Search

Belgian blue (BB) cattle have an 11-bp deletion in myostatin that causes skeletal muscle hyperplasia and increased muscle mass, leading to a ‘double-muscled’ phenotype. Preliminary data suggest that this phenotype may be associated with breed-specific hematologic and biochemical values. Therefore, in this study, we sought to compare hematologic and serum biochemical parameters in healthy BB and Holstein Friesian (HF) cows and to propose breed-specific reference intervals for BB cows. Hematologic parameters, total protein, creatinine, creatine kinase (CK) and aspartate transaminase (AST) activities, albumin, and globulins were measured in 183 clinically healthy adult BB and HF cows. There were significant differences between BB and HF cows in 17 of 27 measured parameters. BB cows had significantly higher creatinine concentration and CK and AST activities (p < 0.001). RBCs, hemoglobin, hematocrit (p < 0.001), MCV and lymphocytes (p < 0.05) were also significantly higher in BB cows compared with HF cows. The average N/L ratio was greater than 1 in both breeds. These results suggest that BB and HF cows have significantly different clinically relevant hematologic and serum biochemical values, and, therefore, breed-specific reference intervals should be used.

The COVID-19 pandemic due to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been plaguing the world since late 2019/early 2020 and has changed the way we function as a society, halting both economic and social activities worldwide. Classrooms, offices, restaurants, public transport, and other enclosed spaces that typically gather large groups of people indoors, and are considered focal points for the spread of the virus. For society to be able to go “back to normal”, it is crucial to keep these places open and functioning. An understanding of the transmission modes occurring in these contexts is essential to set up effective infection control strategies. This understanding was made using a systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We analyze the different parameters influencing airborne transmission indoors, the mathematical models proposed to understand it, and discuss how we can act on these parameters. Methods to judge infection risks through the analysis of the indoor air quality are described. Various mitigation measures are listed, and their efficiency, feasibility, and acceptability are ranked by a panel of experts in the field. Thus, effective ventilation procedures controlled by CO2-monitoring, continued mask wearing, and a strategic control of room occupancy, among other measures, are put forth to enable a safe return to these essential places.

Schools have been a point of attention during the pandemic, and their closure one of the mitigating measures taken. A better understanding of the dynamics of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in elementary education is essential to advise decisionmakers. We conducted an uncontrolled non-interventional prospective study in Belgian French-speaking schools to describe the role of attending asymptomatic children and school staff in the spread of COVID-19 and to estimate the transmission to others. Each participant from selected schools was tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis on saliva sample, on a weekly basis, during six consecutive visits. In accordance with recommendations in force at the time, symptomatic individuals were excluded from school, but per the study protocol, being that participants were blinded to PCR results, asymptomatic participants were maintained at school. Among 11 selected schools, 932 pupils and 242 school staff were included between January and May 2021. Overall, 6449 saliva samples were collected, of which 44 came back positive. Most positive samples came from isolated cases. We observed that asymptomatic positive children remaining at school did not lead to increasing numbers of cases or clusters. However, we conducted our study during a period of low prevalence in Belgium. It would be interesting to conduct the same analysis during a high prevalence period.

While many studies have documented the intentions for the COVID-19 vaccine booster, few have explored the change from intention to final decision. This study explores the COVID-19 booster intentions and the change from intention to decision in a primo-vaccinated university population, with a distinction between staff members and students. It looks at the sociodemographic and medical characteristics, health literacy, personal COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, and attitudes/intentions regarding the booster, among the 1030 participants (64.4% staff members, 61.3% female, median age 36.0 years). Of the 8.7% who were initially hesitant, 72.7% ultimately got a booster and 27.3% did not. Another 84.2% intended to get a booster and 7.1% did not. Among the latter two groups, 88.9% maintained their intention and 11.1% changed their minds. The determinants associated with the intentions were health literacy and previous intentions regarding the COVID-19 primo-vaccination. The determinants associated with the change to non-vaccination were a previous COVID-19 infection, a past COVID-19 primo-vaccination intention, and a neutralizing antibody level. The results point to an opening for the support in decision-making, with a significant percentage of the study population potentially changing their mind between intention and final decision; this process should start early and be tailored to the individual’s COVID-19 history. A personalized approach seems necessary in order to ensure that individuals make an informed choice.

We present our approach to rapidly establishing a standardized, multi-site, nation-wide COVID-19 screening program in Belgium. Under auspices of a federal government Task Force responsible for upscaling the country’s testing capacity, we were able to set up a national testing initiative with readily available resources, putting in place a robust, validated, high-throughput, and decentralized qPCR molecular testing platform with embedded proficiency testing. We demonstrate how during an acute scarcity of equipment, kits, reagents, personnel, protective equipment, and sterile plastic supplies, we introduced an approach to rapidly build a reliable, validated, high-volume, high-confidence workflow based on heterogeneous instrumentation and diverse assays, assay components, and protocols. The workflow was set up with continuous quality control monitoring, tied together through a clinical-grade information management platform for automated data analysis, real-time result reporting across different participating sites, qc monitoring, and making result data available to the requesting physician and the patient. In this overview, we address challenges in optimizing high-throughput cross-laboratory workflows with minimal manual intervention through software, instrument and assay validation and standardization, and a process for harmonized result reporting and nation-level infection statistics monitoring across the disparate testing methodologies and workflows, necessitated by a rapid scale-up as a response to the pandemic.

The testing and isolation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are indispensable tools to control the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. PCR tests are considered the “gold standard” of COVID-19 testing and mostly involve testing nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Our study aimed to compare the sensitivity of tests for various sample specimens. Seventy-five participants with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs, oropharyngeal swabs, Oracol-collected saliva, throat washes and rectal specimens were collected along with pooled swabs. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to correlate specific clinical symptoms and the symptom duration with the sensitivity of detecting COVID-19 in various sample specimens. Sampling was repeated after 7 to 10 days (T2), then after 14 to 20 days (T3) to perform a longitudinal analysis of sample specimen sensitivity. At the first time point, the highest percentages of SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were observed for nasopharyngeal samples (84.3%), while 74%, 68.2%, 58.8% and 3.5% of throat washing, Oracol-collected saliva, oropharyngeal and rectal samples tested positive, respectively. The sensitivity of all sampling methods except throat wash samples decreased rapidly at later time points compared to the first collection. The throat washing method exhibited better performance than the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab at the second and third time points after the first positive test date. Nasopharyngeal swabs were the most sensitive specimens for early detection after symptom onset. Throat washing is a sensitive alternative method. It was found that SARS-CoV-2 persists longer in the throat and saliva than in the nasopharynx.