Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
CMAJ Open ; 9(4): E1223-E1231, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1593829

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased demand for health care resources and, in some cases, shortage of medical equipment and staff. Our objective was to develop and validate a multivariable model to predict risk of hospitalization for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We used routinely collected health records in a patient cohort to develop and validate our prediction model. This cohort included adult patients (age ≥ 18 yr) from Ontario, Canada, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid by polymerase chain reaction between Feb. 2 and Oct. 5, 2020, and were followed up through Nov. 5, 2020. Patients living in long-term care facilities were excluded, as they were all assumed to be at high risk of hospitalization for COVID-19. Risk of hospitalization within 30 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was estimated via gradient-boosting decision trees, and variable importance examined via Shapley values. We built a gradient-boosting model using the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm and compared its performance against 4 empirical rules commonly used for risk stratifications based on age and number of comorbidities. RESULTS: The cohort included 36 323 patients with 2583 hospitalizations (7.1%). Hospitalized patients had a higher median age (64 yr v. 43 yr), were more likely to be male (56.3% v. 47.3%) and had a higher median number of comorbidities (3, interquartile range [IQR] 2-6 v. 1, IQR 0-3) than nonhospitalized patients. Patients were split into development (n = 29 058, 80.0%) and held-out validation (n = 7265, 20.0%) cohorts. The gradient-boosting model achieved high discrimination (development cohort: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve across the 5 folds of 0.852; validation cohort: 0.8475) and strong calibration (slope = 1.01, intercept = -0.01). The patients who scored at the top 10% captured 47.4% of hospitalizations, and those who scored at the top 30% captured 80.6%. INTERPRETATION: We developed and validated an accurate risk stratification model using routinely collected health administrative data. We envision that modelling such risk stratification based on routinely collected health data could support management of COVID-19 on a population health level.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Decision Trees , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Statistical , Ontario/epidemiology , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors
2.
CMAJ ; 193(32): E1261-E1276, 2021 08 16.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1538242

ABSTRACT

CONTEXTE: Optimiser la réponse de la santé publique pour diminuer le fardeau de la COVID-19 nécessite la caractérisation de l'hétérogénéité du risque posé par la maladie à l'échelle de la population. Cependant, l'hétérogénéité du dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2 peut fausser les estimations selon le modèle d'étude analytique utilisé. Notre objectif était d'explorer les biais collisionneurs dans le cadre d'une vaste étude portant sur les déterminants de la maladie et d'évaluer les déterminants individuels, environnementaux et sociaux du dépistage et du diagnostic du SRAS-CoV-2 parmi les résidents de l'Ontario, au Canada. MÉTHODES: Nous avons exploré la présence potentielle de biais collisionneurs et caractérisé les déterminants individuels, environnementaux et sociaux de l'obtention d'un test de dépistage et d'un résultat positif à la présence de l'infection au SRAS-CoV-2 à l'aide d'analyses transversales parmi les 14,7 millions de personnes vivant dans la collectivité en Ontario, au Canada. Parmi les personnes ayant obtenu un diagnostic, nous avons utilisé des études analytiques distinctes afin de comparer les prédicteurs pour les personnes d'obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que négatif, pour les personnes symptomatiques d'obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que négatif et pour les personnes d'obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage positif plutôt que de ne pas obtenir un résultat positif (c.-à-d., obtenir un résultat de test de dépistage négatif ou ne pas obtenir de test de dépistage). Nos analyses comprennent des tests de dépistage réalisés entre le 1er mars et le 20 juin 2020. RÉSULTATS: Sur 14 695 579 personnes, nous avons constaté que 758 691 d'entre elles ont passé un test de dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2, parmi lesquelles 25 030 (3,3 %) ont obtenu un résultat positif. Plus la probabilité d'obtenir un test de dépistage s'éloignait de zéro, plus la variabilité généralement observée dans la probabilité d'un diagnostic était grande parmi les modèles d'études analytiques, particulièrement en ce qui a trait aux facteurs individuels. Nous avons constaté que la variabilité dans l'obtention d'un test de dépistage était moins importante en fonction des déterminants sociaux dans l'ensemble des études analytiques. Les facteurs tels que le fait d'habiter dans une région ayant une plus haute densité des ménages (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,86; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 1,75­1,98), une plus grande proportion de travailleurs essentiels (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,58; IC à 95 % 1,48­1,69), une population atteignant un plus faible niveau de scolarité (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,33; IC à 95 % 1,26­1,41) et une plus grande proportion d'immigrants récents (rapport de cotes corrigé 1,10; IC à 95 % 1,05­1,15), étaient systématiquement corrélés à une probabilité plus importante d'obtenir un diagnostic de SRAS-CoV-2, peu importe le modèle d'étude analytique employé. INTERPRÉTATION: Lorsque la capacité de dépister est limitée, nos résultats suggèrent que les facteurs de risque peuvent être estimés plus adéquatement en utilisant des comparateurs populationnels plutôt que des comparateurs de résultat négatif au test de dépistage. Optimiser la lutte contre la COVID-19 nécessite des investissements dans des interventions structurelles déployées de façon suffisante et adaptées à l'hétérogénéité des déterminants sociaux du risque, dont le surpeuplement des ménages, l'occupation professionnelle et le racisme structurel.

