Search

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., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

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., (© 2012 Diabetes Technology Society.)

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., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Critically ill patients often present increased insulin resistance and stress-induced hyperglycemia. Tight glycemic control aims to reduce blood glucose (BG) levels and variability while ensuring safety from hypoglycemia. This paper presents the results of the second Belgian clinical trial using the customizable STAR framework in a target-to-range control approach. The main objective is reducing measurement frequency while maintaining performance and safety of the glycemic control., Methods: The STAR-Liege 2 (SL2) protocol targeted the 100-140 mg/dL glycemic band and offered 2-hourly and 3-hourly interventions. Only insulin rates were adjusted, and nutrition inputs were left to the attending clinicians. This protocol restricted the forecasted risk of BG < 90 mg/dL to a 5% level using a stochastic model of insulin sensitivity to assess patient-specific responses to insulin and its future likely variability to optimize insulin interventions. The clinical trial was performed at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liege and included 9 patients. Results are compared to 24-hour pre-trial and 24-hour post-trial, but also to the results of the first pilot trial performed in Liege, STAR-Liege 1 (SL1). This trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Liege (Liege, Belgium)., Results: During the SL2 trial, 91 measurements were taken over 194 hours. BG levels were tightly distributed: 54.9% of BG within 100-140 mg/dL, 40.7% were ≥ 140 mg/dL and 4.4% were < 100 mg/dL with no BG < 70 mg/dL. Comparing these results with 24-hour pre-trial and post-trial shows that SL2 reduced high and low BG levels and reduced glycemic variability. Nurses selected 3-hourly measurement only 5 of 16 times and overrode 12% of 91 recommended interventions (35% increased insulin rates and 65% decreased insulin rates). SL1 and SL2 present similar BG levels distribution (p > 0.05) with significantly reduced measurement frequency for SL2 (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: The SL2 protocol succeeded in reducing clinical workload while maintaining safety and effectiveness of the glycemic control. SL2 was also shown to be safer and tighter than hospital control. Overall results validate the efficacy of significantly customizing the STAR framework.

Background: Hyperglycemia often occurs in premature, very low birthweight infants (VLBW) due to immaturity of endogenous regulatory systems and the stress of their condition. Hyperglycemia in neonates has been linked to increased morbidities and mortality and occurs at increasing rates with decreasing birthweight. In this cohort, the emerging use of insulin to manage hyperglycemia has carried a significant risk of hypoglycemia. The efficacy of blood glucose control using a computer metabolic system model to determine insulin infusion rates was assessed in very-low-birth-weight infants., Methods: Initial short-term 24-hour trials were performed on 8 VLBW infants with hyperglycemia followed by long-term trials of several days performed on 22 infants. Median birthweight was 745 g and 760 g for short-term and long-term trial infants, and median gestational age at birth was 25.6 and 25.4 weeks respectively. Blood glucose control is compared to 21 retrospective patients from the same unit who received insulin infusions determined by sliding scales and clinician intuition. This study was approved by the Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee, New Zealand (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01419873)., Results: Reduction in hyperglycemia towards the target glucose band was achieved safely in all cases during the short-term trials with no hypoglycemic episodes. Lower median blood glucose concentration was achieved during clinical implementation at 6.6 mmol/L (IQR: 5.5 - 8.2 mmol/L, 1,003 measurements), compared to 8.0 mmol/L achieved in similar infants previously (p < 0.01). No significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia during long-term trials was observed (0.25% vs 0.25%, p = 0.51). Percentage of blood glucose within the 4.0 - 8.0 mmol/L range was increased by 41% compared to the retrospective cohort (68.4% vs 48.4%, p < 0.01)., Conclusions: A computer model that accurately captures the dynamics of neonatal metabolism can provide safe and effective blood glucose control without increasing hypoglycemia., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01419873.

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.

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 (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., (Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Extremely premature neonates often experience hyperglycaemia, which has been linked to increased mortality and worsened outcomes. Insulin therapy can assist in controlling blood glucose levels and promoting needed growth. This study presents the development of a model-based stochastic targeted controller designed to adapt insulin infusion rates to match the unique and changing metabolic state and control parameters of the neonate. Long-term usage of targeted BG control requires successfully forecasting variations in neonatal metabolic state, accounting for differences in clinical practices between units, and demonstrating robustness to errors that can occur in everyday clinical usage. Simulation studies were used to evaluate controller ability to target several common BG ranges and evaluate controller sensitivity to missed BG measurements and delays in control interventions on a virtual patient cohort of 25 infants developed from retrospective data. Initial clinical pilot trials indicated model performance matched expected performance from simulations. Stochastic targeted glucose control developed using validated patient-specific virtual trials can yield effective protocols for this cohort. Long-term trials show fundamental success, however clinical interface design appears as a critical factor to ensuring good compliance and thus good control., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

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.

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.

