Delesha M Carpenter1, Reina Jurdi2, Courtney A Roberts3, Michelle Hernandez4, Robert Horne5, Amy Chan5. 1. Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 1 University Heights, CPO 2125, Asheville, NC, 28804, USA. dmcarpenter@unc.edu. 2. School of Pharmacy, University College London, 29-39 Brunswick Square, Bloomsbury, London, WC1N 1AX, UK. 3. Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 1 University Heights, CPO 2125, Asheville, NC, 28804, USA. 4. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, 104 Mason Farm Road, CB #7310, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7310, USA. 5. Department of Practice and Policy, Centre for Behavioural Medicine, UCL School of Pharmacy, Mezzanine Floor, Entrance A, Tavistock House North, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HR, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although portable electronic spirometers allow for at-home lung function monitoring, a comprehensive review of these devices has not yet been conducted. We conducted a systematic search and review of commercially available portable electronic spirometers designed for asthma patient use. RECENT FINDINGS: All devices (N = 16) allowed for monitoring of basic lung function parameters, but only 31% provided in-app videos on how to perform breathing maneuvers. Most devices (63%) provided graphical representations of lung function results, but only 44% gave immediate feedback on the quality of the breathing maneuver. Several devices (25%) were FDA-approved and cost ranged from US$99 to $1390. Information on data security (63%), measurement accuracy (50%), and association with patient outcomes (0%) was commonly limited. This review found that providers' ability to make informed decisions about whether asthma patients may benefit from portable electronic spirometers is limited due to lack of patient outcome data.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although portable electronic spirometers allow for at-home lung function monitoring, a comprehensive review of these devices has not yet been conducted. We conducted a systematic search and review of commercially available portable electronic spirometers designed for asthmapatient use. RECENT FINDINGS: All devices (N = 16) allowed for monitoring of basic lung function parameters, but only 31% provided in-app videos on how to perform breathing maneuvers. Most devices (63%) provided graphical representations of lung function results, but only 44% gave immediate feedback on the quality of the breathing maneuver. Several devices (25%) were FDA-approved and cost ranged from US$99 to $1390. Information on data security (63%), measurement accuracy (50%), and association with patient outcomes (0%) was commonly limited. This review found that providers' ability to make informed decisions about whether asthmapatients may benefit from portable electronic spirometers is limited due to lack of patient outcome data.
Authors: Delesha M Carpenter; Lorie L Geryk; Adam Sage; Courtney Arrindell; Betsy L Sleath Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Rachelle R Ramsey; Jill M Plevinsky; Lauren Milgrim; Kevin A Hommel; Karen M McDowell; Jeffrey Shepard; Theresa W Guilbert Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2021-06-18
Authors: Andrew Kouri; Samir Gupta; Azadeh Yadollahi; Clodagh M Ryan; Andrea S Gershon; Teresa To; Susan M Tarlo; Roger S Goldstein; Kenneth R Chapman; Chung-Wai Chow Journal: Chest Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: David M G Halpin; Gerard J Criner; Alberto Papi; Dave Singh; Antonio Anzueto; Fernando J Martinez; Alvar A Agusti; Claus F Vogelmeier Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 21.405