Bernabeu-Wittel M, Ternero-Vega J E, Díaz-Jiménez P, Conde-Guzmán C, Nieto-Martín M D, Moreno-Gaviño L, Delgado-Cuesta J, Rincón-Gómez M, Giménez-Miranda L, Navarro-Amuedo M D, Muñoz-García M M, Calzón-Fernández S, Ollero-Baturone M
Internal Medicine Department, University Hospital Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain; Department of Medicine, University of Seville, Spain. Electronic address: https://mobile.twitter.com/mximowittel?lang=en.
Internal Medicine Department, University Hospital Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020 Nov/Dec;91:104240. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104240. Epub 2020 Aug 25.
Elderly people are more severely affected by COVID-19. Nevertheless scarce information about specific prognostic scores for this population is available. The main objective was to compare the accuracy of recently developed COVID-19 prognostic scores to that of CURB-65, Charlson and PROFUND indices in a cohort of 272 elderly patients from four nursing homes, affected by COVID-19. Accuracy was measured by calibration (calibration curves and Hosmer-Lemeshov (H-L) test), and discriminative power (area under the receiver operation curve (AUC-ROC). Negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV) were also obtained. Overall mortality rate was 22.4 %. Only ACP and Shi et al. out of 10 specific COVID-19 indices could be assessed. All indices but CURB-65 showed a good calibration by H-L test, whilst PROFUND, ACP and CURB-65 showed best results in calibration curves. Only CURB-65 (AUC-ROC = 0.81 [0.75-0.87])) and PROFUND (AUC-ROC = 0.67 [0.6-0.75])) showed good discrimination power. The highest NPV was obtained by CURB-65 (95 % [90-98%]), PROFUND (93 % [77-98%]), and their combination (100 % [82-100%]); whereas CURB-65 (74 % [51-88%]), and its combination with PROFUND (80 % [50-94%]) showed highest PPV. PROFUND and CURB-65 indices showed the highest accuracy in predicting death-risk of elderly patients affected by COVID-19, whereas Charlson and recent developed COVID-19 specific tools lacked it, or were not available to assess. A comprehensive clinical stratification on two-level basis (basal death risk due to chronic conditions by PROFUND index, plus current death risk due to COVID-19 by CURB-65), could be an appropriate approach.
老年人受新冠病毒病(COVID-19)的影响更为严重。然而,关于该人群特定预后评分的信息却很少。主要目的是在来自四家养老院的272名感染COVID-19的老年患者队列中,比较最近开发的COVID-19预后评分与CURB-65、Charlson和PROFUND指数的准确性。通过校准(校准曲线和Hosmer-Lemeshov(H-L)检验)和判别力(受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC-ROC))来衡量准确性。还获得了阴性和阳性预测值(NPV和PPV)。总死亡率为22.4%。在10个特定的COVID-19指数中,只有ACP和Shi等人的指数可以评估。除CURB-65外,所有指数经H-L检验均显示出良好的校准,而PROFUND、ACP和CURB-65在校准曲线中显示出最佳结果。只有CURB-65(AUC-ROC = 0.81 [0.75 - 0.87])和PROFUND(AUC-ROC = 0.67 [0.6 - 0.75])显示出良好的判别力。CURB-65(95% [90 - 98%])、PROFUND(93% [77 - 98%])及其组合(100% [82 - 100%])获得了最高的NPV;而CURB-65(74% [51 - 88%])及其与PROFUND的组合(80% [50 - 94%])显示出最高的PPV。PROFUND和CURB-65指数在预测感染COVID-19的老年患者死亡风险方面显示出最高的准确性,而Charlson指数和最近开发的COVID-19特定工具则缺乏准确性,或者无法进行评估。基于两级的综合临床分层(PROFUND指数评估的慢性病基础死亡风险,加上CURB-65评估的当前COVID-19死亡风险)可能是一种合适的方法。