Priorities for content for a short-course on postoperative care relevant for low- and middle-income countries: an e-Delphi process with training facilitators

Most surgical and anaesthetic mortality and morbidity occurs postoperatively, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries. Various short courses have been developed to improve patient outcomes in low- and middle-income countries, but none specifically to address postoperative care and complications. We aimed to identify key features of a proposed short-course addressing this topic using a Delphi process with low- and middle-income country anaesthesia providers trained as short-course facilitators. An initial questionnaire was co-developed from literature review and exploratory workshops to include 108 potential course features. Features included content; teaching method; appropriate participants; and appropriate faculty. Over three Delphi rounds (panellists numbered 86, 64 and 35 in successive cycles), panellists indicated which features they considered most important. Responses were analysed by geographical regions: Africa, the Americas, south-east Asia and Western Pacific. Ultimately, panellists identified 60, 40 and 54 core features for the proposed course in each region, respectively. There were high levels of consensus within regions on what constituted core course content, but not between regions. All panellists preferred the small group workshop teaching method irrespective of region. All regions considered anaesthetists to be key facilitators, while all agreed that both anaesthetists and operating theatre nurses were key participants. The African and Americas regional panels recommended more multidisciplinary healthcare professionals for participant roles. Faculty from high-income countries were not considered high priority. Our study highlights variability between geographical regions as to which course features were perceived as most locally relevant, supporting regional adaptation of short-course design rather than a one-size-fits-all model.     

Obstetric analgesia and anaesthesia in SARS-CoV-2-positive parturients across 10 maternity units in the north-west of England: a retrospective cohort study

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have reported anaesthetic outcomes in parturients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We reviewed the labour analgesic and anaesthetic interventions utilised in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients who had a confirmed positive test for SARS-CoV-2 across 10 hospitals in the north-west of England between 1 April 2020 and 31 May 2021. Primary outcomes analysed included the analgesic/anaesthetic technique utilised for labour and caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of maternal characteristics, caesarean birth rate, maternal critical care admission rate along with adverse composite neonatal outcomes. A positive SARS-CoV-2 test was recorded in 836 parturients with 263 (31.4%) reported to have symptoms of COVID-19. Neuraxial labour analgesia was utilised in 104 (20.4%) of the 509 parturients who went on to have a vaginal birth. No differences in epidural analgesia rates were observed between symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.64–1.67; p = 0.90). The neuraxial anaesthesia rate in 310 parturients who underwent caesarean delivery was 94.2% (95%CI 90.6–96.0%). The rates of general anaesthesia were similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients (6% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.52). Symptomatic parturients were more likely to be multiparous (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.19–2.22; p = 0.002); of Asian ethnicity (OR 1.54, 1.04–2.28; p = 0.03); to deliver prematurely (OR 2.16, 95%CI 1.47–3.19; p = 0.001); have a higher caesarean birth rate (44.5% vs. 33.7%; OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.16–2.12; p = 0.008); and a higher critical care utilisation rate both pre- (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.001) and post-delivery (11% vs. 3.5%; OR 3.43, 95%CI 1.83–6.52; p = 0.001). Eight neonates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 while no differences in adverse composite neonatal outcomes were observed between those born to symptomatic and asymptomatic mothers (25.8% vs. 23.8%; OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.78–1.57; p = 0.55). In women with COVID-19, non-neuraxial analgesic regimens were commonly utilised for labour while neuraxial anaesthesia was employed for the majority of caesarean births. Symptomatic women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of significant maternal morbidity including preterm birth, caesarean birth and peripartum critical care admission.     

Pathophysiology and management of sensitive skin: position paper from the special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI)

The special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch previously defined sensitive skin as a syndrome defined by the occurrence of unpleasant sensations (stinging, burning, pain, pruritus and tingling sensations) in response to stimuli that normally should not provoke such sensations. This additional paper focuses on the pathophysiology and the management of sensitive skin. Sensitive skin is not an immunological disorder but is related to alterations of the skin nervous system. Skin barrier abnormalities are frequently associated, but there is no cause and direct relationship. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of sensitive skin – as well as the inducing factors. Avoidance of possible triggering factors and the use of well-tolerated cosmetics, especially those containing inhibitors of unpleasant sensations, might be suggested for patients with sensitive skin. The role of psychosocial factors, such as stress or negative expectations, might be relevant for subgroups of patients. To date, there is no clinical trial supporting the use of topical or systemic drugs in sensitive skin. The published data are not sufficient to reach a consensus on sensitive skin management. In general, patients with sensitive skin require a personalized approach, taking into account various biomedical, neural and psychosocial factors affecting sensitive skin.     

Family history of cancer and subsequent risk of cancer: A large-scale population-based prospective study in Japan

Family history (FH) of cancer is an important factor of increased risk of several cancers. Although the association between FH of cancer and concordant cancer risk has been reported in many previous epidemiological studies, no comprehensive prospective study with adjustment for lifestyle habits has evaluated the association of FH of cancer and concordant cancer risk. We investigated the association between FH of cancer and concordant cancer risk in a Japanese population-based prospective study, initiated in 1990 for cohort I and in 1993 for cohort II. We analyzed data on 103,707 eligible subjects without a history of cancer who responded to a self-administered questionnaire including FH of cancer at baseline. Study subjects were followed through 2012 and analyzed using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. During 1,802,581 person-years of follow-up, a total of 16,336 newly diagnosed cancers were identified. Any site (Hazard ratios = 1.11 (95% confidence interval = 1.07–1.15]), esophagus (2.11 [1.00–4.45]), stomach (1.36 [1.19–1.55]), liver (1.69 [1.10–2.61]), pancreas (2.63 [1.45–4.79]), lung (1.51 [1.14–2.00]), uterus (1.93 [1.06–3.51]) and bladder cancers (6.06 [2.49–14.74]) with FH of the concordant cancer were associated with an increased risk compared to those without FH. Our findings suggest that having FH of cancer is associated with an increased risk of several concordant cancer incidences in an Asian population. Enquiring about FH of several types of cancer may be important in identifying groups at high-risk of those cancers.