| Literature DB >> 27271157 |
Anne-Gaëlle Le Moing1,2, Andreea Mihaela Seferian1, Amélie Moraux1, Mélanie Annoussamy1, Eric Dorveaux3, Erwan Gasnier1, Jean-Yves Hogrel1, Thomas Voit1, David Vissière3, Laurent Servais1.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Measurement of muscle strength and activity of upper limbs of non-ambulant patients with neuromuscular diseases is a major challenge. ActiMyo® is an innovative device that uses magneto-inertial sensors to record angular velocities and linear accelerations that can be used over long periods of time in the home environment. The device was designed to insure long-term stability and good signal to noise ratio, even for very weak movements. In order to determine relevant and pertinent clinical variables with potential for use as outcome measures in clinical trials or to guide therapy decisions, we performed a pilot study in non-ambulant neuromuscular patients. We report here data from seven Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) patients (mean age 18.5 ± 5.5 years) collected in a clinical setting. Patients were assessed while wearing the device during performance of validated tasks (MoviPlate, Box and Block test and Minnesota test) and tasks mimicking daily living. The ActiMyo® sensors were placed on the wrists during all the tests. Software designed for use with the device computed several variables to qualify and quantify muscular activity in the non-ambulant subjects. Four variables representative of upper limb activity were studied: the rotation rate, the ratio of the vertical component in the overall acceleration, the hand elevation rate, and an estimate of the power of the upper limb. The correlations between clinical data and physical activity and the ActiMyo® movement parameters were analyzed. The mean of the rotation rate and mean of the elevation rate appeared promising since these variables had the best reliability scores and correlations with task scores. Parameters could be computed even in a patient with a Brooke functional score of 6. The variables chosen are good candidates as potential outcome measures in non-ambulant patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and use of the ActiMyo® is currently being explored in home environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01611597.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27271157 PMCID: PMC4896626 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156696
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The tools.
(A) First version of ActiMyo®, used in the current study. (B) Box and Block test. (C) Minnesota test with five discs.
Fig 2Patient flow-chart.
Clinical features of the DMD patients ordered by increasing age.
| Patient | Age (years) | Mutation | Age at ambulation loss (years) | Brookescore | Non-invasive ventilation | Steroid treatment | Grip D (kg) | Pinch D (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | 10.5 | del3-11 | 10.0 | 3 | no | no | 4.66 | 1.50 |
| #2 | 15.5 | c.10453_10454insC | 12.0 | 2 | no | yes | 13.99 | 3.55 |
| #6 | 16.0 | del42-43 | 11.0 | 3 | no | no | 6.43 | 2.58 |
| #4 | 18.0 | c4084C>T | 8.5 | 5 | no | no | 6.46 | 1.55 |
| #5 | 20.0 | dup48-49 | 9.0 | 6 | no | no | 1.13 | 1.22 |
| #7 | 20.5 | del49-50 | 8.0 | 6 | nocturnal | no | 0.62 | 0.18 |
| #3 | 28.5 | del51 | 11.0 | 6 | continuous | no | 0.72 | 0.30 |
| Mean (SD) | 18.5 (5.5) | 10.0 (1.5) | 4.4 (1.7) |
D—dominant side.
The maximal scores on tasks completed by each patient at the two visits sorted by the decreasing age.
| Patients | MoviPlate D | MoviPlate ND | BBT D | BBT ND | Minnesota (n) D | Minnesota (n) ND | PC Typing (score/min) | Writing (score/min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | 54 | 51 | 52 | 50 | 69 (5) | 74 (5) | 61 | 87 |
| #2 | 95 | 87 | 67 | 67 | 67 (5) | 70 (5) | 174 | 161 |
| #6 | 67 | 55 | 36 | 32 | 61 (5) | 16 (5) | 99 | 87 |
| #4 | 58 | 61 | 30 | 29 | 27 (5) | 33 (5) | 60 | 109 |
| #5 | 31 | 43 | NA | NA | 38 (1) | 43 (1) | NA | 25 |
| #7 | 35 | 38 | NA | NA | NA | 48 (1) | NA | NA |
| #3 | 29 | 25 | NA | NA | 11 (1) | 20 (1) | NA | 25 |
D—dominant hand, ND—non dominant hand, NA—not available, n—number of discs used.
