US and Dutch Perspectives on the Use of COVID-19 Clinical Prediction Models: Findings from a Qualitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical prediction models (CPMs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may support clinical decision making, treatment, and communication. However, attitudes about using CPMs for COVID-19 decision making are unknown. METHODS: Online focus groups and interviews were conducted among health care providers, survivors of COVID-19, and surrogates (i.e., loved ones/surrogate decision makers) in the United States and the Netherlands. Semistructured questions explored experiences about clinical decision making in COVID-19 care and facilitators and barriers for implementing CPMs. RESULTS: In the United States, we conducted 4 online focus groups with 1) providers and 2) surrogates and survivors of COVID-19 between January 2021 and July 2021. In the Netherlands, we conducted 3 focus groups and 4 individual interviews with 1) providers and 2) surrogates and survivors of COVID-19 between May 2021 and July 2021. Providers expressed concern about CPM validity and the belief that patients may interpret CPM predictions as absolute. They described CPMs as potentially useful for resource allocation, triaging, education, and research. Several surrogates and people who had COVID-19 were not given prognostic estimates but believed this information would have supported and influenced their decision making. A limited number of participants felt the data would not have applied to them and that they or their loved ones may not have survived, as poor prognosis may have suggested withdrawal of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Many providers had reservations about using CPMs for people with COVID-19 due to concerns about CPM validity and patient-level interpretation of the outcome predictions. However, several people who survived COVID-19 and their surrogates indicated that they would have found this information useful for decision making. Therefore, information provision may be needed to improve provider-level comfort and patient and surrogate understanding of CPMs. HIGHLIGHTS: While clinical prediction models (CPMs) may provide an objective means of assessing COVID-19 prognosis, provider concerns about CPM validity and the interpretation of CPM predictions may limit their clinical use.Providers felt that CPMs may be most useful for resource allocation, triage, research, or educational purposes for COVID-19.Several survivors of COVID-19 and their surrogates felt that CPMs would have been informative and may have aided them in making COVID-19 treatment decisions, while others felt the data would not have applied to them.

Prognostic models for COVID-19 needed updating to warrant transportability over time and space.

BACKGROUND: Supporting decisions for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with COVID-19 requires accurate prognostication. We aimed to evaluate prognostic models for predicting outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, in different locations and across time. METHODS: We included patients who presented to the ED with suspected COVID-19 and were admitted to 12 hospitals in the New York City (NYC) area and 4 large Dutch hospitals. We used second-wave patients who presented between September and December 2020 (2137 and 3252 in NYC and the Netherlands, respectively) to evaluate models that were developed on first-wave patients who presented between March and August 2020 (12,163 and 5831). We evaluated two prognostic models for in-hospital death: The Northwell COVID-19 Survival (NOCOS) model was developed on NYC data and the COVID Outcome Prediction in the Emergency Department (COPE) model was developed on Dutch data. These models were validated on subsequent second-wave data at the same site (temporal validation) and at the other site (geographic validation). We assessed model performance by the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC), by the E-statistic, and by net benefit. RESULTS: Twenty-eight-day mortality was considerably higher in the NYC first-wave data (21.0%), compared to the second-wave (10.1%) and the Dutch data (first wave 10.8%; second wave 10.0%). COPE discriminated well at temporal validation (AUC 0.82), with excellent calibration (E-statistic 0.8%). At geographic validation, discrimination was satisfactory (AUC 0.78), but with moderate over-prediction of mortality risk, particularly in higher-risk patients (E-statistic 2.9%). While discrimination was adequate when NOCOS was tested on second-wave NYC data (AUC 0.77), NOCOS systematically overestimated the mortality risk (E-statistic 5.1%). Discrimination in the Dutch data was good (AUC 0.81), but with over-prediction of risk, particularly in lower-risk patients (E-statistic 4.0%). Recalibration of COPE and NOCOS led to limited net benefit improvement in Dutch data, but to substantial net benefit improvement in NYC data. CONCLUSIONS: NOCOS performed moderately worse than COPE, probably reflecting unique aspects of the early pandemic in NYC. Frequent updating of prognostic models is likely to be required for transportability over time and space during a dynamic pandemic.

Development and validation of self-monitoring auto-updating prognostic models of survival for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Clinical prognostic models can assist patient care decisions. However, their performance can drift over time and location, necessitating model monitoring and updating. Despite rapid and significant changes during the pandemic, prognostic models for COVID-19 patients do not currently account for these drifts. We develop a framework for continuously monitoring and updating prognostic models and apply it to predict 28-day survival in COVID-19 patients. We use demographic, laboratory, and clinical data from electronic health records of 34912 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from March 2020 until May 2022 and compare three modeling methods. Model calibration performance drift is immediately detected with minor fluctuations in discrimination. The overall calibration on the prospective validation cohort is significantly improved when comparing the dynamically updated models against their static counterparts. Our findings suggest that, using this framework, models remain accurate and well-calibrated across various waves, variants, race and sex and yield positive net-benefits.

COVID outcome prediction in the emergency department (COPE): using retrospective Dutch hospital data to develop simple and valid models for predicting mortality and need for intensive care unit admission in patients who present at the emergency department with suspected COVID-19

ObjectivesDevelop simple and valid models for predicting mortality and need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients who present at the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19.DesignRetrospective.SettingSecondary care in four large Dutch hospitals.ParticipantsPatients who presented at the ED and were admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19. We used 5831 first-wave patients who presented between March and August 2020 for model development and 3252 second-wave patients who presented between September and December 2020 for model validation.Outcome measuresWe developed separate logistic regression models for in-hospital death and for need for ICU admission, both within 28 days after hospital admission. Based on prior literature, we considered quickly and objectively obtainable patient characteristics, vital parameters and blood test values as predictors. We assessed model performance by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and by calibration plots.ResultsOf 5831 first-wave patients, 629 (10.8%) died within 28 days after admission. ICU admission was fully recorded for 2633 first-wave patients in 2 hospitals, with 214 (8.1%) ICU admissions within 28 days. A simple model—COVID outcome prediction in the emergency department (COPE)—with age, respiratory rate, C reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin and urea captured most of the ability to predict death. COPE was well calibrated and showed good discrimination for mortality in second-wave patients (AUC in four hospitals: 0.82 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.86);0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90);0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88);0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.86)). COPE was also able to identify patients at high risk of needing ICU admission in second-wave patients (AUC in two hospitals: 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90);0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.95)).ConclusionsCOPE is a simple tool that is well able to predict mortality and need for ICU admission in patients who present to the ED with suspected COVID-19 and may help patients and doctors in decision making.

When predictions are used to allocate scarce health care resources: three considerations for models in the era of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The need for life-saving interventions such as mechanical ventilation may threaten to outstrip resources during the Covid-19 pandemic. Allocation of these resources to those most likely to benefit can be supported by clinical prediction models. The ethical and practical considerations relevant to predictions supporting decisions about microallocation are distinct from those that inform shared decision-making in ways important for model design. MAIN BODY: We review three issues of importance for microallocation: (1) Prediction of benefit (or of medical futility) may be technically very challenging; (2) When resources are scarce, calibration is less important for microallocation than is ranking to prioritize patients, since capacity determines thresholds for resource utilization; (3) The concept of group fairness, which is not germane in shared decision-making, is of central importance in microallocation. Therefore, model transparency is important. CONCLUSION: Prediction supporting allocation of life-saving interventions should be explicit, data-driven, frequently updated and open to public scrutiny. This implies a preference for simple, easily understood and easily applied prognostic models.