Adaptive bolus-based targeted glucose regulation of hyperglycaemia in critical care

Insulin depot absorption modeling and pharmacokinetic simulation with insulin glargine 300 U/mL

OBJECTIVE

Mathematical models of insulin absorption have been used to predict plasma insulin concentrations after administration, but few are specifically applicable to insulin glargine, which precipitates subcutaneously after injection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The formation and redissolution of subcutaneous depots of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) and insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) are modeled. Surface-area-dependent redissolution is introduced to established diffusion and absorption pathways, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles are simulated and subsequently validated using experimental data from euglycemic glucose clamp studies. Simulations are used to predict the PK effect of adapting the timing of once-daily insulin injections and of switching from one insulin product to the other. -Results: Simulated PK profiles resemble those previously observed in clinical trials, with Gla-300 providing more gradual and prolonged release of Gla-300 vs. Gla-100, owing to a more compact depot. The predicted PK profile of Gla-300 shows less fluctuation in plasma insulin concentrations than that of Gla-100, and may be better suited to adapting the timing of daily injections to account for variation in daily activities. Simulating a switch from one insulin glargine product to the other results in temporary alteration of previous steady state, but this is regained within ~ 3 days.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that PK differences between Gla-300 and Gla-100 are a product of the more compact Gla-300 depot and its smaller surface area. The model employed also allowed estimation of insulin glargine concentrations when varying the time interval between injections as well as when switching from one insulin glargine product to the other.
.

Population-Specific Models of Glycemic Control in Intensive Care: Towards a Simulation-Based Methodology for Protocol Optimization

Stress-induced hyperglycemia is common in critically ill patients, where elevated blood glucose and glycemic variability have been found to contribute to infection, slow wound healing, and short-term mortality. Early clinical studies demonstrated improvement in mortality and morbidity resulting from intensive insulin therapy targeting euglycemia. Follow-up clinical studies have shown mixed results suggesting that the risk of hypoglycemia may outweigh the benefits of aggressive glycemic control. None of the prior studies clarify whether euglycemic targets are in themselves harmful, or if the danger lies in the inadequacy of the available methods for achieving desired glycemic outcomes. In this paper, we use a recently developed simulation model of stress hyperglycemia to demonstrate that given an insulin protocol glycemic outcomes are specific to the patient population under consideration, and that there is a need to optimize insulin therapy at the population level. Next, we use the simulator to demonstrate that the performance of Adaptive Proportional Feedback (APF), a popular format for computerized insulin therapy, is sensitive to its parameters, especially to the parameters that govern the aggressiveness of adaptation. Finally, we propose a framework for simulation-based protocol optimization using an objective function that penalizes below-range deviations more heavily than comparable deviations above.

Robust global identifiability theory using potentials--Application to compartmental models

This paper presents a global practical identifiability theory for analyzing and identifying linear and nonlinear compartmental models. The compartmental system is prolonged onto the potential jet space to formulate a set of input-output equations that are integrals in terms of the measured data, which allows for robust identification of parameters without requiring any simulation of the model differential equations. Two classes of linear and non-linear compartmental models are considered. The theory is first applied to analyze the linear nitrous oxide (N2O) uptake model. The fitting accuracy of the identified models from differential jet space and potential jet space identifiability theories is compared with a realistic noise level of 3% which is derived from sensor noise data in the literature. The potential jet space approach gave a match that was well within the coefficient of variation. The differential jet space formulation was unstable and not suitable for parameter identification. The proposed theory is then applied to a nonlinear immunological model for mastitis in cows. In addition, the model formulation is extended to include an iterative method which allows initial conditions to be accurately identified. With up to 10% noise, the potential jet space theory predicts the normalized population concentration infected with pathogens, to within 9% of the true curve.

A closed-loop artificial pancreas using a proportional integral derivative with double phase lead controller based on a new nonlinear model of glucose metabolism

BACKGROUND

Most closed-loop insulin delivery systems rely on model-based controllers to control the blood glucose (BG) level. Simple models of glucose metabolism, which allow easy design of the control law, are limited in their parametric identification from raw data. New control models and controllers issued from them are needed.

METHODS

A proportional integral derivative with double phase lead controller was proposed. Its design was based on a linearization of a new nonlinear control model of the glucose-insulin system in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients validated with the University of Virginia/Padova T1DM metabolic simulator. A 36 h scenario, including six unannounced meals, was tested in nine virtual adults. A previous trial database has been used to compare the performance of our controller with their previous results. The scenario was repeated 25 times for each adult in order to take continuous glucose monitoring noise into account. The primary outcome was the time BG levels were in target (70-180 mg/dl).

RESULTS

Blood glucose values were in the target range for 77% of the time and below 50 mg/dl and above 250 mg/dl for 0.8% and 0.3% of the time, respectively. The low blood glucose index and high blood glucose index were 1.65 and 3.33, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The linear controller presented, based on the linearization of a new easily identifiable nonlinear model, achieves good glucose control with low exposure to hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia.

Adaptive blood glucose control for intensive care applications

Control of blood glucose concentration for patients in intensive care units (ICUs) has been demonstrated to be beneficial in reducing mortality and the incidence of serious complications, for both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. However, the high degree of variability and uncertainty characterizing the physiological conditions of critically ill subjects makes automated glucose control quite difficult; consequently, traditional, nurse-implemented protocols are widely employed. These protocols are based on infrequent glucose measurements, look-up tables to determine the appropriate insulin infusion rates, and bedside insulin administration. In this paper, a novel automatic adaptive control strategy based on frequent glucose measurements and a self-tuning control technique is validated based on a simulation study for 200 virtual patients. The adaptive control strategy is shown to be highly effective in controlling blood glucose concentration despite the large degree of variability in the blood glucose response exhibited by the 200 simulated patients.

Pilot study of the SPRINT glycemic control protocol in a Hungarian medical intensive care unit

INTRODUCTION

Stress-induced hyperglycemia increases morbidity and mortality. Tight control can reduce mortality but has proven difficult to achieve. The SPRINT (Specialized Relative Insulin and Nutrition Tables) protocol is the only protocol that reduced both mortality and hypoglycemia by modulating both insulin and nutrition, but it has not been tested in independent hospitals.

METHODS

SPRINT was used for 12 adult intensive care unit patients (949 h) at Kálmán Pándy Hospital (Gyula, Hungary) as a clinical practice assessment. Insulin recommendations (0-6 U/h) were administered via constant infusion rather than bolus delivery. Nutrition was administered per local standard protocol, weaning parenteral to enteral nutrition, but was modulated per SPRINT recommendations. Measurement was every 1 to 2 h, per protocol. Glycemic performance is assessed by percentage of blood glucose (BG) measurements in glycemic bands for the cohort and per patient. Safety from hypoglycemia is assessed by numbers of patients with BG < 2.2 (severe) and %BG < 3.0 and < 4.0 mmol/liter (moderate and light). Clinical effort is assessed by measurements per day. Results are median (interquartile range).

RESULTS

There were 742 measurements over 1088 h of control (16.4 measurements/day), which is similar to clinical SPRINT results (16.2/day). Per-patient hours of control were 65 (50-95) h. Initial per-patient BG was 10.5 (7.9-11.2) mmol/liter. All patients (100%) reached 6.1 mmol/liter. Cohort BG was 6.3 (5.5-7.5) mmol/liter, with 42.2%, 65.1% and 77.6% of BG in the 4.0-6.1, 4.0-7.0, and 4.0-8.0 mmol/liter bands. Per-patient, median percentage time in these bands was 40.2 (26.7-51.5)%, 62.5 (46.0-75.7)%, and 74.7 (61.6.8-87.8)%, respectively. No patients had BG < 2.2 mmol/liter, and the %BG < 4.0 mmol/liter was 1.9%. These results were achieved using 3.0 (3.0-5.0) U/h of insulin with 7.4 (4.4-10.2) g/h of dextrose administration (all sources) for the cohort. Per-patient median insulin administration was 3.0 (3.0-3.0) U/h and 7.1 (3.4-9.6) g/h dextrose. Higher carbohydrate nutrition formulas than were used in SPRINT are offset by slightly higher insulin administration in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The glycemic performance shows that using the SPRINT protocol to guide insulin infusions and nutrition administration provided very good glycemic control in initial pilot testing, with no severe hypoglycemia. The overall design of the protocol was able to be generalized with good compliance and outcomes across geographically distinct clinical units, patients, and clinical practice.

