Author: Mak, Jonathan K. L.; Kujaâ€Halkola, Ralf; Wang, Yunzhang; Hägg, Sara; Jylhävä, Juulia
Title: Frailty and comorbidity in predicting community COVIDâ€19 mortality in the U.K. Biobank: The effect of sampling Cord-id: zx3xyv2f Document date: 2021_3_5
ID: zx3xyv2f
Snippet: BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Frailty has been linked to increased risk of COVIDâ€19 mortality, but evidence is mainly limited to hospitalized older individuals. This study aimed to assess and compare predictive abilities of different frailty and comorbidity measures for COVIDâ€19 mortality in a community sample and COVIDâ€19 inpatients. DESIGN: Populationâ€based cohort study. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed (i) the full sample of 410,199 U.K. Biobank participants in England, aged 49â
Document: BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Frailty has been linked to increased risk of COVIDâ€19 mortality, but evidence is mainly limited to hospitalized older individuals. This study aimed to assess and compare predictive abilities of different frailty and comorbidity measures for COVIDâ€19 mortality in a community sample and COVIDâ€19 inpatients. DESIGN: Populationâ€based cohort study. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed (i) the full sample of 410,199 U.K. Biobank participants in England, aged 49–86 years, and (ii) a subsample of 2812 COVIDâ€19 inpatients with COVIDâ€19 data from March 1 to November 30, 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was defined using the physical frailty phenotype (PFP), frailty index (FI), and Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), and comorbidity using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). PFP and FI were available at baseline, whereas HFRS and CCI were assessed both at baseline and concurrently with the start of the pandemic. Inpatient COVIDâ€19 cases were confirmed by PCR and/or hospital records. COVIDâ€19 mortality was ascertained from death registers. RESULTS: Overall, 514 individuals died of COVIDâ€19. In the full sample, all frailty and comorbidity measures were associated with higher COVIDâ€19 mortality risk after adjusting for age and sex. However, the associations were stronger for the concurrent versus baseline HFRS and CCI, with odds ratios of 20.40 (95% confidence interval = 16.24–25.63) comparing high (>15) to low (<5) concurrent HFRS risk category and 1.53 (1.48–1.59) per point increase in concurrent CCI. Moreover, only the concurrent HFRS or CCI significantly improved predictive ability of a model including age and sex, yielding areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) >0.8. When restricting analyses to COVIDâ€19 inpatients, similar improvement in AUC was not observed. CONCLUSION: HFRS and CCI constructed from medical records concurrent with the start of the pandemic can be used in COVIDâ€19 mortality risk stratification at the population level, but they show limited added value in COVIDâ€19 inpatients.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- absolute risk and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
- absolute risk and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- absolute risk and low agreement: 1
- absolute risk difference and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- absolute risk difference and logistic regression model: 1
- accumulate evidence and logistic regression: 1
- accumulation model and logistic regression: 1
- accurate prediction and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- accurate prediction and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- accurate predictor and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3
- add predictive value and logistic regression: 1, 2
- additional support information and logistic regression: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date