3D kernel-density stochastic model for more personalized glycaemic control: development and in-silico validation.


Journal

Biomedical engineering online
ISSN: 1475-925X
Titre abrégé: Biomed Eng Online
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147518

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 Oct 2019
Historique:
received: 25 02 2019
accepted: 09 10 2019
entrez: 24 10 2019
pubmed: 24 10 2019
medline: 3 3 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The challenges of glycaemic control in critically ill patients have been debated for 20 years. While glycaemic control shows benefits inter- and intra-patient metabolic variability results in increased hypoglycaemia and glycaemic variability, both increasing morbidity and mortality. Hence, current recommendations for glycaemic control target higher glycaemic ranges, guided by the fear of harm. Lately, studies have proven the ability to provide safe, effective control for lower, normoglycaemic, ranges, using model-based computerised methods. Such methods usually identify patient-specific physiological parameters to personalize titration of insulin and/or nutrition. The Stochastic-Targeted (STAR) glycaemic control framework uses patient-specific insulin sensitivity and a stochastic model of its future variability to directly account for both inter- and intra-patient variability in a risk-based insulin-dosing approach. In this study, a more personalized and specific 3D version of the stochastic model used in STAR is compared to the current 2D stochastic model, both built using kernel-density estimation methods. Fivefold cross validation on 681 retrospective patient glycaemic control episodes, totalling over 65,000 h of control, is used to determine whether the 3D model better captures metabolic variability, and the potential gain in glycaemic outcome is assessed using validated virtual trials. Results show that the 3D stochastic model has similar forward predictive power, but provides significantly tighter, more patient-specific, prediction ranges, showing the 2D model over-conservative > 70% of the time. Virtual trial results show that overall glycaemic safety and performance are similar, but the 3D stochastic model reduced median blood glucose levels (6.3 [5.7, 7.0] vs. 6.2 [5.6, 6.9]) with a higher 61% vs. 56% of blood glucose within the 4.4-6.5 mmol/L range. This improved performance is achieved with higher insulin rates and higher carbohydrate intake, but no loss in safety from hypoglycaemia. Thus, the 3D stochastic model developed better characterises patient-specific future insulin sensitivity dynamics, resulting in improved simulated glycaemic outcomes and a greater level of personalization in control. The results justify inclusion into ongoing clinical use of STAR.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The challenges of glycaemic control in critically ill patients have been debated for 20 years. While glycaemic control shows benefits inter- and intra-patient metabolic variability results in increased hypoglycaemia and glycaemic variability, both increasing morbidity and mortality. Hence, current recommendations for glycaemic control target higher glycaemic ranges, guided by the fear of harm. Lately, studies have proven the ability to provide safe, effective control for lower, normoglycaemic, ranges, using model-based computerised methods. Such methods usually identify patient-specific physiological parameters to personalize titration of insulin and/or nutrition. The Stochastic-Targeted (STAR) glycaemic control framework uses patient-specific insulin sensitivity and a stochastic model of its future variability to directly account for both inter- and intra-patient variability in a risk-based insulin-dosing approach.
RESULTS RESULTS
In this study, a more personalized and specific 3D version of the stochastic model used in STAR is compared to the current 2D stochastic model, both built using kernel-density estimation methods. Fivefold cross validation on 681 retrospective patient glycaemic control episodes, totalling over 65,000 h of control, is used to determine whether the 3D model better captures metabolic variability, and the potential gain in glycaemic outcome is assessed using validated virtual trials. Results show that the 3D stochastic model has similar forward predictive power, but provides significantly tighter, more patient-specific, prediction ranges, showing the 2D model over-conservative > 70% of the time. Virtual trial results show that overall glycaemic safety and performance are similar, but the 3D stochastic model reduced median blood glucose levels (6.3 [5.7, 7.0] vs. 6.2 [5.6, 6.9]) with a higher 61% vs. 56% of blood glucose within the 4.4-6.5 mmol/L range.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This improved performance is achieved with higher insulin rates and higher carbohydrate intake, but no loss in safety from hypoglycaemia. Thus, the 3D stochastic model developed better characterises patient-specific future insulin sensitivity dynamics, resulting in improved simulated glycaemic outcomes and a greater level of personalization in control. The results justify inclusion into ongoing clinical use of STAR.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31640720
doi: 10.1186/s12938-019-0720-8
pii: 10.1186/s12938-019-0720-8
pmc: PMC6805453
doi:

Substances chimiques

Blood Glucose 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Validation Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

102

Subventions

Organisme : National Science Challenge 7, Science for Technological Innovation
ID : CRS-S3-2016
Organisme : MedTech Centre for Research Expertise (CoRE)
ID : 3705718
Organisme : Hungarian National Scientific Research Foundation
ID : K116574