Effect of dominance on functional task results.
| Dominant side | Non-dominant side | Side effect | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean | SD | N | Mean | SD | p-value | |
| MyoGrip (kg) | 7 | 4.86 | 4.79 | 7 | 4.20 | 3.82 | 0.176 |
| MyoPinch (kg) | 7 | 1.55 | 1.20 | 7 | 1.34 | 0.88 | 0.271 |
| MoviPlate (score) | 7 | 52.71 | 23.70 | 7 | 51.43 | 19.66 | 0.551 |
| BBT (score) | 4 | 46.25 | 16.66 | 4 | 44.50 | 17.64 | 0.109 |
| Minnesota (score) | 6 | 45.50 | 23.85 | 7 | 43.43 | 22.63 | 0.340 |
| PC Typing (score/min) | 4 | 98.55 | 53.64 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Writing (score/min) | 6 | 82.53 | 52.06 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
N—number of patients accomplishing the test; BBT—Box and Block test.
Reliability of tasks between test and retest of ActiMyo® inertial variables and task scores.
| All tasks together | Moviplate | BBT | Minnesota | PC typing | Writing | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | ICC | N | ICC | N | ICC | N | ICC | N | ICC | N | ICC | |
| ‖Ω‖ | 99 | 0.950 | 36 | 0.958 | 18 | 0.700 | 31 | 0.958 | 9 | 0.147 | 5 | 0.482 |
| P | 99 | 0.841 | 36 | 0.816 | 18 | 0.679 | 31 | 0.860 | 9 | 0.829 | 5 | 0.648 |
| vA | 99 | 0.818 | 36 | 0.794 | 18 | 0.786 | 31 | 0.857 | 9 | 0.889 | 5 | NM |
| dθ | 99 | 0.925 | 36 | 0.933 | 18 | 0.783 | 31 | 0.884 | 9 | 0.446 | 5 | 0.607 |
| Scores | - | - | 36 | 0.984 | 18 | 0.970 | 31 | 0.970 | 9 | 0.954 | 5 | 0.987 |
BBT—Box and Block test; N—number of paired trials between visits for both dominant and non-dominant hands of all the patients; NM—not measurable.
Fig 3Reliability between test and retest for all the tasks evaluated for each ActiMyo® variable.
◇ MoviPlate; ⬜ BBT; △ Minnesota test; ✱ Writing;× PC typing.
Fig 4Correlation between the ActiMyo® variables and the functional tests’ scores.
◆ Patient 1; ■ Patient 2; ▲ Patient 3; × Patient 4; * Patient 5; ● Patient 6; + Patient 7. Correlations between ‖Ω‖ and scores for the tasks (A) Moviplate, (B) Box and Block test, and (C) Minnesota. Correlation between dθ and scores for the tasks (D) Moviplate, (E) Box and Block test, and (F) Minnesota.
Correlation between the ActiMyo® variables and the functional scores.
| MoviPlate | BBT | Minnesota Patients: 1-2-4-6 | Minnesota Patients:3-5-7 | PC Typing | Writing | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | ρ | N | ρ | N | ρ | N | ρ | N | ρ | N | ρ | ||
| ‖Ω‖ | 66 | 0.671 | 42 | 0.830 | 42 | 0.765 | 28 | 0.573 | 21 | -0.201 | 11 | 0.665 | |
| P | 66 | 0.858 | 42 | 0.820 | 42 | 0.719 | 28 | 0.579 | 21 | 0.157 | 11 | 0.656 | |
| vA | 66 | 0.677 | 42 | -0.843 | 42 | -0.082 | 28 | 0.076 | 21 | -0.678 | 11 | -0.114 | |
| dθ | 66 | 0.850 | 42 | 0.823 | 42 | 0.679 | 28 | 0.616 | 21 | 0.298 | 11 | 0.715 | |
BBT—Box and Block test; N—number of trials for both dominant and non-dominant hands of all the patients at both visits.
§ Without patient 1
* Significance level p < 0.05.