Tick-transmitted co-infections among erythema migrans patients in a general practice setting in Norway:a clinical and laboratory follow-up study

Background Erythema migrans (EM) is the most common manifestation of Lyme borreliosis. Here, we examined EM patients in Norwegian general practice to find the proportion exposed to tick-transmitted microorganisms other than Borrelia, and the impact of co-infection on the clinical manifestations and disease duration. Methods Skin biopsies from 139/188 EM patients were analyzed using PCR for Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Rickettsia spp., Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Babesia spp. Follow-up sera from 135/188 patients were analyzed for spotted fever group (SFG) Rickettsia, A. phagocytophilum and Babesia microti antibodies, and tested with PCR if positive. Day 0 sera from patients with fever (8/188) or EM duration of ≥ 21 days (69/188) were analyzed, using PCR, for A. phagocytophilum, Rickettsia spp., Babesia spp. and N. mikurensis. Day 14 sera were tested for TBEV IgG. Results We detected no microorganisms in the skin biopsies nor in the sera of patients with fever or prolonged EM duration. Serological signs of exposure against SFG Rickettsia and A. phagocytophilum were detected in 11/135 and 8/135, respectively. Three patients exhibited both SFG Rickettsia and A. phagocytophilum antibodies, albeit negative PCR. No antibodies were detected against B. microti. 2/187 had TBEV antibodies without prior immunization. There was no significant increase in clinical symptoms or disease duration in patients with possible co-infection. Conclusions Co-infection with N. mikurensis, A. phagocytophilum, SFG Rickettsia, Babesia spp. and TBEV is uncommon in Norwegian EM patients. Despite detecting antibodies against SFG Rickettsia and A. phagocytophilum in some patients, no clinical implications could be demonstrated

Independence, institutionalization, death and treatment costs 18 months after rehabilitation of older people in two different primary health care settings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The optimal setting and content of primary health care rehabilitation of older people is not known. Our aim was to study independence, institutionalization, death and treatment costs 18 months after primary care rehabilitation of older people in two different settings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eighteen months follow-up of an open, prospective study comparing the outcome of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation of older people, in a structured and intensive Primary care dedicated inpatient rehabilitation (PCDIR, n=202) versus a less structured and less intensive Primary care nursing home rehabilitation (PCNHR, n=100). Participants: 302 patients, disabled from stroke, hip-fracture, osteoarthritis and other chronic diseases, aged ≥65years, assessed to have a rehabilitation potential and being referred from general hospital or own residence. Outcome measures: Primary: Independence, assessed by Sunnaas ADL Index(SI). Secondary: Hospital and short-term nursing home length of stay (LOS); institutionalization, measured by institutional residence rate; death; and costs of rehabilitation and care. Statistical tests: T-tests, Correlation tests, Pearson’s χ², ANCOVA, Regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall SI scores were 26.1 (SD 7.2) compared to 27.0 (SD 5.7) at the end of rehabilitation, a statistically, but not clinically significant reduction (p=0.003 95%CI(0.3-1.5)). The PCDIR patients scored 2.2points higher in SI than the PCNHR patients, adjusted for age, gender, baseline MMSE and SI scores (p=0.003, 95%CI(0.8-3.7)). Out of 49 patients staying >28 days in short-term nursing homes, PCNHR-patients stayed significantly longer than PCDIR-patients (mean difference 104.9 days, 95%CI(0.28-209.6), p=0.05). The institutionalization increased in PCNHR (from 12%-28%, p=0.001), but not in PCDIR (from 16.9%-19.3%, p= 0.45). The overall one year mortality rate was 9.6%. Average costs were substantially higher for PCNHR versus PCDIR. The difference per patient was 3528€ for rehabilitation (p<0.001, 95%CI(2455–4756)), and 10134€ for the at-home care (p=0.002, 95%CI(4066–16202)). The total costs of rehabilitation and care were 18702€ (=1.6 times) higher for PCNHR than for PCDIR.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>At 18 months follow-up the PCDIR-patients maintained higher levels of independence, spent fewer days in short-term nursing homes, and did not increase the institutionalization compared to PCNHR. The costs of rehabilitation and care were substantially lower for PCDIR. More communities should consider adopting the PCDIR model.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01457300</p