Smart connected devices to objectively assess the adherence to eyedrops

Purpose Compliance issues are often reported in ophthalmology for glaucoma which is one of the leading causes of blindness and visual disability and for dry eye syndrome (DES) requiring multiple frequent instillations. The smart electronic devices have emerged as one of the most reliable means of im...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) England), 2021-01, Vol.99 (S265), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Renault, Didier, Courrier, Emilie, Trone, Marie Caroline, Gauthier, Anne Sophie, Garcin, Thibaud, Rebika, Hayette, Thuret, Gilles, Gain, Philippe
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Compliance issues are often reported in ophthalmology for glaucoma which is one of the leading causes of blindness and visual disability and for dry eye syndrome (DES) requiring multiple frequent instillations. The smart electronic devices have emerged as one of the most reliable means of improving adherence to treatment, allowing objective quantification of the taken treatments. Aim: to report the pilot use in DES of two new electronic devices designed for the monitoring of adherence to eye drop medications. Methods The KaliDROP for eye drop bottles, and the KaliJAR for single‐dose‐units (SDU; Kali‐CARE, Santa Clara, CA, USA) were 3G wireless devices that recorded and transmitted in real respectively the number of instillations (when the bottle in pressed and reversed) and the number of SDU discarded after use. Both were tested by one of the author suffering from DES. The Kali Drop was tested during 28 consecutive days with an ABAK bottle of Thealose (Thea laboratories). The KaliJAR was tested during 47 consecutive days with SDU of Thealoz Duo Gel (Thea laboratories). In parallel, he noted on paper the date and time of each eye drop instillation. The agreement with the data recorded in the software was analyzed. Results On the 354 instillations noted on paper, 352 (99.4%) were recorded by the KaliDROP device. Two instillations were not recorded, and one instillation was wrongly detected. On the 2200 SDUs introduced in the KaliJAR, 2136 (97.1%) were recorded. 64 SDUs (2.9%) were not recorded but none was wrongly detected. This percentage of false negative could be explained by the fact that 30–50 SDUs were inserted immediately one after the other. The number of undetected SDU would be virtually null if each SDU was discarded separately as normally recommended. Conclusions These two innovative simple‐to‐use devices could find strong applications in therapeutic education and clinical trials.
ISSN:1755-375X
1755-3768
DOI:10.1111/j.1755-3768.20200132