[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

Utilidad del índice PROFUND para predecir la mortalidad a los 4 años en pacientes pluripatológicos / Reliability of the PROFUND index to predict 4-year mortality in polypathological patients

Objetivo: Determinar la validez del índice PROFUND para establecer el riesgo de muerte global a los 4 años en pacientes pluripatológicos. Pacientes y métodos: Estudio de cohortes (Medicina Interna y Geriatría) prospectivo y multicéntrico. Se incluyeron pacientes pluripatológicos ingresados entre el 1 de marzo y el 30 de junio de 2011. Se recogieron datos de edad, sexo, si vivían en el domicilio o en una residencia, categorías de pluripatología, índices de Charlson, Lawton-Brody y Barthel, cuestionario de Pfeiffer, escala sociofamiliar de Gijón, delirium, número de fármacos, hemoglobina, creatinina e índice PROFUND. Se realizó un seguimiento durante 4 años. Resultados: Se incluyeron 441 pacientes, 324 de Medicina Interna y 117 de Geriatría, con una edad media de 80,9 (8,7) años, y 245 (55,6%) eran mujeres. Las enfermedades cardiacas (62,7%), neurológicas (41,4%) y respiratorias (37,3%) fueron las más frecuentes. Los pacientes de Geriatría eran de más edad, más dependientes y con más deterioro cognitivo. Al cabo de 4 años habían fallecido 335 (76%) pacientes. Los factores asociados de forma independiente con la mortalidad fueron la edad, la disnea, el índice de Barthel<60, el delirium, las neoplasias avanzadas y haber ingresado 4 o más veces en el último año. El rendimiento del índice PROFUND fue bueno en los pacientes de Medicina Interna y malo en los de Geriatría (0,748, IC 95% 0,689-0,806, p<0,001, y 0,517, IC 95% 0,369-0,666, p=0,818, respectivamente). Conclusiones: El índice PROFUND es útil para predecir la mortalidad global a largo plazo en los pacientes pluripatológicos de Medicina Interna, pero no en los de Geriatría (AU)

Objective: To determine the usefullness of the PROFUND index to assess the risk of global death after 4 years in polypathological patients. Patients and methods: Multicenter prospective cohort (Internal Medicine and Geriatrics) study. Polypathological patients admitted between March 1st and June 30th 2011 were included. For each patient, data concerning age, sex, living at home or in a nursing residence, polypathology categories, Charlson, Barthel and Lawton-Brody indexes, Pfeiffer questionnaire, socio-familial Gijon scale,delirium, number of drugs, hemoglobin and creatinine values were gathered, and the PROFUND index was calculated. The follow-up lasted 4 years. Results: We included 441 patients, 324 from Internal Medicine and 117 from Geriatrics, with a mean age of 80.9 (8.7) years. Of them, 245 (55.6%) were women. Heart (62.7%), neurological (41.4%) and respiratory (37.3%) diseases were the most frequent. Geriatrics inpatients were older and more dependants and presented greater cognitive deterioration. After 4 years, 335 (76%) patients died. Mortality was associated with age, dyspnoea, Barthel index<60,delirium, advanced neoplasia and≥4 admissions in the last year. The area under the curve of the PROFUND index was 0.748, 95% CI 0.689-0.806, P<.001 in Internal Medicine and 0.517, 95% CI 0.369-0.666, P=.818 in Geriatrics patients, respectively. Conclusions: The PROFUND index is a reliable tool for predicting long-term global mortality in polypathological patients from Internal Medicine but not from Geriatrics departments (AU)

[Reliability of the PROFUND index to predict 4-year mortality in polypathological patients]. / Utilidad del índice PROFUND para predecir la mortalidad a los 4 años en pacientes pluripatológicos.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefullness of the PROFUND index to assess the risk of global death after 4 years in polypathological patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicenter prospective cohort (Internal Medicine and Geriatrics) study. Polypathological patients admitted between March 1st and June 30th 2011 were included. For each patient, data concerning age, sex, living at home or in a nursing residence, polypathology categories, Charlson, Barthel and Lawton-Brody indexes, Pfeiffer questionnaire, socio-familial Gijon scale, delirium, number of drugs, hemoglobin and creatinine values were gathered, and the PROFUND index was calculated. The follow-up lasted 4 years. RESULTS: We included 441 patients, 324 from Internal Medicine and 117 from Geriatrics, with a mean age of 80.9 (8.7) years. Of them, 245 (55.6%) were women. Heart (62.7%), neurological (41.4%) and respiratory (37.3%) diseases were the most frequent. Geriatrics inpatients were older and more dependants and presented greater cognitive deterioration. After 4 years, 335 (76%) patients died. Mortality was associated with age, dyspnoea, Barthel index<60, delirium, advanced neoplasia and≥4 admissions in the last year. The area under the curve of the PROFUND index was 0.748, 95% CI 0.689-0.806, P<.001 in Internal Medicine and 0.517, 95% CI 0.369-0.666, P=.818 in Geriatrics patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PROFUND index is a reliable tool for predicting long-term global mortality in polypathological patients from Internal Medicine but not from Geriatrics departments.