Identifying patients with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 at elevated risk of adverse events: The COVAS score

Associations of COVID-19-related fear with kidney disease quality of life and its subscales among hemodialysis patients as modified by health literacy: a multi-hospital survey

Background

Receiving hemodialysis treatment makes end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients highly vulnerable amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, their kidney disease quality of life (KDQOL) is affected. We aimed to examine the association between fear of COVID-19 (FCoV-19) and KDQOL, and the effect modification of Health literacy (HL) on this association.

Material and Methods

A survey was conducted at 8 hospitals from July 2020 to March 2021 on 972 patients. Data collection includes socio-demographic factors, clinical parameters, HL, digital healthy diet literacy (DDL), hemodialysis diet knowledge (HDK), FCoV-19, suspected COVID-19 symptoms (S-COVID-19-S), and KDQOL.

Results

Higher HL scores B = 0.13 (95% CI = 0.06-0.21, p = 0.001) and HDK scores B = 0.58 (95% CI = 0.31-0.85, p = 0.001) were associated with higher KDQOL scores. Whereas, S-COVID-19-S B = -6.12 (95% CI = -7.66 to - 4.58, p = 0.001) and FCoV-19 B = -0.91 (95% CI = -1.03 to - 0.80, p = 0.001) were associated with lower KDQOL scores. Notably, higher HL scores significantly attenuate the negative impact of FCoV-19 on overall KDQOL and the kidney disease component summary.

Conclusions

In hemodialysis patients, FCoV-19 and S-COVID-19-S were associated with a lower KDQOL. Health literacy significantly mitigates the negative impact of FCoV-19 on KDQOL. Strategic public health interventions to improve HL are suggested to protect patient's KDQOL during the pandemic.

Predicting patient decompensation from continuous physiologic monitoring in the emergency department

Anticipation of clinical decompensation is essential for effective emergency and critical care. In this study, we develop a multimodal machine learning approach to predict the onset of new vital sign abnormalities (tachycardia, hypotension, hypoxia) in ED patients with normal initial vital signs. Our method combines standard triage data (vital signs, demographics, chief complaint) with features derived from a brief period of continuous physiologic monitoring, extracted via both conventional signal processing and transformer-based deep learning on ECG and PPG waveforms. We study 19,847 adult ED visits, divided into training (75%), validation (12.5%), and a chronologically sequential held-out test set (12.5%). The best-performing models use a combination of engineered and transformer-derived features, predicting in a 90-minute window new tachycardia with AUROC of 0.836 (95% CI, 0.800-0.870), new hypotension with AUROC 0.802 (95% CI, 0.747-0.856), and new hypoxia with AUROC 0.713 (95% CI, 0.680-0.745), in all cases significantly outperforming models using only standard triage data. Salient features include vital sign trends, PPG perfusion index, and ECG waveforms. This approach could improve the triage of apparently stable patients and be applied continuously for the prediction of near-term clinical deterioration.

Associations of Physical Inactivity and COVID-19 Outcomes Among Subgroups

INTRODUCTION

Physical activity before COVID-19 infection is associated with less severe outcomes. The study determined whether a dose‒response association was observed and whether the associations were consistent across demographic subgroups and chronic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of Kaiser Permanente Southern California adult patients who had a positive COVID-19 diagnosis between January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2021 was created. The exposure was the median of at least 3 physical activity self-reports before diagnosis. Patients were categorized as follows: always inactive, all assessments at 10 minutes/week or less; mostly inactive, median of 0-60 minutes per week; some activity, median of 60-150 minutes per week; consistently active, median>150 minutes per week; and always active, all assessments>150 minutes per week. Outcomes were hospitalization, deterioration event, or death 90 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis. Data were analyzed in 2022.

RESULTS

Of 194,191 adults with COVID-19 infection, 6.3% were hospitalized, 3.1% experienced a deterioration event, and 2.8% died within 90 days. Dose‒response effects were strong; for example, patients in the some activity category had higher odds of hospitalization (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.26, 1.63), deterioration (OR=1.83; 95% CI=1.49, 2.25), and death (OR=1.92; 95% CI=1.48, 2.49) than those in the always active category. Results were generally consistent across sex, race and ethnicity, age, and BMI categories and for patients with cardiovascular disease or hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

There were protective associations of physical activity for adverse COVID-19 outcomes across demographic and clinical characteristics. Public health leaders should add physical activity to pandemic control strategies.

A Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Approach for Assessing the Emergency Department Performance during the COVID-19 Outbreak

The use of emergency departments (EDs) has increased during the COVID-19 outbreak, thereby evidencing the key role of these units in the overall response of healthcare systems to the current pandemic scenario. Nevertheless, several disruptions have emerged in the practical scenario including low throughput, overcrowding, and extended waiting times. Therefore, there is a need to develop strategies for upgrading the response of these units against the current pandemic. Given the above, this paper presents a hybrid fuzzy multicriteria decision-making model (MCDM) to evaluate the performance of EDs and create focused improvement interventions. First, the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IF-AHP) technique is used to estimate the relative priorities of criteria and sub-criteria considering uncertainty. Then, the intuitionistic fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (IF-DEMATEL) is employed to calculate the interdependence and feedback between criteria and sub-criteria under uncertainty, Finally, the combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) is implemented to rank the EDs and detect their weaknesses to device suitable improvement plans. The aforementioned methodology was validated in three emergency centers in Turkey. The results revealed that the most important criterion in ED performance was ER facilities (14.4%), while Procedures and protocols evidenced the highest positive D + R value (18.239) among the dispatchers and is therefore deemed as the main generator within the performance network.

