Christopher G. Pretty

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.

What makes tight glycemic control tight? The impact of variability and nutrition in two clinical studies.

Introduction: Tight glycemic control (TGC) remains controversial while successful, consistent, and effective protocols remain elusive. This research analyzes data from two TGC trials for root causes of the differences achieved in control and thus potentially in glycemic and other outcomes. The goal is to uncover aspects of successful TGC and delineate the impact of differences in cohorts. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using records from a 211-patient subset of the GluControl trial taken in Liege, Belgium, and 393 patients from Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration (SPRINT) in New Zealand. Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration targeted 4.0–6.0 mmol/liter, similar to the GluControl A (N = 142) target of 4.4–6.1 mmol/liter. The GluControl B (N = 69) target was 7.8–10.0 mmol/liter. Cohorts were matched by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and percentage males (p > .35); however, the GluControl cohort was slightly older (p = .011). Overall cohort and per-patient comparisons (median, interquartile range) are shown for (a) glycemic levels achieved, (b) nutrition from carbohydrate (all sources), and (c) insulin dosing for this analysis. Intra- and interpatient variability were examined using clinically validated model-based insulin sensitivity metric and its hour-to-hour variation. Results: Cohort blood glucose were as follows: SPRINT, 5.7 (5.0–6.6) mmol/liter; GluControl A, 6.3 (5.3–7.6) mmol/liter; and GluControl B, 8.2 (6.9–9.4) mmol/liter. Insulin dosing was 3.0 (1.0–3.0), 1.5 (0.5–3), and 0.7 (0.0–1.7) U/h, respectively. Nutrition from carbohydrate (all sources) was 435.5 (259.2–539.1), 311.0 (0.0–933.1), and 622.1 (103.7–1036.8) kcal/day, respectively. Median per-patient results for blood glucose were 5.8 (5.3–6.4), 6.4 (5.9–6.9), and 8.3 (7.6–8.8) mmol/liter. Insulin doses were 3.0 (2.0–3.0), 1.5 (0.8–2.0), and 0.5 (0.0–1.0) U/h. Carbohydrate administration was 383.6 (207.4–497.7), 103.7 (0.0–829.4), and 207.4 (0.0–725.8) kcal/day. Overall, SPRINT gave ∼2x more insulin with a 3–4x narrower, but generally non-zero, range of nutritional input to achieve equally TGC with less hypoglycemia. Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration had much less hypoglycemia (<2.2 mmol/liter), with 2% of patients, compared to GluControl A (7.7%) and GluControl B (2.9%), indicating much lower variability, with similar results for glucose levels <3.0 mmol/liter. Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration also had less hyperglycemia (>8.0 mmol/liter) than groups A and B. GluControl patients (A+B) had a ∼2x wider range of insulin sensitivity than SPRINT. Hour-to-hour variation was similar. Hence GluControl had greater interpatient variability but similar intrapatient variability. Conclusion: Protocols that dose insulin blind to carbohydrate administration can suffer greater outcome glycemic variability, even if average cohort glycemic targets are met. While the cohorts varied significantly in model-assessed insulin resistance, their variability was similar. Such significant intra- and interpatient variability is a further significant cause and marker of glycemic variability in TGC. The results strongly recommended that TGC protocols be explicitly designed to account for significant intra- and interpatient variability in insulin resistance, as well as specifying or having knowledge of carbohydrate administration to minimize variability in glycemic outcomes across diverse cohorts and/or centers.

Continuous Glucose Monitors and the Burden of Tight Glycemic Control in Critical Care: Can They Cure the Time Cost?

Background: Tight glycemic control (TGC) in critical care has shown distinct benefits but has also proven to be difficult to obtain. The risk of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dl) raises significant concerns for safety. Added clinical burden has also been an issue. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) offer frequent automated measurement and thus the possibility of using them for early detection and intervention of hypoglycemic events. Additionally, regular measurement by CGM may also be able to reduce clinical burden. Aim: An in silico study investigates the potential of CGM devices to reduce clinical effort in a published TGC protocol. Methods: This study uses retrospective clinical data from the Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration (SPRINT) TGC study covering 20 patients from a benchmark cohort. Clinically validated metabolic system models are used to generate a blood glucose (BG) profile for each patient, resulting in 33 continuous, separate BG episodes (6881 patient hours). The in silico analysis is performed with three different stochastic noise models: Two Gaussian and one first-order autoregressive. The noisy, virtual CGM BG values are filtered and used to drive the SPRINT TGC protocol. A simple threshold alarm is used to trigger glucose interventions to avert potential hypoglycemia. The Monte Carlo method was used to get robust results from the stochastic noise models. Results: Using SPRINT with simulated CGM noise, the BG time in an 80–110 mg/dl band was reduced no more than 4.4% to 45.2% compared to glucometer sensors. Antihypoglycemic interventions had negligible effect on time in band but eliminated all recorded hypoglycemic episodes in these simulations. Assuming 4–6 calibration measurements per day, the nonautomated clinical measurements are reduced from an average of 16 per day to as low as 4. At 2.5 min per glucometer measurement, a daily saving of ~25–30 min per patient could potentially be achieved. Conclusions: This paper has analyzed in silico the use of CGM sensors to provide BG input data to the SPRINT TGC protocol. A very simple algorithm was used for early hypoglycemic detection and prevention and tested with four different-sized intravenous glucose boluses. Although a small decrease in time in band (still clinically acceptable) was experienced with the addition of CGM noise, the number of hypoglycemic events was reduced. The reduction to time in band depends on the specific CGM sensor error characteristics and is thus a trade-off for reduced nursing workload. These results justify a pilot clinical trial to verify this study.

Impact of glucocorticoids on insulin resistance in the critically ill

Glucocorticoids (GCs) have been shown to reduce insulin sensitivity in healthy individuals. Widely used in critical care to treat a variety of inflammatory and allergic disorders, they may inadvertently exacerbate stress-hyperglycaemia. This research uses model-based methods to quantify the reduction in insulin sensitivity from GCs in critically ill patients, and thus their impact on glycaemic control. A model-based measure of insulin sensitivity (S(I)) was used to quantify changes between two matched cohorts of 40 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Patients in one cohort received GC treatment, while patients in the control cohort did not. All patients were admitted to the Christchurch hospital ICU between 2005 and 2007 and spent at least 24h on the SPRINT glycaemic control protocol. A 31% reduction in whole-cohort median insulin sensitivity was seen between the control cohort and patients receiving glucocorticoids with a median dose equivalent to 200mg/d of hydrocortisone per patient. Comparing percentile patients as a surrogate for matched patients, reductions in median insulin sensitivity of 20%, 25%, and 21% were observed for the 25th-, 50th- and 75th-percentile patients, respectively. These cohort and percentile patient reductions are less than or equivalent to the 30-62% reductions reported in healthy subjects especially when considering the fact that the GC doses in this study are 1.3-4.0 times larger than those in studies of healthy subjects. This reduced suppression of insulin sensitivity in critically ill patients could be a result of saturation due to already increased levels of catecholamines and cortisol common in critically illness. Virtual trial simulation showed that reductions in insulin sensitivity of 20-30% associated with glucocorticoid treatment in the ICU have limited impact on glycaemic control levels within the context of the SPRINT protocol.