Remote monitoring of patient-recorded spirometry and pulse oximetry offers an alternative approach to traditional hospital-based monitoring of interstitial lung disease (ILD). Remote spirometry has been observed to reasonably reflect clinic spirometry in participants with ILD but remote monitoring has not been widely incorporated into clinical practice. We assessed the feasibility of remotely monitoring patients within a clinical ILD service. Prospective, single-arm, open-label observational multi-centre study (NCT04850521). Inclusion criteria included ILD diagnosis, age ≥ 18 years, FVC ≥ 50% predicted. 60 participants were asked to record a single spirometry and oximetry measurement at least once daily, monitored weekly by their local clinical team. Feasibility was defined as ≥ 68% of participants with ≥ 70% adherence to study measurements and recording measurements ≥ 3 times/week throughout. A total of 60 participants were included in the analysis. 42/60 (70%) were male; mean age 67.8 years (± 11.2); 34/60 (56.7%) had idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), Median ILD-GAP score was 3 (IQR 1–4.75). Spirometry adherence was achieved for ≥ 70% of study days in 46/60 participants (77%) and pulse oximetry adherence in 50/60 participants (83%). Recording ≥ 3 times/week every week was provided for spirometry in 41/60 participants (68%) and pulse oximetry in 43/60 participants (72%). Mean difference between recent clinic and baseline home spirometry was 0.31 L (± 0.72). 85.7% (IQR 63.9–92.6%) home spirometry attempts/patient were acceptable or usable according to ERS/ATS spirometry criteria. Positive correlation was observed between ILD-GAP score and adherence to spirometry and oximetry (rho 0.24 and 0.38 respectively). Adherence of weekly monitoring by clinical teams was 80.95% (IQR 64.19–95.79). All participants who responded to an experience questionnaire (n = 33) found remote measurements easy to perform and 75% wished to continue monitoring their spirometry at the conclusion of the study. Feasibility of remote monitoring within an ILD clinical service was demonstrated over 3 months for both daily home spirometry and pulse oximetry of patients. Remote monitoring may be more acceptable to participants who are older or have more advanced disease. clinicaltrials.gov NCT04850521 registered 20th April 2021

中文翻译：

---

远程监测肺活量测定和脉搏血氧测定作为间质性肺病临床护理一部分的可行性和可接受性：单臂观察性研究

对患者记录的肺活量测定和脉搏血氧测定的远程监测为传统的医院间质性肺疾病 (ILD) 监测提供了另一种方法。据观察，远程肺量测定可以合理地反映 ILD 参与者的临床肺量测定结果，但远程监测尚未广泛纳入临床实践。我们评估了在临床 ILD 服务中远程监测患者的可行性。前瞻性、单臂、开放标签观察性多中心研究 (NCT04850521)。纳入标准包括 ILD 诊断、年龄 ≥ 18 岁、FVC ≥ 50% 预测。 60 名参与者被要求每天至少记录一次肺活量测定和血氧测定测量结果，并由当地临床团队每周进行监测。可行性定义为≥ 68% 的参与者遵守研究测量结果≥ 70%，并且每周记录测量结果≥ 3 次。共有 60 名参与者参与分析。 42/60 (70%) 为男性；平均年龄 67.8 岁 (± 11.2)； 34/60 (56.7%) 患有特发性肺纤维化 (IPF)，ILD-GAP 评分中位数为 3 (IQR 1–4.75)。 46/60 名参与者 (77%) 在≥ 70% 的研究日内坚持了肺活量测定，50/60 名参与者 (83%) 坚持脉搏血氧测定。 41/60 名参与者 (68%) 的肺活量测定和 43/60 名参与者 (72%) 的脉搏血氧测定每周记录≥ 3 次。最近的诊所和基线家庭肺活量测定之间的平均差异为 0.31 L (± 0.72)。根据 ERS/ATS 肺量测定标准，85.7% (IQR 63.9–92.6%) 的家庭肺量测定尝试/患者是可接受或可用的。 ILD-GAP 评分与肺活量测定和血氧测定的依从性之间观察到正相关（分别为 0.24 和 0.38）。临床团队每周监测的遵守率为 80.95% (IQR 64.19–95.79)。所有回答经验问卷的参与者 (n = 33) 都发现远程测量很容易进行，75% 的人希望在研究结束时继续监测他们的肺活量测定法。在 ILD 临床服务中远程监测患者日常家庭肺活量测定和脉搏血氧测定的可行性已在 3 个月内得到证实。年龄较大或患有晚期疾病的参与者可能更容易接受远程监测。 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04850521 注册于 2021 年 4 月 20 日