Apple Watch Blood Pressure Feature Hits More Snags in Apple's Testing

[Howard2k]

I do, yes. As “trending data” is of no use to either the individual or a cohort. It’s very easy to become obsessed with meaningless data points instead of a more holistic picture of health.

But what if future tech and research makes is more useful? ML and AI might be able to mine more data from Sp02 in conjunction with other metrics that the watch collects (and collected by future watches).

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. The data is there and you can choose not to look at it. But you can't choose to go back in time and collect it if it becomes more useful.

 

[stocklen]

Funny isn't it.

Guess along with Gurman once again and no consequences for getting things wrong again and again.

But, ever thought about this? Its people like Gurman who profit from guessing and speculation and that in turn sets consumer expectation for things.

Prime example is the unannounced, unreleased, completely potentially fictional 'Apple Home Controller with Screen thingy'. According to Gurman it was a real thing and down to his speculative announcements it was reported on with increasing confidence until it became a THING and then..... when it wasn't released 'in March' as Gurman said it would it is no longer a thing at all.... and people are disappointed in a 'missed' release that Apple may well have never intended to release at the very least in March.

So, Apple Watch with Hypertension indication - again no official word from Apple of course and the fact this 'was missed from the series 10' and 'was due on the series 11 and now may no' are complete and utter speculation and I hope people don't hold Apple to things that they never announced or promised in the first place.

 

[Veinticinco]

But what if future tech and research makes is more useful? ML and AI might be able to mine more data from Sp02 in conjunction with other metrics that the watch collects (and collected by future watches).

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. The data is there and you can choose not to look at it. But you can't choose to go back in time and collect it if it becomes more useful.

The most crucial aspect of obtaining clinical data is the protocol you design to test it. How a study is powered is literally the difference between the data being valuable or worthless.

There is a big misunderstanding of the difference between what you’re suggesting, which is collecting a registry of data for passive retrospective viewing only, and the active monitoring and long-term follow-up of patients and outcomes, based on a clear hypothesis. Would the use of this data set be able to even remotely demonstrate the benefit or change in morbidity or economic burden of patients with say, undiagnosed sleep apnoea in this particular example? No.

 

[Howard2k]

Funny isn't it.

Guess along with Gurman once again and no consequences for getting things wrong again and again.

But, ever thought about this? Its people like Gurman who profit from guessing and speculation and that in turn sets consumer expectation for things.

Prime example is the unannounced, unreleased, completely potentially fictional 'Apple Home Controller with Screen thingy'. According to Gurman it was a real thing and down to his speculative announcements it was reported on with increasing confidence until it became a THING and then..... when it wasn't released 'in March' as Gurman said it would it is no longer a thing at all.... and people are disappointed in a 'missed' release that Apple may well have never intended to release at the very least in March.

So, Apple Watch with Hypertension indication - again no official word from Apple of course and the fact this 'was missed from the series 10' and 'was due on the series 11 and now may no' are complete and utter speculation and I hope people don't hold Apple to things that they never announced or promised in the first place.

Those people don't know the difference between a rumour and an official announcement.

 

[Howard2k]

The most crucial aspect of obtaining clinical data is the protocol you design to test it. How a study is powered is literally the difference between the data being valuable or worthless.

There is a big misunderstanding of the difference between what you’re suggesting, which is collecting a registry of data for passive retrospective viewing only, and the active monitoring and long-term follow-up of patients and outcomes, based on a clear hypothesis. Would the use of this data set be able to even remotely demonstrate the benefit or change in morbidity or economic burden of patients with say, undiagnosed sleep apnoea in this particular example? No.

For sure, there's a difference between a controlled study and "best effort data collection" for specific patient diagnosis.

All the same, Apple has participated in, and continues to participate in, health studies that use the Watch for the collection and analytics of health data.

The Apple Heart Study had more than 400,000 participants and helped shape Afib detection, for example, and it's one of several studies that Apple and Apple users have participated in.

So it seems that yes, this information is still useful, perhaps not all data all the time, but it still seems like it's better to have this collection mechanism than not have it. At least from Apple's perspective and from a general research perspective.

 

[Veinticinco]

For sure, there's a difference between a controlled study and "best effort data collection" for specific patient diagnosis.

All the same, Apple has participated in, and continues to participate in, health studies that use the Watch for the collection and analytics of health data.

