Abstract
Background The number of proposed prognostic models for COVID-19, which aim to predict disease outcomes, is growing rapidly. It is not known whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation. We addressed this question by independent and systematic evaluation of their performance among hospitalised COVID-19 cases.
Methods We conducted an observational cohort study to assess candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review. We included consecutive adults admitted to a secondary care hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed community-acquired COVID-19 (1st February to 30th April 2020). We reconstructed candidate models as per their original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes (clinical deterioration or mortality) and time horizons. We assessed discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and calibration using calibration plots, slopes and calibration-in-the-large. We calculated net benefit compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictor in univariable analyses, based on a limited subset of a priori candidates.
Results We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among a cohort of 411 participants, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. The highest AUROCs were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 hours (0.78; 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78; 0.74-0.82). Calibration appeared generally poor for models that used probability outcomes. In univariable analyses, admission oxygen saturation on room air was the strongest predictor of in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76; 0.71-0.81), while age was the strongest predictor of in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76; 0.71-0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than using the most discriminating univariable predictors to stratify treatment, across a range of threshold probabilities.
Conclusions Oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated offer incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: non-financial support from AIDENCE BV (Dr Nair), outside the submitted work; no support from any organisation outside those declared above for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research (DRF-2018-11-ST2-004 to RKG; NF-SI-0616-10037 to IA), the Wellcome Trust (207511/Z/17/Z to MN) and has been supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, in particular by the NIHR UCLH/UCL BRC Clinical and Research Informatics Unit. This paper presents independent research supported by the NIHR. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funder had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
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:
This study was approved by East Midlands - Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (REF: 20/EM/0114).
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
The conditions of regulatory approvals for the present study preclude open access data sharing to minimise risk of patient identification through granular individual health record data. The authors will consider specific requests for data sharing as part of academic collaborations subject to ethical approval and data transfer agreements in accordance with GDPR regulations.
