Abstract
INTRODUCTION The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing yet, due to the lack of a COVID-19 specific tool, clinicians must use pre-existing illness severity scores for initial prognostication. However, the validity of such scores in COVID-19 is unknown. METHODS The North West Collaborative Organization for Respiratory Research (NW-CORR) performed a multi-centre prospective evaluation of adult patients admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 during a two-week period in April 2020. Clinical variables measured as part of usual care at presentation to hospital were recorded, including the CURB-65, NEWS2, and qSOFA scores. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day mortality. RESULTS Data were collected for 830 people with COVID-19 admitted across 7 hospitals. By 30 days, a total of 300 (36.1%) had died and 142 (17.1%) had been in ICU. All scores underestimated mortality compared to their original validation in non-COVID-19 populations, and overall prognostic performance was generally poor. Among the 'low risk' categories (CURB-65<2, NEWS2<5, qSOFA<2) 30-day mortality was 16.7%, 32.9% and 21.4%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression identified features of respiratory compromise rather than circulatory collapse as most relevant prognostic variables. CONCLUSION All existing prognostic scores evaluated here underestimated adverse outcomes and performed sub-optimally in the COVID-19 setting. New prognostic tools including a focus on features of respiratory compromise rather than circulatory collapse are needed. We provide a baseline set of variables which are relevant to COVID-19 outcomes and may be used as a basis for developing a bespoke COVID-19 prognostication tool.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
Institutional approval for data collection and anonymised data collation was obtained from all sites and were a combination of Caldicott guardian and research/audit committee approvals. No approach to the patient was made and only fully anonymised routinely available clinical information was collated; on this basis consent was not required under guidance from the NHS Human Research Authority.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional approval for data collection and anonymised data collation was obtained from all sites and were a combination of Caldicott guardian and research/audit committee approvals.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are available upon reasonable request.
