Self-rated health among people living with HIV in Spain in 2019: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: HIV infection has become a chronic disease and well-being of people living with HIV (PLHIV) is now of particular concern. The objectives of this paper were to describe self-rated health among PLHIV, on ART and on ART virally suppressed and to analyse its determinants. METHODS: Data were obtained from a second-generation surveillance system based on a cross-sectional one-day survey in public hospitals. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected among HIV-infected inpatients and outpatients receiving HIV-related care the day of the survey in 86 hospitals in 2019. Self-rated health was measured using a question included in the National Health Survey: "In the last 12 months, how would you rate your health status?" an ordinal variable with five categories (very good, good, moderate, bad and very bad). For the analysis, these responses were dichotomized into two categories: 1 = very good/good and 0 = moderate, bad or very bad health status. Factors associated with very good/good self-rated health were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 800 PLHIV, 67.5% perceived their health as very good/good, 68.4% among PLHIV on ART and 71.7% of those virally suppressed. Having university education (adjusted odds ratio (aOR):2.1), being unemployed (aOR:0.3) or retired (aOR:0.2), ever being diagnosed of AIDS (aOR:0.6), comorbidities (aOR:0.3), less than 2 year since HIV diagnosis (aOR:0.3) and not receiving ART (aOR:0.3) were associated with good self-rated health. Moreover, among PLHIV on ART, viral load less than 200 copies (aOR:3.2) were related to better perceived health. Bad adherence was inversely associated with good self-rated health among PLHIV on ART (aOR:0.5) and of those virally suppressed (aOR:0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly seven in 10 PLHIV in Spain considered their health status as very good/good, being higher among virally suppressed PLHIV. Both demographic and clinical determinants affect quality of life.

Postoperative analgesic effect of intrathecal neostigmine and its influence on spinal anaesthesia.

A clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the postoperative analgesic efficacy and the safety of intrathecal neostigmine in patients undergoing anterior and posterior vaginoplasty under spinal anaesthesia. Thirty-six patients were randomly divided into three groups to receive: normal saline (1 ml), morphine (100 micrograms in 1 ml of saline) or neostigmine (100 micrograms in 1 ml of saline) intrathecally just before a spinal injection of hyperbaric bupivacaine (0.5%, 4 ml). The mean [SD] time to the first analgesic (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) administration was significantly prolonged by intrathecal neostigmine (10.7 [4.3] h) and morphine (15.3 [3.0] h) compared with saline (4.5 [1.0] h). The three groups also differed in the number of patients requiring subcutaneous morphine to complement the analgesia provided by the intramuscular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the mean [SD] times for their administration: eight patients in the saline group (8.0 [3.8] h), one patient in the morphine group (18 h) and two patients in the neostigmine group (8 and 12.9 h). The morphine and neostigmine groups showed similar analgesic effectiveness. The characteristics of spinal anaesthesia were not modified by intrathecal morphine or neostigmine. Severe nausea and vomiting, sweating and distress during surgery were the most obvious adverse effects of intrathecal neostigmine. On the other hand, less hypotension was observed in the neostigmine group. The usefulness of intrathecal neostigmine as the sole postoperative analgesic may be restricted by the severity of its adverse effects.