ANDC: an early warning score to predict mortality risk for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019

Advantages of Metabolomics-Based Multivariate Machine Learning to Predict Disease Severity: Example of COVID

The COVID-19 outbreak caused saturations of hospitals, highlighting the importance of early patient triage to optimize resource prioritization. Herein, our objective was to test if high definition metabolomics, combined with ML, can improve prognostication and triage performance over standard clinical parameters using COVID infection as an example. Using high resolution mass spectrometry, we obtained metabolomics profiles of patients and combined them with clinical parameters to design machine learning (ML) algorithms predicting severity (herein determined as the need for mechanical ventilation during patient care). A total of 64 PCR-positive COVID patients at the Poitiers CHU were recruited. Clinical and metabolomics investigations were conducted 8 days after the onset of symptoms. We show that standard clinical parameters could predict severity with good performance (AUC of the ROC curve: 0.85), using SpO2, first respiratory rate, Horowitz quotient and age as the most important variables. However, the performance of the prediction was substantially improved by the use of metabolomics (AUC = 0.92). Our small-scale study demonstrates that metabolomics can improve the performance of diagnosis and prognosis algorithms, and thus be a key player in the future discovery of new biological signals. This technique is easily deployable in the clinic, and combined with machine learning, it can help design the mathematical models needed to advance towards personalized medicine.

Clinical presentations, systemic inflammation response and ANDC scores in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

The association of anosmia/ageusia with a positive severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test is well-established, suggesting these symptoms are reliable indicators of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. This study investigates the clinical characteristics and systemic inflammatory markers in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Taiwan, focusing on those with anosmia/ageusia. We conducted a retrospective observational study on 231 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (alpha variant) from April to July 2021. Clinical symptoms, dyspnea grading, and laboratory investigations, including neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios (NLRs), platelet-lymphocyte ratios (PLRs), and ANDC scores (an early warning score), were analyzed. Cough (64.1%), fever (58.9%), and dyspnea (56.3%) were the most common symptoms, while anosmia/ageusia affected 9% of patients. Those with anosmia/ageusia were younger, had lower BMI, lower systemic inflammatory markers, and better ANDC scores than those without these symptoms. Female patients exhibited lower NLR values and ANDC scores compared to male patients (all p < 0.05). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated significant associations between NLR and CRP and ferritin levels (all p < 0.01), and between PLR and ESR and ferritin levels (p < 0.01). Categorized ANDC scores significantly correlated with the total hospital length of stay (all p < 0.05). Despite ethnic differences in the prevalence of anosmia/ageusia, our study highlights similar clinical presentations and inflammatory profiles to those observed in Western countries. The ANDC score effectively predicted hospital stay duration. These findings suggest that anosmia/ageusia may be associated with less severe disease and a lower inflammatory response, particularly in younger and female patients. The ANDC score can serve as a valuable prognostic tool in assessing the severity and expected hospital stay of COVID-19 patients.

Development and Validation of a Machine Learning COVID-19 Veteran (COVet) Deterioration Risk Score

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To develop the COVid Veteran (COVet) score for clinical deterioration in Veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 and further validate this model in both Veteran and non-Veteran samples. No such score has been derived and validated while incorporating a Veteran sample.

DERIVATION COHORT

Adults (age ≥ 18 yr) hospitalized outside the ICU with a diagnosis of COVID-19 for model development to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) (n = 80 hospitals).

VALIDATION COHORT

External validation occurred in a VHA cohort of 34 hospitals, as well as six non-Veteran health systems for further external validation (n = 21 hospitals) between 2020 and 2023.

PREDICTION MODEL

eXtreme Gradient Boosting machine learning methods were used, and performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and compared with the National Early Warning Score (NEWS). The primary outcome was transfer to the ICU or death within 24 hours of each new variable observation. Model predictor variables included demographics, vital signs, structured flowsheet data, and laboratory values.

RESULTS

A total of 96,908 admissions occurred during the study period, of which 59,897 were in the Veteran sample and 37,011 were in the non-Veteran sample. During external validation in the Veteran sample, the model demonstrated excellent discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.88. This was significantly higher than NEWS (0.79; p < 0.01). In the non-Veteran sample, the model also demonstrated excellent discrimination (0.86 vs. 0.79 for NEWS; p < 0.01). The top three variables of importance were eosinophil percentage, mean oxygen saturation in the prior 24-hour period, and worst mental status in the prior 24-hour period.

CONCLUSIONS

We used machine learning methods to develop and validate a highly accurate early warning score in both Veterans and non-Veterans hospitalized with COVID-19. The model could lead to earlier identification and therapy, which may improve outcomes.

Assessing the prognostic utility of clinical and radiomic features for COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU: challenges and lessons learned

Severe cases of COVID-19 often necessitate escalation to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where patients may face grave outcomes, including mortality. Chest X-rays play a crucial role in the diagnostic process for evaluating COVID-19 patients. Our collaborative efforts with Michigan Medicine in monitoring patient outcomes within the ICU have motivated us to investigate the potential advantages of incorporating clinical information and chest X-ray images for predicting patient outcomes. We propose an analytical workflow to address challenges such as the absence of standardized approaches for image pre-processing and data utilization. We then propose an ensemble learning approach designed to maximize the information derived from multiple prediction algorithms. This entails optimizing the weights within the ensemble and considering the common variability present in individual risk scores. Our simulations demonstrate the superior performance of this weighted ensemble averaging approach across various scenarios. We apply this refined ensemble methodology to analyze post-ICU COVID-19 mortality, an occurrence observed in 21% of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU at Michigan Medicine. Our findings reveal substantial performance improvement when incorporating imaging data compared to models trained solely on clinical risk factors. Furthermore, the addition of radiomic features yields even larger enhancements, particularly among older and more medically compromised patients. These results may carry implications for enhancing patient outcomes in similar clinical contexts.

Fully independent validation of eleven prognostic scores predicting progression to critically ill condition in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 remains an important threat to global health and maintains the challenge of COVID-19 hospital care. To assist decision making regarding COVID-19 hospital care many instruments to predict COVID-19 progression to critical condition were developed and validated.

OBJECTIVE

To validate eleven COVID-19 progression prediction scores for critically ill hospitalized patients in a Brazilian population.

METHODOLOGY

Observational study with retrospective follow-up, including 301 adults confirmed for COVID-19 sequentially. Participants were admitted to non-critical units for treatment of the disease, between January and April 2021 and between September 2021 and February 2022. Eleven prognostic scores were applied using demographic, clinical, laboratory and imaging data collected in the first 48 of the hospital admission. The outcomes of greatest interest were as originally defined for each score. The analysis plan was to apply the instruments, estimate the outcome probability reproducing the original development/validation of each score, then to estimate performance measures (discrimination and calibration) and decision thresholds for risk classification.

RESULTS

The overall outcome prevalence was 41.8 % on 301 participants. There was a greater risk of the occurrence of the outcomes in older and male patients, and a linear trend with increasing comorbidities. Most of the patients studied were not immunized against COVID-19. Presence of concomitant bacterial infection and consolidation on imaging increased the risk of outcomes. College of London COVID-19 severity score and the 4C Mortality Score were the only with reasonable discrimination (ROC AUC 0.647 and 0.798 respectively) and calibration. The risk groups (low, intermediate and high) for 4C score were updated with the following thresholds: 0.239 and 0.318 (https://pedrobrasil.shinyapps.io/INDWELL/).

CONCLUSION

The 4C score showed the best discrimination and calibration performance among the tested instruments. We suggest different limits for risk groups. 4C score use could improve decision making and early therapeutic management at hospital care.

Predicting Deterioration from Wearable Sensor Data in People with Mild COVID-19

Coronavirus has caused many casualties and is still spreading. Some people experience rapid deterioration that is mild at first. The aim of this study is to develop a deterioration prediction model for mild COVID-19 patients during the isolation period. We collected vital signs from wearable devices and clinical questionnaires. The derivation cohort consisted of people diagnosed with COVID-19 between September and December 2021, and the external validation cohort collected between March and June 2022. To develop the model, a total of 50 participants wore the device for an average of 77 h. To evaluate the model, a total of 181 infected participants wore the device for an average of 65 h. We designed machine learning-based models that predict deterioration in patients with mild COVID-19. The prediction model, 10 min in advance, showed an area under the receiver characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.99, and the prediction model, 8 h in advance, showed an AUC of 0.84. We found that certain variables that are important to model vary depending on the point in time to predict. Efficient deterioration monitoring in many patients is possible by utilizing data collected from wearable sensors and symptom self-reports.

Validity of prognostic models of critical COVID-19 is variable. A systematic review with external validation

OBJECTIVES

To identify prognostic models which estimate the risk of critical COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and to assess their validation properties.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review in Medline (up to January 2021) of studies developing or updating a model that estimated the risk of critical COVID-19, defined as death, admission to intensive care unit, and/or use of mechanical ventilation during admission. Models were validated in two datasets with different backgrounds (HM [private Spanish hospital network], n = 1,753, and ICS [public Catalan health system], n = 1,104), by assessing discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]) and calibration (plots).

RESULTS

We validated 18 prognostic models. Discrimination was good in nine of them (AUCs ≥ 80%) and higher in those predicting mortality (AUCs 65%-87%) than those predicting intensive care unit admission or a composite outcome (AUCs 53%-78%). Calibration was poor in all models providing outcome's probabilities and good in four models providing a point-based score. These four models used mortality as outcome and included age, oxygen saturation, and C-reactive protein among their predictors.

CONCLUSION

The validity of models predicting critical COVID-19 by using only routinely collected predictors is variable. Four models showed good discrimination and calibration when externally validated and are recommended for their use.

COVID-ConvNet: A Convolutional Neural Network Classifier for Diagnosing COVID-19 Infection

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic still has a significant impact on the worldwide population's health and well-being. Effective patient screening, including radiological examination employing chest radiography as one of the main screening modalities, is an important step in the battle against the disease. Indeed, the earliest studies on COVID-19 found that patients infected with COVID-19 present with characteristic anomalies in chest radiography. In this paper, we introduce COVID-ConvNet, a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) design suitable for detecting COVID-19 symptoms from chest X-ray (CXR) scans. The proposed deep learning (DL) model was trained and evaluated using 21,165 CXR images from the COVID-19 Database, a publicly available dataset. The experimental results demonstrate that our COVID-ConvNet model has a high prediction accuracy at 97.43% and outperforms recent related works by up to 5.9% in terms of prediction accuracy.

BIO-CXRNET: a robust multimodal stacking machine learning technique for mortality risk prediction of COVID-19 patients using chest X-ray images and clinical data

Nowadays, quick, and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 is a pressing need. This study presents a multimodal system to meet this need. The presented system employs a machine learning module that learns the required knowledge from the datasets collected from 930 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Italy during the first wave of COVID-19 (March-June 2020). The dataset consists of twenty-five biomarkers from electronic health record and Chest X-ray (CXR) images. It is found that the system can diagnose low- or high-risk patients with an accuracy, sensitivity, and F1-score of 89.03%, 90.44%, and 89.03%, respectively. The system exhibits 6% higher accuracy than the systems that employ either CXR images or biomarker data. In addition, the system can calculate the mortality risk of high-risk patients using multivariate logistic regression-based nomogram scoring technique. Interested physicians can use the presented system to predict the early mortality risks of COVID-19 patients using the web-link: Covid-severity-grading-AI. In this case, a physician needs to input the following information: CXR image file, Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH), Oxygen Saturation (O2%), White Blood Cells Count, C-reactive protein, and Age. This way, this study contributes to the management of COVID-19 patients by predicting early mortality risk.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00521-023-08606-w.

Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncertainties.

Explainable artificial intelligence model for identifying COVID-19 gene biomarkers

AIM

COVID-19 has revealed the need for fast and reliable methods to assist clinicians in diagnosing the disease. This article presents a model that applies explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods based on machine learning techniques on COVID-19 metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) samples.

METHODS

In the data set used in the study, there are 15,979 gene expressions of 234 patients with COVID-19 negative 141 (60.3%) and COVID-19 positive 93 (39.7%). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method was applied to select genes associated with COVID-19. Support Vector Machine - Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SVM-SMOTE) method was used to handle the class imbalance problem. Logistics regression (LR), SVM, random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) methods were constructed to predict COVID-19. An explainable approach based on local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) and SHAPley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) methods was applied to determine COVID-19- associated biomarker candidate genes and improve the final model's interpretability.

RESULTS

For the diagnosis of COVID-19, the XGBoost (accuracy: 0.930) model outperformed the RF (accuracy: 0.912), SVM (accuracy: 0.877), and LR (accuracy: 0.912) models. As a result of the SHAP, the three most important genes associated with COVID-19 were IFI27, LGR6, and FAM83A. The results of LIME showed that especially the high level of IFI27 gene expression contributed to increasing the probability of positive class.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed model (XGBoost) was able to predict COVID-19 successfully. The results show that machine learning combined with LIME and SHAP can explain the biomarker prediction for COVID-19 and provide clinicians with an intuitive understanding and interpretability of the impact of risk factors in the model.

Severity of Illness Scores and Biomarkers for Prognosis of Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019

The spectrum of disease severity and the insidiousness of clinical presentation make it difficult to recognize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at higher risk of worse outcomes or death when they are seen in the early phases of the disease. There are now well-established risk factors for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. These should be factored in when assessing the prognosis of these patients. However, a more precise prognostic assessment in an individual patient may warrant the use of predictive tools. In this manuscript, we conduct a literature review on the severity of illness scores and biomarkers for the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. Several COVID-19-specific scores have been developed since the onset of the pandemic. Some of them are promising and can be integrated into the assessment of these patients. We also found that the well-known pneumonia severity index (PSI) and CURB-65 (confusion, uremia, respiratory rate, BP, age ≥ 65 years) are good predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. While neither the PSI nor the CURB-65 should be used for the triage of outpatient versus inpatient treatment, they can be integrated by a clinician into the assessment of disease severity and can be used in epidemiological studies to determine the severity of illness in patient populations. Biomarkers also provide valuable prognostic information and, importantly, may depict the main physiological derangements in severe disease. We, however, do not advocate the isolated use of severity of illness scores or biomarkers for decision-making in an individual patient. Instead, we suggest the use of these tools on a case-by-case basis with the goal of enhancing clinician judgment.

The use of prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and selected inflammatory indicators for predicting malnutrition in COVID-19 patients: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition causes diverse alterations in the immune system, and COVID-19 is an infection affecting the immune system, consequently leading to malnutrition.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the use of prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and selected inflammatory indices for malnutrition screening among COVID-19 hospitalized patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

This is a single-center retrospective study that enrolled 289 hospitalized COVID-19 patients between 1st January to 30th April 2021, their median age was 59 years. Demographic and biochemical data were collected from patients' records. The PNI, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and an early warning score to predict mortality risk (ANDC) were calculated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

about 30 % of patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and ICU patients had significantly higher levels of white blood cell (WBCs) count, neutrophils, C-reactive protein (C-RP), and D-dimer (P < 0.05). On the other hand, they had significantly lower levels of lymphocytes and serum albumin (P < 0.001; for both). Those with high ANDC scores were more likely to develop severe conditions affecting nutritional status compared to non-ICU (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI:1.014-1.057; P < 0.001). ANDC showed good discrimination ability with an AUC of 0.784 (cut-off value > 68.19 score).

CONCLUSION

It is suggested that ANDC could be used as a predictor for nutritional status and severity in COVID-19 hospitalized patients.

Interpretable generalized neural additive models for mortality prediction of COVID-19 hospitalized patients in Hamadan, Iran

BACKGROUND

The high number of COVID-19 deaths is a serious threat to the world. Demographic and clinical biomarkers are significantly associated with the mortality risk of this disease. This study aimed to implement Generalized Neural Additive Model (GNAM) as an interpretable machine learning method to predict the COVID-19 mortality of patients.

METHODS

This cohort study included 2181 COVID-19 patients admitted from February 2020 to July 2021 in Sina and Besat hospitals in Hamadan, west of Iran. A total of 22 baseline features including patients' demographic information and clinical biomarkers were collected. Four strategies including removing missing values, mean, K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) imputation methods were used to deal with missing data. Firstly, the important features for predicting binary outcome (1: death, 0: recovery) were selected using the Random Forest (RF) method. Also, synthetic minority over-sampling technique (SMOTE) method was used for handling imbalanced data. Next, considering the selected features, the predictive performance of GNAM for predicting mortality outcome was compared with logistic regression, RF, generalized additive model (GAMs), gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), and deep neural networks (DNNs) classification models. Each model trained on fifty different subsets of a train-test dataset to ensure a model performance. The average accuracy, F1-score and area under the curve (AUC) evaluation indices were used for comparison of the predictive performance of the models.

RESULTS

Out of the 2181 COVID-19 patients, 624 died during hospitalization and 1557 recovered. The missing rate was 3 percent for each patient. The mean age of dead patients (71.17 ± 14.44 years) was statistically significant higher than recovered patients (58.25 ± 16.52 years). Based on RF, 10 features with the highest relative importance were selected as the best influential features; including blood urea nitrogen (BUN), lymphocytes (Lym), age, blood sugar (BS), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT), monocytes (Mono), blood creatinine (CR), neutrophils (NUT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and hematocrit (HCT). The results of predictive performance comparisons showed GNAM with the mean accuracy, F1-score, and mean AUC in the test dataset of 0.847, 0.691, and 0.774, respectively, had the best performance. The smooth function graphs learned from the GNAM were descending for the Lym and ascending for the other important features.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretable GNAM can perform well in predicting the mortality of COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the use of such a reliable model can help physicians to prioritize some important demographic and clinical biomarkers by identifying the effective features and the type of predictive trend in disease progression.

The PaCO2/FiO2 ratio as outcome predictor in SARS-COV-2 related pneumonia: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Respiratory failure in SARS-CoV-2 patients is characterized by the presence of hypoxemia and hypocapnia without relevant dyspnea. To date, the use of respiratory parameters other than PaO2/FiO2 ratio to stratify the risk of worsening of these patients has not been sufficiently studied.  Aim of this work was to evaluate whether the ratio between partial pressure levels of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) measured at emergency department (ED) admission is predictive of the clinical course of patients suffering from SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 236 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia evaluated at the ED of the Perugia Hospital. The end-points were: in-hospital mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and length of in-hospital stay (LOS). Clinical, blood gas and laboratory data were collected at ED admission.

RESULTS

Of the 236 patients 157 were male, the mean age was 64 ± 16. Thirtythree patients (14%) needed IMV, 49 died (21%). In the univariate analysis, the PaCO2/FiO2 ratio was inversely associated with the need for IMV (p <0.001), mortality (p <0.001) and LOS (p = 0.005). At the multivariate analysis the PaCO2/FiO2 ratio was found to be predictive of the need for IMV, independently from age, gender, number of comorbidities, neutrophils, lymphocytes, glomerular filtrate, d-dimer, LDH and CRP.

CONCLUSIONS

the PaCO2/FiO2 ratio is predictive of the risk of respiratory failure worsening in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, independently from other several confounding factors.

Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Severe COVID-19: A Systematic Review and External Validation of Clinical Prediction Rules

Multiple prediction models for risk of in-hospital mortality from COVID-19 have been developed, but not applied, to patient cohorts different to those from which they were derived. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) databases were searched. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with PROBAST. Nomograms, whose variables were available in a well-defined cohort of 444 patients from our site, were externally validated. Overall, 71 studies, which derived a clinical prediction rule for mortality outcome from COVID-19, were identified. Predictive variables consisted of combinations of patients′ age, chronic conditions, dyspnea/taquipnea, radiographic chest alteration, and analytical values (LDH, CRP, lymphocytes, D-dimer); and markers of respiratory, renal, liver, and myocardial damage, which were mayor predictors in several nomograms. Twenty-five models could be externally validated. Areas under receiver operator curve (AUROC) in predicting mortality ranged from 0.71 to 1 in derivation cohorts; C-index values ranged from 0.823 to 0.970. Overall, 37/71 models provided very-good-to-outstanding test performance. Externally validated nomograms provided lower predictive performances for mortality in their respective derivation cohorts, with the AUROC being 0.654 to 0.806 (poor to acceptable performance). We can conclude that available nomograms were limited in predicting mortality when applied to different populations from which they were derived.

Prognostic Model of ICU Admission Risk in Patients with COVID-19 Infection Using Machine Learning

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of critically sick patients in intensive care units (ICUs) has increased worldwide, putting a burden on ICUs. Early prediction of ICU requirement is crucial for efficient resource management and distribution. Early-prediction scoring systems for critically ill patients using mathematical models are available, but are not generalized for COVID-19 and Non-COVID patients. This study aims to develop a generalized and reliable prognostic model for ICU admission for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients using best feature combination from the patient data at admission. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a dataset collected from the pulmonology department of Moscow City State Hospital between 20 April 2020 and 5 June 2020. The dataset contains ten clinical features for 231 patients, of whom 100 patients were transferred to ICU and 131 were stable (non-ICU) patients. There were 156 COVID positive patients and 75 non-COVID patients. Different feature selection techniques were investigated, and a stacking machine learning model was proposed and compared with eight different classification algorithms to detect risk of need for ICU admission for both COVID-19 and non-COVID patients combined and COVID patients alone. C-reactive protein (CRP), chest computed tomography (CT), lung tissue affected (%), age, admission to hospital, and fibrinogen parameters at hospital admission were found to be important features for ICU-requirement risk prediction. The best performance was produced by the stacking approach, with weighted precision, sensitivity, F1-score, specificity, and overall accuracy of 84.45%, 84.48%, 83.64%, 84.47%, and 84.48%, respectively, for both types of patients, and 85.34%, 85.35%, 85.11%, 85.34%, and 85.35%, respectively, for COVID-19 patients only. The proposed work can help doctors to improve management through early prediction of the risk of need for ICU admission of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the model can be used for both types of patients.

