ObjectiveTo develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality in patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignProspective observational cohort study.SettingInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study (performed by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium—ISARIC-4C) in 260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited after model development between 21 May and 29 June 2020.ParticipantsAdults (age ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 at least four weeks before final data extraction.Main outcome measureIn-hospital mortality.Results35 463 patients were included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 32.2%) and 22 361 in the validation dataset (mortality rate 30.1%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea level, and C reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C Score showed high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.79; validation cohort: 0.77, 0.76 to 0.77) with excellent calibration (validation: calibration-in-the-large=0, slope=1.0). Patients with a score of at least 15 (n=4158, 19%) had a 62% mortality (positive predictive value 62%) compared with 1% mortality for those with a score of 3 or less (n=1650, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve range 0.61-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73).ConclusionsAn easy-to-use risk stratification score has been developed and validated based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. The 4C Mortality Score outperformed existing scores, showed utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 into different management groups. The score should be further validated to determine its applicability in other populations.Study registrationISRCTN66726260

Objectives:Tuberculosis (TB) is estimated to be the leading cause of HIV-related deaths globally. However, since HIV-associated TB frequently remains unascertained, we systematically reviewed autopsy studies to determine the true burden of TB at death.Methods:We systematically searched Medline and Embase databases (to end 2013) for literature reporting on health facility-based autopsy studies of HIV-infected adults and/or children in resource-limited settings. Using forest plots and random-effects meta-analysis, we summarized the TB prevalence found at autopsy and used meta-regression to explore variables associated with autopsy TB prevalence.Results:We included 36 eligible studies, reporting on 3237 autopsies. Autopsy TB prevalence was extremely heterogeneous (range 0–64.4%), but was markedly higher in adults [pooled prevalence 39.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.4–47.0%] compared to children (pooled prevalence 4.5%, 95% CI 1.7–7.4%). Post-mortem TB prevalence varied by world region, with pooled estimates in adults of 63.2% (95% CI 57.7–68.7%) in South Asia (n = 2 studies); 43.2% (95% CI 38.0–48.3) in sub-Saharan Africa (n = 9 studies); and 27.1% (95% CI 16.0–38.1%) in the Americas (n = 5 studies). Autopsy prevalence positively correlated with contemporary estimates of national TB prevalence. TB in adults was disseminated in 87.9% (82.2–93.7%) of cases and was considered the cause of death in 91.4% (95% CI 85.8–97.0%) of TB cases. Overall, TB was the cause of death in 37.2% (95% CI 25.7–48.7%) of adult HIV/AIDS-related deaths. TB remained undiagnosed at death in 45.8% (95% CI 32.6–59.1%) of TB cases.Conclusions:In resource-limited settings, TB accounts for approximately 40% of facility-based HIV/AIDS-related adult deaths. Almost half of this disease remains undiagnosed at the time of death. These findings highlight the critical need to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HIV-associated TB globally.

No abstract

BackgroundThe number of proposed prognostic models for COVID-19 is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation.MethodsWe independently externally validated the performance candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictor in univariable analyses.ResultsWe tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78; 95% CI 0.73–0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78; 0.74–0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76; 0.71–0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76; 0.71–0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities.ConclusionsAdmission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors.

Background Multiple blood transcriptional signatures have been proposed for identification of active and incipient tuberculosis. We aimed to compare the performance of systematically identified candidate signatures for incipient tuberculosis and to benchmark these against WHO targets. MethodsWe did a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. We searched Medline and Embase for candidate whole blood mRNA signatures discovered with the primary objective of diagnosis of active or incipient tuberculosis, compared with controls who were healthy or had latent tuberculosis infection. We tested the performance of eligible signatures in whole blood transcriptomic datasets, in which sampling before tuberculosis diagnosis was done and time to disease was available. Culture-confirmed and clinically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary or extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases were included. Non-progressor (individuals who remained tuberculosis-free during follow-up) samples with less than 6 months of follow-up from the date of sample collection were excluded, as were participants with prevalent tuberculosis and those who received preventive therapy. Scores were calculated for candidate signatures for each participant in the pooled dataset. Receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, and specificities were examined using prespecified intervals to tuberculosis (<3 months, <6 months, <1 year, and <2 years) from sample collection. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019135618. ResultsWe tested 17 candidate mRNA signatures in a pooled dataset from four eligible studies comprising 1126 samples. This dataset included 183 samples from 127 incipient tuberculosis cases in South Africa, Ethiopia, The Gambia, and the UK. Eight signatures (comprising 1-25 transcripts) that predominantly reflect interferon and tumour necrosis factor-inducible gene expression, had equivalent diagnostic accuracy for incipient tuberculosis over a 2-year period with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves ranging from 0•70 (95% CI 0•64-0•76) to 0•77 (0•71-0•82). The sensitivity of all eight signatures declined with increasing disease-free time interval. Using a threshold derived from two SDs above the mean of uninfected controls to prioritise specificity and positive-predictive value, the eight signatures achieved sensitivities of 24•7-39•9% over 24 months and of 47•1-81•0% over 3 months, with corresponding specificities of more than 90%. Based on pre-test probability of 2%, the eight signatures achieved positive-predictive values ranging from 6•8-9•4% over 24 months and 11•2-14•4% over 3 months. When using biomarker thresholds maximising sensitivity and specificity with equal weighting to both, no signature met the minimum WHO target product profile parameters for incipient tuberculosis biomarkers over a 2-year period.Interpretation Blood transcriptional biomarkers reflect short-term risk of tuberculosis and only exceed WHO benchmarks if applied to 3-6-month intervals. Serial testing among caref...

Objectives To develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality for patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. Design Prospective observational cohort study: ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study (ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium [4C]). Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited between 21 May and 29 June 2020. Setting 260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Participants Adult patients (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 admitted at least four weeks before final data extraction. Main outcome measures In-hospital mortality. Results There were 34 692 patients included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 31.7%) and 22 454 in the validation dataset (mortality 31.5%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea, and C-reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C risk stratification score demonstrated high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: AUROC 0.79; 95% CI 0.78 - 0.79; validation cohort 0.78, 0.77-0.79) with excellent calibration (slope = 1.0). Patients with a score ≥15 (n = 2310, 17.4%) had a 67% mortality (i.e., positive predictive value 67%) compared with 1.0% mortality for those with a score ≤3 (n = 918, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (AUROC range 0.60-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73). Conclusions We have developed and validated an easy-to-use risk stratification score based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. This outperformed existing scores, demonstrated utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify inpatients with covid-19 into different management groups. The 4C Mortality Score may help clinicians identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of dying during current and subsequent waves of the pandemic. Study registration ISRCTN66726260

Background The National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) is currently recommended in the UK for the risk stratification of COVID-19 patients, but little is known about its ability to detect severe cases. We aimed to evaluate NEWS2 for the prediction of severe COVID-19 outcome and identify and validate a set of blood and physiological parameters routinely collected at hospital admission to improve upon the use of NEWS2 alone for medium-term risk stratification. Methods Training cohorts comprised 1276 patients admitted to King’s College Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust with COVID-19 disease from 1 March to 30 April 2020. External validation cohorts included 6237 patients from five UK NHS Trusts (Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals, University Hospitals Southampton, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, University College London Hospitals, University Hospitals Birmingham), one hospital in Norway (Oslo University Hospital), and two hospitals in Wuhan, China (Wuhan Sixth Hospital and Taikang Tongji Hospital). The outcome was severe COVID-19 disease (transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) or death) at 14 days after hospital admission. Age, physiological measures, blood biomarkers, sex, ethnicity, and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory and kidney diseases) measured at hospital admission were considered in the models. Results A baseline model of ‘NEWS2 + age’ had poor-to-moderate discrimination for severe COVID-19 infection at 14 days (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in training cohort = 0.700, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.680, 0.722; Brier score = 0.192, 95% CI 0.186, 0.197). A supplemented model adding eight routinely collected blood and physiological parameters (supplemental oxygen flow rate, urea, age, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) improved discrimination (AUC = 0.735; 95% CI 0.715, 0.757), and these improvements were replicated across seven UK and non-UK sites. However, there was evidence of miscalibration with the model tending to underestimate risks in most sites. Conclusions NEWS2 score had poor-to-moderate discrimination for medium-term COVID-19 outcome which raises questions about its use as a screening tool at hospital admission. Risk stratification was improved by including readily available blood and physiological parameters measured at hospital admission, but there was evidence of miscalibration in external sites. This highlights the need for a better understanding of the use of early warning scores for COVID.

No abstract