Abstract
Purpose The sudden outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the medical community needs an accurate and interpretable aggregated score not only for an outcome prediction but also for a daily patient’s condition assessment. Due to a continuously changing pandemic landscape, robustness becomes a crucial additional requirement for the score.
Patients and methods In this research, real-world data collected within the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic was used. The first wave data (1349 cases collected from 27.04.2020 to 03.08.2020) was used as a training set for the score development, while the second wave data (1453 cases collected from 01.11.2020 to 19.01.2021) was used as a validating set. For all the available patients’ features we tested their association with an outcome using robust linear regression. Statistically significant features were taken to the further analysis for each of which their partial sensitivity, specificity and promptness were estimated. The sensitivity and the specificity were further combined into a feature informativeness index.
Results The developed score was derived as a weighted sum of the following 9 features showed the best trade-off between informativeness and promptness: APTT (> 42 sec, 4 points), CRP (> 146 mg/L, 3 points), D-dimer (> 2149 mkg/L, 4 points), Glucose (> 9 mmol/L, 4 points), Hemoglobin (< 115 g/L, 3 points), Lymphocytes (< 0,7*10^9/L, 3 points), Total protein (< 61 g/L, 6 points), Urea (> 11 mmol/L, 5 points) and WBC (> 13,5*10^9/L, 4 points). Thus, the proposed score ranges between 0 and 36 points. Internal and temporal validation showed that sensitivity and specificity over 90% may be achieved with an expected prediction range >7 days. Moreover, we demonstrated a high robustness of the score to the varying peculiarities of the pandemic. For the additional simplicity of application we split the full range of the score into five grades delimited with 9, 14, 19 and 24 points which determine expected death:discharge odds 1:100, 1:25, 1:5 and 1:1 correspondingly.
Conclusions An extensive application of the score within the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic showed its potential for the optimization of patients management as well as improvement of medical staff attentiveness during high workload stress. The transparent structure of the score, as well as tractable cut-off bounds, simplified its implementation into clinical practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding.
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:
IRB decision: The study protocol was approved by the biomedical ethics committee of I.P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University. IRB members: Edwin E. Zvartau, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, Valdman Institute of Pharmacology, head of IRB Vasiliy I. Trofimov, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, deputy head of IRB Marina V. Cherevkova, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, executive secretary Boris V. Afanasiev, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Svetlana V. Alimovna, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Tatiana N. Ketova, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Natalia V. Egorova, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Ashot M. Esayan, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Sergey M. Lazarev, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Alexey Y. Malikov, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Tatyana G. Medvedeva, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Yana I. Startseva, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Andrey Y. Cibin, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member Yulia V. Emanuel, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, committee member
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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
The datasets analysed in this study are available from First Pavlov State Medical University officials on reasonable request.
