skip to main content
10.1145/3277883.3277889acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessensysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Capturing Inhalation Efficiency with Acoustic Sensors in Mobile Phones

Published:04 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Increasing popularity of inhaled therapy for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) stimulates research on both drug formulations and smart devices to support efficient pulmonary drug delivery. A major concern is the variability of the drug dose delivered to the lungs from the inhalation devices, due to the following three factors: 1) the drug formulation, 2) the device design, and 3) the patient's inhalation profile [23]. This paper investigates the use of microphones embedded in modern smartphones to accurately monitor the patient's inhalation manouvre. In our experiments we focus on dry powder inhalers (DPIs) with a breath-activated capsule spinning mechanism, such as Breezhaler®. We design an algorithm to capture inhalation profiles and evaluate it against measurements obtained with a precise gas flow meter. Our algorithm achieves an average error of up to 4.89 slm (standard liters per minute) given typical inspiratory flow rates through a Breezhaler® between 60 and 130 slm. We detect capsule rotation to ensure the inhalation was effective, and observe that the capsule spinning mechanism helps reduce measurement errors by 2 slm. Given a proper calibration, the proposed algorithm can be used with other capsule-based DPIs, such as HandiHaler®.

References

  1. P. Altman, L. Wehbe, J. Dederichs, and T. Guerin et. al. 2018. Comparison of peak inspiratory flow rate via the Breezhaler, Ellipta and HandiHaler dry powder inhalers in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. BMC Pulm Med. 18 (2018), 100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. Bonini and O. S. Usmani. 2015. The importance of inhaler devices in the treatment of COPD. COPD Research and Practice (2015), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. P. Colthorpe, R. Pavkov, Y. Rozenman, and C. Humby. 2018. Adding Electronics to the Breezhaler: Satisfying the Needs of Patients and Regulators. Respiratory Drug Delivery 1 (2018), 71--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. P. Colthorpe, T. Voshaar, T. Kieckbusch, and E. Cuoghi et. al. 2013. Delivery characteristics of a low-resistance dry-powder inhaler used to deliver the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium. J Drug Assess. 2(1) (2013), 11--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. S. D'Arcy, E. MacHale, J. Seheult, and M. S. Holmes et. al. 2014. A Method to Assess Adherence in Inhaler Use through Analysis of Acoustic Recordings of Inhaler Events. PLOS 9(6) (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Van de Moortele, U. Goerke, C. H.Wendt, and F. Coletti. 2017. Airway morphology and inspiratory flow features in the early stages of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Clinical Biomech. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J.J. Dederichs, D. Singh, and R. Pavkov. 2015. Inspiratory flow profiles generated by patients with COPD through the Breezhaler inhaler and other marketed dry powder inhalers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, American Thoracic Society Int. Conf. 191 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. B. Dolovich, R. C. Ahrens, D. R. Hess, and P. Anderson et. al. 2005. Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy: Evidence-based guidelines. Chest. 127(1) (2005), 335--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. T. Drugman, J. Urbain, N. Bauwens, and R. Chessini et. al. 2013. Objective Study of Sensor Relevance for Automatic Cough Detection. 17(3) (2013), 699--707.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. D. Enarson. 2013. Respiratory diseases in the world: Realities of today - opportunities for tomorrow. Int. Respiratory Societies (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. US FDA Special Feature. 2016. Why You Need to Take Your Medications as Prescribed or Instructed.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Su J. G., Barrett M. A., Henderson K., and Humblet O. et. al. 2017. Feasibility of Deploying Inhaler Sensors to Identify the Impacts of Environmental Triggers and Built Environment Factors on Asthma Short-Acting Bronchodilator Use. Env. Health Persp. 125(2) (2017), 254--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. M. Gjoreski, M. Lustrek, M. Gams, and H. Gjoreski. 2017. Monitoring stress with a wrist device using context. 73 (2017), 159--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Goel, E. Saba, M. Stiber, and E. Whitmire et. al. 2016. SpiroCall: Measuring Lung Function over a Phone Call. In Proc. CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). 5675--5685. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. Henderson. 2017. New Technologies for Low-Cost Connected Drug Delivery Devices. Connecting Drug Delivery 76 (2017), 5--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. D. Hira, H. Koide, S. Nakamura, and T. Okada et. al. 2018. Assessment of inhalation flow patterns of soft mist inhaler co-prescribed with dry powder inhaler using inspiratory flow meter for multi inhalation devices. 