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

Background

Effective 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

Cohort 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.

Conclusions

Critically 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.

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

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) < 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.

Methods

Seven 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 (5-95^th 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.

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.

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 patient's 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.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

The application of a model of glucose and insulin dynamics to explain an observed effect of leptin administration in reversal of developmental programming

A dynamical model describing the glucose-insulin physiological system was applied to an experiment on the administration of the adipokine leptin between neonatal days 3 and 13 to rats whose dams were subject to different levels of nutrition during gestation. The effect of leptin treatment on the glucose-insulin equilibrium point and on the levels of other associated metabolites showed a significant change in direction that depended on the level of prenatal nutrition. Leptin has been shown to affect two factors that affect the equilibrium levels of glucose and insulin, gluconeogenesis and insulin sensitivity. Each effect is described by a parameter in the dynamical model. Mathematical analysis shows that changes in these parameters in the manner promoted by leptin would indeed increase or decrease the glucose-insulin equilibria depending on their initial equilibrium levels which might be induced by the level of prenatal nutrition. This analysis explains the results of the leptin experiment in the context of the dynamics of the glucocorticoid system. It also proposes a physiological mechanism for the expression of plasticity in the organism based on the status of the glucose and insulin equilibria.

A fast generalizable solution method for glucose control algorithms

In critical care tight control of blood glucose levels has been shown to lead to better clinical outcomes. The need to develop new protocols for tight glucose control, as well as the opportunity to optimize a variety of other drug therapies, has led to resurgence in model-based medical decision support in this area. One still valid hindrance to developing new model-based protocols using so-called virtual patients, retrospective clinical data, and Monte Carlo methods is the large amount of computational time and resources needed. This paper develops fast analytical-based methods for insulin-glucose system model that are generalizable to other similar systems. Exploiting the structure and partial solutions in a subset of the model is the key in finding accurate fast solutions to the full model. This approach successfully reduced computing time by factors of 5600-144000 depending on the numerical error management method, for large (50-164 patients) virtual trials and Monte Carlo analysis. It thus allows new model-based or model-derived protocols to be rapidly developed via extensive simulation. The new method is rigorously compared to existing standard numerical solutions and is found to be highly accurate to within 0.2%.

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 approximately 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 approximately 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.

Essential elements of the native glucoregulatory system, which, if appreciated, may help improve the function of glucose controllers in the intensive care unit setting

In 2001, Van den Berghe and colleagues were able to show that tight glucose control decreases morbidity and mortality rates in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Several large, prospective, randomized controlled trials have failed to confirm these results. All of these studies attempted tight glucose control using expert-designed algorithms to adjust the rate of intravenous insulin. Unfortunately, these studies each had high rates of hypoglycemia, a high percentage of glucose values outside of the target range, and increased glucose variability. These three measurements have been shown to increase mortality rates in ICU patients. In order to achieve a high rate of success with regards to tight glucose control, a closed-loop system will need to be created. The two main elements of such a system are a continuous glucose sensor and a recursive glucose control algorithm. This review highlights the important elements of the native glucoregulatory system, which, if utilized, may help create a successful glucose control algorithm for a closed-loop system.

