Systematic evaluation and external validation of 22 prognostic models among hospitalised adults with COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

The number of proposed prognostic models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation.We independently externally validated the performance of candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at the time of admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictors in univariable analyses.We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities.Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors.

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of laboratory-based c-reactive protein as a triage test for active pulmonary tuberculosis.

INTRODUCTION: A highly sensitive triage test that captures most symptomatic patients at increased likelihood of having pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) would 'rule-out' lower-risk patients from expensive confirmatory testing. Although studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of a C-reactive protein (CRP) triage test for PTB in HIV+ patients, limited data are available from HIV- cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective case-control study, 765 serum samples were selected from FIND's biobank. Each sample had been collected from an adult presenting with respiratory symptomatology to district hospitals in South Africa and referral hospitals in Cambodia, Peru, Georgia and Vietnam between 2007-2017. Serum CRP measurements were obtained using a laboratory-based assay. CRP cutoff-points of ≥8mg/L and ≥10mg/L were predefined as a positive triage test result. The PTB reference standard was two contemporaneously collected sputum liquid culture results. RESULTS: CRP demonstrated an overall sensitivity for PTB of 79.8% (95%CI 75.5-83.5) and 77.7% (95%CI 73.4-81.6) for cutoff-points of 8mg/L and 10mg/L respectively. Specificity was 62.8% (95%CI 57.8-67.6%) and 66.6% (95%CI 61.1-70.7) respectively. Area-under-the-curve using Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was 0.77 (95%CI 0.74-0.81). Threshold analysis showed optimal CRP cutoff-points were higher in HIV+ than HIV- participants. An algorithm in which CRP triage was followed by confirmatory Xpert MTB/Rif testing achieved a sensitivity of 75.1% (95%CI 69.0-80.4%) whilst decreasing Xpert usage by 40.6%. DISCUSSION: CRP may not meet the challenge of a catch-all TB triage test. However, it shows promise in HIV+ individuals. Further research is required in a prospective study using point-of-care platforms to further evaluate its capabilities.

Where will it end? Pathways to care and catastrophic costs following negative TB evaluation in Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Catastrophic costs incurred by tuberculosis (TB) patients have received considerable attention, however little is known about costs and pathways to care after a negative TB evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 70 patients with a negative TB evaluation at four community health centres in rural and peri-urban Uganda. Patients were traced 9 months post-evaluation using contact information from TB registers. We collected information on healthcare visits and implemented locally-validated costing questionnaires to assess the financial impact of their symptoms post-evaluation. RESULTS: Of 70 participants, 57 (81%) were traced and 53 completed the survey. 31/53 (58%) surveyed participants returned to healthcare facilities post-evaluation, making a median of 2 visits each (interquartile range [IQR] 1-3). 11.3% (95%CI 4.3-23.0%) of surveyed patients and 16.1% (95%CI 5.5-33.7%) of those returning to healthcare facilities incurred catastrophic costs (i.e., spent >20% annual household income). Indirect costs related to lost work represented 80% (IQR 32-100%) of total participant costs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TB symptoms who experience financial catastrophe after negative TB evaluation may represent a larger absolute number of patients than those suffering from costs due to TB. They may not be captured by existing definitions of non-TB catastrophic health expenditure.

Treatment Outcomes in Adult Tuberculous Meningitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variation in the reported treatment outcomes for adult tuberculous meningitis (TBM). Data on survival and neurological disability by continent and HIV serostatus are scarce. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize treatment outcomes for adult TBM. Following a systematic literature search (MEDLINE and EMBASE), studies underwent duplicate screening by independent reviewers in 2 stages to assess eligibility for inclusion. Two independent reviewers extracted data from included studies. We employed a random effects model for all meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity by the I 2 statistic. RESULTS: We assessed 2197 records for eligibility; 39 primary research articles met our inclusion criteria, reporting on treatment outcomes for 5752 adults with TBM. The commonest reported outcome measure was 6-month mortality. Pooled 6-month mortality was 24% and showed significant heterogeneity (I 2 > 95%; P < .01). Mortality ranged from 2% to 67% in Asian studies and from 23% to 80% in Sub-Saharan African studies. Mortality was significantly worse in HIV-positive adults at 57% (95% CI, 48%-67%), compared with 16% (95% CI, 10%-24%) in HIV-negative adults (P < .01). Physical disability was reported in 32% (95% CI, 22%-43%) of adult TBM survivors. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies in all meta-analyses, with I 2 statistics consistently >50%. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality in adult TBM is high and varies considerably by continent and HIV status. The highest mortality is among HIV-positive adults in Sub-Saharan Africa. Standardized reporting of treatment outcomes will be essential to improve future data quality and increase potential for data sharing, meta-analyses, and facilitating multicenter tuberculosis research to improve outcomes.