Call, chosen, HA2T2, ANDC: validation of four severity scores in COVID-19 patients

• Published in: Infection 2022-06, Vol.50 (3), p.651-659
• Main Authors: Wolfisberg, Selina, Gregoriano, Claudia, Struja, Tristan, Kutz, Alexander, Koch, Daniel, Bernasconi, Luca, Hammerer-Lercher, Angelika, Mohr, Christine, Haubitz, Sebastian, Conen, Anna, Fux, Christoph A., Mueller, Beat, Schuetz, Philipp
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Antigens; Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Family Medicine; General Practice; Infectious Diseases; Internal Medicine; Mechanical ventilation; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Mortality; Original Paper; Patients; Polymerase chain reaction; Respiratory diseases; SARS-CoV-2; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; Viral diseases
• ISSN: 0300-8126; 1439-0973
• DOI: 10.1007/s15010-021-01728-0

Purpose To externally validate four previously developed severity scores (i.e., CALL, CHOSEN, HA 2 T 2 and ANDC) in patients with COVID-19 hospitalised in a tertiary care centre in Switzerland. Methods This observational analysis included adult patients with a real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction or rapid-antigen test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection hospitalised consecutively at the Cantonal Hospital Aarau from February to December 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary endpoint was disease progression, defined as needing invasive ventilation, ICU admission or death. Results From 399 patients (mean age 66.6 years ± 13.4 SD, 68% males), we had complete data for calculating the CALL, CHOSEN, HA 2 T 2 and ANDC scores in 297, 380, 151 and 124 cases, respectively. Odds ratios for all four scores showed significant associations with mortality. The discriminative power of the HA 2 T 2 score was higher compared to CALL, CHOSEN and ANDC scores [area under the curve (AUC) 0.78 vs. 0.65, 0.69 and 0.66, respectively]. Negative predictive values (NPV) for mortality were high, particularly for the CALL score (≥ 6 points: 100%, ≥ 9 points: 95%). For disease progression, discriminative power was lower, with the CHOSEN score showing the best performance (AUC 0.66). Conclusion In this external validation study, the four analysed scores had a lower performance compared to the original cohorts regarding prediction of mortality and disease progression. However, all scores were significantly associated with mortality and the NPV of the CALL and CHOSEN scores in particular allowed reliable identification of patients at low risk, making them suitable for outpatient management.