Original Article

Effectiveness of Population Health Management

Using the Propeller Health Asthma Platform:
A Randomized Clinical Trial
Rajan K. Merchant, MDa, Rubina Inamdar, MDb, and Robert C. Quade, PhDc Woodland, Calif

What is already known about this topic? Current guidelines recommend monitoring of short-acting b-agonist (SABA)
use and assessment of asthma control. Excessive SABA use is an indicator of poor asthma control. Electronic monitoring
of inhalers has been used primarily to monitor controller medications.

What does this article add to our knowledge? Real-time monitoring of SABA use improves patient and physician
awareness of asthma symptoms and ability to identify potential triggers.

How does this study impact current management guidelines? Real-time telemonitoring of SABA use is another tool
that can be added to existing asthma care to improve outcomes. Incorporating telehealth solutions has the potential to
improve care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth strategies for asthma have focused RESULTS: The daily mean number of SABA uses per person
primarily on adherence to controller medications. decreased by 0.41 for the IG and by 0.31 for RC between the first
Telemonitoring of short-acting b-agonist (SABA) focuses on week and the remainder of the study period (P < .001 for the
patterns of use and may allow more timely action to avert ex- difference between groups). Similarly, the proportion of SABA-
acerbations. Studies assessing this approach are lacking. free days increased 21% for the IG and 17% for RC (P < .01 for
OBJECTIVE: This pragmatic controlled study was designed to the difference between groups). Asthma Control Test (ACT)
measure real-world effectiveness of the Propeller Health Asthma scores were not significantly different between arms in the entire
Platform to reduce use of SABA and improve asthma control. study population, but adults with initially uncontrolled ACT
METHODS: A total of 495 patients were enrolled in parallel scores showed a significantly larger improvement in the pro-
arms (1:1) for 12 months of monitoring SABA use. Intervention portion with controlled asthma in IG versus RC (63% controlled
group (IG) patients received access to and feedback from the in the study period vs 49%, respectively; P < .05 comparing the
Propeller Health system. Routine care (RC) patients were 2 improvements).
outfitted with sensors but did not receive feedback. Physicians CONCLUSIONS: Compared with RC, the study arm
were able to monitor the status of their patients in the IG and monitoring SABA use with the Propeller Health system
receive proactive notifications. significantly decreased SABA use, increased SABA-free days, and
improved ACT scores (the latter among adults initially lacking
a asthma control). 2015 American Academy of Allergy,
Woodland Clinic Medical Group, Allergy Department, Dignity Health, Woodland,
Calif Asthma & Immunology ( J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2016;-
b
Mercy Medical Group, Allergy Department, Dignity Health, Sacramento, Calif :---)
c
Quade and Associates, Sacramento, Calif
GreenLight Challenge from Dignity Health provided funding for research time, and Key words: Asthma; Telemedicine; SABA monitoring; Propeller
The California HealthCare Foundation provided funding for this study and has Health
made a program-related investment in Propeller Health.
Conflicts of interest: R. K. Merchant has received travel support from the California Asthma is a respiratory disease characterized by variable and
Healthcare Foundation; has received consultancy fees from Teva; and has received
recurring symptoms, airflow obstruction, bronchial hyper-
support from AstraZeneca, Acoustics, and Novartis for research study on asthma.
R. Inamdar has received research support from Dignity Health Medical Founda- responsiveness, and inflammation of the airways. In the United
tion. R. C. Quade has received consultancy fees, payment for writing or reviewing States, an estimated 24.6 million people (8.2%) currently have
the manuscript, and payment for manuscript preparation from California Health- asthma.1
care Foundation.
The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program
Received for publication March 20, 2015; revised November 17, 2015; accepted for
publication November 19, 2015.
(NAEPP) updated clinical guidelines for managing asthma in
Available online -- 2007.2 Available evidence suggests that most people with asthma
Corresponding author: Rajan K. Merchant, MD, Woodland Clinic Medical Group, can be symptom free if they receive appropriate medical care, use
632 W. Gibson Road, Woodland, CA 95695. E-mail: Merchant@dignityhealth. inhaled corticosteroids when prescribed, and modify their envi-
org. ronment to reduce or eliminate exposure to allergens and irritants.3
2213-2198 The current approach to asthma management includes
2015 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology monitoring symptoms, measuring lung function, encouraging
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2015.11.022

1
2 MERCHANT ET AL J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL PRACT
MONTH 2016

educational guidance based on observed morbidity and national

Abbreviations used guidelines.2
ACT- Asthma Control Test Participants were enrolled in parallel arms (1:1) on a rolling basis
MMG- Mercy Medical Group between April 2012 and June 2013 for 12 months of monitoring
NAEPP- National Asthma Education and Prevention Program SABA use to factor for seasonal variations in asthma symptoms.
RC- Routine care Only intervention patients received access to and feedback from the
SABA- Short-acting b-agonist
electronic Propeller Health system. Data from intervention patients
WHC- Woodland Healthcare
were accessible by authorized Dignity Health providers through a
secure online dashboard and electronic notifications. Data from
patients receiving routine care were not provided to patients or their
use of medications that control and prevent symptoms, reducing health care providers.
the triggers of asthma, educating the patient, and maintaining a The Dignity Health Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed
collaborative patient-provider relationship.2 The 2 main goals of and approved this study. The trial is registered at http://clinicaltrials.
therapy are to minimize current impairment and future risk. gov/show/NCT01509183.
Despite evidence of efficacy in improving outcomes, there is
extensive evidence that the NAEPP recommendations are not
Study environment
followed routinely.4,5 Recent surveys show that more than 40%
Woodland Healthcare (WHC) and Mercy Medical Group
of both adults and children in the United States report uncon-
(MMG) are 2 health units of Dignity Health located in Yolo and
trolled asthma.6,7 Explanations include not seeking medical
Sacramento Counties of California’s Central Valley. The imple-
attention appropriately, not receiving optimal care when seen, or
mentation of a population health model at both facilities coincided
both. The traditional approach to improving disease outcomes
has been by one-on-one physician-patient interactions. Delivery with the study. In addition, MMG introduced a pharmacy flag
of asthma care continues to be episodic and regular follow-up model alerting providers on patient request of a third SABA refill.
care, and disease management has been limited in many settings. Referral to the study was primarily through the Allergy Clinic at
The American Thoracic Society guidelines recommend that both locations.
providers monitor the frequency of short-acting b-agonist
(SABA) use as a measure of asthma control.8 In addition, Measures
Healthcare Effectiveness and Data and Information Set National The primary endpoint was reduction in SABA use. SABA inhaler
Committee for Quality Assurance. measures recommending uses during the first week provided a baseline before any Propeller
monitoring medication use have shown improved outcomes.9 reports for individuals in the intervention group. For each partici-
Real-time asthma outreach decreases SABA use.10 Monitoring pant on each day, we tracked the number of SABA inhaler uses. This
SABA use can inform clinical decisions, guide medication ad- information was used to classify each day as SABA free (ie, no SABA
justments, and identify patterns indicating deterioration in use) or not. Participants received the Propeller sensor at intake with
advance of exacerbations requiring acute medical attention. By instructions on how to attach the sensor on their SABA inhaler, sync
using a secure, electronic dashboard, care teams can monitor the the sensor to their communication device, and recharge the sensor.
status of their patients and receive alerts about individuals who
More than half (routine care 54.7%; intervention 57.2%) continued
are decompensating, enabling earlier intervention. Previous pa-
to monitor their SABA use for the full 365 days of the study,
tient reminder systems demonstrated increased patient medica-
whereas 12.7% of participants (routine care 10.6%; intervention
tion adherence, but none have documented improved clinical
14.8%) stopped monitoring within 1 month. Mean days of moni-
outcomes.11 Most current population health strategies have
toring were 271 for the routine care group and 263 for the inter-
focused on asthma registries to identify patients with high levels
vention group.
of utilization.12
We also measured improvement in ACT scores and the pro-
This randomized controlled study evaluated the effectiveness
portion of individuals with controlled asthma. All participants took
of the Propeller Health Platform for asthma management in a
the ACT electronically during intake, and this score became the
real-world outpatient clinic setting to assess the contribution to individual ACT baseline. Follow-up ACTs were completed at 4
asthma control as measured by participants’ SABA use and the months, 8 months, and exit. Chart audits provided 81 scores per-
Asthma Control Test (ACT). formed during office visits to replace missing values. The standard
ACT has been validated for use with subjects at least 12 years of
METHODS age,15 and the Childhood Asthma Control Test has been validated
Propeller Health incorporates a telehealth solution using an FDA- for children between the ages of 4 and 11 years.16 The Spanish
cleared sensor, mobile apps, predictive analytics, and feedback to language version of the ACT has also been validated.17 For all
help patients and providers better understand and control asthma versions of the ACT, higher scores are associated with greater
and other respiratory disease.13,14 The Propeller sensor objectively asthma control.
monitors use of inhaled medications, capturing date, time, and Participant surveys addressed questions of how the information in
number of uses (Figure 1). Actuations that occurred within a 2- Propeller was used, learning about asthma, and interaction with
minute span were counted as a single event, with counts of events providers. Provider surveys asked providers with at least 1 patient in
accumulated per day. The sensor transmits the information via the intervention group to assess usefulness of the Propeller system
Bluetooth to a paired smartphone, which records the location of the and provide information on how the system was used.
event and securely uploads these data to remote servers. The plat- Not all subjects were monitored for the entire 365-day term of
form facilitates appropriate patient self-management by providing a the study, and this attrition both affected the extent of the inter-
data-driven assessment of asthma control and personalized vention and resulted in monotonically missing SABA use data.
J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL PRACT MERCHANT ET AL 3
VOLUME -, NUMBER -

FIGURE 1. The Propeller Health sensor attaches to a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) canister, and pairs with smartphone and web
applications that present visualized data and trends.
TABLE I. Participant characteristics at baseline TABLE II. Numbers of participants beginning and completing
Routine Participants, monitoring by age, initial asthma control, and study arm
care Intervention nroutine/nintervention Completed monitoring
Initial asthma Started
Mean age 36.0 y 36.6 y 245/250 Age control Study arm monitoring (n) (n) (%)
Percent aged under 18 y 30.6% 29.6% 245/250
Adult Uncontrolled Routine care 102 55 54%
Percent male 42.9% 42.0% 245/250
Adult Uncontrolled Intervention 97 55 57%
Mean ACT score—adults 17.7 17.7 200/202
Child Uncontrolled Routine care 34 18 53%
Percent with ACT 43.5% 46.7% 200/202
score >19—adults Child Uncontrolled Intervention 31 15 48%
Mean ACT score—children 19.1 Adult Controlled
18.6 Routine care 73 37 51%45/48
Percent with ACT 48.9% Adult
54.3% Controlled Intervention 78 52 67%45/48
score >19—children Child Controlled Routine care 36 24 67%

Healthcare Initial asthma control as determined by the Asthma Control Test.

Percent Spanish speaking 4.5% 4.4% 245/250 No significant differences were seen between strata, using logistic regression to
model completion in each stratum.
Percent Hispanic* 26.9% 18.8% 245/250
Percent White 43.7% 49.6% 245/250
Percent other ethnicity 16.7% 20.0% 245/250
Percent unknown ethnicity 12.7% 11.6% 245/250
Percent publically insured 33.1% 32.4% 245/250 Mixed-effects regression models18 with random intercepts and
Mean BMI 30.5 30.4 188/187 exchangeable variance-covariance were used to allow a complete
analysis of all of the available longitudinal data and maximize sta-
Percent “normal” 47.0% 54.1% 219/222
blood pressure
tistical power. In addition, mixed-effects models provide valid sta-
tistical inferences in the presence of missing data that can be
Specialist encounters per 169.8 129.0 235/238
100 patients per year explained by covariates in the regression model (ie, time and study
ED visits per 100 patients 4.68 5.04 235/238
arm). Poisson models were used for counts of SABA use, binomial
per year models for SABA-free days and controlled asthma (ie, ACT > 19),
IP admissions per 2.13 0.42 235/238 and linear models for average ACTs. All models included the study
100 patients per year arm, time (ie, baseline vs study period), and the interaction of time
Mean length of stay for 3.6 d 6.0 d 24/13 by the study arm. The latter interaction term is the coefficient of
inpatient care in baseline primary scientific interest, as recommended for analysis of longitu-
Mean utilization cost in $808.34 $572.58 228/218 dinal clinical trials.19
baseline per patient For example, for daily SABA use the following model was fitted:
per year log E Yij ¼ b0 þ b1 Sij þ b2 Tij þ b3 Sij Tij þ mj ;

where E(Yij) denotes the expected value of the ith daily

inpatient. observation of the outcome for individual j, Sij is a binary
*P < .05.
indicator for the study arm, Tij is a binary indicator for the
study time (where 0 indicates the week 1 baseline period, and 1
Statistical tests
The success of randomization was assessed by comparing baseline indicates the week 2-52 study period), and mj is the individual-
characteristics of both study groups using independent samples t-tests specific random intercept. The same parameterization was used
or Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables and c2 tests in the logistic model for SABA-free days.
for categorical variables. There was no blinding on arm assignment. For ACT scores, a similar model was fitted, with the only dif-
Differences between subgroups in the proportion of participants ference that the values of Tij were 0 for the ACTs from visit 1
completing 365 days of monitoring were assessed using logistic (baseline), and 1 for visits 2-4 (study period).
regression with completion as the outcome, and separate coefficients Covariates were included in sensitivity analyses to determine the
for each of the 8 subgroups by age (adult and/or child), initial effects of specialist care, treatment site, and a targeted pharmacy
asthma control (uncontrolled and/or controlled), and study arm initiative at MMG. All analyses were performed using Microsoft
(intervention and/or routine care). Excel and R.20 The ggplot2 R package was used for plotting.21 The
4 MERCHANT ET AL J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL PRACT
MONTH 2016

FIGURE 2. All participants: mean daily short-acting b-agonist (SABA) use per person.

TABLE III. Mean daily SABA us e

Mean daily SABA Mean daily SABA Change from P value comparing
use per person, use per person, baseline to change in routine
Study arm n baseline period study period study period care vs intervention

Whole population Routine care 245 0.50 0.19 0.31

Intervention 250 0.55 0.14 0.41 <.001 ***
Initially uncontrolled Routine care 136 0.71 0.25 0.46
Intervention 128 0.79 0.19 0.60 <.001 ***
Adults, initially uncontrolled Routine care 113 0.78 0.27 0.51
Intervention 106 0.81 0.19 0.62 .004 **
Children, initially uncontrolled Routine care 23 0.34 0.13 0.21
Intervention 22 0.70 0.17 0.53 .02 *
Initially controlled Routine care 109 0.24 0.11 0.13
Intervention 118 0.27 0.09 0.18 .002 **
Adults, initially controlled Routine care 87 0.22 0.10 0.12
Intervention 93 0.25 0.09 0.16 .001 **
Children, initially controlled Routine care 22 0.33 0.13 0.20
Intervention 25 0.33 0.08 0.25 .57

SABA, Short-acting b-agonist.

Initial asthma control as determined by the Asthma Control Test.
Baseline period is study week 1. Study period is study weeks 2-52.
The P value comparing change in routine care vs intervention corresponds to the time by study arm coefficient of a mixed-effects Poisson regression.
*P < .05.
**P < .01.
***P < .001.

22 23
lme4 and lmerTest packages were used for random effect outreach efforts. This approach was slow to yield participants
modeling. A 2-tailed significance level of .05 was used. and recruitment switched to referral from providers, usually
specialists, after 4 months. Inclusion criteria included a current
diagnosis of asthma and a minimum age of 5 years. Patients
RESULTS with significant comorbidities (eg, chronic obstructive
The study recruited 495 participants from the WHC and pulmonary disease) were excluded: this was fewer than 25
MMG units of Dignity Health between April 2012 and June individuals.
2013. Recruitment began with an invitation letter sent to in- Participants were assigned to intervention or routine care
dividuals using an asthma registry and through community arms using a Taves Adaptive Covariate Randomization
J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL PRACT MERCHANT ET AL 5
VOLUME -, NUMBER -

FIGURE 3. All participants: short-acting b-agonist (SABA)-free days.

TABLE IV. SABA-free days

Mean percentage of Mean percentage of P value comparing
SABA-free days, SABA-free days, Change from baseline changes in
Study arm n baseline period study period to study period intervention vs routine care

Whole population Routine care 245 72% 89% þ17%

Intervention 250 70% 91% þ21% .002 **
Initially uncontrolled Routine care 136 63% 86% þ23%
Intervention 128 60% 88% þ28% .02 *
Adults, initially uncontrolled Routine care 113 60% 84% þ24%
Intervention 106 58% 88% þ30% .07
Children, initially uncontrolled Routine care 23 79% 91% þ12%
Intervention 22 71% 90% þ19% .50
Initially controlled Routine care 109 83% 93% þ10%
Intervention 118 82% 94% þ12% .02 *
Adults, initially controlled Routine care 87 83% 93% þ10%
Intervention 93 83% 94% þ11% .12
Children, initially controlled Routine care 22 84% 91% þ7%
Intervention 25 78% 91% þ13% .09

SABA, Short-acting b-agonist.

