S95 The utility of established prognostic scores in COVID-19 hospital admissions: a collaborative trainee-led, multi-centre prospective evaluation of CURB-65, NEWS2, and qSOFA

S95 Table 1Diagnostic performance of individual scores for 30-day and 72-hour mortality Score (n)Death (%)SensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVDeath by 30 days CURB-65 (n=730)<2 (324) ≥2 (406)54 (16 7%) 216 (53 2%)0 800 590 530 83<3 (514) ≥3 (216)141 (27 4%) 129 (59 7%)0 480 810 600 73 NEWS2 (n=730)<5 (215) ≥5 (515)46 (21 4%) 224 (43 5%)0 830 370 430 79 qSOFA (n=730)<2 (596) ≥2 (134)196 (32 9%) 74 (55 2%)0 270 870 550 67 Death within 72 hours Score(n)Death (%)SensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVCURB-65 (n=730)<2 (324) ≥2 (406)9 (2 8%) 50 (12 3%)0 850 470 120 97<3 (514) ≥3 (216)23 (4 5%) 36 (16 7%)0 610 730 170 96 NEWS2 (n=730)<5 (215) ≥5 (515)5 (2 3%) 54 (10 5%)0 920 310 100 98 qSOFA (n=730)<2 (596) ≥2 (134)34 (5 7%) 25 (18 7%)0 420 840 190 94 Abbreviations: PPV=Positive predictive value;NPV=Negative predictive valueConclusionll existing prognostic scores evaluated here underestimated adverse outcomes and performed sub-optimally in the COVID-19 setting New prognostic tools including a focus on features of respiratory compromise rather than circulatory collapse are needed We provide a baseline set of variables which are relevant to COVID-19 outcomes and may be used as a basis for developing a bespoke COVID-19 prognostication tool This collaborative project demonstrates the ability of regional trainee networks to collate large datasets to address important clinical questions