Dataset Information

Living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID) for risk of hospital admission and mortality from coronavirus 19 in adults: national derivation and validation cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To derive and validate a risk prediction algorithm to estimate hospital admission and mortality outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in adults.

Design

Population based cohort study.

Setting and participants

QResearch database, comprising 1205 general practices in England with linkage to covid-19 test results, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. 6.08 million adults aged 19-100 years were included in the derivation dataset and 2.17 million in the validation dataset. The derivation and first validation cohort period was 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. The second temporal validation cohort covered the period 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was time to death from covid-19, defined as death due to confirmed or suspected covid-19 as per the death certification or death occurring in a person with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the period 24 January to 30 April 2020. The secondary outcome was time to hospital admission with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance, including measures of discrimination and calibration, was evaluated in each validation time period.

Results

4384 deaths from covid-19 occurred in the derivation cohort during follow-up and 1722 in the first validation cohort period and 621 in the second validation cohort period. The final risk algorithms included age, ethnicity, deprivation, body mass index, and a range of comorbidities. The algorithm had good calibration in the first validation cohort. For deaths from covid-19 in men, it explained 73.1% (95% confidence interval 71.9% to 74.3%) of the variation in time to death (R²); the D statistic was 3.37 (95% confidence interval 3.27 to 3.47), and Harrell's C was 0.928 (0.919 to 0.938). Similar results were obtained for women, for both outcomes, and in both time periods. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths within 97 days was 75.7%. People in the top 20% of predicted risk of death accounted for 94% of all deaths from covid-19.

Conclusion

The QCOVID population based risk algorithm performed well, showing very high levels of discrimination for deaths and hospital admissions due to covid-19. The absolute risks presented, however, will change over time in line with the prevailing SARS-C0V-2 infection rate and the extent of social distancing measures in place, so they should be interpreted with caution. The model can be recalibrated for different time periods, however, and has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves.

