key: cord-0687255-g4jkbz0z
authors: Soto‐Mota, Adrian; Marfil‐Garza, Braulio A.; Martínez Rodríguez, Erick; Barreto Rodríguez, José Omar; López Romo, Alicia Estela; Alberti Minutti, Paolo; Alejandre Loya, Juan Vicente; Pérez Talavera, Félix Emmanuel; Ávila Cervera, Freddy José; Velazquez Burciaga, Adriana; Morado Aramburo, Oscar; Piña Olguín, Luis Alberto; Soto‐Rodríguez, Adrian; Castañeda Prado, Andrés; Santillán Doherty, Patricio; O Galindo, Juan; Guízar García, Luis Alberto; Hernández Gordillo, Daniel; Gutiérrez Mejía, Juan
title: The low‐harm score for predicting mortality in patients diagnosed with COVID‐19: A multicentric validation study
date: 2020-10-15
journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open
DOI: 10.1002/emp2.12259
sha: 0d5a328413fc4c07b3c5f14171f90d7471381117
doc_id: 687255
cord_uid: g4jkbz0z

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the accuracy of the LOW‐HARM score (Lymphopenia, Oxygen saturation, White blood cells, Hypertension, Age, Renal injury, and Myocardial injury) for predicting death from coronavirus disease 2019) COVID‐19. METHODS: We derived the score as a concatenated Fagan's nomogram for Bayes theorem using data from published cohorts of patients with COVID‐19. We validated the score on 400 consecutive COVID‐19 hospital admissions (200 deaths and 200 survivors) from 12 hospitals in Mexico. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LOW‐HARM for predicting hospital death. RESULTS: LOW‐HARM scores and their distributions were significantly lower in patients who were discharged compared to those who died during their hospitalization 5 (SD: 14) versus 70 (SD: 28). The overall area under the curve for the LOW‐HARM score was 0.96, (95% confidence interval: 0.94–0.98). A cutoff > 65 points had a specificity of 97.5% and a positive predictive value of 96%. CONCLUSIONS: The LOW‐HARM score measured at hospital admission is highly specific and clinically useful for predicting mortality in patients with COVID‐19.

Multiple prognostic factors for disease severity in patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been identified. [1] [2] [3] In this regard, many prognostic scores have already been put forward to predict the risk of death and other outcomes (eg, CALL score, ABC GOALS, Neutrophil-Lymphocyte index, etc). [4] [5] [6] However, hospitals in developing countries often cannot measure some of the variables included in these scores (D-dimer, ferritin, computed tomography [CT] scans, etc). Moreover, implementation of many of these scores is hampered by the inclusion of subjective variables such as breathlessness, 5 data on preexisting comorbidities 7 (making it impossible to reassess prognosis according to the patients' clinical evolution) or rely on cutoff values that are infrequently met by patients with COVID-19 in realworld settings.

Developing countries have a lower number of critical-care beds 8 and specialists per 100,000 people. 9 Thus, estimating mortality is essential for optimal resource allocation. Prediction tools also have ethical applications and implications. Some triage systems repurpose scores to predict mortality in critical care patients, such as the SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score, as part of their decision framework. 10, 11 However, there is compelling evidence highlighting the importance of generating and using disease-specific prediction tools or models in pandemic contexts. 12 Mathematical models for estimating new cases of COVID-19 in the post-pandemic period agree there will be >1 "wave" of infections, 13 and serological surveys for estimating the dynamics of a population's susceptibility, level of exposure, and immunity to the virus support these predictions. [14] [15] [16] Therefore, an effective prognostic tool is still relevant even if most countries are already flattening their daily curve of confirmed cases. 17 Furthermore, having context-specific predictive accuracy is essential for assisting the decisionmaking process in these extraordinary situations, for objectively tracking clinical status, and for providing realistic and accurate information to patients and their families about prognosis.

This work evaluated the predictive performance of the novel LOW-HARM score (Lymphopenia, Oxygen saturation, White blood cells, Hypertension, Age, Renal injury, and Myocardial injury) for predicting mortality in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

This work was an observational analytic cohort study. The project and analysis strategy were preregistered at the Open Science Framework 

We collected and analyzed data from all patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection confirmed by RT-PCR that were consecutively hospitalized at the alreadymentioned institutions. We excluded from the analysis all patients without a documented clinical outcome (eg, still hospitalized at the moment of data collection, transferred to another hospital, voluntary discharge) or without complete data.

The score was constructed based on Fagan's nomogram for Bayes theorem and works as a sequential risk estimation that is modified by the risk factors present in a patient. 18 The pretest probability of death was obtained using the reported prevalence of death by age group. 19 injury was defined as a serum creatinine value >1.5 mg/dL; and leukocytosis as a total count >10,000 cells/μL.

We determined the pretest odds (odds of death by age group) using the following formula (pretest odds = pretest probability/(1-pretest probability)). For this, we used the reported probability of dying by different age group 19 With these data, the calculation for the LOW-HARM score is structured as follows (example in Appendix 1):

1. Pretest odds = pretest probability/(1-pretest probability).

2. Posttest odds = (pretest odds) × (LR low SpO2) × (LR previous diagnosis of hypertension) × (LR cardiac injury) × (LR white blood cell count > 10 000 cells/μL) × (LR total lymphocyte count < 800 cells/μL) × (LR acute kidney injury > 1.5 mg/dL).

3. Posttest probability = Posttest odds/(1 + Posttest odds).

The primary outcome was death during hospitalization.

Frequency of each risk factor, mean, and standard deviation for the 

Mexican official estimations expected at least 10,000, critically ill patients. 26 To ensure a representative sample, according to the formula for estimating samples from finite populations n = N*X/(X + N -1), where X = Zα/22 -*p*(1-p)/MOE, Zα/2 is 1.96, MOE is the margin of error, p is 50% (because the actual p is ignored), and N is the population size, data from 385 patients are required to produce a statistically representative sample with an alpha of 0.05%.

