Suchergebnisse

Abstract The benefits of daily-living physical activity are clear. Nonetheless, the relationship between physical activity levels and motor subtypes of Parkinson's disease (PD), i.e., tremor dominant (TD) and postural instability gait difficulty (PIGD), have not been well-studied. It is also unclear if patient perspectives and motor symptom severity are related to objective, sensor-based assessment of daily-living activity in those subtypes. To address these questions, total daily-living physical activity was quantified in 73 patients with PD and 29 healthy controls using a 3D-accelerometer worn on the lower back for at least three days. We found that individuals with the PIGD subtype were significantly less active than healthy older adults (p = 0.007), unlike individuals with the TD subtype. Among the PIGD subtype, higher daily physical activity was negatively associated with more severe ON bradykinesia (rS = -0.499, p = 0.002), motor symptoms (higher ON MDS-UPDRS (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor examination)-III scores), gait difficulties (rS = -0.502, p = 0.002), motor complications (rS = 0.466, p = 0.004), and balance (rS = 0.519, p = 0.001). In contrast, among the TD subtype, disease-related characteristics were not related to daily-living physical activity. Intriguingly, physical activity was not related to self-report of ADL difficulties (scores of the MDS-UPDRS Parts I or II) in both motor subtypes. These findings highlight the importance of objective daily-living physical activity monitoring and suggest that self-report does not necessarily reflect objective physical activity levels. Furthermore, the results point to important differences in factors related to physical activity in PD motor subtypes, setting the stage for personalized treatment programs. This work was supported by the Mobilise-D project that has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 820820. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's ...

Summary: Mobile health technologies (wearable, portable, body-fixed sensors, or domestic-integrated devices) that quantify mobility in unsupervised, daily living environments are emerging as complementary clinical assessments. Data collected in these ecologically valid, patient-relevant settings can overcome limitations of conventional clinical assessments, as they capture fluctuating and rare events. These data could support clinical decision making and could also serve as outcomes in clinical trials. However, studies that directly compared assessments made in unsupervised and supervised (eg, in the laboratory or hospital) settings point to large disparities, even in the same parameters of mobility. These differences appear to be affected by psychological, physiological, cognitive, environmental, and technical factors, and by the types of mobilities and diagnoses assessed. To facilitate the successful adaptation of the unsupervised assessment of mobility into clinical practice and clinical trials, clinicians and researchers should consider these disparities and the multiple factors that contribute to them. This work was supported by the Mobilise-D project that has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 820820. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Content in this publication reflects the authors' view and neither IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

INTRODUCTION: Existing mobility endpoints based on functional performance, physical assessments and patient self-reporting are often affected by lack of sensitivity, limiting their utility in clinical practice. Wearable devices including inertial measurement units (IMUs) can overcome these limitations by quantifying digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) both during supervised structured assessments and in real-world conditions. The validity of IMU-based methods in the real-world, however, is still limited in patient populations. Rigorous validation procedures should cover the device metrological verification, the validation of the algorithms for the DMOs computation specifically for the population of interest and in daily life situations, and the users' perspective on the device. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was designed to establish the technical validity and patient acceptability of the approach used to quantify digital mobility in the real world by Mobilise-D, a consortium funded by the European Union (EU) as part of the Innovative Medicine Initiative, aiming at fostering regulatory approval and clinical adoption of DMOs. After defining the procedures for the metrological verification of an IMU-based device, the experimental procedures for the validation of algorithms used to calculate the DMOs are presented. These include laboratory and real-world assessment in 120 participants from five groups: healthy older adults; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, proximal femoral fracture and congestive heart failure. DMOs extracted from the monitoring device will be compared with those from different reference systems, chosen according to the contexts of observation. Questionnaires and interviews will evaluate the users' perspective on the deployed technology and relevance of the mobility assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been granted ethics approval by the centre's committees (London—Bloomsbury Research Ethics committee; Helsinki Committee, Tel Aviv ...