A randomized cross-over trial investigating differences in 24-h personal air and skin temperatures using wearable sensors between two climatologically contrasting settings

Abstract

The influence of elevated air temperatures recorded in various urban microenvironments in adversely impacting biologically relevant disease end points has not yet been extensively tackled. This study is a post hoc analysis of the TEMP pilot trial, a randomized 2 × 2 cross-over trial that examined changes in metabolic and stress hormonal profiles of healthy adults in two settings (urban vs. rural) with distinctly different climatological characteristics during the Mediterranean summer. This analysis aimed to study the association between the 24-h personal air or skin temperature sensor measurements and the diary-based location type (indoors vs. outdoors) in urban (seaside) vs. rural (higher in altitude) microenvironments. Out of 41 eligible participants, a total of 37 participants were included in this post-hoc TEMP trial analysis. Wearable sensors recorded personal air temperature, skin temperature, and activity (as a surrogate marker of physical activity) in each setting, while a time-stamped personal diary recorded the types of indoor or outdoor activities. Temperature peaks during the 24-h sampling period were detected using a peak finding algorithm. Mixed effect logistic regression models were fitted for the odds of participant location (being indoors vs. outdoors) as a function of setting (urban vs. rural) and sensor-based personal temperature data (either raw temperature values or number of temperature peaks). During the study period (July–end of September), median [interquartile range, IQR] personal air temperature in the rural (higher altitude) settings was 1.5 °C lower than that in the urban settings (27.1 °C [25.4, 29.2] vs. 28.6 °C [27.1, 30.5], p < 0.001), being consistent with the Mediterranean climate. Median [IQR] personal air temperature in indoor (micro)environments was lower than those in outdoors (28.0 °C [26.4, 30.3] vs 28.5 °C [26.8, 30.7], p < 0.001). However, median [IQR] skin temperature was higher in indoor (micro)environments vs. outdoors (34.8 °C [34.0, 35.6] and 33.9 °C [32.9, 34.8], p < 0.001) and the number of both personal air and skin temperature peaks was higher indoors compared to outdoors (median [IQR] 3.0 [2.0,4.0] vs 1.0 [1.0,1.3], p < 0.007, for the skin sensors). A significant association between the number of temperature peaks and indoor location types was observed with either the personal air sensor (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.2–8.2; p = 0.02) or the skin sensor (OR 3.7; 95% CI 1.4–9.9; p = 0.01), suggesting higher number of indoor air temperature fluctuations. Amidst the global climate crisis, more population health studies or personalized medicine approaches that utilize continuous tracking of individual-level air/skin temperatures in both indoor/outdoor locations would be warranted, if we were to better characterize the disease phenotype in response to climate change manifestations.