Towards closed-loop glycaemic control

Blood glucose control performed by intensive care unit (ICU) nurses is becoming standard practice for critically ill patients. New algorithms, ranging from basic protocols to elementary computerized protocols to advanced computerized protocols, have been presented during the last years aiming to reduce the workload of the medical team. This paper gives an overview of the different types of algorithms and their features. Performance comparisons between different algorithms are avoided as blood glucose sampling frequencies and protocol durations were not similar among different studies and even within studies. Particularly advanced computerized protocols can potentially be introduced as fully-automated blood glucose algorithms when accurate and reliable near-continuous glucose sensor devices are available. Furthermore, it is surprising to consider in some of the described protocols that the original blood glucose target ranges (80-110 mg/dl) were increased (due to fear of hypoglycaemia) and/or that glycaemia levels were determined in capillary blood samples.

A subcutaneous insulin pharmacokinetic model for computer simulation in a diabetes decision support role: model structure and parameter identification

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to develop a unified physiological subcutaneous (SC) insulin absorption model for computer simulation in a clinical diabetes decision support role. The model must model the plasma insulin appearance of a wide range of current insulins, especially monomer insulin and insulin glargine, utilizing common chemical states and transport rates, where appropriate.

METHODS

A compartmental model was developed with 13 patient-specific model parameters covering six diverse insulin types [rapid-acting, regular, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), lente, ultralente, and glargine insulin]. Model parameters were identified using 37 sets of mean plasma insulin time-course data from an extensive literature review via nonlinear optimization methods.

RESULTS

All fitted parameters have a coefficient of variation <100% (median 51.3%, 95th percentile 3.6-60.6%) and can be considered a posteriori identifiable.

CONCLUSION

A model is presented to describe SC injected insulin appearance in plasma in a diabetes decision support role. Clinically current insulin types (monomeric insulin, regular insulin, NPH, insulin, and glargine) and older insulin types (lente and ultralente) are included in a unified framework that accounts for nonlinear concentration and dose dependency. Future work requires clinical validation using published pharmacokinetic studies.

The impact of parameter identification methods on drug therapy control in an intensive care unit

This paper investigates the impact of fast parameter identification methods, which do not require any forward simulations, on model-based glucose control, using retrospective data in the Christchurch Hospital Intensive Care Unit. The integral-based identification method has been previously clinically validated and extensively applied in a number of biomedical applications; and is a crucial element in the presented model-based therapeutics approach. Common non-linear regression and gradient descent approaches are too computationally intense and not suitable for the glucose control applications presented. The main focus in this paper is on better characterizing and understanding the importance of the integral in the formulation and the effect it has on model-based drug therapy control. As a comparison, a potentially more natural derivative formulation which has the same computation speed advantages is investigated, and is shown to go unstable with respect to modelling error which is always present clinically. The integral method remains robust.

Development of a clinical type 1 diabetes metabolic system model and in silico simulation tool

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to develop a system model of type 1 diabetes for the purpose of in silico simulation for the prediction of long-term glycemic control outcomes.

METHODS

The system model was created and identified on a physiological cohort of virtual type 1 diabetes patients (n = 40). Integral-based identification was used to develop (n = 40) insulin sensitivity profiles.

RESULTS

The n = 40 insulin sensitivity profiles provide a driving input for virtual patient trials using the models developed. The identified models have a median (90% range) absolute percentage error of 1.33% (0.08-7.20%). The median (90% range) absolute error was 0.12 mmol/liter (0.01-0.56 mmol/liter). The model and integral-based identification of SI captured all patient dynamics with low error, which would lead to more physiological behavior simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

A simulation tool incorporating n = 40 virtual patient data sets to predict long-term glycemic control outcomes from clinical interventions was developed based on a physiological type 1 diabetes metabolic system model. The overall goal is to utilize this model and insulin sensitivity profiles to develop and optimize self-monitoring blood glucose and multiple daily injection therapy.

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

Introduction

Stress-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.

Methods

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 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).

Results

Overall, 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.

Conclusion

SPRINT 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 minimal model for glycemia control in critically ill patients

In this paper we propose a modified minimal model to be used for glycemia control in critically ill patients. For various reasons the Bergman minimal model is widely used to describe glucose and insulin dynamics. However, since this model is mostly valid in a rather restrictive setting, it might not be suitable to be used in a model predictive controller. Simulations show that the new model exhibits a similar glycemia behaviour but clinically more realistic insulin kinetics. Therefore it is potentially more suitable for glycemia control. The designed model is also estimated on a set of critically ill patients giving promising results.

Monte Carlo analysis of a new model-based method for insulin sensitivity testing

Insulin resistance (IR), or low insulin sensitivity, is a major risk factor in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A simple, high resolution assessment of IR would enable earlier diagnosis and more accurate monitoring of intervention effects. Current assessments are either too intensive for clinical settings (Euglycaemic Clamp, IVGTT) or have too low resolution (HOMA, fasting glucose/insulin). Based on high correlation of a model-based measure of insulin sensitivity and the clamp, a novel, clinically useful test protocol is designed with: physiological dosing, short duration (<1 h), simple protocol, low cost and high repeatability. Accuracy and repeatability are assessed with Monte Carlo analysis on a virtual clamp cohort (N=146). Insulin sensitivity as measured by this test has a coefficient of variation (CV) of CV(SI)=4.5% (90% CI: 3.8-5.7%), slightly higher than clamp ISI (CV(ISI)=3.3% (90% CI: 3.0-4.0%)) and significantly lower than HOMA (CV(HOMA)=10.0% (90% CI: 9.1-10.8%)). Correlation to glucose and unit normalised ISI is r=0.98 (90% CI: 0.97-0.98). The proposed protocol is simple, cost effective, repeatable and highly correlated to the gold-standard clamp.

Stochastic modelling of insulin sensitivity and adaptive glycemic control for critical care

Targeted, tight model-based glycemic control in critical care patients that can reduce mortality 18-45% is enabled by prediction of insulin sensitivity, S(I). However, this parameter can vary significantly over a given hour in the critically ill as their condition evolves. A stochastic model of S(I) variability is constructed using data from 165 critical care patients. Given S(I) for an hour, the stochastic model returns the probability density function of S(I) for the next hour. Consequently, the glycemic distribution following a known intervention can be derived, enabling pre-determined likelihoods of the result and more accurate control. Cross validation of the S(I) variability model shows that 86.6% of the blood glucose measurements are within the 0.90 probability interval, and 54.0% are within the interquartile interval. "Virtual Patients" with S(I) behaving to the overall S(I) variability model achieved similar predictive performance in simulated trials (86.8% and 45.7%). Finally, adaptive control method incorporating S(I) variability is shown to produce improved glycemic control in simulated trials compared to current clinical results. The validated stochastic model and methods provide a platform for developing advanced glycemic control methods addressing critical care variability.

The artificial pancreas: how sweet engineering will solve bitter problems

An artificial pancreas is a closed-loop system containing only synthetic materials which substitutes for an endocrine pancreas. No artificial pancreas system is currently approved; however, devices that could become components of such a system are now becoming commercially available. An artificial pancreas will consist of functionally integrated components that will continuously sense glucose levels, determine appropriate insulin dosages, and deliver the insulin. Any proposed closed loop system will be closely scrutinized for its safety, efficacy, and economic impact. Closed loop control utilizes models of glucose homeostasis which account for the influences of feeding, stress, insulin, exercise, and other factors on blood glucose levels. Models are necessary for understanding the relationship between blood glucose levels and insulin dosing; developing algorithms to control insulin dosing; and customizing each user's system based on individual responses to factors that influence glycemia. Components of an artificial pancreas are now being developed, including continuous glucose sensors; insulin pumps for parenteral delivery; and control software, all linked through wireless communication systems. Although a closed-loop system providing glucagon has not been reported in 40 years, the use of glucagon to prevent hypoglycemia is physiologically attractive and future devices might utilize this hormone. No demonstration of long-term closed loop control of glucose in a free-living human with diabetes has been reported to date, but many centers around the world are working on closed loop control systems. It is expected that many types of artificial pancreas systems will eventually be available, and they will greatly benefit patients with diabetes.

Overview of glycemic control in critical care: relating performance and clinical results

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia is prevalent in critical care and tight control can save lives. Current ad-hoc clinical protocols require significant clinical effort and produce highly variable results. Model-based methods can provide tight, patient specific control, while addressing practical clinical difficulties and dynamic patient evolution. However, tight control remains elusive as there is not enough understanding of the relationship between control performance and clinical outcome.

METHODS

The general problem and performance criteria are defined. The clinical studies performed to date using both ad-hoctitration and model-based methods are reviewed. Studies reporting mortality outcome are analysed in terms of standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and a 95(th) percentile (+/-2sigma) standard error (SE(95%)) to enable better comparison across cohorts.

RESULTS

Model-based control trials lower blood glucose into a 72-110 mg/dL band within 10 hours, have target accuracy over 90%, produce fewer hypoglycemic episodes, and require no additional clinical intervention. Plotting SMR versus SE(95%) shows potentially high correlation (r=0.84) between ICU mortality and tightness of control.

SUMMARY

Model-based methods provide tighter, more adaptable one method fits all solutions, using methods that enable patient-specific modeling and control. Correlation between tightness of control and clinical outcome suggests that performance metrics, such as time in a relevant glycemic band, may provide better guidelines. Overall, compared to the current one size fits all sliding scale and ad-hoc regimens, patient-specific pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic model-based, or one method fits all control, utilizing computational and emerging sensor technologies, offers improved treatment and better potential outcomes when treating hyperglycemia in the highly dynamic critically ill patient.

Physiological modelling of agitation–sedation dynamics including endogenous agitation reduction

Sedation administration and agitation management are fundamental activities in any intensive care unit. A lack of objective measures of agitation and sedation, as well as poor understanding of the underlying dynamics, contribute to inefficient outcomes and expensive healthcare. Recent models of agitation-sedation pharmacodynamics have enhanced understanding of the underlying dynamics and enable development of advanced protocols for semi-automated sedation administration. However, these initial models do not capture all observed dynamics, particularly periods of low sedative infusion. A physiologically representative model that incorporates endogenous agitation reduction (EAR) dynamics is presented and validated using data from 37 critical care patients. High median relative average normalised density (RAND) values of 0.77 and 0.78 support and minimum RAND values of 0.51 and 0.55 for models without and with EAR dynamics respectively show that both models are valid representations of the fundamental agitation-sedation dynamics present in a broad spectrum of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. While the addition of the EAR dynamic increases the ability of the model to capture the observed dynamics of the agitation-sedation system, the improvement is relatively small and the sensitivity of the model to the EAR dynamic is low. Although this may represent a limitation of the model, the inclusion of EAR is shown to be important for accurately capturing periods of low, or no, sedative infusion, such as during weaning prior to extubation.

A pilot study of the SPRINT protocol for tight glycemic control in critically Ill patients

BACKGROUND

Stress-induced hyperglycemia is prevalent in critical care, even in patients with no history of diabetes. Increased counter-regulatory hormone response increases gluconeogenesis and effective insulin resistance, which can be exacerbated by drug therapy. Control of blood glucose levels to the 4.0-6.1 mmol/L range has been shown to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes. The Specialized Relative Insulin and Nutrition Tables (SPRINT) protocol is a simple alternative intensive care unit protocol for modulating insulin and nutritional input to gain tight blood glucose control in the 4.0-6.1 mmol/L target band. The look-up tables, implemented in a wheel-based format, are used by nurses to determine glycemic control actions based on hourly or 2-hourly blood glucose measurements and nutrition and insulin administration rates.

METHODS

An 11 patient pilot study was conducted comprising 2,152 hours of blood glucose level control using the SPRINT protocol. The patient cohort average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 22, which was higher than previous intensive insulin clinical studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 64% of measurements were in the 4.0-6.1 mmol/L band, 89% in the 4.0-7.0 mmol/L band, and 96% of all measurements in the 4.0-7.75 mmol/L band. The average value was 5.8 +/- 0.9 mmol/L. Only 1.4% of all measurements were below 4 mmol/L, with a minimum of 3.2 mmol/L. The maximum value recorded was 11.8 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Control of blood glucose level was achieved using a protocol implemented by the nursing staff without the need for physician intervention or interpretation, where control is defined as maximizing time within a desired band. The results led to a high level of support for the SPRINT protocol among clinical staff and acceptance of the frequent measurement requirement for effective control. The ease-of-use of the protocol resulted in minimal noncompliance by clinical staff.

Integral-based filtering of continuous glucose sensor measurements for glycaemic control in critical care

Hyperglycaemia is prevalent in critical illness and increases the risk of further complications and mortality, while tight control can reduce mortality up to 43%. Adaptive control methods are capable of highly accurate, targeted blood glucose regulation using limited numbers of manual measurements due to patient discomfort and labour intensity. Therefore, the option to obtain greater data density using emerging continuous glucose sensing devices is attractive. However, the few such systems currently available can have errors in excess of 20-30%. In contrast, typical bedside testing kits have errors of approximately 7-10%. Despite greater measurement frequency larger errors significantly impact the resulting glucose and patient specific parameter estimates, and thus the control actions determined creating an important safety and performance issue. This paper models the impact of the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS, Medtronic, Northridge, CA) on model-based parameter identification and glucose prediction. An integral-based fitting and filtering method is developed to reduce the effect of these errors. A noise model is developed based on CGMS data reported in the literature, and is slightly conservative with a mean Clarke Error Grid (CEG) correlation of R=0.81 (range: 0.68-0.88) as compared to a reported value of R=0.82 in a critical care study. Using 17 virtual patient profiles developed from retrospective clinical data, this noise model was used to test the methods developed. Monte-Carlo simulation for each patient resulted in an average absolute 1-h glucose prediction error of 6.20% (range: 4.97-8.06%) with an average standard deviation per patient of 5.22% (range: 3.26-8.55%). Note that all the methods and results are generalizable to similar applications outside of critical care, such as less acute wards and eventually ambulatory individuals. Clinically, the results show one possible computational method for managing the larger errors encountered in emerging continuous blood glucose sensors, thus enabling their more effective use in clinical glucose regulation studies.

A novel, model-based insulin and nutrition delivery controller for glycemic regulation in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients are often hyperglycemic and insulin resistant, as well as highly dynamic. Tight glucose control has been shown to significantly reduce mortality in critical care. A physiological model of the glucose-insulin regulatory system is improved and used to develop an adaptive control protocol utilizing both nutritional and insulin inputs to control hyperglycemia. The approach is clinically verified in a critical care patient cohort.

METHODS

A simple two-compartment model for glucose rate of appearance in plasma due to stepwise enteral glucose fluxes is developed and incorporated into a previously validated system model. A control protocol modulating intravenous insulin infusion and bolus, with an enteral feed rate, is developed, enabling tight and predictive glycemic regulation to preset targets. The control protocol is adaptive to patient time-variant effective insulin resistance. The model and protocol are verified in seven 10-h and one 24-h proof-of-concept clinical trials. Ethics approval was granted by the Canterbury Ethics Committee.

RESULTS

Insulin requirements varied widely following acute changes in patient physiology. The algorithm developed successfully adapted to patient metabolic status and insulin sensitivity, achieving an average target acquisition error of 9.3% with 90.7% of all targets achieved within +/-20%. Prediction errors may not be distinguishable from sensor measurement errors. Large errors (>20%) are attributable to highly dynamic and unpredictable changes in patient condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Tight, targeted stepwise regulation was exhibited in all trials. Overall, tight glycemic regulation is achieved in a broad critical care cohort with optimized insulin and nutrition delivery, effectively managing glycemia even with high effective insulin resistance.

