ObjectivesExisting UK prognostic models for patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 are limited by reliance on comorbidities, which are under-recorded in secondary care, and lack of imaging data among the candidate predictors. Our aims were to develop and externally validate novel prognostic models for adverse outcomes (death and intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission) in UK secondary care and externally validate the existing 4C score.DesignCandidate predictors included demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging and laboratory tests. Final models used logistic regression with stepwise selection.SettingModel development was performed in data from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB). External validation was performed in the CovidCollab dataset.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19 admitted to UHB January–August 2020 were included.Main outcome measuresDeath and ITU admission within 28 days of admission.Results1040 patients with COVID-19 were included in the derivation cohort; 288 (28%) died and 183 (18%) were admitted to ITU within 28 days of admission. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.791 (95% CI 0.761 to 0.822) in UHB and 0.767 (95% CI 0.754 to 0.780) in CovidCollab; AUROC for ITU admission was 0.906 (95% CI 0.883 to 0.929) in UHB and 0.811 (95% CI 0.795 to 0.828) in CovidCollab. Models showed good calibration. Addition of comorbidities to candidate predictors did not improve model performance. AUROC for the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium 4C score in the UHB dataset was 0.753 (95% CI 0.720 to 0.785).ConclusionsThe novel prognostic models showed good discrimination and calibration in derivation and external validation datasets, and performed at least as well as the existing 4C score using only routinely collected patient information. The models can be integrated into electronic medical records systems to calculate each individual patient’s probability of death or ITU admission at the time of hospital admission. Implementation of the models and clinical utility should be evaluated.

BackgroundThe UK introduced financial incentives for management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in 2006, after which there was an increase in the proportion of AF patients diagnosed as resolved. Removal of incentives in Scotland provides a natural experiment to investigate the effects of withdrawal of an incentive on diagnosis of resolved AF.AimInvestigate effects of introduction and withdrawal of financial incentives on the diagnosis of resolved AF.Design & settingCohort study in a large database of UK primary care records, before and after introduction of incentives in April 2006 in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, and their withdrawal in April 2016 in Scotland.MethodInterrupted time-series analysis of monthly rates of resolved AF. from January 2000 to September 2019.ResultsWe included 251,526 adult patients with AF, of whom 14,674 were diagnosed as resolved AF. In April 2006 there were similar shift-changes in rates of resolved AF per 1,000 in England 1.55 (95% CI: 1.11–2.00) and Northern Ireland 1.54 (95% CI: 0.91–2.18) and a smaller increase in Scotland 0.79 (95% CI: 0.04–1.53). There were modest downward post-introduction trends in all countries. After Scotland’s withdrawal of the incentive in April 2016 there was a small, statistically non-significant, downward shift in rate of resolved AF per 1000–0.39 (95% CI: −3.21–2.42) and no change in post-removal trend.ConclusionsIntroduction of a financial incentive coincided with an increase in resolved AF but we found no evidence its withdrawal led to a reduction.

ObjectivesExisting UK prognostic models for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are limited by reliance on comorbidities, which are under-recorded in secondary care, and lack of imaging data among the candidate predictors. Our aims were to develop and externally validate novel prognostic models for adverse outcomes (death, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission) in UK secondary care; and externally validate the existing 4C score.DesignCandidate predictors included demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging, laboratory tests. Final models used logistic regression with stepwise selection.SettingModel development was performed in data from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB). External validation was performed in the CovidCollab dataset.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19 admitted to UHB January-August 2020 were included.Main outcome measuresDeath and ITU admission within 28 days of admission.Results1040 patients with COVID-19 were included in the derivation cohort; 288 (28%) died and 183 (18%) were admitted to ITU within 28 days of admission. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.791 (95%CI 0.761-0.822) in UHB and 0.767 (95%CI 0.754-0.780) in CovidCollab; AUROC for ITU admission was 0.906 (95%CI 0.883-0.929) in UHB and 0.811 (95%CI 0.795-0.828) in CovidCollab. Models showed good calibration. Addition of comorbidities to candidate predictors did not improve model performance. AUROC for the 4C score in the UHB dataset was 0.754 (95%CI 0.721-0.786).ConclusionsThe novel prognostic models showed good discrimination and calibration in derivation and external validation datasets, and outperformed the existing 4C score. The models can be integrated into electronic medical records systems to calculate each individual patient’s probability of death or ITU admission at the time of hospital admission. Implementation of the models and clinical utility should be evaluated.Article SummaryStrengths and limitations of this studyWe developed novel prognostic models predicting mortality and ITU admission within 28 days of admission for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, using a large routinely collected dataset gathered at admission with a wide range of possible predictors (demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging, laboratory test results).These novel models showed good discrimination and calibration in both derivation and external validation cohorts, and outperformed the existing ISARIC model and 4C score in the derivation dataset. We found that addition of comorbidities to the set of candidate predictors included in model derivation did not improve model performance.If integrated into hospital electronic medical records systems, the model algorithms will provide a predicted probability of mortality or ITU admission for each patient based on their individual data at, or close to, the time of admission, which will support clinicians’ decision making with regard to appropriate patient care pathways and triage. This information might also assist clinicians in explaining complex prognostic assessments and decisions to patients and their relatives.A limitation of the study was that in the external validation cohort we were unable to examine all of the predictors included in the original full UHB model due to only a reduced set of candidate predictors being available in CovidCollab. Nevertheless, the reduced model performed well and the results suggest it may be applicable in a wide range of datasets where only a reduced set of predictor variables is available.Furthermore, it was not possible to carry out stratified analysis by ethnicity as the UHB dataset contained too few patients in most of the strata, and no ethnicity data was available in the CovidCollab dataset.