Vincent Uyttendaele1,2, J Geoffrey Chase3, Jennifer L Knopp4, Rebecca Gottlieb5, Geoffrey M Shaw6, Thomas Desaive4. 1. GIGA-In silico Medicine,, University of Liège, Allée du 6 Août 19, Bât. B5a, 4000, Liège, Belgium. vincent.uyttendaele@uliege.be. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. vincent.uyttendaele@uliege.be. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. 4. GIGA-In silico Medicine,, University of Liège, Allée du 6 Août 19, Bât. B5a, 4000, Liège, Belgium. 5. Medtronic Diabetes, 18000 Devonshire St, Northridge, CA, 91325, USA. 6. Christchurch Hospital, Dept of Intensive Care, Christchurch, New Zealand and University of Otago, School of Medicine, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control (GC) in intensive care unit is challenging due to significant inter- and intra-patient variability, leading to increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Recent work showed higher insulin resistance in female preterm neonates. This study aims to determine if there are differences in inter- and intra-patient metabolic variability between sexes in adults, to gain in insight into any differences in metabolic response to injury. Any significant difference would suggest GC and randomised trial design should consider sex differences to personalise care. METHODS: Insulin sensitivity (SI) levels and variability are identified from retrospective clinical data for men and women. Data are divided using 6-h blocks to capture metabolic evolution over time. In total, 91 male and 54 female patient GC episodes of minimum 24 h are analysed. Hypothesis testing is used to determine whether differences are significant (P < 0.05), and equivalence testing is used to assess whether these differences can be considered equivalent at a clinical level. Data are assessed for the raw cohort and in 100 Monte Carlo simulations analyses where the number of men and women are equal. RESULTS: Demographic data between females and males were all similar, including GC outcomes (safety from hypoglycaemia and high (> 50%) time in target band). Females had consistently significantly lower SI levels than males, and this difference was not clinically equivalent. However, metabolic variability between sexes was never significantly different and always clinically equivalent. Thus, inter-patient variability was significantly different between males and females, but intra-patient variability was equivalent. CONCLUSION: Given equivalent intra-patient variability and significantly greater insulin resistance, females can receive the same benefit from safe, effective GC as males, but may require higher insulin doses to achieve the same glycaemia. Clinical trials should consider sex differences in protocol design and outcome analyses.
BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control (GC) in intensive care unit is challenging due to significant inter- and intra-patient variability, leading to increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Recent work showed higher insulin resistance in female preterm neonates. This study aims to determine if there are differences in inter- and intra-patient metabolic variability between sexes in adults, to gain in insight into any differences in metabolic response to injury. Any significant difference would suggest GC and randomised trial design should consider sex differences to personalise care. METHODS:Insulin sensitivity (SI) levels and variability are identified from retrospective clinical data for men and women. Data are divided using 6-h blocks to capture metabolic evolution over time. In total, 91 male and 54 female patientGC episodes of minimum 24 h are analysed. Hypothesis testing is used to determine whether differences are significant (P < 0.05), and equivalence testing is used to assess whether these differences can be considered equivalent at a clinical level. Data are assessed for the raw cohort and in 100 Monte Carlo simulations analyses where the number of men and women are equal. RESULTS: Demographic data between females and males were all similar, including GC outcomes (safety from hypoglycaemia and high (> 50%) time in target band). Females had consistently significantly lower SI levels than males, and this difference was not clinically equivalent. However, metabolic variability between sexes was never significantly different and always clinically equivalent. Thus, inter-patient variability was significantly different between males and females, but intra-patient variability was equivalent. CONCLUSION: Given equivalent intra-patient variability and significantly greater insulin resistance, females can receive the same benefit from safe, effective GC as males, but may require higher insulin doses to achieve the same glycaemia. Clinical trials should consider sex differences in protocol design and outcome analyses.
Authors: Sophie Penning; J Geoffrey Chase; Jean-Charles Preiser; Christopher G Pretty; Matthew Signal; Christian Mélot; Thomas Desaive Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Rondi M Kauffmann; Rachel M Hayes; Brad D Buske; Patrick R Norris; Thomas R Campion; Marcus Dortch; Judith M Jenkins; Bryan R Collier; Addison K May Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Jessica Lin; Dominic Lee; J Geoffrey Chase; Geoffrey M Shaw; Aaron Le Compte; Thomas Lotz; Jason Wong; Timothy Lonergan; Christopher E Hann Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Christopher G Pretty; Aaron J Le Compte; J Geoffrey Chase; Geoffrey M Shaw; Jean-Charles Preiser; Sophie Penning; Thomas Desaive Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: J Geoffrey Chase; Aaron J Le Compte; J-C Preiser; Geoffrey M Shaw; Sophie Penning; Thomas Desaive Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Jennifer J Ormsbee; Hannah J Burden; Jennifer L Knopp; J Geoffrey Chase; Rinki Murphy; Peter R Shepherd; Troy Merry Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-02-15
Authors: Lilian Jo Engelhardt; Julius J Grunow; Tobias Wollersheim; Niklas M Carbon; Felix Balzer; Joachim Spranger; Steffen Weber-Carstens Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 4.964