Risk of Reinfection After Seroconversion to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Population-based Propensity-score Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Serological assays detecting anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are being widely deployed in studies and clinical practice. However, the duration and effectiveness of the protection conferred by the immune response remains to be assessed in population-based samples. To estimate the incidence of newly acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections in seropositive individuals as compared to seronegative controls, we conducted a retrospective longitudinal matched study. METHODS: A seroprevalence survey including a representative sample of the population was conducted in Geneva, Switzerland, between April and June 2020, immediately after the first pandemic wave. Seropositive participants were matched one-to-two to seronegative controls, using a propensity-score including age, gender, immunodeficiency, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, and education level. Each individual was linked to a state-registry of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Our primary outcome was confirmed infections occurring from serological status assessment to the end of the second pandemic wave (January 2021). RESULTS: Among 8344 serosurvey participants, 498 seropositive individuals were selected and matched with 996 seronegative controls. After a mean follow-up of 35.6 (standard deviation [SD] 3.2) weeks, 7 out of 498 (1.4%) seropositive subjects had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, of whom 5 (1.0%) were classified as reinfections. In contrast, the infection rate was higher in seronegative individuals (15.5%, 154/996) during a similar follow-up period (mean 34.7 [SD 3.2] weeks), corresponding to a 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%- 98%, P < .001) reduction in the hazard of having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test for seropositives. CONCLUSIONS: Seroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 infection confers protection against reinfection lasting at least 8 months. These findings could help global health authorities establishing priority for vaccine allocation.

Occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and reinfection during the second pandemic surge: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: This cohort study including essential workers, assessed the risk and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second surge of COVID-19 according to baseline serostatus and occupational sector. METHODS: Essential workers were selected from a seroprevalence survey cohort in Geneva, Switzerland and were linked to a state centralised registry compiling SARS-CoV-2 infections. Primary outcome was the incidence of virologically confirmed infections from serological assessment (between May and September 2020) to 25 January 2021, according to baseline antibody status and stratified by three predefined occupational groups (occupations requiring sustained physical proximity, involving brief regular contact or others). RESULTS: 10 457 essential workers were included (occupations requiring sustained physical proximity accounted for 3057 individuals, those involving regular brief contact, 3645 and 3755 workers were classified under 'Other essential occupations'). After a follow-up period of over 27 weeks, 5 (0.6%) seropositive and 830 (8.5%) seronegative individuals had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, with an incidence rate of 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) and 3.2 (95% CI 2.9 to 3.4) cases per person-week, respectively. Incidences were similar across occupational groups. Seropositive essential workers had a 93% reduction in the hazard (HR of 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17) of having a positive test during the follow-up with no significant between-occupational group difference. CONCLUSIONS: A 10-fold reduction in the hazard of being virologically tested positive was observed among anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositive essential workers regardless of their sector of occupation, confirming the seroprotective effect of a previous SARS-CoV2 exposure at least 6 months after infection.

[When to look for cancer in case of unintentional weight loss ?] / Quand rechercher un cancer en cas de perte de poids involontaire ?

The definition of unintentional weight loss (UWL) is heterogeneous and most commonly used as a UWL of >5% over the past 6 months. The differential diagnosis of UWL is very broad and encompasses non-medical causes, somatic illnesses, and psychiatric conditions. One of the feared diagnoses remains the presence of an underlying cancer. It is observed that UWL is more associated with certain types of cancer, in particular digestive. The primary workup for UWL should begin with a history and a detailed physical examination searching for associated symptoms or signs. The age, sex and smoking status are factors to be considered in particular. Management of UWL does not meet established recommendations and should be guided by relevant signs and symptoms. Future studies are necessary, in particular to clarify the place of imaging in the diagnostic process.

