Dataset Information

Performance of the CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores in terms of severity for COVID-19 patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the COVID-19 pandemic, difficulties have been experienced in the provision of healthcare services because of excessive patient admissions to hospitals and emergency departments. It has become important to use clear and objective criteria for the early diagnosis of patients with high-risk classification and clinical worsening risk.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and to compare the scoring systems in terms of predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit requirement.

Methods

The files of all COVID-19 patients over the age of 18 who were admitted to the emergency department and hospitalised between September 1, 2020 and December 1, 2020 were retrospectively scanned. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden J Index were used to compare scoring systems for predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care requirement.

Results

There were 481 patients included in this study. The median age of the patients was 67 (52-79). In terms of in-hospital mortality, the AUC of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM were 0.846, 0.784 and 0.701 respectively. In terms of intensive care requirement, the AUC of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM were 0.898, 0.797 and 0.684 respectively. In our study, Youden's J indexes of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores were found to be 0.59, 0.27 and 0.01 respectively, for mortality prediction of COVID-19 patients. Whereas Youden's J indexes were found to be 0.63, 0.26 and 0.01 respectively for determining intensive care requirement.

Conclusions

Among the scoring systems assessed, CURB-65 score had better performance in predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU requirement in COVID-19 patients. ISARIC-4C has been found successful in identifying low-risk patients and the use of the ISARIC-4C score with CURB-65 increases the accuracy of risk assessment.

SUBMITTER: Doganay F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8646358 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions.MethodsWe developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal-external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London).Findings74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal-external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [-0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model.InterpretationThe 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.

Project description:Aim(i) evaluate the performance of MR-pro-ADM in reflecting the outcome and risk for CAP patients in the emergency department, and (ii) compare the prognostic performance of MR-pro-ADM with that of clinical scores PSI and CURB65.MethodsObservational prospective, single-center study in patients with suspected community acquired pneumonia (CAP). Eighty one patients underwent full clinical and laboratory assessment as by protocol, and were followed up a 28 days. Primary endpoints measured were: death, death at 14 days, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), endotracheal intubation (EI), ICU admission, overall hospital stay >10 days, emergency department stay >4 days. The discriminative performance of MR-pro-ADM and clinical scores was assessed by AUROC analysis.ResultsThe distribution for MR-pro-ADM followed an upward trend, increasing with the increase of both PSI (p<0.001) and CURB65 (p<0.001) classes. However, the difference between MRproADM values and score classes was significant only in the case of CURB65 classes 0 and 1 (p = 0.046), 2 (p = 0.013), and 3 (p = 0.011); and with PSI classes 5, 3 (p = 0.044), and 1 (p = 0.020). As to the differences among variables for the six end-points, MR-pro-ADM values in the two groups selected for each considered end-point differed in a statistically significant manner for all endpoints. Both PSI and CURB65 differed significantly for all end-points, except for stay in the ED longer than 4 days and the hospital stay longer than 10 days and endotracheal intubation (only PSI classes differed with statistical significance). ROC analyses evidenced that MR-pro-ADM values gave the greatest AUC for the prediction of death, endotracheal intubation, hospital stay >10 days and DE stay >4 days, compared to the PSI and CURB (though difference not statistically significant). For each endpoint measured, the best thresholds values for Mr-pro-ADM were: 1.6 (specificity 76.5%; sensitivity 77.8%) for death; 2.5 (specificity 88.9%; sensitivity 80.0%) for death at 14 days; 1.5 (specificity 77.0%; sensitivity 87.5%) for NIMV; 2.4 (specificity 88.7%; sensitivity 83.3%) for endotracheal intubation; 0.9 (specificity 53.5%; sensitivity 70.6%) for DE stay greater than 4 days; 1.9 (specificity 82.1%; sensitivity 55.3%) for hospital stay greater than 10 days. The AUC for the combination of MR-pro-ADM and PSI was 81.29% [63.41%-99.17%], but not in a statistically significant manner compared to the AUCs of the single predictors. Conversely, the AUC for the combination of MR-pro-ADM and CURB65 was 87.58% [75.54%-99.62%], which was significantly greater than the AUC of CURB65 (p = 0.047) or PSI (p = 0.017) alone.ConclusionsThe present study confirms that assessment of MR-pro-ADM levels in CAP patients in addition to CURB scores increases the prognostic accuracy of CURB alone and may help rule out discrepancies arising from flawed clinical severity classification. With particular reference to patients scoring in the upper classes of CURB and PSI, MR-pro-ADM values provided additional information towards a better risk stratification of those patients. In particular, our results pointed towards two MR-pro-ADM threshold values that appear to predict with a good degree of accuracy the patient's need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation, endotracheal intubation, or intensive care. This aspect, however, deserves further investigation.

