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

The development of a glucose prediction model in critically ill patients

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study is to develop a prediction model for glucose levels applicable for all patients admitted to the ICU with an expected ICU stay of at least 24 h. This model will be incorporated in a closed-loop glucose system to continuously and automatically control glucose values.

METHODS

Data from a previous single-center randomized controlled study was used. All patients received a FreeStyle Navigator II subcutaneous CGM system from Abbott during their ICU stay. The total dataset was randomly divided into a training set and a validation set. A glucose prediction model was developed based on historical glucose data. Accuracy of the prediction model was determined using the Mean Squared Difference (MSD), the Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) and a Clarke Error Grid (CEG).

RESULTS

The dataset included 94 ICU patients with a total of 134,673 glucose measurements points that were used for modelling. MSD was 0.410 ± 0.495 for the model, the MAD was 5.19 ± 2.63 and in the CEG 99.8% of the data points were in the clinically acceptable regions.

CONCLUSION

In this study a glucose prediction model for ICU patients is developed. This study shows that it is possible to accurately predict a patient's glucose 30 min ahead based on historical glucose data. This is the first step in the development of a closed-loop glucose system.

Interpretation of Retrospective BG Measurements

BACKGROUND

This study investigates blood glucose (BG) measurement interpolation techniques to represent intermediate BG dynamics, and the effect resampling of retrospective BG data has on key glycemic control (GC) performance results. GC protocols in the ICU have varying BG measurement intervals ranging from 0.5 to 4 hours. Sparse data pose problems, particularly in comparing GC performance or model fitting, and thus interpolation is required.

METHODS

Retrospective data from SPRINT in Christchurch Hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (2005-2007) were used to analyze several interpolation techniques. Piecewise linear, spline, and cubic interpolation functions, which force interpolation through measured data, as well as 1st and 2nd Order B-spline basis functions, are used to identify the interpolated trace. Dense data were thinned to increase sparsity and obtain measurements (Hidden Measurements) for comparison after interpolation. Performance is assessed based on error in capturing hidden measurements. Finally, the effect of minutely versus hourly sampling of the interpolated trace on key GC performance statistics was investigated using retrospective data received from STAR GC in Christchurch Hospital ICU, New Zealand (2011-2015).

RESULTS

All of the piecewise functions performed considerably better than the fitted interpolation functions. Linear piecewise interpolation performed the best having a mean RMSE 0.39 mmol/L, within 2 standard deviations of the BG sensor error. Minutely sampled BG resulted in significantly different key GC performance values when compared to raw sparse BG measurements.

CONCLUSION

Linear piecewise interpolation provides the best estimate of intermediate BG dynamics and all analyses comparing GC protocol performance should use minutely linearly interpolated BG data.

Estimating insulin sensitivity from glucose levels only: Use of a non-linear mixed effects approach and maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation

Insulin Sensitivity is an important parameter for the management of Diabetes. It can be derived for a particular patient using data derived from some glucose challenge tests using measured glucose and insulin levels at various times. Whilst a useful approach, deriving insulin sensitivities to inform insulin dosing in other settings such as Intensive Care Units can be more challenging - especially as insulin levels have to be assayed in a laboratory, not at the bedside. This paper investigates an approach to measure insulin sensitivity from glucose levels only. Estimates of mean and between individual parameter variances are used to derive conditional estimates of insulin sensitivity. The method is demonstrated to perform reasonably well, with conditional estimates comparing well with estimates derived from insulin data as well.

