Development and validation of the 4C Deterioration model for adults hospitalised with COVID-19

Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 are required to inform clinical management decisions. Among 75,016 consecutive adults across England, Scotland and Wales prospectively recruited to the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study, we developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) using 11 routinely measured variables. We used internal-external cross-validation to show consistent measures of discrimination, calibration and clinical utility across eight geographical regions. We further validated the final model in held-out data from 8,252 individuals in London, with similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0.77 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.78); calibration-in-the-large 0.01 (-0.04 to 0.06); calibration slope 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02)). Importantly, this model demonstrated higher net benefit than using other candidate scores to inform decision-making. Our 4C Deterioration model thus demonstrates unprecedented clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.

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

BackgroundThe number of proposed prognostic models for COVID-19, which aim to predict disease outcomes, is growing rapidly. It is not known whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation. We addressed this question by independent and systematic evaluation of their performance among hospitalised COVID-19 cases. MethodsWe conducted an observational cohort study to assess candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review. We included consecutive adults admitted to a secondary care hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed community-acquired COVID-19 (1st February to 30th April 2020). We reconstructed candidate models as per their original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes (clinical deterioration or mortality) and time horizons. We assessed discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and calibration using calibration plots, slopes and calibration-in-the-large. We calculated net benefit compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictor in univariable analyses, based on a limited subset of a priori candidates. ResultsWe tested 22 candidate prognostic models among a cohort of 411 participants, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. The highest AUROCs were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 hours (0.78; 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78; 0.74-0.82). Calibration appeared generally poor for models that used probability outcomes. In univariable analyses, admission oxygen saturation on room air was the strongest predictor of in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76; 0.71-0.81), while age was the strongest predictor of in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76; 0.71-0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than using the most discriminating univariable predictors to stratify treatment, across a range of threshold probabilities. ConclusionsOxygen 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 offer incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors.