A call to create integrated services to better address the needs of migrants who use drugs in Europe.

Each year, thousands of migrants enter the EU. Data on drug use in migrant populations are scarce and inconclusive. However, several risk factors make them particularly vulnerable to engaging in problematic drug use. In this perspective, we summarize the limited information that is available on migrants who use drugs and make a case as to why it is essential to improve access to health and social services, including harm reduction services, for this population. With this aim, we call for the co-creation of integrated services that better address the needs of migrants who use drugs in Europe.

Evaluation of the accuracy of a multi-infection screening test based on a multiplex immunoassay targeting imported diseases common in migrant populations.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the performance of a novel multiplex serological assay, able to simultaneously detect IgG of six infections, as a screening tool for imported diseases in migrants. METHODS: Six panels of 40 (n = 240) anonymized serum samples with confirmed infections were used as positive controls to assess the multiplex assay's sensitivity. One panel of 40 sera from non-infected subjects was used to estimate the seropositivity cutoffs, and 32 non-infected sera were used as negative controls to estimate each serology's sensitivity and specificity. The multi-infection screening test was validated in a prospective cohort of 48 migrants from endemic areas. The sensitivity of the Luminex assay was calculated as the proportion of positive results over all positive samples identified by reference tests. The specificity was calculated using 32 negative samples. Uncertainty was quantified with 95 % confidence intervals using receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: The sensitivity/specificity were 100 %/100 % for HIV (gp41 antigen), 97.5 %/100 % for Hepatitis B virus (HBV-core antigen), 100 %/100 % for Hepatitis C virus (HCV-core antigen), 92.5 %/90.6 % for strongyloidiasis [31-kDa recombinant antigen (NIE)], 97.5 %/100 % for schistosomiasis (combined serpin Schistosoma mansoni and S.haematobium antigens) and 95 %/90.6 % for Chagas disease [combined Trypanosoma cruzi kinetoplastid membrane protein-11 (KMP11) and paraflagellar rod proteins 2 (PFR2) antigens]. In the migrant cohort, antibody response to the combination of the T.cruzi antigens correctly identified 100 % individuals, whereas HBV-core antigen correctly identified 91.7 % and Strongyloides-NIE antigen 86.4 %. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a new, robust and accurate 8-plex Luminex assay that could facilitate the implementation of screening programmes targeting migrant populations.

Multi-infection screening for migrant patients in UK primary care: Challenges and opportunities.

Background: Migrants in Europe face a disproportionate burden of undiagnosed infection, including tuberculosis, blood-borne viruses, and parasitic infections and many belong to an under-immunised group. The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has called for innovative strategies to deliver integrated multi-disease screening to migrants within primary care, yet this is poorly implemented in the UK. We did an in-depth qualitative study to understand current practice, barriers and solutions to infectious disease screening in primary care, and to seek feedback on a collaboratively developed digitalised integrated clinical decision-making tool called Health Catch UP!, which supports multi-infection screening for migrant patients. Methods: Two-phase qualitative study of UK primary healthcare professionals, in-depth semi-structured telephone-interviews were conducted. In Phase A, we conducted interviews with clinical staff (general practitioners (GPs), nurses, health-care-assistants (HCAs)); these informed data collection and analysis for phase B (administrative staff). Data were analysed iteratively, using thematic analysis. Results: In phase A, 48 clinicians were recruited (25 GPs, 15 nurses, seven HCAs, one pharmacist) and 16 administrative staff (11 Practice-Managers, five receptionists) in phase B. Respondents were positive about primary care's ability to effectively deliver infectious disease screening. However, we found current infectious disease screening lacks a standardised approach and many practices have no system for screening meaning migrant patients are not always receiving evidence-based care (i.e., NICE/ECDC/UKHSA screening guidelines). Barriers to screening were reported at patient, staff, and system-levels. Respondents reported poor implementation of existing screening initiatives (e.g., regional latent TB screening) citing overly complex pathways that required extensive administrative/clinical time and lacked financial/expert support. Solutions included patient/staff infectious disease champions, targeted training and specialist support, simplified care pathways for screening and management of positive results, and financial incentivisation. Participants responded positively to Health Catch-UP!, stating it would systematically integrate data and support clinical decision-making, increase knowledge, reduce missed screening opportunities, and normalisation of primary care-based infectious disease screening for migrants. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implementation of infectious disease screening in migrant populations is not comprehensively done in UK primary care. Primary health care professionals support the concept of innovative digital tools like Health Catch-UP! and that they could significantly improve disease detection and effective implementation of screening guidance but that they require robust testing and resourcing.

Screening and routine diagnosis of mental disorders among migrants in primary care: A cross-sectional study.

Background: Migrants in host countries are at risk for the development of mental health conditions. The two aims of the study were to describe routine diagnoses of mental disorders among migrant patients at primary healthcare level and the associated risk factors, and to test the utility of an innovative migrant mental health assessment by evaluating whether the health professionals followed the recommendations proposed by the clinical decision support system (CDSS) tool. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in eight primary care centres (PCCs) in four non-randomly selected health regions of Catalonia, Spain from March to December 2018. Routine health data and mental health diagnoses based on the International Classification of Diseases (10th edition), including mental, behavioural and neuro developmental disorders (F01-F99), symptoms and signs involving emotional state (R45), and sleep disorders (G47), were extracted from the electronic health records. The proportion of mental health conditions was estimated and logistic regression models were used to assess any possible association with mental health disorders. The utility of the mental health assessment was assessed with the proportion of questionnaires performed by health professionals for migrants fulfilling the mental health screening criterion (country of origin with an active conflict in 2017) and the diagnoses given to the screened patients. Results: Of 14,130 migrants that visited any of the PCCs during the study period, 7,358 (52.1 %) were women with a median age of 38.0 years-old. There were 520/14,130 (3.7 %) migrant patients diagnosed with a mental disorder, being more frequent among women (342/7,358; 4.7 %, p-value < 0.001), migrants from Latin-America (177/3,483; 5.1 %, p < 0.001) and those who recently arrived in Spain (170/3,672; 4.6 %, p < 0.001). A lower proportion of mental disorders were reported in migrants coming from conflicted countries in 2017 (116/3,669, 3.2 %, p = 0.053).Out of the 547 mental health diagnoses reported in 520 patients, 69/14,130 (0.5 %) were mood disorders, 346/14,130 (2.5 %) anxiety disorders and 127/14,130 (0.9 %) sleeping disorders. Mood disorders were more common in migrants from Eastern Europe (25/2,971; 0.8 %, p < 0.001) and anxiety disorders in migrants from Latin-America (126/3,483; 3.6 %, p < 0.001), while both type of disorders were more often reported in women (p < 0.001).In the adjusted model, women (aOR: 1.5, [95 % CI 1.2-1.8, p < 0.001]), migrants with more than one visit to the health center during the study period (aOR: 4.4, [95 %CI 2.8-6.8, p < 0.001]) and who presented an infectious disease (aOR: 2.1, [95 %CI 1.5-3.1, p < 0.001]) had higher odds of having a mental disorder.Lastly, out of the 1,840 migrants coming from a conflicted country in 2017 who were attended in centres where the CDSS tool was implemented, 29 (1.6 %) had a mental health assessment performed and the tool correctly identified one individual. Conclusions: Mental health is a condition that may be overlooked in migrants at primary healthcare. Interventions at this level of care must be reinforced and adapted to the needs and circumstances of migrants to ensure equity in health services.

Clinical presentation and diagnosis of imported strongyloidiasis at a tertiary hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Since Strongyloides can persist in its host for decades, and cause life threatening infections data on prevalence, the burden and risk factors for infection is crucial in migrant populations. METHODS: In this observational retrospective cohort study, we describe the epidemiological, clinical, and microbiological characteristics of imported strongyloidiasis diagnosed at the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, during 2010-2021. RESULTS: We identified 98 individuals with strongyloidiasis, 89 (90.8%) born in endemic and 9 (9.2%) in non-endemic countries. Sub-Saharan Africa was the most common origin among the group born in endemic countries (62, 69.7%), (p < 0.005). There were 22 individuals with an underlying immunosuppressive condition. Gastrointestinal symptoms (53/98, 54.1%) were the symptoms most frequently described, and were more frequent in adults (57.0%) vs children (0%) (p = 0.013). Eosinophilia was detected in 74 (75.5%), being more frequent in the endemic-borne group (79.8% vs 33.3%, p = 0.002). Eight persons developed complications of strongyloidiasis because of either hyperinfection or disseminated disease. No people living with HIV with CD4 <500/mm3 (n = 6) developed severe strongyloidiasis. CONCLUSION: A limited number of strongyloidiasis cases was identified, with few complicated cases in immunosuppressed patients. Further studies focusing on identifying and exploring the risk of complicated strongyloidiasis in immunosuppressed patients are needed.

