Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Viruses ; 14(10)2022 10 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2081913

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Belgium/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Genome, Viral , Genomics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
2.
Arch Public Health ; 79(1): 188, 2021 Oct 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1486599

ABSTRACT

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.

3.
Arch Toxicol ; 95(7): 2235-2253, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1239455

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections/complications , Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/complications , Parasitic Diseases/complications , Symptom Flare Up , Virus Diseases/complications , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/complications , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , COVID-19/complications , Hepatitis, Viral, Human/complications , Humans , Liver/physiopathology , Metabolic Syndrome , Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/microbiology , Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/parasitology , Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/virology , Parasitic Diseases/parasitology , Peptic Ulcer , Periodontitis , Risk Factors , Virus Diseases/virology
4.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 100(2): 115350, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1086875

ABSTRACT

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].


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Early Diagnosis , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Retrospective Studies
5.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ; 40(5): 987-995, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-956789

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Sepsis/diagnosis , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bacteria/classification , Bacteria/isolation & purification , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Coinfection/diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Influenza A virus/isolation & purification , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL