An External Validation of the QCovid Risk Prediction Algorithm for Risk of Mortality from COVID-19 in Adults: National Validation Cohort Study in Scotland

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Simpson ◽  
Chris Robertson ◽  
Steven Kerr ◽  
Ting Shi ◽  
Eleftheria Vasileiou ◽  
...  
BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m3731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ash K Clift ◽  
Carol A C Coupland ◽  
Ruth H Keogh ◽  
Karla Diaz-Ordaz ◽  
Elizabeth Williamson ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To derive and validate a risk prediction algorithm to estimate hospital admission and mortality outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in adults. Design Population based cohort study. Setting and participants QResearch database, comprising 1205 general practices in England with linkage to covid-19 test results, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. 6.08 million adults aged 19-100 years were included in the derivation dataset and 2.17 million in the validation dataset. The derivation and first validation cohort period was 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. The second temporal validation cohort covered the period 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was time to death from covid-19, defined as death due to confirmed or suspected covid-19 as per the death certification or death occurring in a person with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the period 24 January to 30 April 2020. The secondary outcome was time to hospital admission with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance, including measures of discrimination and calibration, was evaluated in each validation time period. Results 4384 deaths from covid-19 occurred in the derivation cohort during follow-up and 1722 in the first validation cohort period and 621 in the second validation cohort period. The final risk algorithms included age, ethnicity, deprivation, body mass index, and a range of comorbidities. The algorithm had good calibration in the first validation cohort. For deaths from covid-19 in men, it explained 73.1% (95% confidence interval 71.9% to 74.3%) of the variation in time to death (R 2 ); the D statistic was 3.37 (95% confidence interval 3.27 to 3.47), and Harrell’s C was 0.928 (0.919 to 0.938). Similar results were obtained for women, for both outcomes, and in both time periods. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths within 97 days was 75.7%. People in the top 20% of predicted risk of death accounted for 94% of all deaths from covid-19. Conclusion The QCOVID population based risk algorithm performed well, showing very high levels of discrimination for deaths and hospital admissions due to covid-19. The absolute risks presented, however, will change over time in line with the prevailing SARS-C0V-2 infection rate and the extent of social distancing measures in place, so they should be interpreted with caution. The model can be recalibrated for different time periods, however, and has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e044028
Author(s):  
Jin Mei ◽  
Weihua Hu ◽  
Qijian Chen ◽  
Chang Li ◽  
Zaishu Chen ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and externally validate a COVID-19 mortality risk prediction algorithm.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingFive designated tertiary hospitals for COVID-19 in Hubei province, China.ParticipantsWe routinely collected medical data of 1364 confirmed adult patients with COVID-19 between 8 January and 19 March 2020. Among them, 1088 patients from two designated hospitals in Wuhan were used to develop the prognostic model, and 276 patients from three hospitals outside Wuhan were used for external validation. All patients were followed up for a maximal of 60 days after the diagnosis of COVID-19.MethodsThe model discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Somers’ D test, and calibration was examined by the calibration plot. Decision curve analysis was conducted.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 60 days after the diagnosis of COVID-19.ResultsThe full model included seven predictors of age, respiratory failure, white cell count, lymphocytes, platelets, D-dimer and lactate dehydrogenase. The simple model contained five indicators of age, respiratory failure, coronary heart disease, renal failure and heart failure. After cross-validation, the AUC statistics based on derivation cohort were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.97) for the full model and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.95) for the simple model. The AUC statistics based on the external validation cohort were 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98) for the full model and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96) for the simple model. Good calibration accuracy of these two models was found in the derivation and validation cohort.ConclusionThe prediction models showed good model performance in identifying patients with COVID-19 with a high risk of death in 60 days. It may be useful for acute risk classification.Web calculatorWe provided a freely accessible web calculator (https://www.whuyijia.com/).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document