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 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 among 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 an 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.

BackgroundCancer seems to have an independent adverse prognostic effect on COVID-19-related mortality, but uncertainty exists regarding its effect across different patient subgroups. We report a population-based analysis of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 with prior or current solid cancer versus those without cancer.MethodsWe analysed data of adult patients registered until 24 May 2020 in the Belgian nationwide database of Sciensano. The primary objective was in-hospital mortality within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with solid cancer versus patients without cancer. Severe event occurrence, a composite of intensive care unit admission, invasive ventilation and/or death, was a secondary objective. These endpoints were analysed across different patient subgroups. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyse the association between cancer and clinical characteristics (baseline analysis) and the effect of cancer on in-hospital mortality and on severe event occurrence, adjusting for clinical characteristics (in-hospital analysis).ResultsA total of 13 594 patients (of whom 1187 with solid cancer (8.7%)) were evaluable for the baseline analysis and 10 486 (892 with solid cancer (8.5%)) for the in-hospital analysis. Patients with cancer were older and presented with less symptoms/signs and lung imaging alterations. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with solid cancer compared with patients without cancer (31.7% vs 20.0%, respectively; adjusted OR (aOR) 1.34; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58). The aOR was 3.84 (95% CI 1.94 to 7.59) among younger patients (<60 years) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.41 to 3.64) among patients without other comorbidities. Severe event occurrence was similar in both groups (36.7% vs 28.8%; aOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29).ConclusionsThis population-based analysis demonstrates that solid cancer is an independent adverse prognostic factor for in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19. This adverse effect was more pronounced among younger patients and those without other comorbidities. Patients with solid cancer should be prioritised in vaccination campaigns and in tailored containment measurements.

This retrospective multi-center matched cohort study assessed the risk for severe COVID-19 (combination of severity indicators), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality in hospitalized patients when infected with the Omicron variant compared to when infected with the Delta variant. The study is based on a causal framework using individually-linked data from national COVID-19 registries. The study population consisted of 954 COVID-19 patients (of which, 445 were infected with Omicron) above 18 years old admitted to a Belgian hospital during the autumn and winter season 2021–2022, and with available viral genomic data. Patients were matched based on the hospital, whereas other possible confounders (demographics, comorbidities, vaccination status, socio-economic status, and ICU occupancy) were adjusted for by using a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The estimated standardized risk for severe COVID-19 and ICU admission in hospitalized patients was significantly lower (RR = 0.63; 95% CI (0.30; 0.97) and RR = 0.56; 95% CI (0.14; 0.99), respectively) when infected with the Omicron variant, whereas in-hospital mortality was not significantly different according to the SARS-CoV-2 variant (RR = 0.78, 95% CI (0.28–1.29)). This study demonstrates the added value of integrated genomic and clinical surveillance to recognize the multifactorial nature of COVID-19 pathogenesis.

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.

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.

