1
|
Zahra A, van Smeden M, Abbink EJ, van den Berg JM, Blom MT, van den Dries CJ, Gussekloo J, Wouters F, Joling KJ, Melis R, Mooijaart SP, Peters JB, Polinder-Bos HA, van Raaij BFM, Appelman B, la Roi-Teeuw HM, Moons KGM, Luijken K. External validation of six COVID-19 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk in older populations in a hospital, primary care, and nursing home setting. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 168:111270. [PMID: 38311188 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 01/26/2024] [Accepted: 01/26/2024] [Indexed: 02/10/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To systematically evaluate the performance of COVID-19 prognostic models and scores for mortality risk in older populations across three health-care settings: hospitals, primary care, and nursing homes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING This retrospective external validation study included 14,092 older individuals of ≥70 years of age with a clinical or polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to December 2020. The six validation cohorts include three hospital-based (CliniCo, COVID-OLD, COVID-PREDICT), two primary care-based (Julius General Practitioners Network/Academisch network huisartsgeneeskunde/Network of Academic general Practitioners, PHARMO), and one nursing home cohort (YSIS) in the Netherlands. Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool for quality and risk of bias assessment and considering predictor availability in validation cohorts, we selected six prognostic models predicting mortality risk in adults with COVID-19 infection (GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, National Early Warning Score 2-extended model, Xie model, Wang clinical model, and CURB65 score). All six prognostic models were validated in the hospital cohorts and the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model was validated in all three healthcare settings. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality for hospitals and 28-day mortality for primary care and nursing home settings. Model performance was evaluated in each validation cohort separately in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves. An intercept update was performed in models indicating miscalibration followed by predictive performance re-evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE In-hospital mortality for hospitals and 28-day mortality for primary care and nursing home setting. RESULTS All six prognostic models performed poorly and showed miscalibration in the older population cohorts. In the hospital settings, model performance ranged from calibration-in-the-large -1.45 to 7.46, calibration slopes 0.24-0.81, and C-statistic 0.55-0.71 with 4C Mortality Score performing as the most discriminative and well-calibrated model. Performance across health-care settings was similar for the GAL-COVID-19 model, with a calibration-in-the-large in the range of -2.35 to -0.15 indicating overestimation, calibration slopes of 0.24-0.81 indicating signs of overfitting, and C-statistic of 0.55-0.71. CONCLUSION Our results show that most prognostic models for predicting mortality risk performed poorly in the older population with COVID-19, in each health-care setting: hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. Insights into factors influencing predictive model performance in the older population are needed for pandemic preparedness and reliable prognostication of health-related outcomes in this demographic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anum Zahra
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Evertine J Abbink
- Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Jesse M van den Berg
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marieke T Blom
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Carline J van den Dries
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jacobijn Gussekloo
- Section Gerontology and Geriatrics, LUMC Center for Medicine for Older People & Department of Public Health and Primary Care & Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Fenne Wouters
- Department of Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Aging & Later Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karlijn J Joling
- Department of Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Aging & Later Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - René Melis
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Simon P Mooijaart
- LUMC Center for Medicine for Older People, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Jeannette B Peters
- Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Harmke A Polinder-Bos
- Section of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas F M van Raaij
- LUMC Center for Medicine for Older People, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Brent Appelman
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hannah M la Roi-Teeuw
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Kim Luijken
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Buttia C, Llanaj E, Raeisi-Dehkordi H, Kastrati L, Amiri M, Meçani R, Taneri PE, Ochoa SAG, Raguindin PF, Wehrli F, Khatami F, Espínola OP, Rojas LZ, de Mortanges AP, Macharia-Nimietz EF, Alijla F, Minder B, Leichtle AB, Lüthi N, Ehrhard S, Que YA, Fernandes LK, Hautz W, Muka T. Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review. Eur J Epidemiol 2023; 38:355-372. [PMID: 36840867 PMCID: PMC9958330 DOI: 10.1007/s10654-023-00973-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 01/28/2023] [Indexed: 02/26/2023]
Abstract
Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chepkoech Buttia
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Emergency Department, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 16C, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
- Epistudia, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Erand Llanaj
- Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbrücke, Nuthetal, Germany
- ELKH-DE Public Health Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
- Epistudia, Bern, Switzerland
- German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), München-Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Hamidreza Raeisi-Dehkordi
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lum Kastrati
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Graduate School for Health Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Mojgan Amiri
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Renald Meçani
- Department of Pediatrics, “Mother Teresa” University Hospital Center, Tirana, University of Medicine, Tirana, Albania
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Petek Eylul Taneri
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | | | - Peter Francis Raguindin
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Faina Wehrli
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Farnaz Khatami
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Graduate School for Health Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Department of Community Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Octavio Pano Espínola
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain
- Navarra Institute for Health Research, IdiSNA, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Lyda Z. Rojas
- Research Group and Development of Nursing Knowledge (GIDCEN-FCV), Research Center, Cardiovascular Foundation of Colombia, Floridablanca, Santander, Colombia
