Dataset Information

External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features. We aimed to validate in an external cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients the prognostic value of a previously described phenotyping system (FEN-COVID-19) and to assess the reproducibility of phenotypes development as a secondary analysis.

Methods

Patients were classified in phenotypes A, B or C according to the severity of oxygenation impairment, inflammatory response, hemodynamic and laboratory tests according to the FEN-COVID-19 method.

Results

Overall, 992 patients were included in the study, and 181 (18%), 757 (76%) and 54 (6%) of them were assigned to the FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes A, B, and C, respectively. An association with mortality was observed for phenotype C vs. A (hazard ratio [HR] 3.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81-5.30, p < 0.001) and for phenotype C vs. B (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.50-3.23, p < 0.001). A non-statistically significant trend towards higher mortality was also observed for phenotype B vs. A (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.92-2.15, p = 0.115). By means of cluster analysis, three different phenotypes were also identified in our cohort, with an overall similar gradient in terms of prognostic impact to that observed when patients were assigned to FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes.

Conclusions

The prognostic impact of FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes was confirmed in our external cohort, although with less difference in mortality between phenotypes A and B than in the original study.

SUBMITTER: Giacobbe DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10116925 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact.

Giacobbe Daniele Roberto DR Di Maria Emilio E Tagliafico Alberto Stefano AS Bavastro Martina M Trombetta Carlo Simone CS Marelli Cristina C Di Meco Gabriele G Cattardico Greta G Mora Sara S Signori Alessio A Vena Antonio A Mikulska Malgorzata M Dentone Chiara C Bruzzone Bianca B Bignotti Bianca B Orsi Andrea A Robba Chiara C Ball Lorenzo L Brunetti Iole I Battaglini Denise D Di Biagio Antonio A Sormani Maria Pia MP Pelosi Paolo P Giacomini Mauro M Icardi Giancarlo G Bassetti Matteo M

Annals of medicine 20231201 1

<h4>Background</h4>Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features. We aimed to validate in an external cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients the prognostic value of a previously described phenotyping system (FEN-COVID-19) and to assess the reproducibility of phenotypes development as a secondary analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were classified in pheno ...[more]

PMID: 37052252

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) revealed significant constraints in critical care capacity. In anticipation of subsequent waves, reliable prediction of disease severity is essential for critical care capacity management and may enable earlier targeted interventions to improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study is to develop and externally validate a prognostic model/clinical tool for predicting COVID-19 critical disease at presentation to medical care.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of a prognostic model for the prediction of COVID-19 critical disease where critical disease was defined as ICU admission, ventilation, and/or death. The derivation cohort was used to develop a multivariable logistic regression model. Covariates included patient comorbidities, presenting vital signs, and laboratory values. Model performance was assessed on the validation cohort by concordance statistics. The model was developed with consecutive patients with COVID-19 who presented to University of California Irvine Medical Center in Orange County, California. External validation was performed with a random sample of patients with COVID-19 at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, Georgia.ResultsOf a total 3208 patients tested in the derivation cohort, 9% (299/3028) were positive for COVID-19. Clinical data including past medical history and presenting laboratory values were available for 29% (87/299) of patients (median age, 48 years [range, 21-88 years]; 64% [36/55] male). The most common comorbidities included obesity (37%, 31/87), hypertension (37%, 32/87), and diabetes (24%, 24/87). Critical disease was present in 24% (21/87). After backward stepwise selection, the following factors were associated with greatest increased risk of critical disease: number of comorbidities, body mass index, respiratory rate, white blood cell count, % lymphocytes, serum creatinine, lactate dehydrogenase, high sensitivity troponin I, ferritin, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein. Of a total of 40 patients in the validation cohort (median age, 60 years [range, 27-88 years]; 55% [22/40] male), critical disease was present in 65% (26/40). Model discrimination in the validation cohort was high (concordance statistic: 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.01). A web-based tool was developed to enable clinicians to input patient data and view likelihood of critical disease.Conclusions and relevanceWe present a model which accurately predicted COVID-19 critical disease risk using comorbidities and presenting vital signs and laboratory values, on derivation and validation cohorts from two different institutions. If further validated on additional cohorts of patients, this model/clinical tool may provide useful prognostication of critical care needs.

