RESUMEN

objectivesto assess the prevalence of COVID-19 (PCR-test) in residents and staff of a nursing home. To examine the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies in the sample and the relation between PCR and antibody test results. designcross-sectional and (retrospective) cohort study settinga nursing home for the elderly Bessemerberg in Lanaken (Belgium) with up to 130 beds. Lanaken is situated in the Belgian province with the highest COVID-19 prevalence. participantsresidents (N=108) and staff members (N=93) of the nursing home outcomesPCR, IgM and IgG resultsthe prevalence of COVID-19, based on PCR test was 34% (N=40) for residents and 13% (N=11) for staff members, respectively. Of the residents, 13% showed positive IgM results and 15% positive IgG results. In 17% of the residents, at least one of the antibodies was positive. In total 13% of the staff members had positive IgM and 16% had a positive IgG. In 20% of the staff members at least one of these antibody tests was positive. In PCR positive residents, the percentage of IgM positive, IgG positive, and at least one of both was 28%, 34%, and 41%. In PCR positive staff, we found 30%, 60%, and 60%. Additional antibody tests were performed in nine residents between day 11 and 14 after the positive PCR test. Of those, 7 (78%) tested positive on at least one antibody. When retesting three weeks later, all remaining residents also tested positive. conclusionsRecently it was reported that in Belgium antibodies are present in 3-4% of the general population. Although, the prevalence in our residents is higher, the number is largely insufficient for herd immunity. In staff members of the regional hospital the prevalence of antibodies was 6%. The higher prevalence in nursing home staff (21%) may be related to the complete absence of good quality protection in the first weeks of the outbreak. Article summaryO_LSTStrengths and limitations of this studyC_LST- This is the first study in Belgium examining the prevalence of COVID-19 and the presence of antibodies in residents and staff members of a nursing home - The internal procedural control was positive -with one exception- in all tests, which suggests good quality sampling and testing. - Some degree of selection bias should be assumed in residents, since some residents were absent; mostly from hospitalisation or death which can be related to the presence of COVID-related disease. - The study was set up in one nursing home and is consequently not representative for the whole of the Flemish community

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Associations between type 2 diabetic patients and a higher risk of developing cancer have been reported worldwide. Recently, a protective effect of metformin has been described. AIM: To examine in the Belgian primary care population the relation between presence of type 2 diabetes with and without metformin treatment and the occurrence of malignancies. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective cohort study, based on the Intego database, an ongoing Belgian general practice-based morbidity registry, covering 90 general practitioners and including about 1.5 million patient-years between 1994 and 2008. METHOD: Cox proportional hazard analysis comparing emergence of malignancy in patients with and without type 2 diabetes, and among patients with diabetes comparing emergence of malignancy in those treated with various antidiabetic drugs. RESULTS: Malignancies occurred more in type 2 diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic controls (HR=1.84; 95% CI=1.51-2.24), adjusted for age, gender and weight. Treatment with both metformin and 'other' antidiabetic agents was related to decreased cancer risk (HR=0.24 and 0.22) compared to diet only in men but not in women. CONCLUSION: In this Belgian primary care setting, diabetic patients have higher cancer prevalences than non-diabetic patients. Moreover, in diabetic men, not only metformin but also other antidiabetic agents were associated with lower cancer risks.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: A clinical trial, "Belgian Improvement Study on Oral Anticoagulation Therapy (BISOAT)," significantly improved the quality after implementing four different quality-improving interventions in four randomly divided groups of general practitioners (GPs). The quality-improving interventions consisted of multifaceted education with or without feedback reports on their performance, international normalized ratio (INR) testing by the GP with a CoaguChek device or computer-assisted advice for adapting oral anticoagulation therapy. The quality improvement in INR control versus baseline was similar in the four groups. The aim of the current study was to calculate the cost-effectiveness and influencing factors of the four quality-improving interventions compared with usual care. METHODS: Activity-based costing techniques with questionnaires were used to determine the global costs per patient per month in the different intervention groups. Effectiveness data were obtained from the BISOAT study. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per additional day within a 0.5 range from INR target. RESULTS: The one-time cost of multifaceted education was 49,997 euro for the whole study. Monthly continuous costs per intervention ranged between 37 euro and 54 euro per patient. Using the CoaguChek in combination with the multifaceted education was associated with net savings and quality improvement, hence dominated usual care. Sensitivity analyses showed improved cost-effectiveness with extended duration and with increased program size. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the combination multifaceted education with the use of the CoaguChek is a cost-effective new organizational model of oral anticoagulation management in general practice.

Asunto(s)