1055. Comparison of Scoring systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized with COVID 19

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY Open Forum Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofac492.896
Anderson Huang, K. Dieckhaus, L. Chirch, R. Bath, Jessica Abrantes-Figueiredo, J. Onwochei, A. Holtzman, Neelam Tailor, Chia-Ling Kuo
{"title":"1055. Comparison of Scoring systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized with COVID 19","authors":"Anderson Huang, K. Dieckhaus, L. Chirch, R. Bath, Jessica Abrantes-Figueiredo, J. Onwochei, A. Holtzman, Neelam Tailor, Chia-Ling Kuo","doi":"10.1093/ofid/ofac492.896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Previous scoring systems have been proposed to predict COVID19 outcomes, however none have been universally adopted. Two scoring systems of interest are Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score (MASS) and Oral Antiviral and Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score (OMASS). MASS prioritized patients for outpatient monoclonal antibody treatment based on risk of hospitalization, and OMASS was a modified version of MASS used to prioritize outpatient oral antivirals. We created a modified scoring system (UCH2021) incorporating vaccination status. These scores (table 1) have not been used to predict in-hospital clinical outcomes. We investigate these systems’ abilities to predict mortality and oxygen requirements in hospitalized COVID19 patients. They do not require blood tests and allow for more rapid triage. Table 1: MASS, OMASS, UCH2021 Scoring Criteria Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on 133 patients in two tertiary care centers between March and Sept. 2020 with RT-PCR confirmed SARS CoV2. Baseline risk factors were collected and MASS, OMASS, and UCH2021 were calculated. Primary outcomes included mortality, need for intubation, and need for supplemental oxygen >6L during hospitalization. Secondary analysis assessed if any individual risk factors were associated with those outcomes. These systems were evaluated via area under the curve calculations. Two groups based on an outcome were compared using two-sample t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables. Results All three systems demonstrated some discriminative power for mortality (table 2), but not for oxygen and intubation requirements. There was statistically significant difference in age between survivors and deceased (table 3), and BMI for oxygen requirements (table 4). Other risk factors were not predictive of mortality or oxygen requirement. Table 2: MASS, OMASS, UCH2021 Scores and Mortality in Hospitalized COVID19 PatientsTable 3: Age and Mortality in Hospitalized COVID19 PatientsTable 4: BMI and Oxygen Requirements in Hospitalized COVID19 Patients Conclusion The MASS, OMASS, and UCH2021 score all had predictive power in determining in-hospital mortality, with moderate accuracy, however none were predictive of oxygen requirements. Age and BMI were also good predictors of mortality and oxygen requirements respectively. This study was completed prior to vaccine distribution in the US. Further studies would be helpful to assess if UCH2021 score has greater discriminative power in samples with vaccinated patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.","PeriodicalId":19517,"journal":{"name":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.896","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background Previous scoring systems have been proposed to predict COVID19 outcomes, however none have been universally adopted. Two scoring systems of interest are Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score (MASS) and Oral Antiviral and Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score (OMASS). MASS prioritized patients for outpatient monoclonal antibody treatment based on risk of hospitalization, and OMASS was a modified version of MASS used to prioritize outpatient oral antivirals. We created a modified scoring system (UCH2021) incorporating vaccination status. These scores (table 1) have not been used to predict in-hospital clinical outcomes. We investigate these systems’ abilities to predict mortality and oxygen requirements in hospitalized COVID19 patients. They do not require blood tests and allow for more rapid triage. Table 1: MASS, OMASS, UCH2021 Scoring Criteria Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on 133 patients in two tertiary care centers between March and Sept. 2020 with RT-PCR confirmed SARS CoV2. Baseline risk factors were collected and MASS, OMASS, and UCH2021 were calculated. Primary outcomes included mortality, need for intubation, and need for supplemental oxygen >6L during hospitalization. Secondary analysis assessed if any individual risk factors were associated with those outcomes. These systems were evaluated via area under the curve calculations. Two groups based on an outcome were compared using two-sample t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables. Results All three systems demonstrated some discriminative power for mortality (table 2), but not for oxygen and intubation requirements. There was statistically significant difference in age between survivors and deceased (table 3), and BMI for oxygen requirements (table 4). Other risk factors were not predictive of mortality or oxygen requirement. Table 2: MASS, OMASS, UCH2021 Scores and Mortality in Hospitalized COVID19 PatientsTable 3: Age and Mortality in Hospitalized COVID19 PatientsTable 4: BMI and Oxygen Requirements in Hospitalized COVID19 Patients Conclusion The MASS, OMASS, and UCH2021 score all had predictive power in determining in-hospital mortality, with moderate accuracy, however none were predictive of oxygen requirements. Age and BMI were also good predictors of mortality and oxygen requirements respectively. This study was completed prior to vaccine distribution in the US. Further studies would be helpful to assess if UCH2021 score has greater discriminative power in samples with vaccinated patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1055. 预测COVID - 19住院患者临床结局的评分系统比较
背景以前已经提出了预测covid - 19结果的评分系统,但没有一个被普遍采用。两种感兴趣的评分系统是单克隆抗体筛选评分(MASS)和口服抗病毒和单克隆抗体筛选评分(OMASS)。MASS基于住院风险对患者进行门诊单克隆抗体治疗的优先排序,OMASS是MASS的改进版本,用于对门诊口服抗病毒药物进行优先排序。我们创建了一个包含疫苗接种状况的改进评分系统(UCH2021)。这些评分(表1)尚未用于预测院内临床结果。我们研究了这些系统预测住院covid - 19患者死亡率和氧气需求的能力。它们不需要验血,可以更快速地进行分诊。对2020年3月至9月期间两家三级医疗中心的133例经RT-PCR确诊的SARS CoV2患者进行回顾性图表回顾。收集基线危险因素,计算MASS、OMASS和UCH2021。主要结局包括死亡率、需要插管和住院期间需要补充氧bbb60l。二次分析评估是否有任何个体风险因素与这些结果相关。这些系统通过曲线下面积计算来评估。基于结果的两组采用连续变量的双样本t检验和分类变量的Fisher精确检验进行比较。结果三种系统对死亡率都有一定的判别能力(表2),但对氧气和插管需要量没有一定的判别能力。生还者和死者的年龄有统计学上的显著差异(表3),血氧需要量的BMI值(表4)。其他危险因素不能预测死亡率或血氧需要量。表2:住院covid - 19患者的MASS、OMASS、UCH2021评分和死亡率稳定3:住院covid - 19患者的年龄和死亡率稳定4:住院covid - 19患者的BMI和需氧量结论MASS、OMASS和UCH2021评分在确定住院死亡率方面均具有预测能力,准确度中等,但均不能预测需氧量。年龄和BMI也分别是死亡率和需氧量的良好预测指标。这项研究是在疫苗在美国分发之前完成的。进一步的研究将有助于评估UCH2021评分在接种疫苗的患者样本中是否具有更大的判别能力。所有作者:未报告披露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
630
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Forum Infectious Diseases provides a global forum for the publication of clinical, translational, and basic research findings in a fully open access, online journal environment. The journal reflects the broad diversity of the field of infectious diseases, and focuses on the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice, with a particular emphasis on knowledge that holds the potential to improve patient care in populations around the world. Fully peer-reviewed, OFID supports the international community of infectious diseases experts by providing a venue for articles that further the understanding of all aspects of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
A Novel Giant Magnetoresistance-Enabled Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for the Diagnosis of Invasive Fungal Infection. Correction to: Pulmonary Coinfection of Pneumocystis jirovecii and Aspergillus Species. Correction to: Dynamics of Persistent Submicroscopic and Microscopic Plasmodium falciparum in Pregnant Women Under Intermittent Preventive Treatment: A Study Cohort in Benin. Leptospirosis-Improving Healthcare Outcomes for a Neglected Tropical Disease. Real-World Effectiveness of 3 Types of Acellular Pertussis Vaccines Among Children Aged 3 Months-16 Years in Lu'an, China: A Matched Case-Control Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1