Confirmed COVID-19 Cases per Economic Activity during Autumn Wave in Belgium.

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.

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.

Closing schools for SARS-CoV-2: a pragmatic rapid recommendation.

Background: In Belgium, schools closed during the first lockdown in March 2020, with a partial reopening in May. They fully reopened in September. During the summer, infections started to increase in the general population, speeding up in September. Some measures were taken to limit social contacts but those were insufficient to mitigate the exponential rise of infections in October. Children were still receiving all lessons at school at that time and it was questioned whether this position was tenable. We systematically compared the benefits and harms of closing primary and secondary schools and developed a recommendation. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel, including school pupils and teachers, educational experts, clinicians and researchers, produced this recommendation in compliance with the standards for trustworthy rapid guidelines. The recommendation is based on data collected through national surveillance or studies from Belgium, and supported by a rapid literature review. Results: Closing schools during the first lockdown probably resulted in a large learning delay and possibly led to more cases of child abuse. We are uncertain about the effect on the infection rate, hospitalisations, transmission rates, mental health of children, teachers and parents. The panel concluded that the balance of benefits and harms of closing schools clearly shifts against closing schools. Detrimental effects are even worse for vulnerable children. This recommendation is affected by the local virus circulation. Conclusion: The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against closing schools when the virus circulation is low to moderate, and a weak recommendation against closing schools when the virus circulation is high. It does not apply when the school system cannot function due to lack of teachers, too many children who are at home or a shortage of support services. As the results of international studies are consistent with Belgian study results, this recommendation may also be relevant internationally.

The role of organizational characteristics on the outcome of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated the predictors of in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients who need to be admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). However, no data on the role of organizational issues on patients' outcome are available in this setting. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the role of surge capacity organisation on the outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs in Belgium. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality in Belgian ICU COVID-19 patients via the national surveillance database. Non-survivors at hospital discharge were compared to survivors using multivariable mixed effects logistic regression analysis. Specific analyses including only patients with invasive ventilation were performed. To assess surge capacity, data were merged with administrative information on the type of hospital, the baseline number of recognized ICU beds, the number of supplementary beds specifically created for COVID-19 ICU care and the "ICU overflow" (i.e. a time-varying ratio between the number of occupied ICU beds by confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients divided by the number of recognized ICU beds reserved for COVID-19 patients; ICU overflow was present when this ratio is ≥ 1.0). FINDINGS: Over a total of 13,612 hospitalised COVID-19 patients with admission and discharge forms registered in the surveillance period (March, 1 to August, 9 2020), 1903 (14.0%) required ICU admission, of whom 1747 had available outcome data. Non-survivors (n = 632, 36.1%) were older and had more frequently various comorbid diseases than survivors. In the multivariable analysis, ICU overflow, together with older age, presence of comorbidities, shorter delay between symptom onset and hospital admission, absence of hydroxychloroquine therapy and use of invasive mechanical ventilation and of ECMO, was independently associated with an increased in-hospital mortality. Similar results were found in in in the subgroup of invasively ventilated patients. In addition, the proportion of supplementary beds specifically created for COVID-19 ICU care to the previously existing total number of ICU beds was associated with increased in-hospital mortality among invasively ventilated patients. The model also indicated a significant between-hospital difference in in-hospital mortality, not explained by the available patients and hospital characteristics. INTERPRETATION: Surge capacity organisation as reflected by ICU overflow or the creation of COVID-19 specific supplementary ICU beds were found to negatively impact ICU patient outcomes. FUNDING: No funding source was available for this study.

Rapid establishment of a national surveillance of COVID-19 hospitalizations in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 epidemic, caused by a novel coronavirus, it was of great importance to rapidly collect as much accurate information as possible in order to characterize the public health threat and support the health authorities in its management. Hospital-based surveillance is paramount to monitor the severity of a disease in the population. METHODS: Two separate surveillance systems, a Surge Capacity survey and a Clinical survey, were set up to collect complementary data on COVID-19 from Belgium's hospitals. The Surge Capacity survey collects aggregated data to monitor the hospital capacity through occupancy rates of beds and medical devices, and to follow a set of key epidemiological indicators over time. Participation is mandatory and the daily data collection includes prevalence and incidence figures on the number of COVID-19 patients in the hospital. The Clinical survey is strongly recommended by health authorities, focusses on specific patient characteristics and relies on individual patient data provided by the hospitals at admission and discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This national double-level hospital surveillance was implemented very rapidly after the first COVID-19 patients were hospitalized and revealed to be crucial to monitor hospital capacity over time and to better understand the disease in terms of risk groups and outcomes. The two approaches are complementary and serve different needs.