The Apple Heart Study had more than 400,000 participants and helped shape Afib detection, for example, and it's one of several studies that Apple and Apple users have participated in.

So it seems that yes, this information is still useful, perhaps not all data all the time, but it still seems like it's better to have this collection mechanism than not have it. At least from Apple's perspective and from a general research perspective.

I was thinking of the Heart study as a counterpoint when I posted, but don’t forget, the AW ECG app was FDA-approved as a screening tool, and AF is a much clearer parameter of long-term cardiac health (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) than SpO2 is in pulmonary or ENT.

 

[Student of Life]

Unless Apple have signed license agreement with a company that hold patents for blood pressure measuring/monitoring then I doubt a blood pressure version of the watch will last long because someone who hold patents on blood pressure measuring/monitoring will claim Apple stole/infringed on their patents.

You basically described a patent troll. Those patents tend to get thrown out or invalidated because they have no backing, they are just a concept of plan.

 

[laptech]

You basically described a patent troll. Those patents tend to get thrown out or invalidated because they have no backing, they are just a concept of plan.

Wrong. When Apple introduced their heart monitor feature into the Apple watch a company that has been making their own specialized heart monitor devices for years, way before Apple even thought of the idea for their watch, they sued Apple for patent infringement and won.

There are hundreds of companies making blood pressure monitoring/measuring devices and have been doing so for decades and I bet one or two of them are patent holders for devices they make and have licensed their patents to other companies so they can make their own versions. Apple is a company known for not wanting to pay patent licenses. They will either buy the company that owns the patent or they will take the company to court to try and get the patents invalidated.

Apple tried this with Qualcomm and with the company that owns the heart monitoring patents.

 

[jz0309]

No other information was provided on the issues Apple is having.

This says it all, he has no idea and is just throwing this out to cover his a$&.
We’re about 6 months from launch, prototyping long over…
Whatever Gurman…

 

[jz0309]

Agreed. Accurate BP reading is notoriously difficult to achieve, and even more so at wrist level. Even the large wrist cuff based ones have historically been less accurate than arm cuff models. I don’t see why anyone who has, or is concerned about, hypertension should trust any watch-sized device used for this purpose.

Do you still put a thermometer in your rear to get Ana curate temperature reading?

 

[jz0309]

Is this even possible in the current technological approach? I’m not sure it is.

Reading blood pressure accurately requires certain physical interventions that are not accounted for with an optical sensor on the back of a watch.

Anything less than an accurate reading is not particularly useful.

Yea, just like the old method of checking your temperature by putting a thermometer in your behind…
Yup, technology is not advancing, it’s all hype…
Whatever works for you

 

[spazzcat]

Maybe next year or next next year

At some point, people need to realize Gurman just makes stuff up. There was a time when he got leaks, but those days have passed.

 

[tgwaste]

Can't they just ask ChatGPT to make it?

 

[Mr_Ed]

Yea, just like the old method of checking your temperature by putting a thermometer in your behind…
Yup, technology is not advancing, it’s all hype…
Whatever works for you

Do you still put a thermometer in your rear to get Ana curate temperature reading?

As soon as a wearable tech company (Apple, Garmin, Samsung, etc.) actually delivers a fully featured, normally sized smartwatch with BP monitoring that:

1. Doesn’t have disclaimers about use as a medical device in the product marketing, the instruction manual, or in the app itself.
2. Doesn’t require regular calibration against an actual certified pressure cuff-based BP monitor.
3. Doesn’t have a built-in inflatable cuff.
4. Doesn’t lack the necessary regulatory certifications for use as a medical device.

I’ll happily give it serious consideration.

Easy-peasy!

 

[jz0309]

As soon as a wearable tech company (Apple, Garmin, Samsung, etc.) actually delivers a fully featured, normally sized smartwatch with BP monitoring that:

1. Doesn’t have disclaimers about use as a medical device in the product marketing, the instruction manual, or in the app itself.
2. Doesn’t require regular calibration against an actual certified pressure cuff-based BP monitor.
3. Doesn’t have a built-in inflatable cuff.
4. Doesn’t lack the necessary regulatory certifications for use as a medical device.

I’ll happily give it serious consideration.

Easy-peasy!

so for you: never, sorry to say.
AW will highly unlikely ever become a medical device.

 

[iBreatheApple]

lol. All the things I care most about from apple nothing but bad news.

