Latent class analysis is a probabilistic modeling algorithm that allows clustering of data and statistical inference. There has been a recent upsurge in the application of latent class analysis in the fields of critical care, respiratory medicine, and beyond. In this review, we present a brief overview of the principles behind latent class analysis. Furthermore, in a stepwise manner, we outline the key processes necessary to perform latent class analysis including some of the challenges and pitfalls faced at each of these steps. The review provides a one-stop shop for investigators seeking to apply latent class analysis to their data.

Heterogeneity in sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is increasingly being recognized as one of the principal barriers to finding efficacious targeted therapies. The advent of multiple high-throughput biological data (“omics”), coupled with the widespread access to increased computational power, has led to the emergence of phenotyping in critical care. Phenotyping aims to use a multitude of data to identify homogenous subgroups within an otherwise heterogenous population. Increasingly, phenotyping schemas are being applied to sepsis and ARDS to increase understanding of these clinical conditions and identify potential therapies. Here we present a selective review of the biological phenotyping schemas applied to sepsis and ARDS. Further, we outline some of the challenges involved in translating these conceptual findings to bedside clinical decision-making tools.

Rationale Using latent class analysis (LCA), two subphenotypes of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have consistently been identified in five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with distinct biological characteristics, divergent outcomes and differential treatment responses to randomised interventions. Their existence in unselected populations of ARDS remains unknown. We sought to identify subphenotypes in observational cohorts of ARDS using LCA. Methods LCA was independently applied to patients with ARDS from two prospective observational cohorts of patients admitted to the intensive care unit, derived from the Validating Acute Lung Injury markers for Diagnosis (VALID) (n=624) and Early Assessment of Renal and Lung Injury (EARLI) (n=335) studies. Clinical and biological data were used as class-defining variables. To test for concordance with prior ARDS subphenotypes, the performance metrics of parsimonious classifier models (interleukin 8, bicarbonate, protein C and vasopressor-use), previously developed in RCTs, were evaluated in EARLI and VALID with LCA-derived subphenotypes as the gold-standard. Results A 2-class model best fit the population in VALID (p=0.0010) and in EARLI (p<0.0001). Class 2 comprised 27% and 37% of the populations in VALID and EARLI, respectively. Consistent with the previously described ‘hyperinflammatory’ subphenotype, Class 2 was characterised by higher proinflammatory biomarkers, acidosis and increased shock and worse clinical outcomes. The similarities between these and prior RCT-derived subphenotypes were further substantiated by the performance of the parsimonious classifier models in both cohorts (area under the curves 0.92–0.94). The hyperinflammatory subphenotype was associated with increased prevalence of chronic liver disease and neutropenia and reduced incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Measurement of novel biomarkers showed significantly higher levels of matrix metalloproteinase-8 and markers of endothelial injury in the hyperinflammatory subphenotype, whereas, matrix metalloproteinase-9 was significantly lower. Conclusion Previously described subphenotypes are generalisable to unselected populations of non-trauma ARDS.

Background: Precision medicine focuses on the identification of therapeutic strategies that are effective for a group of patients based on similar unifying characteristics. The recent success of precision medicine in non–critical care settings has resulted from the confluence of large clinical and biospecimen repositories, innovative bioinformatics, and novel trial designs. Similar advances for precision medicine in sepsis and in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are possible but will require further investigation and significant investment in infrastructure. Methods: This project was funded by the American Thoracic Society Board of Directors. A multidisciplinary and diverse working group reviewed the available literature, established a conceptual framework, and iteratively developed recommendations for the Precision Medicine Research Agenda for Sepsis and ARDS. Results: The following six priority recommendations were developed by the working group: 1) the creation of large richly phenotyped and harmonized knowledge networks of clinical, imaging, and multianalyte molecular data for sepsis and ARDS; 2) the implementation of novel trial designs, including adaptive designs, and embedding trial procedures in the electronic health record; 3) continued innovation in the data science and engineering methods required to identify heterogeneity of treatment effect; 4) further development of the tools necessary for the real-time application of precision medicine approaches; 5) work to ensure that precision medicine strategies are applicable and available to a broad range of patients varying across differing racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and demographic groups; and 6) the securement and maintenance of adequate and sustainable funding for precision medicine efforts. Conclusions: Precision medicine approaches that incorporate variability in genomic, biologic, and environmental factors may provide a path forward for better individualizing the delivery of therapies and improving care for patients with sepsis and ARDS.