Fever remains an integral part of acute infectious diseases management, especially for those without effective therapeutics, but the widespread myths about "fevers" and the presence of confusing guidelines from different agencies, which have heightened during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and are open to alternate interpretation, could deny whole populations the benefits of fever. Guidelines suggesting antipyresis for 37.8-39°C fever are concerning as 39°C boosts the protective heat-shock and immune response (humoral, cell-mediated, and nutritional) whereas ≥40°C initiates/enhances the antiviral responses and restricts high-temperature adapted pathogens, e.g., severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), strains of influenza, and measles. Urgent attention is accordingly needed to address the situation because of the potential public health consequences of the existence of conflicting guidelines in the public domain. We have in this article attempted to restate the benefits of fever in disease resolution, dispel myths, and underline the need for alignment of national treatment guidelines with that of the WHO, to promote appropriate practices and reduce the morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.

Fever is a very common complaint in children and is the single most common non-trauma-related reason for a visit to the emergency department. Parents are concerned about fever and it's potential complications. The biological value of fever (i.e., whether it is beneficial or harmful) is disputed and it is being vigorously treated with the belief of preventing complications such as brain injury and febrile seizures. The practice of alternating antipyretics has become widespread at home and on paediatric wards without supporting scientific evidence. There is still a significant contrast between the current concept and practice, and the scientific evidence. Why is that the case in such a common complaint like fever The article will discuss the significant contrast between the current concepts and practice of fever management on one hand, and the scientific evidence against such concepts and practice.

This chapter reviews the fascinating history of child neurology and neurodisability from amongst its earliest recorded origins, Mesopotamian tablets, through to magnetic resonance imaging. It is the first review of such breadth in this area since Levinson in 1948. As well as covering the traditionally covered areas namely cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and mental retardation, the chapter explores other areas of pediatric neurodisability that have, since Levinson, become mainstream practice and now fall within this area of specialty. These conditions include the autistic spectrum disorders and attention deficit disorder. The dramatic advances in neural imaging and genetics in helping to explain different pediatric neurological conditions are also discussed as well as concepts and understanding concerning recovery from brain damage. The changing epidemiology of neurodisability through effective advances in acute neonatal and pediatric medical care, screening programs and social interventions are also related. Lastly, the fundamental reappraisal of society's attitude toward the disabled following World War II is explored. The lives of the disabled began to be seen to have value, belatedly gaining legal protection against discrimination, gaining dignity, independence, and for the first time being listened to.

No studies have had sufficient size to estimate mortality in children with febrile seizures. We studied mortality after febrile seizures in a large population-based cohort of children in Denmark with up to 28 years of follow-up.

We identified 1 675 643 children born in Denmark between Jan 1, 1977, and Dec 31, 2004, by linking information from nationwide registers for civil service, health, and cause of death. Children were followed up from 3 months of age, until death, emigration, or Aug 31, 2005. We estimated overall and cause-specific mortality after first febrile seizures with survival analyses. Furthermore, we undertook a case-control study nested within the cohort and retrieved information from medical records about febrile seizure and neurological abnormalities for children who died (N=8172) and individually-matched controls (N=40 860).

We identified 8172 children who died, including 232 deaths in 55 215 children with a history of febrile seizures. The mortality rate ratio was 80% higher during the first year (adjusted mortality rate ratio 1.80 [95% CI 1.31-2.40]) and 90% higher during the second year (1.89 [1.27-2.70]) after the first febrile seizure; thereafter it was close to that noted for the general population. 132 of 100 000 children (95% CI 102-163) died within 2 years of a febrile seizure compared with 67 (57-76) deaths per 100 000 children without a history of this disorder. In the nested case-control study, children with simple (</=15 min and no recurrence within 24 h) febrile seizure had a mortality rate similar to that of the background population (adjusted mortality rate ratio 1.09 [95% CI 0.72-1.64]), whereas mortality was increased for those with complex (>15 min or recurrence within 24 h) febrile seizures (1.99 [1.24-3.21]). This finding was partly explained by pre-existing neurological abnormalities and subsequent epilepsy.

Long-term mortality is not increased in children with febrile seizures, but there seems to be a small excess mortality during the 2 years after complex febrile seizures. Parents should be reassured that death after febrile seizures is very rare, even in high-risk children.