Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1328.full.pdf

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

Background and purpose The objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that may be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19. Data sources We conducted highly sensitive searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 28, 2020. No study design, publication status or language restriction were applied. Study selection and data extraction We included studies that assessed patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease and examined one or more prognostic factors for mortality or disease severity. Reviewers working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome. Results We included 207 studies and found high or moderate certainty that the following 49 variables provide valuable prognostic information on mortality and/or severe disease in patients with COVID-19 infectious disease: Demographic factors (age, male sex, smoking), patient history factors (comorbidities, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, cardiac arrhythmia, arterial hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer and dyslipidemia), physical examination factors (respiratory failure, low blood pressure, hypoxemia, tachycardia, dyspnea, anorexia, tachypnea, haemoptysis, abdominal pain, fatigue, fever and myalgia or arthralgia), laboratory factors (high blood procalcitonin, myocardial injury markers, high blood White Blood Cell count (WBC), high blood lactate, low blood platelet count, plasma creatinine increase, high blood D-dimer, high blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), high blood C-reactive protein (CRP), decrease in lymphocyte count, high blood aspartate aminotransferase (AST), decrease in blood albumin, high blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), high blood neutrophil count, high blood B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), high blood urea nitrogen (BUN), high blood creatine kinase (CK), high blood bilirubin and high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)), radiological factors (consolidative infiltrate and pleural effusion) and high SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score). Conclusion Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. Systematic review registration Prospero registration number: CRD42020178802. Protocol available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20056598v1.

/pdf/prognostic-factors-for-severity-and-mortality-in-patients-51qki2kccw.pdf

Prognostic Factors for Severity and Mortality in Patients Infected with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), an infectious epidemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, as Pandemic in March 2020. It has affected more than 40 million people in 216 countries. Almost in all the affected countries, the number of infected and deceased patients has been enhancing at a distressing rate. As the early prediction can reduce the spread of the virus, it is highly desirable to have intelligent prediction and diagnosis tools. The inculcation of efficient forecasting and prediction models may assist the government in implementing better design strategies to prevent the spread of virus. In this paper, a state-of-the-art analysis of the ongoing machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) methods in the diagnosis and prediction of COVID-19 has been done. Moreover, a comparative analysis on the impact of machine learning and other competitive approaches like mathematical and statistical models on COVID-19 problem has been conducted. In this study, some factors such as type of methods(machine learning, deep learning, statistical & mathematical) and the impact of COVID research on the nature of data used for the forecasting and prediction of pandemic using computing approaches has been presented. Finally some important research directions for further research on COVID-19 are highlighted which may facilitate the researchers and technocrats to develop competent intelligent models for the prediction and forecasting of COVID-19 real time data.

Role of intelligent computing in COVID-19 prognosis: A state-of-the-art review.

Background The number of proposed prognostic models for COVID-19 is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation. Methods We independently externally validated the performance candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictor in univariable analyses. Results We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78; 95% CI 0.73–0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration Conclusions Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors.

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/56/6/2003498.full.pdf

Systematic evaluation and external validation of 22 prognostic models among hospitalised adults with COVID-19: An observational cohort study

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, has been spreading globally. We aimed to develop a clinical model to predict the outcome of patients with severe COVID-19 infection early. Methods Demographic, clinical and first laboratory findings after admission of 183 patients with severe COVID-19 infection (115 survivors and 68 non-survivors from the Sino-French New City Branch of Tongji Hospital, Wuhan) were used to develop the predictive models. Machine learning approaches were used to select the features and predict the patients' outcomes. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was applied to compare the models' performance. A total of 64 with severe COVID-19 infection from the Optical Valley Branch of Tongji Hospital, Wuhan, were used to externally validate the final predictive model. Results The baseline characteristics and laboratory tests were significantly different between the survivors and non-survivors. Four variables (age, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level, lymphocyte count and d-dimer level) were selected by all five models. Given the similar performance among the models, the logistic regression model was selected as the final predictive model because of its simplicity and interpretability. The AUROCs of the external validation sets were 0.881. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.839 and 0.794 for the validation set, when using a probability of death of 50% as the cutoff. Risk score based on the selected variables can be used to assess the mortality risk. The predictive model is available at [https://phenomics.fudan.edu.cn/risk_scores/]. Conclusions Age, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level, lymphocyte count and d-dimer level of COVID-19 patients at admission are informative for the patients' outcomes.

/pdf/early-prediction-of-mortality-risk-among-patients-with-1xysm2qu29.pdf

Early prediction of mortality risk among patients with severe COVID-19, using machine learning.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been spreading globally. The number of deaths has increased with the increase in the number of infected patients. We aimed to develop a clinical model to predict the outcome of severe COVID-19 patients early. Methods Epidemiological, clinical, and first laboratory findings after admission of 183 severe COVID-19 patients (115 survivors and 68 nonsurvivors) from the Sino-French New City Branch of Tongji Hospital were used to develop the predictive models. Five machine learning approaches (logistic regression, partial least squares regression, elastic net, random forest, and bagged flexible discriminant analysis) were used to select the features and predict the patients’ outcomes. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was applied to compare the models’ performance. Sixty-four severe COVID-19 patients from the Optical Valley Branch of Tongji Hospital were used to externally validate the final predictive model. Results The baseline characteristics and laboratory tests were significantly different between the survivors and nonsurvivors. Four variables (age, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level, lymphocyte count, and d-dimer level) were selected by all five models. Given the similar performance among the models, the logistic regression model was selected as the final predictive model because of its simplicity and interpretability. The AUROCs of the derivation and external validation sets were 0.895 and 0.881, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.892 and 0.687 for the derivation set and 0.839 and 0.794 for the validation set, respectively, when using a probability of death of 50% as the cutoff. The individual risk score based on the four selected variables and the corresponding probability of death can serve as indexes to assess the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients. The predictive model is freely available at https://phenomics.fudan.edu.cn/risk_scores/. Conclusions Age, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level, lymphocyte count, and d-dimer level of COVID-19 patients at admission are informative for the patients’ outcomes.

https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.13.20064329v1.full.pdf

Xuejin Tao

Papers

Early prediction of mortality risk among patients with severe COVID-19, using machine learning.

Early prediction of mortality risk among severe COVID-19 patients using machine learning