Malaria parasite prevalence among migrants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic malaria infections are highly prevalent in endemic areas. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of malaria parasites in migrants screened in non-endemic areas. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE-Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, Global Health, Lilacs, Cochrane, and MedRxiv. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cross-sectional studies and observational prospective or retrospective cohort studies conducted in Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand regardless of language or publication status. Studies should include prevalence data on malaria in migrants that were recruited through a systematic screening approach. We excluded studies where people were tested because of malaria symptoms. PARTICIPANTS: Migrant individuals exposed to malaria infection ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: A standardized and validated appraisal instrument was used for studies reporting prevalence data (Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis). METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Pooled estimates of the parasite prevalence by PCR, microscopy, and rapid diagnostic test (RDT) were calculated with a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was explored by stratification by age, region of origin, period of study, and quality of studies. RESULTS: Of 1819 studies retrieved, 23 studies were included with in total 4203 participant PCR data, 3186 microscopy and 4698 RDT data, respectively. Migrants from sub-Saharan Africa had a malaria parasite prevalence of 8.3% (95% CI 5.1-12.2) by PCR, 4.3% (1.5-8.2) by RDT, and 3.1% (0.7-6.8) by microscopy. For migrants from Asia and Latin America, the prevalence with PCR was 0% (0.0-0.08) and 0.4% (0.0-1.8), respectively. Migrants from the Central African Region had the highest PCR prevalence (9.3% [6.0-13.0]), followed by West African migrants (2.0% [0.0-7.7]). Restricting the analysis to sub-Saharan Africa migrants arriving to the host country within the previous year, the PCR-based prevalence was 11.6% (6.9-17.4). CONCLUSION: We provide estimates on the malaria parasite prevalence in migrants in non-endemic setting. Despite heterogeneity between settings, these findings can contribute to inform screening strategies and guidelines targeting malaria in migrants.

Digital health for all: How digital health could reduce inequality and increase universal health coverage.

Digital transformation in health care has a lot of opportunities to improve access and quality of care. However, in reality not all individuals and communities are benefiting equally from these innovations. People in vulnerable conditions, already in need of more care and support, are often not participating in digital health programs. Fortunately, numerous initiatives worldwide are committed to make digital health accessible to all citizens, stimulating the long-cherished global pursuit of universal health coverage. Unfortunately initiatives are not always familiar with each other and miss connection to jointly make a significant positive impact. To reach universal health coverage via digital health it is necessary to facilitate mutual knowledge exchange, both globally and locally, to link initiatives and apply academic knowledge into practice. This will support policymakers, health care providers and other stakeholders to ensure that digital innovations can increase access to care for everyone, leading towards Digital health for all.

Drug use and access to drug dependency services for vulnerable migrants who use drugs in the European Union: Consensus statements and recommendations from civil society experts in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The number of migrants in the European Union (EU) has been growing, including migrants at risk of using drugs. Little information is available on the actual drug use among first-generation migrants who use drugs in the EU, nor on their access to drug dependency services. This study aims to reach consensus among experts in the EU on the current situation regarding vulnerable migrants who use drugs in the EU and to develop a set of actionable recommendations. METHODS: Between April and September 2022, a panel of 57 experts on migration and/or drug use, working in 24 countries, participated in a three-stage Delphi study to develop statements and recommendations about drug use and access to healthcare services for migrants who use drugs in the EU. RESULTS: High levels of agreement were reached on the 20 statements (mean=98.0%) and 15 recommendations (mean=99.7%). The recommendations focus on four main topics; 1) increasing data availability and quality, to inform guidelines; 2) increasing the availability of drug dependency services for migrants, including screening for mental health issues and involving migrants who use drugs in the development of services; 3) eliminating country and service level barriers for accessing these services, as well as providing migrants who use drugs with suitable information, and combating stigma and discrimination; 4) the need for increased collaboration among and within EU countries regarding healthcare for migrants who use drugs, at the policy level as well as the service level, including civil society organisations, peer navigation and multilingual cultural mediators. CONCLUSION: Policy action and increased collaboration are required by the EU as a whole and by individual EU member states, in addition to collaboration among healthcare providers and social welfare services, to increase access to healthcare services for migrants who use drugs.

