Anderson Huang, K. Dieckhaus, L. Chirch, R. Bath, Jessica Abrantes-Figueiredo, J. Onwochei, A. Holtzman, Neelam Tailor, Chia-Ling Kuo
{"title":"1055. 预测COVID - 19住院患者临床结局的评分系统比较","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":"{\"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}","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}
1055. Comparison of Scoring systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized with COVID 19
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.
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.