Références

Open Med Inform J. 2009 Dec 02;3:65-76
pubmed: 20148062
J Crit Care. 2014 Jun;29(3):374-9
pubmed: 24679489
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012 Sep 01;6(5):1030-7
pubmed: 23063028
Minerva Anestesiol. 2012 Sep;78(9):982-95
pubmed: 22531562
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2008 Feb;89(2):141-52
pubmed: 17544541
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 May;204(5):1048-54; discussion 1054-5
pubmed: 17481538
Metabolism. 2011 Dec;60(12):1748-56
pubmed: 21704347
Chest. 2010 Mar;137(3):544-51
pubmed: 20018803
J Clin Invest. 2005 Aug;115(8):2069-72
pubmed: 16075050
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 10;358(2):125-39
pubmed: 18184958
Mayo Clin Proc. 2003 Dec;78(12):1471-8
pubmed: 14661676
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2011 May;102(2):192-205
pubmed: 21288592
Crit Care. 2015 Apr 20;19:179
pubmed: 25927986
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2007 Jul;1(4):478-86
pubmed: 19885110
Biomed Eng Online. 2018 Feb 20;17(1):24
pubmed: 29463246
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014 May;114(3):e79-86
pubmed: 24074543
Crit Care. 2017 Jun 24;21(1):152
pubmed: 28645302
Ann Intensive Care. 2016 Dec;6(1):24
pubmed: 27025951
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012 Dec;59(12):3357-64
pubmed: 22929365
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Jun;41(6):1037-47
pubmed: 26088909
Lancet. 2000 Mar 4;355(9206):773-8
pubmed: 10711923
Chest. 2018 Nov;154(5):1004-1005
pubmed: 30409354
N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1359-67
pubmed: 11794168
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Oct;35(10):1738-48
pubmed: 19636533
Crit Care. 2008;12(5):R120
pubmed: 18799004
Stat Med. 2011 Aug 15;30(18):2234-50
pubmed: 21590789
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013 Nov 01;7(6):1652-3
pubmed: 24351195
Hosp Pract (1995). 2014 Oct;42(4):53-8
pubmed: 25502129
Br J Pharmacol. 2015 Apr;172(8):2126-32
pubmed: 25134425
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010 Mar 01;4(2):284-98
pubmed: 20307388
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2011 May;102(2):156-71
pubmed: 21145614
Crit Care Clin. 2001 Jan;17(1):107-24
pubmed: 11219223
Ann Intensive Care. 2018 Jan 10;8(1):4
pubmed: 29330610
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Jul;8(4):807-14
pubmed: 24876451
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018 Jul;65(7):1543-1553
pubmed: 28358672
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008 May;2(3):409-16
pubmed: 19885205
Biomed Eng Online. 2010 Dec 14;9:84
pubmed: 21156053
Crit Care. 2010;14(4):R154
pubmed: 20704712
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2011 May;102(2):94-104
pubmed: 20800314
Crit Care. 2008;12(2):R49
pubmed: 18412978
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006 Apr;8(2):191-206
pubmed: 16734549
N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1283-97
pubmed: 19318384
Mayo Clin Proc. 2004 Aug;79(8):992-1000
pubmed: 15301325
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009 Nov 01;3(6):1292-301
pubmed: 20144383
Clin Nutr. 2005 Aug;24(4):502-9
pubmed: 15899538
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2012 Feb;50(2):127-34
pubmed: 22205574
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;1:63-6
pubmed: 17946379
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010 May 01;4(3):625-35
pubmed: 20513329
Crit Care Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):2316-21
pubmed: 18596625
J Crit Care. 2015 Jun;30(3):455-9
pubmed: 25682344
Crit Care. 2009;13(1):102
pubmed: 19183428
Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Mar;85(3):217-24
pubmed: 20176928
Cas Lek Cesk. 2007;146(11):868-73
pubmed: 18069214
Crit Care Med. 2011 Dec;39(12):2619-26
pubmed: 21705881
Crit Care. 2008;12(1):R29
pubmed: 18312617
Chest. 2003 Jul;124(1):297-305
pubmed: 12853537
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2005 Aug;11(4):304-11
pubmed: 16015107
Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jun 15;130(12):995-1004
pubmed: 10383371
Anesthesiology. 2006 Aug;105(2):244-52
pubmed: 16871057
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012 Jan 01;6(1):102-15
pubmed: 22401328
Crit Care. 2009;13(3):R91
pubmed: 19534781
Crit Care Med. 2008 Dec;36(12):3190-7
pubmed: 18936702

Auteurs

Vincent Uyttendaele (V)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. vincent.uyttendaele@pg.canterbury.ac.nz.
GIGA-In Silico Medicine, University of Liège, Allée du 6 Août 19, Bât. B5a, 4000, Liège, Belgium. vincent.uyttendaele@pg.canterbury.ac.nz.

Jennifer L Knopp (JL)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Shaun Davidson (S)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Thomas Desaive (T)

GIGA-In Silico Medicine, University of Liège, Allée du 6 Août 19, Bât. B5a, 4000, Liège, Belgium.

Balazs Benyo (B)

Department of Control Engineering and Information Technology, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary.

Geoffrey M Shaw (GM)

Christchurch Hospital, Dept of Intensive Care Christchurch, New Zealand and University of Otago, School of Medicine, Christchurch, New Zealand.

J Geoffrey Chase (JG)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH