[Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection in patients and professional staff at a medium or long-stay hospital in Spain]. / Prevalencia de infección por coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes y profesionales de un hospital de media y larga estancia en España.

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: The aim of the study is to know the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and professional staff of a medium or long-stay hospital during the peak period of the pandemic in Spain, spring 2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS: At the end of February 2020, we developed at the hospital a strategy to diagnose the SARS-CoV-2 infection consisting of complementing the realization of PCR tests at real time with a quick technique of lateral flow immunochromatography to detect IgG and IgM antibodies against the virus. We also developed a protocol to realize those diagnostic tests and considered an infection (current or past) a positive result in any of the above tests. We included 524 participants in the study (230 patients and 294 hospital staff), and divided them into hospital patients and Hemodialysis outpatients. Furthermore, we divided the hospital staff into healthcare and non-healthcare staff. The documented period was from March, 20th to April, 21st, 2020. RESULTS: 26 out of 230 patients tested positive in any of the diagnostic techniques (PCR, antibodies IgG, IgM) with a 11.30% prevalence. According to patients groups, we got a 14.38% prevalence in hospital patients vs. 5.95% in outpatients, with a significantly higher risk in admitted patients after adjustment for age and gender (OR=3,309, 95%CI: 1,154-9,495). 24 out of 294 hospital staff tested positive in any of the diagnostic techniques, with a 8.16% prevalence. According to the groups, we got a 8.91% prevalence in healthcare staff vs. 4.26% in non-healthcare staff. Thus, we do not see any statistically significant differences between hospital staff and patients as far as prevalence is concerned (P=0,391), (OR=2,200, 95%CI: 0,500-9,689). CONCLUSIONS: The result of the study was a quite low prevalence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in both patients and hospital staff, being the hospital patients' prevalence rate higher than the outpatients', and the healthcare staff higher than the non-healthcare's. Combining PCR tests (gold standard) with antibodies tests proved useful as a diagnostic strategy.

Prevalencia de infección por coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes y profesionales de un hospital de media y larga estancia en España / Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection in patients and professional staff at a medium or long-stay hospital in Spain

ANTECEDENTES Y OBJETIVO: El objetivo de este estudio fue conocer la prevalencia de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes y profesionales de un hospital de media y larga estancia en el periodo del pico de la pandemia en España en la primavera de 2020. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: A finales de febrero del 2020, se diseñó en el hospital una estrategia para el diagnóstico de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 consistente en complementar la realización de PCR a tiempo real con una técnica rápida de inmunocromatografía de flujo lateral para la detección de anticuerpos IgG e IgM frente al virus. Se protocolizó la realización de dichas pruebas diagnósticas y se consideró como infección (actual o pasada) un resultado positivo de alguna de ellas. Se incluyeron en el estudio a 524 participantes (230 pacientes y 294 profesionales). Los pacientes se agruparon en ingresados y en ambulatorios para terapia de hemodiálisis. Los trabajadores se agruparon en asistenciales y no asistenciales. El periodo que se documenta es el comprendido entre el 20 de marzo y el 21 de abril del 2020. RESULTADOS: En 26 de los 230 pacientes el resultado fue positivo en alguna de las técnicas, con una prevalencia del 11,30%. Por grupos, en ingresados fue del 14,38% frente al 5,95% de los ambulatorios (p = 0,055), siendo significativamente superior el riesgo en pacientes ingresados tras ajustar por sexo y edad (OR = 3,309; IC del 95%: 1,154-9,495). En 24 de los 294 profesionales el resultado fue positivo en alguna de las técnicas, con una prevalencia del 8,16%. Por grupos, en asistenciales fue del 8,91% frente al 4,26% de los no asistenciales (p = 0,391), OR ajustada = 2,502 (IC del 95%: 0,559-11,202). CONCLUSIONES: Se ha encontrado una tasa de prevalencia baja frente a SARS-CoV-2 tanto en pacientes como en profesionales. La prevalencia en pacientes hospitalizados es mayor que en ambulatorios, también es superior la prevalencia de sanitarios asistenciales respecto a los no asistenciales

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: The aim of the study is to know the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and professional staff of a medium or long-stay hospital during the peak period of the pandemic in Spain, spring 2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS: At the end of February 2020, we developed at the hospital a strategy to diagnose the SARS-CoV-2 infection consisting of complementing the realization of PCR tests at real time with a quick technique of lateral flow immunochromatography to detect IgG and IgM antibodies against the virus. We also developed a protocol to realize those diagnostic tests and considered an infection (current or past) a positive result in any of the above tests. We included 524 participants in the study (230 patients and 294 hospital staff), and divided them into hospital patients and Hemodialysis outpatients. Furthermore, we divided the hospital staff into healthcare and non-healthcare staff. The documented period was from March, 20th to April, 21st, 2020. RESULTS: 26 out of 230 patients tested positive in any of the diagnostic techniques (PCR, antibodies IgG, IgM) with a 11.30% prevalence. According to patients groups, we got a 14.38% prevalence in hospital patients vs. 5.95% in outpatients, with a significantly higher risk in admitted patients after adjustment for age and gender (OR=3,309, 95%CI: 1,154-9,495). 24 out of 294 hospital staff tested positive in any of the diagnostic techniques, with a 8.16% prevalence. According to the groups, we got a 8.91% prevalence in healthcare staff vs. 4.26% in non-healthcare staff. Thus, we do not see any statistically significant differences between hospital staff and patients as far as prevalence is concerned (P=0,391), (OR=2,200, 95%CI: 0,500-9,689). CONCLUSIONS: The result of the study was a quite low prevalence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in both patients and hospital staff, being the hospital patients' prevalence rate higher than the outpatients', and the healthcare staff higher than the non-healthcare's. Combining PCR tests (gold standard) with antibodies tests proved useful as a diagnostic strategy

Riesgo de enfermedad coronaria en dos poblaciones laborales diferentes / No disponible

Objetivo: Estimar el riesgo coronario en dos poblaciones laborales diferentes para establecer programas de prevención de enfermedades coronarias en el medio laboral según los respectivos perfiles de riesgo. Metodología: Estudio retrospectivo de factores de riesgo coronario (presión arterial sistólica y diastólica, índice de masa corporal, colesterol total sérico, tabaco y antecedentes familiares de coronariopatía en menores de 55 años) recogidos en el examen de salud de 3857 trabajadores de dos colectivos (ejecutivos y peones de construcción) aplicando una escala de riesgo cardiovascular. Los datos se analizaron con el paquete G-STAT y se usaron pruebas de Chi cuadrado y t de Student. Resultados: El riesgo coronario es más alto en hombres mayores en los dos grupos estudiados; moderado en peones de construcción y moderadobajo en ejecutivos. En mujeres es más alto en ejecutivas en el mismo grupo de edad aunque sea bajo, según la clasificación utilizada. Globalmente es mas alto en el grupo de edad mayor de 51 años, tanto en ejecutivos cómo en peones. Por género y sin valorar la edad el riesgo es siempre mayor en hombres aunque en el nivel bajo Conclusiones: Hay diferencias en riesgo coronario por genero siendo más alto, independientemente del puesto, en hombres que en mujeres. Los ejecutivos hombres tienen menor riesgo coronario que los peones hombres. En mujeres el riesgo coronario es mayor en las ejecutivas. Hubo además diferencias importantes entre los dos grupos en la prevalencia de los factores de riesgo coronario

Goal: Evaluate the coronary risk in two different working populations to establish programmes to prevent coronary disease in the workplace adapted to their risk profiles. Methodology: We developed a retrospective study of coronary risk factors (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body mass index (B.M.I.), seric cholesterol rate, tobacco consumption and history of relatives previously affected by coronary disease in workers who are under 55). These data were collected after having checked the health of 3857 workers belonging to two different working populations, executives and unskilled construction workers. The data were processed and analysed with G-STAT and we also applied ?2 and t- Student. Results: Coronary risk is higher for the oldest male workers belonging to both groups. It is considered to be average for unskilled construction workers and average- low for executives. As far as female workers are concerned, it is higher for executives belonging to the same age group, although it is low according to the rating used in the sample. All in all, it is higher for both groups of workers who are older than 51. As regards gender, the risk is always higher for male workers, though it is on the lower level of the scale. Conclusion: There are differences in coronary risk according to gender as the risk is higher for male workers no matter their working place. Male executives present a lower degree of coronary risk than male unskilled construction workers. Female executives have a higher degree of coronary risk when compared to female unskilled construction workers. We have noticed remarkable and important differences on the prevalence of coronary risk factors in both working populations