Clinical utility of a personalized and long-term monitoring device for Parkinson's disease in a real clinical practice setting: An expert opinion survey on STAT-ON™

Neurología 38 (2023) 326—333 NEUROLOGÍA www.elsevier.es/neurologia ORIGINAL ARTICLE Clinical utility of a personalized and long-term monitoring device for Parkinson’s disease in a real clinical practice setting: An expert opinion survey on STAT-ONTM D. Santos Garcíaa,∗, N. López Arizteguib, E. Cuboc, A. Vinagre Aragónd, R. García-Ramose, C. Borruéf, G. Fernández-Pajaríng, N. Caballolh, I. Caboi, J.M. Barrios-Lópezj, J. Hernández Vara k, M.A. Ávila Riveral, C. Gasca-Salasm, S. Escalanten, P. Manrique de Larao, R. Pérez Noguerap, M. Álvarez Saucoq, M. Sierrar, M.H.G. Monjem, A. Sánchez Ferrom, S. Novo Pontes, F. Alonso-Freche, D. Macías-Garcíat, I. Legardau, A. Rojov, I. Álvarez Fernándezw, M.T. Buongiornow, P. Pastorw, P. García Ruízx aCHUAC, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coru˜ na, Spain bComplejo Hospitalario de Toledo, Toledo, Spain cComplejo Asistencial Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain dHospital Donostia, San Sebastián, Spain eHospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain fHospital Infanta Sofía, Madrid, Spain gComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela (CHUS), Spain hConsorci Sanitari Integral, Hospital Moisés Broggi, Sant Joan Despí, Barcelona, Spain iComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de Pontevedra (CHOP), Pontevedra, Spain jHospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain kHospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain lConsorci Sanitari Integral, Hospital General de L’Hospitalet, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain mCINAC, Hospital Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain nHospital de Tortosa Verge de la Cinta (HTVC), Tortosa, Tarragona, Spain oClínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain pHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain qHospital Universitario de Elche, Spain rHospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain sHospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain tHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain uHospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain vHospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain wHospital Universitari Mutua de Terrassa, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain xHospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain Received 6 August 2020; accepted 5 October 2020 Available online 25 December 2020 ∗Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Santos García). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2020.10.013 0213-4853/© 2020 Sociedad Espa˜ nola de Neurolog´ ıa. Published by Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Neurología 38 (2023) 326—333 KEYWORDS Device; Fluctuations; Holter; Monitoring; Motor complications; Parkinson’s disease Abstract Background: STAT-ONTM is an objective tool that registers ON-OFF fluctuations making possible to know the state of the patient at every moment of the day in normal life. Our aim was to analyze the opinion of different Parkinson’s disease experts about the STAT-ONTM tool after using the device in a real clinical practice setting (RCPS). Methods: STAT-ONTM was provided by the Company Sense4Care to Spanish neurologists for using it in a RCPS. Each neurologist had the device for at least three months and could use it in PD patients at his/her own discretion. In February 2020, a survey with 30 questions was sent to all participants. Results: Two thirds of neurologists (53.8% females; mean age 44.9 ± 9 years old) worked in a Movement Disorders Unit, the average experience in PD was 16 ± 6.9 years, and 40.7% of them had previously used other devices. A total of 119 evaluations were performed in 114 patients (range 2—9 by neurologist; mean 4.5 ± 2.3). STAT-ONTM was considered ‘‘quite’’ to ‘‘very useful’’ by 74% of the neurologists with an overall opinion of 6.9 ± 1.7 (0, worst; 10, best). STAT-ONTM was considered better than diaries by 70.3% of neurologists and a useful tool for the identification of patients with advanced PD by 81.5%. Proper identification of freezing of gait episodes and falls were frequent limitations reported. Conclusion: STAT-ONTM could be a useful device for using in PD patients in clinical practice. © 2020 Sociedad Espa˜ nola de Neurolog´ ıa. Published by Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/ 4.0/). PALABRAS CLAVE Dispositivo; Fluctuaciones; Holter; Monitoreo; Complicaciones motoras; Enfermedad de Parkinson Utilidad clínica del dispositivo para la monitorización personalizada de la enfermedad de Parkinson, STAT-ON, en condiciones de práctica clínica diaria: resultados de una encuesta de opinión de neurólogos expertos Resumen Introducción: STAT-ON es un dispositivo que registra las fluctuaciones on-off que permite conocer el estado del paciente con enfermedad de Parkinson (EP) en cada momento del día. Nuestro objetivo fue analizar la opinión de diferentes expertos en EP sobre STAT-ON, después de usar el dispositivo en un entorno de práctica clínica real (PCR). Métodos: STAT-ON fue proporcionado por la compa˜ nía Sense4Care a neurólogos espa˜ noles para usarlo en PCR. Cada neurólogo dispuso del dispositivo durante al menos tres meses y podía usarlo en pacientes con EP, según su criterio. En febrero de 2020, se envió una encuesta con 30 preguntas a todos los participantes. Resultados: Dos tercios de los neurólogos (53,8% mujeres; edad promedio 44,9 ± 9 a˜ nos) trabajaban en una Unidad de Trastornos del Movimiento, con una experiencia en EP de 16 ± 6,9 a˜ nos, habiendo el 40,7% usado otros dispositivos previamente. Se realizaron un total de 119 evaluaciones en 114 pacientes (rango dos a nueve por neurólogo; media 4,5 ± 2,3). STAT-ON fue considerado «bastante» a «muy útil» por el 74% de los neurólogos, con una opinión general de 6,9 ± 1,7 (0, peor; 10, mejor). STAT-ON fue considerado mejor que los diarios por el 70,3% de los neurólogos y una herramienta útil para la identificación de pacientes con EP avanzada por un 81,5%. La identificación adecuada de los episodios de congelación de la marcha y las caídas fueron las limitaciones más reportadas. Conclusiones: STAT-ON podría ser un dispositivo útil para usar en la PCR. © 2020 Sociedad Espa˜ nola de Neurolog´ ıa. Publicado por Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. Este es un art´ ıculo Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/). Introduction The symptomatic treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD) with current therapies is effective. However, over time, motor complications appear, impacting on the patient’s quality of life and the autonomy for performing daily-living activities. Although previous reports demonstrated that approximately 40% of PD patients who were treated with levodopa for 4—6 years experienced motor complications,1studies, examining more specifically wearing-off, have observed that this is a potentially early phenomenon. As an example, this manifestation affects already 42% of the PD patients with <2.5 years disease when a screening tool was used (WOQ-19) and 21% according to a neurologist assessment.2Gathering accurate information about the clinical status of the patient is essential for planning treatment and assessing its effect. Daily motor function assessment with paper diaries for detecting time periods of the day during the OFF state, ON state without dyskinesia and ON state with disabling or non-disabling dyskinesia, result in issues of compliance and 327 D. Santos García, N. López Ariztegui, E. Cubo et al. reliability.3Electronic diaries have the advantages of facilitating the transmission of the information directly by PD patients. Still both type of diaries, paper and electronic, are limited by compliance and reliability issues. Importantly, previous studies have shown that diaries resulted in average response compliance of approximately 1 h.4Therefore, more objective and precise systems are necessary to complement diaries. Wearable inertial sensors have been widely used to monitor the motor status and analyze symptoms of PD such as tremor, bradykinesia, or dyskinesia.5—12 The REMPARK system (REMPARK Personal health device for the remote and autonomous management of Parkinson’s disease, FP7 project REMPARK ICT-287677) is a wearable system, developed between 2011 and 2015, to monitor motor states through a system requiring a single sensor.13,14 Analogous to the ‘‘Holter’’ for the monitoring of cardiac parameters, the REMPARK system has been designed to record the patient’s motor condition during daylight hours and to aid in managing the disease via the smartphone. By using a single sensor (an inertial measurement unit called 9 × 3) advanced algorithms, and signal processing methods, this system monitors and records PD motor manifestations.15 The device contains an accelerometer, rechargeable battery for 7 days, data storage of at least 1 year. It is able to acquire and store raw inertial data for artificial intelligence algorithmic training purposes. It has been marketed as STAT-ONTM by the Company Sense4Care. STAT-ONTM provides information about bradykinesia index based on fluidity movements, dyskinesia, freezing of gait (FOG), ON and OFF states, gait parameters (speed of stride, cadence, time walking, step length, number of steps), number of falls and energy expenditure and postures. STAT-ONTM demonstrated an overall classification accuracy of 92.2% to detect OFF periods under real conditions of use in 23 advanced PD patients wearing the kinematic sensor for 1—3 days at home.16 More recently, it demonstrated in 41 patients with moderate to severe idiopathic PD using the system in the sensitivity and 88% specificity in detecting OFF states.16,17 Although there are no cost/effectiveness studies, the use of the device could, hypothetically, help to identify motor fluctuations properly, which could improve with an adequate treatment optimization. This could help reduce costs (e.g., emergency assistance, institutionalization, etc.). Despite the multiple studies showing the accuracy of the system to detect motor fluctuations, there is no information about its possible clinical utility. Here, we report the opinion of different PD expert neurologists about the STAT-ONTM utility in a real clinical practice setting (RCPS). Methods CE Mark Medical Device STAT-ONTM was provided by the Company Sense4Care to different Spanish neurologists for using it in a RCPS between October and December 2019. All neurologists were selected because they were PD experts. Each neurologist had the opportunity to use the device in PD patients for at least 3 months at his/her own discretion. In February 2020, a survey with 30 questions on STAT-ONTM utility was sent to all participants (Supplementary Material). The data was anonymized and three waves were made to obtain the responses. The participation was voluntary. Standard protocol approvals, registrations, and patient consents Since the present study was an anonymized opinion survey about the usefulness of a CE marketed device for clinical practice use, approval was not sought from any ethics committee. No