Could susceptibility to low hematocrit interference have compromised the results of the NICE-SUGAR trial?

Our Scientific Journey through the Ups and Downs of Blood Glucose Control in the ICU

This article tells the story of our long search for the answer to one question: Is stress hyperglycemia in critically ill patients adaptive or maladaptive? Our earlier work had suggested the lack of hepatic insulin effect and hyperglycemia as jointly predicting poor outcome. Therefore, we hypothesized that insulin infusion to reach normoglycemia, tight glucose control, improves outcome. In three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we found morbidity and mortality benefit with tight glucose control. Moving from the bed to the bench, we attributed benefits to the prevention of glucose toxicity in cells taking up glucose in an insulin-independent, glucose concentration gradient-dependent manner, counteracted rather than synergized by insulin. Several subsequent RCTs did not confirm benefit, and the large Normoglycemia in Intensive Care Evaluation-Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation, or "NICE-SUGAR," trial found increased mortality with tight glucose control associated with severe hypoglycemia. Our subsequent clinical and mechanistic research revealed that early use of parenteral nutrition, the context of our initial RCTs, had been a confounder. Early parenteral nutrition (early-PN) aggravated hyperglycemia, suppressed vital cell damage removal, and hampered recovery. Therefore, in our next and largest "TGC-fast" RCT, we retested our hypothesis, without the use of early-PN and with a computer algorithm for tight glucose control that avoided severe hypoglycemia. In this trial, tight glucose control prevented kidney and liver damage, though with much smaller effect sizes than in our initial RCTs without affecting mortality. Our quest ends with the strong recommendation to omit early-PN for patients in the ICU, as this reduces need of blood glucose control and allows cellular housekeeping systems to play evolutionary selected roles in the recovery process. Once again, less is more in critical care.

Five-Year Two-Center Retrospective Comparison of Central Laboratory Glucose to GEM 4000 and ABL 800 Blood Glucose: Demonstrating the (In)adequacy of Blood Gas Glucose

PURPOSE

To evaluate the glucose assays of two blood gas analyzers (BGAs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients by comparing ICU BGA glucoses to central laboratory (CL) glucoses of almost simultaneously drawn specimens.

METHODS

Data repositories provided five years of ICU BGA glucoses and contemporaneously drawn CL glucoses from a Calgary, Alberta ICU equipped with IL GEM 4000 and CL Roche Cobas 8000-C702, and an Edmonton, Alberta ICU equipped with Radiometer ABL 800 and CL Beckman-Coulter DxC. Blood glucose analyzer and CL glucose differences were evaluated if they were both drawn either within ±15 or ±5 minutes. Glucose differences were assessed graphically and quantitatively with simple run charts and the surveillance error grid (SEG) and quantitatively with the 2016 Food and Drug Administration guidance document, with ISO 15197 and SEG statistical summaries. As the GEM glucose exhibits diurnal variation, CL-arterial blood gas (ABG) differences were evaluated according to time of day.

RESULTS

Compared to the GEM glucoses measured between 0200 and 0800, the run charts of (GEM-CL) glucose demonstrate significant outliers between 0800 and 0200 which are identified as moderate to severe clinical outliers by SEG analysis (P < .002 and P < .0005 for 5- and 15-minute intervals). Over the entire 24-hour period, the rates of moderate to severe glucose clinical outliers are 3.5/1000 (GEM) and 0.6/1000 glucoses (ABL), respectively, using the 15-minute interval (P < .0001).

DISCUSSION

The GEM ABG glucose is associated with a higher frequency of moderate to severe glucose clinical outliers, especially between 0800 and 0200, increased CL testing and higher average patient glucoses.

Inadequate Reporting of Analytical Characteristics of Biomarkers Used in Clinical Research: A Threat to Interpretation and Replication of Study Findings

BACKGROUND

Analytical characteristics of methods to measure biomarkers determine how well the methods measure what they claim to measure. Transparent reporting of analytical characteristics allows readers to assess the validity and generalizability of clinical studies in which biomarkers are used. Our aims were to assess the reporting of analytical characteristics of biomarkers used in clinical research and to evaluate the extent of reported characterization procedures for assay precision.