Malaria parasite prevalence in Sub-Saharan African migrants screened in Sweden: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Asymptomatic infections with malaria parasites are common in populations in endemic areas. These infections may persist in migrants after arrival in a non-endemic area. Screening to find and clear these infections is generally not implemented in non-endemic countries, despite a potential negative health impact. We performed a study to evaluate the Plasmodium parasite prevalence in migrants living in Sweden. Methods: Adults and children born in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) were invited in the study between April 2019 and June 2022 at 10 different sites, mainly as part of the national Migrant Health Assessment Program in Stockholm and Västerås, Sweden. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and real-time PCR were used to detect malaria parasites. Prevalence and test sensitivity were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate associations with PCR positivity. Findings: In total, 789 individuals were screened for Plasmodium spp. of which 71 (9.0%) were positive by PCR and 18 (2.3%) also by RDT. When performed during the national screening program, 10.4% was PCR positive. A high prevalence was detected in migrants with Uganda as the country of last residence, 53/187 (28.3%), and in this group the prevalence was highest in children, 29/81 (35.8%). Among the PCR positive, 47/71 (66.2%) belonged to families with at least one other member testing positive (odds ratio [OR] 43.4 (95% CI 19.0-98.9), and the time lived in Sweden ranged between 6 and 386 days. Interpretation: A high malaria parasite prevalence was found in migrants from SSA, particularly in children offered screening in Stockholm, Sweden during the study period. Awareness of asymptomatic malaria infection is needed and screening for malaria in migrants arriving from high endemic countries should be considered. Funding: The Swedish Research Council, Stockholm County Council and Centre for Clinical Research, Västmanland, Sweden.

Usefulness and practicality of a multidisease screening programme targeting migrant patients in primary care in Spain: a qualitative study of general practitioners.

OBJECTIVES: Some migrant groups are disproportionately affected by key infectious diseases in European countries. These pose a challenge for healthcare systems providing care to these groups. We aimed to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs) on the acceptability, adaptability and feasibility of a multidisease screening programme based on an innovative clinical decision-support system for migrants (the ISMiHealth tool), by examining the current gaps in healthcare provision and areas of good practice and the usefulness and limitations of training in the health needs of migrants. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative descriptive study and carried out a series of focus groups (FGs) taking a pragmatic utilitarian approach. Participants were GPs from the four primary healthcare (PHC) centres in Catalonia, Spain, that piloted an intervention of the ISMiHealth tool. GPs were recruited using purposive and convenience sampling. FG discussions were transcribed and analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 29 GPs participated in four FGs. Key themes identified were: (1) GPs found the ISMiHealth tool to be very useful for helping to identify specific health problems in migrants, although there are several additional barriers to screening as part of PHC, (2) the importance of considering cultural perspectives when caring for migrants, and of the impact of migration on mental health, (3) the important role of PHC in healthcare provision for migrants and (4) key proposals to improve screening of migrant populations. GPs also highlighted the urgent need, to shift to a more holistic and adequately resourced approach to healthcare in PHC. CONCLUSIONS: GPs supported a multidisease screening programme for migrant populations using the ISMiHealth tool, which aided clinical decision-making. However, intercultural participatory approaches will need to be adopted to address linguistic and cultural barriers to healthcare access that exist in migrant communities.

The association between pre-exposure to glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressant drugs with severe COVID-19 outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Whether preinfection use of immunosuppressant drugs is associated with COVID-19 severity remains unclear. The study was aimed to determine the association between preinfection use of immunosuppressant drugs with COVID-19 outcomes within 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: This cohort study included individuals aged ≥18 years with underlying conditions associated with an immunocompromised state and diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and January 2021 at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. Exposure to immunosuppressant drugs was defined based on dose and duration of drugs (glucocorticoids and drugs included in L01 or L04 chapter of Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification) before COVID-19 diagnosis. Outcomes included hospital admission, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, mortality, renal failure, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and cardiac event. ORs were calculated using logistic regression and baseline covariate adjustment for confounding with inverse probability of treatment weights. RESULTS: Of 1067 included individuals, 444 were pre-exposed to immunosuppressive treatments before COVID-19 diagnosis (72 high-dose glucocorticoids, 255 L01 drugs (antineoplastics), 198 L04 (other immunosuppressants) and 78 to multiple drugs). There was no association between pre-exposure and hospital admission (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.09) because of COVID-19. Pre-exposure to L01 or L04 drugs were not associated with hospital admission (adjusted ORs (aORs): 1.23, 0.86 to 1.76 and 1.31, 0.77 to 2.21) or other outcomes. High-dose glucocorticoids (≥20 mg/day prednisolone equivalent) were associated with hospital admission (aOR 2.50, 1.26 to 4.96), cardiac events (aOR 1.93, 1.08 to 3.46), pulmonary embolism (aOR 2.78, 1.08 to 7.15), and mortality (aOR 3.48, 1.77 to 6.86) due to COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Antineoplastic and other immunosuppressants drugs were not associated with COVID-19 severity whereas high-dose glucocorticoids were associated. Further studies should evaluate the effect of pre-exposure of different dose of glucocorticoids on COVID-19 prognosis.

Estimating chagas disease prevalence and number of underdiagnosed, and undertreated individuals in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Chagas disease constitutes a public health problem, and Spain is the non-endemic country with the highest burden of disease outside the Americas. It represents a model for non-endemic countries regarding health policies to control the disease. This study is aimed to generate estimates of the T.cruzi prevalence and the number of undetected and untreated individuals with the infection in Spain and to compare them with the actual number of cases reported by official sources. METHODS: Using aggregate data collected from the literature and official sources (Spanish National Statistics Institute; Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices) from 2010 to 2018, this study estimates the number of Chagas disease cases, plus the underdiagnosis and undertreatment rates. RESULTS: We estimated that 55,367 out of 2,602,285 migrants originally from endemic countries were living with Chagas disease in Spain in 2018, accounting for a prevalence of 2.1%. Only 1% of these cases(613/455,566) were children aged 14 years or less resulting in a prevalence of 0.1%. Bolivian migrants accounted for 53.9% of the total estimated cases. The index of underdiagnosis and undertreatment were heterogeneous across different Spanish autonomous regions, but the overall index of underdiagnosis was around 71%, and the overall index of undertreatment was 82.5% in patients aged 15 years or older, and 60% in children. CONCLUSION: The burden of Chagas disease in Spain is considerable. Index of underdiagnosis and undertreatment are high, particularly in women of childbearing age, but they have improved in children since the implementation of antenatal screening programmes.

SARS-CoV-2 testing in patients with low COVID-19 suspicion at admission to a tertiary care hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, March to September 2020.

BackgroundUniversal SARS-CoV-2 testing at hospital admission has been proposed to prevent nosocomial transmission.AimTo investigate SARS-CoV-2 positivity in patients tested with low clinical COVID-19 suspicion at hospital admission.MethodsWe characterised a retrospective cohort of patients admitted to Karolinska University Hospital tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR from March to September 2020, supplemented with an in-depth chart review (16 March-12 April). We compared positivity rates in patients with and without clinical COVID-19 suspicion with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with test positivity.ResultsFrom March to September 2020, 66.9% (24,245/36,249) admitted patient episodes were tested; of those, 61.2% (14,830/24,245) showed no clinical COVID-19 suspicion, and the positivity rate was 3.2% (469/14,830). There was a strong correlation of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in patients with low vs high COVID-19 suspicion (rho = 0.92; p < 0.001).From 16 March to 12 April, the positivity rate was 3.9% (58/1,482) in individuals with low COVID-19 suspicion, and 3.1% (35/1,114) in asymptomatic patients. Rates were higher in women (5.0%; 45/893) vs men (2.0%; 12/589; p = 0.003), but not significantly different if pregnant women were excluded (3.7% (21/566) vs 2.2% (12/589); p = 0.09). Factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity were testing of pregnant women before delivery (odds ratio (OR): 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-5.4) and isolated symptoms in adults (OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.8-6.3).ConclusionsThis study shows a relatively high SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate in patients with low COVID-19 suspicion upon hospital admission. Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of pregnant women before delivery should be considered.

Clinical phenotypes and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV and seven other respiratory viruses: a retrospective study using complete hospital data.

BACKGROUND: An understanding of differences in clinical phenotypes and outcomes COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viral infections is important to optimise the management of patients and plan healthcare. Herein we sought to investigate such differences in patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared with influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of hospitalised adults and children (≤15 years) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus A/B, RSV, rhinovirus, enterovirus, parainfluenza viruses, metapneumovirus, seasonal coronaviruses, adenovirus or bocavirus in a respiratory sample at admission between 2011 and 2020. RESULTS: A total of 6321 adult (1721 SARS-CoV-2) and 6379 paediatric (101 SARS-CoV-2) healthcare episodes were included in the study. In adults, SARS-CoV-2 positivity was independently associated with younger age, male sex, overweight/obesity, diabetes and hypertension, tachypnoea as well as better haemodynamic measurements, white cell count, platelet count and creatinine values. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 was associated with higher 30-day mortality as compared with influenza (adjusted HR (aHR) 4.43, 95% CI 3.51 to 5.59), RSV (aHR 3.81, 95% CI 2.72 to 5.34) and other respiratory viruses (aHR 3.46, 95% CI 2.61 to 4.60), as well as higher 90-day mortality, ICU admission, ICU mortality and pulmonary embolism in adults. In children, patients with SARS-CoV-2 were older and had lower prevalence of chronic cardiac and respiratory diseases compared with other viruses. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 is associated with more severe outcomes compared with other respiratory viruses, and although associated with specific patient and clinical characteristics at admission, a substantial overlap precludes discrimination based on these characteristics.

Improving the detection of infectious diseases in at-risk migrants with an innovative integrated multi-infection screening digital decision support tool (IS-MiHealth) in primary care: a pilot cluster-randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are major shortfalls in the identification and screening of at-risk migrant groups. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a new digital tool (IS-MiHealth) integrated into the electronic patient record system of primary care centres in detecting prevalent migrant infections. IS-MiHealth provides targeted recommendations to health professionals for screening multiple infections, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and C, active tuberculosis (TB), Chagas disease, strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis, based on patient characteristics (including variables of country of origin, age and sex). METHODS: A pragmatic pilot cluster-randomized-controlled trial was deployed from March to December 2018. Eight primary care centres in Catalonia, Spain, were randomly allocated 1:1 to use of the digital tool for screening, or to routine care. The primary outcome was the monthly diagnostic yield of all aggregated infections. Intervention and control sites were compared before and after implementation with respect to their monthly diagnostic yield using regression models. This study is registered on international standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) (ISRCTN14795012). RESULTS: A total of 15 780 migrants registered across the eight centres had at least one visit during the intervention period (March-December 2018), of which 14 598 (92.51%) fulfilled the criteria to be screened for at least one infection. There were 210 (2.57%) individuals from the intervention group with new diagnoses compared with 113 (1.49%) from the control group [odds ratio: 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63-2.64, P < 0.001]. The intervention centres raised their overall monthly diagnosis rate to 5.80 (95% CI 1.23-10.38, P = 0.013) extra diagnoses compared with the control centres. This monthly increase in diagnosis in intervention centres was also observed if we consider all cases together of HIV, hepatitis B and C, and active TB cases [2.72 (95% CI 0.43-5.00); P = 0.02] and was observed as well for the parasitic infections' group (Chagas disease, strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis) 2.58 (95% CI 1.60-3.57; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The IS-MiHealth increased screening rate and diagnostic yield for key infections in migrants in a population-based primary care setting. Further testing and development of this new tool is warranted in larger trials and in other countries.