A simple insulin-nutrition protocol for tight glycemic control in critical illness: development and protocol comparison

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia is prevalent in critical care, and tight control can significantly reduce mortality. However, current protocols have been considered taxing to administer and may require extra staff. In addition, increased insulin resistance and saturation effects limit the level of control possible using insulin alone. Thus, regulating both insulin and exogenous nutritional inputs is required to control blood glucose.

METHODS

A robust, easy-to-use protocol ["SPRINT" (Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Tables)] that employs both insulin and feed modulation is developed and analyzed using retrospective data from 19 patients with average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 21.8. Results are compared with several published protocols in simulation, and verified in a proof-of-concept trial.

RESULTS

In simulation, 61.7% of measurements were in the 75-110 mg/dL band and 83.5% in the 75-140 mg/dL band. Results from the simulation of published protocols agreed with published results. Clinically, for two patients, 64% and 85% of measurements were between 75 and 110 mg/dL during the two proof-of-concept trials. Total enteral feeding was similar to, or exceeded, retrospective data.

CONCLUSIONS

Tight control was achieved in simulation using a protocol that is easy to implement in an intensive care unit. Similarly tight control was also maintained during the two proof-of-concept clinical trials. Measurement frequency of 1-2 h is seen to be critical to achieving and maintaining tight control. The overall SPRINT protocol is easy to use for clinical staff and effective in achieving and maintaining normoglycemia in critical illness.

Model predictive glycaemic regulation in critical illness using insulin and nutrition input: a pilot study

Stress-induced hyperglycaemia is prevalent in intensive care, impairing the immune response. Nutritional support regimes with high glucose content further exacerbate the problem. Tight glucose control has been shown to reduce mortality by up to 43% if levels are kept below 6.1 mmol/L. This research develops a control algorithm with insulin and nutritional inputs for targeted glucose control in the critically ill. Ethics approval for this research was granted by the Canterbury Ethics Committee. Proof-of-concept clinical pilot trials were conducted on intubated, insulin-dependent Christchurch ICU patients (n=7) on constant nutritional support. A target 10-15% reduction in glucose level per hour for a desired glucose level of 4-6 mmol/L was set. 43% and 91% of glucose targets were achieved within +/-5 and +/-20%, respectively. The mean error was 8.9% (0.5 mmol/L), with an absolute range [0, 2.9] mmol/L. End glucose levels were 40% lower compared to initial values. All large target errors are attributable to sudden changes in patient physiology at low glucose values, rather than systemic deficiencies. Target errors are consistent with and explainable by published sensor error distributions. The results show that intensive model-based glucose management with nutrition control reduced absolute glucose levels progressively while reducing the severity of glycaemic fluctuation even with significant inter-patient variability and time-varying physiological condition. Trials spanning longer periods of time are in development to verify the short-term pilot studies performed and to test the adaptability of the controller. Clinically, these results indicate potential in clinical use to reduce ICU mortality as well as reduce risk of severe complications.

Implementation of a tight glycaemic control protocol using a web-based insulin dose calculator

We describe the implementation of a glucose control protocol supported by a web-based insulin dose calculator in a 16-bedded intensive care unit. The protocol was introduced and then modified after 15 months' use. Glucose concentrations were retrospectively reviewed and compared for the 9-month period before introduction of the protocol (288 patients), for 15 months after its introduction (502 patients) and for a further 5 months after its modification to increase insulin dose (101 patients). The mean (SD) blood glucose concentrations decreased from 7.3 (1.8) mmol.l(-1) to 6.6 (1.6) mmol.l(-1) and then to 6.2 (1.3) mmol.l(-1). The proportion of values < 8.0 mmol.l(-1) increased from 69% to 81% and then to 89%. Blood glucose concentrations were increased by the use of intravenous nutrition and by vasoactive drugs but not by the administration of propofol. The odds ratio [95% CI] for death for glucose values > 8.0 mmol.l(-1) was 2.10 [1.19-3.73] compared to values < 6.1 mmol.l(-1). However, patient mortality remained constant during the study. Glycaemic control was improved outside a research setting using a protocol supported by a web-based insulin dose calculator.