Healthcare-associated infections by multidrug-resistant bacteria in Andalusia, Spain, 2014 to 2021.

BackgroundMultidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria are among chief causes of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). In Spain, studies addressing multidrug resistance based on epidemiological surveillance systems are lacking.AimIn this observational study, cases of HAIs by MDR bacteria notified to the epidemiological surveillance system of Andalusia, Spain, between 2014-2021, were investigated. Notified cases and their spatiotemporal distribution were described, with a focus on social determinants of health (SDoH).MethodsNew cases during the study period of HAIs caused by extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-/carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, MDR Acinectobacter baumannii, MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa or meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus were considered. Among others, notification variables included sex and age, while socio-economic variables comprised several SDoH. Cases' spatial distribution across municipalities was assessed. The smooth standardised incidence ratio (sSIR) was obtained using a Bayesian spatial model. Association between municipalities' sSIR level and SDoH was evaluated by bivariate analysis.ResultsIn total, 6,389 cases with a median age of 68 years were notified; 61.4% were men (n = 3,921). The most frequent MDR bacteria were ESBL-producing Enterobacterales (2,812/6,389; 44.0%); the main agent was Klebsiella spp. (2,956/6,389; 46.3%). Between 2014 and 2021 case numbers appeared to increase. Overall, up to 15-fold differences in sSIR between municipalities were observed. In bivariate analysis, there appeared to be an association between municipalities' sSIR level and deprivation (p = 0.003).ConclusionThis study indicates that social factors should be considered when investigating HAIs by MDR bacteria. The case incidence heterogeneity between Andalusian municipalities might be explained by SDoH, but also possibly by under-notification. Automatising reporting may address the latter.

Epidemiologic Features and Control Measures during Monkeypox Outbreak, Spain, June 2022.

During June 2022, Spain was one of the countries most affected worldwide by a multicountry monkeypox outbreak with chains of transmission without identified links to disease-endemic countries. We provide epidemiologic features of cases reported in Spain and the coordinated measures taken to respond to this outbreak.

Long-Term Patient Symptoms and Quality of Life in Adults After COVID-19: A Real Life Study.

Objective: To characterize long-term patient-reported symptoms and quality of life, in adults after COVID-19. Material and methods: Cross-sectional study in Cantabria (Northern Spain) including adults with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 694) with a time period between 4.7 and 24 month post-SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, and their close contacts (n = 663) (PCR negative and without suspected infection) obtained from simple random sampling of a total of 47,773 cases and 94,301 close contacts. The ISARIC survey was used as screening tool with self-reported "non-feeling fully recovery (NFFR)" defined as primary outcome. Results: 16.57% (n = 115/694) reported NFFR. Most prevalent symptoms were in order of frequency: Fatigue (54.8%); Loss of smell (40.9%); Problems speaking or communicating (29.6%); Loss of taste (28.7%); Confusion/lack of concentration (27.8%); Persistent muscle pain (24.3%) and Shortness of breath/breathlessness (23.5%). When comparing the three ordinal groups (Close contacts, COVID-19 feeling recovered, and COVID-19 NFFR) the prevalence of these symptoms was increasingly higher among each ordinal group (p < 0.001). Female gender was significantly associated with NFFR: (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.56); as well as older age: aOR per 10 year increment = 1.15. Lastly, they scored on average 9.63 points less in Euroquol. Conclusions: More than 15% of patients in our real-life population-based study, reported NFFR, being female sex and older age independent predictors of this condition. Most symptoms in these patients were in accordance with WHO definition of post COVID-19 condition in adults, and were less prevalent in COVID-19 feeling recovered and close contact respectively, with a statistically significant dose-response pattern, and with a large decrease in quality of life according to Euroquol.

Objetivo: Caracterizar los síntomas y la calidad de vida informados a largo plazo después de un episodio agudo de COVID-19. Métodos: Estudio transversal en Cantabria (norte de España) que incluye adultos con infección por SARS-CoV-2 confirmada por PCR (n = 694) tras un periodo entre 4,7 y 24 meses desde el diagnóstico y sus contactos estrechos (n = 663), obtenidos por muestreo aleatorio simple a partir de 47.773 casos y 94.301 contactos. Se utilizó la encuesta ISARIC, estableciéndose como variable resultado principal la respuesta «no-sentirse completamente recuperado (NSCR)¼. Resultados: El 16,57% (n = 115/694) declararon NSCR. Los síntomas más prevalentes fueron, por orden de frecuencia: fatiga (54,8%), pérdida del olfato (40,9%), problemas para hablar o comunicarse (29,6%), pérdida del gusto (28,7%), confusión/falta de concentración (27,8%), dolor muscular persistente (24,3%) y dificultad para respirar/falta de aire (23,5%). Al comparar los tres grupos ordinales (contactos estrechos, COVID-19 recuperados y COVID-19 NSCR), la prevalencia de estos síntomas fue mayor en cada grupo (p < 0,001). El sexo femenino se asoció significativamente con NSCR: Odds Ratio ajustada (aOR) = 1,56), así como la edad avanzada: aOR por cada 10 años = 1,15. Por último, obtuvieron en Euroquol una puntuación media de 9,63 puntos menos. Conclusiones: Más del 15% de los pacientes reportaron NSCR, siendo el sexo femenino y la edad factores predictores independientes. La mayoría de los síntomas en estos pacientes coincidieron con los de la definición de condición post-COVID-19 de la OMS y fueron menos prevalentes en contactos estrechos y COVID-19 que se sintieron recuperados, con un patrón dosis respuesta, y con una menor calidad de vida según Euroquol.