Initial asthma control as determined by the Asthma Control Test.
Baseline period is study week 1. Study period is weeks 2-52.
The P value comparing change in routine care vs intervention corresponds to the time by study arm coefficient of a mixed-effects logistic regression.
*P < .05.
**P < .01.
Technique24 with 3 stratification factors: age (adult and/or ACT scores for both the baseline visit and at least 1 follow-
child), insurance status (public and/or private), and baseline up visit were provided by 81.0% of participants, and
ACT score (>19, 19). Baseline characteristics are summarized 38.1% completed all 4 ACTs. Table II shows numbers of
in Table I. The routine care arm had a significantly higher participants beginning and completing 365 days of monitoring
proportion of participants identified as Hispanic (P ¼ .031), but by age, initial control, and study arm. No significant differences
no other significant differences between the arms at baseline in completion were seen between subgroups. Consent was
were found. withdrawn by 47 participants (20 routine care; 27 intervention
group).
6 MERCHANT ET AL J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL PRACT
MONTH 2016

days was 92% in the routine care group and 94% in the inter-
vention group (Figure 3).
In subgroup analyses (Table IV), significantly larger im-
provements in the intervention group versus routine care were
seen in both subgroups after stratifying participants into initially
uncontrolled and initially controlled.

Proportions with ACT score > 19

In analyses of the entire study population, similar improve-
ments were seen among patients in the routine care group and
intervention group for the proportion of participants with
controlled ACT scores (þ25 and þ24%, respectively, P ¼ .84;
Figure 4; Table V). At visit 4, the percentage of controlled
participants with an ACT > 19 was 69% in the routine care
group and 73% in the intervention group (Figure 4).
In subgroup analyses, among initially uncontrolled adults,
there was a significantly larger improvement in the intervention
group versus routine care (respectively þ63% controlled in the
study period vs þ49%; P < .05 comparing the 2 improvements;
Figure 5; Table V).
ACT scores
ACT scores were compared separately for adults and children,
because different ACT scales are used for each (Figure 5,
Table VI). Among initially uncontrolled adults, there was a
significantly larger improvement in the intervention group versus
routine care (þ6.2 and þ4.6, respectively, P < .01 comparing
FIGURE 4. All participants: proportions with Asthma Control Test the 2 improvements; Table VI).
(ACT) score > 19.
Covariate-adjusted regression models
The intervention group recorded 18.5% fewer SABA uses over All results comparing the study arms were unchanged after
the study year than the usual care group (10,208 vs 12,523, inclusion of covariates in the mixed-effects regressions.
respectively), as well as 14.9% fewer days with SABA usage
(6508 vs 7651) over a similar number of days of Exit surveys
observation (65,570 vs 66,169). Exit surveys were received from 256 (51.7%) participants and
12 Dignity providers. Survey responses showed that 59% of
intervention group participants reported learning about new
Mean SABA use triggers for their asthma. Overall, 86% of adults and 84% of
In analyses of the entire study population, although patients in children in the study found Propeller reports useful in learning
the routine care group had a substantial improvement (ie, de- more about their asthma.
creases) in daily SABA use between the first study week and the
remainder of the study period (Figure 2; Table III), there was a
significantly larger improvement in the intervention group DISCUSSION
(respectively 0.31 vs 0.41 average SABA uses per person per Asthma prevalence and costs continue to rise nationally,
day; P < .001 comparing the 2 decreases; Table III). In week 52, increasing the importance of tools for improving quality and
average daily SABA use was 0.12 in the routine care group and efficiency. The Propeller Asthma Management Platform provides
0.09 in the intervention group. reports and web-dashboards that display data on frequency,
In subgroup analyses (Table III), the intervention group timing, and location of SABA inhaler use to patients and their
improved significantly more than the routine care group among providers. E-mail notifications or text messages alert individuals
the following types of patients: initially uncontrolled (adults þ and physicians about changes in asthma control based on albu-
children), initially uncontrolled adults, initially uncontrolled terol use. By receiving alerts and monitoring the reports and web-
children, initially controlled (adults þ children), and initially dashboards, providers are better equipped to identify individuals
controlled adults. having acute symptoms and/or persistently uncontrolled symp-
toms, allowing for earlier changes in asthma treatment or
intervention.
SABA-free days The Propeller intervention was implemented for adults and
In analyses of the entire study population, although patients in children aged 5 and above, with and without initial asthma
the routine care group had a substantial improvement in their control, English and Spanish speaking, and both privately and
proportion of SABA-free days between the first study week and publically insured. Within this diverse population, SABA use and
the remainder of the study period (Figure 3; Table IV), there was SABA-free days were significantly improved compared with
a significantly larger improvement in the intervention group routine care. Asthma control improved consistent with a decrease
(respectively þ17% vs þ21%; P < .01 comparing the 2 im- in SABA use. Adults who began the study without asthma
provements; Table IV). In week 52, proportion of SABA-free
 J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL PRACT MERCHANT ET AL 7
VOLUME -, NUMBER -

TABLE V. Percentage of participants with controlled asthma

Percentage with Percentage with P value comparing
controlled asthma, controlled asthma, Change from baseline changes in
Study arm N baseline period study period to study period intervention vs routine care
Whole population Routine care 245 44% 69% þ25%
Intervention 250 48% 72% þ24% .84
Initially uncontrolled Routine care 136 0% 54% þ54%
Intervention 128 0% 62% þ62% .13
Adults, initially uncontrolled Routine care 113 0% 49% þ49%
Intervention 106 0% 63% þ63% .02 *
Children, initially uncontrolled Routine care 23 0% 71% þ71%
Intervention 22 0% 59% þ59% .32
Initially controlled Routine care 109 100% 87% 13%
Intervention 118 100% 82% 18% .24
Adults, initially controlled Routine care 87 100% 86% 14%
Intervention 93 100% 83% 17% .52
Children, initially controlled Routine care 22 100% 89% 11%
Intervention 25 100% 77% 23% .10

Asthma control as determined by the Asthma Control Test.

Baseline period is visit 1 (enrollment). Study period is visits 2-4.
The P value comparing change in routine care vs intervention corresponds to the time by study arm coefficient of a mixed-effects logistic regression.
*P < .05.

FIGURE 5. Mean ACT scores for adults and children with initially uncontrolled ACTs.

control and were receiving the Propeller intervention had testing, monitoring of SABA refills, and referral to specialty care.
significantly greater improvement compared with routine care. All patients in the study continued to receive routine care by
their physicians, and were seen to receive higher levels of
Limitations outpatient care compared with national averages. In addition,
The Propeller Asthma Management Platform was just one of electronic monitoring cannot be divorced from the Hawthorne
multiple coincident efforts to improve asthma care, including effect25 as routine-care-group subjects may have changed their
implementation of an asthma registry, emphasis on ACT health behaviors as a result of being in an unblinded study using
8 MERCHANT ET AL J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL PRACT
MONTH 2016

TABLE VI. ACT scores

Mean ACT score, Mean ACT score, Change from baseline P value comparing changes
Study arm n baseline period study period to study period in intervention vs routine care

Adults, initially uncontrolled Routine care 113 14.2 18.8 þ4.6

Intervention 106 13.8 20.0 þ6.2 .009 *
Children, initially uncontrolled Routine care 23 15.0 21.0 þ6.0
Intervention 22 15.1 20.0 þ4.9 .40
Adults, initially controlled Routine care 87 22.2 21.9 0.3
Intervention 93 22.1 22.2 þ0.1 .45
Children, initially controlled Routine care 22 23.3 22.7 0.6
Intervention 25 21.6 21.4 0.2 .71

ACT, Asthma Control Test.

Initial asthma control as determined by ACT.
Baseline period is visit 1 (enrollment). Study period is visits 2-4.
The P value comparing change in routine care vs intervention corresponds to the time by study arm coefficient of a mixed-effects linear regression.
Results shown only separately for adults and children, due to different ACT scales for each.
*P < .01.

a monitoring device. These factors may explain the reduction of reductions by the second week and corresponding increases in
SABA use and subsequent improvement in asthma control for the proportion of SABA-free days, with continued reduction in
the routine care group. However, statistically significantly SABA use throughout the study. The improvements for the
greater improvements were seen for the intervention group routine care group were not anticipated, but may have been the
relative to the control group, and this effect was unchanged by result of a variety of factors including the implementation of a
adjustment for the coincident efforts to improve asthma care in population health model and increased ACT testing. Recruit-
multivariable regression. The study did not track controller ment based on provider referral may also have resulted in
medications, so proportions with prescriptions for controller attracting participants who were near the beginning of an
medications, controller medication adherence, and education increasing level of care, and the average participant had more
about controller medication use were not measured during the than 1.6 specialist encounters during the study period. These
study. factors would have affected both the intervention and routine
In addition, there was a learning curve for providers as they care groups, but participants receiving the Propeller intervention
began to use the Propeller Health information in the absence of had significantly greater gains in mean SABA use and the pro-
predeveloped protocols. The physician dashboard for remote portion of SABA-free days.
monitoring may have been underutilized because it was not Electronic monitoring of inhaler use has been found to yield
incorporated within the Dignity Health EMR system. Children
more accurate information than does self-reporting,26 and the
in the study received reports and feedback in the same format as
did adults. These factors may have limited the benefit in the Propeller Health system delivers this information in real time.
intervention group. The availability of accurate information on SABA use has im-
Finally, attrition was higher than expected in both arms. plications for treatment burden, clinician prescribing practices,
Propeller technology deployed early in the study had limited and cost. Informal feedback from primary care providers indi-
battery life and syncing challenges that may have limited the cated that Propeller information was used to identify patients to
potential benefit of monitoring. We also believe that patients refer to specialists for more intense management, and this type
may have become less diligent regarding sensor maintenance as of stratification evolved as a valuable use of the system. As the
their asthma control improved. Additional features and en- study progressed, providers found that they were able to use
hancements released since this trial began include extending Propeller information to track patient progress without the
battery life, monitoring controller medication adherence, and need for office visits as long as patients maintained their
increasing capability for parents to track children’s medication sensors. Combining this system with monitoring of
use. controller medication adherence may improve asthma control
further.
Interpretation
The Propeller Asthma Management system was launched in
2010, providing a new tool to improve asthma care. Real-time CONCLUSIONS
data on SABA use deliver information allowing patients and The Propeller Health Asthma Platform provides a compre-
providers to identify triggers and incipient exacerbations, and to hensive tool for monitoring and feedback. Patients using this tool
determine if management plans are working. Research on the had greater improvement in SABA-free days and greater re-
system is limited, but studies have shown decreases in SABA use ductions in SABA use than did patients in the routine care arm,
whereas adults with initially uncontrolled asthma using this tool
associated with the Propeller system.13,14
had greater improvements in ACT scores. We believe that there
Decreases in SABA use were observed immediately in this is potential for improved care and efficiency to be delivered via
study, with both intervention and routine care participants seeing telehealth.
 J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL PRACT MERCHANT ET AL 9
VOLUME -, NUMBER -

25. Apter A, Wang X, Bogen D, Rand C, McElligott S, Polsky D, et al. Problem

Acknowledgments\ solving to improve adherence and asthma outcomes in urban adults with
We would like to thank the following individuals for assis- moderate or server asthma: a randomized controlled trial. J Allergy Clin
tance: Dr. Michael Patmas, Dr. Leonard Smith, Rich Roth Chief Immunol 2011;128:516-23.
Strategic Information Officer Dignity Health, Neil Pearl Direc- 26. Daniels T, Goodacre L, Sutton C, Pollard K, Conway S, Peckhan D. Accurate
tor of Business Intelligence Dignity Health, and Kenneth Huang assessment of adherence: self-report and clinician report vs electronic moni-
Clinical Informaticist Dignity Health. toring of nebulizers. Chest 2011;140:425-32.

