend. All analyses were performed using STATA version 16 (StataCorp. 2019. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.).

Children’s National Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study with a waiver of consent granted. Authors A.S.H., M.P.S., J.E.B., and R.L.D. had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for its integrity and the data analysis.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 8.4 years (4.7–13.4), 49 (46%) were female, 56 (54%) were Black, and 41 (39%) were Hispanic. No underlying medical conditions were noted in 80 (75%) patients. Thirty-four (32%) met diagnostic criteria for Kawasaki disease (Table 1). No mortality occurred and all patients were discharged home at a median (IQR) of 11 (7–14) days.

Table 1.

Demographics, Patient Characteristics, Laboratory findings, Diagnostics, Treatments, Clinical Outcomes and Echocardiographic Findings Among MIS-C Patients Stratified by Wave Cohort

Variable of Interest All Cases (N = 106) n (%) Wave 1 Cohort (N = 43) n (%) Wave 2 Cohort
(N = 63) n (%)
P value Wave 1 vs.
Wave 2 Cohort
Demographics
 Age in months (median and IQR) 101 (56–161) 95 (44–151) 109 (61–171) 0.126
 Specific age bands all patients 0.173
  <1 2 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
  1–<5 27 (25%) 13 (30%) 14 (22%)
  5–<10 35 (33%) 15 (35%) 20 (32%)
  10–<15 27 (25%) 12 (28%) 15 (24%)
  15+ 15 (14%) 2 (5%) 13 (21%)
 Specific age bands all patients 0.024
  <15 91 (86%) 41 (95%) 50 (79%)
  ≥15 15 (14%) 2 (5%) 13 (21%)
 Sex (% Female) 49 (46%) 19 (44%) 30 (48%) 0.843
 Race 0.249
  Black 56 (54%) 21 (50%) 35 (56%)
  Caucasian 6 (6%) 1 (2%) 5 (8%)
  Asian 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (3%)
  Other 40 (38%) 20 (48%) 20 (32%)
 Ethnicity 0.417
  Hispanic 41 (39%) 19 (44%) 22 (35%)
  Non-Hispanic 65 (61%) 24 (56%) 41 (65%)
Patient characteristics
 Presence of any underlying condition 26 (25%) 13 (30%) 13 (21%) 0.358
 Known sick contact 33 (34%)
N = 98
15 (39%)
N = 39
18 (31%)
N = 59
0.513
 Presence of Kawasaki disease Criteria 34 (32%) 21 (49%) 13 (21%) 0.003
 Specific Symptoms
  Mucous membrane changes 62 (58%) 29 (67%) 33 (52%) 0.160
  Peripheral extremity changes 14 (13%) 7 (17%) 7 (11%) 0.559
  Conjunctival injection 56 (53%) 26 (60%) 30 (48%) 0.236
  Rash 49 (46%) 19 (44%) 30 (48%) 0.843
  Fever 104 (98%) 42 (98) 62 (98%) 0.999
  Cough 18 (17%)
N = 104
9 (21%)
N = 42
9 (14%)
N = 62
0.432
  Shortness of breath 12 (12%)
N = 99
1 (3%)
N = 39
11 (18%)
N = 60
0.025
  Abdominal pain 79 (75%) 35 (81%) 44 (70%) 0.256
  Vomiting 63 (61%)
N = 103
25 (59%)
N = 42
38 (62%)
N = 61
0.838
  Diarrhea 50 (49%)
N = 102
19 (46%)
N = 41
31 (51%)
N = 61
0.690
  Chest pain 12 (14%)
N = 85
2 (7%)
N = 28
10 (17%)
N = 57
0.321
  Myalgias 24 (23%) 9 (30%) 15 (26%) 0.801
Laboratory findings
 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive 31 (29%)
N = 106
21 (49%)
N = 43
10 (16%)
N = 63
<0.001
 SARS-CoV-2 PCR cycle time (median and IQR) 32.0
(28.95–33.1)
N = 28
31.3
(28–32.65)
N = 19
32.6
(32.2–33.7)
N = 9
0.069
 SARS-CoV-2 Antibody positive 100 (96%) 40 (97%) 60 (95%) 0.999
 Troponin I–maximum (ng/mL) (Normal <0.04)  (median and IQR) 0.35
