Evidence Hub

ARDS Subphenotypes and Differential Response to Simvastatin: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

C. Calfee, K. Delucchi, P. Sinha, M. Matthay, J. Hackett, M. Shankar-Hari, C. McDowell, J. Laffey et al.

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2018

539 participants · 596 citations

Abstract

Background: Precision medicine approaches targeting patients based on disease subtype have transformed approaches to cancer, asthma, and other heterogeneous syndromes. Two distinct subphenotypes of ARDS have been identified in three US-based clinical trials and respond differently to positive end-expiratory pressure and fluid management. It remains unknown if these subphenotypes exist in different populations and respond differently to pharmacotherapies. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis using data from 539 patients enrolled in a UK multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trial of simvastatin for ARDS (HARP-2). Latent class analysis was applied to baseline data without consideration of outcomes to identify subphenotypes. Clinical outcomes were compared across subphenotypes and treatment groups. Findings: A two class (two-subphenotype) model was an improvement over a one class model (p<0.0001), with 65% of subjects in the hypo-inflammatory subphenotype and 35% in the hyper-inflammatory subphenotype. Additional classes did not improve model fit. The clinical and biological characteristics of the two subphenotypes were similar to prior studies. While the original trial found no difference in 28-day survival between placebo and simvastatin, significantly different survival was identified across patients stratified by treatment and subphenotype (p<0.0001). Specifically, within the hyper-inflammatory subphenotype, patients treated with simvastatin had significantly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 539 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free