Objective:To understand the epidemiological characteristics and risk factors of fatal cases of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) in children under 5 years old in China from 2008 to 2018, and provide evidence for the development of targeted prevention and control measures and reduction of the incidence of fatal HFMD cases.Methods:The incidence data of reported HFMD cases in China during 2008-2018 were collected from the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance Reporting System of China for the analyses on the demographic characteristics, spatial distribution, diagnosis or reporting and pathogen spectrum of the HFMD cases. Then the risk factors causing deaths were analyzed by using logistic regression model.Results:From 2008 to 2018, a total of 3 646 fatal cases of HFMD in children under 5 years old were reported in China. There were more fatal HFMD cases in boys than in girls (1.82∶1), the death mainly occurred in age group 0 to 2 years (87.71%). Adjusted mortality rate of HFMD in children under 5 years old in China declined from 0.87 per 100 000 in 2010 to 0.11 per 100 000 in 2018 (APC=-23.20%). In the 2 523 laboratory-confirmed deaths, 2 323 (92.07%) were EV-A71 infections, but the constituents of CV-A16 and other enterovirus infections increased. The interval from onset to diagnosis M=2( P25-P75:2 -4)d. The interval from onset to death M=3( P25-P75:2 -4)d. Age between 0 and 1 years, EV-A71 infection, longer interval between onset and diagnosis, and living in rural area were the risk factors causing fatal HFMD cases. Conclusions:The number of the fatal cases, the rate of mortality and case fatality HFMD in China had shown downward trends since 2010. EV-A71 is still the main pathogen causing fatal cases, but we should pay more attention to gene pattern of the other enteroviruses except EV-A71 and CV-A16. To reduce the risk of the fatal cases we should strengthen the health education about the immunization of EV-A71 inactivated vaccines and reduce the interval from onset to diagnosis in young children in western provinces and rural areas.

Objective:To analyze the clinical application of different diagnostic methods for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients.Methods:It was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Uremia patients who underwent hemodialysis at Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from July 2020 to June 2021 were enrolled. The demographic characteristics, laboratory indicators, and echocardiography parameters were collected. The 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria, H 2FPEF score [composite score based on weighted scores of heavy (H), hypertensive (H), atrial fibrillation (F), pulmonary hypertension (P), elder (E), and filling pressure (F)], and Heart Failure Association (HFA) -PEFF score [including pre-test assessment (P), echocardiography and natriuretic peptide score (E), functional testing (F) and final aetiology (F)] were used to diagnose HFpEF, respectively, and the difference of three diagnostic methods was compared. The association between HFpEF diagnosed by the three methods and poor outcomes (all-cause death, cardiovascular death) was analyzed. Results:A total of 160 MHD patients were included, whose age was (58.5±13.4) years, median dialysis age was 5.0 (2.3, 9.6) years, median H 2FPEF score was 2 (1, 3), median HFA-PEFF score was 4 (3, 5), and 92 (57.5%) were males. Of these patients, 118 patients (73.8%) met the 2016 ESC criteria for diagnosis of HFpEF, 4 (2.5%) met H 2FPEF score for diagnosis of HFpEF, and 56 (35.0%) met HFA-PEFF score for diagnosis of HFpEF. The consistency of three methods in diagnosing HFpEF was poor with κ values of 0.018 between ESC criteria and H 2FPEF score, 0.322 between ESC criteria and HFA-PEFF score, and 0.056 between H 2FPEF score and HFA-PEFF score. After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 20 (12.5%) of the 160 MHD patients died. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a significant difference in mortality between patients diagnosed with HFpEF and those without using the H 2FPEF score (Log-rank test, χ2=6.95, P=0.008). After adjusting for demographic and clinical parameters, multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that HFpEF diagnosed by HFA-PEFF score was associated with all-cause mortality ( HR=2.73, 95% CI 1.07-6.98, P=0.036) and cardiovascular mortality ( HR=4.77, 95% CI 1.31-17.30, P=0.018). Conclusions:The 2016 ESC criteria, H 2FPEF score, and HFA-PEFF score have high heterogeneity and poor consistency in diagnosing HFpEF in MHD patients. Among the three diagnostic methods, only the diagnosis based on HFA-PEFF score is associated with the prognosis of MHD patients. The HFA-PEFF score can be used to assess the risk of HFpEF in MHD patients, and more clinical studies are needed to further verify it in the future.