REFERENCES
1. Bateman ED, Barnes PJ, Bousquet J, Drazen JM, FitzGerald M. Global strategy
for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary. Eur Respir
J 2008;31:143-78.
2. National Heart, Blood, and Lung Institute Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR 3):
Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. NIH Publication no.
08-4051; 2007.
3. Okelo S, Butz A, Sharma R, Diette G, Pitts S, King T, et al. Interventions to
Modify Health Care Provider Adherence to Asthma Guidelines. Baltimore, MD:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.
4. Wisnivesky J, Lorenzo J, Lyn-Cook R, Newman T, Aponte A, Kiefer E, et al.
Barriers to adherence to asthma management guidelines among inner-city pri-
mary care providers. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008;101:264-70.
5. Halterman J, Aligne CA, Auinger P, McBride JT, Szilagyi PG. Inadequate
therapy for asthma among children in the United States. Pediatrics 2000;105:
272-6.
6. Fuhlbrigge A, Reed M, Stempel D, Ortega H, Fanjing K, Stanford R. The status
of asthma control in the U.S. adult population. Allergy Asthma Proc 2009;30:
529-33.
7. Liu A, Gilsenan A, Stanford R, Lincourt W, Ziemiecki R, Ortega H. Status of
asthma contol in pediatric primary care: results from the Pediatric Asthma Control
Characteristics and Prevalence Survey (ACCESS). J Pediatr 2010;157:276-81.
8. Reddel H, Taylor D, Bateman E, Boulet LP, Boushey H, Busse W, et al. An
official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement:
asthma control and exacerbations—standardizing endpoints for clinical
asthma trials and clinical practice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;180:
59-99.
9. Grant R, Bowen S, Neidell M, Prinz T, Redlener I. Health care savings
attributable to integrating guidelines-based asthma care in the pediatric medical
home. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2010;21(Suppl):82-92.
10. Zeiger R, Schatz M, Li Q, Zazzali J, Chen W. Real-time asthma outreach re-
duces excessive short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) canister dispensing: a ran-
domized study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2014;2:445-56.

11. Tran N, Coffman J, Sumino K, Cabana M. Patient reminder systems and asthma
medication adherence: a systematic review. J Asthma 2014;51:536-43.
12. Schatz M, Zeiger R. Improving asthma outcomes in large populations. J Allergy
Clin Immunol 2011;128:273-7.
13. Van Sickle D, Magzamen S, Truelove S, Morrison T. Remote monitoring of
inhaled bronchodilator use and weekly feedback about asthma management: an
open-group, short-term study of the impact on asthma control. PLoS One 2013;
8:e55335.
14. Van Sickle D, Maenner M, Barrett M, Marcus J. Monitoring improving
compliance and asthma control: mapping inhaler use for feedback to patients,
physicians and payers. Respir Drug Delivery Europe 2013;1:1-12.
15. Nathan R, Sorkness C, Kosinski M, Schatz M, Li J, Marcus P, et al. Devel-
opment of the asthma control test: a survey for assessing asthma control.
J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113:59-65.
16. Liu A, Zeiger R, Sorkness C, Mahr T, Ostrom N, Burgess S, et al. Development
and cross-sectional validation of the Childhood Asthma Control Test. J Allergy
Clin Immunol 2011;119:818-25.
17. Vega J, Badia X, Badiola C, Lopez-Vina A, Olaguibel J, Picado C, et al.
Validation of the Spanish version of the Asthma Control Test (ACT). J Asthma
2007;44:867-72.
18. Gibbons R, Hedeker D, DuToit S. Advances in analysis of longitudinal data.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2010;6:79-107.
19. Fitzmaurice GM, Ravichandran C. A primer in longitudinal data analysis.
Circulation 2008;118:2005-10.
20. Team, R. Core. “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Vienna, Austria; 2014.” http://www.R-project.org (2015).
21. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New
York; 2009.
22. Douglas Bates, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, Steve Walker. Fitting Linear
Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software. 2015;67(1):
1-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
23. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest: Tests in Linear
Mixed Effects Models. R Package Version 2.0-25; 2015.
24. Kang M, Ragan B, Park J. Issues in outcomes research: an overview of
randomization techniques for clinical trials. J Athl Train 2008;43:215-21.
 \
LATAR BELAKANG: Strategi telehealth
untuk asma telah difokuskan terutama pada
kepatuhan terhadap obat pengendali.
Telemonitoring short-acting b-agonist
(SABA) berfokus pada pola penggunaan dan
dapat memungkinkan tindakan yang lebih
tepat untuk menghindari eksakerbasi. Studi
menilai pendekatan ini kurang.