Aaron Le Compte

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

IntroductionStress-induced hyperglycaemia is prevalent in critical care. Control of blood glucose levels to within a 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L range or below 7.75 mmol/L can reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes. The Specialised Relative Insulin Nutrition Tables (SPRINT) protocol is a simple wheel-based system that modulates insulin and nutritional inputs for tight glycaemic control.MethodsSPRINT 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 with previous ICU control methods. Glycaemic control and mortality outcomes for 371 SPRINT patients with a median Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 18 (interquartile range [IQR] 15 to 24) are compared with a 413-patient retrospective cohort with a median APACHE II score of 18 (IQR 15 to 23).ResultsOverall, 53.9% of all measurements were in the 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L band. Blood glucose concentrations were found to be log-normal and thus log-normal statistics are used throughout to describe the data. The average log-normal glycaemia was 6.0 mmol/L (standard deviation 1.5 mmol/L). Only 9.0% of all measurements were below 4.4 mmol/L, with 3.8% below 4 mmol/L and 0.1% of measurements below 2.2 mmol/L. On SPRINT, 80% more measurements were in the 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L band and standard deviation of blood glucose was 38% lower compared with the retrospective control. The range and peak of blood glucose were not correlated with mortality for SPRINT patients (P >0.30). For ICU length of stay (LoS) of greater than or equal to 3 days, hospital mortality was reduced from 34.1% to 25.4% (-26%) (P = 0.05). For ICU LoS of greater than or equal to 4 days, hospital mortality was reduced from 34.3% to 23.5% (-32%) (P = 0.02). For ICU LoS of greater than or equal to 5 days, hospital mortality was reduced from 31.9% to 20.6% (-35%) (P = 0.02). ICU mortality was also reduced but the P value was less than 0.13 for ICU LoS of greater than or equal to 4 and 5 days.ConclusionSPRINT achieved a high level of glycaemic control on a severely ill critical cohort population. Reductions in mortality were observed compared with a retrospective hyperglycaemic cohort. Range and peak blood glucose metrics were no longer correlated with mortality outcome under SPRINT.

A physiological Intensive Control Insulin-Nutrition-Glucose (ICING) model validated in critically ill patients

Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) and tight glycaemic control (TGC), particularly in intensive care unit (ICU), are the subjects of increasing and controversial debate in recent years. Model-based TGC has shown potential in delivering safe and tight glycaemic management, all the while limiting hypoglycaemia. A comprehensive, more physiologically relevant Intensive Control Insulin-Nutrition-Glucose (ICING) model is presented and validated using data from critically ill patients. Two existing glucose-insulin models are reviewed and formed the basis for the ICING model. Model limitations are discussed with respect to relevant physiology, pharmacodynamics and TGC practicality. Model identifiability issues are carefully considered for clinical settings. This article also contains significant reference to relevant physiology and clinical literature, as well as some references to the modeling efforts in this field. Identification of critical constant population parameters was performed in two stages, thus addressing model identifiability issues. Model predictive performance is the primary factor for optimizing population parameter values. The use of population values are necessary due to the limited clinical data available at the bedside in the clinical control scenario. Insulin sensitivity, S(I), the only dynamic, time-varying parameter, is identified hourly for each individual. All population parameters are justified physiologically and with respect to values reported in the clinical literature. A parameter sensitivity study confirms the validity of limiting time-varying parameters to S(I) only, as well as the choices for the population parameters. The ICING model achieves median fitting error of <1% over data from 173 patients (N=42,941 h in total) who received insulin while in the ICU and stayed for ≥ 72 h. Most importantly, the median per-patient 1-h ahead prediction error is a very low 2.80% [IQR 1.18, 6.41%]. It is significant that the 75th percentile prediction error is within the lower bound of typical glucometer measurement errors of 7-12%. These results confirm that the ICING model is suitable for developing model-based insulin therapies, and capable of delivering real-time model-based TGC with a very tight prediction error range. Finally, the detailed examination and discussion of issues surrounding model-based TGC and existing glucose-insulin models render this article a mini-review of the state of model-based TGC in critical care.

Tight glycemic control in critical care - The leading role of insulin sensitivity and patient variability: A review and model-based analysis

Tight glycemic control (TGC) has emerged as a major research focus in critical care due to its potential to simultaneously reduce both mortality and costs. However, repeating initial successful TGC trials that reduced mortality and other outcomes has proven difficult with more failures than successes. Hence, there has been growing debate over the necessity of TGC, its goals, the risk of severe hypoglycemia, and target cohorts. This paper provides a review of TGC via new analyses of data from several clinical trials, including SPRINT, Glucontrol and a recent NICU study. It thus provides both a review of the problem and major background factors driving it, as well as a novel model-based analysis designed to examine these dynamics from a new perspective. Using these clinical results and analysis, the goal is to develop new insights that shed greater light on the leading factors that make TGC difficult and inconsistent, as well as the requirements they thus impose on the design and implementation of TGC protocols. A model-based analysis of insulin sensitivity using data from three different critical care units, comprising over 75,000h of clinical data, is used to analyse variability in metabolic dynamics using a clinically validated model-based insulin sensitivity metric (S(I)). Variation in S(I) provides a new interpretation and explanation for the variable results seen (across cohorts and studies) in applying TGC. In particular, significant intra- and inter-patient variability in insulin resistance (1/S(I)) is seen be a major confounder that makes TGC difficult over diverse cohorts, yielding variable results over many published studies and protocols. Further factors that exacerbate this variability in glycemic outcome are found to include measurement frequency and whether a protocol is blind to carbohydrate administration.

Validation of a Model-based Virtual Trials Method for Tight Glycemic Control in Intensive Care

BackgroundIn-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.MethodsData 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.ResultsModel 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Organ failure and tight glycemic control in the SPRINT study

IntroductionIntensive 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.MethodsA 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 ≤5 each day and its trends over time and cohort/group. Organ-failure free days (all SOFA components ≤2) and number of organ failures (SOFA components >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 ≤5 using conditional and joint probabilities.ResultsAdmission and maximum SOFA scores were similar (P = 0.20; P = 0.76), with similar time to maximum (median: one day; IQR: [1, 3] days; P = 0.99). Median length of stay was similar (4.1 days SPRINT and 3.8 days Pre-SPRINT; P = 0.94). The percentage of patients with SOFA ≤5 is different over the first 14 days (P = 0.016), rising to approximately 75% for Pre-SPRINT and approximately 85% for SPRINT, with clear separation after two days. Organ-failure-free days were different (SPRINT = 41.6%; Pre-SPRINT = 36.5%; P < 0.0001) as were the percent of total possible organ failures (SPRINT = 16.0%; Pre-SPRINT = 19.0%; P < 0.0001). By Day 3 over 90% of SPRINT patients had cTIB ≥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 ≤5.ConclusionsSPRINT TGC resolved organ failure faster, and for more patients, from similar admission and maximum SOFA scores, than conventional control. These reductions mirror the reduced mortality with SPRINT. The cTIB ≥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.

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

IntroductionTight 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) < 4.0 mmol/L. This research assesses the safety, efficacy, and clinical burden of a STAR TGC controller modulating both insulin and nutrition inputs in pilot trials.MethodsSeven patients covering 660 hours. Insulin and nutrition interventions are given 1-3 hourly as chosen by the nurse to allow them to manage workload. Interventions are calculated by using clinically validated computer models of human metabolism and its variability in critical illness to maximize the overlap of the model-predicted (5-95th percentile) range of BG outcomes with the 4.0-6.5 mmol/L band while ensuring a maximum 5% risk of BG < 4.0 mmol/L. Carbohydrate intake (all sources) was selected to maximize intake up to 100% of SCCM/ACCP goal (25 kg/kcal/h). Maximum insulin doses and dose changes were limited for safety. Measurements were made with glucometers. Results are compared to those for the SPRINT study, which reduced mortality 25-40% for length of stay ≥3 days. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients, and approval was granted by the NZ Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee.ResultsA 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%.ConclusionsSTAR 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.

Variability of insulin sensitivity during the first 4 days of critical illness: implications for tight glycemic control

BackgroundEffective tight glycemic control (TGC) can improve outcomes in critical care patients, but it is difficult to achieve consistently. Insulin sensitivity defines the metabolic balance between insulin concentration and insulin-mediated glucose disposal. Hence, variability of insulin sensitivity can cause variable glycemia. This study quantifies and compares the daily evolution of insulin sensitivity level and variability for critical care patients receiving TGC.MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of data from the SPRINT TGC study involving patients admitted to a mixed medical-surgical ICU between August 2005 and May 2007. Only patients who commenced TGC within 12 hours of ICU admission and spent at least 24 hours on the SPRINT protocol were included (N = 164). Model-based insulin sensitivity (SI) was identified each hour. Absolute level and hour-to-hour percent changes in SI were assessed on cohort and per-patient bases. Levels and variability of SI were compared over time on 24-hour and 6-hour timescales for the first 4 days of ICU stay.ResultsCohort and per-patient median SI levels increased by 34% and 33% (p < 0.001) between days 1 and 2 of ICU stay. Concomitantly, cohort and per-patient SI variability decreased by 32% and 36% (p < 0.001). For 72% of the cohort, median SI on day 2 was higher than on day 1. The day 1–2 results are the only clear, statistically significant trends across both analyses. Analysis of the first 24 hours using 6-hour blocks of SI data showed that most of the improvement in insulin sensitivity level and variability seen between days 1 and 2 occurred during the first 12–18 hours of day 1.ConclusionsCritically ill patients have significantly lower and more variable insulin sensitivity on day 1 than later in their ICU stay and particularly during the first 12 hours. This rapid improvement is likely due to the decline of counter-regulatory hormones as the acute phase of critical illness progresses. Clinically, these results suggest that while using TGC protocols with patients during their first few days of ICU stay, extra care should be afforded. Increased measurement frequency, higher target glycemic bands, conservative insulin dosing, and modulation of carbohydrate nutrition should be considered to minimize safely the outcome glycemic variability and reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

Stochastic targeted (STAR) glycemic control: design, safety, and performance.

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 that directly accounts for intra- and interpatient variability with a stochastically derived maximum 5% risk of blood glucose (BG) below 72 mg/dl. This research assesses the safety, efficacy, and clinical burden of a STAR TGC controller modulating both insulin and nutrition inputs in virtual and clinical pilot trials. Methods: Clinically validated virtual trials using data from 370 patients in the SPRINT (Specialized Relative Insulin and Nutrition Titration) study were used to design the STAR protocol and test its safety, performance, and required clinical effort prior to clinical pilot trials. Insulin and nutrition interventions were given every 1–3 h as chosen by the nurse to allow them to manage workload. Interventions were designed to maximize the overlap of the model-predicted (5–95th percentile) range of BG outcomes with the 72–117 mg/dl band and thus provide a maximum 5% risk of BG <72 mg/dl. Interventions were calculated using clinically validated computer models of human metabolism and its variability in critical illness. Carbohydrate intake (all sources) was selected to maximize intake up to 100% of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) goal (25 kg/kcal/h). Insulin doses were limited (8 U/h maximum), with limited increases based on current rate (0.5–2.0 U/h). Initial clinical pilot trials involved 3 patients covering ~450 h. Approval was granted by the Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee. Results: Virtual trials indicate that STAR provides similar glycemic control performance to SPRINT with 2–3 h (maximum) measurement intervals. Time in the 72–126 mg/dl and 72–145 mg/dl bands was equivalent for all controllers, indicating that glycemic outcome differences between protocols were only shifted in this range. Safety from hypoglycemia was improved. Importantly, STAR using 2–3 h (maximum) intervention intervals reduced clinical burden up to 30%, which is clinically very significant. Initial clinical trials showed glycemic performance, safety, and management of inter- and intrapatient variability that matched or exceeded the virtual trial results. Conclusions: In virtual trials, STAR TGC provided tight control that maximized the likelihood of BG in a clinically specified glycemic band and reduced hypoglycemia with a maximum 5% (or lower) expected risk of light hypoglycemia (BG <72 mg/dl) via model-based management of intra- and interpatient variability. Clinical workload was self-managed and reduced up to 30% compared with SPRINT. Initial pilot clinical trials matched or exceeded these virtual results.