(0.09–1.04)
N = 98
0.145
(0.08–0.66)
N = 38
0.43
(0.14–1.665)
N = 60
0.022
 N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide–maximum  (pg/mL) (Normal <1100) (median and IQR) 12,991
(4617.5-23,478.5)
N = 104
9780
(2426-17,886)
N = 42
17,825.5
(7827-29,569)
N = 62
0.005
Diagnostics
 Chest radiograph abnormal 60 (61%) 27 (64%) 33 (59%) 0.677
Treatments
 Immune therapy
  Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) 105 (99%) 42 (98%) 63 (100%) 0.406
  Anakinra 78 (74%) 31 (72%) 47 (75%) 0.824
  Steroids 37 (37%) 10 (24%) 27 (44%) 0.090
   Hydrocortisone 22 (21%) 7 (16%) 15 (24%) 0.466
   Dexamethasone 3 (3%) 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 0.565
   Methylprednisolone 21 (20%) 3(7%) 18(29%) 0.006
 Tocilizumab 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 3 (5%) 0.261
 Remdesivir 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0.999
 Aspirin 102 (96%) 41 (95%) 61 (97%) 0.999
 ICU admission 79 (75%) 28 (65%) 51 (81%) 0.074
 Vasopressors 68 (64%) 22 (51%) 46 (73%) 0.025
 Vasoactive Index (VIS) Score (Maximum) (median and IQR) 5
(0–17)
N = 105
3
(0-15)
N = 43
10
(0-20)
N = 62
0.042
 Oxygen therapy of any kind 61 (58%) 24 (56%) 37 (59%) 0.842
  Nasal cannula 49 (46%) 16 (37%) 33 (52%) 0.165
  Facemask 3 (3%) 1 (2%) 2 (3%) 0.999
  High-flow nasal cannula 17 (16%) 11 (26%) 6 (10%) 0.033
  BiPAP 33 (31%) 8 (19%) 25 (40%) 0.032
  Mechanical ventilation 15 (14%) 6 (14%) 9 (14%) 0.999
Clinical outcomes
 Hospital LOS (median and IQR) 11 (7–14) 12 (7-14) 10 (8-14) 0.437
 ECMO 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) N/A
 Mortality 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) N/A
Echocardiogram
 Coronary artery abnormalities N = 97 N = 41 N = 56 0.161
  No (Z score < 2) 88 (91%) 35 (85%) 53 (95%)
  Yes (Z score ≥ 2) 9 (9%) 6 (15%) 3 (5%)
 Coronary Artery classifications N = 97 N = 41 N = 56 0.174
  Normal (Z score < 2) 88 (91%) 35 (85%) 53 (95%)
  Dilation (Z score 2 to < 2.5) 7 (7%) 4 (10%) 3 (5%)
  Small aneurysm (Z score 2.5 to <5), 2 (2%) 2 (5%) 0 (0%)
  Moderate aneurysm (Z score 5 to <10), 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
  Giant aneurysm (8 mm or Z score ≥ 10) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
 Ejection fraction (EF) continuous variable (%)  (median and IQR) 60
(53.2–63.6) N = 95
60
(51–62) N = 37
60
(53.3–63.8) N = 58
0.625
 Systolic function (2 categories) 0.821
  Abnormal (EF < 55%) 29 (31%) 12 (32%) 17 (29%)
  Normal (EF ≥ 55%) 66 (69%) 25 (68%) 41 (71%)
 Systolic function discrete variables (4 categories) 0.868
  Normal systolic function (EF ≥ 55%) 66 (69%) 25 (68%) 41 (71%)
  Mild systolic dysfunction (EF 41 to <55%) 27 (28%) 12 (32%) 15 (26%)
  Moderate systolic dysfunction (EF 30 to <41%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%)
  Severe systolic dysfunction (EF <30%) 1(1%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%)
BiPAP, bi-level positive airway pressure; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; EF, ejection fraction; ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range; N/A, not applicable; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

