Challenges in the Clinical Recognition of Acute Flaccid Myelitis and its Implications.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 36115622.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.09.012.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To explore the challenges in diagnosing acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) and evaluate clinical features and treatment paradigms associated with under recognition. This was a retrospective multicenter study of pediatric patients (≤18 years) who were diagnosed with AFM from 2014 to 2018 using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's case definition. In 72% of the cases (126 of 175), AFM was not considered in the initial differential diagnosis (n = 108; 61.7%) and/or the patient was not referred for acute care (n = 90; 51.4%) at the initial clinical encounter, and this did not improve over time. Although many features of the presentation were similar in those initially diagnosed with AFM and those who were not; preceding illness, constipation, and reflexes differed significantly between the 2 groups. Patients with a non-AFM initial diagnosis more often required ventilatory support (26.2% vs 12.2%; OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0; P = .05). These patients received immunomodulatory treatment later (3 days vs 2 days after neurologic symptom onset; 95% CI, -2 to 0; P = .05), particularly intravenous immunoglobulin (5 days vs 2 days; 95% CI, -4 to -2; P < .001). Delayed recognition of AFM is concerning because of the risk for respiratory decompensation and need for intensive care monitoring. A non-AFM initial diagnosis was associated with delayed treatment that could have a clinical impact, particularly as new treatment options emerge.
Medical subject headings
- Myelitis
- Neuromuscular Diseases
- Central Nervous System Viral Diseases
- Enterovirus Infections