4.1 Article

MIOTIC study: a prospective, multicenter, randomized study to evaluate the long-term efficacy of mobile phone-based Internet of Things in the management of patients with stable COPD

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S50205

Keywords

Internet of Things; mobile phone; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; efficacy

Funding

  1. Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology [12411950100]
  2. Zhuoxue Talents Scheme of Fudan University
  3. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [B115]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease that leads to huge economic and social burden. Efficient and effective management of stable COPD is essential to improve quality of life and reduce medical expenditure. The Internet of Things (IoT), a recent breakthrough in communication technology, seems promising in improving health care delivery, but its potential strengths in COPD management remain poorly understood. We have developed a mobile phone-based IoT (mIoT) platform and initiated a randomized, multicenter, controlled trial entitled the ` MIOTIC study' to investigate the influence of mIoT among stable COPD patients. In the MIOTIC study, at least 600 patients with stable GOLD group C or D COPD and with a history of at least two moderate-to-severe exacerbations within the previous year will be randomly allocated to the control group, which receives routine follow-up, or the intervention group, which receives mIoT management. Endpoints of the study include (1) frequency and severity of acute exacerbation; (2) symptomatic evaluation; (3) pre-and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) measurement; (4) exercise capacity; and (5) direct medical cost per year. Results from this study should provide direct evidence for the suitability of mIoT in stable COPD patient management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available