Search

Objectives: To explore the challenges in diagnosing acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) and evaluate clinical features and treatment paradigms associated with under recognition., Study Design: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fluoxetine for proven or presumptive enterovirus (EV) D68-associated acute flaccid myelitis (AFM)., Methods: A multicenter cohort study of US patients with AFM in 2015-2016 compared serious adverse events (SAEs), adverse effects, and outcomes between fluoxetine-treated patients and untreated controls. Fluoxetine was administered at the discretion of treating providers with data gathered retrospectively. The primary outcome was change in summative limb strength score (SLSS; sum of Medical Research Council strength in all 4 limbs, ranging from 20 [normal strength] to 0 [complete quadriparesis]) between initial examination and latest follow-up, with increased SLSS reflecting improvement and decreased SLSS reflecting worsened strength., Results: Fifty-six patients with AFM from 12 centers met study criteria. Among 30 patients exposed to fluoxetine, no SAEs were reported and adverse effect rates were similar to unexposed patients (47% vs 65%, p = 0.16). The 28 patients treated with >1 dose of fluoxetine were more likely to have EV-D68 identified (57.1% vs 14.3%, p < 0.001). Their SLSS was similar at initial examination (mean SLSS 12.9 vs 14.3, p = 0.31) but lower at nadir (mean SLSS 9.25 vs 12.82, p = 0.02) and latest follow-up (mean SLSS 12.5 vs 16.4, p = 0.005) compared with the 28 patients receiving 1 (n = 2) or no (n = 26) doses. In propensity-adjusted analysis, SLSS from initial examination to latest follow-up decreased by 0.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.8 to +1.4) in fluoxetine-treated patients and increased by 2.5 (95% CI +0.7 to +4.4) in untreated patients ( p = 0.015)., Conclusion: Fluoxetine was well-tolerated. Fluoxetine was preferentially given to patients with AFM with EV-D68 identified and more severe paralysis at nadir, who ultimately had poorer long-term outcomes., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with EV-D68-associated AFM, fluoxetine is well-tolerated and not associated with improved neurologic outcomes., (© 2018 American Academy of Neurology.)