A Vendor-Independent Mobile Health Monitoring Platform for Digital Health Studies: Development and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Medical smartphone apps and mobile health devices are rapidly entering mainstream use because of the rising number of smartphone users. Consequently, a large amount of consumer-generated data is being collected. Technological advances in innovative sensory systems have enabled data connectivity and aggregation to become cornerstones in developing workable solutions for remote monitoring systems in clinical practice. However, few systems are currently available to handle such data, especially for clinical use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and implement the digital health research platform for mobile health (DHARMA) that combines data saved in different formats from a variety of sources into a single integrated digital platform suitable for mobile remote monitoring studies. METHODS: DHARMA comprises a smartphone app, a Web-based platform, and custom middleware and has been developed to collect, store, process, and visualize data from different vendor-specific sensors. The middleware is a component-based system with independent building blocks for user authentication, study and patient administration, data handling, questionnaire management, patient files, and reporting. RESULTS: A prototype version of the research platform has been tested and deployed in multiple clinical studies. In this study, we used the platform for the follow-up of pregnant women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia. The patients' blood pressure, weight, and activity were semi-automatically captured at home using different devices. DHARMA automatically collected and stored data from each source and enabled data processing for the end users in terms of study-specific parameters, thresholds, and visualization. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing use of mobile health apps and connected medical devices is leading to a large amount of data for collection. There has been limited investment in handling and aggregating data from different sources for use in academic and clinical research focusing on remote monitoring studies. In this study, we created a modular mobile health research platform to collect and integrate data from a variety of third-party devices in several patient populations. The functionality of the platform was demonstrated in a real-life setting among women with high-risk pregnancies.

Metadata Correction: Clinical Validation of Heart Rate Apps: Mixed-Methods Evaluation Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.7254.].

Prenatal Remote Monitoring of Women With Gestational Hypertensive Diseases: Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring in obstetrics is relatively new; some studies have shown its effectiveness for both mother and child. However, few studies have evaluated the economic impact compared to conventional care, and no cost analysis of a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up program for women diagnosed with gestational hypertensive diseases (GHD) has been published. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the costs of remote monitoring versus conventional care relative to reported benefits. METHODS: Patient data from the Pregnancy Remote Monitoring (PREMOM) study were used. Health care costs were calculated from patient-specific hospital bills of Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (Genk, Belgium) in 2015. Cost comparison was made from three perspectives: the Belgian national health care system (HCS), the National Institution for Insurance of Disease and Disability (RIZIV), and costs for individual patients. The calculations were made for four major domains: prenatal follow-up, prenatal admission to the hospital, maternal and neonatal care at and after delivery, and total amount of costs. A simulation exercise was made in which it was calculated how much could be demanded of RIZIV for funding the remote monitoring service. RESULTS: A total of 140 pregnancies were included, of which 43 received remote monitoring (30.7%) and 97 received conventional care (69.2%). From the three perspectives, there were no differences in costs for prenatal follow-up. Compared to conventional care, remote monitoring patients had 34.51% less HCS and 41.72% less RIZIV costs for laboratory test results (HCS: mean €0.00 [SD €55.34] vs mean €38.28 [SD € 44.08], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €21.09 [SD €27.94] vs mean €36.19 [SD €41.36], P<.001) and a reduction of 47.16% in HCS and 48.19% in RIZIV costs for neonatal care (HCS: mean €989.66 [SD €3020.22] vs mean €1872.92 [SD €5058.31], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €872.97 [SD €2761.64] vs mean €1684.86 [SD €4702.20], P<.001). HCS costs for medication were 1.92% lower in remote monitoring than conventional care (mean €209.22 [SD €213.32] vs mean €231.32 [SD 67.09], P=.02), but were 0.69% higher for RIZIV (mean €122.60 [SD €92.02] vs mean €121.78 [SD €20.77], P<.001). Overall HCS costs for remote monitoring were mean €4233.31 (SD €3463.31) per person and mean €4973.69 (SD €5219.00) per person for conventional care (P=.82), a reduction of €740.38 (14.89%) per person, with savings mainly for RIZIV of €848.97 per person (23.18%; mean €2797.42 [SD €2905.18] vs mean €3646.39 [SD €4878.47], P=.19). When an additional fee of €525.07 per month per pregnant woman for funding remote monitoring costs is demanded, remote monitoring is acceptable in their costs for HCS, RIZIV, and individual patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the current organization of Belgian health care, a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up of women with GHD is cost saving for the global health care system, mainly via savings for the insurance institution RIZIV.

