Christopher W Seymour1,2,3, Jason N Kennedy1,3, Shu Wang4, Chung-Chou H Chang3,4,5, Corrine F Elliott6, Zhongying Xu4, Scott Berry6, Gilles Clermont1,3, Gregory Cooper7, Hernando Gomez1,2,3, David T Huang1,2,3, John A Kellum1,3, Qi Mi8, Steven M Opal9, Victor Talisa4, Tom van der Poll10, Shyam Visweswaran7, Yoram Vodovotz11, Jeremy C Weiss12, Donald M Yealy2, Sachin Yende1,3,13, Derek C Angus1,3,5. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Berry Consultants, Austin, Texas. 7. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Sports Medicine and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 9. Department of Medicine, Infectious Disease Division, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence. 10. Center of Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 11. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 12. Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 13. Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Importance: Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome. Identification of distinct clinical phenotypes may allow more precise therapy and improve care. Objective: To derive sepsis phenotypes from clinical data, determine their reproducibility and correlation with host-response biomarkers and clinical outcomes, and assess the potential causal relationship with results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design, Settings, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of data sets using statistical, machine learning, and simulation tools. Phenotypes were derived among 20 189 total patients (16 552 unique patients) who met Sepsis-3 criteria within 6 hours of hospital presentation at 12 Pennsylvania hospitals (2010-2012) using consensus k means clustering applied to 29 variables. Reproducibility and correlation with biological parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed in a second database (2013-2014; n = 43 086 total patients and n = 31 160 unique patients), in a prospective cohort study of sepsis due to pneumonia (n = 583), and in 3 sepsis RCTs (n = 4737). Exposures: All clinical and laboratory variables in the electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: Derived phenotype (α, β, γ, and δ) frequency, host-response biomarkers, 28-day and 365-day mortality, and RCT simulation outputs. Results: The derivation cohort included 20 189 patients with sepsis (mean age, 64 [SD, 17] years; 10 022 [50%] male; mean maximum 24-hour Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 3.9 [SD, 2.4]). The validation cohort included 43 086 patients (mean age, 67 [SD, 17] years; 21 993 [51%] male; mean maximum 24-hour SOFA score, 3.6 [SD, 2.0]). Of the 4 derived phenotypes, the α phenotype was the most common (n = 6625; 33%) and included patients with the lowest administration of a vasopressor; in the β phenotype (n = 5512; 27%), patients were older and had more chronic illness and renal dysfunction; in the γ phenotype (n = 5385; 27%), patients had more inflammation and pulmonary dysfunction; and in the δ phenotype (n = 2667; 13%), patients had more liver dysfunction and septic shock. Phenotype distributions were similar in the validation cohort. There were consistent differences in biomarker patterns by phenotype. In the derivation cohort, cumulative 28-day mortality was 287 deaths of 5691 unique patients (5%) for the α phenotype; 561 of 4420 (13%) for the β phenotype; 1031 of 4318 (24%) for the γ phenotype; and 897 of 2223 (40%) for the δ phenotype. Across all cohorts and trials, 28-day and 365-day mortality were highest among the δ phenotype vs the other 3 phenotypes (P < .001). In simulation models, the proportion of RCTs reporting benefit, harm, or no effect changed considerably (eg, varying the phenotype frequencies within an RCT of early goal-directed therapy changed the results from >33% chance of benefit to >60% chance of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of data sets from patients with sepsis, 4 clinical phenotypes were identified that correlated with host-response patterns and clinical outcomes, and simulations suggested these phenotypes may help in understanding heterogeneity of treatment effects. Further research is needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical care and for informing trial design and interpretation.
