| Literature DB >> 27888171 |
Pasquale F Innominato1,2,3, Sandra Komarzynski1,3, Ali Mohammad-Djafari4, Alexandre Arbaud3, Ayhan Ulusakarya3,5, Mohamed Bouchahda3,5,6, Mazen Haydar5, Rachel Bossevot-Desmaris5, Virginie Plessis5, Magali Mocquery5, Davina Bouchoucha5, Mehran Afshar7, Jacques Beau3, Abdoulaye Karaboué3,8, Jean-François Morère5,9, Joanna Fursse10, Jordi Rovira Simon11, Francis Levi1,2,3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telehealth solutions can improve the safety of ambulatory chemotherapy, contributing to the maintenance of patients at their home, hence improving their well-being, all the while reducing health care costs. There is, however, need for a practicable multilevel monitoring solution, encompassing relevant outputs involved in the pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced toxicity. Domomedicine embraces the delivery of complex care and medical procedures at the patient's home based on modern technologies, and thus it offers an integrated approach for increasing the safety of cancer patients on chemotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: MDASI; actigraphy; chronotherapy; domomedicine; telemonitoring
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27888171 PMCID: PMC5148811 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6303
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1inCASA platform elements: (a) patient’s equipment (computer, scale, and actigraph); (b) information system technical architecture.
Figure 2Outline of study design and remote monitoring procedures. Source of icons: pixabay.
Figure 3Study flowchart (Consort diagram).
Clinical features of the study population.
| Patient characteristics | n (%) | |
| Male | 17 (55) | |
| Female | 14 (45) | |
| 35-45 | 4 (13) | |
| 45-55 | 4 (13) | |
| 55-65 | 11(36) | |
| 65-75 | 5 (16) | |
| 75-85 | 5 (16) | |
| 85-95 | 2 (6) | |
| Median (range) | 61 (35-91) | |
| 0 | 9 (29) | |
| 1 | 11(36) | |
| 2 | 2 (6) | |
| 3 | 2 (6) | |
| Not available | 7 (23) | |
| Colon | 8 (26) | |
| Rectum | 4 (13) | |
| Pancreas | 9 (29) | |
| Breast | 5 (16) | |
| Prostate | 2 (7) | |
| Lung | 1(3) | |
| Liver | 1(3) | |
| Ovary | 1(3) | |
| 0 | 7 (23) | |
| 1 | 24 (77) | |
| None | 24 (78) | |
| Diabetes | 5 (16) | |
| Hepatitis B | 1 (3) | |
| Chronic heart failure | 1(3) | |
| None | 3 (10) | |
| Primary tumor | 20 (64) | |
| Metastases | 8 (26) | |
| No prior chemotherapy | 3 (9) | |
| Adjuvant only | 11 (36) | |
| Metastatic only | 1 (3) | |
| Both | 16 (52) | |
| None | 13 (42) | |
| One | 4 (13) | |
| Two or more | 12 (39) | |
| Unknown | 2 (6) | |
| Total number | 25 (81) | |
| ChronoIFLO4a | 13 (42) | |
| Other chrono triplets | 2 (7) | |
| Other chrono doublets | 10 (32) | |
| Total number | 6 (19) | |
| Triplet | 1 (3) | |
| Doublet | 2 (6) | |
| Monotherapy | 3 (10) | |
| Total number | 102 (100) | |
| At home | 66 (65) | |
| At hospital | 36 (35) | |
| Median number per patient (range) | 3 (1-14) | |
aChronoIFLO4 is the chronomodulated combination of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin [19].
Figure 4Long-term longitudinal compliance rates. The red curve shows the percentage of available data per day (MDASI counted as one), and the blue one, the percentage of patients with all data (actigraphy, body weight, and MDASI) available at least once during 3 days. The solid curves plot the initial 30 days (per-protocol period), and the dashed ones, the following 30 days (day 31-60). MDASI: MD Anderson Symptom Inventory.