| | | | | | - Fadi Alijla
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Graduate School for Health Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Beatrice Minder
- Public Health and Primary Care Library, University Library of Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Alexander B. Leichtle
- University Institute of Clinical Chemistry, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (CAIM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nora Lüthi
- Emergency Department, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 16C, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Simone Ehrhard
- Emergency Department, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 16C, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Yok-Ai Que
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Laurenz Kopp Fernandes
- Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin (DHZB), Berlin, Germany
- Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Wolf Hautz
- Emergency Department, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 16C, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Taulant Muka
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Epistudia, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Heydari F, Zamani M, Masoumi B, Majidinejad S, Nasr-Esfahani M, Abbasi S, Shirani K, Sheibani Tehrani D, Sadeghi-aliabadi M, Arbab M. Physiologic Scoring Systems in Predicting the COVID-19 Patients' one-month Mortality; a Prognostic Accuracy Study. ARCHIVES OF ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2022; 10:e83. [PMID: 36426162 PMCID: PMC9676706 DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v10i1.1728] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
Introduction : It is critical to quickly and easily identify severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and predict their mortality. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of the physiologic scoring systems in predicting the mortality of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was performed on COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). The clinical characteristics of the participants were collected by the emergency physicians and the accuracy of the Quick Sequential Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Coronavirus Clinical Characterization Consortium (4C) Mortality, National Early Warning Score-2 (NEWS2), and Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (PRIEST) scores for mortality prediction was evaluated. Results: Nine hundred and twenty-one subjects were included. Of whom, 745 (80.9%) patients survived after 30 days of admission. The mean age of patients was 59.13 ± 17.52 years, and 550 (61.6%) subjects were male. Non-Survived patients were significantly older (66.02 ± 17.80 vs. 57.45 ± 17.07, P< 0.001) and had more comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, respiratory, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular disease) in comparison with survived patients. For COVID-19 mortality prediction, the AUROCs of PRIEST, qSOFA, NEWS2, and 4C Mortality score were 0.846 (95% CI [0.821-0.868]), 0.788 (95% CI [0.760-0.814]), 0.843 (95% CI [0.818-0.866]), and 0.804 (95% CI [0.776-0.829]), respectively. All scores were good predictors of COVID-19 mortality. Conclusion: All studied physiologic scores were good predictors of COVID-19 mortality and could be a useful screening tool for identifying high-risk patients. The NEWS2 and PRIEST scores predicted mortality in COVID-19 patients significantly better than qSOFA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Farhad Heydari
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Majid Zamani
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Babak Masoumi
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.,Corresponding author: Babak Masoumi; Alzahra Hospital, Sofeh Ave, Keshvari Blvd., Isfahan, Iran. , ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7330-5986, Tel: +989121979028
| | - Saeed Majidinejad
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Mohammad Nasr-Esfahani
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Saeed Abbasi
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Kiana Shirani
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | | | - Mahsa Sadeghi-aliabadi
- Department of Genetics, Faculty of Advanced Science and Technology, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wiegand M, Cowan SL, Waddington CS, Halsall DJ, Keevil VL, Tom BDM, Taylor V, Gkrania-Klotsas E, Preller J, Goudie RJB. Development and validation of a dynamic 48-hour in-hospital mortality risk stratification for COVID-19 in a UK teaching hospital: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e060026. [PMID: 36691139 PMCID: PMC9445230 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2021] [Accepted: 07/13/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To develop a disease stratification model for COVID-19 that updates according to changes in a patient's condition while in hospital to facilitate patient management and resource allocation. DESIGN In this retrospective cohort study, we adopted a landmarking approach to dynamic prediction of all-cause in-hospital mortality over the next 48 hours. We accounted for informative predictor missingness and selected predictors using penalised regression. SETTING All data used in this study were obtained from a single UK teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS We developed the model using 473 consecutive patients with COVID-19 presenting to a UK hospital between 1 March 2020 and 12 September 2020; and temporally validated using data on 1119 patients presenting between 13 September 2020 and 17 March 2021. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome is all-cause in-hospital mortality within 48 hours of the prediction time. We accounted for the competing risks of discharge from hospital alive and transfer to a tertiary intensive care unit for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. RESULTS Our final model includes age, Clinical Frailty Scale score, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation/fractional inspired oxygen ratio, white cell count, presence of acidosis (pH <7.35) and interleukin-6. Internal validation achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93) and temporal validation gave an AUROC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS Our model incorporates both static risk factors (eg, age) and evolving clinical and laboratory data, to provide a dynamic risk prediction model that adapts to both sudden and gradual changes in an individual patient's clinical condition. On successful external validation, the model has the potential to be a powerful clinical risk assessment tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study is registered as 'researchregistry5464' on the Research Registry (www.researchregistry.com).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin Wiegand
- Faculty of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sarah L Cowan
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - David J Halsall
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Victoria L Keevil
- Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Medicine for the Elderly, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Brian D M Tom
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Vince Taylor
- Cancer Research UK, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Jacobus Preller
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|