Importance: Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome. Identification of distinct clinical phenotypes may allow more precise therapy and improve care. Objective: To derive sepsis phenotypes from clinical data, determine their reproducibility and correlation with host-response biomarkers and clinical outcomes, and assess the potential causal relationship with results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design, Settings, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of data sets using statistical, machine learning, and simulation tools. Phenotypes were derived among 20 189 total patients (16 552 unique patients) who met Sepsis-3 criteria within 6 hours of hospital presentation at 12 Pennsylvania hospitals (2010-2012) using consensus k means clustering applied to 29 variables. Reproducibility and correlation with biological parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed in a second database (2013-2014; n = 43 086 total patients and n = 31 160 unique patients), in a prospective cohort study of sepsis due to pneumonia (n = 583), and in 3 sepsis RCTs (n = 4737). Exposures: All clinical and laboratory variables in the electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: Derived phenotype (α, β, γ, and δ) frequency, host-response biomarkers, 28-day and 365-day mortality, and RCT simulation outputs. Results: The derivation cohort included 20 189 patients with sepsis (mean age, 64 [SD, 17] years; 10 022 [50%] male; mean maximum 24-hour Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 3.9 [SD, 2.4]). The validation cohort included 43 086 patients (mean age, 67 [SD, 17] years; 21 993 [51%] male; mean maximum 24-hour SOFA score, 3.6 [SD, 2.0]). Of the 4 derived phenotypes, the α phenotype was the most common (n = 6625; 33%) and included patients with the lowest administration of a vasopressor; in the β phenotype (n = 5512; 27%), patients were older and had more chronic illness and renal dysfunction; in the γ phenotype (n = 5385; 27%), patients had more inflammation and pulmonary dysfunction; and in the δ phenotype (n = 2667; 13%), patients had more liver dysfunction and septic shock. Phenotype distributions were similar in the validation cohort. There were consistent differences in biomarker patterns by phenotype. In the derivation cohort, cumulative 28-day mortality was 287 deaths of 5691 unique patients (5%) for the α phenotype; 561 of 4420 (13%) for the β phenotype; 1031 of 4318 (24%) for the γ phenotype; and 897 of 2223 (40%) for the δ phenotype. Across all cohorts and trials, 28-day and 365-day mortality were highest among the δ phenotype vs the other 3 phenotypes (P < .001). In simulation models, the proportion of RCTs reporting benefit, harm, or no effect changed considerably (eg, varying the phenotype frequencies within an RCT of early goal-directed therapy changed the results from >33% chance of benefit to >60% chance of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of data sets from patients with sepsis, 4 clinical phenotypes were identified that correlated with host-response patterns and clinical outcomes, and simulations suggested these phenotypes may help in understanding heterogeneity of treatment effects. Further research is needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical care and for informing trial design and interpretation.
Authors: J L Vincent; R Moreno; J Takala; S Willatts; A De Mendonça; H Bruining; C K Reinhart; P M Suter; L G Thijs Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Timothy E Sweeney; Tej D Azad; Michele Donato; Winston A Haynes; Thanneer M Perumal; Ricardo Henao; Jesús F Bermejo-Martin; Raquel Almansa; Eduardo Tamayo; Judith A Howrylak; Augustine Choi; Grant P Parnell; Benjamin Tang; Marshall Nichols; Christopher W Woods; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Stephen F Kingsmore; Larsson Omberg; Lara M Mangravite; Hector R Wong; Ephraim L Tsalik; Raymond J Langley; Purvesh Khatri Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: John A Kellum; Lan Kong; Mitchell P Fink; Lisa A Weissfeld; Donald M Yealy; Michael R Pinsky; Jonathan Fine; Alexander Krichevsky; Russell L Delude; Derek C Angus Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007 Aug 13-27
Authors: Ben Andrews; Levy Muchemwa; Paul Kelly; Shabir Lakhi; Douglas C Heimburger; Gordon R Bernard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Steven M Opal; Pierre-Francois Laterre; Bruno Francois; Steven P LaRosa; Derek C Angus; Jean-Paul Mira; Xavier Wittebole; Thierry Dugernier; Dominique Perrotin; Mark Tidswell; Luis Jauregui; Kenneth Krell; Jan Pachl; Takeshi Takahashi; Claus Peckelsen; Edward Cordasco; Chia-Sheng Chang; Sandra Oeyen; Naoki Aikawa; Tatsuya Maruyama; Roland Schein; Andre C Kalil; Marc Van Nuffelen; Melvyn Lynn; Daniel P Rossignol; Jogadish Gogate; Mary B Roberts; Janice L Wheeler; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emma E Davenport; Katie L Burnham; Jayachandran Radhakrishnan; Peter Humburg; Paula Hutton; Tara C Mills; Anna Rautanen; Anthony C Gordon; Christopher Garrard; Adrian V S Hill; Charles J Hinds; Julian C Knight Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 102.642
Authors: Anne R Levenson; Luisa Morales-Nebreda; Michael J Alexander; Clara J Schroedl Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Frank M Davis; Matthew A Schaller; Aaron Dendekker; Amrita D Joshi; Andrew S Kimball; Holly Evanoff; Carol Wilke; Andrea T Obi; William J Melvin; Karen Cavassani; Melissa Scola; Beau Carson; Stephanie Moser; Victoria Blanc; Milo Engoren; Bethany B Moore; Steven L Kunkel; Katherine A Gallagher Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Priya A Prasad; Margaret C Fang; Yumiko Abe-Jones; Carolyn S Calfee; Michael A Matthay; Kirsten N Kangelaris Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Georgios D Kitsios; Libing Yang; Dimitris V Manatakis; Mehdi Nouraie; John Evankovich; William Bain; Daniel G Dunlap; Faraaz Shah; Ian J Barbash; Sarah F Rapport; Yingze Zhang; Rebecca S DeSensi; Nathaniel M Weathington; Bill B Chen; Prabir Ray; Rama K Mallampalli; Panayiotis V Benos; Janet S Lee; Alison Morris; Bryan J McVerry Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 7.598