External validation of the Dutch prediction model for prehospital triage of trauma patients in South West region of England, United Kingdom

Prospective validation of a hospital triage predictive model to decrease undertriage: an EAST multicenter study

Background

Tiered trauma team activation (TTA) allows systems to optimally allocate resources to an injured patient. Target undertriage and overtriage rates of <5% and <35% are difficult for centers to achieve, and performance variability exists. The objective of this study was to optimize and externally validate a previously developed hospital trauma triage prediction model to predict the need for emergent intervention in 6 hours (NEI-6), an indicator of need for a full TTA.

Methods

The model was previously developed and internally validated using data from 31 US trauma centers. Data were collected prospectively at five sites using a mobile application which hosted the NEI-6 model. A weighted multiple logistic regression model was used to retrain and optimize the model using the original data set and a portion of data from one of the prospective sites. The remaining data from the five sites were designated for external validation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) were used to assess the validation cohort. Subanalyses were performed for age, race, and mechanism of injury.

Results

14 421 patients were included in the training data set and 2476 patients in the external validation data set across five sites. On validation, the model had an overall undertriage rate of 9.1% and overtriage rate of 53.7%, with an AUROC of 0.80 and an AUPRC of 0.63. Blunt injury had an undertriage rate of 8.8%, whereas penetrating injury had 31.2%. For those aged ≥65, the undertriage rate was 8.4%, and for Black or African American patients the undertriage rate was 7.7%.

Conclusion

The optimized and externally validated NEI-6 model approaches the recommended undertriage and overtriage rates while significantly reducing variability of TTA across centers for blunt trauma patients. The model performs well for populations that traditionally have high rates of undertriage.

Level of evidence

2.

Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities

BACKGROUND

The priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities.

METHODS

A steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority.

RESULTS

77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed.

CONCLUSION

We have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years.

External Validation of the Colon Life Nomogram for Predicting 12-Week Mortality in Dutch Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Daily Practice

Simple Summary

Predicting prognosis in cancer patients is needed to guide decision making. In order to predict survival, nomograms can be used to estimate chances of survival based on clinical characteristics. In order to identify metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with a very short life expectancy (less than 12 weeks) after receiving multiple standard treatments, the Colon Life nomogram was previously developed. Before a nomogram can be used in daily practice, it is essential to show that it accurately predicts survival in different real-life populations and can be used to guide clinical decision making. This is called external validation. We externally validated the Colon Life nomogram in a cohort of patients with refractory mCRC who were treated with a last treatment option, trifluridine/tipiracil, in daily practice. We demonstrated that the nomogram severely overestimated 12-week mortality and therefore should not be used in clinical practice in its present form. We also showed that quality of life reported by patients themselves can improve the prediction of survival, stressing the importance of patient-reported outcomes. We recommend conducting a study with a sufficiently large sample size to update the Colon Life nomogram or to develop a new model and include quality of life.

Abstract

Background: Predicting prognosis in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is needed to guide decision making. The Colon Life nomogram was developed to predict 12-week mortality in refractory mCRC patients. The aim of this study is to validate the Colon Life nomogram in last line/refractory patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in daily practice. Methods: The validation cohort consists of 150 QUALITAS study patients, an observational substudy of the Prospective Dutch CRC cohort, who were treated with FTD/TPI between 2016 and 2019. Model performance was assessed on discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness. The additional prognostic value of baseline quality of life (QoL) and thymidine kinase (TK1) expression in tissue was explored. Results: Of the 150 patients, 25 (16.7%) died within 12 weeks of starting FTD/TPI treatment. The C-statistic was 0.63 (95% C.I. 0.56–0.70). The observed/expected ratio was 0.52 (0.37–0.73). The calibration intercept and slope were −1.06 (−1.53 to −0.58) and 0.41 (0.01–0.81), respectively, which indicated overestimation of 12-week mortality by the nomogram. Decision curve analysis showed the nomogram did not yield a positive net benefit at clinically meaningful thresholds for predicted 12-week mortality. Addition of QoL to the nomogram improved the C-statistic to 0.85 (0.81–0.89). TK1 expression was associated with progression-free survival but not with overall survival. Conclusion: We demonstrated evident miscalibration of the Colon Life nomogram upon external validation, which hampers its use in clinical practice. We recommend conducting a study with a sufficiently large sample size to update the Colon Life nomogram or to develop a new model including QoL.

An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England

BACKGROUND

Many health care systems triage injured patients to major trauma centres (MTCs) or local hospitals by using triage tools and paramedic judgement. Triage tools are typically assessed by whether patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 go to an MTC and whether patients with an ISS < 16 are sent to their local hospital. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity of triage tools, with the optimal balance being unknown. We conducted an economic evaluation of major trauma triage tools to identify which tool would be considered cost-effective by UK decision makers.

METHODS

A patient-level, probabilistic, mathematical model of a UK major trauma system was developed. Patients with an ISS ≥ 16 who were only treated at local hospitals had worse outcomes compared to being treated in an MTC. Nine empirically derived triage tools, from a previous study, were examined so we assessed triage tools with realistic trade-offs between triage tool sensitivity and specificity. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each tool and compared to maximum acceptable ICERs (MAICERs) in England.

RESULTS

Four tools had ICERs within the normal range of MAICERs used by English decision makers (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). A low sensitivity (28.4%) and high specificity (88.6%) would be cost-effective at the lower end of this range while higher sensitivity (87.5%) and lower specificity (62.8%) was cost-effective towards the upper end of this range. These results were sensitive to the cost of MTC admissions and whether MTCs had a benefit for patients with an ISS between 9 and 15.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effective triage tool depends on the English decision maker's MAICER for this health problem. In the usual range of MAICERs, cost-effective prehospital trauma triage involves clinically suboptimal sensitivity, with a proportion of seriously injured patients (at least 10%) being initially transported to local hospitals. High sensitivity trauma triage requires development of more accurate decision rules; research to establish if patients with an ISS between 9 and 15 benefit from MTCs; or, inefficient use of health care resources to manage patients with less serious injuries at MTCs.