Explore the vast range of titles available.

MRI of her right elbow showed diffuse signal intensity in the subcutaneous fat and superficial myofascial planes consistent with cellulitis. After 3 weeks, right elbow skin biopsy acid-fast cultures became positive for M tuberculosis and a diagnosis of miliary tuberculosis was made.

During the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, reports of a new multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) have been increasing in Europe and the United States (1-3). Clinical features in children have varied but predominantly include shock, cardiac dysfunction, abdominal pain, and elevated inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, D-dimer, and interleukin-6 (1). Since June 2020, several case reports have described a similar syndrome in adults; this review describes in detail nine patients reported to CDC, seven from published case reports, and summarizes the findings in 11 patients described in three case series in peer-reviewed journals (4-6). These 27 patients had cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, dermatologic, and neurologic symptoms without severe respiratory illness and concurrently received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or antibody assays indicating recent infection. Reports of these patients highlight the recognition of an illness referred to here as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A), the heterogeneity of clinical signs and symptoms, and the role for antibody testing in identifying similar cases among adults. Clinicians and health departments should consider MIS-A in adults with compatible signs and symptoms. These patients might not have positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test results, and antibody testing might be needed to confirm previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of the temporal association between MIS-A and SARS-CoV-2 infections, interventions that prevent COVID-19 might prevent MIS-A. Further research is needed to understand the pathogenesis and long-term effects of this newly described condition.

Abstract Background The value of positive follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs) in streptococcal bacteremia has not been well defined. Therefore, we explored the frequency of and risk factors for positive FUBC in a retrospective cohort of patients with streptococcal bacteremia. Methods Adults ≥18 years of age, admitted with at least 1 positive blood culture for Streptococcus spp between 2013 and 2018 followed by at least 1 FUBC, were potentially eligible. Positive FUBCs were defined as cultures positive for the same streptococcal species drawn >24 hours after the index culture. We excluded patients with polymicrobial bacteremia. We compared the characteristics of patients with and without a positive FUBC. Results In our single-center cohort, we identified 590 patients with streptococcal bacteremia, and 314 patients met inclusion criteria. Ten patients had FUBC with Streptococcus spp (3.2%), 4 (1.3%) had a contaminant identified, and 3 (1.0%) had a new pathogen isolated. Endocarditis (5 of 10 [50.0%] vs 35 of 304 [11.5%]), epidural abscess (2 of 10 [20%] vs 4 of 304 [1.3%]), and discitis or vertebral osteomyelitis (3 of 10 [30.0%] vs 14 of 304 [4.6%]) were associated with positive FUBC. Patients with positive FUBC had a longer median length of stay (12.9 vs 7.1 days, P = .004) and longer duration of antibiotic treatment (14.9 vs 43.2 days, P = .03). Conclusions Follow-up blood cultures among patients with streptococcal BSI are rarely positive. Clinicians could consider limiting follow-up blood cultures in patients at low risk for deep-seated streptococcal infections, persistent bacteremia, or endovascular infection. Patients with streptococcal bacteremia infrequently have positive follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs). Endocarditis, epidural abscess, and discitis or vertebral osteomyelitis are associated with positive FUBC. Clinicians should consider limiting orders for FUBC when patients have low risk for severe streptococcal infections.