LOGIC-insulin algorithm-guided versus nurse-directed blood glucose control during critical illness: the LOGIC-1 single-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Tight blood glucose control (TGC) in critically ill patients is difficult and labor intensive, resulting in poor efficacy of glycemic control and increased hypoglycemia rate. The LOGIC-Insulin computerized algorithm has been developed to assist nurses in titrating insulin to maintain blood glucose levels at 80-110 mg/dL (normoglycemia) and to avoid severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL). The objective was to validate clinically LOGIC-Insulin relative to TGC by experienced nurses.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The investigator-initiated LOGIC-1 study was a prospective, parallel-group, randomized, controlled clinical trial in a single tertiary referral center. A heterogeneous mix of 300 critically ill patients were randomized, by concealed computer allocation, to either nurse-directed glycemic control (Nurse-C) or algorithm-guided glycemic control (LOGIC-C). Glycemic penalty index (GPI), a measure that penalizes both hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic deviations from normoglycemia, was the efficacy outcome measure, and incidence of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) was the safety outcome measure.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of 151 Nurse-C patients and 149 LOGIC-C patients and study times did not differ. The GPI decreased from 12.4 (interquartile range 8.2-18.5) in Nurse-C to 9.8 (6.0-14.5) in LOGIC-C (P < 0.0001). The proportion of study time in target range was 68.6 ± 16.7% for LOGIC-C patients versus 60.1 ± 18.8% for Nurse-C patients (P = 0.00016). The proportion of severe hypoglycemic events was decreased in the LOGIC-C group (Nurse-C 0.13%, LOGIC-C 0%; P = 0.015) but not when considered as a proportion of patients (Nurse-C 3.3%, LOGIC-C 0%; P = 0.060). Sampling interval was 2.2 ± 0.4 h in the LOGIC-C group versus 2.5 ± 0.5 h in the Nurse-C group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with expert nurses, LOGIC-Insulin improved efficacy of TGC without increasing rate of hypoglycemia.

Impact of variation in patient response on model-based control of glycaemia in critically ill patients

Critically ill patients commonly experience stress-induced hyperglycaemia, and several studies have shown tight glycaemic control (TGC) can reduce patient mortality. However, tight control is often difficult to achieve due to conflicting drug therapies and evolving patient condition. Thus, a number of studies have failed to achieve consistently safe and effective TGC possibly due to the use of fixed insulin dosing protocols over adaptive patient-specific methods. Model-based targeted glucose control can adapt insulin and dextrose interventions to match identified patient insulin sensitivity. This study explores the impact on glycaemic control of assuming patient response to insulin is constant, as many protocols do, versus time-varying. Validated virtual trial simulations of glucose control were performed on adult and neonatal virtual patient cohorts. Results indicate assumptions of constant insulin sensitivity can lead to six-fold increases in incidence of hypoglycaemia, similar to literature reports and a commonly cited issue preventing increased adoption of TGC in critical care. It is clear that adaptive, patient-specific, approaches are better able to manage inter- and intra-patient variability than typical, fixed protocols.

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.

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 patient's 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.

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.

Characterisation of the iterative integral parameter identification method

Parameter identification methods are used to find optimal parameter values to fit models to measured data. The single integral method was defined as a simple and robust parameter identification method. However, the method did not necessarily converge to optimum parameter values. Thus, the iterative integral method (IIM) was developed. IIM will be compared to a proprietary nonlinear-least-squares-based Levenberg-Marquardt parameter identification algorithm using a range of reasonable starting values. Performance is assessed by the rate and accuracy of convergence for an exemplar two parameters insulin pharmacokinetic model, where true values are known a priori. IIM successfully converged to within 1% of the true values in all cases with a median time of 1.23 s (IQR 0.82-1.55 s; range 0.61-3.91 s). The nonlinear-least-squares method failed to converge in 22% of the cases and had a median (successful) convergence time of 3.29 s (IQR 2.04-4.89 s; range 0.42-44.9 s). IIM is a stable and relatively quick parameter identification method that can be applied in a broad variety of model configurations. In contrast to most established methods, IIM is not susceptible to local minima and is thus, starting point and operator independent.

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.

Modeling the glucose regulatory system in extreme preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Premature infants represent a significant proportion of the neonatal intensive care population. Blood glucose homeostasis in this group is often disturbed by immaturity of endogenous regulatory systems and the stress of their condition. Hypo- and hyperglycemia are frequently reported in very low birth weight infants, and more mature infants often experience low levels of glycemia. A model capturing the unique fundamental dynamics of the neonatal glucose regulatory system could be used to develop better blood glucose control methods.