13 (2018), e0193082.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. Hoppentocht, P. Hagedoorn, H.W. Frijlink, and A.H. de Boer. 2014. Technological and practical challenges of dry powder inhalers and formulations. 75 (2014), 18--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Ibrahim, R. Verma, and L. Garcia-Contreras. 2015. Inhalation drug delivery devices: technology update. Med Devices 8 (2015), 131--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Kuttler and T. Dimke. 2014. A novel biophysical simulation model of drug deposition implemented to predict and optimize QVA149 delivery to the lungs. In American Thoracic Society Int. Conf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. N. R. Labiris and M. B. Dolovich. 2003. Pulmonary drug delivery. Part II: the role of inhalant delivery devices and drug formulations in therapeutic effectiveness of aerosolized medications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 56(6) (2003), 600--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. B.L. Laube, H.M. Janssens, F.H.C. de Jongh, and S.G. Devadason et. al. 2011. What the pulmonary specialist should know about the new inhalation therapies. European Respiratory J. 37 (2011), 1308--1417.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. F. Lavorini, C. Mannini, E. Chellini, and G. A. Fontana. 2016. Optimising Inhaled Pharmacotherapy for Elderly Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The Importance of Delivery Devices. Drugs Aging 33(7) (2016), 461--473.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. F. Lavorini, M. Pistolesi, and O. S. Usmani. 2017. Recent advances in capsule-based dry powder inhaler technology. 12 (2017), 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. K. M. Lim, S. M. Lee, D. Harris, and P. Seeney. 2018. Robust Characterization of Inhalation Information Using a Deep Neural Network and Smartphone. 2 (2018), 477--480.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. S. Magzamen, A. P. Oron, E. R. Locke, and V. S. Fan. 2018. Association of ambient pollution with inhaler use among patients with COPD: A panel study. Occupational and Env. Medicine 75 (2018), 382--388.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. M. Molimard, C. Raherison, S. Lignot, and A. Balestra et. al. 2017. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and inhaler device handling. Eur Respir J. 49(2) (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. S. Mueller and B. S. E. Haeberlin. 2008. Comparison of performance characteristics for Foradil Aerolizer and Foradil Concept1 (a new single dose dry powder inhaler) at different test flow rates. Resp Drug Deliv. 3 (2008), 67--678.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. C. Mulcahy. 2017. Smart Drug Delivery: Pragramic approach reduces risk, increases innovation and patient adherence. On Drug Delivery Magazine 76 (2017), 62--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. T. Oakley. 2018. Connected Drug Delivery Sector Overview. On Drug Delivery Magazine 87 (2018), 4--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. S. Pascual, J. Feimer, A. Soyza, and J. Sauleda et. al. 2015. Preference, satisfaction and critical errors with Genuair and Breezhaler inhalers in patients with COPD: A randomised, cross-over, multicentre study. NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine 25 (04 2015), 15018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. R. Pavkov and D. Singh. 2008. Concept1 (a new single dose dry powder inhaler) peak inspiratory flow rate study with COPD patients. Resp Drug Deliv. 3 (2008), 683--686.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. D. Prime, W. de Backer, M. Hamilton, and A. Cahn et. al. 2015. Effect of Disease Severity in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on Inhaler-Specific Inhalation Profiles Through the ELLIPTA Dry Powder Inhaler. Journal Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 28(6) (2015), 486--497.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. D. Van Sickle, S. Magzamen, S. Truelove, and T. Morrison. 2013. Remote Monitoring of Inhaled Bronchodilator Use and Weekly Feedback about Asthma Management: An Open-Group, Short-Term Pilot Study of the Impacton Asthma Control. PLOS (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. J. van der Palen, M. Thomas, H. Chrystyn, and R. K Sharma et. al. 2016. A randomised open-label cross-over study of inhaler errors, preference and time to achieve correct inhaler use in patients with COPD or asthma: comparison of ELLIPTA with other inhaler devices. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 26 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Capturing Inhalation Efficiency with Acoustic Sensors in Mobile Phones

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          RealWSN'18: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Real-World Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks
          November 2018
          61 pages
          ISBN:9781450360487
          DOI:10.1145/3277883

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 November 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate6of7submissions,86%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader