Prediction validation of two glycaemic control models in critical care

Invited paperMetabolic models can substantially improve control of hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients. Control efficacy depends on how accurately a model-based system is able to predict future blood glucose (BG) concentrations after a glycaemic control intervention. This research compares two metabolic models in terms of their predictive power. 30 minutes to 10 hour forward predictions are made using the Glucosafe model (GS) and a clinically tested model (CC) from Christchurch in a retrospective study of 11 hyperglycemic patients, 6 from New Zealand and 5 from Denmark. Median and ranges of prediction errors are similar for predictions up to 360 minutes. Both models make better predictions on the Danish patients. At long prediction times of more than 5 hours, GS predictions tend to be more accurate in the cohort from New Zealand whereas the CC model tends to predict better in the cohort from Denmark. However, differences in root mean square (RMS) of prediction errors are not greater than 4–5% in both cohorts. For both models, outlying prediction errors are dominated by single patients, particularly type 1 diabetic patients. GS predicted BG values are generally higher compared to CC predicted values. As expected, the RMS prediction error increases with prediction interval for both models and cohorts. Results show the potential of both models for use in prospective clinical trials with longer than 120 min sampling intervals, though predictive power is probably related to the type of cohort in terms of admission type, degree of illness and glycaemic stability

Pantoprazole in Patients at Risk for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the ICU

BACKGROUND Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear. METHODS In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621 .)

Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU

BACKGROUND Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear. METHODS In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621.