Suppr超能文献

揭示脓毒症的异质性:亚表型的比较分析。

Uncovering heterogeneity in sepsis: a comparative analysis of subphenotypes.

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology (L.E.I.C.A.), Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 2023 Nov;49(11):1360-1369. doi: 10.1007/s00134-023-07239-w. Epub 2023 Oct 18.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The heterogeneity in sepsis is held responsible, in part, for the lack of precision treatment. Many attempts to identify subtypes of sepsis patients identify those with shared underlying biology or outcomes. To date, though, there has been limited effort to determine overlap across these previously identified subtypes. We aimed to determine the concordance of critically ill patients with sepsis classified by four previously described subtype strategies.

METHODS

This secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study included 522 critically ill patients with sepsis assigned to four previously established subtype strategies, primarily based on: (i) clinical data in the electronic health record (α, β, γ, and δ), (ii) biomarker data (hyper- and hypoinflammatory), and (iii-iv) transcriptomic data (Mars1-Mars4 and SRS1-SRS2). Concordance was studied between different subtype labels, clinical characteristics, biological host response aberrations, as well as combinations of subtypes by sepsis ensembles.

RESULTS

All four subtype labels could be adjudicated in this cohort, with the distribution of the clinical subtype varying most from the original cohort. The most common subtypes in each of the four strategies were γ (61%), which is higher compared to the original classification, hypoinflammatory (60%), Mars2 (35%), and SRS2 (54%). There was no clear relationship between any of the subtyping approaches (Cramer's V = 0.086-0.456). Mars2 and SRS1 were most alike in terms of host response biomarkers (p = 0.079-0.424), while other subtype strategies showed no clear relationship. Patients enriched for multiple subtypes revealed that characteristics and outcomes differ dependent on the combination of subtypes made.

CONCLUSION

Among critically ill patients with sepsis, subtype strategies using clinical, biomarker, and transcriptomic data do not identify comparable patient populations and are likely to reflect disparate clinical characteristics and underlying biology.

摘要

目的

部分原因是脓毒症的异质性,导致缺乏精确治疗。许多试图识别脓毒症患者亚组的尝试都确定了具有共同潜在生物学或结局的患者。然而,迄今为止,确定以前确定的这些亚组之间的重叠的努力有限。我们旨在确定根据四种先前描述的亚型策略分类的患有脓毒症的危重病患者的一致性。

方法

这是一项多中心前瞻性观察性研究的二次分析,纳入了 522 名患有脓毒症的危重病患者,这些患者根据四种先前建立的亚型策略进行分类,主要基于:(i)电子病历中的临床数据(α、β、γ 和 δ),(ii)生物标志物数据(高炎症和低炎症),以及(iii-iv)转录组数据(Mars1-Mars4 和 SRS1-SRS2)。研究了不同亚型标签、临床特征、生物学宿主反应异常以及通过脓毒症集合的亚型组合之间的一致性。

结果

本队列中可以确定所有四种亚型标签,其中临床亚型的分布与原始队列相比变化最大。四种策略中最常见的亚型分别为γ(61%),高于原始分类,低炎症(60%)、Mars2(35%)和 SRS2(54%)。任何一种亚型方法之间都没有明确的关系(Cramer's V=0.086-0.456)。Mars2 和 SRS1 在宿主反应生物标志物方面最为相似(p=0.079-0.424),而其他亚型策略则没有明显的关系。多种亚型富集的患者表明,特征和结局取决于所采用的亚型组合而有所不同。

结论

在患有脓毒症的危重病患者中,使用临床、生物标志物和转录组数据的亚型策略并未识别出可比的患者人群,并且可能反映出不同的临床特征和潜在生物学。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a176/10622359/6ee7fd61acd4/134_2023_7239_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验