Project description:Objectives backgroundTo externally validate clinical prediction models that aim to predict progression to invasive ventilation or death on the ICU in patients admitted with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis.DesignSingle-center retrospective external validation study.Data sourcesRoutinely collected healthcare data in the ICU electronic patient record. Curated data recorded for each ICU admission for the purposes of the U.K. Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC).SettingThe ICU at Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, United Kingdom.PatientsThree hundred forty-nine patients admitted to ICU with confirmed COVID-19 Pneumonitis, older than 18 years, from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. Three hundred two met the inclusion criteria for at least one model. Fifty-five of the 349 patients were admitted before the widespread adoption of dexamethasone for the treatment of severe COVID-19 (pre-dexamethasone patients).OutcomesAbility to be externally validated, discriminate, and calibrate.MethodsArticles meeting the inclusion criteria were identified, and those that gave sufficient details on predictors used and methods to generate predictions were tested in our cohort of patients, which matched the original publications' inclusion/exclusion criteria and endpoint.ResultsThirteen clinical prediction articles were identified. There was insufficient information available to validate models in five of the articles; a further three contained predictors that were not routinely measured in our ICU cohort and were not validated; three had performance that was substantially lower than previously published (range C-statistic = 0.483-0.605 in pre-dexamethasone patients and C = 0.494-0.564 among all patients). One model retained its discriminative ability in our cohort compared with previously published results (C = 0.672 and 0.686), and one retained performance among pre-dexamethasone patients but was poor in all patients (C = 0.793 and 0.596). One model could be calibrated but with poor performance.ConclusionsOur findings, albeit from a single center, suggest that the published performance of COVID-19 prediction models may not be replicated when translated to other institutions. In light of this, we would encourage bedside intensivists to reflect on the role of clinical prediction models in their own clinical decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality.MethodsIn this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model.FindingsThree distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)-phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2·5% (95% CI 1·4-4·3) for patients with phenotype A, 30·5% (28·5-32·6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60·7% (53·7-67·2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0·0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5·3% [95% CI 3·4-8·1] for phenotype A, 31·3% [28·5-34·2] for phenotype B, and 59·5% [48·8-69·3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3·7% [2·0-6·4] for phenotype A, 23·7% [21·8-25·7] for phenotype B, and 51·4% [41·9-60·7] for phenotype C).InterpretationPatients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three phenotypes that correlate with mortality. We developed and validated a simplified tool for the probabilistic assignment of patients into phenotypes. These results might help to better classify patients for clinical management, but the pathophysiological mechanisms of the phenotypes must be investigated.FundingInstituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Fundación SEIMC/GeSIDA.

Project description:ObjectivesExisting UK prognostic models for patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 are limited by reliance on comorbidities, which are under-recorded in secondary care, and lack of imaging data among the candidate predictors. Our aims were to develop and externally validate novel prognostic models for adverse outcomes (death and intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission) in UK secondary care and externally validate the existing 4C score.DesignCandidate predictors included demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging and laboratory tests. Final models used logistic regression with stepwise selection.SettingModel development was performed in data from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB). External validation was performed in the CovidCollab dataset.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19 admitted to UHB January-August 2020 were included.Main outcome measuresDeath and ITU admission within 28 days of admission.Results1040 patients with COVID-19 were included in the derivation cohort; 288 (28%) died and 183 (18%) were admitted to ITU within 28 days of admission. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.791 (95% CI 0.761 to 0.822) in UHB and 0.767 (95% CI 0.754 to 0.780) in CovidCollab; AUROC for ITU admission was 0.906 (95% CI 0.883 to 0.929) in UHB and 0.811 (95% CI 0.795 to 0.828) in CovidCollab. Models showed good calibration. Addition of comorbidities to candidate predictors did not improve model performance. AUROC for the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium 4C score in the UHB dataset was 0.753 (95% CI 0.720 to 0.785).ConclusionsThe novel prognostic models showed good discrimination and calibration in derivation and external validation datasets, and performed at least as well as the existing 4C score using only routinely collected patient information. The models can be integrated into electronic medical records systems to calculate each individual patient's probability of death or ITU admission at the time of hospital admission. Implementation of the models and clinical utility should be evaluated.

Dataset Information

External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets