Dataset Information

Strategies to minimize heterogeneity and optimize clinical trials in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS): Insights from mathematical modelling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mathematical modelling may aid in understanding the complex interactions between injury and immune response in critical illness.

Methods

We 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.

Findings

Model 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 (<4^th day of infection) and broad immunosuppression therapy (corticosteroids) is predicted to be optimally initiated later in the disease (7^th - 9^th day of infection). We show that markers of biologic programs identified by the model correspond to clinically identified markers of disease severity.

Interpretation

We 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.

Funding

C.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.

SUBMITTER: Subudhi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8757652 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.