A Novel Intelligent Two-Way Communication System for Remote Heart Failure Medication Uptitration (the CardioCoach Study): Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the treatment of heart failure (HF) prescribe uptitration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and ß-blockers to the maximum-tolerated, evidence-based dose. Although HF prognosis can drastically improve when correctly implementing these guidelines, studies have shown that they are insufficiently implemented in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to verify whether supplementing the usual care with the CardioCoach follow-up tool is feasible and safe, and whether the tool is more efficient in implementing the guideline recommendations for ß-blocker and ACE-I. METHODS: A total of 25 HF patients were randomly assigned to either the usual care control group (n=10) or CardioCoach intervention group (n=15), and observed for 6 months. The CardioCoach follow-up tool is a two-way communication platform with decision support algorithms for semiautomatic remote medication uptitration. Remote monitoring sensors automatically transmit patient's blood pressure, heart rate, and weight on a daily basis. RESULTS: Patients' satisfaction and adherence for medication intake (10,018/10,825, 92.55%) and vital sign measurements (4504/4758, 94.66%) were excellent. However, the number of technical issues that arose was large, with 831 phone contacts (median 41, IQR 32-65) in total. The semiautomatic remote uptitration was safe, as there were no adverse events and no false positive uptitration proposals. Although no significant differences were found between both groups, a higher number of patients were on guideline-recommended medication dose in both groups compared with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: The CardioCoach follow-up tool for remote uptitration is feasible and safe and was found to be efficient in facilitating information exchange between care providers, with high patient satisfaction and adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03294811; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03294811 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xLiWVsgM).

Bioimpedance Alerts from Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices: Observational Study of Diagnostic Relevance and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is expanding in the treatment of heart failure. Most of the current devices are equipped with remote monitoring functions, including bioimpedance for fluid status monitoring. The question remains whether bioimpedance measurements positively impact clinical outcome. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the clinical interventions taken based on remote bioimpedance monitoring alerts and their impact on clinical outcome. METHODS: This is a single-center observational study of consecutive ICD and CRT patients (n=282) participating in protocol-driven remote follow-up. Bioimpedance alerts were analyzed with subsequently triggered interventions. RESULTS: A total of 55.0% (155/282) of patients had an ICD or CRT device equipped with a remote bioimpedance algorithm. During 34 (SD 12) months of follow-up, 1751 remote monitoring alarm notifications were received (2.2 per patient-year of follow-up), comprising 2096 unique alerts (2.6 per patient-year of follow-up). Since 591 (28.2%) of all incoming alerts were bioimpedance-related, patients with an ICD or CRT including a bioimpedance algorithm had significantly more alerts (3.4 versus 1.8 alerts per patient-year of follow-up, P<.001). Bioimpedance-only alerts resulted in a phone contact in 91.0% (498/547) of cases, which triggered an actual intervention in 15.9% (87/547) of cases, since in 75.1% (411/547) of cases reenforcing heart failure education sufficed. Overall survival was lower in patients with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device with a bioimpedance algorithm; however, this difference was driven by differences in baseline characteristics (adjusted hazard ratio of 2.118, 95% CI 0.845-5.791). No significant differences between both groups were observed in terms of the number of follow-up visits in the outpatient heart failure clinic, the number of hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of heart failure, or mean length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Bioimpedance-only alerts constituted a substantial amount of incoming alerts when turned on during remote follow-up and triggered an additional intervention in only 16% of cases since in 75% of cases, providing general heart failure education sufficed. The high frequency of heart failure education that was provided could have contributed to fewer heart failure-related hospitalizations despite significant differences in baseline characteristics.

