Dataset Information

Detecting Risk Of Postural hypotension (DROP): derivation and validation of a prediction score for primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Falls are a common problem in older people. Postural hypotension contributes to falls but is often asymptomatic. In the absence of symptoms, postural hypotension is only infrequently checked for in clinical practice. We undertook this study to derive, validate and explore the prospective associations of a prediction tool to identify people likely to have unrecognised postural hypotension.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional and prospective multivariable cohort analysis.

Participants

1317 participants of the Invecchiare in Chianti study, a population-based cohort representative of the older Italian population.

Primary outcome measures

Predictive value of score to suggest presence of postural hypotension.

Methods

Subjects were randomised 1:1 to derivation or validation cohorts. Within the derivation cohort, univariable associations for candidate predictors of postural hypotension were tested. Variables with p<0.1 entered multivariable linear regression models. Factors retaining multivariable significance were incorporated into unweighted and weighted Detecting Risk Of Postural hypotension (DROP) scores. These scores were tested in the validation cohort against prediction of postural hypotension, cognitive decline and mortality over 9 years of follow-up.

Results

Postural hypotension was present in 203 (15.4%) of participants. Factors predicting postural hypotension were: digoxin use, Parkinson's disease, hypertension, stroke or cardiovascular disease and an interarm systolic blood pressure difference. Area under the curve was consistent at 0.65 for all models, with significant ORs of 1.8 to 2.4 per unit increase in score for predicting postural hypotension. For a DROP score ?1, five cases need to be tested to identify one with postural hypotension.Increasing DROP scores predicted mortality (OR 1.8 to 2.8 per unit rise) and increasing rates of decline of Mini Mental State Examination score (analysis of variance p<0.001) over 9 years of follow-up.

Conclusions

The DROP score provides a simple method to identify people likely to have postural hypotension and increased risks to health who require further evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Clark CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5914723 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Detecting Risk Of Postural hypotension (DROP): derivation and validation of a prediction score for primary care.

Clark Christopher Elles CE Thomas Daniel D Warren Fiona C FC Llewellyn David J DJ Ferrucci Luigi L Campbell John L JL

BMJ open 20180420 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Falls are a common problem in older people. Postural hypotension contributes to falls but is often asymptomatic. In the absence of symptoms, postural hypotension is only infrequently checked for in clinical practice. We undertook this study to derive, validate and explore the prospective associations of a prediction tool to identify people likely to have unrecognised postural hypotension.<h4>Design and setting</h4>Cross-sectional and prospective multivariable cohort analysis.< ...[more]

PMID: 29678986

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and externally validate a risk algorithm (QAdmissions) to estimate the risk of emergency hospital admission for patients aged 18-100 years in primary care.DesignProspective open cohort study using routinely collected data from general practice linked to hospital episode data during the 2-year study period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011.Setting405 general practices in England contributing to the national QResearch database to develop the algorithm. Two validation cohorts to validate the algorithm (1) 202 different QResearch practices and (2) 343 practices in England contributing to the Clinical Practice Research DataLink (CPRD). All general practices had data linked to hospital episode statistics at the individual patient level.ParticipantsWe studied 2 849 381 patients aged 18-100 years in the derivation cohort with over 4.6 million person-years of follow-up. 265 573 of these patients had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. For the QResearch validation cohort, we identified 1 340 622 patients aged 18-100 years with over 2.2 million person-years of follow-up. Of these patients, 132 723 had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. The CPRD cohort included 2 475 360 patients aged 18-100 years with over 3.8 million person-years of follow-up. 234 204 of these patients had one or more emergency admissions during follow-up. We excluded patients without a valid NHS number and a valid Townsend score.EndpointFirst (ie, incident) emergency admission to hospital in the next 2 years as recorded on the linked hospital episodes records.Risk factorsCandidate variables recorded on the general practitioner computer system including (1) demographic variables (age, sex, strategic health authority, Townsend deprivation score, ethnicity); (2) lifestyle variables (smoking, alcohol intake); (3) chronic diseases; (4) prescribed medication; (5) clinical values (body mass index, systolic blood pressure); (6) laboratory test results (haemoglobin, platelets, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, ratio of total serum cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations, liver function tests). We also included the number of emergency admissions in the preceding year based on information recorded on the linked hospital episodes records.ResultsThe final QAdmissions algorithm incorporated 30 variables. When applied to the QResearch validation cohort, it explained 41% of the variation in women and 43% of that in men. The D statistic for QAdmissions was 1.7 in women and 1.8 in men. The receiver operating curve statistic was 0.78 for men and 0.77 for women. QAdmissions had good performance on all measures of discrimination and calibration. The positive predictive value for emergency admissions for the top tenth of patients at highest risk was 42% and the sensitivity was 39%. The results for the CPRD validation cohort were similar.ConclusionsThe QAdmissions model provided a valid measure of absolute risk of emergency admission to hospital in the general population as shown by its performance in a separate validation cohort. Further research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using these algorithms in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate assessment of COVID-19 severity in the community is essential for patient care and requires COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores adequately validated in a community setting. Following a qualitative phase to identify signs, symptoms, and risk factors, we aimed to develop and validate two COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores. Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care-General Practice score (RECAP-GP; without peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO2]) and RECAP-oxygen saturation score (RECAP-O2; with SpO2).MethodsRECAP was a prospective cohort study that used multivariable logistic regression. Data on signs and symptoms (predictors) of disease were collected from community-based patients with suspected COVID-19 via primary care electronic health records and linked with secondary data on hospital admission (outcome) within 28 days of symptom onset. Data sources for RECAP-GP were Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP-RSC) primary care practices (development set), northwest London primary care practices (validation set), and the NHS COVID-19 Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS; validation set). The data source for RECAP-O2 was the Doctaly Assist platform (development set and validation set in subsequent sample). The two probabilistic risk prediction models were built by backwards elimination using the development sets and validated by application to the validation datasets. Estimated sample size per model, including the development and validation sets was 2880 people.FindingsData were available from 8311 individuals. Observations, such as SpO2, were mostly missing in the northwest London, RCGP-RSC, and CCAS data; however, SpO2 was available for 1364 (70·0%) of 1948 patients who used Doctaly. In the final predictive models, RECAP-GP (n=1863) included sex (male and female), age (years), degree of breathlessness (three point scale), temperature symptoms (two point scale), and presence of hypertension (yes or no); the area under the curve was 0·80 (95% CI 0·76-0·85) and on validation the negative predictive value of a low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·1-99·2; 1435 of 1453). RECAP-O2 included age (years), degree of breathlessness (two point scale), fatigue (two point scale), and SpO2 at rest (as a percentage); the area under the curve was 0·84 (0·78-0·90) and on validation the negative predictive value of low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·9-99·7; 1176 of 1183).InterpretationBoth RECAP models are valid tools to assess COVID-19 patients in the community. RECAP-GP can be used initially, without need for observations, to identify patients who require monitoring. If the patient is monitored and SpO2 is available, RECAP-O2 is useful to assess the need for treatment escalation.FundingCommunity Jameel and the Imperial College President's Excellence Fund, the Economic and Social Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, and Health Data Research UK.

Project description:Given the focus of existing clinical prediction scores on identifying drug-resistant pathogens as a whole, the application to individual pathogens and other institutions may yield weaker performance. This study aimed to develop a locally derived clinical prediction model for Pseudomonas-mediated pneumonia. This retrospective study included patients ≥18 years of age who were admitted to an academic medical center between 1 July 2010 and 31 July 2020 with a CDC National Healthcare Safety Network confirmed pneumonia diagnosis and were receiving antimicrobials during the index encounter, with a positive respiratory culture. Cystic fibrosis patients were excluded. Logistic regression analysis identified risk factors associated with the isolation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from respiratory cultures within the derivation cohort (n = 186), which were weighted to generate a prediction score that was applied to the derivation and internal validation (n = 95) cohorts. A total of 281 patients met the inclusion criteria. Five predictor variables were identified, namely, tracheostomy status (4 points), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5 points), enteral nutrition (9 points), chronic steroid use (11 points), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolation from any culture in the prior 6 months (14 points). At a score of >11, the prediction score demonstrated a sensitivity of 52.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4 to 68.0%) and a specificity of 84.9% (95% CI, 72.4 to 93.35%) in the validation cohort. Score accuracy was 70.5% (95% CI, 60.3 to 79.4%), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.87) in the validation cohort. A prediction score for identifying Pseudomonas aeruginosa in pneumonia was derived, which may have the potential to decrease the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Validation with larger and external cohorts is necessary. IMPORTANCE In this study, we aimed to develop a locally derived clinical prediction model for Pseudomonas-mediated pneumonia. Utilizing a locally validated prediction score may help direct therapeutic management and be generalizable to other clinical settings and similar populations for the selection of appropriate antimicrobial coverage when data are lacking. Our study highlights a unique patient population, including immunocompromised, structural lung disease, and transplant patients. Five predictor variables were identified, namely, tracheostomy status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, enteral nutrition, chronic steroid use, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolation from any culture in the prior 6 months. A prediction score for identifying Pseudomonas aeruginosa in pneumonia was derived, which may have the potential to decrease the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, although validation with larger and external cohorts is necessary.

