Immunologic and vascular biomarkers of mortality in critical COVID-19 in a South African cohort

The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform was developed in 2004 to address an institutional need at Vanderbilt University, then shared with a limited number of adopting sites beginning in 2006. Given bi-directional benefit in early sharing experiments, we created a broader consortium sharing and support model for any academic, non-profit, or government partner wishing to adopt the software. Our sharing framework and consortium-based support model have evolved over time along with the size of the consortium (currently more than 3200 REDCap partners across 128 countries). While the "REDCap Consortium" model represents only one example of how to build and disseminate a software platform, lessons learned from our approach may assist other research institutions seeking to build and disseminate innovative technologies. Show more

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined in 1994 by the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC); since then, issues regarding the reliability and validity of this definition have emerged. Using a consensus process, a panel of experts convened in 2011 (an initiative of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine endorsed by the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine) developed the Berlin Definition, focusing on feasibility, reliability, validity, and objective evaluation of its performance. A draft definition proposed 3 mutually exclusive categories of ARDS based on degree of hypoxemia: mild (200 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), moderate (100 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 200 mm Hg), and severe (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 100 mm Hg) and 4 ancillary variables for severe ARDS: radiographic severity, respiratory system compliance (≤40 mL/cm H2O), positive end-expiratory pressure (≥10 cm H2O), and corrected expired volume per minute (≥10 L/min). The draft Berlin Definition was empirically evaluated using patient-level meta-analysis of 4188 patients with ARDS from 4 multicenter clinical data sets and 269 patients with ARDS from 3 single-center data sets containing physiologic information. The 4 ancillary variables did not contribute to the predictive validity of severe ARDS for mortality and were removed from the definition. Using the Berlin Definition, stages of mild, moderate, and severe ARDS were associated with increased mortality (27%; 95% CI, 24%-30%; 32%; 95% CI, 29%-34%; and 45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%, respectively; P < .001) and increased median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (5 days; interquartile [IQR], 2-11; 7 days; IQR, 4-14; and 9 days; IQR, 5-17, respectively; P < .001). Compared with the AECC definition, the final Berlin Definition had better predictive validity for mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.577 (95% CI, 0.561-0.593) vs 0.536 (95% CI, 0.520-0.553; P < .001). This updated and revised Berlin Definition for ARDS addresses a number of the limitations of the AECC definition. The approach of combining consensus discussions with empirical evaluation may serve as a model to create more accurate, evidence-based, critical illness syndrome definitions and to better inform clinical care, research, and health services planning. Show more

Abstract Objective To review and critically appraise published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at risk of being admitted to hospital for covid-19 pneumonia. Design Rapid systematic review and critical appraisal. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, Arxiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 24 March 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 2696 titles were screened, and 27 studies describing 31 prediction models were included. Three models were identified for predicting hospital admission from pneumonia and other events (as proxy outcomes for covid-19 pneumonia) in the general population; 18 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 infection (13 were machine learning based on computed tomography scans); and 10 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, or length of hospital stay. Only one study used patient data from outside of China. The most reported predictors of presence of covid-19 in patients with suspected disease included age, body temperature, and signs and symptoms. The most reported predictors of severe prognosis in patients with covid-19 included age, sex, features derived from computed tomography scans, C reactive protein, lactic dehydrogenase, and lymphocyte count. C index estimates ranged from 0.73 to 0.81 in prediction models for the general population (reported for all three models), from 0.81 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models (reported for 13 of the 18 models), and from 0.85 to 0.98 in prognostic models (reported for six of the 10 models). All studies were rated at high risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, and high risk of model overfitting. Reporting quality varied substantially between studies. Most reports did not include a description of the study population or intended use of the models, and calibration of predictions was rarely assessed. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that proposed models are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic. Immediate sharing of well documented individual participant data from covid-19 studies is needed for collaborative efforts to develop more rigorous prediction models and validate existing ones. The predictors identified in included studies could be considered as candidate predictors for new models. Methodological guidance should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, studies should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Show more