scholarly journals Comparison of machine learning clustering algorithms for detecting heterogeneity of treatment effect in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A secondary analysis of three randomised controlled trials

EBioMedicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 103697
Author(s):  
Pratik Sinha ◽  
Alexandra Spicer ◽  
Kevin L Delucchi ◽  
Daniel F McAuley ◽  
Carolyn S Calfee ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1-104
Author(s):  
Manu Shankar-Hari ◽  
Shalini Santhakumaran ◽  
A Toby Prevost ◽  
Josie K Ward ◽  
Timothy Marshall ◽  
...  

Background Sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome are two heterogeneous acute illnesses with high risk of death and for which there are many ‘statistically negative’ randomised controlled trials. We hypothesised that negative randomised controlled trials occur because of between-participant differences in response to treatment, illness manifestation (phenotype) and risk of outcomes (heterogeneity). Objectives To assess (1) heterogeneity of treatment effect, which tests whether or not treatment effect varies with a patient’s pre-randomisation risk of outcome; and (2) whether or not subphenotypes explain the treatment response differences in sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome demonstrated in randomised controlled trials. Study population We performed secondary analysis of two randomised controlled trials in patients with sepsis [i.e. the Vasopressin vs Noradrenaline as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial and the Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial] and one acute respiratory distress syndrome multicentre randomised controlled trial [i.e. the Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in Acute lung injury to Reduce Pulmonary dysfunction (HARP-2) trial], conducted in the UK. The VANISH trial is a 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial of vasopressin (Pressyn AR®; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Saint-Prex, Switzerland) and hydrocortisone sodium phosphate (hereafter referred to as hydrocortisone) (EfcortesolTM; Amdipharm plc, St Helier, Jersey) compared with placebo. The LeoPARDS trial is a two-arm-parallel-group randomised controlled trial of levosimendan (Simdax®; Orion Pharma, Espoo, Finland) compared with placebo. The HARP-2 trial is a parallel-group randomised controlled trial of simvastatin compared with placebo. Methods To test for heterogeneity of the effect on 28-day mortality of vasopressin, hydrocortisone and levosimendan in patients with sepsis and of simvastatin in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We used the total Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score as the baseline risk measurement, comparing treatment effects in patients with baseline APACHE II scores above (high) and below (low) the median using regression models with an interaction between treatment and baseline risk. To identify subphenotypes, we performed latent class analysis using only baseline clinical and biomarker data, and compared clinical outcomes across subphenotypes and treatment groups. Results The odds of death in the highest APACHE II quartile compared with the lowest quartile ranged from 4.9 to 7.4, across the three trials. We did not observe heterogeneity of treatment effect for vasopressin, hydrocortisone and levosimendan. In the HARP-2 trial, simvastatin reduced mortality in the low-APACHE II group and increased mortality in the high-APACHE II group. In the VANISH trial, a two-subphenotype model provided the best fit for the data. Subphenotype 2 individuals had more inflammation and shorter survival. There were no treatment effect differences between the two subphenotypes. In the LeoPARDS trial, a three-subphenotype model provided the best fit for the data. Subphenotype 3 individuals had the greatest inflammation and lowest survival. There were no treatment effect differences between the three subphenotypes, although survival was lowest in the levosimendan group for all subphenotypes. In the HARP-2 trial, a two-subphenotype model provided the best fit for the data. The inflammatory subphenotype was associated with fewer ventilator-free days and higher 28-day mortality. Limitations The lack of heterogeneity of treatment effect and any treatment effect differences between sepsis subphenotypes may be secondary to the lack of statistical power to detect such effects, if they truly exist. Conclusions We highlight lack of heterogeneity of treatment effect in all three trial populations. We report three subphenotypes in sepsis and two subphenotypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome, with an inflammatory phenotype with greater risk of death as a consistent finding in both sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Future work Our analysis highlights the need to identify key discriminant markers to characterise subphenotypes in sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome with an observational cohort study. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xian-Fei Ding ◽  
Jin-Bo Li ◽  
Huo-Yan Liang ◽  
Zong-Yu Wang ◽  
Ting-Ting Jiao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To develop a machine learning model for predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) events through commonly available parameters, including baseline characteristics and clinical and laboratory parameters. Methods A secondary analysis of a multi-centre prospective observational cohort study from five hospitals in Beijing, China, was conducted from January 1, 2011, to August 31, 2014. A total of 296 patients at risk for developing ARDS admitted to medical intensive care units (ICUs) were included. We applied a random forest approach to identify the best set of predictors out of 42 variables measured on day 1 of admission. Results All patients were randomly divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets. Additionally, these patients were followed daily and assessed according to the Berlin definition. The model obtained an average area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of 0.82 and yielded a predictive accuracy of 83%. For the first time, four new biomarkers were included in the model: decreased minimum haematocrit, glucose, and sodium and increased minimum white blood cell (WBC) count. Conclusions This newly established machine learning-based model shows good predictive ability in Chinese patients with ARDS. External validation studies are necessary to confirm the generalisability of our approach across populations and treatment practices.


2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. P. Chalwin ◽  
J. L. Moran ◽  
P. L. Graham

The role of Extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has not been formally validated for patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome. In anticipation of publication of the conventional ventilation versus ECMO in severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR) trial, the role of ECMO in this setting was reviewed. An electronic search for studies reporting the use of ECMO for the treatment of adult respiratory distress syndrome revealed two randomised controlled trials and three non-controlled trials. Bayesian analysis on the two randomised controlled trials produced an odds ratio mortality of 1.28 (credible interval 0.24 to 6.55) demonstrating no significant harm or benefit. Pooling was not possible for the non-controlled studies because of differing admission status and ECMO selection criteria and an inability to control for these differences in the absence of individual patient data. A large number (n=35) of case series have been published with generally more positive results. We also present a comprehensive narrative commentary on the history, current practice and future for ECMO. ECMO, as rescue therapy for adult respiratory distress syndrome, appears to be an unvalidated rescue treatment option. Analysis and review of trial data does not support its application; however the body of reported cases suggests otherwise. Until the CESAR trial provides an authoritative answer ECMO will continue to be offered on a case by case basis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document