Heterogeneity in the Effect of Early Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter International Trials.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Faraaz Ali Shah, Victor B Talisa, Chung-Chou H Chang, Sofia Triantafyllou, Lu Tang, Florian B Mayr, Alisa M Higgins, Sandra L Peake, Paul Mouncey, David A Harrison, Kimberley M DeMerle, Jason N Kennedy, Gregory F Cooper, Rinaldo Bellomo, Kathy Rowan, Donald M Yealy, Christopher W Seymour, Derek C Angus, Sachin P Yende
{"title":"Heterogeneity in the Effect of Early Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter International Trials.","authors":"Faraaz Ali Shah, Victor B Talisa, Chung-Chou H Chang, Sofia Triantafyllou, Lu Tang, Florian B Mayr, Alisa M Higgins, Sandra L Peake, Paul Mouncey, David A Harrison, Kimberley M DeMerle, Jason N Kennedy, Gregory F Cooper, Rinaldo Bellomo, Kathy Rowan, Donald M Yealy, Christopher W Seymour, Derek C Angus, Sachin P Yende","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The optimal approach for resuscitation in septic shock remains unclear despite multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our objective was to investigate whether previously uncharacterized variation across individuals in their response to resuscitation strategies may contribute to conflicting average treatment effects in prior RCTs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We randomly split study sites from the Australian Resuscitation of Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) and Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trials into derivation and validation cohorts. We trained machine learning models to predict individual absolute risk differences (iARDs) in 90-day mortality in derivation cohorts and tested for heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) in validation cohorts and swapped these cohorts in sensitivity analyses. We fit the best-performing model in a combined dataset to explore roles of patient characteristics and individual components of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) to determine treatment responses.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Eighty-one sites in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Finland, Republic of Ireland, and the United States.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>EGDT vs. usual care.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>A local-linear random forest model performed best in predicting iARDs. In the validation cohort, HTE was confirmed, evidenced by an interaction between iARD prediction and treatment (p < 0.001). When patients were grouped based on predicted iARDs, treatment response increased from the lowest to the highest quintiles (absolute risk difference [95% CI], -8% [-19% to 4%] and relative risk reduction, 1.34 [0.89-2.01] in quintile 1 suggesting harm from EGDT, and 12% [1-23%] and 0.64 [0.42-0.96] in quintile 5 suggesting benefit). Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Pre-intervention albumin contributed the most to HTE. Analyses of individual EGDT components were inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Treatment response to EGDT varied across patients in two multicenter RCTs with large benefits for some patients while others were harmed. Patient characteristics, including albumin, were most important in identifying HTE.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006463","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The optimal approach for resuscitation in septic shock remains unclear despite multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our objective was to investigate whether previously uncharacterized variation across individuals in their response to resuscitation strategies may contribute to conflicting average treatment effects in prior RCTs.

Design: We randomly split study sites from the Australian Resuscitation of Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) and Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trials into derivation and validation cohorts. We trained machine learning models to predict individual absolute risk differences (iARDs) in 90-day mortality in derivation cohorts and tested for heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) in validation cohorts and swapped these cohorts in sensitivity analyses. We fit the best-performing model in a combined dataset to explore roles of patient characteristics and individual components of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) to determine treatment responses.

Setting: Eighty-one sites in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Finland, Republic of Ireland, and the United States.

Patients: Adult patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock.

Interventions: EGDT vs. usual care.

Measurements and main results: A local-linear random forest model performed best in predicting iARDs. In the validation cohort, HTE was confirmed, evidenced by an interaction between iARD prediction and treatment (p < 0.001). When patients were grouped based on predicted iARDs, treatment response increased from the lowest to the highest quintiles (absolute risk difference [95% CI], -8% [-19% to 4%] and relative risk reduction, 1.34 [0.89-2.01] in quintile 1 suggesting harm from EGDT, and 12% [1-23%] and 0.64 [0.42-0.96] in quintile 5 suggesting benefit). Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Pre-intervention albumin contributed the most to HTE. Analyses of individual EGDT components were inconclusive.

Conclusions: Treatment response to EGDT varied across patients in two multicenter RCTs with large benefits for some patients while others were harmed. Patient characteristics, including albumin, were most important in identifying HTE.

脓毒性休克早期目标导向疗法效果的异质性:两项多中心国际试验的二次分析。
目的:尽管有多项随机对照试验(RCT),但脓毒性休克的最佳复苏方法仍不明确。我们的目的是研究之前未定性的不同个体对复苏策略的反应差异是否会导致之前的随机对照试验中出现相互矛盾的平均治疗效果:设计:我们将澳大利亚脓毒症复苏评估(ARISE)和早期脓毒性休克规范化护理(ProCESS)试验的研究地点随机分为衍生队列和验证队列。我们训练了机器学习模型来预测衍生队列中 90 天死亡率的个体绝对风险差异 (iARD),测试了验证队列中治疗效果的异质性 (HTE),并在敏感性分析中交换了这些队列。我们在一个综合数据集中拟合了表现最佳的模型,以探索患者特征和早期目标导向疗法(EGDT)各个组成部分在确定治疗反应方面的作用:澳大利亚、新西兰、香港、芬兰、爱尔兰共和国和美国的 81 个研究机构:患者:因严重败血症或脓毒性休克到急诊科就诊的成人患者:干预措施:EGDT与常规护理:局部线性随机森林模型在预测iARDs方面表现最佳。在验证队列中,HTE得到了证实,iARD预测与治疗之间的相互作用证明了这一点(p < 0.001)。当根据预测的 iARDs 对患者进行分组时,治疗反应从最低五分位数到最高五分位数均有所增加(绝对风险差[95% CI],-8% [-19% to 4%],相对风险降低,五分位数 1 为 1.34 [0.89-2.01],表明 EGDT 有危害,五分位数 5 为 12% [1-23%] 和 0.64 [0.42-0.96],表明 EGDT 有益处)。敏感性分析显示了类似的结果。干预前白蛋白对 HTE 的影响最大。对EGDT各组成部分的分析没有得出结论:结论:在两项多中心 RCT 研究中,不同患者对 EGDT 的治疗反应各不相同,有些患者获益较大,而有些患者则受到损害。包括白蛋白在内的患者特征对确定 HTE 最为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信