Sophie Penning

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.

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.

STAR Development and Protocol Comparison

Accurate glycemic control (AGC) is difficult due to excessive hypoglycemia risk. Stochastic TARgeted (STAR) glycemic control forecasts changes in insulin sensitivity to calculate a range of glycemic outcomes for an insulin intervention, creating a risk framework to improve safety and performance. An improved, simplified STAR framework was developed to reduce light hypoglycemia and clinical effort, while improving nutrition rates and performance. Blood glucose (BG) levels are targeted to 80-145 mg/dL, using insulin and nutrition control for 1-3 h interventions. Insulin changes are limited to +3U/h and nutrition to ±30% of goal rate (minimum 30%). All targets and rate change limits are clinically specified and generalizable. Clinically validated virtual trials were run on using clinical data from 371 patients (39841 h) from the Specialized Relative Insulin and Nutrition Tables (SPRINT) cohort. Cohort and per-patient results are compared to clinical SPRINT data, and virtual trials of three published protocols. Performance was measured as time within glycemic bands, and safety by patients with severe (BG <; 40 mg/dL) and mild (%BG <; 72 mg/dL) hypoglycemia. Pilot trial results from the first ten patients (1486 h) are included to support the in-silico findings. In both virtual and clinical trials, mild hypoglycemia was below 2% versus 4% for SPRINT. Severe hypoglycemia was reduced from 14 (SPRINT) to 6 (STAR), and 0 in the pilot trial. AGC was tighter than both SPRINT clinical data and in-silico comparison protocols, with 91% BG within the specified target (80-145 mg/dL) in virtual trials and 89.4% in pilot trials. Clinical effort (measurements) was reduced from 16.2/day to 11.8/day (13.5/day in pilot trials). This STAR framework provides safe AGC with significant reductions in hypoglycemia and clinical effort due to stochastic forecasting of patient variation - a unique risk-based approach. Initial pilot trials validate the in-silico design methods and resulting protocol, all of which can be generalized to suit any given clinical environment.

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.

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.

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

Tight glycemic control (TGC) has shown benefits in ICU patients, but been difficult to achieve consistently due to inter- and intra- patient variability that requires more adaptive, patient-specific solutions. STAR (Stochastic TARgeted) is a flexible model-based TGC framework accounting for patient variability with a stochastically derived maximum 5% risk of blood glucose (BG) below 72 mg/dL. This research describes the first clinical pilot trial of the STAR approach and the post-trial analysis of the models and methods that underpin the protocol. The STAR framework works with clinically specified targets and intervention guidelines. The clinically specified glycemic target was 125 mg/dL. Each trial was 24 h with BG measured 1-2 hourly. Two-hourly measurement was used when BG was between 110-135 mg/dL for 3 h. In the STAR approach, each intervention leads to a predicted BG level and outcome range (5-95th percentile) based on a stochastic model of metabolic patient variability. Carbohydrate intake (all sources) was monitored, but not changed from clinical settings except to prevent BG<100 mg/dL when no insulin was given. Insulin infusion rates were limited (6 U/h maximum), with limited increases based on current infusion rate (0.5-2.0 U/h), making this use of the STAR framework an insulin-only TGC approach. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Liege (Liege, Belgium). Nine patient trials were undertaken after obtaining informed consent. There were 205 measurements over all 9 trials. Median [IQR] per-patient results were: BG: 138.5 [130.6-146.0]mg/dL; carbohydrate administered: 2-11 g/h; median insulin:1.3 [0.9-2.4]U/h with a maximum of 6.0 [4.7-6.0]U/h. Median [IQR] time in the desired 110-140 mg/dL band was: 50.0 [31.2-54.2]%. Median model prediction errors ranged: 10-18%, with larger errors due to small meals and other clinical events. The minimum BG was 63 mg/dL and no other measurement was below 72 mg/dL, so only 1 measurement (0.5%) was below the 5% guaranteed minimum risk level. Post-trial analysis showed that patients were more variable than predicted by the stochastic model used for control, resulting in some of the prediction errors seen. Analysis and (validated) virtual trial re-simulating the clinical trial using stochastic models relevant to the patients particular day of ICU stay were seen to be more accurate in capturing the observed variability. This analysis indicated that equivalent control and safety could be obtained with similar or lower glycemic variability in control using more specific stochastic models. STAR effectively controlled all patients to target. Observed patient variability in response to insulin and thus prediction errors were higher than expected, likely due to the recent insult of cardiac surgery or a major cardiac event, and their immediate recovery. STAR effectively managed this variability with no hypoglycemia. Improved stochastic models will be used to prospectively test these outcomes in further ongoing clinical pilot trials in this and other units.

Glucose control positively influences patient outcome: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE The goal of this research is to demonstrate that well-regulated glycemia is beneficial to patient outcome, regardless of how it is achieved. METHODS This analysis used data from 1701 patients from 2, independent studies. Glycemic outcome was measured using cumulative time in band (cTIB), calculated for 3 glycemic bands and for threshold values of t = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8. For each day of intensive care unit stay, patients were classified by cTIB, threshold, and hospital mortality, and odds of living (OL) and odds ratio were calculated. RESULTS The OL given cTIB ≥ t is higher than the OL given cTIB <t for all values of t, every day, for all 3 glycemic bands studied. The difference between the odds clearly increased over intensive care unit stay for t>0.6. Higher cTIB thresholds resulted in larger increases to odds ratio over time and were particularly significant for the 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L glycemic band. CONCLUSION Increased cTIB was associated with higher OL. These results suggest that effective glycemic control positively influences patient outcome, regardless of how the glycemic regulation is achieved. Blood glucose < 7.0 mmol/L is associated with a measurable increase in the odds of survival, if hypoglycemia is avoided.

Evolution of insulin sensitivity and its variability in out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients treated with hypothermia.

IntroductionTherapeutic hypothermia (TH) is often used to treat out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who also often simultaneously receive insulin for stress-induced hyperglycaemia. However, the impact of TH on systemic metabolism and insulin resistance in critical illness is unknown. This study analyses the impact of TH on metabolism, including the evolution of insulin sensitivity (SI) and its variability, in patients with coma after OHCA.MethodsThis study uses a clinically validated, model-based measure of SI. Insulin sensitivity was identified hourly using retrospective data from 200 post-cardiac arrest patients (8,522 hours) treated with TH, shortly after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Blood glucose and body temperature readings were taken every one to two hours. Data were divided into three periods: 1) cool (T <35°C); 2) an idle period of two hours as normothermia was re-established; and 3) warm (T >37°C). A maximum of 24 hours each for the cool and warm periods was considered. The impact of each condition on SI is analysed per cohort and per patient for both level and hour-to-hour variability, between periods and in six-hour blocks.ResultsCohort and per-patient median SI levels increase consistently by 35% to 70% and 26% to 59% (P <0.001) respectively from cool to warm. Conversely, cohort and per-patient SI variability decreased by 11.1% to 33.6% (P <0.001) for the first 12 hours of treatment. However, SI variability increases between the 18th and 30th hours over the cool to warm transition, before continuing to decrease afterward.ConclusionsOCHA patients treated with TH have significantly lower and more variable SI during the cool period, compared to the later warm period. As treatment continues, SI level rises, and variability decreases consistently except for a large, significant increase during the cool to warm transition. These results demonstrate increased resistance to insulin during mild induced hypothermia. Our study might have important implications for glycaemic control during targeted temperature management.

Does the achievement of an intermediate glycemic target reduce organ failure and mortality? A post hoc analysis of the Glucontrol trial.

OBJECTIVE This research evaluates the impact of the achievement of an intermediate target glycemic band on the severity of organ failure and mortality. METHODS Daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and the cumulative time in a 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L band (cTIB) were evaluated daily up to 14 days in 704 participants of the multicentre Glucontrol trial (16 centers) that randomized patients to intensive group A (blood glucose [BG] target: 4.4-6.1 mmol/L) or conventional group B (BG target: 7.8-10.0 mmol/L). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment evolution was measured by percentage of patients with SOFA less than or equal to 5 on each day, percentage of individual organ failures, and percentage of organ failure-free days. Conditional and joint probability analysis of SOFA and cTIB 0.5 or more assessed the impact of achieving 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L target glycemic range on organ failure. Odds ratios (OR) compare the odds risk of death for cTIB 0.5 or more vs cTIB less than 0.5, where a ratio greater than 1.0 indicates an improvement for achieving cTIB 0.5 or more independent of SOFA or glycemic target. RESULTS Groups A and B were matched for demographic and severity of illness data. Blood glucose differed between groups A and B (P<.05), as expected. There was no difference in the percentage of patients with SOFA less than or equal to 5, individual organ failures, and organ failure-free days between groups A and B over days 1 to 14. However, 20% to 30% of group A patients failed to achieve cTIB 0.5 or more for all days, and significant crossover confounds interpretation. Mortality OR was greater than 1.0 for patients with cTIB 0.5 or more in both groups but much higher for group A on all days. CONCLUSIONS There was no difference in organ failure in the Glucontrol study based on intention to treat to different glycemic targets. Actual outcomes and significant crossover indicate that this result may not be due to the difference in target or treatment. Odds ratios-associated achieving an intermediate 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L range improved outcome.