RESUMO
BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is frequently associated with COVID-19 and the need for kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is considered an indicator of disease severity. This study aimed to develop a prognostic score for predicting the need for KRT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. MethodsThis study is part of the multicentre cohort, the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry. A total of 5,212 adult COVID-19 patients were included between March/2020 and September/2020. We evaluated four categories of predictor variables: (1) demographic data; (2) comorbidities and conditions at admission; (3) laboratory exams within 24 h; and (4) the need for mechanical ventilation at any time during hospitalization. Variable selection was performed using generalized additive models (GAM) and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used for score derivation. The accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Risk groups were proposed based on predicted probabilities: non-high (up to 14.9%), high (15.0 - 49.9%), and very high risk ([≥] 50.0%). ResultsThe median age of the model-derivation cohort was 59 (IQR 47-70) years, 54.5% were men, 34.3% required ICU admission, 20.9% evolved with AKI, 9.3% required KRT, and 15.1% died during hospitalization. The validation cohort had similar age, sex, ICU admission, AKI, required KRT distribution and in-hospital mortality. Thirty-two variables were tested and four important predictors of the need for KRT during hospitalization were identified using GAM: need for mechanical ventilation, male gender, higher creatinine at admission, and diabetes. The MMCD score had excellent discrimination in derivation (AUROC = 0.929; 95% CI 0.918-0.939) and validation (AUROC = 0.927; 95% CI 0.911-0.941) cohorts an good overall performance in both cohorts (Brier score: 0.057 and 0.056, respectively). The score is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://www.mmcdscore.com/). ConclusionThe use of the MMCD score to predict the need for KRT may assist healthcare workers in identifying hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may require more intensive monitoring, and can be useful for resource allocation.
RESUMO
BackgroundIt is not clear whether previous thyroid diseases influence the course and outcomes of COVID-19. The study aims to compare clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without hypothyroidism. MethodsThe study is a part of a multicentric cohort of patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, including data collected from 37 hospitals. Matching for age, sex, number of comorbidities and hospital was performed to select the patients without hypothyroidism for the paired analysis. ResultsFrom 7,762 COVID-19 patients, 526 had previously diagnosed hypothyroidism (50%) and 526 were selected as matched controls. The median age was 70 (interquartile range 59.0-80.0) years-old and 68.3% were females. The prevalence of underlying comorbidities were similar between groups, except for coronary and chronic kidney diseases, that had a higher prevalence in the hypothyroidism group (9.7% vs. 5.7%, p=0.015 and 9.9% vs. 4.8%, p=0.001, respectively). At hospital presentation, patients with hypothyroidism had a lower frequency of respiratory rate > 24 breaths per minute (36.1% vs 42.0%; p=0.050) and need of mechanical ventilation (4.0% vs 7.4%; p=0.016). D-dimer levels were slightly lower in hypothyroid patients (2.3 times higher than the reference value vs 2.9 times higher; p=0.037). In-hospital management was similar between groups, but hospital length-of-stay (8 vs 9 days; p=0.029) and mechanical ventilation requirement (25.4% vs. 33.1%; p=0.006) were lower for patients with hypothyroidism. There was a trend of lower in-hospital mortality in patients with hypothyroidism (22.1% vs. 27.0%; p=0.062). ConclusionIn this large Brazilian COVID-19 Registry, patients with hypothyroidism had a lower requirement of mechanical ventilation, and showed a trend of lower in-hospital mortality. Therefore, hypothyroidism does not seem to be associated with a worse prognosis, and should not be considered among the comorbidities that indicate a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.
RESUMO
ObjectiveTo provide a thorough comparative study among state-of-the-art machine learning methods and statistical methods for determining in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients using data upon hospital admission; to study the reliability of the predictions of the most effective methods by correlating the probability of the outcome and the accuracy of the methods; to investigate how explainable are the predictions produced by the most effective methods. Materials and MethodsDe-identified data were obtained from COVID-19 positive patients in 36 participating hospitals, from March 1 to September 30, 2020. Demographic, comorbidity, clinical presentation and laboratory data were used as training data to develop COVID-19 mortality prediction models. Multiple machine learning and traditional statistics models were trained on this prediction task using a folded cross-validation procedure, from which we assessed performance and interpretability metrics. ResultsThe Stacking of machine learning models improved over the previous state-of-the-art results by more than 26% in predicting the class of interest (death), achieving 87.1% of AUROC and macro F1 of 73.9%. We also show that some machine learning models can be very interpretable and reliable, yielding more accurate predictions while providing a good explanation for the why. ConclusionThe best results were obtained using the meta-learning ensemble model - Stacking. State-of the art explainability techniques such as SHAP-values can be used to draw useful insights into the patterns learned by machine-learning algorithms. Machine-learning models can be more explainable than traditional statistics models while also yielding highly reliable predictions.