Back

Development and calibration of a simple mortality risk score for hospitalized COVID-19 adults

Yoo, E.; Percha, B.; Tomlinson, M.; Razuk, V.; Pan, S.; Basist, M.; Tandon, P.; Wang, J. G.; Gao, C.; Bose, S.; Gidwani, U. K.

2020-09-02 respiratory medicine
10.1101/2020.08.31.20185363 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesMortality risk scores, such as SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65, are quick, effective tools for communicating a patients prognosis and guiding therapeutic decisions. Most use simple calculations that can be performed by hand. While several COVID-19 specific risk scores exist, they lack the ease of use of these simpler scores. The objectives of this study were (1) to design, validate, and calibrate a simple, easy-to-use mortality risk score for COVID-19 patients and (2) to recalibrate SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 in a hospitalized COVID-19 population. DesignRetrospective cohort study incorporating demographic, clinical, laboratory, and admissions data from electronic health records. SettingMulti-hospital health system in New York City. Five hospitals were included: one quaternary care facility, one tertiary care facility, and three community hospitals. ParticipantsPatients (n=4840) with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV2 infection who were admitted between March 1 and April 28, 2020. Main outcome measuresGrays K-sample test for the cumulative incidence of a competing risk was used to assess and rank 48 different variables associations with mortality. Candidate variables were added to the composite score using DeLongs test to evaluate their effect on predictive performance (AUC) of in-hospital mortality. Final AUCs for the new score, SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 were assessed on an independent test set. ResultsOf 48 variables investigated, 36 (75%) displayed significant (p<0.05 by Grays test) associations with mortality. The variables selected for the final score were (1) oxygen support level, (2) troponin, (3) blood urea nitrogen, (4) lymphocyte percentage, (5) Glasgow Coma Score, and (6) age. The new score, COBALT, outperforms SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 at predicting mortality in this COVID-19 population: AUCs for initial, maximum, and mean COBALT scores were 0.81, 0.91, and 0.92, compared to 0.77, 0.87, and 0.87 for SOFA. We provide COVID-19 specific mortality estimates at all score levels for COBALT, SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65. ConclusionsThe COBALT score provides a simple way to estimate mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with superior performance to SOFA and other scores currently in widespread use. Evaluation of SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 in this population highlights the importance of recalibrating mortality risk scores when they are used under novel conditions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This studys approach to score design could also be applied in other contexts to create simple, practical and high-performing mortality risk scores. Trial registrationNA Funding sourceThe authors declare that there was no external funding provided. Summary boxO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LIMortality risk scores are widely used in clinical settings to facilitate communication with patients and families, guide goals of care discussions, and optimize resource allocation. C_LIO_LIAlthough popular mortality risk scores like SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 are routinely used in COVID-19 populations, they were originally calibrated in different contexts and their true performance among hospitalized COVID-19 patients is unknown. C_LIO_LISeveral dedicated COVID-19 mortality risk scores have been created during the 2019-2020 pandemic, but all use complicated formulae or machine learning algorithms and are difficult or impossible to calculate by hand, limiting their applicability at the bedside. C_LI What this study addsO_LIWe describe a data-driven, simple, and hand-calculable COVID-specific mortality risk score (COBALT) that has superior performance to SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 in a hospitalized COVID-19 patient population. C_LIO_LIWe provide COVID-specific mortality estimates for SOFA, qSOFA, and CURB-65 using data from 4840 patients in a large and diverse New York City multihospital health system. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
19.1%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.6%
3
Clinical Epidemiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Critical Care Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.7%
6
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.8%
8
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
9
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
10
Critical Care Explorations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
11
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
12
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
13
Life
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
14
International Journal of Epidemiology
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
15
BJGP Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
16
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Virology Journal
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
22
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
23
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
European Respiratory Journal
59 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
27
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
28
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
29
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
30
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%