RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Non applicability of validated predictive models for intensive care admission and death of COVID-19 patients in a secondary care hospital in Belgium JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2020.11.06.20205799 DO 10.1101/2020.11.06.20205799 A1 Nicolas Parisi A1 Aurore Janier-Dubry A1 Ester Ponzetto A1 Charalambos Pavlopoulos A1 Gaetan Bakalli A1 Roberto Molinari A1 Stéphane Guerrier A1 Nabil Mili YR 2020 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/09/2020.11.06.20205799.abstract AB Objective To set up simple and reliable predictive scores for intensive care admissions and deaths in COVID-19 patients. These scores adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guidelines.Design Monocentric retrospective cohort study run from early March to end of May in Clinique Saint-Pierre Ottignies, a secondary care hospital located in Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. The outcomes of the study are (i) admission in the Intensive Care Unit and (ii) death.Data sources All patients admitted in the Emergency Department with a positive RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test were included in the study. Routine clinical and laboratory data were collected at their admission and during their stay. Chest X-Rays and CT-Scans were performed and analyzed by a senior radiologist.Methods A recently published predictive score conducted on a large scale was used as a benchmark value (Liang score)1. Logistic regressions were used to develop predictive scores for (i) admission to ICU among emergency ward patients; (ii) death among ICU patients on 40 clinical variables. These models were based on medical intuition and simple model selection tools. Their predictive capabilities were then compared to Liang score.Results Our results suggest that Liang score may not provide reliable guidance for ICU admission and death. Moreover, the performance of this approach is clearly outperformed by models based on simple markers. For example, a logistic regression considering only the LDH yields to similar sensitivity and greater specificity. Finally, all models considered in this study lead to levels of specificity under or equal to 50%.Conclusions In our experience, the results of a predictive score based on a large-scale Chinese study cannot be applied in the Belgian population. However, in our small cohort it appears that LDH above 579 UI/L and venous lactate above 3.02 mmol/l may be considered as good predictive biological factors for ICU admission. With regards to death risk, NLR above 22.1, tobacco abuse status and 80 % of respiratory impairment appears to be relevant predictive factors. A predictive score for admission to ICU or death is desperately needed in secondary hospitals. Optimal allocation of resources guided by evidence-based indicators will best guide patients at time of admission and avoid futile treatments in intensive care units.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:ethics commitee OM45 President Dr.Pirenne B. Vice President Dr.Picard G. Clinique Saint-Pierre Ottignies ethique @cspo.be The ethics committee has given its agreement for a monocentric observational retrospective studyAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data relevant to the study are included. No further data available.