Derivation and validation of a clinical decision rule to risk-stratify COVID-19 patients discharged from the emergency department: The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score

Objective

To risk-stratify COVID-19 patients being considered for discharge from the emergency department (ED).

Methods

We conducted an observational study to derive and validate a clinical decision rule to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for hospital admission or death within 72 hours of ED discharge. We used data from 49 sites in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1, 2020, and September 8, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting short-term adverse outcomes in a validation cohort.

Results

Of 15,305 eligible patient visits, 535 (3.6%) experienced the outcome. The score included age, sex, pregnancy status, temperature, arrival mode, respiratory rate, and respiratory distress. The area under the curve was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.73) in derivation and 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73) in combined derivation and validation cohorts. Among those with a score of 3 or less, the risk for the primary outcome was 1.9% or less, and the sensitivity of using 3 as a rule-out score was 89.3% (95% CI 82.7-94.0). Among those with a score of ≥9, the risk for the primary outcome was as high as 12.2% and the specificity of using 9 as a rule-in score was 95.6% (95% CI 94.9-96.2).

Conclusion

The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score can identify patients at risk of short-term adverse outcomes after ED discharge with variables that are readily available on patient arrival.

Predicting 30-day return hospital admissions in patients with COVID-19 discharged from the emergency department: A national retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Identification of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at risk for deterioration after discharge from the emergency department (ED) remains a clinical challenge. Our objective was to develop a prediction model that identifies patients with COVID-19 at risk for return and hospital admission within 30 days of ED discharge.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of discharged adult ED patients (n = 7529) with SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 unique hospitals contributing to the National Registry of Suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Care. The primary outcome was return hospital admission within 30 days. Models were developed using classification and regression tree (CART), gradient boosted machine (GBM), random forest (RF), and least absolute shrinkage and selection (LASSO) approaches.

RESULTS

Among patients with COVID-19 discharged from the ED on their index encounter, 571 (7.6%) returned for hospital admission within 30 days. The machine-learning (ML) models (GBM, RF, and LASSO) performed similarly. The RF model yielded a test area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78), with a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.39-0.54) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.82-0.85). Predictive variables, including lowest oxygen saturation, temperature, or history of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or obesity, were common to all ML models.

CONCLUSIONS

A predictive model identifying adult ED patients with COVID-19 at risk for return for return hospital admission within 30 days is feasible. Ensemble/boot-strapped classification methods (eg, GBM, RF, and LASSO) outperform the single-tree CART method. Future efforts may focus on the application of ML models in the hospital setting to optimize the allocation of follow-up resources.

Predictive Value of an Age-Based Modification of the National Early Warning System in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Early recognition of high-risk patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may improve outcomes. Although many predictive scoring systems exist, their complexity may limit utility in COVID-19. We assessed the prognostic performance of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and an age-based modification (NEWS+age) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients enrolled in a prospective, multicenter US Military Health System (MHS) observational cohort study.

METHODS

Hospitalized adults with confirmed COVID-19 not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at admission and with a baseline NEWS were included. We analyzed each scoring system's ability to predict key clinical outcomes, including progression to invasive ventilation or death, stratified by baseline severity (low [0-3], medium [4-6], and high [≥7]).

RESULTS

Among 184 included participants, those with low baseline NEWS had significantly shorter hospitalizations (P < .01) and lower maximum illness severity (P < .001). Most (80.2%) of low NEWS vs 15.8% of high NEWS participants required no or at most low-flow oxygen supplementation. Low NEWS (≤3) had a negative predictive value of 97.2% for progression to invasive ventilation or death; a high NEWS (≥7) had high specificity (93.1%) but low positive predictive value (42.1%) for such progression. NEWS+age performed similarly to NEWS at predicting invasive ventilation or death (NEWS+age: area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUROC], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.73; NEWS: AUROC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

NEWS and NEWS+age showed similar test characteristics in an MHS COVID-19 cohort. Notably, low baseline scores had an excellent negative predictive value. Given their easy applicability, these scoring systems may be useful in resource-limited settings to identify COVID-19 patients who are unlikely to progress to critical illness.

A meta-analysis on the risk factors adjusted association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 severity

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), one of the most common comorbidities of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been suspected to be associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, but their correlation remains controversial.

METHOD

This is a quantitative meta-analysis on the basis of adjusted effect estimates. PubMed, Web of Science, MedRxiv, Scopus, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were searched comprehensively to obtain a complete data source up to January 7, 2021. Pooled effects (hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR)) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to evaluate the risk of the adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients with CVD. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran's Q-statistic, I2test, and meta-regression. In addition, we also provided the prediction interval, which was helpful for assessing whether the variation across studies was clinically significant. The robustness of the results was evaluated by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's test, Egger's test, and trim-and-fill method.

