|
?:abstract
|
-
OBJECTIVE We aimed to externally validate the predictive performance of two recently developed COVID-19-specific prognostic tools, the COVID-GRAM and CALL scores, and prior prognostic scores for community-acquired pneumonia (CURB-65), viral pneumonia (MuBLSTA) and H1N1 influenza pneumonia (Influenza risk score) in a contemporary US cohort. METHODS We included 257 hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia from three teaching hospitals in Rhode Island. We extracted data from within the first 24 hours of admission. Variables were excluded if values were missing in >20% of cases, otherwise missing values were imputed. 115 patients with complete data after imputation were used for primary analysis. Sensitivity analysis was done after exclusion of one variable (LDH) in the complete dataset (n=257). Primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and critical illness (mechanical ventilation or death), respectively. RESULTS Only the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (RO-AUC) of COVID-GRAM (0.775, 95%CI 0.525-0.915) for in-hospital death, and CURB65 for in-hospital death (RO-AUC 0.842, 95%CI 0.674-0.932) or critical illness (RO-AUC=0.766, 95%CI 0.584-0.884) were significantly better than random. Sensitivity analysis yielded similar trends. Calibration plots showed better agreement between estimated and observed probability of in-hospital death for CURB65, compared to COVID-GRAM. The negative predictive value (NPV) of CURB65≥2 was 97.2% for in-hospital death and 88.1% for critical illness. CONCLUSIONS The COVID-GRAM score demonstrated acceptable predictive performance for in-hospital death. The CURB65 score had better prognostic utility for in-hospital death and critical illness. The high NPV of CURB65 values ≥2, may be useful in triaging and allocation of resources.
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}