A New Clinical Model to Estimate the Pre-Test Probability of Cushing's Syndrome: The Cushing Score.

Background: Hypercortisolism accounts for relevant morbidity and mortality and is often a diagnostic challenge for clinicians. A prompt diagnosis is necessary to treat Cushing's syndrome as early as possible. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a clinical model for the estimation of pre-test probability of hypercortisolism in an at-risk population. Design: We conducted a retrospective multicenter case-control study, involving five Italian referral centers for Endocrinology (Turin, Messina, Naples, Padua and Rome). One hundred and fifty patients affected by Cushing's syndrome and 300 patients in which hypercortisolism was excluded were enrolled. All patients were evaluated, according to current guidelines, for the suspicion of hypercortisolism. Results: The Cushing score was built by multivariable logistic regression, considering all main features associated with a clinical suspicion of hypercortisolism as possible predictors. A stepwise backward selection algorithm was used (final model AUC=0.873), then an internal validation was performed through ten-fold cross-validation. Final estimation of the model performance showed an average AUC=0.841, thus reassuring about a small overfitting effect. The retrieved score was structured on a 17.5-point scale: low-risk class (score value: ≤5.5, probability of disease=0.8%); intermediate-low-risk class (score value: 6-8.5, probability of disease=2.7%); intermediate-high-risk class (score value: 9-11.5, probability of disease=18.5%) and finally, high-risk class (score value: ≥12, probability of disease=72.5%). Conclusions: We developed and internally validated a simple tool to determine pre-test probability of hypercortisolism, the Cushing score, that showed a remarkable predictive power for the discrimination between subjects with and without a final diagnosis of Cushing's syndrome.

Obtaining Prevalence Estimates of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model to Inform Decision-Making.

We evaluated whether randomly sampling and testing a set number of individuals for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while adjusting for misclassification error captures the true prevalence. We also quantified the impact of misclassification error bias on publicly reported case data in Maryland. Using a stratified random sampling approach, 50,000 individuals were selected from a simulated Maryland population to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19. We examined the situation when the true prevalence is low (0.07%-2%), medium (2%-5%), and high (6%-10%). Bayesian models informed by published validity estimates were used to account for misclassification error when estimating COVID-19 prevalence. Adjustment for misclassification error captured the true prevalence 100% of the time, irrespective of the true prevalence level. When adjustment for misclassification error was not done, the results highly varied depending on the population's underlying true prevalence and the type of diagnostic test used. Generally, the prevalence estimates without adjustment for misclassification error worsened as the true prevalence level increased. Adjustment for misclassification error for publicly reported Maryland data led to a minimal but not significant increase in the estimated average daily cases. Random sampling and testing of COVID-19 are needed with adjustment for misclassification error to improve COVID-19 prevalence estimates.

Improved individual and population-level HbA1c estimation using CGM data and patient characteristics.

Machine learning and linear regression models using CGM and participant data reduced HbA1c estimation error by up to 26% compared to the GMI formula, and exhibit superior performance in estimating the median of HbA1c at the cohort level, potentially of value for remote clinical trials interrupted by COVID-19.

Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation.

In testimony before US Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel coronavirus was 10-times higher than for seasonal influenza. Additional evidence, however, suggests the validity of this estimation could benefit from vetting for biases and miscalculations. The main objective of this article is to critically appraise the coronavirus mortality estimation presented to Congress. Informational texts from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are compared with coronavirus mortality calculations in Congressional testimony. Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate. Public health lessons learned for future infectious disease pandemics include: safeguarding against research biases that may underestimate or overestimate an associated risk of disease and mortality; reassessing the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns; and providing full public disclosure of adverse effects from severe mitigation measures to contain viral transmission.

Creation and maintenance of a table for assessment of evolving evidence for COVID-19-related treatments.

PURPOSE: This report describes the development and maintenance of a table to present an assessment of evidence for treatments used in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SUMMARY: AHFS Drug Information (AHFS DI) (American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Bethesda, MD) is ASHP's evidence-based drug compendium that contains drug monographs written for pharmacists and other healthcare professionals. The professional editorial and analytical staff of pharmacists critically evaluate published evidence to develop drug monographs for AHFS DI. In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, these skills were applied to assess emerging evidence for COVID-19-related treatments, and the information was compiled into a new resource for pharmacists and other healthcare professionals to use at the point of care. A list of therapies was developed and prioritized based on review of scientific and public discussions on the use of these therapies in patients with COVID-19; certain therapies used for supportive care and therapies that might theoretically be harmful to patients with COVID-19 also were considered for inclusion. Potential treatments were identified, and the evidence for use in patients with COVID-19 was assessed and summarized in a table format. Information presented for each therapy included the rationale for use, summaries of clinical trials or experience, trial registry numbers, and dosage regimens. Comments on safety and efficacy, including limitations of available data, were presented along with recommendations from recognized authorities. The editorial team continued to add new therapies to the table and update existing entries as new evidence emerged. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive table that summarized available evidence for potential treatments for patients with COVID-19 was developed. The table format enabled the drug information editorial staff to provide ongoing updates as new information emerged during the pandemic.