Project description:ObjectiveUsing primary care data, develop and validate sex-specific prognostic models that estimate the 10-year risk of people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia developing type 2 diabetes.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingPrimary care.Participants154 705 adult patients with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia.Primary outcomeDevelopment of type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis study used data routinely collected in UK primary care from general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Patients were split into development (n=109 077) and validation datasets (n=45 628). Potential predictor variables, including demographic and lifestyle factors, medical and family history, prescribed medications and clinical measures, were included in survival models following the imputation of missing data. Measures of calibration at 10 years and discrimination were determined using the validation dataset.ResultsIn the development dataset, 9332 patients developed type 2 diabetes during 293 238 person-years of follow-up (31.8 (95% CI 31.2 to 32.5) per 1000 person-years). In the validation dataset, 3783 patients developed type 2 diabetes during 115 113 person-years of follow-up (32.9 (95% CI 31.8 to 33.9) per 1000 person-years). The final prognostic models comprised 14 and 16 predictor variables for males and females, respectively. Both models had good calibration and high levels of discrimination. The performance statistics for the male model were: Harrell's C statistic of 0.700 in the development and 0.701 in the validation dataset, with a calibration slope of 0.974 (95% CI 0.905 to 1.042) in the validation dataset. For the female model, Harrell's C statistics were 0.720 and 0.718, respectively, while the calibration slope was 0.994 (95% CI 0.931 to 1.057) in the validation dataset.ConclusionThese models could be used in primary care to identify those with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia most at risk of developing type 2 diabetes for targeted referral to the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme.

Project description:BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients have increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Accurate CVD risk prediction could improve care for RA patients. Our goal is to develop and validate a biomarker-based model for predicting CVD risk in RA patients.MethodsMedicare claims data were linked to multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) test results to create an RA patient cohort with age ??40?years that was split 2:1 for training and internal validation. Clinical and RA-related variables, MBDA score, and its 12 biomarkers were evaluated as predictors of a composite CVD outcome: myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or fatal CVD within 3?years. Model building used Cox proportional hazard regression with backward elimination. The final MBDA-based CVD risk score was internally validated and compared to four clinical CVD risk prediction models.Results30,751 RA patients (904 CVD events) were analyzed. Covariates in the final MBDA-based CVD risk score were age, diabetes, hypertension, tobacco use, history of CVD (excluding MI/stroke), MBDA score, leptin, MMP-3 and TNF-R1. In internal validation, the MBDA-based CVD risk score was a strong predictor of 3-year risk for a CVD event, with hazard ratio (95% CI) of 2.89 (2.46-3.41). The predicted 3-year CVD risk was low for 9.4% of patients, borderline for 10.2%, intermediate for 52.2%, and high for 28.2%. Model fit was good, with mean predicted versus observed 3-year CVD risks of 4.5% versus 4.4%. The MBDA-based CVD risk score significantly improved risk discrimination by the likelihood ratio test, compared to four clinical models. The risk score also improved prediction, reclassifying 42% of patients versus the simplest clinical model (age + sex), with a net reclassification index (NRI) (95% CI) of 0.19 (0.10-0.27); and 28% of patients versus the most comprehensive clinical model (age + sex + diabetes + hypertension + tobacco use + history of CVD + CRP), with an NRI of 0.07 (0.001-0.13). C-index was 0.715 versus 0.661 to 0.696 for the four clinical models.ConclusionA prognostic score has been developed to predict 3-year CVD risk for RA patients by using clinical data, three serum biomarkers and the MBDA score. In internal validation, it had good accuracy and outperformed clinical models with and without CRP. The MBDA-based CVD risk prediction score may improve RA patient care by offering a risk stratification tool that incorporates the effect of RA inflammation.

Project description:BackgroundRespiratory viruses are important etiologies of community-acquired pneumonia. However, current knowledge on the prognosis of respiratory virus-related pneumonia (RV-p) is limited. Thus, here we aimed to establish a clinical predictive model for mortality of patients with RV-p.MethodsA total of 1431 laboratory-confirmed patients with RV-p, including 1169 and 262 patients from respective derivation and validation cohorts from five teaching hospitals in China were assessed between January 2010 and December 2019. A prediction rule was established on the basis of risk factors for 30-day mortality of patients with RV-p from the derivation cohort using a multivariate logistic regression model.ResultsThe 30-day mortality of patients with RV-p was 16.8% (241/1431). The RV-p score was composed of nine predictors (including respective points of mortality risk): (a) age ⩾65 years (1 point); (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1 point); (c) mental confusion (1 point); (d) blood urea nitrogen (1 point); (e) cardiovascular disease (2 points); (f) smoking history (2 points); (g) arterial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspiration oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) < 250 mmHg (2 points); (h) lymphocyte counts <0.8 × 109/L (2 points); (i) arterial PH < 7.35 (3 points). A total of six points was used as the cut-off value for mortality risk stratification. Our model showed a sensitivity of 0.831 and a specificity of 0.783. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was more prominent for RV-p scoring [0.867, 95% confidence interval (CI)0.846-0.886] when compared with both pneumonia severity index risk (0.595, 95% CI 0.566-0.624, p < 0.001) and CURB-65 scoring (0.739, 95% CI 0.713-0.765, p < 0.001).ConclusionRV-p scoring was able to provide a good predictive accuracy for 30-day mortality, which accounted for a more effective stratification of patients with RV-p into relevant risk categories and, consequently, help physicians to make more rational clinical decisions.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Dataset Information

Detecting Risk Of Postural hypotension (DROP): derivation and validation of a prediction score for primary care.

Objectives

Design and setting

Participants

Primary outcome measures

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Detecting Risk Of Postural hypotension (DROP): derivation and validation of a prediction score for primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets