External validation of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score to predict in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 in a Canadian intensive care unit: a single-centre historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: With uncertain prognostic utility of existing predictive scoring systems for COVID-19-related illness, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) 4C Mortality Score was developed by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium as a COVID-19 mortality prediction tool. We sought to externally validate this score among critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 and compare its discrimination characteristics to that of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. METHODS: We enrolled all consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure between 5 March 2020 and 5 March 2022 to our university-affiliated and intensivist-staffed ICU (Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada). After data abstraction, our primary outcome of in-hospital mortality was evaluated with an objective of determining the discriminative properties of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score, using the area under the curve of a logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 429 patients were included, 102 (23.8%) of whom died in hospital. The receiver operator curve of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score had an area under the curve of 0.762 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.717 to 0.811), whereas those of the SOFA and APACHE II scores were 0.705 (95% CI, 0.648 to 0.761) and 0.722 (95% CI, 0.667 to 0.777), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ISARIC 4C Mortality Score is a tool that had a good predictive performance for in-hospital mortality in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU for respiratory failure. Our results suggest a good external validity of the 4C score when applied to a more severely ill population.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Compte tenu de l'utilité pronostique incertaine des systèmes de notation prédictive existants pour les maladies liées à la COVID-19, le score de mortalité ISARIC 4C a été mis au point par l'International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium en tant qu'outil de prédiction de la mortalité associée à la COVID-19. Nous avons cherché à valider en externe ce score chez les patient·es gravement malades atteint·es de COVID-19 admis·es dans une unité de soins intensifs (USI) et à comparer ses caractéristiques de discrimination à celles des scores APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) et SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment). MéTHODE: Nous avons recruté toutes les personnes consécutives admises pour insuffisance respiratoire associée à la COVID-19 entre le 5 mars 2020 et le 5 mars 2022 dans notre unité de soins intensifs affiliée à l'université et dotée d'intensivistes (Hôpital général juif, Montréal, QC, Canada). Après l'abstraction des données, notre critère d'évaluation principal de mortalité à l'hôpital a été évalué dans le but de déterminer les propriétés discriminatives du score de mortalité ISARIC 4C, en utilisant la surface sous la courbe d'un modèle de régression logistique. RéSULTATS: Au total, 429 patient·es ont été inclus·es, dont 102 (23,8 %) sont décédé·es à l'hôpital. La fonction d'efficacité du récepteur (courbe ROC) du score de mortalité ISARIC 4C avait une surface sous la courbe de 0,762 (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,717 à 0,811), tandis que celles des scores SOFA et APACHE II étaient de 0,705 (IC 95%, 0,648 à 0,761) et 0,722 (IC 95%, 0,667 à 0,777), respectivement. CONCLUSION: Le score de mortalité ISARIC 4C est un outil qui a affiché une bonne performance prédictive de la mortalité à l'hôpital dans une cohorte de patient·es atteint·es de COVID-19 admis·es dans une unité de soins intensifs pour insuffisance respiratoire. Nos résultats suggèrent une bonne validité externe du score 4C lorsqu'il est appliqué à une population plus gravement malade.

A global perspective on improving patient care in uncomplicated urinary tract infection: expert consensus and practical guidance.

OBJECTIVES: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) are a common problem in female patients. Management is mainly based on empirical prescribing, but there are concerns about overtreatment and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), especially in patients with recurrent uUTIs. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of experts met to discuss diagnosis, treatment, prevention, guidelines, AMR, clinical trial design and the impact of COVID-19 on clinical practice. RESULTS: Symptoms remain the cornerstone of uUTI diagnosis, and urine culture is necessary only when empirical treatment fails or rapid recurrence of symptoms or AMR is suspected. Specific antimicrobials are first-line therapy (typically nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and pivmecillinam, dependent on availability and local resistance data). Fluoroquinolones are not first-line options for uUTIs primarily due to safety concerns but also rising resistance rates. High-quality data to support most non-antimicrobial approaches are lacking. Local AMR data specific to community-acquired uUTIs are needed, but representative information is difficult to obtain; instead, identification of risk factors for AMR can provide a basis to guide empirical antimicrobial prescribing. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the management of uUTIs in some countries and may have long-lasting implications for future models of care. CONCLUSION: Management of uUTIs in female patients can be improved without increasing complexity, including simplified diagnosis and empirical antimicrobial prescribing based on patient characteristics, including a review of recent antimicrobial use and past pathogen resistance profiles, drug availability and guidelines. Current data for non-antimicrobial approaches are limited. The influence of COVID-19 on telehealth could provide an opportunity to enhance patient care in the long term.