[Field epidemiology in times of COVID-19: challenges for public health services. SESPAS Report 2022]. / Epidemiología de campo en tiempos de COVID-19: retos para los servicios de salud pública. Informe SESPAS 2022.

During the COVID-19 crisis, local epidemiology units have been forced to manage an increasing number of cases, contacts and outbreaks for which they were not previously prepared or staffed. Under normal circumstances, the efficient study and control of outbreaks and public health alerts requires human and material resources, situation analysis to identify possible causes and present recommendations, coordination with other health system structures, as well as the providing a written report including control and prevention measures implemented and their results or other recommendations. The field study of outbreaks has been systematized in a way that has made it possible to implement quick and effective measures, for the interruption of transmission chains and management of risk situations. To achieve this, a rapid and extraordinary exercise of digital integration, staff mobilization and creation of ad hoc structures needed to be carried out. Solidarity and cooperation between professionals from different administrations has been the pillar that has sustained the surveillance systems. Despite this, obstacles have been found as a result of the lack of coordination, social inequalities, and later, pandemic fatigue, which have reduced adherence and effectiveness of the implemented measures. It has also come to light the need to properly staff these units with trained professionals, and match working conditions and salaries with other health services.

[Los determinantes sociales de la salud en España (2010-2021): una revisión exploratoria de la literatura.] / The social determinants of health in Spain (2010-2021): an exploratory review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Los determinantes sociales de la salud (DSS) son los ejes en torno a los cuales se articulan las desigualdades sociales en salud. El estudio de dichas diferencias entre grupos sociales resulta fundamental para el abordaje de las inequidades. El objetivo de esta revisión fue estudiar las aportaciones realizadas en la investigación sobre el efecto de los DSS en la salud o sus factores intermedios en la población española desde el año 2010 hasta 2021. METHODS: Se realizó una revisión exploratoria de la literatura. Dos revisores ciegos realizaron la búsqueda, cribado e inclusión de los artículos (50). RESULTS: La mayoría de los artículos incluidos fueron estudios transversales (70%) y revisiones (12%). La información extraída se agrupó en cada uno de los DSS: lugar de residencia (5 artículos), raza/etnia/origen (9), ocupación (3), sexo/género (4), nivel educativo (7), estatus socioeconómico (15), capital social/apoyo social (1) y diversidad afectivo-sexual y de género (6). Los desenlaces en salud más reportados fueron la salud mental (40%) y el estado autopercibido de salud (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Los resultados coinciden con la literatura publicada: a mayor desventaja social en cualquiera de los DSS se hallaron peores resultados en salud, siendo estos peores cuando se superponían varios ejes de desigualdad. Esta revisión puede haber incurrido en varios sesgos, entre los que están el de publicación y el de selección. La investigación futura sobre los DSS debe adoptar un enfoque interseccional que permita una mejor comprensión de los ejes sobre los que actúan las desigualdades.

OBJETIVO: Social determinants of health (SDH) are the axes of social inequalities in health. Studying these differences between social groups is essential for addressing inequities. The objective of this review was to study the contributions made by the research on the effect of the SDH on health or its intermediate factors in the Spanish population from 2010 to 2021. METODOS: An scoping review of the literature was carried out. Two blind reviewers performed the search, screening and selection of articles (50). RESULTADOS: Most of articles included were cross-sectional studies (70%) and reviews (12%). Extracted information was grouped into each of the DSS: place of residence (5 items), race/ethnicity/origin (9), occupation (3), sex/gender (4), educational level (7), socioeconomic status (15), social capital/social support (1) and affective-sexual and gender diversity (6). Most reported health outcomes were mental health (40%) and self-perceived health status (30%). CONCLUSIONES: Results are in line with the published literature. The greater the social disadvantage in any of the DSS, the worse the health results, which were even worse when several axes of inequality overlapped. This review may have had some biases, including publication and selection bias. Future research on the SDH must adopt an intersectional approach that will allow a better understanding of the axes on which inequalities take place.