Comparing MIS-C patient from the wave 1 and wave 2 cohorts, patients in Wave 2 included a higher proportion of children 15 years of age or older [13/63 (21%) vs. 2/43 (5%); P = 0.024]. Wave 2 cohort patients were less likely to fulfill diagnostic criteria for Kawasaki disease [13/63 (21%) vs. 21/43 (49%), P = 0.003] and more likely to present with shortness of breath [11/63 (18%) vs. 1/43 (3%); P = 0.025]. Wave 2 Cohort patients were less likely to be polymerase chain reaction-positive for SARS-CoV-2 [10/63 (16%) vs. 21/43 (49%); P < 0.001], had higher maximum median Troponin I (ng/mL) values [0.43 (IQR 0.14–1.665) vs. 0.145 (IQR 0.08–0.66); P = 0.022], and higher maximum N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (pg/mL) values [17,825.5 (IQR 7827–29,569) vs. 9780 (2426–17,886); P = 0.005]. Wave 2 cohort patients were more likely to require additional immunomodulation with methylprednisolone [18/63 (29%) vs. 3/43 (7%), P = 0.006] and a trend toward more frequent requirement for ICU level of care [51/63 (81%) vs. 28/43 (65%), P = 0.074). Wave 2 cohort patients were more likely to require vasopressors [46/63 (73%) vs. 22/43 (51%), P = 0.025], had higher maximum vasoactive index score [median 10 (IQR 0–20) vs. 3 (0–15), P = 0.042], had increased utilization of bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) [25/63 (40%) vs. 8/43 (19%); P = 0.032], and were thus less likely to utilize only high flow nasal cannula [6/63 (10%) vs. 11/43 (26%); P = 0.033] (Table 1). Despite the increased degree of clinical severity and laboratory abnormalities in the wave 2 cohort, no significant differences were noted comparing wave 2 and wave 1 cohorts with respect to rate of coronary artery abnormalities [3/56 (5%) vs. 6/41 (15%); P= 0.16], systolic dysfunction [17/58 (29%) vs. 12/37 (32%); P = 0.821] or length of stay [10 days (IQR 8–14) vs. 12 days (IQR 7–14); P = 0.437) (Table 1).

DISCUSSION

Our center managed a large number of MIS-C patients under a standardized MIS-C evaluation and treatment algorithm throughout the first year of SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the United States, with 2 distinct cohorts of MIS-C patients presenting 4–6 weeks following 2 distinct large waves of viral circulation and primary COVID infection and admissions in our region. In the second (later) wave following the largest surge of virus in the United States, MIS-C patients presented with more severe respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms, had more abnormal BNP and Troponin levels, had a tendency for more frequently requiring ICU level of support, more frequently required inotropic and advanced respiratory support. Although a larger proportion of patients in the Wave 2 Cohort met criteria for escalation of immunomodulation to include adjunctive corticosteroid therapy (in addition to first line IVIG and aspirin with or without anakinra), the majority of wave 1 and wave 2 patients did not require escalation to methylprednisolone (93% wave 1 cohort; 71% wave 2 cohort). Despite the overall increased severity of disease observed in the wave 2 cohort, the incidence of coronary artery abnormalities and ventricular systolic dysfunction were not different between the 2 cohorts.

The reasons for the observed increased clinical severity at presentation in the wave 2 cohort are not entirely clear, but were not due to differences in underlying sex, race, or ethnicity (overwhelmingly Black or Hispanic), or presence of underlying medical condition which were similar in both cohorts. The exact immunologic mechanisms by which MIS-C is triggered and the specific factors accounting for its rare occurrence are still not fully understood. However, in comparison to the wave 1 cohort, children in the wave 2 MIS-C cohort had potentially experienced additional intermittent or multiple repeated exposure(s) to circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in their communities, which may have served as repeated immune triggers to augment or accelerate the dysregulated hyperimmune response that is unique to MIS-C. Differences in the proportion of circulating variants within the time periods defining each cohort could also have contributed to differences in degree of immune dysregulation; it should be noted that there was minimal circulation of the delta variant in the United States or our community during either period. The timing and characterization of a potential third delta variant-associated MIS-C surge remains to be seen, but has not yet materialized at our institution, despite 7 weeks since inception of our current SARS-CoV-2 surge.

Strengths of this study include the ability to compare well characterized cohorts accurately, since a single, standardized evaluation, and treatment approach was used at a single site across the entire period for the study, encompassing both waves of MIS-C presentation. Protocolization and standardization of care has been shown to improve patient care.9 Despite more severe clinical presentation and a higher degree of laboratory abnormalities, children in the second wave MIS-C cohort had a similar, not increased, incidence of cardiac abnormalities, length of stay, and outcome with no mortality in either cohort. Belay et al reported an increased need for immunotherapy in MIS-C patients presenting later in the pandemic, that was also associated with a lower incidence of cardiac dysfunction.10 The standardized approach implemented at our center was associated with stable rates of cardiac complications despite more severe clinical presentation in the more recent MIS-C cohort (wave 2). Limitations of our study include the fact that we limited cardiac complications for comparison to coronary artery abnormalities or decreased systolic function, and did not include valvular regurgitation or pericardial effusion, although in our overall institutional cohort, these findings have been observed to be the most transient and likely to resolve during short-term follow-up.3

CONCLUSIONS

MIS-C remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for pediatricians and subspecialists. Although a spectrum of clinical severity has been observed across centers, this report highlights that severity of disease may also evolve over different time points of the pandemic. Despite increased severity, mortality was prevented, and morbidity was mitigated with rapid implementation of a standardized, protocolized, and coordinated immunomodulatory approach.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Angela Doty, MD, and Lindsay Attaway for their editorial assistance. We are grateful to the Children’s National Hospital MIS-C Task Force and all Children’s National Hospital care team members for their dedication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

APPENDIX

Additional MIS-C-Task Force Contributors

Hemalatha Srinivasalu, MD, and Tova Ronis, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Anita Krishnan, MD, Division of Cardiology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Kavita Parikh, MD, and Karen Smith, MD, Division of Hospitalist Medicine, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Meghan Delaney, DO, and Joseph Campos, PhD, Division of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pathology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Jaclyn N. Kline, MD, Division of Emergency Medicine, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Suvankar Majumdar, MD, Division of Hematology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Sangeeta Sule, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Jay Pershad, MD, Division of Emergency Medicine, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Michael Bell, MD, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Charles I. Berul, MD, Division of Cardiology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, and Department of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.

Footnotes

All authors report no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Disclosures of NIH funding: R.L.D. receives funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)—National Institute of Health (NIH) Grant R61 HD105618 and from NIAID. A.S.H. is supported by a subagreement from the Johns Hopkins University with funds provided by grant no. NICHD grant R61HD105591 and from the Office of the Director, National Institute of Health (OD). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, the Office of the Director, National Institute of Health (OD), or the Johns Hopkins University.

A.S.H. and M.P.S. have contributed equally as first authors.

A.S.H. and M.P.S. was involved in study design, data gathering, data analysis, drafting, and editing of the article. E.A. was involved in data gathering, data analysis, and editing of the article. J.E.B. was involved in data analysis, drafting, and editing the article. D.W. was involved in study design, data analysis, and editing of the article. R.L.D. was involved in study design, data gathering, data analysis, drafting, and editing the article. All authors approved the final article as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

**

The members of Children’s National Hospital MIS-C Taskforce listed in Appendix.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Loke YH, Berul CI, Harahsheh AS. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: is there a linkage to Kawasaki disease? Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2020;30:389–396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.DeBiasi RL, Song X, Delaney M, et al. Severe Coronavirus Disease-2019 in children and young adults in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Region. J Pediatr. 2020;223:199–203 e191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Harahsheh AS, Krishnan A, DeBiasi RL, et al. Cardiac echocardiogram findings of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-associated multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children [published online ahead of print August 5, 2021]. Cardiol Young. doi: 10.1017/S1047951121003024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Belhadjer Z, Méot M, Bajolle F, et al. Acute heart failure in multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in the context of global SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. Circulation. 2020;142:429–436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2020/han00432.asp. Accessed on May 16, 2020.
  • 6.DeBiasi RL, Harahsheh AS, Srinivasalu H, et al. ; Children’s National Hospital MIS-C Taskforce. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children: subphenotypes, risk factors, biomarkers, cytokine profiles, and viral sequencing. J Pediatr. 2021;237:125–135.e18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kantor PF, Lougheed J, Dancea A, et al. ; Children’s Heart Failure Study Group. Presentation, diagnosis, and medical management of heart failure in children: Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29:1535–1552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McCrindle BW, Rowley AH, Newburger JW, et al. ; American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee of the Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. Diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of kawasaki disease: a Scientific Statement for Health Professionals From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135:e927–e999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Harahsheh AS, Hom LA, Clauss SB, et al. The impact of a designated cardiology team involving telemedicine home monitoring on the care of children with single-ventricle physiology after norwood palliation. Pediatr Cardiol. 2016;37:899–912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Belay ED, Abrams J, Oster ME, et al. Trends in geographic and temporal distribution of US children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175:837–845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES