Dataset Information

Development and external validation of a prognostic model in newly diagnosed Parkinson disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop a prognostic model to predict disease outcomes in individual patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and perform an external validation study in an independent cohort.

Methods

Model development was done in the Comorbidity and Aging in Rehabilitation Patients: The Influence on Activities (CARPA) cohort (Netherlands). External validation was performed using the Cambridgeshire Parkinson's Incidence from GP to Neurologist (CamPaIGN) cohort (UK). Both are longitudinal incident cohort studies that prospectively followed up patients with PD from the time of diagnosis. A composite outcome measure was made in which patients were classified as having an unfavorable prognosis when they had postural instability or dementia at the 5-year assessment (or at the last assessment before loss to follow-up), or had died before this time. The final model was derived with a backward selection strategy from candidate predictor variables that were measured at baseline.

Results

In the resulting model, higher patient age, higher Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor examination axial score, and a lower animal fluency score were all associated with a higher probability of an unfavorable outcome. External validation confirmed good discriminative ability between favorable and unfavorable outcomes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.93) and a well-calibrated model with a calibration slope of 1.13 and no significant lack of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: p = 0.39).

Conclusion

We constructed a model that allows individual patient prognostication at 5 years from diagnosis, using a small set of predictor variables that can easily be obtained by clinicians or research nurses.

SUBMITTER: Velseboer DC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4799715 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop valid prognostic models to predict mortality, dependency, and "death or dependency" for use in newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsThe models were developed in the Parkinsonism Incidence in North-East Scotland study (UK, 198 patients) and validated in the ParkWest study (Norway, 192 patients), cohorts that attempted to identify and follow-up all new PD cases in the study area. Dependency was defined using the Schwab & England scale. We selected variables measured at time of diagnosis to include in the models. Internal validation and external validation were performed by calculating C-statistics (discrimination) and plotting observed versus predicted risk in quantiles of predicted risk (calibration).ResultsOlder age, male sex, increased severity of axial features, and Charlson comorbidity index were independent prognostic factors in the mortality model. Increasing age, higher smoking history, increased severity of axial features, and lower MMSE score were independent predictors in the models of dependency and "death or dependency." Each model had very good internal calibration and very good or good discrimination (internal and external C-statistics for the models were 0.73-0.75 and 0.68-0.78, respectively). Although each model clearly separated patients into groups according to risk, they tended to overestimate risk in ParkWest. The models were recalibrated to the baseline risk in the ParkWest study and then calibrated well in this cohort.ConclusionsWe have developed prognostic models for predicting medium-term risk of important clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed PD. These models have validity for use for stratification of randomization, confounder adjustment, and case-mix correction, but they are inadequate for individualized prognostication. © 2017. The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Project description:BackgroundThe rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) revealed significant constraints in critical care capacity. In anticipation of subsequent waves, reliable prediction of disease severity is essential for critical care capacity management and may enable earlier targeted interventions to improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study is to develop and externally validate a prognostic model/clinical tool for predicting COVID-19 critical disease at presentation to medical care.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of a prognostic model for the prediction of COVID-19 critical disease where critical disease was defined as ICU admission, ventilation, and/or death. The derivation cohort was used to develop a multivariable logistic regression model. Covariates included patient comorbidities, presenting vital signs, and laboratory values. Model performance was assessed on the validation cohort by concordance statistics. The model was developed with consecutive patients with COVID-19 who presented to University of California Irvine Medical Center in Orange County, California. External validation was performed with a random sample of patients with COVID-19 at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, Georgia.ResultsOf a total 3208 patients tested in the derivation cohort, 9% (299/3028) were positive for COVID-19. Clinical data including past medical history and presenting laboratory values were available for 29% (87/299) of patients (median age, 48 years [range, 21-88 years]; 64% [36/55] male). The most common comorbidities included obesity (37%, 31/87), hypertension (37%, 32/87), and diabetes (24%, 24/87). Critical disease was present in 24% (21/87). After backward stepwise selection, the following factors were associated with greatest increased risk of critical disease: number of comorbidities, body mass index, respiratory rate, white blood cell count, % lymphocytes, serum creatinine, lactate dehydrogenase, high sensitivity troponin I, ferritin, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein. Of a total of 40 patients in the validation cohort (median age, 60 years [range, 27-88 years]; 55% [22/40] male), critical disease was present in 65% (26/40). Model discrimination in the validation cohort was high (concordance statistic: 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.01). A web-based tool was developed to enable clinicians to input patient data and view likelihood of critical disease.Conclusions and relevanceWe present a model which accurately predicted COVID-19 critical disease risk using comorbidities and presenting vital signs and laboratory values, on derivation and validation cohorts from two different institutions. If further validated on additional cohorts of patients, this model/clinical tool may provide useful prognostication of critical care needs.

Project description:BackgroundSeizures are the main cause of maternal death in women with epilepsy, but there are no tools for predicting seizures in pregnancy. We set out to develop and validate a prognostic model, using information collected during the antenatal booking visit, to predict seizure risk at any time in pregnancy and until 6 weeks postpartum in women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs.Methods and findingsWe used datasets of a prospective cohort study (EMPiRE) of 527 pregnant women with epilepsy on medication recruited from 50 hospitals in the UK (4 November 2011-17 August 2014). The model development cohort comprised 399 women whose antiepileptic drug doses were adjusted based on clinical features only; the validation cohort comprised 128 women whose drug dose adjustments were informed by serum drug levels. The outcome was epileptic (non-eclamptic) seizure captured using diary records. We fitted the model using LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression, and reported the performance using C-statistic (scale 0-1, values > 0.5 show discrimination) and calibration slope (scale 0-1, values near 1 show accuracy) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We determined the net benefit (a weighted sum of true positive and false positive classifications) of using the model, with various probability thresholds, to aid clinicians in making individualised decisions regarding, for example, referral to tertiary care, frequency and intensity of monitoring, and changes in antiepileptic medication. Seizures occurred in 183 women (46%, 183/399) in the model development cohort and in 57 women (45%, 57/128) in the validation cohort. The model included age at first seizure, baseline seizure classification, history of mental health disorder or learning difficulty, occurrence of tonic-clonic and non-tonic-clonic seizures in the 3 months before pregnancy, previous admission to hospital for seizures during pregnancy, and baseline dose of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. The C-statistic was 0.79 (95% CI 0.75, 0.84). On external validation, the model showed good performance (C-statistic 0.76, 95% CI 0.66, 0.85; calibration slope 0.93, 95% CI 0.44, 1.41) but with imprecise estimates. The EMPiRE model showed the highest net proportional benefit for predicted probability thresholds between 12% and 99%. Limitations of this study include the varied gestational ages of women at recruitment, retrospective patient recall of seizure history, potential variations in seizure classification, the small number of events in the validation cohort, and the clinical utility restricted to decision-making thresholds above 12%. The model findings may not be generalisable to low- and middle-income countries, or when information on all predictors is not available.ConclusionsThe EMPiRE model showed good performance in predicting the risk of seizures in pregnant women with epilepsy who are prescribed antiepileptic drugs. Integration of the tool within the antenatal booking visit, deployed as a simple nomogram, can help to optimise care in women with epilepsy.