METHODS

We searched 5 medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, and PLOS Medicine) over a 10-year period for the term "biomarker" in the full-text field. We included studies in which biomarkers were used for inclusion/exclusion of study participants, for patient classification, or as a study outcome. We tabulated the frequencies of reporting of 11 key analytical characteristics (such as analytical accuracy of test results) in the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 544 studies and 1299 biomarker uses met the inclusion criteria. No information on analytical characteristics was reported for 67% of the biomarkers. For 65 biomarkers (3%), ≥4 characteristics were reported (range, 4-8). The manufacturer of the measurement procedure could not be determined for 688 (53%) of the 1299 biomarkers. The extent of assessments of assay imprecision, when reported, did not meet expectations for clinical use of biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of the analytical performance of biomarker measurements is variable and often absent from published clinical studies. We suggest that readers need fuller reporting of analytical characteristics to interpret study results, assess generalizability of conclusions, and compare results among clinical studies.

Critical Care Management of Stress-Induced Hyperglycemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We discuss key studies that have set the scene for the debate on the efficacy and safety of tight glycemic control in critically ill patients, highlighting important differences among them, and describe the ensuing search towards strategies for safer glucose control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Differences in level of glycemic control, glucose measurement and insulin administration, expertise, and nutritional management may explain the divergent outcomes of the landmark studies on tight glycemic control in critical illness. Regarding strategies towards safer glucose control, several computerized algorithms have shown promise, but lack validation in adequately powered outcome studies. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring and closed loop blood glucose control systems are not up to the task yet due to technical challenges, though recent advances are promising. Alternatives for insulin have only been investigated in small feasibility studies. Severe hyperglycemia in critically ill patients generally is not tolerated anymore, but the optimal blood glucose target may depend on the specific patient and logistic context.

Glucose management in critically ill adults and children

Blood glucose management in people with acute myocardial infarction and critical illness has always attracted controversy. Compared with the era before 2001 when no attention was given to blood glucose management, DIGAMI-1 in 1995 and the first Leuven study in 2001 showed improved outcomes with strict control of blood glucose, thereby suggesting a causal association between hyperglycaemia and mortality risk. These landmark trials have set the standard in clinical practice that excessive hyperglycaemia is not acceptable. Multicentre trials contradicted the benefits of tight control of patients' blood glucose and results showed that different standard operating procedures for blood glucose control (eg, blood glucose meters or algorithms), divergent concomitant feeding strategies, and varying patient populations are important confounders. The general consensus now is that excessive hyperglycaemia (>10 mmol/L) and severe hypoglycaemia (<2·2 mmol/L) should be avoided in critically ill adults. If adequate blood glucose meters and clinically validated protocols for insulin-dosing are available, targeting of blood glucose concentrations to less than 8 mmol/L (moderate glycaemic control), while avoiding mild hypoglycaemia (<3·9 mmol/L), is a reasonable strategy in adult patients who are critically ill. This recommendation is not based on findings from randomised controlled trials, but merely represents a very common, pragmatic approach by physicians at the bedside. As a result of the few properly validated technologies for tighter blood glucose control, targeting blood glucose concentrations to less than 6 mmol/L is not recommended, because its risk-to-benefit ratio becomes questionable. Because blood glucose control in the target of adult ranges does not improve patient outcomes for children in the intensive care unit, glucose management in this patient population should be limited to avoid excessive hyperglycaemia (>10 mmol/L).

The Development of a Continuous Intravascular Glucose Monitoring Sensor

BACKGROUND

Glycemic control in hospital intensive care units (ICU) has been the subject of numerous research publications and debate over the past 2 decades. There have been multiple studies showing the benefit of ICU glucose control in reducing both morbidity and mortality. GlySure Ltd has developed a glucose monitor based on a diboronic acid receptor that can continuously measure plasma glucose concentrations directly in a patient's vascular system. The goal of this study was to validate the performance of the GlySure CIGM system in different patient populations.

