RESUMO
Some occupational sectors, such as human health and care, food service, cultural and sport activities, have been associated with a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than other sectors. To curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2, it is preferable to apply targeted non-pharmaceutical interventions on selected economic sectors, rather than a full lockdown. However, the effect of these general and sector-specific interventions on the virus circulation has only been sparsely studied. We assess the COVID-19 incidence under different levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions per economic activity during the autumn 2020 wave in Belgium. The 14-day incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases per the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE-BEL) sector is modelled by a longitudinal Gaussian-Gaussian two-stage approach. This is based on exhaustive data on all employees in all sectors. In the presence of sanitary protocols and minimal non-pharmaceutical interventions, many sectors with close contact with others show considerably higher COVID-19 14-day incidences than other sectors. The effect of stricter non-pharmaceutical interventions in the general population and non-essential sectors is seen in the timing of the peak incidence and the width and height of the post-peak incidence. In most sectors incidences returned to higher levels after the peak than before and this decrease took longer for the health and care sector. Sanitary protocols for close proximity occupations may be sufficient during periods of low-level virus circulation, but progressively less with increasing circulation. Stricter general and sector-specific non-pharmaceutical interventions adequately decrease COVID-19 incidences, even in close proximity in essential sectors under solely sanitary protocols.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Bélgica/epidemiologia , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis , Humanos , Ocupações , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
BACKGROUND: National public health agencies are required to prioritise infectious diseases for prevention and control. We applied the prioritisation method recommended by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control to rank infectious diseases, according to their relative importance for surveillance and public health, to inform future public health action in Belgium. METHODS: We applied the multi-criteria-decision-analysis approach. A working group of epidemiologists and statisticians from Belgium (n = 6) designed a balanced set of prioritisation criteria. A panel of Belgian experts (n = 80) allocated in an online survey each criteria a weight, according to perceived relative importance. Next, experts (n = 37) scored each disease against each criteria in an online survey, guided by disease-specific factsheets referring the period 2010-2016 in Belgium. The weighted sum of the criteria's scores composed the final weighted score per disease, on which the ranking was based. Sensitivity analyses quantified the impact of eight alternative analysis scenarios on the top-20 ranked diseases. We identified criteria and diseases associated with data-gaps as those with the highest number of blank answers in the scoring survey. Principle components of the final weighted score were identified. RESULTS: Working groups selected 98 diseases and 18 criteria, structured in five criteria groups. The diseases ranked highest were (in order) pertussis, human immunodeficiency virus infection, hepatitis C and hepatitis B. Among the five criteria groups, overall the highest weights were assigned to 'impact on the patient', followed by 'impact on public health', while different perceptions were identified between clinicians, microbiologists and epidemiologists. Among the 18 individual criteria, 'spreading potential' and 'events requiring public health action' were assigned the highest weights. Principle components clustered with thematic disease groups. Notable data gaps were found among hospital-related diseases. CONCLUSIONS: We ranked infectious diseases using a standardised reproducible approach. The diseases ranked highest are included in current public health programs, but additional reflection for example about needs among risk groups is recommended. Cross-reference of the obtained ranking with current programs is needed to verify whether resources and activities map priority areas. We recommend to implement this method in a recurrent evaluation cycle of national public health priorities.
Assuntos
Doenças Transmissíveis , Bélgica/epidemiologia , Doenças Transmissíveis/epidemiologia , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Prioridades em Saúde , Humanos , Saúde Pública , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
IntroductionSequence-based typing of hepatitis A virus (HAV) is important for outbreak detection, investigation and surveillance. In 2013, sequencing was central to resolving a large European Union (EU)-wide outbreak related to frozen berries. However, as the sequenced HAV genome regions were only partly comparable between countries, results were not always conclusive.AimThe objective was to gather information on HAV surveillance and sequencing in EU/European Economic Area (EEA) countries to find ways to harmonise their procedures, for improvement of cross-border outbreak responses.MethodsIn 2014, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) conducted a survey on HAV surveillance practices in EU/EEA countries. The survey enquired whether a referral system for confirming primary diagnostics of hepatitis A existed as well as a central collection/storage of hepatitis A cases' samples for typing. Questions on HAV sequencing procedures were also asked. Based on the results, an expert consultation proposed harmonised procedures for cross-border outbreak response, in particular regarding sequencing. In 2016, a follow-up survey assessed uptake of suggested methods.ResultsOf 31 EU/EEA countries, 23 (2014) and 27 (2016) participated. Numbers of countries with central collection and storage of HAV positive samples and of those performing sequencing increased from 12 to 15 and 12 to 14 respectively in 2016, with all countries typing an overlapping fragment of 218 nt. However, variation existed in the sequenced genomic regions and their lengths.ConclusionsWhile HAV sequences in EU/EEA countries are comparable for surveillance, collaboration in sharing and comparing these can be further strengthened.
Assuntos
Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Vírus da Hepatite A/isolamento & purificação , Hepatite A/diagnóstico , Tipagem Molecular/métodos , Vigilância da População/métodos , Sequenciamento Completo do Genoma/métodos , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , União Europeia , Hepatite A/epidemiologia , Vírus da Hepatite A/genética , Humanos , RNA Viral/análise , Análise de Sequência de DNARESUMO
Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) remains a common condition in both low- and high-income countries. In Belgium, however, there is currently a lack of information on the societal health and economic impact of AGE. We conducted a retrospective study using mortality and cause-of-death data, hospital data, primary care data, health interview survey data and other published data. We estimated the burden of illness during a 5-year period (2010-2014) in Belgium in terms of deaths, patients admitted to hospitals, patients consulting their general practitioner (GP) and cases occurring in the community. We further quantified the health impact in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and the economic impact in terms of cost-of-illness estimates. We estimated 343 deaths, 27 707 hospitalised patients, 464 222 GP consultations and 10 058 741 episodes occurring in the community (0.91 cases/person) on average per year. AGE was associated with 11 855 DALYs per year (107 DALY per 100 000 persons). The economic burden was estimated to represent direct costs of 112 million, indirect costs of 927 million (90% of the total costs) and an average total cost of 103 per case and 94 per person. AGE results in a substantial health and economic impact in Belgium, justifying continued mitigation efforts.
Assuntos
Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Gastroenterite/economia , Gastroenterite/epidemiologia , Bélgica/epidemiologia , Gastroenterite/mortalidade , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Análise de SobrevidaRESUMO
Between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2017, 17 European Union (EU) and European Economic Area countries reported 4,096 cases associated with a multi-country hepatitis A (HA) outbreak. Molecular analysis identified three co-circulating hepatitis A virus (HAV) strains of genotype IA: VRD_521_2016, V16-25801 and RIVM-HAV16-090. We categorised cases as confirmed, probable or possible, according to the EU outbreak case definitions. Confirmed cases were infected with one of the three outbreak strains. We investigated case characteristics and strain-specific risk factors for transmission. A total of 1,400 (34%) cases were confirmed; VRD_521_2016 and RIVM-HAV16-090 accounted for 92% of these. Among confirmed cases with available epidemiological data, 92% (361/393) were unvaccinated, 43% (83/195) travelled to Spain during the incubation period and 84% (565/676) identified as men who have sex with men (MSM). Results depict an HA outbreak of multiple HAV strains, within a cross-European population, that was particularly driven by transmission between non-immune MSM engaging in high-risk sexual behaviour. The most effective preventive measure to curb this outbreak is HAV vaccination of MSM, supplemented by primary prevention campaigns that target the MSM population and promote protective sexual behaviour.