The incidence of Kawasaki disease using hospital admissions data for England 2006-2021

To describe the incidence of Kawasaki Disease (kDa) between 2006 and 2021 in England. We identified all cases in hospital episode statistics with an ICD-10 diagnostic code M303 (for kDa) between 1 April 2006 - 31 March 2021. We validated 83 diagnoses using hospital medical records and found >97% accuracy. We calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using Poisson regression and assessed the influence of age, sex, ethnicity, and index of multiple deprivation (IMD). We used Office for National Statistics population estimates for England as the denominator. We identified a total of 5908 cases of kDa in all children under the age of 16 (mean age 3.8, SD = 3.2, 95% CI: 3.7-3.9). Incidence in children aged <5 years was 8.9 (95% CI: 8.6-9.2)/100 000 person-years; in children aged 5-9, 2.4 (95% CI: 2.3-2.6)/100 000 person-years; and in children aged 10-15, 0.6 (95% CI: 0.6-0.7). Male: female ratio was 1.5:1. Incidence was higher among non-White than White ethnicities (adjusted IRR 2.1 (2.0-2.2) for Asian, 3.0 (2.8-3.3) for Black and 4.5 (4.2-4.8) for other ethnicities). The incidence increased with socioeconomic deprivation; the adjusted IRR of the least deprived IMD quintile compared with the most deprived quintile was 0.81 (0.77-0.84). Incidence rates of kDa derived from hospital admission data in England were higher than in studies relying on clinician reporting. We confirm previous findings on the influence of sex, and ethnicity on kDa incidence and observe that there was a higher incidence of kDa within more deprived socioeconomic groups

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Psychometric properties of the brisbane burn scar impact profile in adults with burn scars

Objectiv

Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn : a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models

Optimal burn scar management has the potential to markedly improve the lives of children, but can require substantial healthcare resources. The study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of three scar management interventions: pressure garment; topical silicone gel; combined pressure garment and topical silicone gel therapy, alongside a randomised controlled trial of these interventions. Participants were children (n = 153) referred for burn scar management following grafting, spontaneous healing after acute burn injury, or reconstructive surgery. Healthcare resource use was costed from a health service perspective (6-months post-burn time-horizon). The mean total scar management cost was lowest in the topical silicone gel group ($382.87 (95$337.72, $443.29)) compared to the pressure garment ($1327.02 (95% CI $1081.46,$1659.95)) and combined intervention $1605.97 ($1077.65, $2694.23)) groups. There were no significant between-group differences in Quality Adjusted Life Year estimates. There was a 70% probability that topical silicone gel dominated pressure garment therapy (was cheaper and more effective), a 29% probability that pressure garment therapy dominated combined therapy, and a 63% probability that topical silicone gel dominated combined therapy. In conclusion, topical silicone gel was the cheaper intervention, and may be favoured in the absence of clear clinical effect favouring pressure garment therapy or a combination of these management approaches. Trial registration: ACTRN12616001100482 (prospectively registered).</p

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Abnormal scar development following burn injury can cause substantial physical and psychological distress to children and their families. Common burn scar prevention and management techniques include silicone therapy, pressure garment therapy, or a combination of both. Currently, no definitive, high-quality evidence is available for the effectiveness of topical silicone gel or pressure garment therapy for the prevention and management of burn scars in the paediatric population. Thus, this study aims to determine the effectiveness of these treatments in children. Methods A randomised controlled trial will be conducted at a large tertiary metropolitan children’s hospital in Australia. Participants will be randomised to one of three groups: Strataderm® topical silicone gel only, pressure garment therapy only, or combined Strataderm® topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy. Participants will include 135 children (45 per group) up to 16 years of age who are referred for scar management for a new burn. Children up to 18 years of age will also be recruited following surgery for burn scar reconstruction. Primary outcomes are scar itch intensity and scar thickness. Secondary outcomes include scar characteristics (e.g. colour, pigmentation, pliability, pain), the patient’s, caregiver’s and therapist’s overall opinion of the scar, health service costs, adherence, health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction and adverse effects. Measures will be completed on up to two sites per person at baseline and 1 week post scar management commencement, 3 months and 6 months post burn, or post burn scar reconstruction. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses. Discussion Results of this study will determine the effectiveness of three noninvasive scar interventions in children at risk of, and with, scarring post burn or post reconstruction

Fostering patient uptake of recommended health services and self-management strategies for musculoskeletal conditions: a Delphi study of clinician attributes