Background Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being translated into routine public health practice, affecting the surveillance and control of many pathogens. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and characterize the recent literature concerning the application of bacterial pathogen genomics for public health practice and to assess the added value, challenges, and needs related to its implementation from an epidemiologist’s perspective. Methods In this scoping review, a systematic PubMed search with forward and backward snowballing was performed to identify manuscripts in English published between January 2015 and September 2018. Included studies had to describe the application of NGS on bacterial isolates within a public health setting. The studied pathogen, year of publication, country, number of isolates, sampling fraction, setting, public health application, study aim, level of implementation, time orientation of the NGS analyses, and key findings were extracted from each study. Due to a large heterogeneity of settings, applications, pathogens, and study measurements, a descriptive narrative synthesis of the eligible studies was performed. Results Out of the 275 included articles, 164 were outbreak investigations, 70 focused on strategy-oriented surveillance, and 41 on control-oriented surveillance. Main applications included the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data for (1) source tracing, (2) early outbreak detection, (3) unraveling transmission dynamics, (4) monitoring drug resistance, (5) detecting cross-border transmission events, (6) identifying the emergence of strains with enhanced virulence or zoonotic potential, and (7) assessing the impact of prevention and control programs. The superior resolution over conventional typing methods to infer transmission routes was reported as an added value, as well as the ability to simultaneously characterize the resistome and virulome of the studied pathogen. However, the full potential of pathogen genomics can only be reached through its integration with high-quality contextual data. Conclusions For several pathogens, it is time for a shift from proof-of-concept studies to routine use of WGS during outbreak investigations and surveillance activities. However, some implementation challenges from the epidemiologist’s perspective remain, such as data integration, quality of contextual data, sampling strategies, and meaningful interpretations. Interdisciplinary, inter-sectoral, and international collaborations are key for an appropriate genomics-informed surveillance. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0930-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Seasonal influenza epidemics are associated with high mortality and morbidity in the human population. Influenza surveillance is critical for providing information to national influenza programmes and for making vaccine composition predictions. Vaccination prevents viral infections, but rapid influenza evolution results in emerging mutants that differ antigenically from vaccine strains. Current influenza surveillance relies on Sanger sequencing of the haemagglutinin (HA) gene. Its classification according to World Health Organization (WHO) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) guidelines is based on combining certain genotypic amino acid mutations and phylogenetic analysis. Next-generation sequencing technologies enable a shift to whole-genome sequencing (WGS) for influenza surveillance, but this requires laboratory workflow adaptations and advanced bioinformatics workflows. In this study, 253 influenza A(H3N2) positive clinical specimens from the 2016–2017 Belgian season underwent WGS using the Illumina MiSeq system. HA-based classification according to WHO/ECDC guidelines did not allow classification of all samples. A new approach, considering the whole genome, was investigated based on using powerful phylogenomic tools including beast and Nextstrain, which substantially improved phylogenetic classification. Moreover, Bayesian inference via beast facilitated reassortment detection by both manual inspection and computational methods, detecting intra-subtype reassortants at an estimated rate of 15 %. Real-time analysis (i.e. as an outbreak is ongoing) via Nextstrain allowed positioning of the Belgian isolates into the globally circulating context. Finally, integration of patient data with phylogenetic groups and reassortment status allowed detection of several associations that would have been missed when solely considering HA, such as hospitalized patients being more likely to be infected with A(H3N2) reassortants, and the possibility to link several phylogenetic groups to disease severity indicators could be relevant for epidemiological monitoring. Our study demonstrates that WGS offers multiple advantages for influenza monitoring in (inter)national influenza surveillance, and proposes an improved methodology. This allows leveraging all information contained in influenza genomes, and allows for more accurate genetic characterization and reassortment detection.

Background SARS-CoV-2 strains evolve continuously and accumulate mutations in their genomes over the course of the pandemic. The severity of a SARS-CoV-2 infection could partly depend on these viral genetic characteristics. Here, we present a general conceptual framework that allows to study the effect of SARS-CoV-2 variants on COVID-19 disease severity among hospitalized patients. Methods A causal model is defined and visualized using a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), in which assumptions on the relationship between (confounding) variables are made explicit. Various DAGs are presented to explore specific study design options and the risk for selection bias. Next, the data infrastructure specific to the COVID-19 surveillance in Belgium is described, along with its strengths and weaknesses for the study of clinical impact of variants. Discussion A well-established framework that provides a complete view on COVID-19 disease severity among hospitalized patients by combining information from different sources on host factors, viral factors, and healthcare-related factors, will enable to assess the clinical impact of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and answer questions that will be raised in the future. The framework shows the complexity related to causal research, the corresponding data requirements, and it underlines important limitations, such as unmeasured confounders or selection bias, inherent to repurposing existing routine COVID-19 data registries. Trial registration Each individual research project within the current conceptual framework will be prospectively registered in Open Science Framework (OSF identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UEF29). OSF project created on 18 May 2021.