Search

Abstract Background Several scores aimed at predicting COVID-19 progression have been proposed. As the variables vaccination and early SARS-CoV-2 treatment were systematically excluded from the prognostic scores, the present study's objective was to develop a new model adapted to the current epidemiological scenario. Methods We included all patients evaluated by the Infectious Disease Unit in Sassari, with SARS-CoV-2 infection and without signs of respiratory failure at the first evaluation (P/F > 300). Disease progression was defined by the prescription of supplemental oxygen. In addition, variables related to demographics, vaccines, comorbidities, symptoms, CT scans, blood tests, and therapies were collected. Multivariate logistic regression modelling was performed to determine factors associated with progression; any variable with significant univariate test or clinical relevance was selected as a candidate for multivariate analysis. Hosmer–Lemeshow (HL) goodness of fit statistic was calculated. Odds ratio values were used to derive an integer score for developing an easy-to-use progression risk score. The discrimination performance of the risk index was determined using the AUC, and the best cut-off point, according to the Youden index, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and likelihood ratio, was chosen. Results 1145 patients [median (IQR) age 74 (62–83) years; 53.5% males] were enrolled; 336 (29.3%) had disease progression. Patients with a clinical progression were older and showed more comorbidities; furthermore, they were less vaccinated and exposed to preventive therapy. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, age ≥ 60 years, COPD, dementia, haematological tumours, heart failure, exposure to no or one vaccine dose, fever, dyspnoea, GGO, consolidation, ferritin, De Ritis ≥ 1.2, LDH, and no exposure to early anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment were associated with disease progression. The final risk score ranged from 0 to 45. The ROC curve analysis showed an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI 0.90–0.93) with a 93.7% specificity and 72.9% sensitivity. Low risk was defined when the cut-off value was less than 23. Three risk levels were identified: low (0–23 points), medium (24–35), and high (≥ 36). Conclusions The proportion of patients with progression increases with high scores: the assessment of the risk could be helpful for clinicians to plan appropriate therapeutic strategies.