Abstract
Background Sepsis severity scores are used in clinical practice and trials to define risk groups. There are limited data to derive hospital-based sepsis severity scores for neonates and young infants in high-burden low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings where trials are urgently required. We aimed to create linked sepsis severity and recovery scores applicable to hospitalized neonates and young infants in LMIC which could be used to inform antibiotic trials.
Methods & Findings A prospective observational cohort study was conducted across 19 hospitals in 11 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe. Infants aged <60 days with clinical sepsis fulfilling at least two clinical or laboratory criteria (≥1 clinical) were enrolled. Primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Two prediction models were developed for 1) 28-day mortality from factors at sepsis presentation (baseline NeoSep Severity Score), and 2) daily risk of death on IV antibiotics from daily updated assessments (NeoSep Recovery Score). Multivariable Cox regression models included a randomly selected 85% of infants, with 15% for validation.
3204 infants were enrolled between 2018-2020. Median age was 5 days (IQR 2-15), 90.4% (n=2,895) were <28 days. Median birth weight was 2500g (1400-3000g), and a median of 4 clinical (IQR 2-5) and 1 laboratory (0-2) signs were present. Overall mortality was 11.3% (95%CI 10.2-12.5%; n=350). A baseline NeoSep Severity Score from infants characteristics, respiratory support, and clinical signs (no laboratory tests) at presentation had a C-index 0.77 (95%CI: 0.75-0.80) and 0.76 (0.69-0.82) in derivation and validation samples, respectively. Mortality in the validation sample was 1.6% (3/189; 95%CI: 0.5-4.6%), 11.0% (27/245; 7.7-15.6%), and 27.3% (12/44; 16.3-41.8%) in low (score 0-4), medium (5-8) and high (9-16) risk groups, respectively, with similar performance across subgroups.
A related NeoSep Recovery Score based on evolving post-baseline clinical signs and supportive care discriminated well between infants who died or survived the following day or subsequent few days. The area under the ROC curve for score on day 2 and death in the following 5 days was 0.82 (95%CI 0.78-0.85) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.78-0.93) in the derivation and validation data, respectively.
Conclusion The baseline NeoSep Severity Score predicted 28-day mortality and could identify infants with high risk of mortality for inclusion in hospital-based sepsis trials. The NeoSep Recovery Score predicts day-by-day inpatient mortality and could, with further validation, help to identify poor response to antibiotics.
Why was this study done?
➣ Evidence to guide hospital-based antibiotic treatment of sepsis in neonates and young infants is scarce, and clinical trials are particularly urgent in low- and middle-income (LMIC) settings where antimicrobial resistance threatens to undermine existing guidelines
➣ There is limited data to inform the design of antibiotic trials in LMIC settings, particularly to define risk stratification and inclusion and escalation criteria in hospitalised neonates and young infants
What did the researchers do and find?
➣ To our knowledge this is the first global, prospective, hospital-based observational study of clinically diagnosed neonatal sepsis across 4 continents including LMIC settings, with extensive daily data collection on clinical status, antibiotic use and outcomes.
➣ There was a high mortality among infants with sepsis in LMIC hospital settings. 4 non-modifiable and 6 modifiable factors predicted mortality and were included in a NeoSep Severity score which defines patterns of mortality risk at baseline
➣ A NeoSep Recovery Score including the same modifiable factors (with the addition of cyanosis) predicted mortality on the following day during the course of treatment.
What do these findings mean?
➣ The NeoSep Severity Score and NeoSep Recovery score are now informing inclusion and escalation criteria in the NeoSep1 antibiotic trial (ISRCTN48721236) which aims to identify novel first- and second-line empiric antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis
➣ The NeoSep Severity Score could be used to predict mortality at baseline in future studies of targeting resources in routine care. With further validation, the NeoSep Recovery Score could potentially be used to identify poor response to empiric antibiotic treatment
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP), made possible by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; German Federal Ministry of Health; Government of the Principality of Monaco; the Indian Council for Medical Research; Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport; South African Medical Research Council; UK Department of Health and Social Care (UK National Institute of Health Research and the Global Antimicrobial Resistance Innovation Fund GAMRIF); UK Medical research Council; Wellcome Trust. GARDP has also received core funding from the Leo Model Foundation; Luxembourg Ministry of Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid; Luxembourg Ministry of Health; Medecins Sans Frontieres; Swiss Federal Office of Public Health; UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (previously the UK Department for International Development).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from St. Georges, University of London (SGUL) Research Ethics Committee and sites local, central or national ethics committees and other relevant local bodies, where required.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-First authors, listed alphabetically
Data Availability
Requests for data should be adressed to GARDP
