Alex Page1,2, Norman Yung1, Peggy Auinger1,2, Charles Venuto1,2, Alistair Glidden1, Eric Macklin3, Larsson Omberg4, Michael A Schwarzschild5, E Ray Dorsey1,2. 1. Center for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smartphones can generate objective measures of Parkinson's disease (PD) and supplement traditional in-person rating scales. However, smartphone use in clinical trials has been limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of introducing a smartphone research application into a PD clinical trial and to evaluate the resulting measures. METHODS: A smartphone application was introduced part-way into a phase 3 randomized clinical trial of inosine. The application included finger tapping, gait, and cognition tests, and participants were asked to complete an assessment battery at home and in clinic alongside the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). RESULTS: Of 236 eligible participants in the parent study, 88 (37%) consented to participate, and 59 (27 randomized to inosine and 32 to placebo) completed a baseline smartphone assessment. These 59 participants collectively completed 1,292 batteries of assessments. The proportion of participants who completed at least one smartphone assessment was 61% at 3, 54% at 6, and 35% at 12 months. Finger tapping speed correlated weakly with the part III motor portion (r = -0.16, left hand; r = -0.04, right hand) and total (r = -0.14) MDS-UPDRS. Gait speed correlated better with the same measures (r = -0.25, part III motor; r = -0.34, total). Over 6 months, finger tapping speed, gait speed, and memory scores did not differ between those randomized to active drug or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a smartphone application midway into a phase 3 clinical trial was challenging. Measures of bradykinesia and gait speed correlated modestly with traditional outcomes and were consistent with the study's overall findings, which found no benefit of the active drug.
BACKGROUND: Smartphones can generate objective measures of Parkinson's disease (PD) and supplement traditional in-person rating scales. However, smartphone use in clinical trials has been limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of introducing a smartphone research application into a PD clinical trial and to evaluate the resulting measures. METHODS: A smartphone application was introduced part-way into a phase 3 randomized clinical trial of inosine. The application included finger tapping, gait, and cognition tests, and participants were asked to complete an assessment battery at home and in clinic alongside the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). RESULTS: Of 236 eligible participants in the parent study, 88 (37%) consented to participate, and 59 (27 randomized to inosine and 32 to placebo) completed a baseline smartphone assessment. These 59 participants collectively completed 1,292 batteries of assessments. The proportion of participants who completed at least one smartphone assessment was 61% at 3, 54% at 6, and 35% at 12 months. Finger tapping speed correlated weakly with the part III motor portion (r = -0.16, left hand; r = -0.04, right hand) and total (r = -0.14) MDS-UPDRS. Gait speed correlated better with the same measures (r = -0.25, part III motor; r = -0.34, total). Over 6 months, finger tapping speed, gait speed, and memory scores did not differ between those randomized to active drug or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a smartphone application midway into a phase 3 clinical trial was challenging. Measures of bradykinesia and gait speed correlated modestly with traditional outcomes and were consistent with the study's overall findings, which found no benefit of the active drug.
Authors: James T Cavanaugh; Terry D Ellis; Gammon M Earhart; Matthew P Ford; K Bo Foreman; Leland E Dibble Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Alberto J Espay; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Álvaro Sánchez-Ferro; Jochen Klucken; Aristide Merola; Paolo Bonato; Serene S Paul; Fay B Horak; Joaquin A Vizcarra; Tiago A Mestre; Ralf Reilmann; Alice Nieuwboer; E Ray Dorsey; Lynn Rochester; Bastiaan R Bloem; Walter Maetzler Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Michael A Schwarzschild; Alberto Ascherio; Cindy Casaceli; Gary C Curhan; Rebecca Fitzgerald; Cornelia Kamp; Codrin Lungu; Eric A Macklin; Kenneth Marek; Dariush Mozaffarian; David Oakes; Alice Rudolph; Ira Shoulson; Aleksandar Videnovic; Burton Scott; Lisa Gauger; Jason Aldred; Melissa Bixby; Jill Ciccarello; Steven A Gunzler; Claire Henchcliffe; Matthew Brodsky; Kellie Keith; Robert A Hauser; Christopher Goetz; Mark S LeDoux; Vanessa Hinson; Rajeev Kumar; Alberto J Espay; Joohi Jimenez-Shahed; Christine Hunter; Chadwick Christine; Aaron Daley; Maureen Leehey; J Antonelle de Marcaida; Joseph Harold Friedman; Albert Hung; Grace Bwala; Irene Litvan; David K Simon; Tanya Simuni; Cynthia Poon; Mya C Schiess; Kelvin Chou; Ariane Park; Danish Bhatti; Carolyn Peterson; Susan R Criswell; Liana Rosenthal; Jennifer Durphy; Holly A Shill; Shyamal H Mehta; Anwar Ahmed; Andres F Deik; John Y Fang; Natividad Stover; Lin Zhang; Richard B Dewey; Ashley Gerald; James T Boyd; Emily Houston; Valerie Suski; Sherri Mosovsky; Leslie Cloud; Binit B Shah; Marie Saint-Hilaire; Raymond James; Sarah Elizabeth Zauber; Stephen Reich; David Shprecher; Rajesh Pahwa; April Langhammer; Kathrin LaFaver; Peter A LeWitt; Patricia Kaminski; John Goudreau; Doozie Russell; David J Houghton; Ashley Laroche; Karen Thomas; Martha McGraw; Zoltan Mari; Carmen Serrano; Karen Blindauer; Marcie Rabin; Roger Kurlan; John C Morgan; Michael Soileau; Melissa Ainslie; Ivan Bodis-Wollner; Ruth B Schneider; Cheryl Waters; Amber Servi Ratel; Christopher A Beck; Patrick Bolger; Katherine F Callahan; Grace F Crotty; David Klements; Melissa Kostrzebski; Gearoid Michael McMahon; Lindsay Pothier; Sushrut S Waikar; Anthony Lang; Tiago Mestre Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emily J Henderson; Stephen R Lord; Matthew A Brodie; Daisy M Gaunt; Andrew D Lawrence; Jacqueline C T Close; A L Whone; Y Ben-Shlomo Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Robert J Ellis; Yee Sien Ng; Shenggao Zhu; Dawn M Tan; Boyd Anderson; Gottfried Schlaug; Ye Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Florian Lipsmeier; Kirsten I Taylor; Timothy Kilchenmann; Detlef Wolf; Alf Scotland; Jens Schjodt-Eriksen; Wei-Yi Cheng; Ignacio Fernandez-Garcia; Juliane Siebourg-Polster; Liping Jin; Jay Soto; Lynne Verselis; Frank Boess; Martin Koller; Michael Grundman; Andreas U Monsch; Ronald B Postuma; Anirvan Ghosh; Thomas Kremer; Christian Czech; Christian Gossens; Michael Lindemann Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Luca Lonini; Andrew Dai; Nicholas Shawen; Tanya Simuni; Cynthia Poon; Leo Shimanovich; Margaret Daeschler; Roozbeh Ghaffari; John A Rogers; Arun Jayaraman Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2018-11-23
Authors: Larsson Omberg; Elias Chaibub Neto; Thanneer M Perumal; Abhishek Pratap; Aryton Tediarjo; Jamie Adams; Bastiaan R Bloem; Brian M Bot; Molly Elson; Samuel M Goldman; Michael R Kellen; Karl Kieburtz; Arno Klein; Max A Little; Ruth Schneider; Christine Suver; Christopher Tarolli; Caroline M Tanner; Andrew D Trister; John Wilbanks; E Ray Dorsey; Lara M Mangravite Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 54.908