Objective: To assess the performance of prognostic models in predicting mortality or clinical deterioration among patients with COVID-19, both hospitalized and non-hospitalized Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature until March 8, 2021. We included models for the prediction of mortality or clinical deterioration in COVID-19 with external validation. We used the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GDT) to assess the evidence obtained. Results: We reviewed 33 cohort studies. Two studies had a low risk of bias, four unclear risks, and 27 with a high risk of bias due to participant selection and analysis. For the outcome of mortality, the QCOVID model had excellent prediction with high certainty of evidence but was specific for use in England. The COVID Outcome Prediction in the Emergency Department (COPE) model, the 4C Mortality Score, the Age, BUN, number of comorbidities, CRP, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, platelet count, heart rate (ABC2-SPH) risk score, the Confusion Urea Respiration Blood Pressure (CURB-65) severity score, the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), and the Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department in Acutely Ill Older Patients (RISE UP) score had fair to good prediction of death among inpatients, while the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score had poor to fair prediction. The certainty of evidence for these models was very low to low. For the outcome of clinical deterioration, the 4C Deterioration Score had fair prediction, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) score poor to good, and the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) had poor prediction. The certainty of evidence for these three models was also very low to low. None of these models had been validated in the Philippine setting. Conclusion The QCOVID, COPE, ABC2-SPH, 4C, CURB-65, REMS, RISE-UP models for prediction of mortality and the 4C Deterioration and NEWS2 models for prediction of clinical deterioration are potentially useful but need to be validated among patients with COVID-19 of varying severity in the Philippine setting.
COVID-19 ; Mortality ; Clinical Deterioration

Objective: To assess the association between D-dimer and clinical outcomes in adults with COVID-19. Methods: We reviewed published articles and preprints from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cornell Open Access Publication (COAP), MedRxiv, and BioRxiv databases. We included cohort studies on the association between D-dimer and the outcomes of thromboembolism, mortality, and worsening severity among hospitalized adults with COVID-19. Results: We found 25 observational studies on the association between D-dimer and the outcomes of thromboembolism, mortality, or worsening severity. There was an increased risk of thromboembolism (OR 5.61 [95% CI 3.97, 7.94]) with higher D-dimer levels across different COVID-19 severities. D-dimer levels are associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR 5.57 [95% CI 2.74, 11.31]) and worsening severity manifesting as critical illness (OR 1.91 [95% CI 1.05, 3.48] to 2.58 [95% CI 1.57, 4.24]), disease progression (HR 2.846 [95% CI 2.10, 3.85]), or need for mechanical ventilation (HR 3.28 [95% CI 1.07, 10.10]). However, some methodological flaws, such as incomplete laboratory or follow-up data and concern on varied D-dimer cut-offs and definitions of worsening disease, raise some uncertainty in the widespread use of D-dimer as a prognostic marker. Conclusion A higher D-dimer value is associated with worse clinical outcomes among hospitalized adults with COVID-19 and may be a useful prognostic indicator.
COVID-19

Objective: This rapid review aimed to summarize data on the accuracy, benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of preoperative COVID-19 clinical risk assessment for asymptomatic individuals. Methods: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, ChinaXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv was done until March 10, 2021, using the keywords “COVID-19”, “surgery”, “RT-PCR”, “clinical risk assessment” and “cost-effectiveness”. We searched for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative clinical risk assessment in COVID-19 screening among asymptomatic individuals, its cost-effectiveness, and its impact on surgical outcomes and management decisions. Risk of bias was assessed using Evaluation of Articles on Diagnosis (Painless Evidence Based Medicine)10 for accuracy studies, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale11 for cohort studies, and Drummond’s checklist12 for economic evaluations. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall evidence. Data from included studies were collated qualitatively using summary tables and analyzed in Review Manager 5.4. Pooling of sensitivity and specificity, odds ratio or adjusted odds ratio, and cost-effectiveness measures using a random-effects model was planned. Heterogeneity was determined using I2. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were preplanned in case significant heterogeneity was found. Results: Three observational studies were included. Preoperative clinical risk assessment for COVID-19 demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.15-0.72) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.92), using RT-PCR as a reference standard. Indirect evidence showed that any positive clinical risk assessment, COVID-19 antigen or RT-PCR test is done within 0–7 weeks from surgery was associated with a higher 30-day postoperative mortality (RR 3.96, 95% CI 3.41, 4.59) and pulmonary complications (RR 3.41, 95% CI 3.04, 3.83). Delaying surgery at least seven weeks from COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with lower post-surgical complications. Universal pre-endoscopy virus testing using the antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) (ICER = -26,286 €), standard RT-PCR (ICER = -11,128€), or rapid PCR (ICER = -13,703 €) combined with high-risk personal protective equipment (PPE) use in all patients irrespective of test results were found to be more cost-effective compared to no pre-endoscopy testing and no high-risk PPE use, at an, assumed COVID-19 prevalence of 1% or higher among asymptomatic individuals. Overall certainty of evidence was very low. Conclusion Preoperative clinical risk assessment has poor sensitivity but high specificity for detecting COVID-19 among asymptomatic individuals undergoing elective surgery. Objective diagnostic tests such as RT-PCR or Ag-RDT may still be needed to inform surgery schedules.
COVID-19 ; Mass Screening