PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Espinosa-Gonzalez, Ana
AU  - Prociuk, Denys
AU  - Fiorentino, Francesca
AU  - Ramtale, Christian
AU  - Mi, Ella
AU  - Mi, Emma
AU  - Glampson, Ben
AU  - Neves, Ana Luisa
AU  - Okusi, Cecilia
AU  - Hussain, Laiba
AU  - Macartney, Jack
AU  - Brown, Martina
AU  - Browne, Ben
AU  - Warren, Caroline
AU  - Chowla, Rachna
AU  - Heaversedge, Jonty
AU  - Greenhalgh, Trisha
AU  - de Lusignan, Simon
AU  - Mayer, Erik
AU  - Delaney, Brendan
TI  - Remote Covid Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies
AID  - 10.1101/2021.12.23.21268279
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.12.23.21268279
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/25/2021.12.23.21268279.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/25/2021.12.23.21268279.full
AB  - Background Accurate assessment of COVID-19 severity in the community is essential for best patient care and efficient use of services and requires a risk prediction score that is COVID-19 specific and adequately validated in a community setting. Following a qualitative phase to identify signs, symptoms and risk factors, we sought to develop and validate two COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores RECAP-GP (without peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)) and RECAP-O2 (with SpO2).Methods Prospective cohort study using multivariable logistic regression for model development. Data on signs and symptoms (model predictors) were collected on community-based patients with suspected COVID-19 via primary care electronic health records systems and linked with secondary data on hospital admission (primary outcome) within 28 days of symptom onset. Data sources: RECAP-GP: Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care practices (development), Northwest London (NWL) primary care practices, NHS COVID-19 Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS) (validation). RECAP-O2: Doctaly Assist platform (development, and validation in subsequent sample). Estimated sample size was 2,880 per model.Findings Data were available from 8,311 individuals. Observations, such SpO2, were mostly missing in NWL, RSC, and CCAS data; however, SpO2 was available for around 70% of Doctaly patients. In the final predictive models, RECAP-GP included sex, age, degree of breathlessness, temperature symptoms, and presence of hypertension (Area Under the Curve (AUC): 0.802, Validation Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of ‘low risk’ 98.8%. RECAP-O2 included age, degree of breathlessness, fatigue, and SpO2 at rest (AUC: 0.843), Validation NPV of ‘low risk’ 99.4%.Interpretation Both RECAP models are a valid tool in the assessment of COVID-19 patients in the community. RECAP-GP can be used initially, without need for observations, to identify patients who require monitoring. If the patient is monitored at home and SpO2 is available, RECAP-O2 is useful to assess the need for further treatment escalation.Evidence before the study This study was conceived during the first COVID-19 wave in the UK (March - April 2020), as members of the research team contributed to the development of national clinical guidelines for COVID-19 management in the community and to the Oxford COVID-19 rapid review to track signs and symptoms of COVID-19 internationally. The review was carried out according to Cochrane Collaboration standards for rapid reviews and identified systematic reviews and large-scale observational studies describing the signs and symptoms of COVID-19. Evidence gathered showed worsening of COVID-19 symptoms around the 7th day of disease and challenges in identifying patients with higher likelihood of severity to increase their monitoring. To this end, tools such NEWS2 have been used in the UK to assess COVID-19 patients in primary care, but they do not capture the characteristics of COVID-19 infection and/or are not suitable for community remote assessment. Several COVID-19 risk scores have been developed. QCOVID provides a risk of mortality considering patients’ existing risk factors but does not include acute signs and symptoms. ISARIC 4C Deterioration model has been specifically developed for hospital settings. In England, the NHS has implemented the Oximetry @home strategy to monitor patients with acute COVID-19 deemed at risk (older than 64 years old or with comorbidities) by providing pulse oximeters; however, the criteria for monitoring or for escalation of care have not been validated. There is, therefore, the need to develop a risk prediction score to establish COVID-19 patients’ risk of deterioration to be used in the community for both face to face or remote consultation.Added value of this study We developed and validated two COVID-19 specific risk prediction scores. One to be used in the initial remote assessment of patients with acute COVID-19 to assess need for monitoring (RECAP-GP). The second one to assess the need for further treatment escalation and includes peripheral saturation of oxygen among the model predictors (RECAP-O2). To our knowledge, this is the first COVID-19 specific risk prediction score to assess and monitor COVID-19 patients’ risk of deterioration remotely. This will be a valuable resource to complement the use of oximetry in the community clinical decision-making when assessing a patient with acute COVID-19.Implications of all available evidence To manage pandemic waves and their demand on healthcare, acute COVID-19 patients require close monitoring in the community and prompt escalation of their treatment. Guidance available so far relies on unvalidated tools and clinician judgement to assess deterioration. COVID-19 specific community-based risk prediction scores such as RECAP may contribute to reducing the uncertainty in the assessment and monitoring of COVID-19 patients, increase safety in clinical practice and improve outcomes by facilitating appropriate treatment escalation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://doi.org/10.2196/29072 https://doi.org/10.2196/30083 Funding StatementThe study is funded by the Community Jameel and the Imperial College Presidents Excellence Fund, the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/V010069/1), Health Data Research UK-Office of National Statistics Covid19 Awards. Infrastructure support from: the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. This research was in part enabled by the Imperial Clinical Analytics Research and Evaluation (iCARE) environment and Whole System Integrated Care (WSIC), and used the iCARE and WSIC team and data resources.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:The study was sponsored by Imperial College London and approved by the North West-Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority in May 2020 (IRAS number: 283024, Research Ethics Committee reference number: 20/NW/0266). The study was badged as an Urgent Public Health Study by the National Institute of Health Research in October 2020. The WSIC data analysis was undertaken within a research database that was given favorable ethics approval by the West Midlands Solihull Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/WM/0323; IRAS project ID 252449). All data used in this paper were fully anonymized before analysis. iCARE is a Trusted Research Environment and provides access to HRA REC approved anonymised data for research (REF 21/SW/0120, IRAS project ID: 282093) At Oxford, analysis was undertaken within the secure data processing platform of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) trusted research environment (TRE). (DIPA registration number: Z575783X, DARS number: DARS_NIC_431881_N8B0N, https://orchid.phc.ox.ac.uk/index.php/orchid-privacy-notices/). The access to Doctaly Assist data was granted under COPI notice (and CAG Resolution 5 after expiration of COPI notice in March 2022) and, therefore, patient consent was not required. However, patients could opt-out using the National Opt-Out register. 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.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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors