Risk prediction for poor outcome and death in hospital in-patients with COVID-19: derivation in Wuhan, China and external validation in London, UK
Authors: Zhang Huayu , Shi Ting , Wu Xiaodong , Zhang Xin , Wang Kun , Bean Daniel , Dobson Richard , Teo James T , Sun Jiaxing , Zhao Pei , Li Chenghong , Dhaliwal Kevin , Wu Honghan , Li Qiang , Guthrie Bruce 
Published: May 2020

AbstractBackgroundAccurate risk prediction of clinical outcome would usefully inform clinical decisions and intervention targeting in COVID-19. The aim of this study was to derive and validate risk prediction models for poor outcome and death in adult inpatients with COVID-19.MethodsModel derivation using data from Wuhan, China used logistic regression with death and poor outcome (death or severe disease) as outcomes. Predictors were demographic, comorbidity, symptom and laboratory test variables. The best performing models were externally validated in data from London, UK.Findings4.3% of the derivation cohort (n=775) died and 9.7% had a poor outcome, compared to 34.1% and 42.9% of the validation cohort (n=226). In derivation, prediction models based on age, sex, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, platelet count, C-reactive protein and creatinine had excellent discrimination (death c-index=0.91, poor outcome c-index=0.88), with good-to-excellent calibration. Using two cut-offs to define low, high and very-high risk groups, derivation patients were stratified in groups with observed death rates of 0.34%, 15.0% and 28.3% and poor outcome rates 0.63%, 8.9% and 58.5%. External validation discrimination was good (c-index death=0.74, poor outcome=0.72) as was calibration. However, observed rates of death were 16.5%, 42.9% and 58.4% and poor outcome 26.3%, 28.4% and 64.8% in predicted low, high and very-high risk groups.InterpretationOur prediction model using demography and routinely-available laboratory tests performed very well in internal validation in the lower-risk derivation population, but less well in the much higher-risk external validation population. Further external validation is needed. Collaboration to create larger derivation datasets, and to rapidly externally validate all proposed prediction models in a range of populations is needed, before routine implementation of any risk prediction tool in clinical care.FundingMRC, Wellcome Trust, HDR-UK, LifeArc, participating hospitals, NNSFC, National Key R&D Program, Pudong Health and Family Planning CommissionResearch in contextEvidence before this studySeveral prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, or length of hospital stay in COVID-19 have been published.1 Commonly reported predictors of severe prognosis in patients with COVID-19 include age, sex, computed tomography scan features, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactic dehydrogenase, and lymphocyte count. Symptoms (notably dyspnoea) and comorbidities (e.g. chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease and hypertension) are also reported to have associations with poor prognosis.2 However, most studies have not described the study population or intended use of prediction models, and external validation is rare and to date done using datasets originating from different Wuhan hospitals.3 Given different patterns of testing and organisation of healthcare pathways, external validation in datasets from other countries is required.Added value of this studyThis study used data from Wuhan, China to derive and internally validate multivariable models to predict poor outcome and death in COVID-19 patients after hospital admission, with external validation using data from King’s College Hospital, London, UK. Mortality and poor outcome occurred in 4.3% and 9.7% of patients in Wuhan, compared to 34.1% and 42.9% of patients in London. Models based on age, sex and simple routinely available laboratory tests (lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, platelet count, CRP and creatinine) had good discrimination and calibration in internal validation, but performed only moderately well in external validation. Models based on age, sex, symptoms and comorbidity were adequate in internal validation for poor outcome (ICU admission or death) but had poor performance for death alone.Implications of all the available evidenceThis study and others find that relatively simple risk prediction models using demographic, clinical and laboratory data perform well in internal validation but at best moderately in external validation, either because derivation and external validation populations are small (Xie et al3) and/or because they vary greatly in casemix and severity (our study). There are three decision points where risk prediction may be most useful: (1) deciding who to test; (2) deciding which patients in the community are at high-risk of poor outcomes; and (3) identifying patients at high-risk at the point of hospital admission. Larger studies focusing on particular decision points, with rapid external validation in multiple datasets are needed. A key gap is risk prediction tools for use in community triage (decisions to admit, or to keep at home with varying intensities of follow-up including telemonitoring) or in low income settings where laboratory tests may not be routinely available at the point of decision-making. This requires systematic data collection in community and low-income settings to derive and evaluate appropriate models.