IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0214583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a prognostic risk score to aid antibiotic decision-making for children aged 2-59 months with World Health Organization fast breathing pneumonia in Malawi: An Innovative Treatments in Pneumonia (ITIP) secondary analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Eric D McCollum
  • Siobhan P Brown
  • Evangelyn Nkwopara
  • Tisungane Mvalo
  • Susanne May
  • Amy Sarah Ginsburg

Abstract

Background: Due to increasing antimicrobial resistance in low-resource settings, strategies to rationalize antibiotic treatment of children unlikely to have a bacterial infection are needed. This study’s objective was to utilize a database of placebo treated Malawian children with World Health Organization (WHO) fast breathing pneumonia to develop a prognostic risk score that could aid antibiotic decision making. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of children randomized to the placebo group of the Innovative Treatments in Pneumonia (ITIP) fast breathing randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial. Participants were low-risk HIV-uninfected children 2–59 months old with WHO fast breathing pneumonia in Lilongwe, Malawi. Study endpoints were treatment failure, defined as either disease progression at any time on or before Day 4 of treatment or disease persistence on Day 4, or relapse, considered as the recurrence of pneumonia or severe disease among previously cured children between Days 5 and 14. We utilized multivariable linear regression and stepwise model selection to develop a model to predict the probability of treatment failure or relapse. Results: Treatment failure or relapse occurred in 11.5% (61/526) of children included in this analysis. The final model incorporated the following predictors: heart rate terms, mid-upper arm circumference, malaria status, water source, family income, and whether or not a sibling or other child in the household received childcare outside the home. The model’s area under the receiver operating characteristic score was 0.712 (95% confidence interval 0.66, 0.78) and it explained 6.1% of the variability in predicting treatment failure or relapse (R2, 0.061). For the model to categorize all children with treatment failure or relapse correctly, 77% of children without treatment failure or relapse would require antibiotics. Conclusion: The model had inadequate discrimination to be appropriate for clinical application. Different strategies will likely be required for models to perform accurately among similar pediatric populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric D McCollum & Siobhan P Brown & Evangelyn Nkwopara & Tisungane Mvalo & Susanne May & Amy Sarah Ginsburg, 2019. "Development of a prognostic risk score to aid antibiotic decision-making for children aged 2-59 months with World Health Organization fast breathing pneumonia in Malawi: An Innovative Treatments in Pn," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214583
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214583
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214583&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0214583?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.