ABSTRACT
Our objective was to externally validate 2 simple risk scores for mortality among a mostly inpatient population with COVID-19 in Canada (588 patients for COVID-NoLab and 479 patients for COVID-SimpleLab). The mortality rates in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups for COVID-NoLab were 1.1%, 9.6%, and 21.2%, respectively. The mortality rates for COVID-SimpleLab were 0.0%, 9.8%, and 20.0%, respectively. These values were similar to those in the original derivation cohort. The 2 simple risk scores, now successfully externally validated, offer clinicians a reliable way to quickly identify low-risk inpatients who could potentially be managed as outpatients in the event of a bed shortage. Both are available online (https://ebell-projects.shinyapps.io/covid_nolab/ and https://ebell-projects.shinyapps.io/COVID-SimpleLab/).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Prognosis , Canada/epidemiology , Inpatients , OutpatientsABSTRACT
Objectives: An accurate prognostic score to predict mortality for adults with COVID-19 infection is needed to understand who would benefit most from hospitalizations and more intensive support and care. We aimed to develop and validate a two-step score system for patient triage, and to identify patients at a relatively low level of mortality risk using easy-to-collect individual information. Design: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study. Setting: Four health centers from Virginia Commonwealth University, Georgetown University, the University of Florida, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Patients: Coronavirus Disease 2019-confirmed and hospitalized adult patients. Measurements and Main Results: We included 1,673 participants from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) as the derivation cohort. Risk factors for in-hospital death were identified using a multivariable logistic model with variable selection procedures after repeated missing data imputation. A two-step risk score was developed to identify patients at lower, moderate, and higher mortality risk. The first step selected increasing age, more than one pre-existing comorbidities, heart rate >100 beats/min, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min, and SpO2 <93% into the predictive model. Besides age and SpO2, the second step used blood urea nitrogen, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, platelet count, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictors. C-statistics reflected very good discrimination with internal validation at VCU (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88) and external validation at the other three health systems (range, 0.79-0.85). A one-step model was also derived for comparison. Overall, the two-step risk score had better performance than the one-step score. Conclusions: The two-step scoring system used widely available, point-of-care data for triage of COVID-19 patients and is a potentially time- and cost-saving tool in practice.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The extent of human interaction needed to achieve effective and cost-effective use of mobile health (mHealth) apps for individuals with mild to moderate alcohol use disorder (AUD) remains largely unexamined. This study seeks to understand how varying levels of human interaction affect the ways in which an mHealth intervention for the prevention and treatment of AUDs works or does not work, for whom, and under what circumstances. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim is to detect the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention by assessing differences in self-reported risky drinking patterns and quality of life between participants in three study groups (self-monitored, peer-supported, and clinically integrated). The cost-effectiveness of each approach will also be assessed. METHODS: This hybrid type 1 study is an unblinded patient-level randomized clinical trial testing the effects of using an evidence-based mHealth system on participants' drinking patterns and quality of life. There are two groups of participants for this study: individuals receiving the intervention and health care professionals practicing in the broader health care environment. The intervention is a smartphone app that encourages users to reduce their alcohol consumption within the context of integrative medicine using techniques to build healthy habits. The primary outcomes for quantitative analysis will be participant data on their risky drinking days and quality of life as well as app use from weekly and quarterly surveys. Cost measures include intervention and implementation costs. The cost per participant will be determined for each study arm, with intervention and implementation costs separated within each group. There will also be a qualitative assessment of health care professionals' engagement with the app as well as their thoughts on participant experience with the app. RESULTS: This protocol was approved by the Health Sciences Minimal Risk Institutional Review Board on November 18, 2019, with subsequent annual reviews. Recruitment began on March 6, 2020, but was suspended on March 13, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Limited recruitment resumed on July 6, 2020. Trial status as of November 17, 2021, is as follows: 357 participants were enrolled in the study for a planned enrollment of 546 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The new knowledge gained from this study could have wide and lasting benefits related to the integration of mHealth systems for individuals with mild to moderate AUDs. The results of this study will guide policy makers and providers toward cost-effective ways to incorporate technology in health care and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04011644; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04011644. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/31109.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Develop and validate simple risk scores based on initial clinical data and no or minimal laboratory testing to predict mortality in hospitalized adults with COVID-19. METHODS: We gathered clinical and initial laboratory variables on consecutive inpatients with COVID-19 who had either died or been discharged alive at 6 US health centers. Logistic regression was used to develop a predictive model using no laboratory values (COVID-NoLab) and one adding tests available in many outpatient settings (COVID-SimpleLab). The models were converted to point scores and their accuracy evaluated in an internal validation group. RESULTS: We identified 1340 adult inpatients with complete data for nonlaboratory parameters and 741 with complete data for white blood cell (WBC) count, differential, c-reactive protein (CRP), and serum creatinine. The COVID-NoLab risk score includes age, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation and identified risk groups with 0.8%, 11.4%, and 40.4% mortality in the validation group (AUROCC = 0.803). The COVID-SimpleLab score includes age, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, WBC, CRP, serum creatinine, and comorbid asthma and identified risk groups with 1.0%, 9.1%, and 29.3% mortality in the validation group (AUROCC = 0.833). CONCLUSIONS: Because they use simple, readily available predictors, developed risk scores have potential applicability in the outpatient setting but require prospective validation before use.