Introduction: Successful management of musculoskeletal conditions depends on active patient engagement and uptake of recommended health services and self-management strategies. Clinicians have a strong influence on patient uptake behaviours. Both clinicians and educators need to recognise the clinician's influence on patient uptake as a specific clinical skillset to be professionally developed. To inform professional development strategies this study explored priority clinician attributes that underpin the clinical skillset of fostering patient uptake. Methods: A three-round Delphi process engaged relevant stakeholders including a professional panel (clinicians, health managers, education providers) and a patient panel. Panel members deliberated and reached consensus regarding key attributes required by allied health clinicians who manage patients with musculoskeletal disorders to optimize patient uptake behaviours. In the final round, panel members rated the importance of each attribute on a numerical rating scale. Results: Overall 12 attributes were finalised. Both the professional and the patient panel provided a high rating of importance for all finalised attributes with ‘patient centred communication’ rated the highest importance (median scores 9.5–10/10) and ‘contemporary electronics and media’ rated the lowest (median scores 6–7/10). Conclusions: There appears to be agreement on a basic inventory of clinician attributes which positively influence patient uptake when managing musculoskeletal conditions. Professional development and training programs for clinicians managing musculoskeletal conditions may need to consider discipline relevant aspects of these attributes to advance the development of clinicians in this aspect of professional practice to attain better patient outcomes

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children 12-months postburn: A parallel group randomised controlled trial

Objective: The longer-term effectiveness of silicone and pressure burn scar interventions was evaluated at 12-months postburn. Design: Parallel group, randomised trial. Setting: Hospital outpatient clinics, research centre. Participants: Children referred for burn scar management following grafted or spontaneously healed acute burn injuries or scar reconstruction surgery. Interventions: Participants were randomised to: (1) topical silicone gel only, (2) pressure garment only, or (3) combined topical silicone gel and pressure garment. Main measures: Primary outcomes were scar thickness (blinded ultrasound measurement) and itch intensity (caregiver proxy-report, numeric rating scale). Results: Of 153 participants randomised who received the interventions (silicone n = 51, pressure garment n = 49, combined n = 53), 86 were followed-up at 12-months postburn (n = 34, n = 28, n = 24). No differences were identified for the primary outcomes using intention-to-treat analysis. Scar thickness mean difference (95% confidence interval) = 0.00 cm (−0.04, 0.05); −0.03 cm (−0.07, 0.02); 0.03 cm (−0.02, 0.08) and scar itch = 0.09 (−0.88, 1.06); −0.21 (−1.21, 0.79); 0.30 (−0.73, 1.32) for silicone vs pressure; silicone vs combined and combined vs pressure respectively. No serious adverse effects occurred. Conclusion: Similar to short-term results, the combined intervention offered no statistically or clinically significant benefit for improving the primary outcomes compared to each intervention alone. No differences in the primary outcomes were identified between the silicone and pressure alone groups.</p

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of silicone and pressure garments (alone and in combination) in children receiving scar management post-burn. Design: Multicentre, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Hospital outpatient clinics, colocated research centre, or the participant’s home. Participants: Children (0–18 years) referred for burn scar management. Interventions: Participants were randomized to (1) topical silicone gel only, (2) pressure garment therapy only, or (3) combined topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy. Main measures: Primary outcomes included scar thickness and itch intensity at the primary end-point of six months post-burn injury. The outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded for scar thickness. Results: Participants (N = 153; silicone n = 51, pressure n = 49, combined n = 53) had a median (inter-quartile range) age of 4.9 (1.6, 10.2) years and percent total body surface area burn of 1% (0.5%, 3%) and were 65% male. At six months post-burn injury, intention-to-treat analysis identified thinner scars in the silicone (n = 51 scar sites) compared to the combined group (n = 48 scar sites; mean difference (95% confidence interval) = –0.04 cm (–0.07, –0.00), P = 0.05). No other between-group differences were identified for scar thickness or itch intensity at six months post-burn. Conclusion: No difference was identified in the effectiveness of silicone and pressure interventions alone. No benefit to a combined silicone and pressure intervention was identified for the prevention and management of abnormal scarring in children at six months post-burn injury, compared to the silicone or pressure interventions alone.</p

Correlations between changes in BBSIP items and changes in SF-36 dimensions between baseline and 1-month follow-up^a.

<p>Correlations between changes in BBSIP items and changes in SF-36 dimensions between baseline and 1-month follow-up<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0184452#t003fn001" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p