Cargando…

Clinical risk score for early prediction of recurring SARS-CoV-2 positivity in non-critical patients

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent positive results in quantitative reverse transcriptase-PCR (qRT-PCR) tests have been commonly observed in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to construct and validate a reliable risk stratification tool for early predictions of non-critical COVID-19 survivors’ risk of getting tested...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Anni, Wang, Chao, Cui, An, Zhou, Lingyu, Hu, Wei, Ma, Senlin, Zhang, Dian, Huang, Hong, Chen, Mingquan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9929941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36816718
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.1002188
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Recurrent positive results in quantitative reverse transcriptase-PCR (qRT-PCR) tests have been commonly observed in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to construct and validate a reliable risk stratification tool for early predictions of non-critical COVID-19 survivors’ risk of getting tested re-positive within 30 days. METHODS: We enrolled and retrospectively analyzed the demographic data and clinical characters of 23,145 laboratory-confirmed cases with non-critical COVID-19. Participants were followed for 30 days and randomly allocated to either a training (60%) or a validation (40%) cohort. Multivariate logistic regression models were employed to identify possible risk factors with the SARS-CoV-2 recurrent positivity and then incorporated into the nomogram. RESULTS: The study showed that the overall proportion of re-positive cases within 30 days of the last negative test was 24.1%. In the training cohort, significantly contributing variables associated with the 30-day re-positivity were clinical type, COVID-19 vaccination status, myalgia, headache, admission time, and first negative conversion, which were integrated to build a nomogram and subsequently translate these scores into an online publicly available risk calculator (https://anananan1.shinyapps.io/DynNomapp2/). The AUC in the training cohort was 0.719 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.712–0.727] with a sensitivity of 66.52% (95% CI, 65.73–67.30) and a specificity of 67.74% (95% CI, 66.97–68.52). A significant AUC of 0.716 (95% CI, 0.706–0.725) was obtained for the validation cohort with a sensitivity of 62.29% (95% CI, 61.30–63.28) and a specificity of 71.26% (95% CI, 70.34–72.18). The calibration curve exhibited a good coherence between the actual observation and predicted outcomes. CONCLUSION: The risk model can help identify and take proper management in high-risk individuals toward the containment of the pandemic in the community.