SUBMITTER: Clift AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7574532 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundIdentification of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospital admission or at high-risk of in-hospital mortality is essential to guide patient triage and to provide timely treatment for higher risk hospitalized patients.MethodsA retrospective multi-centre (8 hospital) cohort at Beaumont Health, Michigan, USA, reporting on COVID-19 patients diagnosed between 1 March and 1 April 2020 was used for score validation. The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score was automatically computed by the EHR. Multivariate logistic regression models were built to predict hospital admission and in-hospital mortality using individual variables constituting the score. Validation was performed using both discrimination and calibration.ResultsCompared to Green scores, Yellow Scores (OR: 5.72) and Red Scores (OR: 19.1) had significantly higher odds of admission (both p < .0001). Similarly, Yellow Scores (OR: 4.73) and Red Scores (OR: 13.3) had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality than Green Scores (both p < .0001). The cross-validated C-Statistics for the external validation cohort showed good discrimination for both hospital admission (C = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81)) and in-hospital mortality (C = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78)).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score predicts the need for hospital admission and in-hospital mortality patients with COVID-19. Key points: Can an electronic health record generated risk score predict the risk of hospital admission and in-hospital mortality in patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? In both validation cohorts of 2,025 and 1,290 COVID-19, the cross-validated C-Statistics showed good discrimination for both hospital admission (C = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81)) and in-hospital mortality (C = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78)), respectively. The COVID-19 Risk of Complications Score may help predict the need for hospital admission if a patient contracts SARS-CoV-2 infection and in-hospital mortality for a hospitalized patient with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundPublic policy measures and clinical risk assessments relevant to COVID-19 need to be aided by risk prediction models that are rigorously developed and validated. We aimed to externally validate a risk prediction algorithm (QCovid) to estimate mortality outcomes from COVID-19 in adults in England.MethodsWe did a population-based cohort study using the UK Office for National Statistics Public Health Linked Data Asset, a cohort of individuals aged 19-100 years, based on the 2011 census and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, the General Practice Extraction Service data for pandemic planning and research, and radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy records. The primary outcome was time to COVID-19 death, defined as confirmed or suspected COVID-19 death as per death certification. Two periods were used: (1) Jan 24 to April 30, 2020, and (2) May 1 to July 28, 2020. We assessed the performance of the QCovid algorithms using measures of discrimination and calibration. Using predicted 90-day risk of COVID-19 death, we calculated r2 values, Brier scores, and measures of discrimination and calibration with corresponding 95% CIs over the two time periods.FindingsWe included 34 897 648 adults aged 19-100 years resident in England. 26 985 (0·08%) COVID-19 deaths occurred during the first period and 13 177 (0·04%) during the second. The algorithms had good discrimination and calibration in both periods. In the first period, they explained 77·1% (95% CI 76·9-77·4) of the variation in time to death in men and 76·3% (76·0-76·6) in women. The D statistic was 3·761 (3·732-3·789) for men and 3·671 (3·640-3·702) for women and Harrell's C was 0·935 (0·933-0·937) for men and 0·945 (0·943-0·947) for women. Similar results were obtained for the second time period. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths in the first period was 65·94% for men and 71·67% for women.InterpretationThe QCovid population-based risk algorithm performed well, showing high levels of discrimination for COVID-19 deaths in men and women for both time periods. QCovid has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves and, therefore, has potential use in guiding national policy.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:Aims/hypothesisHospital admissions for hypoglycaemia represent a significant burden on individuals with diabetes and have a substantial economic impact on healthcare systems. To date, no prognostic models have been developed to predict outcomes following admission for hypoglycaemia. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models to estimate risk of inpatient death, 24 h discharge and one month readmission in people admitted to hospital for hypoglycaemia.MethodsWe used the Hospital Episode Statistics database, which includes data on all hospital admission to National Health Service hospital trusts in England, to extract admissions for hypoglycaemia between 2010 and 2014. We developed, internally and temporally validated, and compared two prognostic risk models for each outcome. The first model included age, sex, ethnicity, region, social deprivation and Charlson score ('base' model). In the second model, we added to the 'base' model the 20 most common medical conditions and applied a stepwise backward selection of variables ('disease' model). We used C-index and calibration plots to assess model performance and developed a calculator to estimate probabilities of outcomes according to individual characteristics.ResultsIn derivation samples, 296 out of 11,136 admissions resulted in inpatient death, 1789/33,825 in one month readmission and 8396/33,803 in 24 h discharge. Corresponding values for validation samples were: 296/10,976, 1207/22,112 and 5363/22,107. The two models had similar discrimination. In derivation samples, C-indices for the base and disease models, respectively, were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.75, 0.80) and 0.78 (0.75, 0.80) for death, 0.57 (0.56, 0.59) and 0.57 (0.56, 0.58) for one month readmission, and 0.68 (0.67, 0.69) and 0.69 (0.68, 0.69) for 24 h discharge. Corresponding values in validation samples were: 0.74 (0.71, 0.76) and 0.74 (0.72, 0.77), 0.55 (0.54, 0.57) and 0.55 (0.53, 0.56), and 0.66 (0.65, 0.67) and 0.67 (0.66, 0.68). In both derivation and validation samples, calibration plots showed good agreement for the three outcomes. We developed a calculator of probabilities for inpatient death and 24 h discharge given the low performance of one month readmission models.Conclusions/interpretationThis simple and pragmatic tool to predict in-hospital death and 24 h discharge has the potential to reduce mortality and improve discharge in people admitted for hypoglycaemia.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of routine hospital data for understanding patterns of adverse outcomes has been limited in the past by the fact that pre-existing and post-admission conditions have been indistinguishable. The use of a 'Present on Admission' (or POA) indicator to distinguish pre-existing or co-morbid conditions from those arising during the episode of care has been advocated in the US for many years as a tool to support quality assurance activities and improve the accuracy of risk adjustment methodologies. The USA, Australia and Canada now all assign a flag to indicate the timing of onset of diagnoses. For quality improvement purposes, it is the 'not-POA' diagnoses (that is, those acquired in hospital) that are of interest.MethodsOur objective was to develop an algorithm for assessing the validity of assignment of 'not-POA' flags. We undertook expert review of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) to identify conditions that could not be plausibly hospital-acquired. The resulting computer algorithm was tested against all diagnoses flagged as complications in the Victorian (Australia) Admitted Episodes Dataset, 2005/06. Measures reported include rates of appropriate assignment of the new Australian 'Condition Onset' flag by ICD chapter, and patterns of invalid flagging.ResultsOf 18,418 diagnosis codes reviewed, 93.4% (n = 17,195) reflected agreement on status for flagging by at least 2 of 3 reviewers (including 64.4% unanimous agreement; Fleiss' Kappa: 0.61). In tests of the new algorithm, 96.14% of all hospital-acquired diagnosis codes flagged were found to be valid in the Victorian records analysed. A lower proportion of individual codes was judged to be acceptably flagged (76.2%), but this reflected a high proportion of codes used <5 times in the data set (789/1035 invalid codes).ConclusionAn indicator variable about the timing of occurrence of diagnoses can greatly expand the use of routinely coded data for hospital quality improvement programmes. The data-cleaning instrument developed and tested here can help guide coding practice in those health systems considering this change in hospital coding. The algorithm embodies principles for development of coding standards and coder education that would result in improved data validity for routine use of non-POA information.