What is the role of prognostic indexes in COVID-19 patients with diabetes mellitus? Data of patients from Turkey

Aim: We aimed to determine the prognostic performance of the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), systemic immune-inflammation index and early warning score (the 'ANDC' system) in patients with diabetes mellitus who had COVID-19. Patients & methods: Patients were divided into two groups: with and without diabetes mellitus. Results: In the diabetic patient group, the rates of in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit hospitalization and corticosteroid treatment were higher compared with the nondiabetic patient group (p < 0.05). A GPS of 2 was useful for predicting in-hospital mortality in diabetic patients (p < 0.05). The ANDC score was significantly higher in diabetic patients (p < 0.05) and in diabetic patients with mortality and those who needed ICU hospitalization (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The presence of a GPS of 2 at the time of admission and a high ANDC value were associated with poor prognosis in diabetic COVID-19 patients.

Joint Modeling of Repeated Measurements of Different Biomarkers Predicts Mortality in COVID-19 Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Introduction:

Predicting disease severity is important for treatment decisions in patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). Different biomarkers have been investigated in COVID-19 as predictor of mortality, including C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). Using repeated measurements in a prediction model may result in a more accurate risk prediction than the use of single point measurements. The goal of this study is to investigate the predictive value of trends in repeated measurements of CRP, PCT, IL-6, and suPAR on mortality in patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19.

Methods:

This was a retrospective single center cohort study. Patients were included if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR test and if IL-6, PCT, suPAR was measured during any of the ICU admission days. There were no exclusion criteria for this study. We used joint models to predict ICU-mortality. This analysis was done using the framework of joint models for longitudinal and survival data. The reported hazard ratios express the relative change in the risk of death resulting from a doubling or 20% increase of the biomarker’s value in a day compared to no change in the same period.

Results:

A total of 107 patients were included, of which 26 died during ICU admission. Adjusted for sex and age, a doubling in the next day in either levels of PCT, IL-6, and suPAR were significantly predictive of in-hospital mortality with HRs of 1.523 (1.012-6.540), 75.25 (1.116-6247), and 24.45 (1.696-1057) respectively. With a 20% increase in biomarker value in a subsequent day, the HR of PCT, IL-6, and suPAR were 1.117 (1.03-1.639), 3.116 (1.029-9.963), and 2.319 (1.149-6.243) respectively.

Conclusion:

Joint models for the analysis of repeated measurements of PCT, suPAR, and IL-6 are a useful method for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients in the ICU. Patients with an increasing trend of biomarker levels in consecutive days are at increased risk for mortality.

COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation (C-TIME): A system for predicting mortality of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at the time they require mechanical ventilation

Background

An accurate system to predict mortality in patients requiring intubation for COVID-19 could help to inform consent, frame family expectations and assist end-of-life decisions.

Research objective

To develop and validate a mortality prediction system called C-TIME (COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation) using variables available before intubation, determine its discriminant accuracy, and compare it to acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE IVa) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA).

Methods

A retrospective cohort was set in 18 medical-surgical ICUs, enrolling consecutive adults, positive by SARS-CoV 2 RNA by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or positive rapid antigen test, and undergoing endotracheal intubation. All were followed until hospital discharge or death. The combined outcome was hospital mortality or terminal extubation with hospice discharge. Twenty-five clinical and laboratory variables available 48 hours prior to intubation were entered into multiple logistic regression (MLR) and the resulting model was used to predict mortality of validation cohort patients. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) was calculated for C-TIME, APACHE IVa and SOFA.

Results

The median age of the 2,440 study patients was 66 years; 61.6 percent were men, and 50.5 percent were Hispanic, Native American or African American. Age, gender, COPD, minimum mean arterial pressure, Glasgow Coma scale score, and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, maximum creatinine and bilirubin, receiving factor Xa inhibitors, days receiving non-invasive respiratory support and days receiving corticosteroids prior to intubation were significantly associated with the outcome variable. The validation cohort comprised 1,179 patients. C-TIME had the highest AUROC of 0.75 (95%CI 0.72–0.79), vs 0.67 (0.64–0.71) and 0.59 (0.55–0.62) for APACHE and SOFA, respectively (Chi² P<0.0001).

Conclusions

C-TIME is the only mortality prediction score specifically developed and validated for COVID-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation. It has acceptable discriminant accuracy and goodness-of-fit to assist decision-making just prior to intubation. The C-TIME mortality prediction calculator can be freely accessed on-line at https://phoenixmed.arizona.edu/ctime.

QCovSML: A reliable COVID-19 detection system using CBC biomarkers by a stacking machine learning model

The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test is considered the current gold standard for the detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), although it suffers from some shortcomings, namely comparatively longer turnaround time, higher false-negative rates around 20-25%, and higher cost equipment. Therefore, finding an efficient, robust, accurate, and widely available, and accessible alternative to RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis is a matter of utmost importance. This study proposes a complete blood count (CBC) biomarkers-based COVID-19 detection system using a stacking machine learning (SML) model, which could be a fast and less expensive alternative. This study used seven different publicly available datasets, where the largest one consisting of fifteen CBC biomarkers collected from 1624 patients (52% COVID-19 positive) admitted at San Raphael Hospital, Italy from February to May 2020 was used to train and validate the proposed model. White blood cell count, monocytes (%), lymphocyte (%), and age parameters collected from the patients during hospital admission were found to be important biomarkers for COVID-19 disease prediction using five different feature selection techniques. Our stacking model produced the best performance with weighted precision, sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, and F1-score of 91.44%, 91.44%, 91.44%, 91.45%, and 91.45%, respectively. The stacking machine learning model improved the performance in comparison to other state-of-the-art machine learning classifiers. Finally, a nomogram-based scoring system (QCovSML) was constructed using this stacking approach to predict the COVID-19 patients. The cut-off value of the QCovSML system for classifying COVID-19 and Non-COVID patients was 4.8. Six datasets from three different countries were used to externally validate the proposed model to evaluate its generalizability and robustness. The nomogram demonstrated good calibration and discrimination with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.961 for the internal cohort and average AUC of 0.967 for all external validation cohort, respectively. The external validation shows an average weighted precision, sensitivity, F1-score, specificity, and overall accuracy of 92.02%, 95.59%, 93.73%, 90.54%, and 93.34%, respectively.

Clinical features and prognostic factors of adults with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units in Colombia: A multicentre retrospective study during the first wave of the pandemic

Background

A significant number of COVID-19 patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission. However, ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients varies considerably between studies.

Objectives

To determine the clinical features and outcomes of adults with COVID-19 admitted to ICU in Colombia during the first wave of the pandemic.

Material and methods

A multicentre retrospective study was carried out in 8 ICUs. Adult patients admitted to the ICU with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to July of 2020 were included.

Results

During the study period, 229 adults with COVID-19 were admitted to ICU. Most patients (54.5%) were older than 65 years. Comorbid conditions were documented in 146 (64%) patients, mainly arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus. The median value of the SOFA score on ICU admission was 5 (interquartile range, 2–12). Regarding complications, 118 (51.5%) underwent mechanical ventilation, 51 (22.4%) required renal replacement therapy, and 85 (35%), vasopressor use. Mortality was 38.4% (88 out of 219 patients). Mortality increased with age (20% in those younger than 40 years and 54.1% in those older than 65 years; p < .001). In the multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with mortality were age ≥ 65 years (OR, 11.9; 95% CI, 3.20–44.23), SOFA score (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05–1.39), vasopressor use (OR, 12.8; 95% CI, 3.45–48.17), and renal replacement therapy (OR, 9.0; 95% CI 2.37–34.42).

Conclusions

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 had high mortality mainly related to advanced age, the severity of the disease on admission to the ICU, the use of vasopressors and renal replacement therapy.

Chest X-ray Classification for the Detection of COVID-19 Using Deep Learning Techniques

Recent technological developments pave the path for deep learning-based techniques to be used in almost every domain of life. The precision of deep learning techniques make it possible for these to be used in the medical field for the classification and detection of various diseases. Recently, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has put a lot of pressure on the health system all around the world. The diagnosis of COVID-19 is possible by PCR testing and medical imagining. Since COVID-19 is highly contagious, diagnosis using chest X-ray is considered safe in various situations. In this study, a deep learning-based technique is proposed to classify COVID-19 infection from other non-COVID-19 infections. To classify COVID-19, three different pre-trained models named EfficientNetB1, NasNetMobile and MobileNetV2 are used. The augmented dataset is used for training deep learning models while two different training strategies have been used for classification. In this study, not only are the deep learning model fine-tuned but also the hyperparameters are fine-tuned, which significantly improves the performance of the fine-tuned deep learning models. Moreover, the classification head is regularized to improve the performance. For the evaluation of the proposed techniques, several performance parameters are used to gauge the performance. EfficientNetB1 with regularized classification head outperforms the other models. The proposed technique successfully classifies four classes that include COVID-19, viral pneumonia, lung opacity, and normal, with an accuracy of 96.13%. The proposed technique shows superiority in terms of accuracy when compared with recent techniques present in the literature.

Prediction models for severe manifestations and mortality due to COVID-19: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Throughout 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a threat to public health on national and global level. There has been an immediate need for research to understand the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that can help predict deterioration including mechanical ventilation, organ support, and death. Studies thus far have addressed the epidemiology of the disease, common presentations, and susceptibility to acquisition and transmission of the virus; however, an accurate prognostic model for severe manifestations of COVID-19 is still needed because of the limited healthcare resources available.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to evaluate published reports of prediction models for severe illnesses caused COVID-19.

METHODS

Searches were developed by the primary author and a medical librarian using an iterative process of gathering and evaluating terms. Comprehensive strategies, including both index and keyword methods, were devised for PubMed and EMBASE. The data of confirmed COVID-19 patients from randomized control studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies published between January 2020 and May 2021 were retrieved. Studies were independently assessed for risk of bias and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). We collected study type, setting, sample size, type of validation, and outcome including intubation, ventilation, any other type of organ support, or death. The combination of the prediction model, scoring system, performance of predictive models, and geographic locations were summarized.

RESULTS

A primary review found 445 articles relevant based on title and abstract. After further review, 366 were excluded based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seventy-nine articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Inter observer agreement on inclusion 0.84 (95%CI 0.78-0.89). When the PROBAST tool was applied, 70 of the 79 articles were identified to have high or unclear risk of bias, or high or unclear concern for applicability. Nine studies reported prediction models that were rated as low risk of bias and low concerns for applicability.

CONCLUSION

Several prognostic models for COVID-19 were identified, with varying clinical score performance. Nine studies that had a low risk of bias and low concern for applicability, one from a general public population and hospital setting. The most promising and well-validated scores include Clift et al.,¹⁵ and Knight et al.,¹⁸ which seem to have accurate prediction models that clinicians can use in the public health and emergency department setting.

Complement C5a and Clinical Markers as Predictors of COVID-19 Disease Severity and Mortality in a Multi-Ethnic Population

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was declared as a pandemic by WHO in March 2020. SARS-CoV-2 causes a wide range of illness from asymptomatic to life-threatening. There is an essential need to identify biomarkers to predict disease severity and mortality during the earlier stages of the disease, aiding treatment and allocation of resources to improve survival. The aim of this study was to identify at the time of SARS-COV-2 infection patients at high risk of developing severe disease associated with low survival using blood parameters, including inflammation and coagulation mediators, vital signs, and pre-existing comorbidities. This cohort included 89 multi-ethnic COVID-19 patients recruited between July 14th and October 20th 2020 in Doha, Qatar. According to clinical severity, patients were grouped into severe (n=33), mild (n=33) and asymptomatic (n=23). Common routine tests such as complete blood count (CBC), glucose, electrolytes, liver and kidney function parameters and markers of inflammation, thrombosis and endothelial dysfunction including complement component split product C5a, Interleukin-6, ferritin and C-reactive protein were measured at the time COVID-19 infection was confirmed. Correlation tests suggest that C5a is a predictive marker of disease severity and mortality, in addition to 40 biological and physiological parameters that were found statistically significant between survivors and non-survivors. Survival analysis showed that high C5a levels, hypoalbuminemia, lymphopenia, elevated procalcitonin, neutrophilic leukocytosis, acute anemia along with increased acute kidney and hepatocellular injury markers were associated with a higher risk of death in COVID-19 patients. Altogether, we created a prognostic classification model, the CAL model (C5a, Albumin, and Lymphocyte count) to predict severity with significant accuracy. Stratification of patients using the CAL model could help in the identification of patients likely to develop severe symptoms in advance so that treatments can be targeted accordingly.

Call, chosen, HA2T2, ANDC: validation of four severity scores in COVID-19 patients

Purpose

To externally validate four previously developed severity scores (i.e., CALL, CHOSEN, HA₂T₂ and ANDC) in patients with COVID-19 hospitalised in a tertiary care centre in Switzerland.

Methods

This observational analysis included adult patients with a real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction or rapid-antigen test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection hospitalised consecutively at the Cantonal Hospital Aarau from February to December 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary endpoint was disease progression, defined as needing invasive ventilation, ICU admission or death.

Results

From 399 patients (mean age 66.6 years ± 13.4 SD, 68% males), we had complete data for calculating the CALL, CHOSEN, HA₂T₂ and ANDC scores in 297, 380, 151 and 124 cases, respectively. Odds ratios for all four scores showed significant associations with mortality. The discriminative power of the HA₂T₂ score was higher compared to CALL, CHOSEN and ANDC scores [area under the curve (AUC) 0.78 vs. 0.65, 0.69 and 0.66, respectively]. Negative predictive values (NPV) for mortality were high, particularly for the CALL score (≥ 6 points: 100%, ≥ 9 points: 95%). For disease progression, discriminative power was lower, with the CHOSEN score showing the best performance (AUC 0.66).

Conclusion

In this external validation study, the four analysed scores had a lower performance compared to the original cohorts regarding prediction of mortality and disease progression. However, all scores were significantly associated with mortality and the NPV of the CALL and CHOSEN scores in particular allowed reliable identification of patients at low risk, making them suitable for outpatient management.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01728-0.

Establishment of Routine Clinical Indicators-Based Nomograms for Predicting the Mortality in Patients With COVID-19

This study aimed to establish and validate the nomograms to predict the mortality risk of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using routine clinical indicators. This retrospective study included a development cohort enrolled 2,119 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a validation cohort included 1,504 patients with COVID-19. The demographics, clinical manifestations, vital signs, and laboratory tests of the patients at admission and outcome of in-hospital death were recorded. The independent factors associated with death were identified by a forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis and used to construct the two prognostic nomograms. The nomogram 1 was a full model to include nine factors identified in the multivariate logistic regression and nomogram 2 was built by selecting four factors from nine to perform as a reduced model. The nomogram 1 and nomogram 2 showed better performance in discrimination and calibration than the Multilobular infiltration, hypo-Lymphocytosis, Bacterial coinfection, Smoking history, hyper-Tension and Age (MuLBSTA) score in training. In validation, nomogram 1 performed better than nomogram 2 for calibration. We recommend the application of nomogram 1 in general hospitals which provide robust prognostic performance though more cumbersome; nomogram 2 in the out-patient, emergency department, and mobile cabin hospitals, which depend on less laboratory examinations to make the assessment more convenient. Both the nomograms can help the clinicians to identify the patients at risk of death with routine clinical indicators at admission, which may reduce the overall mortality of COVID-19.

Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is an accessible and widely used biomarker. NLR may be used as an early marker of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic value of the NLR in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Observational studies that reported the association between baseline NLR values (ie, at hospital admission) and severity or all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Random effects models and inverse variance method were used for meta-analyses. The effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Small study effects were assessed with the Egger's test.

RESULTS

We analysed 61 studies (n = 15 522 patients), 58 cohorts, and 3 case-control studies. An increase of one unit of NLR was associated with higher odds of severity (OR 6.22; 95%CI 4.93 to 7.84; P < .001) and higher odds of all-cause mortality (OR 12.6; 95%CI 6.88 to 23.06; P < .001). In our sensitivity analysis, we found that 41 studies with low risk of bias and moderate heterogeneity (I2  = 53% and 58%) maintained strong association between NLR values and both outcomes (severity: OR 5.36; 95% CI 4.45 to 6.45; P < .001; mortality: OR 10.42 95% CI 7.73 to 14.06; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher values of NLR were associated with severity and all-cause mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

External validation of prognostic scores for COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study of patients hospitalized in Greater Paris University Hospitals

Purpose

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unparalleled influx of patients. Prognostic scores could help optimizing healthcare delivery, but most of them have not been comprehensively validated. We aim to externally validate existing prognostic scores for COVID-19.

Methods

We used “COVID-19 Evidence Alerts” (McMaster University) to retrieve high-quality prognostic scores predicting death or intensive care unit (ICU) transfer from routinely collected data. We studied their accuracy in a retrospective multicenter cohort of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January 2020 to April 2021 in the Greater Paris University Hospitals. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were computed for the prediction of the original outcome, 30-day in-hospital mortality and the composite of 30-day in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer.

Results

We included 14,343 consecutive patients, 2583 (18%) died and 5067 (35%) died or were transferred to the ICU. We examined 274 studies and found 32 scores meeting the inclusion criteria: 19 had a significantly lower AUC in our cohort than in previously published validation studies for the original outcome; 25 performed better to predict in-hospital mortality than the composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer; 7 had an AUC > 0.75 to predict in-hospital mortality; 2 had an AUC > 0.70 to predict the composite outcome.

Conclusion

Seven prognostic scores were fairly accurate to predict death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The 4C Mortality Score and the ABCS stand out because they performed as well in our cohort and their initial validation cohort, during the first epidemic wave and subsequent waves, and in younger and older patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06524-w.

Development and validation of nomogram to predict severe illness requiring intensive care follow up in hospitalized COVID-19 cases

BACKGROUND

Early identification of severe COVID-19 patients who will need intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up and providing rapid, aggressive supportive care may reduce mortality and provide optimal use of medical resources. We aimed to develop and validate a nomogram to predict severe COVID-19 cases that would need ICU follow-up based on available and accessible patient values.

METHODS

Patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 15, 2020, and June 15, 2020, were enrolled in this retrospective study with 35 variables obtained upon admission considered. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to select potential predictive parameters using 1000 bootstrap samples. Afterward, a nomogram was developed with 5 variables selected from multivariable analysis. The nomogram model was evaluated by Area Under the Curve (AUC) and bias-corrected Harrell's C-index with 95% confidence interval, Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness-of-fit test, and calibration curve analysis.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 1022 patients, 686 cases without missing data were used to construct the nomogram. Of the 686, 104 needed ICU follow-up. The final model includes oxygen saturation, CRP, PCT, LDH, troponin as independent factors for the prediction of need for ICU admission. The model has good predictive power with an AUC of 0.93 (0.902-0.950) and a bias-corrected Harrell's C-index of 0.91 (0.899-0.947). Hosmer-Lemeshow test p-value was 0.826 and the model is well-calibrated (p = 0.1703).

CONCLUSION

We developed a simple, accessible, easy-to-use nomogram with good distinctive power for severe illness requiring ICU follow-up. Clinicians can easily predict the course of COVID-19 and decide the procedure and facility of further follow-up by using clinical and laboratory values of patients available upon admission.

Evaluating risk stratification scoring systems to predict mortality in patients with COVID-19

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated efficient and accurate triaging of patients for more effective allocation of resources and treatment.

Objectives

The objectives are to investigate parameters and risk stratification tools that can be applied to predict mortality within 90 days of hospital admission in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

A literature search of original studies assessing systems and parameters predicting mortality of patients with COVID-19 was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE.

Results

589 titles were screened, and 76 studies were found investigating the prognostic ability of 16 existing scoring systems (area under the receiving operator curve (AUROC) range: 0.550–0.966), 38 newly developed COVID-19-specific prognostic systems (AUROC range: 0.6400–0.9940), 15 artificial intelligence (AI) models (AUROC range: 0.840–0.955) and 16 studies on novel blood parameters and imaging.

Discussion

Current scoring systems generally underestimate mortality, with the highest AUROC values found for APACHE II and the lowest for SMART-COP. Systems featuring heavier weighting on respiratory parameters were more predictive than those assessing other systems. Cardiac biomarkers and CT chest scans were the most commonly studied novel parameters and were independently associated with mortality, suggesting potential for implementation into model development. All types of AI modelling systems showed high abilities to predict mortality, although none had notably higher AUROC values than COVID-19-specific prediction models. All models were found to have bias, including lack of prospective studies, small sample sizes, single-centre data collection and lack of external validation.

Conclusion

The single parameters established within this review would be useful to look at in future prognostic models in terms of the predictive capacity their combined effect may harness.

Comparison of systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), early warning score (ANDC) and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in hospitalized patients with malignancy, and their influence on mortality from COVID-19

Introduction

We evaluated several biological indicators based on inflammation and/or nutritional status, such as systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), early warning score (ANDC) and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without malignancies for a prognostic significance.

Methodology

This is a retrospective and observational study on 186 patients with SARS-CoV-2, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by real-time PCR testing and hospitalized due to COVID-19 pneumonia. 75 patients had various malignancies, and the rest (111), having a similar age and comorbidity profile based on propensity score matching, had no malignancy.

Results

None of the measures as neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, platelet to lymphocyte ratio, monocyte to lymphocyte ratio, SII, PNI or ANDC was found to be significantly different between two groups. Odds ratio for the mortality, OR 2.39 (%95 CI 1.80–3.16) was found to be significantly higher for the malignancy group, even though the duration of hospitalization was statistically similar for both groups. PNI was found to be significantly lower for deceased patients compared with survivors in the malignancy group. Contrarily, ANDC was found to be significantly higher for deceased patients in the malignancy group.

Conclusions

PNI and ANDC have independent predictive power on determining the in-hospital death in COVID-19 malignancy cases. It is suggested that ANDC seems to be a more sensitive score than SII in COVID-19 cases with malignancies.

Prediction of COVID-19-related Mortality and 30-Day and 60-Day Survival Probabilities Using a Nomogram

BACKGROUND

Prediction of mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a key to improving the clinical outcomes, considering that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the collapse of healthcare systems in many regions worldwide. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with COVID-19 mortality and to develop a nomogram for predicting mortality using clinical parameters and underlying diseases.

METHODS

This study was performed in 5,626 patients with confirmed COVID-19 between February 1 and April 30, 2020 in South Korea. A Cox proportional hazards model and logistic regression model were used to construct a nomogram for predicting 30-day and 60-day survival probabilities and overall mortality, respectively in the train set. Calibration and discrimination were performed to validate the nomograms in the test set.

RESULTS

Age ≥ 70 years, male, presence of fever and dyspnea at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and diabetes mellitus, cancer, or dementia as underling diseases were significantly related to 30-day and 60-day survival and mortality in COVID-19 patients. The nomogram showed good calibration for survival probabilities and mortality. In the train set, the areas under the curve (AUCs) for 30-day and 60-day survival was 0.914 and 0.954, respectively; the AUC for mortality of 0.959. In the test set, AUCs for 30-day and 60-day survival was 0.876 and 0.660, respectively, and that for mortality was 0.926. The online calculators can be found at https://koreastat.shinyapps.io/RiskofCOVID19/.

CONCLUSION

The prediction model could accurately predict COVID-19-related mortality; thus, it would be helpful for identifying the risk of mortality and establishing medical policies during the pandemic to improve the clinical outcomes.

Mortality Prediction Utilizing Blood Biomarkers to Predict the Severity of COVID-19 Using Machine Learning Technique

Healthcare researchers have been working on mortality prediction for COVID-19 patients with differing levels of severity. A rapid and reliable clinical evaluation of disease intensity will assist in the allocation and prioritization of mortality mitigation resources. The novelty of the work proposed in this paper is an early prediction model of high mortality risk for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, which provides state-of-the-art performance, in an external validation cohort from a different population. Retrospective research was performed on two separate hospital datasets from two different countries for model development and validation. In the first dataset, COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were admitted to the emergency department in Boston (24 March 2020 to 30 April 2020), and in the second dataset, 375 COVID-19 patients were admitted to Tongji Hospital in China (10 January 2020 to 18 February 2020). The key parameters to predict the risk of mortality for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were identified and a nomogram-based scoring technique was developed using the top-ranked five parameters. Age, Lymphocyte count, D-dimer, CRP, and Creatinine (ALDCC), information acquired at hospital admission, were identified by the logistic regression model as the primary predictors of hospital death. For the development cohort, and internal and external validation cohorts, the area under the curves (AUCs) were 0.987, 0.999, and 0.992, respectively. All the patients are categorized into three groups using ALDCC score and death probability: Low (probability < 5%), Moderate (5% < probability < 50%), and High (probability > 50%) risk groups. The prognostic model, nomogram, and ALDCC score will be able to assist in the early identification of both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients with high mortality risk, helping physicians to improve patient management.

EULAR points to consider on pathophysiology and use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Severe systemic inflammation associated with some stages of COVID-19 and in fatal cases led therapeutic agents developed or used frequently in Rheumatology being at the vanguard of experimental therapeutics strategies. The aim of this project was to elaborate EULAR Points to consider (PtCs) on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory therapies.

METHODS

PtCs were developed in accordance with EULAR standard operating procedures for endorsed recommendations, led by an international multidisciplinary Task Force, including rheumatologists, translational immunologists, haematologists, paediatricians, patients and health professionals, based on a systemic literature review up to 15 December 2020. Overarching principles (OPs) and PtCs were formulated and consolidated by formal voting.

RESULTS

Two OPs and fourteen PtCs were developed. OPs highlight the heterogeneous clinical spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the need of a multifaceted approach to target the different pathophysiological mechanisms. PtCs 1-6 encompass the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 including immune response, endothelial dysfunction and biomarkers. PtCs 7-14 focus on the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection with immunomodulators. There was evidence supporting the use of glucocorticoids, especially dexamethasone, in COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen therapy. No other immunomodulator demonstrated efficacy on mortality to date, with however inconsistent results for tocilizumab. Immunomodulatory therapy was not associated with higher infection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifactorial pathophysiological mechanisms, including immune abnormalities, play a key role in COVID-19. The efficacy of glucocorticoids in cases requiring oxygen therapy suggests that immunomodulatory treatment might be effective in COVID-19 subsets. Involvement of rheumatologists, as systemic inflammatory diseases experts, should continue in ongoing clinical trials delineating optimal immunomodulatory therapy utilisation in COVID-19.

The age again in the eye of the COVID-19 storm: evidence-based decision making

BACKGROUND

One hundred fifty million contagions, more than 3 million deaths and little more than 1 year of COVID-19 have changed our lives and our health management systems forever. Ageing is known to be one of the significant determinants for COVID-19 severity. Two main reasons underlie this: immunosenescence and age correlation with main COVID-19 comorbidities such as hypertension or dyslipidaemia. This study has two aims. The first is to obtain cut-off points for laboratory parameters that can help us in clinical decision-making. The second one is to analyse the effect of pandemic lockdown on epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory parameters concerning the severity of the COVID-19. For these purposes, 257 of SARSCoV2 inpatients during pandemic confinement were included in this study. Moreover, 584 case records from a previously analysed series, were compared with the present study data.

RESULTS

Concerning the characteristics of lockdown series, mild cases accounted for 14.4, 54.1% were moderate and 31.5%, severe. There were 32.5% of home contagions, 26.3% community transmissions, 22.5% nursing home contagions, and 8.8% corresponding to frontline worker contagions regarding epidemiological features. Age > 60 and male sex are hereby confirmed as severity determinants. Equally, higher severity was significantly associated with higher IL6, CRP, ferritin, LDH, and leukocyte counts, and a lower percentage of lymphocyte, CD4 and CD8 count. Comparing this cohort with a previous 584-cases series, mild cases were less than those analysed in the first moment of the pandemic and dyslipidaemia became more frequent than before. IL-6, CRP and LDH values above 69 pg/mL, 97 mg/L and 328 U/L respectively, as well as a CD4 T-cell count below 535 cells/μL, were the best cut-offs predicting severity since these parameters offered reliable areas under the curve.

CONCLUSION

Age and sex together with selected laboratory parameters on admission can help us predict COVID-19 severity and, therefore, make clinical and resource management decisions. Demographic features associated with lockdown might affect the homogeneity of the data and the robustness of the results.

Exploring the effect of image enhancement techniques on COVID-19 detection using chest X-ray images

Computer-aided diagnosis for the reliable and fast detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become a necessity to prevent the spread of the virus during the pandemic to ease the burden on the healthcare system. Chest X-ray (CXR) imaging has several advantages over other imaging and detection techniques. Numerous works have been reported on COVID-19 detection from a smaller set of original X-ray images. However, the effect of image enhancement and lung segmentation of a large dataset in COVID-19 detection was not reported in the literature. We have compiled a large X-ray dataset (COVQU) consisting of 18,479 CXR images with 8851 normal, 6012 non-COVID lung infections, and 3616 COVID-19 CXR images and their corresponding ground truth lung masks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest public COVID positive database and the lung masks. Five different image enhancement techniques: histogram equalization (HE), contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE), image complement, gamma correction, and balance contrast enhancement technique (BCET) were used to investigate the effect of image enhancement techniques on COVID-19 detection. A novel U-Net model was proposed and compared with the standard U-Net model for lung segmentation. Six different pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) (ResNet18, ResNet50, ResNet101, InceptionV3, DenseNet201, and ChexNet) and a shallow CNN model were investigated on the plain and segmented lung CXR images. The novel U-Net model showed an accuracy, Intersection over Union (IoU), and Dice coefficient of 98.63%, 94.3%, and 96.94%, respectively for lung segmentation. The gamma correction-based enhancement technique outperforms other techniques in detecting COVID-19 from the plain and the segmented lung CXR images. Classification performance from plain CXR images is slightly better than the segmented lung CXR images; however, the reliability of network performance is significantly improved for the segmented lung images, which was observed using the visualization technique. The accuracy, precision, sensitivity, F1-score, and specificity were 95.11%, 94.55%, 94.56%, 94.53%, and 95.59% respectively for the segmented lung images. The proposed approach with very reliable and comparable performance will boost the fast and robust COVID-19 detection using chest X-ray images.

An Early Warning Tool for Predicting Mortality Risk of COVID-19 Patients Using Machine Learning

COVID-19 pandemic has created an extreme pressure on the global healthcare services. Fast, reliable, and early clinical assessment of the severity of the disease can help in allocating and prioritizing resources to reduce mortality. In order to study the important blood biomarkers for predicting disease mortality, a retrospective study was conducted on a dataset made public by Yan et al. in [1] of 375 COVID-19 positive patients admitted to Tongji Hospital (China) from January 10 to February 18, 2020. Demographic and clinical characteristics and patient outcomes were investigated using machine learning tools to identify key biomarkers to predict the mortality of individual patient. A nomogram was developed for predicting the mortality risk among COVID-19 patients. Lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophils (%), lymphocyte (%), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and age (LNLCA)-acquired at hospital admission-were identified as key predictors of death by multi-tree XGBoost model. The area under curve (AUC) of the nomogram for the derivation and validation cohort were 0.961 and 0.991, respectively. An integrated score (LNLCA) was calculated with the corresponding death probability. COVID-19 patients were divided into three subgroups: low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups using LNLCA cutoff values of 10.4 and 12.65 with the death probability less than 5%, 5-50%, and above 50%, respectively. The prognostic model, nomogram, and LNLCA score can help in early detection of high mortality risk of COVID-19 patients, which will help doctors to improve the management of patient stratification.

Early Warning Scores in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 Infection in Emergency Departments

Early warning scores (EWSs) help prevent and recognize and thereby act as the first signs of clinical and physiological deterioration. The objective of this study is to evaluate different EWSs (National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA), Modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (MREMS) and Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS)) to predict mortality within the first 48 h in patients suspected to have Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a retrospective observational study in patients over 18 years of age who were treated by the advanced life support units and transferred to the emergency departments between March and July of 2020. Each patient was followed for two days registering their final diagnosis and mortality data. A total of 663 patients were included in our study. Early mortality within the first 48 h affected 53 patients (8.3%). The scale with the best capacity to predict early mortality was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), with an area under the curve of 0.825 (95% CI: 0.75–0.89). The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients presented an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.804 (95% CI: 0.71–0.89), and the negative ones with an AUC of 0.863 (95% CI: 0.76–0.95). Among the EWSs, NEWS2 presented the best predictive power, even when it was separately applied to patients who tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Pathophysiology of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a global health problem. Beside the specific pathogenic effect of SARS-CoV-2, incompletely understood deleterious and aberrant host immune responses play critical roles in severe disease. Our objective was to summarise the available information on the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the following PICO framework: P (population): patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; I (intervention): any intervention/no intervention; C (comparator): any comparator; O (outcome) any clinical or serological outcome including but not limited to immune cell phenotype and function and serum cytokine concentration.

RESULTS

Of the 55 496 records yielded, 84 articles were eligible for inclusion according to question-specific research criteria. Proinflammatory cytokine expression, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), was increased, especially in severe COVID-19, although not as high as other states with severe systemic inflammation. The myeloid and lymphoid compartments were differentially affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection depending on disease phenotype. Failure to maintain high interferon (IFN) levels was characteristic of severe forms of COVID-19 and could be related to loss-of-function mutations in the IFN pathway and/or the presence of anti-IFN antibodies. Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection showed a high variability across individuals and disease spectrum. Multiparametric algorithms showed variable diagnostic performances in predicting survival, hospitalisation, disease progression or severity, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 infection affects both humoral and cellular immunity depending on both disease severity and individual parameters. This systematic literature review informed the EULAR 'points to consider' on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory therapies.

Development and Validation of an Early Scoring System for Prediction of Disease Severity in COVID-19 Using Complete Blood Count Parameters

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after outbreaking in Wuhan increasingly spread throughout the world. Fast, reliable, and easily accessible clinical assessment of the severity of the disease can help in allocating and prioritizing resources to reduce mortality. The objective of the study was to develop and validate an early scoring tool to stratify the risk of death using readily available complete blood count (CBC) biomarkers. A retrospective study was conducted on twenty-three CBC blood biomarkers for predicting disease mortality for 375 COVID-19 patients admitted to Tongji Hospital, China from January 10 to February 18, 2020. Machine learning based key biomarkers among the CBC parameters as the mortality predictors were identified. A multivariate logistic regression-based nomogram and a scoring system was developed to categorize the patients in three risk groups (low, moderate, and high) for predicting the mortality risk among COVID-19 patients. Lymphocyte count, neutrophils count, age, white blood cell count, monocytes (%), platelet count, red blood cell distribution width parameters collected at hospital admission were selected as important biomarkers for death prediction using random forest feature selection technique. A CBC score was devised for calculating the death probability of the patients and was used to categorize the patients into three sub-risk groups: low (<=5%), moderate (>5% and <=50%), and high (>50%), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of the model for the development and internal validation cohort were 0.961 and 0.88, respectively. The proposed model was further validated with an external cohort of 103 patients of Dhaka Medical College, Bangladesh, which exhibits in an AUC of 0.963. The proposed CBC parameter-based prognostic model and the associated web-application, can help the medical doctors to improve the management by early prediction of mortality risk of the COVID-19 patients in the low-resource countries.

Nutritional Risk Screening and Body Composition in COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized in an Internal Medicine Ward

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition in patients hospitalized in internal medicine wards is highly prevalent and represents a prognostic factor of worse outcomes. Previous evidence suggested the prognostic role of the nutritional status in patients affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aim to investigate the nutritional risk in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in an internal medicine ward and their clinical outcomes using the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) and parameters derived from bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with COVID-19 aimed at exploring: 1) the prevalence of nutritional risk with NRS-2002 and BIA; 2) the relationship between NRS-2002, BIA parameters and selected outcomes: length of hospital stay (LOS); death and need of intensive care unit (ICU); prolonged LOS; and loss of appetite.

RESULTS

Data of 90 patients were analyzed. Patients at nutritional risk were 92% with NRS-2002, with BIA-derived parameters: 88% by phase angle; 86% by body cell mass; 84% by fat-free mass and 84% by fat mass (p-value ≤0.001). In ROC analysis, NRS had the maximum sensitivity in predicting the risk of death and need of ICU and a prolonged hospitalization showing moderate-low specificity; phase angle showed a good predictive power in terms of AUC. NRS-2002 was significantly associated with LOS (β 12.62, SE 5.79). In a multivariate analysis, blood glucose level and the early warning score are independent predictors of death and need of ICU (OR 2.79, p ≤0.001; 1.59, p-0.029, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Present findings confirm the clinical utility of NRS-2002 to assess nutritional risk in patients with COVID-19 at hospital admission and in predicting LOS, and that bioimpedance does not seem to add further predictive value. An early detection of nutritional risk has to be systematically included in the management of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in internal medicine wards.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE

To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease.

DESIGN

Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model.

DATA EXTRACTION

At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool).

RESULTS

37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models.

CONCLUSION

Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245.

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.