Authors: Nuria Caballol 1,2, Ana Prats 1, Paola Quispe 1, Maria Angels Ranchal 1, Sheila Alcaine 1, Ferran Fondevilla 1, Àngels Bayés 1
1Centro Médico Teknon-Grupo Quirón Salud, Parkinson Unit, Barcelona, Spain, 2Consorci Sanitari Integral, Hospital de Sant Joan Despí Moisés Broggi, Sant Joan Despí, Spain
Objective: To assess the utility of a wearable inertial sensor for detecting motor complications in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and its usability.
Background: Identifying motor complications (MC) in daily clinical practice can be challenging and time consuming. Currently, there are wearable inertial sensor devices which have demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of motor states and MC that may be useful in clinical practice.
Methods: PD patients diagnosed with PD according to the UK PD Society Brain Bank criteria who routinely visited the Teknon Clinic movement disorders unit were prospectively recruited. Clinical information regarding MC was assessed by UPDRS-IV and clinical evaluation by a PD specialist, before and after wearing the sensor. Patients wore the sensor for one week while doing their daily activities. System Usability Scale (SUS) and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST) scales were used to assess usability of the device.
Results: Thirty-nine patients were included in the study (69±8 years old, 56% males). The mean PD duration was 7±3.9 years and the mean of UPDRS-III ON score was 20.8 ± 9.3. Most of the patients (87%) were in stages 2 and 2.5 of Hoehn and Yahr. All the patients were taking levodopa while 64% received also a dopamine agonist, 64% MAO-B inhibitors, 38% COMT inhibitors and 2% amantadine. Levodopa total daily dose was 565 ± 248 mg.
Seventy-four percent of the patients reported having motor fluctuations (MF), whilst 31% FoG and 54% dyskinesia. According to the information provided by the sensor, 100% of the patients had MF, 61% FoG and 79% dyskinesia. The percentage of patients who reported having MF increased after returning the device (79%). Moreover, according to the PD specialist experience, all patients who still reported not having MF actually presented with them when analyzing clinical symptoms and data provided by the sensor.
Level of satisfaction of the device was high according to QUEST scale. All items scored between 4 “quite satisfied” and 5 “very satisfied” except for the item “easy in adjusting” which had a lower score [Table 1]. When analyzing acceptability of the sensor by the SUS scale, the system was found easy to use [Table 2].
Conclusions: A wearable inertial sensor device can increase awareness of MF among PD patients and help the PD specialist to detect them early. Usability and level of satisfaction of the device is high.