METHODS

A metabolic system model is adapted from adult critical care to the unique physiological case of the neonate. Integral-based fitting methods were used to identify time-varying insulin sensitivity and non-insulin mediated glucose uptake profiles. The clinically important predictive ability of the model was assessed by assuming insulin sensitivity was constant over prediction intervals of 1, 2 and 4h forward and comparing model-simulated versus actual clinical glucose values for all recorded interventions. The clinical data included 1091 glucose measurements over 3567 total patient hours, along with all associated insulin and nutritional infusion data, for N=25 total cases. Ethics approval was obtained from the Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee for this study.

RESULTS

The identified model had a median absolute percentage error of 2.4% [IQR: 0.9-4.8%] between model-fitted and clinical glucose values. Median absolute prediction errors at 1-, 2- and 4-h intervals were 5.2% [IQR: 2.5-10.3%], 9.4% [IQR: 4.5-18.4%] and 13.6% [IQR: 6.3-27.6%] respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The model accurately captures and predicts the fundamental dynamic behaviors of the neonatal metabolism well enough for effective clinical decision support in glycemic control. The adaptation from adult to a neonatal case is based on the data from the literature. Low prediction errors and very low fitting errors indicate that the fundamental dynamics of glucose metabolism in both premature neonates and critical care adults can be described by similar mathematical models.

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.

The role of insulin therapy and glucose normalisation in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and diabetes mellitus, as well as patients admitted with elevated blood glucose without known diabetes, have impaired outcome. Therefore intensive glucose-lowering therapy with insulin (IGL) has been proposed in diabetic or hyperglycaemic patients and has been shown to improve survival and reduce incidence of adverse events. The current manuscript provides an overview of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of IGL. Furthermore, systematic glucose-insulin-potassium infusion (GIK) has been studied to improve outcome after AMI. In spite of positive findings in some early studies, GIK did not show any beneficial effects in recent clinical trials and thus this concept has been abandoned. While IGL targeted to achieve normoglycaemia improves outcome in patients with AMI, achievement of glucose regulation is difficult and carries the risk of hypoglycaemia. More research is needed to determine the optimal glucose target levels in AMI and to investigate whether computerised glucose protocols and continuous glucose sensors can improve safety and efficacy of IGL.

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.

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.

Blood glucose prediction using stochastic modeling in neonatal intensive care

Hyperglycemia is a common metabolic problem in premature, low-birth-weight infants. Blood glucose homeostasis in this group is often disturbed by immaturity of endogenous regulatory systems and the stress of their condition in intensive care. A dynamic model capturing the fundamental dynamics of the glucose regulatory system provides a measure of insulin sensitivity (S(I)). Forecasting the most probable future S(I) can significantly enhance real-time glucose control by providing a clinically validated/proven level of confidence on the outcome of an intervention, and thus, increased safety against hypoglycemia. A 2-D kernel model of S(I) is fitted to 3567 h of identified, time-varying S(I) from retrospective clinical data of 25 neonatal patients with birth gestational age 23 to 28.9 weeks. Conditional probability estimates are used to determine S(I) probability intervals. A lag-2 stochastic model and adjustments of the variance estimator are used to explore the bias-variance tradeoff in the hour-to-hour variation of S(I). The model captured 62.6% and 93.4% of in-sample S(I) predictions within the (25th-75th) and (5th-95th) probability forecast intervals. This overconservative result is also present on the cross-validation cohorts and in the lag-2 model. Adjustments to the variance estimator found a reduction to 10%-50% of the original value provided optimal coverage with 54.7% and 90.9% in the (25th-75th) and (5th-95th) intervals. A stochastic model of S(I) provided conservative forecasts, which can add a layer of safety to real-time control. Adjusting the variance estimator provides a more accurate, cohort-specific stochastic model of S(I) dynamics in the neonate.

Blood glucose controller for neonatal intensive care: virtual trials development and first clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Premature neonates often experience hyperglycemia, which has been linked to worsened outcomes. Insulin therapy can assist in controlling blood glucose (BG) levels. However, a reliable, robust control protocol is required to avoid hypoglycemia and to ensure that clinically important nutrition goals are met.

METHODS

This study presents an adaptive, model-based predictive controller designed to incorporate the unique metabolic state of the neonate. Controller performance was tested and refined in virtual trials on a 25-patient retrospective cohort. The effects of measurement frequency and BG sensor error were evaluated. A stochastic model of insulin sensitivity was used in control to provide a guaranteed maximum 4% risk of BG < 72 mg/dl to protect against hypoglycemia as well as account for patient variability over 1-3 h intervals when determining the intervention. The resulting controller is demonstrated in two 24 h clinical neonatal pilot trials at Christchurch Women's Hospital.

RESULTS

Time in the 72-126 mg/dl BG band was increased by 103-161% compared to retrospective clinical control for virtual trials of the controller, with fewer hypoglycemic measurements. Controllers were robust to BG sensor errors. The model-based controller maintained glycemia to a tight target control range and accounted for interpatient variability in patient glycemic response despite using more insulin than the retrospective case, illustrating a further measure of controller robustness. Pilot clinical trials demonstrated initial safety and efficacy of the control method.

CONCLUSIONS

A controller was developed that made optimum use of the very limited available BG measurements in the neonatal intensive care unit and provided robustness against BG sensor error and longer BG measurement intervals. It used more insulin than typical sliding scale approaches or retrospective hospital control. The potential advantages of a model-based approach demonstrated in simulation were applied to initial clinical trials.

A minimal C-peptide sampling method to capture peak and total prehepatic insulin secretion in model-based experimental insulin sensitivity studies

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

Model-based insulin sensitivity testing via the intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT) or similar is clinically very intensive due to the need for frequent sampling to accurately capture the dynamics of insulin secretion and clearance. The goal of this study was to significantly reduce the number of samples required in intravenous glucose tolerance test protocols to accurately identify C-peptide and insulin secretion characteristics.

METHODS

Frequently sampled IVGTT data from 12 subjects [5 normal glucose-tolerant (NGT) and 7 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)] were analyzed to calculate insulin and C-peptide secretion using a well-accepted C-peptide model. Samples were reduced in a series of steps based on the critical IVGTT profile points required for the accurate estimation of C-peptide secretion. The full data set of 23 measurements was reduced to sets with six or four measurements. The peak secretion rate and total secreted C-peptide during 10 and 20 minutes postglucose input and during the total test time were calculated. Results were compared to those from the full data set using the Wilcoxon rank sum to assess any differences.

RESULTS

In each case, the calculated secretion metrics were largely unchanged, within expected assay variation, and not significantly different from results obtained using the full 23 measurement data set (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Peak and total C-peptide and insulin secretory characteristics can be estimated accurately in an IVGTT from as few as four systematically chosen samples, providing an opportunity to minimize sampling, cost, and burden.

Intensive insulin therapy: enhanced Model Predictive Control algorithm versus standard care

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of an enhanced software Model Predictive Control (eMPC) algorithm for intravenous insulin infusion, targeted at tight glucose control in critically ill patients, over 72 h, in two intensive care units with different management protocols.

DESIGN

Comparison with standard care in a two center open randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Two adult intensive care units in University Hospitals.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four critically ill patients with hyperglycaemia (glucose >120 mg/dL) or already receiving insulin infusion.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized, within each ICU, to intravenous insulin infusion advised by eMPC algorithm or the ICU's standard insulin infusion administration regimen.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Arterial glucose concentration was measured at study entry and when advised by eMPC or measured as part of standard care. Time-weighted average glucose concentrations in patients receiving eMPC advised insulin infusions were similar [104 mg/dL (5.8 mmol/L)] in both ICUs. eMPC advised glucose measurement interval was significantly different between ICUs (1.1 vs. 1.8 h, P < 0.01). The standard care insulin algorithms resulted in significantly different time-weighted average glucose concentrations between ICUs [128 vs. 99 mg/dL (7.1 vs. 5.5 mmol/L), P < 0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

In this feasibility study the eMPC algorithm provided similar, effective and safe tight glucose control over 72 h in critically ill patients in two different ICUs. Further development is required to reduce glucose sampling interval while maintaining a low risk of hypoglycaemia.

