Derivation, validation, and transcriptomic assessment of pediatric septic shock phenotypes identified through latent profile analyses: Results from a prospective multi-center observational cohort.

Background: Sepsis poses a grave threat, especially among children, but treatments are limited due to clinical and biological heterogeneity among patients. Thus, there is an urgent need for precise subclassification of patients to guide therapeutic interventions. Methods: We used clinical, laboratory, and biomarker data from a prospective multi-center pediatric septic shock cohort to derive phenotypes using latent profile analyses. Thereafter, we trained a support vector machine model to assign phenotypes in a hold-out validation set. We tested interactions between phenotypes and common sepsis therapies on clinical outcomes and conducted transcriptomic analyses to better understand the phenotype-specific biology. Finally, we compared whether newly identified phenotypes overlapped with established gene-expression endotypes and tested the utility of an integrated subclassification scheme. Findings: Among 1,071 patients included, we identified two phenotypes which we named 'inflamed' (19.5%) and an 'uninflamed' phenotype (80.5%). The 'inflamed' phenotype had an over 4-fold risk of 28-day mortality relative to those 'uninflamed'. Transcriptomic analysis revealed overexpression of genes implicated in the innate immune response and suggested an overabundance of developing neutrophils, pro-T/NK cells, and NK cells among those 'inflamed'. There was no significant overlap between endotypes and phenotypes. However, an integrated subclassification scheme demonstrated varying survival probabilities when comparing endophenotypes. Interpretation: Our research underscores the reproducibility of latent profile analyses to identify clinical and biologically informative pediatric septic shock phenotypes with high prognostic relevance. Pending validation, an integrated subclassification scheme, reflective of the different facets of the host response, holds promise to inform targeted intervention among those critically ill.

Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result.

Bias from funding sources of trials would threaten their validity. Meta-analyses of high quality acute pain and migraine trials were used to explore the hypothesis that industry funding of clinical trials produced more favourable results than non-profit sponsorship. Analyses were planned to evaluate whether industry-sponsored trials had different results from trials funded by academic or other non-profit sources, but of 176 trials, only two were supported by non-profit sources, while 31 provided no statement of support. An alternative method is proposed within industry-sponsored trials, looking at conflicting industry interests for the same drug, used either as test or comparator treatment. Fifty-three trials used an analgesic as test and 90 as comparator, allowing comparisons to be made for aspirin 600/650 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 1000 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg and sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg. Only for sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg, with the outcome of headache response at 2 h, was there any significant difference between the drug used as a test or as a comparator. The direction was for higher (worse) NNTs with sumatriptan as comparator. Investigating potential industry bias through the funding source of trials is unlikely to be adequate because of a dearth of trials funded by non-profit organisations. We propose a method based on potential conflict of interest within industry-sponsored trials. Using this method, established clinical trial results in acute pain and migraine appear to be unbiased.