Death risk stratification in elderly patients with covid-19. A comparative cohort study in nursing homes outbreaks

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

Effectiveness of a On-site Medicalization Program for Nursing Homes With COVID-19 Outbreaks.

Nursing homes are highly vulnerable to the occurrence of COVID-19 outbreaks, which result in high lethality rates. Most of them are not prepared to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. A coordinated on-site medicalization program (MP) in response to a sizeable COVID-19 outbreak in 4 nursing homes was organized, with the objectives of improving survival, offering humanistic palliative care to residents in their natural environment, and reducing hospital referrals. Ten key processes and interventions were established (provision of informatics infrastructure, medical equipment, and human resources, universal testing, separation of "clean" and "contaminated" areas, epidemiological surveys, and unified protocols stratifying for active or palliative care approach, among others). Main outcomes were a composite endpoint of survival or optimal palliative care (SOPC), survival, and referral to hospital. Two hundred and seventy-two of 457 (59.5%) residents and 85 of 320 (26.5%) staff members were affected. The SOPC, survival, and referrals to hospital occurred in 77%, 72.5%, and 29% of patients diagnosed before the start of MP, with respect to 97%, 83.7%, and 17% of those diagnosed during the program, respectively. The SOPC was independently associated to MP (OR = 15 [3-81]); and survival in patients stratified to active approach, to the use of any antiviral treatment (OR = 28 [5-160]). All outbreaks were controlled in 39 [37-42] days. A coordinated on-site MP of nursing homes with COVID-19 outbreaks achieved a higher SOPC rate, and a reduction in referrals to hospital, thus ensuring rigorous but also humanistic and gentle care to residents

Death risk stratification in elderly patients with covid-19. A comparative cohort study in nursing homes outbreaks

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

Death risk stratification in elderly patients with covid-19. A comparative cohort study in nursing homes outbreaks.

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