Early prediction of level-of-care requirements in patients with COVID-19

  1. Boran Hao
  2. Shahabeddin Sotudian
  3. Taiyao Wang
  4. Tingting Xu
  5. Yang Hu
  6. Apostolos Gaitanidis
  7. Kerry Breen
  8. George C Velmahos
  9. Ioannis Ch Paschalidis  Is a corresponding author
  1. Boston University, United States
  2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, United States

Abstract

This study examined records of 2,566 consecutive COVID-19 patients at five Massachusetts hospitals and sought to predict level-of-care requirements based on clinical and laboratory data. Several classification methods were applied and compared against standard pneumonia severity scores. The need for hospitalization, ICU care, and mechanical ventilation were predicted with a validation accuracy of 88%, 87%, and 86%, respectively.ICU care and ventilation. When predictions are limited to patients with more complex disease, the accuracy of the ICU and ventilation prediction models achieved accuracy of 83% and 82%, respectively. Vital signs, age, BMI, dyspnea, and comorbidities were the most important predictors of hospitalization. Opacities on chest imaging, age, admission vital signs and symptoms, male gender, admission laboratory results, and diabetes were the most important risk factors for ICU admission and mechanical ventilation. The factors identified collectively form a signature of the novel COVID-19 disease.

Data availability

- Source code for processing patient data is provided together with the submission.- Due to HIPAA restrictions and Data Use Agreements we can not make the original patient data publicly available. Interested parties may submit a request to obtain access to de-identified data to the authors. The authors would request pertinent IRB approval to make available a de-identified version of the data, stripped of any protected health information as specified under HIPAA rules.-The IRB of the hospital system approved the study under Protocol #2020P001112 and the Boston University IRB found the study as being Not Human Subject Research under Protocol #5570X (the BU team worked with a de-identified limited dataset).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Boran Hao

    Center for Information and Systems Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Shahabeddin Sotudian

    Center for Information and Systems Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5864-6192
  3. Taiyao Wang

    Center for Information and Systems Eng., Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0331-3892
  4. Tingting Xu

    Center for Information and Systems Eng, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yang Hu

    Center for Information and Systems Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Apostolos Gaitanidis

    Division of Trauma, Emergency Services, and Surgical Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Kerry Breen

    Division of Trauma, Emergency Services, and Surgical Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. George C Velmahos

    Division of Trauma, Emergency Services, and Surgical Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ioannis Ch Paschalidis

    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    yannisp@bu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3343-2913

Funding

National Science Foundation (IIS-1914792)

  • Ioannis Ch Paschalidis

National Science Foundation (DMS-1664644)

  • Ioannis Ch Paschalidis

National Science Foundation (CNS-1645681)

  • Ioannis Ch Paschalidis

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM135930)

  • Ioannis Ch Paschalidis

Office of Naval Research (N00014-19-1-2571)

  • Ioannis Ch Paschalidis

National Institutes of Health (UL54 TR004130)

  • Ioannis Ch Paschalidis

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: The Institutional Review Board of Mass General Brigham reviewed and approved the study under Protocol #2020P001112. The Boston University IRB found the study as being Not Human Subject Research under Protocol #5570X (the BU team worked with a de-identified limited dataset).

Copyright

© 2020, Hao et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,256
    views
  • 293
    downloads
  • 51
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Boran Hao
  2. Shahabeddin Sotudian
  3. Taiyao Wang
  4. Tingting Xu
  5. Yang Hu
  6. Apostolos Gaitanidis
  7. Kerry Breen
  8. George C Velmahos
  9. Ioannis Ch Paschalidis
(2020)
Early prediction of level-of-care requirements in patients with COVID-19
eLife 9:e60519.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60519

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60519

Further reading

    1. Medicine
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    3. Epidemiology and Global Health
    4. Immunology and Inflammation
    Edited by Jos WM van der Meer et al.
    Collection

    eLife has published articles on a wide range of infectious diseases, including COVID-19, influenza, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, malaria and typhoid fever.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Ayni Sharif, Matthew S Jeffers ... Manoj M Lalu
    Research Article

    C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonists may improve both acute stroke outcome and long-term recovery. Despite their evaluation in ongoing clinical trials, gaps remain in the evidence supporting their use. With a panel of patients with lived experiences of stroke, we performed a systematic review of animal models of stroke that administered a CCR5 antagonist and assessed infarct size or behavioural outcomes. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase were searched. Article screening and data extraction were completed in duplicate. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool and alignment with the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) and Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) recommendations. Five studies representing 10 experiments were included. CCR5 antagonists reduced infarct volume (standard mean difference −1.02; 95% confidence interval −1.58 to −0.46) when compared to stroke-only controls. Varied timing of CCR5 administration (pre- or post-stroke induction) produced similar benefit. CCR5 antagonists significantly improved 11 of 16 behavioural outcomes reported. High risk of bias was present in all studies and critical knowledge gaps in the preclinical evidence were identified using STAIR/SRRR. CCR5 antagonists demonstrate promise; however, rigorously designed preclinical studies that better align with STAIR/SRRR recommendations and downstream clinical trials are warranted. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42023393438).