Project description:COVID-19 is clinically characterised by fever, cough, and dyspnoea. Symptoms affecting other organ systems have been reported. However, it is the clinical associations of different patterns of symptoms which influence diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making. In this study, we applied clustering techniques to a large prospective cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 to identify clinically meaningful sub-phenotypes. We obtained structured clinical data on 59,011 patients in the UK (the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium, 4C) and used a principled, unsupervised clustering approach to partition the first 25,477 cases according to symptoms reported at recruitment. We validated our findings in a second group of 33,534 cases recruited to ISARIC-4C, and in 4,445 cases recruited to a separate study of community cases. Unsupervised clustering identified distinct sub-phenotypes. First, a core symptom set of fever, cough, and dyspnoea, which co-occurred with additional symptoms in three further patterns: fatigue and confusion, diarrhoea and vomiting, or productive cough. Presentations with a single reported symptom of dyspnoea or confusion were also identified, alongside a sub-phenotype of patients reporting few or no symptoms. Patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms were more commonly female, had a longer duration of symptoms before presentation, and had lower 30-day mortality. Patients presenting with confusion, with or without core symptoms, were older and had a higher unadjusted mortality. Symptom sub-phenotypes were highly consistent in replication analysis within the ISARIC-4C study. Similar patterns were externally verified in patients from a study of self-reported symptoms of mild disease. The large scale of the ISARIC-4C study enabled robust, granular discovery and replication. Clinical interpretation is necessary to determine which of these observations have practical utility. We propose that four sub-phenotypes are usefully distinct from the core symptom group: gastro-intestinal disease, productive cough, confusion, and pauci-symptomatic presentations. Importantly, each is associated with an in-hospital mortality which differs from that of patients with core symptoms.

Project description:BackgroundThe Confusion, Urea > 7 mM, Respiratory Rate ≥ 30 breaths/min, BP < 90 mm Hg (Systolic) or < 60 mm Hg (Diastolic), Age ≥ 65 Years (CURB-65) score and the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) are well-established clinical prediction rules for predicting mortality in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). SARS-CoV-2 has emerged as a new etiologic agent for CAP, but the role of CURB-65 score and PSI have not been established.Research questionHow effective are CURB-65 score and PSI at predicting in-hospital mortality resulting from SARS-CoV-2 CAP compared with non-SARS-CoV-2 CAP? Can these clinical prediction rules be optimized to predict mortality in SARS-CoV-2 CAP by addition of procalcitonin and D-dimer?Study design and methodsSecondary analysis of two prospective cohorts of patients with SARS-CoV-2 CAP or non-SARS-CoV-2 CAP from eight adult hospitals in Louisville, Kentucky.ResultsThe in-hospital mortality rate was 19% for patients with SARS-CoV-2 CAP and 6.5% for patients with non-SARS-CoV-2 CAP. For the PSI score, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis resulted in an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.86) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.80) for patients with SARS-CoV-2 CAP and non-SARS-CoV-2 CAP, respectively. For the CURB-65 score, ROC analysis resulted in an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.84) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.77) for patients with SARS-CoV-2 CAP and non-SARS-CoV-2 CAP, respectively. In SARS-CoV-2 CAP, the addition of D-dimer (optimal cutoff, 1,813 μg/mL) and procalcitonin (optimal cutoff, 0.19 ng/mL) to PSI and CURB-65 score provided negligible improvement in prognostic performance.InterpretationPSI and CURB-65 score can predict in-hospital mortality for patients with SARS-CoV-2 CAP and non-SARS-CoV-2 CAP comparatively. In patients with SARS-CoV-2 CAP, the inclusion of either D-dimer or procalcitonin to PSI or CURB-65 score did not improve the prognostic performance of either score. In patients with CAP, regardless of cause, PSI and CURB-65 score remain adequate for predicting mortality in clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality in patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignProspective observational cohort study.SettingInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study (performed by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium-ISARIC-4C) in 260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited after model development between 21 May and 29 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 at least four weeks before final data extraction.Main outcome measureIn-hospital mortality.Results35 463 patients were included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 32.2%) and 22 361 in the validation dataset (mortality rate 30.1%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea level, and C reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C Score showed high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.79; validation cohort: 0.77, 0.76 to 0.77) with excellent calibration (validation: calibration-in-the-large=0, slope=1.0). Patients with a score of at least 15 (n=4158, 19%) had a 62% mortality (positive predictive value 62%) compared with 1% mortality for those with a score of 3 or less (n=1650, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve range 0.61-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73).ConclusionsAn easy-to-use risk stratification score has been developed and validated based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. The 4C Mortality Score outperformed existing scores, showed utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 into different management groups. The score should be further validated to determine its applicability in other populations.Study registrationISRCTN66726260.