Impact of sensor and measurement timing errors on model-based insulin sensitivity

peer reviewe

Impact of sensor and measurement timing errors on model-based insulin sensitivity

peer reviewe

Implementation and evaluation of the SPRINT protocol for tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients: a clinical practice change

SPRINT was implemented as a clinical practice change in a general intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this study was to measure the effect of the SPRINT protocol on glycaemic control and mortality compared to previous ICU control methods. Glycaemic control and mortality outcomes for 371 SPRINT patients with median acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score 18 [IQR: 15-24] are compared to a 413 patient retrospective cohort with median APACHE II score of 18 [IQR: 15-23]

Organ failure and tight glycemic control in the SPRINT study

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care unit mortality is strongly associated with organ failure rate and severity. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score is used to evaluate the impact of a successful tight glycemic control (TGC) intervention (SPRINT) on organ failure, morbidity, and thus mortality. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 371 patients (3,356 days) on SPRINT (August 2005 - April 2007) and 413 retrospective patients (3,211 days) from two years prior, matched by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III. SOFA is calculated daily for each patient. The effect of the SPRINT TGC intervention is assessed by comparing the percentage of patients with SOFA 2) are also compared. Cumulative time in 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L band (cTIB) was evaluated daily to link tightness and consistency of TGC (cTIB >/=0.5) to SOFA /=0.5 (37% Pre-SPRINT) reaching 100% by Day 7 (50% Pre-SPRINT). Conditional and joint probabilities indicate tighter, more consistent TGC under SPRINT (cTIB >/=0.5) increased the likelihood SOFA /=0.5 metric provides a first benchmark linking TGC quality to organ failure. These results support other physiological and clinical results indicating the role tight, consistent TGC can play in reducing organ failure, morbidity and mortality, and should be validated on data from randomised trials

Validation of a model-based virtual trials method for tight glycemic control in intensive care

peer reviewedBACKGROUND: In-silico virtual patients and trials offer significant advantages in cost, time and safety for designing effective tight glycemic control (TGC) protocols. However, no such method has fully validated the independence of virtual patients (or resulting clinical trial predictions) from the data used to create them. This study uses matched cohorts from a TGC clinical trial to validate virtual patients and in-silico virtual trial models and methods. METHODS: Data from a 211 patient subset of the Glucontrol trial in Liege, Belgium. Glucontrol-A (N = 142) targeted 4.4-6.1 mmol/L and Glucontrol-B (N = 69) targeted 7.8-10.0 mmol/L. Cohorts were matched by APACHE II score, initial BG, age, weight, BMI and sex (p > 0.25). Virtual patients are created by fitting a clinically validated model to clinical data, yielding time varying insulin sensitivity profiles (SI(t)) that drives in-silico patients.Model fit and intra-patient (forward) prediction errors are used to validate individual in-silico virtual patients. Self-validation (tests A protocol on Group-A virtual patients; and B protocol on B virtual patients) and cross-validation (tests A protocol on Group-B virtual patients; and B protocol on A virtual patients) are used in comparison to clinical data to assess ability to predict clinical trial results. RESULTS: Model fit errors were small (<0.25%) for all patients, indicating model fitness. Median forward prediction errors were: 4.3, 2.8 and 3.5% for Group-A, Group-B and Overall (A+B), indicating individual virtual patients were accurate representations of real patients. SI and its variability were similar between cohorts indicating they were metabolically similar.Self and cross validation results were within 1-10% of the clinical data for both Group-A and Group-B. Self-validation indicated clinically insignificant errors due to model and/or clinical compliance. Cross-validation clearly showed that virtual patients enabled by identified patient-specific SI(t) profiles can accurately predict the performance of independent and different TGC protocols. CONCLUSIONS: This study fully validates these virtual patients and in silico virtual trial methods, and clearly shows they can accurately simulate, in advance, the clinical results of a TGC protocol, enabling rapid in silico protocol design and optimization. These outcomes provide the first rigorous validation of a virtual in-silico patient and virtual trials methodology

First pilot trial of the STAR-Liege protocol for tight glycemic control in critically ill patients

peer reviewe

Pilot proof of concept clinical trials of Stochastic Targeted (STAR) glycemic control

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Tight glycemic control (TGC) has shown benefits but has been difficult to achieve consistently. STAR (Stochastic TARgeted) is a flexible, model-based TGC approach directly accounting for intra- and inter- patient variability with a stochastically derived maximum 5% risk of blood glucose (BG) /=3 days. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients, and approval was granted by the NZ Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee. RESULTS: A total of 402 measurements were taken over 660 hours (~14/day), because nurses showed a preference for 2-hourly measurements. Median [interquartile range, (IQR)] cohort BG was 5.9 mmol/L [5.2-6.8]. Overall, 63.2%, 75.9%, and 89.8% of measurements were in the 4.0-6.5, 4.0-7.0, and 4.0-8.0 mmol/L bands. There were no hypoglycemic events (BG < 2.2 mmol/L), and the minimum BG was 3.5 mmol/L with 4.5% < 4.4 mmol/L. Per patient, the median [IQR] hours of TGC was 92 h [29-113] using 53 [19-62] measurements (median, ~13/day). Median [IQR] results: BG, 5.9 mmol/L [5.8-6.3]; carbohydrate nutrition, 6.8 g/h [5.5-8.7] (~70% goal feed median); insulin, 2.5 U/h [0.1-5.1]. All patients achieved BG < 6.1 mmol/L. These results match or exceed SPRINT and clinical workload is reduced more than 20%. CONCLUSIONS: STAR TGC modulating insulin and nutrition inputs provided very tight control with minimal variability by managing intra- and inter- patient variability. Performance and safety exceed that of SPRINT, which reduced mortality and cost in the Christchurch ICU. The use of glucometers did not appear to impact the quality of TGC. Finally, clinical workload was self-managed and reduced 20% compared with SPRINT

Insulin Sensitivity, Its Variability and Glycemic Outcome: A model-based analysis of the difficulty in achieving tight glycemic control in critical care

peer reviewedEffective tight glycemic control (TGC) can improve outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but is difficult to achieve consistently. Glycemic level and variability, particularly early in a patient’s stay, are a function of variability in insulin sensitivity/resistance resulting from the level and evolution of stress response, and are independently associated with mortality. This study examines the daily evolution of variability of insulin sensitivity in ICU patients using patient data (N = 394 patients, 54019 hours) from the SPRINT TGC study. Model-based insulin sensitivity (SI) was identified each hour and hour-to-hour percent changes in SI were assessed for Days 1-3 individually and Day 4 Onward, as well as over all days. Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), median values, and inter-quartile points (25th and 75th percentiles) are used to assess differences between groups and their evolution over time. Compared to the overall (all days) distributions, ICU patients are more variable on Days 1 and 2 (p < 0.0001), and less variable on Days 4 Onward (p < 0.0001). Day 3 is similar to the overall cohort (p = 0.74). Absolute values of SI start lower and rise for Days 1 and 2, compared to the overall cohort (all days), (p < 0.0001), are similar on Day 3 (p = .72) and are higher on Days 4 Onward (p < 0.0001). ICU patients have lower insulin sensitivity (greater insulin resistance) and it is more variable on Days 1 and 2, compared to an overall cohort on all days. This is the first such model-based analysis of its kind. Greater variability with lower SI early in a patient’s stay greatly increases the difficulty in achieving and safely maintaining glycemic control, reducing potential positive outcomes. Clinically, the results imply that TGC patients will require greater measurement frequency, reduced reliance on insulin, and more explicit specification of carbohydrate nutrition in Days 1-3 to safely minimise glycemic variability for best outcome