METHODS

The GlySure Continuous Intravascular Glucose Monitoring (CIGM) System was evaluated in both the Cardiac ICU (33 patients) and MICU setting (14 patients). The sensor was placed through a custom CVC and measured the patients' blood glucose concentration every 15 seconds. Comparison blood samples were taken at 2 hourly then 4 hourly intervals and measured on a YSI 2300 STAT Plus or an i-STAT.

RESULTS

Consensus error grid analysis of the data shows that the majority of the data (88.2% Cardiac, and 95.0% MICU) fell within zone A, which is considered to be clinically accurate and all data points fell within zones A and B. The MARD of the Cardiac trial was 9.90% and the MICU trial had a MARD of 7.95%. Data analysis showed no significant differences between data generated from Cardiac and MICU patients or by time or glucose concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

The GlySure CIGM System has met the design challenges of measuring intravascular glucose concentrations in critically ill patients with acceptable safety and performance criteria and without disrupting current clinical practice. The accuracy of the data is not affected by the patients' condition.

Insulin infusion therapy in critically ill patients

While dysglycemia (hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia and glucose variability) is clearly associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients, target range of blood glucose control remains controversial. Standardized insulin infusion protocols constitute the basis of treatment of these patients. The choice of protocol and its implementation is a great challenge. In this article, we review the published data to help define the essential elements that compose a good protocol and apply the right conditions to make it safe and effective.

The benefits of tight glycemic control in critical illness: Sweeter than assumed?

Hyperglycemia has long been observed amongst critically ill patients and associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Tight glycemic control (TGC) is the clinical practice of controlling blood glucose (BG) down to the “normal” 4.4–6.1 mmol/L range of a healthy adult, aiming to avoid any potential deleterious effects of hyperglycemia. The ground-breaking Leuven trials reported a mortality benefit of approximately 10% when using this technique, which led many to endorse its benefits. In stark contrast, the multi-center normoglycemia in intensive care evaluation–survival using glucose algorithm regulation (NICE-SUGAR) trial, not only failed to replicate this outcome, but showed TGC appeared to be harmful. This review attempts to re-analyze the current literature and suggests that hope for a benefit from TGC should not be so hastily abandoned. Inconsistencies in study design make a like-for-like comparison of the Leuven and NICE-SUGAR trials challenging. Inadequate measures preventing hypoglycemic events are likely to have contributed to the increased mortality observed in the NICE-SUGAR treatment group. New technologies, including predictive models, are being developed to improve the safety of TGC, primarily by minimizing hypoglycemia. Intensive Care Units which are unequipped in trained staff and monitoring capacity would be unwise to attempt TGC, especially considering its yet undefined benefit and the deleterious nature of hypoglycemia. International recommendations now advise clinicians to ensure critically ill patients maintain a BG of <10 mmol/L. Despite encouraging evidence, currently we can only speculate and remain optimistic that the benefit of TGC in clinical practice is sweeter than assumed.

Continuous glucose monitoring in insulin-treated patients in non-ICU settings

Inpatient hyperglycemia, in patients with and without a history of diabetes, is associated with increased risk of complications, mortality, and longer hospital stay in medicine and surgical patients. Bedside capillary point of care testing is widely recommended as the preferred method for glucose monitoring and for guiding glycemic management of individual patients; however, the accuracy of most handheld glucose meters is far from optimal. Recent studies in the hospital setting have reported that the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can provide real-time information about glucose concentration, direction, and rate of change over a period of several days. Because it provides glucose values every 5-10 minutes 24 hours a day, CGM may have an advantage over point of care testing with respect to reducing the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in acute care. Real-time CGM technology may facilitate glycemic control and to reduce hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients. Recent guidelines, however, have recommended deferring the use of CGM in the adult hospital setting until further data on accuracy and safety become available. In this study, we review the advantages and disadvantages of the use of real-time CGM in the management of dysglycemia in the hospital setting.

Accuracy of a first-generation intravenous blood glucose monitoring system in subjects with diabetes mellitus: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Improvements in glucose monitoring technology may be helpful in the clinical management of critically ill patients with abnormal glucose levels. A first-generation intravenous blood glucose monitoring (IVBG) system was developed to facilitate glycemic control therapy in hospitalized patients. A nonrandomized, single-arm, multicenter study was performed to evaluate the safety and accuracy of the IVBG system in insulin-treated subjects with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The IVBG system is a bedside monitor that automatically measures venous blood glucose (BG) concentration. In this study, BG was measured every 7.5 min by the IVBG system. Reference samples [venous blood samples measured on the Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) glucose analyzer] were drawn every 15 min during inpatient studies on days 1, 2, and 3. Fifty insulin-treated healthy volunteers with diabetes were studied, and a maximum of 72 reference samples were collected. Effectiveness was primarily evaluated by assessing the proportion of IVBG BG measurements within the 15 mg/dl or 20% criterion [15 mg/dl (for YSI <75 mg/dl) or 20% (for YSI ≥75 mg/dl)] compared with YSI. Adverse events and adverse device effects were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 95% of all IVBG values were within the 15 mg/dl or 20% criterion. The IVBG system BG measurement showed significant linear relationship with the laboratory YSI standard. Catheter insertion site irritation was mild and infrequent. No serious adverse events were reported. A total of 33% of the sensors were replaced during the 3-day use due to problematic IV lines or sensor/system errors.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical performance evaluation demonstrates that the IVBG system provides accurate and safe continuous BG measurements in healthy insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

The effects of precision, haematocrit, pH and oxygen tension on point-of-care glucose measurement in critically ill patients: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Critical care glycaemic control protocols commonly have treatment adjustment (target) ranges spanning ≤2 mmol/L. These require precise point-of-care glucose measurement, unaffected by other variables, to avoid measurement errors increasing glycaemic variability and hypoglycaemic episodes (both strongly associated with mortality in critically ill patients).

METHODS

A prospective 206 intensive care patient study was carried out. Arterial glucose concentrations were measured in duplicate using three point-of-care instruments (MediSense Precision PCχ, HemoCue DM and Radiometer 700), a central laboratory instrument (Siemens ADVIA), and in whole blood and plasma using the Yellow Springs Instruments 2300 instrument.

RESULTS

Coefficients of variation for the MediSense, HemoCue, Radiometer and Siemens instruments were 5.1%, 2.5%, 2.1% and 2.3%, respectively. Compared with the Siemens instrument, the bias (95% limits of agreement) for the MediSense, HemoCue and Radiometer instruments were 0.0 (-1.4 to 1.4), 0.0 (-1.2 to 1.1) and -0.2 (-0.9 to 0.6) mmol/L, respectively. The whole blood-plasma glucose concentration difference was significantly affected by the haematocrit. MediSense and HemoCue instrument performances were substantially affected by haematocrit. MediSense instrument performance was also affected by pH and PaO(2). Radiometer instrument performance was not affected by haematocrit, pH or PaO(2).

CONCLUSIONS

The MediSense instrument was too imprecise for use in critically ill patients. The haematocrit range seen is too great to allow fixed-factor conversion between whole blood and plasma values, substantially affecting the accuracy of both glucose meters. However, the Radiometer instrument was unaffected by the haematocrit, pH or pO(2), resulting in a performance equivalent to the laboratory method. Instrument performance differences may therefore partially explain the differing results of tight glycaemic control therapy trials.

