Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
IRIS
Background: Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions. Methods: 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) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal–external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London). Findings: 74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal–external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [–0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model. Interpretation: The 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.
Development and validation of the ISARIC 4C Deterioration model for adults hospitalised with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study
Gupta R. K.;Harrison E. M.;Ho A.;Docherty A. B.;Knight S. R.;van Smeden M.;Abubakar I.;Lipman M.;Quartagno M.;Pius R.;Buchan I.;Carson G.;Drake T. M.;Dunning J.;Fairfield C. J.;Gamble C.;Green C. A.;Halpin S.;Hardwick H. E.;Holden K. A.;Horby P. W.;Jackson C.;Mclean K. A.;Merson L.;Nguyen-Van-Tam J. S.;Norman L.;Olliaro P. L.;Pritchard M. G.;Russell C. D.;Scott-Brown J.;Shaw C. A.;Sheikh A.;Solomon T.;Sudlow C.;Swann O. V.;Turtle L.;Openshaw P. J. M.;Baillie J. K.;Semple M. G.;Noursadeghi M.;Openshaw P. J.;Alex B.;Bach B.;Barclay W. S.;Bogaert D.;Chand M.;Cooke G. S.;Filipe A. D. S.;Fletcher T.;Hiscox J. A.;Ho A. Y. W.;Ijaz S.;Khoo S.;Klenerman P.;Law A.;Lim W. S.;Mentzer A. J.;Meynert A. M.;Moore S. C.;Palmarini M.;Paxton W. A.;Pollakis G.;Price N.;Rambaut A.;Robertson D. L.;Sancho-Shimizu V.;Scott J. T.;de Silva T.;Sigfrid L.;Sriskandan S.;Stuart D.;Summers C.;Tedder R. S.;Thomson E. C.;Thompson A. R.;Thwaites R. S.;Zambon M.;Hardwick H.;Donohue C.;Lyons R.;Griffiths F.;Oosthuyzen W.;Drake T. M.;Knight S.;Murphy D.;Dalton J.;Lee J.;Plotkin D.;Girvan M.;Mullaney S.;Petersen C.;Saviciute E.;Roberts S.;Harrison J.;Marsh L.;Connor M.;Leeming G.;Wham M.;Clohisey S.;Hendry R.;Greenhalf W.;Shaw V.;McDonald S.;Keating S.;Ahmed K. A.;Armstrong J. A.;Ashworth M.;Asiimwe I. G.;Bakshi S.;Barlow S. L.;Booth L.;Brennan B.;Bullock K.;Catterall B. W.;Clark J. J.;Clarke E. A.;Cole S.;Cooper L.;Cox H.;Davis C.;Dincarslan O.;Dunn C.;Dyer P.;Elliott A.;Evans A.;Finch L.;Fisher L. W.;Foster T.;Garcia-Dorival I.;Greenhalf W.;Gunning P.;Hartley C.;Jensen R. L.;Jones C. B.;Jones T. R.;Khandaker S.;King K.;Kiy R. T.;Koukorava C.;Lake A.;Lant S.;Latawiec D.;Lavelle-Langham L.;Lefteri D.;Lett L.;Livoti L. A.;Mancini M.;McEvoy L.;McLauchlan J.;Metelmann S.;Miah N. S.;Middleton J.;Mitchell J.;Murphy E. G.;Penrice-Randal R.;Pilgrim J.;Prince T.;Reynolds W.;Ridley P. M.;Sales D.;Shaw V. E.;Shears R. K.;Small B.;Subramaniam K. S.;Szemiel A.;Taggart A.;Tanianis-Hughes J.;Thomas J.;Trochu E.;van Tonder L.;Wilcock E.;Zhang J. E.;Adeniji K.;Agranoff D.;Agwuh K.;Ail D.;Alegria A.;Angus B.;Ashish A.;Atkinson D.;Bari S.;Barlow G.;Barnass S.;Barrett N.;Bassford C.;Baxter D.;Beadsworth M.;Bernatoniene J.;Berridge J.;Best N.;Bothma P.;Brealey D.;Brittain-Long R.;Bulteel N.;Burden T.;Burtenshaw A.;Caruth V.;Chadwick D.;Chambler D.;Chee N.;Child J.;Chukkambotla S.;Clark T.;Collini P.;Cosgrove C.;Cupitt J.;Cutino-Moguel M. -T.;Dark P.;Dawson C.;Dervisevic S.;Donnison P.;Douthwaite S.;DuRand I.;Dushianthan A.;Dyer T.;Evans C.;Eziefula C.;Fegan C.;Finn A.;Fullerton D.;Garg S.;Garg A.;Gkrania-Klotsas E.;Godden J.;Goldsmith A.;Graham C.;Hardy E.;Hartshorn S.;Harvey D.;Havalda P.;Hawcutt D. B.;Hobrok M.;Hodgson L.;Hormis A.;Jacobs M.;Jain S.;Jennings P.;Kaliappan A.;Kasipandian V.;Kegg S.;Kelsey M.;Kendall J.;Kerrison C.;Kerslake I.;Koch O.;Koduri G.;Koshy G.;Laha S.;Laird S.;Larkin S.;Leiner T.;Lillie P.;Limb J.;Linnett V.;Little J.;MacMahon M.;MacNaughton E.;Mankregod R.;Masson H.;Matovu E.;McCullough K.;McEwen R.;Meda M.;Mills G.;Minton J.;Mirfenderesky M.;Mohandas K.;Mok Q.;Moon J.;Moore E.;Morgan P.;Morris C.;Mortimore K.;Moses S.;Mpenge M.;Mulla R.;Murphy M.;Nagel M.;Nagarajan T.;Nelson M.;Otahal I.;Pais M.;Panchatsharam S.;Paraiso H.;Patel B.;Pattison N.;Pepperell J.;Peters M.;Phull M.;Pintus S.;Pooni J. S.;Post F.;Price D.;Prout R.;Rae N.;Reschreiter H.;Reynolds T.;Richardson N.;Roberts M.;Roberts D.;Rose A.;Rousseau G.;Ryan B.;Saluja T.;Shah A.;Shanmuga P.;Sharma A.;Shawcross A.;Sizer J.;Shankar-Hari M.;Smith R.;Snelson C.;Spittle N.;Staines N.;Stambach T.;Stewart R.;Subudhi P.;Szakmany T.;Tatham K.;Thomas J.;Thompson C.;Thompson R.;Tridente A.;Tupper-Carey D.;Twagira M.;Ustianowski A.;Vallotton N.;Vincent-Smith L.;Visuvanathan S.;Vuylsteke A.;Waddy S.;Wake R.;Walden A.;Welters I.;Whitehouse T.;Whittaker P.;Whittington A.;Wijesinghe M.;Williams M.;Wilson L.;Wilson S.;Winchester S.;Wiselka M.;Wolverson A.;Wooton D. G.;Workman A.;Yates B.;Young P.
2021-01-01
Abstract
Background: Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions. Methods: 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) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal–external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London). Findings: 74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal–external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [–0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model. Interpretation: The 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11571/1468780
Citazioni
93
147
138
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.