4.6 Article

Progressive Gait Deficits in Parkinson's Disease: A Wearable-Based Biannual 5-Year Prospective Study

Journal

FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00022

Keywords

Parkinson's disease; progression marker; gait; wearable sensor; prospective study

Funding

  1. Solvay Pharmaceuticals
  2. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Gait changes occur during all Parkinson's disease (PD) stages and wearable sensor-derived gait parameters may quantify PD progression. However, key aspects that may qualify quantitative gait parameters as progression markers in PD remain elusive. Objectives: Longitudinal changes in gait parameters from a lower-back sensor under convenient and challenging walking conditions in early- and mid-stage PD patients (E-PD, M-PD) compared to controls were investigated. Methods: Normal- and fast-pace parameters (step: number, time, velocity, variability) were assessed every 6 months for up to 5 years in 22 E-PD (<4 years baseline disease duration), 18 M-PD (>5 years) and 24 controls. Parameter trajectories and associations with MDS-UPDRS-III were tested using generalized estimating equations. Results: Normal-pace step number (annual change in E-PD: 2.1%, Time*Group: p = 0.001) and step time variability (8.5%, p < 0.05) longitudinally increased in E-PD compared to controls (0.7%, -12%). For fast pace, no significant progression differences between groups were observed. Longitudinal changes in M-PD did not differ significantly from controls. MDS-UPDRS-lll was largely associated with normal-pace parameters in M-PD. Conclusion: Wearables can quantify progressive gait deficits indicated by increasing step number and step time variability in E-PD. In M-PD, and for fast-pace, gait parameters possess limited potential as PD progression markers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available