RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Relevance of prediction scores derived from the SARS-CoV-2 first wave, in the UK COVID-19 second wave, for early discharge, severity and mortality: a PREDICT COVID UK prospective observational cohort study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.09.21258602
DO 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258602
A1 Hakim Ghani
A1 Alessio Navarra
A1 Phyoe K Pyae
A1 Harry Mitchell
A1 William Evans
A1 Rigers Cama
A1 Michael Shaw
A1 Ben Critchlow
A1 Tejal Vaghela
A1 Miriam Schechter
A1 Nazril Nordin
A1 Andrew Barlow
A1 Rama Vancheeswaran
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/09/2021.06.09.21258602.abstract
AB Objective Prospectively validate two prognostic scores, pre-hospitalisation (SOARS) and hospitalised mortality prediction (4C Mortality Score), derived from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first wave, in the evolving second wave with prevalent B.1.1.7 and parent D614 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, in two large United Kingdom (UK) cohorts.Design Prospective observational cohort study of SOARS and 4C Mortality Score in PREDICT (single site) and multi-site ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium) cohorts.Setting Protocol-based data collection in UK COVID-19 second wave, between October 2020 and January 2021, from PREDICT and ISARIC cohorts.Participants 1383 from single site PREDICT cohort and 20,595 from multi-site ISARIC cohort.Main outcome measures Relevance of SOARS and 4C Mortality Score derived from the COVID-19 first wave, determining in-hospital mortality and safe discharge in the UK COVID-19 second wave.Results Data from 1383 patients (median age 67y, IQR 52-82; mortality 24.7%) in the PREDICT and 20,595 patients from the ISARIC (mortality 19.4%) cohorts showed both SOARS and 4C Mortality Score remained relevant despite the B.1.1.7 variant and treatment advances. SOARS had AUC of 0.8 and 0.74, while 4C Mortality Score had an AUC of 0.83 and 0.91 for hospital mortality, in the PREDICT and ISARIC cohorts respectively, therefore effective in evaluating both safe discharge and in-hospital mortality. 19.3% (231/1195, PREDICT cohort) and 16.7% (2550/14992, ISARIC cohort) with a SOARS of 0-1 were potential candidates for home discharge to a virtual hospital (VH) model. SOARS score implementation resulted in low re-admission rates, 11.8% (27/229), and low mortality, 0.9% (2/229), in the VH pathway. Use is still suboptimal to prevent admission, as 8.1% in the PREDICT cohort and 9.5% in the ISARIC cohort were admitted despite SOARS score of 0-1.Conclusion SOARS and 4C Mortality Score remains valid, providing accurate prognostication despite evolving viral subtype and treatment advances, which have altered mortality. Both scores are easily implemented within urgent care pathways with a scope for admission avoidance. They remain safe and relevant to their purpose, transforming complex clinical presentations into tangible numbers, aiding objective decision making.Trial registration NHS HRA registration and REC approval (20/HRA/2344, IRAS ID 283888).Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNHS HRA registration and REC approval (20/HRA/2344, IRAS ID 283888)Funding StatementThe authors have not received any grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was provided by Stanmore Research Ethics Committee, London, England (IRAS ID: 283888). The study is registered by the National Health Service Health Research Authority under the reference 20/HRA/2344.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData are available upon reasonable request. Deidentified participant data may be requested from the corresponding author following publication of the study.