Anthony F Wong1, Ulrike Pielmeier2, Peter J Haug1, Steen Andreassen2, Alan H Morris3. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Intermountain Medical Center and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 2. Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 3. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Intermountain Medical Center and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Pulmonary and Critical Care Divisions, Departments of Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA alan.morris@imail.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Develop an efficient non-clinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols for clinical study. An in silico comparison can provide information that informs the decision to proceed to a clinical trial. The authors compared two existing computer-based insulin infusion protocols: eProtocol-insulin from Utah, USA, and Glucosafe from Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors used eProtocol-insulin to manage intensive care unit (ICU) hyperglycemia with intravenous (IV) insulin from 2004 to 2010. Recommendations accepted by the bedside clinicians directly link the subsequent blood glucose values to eProtocol-insulin recommendations and provide a unique clinical database. The authors retrospectively compared in silico 18,984 eProtocol-insulin continuous IV insulin infusion rate recommendations from 408 ICU patients with those of Glucosafe, the candidate computer-based protocol. The subsequent blood glucose measurement value (low, on target, high) was used to identify if the insulin recommendation was too high, on target, or too low. RESULTS: Glucosafe consistently provided more favorable continuous IV insulin infusion rate recommendations than eProtocol-insulin for on target (64% of comparisons), low (80% of comparisons), or high (70% of comparisons) blood glucose. Aggregated eProtocol-insulin and Glucosafe continuous IV insulin infusion rates were clinically similar though statistically significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank test P = .01). In contrast, when stratified by low, on target, or high subsequent blood glucose measurement, insulin infusion rates from eProtocol-insulin and Glucosafe were statistically significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < .001), and clinically different. DISCUSSION: This in silico comparison appears to be an efficient nonclinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols. CONCLUSION: Preclinical in silico comparison analytical framework allows rapid and inexpensive identification of computer-based protocol care strategies that justify expensive and burdensome clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: Develop an efficient non-clinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols for clinical study. An in silico comparison can provide information that informs the decision to proceed to a clinical trial. The authors compared two existing computer-based insulin infusion protocols: eProtocol-insulin from Utah, USA, and Glucosafe from Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors used eProtocol-insulin to manage intensive care unit (ICU) hyperglycemia with intravenous (IV) insulin from 2004 to 2010. Recommendations accepted by the bedside clinicians directly link the subsequent blood glucose values to eProtocol-insulin recommendations and provide a unique clinical database. The authors retrospectively compared in silico 18,984 eProtocol-insulin continuous IV insulin infusion rate recommendations from 408 ICU patients with those of Glucosafe, the candidate computer-based protocol. The subsequent blood glucose measurement value (low, on target, high) was used to identify if the insulin recommendation was too high, on target, or too low. RESULTS:Glucosafe consistently provided more favorable continuous IV insulin infusion rate recommendations than eProtocol-insulin for on target (64% of comparisons), low (80% of comparisons), or high (70% of comparisons) blood glucose. Aggregated eProtocol-insulin and Glucosafe continuous IV insulin infusion rates were clinically similar though statistically significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank test P = .01). In contrast, when stratified by low, on target, or high subsequent blood glucose measurement, insulin infusion rates from eProtocol-insulin and Glucosafe were statistically significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < .001), and clinically different. DISCUSSION: This in silico comparison appears to be an efficient nonclinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols. CONCLUSION: Preclinical in silico comparison analytical framework allows rapid and inexpensive identification of computer-based protocol care strategies that justify expensive and burdensome clinical trials.
Authors: David Fone; Sandra Hollinghurst; Mark Temple; Alison Round; Nathan Lester; Alison Weightman; Katherine Roberts; Edward Coyle; Gwyn Bevan; Stephen Palmer Journal: J Public Health Med Date: 2003-12
Authors: Patricia W Stone; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Carolyn T A Herzig; Lindsey M Weiner; E Yoko Furuya; Andrew Dick; Elaine Larson Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Alan H Morris; James Orme; Jonathon D Truwit; Jay Steingrub; Colin Grissom; Kang H Lee; Guoliang L Li; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Mark Tidswell; Gordon R Bernard; Dean Sorenson; Katherine Sward; Hui Zheng; David Schoenfeld; Homer Warner Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Alan H Morris; Brian Stagg; Michael Lanspa; James Orme; Terry P Clemmer; Lindell K Weaver; Frank Thomas; Colin K Grissom; Ellie Hirshberg; Thomas D East; Carrie Jane Wallace; Michael P Young; Dean F Sittig; Antonio Pesenti; Michela Bombino; Eduardo Beck; Katherine A Sward; Charlene Weir; Shobha S Phansalkar; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Jonathon D Truwit; Jay Steingrub; R Duncan Hite; Douglas F Willson; Jerry J Zimmerman; Vinay M Nadkarni; Adrienne Randolph; Martha A Q Curley; Christopher J L Newth; Jacques Lacroix; Michael S D Agus; Kang H Lee; Bennett P deBoisblanc; R Scott Evans; Dean K Sorenson; Anthony Wong; Michael V Boland; David W Grainger; Willard H Dere; Alan S Crandall; Julio C Facelli; Stanley M Huff; Peter J Haug; Ulrike Pielmeier; Stephen E Rees; Dan S Karbing; Steen Andreassen; Eddy Fan; Roberta M Goldring; Kenneth I Berger; Beno W Oppenheimer; E Wesley Ely; Ognjen Gajic; Brian Pickering; David A Schoenfeld; Irena Tocino; Russell S Gonnering; Peter J Pronovost; Lucy A Savitz; Didier Dreyfuss; Arthur S Slutsky; James D Crapo; Derek Angus; Michael R Pinsky; Brent James; Donald Berwick Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Danielle Groat; Maria A Grando; Bithika Thompson; Pedro Neto; Hiral Soni; Mary E Boyle; Marilyn Bailey; Curtiss B Cook Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-04-13