Search

PurposeThe Actionable Register of Geneva Outpatients and inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (ARGOS) is an ongoing prospective cohort created by the Geneva Directorate of Health. It consists of an operational database compiling all SARS-CoV-2 test results recorded in the Geneva area since late February 2020. This article aims at presenting this comprehensive cohort, in light of some of the varying public health measures in Geneva, Switzerland, since March 2020.ParticipantsAs of 1 June 2021, the database included 360 525 patients, among which 65 475 had at least one positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. Among all positive patients, 37.6% were contacted only once, 10.6% had one follow-up call, 8.5% had two and 27.7% had three or more follow-up calls. Participation rate among positive patients is 94%. Data collection is ongoing.Findings to dateARGOS data illustrates the magnitude of COVID-19 pandemic in Geneva, Switzerland, and details a variety of population factors and outcomes. The content of the cohort includes demographic data, comorbidities and risk factors for poor clinical outcome, self-reported COVID-19 symptoms, environmental and socioeconomic factors, prospective and retrospective contact tracing data, travel quarantine data and deaths. The registry has already been used in several publications focusing on symptoms and long COVID-19, infection fatality rate and re-infection.Future plansThe data of this large real-world registry provides a valuable resource for various types of research, such as clinical research, epidemiological research or policy assessment as it illustrates the impact of public health policies and overall disease burden of COVID-19.

La médecine intégrative permet de coordonner médecine con­ventionnelle et traitements complémentaires. Cette approche est particulièrement intéressante dans le domaine de la préven­tion et dans la prise en charge globale en médecine de premier recours. Cet article présente quelques études clés, publiées en 2020, qui mettent en lumière les bénéfices potentiels d'une approche intégrative en médecine de premier recours.

Monica Varcher,1 Sofia Zisimopoulou,1 Olivia Braillard,1 Bernard Favrat,2 Noëlle Junod Perron1 1Department of Community, Primary and Emergency Care, Division of Primary Care, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, 2Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Background: Iron deficiency is a common problem in primary care and is usually treated with oral iron substitution. With the recent simplification of intravenous (IV) iron administration (ferric carboxymaltose) and its approval in many countries for iron deficiency, physicians may be inclined to overutilize it as a first-line substitution.Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate iron deficiency management and substitution practices in an academic primary care division 5 years after ferric carboxymaltose was approved for treatment of iron deficiency in Switzerland.Methods: All patients treated for iron deficiency during March and April 2012 at the Geneva University Division of Primary Care were identified. Their medical files were analyzed for information, including initial ferritin value, reasons for the investigation of iron levels, suspected etiology, type of treatment initiated, and clinical and biological follow-up. Findings were assessed using an algorithm for iron deficiency management based on a literature review.Results: Out of 1,671 patients, 93 were treated for iron deficiency. Median patients’ age was 40 years and 92.5% (n=86) were female. The average ferritin value was 17.2 μg/L (standard deviation 13.3 μg/L). The reasons for the investigation of iron levels were documented in 82% and the suspected etiology for iron deficiency was reported in 67%. Seventy percent of the patients received oral treatment, 14% IV treatment, and 16% both. The reasons for IV treatment as first- and second-line treatment were reported in 57% and 95%, respectively. Clinical and biological follow-up was planned in less than two-thirds of the cases.Conclusion: There was no clear overutilization of IV iron substitution. However, several steps of the iron deficiency management were not optimally documented, suggesting shortcuts in clinical reasoning. Keywords: iron deficiency, iron substitution, general practice, quality of care, cross-sectional design