Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients With Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis-ABCD-10.
Journal
JAMA dermatology
ISSN: 2168-6084
Titre abrégé: JAMA Dermatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589530
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2019
01 04 2019
Historique:
pmc-release:
06
03
2020
pubmed:
7
3
2019
medline:
12
2
2020
entrez:
7
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) is a spectrum of severe mucocutaneous drug reaction associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A previously developed SJS/TEN-specific severity-of-illness model (Score of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis [SCORTEN]) has been reported to overestimate and underestimate SJS/TEN-related in-hospital mortality in various populations. To derive a risk prediction model for in-hospital mortality among patients with SJS/TEN and to compare prognostic accuracy with the SCORTEN model in a multi-institutional cohort of patients in the United States. Data from a multicenter cohort of patients 18 years and older treated for SJS/TEN between January 1, 2000, and June 1, 2015, were obtained from inpatient consult databases and electronic medical record systems at 18 medical centers in the United States as part of the Society for Dermatology Hospitalists. A risk model was derived based on data from 370 of these patients. Model discrimination (calculated as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration (calculated as predicted vs observed mortality, and examined using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic) were assessed, and the predictive accuracy was compared with that of SCORTEN. All analysis took place between December 2016 and April 2018. In-hospital mortality. Among 370 patients (mean [SD] age 49.0 [19.1] years; 195 [52.7%] women), 54 (15.14%) did not survive to hospital discharge. Five covariates, measured at the time of admission, were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality: age in years (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07), body surface area (BSA) in percentage of epidermal detachment (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), serum bicarbonate level below 20 mmol/L (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.43-5.88), active cancer (OR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.82-10.61), and dialysis prior to admission (OR, 15.94; 95% CI, 3.38-66.30). A severity-of-illness score was calculated by taking the sum of 1 point each for age 50 years or older, epidermal detachment greater than 10% of BSA, and serum bicarbonate level below 20 mmol/L; 2 points for the presence of active cancer; and 3 points for dialysis prior to admission. The score was named ABCD-10 (age, bicarbonate, cancer, dialysis, 10% BSA). The ABCD-10 model showed good discrimination (AUC, 0.816; 95% CI, 0.759-0.872) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test, P = .30). For SCORTEN, on admission, the AUC was 0.827 (95% CI, 0.774-0.879) and was not significantly different from that of the ABCD-10 model (P = .72). In this cohort of patients with SJS/TEN, ABCD-10 accurately predicted in-hospital mortality, with discrimination that was not significantly different from SCORTEN. Additional research is needed to validate ABCD-10 in other populations. Future use of a new mortality prediction model may provide improved prognostic information for contemporary patients, including those enrolled in observational studies and therapeutic trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30840032
pii: 2727365
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5605
pmc: PMC6459085
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
448-454Subventions
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 AR007465
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Type : ErratumIn
Kroshinsky, Daniel [corrected to Kroshinsky, Daniela]
Références
J Burn Care Res. 2006 May-Jun;27(3):270-5
pubmed: 16679892
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2008 Jan-Feb;74(1):35-7
pubmed: 18187821
Burns. 2013 Nov;39(7):1449-55
pubmed: 23702222
J Invest Dermatol. 2013 May;133(5):1197-204
pubmed: 23389396
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Jan;58(1):33-40
pubmed: 17919775
Br J Dermatol. 2017 May;176(5):1370-1372
pubmed: 27510226
J Invest Dermatol. 2016 Jul;136(7):1387-1397
pubmed: 27039263
Arch Dermatol. 2004 Jul;140(7):890-2
pubmed: 15262712
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
J Burn Care Res. 2012 Nov-Dec;33(6):e295-308
pubmed: 22955159
Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29-36
pubmed: 7063747
J Burn Care Rehabil. 2002 Mar-Apr;23(2):87-96
pubmed: 11882797
Br J Dermatol. 2007 Dec;157(6):1294-6
pubmed: 17916192
J Invest Dermatol. 2006 Feb;126(2):272-6
pubmed: 16374461
Med Decis Making. 1995 Apr-Jun;15(2):120-31
pubmed: 7783572
Int J Dermatol. 2015 Jan;54(1):e18-26
pubmed: 25534407
J Burn Care Res. 2008 Jan-Feb;29(1):141-6
pubmed: 18182912
J Invest Dermatol. 2018 Nov;138(11):2315-2321
pubmed: 29758282
Arch Dermatol. 1993 Jan;129(1):92-6
pubmed: 8420497
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013 May;27(5):628-33
pubmed: 22452516
J Burn Care Res. 2011 Mar-Apr;32(2):237-45
pubmed: 21228709
Am J Epidemiol. 1982 Jan;115(1):92-106
pubmed: 7055134
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Aug;54(8):774-81
pubmed: 11470385
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Oct;67(4):630-5
pubmed: 22285617
Acta Derm Venereol. 2005;85(6):497-502
pubmed: 16396796