METHODS: On 24 July 2020, 13 dermatologists from 10 countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, the UK and the USA) attended a workshop to share experiences in managing patients with GPP. Educational needs and clinical practice gaps grouped according to healthcare system level were discussed and ranked using interactive polling.
RESULTS: Lack of experience of GPP among HCPs was identified as an important individual HCP-level clinical practice gap. Limited understanding of the presentation and pathogenesis of GPP among non-specialists means misdiagnosis is common, delaying referral and treatment. In countries where patients may present to general practitioners or emergency department HCPs, GPP is often mistaken for an infection. Among dermatologists who can accurately diagnose GPP, limited knowledge of treatments may necessitate referral to a colleague with more experience in GPP. At the organisational level, important needs identified were educating emergency department HCPs to recognise GPP as an autoinflammatory disease and improving communication, cooperation and definitions of roles within multidisciplinary teams supporting patients with GPP. At the regulatory level, robust clinical trial data, clear and consistent treatment guidelines and approved therapies were identified as high priorities.
CONCLUSIONS: The educational imperative most consistently identified across the participating countries is for HCPs to understand that GPP can be life-threatening if appropriate treatment initiation is delayed, and to recognise when to refer patients to a colleague with more experience of GPP management.
RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2020, the EO-derived estimates of all forest-related emissions and removals indicate that Brazil was a net sink of carbon (- 0.2 GtCO2yr-1), while Brazil's NGHGI reported a net carbon source (+ 0.8 GtCO2yr-1). After adjusting the EO estimate to use the Brazilian NGHGI definition of managed forest and other assumptions used in the inventory's methodology, the EO net flux became a source of + 0.6 GtCO2yr-1, comparable to the NGHGI. Remaining discrepancies are due largely to differing carbon removal factors and forest types applied in the two datasets. In Indonesia, the EO and NGHGI net flux estimates were similar (+ 0.6 GtCO2 yr-1), but in Malaysia, they differed in both magnitude and sign (NGHGI: -0.2 GtCO2 yr-1; Global EO: + 0.2 GtCO2 yr-1). Spatially explicit datasets on forest types were not publicly available for analysis from either NGHGI, limiting the possibility of detailed adjustments.
CONCLUSIONS: By adjusting the EO dataset to improve comparability with carbon fluxes estimated for managed forests in the Brazilian NGHGI, initially diverging estimates were largely reconciled and remaining differences can be explained. Despite limited spatial data available for Indonesia and Malaysia, our comparison indicated specific aspects where differing approaches may explain divergence, including uncertainties and inaccuracies. Our study highlights the importance of enhanced transparency, as set out by the Paris Agreement, to enable alignment between different approaches for independent measuring and verification.