Derivation and validation of clinical prediction rules for diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Infectious mononucleosis (IM) is a clinical syndrome that is characterised by lymphadenopathy, fever and sore throat. Although generally not considered a serious illness, IM can lead to significant loss of time from school or work due to profound fatigue, or the development of chronic illness. This study aimed to derive and externally validate clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for IM caused by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 328 participants were recruited prospectively for the derivation cohort, from seven university-affiliated student health centres in Ireland. Participants were young adults (17-39 years old, mean age 20.6 years) with sore throat and one other additional symptom suggestive of IM. The validation cohort was a retrospective cohort of 1498 participants from a student health centre at the University of Georgia, USA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Regression analyses were used to develop four CPR models, internally validated in the derivation cohort. External validation was carried out in the geographically separate validation cohort. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, there were 328 participants, of whom 42 (12.8%) had a positive EBV serology test result. Of 1498 participants in the validation cohort, 243 (16.2%) had positive heterophile antibody tests for IM. Four alternative CPR models were developed and compared. There was moderate discrimination and good calibration for all models. The sparsest CPR included presence of enlarged/tender posterior cervical lymph nodes and presence of exudate on the pharynx. This model had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.70; 95% CI: 0.62-0.79) and good calibration. On external validation, this model demonstrated reasonable discrimination (AUC: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.67-0.72) and good calibration. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative CPRs proposed can provide quantitative probability estimates of IM. Used in conjunction with serological testing for atypical lymphocytosis and immunoglobulin testing for viral capsid antigen, CPRs can enhance diagnostic decision-making for IM in community settings.

External Validation of the COVID-NoLab and COVID-SimpleLab Prognostic Tools.

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/).

Development and Validation of a Two-Step Predictive Risk Stratification Model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 In-hospital Mortality: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

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.

Development and Validation of the COVID-NoLab and COVID-SimpleLab Risk Scores for Prognosis in 6 US Health Systems.

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.