Rademaker Emma, Filippini Daan F L, Haitsma Mulier Jelle L G, Slim Marleen A, van Amstel Rombout B E, Bhavani Sivasubramanium V, Juffermans Nicole P, de Grooth Harm-Jan S, Derde Lennie P G, Cremer Olaf L, Bos Lieuwe D J
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2025 Jul 9;13(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s40635-025-00779-z.
BACKGROUND: Two distinct longitudinal respiratory subphenotypes have recently been described in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). These subphenotypes exhibit dynamic immunobiological changes that may help guide immunomodulatory interventions. However, the extent to which the immune response is determined by respiratory subphenotype in the presence of concurrent immunomodulatory treatment remains unclear. We investigated the independent and combined effects of respiratory subphenotype and tocilizumab on inflammatory response and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed patients from existing COVID-19 biobanks who were consecutively admitted to the ICU and received more than 4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation between March 2020 and May 2022. Patients were classified into two previously described longitudinal respiratory subphenotypes-characterized by mechanical power, minute volume and ventilatory ratio-referred to as 'low-power' and 'high-power' subphenotypes. We analyzed how tocilizumab treatment and respiratory subphenotype were associated with endothelial and inflammatory plasma biomarkers on days 0, 4 and 7, as well as with mortality. RESULTS: 720 patients were included, of whom 464 (64%) and 256 (36%) were assigned to the low- and high-power subphenotypes, respectively. 108 (23%) of the low-power subphenotype patients received tocilizumab, and 43 (17%) of the high-power subphenotype. 427 patients had plasma samples available. The high-power subphenotype was associated with slightly higher SP-D, thrombomodulin and TNF-RI plasma concentrations on the day of intubation compared to the low-power subphenotype, along with a more rapid increase in IL-6 and TNF-RI levels in subjects who had received tocilizumab treatment (β = 0.14 log ng/ml, p = 0.022, and β = 0.06 log ng/ml, p = 0.014, respectively). Tocilizumab treatment accounted for four times more variance in IL-6 and angiopoietin-2 levels than subphenotype, while subphenotype explained only a small proportion of the variance and slightly more than tocilizumab for TNF-RI and thrombomodulin. Subphenotype did not modify the association between tocilizumab and mortality (IPTW adjusted hazard ratio 1.18; 95%CI 0.60-2.33). CONCLUSION: Respiratory subphenotypes showed varying TNF-RI and IL-6 responses to tocilizumab, but these differences were only minor compared to the drug's overall immunobiological effect. This suggests that respiratory subphenotype should not determine tocilizumab treatment decisions.
背景:最近在新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)相关急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)中描述了两种不同的纵向呼吸亚表型。这些亚表型表现出动态免疫生物学变化,可能有助于指导免疫调节干预。然而,在同时进行免疫调节治疗的情况下,免疫反应受呼吸亚表型影响的程度仍不清楚。我们研究了呼吸亚表型和托珠单抗对炎症反应及临床结局的独立和联合作用。 方法:我们分析了2020年3月至2022年5月期间连续入住重症监护病房(ICU)且接受超过4天有创机械通气的COVID-19生物样本库中的患者。患者被分为两种先前描述的纵向呼吸亚表型——以机械功率、分钟通气量和通气比为特征——称为“低功率”和“高功率”亚表型。我们分析了托珠单抗治疗和呼吸亚表型与第0、4和7天的内皮和炎症血浆生物标志物以及死亡率之间的关系。 结果:共纳入720例患者,其中464例(64%)和256例(36%)分别被分配到低功率和高功率亚表型。低功率亚表型患者中有108例(23%)接受了托珠单抗治疗,高功率亚表型患者中有43例(17%)接受了该治疗。427例患者有可用的血浆样本。与低功率亚表型相比,高功率亚表型在插管当天的表面活性蛋白-D(SP-D)、血栓调节蛋白和肿瘤坏死因子受体I(TNF-RI)血浆浓度略高,并且在接受托珠单抗治疗的患者中,白细胞介素-6(IL-6)和TNF-RI水平升高更快(β分别为0.14 log ng/ml,p = 0.022,以及β为0.06 log ng/ml,p = 0.014)。托珠单抗治疗对IL-6和血管生成素-2水平的变异解释比亚表型多四倍,而亚表型仅解释了一小部分变异,对于TNF-RI和血栓调节蛋白,亚表型的解释略多于托珠单抗。亚表型并未改变托珠单抗与死亡率之间的关联(逆概率加权调整风险比1.18;95%置信区间0.60 - 2.33)。 结论:呼吸亚表型对托珠单抗表现出不同的TNF-RI和IL-6反应,但与该药物的整体免疫生物学效应相比,这些差异较小。这表明呼吸亚表型不应决定托珠单抗治疗决策。
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2025-7-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-5-20
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-6-1
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013-7-23
N Engl J Med. 2023-12-21
Intensive Care Med. 2023-4
Nat Med. 2022-6
Clin Kidney J. 2021-8-26
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021-8-20