Encephalitis is brain parenchyma inflammation, frequently resulting in seizures which worsens outcomes. Early anti-seizure medication could improve outcomes but requires identifying patients at greatest risk of acute seizures. The SEIZURE (SEIZUre Risk in Encephalitis) score was developed in UK cohorts to stratify patients by acute seizure risk. A ‘basic score’ used Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), fever and age; the ‘advanced score’ added aetiology. This study aimed to evaluate the score internationally to determine its global applicability.

Patients were retrospectively analysed regionally, and by country, in this international evaluation study. Univariate analysis was conducted between patients who did and did not have inpatient seizures, followed by multivariable logistic regression, hierarchical clustering and analysis of the area under the receiver operating curves (AUROC) with 95% CIs.

2032 patients across 13 countries were identified, among whom 1324 were included in SEIZURE score calculations and 970 were included in regression modelling. The involved countries comprised 19 organisations spanning all WHO regions.

The primary outcome was measuring inpatient seizure rates.

Autoantibody-associated encephalitis, low GCS and presenting with a seizure were frequently associated with inpatient seizures; fever showed no association. Globally, the score had limited discriminatory ability (basic AUROC 0.58 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.62), advanced AUROC 0.63 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.66)). The scoring system performed acceptably in western Europe, excluding Spain, with the best performance in Portugal (basic AUROC 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.94), advanced AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.95)).

The SEIZURE score performed best in several countries in Western Europe but performed poorly elsewhere, partly due to differing and unknown aetiologies. In most regions, the score did not reach a threshold to be clinically useful. The Western European results could aid in designing clinical trials assessing primary anti-seizure prophylaxis in encephalitis following further prospective trials. Beyond Western Europe, there is a need for tailored, localised scoring systems and future large-scale prospective studies with optimised aetiological testing to accurately identify high-risk patients.

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a broad range of diseases associated with abnormalities/degeneration of retinal cells. We aimed to identify the top 10 Australian research priorities for IRDs to ultimately facilitate more meaningful and potentially cost-effective research.

We conducted a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership that involved two Australian-wide surveys and online workshops.

Australia-wide.

Individuals aged 16 years or older were eligible to participate if they had an IRD, were caregivers of an individual with an IRD or were health professionals providing care to this community.

In Survey 1, we gathered participants’ unanswered questions about IRDs. We grouped these into summary questions and undertook a literature review to verify if they were truly unanswered (ie, evidence uncertainties). In Survey 2, participants voted for the uncertainties that they considered a priority. Top-ranked uncertainties progressed for discussion and final prioritisation in two workshops.

In Survey 1, we collected 223 questions from 69 participants. We grouped these into 42 summary questions and confirmed 41 as evidence uncertainties. In Survey 2, 151 participants voted, with the 16 uncertainties progressing to final prioritisation. The top 10 priorities, set by the 24 workshop participants, represented (1) treatment/cure; (2) symptoms and disease progression; (3) psychosocial well-being and (4) health service delivery. The #1 priority was for treatment to prevent, slow down or stop vision loss, followed by the #2 priority to address the psychological impact of having an IRD.

The top 10 research priorities highlight the need for IRD research that takes a whole-person, systems approach. Collaborations to progress priorities will accelerate the translation of research into real-world benefits.

To estimate type 2 diabetes incidence trends by sex and socioeconomic position (SEP) and evaluate trends in SEP-related inequalities in incidence.

Ecological study using ambulatory claims data and regression-based modelling.

All 401 counties in Germany, covering the entire country.

All individuals with statutory health insurance (~85% of the population). Incident cases of type 2 diabetes were identified annually from 2014 to 2019 using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision codes.

Incident type 2 diabetes at the county level, adjusted for age and modelled using a mixed negative binomial regression. SEP was measured using the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation, and a random intercept accounted for county-level heterogeneity.

The incidence of type 2 diabetes decreased between 2014 and 2017 and plateaued thereafter. Trends were similar between sexes and deprivation levels. The greatest difference was observed between high and low deprivation, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.20 (95% CI: 1.14 to 1.27) among men and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.14 to 1.27) among women in 2014.

There was a positive trend in the decline in age-adjusted type 2 diabetes incidence between 2014 and 2019. However, social inequality persisted with deprived groups at higher risk of type 2 diabetes. The level of inequality was comparable between men and women. Continued monitoring is essential to assess whether these short-term trends persist over time.