Search

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., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U.)