UNASSIGNED: An accurate prognostic score to predict mortality for adults with COVID-19 infection is needed to understand who would benefit most from hospitalizations and more intensive support and care. We aimed to develop and validate a two-step score system for patient triage, and to identify patients at a relatively low level of mortality risk using easy-to-collect individual information.
UNASSIGNED: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study.
UNASSIGNED: Four health centers from Virginia Commonwealth University, Georgetown University, the University of Florida, and the University of California, Los Angeles.
UNASSIGNED: Coronavirus Disease 2019-confirmed and hospitalized adult patients.
UNASSIGNED: We included 1,673 participants from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) as the derivation cohort. Risk factors for in-hospital death were identified using a multivariable logistic model with variable selection procedures after repeated missing data imputation. A two-step risk score was developed to identify patients at lower, moderate, and higher mortality risk. The first step selected increasing age, more than one pre-existing comorbidities, heart rate >100 beats/min, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min, and SpO2 <93% into the predictive model. Besides age and SpO2, the second step used blood urea nitrogen, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, platelet count, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictors. C-statistics reflected very good discrimination with internal validation at VCU (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88) and external validation at the other three health systems (range, 0.79-0.85). A one-step model was also derived for comparison. Overall, the two-step risk score had better performance than the one-step score.
UNASSIGNED: The two-step scoring system used widely available, point-of-care data for triage of COVID-19 patients and is a potentially time- and cost-saving tool in practice.

BACKGROUND: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for the exploration of heterogeneity and can identify subgroups that most benefit from an intervention (or exposure), much more successfully than meta-analysis of aggregate data. One-stage or two-stage IPD meta-analysis is possible, with the former using mixed-effects regression models and the latter obtaining study estimates through simpler regression models before aggregating using standard meta-analysis methodology. However, a comprehensive comparison of the two methods, in practice, is lacking.
METHODS: We generated 1000 datasets for each of many simulation scenarios covering different IPD sizes and different between-study variance (heterogeneity) assumptions at various levels (intercept and exposure). Numerous simulation settings of different assumptions were also used, while we evaluated performance both on main effects and interaction effects. Performance was assessed on mean bias, mean error, coverage, and power.
RESULTS: Fully specified one-stage models (random study intercept or fixed study-specific intercept; random exposure effect; and fixed study-specific effects for covariate) were the best performers overall, especially when investigating interactions. For main effects, performance was almost identical across models unless intercept heterogeneity was present, in which case the fully specified one-stage and the two-stage models performed better. For interaction effects, differences across models were greater with the two-stage model consistently outperformed by the two fully specified one-stage models.
CONCLUSIONS: A fully specified one-stage model should be preferred (accounting for potential exposure, intercept, and, possibly, interaction heterogeneity), especially when investigating interactions. If non-convergence is encountered with a random study intercept, the fixed study-specific intercept one-stage model should be used instead.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-step endoscopic placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for treatment of obstructive jaundice.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed among 90 patients who underwent transpapillary biliary metallic stent placement for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) between April 2005 and October 2012. The diagnosis of primary disease and MBO was based on abdominal ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with brush cytology, biopsy, and/or a combination of these modalities. The type of SEMS (covered or non-covered, 8 mm or 10 mm in diameter) was determined by the endoscopist. Ninety patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (49 patients) who underwent a single-step SEMS placement and group 2 (41 patients) who underwent a two-step SEMS placement. The technical success rate, complication rate, stent patency, and patient survival rate were compared between the groups. In addition, to identify the clinical prognostic factors associated with patient survival, the following variables were evaluated in Cox-regression analysis: gender, age, etiology of MBO (pancreatic cancer or non-pancreatic cancer), clinical stage (IVb; with distant metastases or IVa >; without distant metastases), chemotherapy (with or without), patency of the stent, and the use of single-step or two-step SEMS.
RESULTS: Immediate technical success was achieved in 93.9% (46/49) in group 1 and in 95.1% (39/41) in group 2, with no significant difference (P = 1.0). Similarly, there was no difference in the complication rates between the groups (group 1, 4.1% and group 2, 4.9%; P = 0.62). Stent failure was observed in 10 cases in group 1 (20.4%) and in 16 cases in group 2 (39.0%). The patency of stent and patient survival revealed no difference between the two groups with Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a mean patency of 111 ± 17 d in group 1 and 137 ± 19 d in group 2 (P = 0.91), and a mean survival of 178 ± 35 d in group 1 and 222 ± 23 d in group 2 (P = 0.57). On the contrary, the number of days of hospitalization associated with first-time SEMS placement in group 1 was shorter when compared with that number in group 2 (28 vs 39 d; P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that a clinical stage of IVa > (P = 0.0055), chemotherapy (P = 0.0048), and no patency of the stent (P = 0.011) were independent prognostic factors associated with patient survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that single-step endoscopic metal stent placement was safe and effective for treating obstructive jaundice secondary to various inoperable malignancies.