Relationship between handheld and clinic-based spirometry measurements in asthma patients receiving beclomethasone

Kerwin, Edward; Hickey, Lisa; Small, Calvin J.

doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2019.03.010

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mSpirometry data were highly correlated with clinic spirometry. Our results concur with previous data 9 generated with other spirometry devices showing concordance between clinic and home spirometry. Furthermore, mSpirometry showed excellent repeatability over time.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Deploying mSpirometry measurements at home gives an option of collecting more data from the same subject without an increase in sample size or number of site clinic visits. Our limits of agreement are narrower than the previously reported results 9 …”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

“…Our limits of agreement are narrower than the previously reported results. 9 mSpirometry can be a useful tool for early phase development clinical trials when the efficacy and safety profiles of an investigational agent are not well-established. Having Figure 1 Comparison of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1 ) model residual between mobile spirometry (mSpirometry), and clinical measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recent advances in remote FEV 1 monitoring demonstrated high correlation and small mean differences between at‐home mobile handheld and clinic‐based FEV 1 measurements in the context of randomized clinical trials in asthma 9 and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 10 . However, the studies describing a comparison of clinic and mSpirometry data are limited, and study findings may be device‐specific.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Remote FEV1 Monitoring in Asthma Patients: A Pilot Study

Huang¹,

Izmailova²,

Jackson

et al. 2020

Clinical Translational Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1) is a critical parameter for the assessment of lung function for both clinical care and research in patients with asthma. While asthma is defined by variable airflow obstruction, FEV 1 is typically assessed during clinic visits. Mobile spirometry (mSpirometry) allows more frequent measurements of FEV 1 , resulting in a more continuous assessment of lung function over time and its variability. Twelve patients with moderate asthma were recruited in a single-center study and were instructed to perform pulmonary function tests at home twice daily for 28 days and weekly in clinic. Daily and mean subject compliance was summarized. The agreement between clinic and mobile FEV 1 was assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. The test-retest reliability for clinic and mobile spirometry was assessed by inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Simulation was conducted to explore if mSpirometry could improve statistical power over clinic counterparts. The mean subject compliance with mSpirometry was 70% for twice-daily and 85% for at least once-daily. mSpirometry FEV 1 were highly correlated and agreed with clinic ones from the same morning (r=0.993) and the same afternoon (r=0.988) with smaller mean difference for the afternoon (0.0019L) than morning (0.0126L) measurements. The test-retest reliability of mobile (ICC=0.932) and clinic (ICC=0.942) spirometry were comparable. Our simulation analysis indicated greater power using dense mSpirometry than sparse clinic measurements. Overall, we have demonstrated good compliance for repeated at-home mSpirometry, high agreement and comparable test-retest reliability with clinic counterparts, greater statistical power, suggesting a potential for use in asthma clinical research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Remote FEV1 Monitoring in Asthma Patients: A Pilot Study

Huang¹,

Izmailova²,

Jackson

et al. 2020

Clinical Translational Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown that portable spirometers linked to a mobile phone could be used as an alternative to laboratory spirometry and performed in the office or at bedside prior to discharge. 13–17 In this study, we propose an active screening strategy for hospitalized smokers to improve the diagnosis of COPD, especially when there is limited accessibility to laboratory spirometry. Briefly, all hospitalized patients with risk factors for COPD (smokers aged ⩾40 years) admitted to the pulmonary and the cardiology departments were questioned on their symptoms and comorbidities and underwent spirometry with the use of a portable spirometer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active screening for COPD among hospitalized smokers – a feasibility study

Mycroft

Korczyński

Jankowski

et al. 2020

Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Spirometry is a primary tool for early chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) detection in patients with risk factors, for example, cigarette smoking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the strategy of an active screening for COPD among smokers admitted to the pulmonary and cardiology department. Methods: This prospective study was conducted between February and March 2019. All hospitalized smokers aged 40 years and older completed an original questionnaire and had spirometry measurement with a bronchial reversibility test (if applicable) performed by medical students using a portable spirometer. Results: One hundred and eighty-eight patients were eligible to participate in the study. Seventy (37%) subjects refused to participate. Eventually, 116 (62%) patients were included in the final analysis and 94 (81%) performed spirometry correctly. In total, 32 (34 %) patients were found to have COPD. Nine (28%) of these patients were newly diagnosed, 89% of them had mild-to-moderate airway obstruction. Patients with newly diagnosed COPD were significantly younger [age 63 (56–64) versus 69 (64–78) years], had a longer smoking-free period [17 (13–20) versus 9 (2–12) years], had fewer symptoms and had a better lung function compared with patients with a previous diagnosis of COPD ( p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Conclusion: The proposed diagnostic strategy can be successfully used to improve COPD detection in the inpatient setting. The majority of the newly diagnosed COPD patients had mild-to-moderate airway obstruction. Patients who should be particularly screened for COPD include ex-smokers with less pronounced respiratory symptoms.

show abstract