1. Spotify on HomePod (they’re both guilty regardless of who says who has the ball in their court)
2. SirAI
3. BP on watch
4. CarPlay 2
5. Homepod with screen / Amazon Echo killer

 

[mlayer]

Had a stroke seven years ago. As part rehabbing I got two digital monitors, one for the upper arm and another for the wrist - for traveling. The wrist monitor was wildly inaccurate compared to the upper arm. I told my doctor this and he explained that it's tougher to get a good reading at the extremities, which makes sense (it was routinely 10-15% lower on both counts). Unfortunately, guess where your Apple Watch is located? Same place as a wrist cuff. Once I learned how that works my enthusiasm for an Apple Watch solution waned. If Apple can figure this out great, if not I have a solution that works and has an app for logging.

 

[Mr_Ed]

so for you: never, sorry to say.
AW will highly unlikely ever become a medical device.

Glad we agree.

 

[Doomtomb]

Mark Guessman doesn't know either

 

[Momof2.1107]

I posted about this in a previous thread months ago when Apple first realised it couldn't currently do blood pressure monitoring with a watch.

There's very few wrist-worn devices which can "measure" blood pressure and they all require regular calibration with a proper blood pressure monitor. The devices can only record changes - is blood pressure going up, down or staying roughly the same.

Aktia is one of the few (only one?) to be clinically validated, and every website keeps it rather quiet that it comes with an arm-cuff bpm which is required to be used "at least once per month" according to instructions.

I’m impatiently waiting for Aktia to come to the US. At this point, it feels like it may never.

 

[svish]

Disappointing. Looks like the feature is not going to be on an Apple watch anytime soon and even when it comes it might not provide accurate readings.

 

[laptech]

In my opinion a company called AKTIIA (https://aktiia.com/uk/) will be keeping a close eye on this BP (blood pressure) feature of the Apple watch because they themselves have a 'watch' like wrist wearable BP device with an iphone and android app to go with it. Searching on google there are a number of other companies that make wrist wearable BP devices, some are small devices like AKTIIA and others are slightly bigger BUT the fact is there are existing BP wrist wearable devices out there on the market which means there has to be already existing patents for wrist wearable BP devices and patents that cover how the sensors in those devices work.

So, unless Apple has signed up to license to use these prior existing patents I envision that as soon as they have a finished product and put it out for sale they will be hit with a law suit from one or more of the companies that already make wrist wearable BP devices.

 

[adrianlondon]

I’m impatiently waiting for Aktia to come to the US. At this point, it feels like it may never.

I borrowed one from a doctor friend just over a year ago (as part of a master's degree in medical informatics) and it worked well enough.

I calibrated it every week, and then it'd track my blood pressure at random intervals. It was useful to have some stats about how it varied during the day/night, but as my blood pressure seems normal once the month was up I wasn't bothered to buy my own.

You could buy it in Canada or have someone buy it and send it to you? https://aktiia.com/ca/

 

[iBreatheApple]

so for you: never, sorry to say.
AW will highly unlikely ever become a medical device.

Glad we agree.

Not sure how you are defining “medical device” because for me, medical and health are heavily interrelated. Even in iOS 11 apple themselves touted this as a powerful “health and fitness” device with a “vitals” app. Health and medical are fairly synonymous, so Apple disagrees with your sentiment.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Not sure how you are defining “medical device” because for me, medical and health are heavily interrelated. Even in iOS 11 apple themselves touted this as a powerful “health and fitness” device with a “vitals” app. Health and medical are fairly synonymous, so Apple disagrees with your sentiment. View attachment 2495877

We are specifically discussing the blood pressure monitoring function. Given the current state of technology, using a watch worn on top of your wrist to monitor trends in things like sleep, heart rate, temperature, or oxygen level, for example, is fine. I currently do this with my Garmin watch. Unless you are in the middle of a medical emergency, there are no serious consequences if the measured HR is off by 10%, or your temperature measurement is off by a degree, or your oxygen level measurement is off by a couple of points, especially if the delta is consistent. Example: my watch consistently reads blood oxygen 4-5 points lower than a monitor attached to my finger. It says “95%”, I know that is 99%.

Blood pressure measurement is an entirely different animal, and simply saying “we don’t put thermometers in our butts anymore either” to imply otherwise (as was done by the poster I responded to) trivializes the implications. As someone who does monitor BP at home, any device that leaves much doubt about accuracy and consistency in that measurement is basically useless. So, for that function, yes, I want medical device-level of consistency and accuracy.