Tight glucose control: should we move from intensive insulin therapy alone to modulation of insulin and nutritional inputs?

The report by Chase and coworkers in the previous issue of Critical Care describes the implementation into clinical practice of the Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Table (SPRINT) for tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients. SPRINT is a simple, wheel-based system that modulates both insulin rate and nutritional inputs. It achieved a better glycaemic control in a severely ill critical cohort than their previous method for glycaemic control in a matched historical cohort. Reductions in mortality were also observed.

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.

Impact of human factors on clinical protocol performance: a proposed assessment framework and case examples

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia is prevalent in critical care and tight control can save lives. Current ad-hoc clinical protocols require significant clinical effort and can often produce highly variable results. Thus, tight control remains elusive as there is not enough understanding of the relationship between control performance and protocol design, particularly with regard to how a given protocol is implemented.

METHODS

This article examines the role of human factors and how individuals relate to technological protocols in clinical settings. The study consists of an overall brief review that is used to create a first graphical representation of the impact of human factors in clinical medical protocol implementations. This initial framework is examined in the context of two similar, but different, case studies-the specialized relative insulin and nutrition tables glycemic control protocol and the TREAT system for antibiotic selection.

RESULTS

A graphical framework relating the human factors impact on medical protocol implementation is created. This framework describes the primary impacts on performance as resulting from clinical burden and protocol transparency. Their primary effect is on compliance with the protocol, which directly affects performance and outcome, particularly in long-term studies versus short pilot studies.

SUMMARY

Compliance is a key element in obtaining the best clinical outcome that a given protocol can provide. The issues that most affect compliance are quite often unrelated to the patient or treatment, but are a function of the protocol design and its ability to integrate (by its design) into a given clinical setting. A framework for examining these issues in design and in post-hoc assessment is therefore proposed and examined in two brief case studies.

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.

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.

Glycemic penalty index for adequately assessing and comparing different blood glucose control algorithms

Introduction

Blood glucose (BG) control performed by intensive care unit (ICU) nurses is becoming standard practice for critically ill patients. New (semi-automated) 'BG control' algorithms (or 'insulin titration' algorithms) are under development, but these require stringent validation before they can replace the currently used algorithms. Existing methods for objectively comparing different insulin titration algorithms show weaknesses. In the current study, a new approach for appropriately assessing the adequacy of different algorithms is proposed.

Methods

Two ICU patient populations (with different baseline characteristics) were studied, both treated with a similar 'nurse-driven' insulin titration algorithm targeting BG levels of 80 to 110 mg/dl. A new method for objectively evaluating BG deviations from normoglycemia was founded on a smooth penalty function. Next, the performance of this new evaluation tool was compared with the current standard assessment methods, on an individual as well as a population basis. Finally, the impact of four selected parameters (the average BG sampling frequency, the duration of algorithm application, the severity of disease, and the type of illness) on the performance of an insulin titration algorithm was determined by multiple regression analysis.

Results

The glycemic penalty index (GPI) was proposed as a tool for assessing the overall glycemic control behavior in ICU patients. The GPI of a patient is the average of all penalties that are individually assigned to each measured BG value based on the optimized smooth penalty function. The computation of this index returns a number between 0 (no penalty) and 100 (the highest penalty). For some patients, the assessment of the BG control behavior using the traditional standard evaluation methods was different from the evaluation with GPI. Two parameters were found to have a significant impact on GPI: the BG sampling frequency and the duration of algorithm application. A higher BG sampling frequency and a longer algorithm application duration resulted in an apparently better performance, as indicated by a lower GPI.

Conclusion

The GPI is an alternative method for evaluating the performance of BG control algorithms. The blood glucose sampling frequency and the duration of algorithm application should be similar when comparing algorithms.