Introduction: Intensive care unit mortality is strongly associated with organ failure rate and severity. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score is used to evaluate the impact of a successful tight glycemic control (TGC) intervention (SPRINT) on organ failure, morbidity, and thus mortality., Methods: A retrospective analysis of 371 patients (3,356 days) on SPRINT (August 2005 - April 2007) and 413 retrospective patients (3,211 days) from two years prior, matched by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III. SOFA is calculated daily for each patient. The effect of the SPRINT TGC intervention is assessed by comparing the percentage of patients with SOFA ≤5 each day and its trends over time and cohort/group. Organ-failure free days (all SOFA components ≤2) and number of organ failures (SOFA components >2) are also compared. Cumulative time in 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L band (cTIB) was evaluated daily to link tightness and consistency of TGC (cTIB ≥0.5) to SOFA ≤5 using conditional and joint probabilities., Results: Admission and maximum SOFA scores were similar (P = 0.20; P = 0.76), with similar time to maximum (median: one day; IQR: 13 days; P = 0.99). Median length of stay was similar (4.1 days SPRINT and 3.8 days Pre-SPRINT; P = 0.94). The percentage of patients with SOFA ≤5 is different over the first 14 days (P = 0.016), rising to approximately 75% for Pre-SPRINT and approximately 85% for SPRINT, with clear separation after two days. Organ-failure-free days were different (SPRINT = 41.6%; Pre-SPRINT = 36.5%; P < 0.0001) as were the percent of total possible organ failures (SPRINT = 16.0%; Pre-SPRINT = 19.0%; P < 0.0001). By Day 3 over 90% of SPRINT patients had cTIB ≥0.5 (37% Pre-SPRINT) reaching 100% by Day 7 (50% Pre-SPRINT). Conditional and joint probabilities indicate tighter, more consistent TGC under SPRINT (cTIB ≥0.5) increased the likelihood SOFA ≤5., Conclusions: SPRINT TGC resolved organ failure faster, and for more patients, from similar admission and maximum SOFA scores, than conventional control. These reductions mirror the reduced mortality with SPRINT. The cTIB ≥0.5 metric provides a first benchmark linking TGC quality to organ failure. These results support other physiological and clinical results indicating the role tight, consistent TGC can play in reducing organ failure, morbidity and mortality, and should be validated on data from randomised trials.

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.

Objectives: The goals of this study were to develop (1) a safe and effective protocol for the clinical control of type 1 diabetes using conventional self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) measurements and multiple daily injections with insulin analogues, and (2) an in silico simulation tool of type 1 diabetes to predict long-term glycemic control outcomes of clinical interventions., Methods: The virtual patient method was used to develop a simulation tool for type 1 diabetes using data from a type 1 diabetes patient cohort (n = 40). The tool was used to test the adaptive protocol (AC) and a conventional intensive insulin therapy (CC) against results from a representative control cohort. Optimal and suboptimal basal insulin replacements were evaluated as a function of SMBG frequency in conjunction with the (AC and CC) prandial control protocols., Results: In long-term glycemic control, the AC protocol significantly decreased hemoglobin A1c in conditions of suboptimal basal insulin replacement for SMBG frequencies > or = 6/day, and reduced the occurrence of mild and severe hypoglycemia by 86-100% over controls, over all SMBG frequencies in conditions of optimal basal insulin., Conclusions: A simulation tool to predict long-term glycemic control outcomes from clinical interventions has been developed to test a novel, adaptive control protocol for type 1 diabetes. The protocol is effective and safe compared to conventional intensive insulin therapy and controls. As fear of hypoglycemia is a large psychological barrier to glycemic control, the AC protocol may represent the next evolution of intensive insulin therapy to deliver increased glycemic control with increased safety. Further clinical or experimental validation is needed to fully prove the concept.

Objective: To examine the practical difficulties in managing hyperglycaemia in critical illness and to present recently developed model-based glycaemic management protocols to provide tight control., Background: Hyperglycaemia is prevalent in critical care. Current published protocols require significant added clinical effort and have highly variable results. No currently published methods successfully address the practical clinical difficulties and patient variation, while also providing safe, tight control., Methods: We developed a unique model-based approach that manages both nutritional inputs and exogenous insulin infusions. Computerised glycaemic control methods and proof-of-concept clinical trial results are presented. The protocol has been simplified to a set of tables and adopted as a clinical practice change. Eight pilot test cases are presented to demonstrate the overall approach., Results: Computerised control methods lowered blood glucose (BG) levels to the range 4.0-6.1 mmol/L within 10 hours. Over 90% of pre-set hourly blood glucose targets were achieved within measurement error. Eight pilot tests of the simplified, table-based SPRINT protocol, covering 1651 patient-hours produced an average BG level of 5.7 mmol/L (SD, 0.9 mmol/L). BG levels were in the 4.0-6.1 mmol/L band for 60% of the controlled time. Just under 90% of measurements were in the range 4.0-7.0 mmol/L, with 96% in the range 4.0-7.75 mmol/L. There were no hypoglycaemic episodes, with a minimum glucose level of 3.2 mmol/L, and no additional clinical intervention was required., Summary: The overall approach of modulating nutrition as well as insulin challenges the current practice of relying on insulin alone to reduce glycaemic levels, which often results in large variability and poor control. The protocol was developed from model-based analysis and proof-of-concept clinical trials, and then generalised to a simple, clinical practice improvement. The results show extremely tight control within safe glycaemic bands.