Incidence of long COVID-related consultations in family medicine in Switzerland: a cross-sectional study within the Sentinella network, 2026, Prasad+

[Chandelier]

Incidence of long COVID-related consultations in family medicine in Switzerland: a cross-sectional study within the Sentinella network

Spoiler: Authors

Prasad, Pawan; Moussa, Mohamed Amir; Mueller, Yolanda; Ziegler, Laure; Zeller, Andreas; Haller, Dagmar M.

Abstract
STUDY AIMS: The initial prevalence estimates of long COVID exhibited significant heterogeneity.
In Switzerland, early findings estimated a 39–53% prevalence of long COVID symptoms among adult patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
However, studies conducted in a primary care setting suggested a significantly lower burden of care, with long COVID accounting for less than 1% of family medicine consultations.
The objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of long COVID-related consultations in Swiss family medicine practices, in order to guide health services planning.

METHODS: This repeat cross-sectional study was conducted using the data collected by family physicians (general internists and paediatricians) within the Swiss Sentinella network, part of the epidemiological surveillance system managed by the Federal Office of Public Health.
Data was collected between August 2021 and April 2023 via monthly reports of doctors’ activity over the past four weeks.
Long COVID-related consultations were defined as visits where physicians recorded symptoms or conditions linked to post-acute SARS-CoV-2 effects, based on clinical definitions at the time.
Doctor characteristics were measured and analysed for associations with monthly median incidence rates of long COVID-related consultations.

RESULTS: 181 family practices provided data for at least one month during the study (154 general internists and 27 paediatricians): 85% of doctors were general internists, 32% were women and 74% worked in an urban area.
The median incidence of monthly long COVID-related consultations was 3/1000 consultations for general internists and 0/1000 consultations for paediatricians. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression showed that internists were significantly more likely to report long COVID-related consultations compared to paediatricians.
Also, physicians in central Switzerland were more likely to have a higher median incidence of long COVID-related consultations in comparison to those in other regions.

CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the incidence of long COVID-related consultations in Swiss family medicine is markedly lower than expected, considering the estimated prevalence of long COVID post-SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This discrepancy may result from potential biases in earlier studies, epidemiological variations and diagnostic challenges.
These findings underscore the need for improved diagnostic criteria and enhanced support for primary care providers in recognising long COVID and facilitating referrals for more severely affected patients.

Web | DOI | PDF | Swiss Medical Weekly | Open Access

 

[Hutan]

The data did not include information on individual patients (personal data, symptoms and patient reports were not gathered).

So, we can't get an idea of what percentage of patients were affected.

Reported variables included total number of consultations over the previous four weeks and long COVID-related consultations.
The analysis did not distinguish between new and repeat long COVID-related consultations.

 

[rvallee]

39–53% is obviously wrong, but 0-0.3% is even more wrong. Again known facts about how LC is under-diagnosed for a variety of reasons are not even part of the discussion, and instead they explicitly frame it as the reported incidence from consults is the true "demand".

Given that the prognosis of long COVID appears to depend on the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection, this data may not reflect the true prevalence of long COVID development in the broader population

They haven't even updated facts that have been clarified years ago, and they explicitly say that only the early inflated numbers could be wrong, entirely dismissing the reported fact that most patients are dismissed, told it doesn't exist and find zero support from their health care systems. They only discuss this as "diagnostic uncertainty", entirely ignoring common reports from patients, which have not changed since then.

As expected, long COVID-related consultations were significantly more frequent among internists than paediatricians, with most paediatricians reporting no such consultations throughout the study. This is consistent with the lower prevalence of post-COVID conditions in children compared to adults

Lower prevalence is not the same as zero. This is asinine reasoning. They are either genuinely ignorance or feigning ignorance about facts that have been known for years. This looks far closer to disinformation than misinformation.

Other factors may include the increased availability of specialised long COVID consultations, better self-care awareness and improved management, which may have led patients to seek care outside primary care settings or reduced the need for primary care consultations.

Literally making implausible stuff up, passing weird speculation as fact.

The systems of health care are flawed in ways that no other expert systems are. They produce disinformation that self-reinforces.

 

[Hutan]

I wonder if this source of data (the Sentinellla network data) is of any use for other related purposes? For example, if ME/CFS codes are entered into the system?