La définition de la perte de poids involontaire (PPI) est hétérogène, celle souvent retenue est une PPI > 5 % en 6 mois. Le diagnostic différentiel est très large et prend en compte des causes variées, dont la présence redoutée d'un cancer sous-jacent. Elle est plus souvent associée à certains types de cancer, notamment digestifs. Son bilan primaire commence par une anamnèse et un examen clinique détaillés à la recherche de symptômes associés. L'âge, le sexe et le tabagisme sont des facteurs à prendre en compte. Sa prise en charge ne répond pas à des recommandations clairement établies, mais est guidée par les symptômes associés. De futures études sont nécessaires, notamment pour clarifier la place de l'imagerie dans la démarche diagnostique.

[Internal medicine in 2020]. / 2020 en revue par les internistes hospitaliers.

2020: annus horribilis for hospital medicine? The past year, notable because of the current pandemic, has had a profound impact on multiple aspects of medical practice. Just as all medical staff and the general population, hospital internists were put under immense strain in 2020. This year has more than ever reinforced our belief in the importance of keeping a critical and scientific eye on the mass of new studies and data produced every year. The internists of the HUG propose a critical review of selected recent publications that may influence our daily management of patients.

2020 : annus horribilis pour la médecine hospitalière ? L'année écoulée, marquée par la pandémie en cours, a eu un impact majeur sur de multiples aspects de notre pratique. Comme l'ensemble du monde médico-soignant et de la population, les internistes hospitaliers ont été mis à rude épreuve en 2020. Cette année a plus que jamais renforcé notre conviction de l'importance de porter un regard scientifique sur la masse de nouveautés qui surviennent chaque année. Les internistes hospitaliers des HUG vous proposent de partager leur vision critique de publications scientifiques récentes utiles pour notre pratique quotidienne.

[The bioresorbable coronary stent: a revolution]. / Stents coronariens biorésorbables: une révolution?

Coronary angioplasty has undergone several technological revolutions: starting with balloon angioplasty, then with bare metal stent and finally with drug eluting stent (DES), this technique is now mature. However, once we thought the problem of instent restenosis solved with DES, new concerns arise with late and very late stent thrombosis. Should we therefore proscribe DES? How long should be the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy? And how should we manage the patients who need a surgery and are at high risk of bleeding? Are bioresorbable stents the final solution with their initial mechanical properties, then with their drug eluting effect against intra-stent restenosis, and finally with their complete resorption which leaves the artery free of any foreign material?

Eight versus 28-point lung ultrasonography in moderate acute heart failure: a prospective comparative study.

Lung ultrasonography (LUS) is an accurate method of estimating lung congestion but there is ongoing debate on the optimal number of scanning points. The aim of the present study was to compare the reproducibility (i.e. interobserver agreement) and the feasibility (i.e. time consumption) of the two most practiced protocols in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). This prospective trial compared 8- and 28-point LUS protocols. Both were performed by an expert-novice pair of sonographers at admission and after 4 to 6 days on patients admitted for AHF. A structured bio-clinical evaluation was simultaneously carried out by the treating physician. The primary outcome was expert-novice interobserver agreement estimated by kappa statistics. Secondary outcomes included time spent on image acquisition and interpretation. During the study period, 43 patients underwent a total of 319 LUS exams. Expert-novice interobserver agreement was moderate at admission and substantial at follow-up for 8-point protocol (weighted kappa of 0.54 and 0.62, respectively) with no significant difference for 28-point protocol (weighted kappa of 0.51 and 0.41; P value for comparison 0.74 at admission and 0.13 at follow-up). The 8-point protocol required significantly less time for image acquisition at admission (mean time difference - 3.6 min for experts, - 5.1 min for novices) and interpretation (- 6.0 min for experts and - 6.3 min for novices; P value < 0.001 for all time comparisons). Similar differences were observed at follow-up. In conclusion, an 8-point LUS protocol was shown to be timesaving with similar reproducibility when compared with a 28-point protocol. It should be preferred for evaluating lung congestion in AHF inpatients.

Cohort profile: Actionable Register of Geneva Outpatients and inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (ARGOS).

PURPOSE: The 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. PARTICIPANTS: As 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 DATE: ARGOS 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 PLANS: The 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.