RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Measuring vital signs (VS) is an important aspect of clinical care but is time-consuming and requires multiple pieces of equipment and trained staff. Interest in the contactless measurement of VS has grown since the COVID-19 pandemic, including in nonclinical situations. Lifelight is an app being developed as a medical device for the contactless measurement of VS using remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) via the camera on smart devices. The VISION-D (Measurement of Vital Signs by Lifelight Software in Comparison to the Standard of Care-Development) and VISION-V (Validation) studies demonstrated the accuracy of Lifelight compared with standard-of-care measurement of blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiratory rate, supporting the certification of Lifelight as a class I Conformité Européenne (CE) medical device. OBJECTIVE: To support further development of the Lifelight app, the observational VISION Multisite Development (VISION-MD) study is collecting high-quality data from a broad range of patients, including those with VS measurements outside the normal healthy range and patients who are critically ill. METHODS: The study is recruiting adults (aged ≥16 years) who are inpatients (some critically ill), outpatients, and healthy volunteers, aiming to cover a broad range of normal and clinically relevant VS values; there are no exclusion criteria. High-resolution 60-second videos of the face are recorded by the Lifelight app while simultaneously measuring VS using standard-of-care methods (automated sphygmomanometer for blood pressure; finger clip sensor for pulse rate and oxygen saturation; manual counting of respiratory rate). Feedback from patients and nurses who use Lifelight is collected via a questionnaire. Data to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Lifelight compared with standard-of-care VS measurement are also being collected. A new method for rPPG signal processing is currently being developed, based on the identification of small areas of high-quality signals in each individual. Anticipated recruitment is 1950 participants, with the expectation that data from approximately 1700 will be used for software development. Data from 250 participants will be retained to test the performance of Lifelight against predefined performance targets. RESULTS: Recruitment began in May 2021 but was hindered by the restrictions instigated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The development of data processing methodology is in progress. The data for analysis will become available from September 2022, and the algorithms will be refined continuously to improve clinical accuracy. The performance of Lifelight compared with that of the standard-of-care measurement of VS will then be tested. Recruitment will resume if further data are required. The analyses are expected to be completed in early 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will support the refinement of data collection and processing toward the development of a robust app that is suitable for routine clinical use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04763746; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04763746. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41533.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The detection of early changes in vital signs (VSs) enables timely intervention; however, the measurement of VSs requires hands-on technical expertise and is often time-consuming. The contactless measurement of VSs is beneficial to prevent infection, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lifelight is a novel software being developed to measure VSs by remote photoplethysmography based on video captures of the face via the integral camera on mobile phones and tablets. We report two early studies in the development of Lifelight. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the Vital Sign Comparison Between Lifelight and Standard of Care: Development (VISION-D) study (NCT04763746) was to measure respiratory rate (RR), pulse rate (PR), and blood pressure (BP) simultaneously by using the current standard of care manual methods and the Lifelight software to iteratively refine the software algorithms. The objective of the Vital Sign Comparison Between Lifelight and Standard of Care: Validation (VISION-V) study (NCT03998098) was to validate the use of Lifelight software to accurately measure VSs. METHODS: BP, PR, and RR were measured simultaneously using Lifelight, a sphygmomanometer (BP and PR), and the manual counting of RR. Accuracy performance targets for each VS were defined from a systematic literature review of the performance of state-of-the-art VSs technologies. RESULTS: The VISION-D data set (17,233 measurements from 8585 participants) met the accuracy targets for RR (mean error 0.3, SD 3.6 vs target mean error 2.3, SD 5.0; n=7462), PR (mean error 0.3, SD 4.0 vs mean error 2.2, SD 9.2; n=10,214), and diastolic BP (mean error -0.4, SD 8.5 vs mean error 5.5, SD 8.9; n=8951); for systolic BP, the mean error target was met but not the SD (mean error 3.5, SD 16.8 vs mean error 6.7, SD 15.3; n=9233). Fitzpatrick skin type did not affect accuracy. The VISION-V data set (679 measurements from 127 participants) met all the standards: mean error -0.1, SD 3.4 for RR; mean error 1.4, SD 3.8 for PR; mean error 2.8, SD 14.5 for systolic BP; and mean error -0.3, SD 7.0 for diastolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: At this early stage in development, Lifelight demonstrates sufficient accuracy in the measurement of VSs to support certification for a Level 1 Conformité Européenne mark. As the use of Lifelight does not require specific training or equipment, the software is potentially useful for the contactless measurement of VSs by nonclinical staff in residential and home care settings. Work is continuing to enhance data collection and processing to achieve the robustness and accuracy required for routine clinical use. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/14326.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Vital sign measurements are an integral component of clinical care, but current challenges with the accuracy and timeliness of patient observations can impact appropriate clinical decision making. Advanced technologies using techniques such as photoplethysmography have the potential to automate noncontact physiological monitoring and recording, improving the quality and accessibility of this essential clinical information. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to develop the algorithm used in the Lifelight software application and improve the accuracy of its estimated heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure measurements. METHODS: This preliminary study will compare measurements predicted by the Lifelight software with standard of care measurements for an estimated population sample of 2000 inpatients, outpatients, and healthy people attending a large acute hospital. Both training datasets and validation datasets will be analyzed to assess the degree of correspondence between the vital sign measurements predicted by the Lifelight software and the direct physiological measurements taken using standard of care methods. Subgroup analyses will explore how the performance of the algorithm varies with particular patient characteristics, including age, sex, health condition, and medication. RESULTS: Recruitment of participants to this study began in July 2018, and data collection will continue for a planned study period of 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health technology is a rapidly evolving area for health and social care. Following this initial exploratory study to develop and refine the Lifelight software application, subsequent work will evaluate its performance across a range of health characteristics, and extended validation trials will support its pathway to registration as a medical device. Innovations in health technology such as this may provide valuable opportunities for increasing the efficiency and accessibility of vital sign measurements and improve health care services on a large scale across multiple health and care settings. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/14326.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Severe asthma exacerbations are costly to patients and the NHS, and occur frequently in severely allergic patients. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether or not nocturnal temperature-controlled laminar airflow (TLA) device usage over 12 months can reduce severe exacerbations and improve asthma control and quality of life compared with a placebo device, while being cost-effective and acceptable to adults with severe allergic asthma. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial with qualitative interviews. The trial included an internal pilot with qualitative focus groups. SETTING: Fourteen hospitals in the UK that manage patients with severe asthma. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (16-75 years) with severe, poorly controlled, exacerbation-prone asthma despite high-intensity treatment, and who are sensitised to a perennial indoor aeroallergen. INTERVENTION: Nocturnal, home-based TLA treatment using an Airsonett® (Airsonett AB, Ängelholm, Sweden) device. The comparator was a placebo device that was identical to the active device except that it did not deliver the laminar airflow. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 to TLA therapy or placebo, minimised by site, origin of case, baseline severe exacerbation frequency, maintenance oral corticosteroid use and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - frequency of severe asthma exacerbations occurring within the 12-month follow-up period, defined as worsening of asthma requiring systemic corticosteroids [≥ 30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent daily (or ≥ 50% increase in dose if on maintenance dose of ≥ 30 mg of prednisolone)] for ≥ 3 days. Secondary outcomes - changes in asthma control, lung function, asthma-specific and global quality of life for participants, adherence to the intervention, device acceptability, health-care resource use and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Between May 2014 and January 2016, 489 patients consented to participate in the trial, of whom 249 failed screening and 240 were randomised (n = 119 in the treatment group and n = 121 in the placebo group); all were analysed. In total, 202 participants (84%) reported use of the device for 9-12 months. Qualitative analyses showed high levels of acceptability. The mean [standard deviation (SD)] rate of severe exacerbations did not differ between groups [active 1.39 (1.57), placebo 1.48 (2.03); risk ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.27; p = 0.616]. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes for lung function, except for a reduction in mean daily peak expiratory flow [mean (SD) difference 14.7 l/minute (7.35 l/minute), 95% CI 0.32 to 29.1 l/minute; p = 0.045) for those in the active device group. There were no differences in asthma control or airway inflammation and no serious harms related to the device. No significant difference between the groups in quality-adjusted life-years gained over 1 year was observed. In addition, there was no difference in generic or disease-specific health-related quality of life overall, although statistically significant higher quality of life at month 6 was observed. Increases in quality of life were not sufficient to offset the annual costs associated with use of the TLA device. LIMITATIONS: Missing outcome data could have resulted in an underestimation of exacerbations and rendered the study inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the data, no consistent benefits of the active device were demonstrated, and the differences observed were not sufficient to make the device cost-effective. The types of patients who may benefit from the TLA device, and the reasons for large reductions in exacerbation frequency in severe asthma trials, which also incorporate other methods of recording exacerbations, need to be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46346208. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Allergies (along with viruses) are common triggers of asthma exacerbations or 'attacks', which can cause suffering and frequent visits to the general practitioner or hospital. A new machine known as a temperature-controlled laminar airflow device, which remains at the bedside and is switched on every night, filters out allergy particles in the air of a patient's breathing zone, allowing their lungs to rest in clean air overnight. We tested whether or not this machine could improve the lives of those with severe allergic asthma. We recruited 240 people across 14 centres that treat severe asthma across the UK; approximately half received the active device and the other half received a machine that looked exactly the same but did not remove the allergens (a 'placebo' machine). One in five participants was recruited using newer methods of social media such as Facebook (Facebook, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA) and Twitter (Twitter, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA). Participants found the machine easy to use and to live with and there were no significant side effects. The number of attacks reduced a lot in both participants using the active device and those who used the placebo device two participants in five did not suffer any attacks during the trial. However, there was no difference in the number of attacks between the two groups. This might have been because participants did not record everything that happened to them. There was no difference in measurements showing how well the lungs were working, nor in participants' quality of life after 1 year of participating in the trial. Those who were interviewed told us that the study visits and questionnaires could be burdensome, although it was helpful to think more about their asthma. An improvement was seen in one aspect of participants' breathing as well as in their quality of life after 6 months of using the machine, but these potential health benefits could not outweigh the cost of the machine.