To illustrate how the LOW-HARM score is calculated we consider an 83-year-old patient with hypertension who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to the hospital (Figure 1 ). At admission, he presents with a SpO 2 < 88%, leukocytes >10,000 cells/mm 3 , lymphocytes <0.8 cells/ mm 3 , troponin > 99th percentile, and a serum creatinine < 1.5 mg/dL. Due to his age, this patient's pretest probability of dying is 14.8% (according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 19 ). This probability is converted to pretest odds (pretest odds = pretest probability/(1-pretest probability) = 0.174). This value is then multiplied by the calculated LR+ for each risk factor to obtain posttest odds (hypertension = 2.06, SpO2 < 88% = 6.85, elevated troponin = 6, leukocyte count > 10 000 cells/μL = 4.23, lymphocyte count < 800 cells/μL = 2.89, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL = 4.23) or by 1 when any of these is absent (in this case, serum creatinine, which was For this hypothetical patient, the posttest probability of death during his hospitalization is 99% (Figure 1 ). For ease of use, this process is automated in a freely available web app: www.lowharmcalc.com. 

We obtained data from 438 patients. A total of 38 patients were excluded, leaving 200 patients per group. Their clinical and demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1 . All components of the LOW-HARM score were significantly more frequent in the group of patients who died than in the group of patients who survived their hospitalization ( Table 2 ).

Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and their corresponding AUCs for different cutoff values are presented in Table 3 . The cutoff value of 25 has the highest AUC (0.9); however, it has a specificity (the probability of correctly identifying a survivor with Using a score cutoff is as useful as the number of times this cutoff is met. In this case, 105/400 (26%) patients had a score above 65, which means it is possible to predict mortality with a specificity of 97.5% and a positive predictive value of 96% in more than a quarter of hospital admissions. On the other hand, it should be considered that mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has markedly improved because of the refinement of triage systems, the standardization of therapeutic protocols and awareness of early symptoms in the general population. Therefore, end-organ damage at admission is expected to be less frequent.

Accurately predicting which patients will not survive hospitalization can guide optimal resource allocation at emergency departments and support clinicians in their decisionmaking process. Additionally, accurate prediction of certain outcomes can help informing patients and their relatives about prognosis.

We present the LOW-HARM score, a novel, easy-to-use, and easy- Having a cutoff value can be useful for decisionmaking. A frequently used method for choosing a cutoff value is to use the value with the largest AUC. In our score, the largest AUC was observed using a cutoff of 25 (0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.93). However, because it is possible that clinicians at emergency departments could use the dichotomized version of the score to allocate healthcare resources, we propose a 65-point cutoff value because, in this context, we believe it is preferable to choose a cutoff with a high specificity to correctly identify the highest number of patients that will survive, even if they ultimately die (therefore preserving their "eligibility" for resource allocation), than having a high sensitivity and identifying the highest number of patients that will die, even when they could have survived (therefore denying their "eligibility" for resource allocation).

The LOW-HARM score measured at the time of admission has high accuracy in predicting mortality in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. This score provides a disease-specific tool that uses easily obtainable variables making it useful for resourcelimited settings.

To Ricardo Sanginés for developing the web app for the score calculation. All authors thank their respective institutions for their support.

None of the authors declares financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this study.

ASMdesigned the prediction score. JGM, BAMG, and ASR collabo- All authors revised this manuscript and data analysis.

Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Development and external validation of a prognostic multivariable model on admission for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. medRxiv

Prediction for progression risk in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: the CALL score. medRxiv

Derivation of a score to predict admission to intensive care unit in patients with covid-19: the abc-goals score. medRxiv. 2020

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts severe illness patients with 2019 novel coronavirus in the early stage. medR

Predicting mortality due to SARS-CoV-2: a mechanistic score relating obesity and diabetes to COVID-19 outcomes in Mexico Corresponding authors

Acute care hospital beds per 100 000 -European Health Information Gateway

A framework for rationing ventilators and critical care beds during the COVID-19 pandemic

Who should receive life support during a public health emergency? Using ethical principles to improve allocation decisions

An assessment of the validity of SOFA score based triage in H1N1 critically ill patients during an influenza pandemic

Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period

Estimation of seroprevalence of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) using preserved serum at an outpatient setting in Kobe, Japan: A cross-sectional study. medRxiv. Published online 2020

Cluster of COVID-19 in northern France: a retrospective closed cohort study. medRxiv

COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence in

COVID-19) Cases -Statistics and Research -Our World in Data

Nomogram for Bayes's Theorem

The epidemiological characteristics of an outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19)-China

Evidence-based physical diagnosis

Management of Patients with Confirmed 2019-nCoV | CDC. Coronavirus Dis

Calculadora de complicación de salud por COVID -19 -IMSS

Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach

Com Roccomp-Tests of Equality of ROC Areas

Datos Abiertos -Dirección General de Epidemiología | Secretaría de Salud | Gobierno | gob

Informe diario sobre coronavirus COVID-19 en México | Presidencia de la República | Gobierno | gob

diagnóstico y control de hipertensión arterial en adultos mexicanos en condición de vulnerabilidad. Resultados de la Ensanut 100k

Sobrepeso y obesidad en población mexicana en condición de vulnerabilidad. Resultados de la Ensanut 100k

Prevalencia de diabetes por diagnóstico médico previo en México

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Adrian Soto-Mota, MD, is a DPhil candidate in the Department of Physiology

How to cite this article

The low-harm score for predicting mortality in patients diagnosed with COVID-19: A multicentric validation study