Search

Several studies have documented that international adoptees have an increased occurrence of health problems and contacts to the health-care system after arriving to their new country of residence. This may be explained by pre-adoption adversities, especially for the period immediately after adoption. Our study aimed to the assess health-care utilisation of international adoptees in primary and secondary care for somatic and psychiatric diagnoses in a late post-adoption period. Is there an increased use of the health-care system in this period, even when increased morbidity in the group of international adoptees is taken into consideration?This was a Danish register-based cohort study examining health-care utilisation in a multivariable two-part model. The prevalence of selected outcomes and the quantity of use were assessed in a late (year three, four and five) post-adoption period. The cohort comprised internationally adopted children (n = 6,820), adopted between 1994 and 2005, and all non-adopted children (n = 492,374) who could be matched with the adopted children on sex, age, municipality and family constellation at the time of adoption.International adoption increased the use of all services in primary care, while in secondary care only few areas showed an increased long-term morbidity.International adoptees use medical services in primary care at a higher rate than non-adoptees some years after adoption. Excess use of services in secondary care is also present, but only exists in selected areas.none.not relevant.

To assess the effectiveness of an intervention in Type 2 diabetic patients with concurrent psychiatric illness (PI) and compare this with the effectiveness in patients without PI.In the Diabetes Care in General Practice trial, 1381 patients newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes were randomized to 6 years of structured personal diabetes care or routine diabetes care (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01074762). In this observational post-hoc analysis, the effectiveness of the intervention for diabetes in 179 patients with concurrent PI was analyzed.During the 19-year follow-up period, patients with PI in the structured personal care group experienced a lower risk for all-cause mortality [105.3 vs. 140.4 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio (HR): 0.63, P=0.023, multivariably adjusted], diabetes-related death (66.0 vs. 95.1; HR: 0.57, P=0.015), any diabetes-related endpoint (169.5 vs. 417.5; HR: 0.47, P=0.0009) and myocardial infarction (54.1 vs. 104.4; HR: 0.48, P=0.013), compared to patients with PI in the routine care group. This translates into a number needed to treat over 10 years of three or lower for these outcomes.These findings suggest that in primary care, structured diabetes care allowing for individualization was highly effective among diabetic patients with co-occurring PI.

Nutritional intake is often compromised in elderly, multimorbid patients. Enteral nutrition (EN) by means of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and tube feeding (TF) offers the possibility to increase or to insure nutrient intake in case of insufficient oral food intake. The present guideline is intended to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of ONS and TF in geriatric patients. It was developed by an interdisciplinary expert group in accordance with officially accepted standards and is based on all relevant publications since 1985. The guideline was discussed and accepted in a consensus conference. EN by means of ONS is recommended for geriatric patients at nutritional risk, in case of multimorbidity and frailty, and following orthopaedic-surgical procedures. In elderly people at risk of undernutrition ONS improve nutritional status and reduce mortality. After orthopaedic-surgery ONS reduce unfavourable outcome. TF is clearly indicated in patients with neurologic dysphagia. In contrast, TF is not indicated in final disease states, including final dementia, and in order to facilitate patient care. Altogether, it is strongly recommended not to wait until severe undernutrition has developed, but to start EN therapy early, as soon as a nutritional risk becomes apparent.

Blood eosinophilia (≥0.5 × 10(9) /l) may be an early sign of hematological malignancy. We investigated associations between levels of blood eosinophils and risks of hematological malignancies and mortality in order to provide clinically derived cut-offs for referral to specialist hematology care. From the Copenhagen Primary Care Differential Count (CopDiff) Database, we identified 356,196 individuals with at least one differential cell count encompassing the eosinophil count during 2000-2007 and matched these laboratory data with Danish nationwide health registers. We used multivariable logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for the 4-year incidences of hematological malignancies and mortality between the eosinophil counts and a reference count of 0.16 × 10(9) /l which was the median eosinophil count in our data. Risks of hematological malignancies and mortality increased above the median eosinophil count. At the 99th percentile, corresponding to an eosinophil count of 0.75 × 10(9) /l, risks of hematological malignancies were increased more than twofold with OR (95% C.I.) of 2.39 (1.91-2.99). Interestingly, risks reached a plateau around an eosinophil count of 1.0 × 10(9) /l. Risks also increased when the eosinophil count approached zero. Here, counts associated relatively more with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes whereas counts above 0.16 × 10(9) /l associated more with myeloproliferative neoplasms. Eosinophil counts associate with hematological malignancies and mortality even below the definition of eosinophilia. The observed plateau of risks around 1.0 × 10(9) /l is important for physicians encountering patients with eosinophilia since even mild-to-moderate eosinophilia according to traditional definitions confers maximally increased risks of subsequent/subclinical hematological malignancy.

IASS Study

Healing of heel ulcers in patients with diabetes is considered to be poor, but there is relatively little information on the influence of ulcer location on ulcer healing.The influence of ulcer location on time to healing of diabetic foot ulcers was analysed by multivariate Cox regression analysis for 1000 patients included in the Eurodiale study, a prospective cohort study of patients with diabetic foot disease.Median time to healing was 147 days for toe ulcers [(95% confidence interval (CI) 135-159 days)], 188 days for midfoot ulcers (95% CI 158-218 days) and 237 days for heel ulcers (95% CI 205-269 days) (p 0.01). The median time to healing for plantar ulcers was 172 days (95% CI 157-187 days) and 155 days (95% CI 138-172 days) for nonplantar ulcers (p = 0.71). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, the hazard ratio for ulcer healing for midfoot and heel ulcers compared with toe ulcers was 0.77 (95% CI 0.64-0.92) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.47-0.83), respectively; the hazard ratio for ulcer healing for plantar versus nonplantar ulcers was 1 (95% CI 0.84-1.19). Other factors significantly influencing time to healing were the duration of diabetes, ulcer duration, the presence of heart failure and the presence of peripheral arterial disease.Time to ulcer healing increased progressively from toe to midfoot to heel, but did not differ between plantar and nonplantar ulcers. Our data also indicate that risk factors for longer time to healing differ from factors that affect the ultimate number of ulcers that heal (healing rate).