Technology-Enabled Self-Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease With or Without Asynchronous Remote Monitoring: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality and leads to frequent hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits. COPD exacerbations are an important patient outcome, and reducing their frequency would result in significant cost savings. Remote monitoring and self-monitoring could both help patients manage their symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, but they have different resource implications and have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of implementing a technology-enabled self-monitoring program versus a technology-enabled remote monitoring program in patients with COPD compared with a standard care group. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a remote monitoring and a self-monitoring program relative to standard care. Patients with COPD were recruited from outpatient clinics and a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Patients in both interventions used a Bluetooth-enabled device kit to monitor oxygen saturation, blood pressure, temperature, weight, and symptoms, but only patients in the remote monitoring group were monitored by a respiratory therapist. All patients were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after program initiation. Outcomes included self-management skills, as measured by the Partners in Health (PIH) Scale; patient symptoms measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ); and the Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ). Patients were also asked to self-report on health system use, and data on health use were collected from the hospital. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients participated in the study: 40 in the standard care, 41 in the self-monitoring, and 41 in the remote monitoring groups. Although all 3 groups improved in PIH scores, BCKQ scores, and SGRQ impact scores, there were no significant differences among any of the groups. No effects were observed on the SGRQ activity or symptom scores or on hospitalizations, ED visits, or clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Despite regular use of the technology, patients with COPD assigned to remote monitoring or self-monitoring did not have any improvement in patient outcomes such as self-management skills, knowledge, or symptoms, or in health care use compared with each other or with a standard care group. This may be owing to low health care use at baseline, the lack of structured educational components in the intervention groups, and the lack of integration of the action plan with the technology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03741855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT03741855.

Technology-Enabled Self-Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease With or Without Asynchronous Remote Monitoring: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of mortality worldwide. Reducing the number of COPD exacerbations is an important patient outcome and a major cost-saving approach. Both technology-enabled self-monitoring (SM) and remote monitoring (RM) programs have the potential to reduce exacerbations, but they have not been directly compared with each other. As RM is a more resource-intensive strategy, it is important to understand whether it is more effective than SM. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of SM and RM on self-management behaviors, COPD disease knowledge, and respiratory status relative to standard care (SC). METHODS: This was a 3-arm open-label randomized controlled trial comparing SM, RM, and SC completed in an outpatient COPD clinic in a community hospital. Patients in the SM and RM groups recorded their vital signs (oxygen, blood pressure, temperature, and weight) and symptoms with the Cloud DX platform every day and were provided with a COPD action plan. Patients in the RM group also received access to a respiratory therapist (RT). The RT monitored their vital signs intermittently and contacted them when their vitals varied outside of predetermined thresholds. The RT also contacted patients once a week irrespective of their vital signs or symptoms. All patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 groups and assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months after program initiation. The primary outcome was the Partners in Health scale, which measures self-management skills. Secondary outcomes included the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and modified-Medical Research Council Breathlessness Scale. Patients were also asked to self-report on health system usage. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients participated in the study, 40 in the SC, 41 in the SM, and 41 in the RM groups. Out of those patients, 7 in the SC, 5 in the SM, and 6 in the RM groups did not complete the study. There were no significant differences in the rates of study completion among the groups (P=.80). CONCLUSIONS: Both SM and RM have shown promise in reducing acute care utilization and exacerbation frequencies. As far as we are aware, no studies to date have directly compared technology-enabled self-management with RM programs in COPD patients. We believe that this study will be an important contribution to the literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03741855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03741855. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13920.

Program of Integrated Care for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Multiple Comorbidities (PIC COPD+): a randomised controlled trial.

We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-component, case manager-led exacerbation prevention/management model for reducing emergency department visits. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisation, mortality, health-related quality of life, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) severity, COPD self-efficacy, anxiety and depression.Two-centre randomised controlled trial recruiting patients with ≥2 prognostically important COPD-associated comorbidities. We compared our multi-component intervention including individualised care/action plans and telephone consults (12-weekly then 9-monthly) with usual care (both groups). We used zero-inflated Poisson models to examine emergency department visits and hospitalisation; Cox proportional hazard model for mortality.We randomised 470 participants (236 intervention, 234 control). There were no differences in number of emergency department visits or hospital admissions between groups. We detected difference in emergency department visit risk, for those that visited the emergency department, favouring the intervention (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.86). Similarly, risk of hospital admission was lower in the intervention group for those requiring hospital admission (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.88). Fewer intervention patients died (21 versus 36) (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.95). No differences were detected in other secondary outcomes.Our multi-component, case manager-led exacerbation prevention/management model resulted in no difference in emergency department visits, hospital admissions and other secondary outcomes. Estimated risk of death (intervention) was nearly half that of the control.