Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.)最新文献

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.

Introduction: There is discussion about the frequency of STI screening among pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. The aim of this study was to analyse the incidence of STIs and to evaluate different screening models in order to optimise the follow-up.

Methodology: A prospective study was conducted between 2017 and 2023, including 138 PrEP users in a STI clinic. Participants were tested for STIs every three months. Unscheduled visits were performed for those with STI-related symptoms or for people who were notified for an STI by a sexual partner. We performed a survival analysis of repeated events, estimating the cumulative incidence (CI) and incidence rate (IR).

Results: The overall CI by quarterly screening was 8.3 (95% CI: 7.6-9.1) infections per person over six years, with a decreasing trend. The most frequently diagnosed pathogen was Neisseria gonorrhoeae, with a IR of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.68-0.84). If the frequency of screening is reduced to every six months, the IR of STIs is reduced by (95% CI: 0.5-0.66) infections per user per year, and at 12 months by 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73-0.89). In the case of no pharyngeal or urethral screening, IR is reduced by 0.37 (95% CI: 0.32-0.42) infections per person per year and in those over 35 years of age by 0.33 (95% CI: 0.25-0.4). Eliminating unscheduled visits, the reduction in IR is 0.33 (95% CI: 0.24-0.42).

Conclusions: The incidence of STIs among PrEP users is high, especially in the rectum, but it does not increase over time. STI screening could be optimised reducing the frequency of pharyngeal and urethral testing, particularly in those over 35 years of age. It is essential to redistribute health resources for unscheduled visits, which have been shown to be the most cost-effective screening.