Dataset Information

Identification of acute respiratory distress syndrome subphenotypes de novo using routine clinical data: a retrospective analysis of ARDS clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous condition, and identification of subphenotypes may help in better risk stratification. Our study objective is to identify ARDS subphenotypes using new simpler methodology and readily available clinical variables.

Setting

This is a retrospective Cohort Study of ARDS trials. Data from the US ARDSNet trials and from the international ART trial.

Participants

3763 patients from ARDSNet data sets and 1010 patients from the ART data set.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The primary outcome was 60-day or 28-day mortality, depending on what was reported in the original trial. K-means cluster analysis was performed to identify subgroups. Sets of candidate variables were tested to assess their ability to produce different probabilities for mortality in each cluster. Clusters were compared with biomarker data, allowing identification of subphenotypes.

Results

Data from 4773 patients were analysed. Two subphenotypes (A and B) resulted in optimal separation in the final model, which included nine routinely collected clinical variables, namely heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, bilirubin, bicarbonate, creatinine, PaO₂, arterial pH and FiO₂. Participants in subphenotype B showed increased levels of proinflammatory markers, had consistently higher mortality, lower number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and longer duration of ventilation compared with patients in the subphenotype A.

Conclusions

Routinely available clinical data can successfully identify two distinct subphenotypes in adult ARDS patients. This work may facilitate implementation of precision therapy in ARDS clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Duggal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739395 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMathematical modelling may aid in understanding the complex interactions between injury and immune response in critical illness.MethodsWe utilize a system biology model of COVID-19 to analyze the effect of altering baseline patient characteristics on the outcome of immunomodulatory therapies. We create example parameter sets meant to mimic diverse patient types. For each patient type, we define the optimal treatment, identify biologic programs responsible for clinical responses, and predict biomarkers of those programs.FindingsModel states representing older and hyperinflamed patients respond better to immunomodulation than those representing obese and diabetic patients. The disparate clinical responses are driven by distinct biologic programs. Optimal treatment initiation time is determined by neutrophil recruitment, systemic cytokine expression, systemic microthrombosis and the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in older patients, and by RAS, systemic microthrombosis and trans IL6 signalling for hyperinflamed patients. For older and hyperinflamed patients, IL6 modulating therapy is predicted to be optimal when initiated very early (<4th day of infection) and broad immunosuppression therapy (corticosteroids) is predicted to be optimally initiated later in the disease (7th - 9th day of infection). We show that markers of biologic programs identified by the model correspond to clinically identified markers of disease severity.InterpretationWe demonstrate that modelling of COVID-19 pathobiology can suggest biomarkers that predict optimal response to a given immunomodulatory treatment. Mathematical modelling thus constitutes a novel adjunct to predictive enrichment and may aid in the reduction of heterogeneity in critical care trials.FundingC.V. received a Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions Individual Fellowship (MSCA-IF-GF-2020-101028945). R.K.J.'s research is supported by R01-CA208205, and U01-CA 224348, R35-CA197743 and grants from the National Foundation for Cancer Research, Jane's Trust Foundation, Advanced Medical Research Foundation and Harvard Ludwig Cancer Center. No funder had a role in production or approval of this manuscript.

Project description:Subphenotypes have been identified within heterogeneous diseases such as asthma and breast cancer, with important therapeutic implications. We assessed whether subphenotypes exist within acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), another heterogeneous disorder.We used data from two ARDS randomised controlled trials (ARMA trial and ALVEOLI trial), sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. We applied latent class modelling to identify subphenotypes using clinical and biological data. We modelled data from both studies independently. We then tested the association of subphenotypes with clinical outcomes in both cohorts and with the response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the ALVEOLI cohort.We analysed data for 1022 patients: 473 in the ARMA cohort and 549 in the ALVEOLI cohort. Independent latent class models indicated that a two-class (ie, two subphenotype) model was the best fit for both cohorts. In both cohorts, we identified a hyperinflammatory subphenotype (phenotype 2) that was characterised by higher plasma concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers, a higher prevalence of vasopressor use, lower serum bicarbonate concentrations, and a higher prevalence of sepsis than phenotype 1. Participants in phenotype 2 had higher mortality and fewer ventilator-free days and organ failure-free days in both cohorts than did those in phenotype 1 (p<0·007 for all). In the ALVEOLI cohort, the effects of ventilation strategy (high PEEP vs low PEEP) on mortality, ventilator-free days and organ failure-free days differed by phenotype (p=0·049 for mortality, p=0·018 for ventilator-free days, p=0·003 for organ-failure-free days).We have identified two subphenotypes within ARDS, one of which is categorised by more severe inflammation, shock, and metabolic acidosis and by worse clinical outcomes. Response to treatment in a randomised trial of PEEP strategies differed on the basis of subphenotype. Identification of ARDS subphenotypes might be useful in selecting patients for future clinical trials.National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical condition that is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Aerosolized prostacyclin has been used to improve oxygenation despite the limited evidence available so far.This review was originally published in 2010 and updated in 2017.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children with ARDS.Search methodsIn this update, we searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 4); MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI BIOSIS Previews, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and three trials registers. We handsearched the reference lists of the latest reviews, randomized and non-randomized trials, and editorials, and cross-checked them with our search of MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The search was run from inception to 5 May 2017.Selection criteriaWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted trial investigators and study authors to retrieve relevant and missing data.Data collection and analysisThree authors independently abstracted data and resolved any disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We planned to perform subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children, and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of methodological trial components and the risk of random error through trial sequential analysis.Main resultsWe included two RCTs with 81 participants.One RCT involved 14 critically ill children with ARDS (very low quality of evidence), and one RCT involved 67 critically ill adults (very low quality evidence).Only one RCT (paediatric trial) provided data on mortality and found no difference between intervention and control. However, this trial was eligible for meta-analysis due to a cross-over design.We assessed the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin. One RCT found no difference in improvement of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (mean difference (MD) -25.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.48 to 9.78; P = 0.16; 67 participants, very low quality evidence).There were no adverse events such as bleeding or organ dysfunction in any of the included trials. Due to the limited number of RCTs, we were unable to perform the prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses or trial sequential analysis.Authors' conclusionsWe are unable to tell from our results whether the intervention has an important effect on mortality because the results were too imprecise to rule out a small or no effect. Therefore, no current evidence supports or refutes the routine use of aerosolized prostacyclin for people with ARDS. There is an urgent need for more RCTs.