RESULT

Our results revealed that COVID-19 patients with pre-existing CVD tended more to adverse outcomes on the basis of 203 eligible studies with 24,032,712 cases (pooled ORs = 1.41, 95% CIs: 1.32-1.51, prediction interval: 0.84-2.39; pooled HRs = 1.34, 95% CIs: 1.23-1.46, prediction interval: 0.82-2.21). Further subgroup analyses stratified by age, the proportion of males, study design, disease types, sample size, region and disease outcomes also showed that pre-existing CVD was significantly associated with adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that pre-existing CVD was an independent risk factor associated with adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients evaluated in the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study of 801 cases

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has extracted devastating tolls. Despite its pervasiveness, robust information on disease characteristics in the emergency department (ED) and how that information predicts clinical course remain limited.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the first ED visit from SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in our health system, from February 21, 2020 to April 5, 2020. We reviewed each patient's ED visit(s) and included the first visit with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. We collected demographic, clinical, and treatment variables from electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between patient characteristics and 2 primary outcomes: a critical outcome and hospitalization from index visit. Our critical outcome was defined as death or advanced respiratory support (high flow nasal cannula or greater) within 21 days.

RESULTS

Of the first 1030 encounters, 801 met our inclusion criteria: 15% were over age 75 years, 47% were female, and 24% were non-Hispanic white. We found 161 (20%) had a critical outcome and 393 (49%) were hospitalized. Independent predictors of a critical outcome included a history of hypertension, abnormal chest x-ray, elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN), measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation). Independent predictors of hospitalization included abnormal pulmonary auscultation, elevated BUN, measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, diverse study of ED patients with COVID-19, we have identified numerous clinical characteristics that have independent associations with critical illness and hospitalization.

[COVID-19 in the Family Practice - Outpatient Treatment or Hospitalization?]

COVID-19 in the Family Practice - Outpatient Treatment or Hospitalization? Abstract. Switzerland has been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The clinical spectrum of this disease in terms of its clinical presentation and course is very broad. A correct initial evaluation in the practice or in the emergency department is important and includes history-taking and clinical examination as well as imaging and laboratory tests. Most patients with COVID-19 can be treated as outpatients. Hospitalization may be necessary in patients with a marked COVID-19 pneumonia or further complications, which occur primarily in the second or third phase of the disease. The dynamics of the disease must also be taken into consideration. In outpatients, symptomatic therapy is often sufficient, antibiotics and corticosteroids are not indicated.

Performance Analysis of the National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial Cohort

We sought to validate prognostic scores in coronavirus disease 2019 including National Early Warning Score, Modified Early Warning Score, and age-based modifications, and define their performance characteristics.

DESIGN

We analyzed prospectively collected data from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. National Early Warning Score was collected daily during the trial, Modified Early Warning Score was calculated, and age applied to both scores. We assessed prognostic value for the end points of recovery, mechanical ventilation, and death for score at enrollment, average, and slope of score over the first 48 hours.

SETTING

A multisite international inpatient trial.

PATIENTS

A total of 1,062 adult nonpregnant inpatients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia.

INTERVENTIONS

Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 randomized participants to receive remdesivir or placebo. The prognostic value of predictive scores was evaluated in both groups separately to assess for differential performance in the setting of remdesivir treatment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

For mortality, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.60-0.68), and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.66-0.74). For recovery, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated somewhat better prognostic ability (c-index, 0.65-0.69); however, National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age further improved performance (c-index, 0.68-0.71). For deterioration, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.59-0.69) and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.63-0.70). All prognostic performance improvements due to addition of age were significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 cohort, National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated moderate prognostic performance in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019, with improvement in predictive ability for National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age. Area under receiver operating curve for National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score improved in patients receiving remdesivir versus placebo early in the pandemic for recovery and mortality. Although these scores are simple and readily obtainable in myriad settings, in our data set, they were insufficiently predictive to completely replace clinical judgment in coronavirus disease 2019 and may serve best as an adjunct to triage, disposition, and resourcing decisions.

Applications of Big Data Analytics to Control COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 epidemic has caused a large number of human losses and havoc in the economic, social, societal, and health systems around the world. Controlling such epidemic requires understanding its characteristics and behavior, which can be identified by collecting and analyzing the related big data. Big data analytics tools play a vital role in building knowledge required in making decisions and precautionary measures. However, due to the vast amount of data available on COVID-19 from various sources, there is a need to review the roles of big data analysis in controlling the spread of COVID-19, presenting the main challenges and directions of COVID-19 data analysis, as well as providing a framework on the related existing applications and studies to facilitate future research on COVID-19 analysis. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct a literature review to highlight the contributions of several studies in the domain of COVID-19-based big data analysis. The study presents as a taxonomy several applications used to manage and control the pandemic. Moreover, this study discusses several challenges encountered when analyzing COVID-19 data. The findings of this paper suggest valuable future directions to be considered for further research and applications.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE

To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease.

DESIGN

Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model.

DATA EXTRACTION

At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool).

RESULTS

37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models.

CONCLUSION

Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245.

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.