Background Information about incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of HIV-infected individuals with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is scarce. We characterised individuals with COVID-19 among a cohort of HIV-infected adults in Madrid. Methods In this observational prospective study, we included all consecutive HIV-infected individuals (aged ≥18 years) who had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 as of April 30, 2020, at the Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (Madrid, Spain). We compared the characteristics of HIV-infected individuals with COVID-19 with a sample of HIV-infected individuals assessed before the COVID-19 pandemic, and described the outcomes of individuals with COVID-19. Findings 51 HIV-infected individuals were diagnosed with COVID-19 (incidence 1•8%, 95% CI 1•3-2•3). Mean age of patients was 53•3 years (SD 9•5); eight (16%) were women, and 43 (84%) men. 35 (69%) cases of co-infection had laboratory confirmed COVID-19, and 28 (55%) required hospital admission. Age and CD4 cell counts in 51 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were similar to those in 1288 HIV-infected individuals without; however, 32 (63%) with COVID-19 had at least one comorbidity (mostly hypertension and diabetes) compared with 495 (38%) without COVID-19 (p=0•00059). 37 (73%) patients had received tenofovir before COVID-19 diagnosis compared with 487 (38%) of those without COVID-19 (p=0•0036); 11 (22%) in the COVID-19 group had previous protease inhibitor use (mostly darunavir) compared with 175 (14%; p=0•578). Clinical, analytical, and radiological presentation of COVID-19 in HIV-infected individuals was similar to that described in the general population. Six (12%) individuals were critically ill, two of whom had CD4 counts of less than 200 cells per µL, and two (4%) died. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR remained positive after a median of 40 days from symptoms onset in six (32%) individuals, four of whom had severe disease or low nadir CD4 cell counts.Interpretation HIV-infected individuals should not be considered to be protected from SARS-CoV-2 infection or to have lower risk of severe disease. Generally, they should receive the same treatment approach applied to the general population.

Background The worldwide spread of a novel coronavirus disease has led to a near total stop of nonurgent, elective surgeries across all specialties in most affected countries. In the field of aesthetic surgery, the selfimposed moratorium for all aesthetic surgery procedures recommended by most international scientific societies has been adopted by many surgeons worldwide and resulted in a huge socioeconomic impact for most private practices and clinics. An important question still unanswered in most countries is when and how should elective/aesthetic procedures be scheduled again and what kind of organizational changes are necessary to protect patients and healthcare workers when clinics and practices reopen. Defining manageable, evidence-based protocols for testing, surgical/ procedural risk mitigation and clinical flow management/contamination management will be paramount for the safety of non-urgent surgical procedures. Methods We conducted a MEDLINE/PubMed research for all available publications on COVID-19 and surgery and COVID-19 and anesthesia. Articles and referenced literature describing possible procedural impact factors leading to exacerbation of the clinical evolution of COVID-19positive patients were identified to perform risk stratification for elective surgery. Based on these impact factors, considerations for patient selection, choice of procedural complexity, duration of procedure, type of anesthesia, etc., are discussed in this article and translated into algorithms for surgical/anesthesia risk management and clinical management. Current recommendations and published protocols on contamination control, avoidance of crosscontamination and procedural patient flow are reviewed. A COVID-19 testing guideline protocol for patients planning to undergo elective aesthetic surgery is presented and recommendations are made regarding adaptation of current patient information/informed consent forms and patient health questionnaires. Conclusion The COVID-19 crisis has led to unprecedented challenges in the acute management of the crisis, and the wave only recently seems to flatten out in some countries. The adaptation of surgical and procedural steps for a riskminimizing management of potential COVID-19-positive patients seeking to undergo elective aesthetic procedures in the wake of that wave will present the next big challenge for the aesthetic surgery community. We propose a clinical algorithm to enhance patient safety in elective surgery in the context of COVID-19 and to minimize cross-contamination between healthcare workers and patients. New evidence-based guidelines regarding surgical risk stratification, testing, and clinical flow management/contamination management are proposed. We believe that only the continuous development and broad implementation of guidelines like the ones proposed in this paper will allow an early reintegration of all aesthetic procedures into the scope of surgical care currently performed and to prepare

Background We analyzed the prevalence, etiology, and risk factors of culture-positive preservation fluid and their impact on the management of solid organ transplant recipients. Methods From July 2015 to March 2017, 622 episodes of adult solid organ transplants at 7 university hospitals in Spain were prospectively included in the study. Results The prevalence of culture-positive preservation fluid was 62.5% (389/622). Nevertheless, in only 25.2% (98/389) of the cases were the isolates considered “high risk” for pathogenicity. After applying a multivariate regression analysis, advanced donor age was the main associated factor for having culture-positive preservation fluid for high-risk microorganisms. Preemptive antibiotic therapy was given to 19.8% (77/389) of the cases. The incidence rate of preservation fluid–related infection was 1.3% (5 recipients); none of these patients had received preemptive therapy. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid receiving preemptive antibiotic therapy presented both a lower cumulative incidence of infection and a lower rate of acute rejection and graft loss compared with those who did not have high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid. After adjusting for age, sex, type of transplant, and prior graft rejection, preemptive antibiotic therapy remained a significant protective factor for 90-day infection. Conclusions The routine culture of preservation fluid may be considered a tool that provides information about the contamination of the transplanted organ. Preemptive therapy for SOT recipients with high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid may be useful to avoid preservation fluid–related infections and improve the outcomes of infection, graft loss, and graft rejection in transplant patients.

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are especially at risk of developing infections by multidrug resistant bacteria (MDR). In this study, the biofilm-forming capability of 209 MDR strains ( Escherichia coli n = 106, Klebsiella pneumoniae n = 78, and Enterobacter spp. n = 25) isolated from rectal swabs in the first 48 hours before or after kidney (93 patients), liver (60 patients) or kidney/pancreas transplants (5 patients) were evaluated by using a microplate assay. Thirty-nine strains were isolated before transplant and 170 strains were isolated post-transplant. Overall, 16% of E. coli strains, 73% of K. pneumoniae strains and 4% Enterobacter strains showed moderate or strong biofilm production. Nine strains isolated from infection sites after transplantation were responsible of infections in the first month. Of these, 4 K. pneumoniae , 1 E. coli and 1 Enterobacter spp. strains isolated pre-transplant or post-transplant as colonizers caused infections in the post-transplant period. Our results suggest that in vitro biofilm formation could be an important factor for adhesion to intestine and colonization in MDR K. pneumoniae strains in SOT recipients, but this factor appears to be less important for MDR E. coli and Enterobacter spp.