Clinical Validation of Heart Rate Apps: Mixed-Methods Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Photoplethysmography (PPG) is a proven way to measure heart rate (HR). This technology is already available in smartphones, which allows measuring HR only by using the smartphone. Given the widespread availability of smartphones, this creates a scalable way to enable mobile HR monitoring. An essential precondition is that these technologies are as reliable and accurate as the current clinical (gold) standards. At this moment, there is no consensus on a gold standard method for the validation of HR apps. This results in different validation processes that do not always reflect the veracious outcome of comparison. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to investigate and describe the necessary elements in validating and comparing HR apps versus standard technology. METHODS: The FibriCheck (Qompium) app was used in two separate prospective nonrandomized studies. In the first study, the HR of the FibriCheck app was consecutively compared with 2 different Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared HR devices: the Nonin oximeter and the AliveCor Mobile ECG. In the second study, a next step in validation was performed by comparing the beat-to-beat intervals of the FibriCheck app to a synchronized ECG recording. RESULTS: In the first study, the HR (BPM, beats per minute) of 88 random subjects consecutively measured with the 3 devices showed a correlation coefficient of .834 between FibriCheck and Nonin, .88 between FibriCheck and AliveCor, and .897 between Nonin and AliveCor. A single way analysis of variance (ANOVA; P=.61 was executed to test the hypothesis that there were no significant differences between the HRs as measured by the 3 devices. In the second study, 20,298 (ms) R-R intervals (RRI)-peak-to-peak intervals (PPI) from 229 subjects were analyzed. This resulted in a positive correlation (rs=.993, root mean square deviation [RMSE]=23.04 ms, and normalized root mean square error [NRMSE]=0.012) between the PPI from FibriCheck and the RRI from the wearable ECG. There was no significant difference (P=.92) between these intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the most suitable method for the validation of an HR app is a simultaneous measurement of the HR by the smartphone app and an ECG system, compared on the basis of beat-to-beat analysis. This approach could lead to more correct assessments of the accuracy of HR apps.

Remote Monitoring of Hypertension Diseases in Pregnancy: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Although remote monitoring (RM) has proven its added value in various health care domains, little is known about the remote follow-up of pregnant women diagnosed with a gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the added value of a remote follow-up program for pregnant women diagnosed with GHD. METHODS: A 1-year retrospective study was performed in the outpatient clinic of a 2nd level prenatal center where pregnant women with GHD received RM or conventional care (CC). Primary study endpoints include number of prenatal visits and admissions to the prenatal observation ward. Secondary outcomes include gestational outcome, mode of delivery, neonatal outcome, and admission to neonatal intensive care (NIC). Differences in continuous and categorical variables in maternal demographics and characteristics were tested using Unpaired Student's two sampled t test or Mann-Whitney U test and the chi-square test. Both a univariate and multivariate analysis were performed for analyzing prenatal follow-up and gestational outcomes. All statistical analyses were done at nominal level, Cronbach alpha=.05. RESULTS: Of the 166 patients diagnosed with GHD, 53 received RM and 113 CC. After excluding 5 patients in the RM group and 15 in the CC group because of the missing data, 48 patients in RM group and 98 in CC group were taken into final analysis. The RM group had more women diagnosed with gestational hypertension, but less with preeclampsia when compared with CC (81.25% vs 42.86% and 14.58% vs 43.87%). Compared with CC, univariate analysis in RM showed less induction, more spontaneous labors, and less maternal and neonatal hospitalizations (48.98% vs 25.00%; 31.63% vs 60.42%; 74.49% vs 56.25%; and 27.55% vs 10.42%). This was also true in multivariate analysis, except for hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: An RM follow-up of women with GHD is a promising tool in the prenatal care. It opens the perspectives to reverse the current evolution of antenatal interventions leading to more interventions and as such to ever increasing medicalized antenatal care.