Perception and satisfaction resultsa.
| SUTAQb items | |||||||
| Outcomes | Enhanced care | Increased accessibility | Privacy and discomfort | Care personnel concerns | Kit as substitution | Satisfaction | |
| Mean item score | 3.8 | 3.0 | 4.2 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 4.2 | |
| General satisfaction with the item | 77% | 60% | 83% | 72% | 62% | 84% | |
| Number of patients satisfied with the item | 12 | 7 | 13 | 10 | 5 | 14 | |
| Percentage of patients satisfied with the item | 80% | 47% | 87% | 67% | 33% | 93% | |
aResponses to the SUTAQ questions were measured using a 5-point Likert scale.
bSUTAQ: Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire.
Distribution of objective and subjective collected data during the study.
| Parameters | Median | 1st; 3rd quartiles | Range (min to max) | |||||
| Body weight change (%) | –0.4 | –2.0; 0.9 | –10.5 to 6.0 | |||||
| I<O (%) | 98.3 | 96.6; 99.1 | 82.5 to 100 | |||||
| Pain | 2 | 0; 4 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Fatigue | 4 | 2; 5 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Nausea | 0 | 0; 2 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Disturbed sleep | 2 | 0; 4 | 0 to 9 | |||||
| Distress | 3 | 1; 5 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Shortness of breath | 2 | 1; 5 | 0 to 9 | |||||
| Problem with remembering things | 1 | 0; 2 | 0 to 8 | |||||
| Lack of appetite | 2 | 0; 5 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Drowsiness | 2 | 0; 4 | 0 to 8 | |||||
| Dry mouth | 1 | 0; 5 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Sadness | 2 | 0; 5 | 0 to 9 | |||||
| Vomiting | 0 | 0; 0 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Numbness or tingling | 1 | 0; 3 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| General activity | 4 | 2; 5 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Mood | 2 | 0; 4 | 0 to 9 | |||||
| Work | 5 | 2; 6 | 0 to10 | |||||
| Relations with others | 2 | 0; 4 | 0 to 9 | |||||
| Walking | 3 | 1; 5 | 0 to 10 | |||||
| Enjoyment of life | 3 | 2; 5 | 0 to 10 | |||||
aMDASI: MD Anderson Symptom Inventory.
Figure 5Representative examples of the multidimensional data available for 2 patients over 57 (top) and 44 (bottom) monitoring days, respectively. From left to right: first panels: actigraphy recording (midnight-centered double plot; Y-axis: activity counts per minute); second panels: corresponding daily I
Clinical features of patients involved and events regarding unplanned hospitalizations.
| Patient characteristics | n (%) | ||
| Male | 2 (33) | ||
| Female | 4 (67) | ||
| Age in years, median (range) | 60 (52-91) | ||
| Chronotherapy | 9 (90) | ||
| Conventional chemotherapy | 1 (10) | ||
| 5 (50) | |||
| 5 (50) | |||
| 5 (83) | |||
| 1 (17) | |||
| Hospital stay (days), median duration (range) | 6 (2-9) | ||
| Gastrointestinal symptoms with general physical deterioration | 5 (50) | ||
| Febrile neutropenia | 3 (30) | ||
| Sepsis | 1 (10) | ||
| Asthenia with poor general condition | 1 (10) | ||
Figure 6(a) Average (and standard error of the mean) daily I
Coefficients of all the 21 items (ranked) of the final predictive linear discriminant analysis (LDA) model.
| Parameter | Coefficient |
| Shortness of breath | –0.945 |
| I<O | 0.772 |
| Relations with others | 0.634 |
| Work | –0.492 |
| Disturbed sleep | 0.473 |
| Drowsiness | –0.466 |
| Sadness | 0.435 |
| Distress | –0.351 |
| Problem with remembering things | –0.335 |
| Vomiting | 0.283 |
| Numbness or tingling | 0.221 |
| Mood | 0.198 |
| General activity | 0.153 |
| Nausea | –0.136 |
| Enjoyment of life | –0.128 |
| Dry mouth | 0.097 |
| Walking | 0.089 |
| Lack of appetite | –0.089 |
| Pain | 0.065 |
| Body weight change | –0.025 |
| Fatigue | –0.009 |
Confusion matrix regarding prediction of unplanned hospitalization.
| Patient/day | Actual event | ||
| Predicted | Yes | No | |
| Yes | 10 | 69 | |
| No | 8 | 1203 | |