Wong Anthony F, Pielmeier Ulrike, Haug Peter J, Andreassen Steen, Morris Alan H
Department of Biomedical Informatics, Intermountain Medical Center and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Mar;23(2):283-8. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv067. Epub 2015 Jul 30.
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.
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.
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.
This in silico comparison appears to be an efficient nonclinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols.
Preclinical in silico comparison analytical framework allows rapid and inexpensive identification of computer-based protocol care strategies that justify expensive and burdensome clinical trials.
开发一种高效的非临床方法,用于识别有前景的基于计算机的临床研究方案。计算机模拟比较可以提供信息,为是否进行临床试验的决策提供依据。作者比较了两种现有的基于计算机的胰岛素输注方案:美国犹他州的eProtocol-insulin和丹麦的Glucosafe。
作者在2004年至2010年期间使用eProtocol-insulin通过静脉注射胰岛素来管理重症监护病房(ICU)的高血糖。床边临床医生接受的建议将随后的血糖值直接与eProtocol-insulin的建议相关联,并提供了一个独特的临床数据库。作者回顾性地对408名ICU患者的18984条eProtocol-insulin持续静脉胰岛素输注速率建议与候选基于计算机的方案Glucosafe进行了计算机模拟比较。随后的血糖测量值(低、达标、高)用于确定胰岛素建议是过高、达标还是过低。
对于达标(64%的比较)、低血糖(80%的比较)或高血糖(70%的比较)情况,Glucosafe始终比eProtocol-insulin提供更有利的持续静脉胰岛素输注速率建议。汇总的eProtocol-insulin和Glucosafe持续静脉胰岛素输注速率在临床上相似,但在统计学上有显著差异(Wilcoxon符号秩检验P = 0.01)。相比之下,当按随后的低血糖、达标或高血糖测量进行分层时,eProtocol-insulin和Glucosafe的胰岛素输注速率在统计学上有显著差异(Wilcoxon符号秩检验,P < 0.001),且在临床上也不同。
这种计算机模拟比较似乎是一种识别有前景的基于计算机的方案的高效非临床方法。
临床前计算机模拟比较分析框架允许快速且低成本地识别基于计算机的方案护理策略,这些策略可为昂贵且繁重的临床试验提供依据。