Utility of conventional clinical risk scores in a low-risk COVID-19 cohort

Background Several specific risk scores for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) involving clinical and biochemical parameters have been developed from higher-risk patients, in addition to validating well-established pneumonia risk scores. We compared multiple risk scores in predicting more severe disease in a cohort of young patients with few comorbid illnesses. Accurately predicting the progression of COVID-19 may guide triage and therapy. Methods We retrospectively examined 554 hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Singapore. The CURB-65 score, Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), ISARIC 4C prognostic score (4C), CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score, COVID-GRAM Critical Illness risk score (COVID-GRAM), Veterans Health Administration COVID-19 index for COVID-19 Mortality (VACO), and the "rule-of-6" score were compared for three performance characteristics: the need for supplemental oxygen, intensive care admission and mechanical ventilation. Results A majority of patients were young (<= 40 years, n = 372, 67.1%). 57 (10.3%) developed pneumonia, with 16 (2.9% of study population) requiring supplemental oxygen. 19 patients (3.4%) required intensive care and 2 patients (0.5%) died. The clinical risk scores predicted patients who required supplemental oxygenation and intensive care well. Adding the presence of fever to the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score and 4C score improved the ability to predict patients who required supplemental oxygen (c-statistic 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.94; and 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94 respectively). Conclusion Simple scores including well established pneumonia risk scores can help predict progression of COVID-19. Adding the presence of fever as a parameter to the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc or the 4C score improved the performance of these scores in a young population with few comorbidities.