Addiction Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Centre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NF, United Kingdom.
Alcohol Alcohol. 2024 Jan 11;59(1). doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agad068.
The development of transdermal alcohol sensors (TASs) presents a new method to monitor alcohol consumption with the ability to objectively measure data 24/7. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of two TASs (BACtrack Skyn and Smart Start BARE) in a laboratory setting. Thirty-two adults received a dose of ethanol 0.56 g/kg body weight as a 20% solution while wearing the two TASs and provided Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC) measurements for 3.5 h postalcohol consumption. Pearson's correlations and repeated measures analysis of variance tests were conducted on the peak, time-to-peak, and area under the curve data. Bland-Altman plots were derived. A time series analysis and cross-correlations were conducted to adjust for time lag. Both TASs were able to detect alcohol and increase within 20 min. BrAC peaked significantly quicker than Skyn and BARE. BrAC and Skyn peaks were negatively significantly correlated (r = -0.381, P = .035, n = 31), while Skyn and BARE peaks were positively significantly correlated (r = 0.380, P = .038, n = 30). Repeated measures analysis of variance found a significant difference between BrAC, Skyn, and BARE (F(1.946, 852.301) = 459.873, P < .001)). A time series analysis found when BrAC-Skyn and BrAC-BARE were adjusted for the delay to peak, and there was still a significant difference. Failure rates: 1.7% (Skyn) and 4.8% (BARE). Some evidence was obtained for TAS validity as both consistently detected alcohol. Failure rates and time lag show improvements in older device generations. However, neither TAS presented strong equivalence to the breathalyser even when the lag time was adjusted. With further testing and technology advancements, TAS could be a potential alcohol monitoring tool. Two of the newest TAS devices were worn in laboratory conditions for one afternoon to compare their accuracy of alcohol monitoring to a breathalyser. Findings suggest that the two TASs (BACtrack Skyn and SmartStart BARE) recorded significantly similar data postalcohol consumption, but not with the breathalyser.
我们旨在评估两种经皮酒精传感器（TAS）在实验室环境中的准确性，这些传感器可以通过客观测量数据 24/7 来提供监测酒精消耗的新方法。32 名成年人在饮用 0.56 g/kg 体重的 20%乙醇溶液后，佩戴两种 TAS 并在饮酒后 3.5 小时内提供呼吸酒精浓度（BrAC）测量值。对峰值、达峰时间和曲线下面积数据进行 Pearson 相关性和重复测量方差分析检验。得出 Bland-Altman 图。进行时间序列分析和互相关分析以调整时间滞后。两种 TAS 均能在 20 分钟内检测到酒精并使其升高。BrAC 比 Skyn 和 BARE 更快达到峰值。BrAC 和 Skyn 峰值呈负显著相关（r = -0.381，P = 0.035，n = 31），而 Skyn 和 BARE 峰值呈正显著相关（r = 0.380，P = 0.038，n = 30）。重复测量方差分析发现 BrAC、Skyn 和 BARE 之间存在显著差异（F(1.946, 852.301) = 459.873，P < 0.001））。时间序列分析发现，当 BrAC-Skyn 和 BrAC-BARE 被调整为达到峰值的延迟时，仍然存在显著差异。失败率：1.7%（Skyn）和 4.8%（BARE）。有证据表明 TAS 具有有效性，因为两种传感器都能持续检测到酒精。失败率和时间滞后显示了较旧设备的改进。然而，即使调整了滞后时间，这两种 TAS 与呼气酒精计相比都没有表现出很强的等效性。随着进一步的测试和技术进步，TAS 可能成为一种潜在的酒精监测工具。在实验室环境中，佩戴了两种最新的 TAS 设备一个下午，以比较它们对呼气酒精计的酒精监测准确性。结果表明，两种 TAS（BACtrack Skyn 和 SmartStart BARE）在饮酒后记录的数据非常相似，但与呼气酒精计不同。
