Katie R Famous1, Kevin Delucchi2, Lorraine B Ware3,4, Kirsten N Kangelaris5, Kathleen D Liu6,7, B Taylor Thompson8, Carolyn S Calfee1,7. 1. 1 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine. 2. 2 Department of Psychiatry. 3. 3 Department of Medicine, and. 4. 4 Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee; and. 5. 5 Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine. 6. 6 Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and. 7. 7 Department of Anesthesia, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 8. 8 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
RATIONALE: We previously identified two acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) subphenotypes in two separate randomized controlled trials with differential response to positive end-expiratory pressure. OBJECTIVES: To identify these subphenotypes in a third ARDS cohort, to test whether subphenotypes respond differently to fluid management strategy, and to develop a practical model for subphenotype identification. METHODS: We used latent class analysis of baseline clinical and plasma biomarker data to identify subphenotypes in FACTT (Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial; n = 1,000). Logistic regression was used to test for an interaction between subphenotype and treatment for mortality. We used stepwise modeling to generate a model for subphenotype identification in FACTT and validated its accuracy in the two cohorts in which we previously identified ARDS subphenotypes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We confirmed that a two-class (two-subphenotype) model best described the study population. Subphenotype 2 was again characterized by higher inflammatory biomarkers and hypotension. Fluid management strategy had significantly different effects on 90-day mortality in the two subphenotypes (P = 0.0039 for interaction); mortality in subphenotype 1 was 26% with fluid-liberal strategy versus 18% with fluid-conservative, whereas mortality in subphenotype 2 was 40% with fluid-liberal strategy versus 50% in fluid-conservative. A three-variable model of IL-8, bicarbonate, and tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 accurately classified the subphenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the presence of two ARDS subphenotypes that can be accurately identified with a limited number of variables and that responded differently to randomly assigned fluid management. These findings support the presence of ARDS subtypes that may require different treatment approaches.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: We previously identified two acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) subphenotypes in two separate randomized controlled trials with differential response to positive end-expiratory pressure. OBJECTIVES: To identify these subphenotypes in a third ARDS cohort, to test whether subphenotypes respond differently to fluid management strategy, and to develop a practical model for subphenotype identification. METHODS: We used latent class analysis of baseline clinical and plasma biomarker data to identify subphenotypes in FACTT (Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial; n = 1,000). Logistic regression was used to test for an interaction between subphenotype and treatment for mortality. We used stepwise modeling to generate a model for subphenotype identification in FACTT and validated its accuracy in the two cohorts in which we previously identified ARDS subphenotypes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We confirmed that a two-class (two-subphenotype) model best described the study population. Subphenotype 2 was again characterized by higher inflammatory biomarkers and hypotension. Fluid management strategy had significantly different effects on 90-day mortality in the two subphenotypes (P = 0.0039 for interaction); mortality in subphenotype 1 was 26% with fluid-liberal strategy versus 18% with fluid-conservative, whereas mortality in subphenotype 2 was 40% with fluid-liberal strategy versus 50% in fluid-conservative. A three-variable model of IL-8, bicarbonate, and tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 accurately classified the subphenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the presence of two ARDS subphenotypes that can be accurately identified with a limited number of variables and that responded differently to randomly assigned fluid management. These findings support the presence of ARDS subtypes that may require different treatment approaches.
Authors: Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; David Schoenfeld; Herbert P Wiedemann; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Theodore J Iwashyna; James F Burke; Jeremy B Sussman; Hallie C Prescott; Rodney A Hayward; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Carolyn S Calfee; David R Janz; Gordon R Bernard; Addison K May; Kirsten N Kangelaris; Michael A Matthay; Lorraine B Ware Journal: Chest Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vineet Bhandari; Rayman Choo-Wing; Chun G Lee; Zhou Zhu; Jonathan H Nedrelow; Geoffrey L Chupp; Xucher Zhang; Michael A Matthay; Lorraine B Ware; Robert J Homer; Patty J Lee; Anke Geick; Antonin R de Fougerolles; Jack A Elias Journal: Nat Med Date: 2006-11-05 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Ashish Agrawal; Michael A Matthay; Kirsten N Kangelaris; John Stein; Jeffrey C Chu; Brandon M Imp; Alfredo Cortez; Jason Abbott; Kathleen D Liu; Carolyn S Calfee Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Roy G Brower; Paul N Lanken; Neil MacIntyre; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; Marek Ancukiewicz; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lorraine B Ware; Mark D Eisner; B Taylor Thompson; Polly E Parsons; Michael A Matthay Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-06-16 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: David B Antcliffe; Shalini Santhakumaran; Robert M L Orme; Josie K Ward; Farah Al-Beidh; Kieran O'Dea; Gavin D Perkins; Mervyn Singer; Daniel F McAuley; Alexina J Mason; Mary Cross; Deborah Ashby; Anthony C Gordon Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Heather Lynn; Xiaoguang Sun; Nancy Casanova; Manuel Gonzales-Garay; Christian Bime; Joe G N Garcia Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 8.401
Authors: Nuala J Meyer; John P Reilly; Rui Feng; Jason D Christie; Stanley L Hazen; Carolyn J Albert; Jacob D Franke; Celine L Hartman; Jane McHowat; David A Ford Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2017-12-07
Authors: Carolyn S Calfee; Kevin L Delucchi; Pratik Sinha; Michael A Matthay; Jonathan Hackett; Manu Shankar-Hari; Cliona McDowell; John G Laffey; Cecilia M O'Kane; Daniel F McAuley Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 30.700