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.

LA PJIs have a high failure rate. Treatment strategies should be individualized according to patients' age, comorbidity, clinical presentation and microorganism causing the infection.

The objective of this paper was to assess the cost-utility of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in three specific CDI patient subgroups: those with cancer, treated with concomitant antibiotic therapy or with renal impairment. A Markov model with six health states was developed to assess the cost-utility of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in the patient subgroups over a period of 1 year from initial infection. Cost and outcome data used to parameterise the model were taken from Spanish sources and published literature. The costs were from the Spanish hospital perspective, in Euros (€) and for 2013. For CDI patients with cancer, fidaxomicin was dominant versus vancomycin [gain of 0.016 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and savings of €2,397 per patient]. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective was 96 %. For CDI patients treated with concomitant antibiotic therapy, fidaxomicin was the dominant treatment versus vancomycin (gain of 0.014 QALYs and savings of €1,452 per patient), with a probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective of 94 %. For CDI patients with renal impairment, fidaxomicin was also dominant versus vancomycin (gain of 0.013 QALYs and savings of €1,432 per patient), with a probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective of 96 %. Over a 1-year time horizon, when fidaxomicin is compared to vancomycin in CDI patients with cancer, treated with concomitant antibiotic therapy or with renal impairment, the use of fidaxomicin would be expected to result in increased QALYs for patients and reduced overall costs.

Objectives: We evaluated the treatment outcome in late acute (LA) periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) treated with debridement and implant retention (DAIR) versus implant removal. Methods: In a large multicenter study, LA PJIs of the hip and knee were retrospectively evaluated. Failure was defined as: PJI related death, prosthesis removal or the need for suppressive antibiotic therapy. LA PJI was defined as acute symptoms < 3 weeks in patients more than 3 months after the index surgery and with a history of normal joint function. Results: 445 patients were included, comprising 340 cases treated with DAIR and 105 cases treated with implant removal (19% one-stage revision (n = 20), 74.3% two-stage revision (n = 78) and 6.7% definitive implant removal (n = 7). Overall failure in patients treated with DAIR was 45.0% (153/340) compared to 24.8% (26/105) for implant removal (p < 0.001). Difference in failure rate remained after 1:1 propensityscore matching. A preoperative CRIME80-score ≥3 (OR 2.9), PJI caused by S. aureus (OR 1.8) and implant retention (OR 3.1) were independent predictors for failure in the multivariate analysis. Conclusion: DAIR is a viable surgical treatment for most patients with LA PJI, but implant removal should be considered in a subset of patients, especially in those with a CRIME80-score ≥3.