3.
CMAJ ; 193(20): E723-E734, 2021 05 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238783

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Optimizing the public health response to reduce the burden of COVID-19 necessitates characterizing population-level heterogeneity of risks for the disease. However, heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 testing may introduce biased estimates depending on analytic design. We aimed to explore the potential for collider bias in a large study of disease determinants, and evaluate individual, environmental and social determinants associated with SARS-CoV-2 testing and diagnosis among residents of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We explored the potential for collider bias and characterized individual, environmental and social determinants of being tested and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection using cross-sectional analyses among 14.7 million community-dwelling people in Ontario, Canada. Among those with a diagnosis, we used separate analytic designs to compare predictors of people testing positive versus negative; symptomatic people testing positive versus testing negative; and people testing positive versus people not testing positive (i.e., testing negative or not being tested). Our analyses included tests conducted between Mar. 1 and June 20, 2020. RESULTS: Of 14 695 579 people, we found that 758 691 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 25 030 (3.3%) had a positive test result. The further the odds of testing from the null, the more variability we generally observed in the odds of diagnosis across analytic design, particularly among individual factors. We found that there was less variability in testing by social determinants across analytic designs. Residing in areas with the highest household density (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75-1.98), highest proportion of essential workers (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.48-1.69), lowest educational attainment (adjusted OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26-1.41) and highest proportion of recent immigrants (adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15) were consistently related to increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis regardless of analytic design. INTERPRETATION: Where testing is limited, our results suggest that risk factors may be better estimated using population comparators rather than test-negative comparators. Optimizing COVID-19 responses necessitates investment in and sufficient coverage of structural interventions tailored to heterogeneity in social determinants of risk, including household crowding, occupation and structural racism.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Population Surveillance , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Social Determinants of Health/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario/epidemiology , Young Adult
4.
CMAJ ; 193(20): E723-E734, 2021 05 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1206209

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Optimizing the public health response to reduce the burden of COVID-19 necessitates characterizing population-level heterogeneity of risks for the disease. However, heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 testing may introduce biased estimates depending on analytic design. We aimed to explore the potential for collider bias in a large study of disease determinants, and evaluate individual, environmental and social determinants associated with SARS-CoV-2 testing and diagnosis among residents of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We explored the potential for collider bias and characterized individual, environmental and social determinants of being tested and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection using cross-sectional analyses among 14.7 million community-dwelling people in Ontario, Canada. Among those with a diagnosis, we used separate analytic designs to compare predictors of people testing positive versus negative; symptomatic people testing positive versus testing negative; and people testing positive versus people not testing positive (i.e., testing negative or not being tested). Our analyses included tests conducted between Mar. 1 and June 20, 2020. RESULTS: Of 14 695 579 people, we found that 758 691 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 25 030 (3.3%) had a positive test result. The further the odds of testing from the null, the more variability we generally observed in the odds of diagnosis across analytic design, particularly among individual factors. We found that there was less variability in testing by social determinants across analytic designs. Residing in areas with the highest household density (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75-1.98), highest proportion of essential workers (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.48-1.69), lowest educational attainment (adjusted OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26-1.41) and highest proportion of recent immigrants (adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15) were consistently related to increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis regardless of analytic design. INTERPRETATION: Where testing is limited, our results suggest that risk factors may be better estimated using population comparators rather than test-negative comparators. Optimizing COVID-19 responses necessitates investment in and sufficient coverage of structural interventions tailored to heterogeneity in social determinants of risk, including household crowding, occupation and structural racism.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Population Surveillance , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Social Determinants of Health/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario/epidemiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL