OBJECTIVE: To describe other reasons for requesting HIV serology in emergency departments (ED) other than the 6 defined in the SEMES-GESIDA consensus document (DC-SEMES-GESIDA) and to analyze whether it would be efficient to include any of them in the future. METHODS: Review of all HIV serologies performed during 2 years in 20 Catalan EDs. Serologies requested for reasons not defined by the DC-SEMES-GESIDA were grouped by common conditions, the prevalence (IC95%) of seropositivity for each condition was calculated, and those whose 95% confidence lower limit was >0.1% were considered efficient. Sensitivity analysis considered that serology would have been performed on 20% of cases attended and the remaining 80% would have been seronegative. RESULTS: There were 8044 serologies performed for 248 conditions not recommended by DC-SEMES-GESIDA, in 17 there were seropositive, and in 12 the performance of HIV serology would be efficient. The highest prevalence of detection corresponded to patients from endemic countries (7.41%, 0.91-24.3), lymphopenia (4.76%, 0.12-23.8), plateletopenia (4.37%, 1.20-10.9), adenopathy (3.45%, 0.42-11.9), meningoencephalitis (3.12%, 0.38-10.8) and drug use (2.50%, 0.68-6.28). Sensitivity analysis confirmed efficiency in 6 of them: endemic country origin, plateletopenia, drug abuse, toxic syndrome, behavioral-confusional disorder-agitation and fever of unknown origin. CONCLUSION: The DC-SEMES-GESIDA targeted HIV screening strategy in the ED could efficiently include other circumstances not previously considered; the most cost-effective would be origin from an endemic country, plateletopenia, drug abuse, toxic syndrome, behavioral-confusional-agitation disorder and fever of unknown origin.
Objective: To estimate the prevalence of unknown HIV infection in patients who consulted in hospital emergency services (ED) for conditions defined in the SEMES-GESIDA Consensus Document (DC), evaluate the efficiency of its im-plementation and investigate the efficiency of HIV serology determination in other conditions. Methods: Results were reviewed in 10 Catalan EDs for 12 months (July-21-June-22) after implementing CD recommendations: request HIV serology in case of suspected sexually transmitted infection, chemsex, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), mononucleosis syndrome, community pneumonia (18-65 y-o) or herpes zoster (18-65 y-o). Other reasons for request were included. Prevalence (%) of global seropositivity and for each circumstance was calculated, with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI). The efficient strategy was considered if the lower limit of the CI95%>0.1%. Results: A total of5,107 HIV serologies were performed: 2,847(56%) in situations specified in CD, and 2,266 (44%) in other 138 circumstances. Forty-eight unknown HIV infections were detected (prevalence=0.94%;95%CI=0.69-1.24). The prevalence was somewhat higher in DC requests (30 cas-es 1.12%) than the rest (18 cases 0.71%; p=0.16). The individualized prevalence of CD reasons ranged between 7.41% (95%CI=0.91-24.3) in chemsex and 0.42% 95%CI=0.14-0.98) in PPE, always efficient except herpes zoster (0.76%; CI95%=0.02-4.18). In other reasons, cases were detected in 12 circumstances, and in four the determination could be efficient: lymphopenia (10%;CI95%=0.25-44.5), fever with polyarthralgia-polyarthritis (7.41%;CI95% =0.91-24.3), behavioral alteration-confusion-encephalopathy (3.45%;95%CI=0.42-11.9) and fever of unknown origin (2.50%;95%CI=0.82-5.74). (AU)
Objetivo: Estimar la prevalencia de infección por VIH des-conocida en pacientes que consultan en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) por las condiciones definidas en el Documento de Consenso (DC) de SEMES-GESIDA, evaluar la eficiencia de su implementación e investigar si en otras condiciones la determinación de serología VIH puede resultar eficiente.Método: Se revisaron los resultados obtenidos en 10 SUH catalanes durante los 12 meses (julio-21 a junio-22) siguientes a implementar las recomendaciones del DC de solicitar serología VIH a pacientes con sospecha de infección de transmisión sexual, práctica de chemsex, solicitud profilaxis post-exposición (PPE), síndrome mononucleósico, neumonía comunitaria (18-65 años) o herpes zóster (18-65 años). Se consignaron también otros motivos de solicitud. Se calculó la prevalencia (%) de seropositividad global y para cada circunstancia, con su intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC95%). Se consideró la estrategia eficiente si el límite inferior del IC95% era >0,1%.Resultados: Se realizaron 5.107 serologías VIH: 2.847 (56%) en situaciones especificadas en el DC, y 2.266 (44%) en otras 138 circunstancias. Se detectaron 48 infecciones por VIH desconocidas (prevalencia=0,94%; IC95%=0,69-1,24). La preva-lencia fue algo superior en las solicitudes ajustadas al DC (30 ca-sos, 1,12%) que en las que no (18 casos, 0,71%; p=0,16). La prevalencia individualizada para los motivos especificados en el DC osciló entre 7,41% IC95%=0,91-24,3) en práctica de chemsex y 0,42% (IC95%=0,14-0,98) en PPE, y siempre resultó eficiente, con excepción de herpes zóster (0,76%, IC95%=0,02-4,18). Respecto al resto de motivos de solicitud, se detectaron casos en 12 circunstancias, y en cuatro la determinación podría ser eficiente: linfopenia (10%, IC95%=0,25-44,5), fiebre con poliartralgias-poliartritis (7,41%, IC95%=0,91-24,3), alteración conductual-confusión-encefalopatía (3,45%,IC95%=0,42-11,9) y fiebre de origen desconocido(2,50%,IC95%=0,82-5,74)(AU)
Humans , HIV Infections/epidemiology , Emergency Medical Services , Emergencies , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Prevalence
Objective: We aimed to assess the prevalence and clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections in a Spanish region. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study in all patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections in the Lleida health region from 1 March to 30 November 2020. Reinfections were classified as patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests separated by at least 90 days plus a negative test result between both infection episodes. Primary and secondary outcomes: The primary outcome was the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections among all SARS-CoV-2 infections detected during our study period. Secondary outcomes were the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of patients with SARS-CoV-2 reinfections. Results: Of the 27,758 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study period, 14 were identified as coronavirus reinfection (0.050%). Of the reinfected sample, 12 patients (85.7%) were women. The median age was 41.5 years. Two patients died in the second coronavirus episode. Conclusion: The reinfection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the Spanish region Lleida was relatively low during the observational period in 2020 (less than 1%). These data are in line with the notion that previous SARS-CoV-2 infections may offer a significant protection by so called natural immunity.