Blood Glucose Controller for Neonatal Intensive Care: Virtual Trials Development and First Clinical Trials

Background: Premature neonates often experience hyperglycemia, which has been linked to worsened outcomes. Insulin therapy can assist in controlling blood glucose (BG) levels. However, a reliable, robust control protocol is required to avoid hypoglycemia and to ensure that clinically important nutrition goals are met. Methods: This study presents an adaptive, model-based predictive controller designed to incorporate the unique metabolic state of the neonate. Controller performance was tested and refined in virtual trials on a 25-patient retrospective cohort. The effects of measurement frequency and BG sensor error were evaluated. A stochastic model of insulin sensitivity was used in control to provide a guaranteed maximum 4% risk of BG < 72 mg/dl to protect against hypoglycemia as well as account for patient variability over 1–3 h intervals when determining the intervention. The resulting controller is demonstrated in two 24 h clinical neonatal pilot trials at Christchurch Womens Hospital. Results: Time in the 72–126 mg/dl BG band was increased by 103–161% compared to retrospective clinical control for virtual trials of the controller, with fewer hypoglycemic measurements. Controllers were robust to BG sensor errors. The model-based controller maintained glycemia to a tight target control range and accounted for interpatient variability in patient glycemic response despite using more insulin than the retrospective case, illustrating a further measure of controller robustness. Pilot clinical trials demonstrated initial safety and efficacy of the control method. Conclusions: A controller was developed that made optimum use of the very limited available BG measurements in the neonatal intensive care unit and provided robustness against BG sensor error and longer BG measurement intervals. It used more insulin than typical sliding scale approaches or retrospective hospital control. The potential advantages of a model-based approach demonstrated in simulation were applied to initial clinical trials.

Physiological modeling, tight glycemic control, and the ICU clinician: what are models and how can they affect practice?

Critically ill patients are highly variable in their response to care and treatment. This variability and the search for improved outcomes have led to a significant increase in the use of protocolized care to reduce variability in care. However, protocolized care does not address the variability of outcome due to inter- and intra-patient variability, both in physiological state, and the response to disease and treatment. This lack of patient-specificity defines the opportunity for patient-specific approaches to diagnosis, care, and patient management, which are complementary to, and fit within, protocolized approaches.Computational models of human physiology offer the potential, with clinical data, to create patient-specific models that capture a patients physiological status. Such models can provide new insights into patient condition by turning a series of sometimes confusing clinical data into a clear physiological picture. More directly, they can track patient-specific conditions and thus provide new means of diagnosis and opportunities for optimising therapy.This article presents the concept of model-based therapeutics, the use of computational models in clinical medicine and critical care in specific, as well as its potential clinical advantages, in a format designed for the clinical perspective. The review is presented in terms of a series of questions and answers. These aspects directly address questions concerning what makes a model, how it is made patient-specific, what it can be used for, its limitations and, importantly, what constitutes sufficient validation.To provide a concrete foundation, the concepts are presented broadly, but the details are given in terms of a specific case example. Specifically, tight glycemic control (TGC) is an area where inter- and intra-patient variability can dominate the quality of care control and care received from any given protocol. The overall review clearly shows the concept and significant clinical potential of using computational models in critical care medicine.