Clinical Utility of 4C Mortality Scores among Japanese COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Study

Utility of ED triage tools in predicting the need for intensive respiratory or vasopressor support in adult patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Serum and radiological parameters used to predict prognosis in COVID patients are not feasible in the Emergency Department. Due to its damaging effect on multiple organs and lungs, scores used to assess multiorgan damage and pneumonia such as Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score (PMEWS), National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), WHO score, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and DS-CRB 65 can be used to triage patients in the Emergency Department. They can be used to predict patients with the highest risk of seven-day mortality and need for intensive respiratory or vasopressor support (IRVS).

PURPOSE

The primary purpose was to find the score with the highest AUC in predicting IRVS and mortality at seven days. Additional objective was to find out any independent factors associated with IRVS and mortality.

METHODS

The data of adult patients who presented to the Emergency Department (ED) between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 were collected. The WHO score, CRB-65, DS-CRB 65, PMEWS, NEWS2, and qSOFA score were calculated for all patients. Statistical analysis was done and an ROC curve was calculated for all the tools for mortality and need for IRVS at seven days.

FINDINGS

677 patients presented to the Emergency Department with COVID-19 during the period above. Presence of Diabetes Mellitus (p = 0.001), Hypertension (p = 0.001), and chronic kidney disease(CKD) (p = 0.04) was significantly associated with need for IRVS. Age, duration of symptoms, pulse rate, respiratory rate, room air saturation, mental status at admission, and time to IRVS need were identified as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. The longer the time to IRVS need from ED arrival, the higher the likelihood of mortality. PMEWS (0.830) had the highest AUC, followed by NEWS2 (0.805). A PMEWS cut-off of 6.5 was 74.2% sensitive and 78.3% specific in predicting the need for IRVS. ROC analysis to predict 7-day mortality showed that PMEWS had an AUC of 0.802 (0.766-0.839). QSOFA performed poorly in predicting IRVS (AUC 0.645) and 7-day mortality (AUC 0.677).

CONCLUSION

PMEWS may be used for triaging patients presenting to the Emergency Department with COVID-19 and accurately predicts the need for IRVS and seven day mortality.

External validation of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score to predict in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 in a Canadian intensive care unit: a single-centre historical cohort study

PURPOSE

With uncertain prognostic utility of existing predictive scoring systems for COVID-19-related illness, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) 4C Mortality Score was developed by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium as a COVID-19 mortality prediction tool. We sought to externally validate this score among critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 and compare its discrimination characteristics to that of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores.

METHODS

We enrolled all consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure between 5 March 2020 and 5 March 2022 to our university-affiliated and intensivist-staffed ICU (Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada). After data abstraction, our primary outcome of in-hospital mortality was evaluated with an objective of determining the discriminative properties of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score, using the area under the curve of a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 429 patients were included, 102 (23.8%) of whom died in hospital. The receiver operator curve of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score had an area under the curve of 0.762 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.717 to 0.811), whereas those of the SOFA and APACHE II scores were 0.705 (95% CI, 0.648 to 0.761) and 0.722 (95% CI, 0.667 to 0.777), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The ISARIC 4C Mortality Score is a tool that had a good predictive performance for in-hospital mortality in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU for respiratory failure. Our results suggest a good external validity of the 4C score when applied to a more severely ill population.

Performance of CURB-65 and ISARIC 4C mortality scores for hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection in Saudi Arabia

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic continues with new waves that could persist with the arrival of new SARS-CoV-2 variants. Therefore, the availability of validated and effective triage tools is the cornerstone for proper clinical management. Thus, this study aimed to assess the validity of the ISARIC-4C score as a triage tool for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia and to compare its performance with the CURB-65 score.

Material and methods

This retrospective observational cohort study was conducted between March 2020 and May 2021 at KFHU, Saudi Arabia, using 542 confirmed COVID-19 patient data on the variables relevant to the application of the ISARIC-4C mortality score and the CURB-65 score. Chi-square and t-tests were employed to study the significance of the CURB-65 score and the ISARIC-4C score variables considering the ICU requirements and the mortality of COVID-19 hospitalized patients. In addition, logistic regression was used to predict the variables related to COVID-19 mortality. In addition, the diagnostic accuracy of both scores was validated by calculating sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Youden's J indices (YJI).

Results

ROC analysis showed an AUC value of 0.834 [95% CI; 0.800-0.865]) for the CURB-65 score and 0.809 [95% CI; 0.773-0.841]) for the ISARIC-4C score. The sensitivity for CURB-65 and ISARIC-4C is 75% and 85.71%, respectively, while the specificity was 82.31% and 62.66%, respectively. The difference between AUCs was 0.025 (95% [CI; -0.0203-0.0704], p = 0.2795).

Conclusion

Study results support external validation of the ISARIC-4C score in predicting the mortality risk of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the CURB-65 and ISARIC-4C scores showed comparable performance with good consistent discrimination and are suitable for clinical utility as triage tools for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review

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.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial).

DESIGN

ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]).

SETTING

94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants).

PARTICIPANTS

Adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

INTERVENTION

SOC.

MEASUREMENTS

28-day mortality and recovery.

RESULTS

Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages.

LIMITATION

Unmeasured confounding.

CONCLUSION

Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Physiologic Scoring Systems in Predicting the COVID-19 Patients' one-month Mortality; a Prognostic Accuracy Study

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.

Comparison of prognostic scores for inpatients with COVID-19: a retrospective monocentric cohort study

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to a steep increase in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for acute respiratory failure worldwide. Early identification of patients at risk of clinical deterioration is crucial in terms of appropriate care delivery and resource allocation. We aimed to evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Confusion, Uraemia, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure and Age ≥65 (CURB-65), Respiratory Rate and Oxygenation (ROX) index and Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (4C) score to predict death and ICU admission among patients admitted to the hospital for acute COVID-19 infection.

Methods and analysis

Consecutive adult patients admitted to the Geneva University Hospitals during two successive COVID-19 flares in spring and autumn 2020 were included. Discriminative performance of these prediction rules, obtained during the first 24 hours of hospital admission, were computed to predict death or ICU admission. We further exluded patients with therapeutic limitations and reported areas under the curve (AUCs) for 30-day mortality and ICU admission in sensitivity analyses.

Results

A total of 2122 patients were included. 216 patients (10.2%) required ICU admission and 303 (14.3%) died within 30 days post admission. 4C score had the best discriminatory performance to predict 30-day mortality (AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.85), compared with SOFA (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78), qSOFA (AUC 0.59, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.62), CURB-65 (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78) and ROX index (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.72). ROX index had the greatest discriminatory performance (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83) to predict ICU admission compared with 4C score (AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.66), CURB-65 (AUC 0.60, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.64), SOFA (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.77) and qSOFA (AUC 0.59, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.62).

Conclusion

Scores including age and/or comorbidities (4C and CURB-65) have the best discriminatory performance to predict mortality among inpatients with COVID-19, while scores including quantitative assessment of hypoxaemia (SOFA and ROX index) perform best to predict ICU admission. Exclusion of patients with therapeutic limitations improved the discriminatory performance of prognostic scores relying on age and/or comorbidities to predict ICU admission.

Special Issue "Pulmonary and Critical Care Practice in the Pandemic of COVID-19"

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SAR-CoV-2), which is responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has hit the world as a global pandemic at an unparalleled scale [...].