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.

LPS-dependent suppression of social exploration is augmented in type 1 diabetic mice

We have previously shown that type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the mouse is associated with increased responsivity to innate immune challenge. Here we demonstrate that in a mouse model of type 1 diabetes (T1D) LPS-dependent suppression of social exploration (SE) is augmented and dependent on hyperglycemia. T1D was induced in mice with intraperitoneal (i.p.) streptozotocin (STZ). After 4d, STZ treated mice had blood glucose levels of 417+/-34mg/dl compared to 160+/-11mg/dl in non-STZ treated mice. When these diabetic mice were challenged with i.p. lipopolysaccharide (LPS), LPS-induced depression of SE was nearly 2.7-fold greater in diabetic mice at 2h than in non-diabetic mice. Examination of peritoneal proinflammatory cytokine levels 2h after LPS administration showed that diabetic mice had 4-, 2.5- and 3.6-fold greater concentrations of IL-1beta, IL-6 and TNF-alpha, respectively, when compared to non-diabetic mice. Control of blood glucose levels with injected insulin in diabetic mice improved 2h post LPS-induced loss of SE by 3.9-fold. Interestingly, insulin given intracerebroventricularly to diabetic mice did not impact LPS-induced loss of SE but did increase basal SE 8, 12 and 24h later. Finally, administration of STZ to hyperglycemic/hyperinsulinemic db/db mice did not alter LPS-induced loss of SE. Taken together these findings indicate that mice with T1D have augmented loss of SE in response to LPS and this is due to hyperglycemia and not to insulin.

Glucose control in pediatric intensive care unit patients using an insulin-glucose algorithm

BACKGROUND

Control of hyperglycemia in adult medical and surgical intensive care units (ICUs) has been shown to dramatically decrease morbidity and mortality. Algorithms to achieve glycemic control in the ICU setting are evolving. We have evaluated the use of a discrete proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm to control hyperglycemia in pediatric ICU (PICU) patients both with and without diabetes.

METHODS

Six PICU patients [four with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and two with glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia] with glucose values >150 mg/dL were enrolled. Their hyperglycemia was managed with a PID algorithm that provided recommendations for both changes in the intravenous insulin infusion rate and the time to obtain the next discrete glucose value. Glucose targets were adjusted based on clinical circumstances.

RESULTS

Patients (mean age 9.2 years; range 1.8-14 years) utilized the algorithm for a total of 454.4 h. Mean time to the initial glucose target was 8.7 h (range 1.3-15.1 h) in five patients. One subject with hyperosmolar DKA did not achieve target before discharge from the PICU, and another was at target when the algorithm was initiated. After the glucose target was achieved, the mean SD was 23.5 mg/dL, and glucose values were >40 mg/dL above target 13% of the time and <40 mg/dL below target 1% of the time. There were no glucose values <55 mg/dL.

CONCLUSION

The PID algorithm safely and effectively controlled hyperglycemia in a PICU, despite multiple changes in intravenous fluids, steroid doses (including high-dose pulses), and hemodialysis.

Glycaemic control in critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The role of hyperglycaemia in the pathogenesis of myocardial damage during cardiac surgery or patients with acute coronary syndromes has been the subject of increasing interest over the past few years. Several further trials and meta-analyses investigating the role of insulin treatment, either aimed at tight control of blood glucose concentration or as part of a regimen including glucose and potassium, have been reported recently and are the subject of this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Good control of blood glucose has been demonstrated to improve outcomes for diabetic patients undergoing cardiac surgery and following acute myocardial infarction. In surgical intensive care patients, tight glucose control improved mortality--a finding that is awaiting confirmation in multicentre studies. The use of glucose-insulin-potassium regimens does not improve outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction who have undergone reperfusion therapy, but may be beneficial during cardiac surgery.

SUMMARY

Tight control of blood glucose has been shown to be beneficial in several patient groups. The optimal target glucose concentration and glucose and insulin regimens remain to be confirmed or determined in each clinical situation.

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.