Comparison of methods for predicting COVID-19-related death in the general population using the OpenSAFELY platform.
COVID-19
Infectious disease
Mortality
Risk prediction
Risk stratification
Statistical methodology
Journal
Diagnostic and prognostic research
ISSN: 2397-7523
Titre abrégé: Diagn Progn Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101718985
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Feb 2022
24 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
09
08
2021
accepted:
04
01
2022
entrez:
24
2
2022
pubmed:
25
2
2022
medline:
25
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Obtaining accurate estimates of the risk of COVID-19-related death in the general population is challenging in the context of changing levels of circulating infection. We propose a modelling approach to predict 28-day COVID-19-related death which explicitly accounts for COVID-19 infection prevalence using a series of sub-studies from new landmark times incorporating time-updating proxy measures of COVID-19 infection prevalence. This was compared with an approach ignoring infection prevalence. The target population was adults registered at a general practice in England in March 2020. The outcome was 28-day COVID-19-related death. Predictors included demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Three proxies of local infection prevalence were used: model-based estimates, rate of COVID-19-related attendances in emergency care, and rate of suspected COVID-19 cases in primary care. We used data within the TPP SystmOne electronic health record system linked to Office for National Statistics mortality data, using the OpenSAFELY platform, working on behalf of NHS England. Prediction models were developed in case-cohort samples with a 100-day follow-up. Validation was undertaken in 28-day cohorts from the target population. We considered predictive performance (discrimination and calibration) in geographical and temporal subsets of data not used in developing the risk prediction models. Simple models were contrasted to models including a full range of predictors. Prediction models were developed on 11,972,947 individuals, of whom 7999 experienced COVID-19-related death. All models discriminated well between individuals who did and did not experience the outcome, including simple models adjusting only for basic demographics and number of comorbidities: C-statistics 0.92-0.94. However, absolute risk estimates were substantially miscalibrated when infection prevalence was not explicitly modelled. Our proposed models allow absolute risk estimation in the context of changing infection prevalence but predictive performance is sensitive to the proxy for infection prevalence. Simple models can provide excellent discrimination and may simplify implementation of risk prediction tools.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Obtaining accurate estimates of the risk of COVID-19-related death in the general population is challenging in the context of changing levels of circulating infection.
METHODS
METHODS
We propose a modelling approach to predict 28-day COVID-19-related death which explicitly accounts for COVID-19 infection prevalence using a series of sub-studies from new landmark times incorporating time-updating proxy measures of COVID-19 infection prevalence. This was compared with an approach ignoring infection prevalence. The target population was adults registered at a general practice in England in March 2020. The outcome was 28-day COVID-19-related death. Predictors included demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Three proxies of local infection prevalence were used: model-based estimates, rate of COVID-19-related attendances in emergency care, and rate of suspected COVID-19 cases in primary care. We used data within the TPP SystmOne electronic health record system linked to Office for National Statistics mortality data, using the OpenSAFELY platform, working on behalf of NHS England. Prediction models were developed in case-cohort samples with a 100-day follow-up. Validation was undertaken in 28-day cohorts from the target population. We considered predictive performance (discrimination and calibration) in geographical and temporal subsets of data not used in developing the risk prediction models. Simple models were contrasted to models including a full range of predictors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Prediction models were developed on 11,972,947 individuals, of whom 7999 experienced COVID-19-related death. All models discriminated well between individuals who did and did not experience the outcome, including simple models adjusting only for basic demographics and number of comorbidities: C-statistics 0.92-0.94. However, absolute risk estimates were substantially miscalibrated when infection prevalence was not explicitly modelled.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our proposed models allow absolute risk estimation in the context of changing infection prevalence but predictive performance is sensitive to the proxy for infection prevalence. Simple models can provide excellent discrimination and may simplify implementation of risk prediction tools.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35197114
doi: 10.1186/s41512-022-00120-2
pii: 10.1186/s41512-022-00120-2
pmc: PMC8865947
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
6Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/V015737/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council (UK)
ID : MR/V015737/1
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S003975/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S017968/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_20058
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Aug 1;48(4):1294-1304
pubmed: 30879056
Diagn Progn Res. 2020 Jul 2;4:8
pubmed: 32699824
Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Dec;28(12):3649-3666
pubmed: 30463497
Stat Med. 2016 Mar 30;35(7):1159-77
pubmed: 26514699
Lifetime Data Anal. 2008 Dec;14(4):447-63
pubmed: 18836831
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Apr 18;17(1):60
pubmed: 28420338
Stat Med. 1996 Feb 28;15(4):361-87
pubmed: 8668867
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Jul 15;170(2):244-56
pubmed: 19494242
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):430-436
pubmed: 32640463
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Jul;5(7):e375-e385
pubmed: 32502389
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Dec;52(12):1165-72
pubmed: 10580779
BMJ. 2015 Jan 07;350:g7594
pubmed: 25569120
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Oct 16;14:116
pubmed: 25323009
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:245-7
pubmed: 25981519
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Oct 27;70(7):461-464
pubmed: 32761080
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Apr;60(4):350-5
pubmed: 17346608
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug 1;180(3):318-24
pubmed: 24966219
Epidemiology. 2010 Jan;21(1):128-38
pubmed: 20010215