Abstract
Background Direct comparisons of sepsis screening tools for prognostication have largely been limited to single-centre or high-income countries despite a disproportionately high burden of sepsis in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We evaluated the performance of commonly used sepsis screening tools across prospective sepsis cohorts in the United States, Cambodia, and Ghana.
Methods From 2014 to 2021, participants with 2 or more SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) criteria and suspected infection were enrolled in emergency departments and medical wards at hospitals in the Cambodia and Ghana and hospitalized participants with suspected infection were enrolled in the United States. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed, and Harrell’s C-statistic calculated to determine 28-day mortality prediction performance of the qSOFA score ≥2, SIRS score ≥3, NEWS ≥5, MEWS ≥5, or UVA score ≥2, Screening tools were compared to baseline risk (age and sex) with the Wald test.
Results The cohorts included 567 participants (42.9% female) including 187 participants from Kumasi, Ghana, 200 participants from Takeo, Cambodia, and 180 participants from Durham, North Carolina in the United States. The pooled mortality was 16.4% at 28-days. The mortality prediction accuracy increased from baseline risk with the MEWS (C-statistic: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.68; p=0.002), NEWS (C-statistic: 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 0.73; p<0.001), qSOFA (C-statistic: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.75; p<0.001), UVA score (C-statistic: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.78; p<0.001), but not with SIRS (0.60; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.65; p=0.13). Within individual cohorts, only the UVA score in Ghana performed better than baseline risk (C-statistic: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.83; p<0.001).
Conclusions Among the cohorts, MEWS, NEWS, qSOFA, and UVA scores performed better than baseline risk, largely driven by accuracy improvements in Ghana, while SIRS scores did not improve prognostication accuracy. Prognostication scores should be validated within the target population prior to clinical use.
Key questions What is already known on this topic – While single-centre cohorts and retrospective analyses have been performed, the optimal sepsis screening tool for prognostication in low- and middle-income countries is unknown.
What this study adds – The MEWS, NEWS, qSOFA scores, but not SIRS, were additive over baseline risk for prognostication in prospective hospitalized infection cohorts, but with variable additive performance within each cohort.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy - Prognostication scores should be validated within the target population prior to clinical use.
Competing Interest Statement
ELT has held equity and consulted for Predigen and Biomeme, and he is an employee of Danaher Diagnostics.
Funding Statement
Funding: Defense Threat Reduction Agency (JSTO-CBA) to Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC) (HDTRA1516108), Defense Health Bureau of Medicine & Surgery to NMRC for Combating Antibiotic Resistance Bacteria (FY1819 0130.1832), Naval Medical Logistics Command Cooperative Agreement (N626451920001).
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:
Study protocols were approved by the Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Cambodia sepsis study # NMRC.2013.0019; Ghana sepsis study # NMRC.2016.0004-GHA; Duke sepsis study Duke#PRO00054849) in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects as well as host country IRBs. The study protocol in Cambodia was approved by the Cambodian National Ethics Committee for Health Research (NECHR). The protocol in Ghana was approved by the Committee on Human Research, Publication and Ethics (CHRPE) at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association. All patients, or their legally authorized representatives, provided written informed consent.
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
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
