Two Years of Genomic Surveillance in Belgium during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic to Attain Country-Wide Coverage and Monitor the Introduction and Spread of Emerging Variants.

An adequate SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance strategy has proven to be essential for countries to obtain a thorough understanding of the variants and lineages being imported and successfully established within their borders. During 2020, genomic surveillance in Belgium was not structurally implemented but performed by individual research laboratories that had to acquire the necessary funds themselves to perform this important task. At the start of 2021, a nationwide genomic surveillance consortium was established in Belgium to markedly increase the country's genomic sequencing efforts (both in terms of intensity and representativeness), to perform quality control among participating laboratories, and to enable coordination and collaboration of research projects and publications. We here discuss the genomic surveillance efforts in Belgium before and after the establishment of its genomic sequencing consortium, provide an overview of the specifics of the consortium, and explore more details regarding the scientific studies that have been published as a result of the increased number of Belgian SARS-CoV-2 genomes that have become available.

One year of laboratory-based COVID-19 surveillance system in Belgium: main indicators and performance of the laboratories (March 2020-21).

BACKGROUND: With the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an existing national laboratory-based surveillance system was adapted to daily monitor the epidemiological situation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the Belgium by following the number of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, the number of performed tests and the positivity ratio. We present these main indicators of the surveillance over a one-year period as well as the impact of the performance of the laboratories, regarding speed of processing the samples and reporting results, for surveillance. METHODS: We describe the evolution of test capacity, testing strategy and the data collection methods during the first year of the epidemic in Belgium. RESULTS: Between the 1st of March 2020 and the 28th of February 2021, 9,487,470 tests and 773,078 COVID-19 laboratory confirmed cases were reported. Two epidemic waves occurred, with a peak in April and October 2020. The capacity and performance of the laboratories improved continuously during 2020 resulting in a high level performance. Since the end of November 2020 90 to 95% of the test results are reported at the latest the day after sampling was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Thanks to the effort of all laboratories a performant exhaustive national laboratory-based surveillance system to monitor the epidemiological situation of SARS-CoV-2 was set up in Belgium in 2020. On top of expanding the number of laboratories performing diagnostics and significantly increasing the test capacity in Belgium, turnaround times between sampling and testing as well as reporting were optimized over the first year of this pandemic.

Audit of empirical antibiotic therapy for sepsis and the impact of early multidisciplinary consultation on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To perform an audit of empirical antibiotic therapy (EAT) of sepsis at the emergency department and to analyse the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme on process and patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-centre cohort study including patients with sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥2 from whom blood cultures were taken was conducted between February 2019 and April 2020. EAT was assessed using eight applicable inpatient quality indicators (IQIs) for responsible antibiotic use. Patient outcomes were hospital length-of-stay (LOS), ICU admission, ICU LOS, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The audit included 900 sepsis episodes in 803 patients. Full guideline adherence regarding choice and dosing was 45.9%; adherence regarding choice alone was 68.1%. EAT was active against all likely pathogens in 665/787 (84.5%) episodes. In the guideline non-adherent group, choice of EAT was inappropriate in 122/251 (48.6%) episodes. Changes within 3 days occurred in 335/900 (37.2%) episodes. Treating physicians changed administration route more often, whereas microbiological/infectious disease (ID)/AMS consultant advice resulted in de-escalation and discontinuation (P = 0.000). Guideline-adherent choice was associated with significantly shorter LOS (6 (4-11) vs. 8 (5-15) days). Full adherence was associated with significantly lower mortality (23 (6.4%) vs. 48 (11.3%)) and shorter LOS (6 (4-10) vs. 8 (5-14) days). CONCLUSION: Five global quality indicators of EAT were measurable in routine clinical practice. Full adherence to guidelines was only moderate. Adherence to guidelines was associated with better patient outcomes.

Infections at the nexus of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease.

Metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is a chronic liver disease that affects about a quarter of the world population. MAFLD encompasses different disease stadia ranging from isolated liver steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although MAFLD is considered as the hepatic manifestation of the metabolic syndrome, multiple concomitant disease-potentiating factors can accelerate disease progression. Among these risk factors are diet, lifestyle, genetic traits, intake of steatogenic drugs, male gender and particular infections. Although infections often outweigh the development of fatty liver disease, pre-existing MAFLD could be triggered to progress towards more severe disease stadia. These combined disease cases might be underreported because of the high prevalence of both MAFLD and infectious diseases that can promote or exacerbate fatty liver disease development. In this review, we portray the molecular and cellular mechanisms by which the most relevant viral, bacterial and parasitic infections influence the progression of fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis. We focus in particular on how infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease-19, hepatitis C, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, peptic ulcer and periodontitis, exacerbate MAFLD. We specifically underscore the synergistic effects of these infections with other MAFLD-promoting factors.

Follow-up testing of borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients by rRT-PCR allows early diagnosis of COVID-19.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples using the real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19. Determination of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR sometimes results in an inconclusive test result due to a high cycle threshold-value. We retrospectively analyzed 30,851 SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR test results. Borderline positivity was considered as the presence of ≤25 viral copies per milliliter, while no amplification was considered as a negative test result. Of all test results, 204 were answered as borderline, of which 107 were accompanied by a follow-up test within 96 hours. Of the 107 follow-up samples, 10 (9.35%) were found positive for SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 symptoms were not predictive for testing positive in the follow-up test. The positive SARS-CoV-2 samples in the follow-up group represented 0.92% of all positive test results, highlighting the need for retesting and increased hygienic measures for borderline SARS-CoV-2 patients [NCT04636294].

Differentiating influenza from COVID-19 in patients presenting with suspected sepsis.

There is a need for a quick assessment of severely ill patients presenting to the hospital. The objectives of this study were to identify clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters that could differentiate between influenza and COVID-19 and to assess the frequency and impact of early bacterial co-infection. A prospective observational cohort study was performed between February 2019 and April 2020. A retrospective cohort was studied early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients suspected of sepsis with PCR-confirmed influenza or SARS-CoV-2 were included. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to differentiate COVID-19 from influenza. In total, 103 patients tested positive for influenza and 110 patients for SARS-CoV-2, respectively. Hypertension (OR 6.550), both unilateral (OR 4.764) and bilateral (OR 7.916), chest X-ray abnormalities, lower temperature (OR 0.535), lower absolute leukocyte count (OR 0.857), lower AST levels (OR 0.946), higher LDH (OR 1.008), higher ALT (OR 1.044) and higher ferritin (OR 1.001) were predictive of COVID-19. Early bacterial co-infection was more frequent in patients with influenza (10.7% vs. 2.7%). Empiric antibiotic usage was high (76.7% vs. 84.5%). Several factors determined at presentation to the hospital can differentiate between influenza and COVID-19. In the future, this could help in triage, diagnosis and early management. Clinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT03841162.

Laboratory survey and literature review of anaerobic bacteriology: foundations of a clinically orientated and evidence-based workup for anaerobic cultures.

Since the introduction of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) in routine microbiology laboratories, identification of anaerobic bacteria has become easier. These increased possibilities provide new challenges concerning analytical workup and reporting of anaerobes. In February 2015, an extensive web-based survey on pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical procedures of anaerobic microbiology was sent to 53 Belgian, university and non-university hospital laboratories. Answers of 34 participating laboratories revealed a huge diversity in all analytical stages of anaerobic microbiology. Whether or not colony types were identified was mainly based on anatomical origin of the sample, colony morphology, and total number of different anaerobic isolates in the sample, while reporting of isolate results and performing anti-microbial susceptibility testing was mainly based on anatomical origin of the sample, number of different anaerobic isolates, and the identification of the anaerobic bacteria. These variety of workup procedures were mainly expert-based and have not been extensively clinically validated. For this reason, a standardized, clinically orientated, and feasible procedure for the workup of anaerobic cultures was developed, using MALDI-TOF MS identification, based upon literature data and existing guidelines.