Clinical prediction models for mortality in patients with covid-19: external validation and individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate various prognostic models and scoring rules for predicting short term mortality in patients admitted to hospital for covid-19. DESIGN: Two stage individual participant data meta-analysis. SETTING: Secondary and tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: 46 914 patients across 18 countries, admitted to a hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19 from November 2019 to April 2021. DATA SOURCES: Multiple (clustered) cohorts in Brazil, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States previously identified by a living systematic review of covid-19 prediction models published in The BMJ, and through PROSPERO, reference checking, and expert knowledge. MODEL SELECTION AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prognostic models identified by the living systematic review and through contacting experts. A priori models were excluded that had a high risk of bias in the participant domain of PROBAST (prediction model study risk of bias assessment tool) or for which the applicability was deemed poor. METHODS: Eight prognostic models with diverse predictors were identified and validated. A two stage individual participant data meta-analysis was performed of the estimated model concordance (C) statistic, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and observed to expected ratio (O:E) across the included clusters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30 day mortality or in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Datasets included 27 clusters from 18 different countries and contained data on 46 914patients. The pooled estimates ranged from 0.67 to 0.80 (C statistic), 0.22 to 1.22 (calibration slope), and 0.18 to 2.59 (O:E ratio) and were prone to substantial between study heterogeneity. The 4C Mortality Score by Knight et al (pooled C statistic 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84, 95% prediction interval 0.72 to 0.86) and clinical model by Wang et al (0.77, 0.73 to 0.80, 0.63 to 0.87) had the highest discriminative ability. On average, 29% fewer deaths were observed than predicted by the 4C Mortality Score (pooled O:E 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.11, 95% prediction interval 0.21 to 2.39), 35% fewer than predicted by the Wang clinical model (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, 0.23 to 1.89), and 4% fewer than predicted by Xie et al's model (0.96, 0.59 to 1.55, 0.21 to 4.28). CONCLUSION: The prognostic value of the included models varied greatly between the data sources. Although the Knight 4C Mortality Score and Wang clinical model appeared most promising, recalibration (intercept and slope updates) is needed before implementation in routine care.

Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients at the emergency department using routine testing.

Objectives: The novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, spreads rapidly across the world. The exponential increase in the number of cases has resulted in overcrowding of emergency departments (ED). Detection of SARS-CoV-2 is based on an RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swab material. However, RT-PCR testing is time-consuming and many hospitals deal with a shortage of testing materials. Therefore, we aimed to develop an algorithm to rapidly evaluate an individual's risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the ED. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, routine laboratory parameters (C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, absolute neutrophil and lymphocyte counts), demographic data and the chest X-ray/CT result from 967 patients entering the ED with respiratory symptoms were collected. Using these parameters, an easy-to-use point-based algorithm, called the corona-score, was developed to discriminate between patients that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and those testing negative. Computational sampling was used to optimize the corona-score. Validation of the model was performed using data from 592 patients. Results: The corona-score model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 in the validation population. Patients testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 showed a median corona-score of 3 vs. 11 (scale 0-14) in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p<0.001). Using cut-off values of 4 and 11 the model has a sensitivity and specificity of 96 and 95%, respectively. Conclusions: The corona-score effectively predicts SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR outcome based on routine parameters. This algorithm provides the means for medical professionals to rapidly evaluate SARS-CoV-2 infection status of patients presenting at the ED with respiratory symptoms.