Intensive insulin therapy in the ICU--reconciling the evidence

Hyperglycaemia during critical illness unequivocally correlates with adverse outcome. Three proof-of-concept randomized controlled trials have shown that preventing hyperglycaemia in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) reduces organ failure and mortality. A subsequent multicentre, randomized controlled trial found that targeting normoglycaemia in this patient population does not affect organ function differently than targeting an intermediate glucose level (7.8-10.0 mmol/l). However, an intermediate glucose target evoked less hypoglycaemia and, for currently unexplained reasons, also fewer deaths than a normoglycaemic target. Moreover, tolerating a caloric deficit, rather than providing nutrients parenterally, accelerated recovery from critical illness in the presence of normoglycaemia. Whether macronutrient restriction renders moderate hyperglycaemia less harmful remains to be investigated. Hence, if adequate monitoring tools and expertise are available, normoglycaemia remains the only proven effective target for insulin treatment of hyperglycaemia in ICU patients. However, if these conditions are not fulfilled in clinical practice, is an intermediate target range preferable? In the absence of hard evidence, common sense supports such an intermediate blood glucose target.

Glycemic targets and approaches to management of the patient with critical illness

Hyperglycemia during critical illness is associated with adverse outcome. The proof-of-concept Leuven studies assessed causality, and revealed that targeting strict normoglycemia (80-110 mg/dL) with insulin improved outcome compared with tolerating hyperglycemia to the renal threshold (215 mg/dL). A large multicenter trial (NICE-SUGAR [Normoglycaemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation]) found an intermediate blood glucose target (140-180 mg/dL) safer than targeting normoglycemia. Differences in design and in execution of glycemic control at the bedside may have contributed to these results. In NICE-SUGAR (Normoglycaemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation), the blood-glucose target range in the control group was lower, there were problems to reach and maintain normoglycemia in the intervention group, and inaccurate handheld blood glucose meters and variable blood sampling sites were allowed. Inaccurate tools led to insulin-dosing errors with consequently (undetected) hypoglycemia and unacceptable blood glucose variability. Also, the studies were done superimposed upon different nutritional strategies. Thus, such differences do not allow simple, evidence-based recommendations for daily practice, but an intermediate blood glucose target may be preferable while awaiting better tools to facilitate safely reaching normoglycemia.

Blood glucose measurements in critically ill patients

Studies on tight glycemic control by intensive insulin therapy abruptly changed the climate of limited interest in the problem of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients and reopened the discussion on accuracy and reliability of glucose sensor devices. This article describes important components of blood glucose measurements and their interferences with the focus on the intensive care unit setting. Typical methodologies, organized from analytical accuracy to clinical accuracy, to assess imprecision and bias of a glucose sensor are also discussed. Finally, a list of recommendations and requirements to be considered when evaluating (time-discrete) glucose sensor devices is given.

Patient acuity exacerbates discrepancy between whole blood and plasma methods through error in molality to molarity conversion: "Mind the gap!"

OBJECTIVE

A mathematical constant factor is proposed to convert measured whole blood glucose molality to plasma-equivalent molarity. The objective of this study was to determine the distributions of conversion factors for groups of patients with different acuity and to assess the gap or error in plasma-equivalent glucose reporting that would occur when a mathematical constant conversion factor is used in patients.

METHODS

Distributions of hematocrit, red blood cell water and plasma water were determined in patients from the community, hospital and adult intensive care unit. Volume displacement conversion factor distributions and glucose error were determined for each group.

RESULTS

With increasing patient acuity the median hematocrit decreased, median plasma water increased and variation of these parameters increased. In hospital patients, the molality to molarity conversion factor distribution interval was 1.04-1.16, rather than a constant 1.11. Assuming direct electrode glucose devices only have error attributed to analytical imprecision (coefficient of variation of 5%), it is predicted that only 2% of community patients will have glucose results that exceed 10% of the target values. In the same device, due to variance in hematocrit and plasma water affecting the factor for conversion of molality to molarity, it is predicted that 8.2% of adult intensive care unit patients would have glucose results that exceed 10% of the target value.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in hematocrit and plasma water concentration are predicted to affect a gap or error between whole blood direct reading biosensors and central laboratory plasma methods. This error increases and becomes more variable as patient acuity increases.