Abstract
Background Latent class analysis (LCA) has identified subgroups with meaningful treatment implications in acute respiratory distress syndrome. We performed a secondary analysis of three studies to assess whether LCA can identify clinically distinct subgroups in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and whether the treatment effect of adjunctive corticosteroids differs between subgroups.
Methods LCA was performed on baseline clinical and biomarker data from the Ovidius trial (n=304) and STEP trial (n=727), both randomised controlled trials investigated adjunctive corticosteroid treatment in CAP, and the observational Triple p cohort (n=201). Analyses were conducted independently in two cohorts (Ovidius-TripleP combined and STEP trial). In both cohorts, differences in clinical outcomes and response to adjunctive corticosteroid treatment were examined between subgroups identified through LCA.
Results A two-class model fitted both cohorts best. Class 2 patients had more signs of systemic inflammation compared to Class 1. In both cohorts, length of stay was longer and in-hospital mortality rate was higher in Class 2. In the Ovidius trial, corticosteroids reduced median length of stay in Class 2 (6.5 versus 9.5 days) but not in Class 1 (p-value for interaction=0.02). In the STEP trial, there was no significant interaction for length of stay. We found no significant interaction between class assignment and adjunctive corticosteroid treatment for secondary outcomes.
Conclusions In two independent cohorts, LCA identified two classes of CAP patients with different clinical characteristics and outcomes. Given the different response to adjunctive corticosteroids in the Ovidius trial, LCA might provide a useful basis to improve patient selection for future trials.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Wittermans has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. van der Zee has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Mr. Qi has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. van de Garde has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Blum reports grants from Helmut Horten Foundation, Switzerland, grants from Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work; .
Conflict of interest: Dr. Christ-Crain has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Gommers reports personal fees from Drager, personal fees and other from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Maquet, personal fees and other from Novalung, outside the submitted work; .
Conflict of interest: Dr. Grutters has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Voorn has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Bos has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Endeman has nothing to disclose.
This is a PDF-only article. Please click on the PDF link above to read it.
- Received August 4, 2021.
- Accepted October 19, 2021.
- Copyright ©The authors 2021
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org