patient data was recorded. Data availability The protocol, statistical analysis plan and unidentifiable data are available upon request. Data analysis Data were processed using SPSS 20.0 for Windows. A first descriptive analysis was carried out in which the results were shown in counts (percentages) or as mean ± deviation according to the type of variable. Depending on the results of the first analysis, correlation between specific variables were analyzed. The Student’s t-test, Mann—Whitney U test, Chi-square test or Fisher test were used as appropriate (normality assumption was verified with a one-sample Kolmogorov—Smirnov test). Spearman’s or Pearson’s correlation coefficient were also used for analyzing the relationship between continuous variables depending also on the data distribution. Correlations were considered weak for coefficient values ≤0.29, moderate for values between 0.30 and 0.59, and strong for values ≥0.60. The value of p was considered significant when it was <0.05. Results A total of 37 neurologists from 35 Spanish centers received the device from the manufacturer for using it in PD patients in a RCPS. Twenty-seven surveys (73%) were received (53.8% females; mean age 44.9 ± 9 years old). Two thirds of the neurologists worked in a Movement Disorders Unit, the mean experience on PD was of 16 ± 6.9 years, and 40.7% of them had used previously different devices for PD. A total of 119 evaluations in 114 patients (range from 2 to 9 per neurologist; mean 4.5 ± 2.3) were performed. Using a score from 1 (unhelpful) to 7 (very helpful), the opinion about different usability aspects was recorded (Table 1). ON-OFF daily distribution was the best scored (5.5 ± 1.5) whereas falls detection the worst (3.6 ± 2). The subjective general opinion about the device (from 0, the worst, to 10, the best) was 6.9 ± 1.7. STAT-ONTM was considered better than the diaries by 70.3% of the neurologists (Fig. 1A) and a useful device for identifying advanced PD patients by 81.5%. A high percentage of PD patients were considered that could benefit from using STAT-ONTM (Fig. 1B). STAT-ONTM was considered from quite to very useful by 74% of the neurologists (Fig. 1C). A significant moderate positive correlation was observed between the number of assessments performed and the 328 Neurología 38 (2023) 326—333 Table 1 Score from 1 (unhelpful) to 7 (very helpful) of the opinion about different usability aspects of the STAT-ON device. Parameter Mean ± SD Range n ON—OFF daily distribution 5.5 ± 1.5 2—7 27 Weekly hours during the OFF state distribution 5.1 ± 1.4 1—7 27 Dyskinesia distribution 4.7 ± 1.9 1—7 27 FOG episodes distribution 4.1 ± 1.7 1—7 27 Number of FOG episodes and duration 3.7 ± 1.7 1—7 27 Falls detection 3.6 ± 2.0 0—7 25 Data about gait 4.6 ± 1.4 0—7 25 Amount of movement 4.7 ± 1.5 1—7 23 FOG, freezing of gait; SD, standard deviation. Figure 1 A. Opinion about STAT-ONTM compared to OFF-ON diaries. B. Percentage of Parkinson’s disease patients (1-25% vs 26-50% vs 51-75% vs76-100% of all Parkinson’s disease patients assessed in real clinical practice setting) who, evaluated in daily clinical practice, at the discretion of the evaluator, could benefit from the usage of STAT-ONTM. C. Usefulness of the information collected with the device. general opinion about the device (r = 0.403; p = 0.046). By the contrary, no differences were observed in the general opinion about the device (from 0 to 10) with respect to the age of the PD expert (r = 0.030; p = 0.830), the number of years treating PD patients (r = 0.032; p = 0.881), the previous use of devices for PD (7.2 ± 2.1 vs 6.9 ± 1.5; p = 0.703), and the practice setting (Movement Disorders Unit vs. standard outpatient clinic) (7.2 ± 2.3 vs 6.9 ± 1.5; p = 0.784). STAT-ONTM was specifically used by 13 of the 27 neurologists (48.1%) in 21 advanced PD patients who were treated with an advanced therapy: 10 deep brain stimulation (DBS); 6 subcutaneous apomorphine infusion; 3 intraduodenal levodopa infusion (2 without information). Only one neurologist considered STAT-ONTM as not useful in these patients. Sixty three percent considered it from quite to very useful (N = 11; 2 without answer) for using in this population and with a periodicity that should be individualized (67%). With regards to the limitations of the information provided by the device or other related usability problems, 17 neurologists (63%) demanded other relevant information or found problems (Table 2). The most frequent were problems with the interpretation of time in gray color and proper identification of freezing of gait (FOG) episodes and/or falls. Almost 89% of the neurologists considered that the sensor had a pleasant appearance for the patient and that the waist was a proper place for wearing it. Moreover, 85% of the neurologists considered, based on their experience using the system, that the patient’s opinion about the device was good. However, the time invested in explaining the patient Table 2 Limitations of the information provided by the device recorded by the neurologists. Limitation reported n Problems with the interpretation of time inactive 6 Proper identification of FOG episodes and/or falls 5 No differentiation between disabling and non-disabling dyskinesia 3 No information about the relation between states and the time of taking the medication 2 No identification of tremor 1 No identification of non-motor symptoms 1 No identification of trunk lateralization 1 No identification of motor status during sleep 1 Problems with the belt where the device is placed 1 Training is necessary for the patient and doctor 1 FOG, freezing of gait. the device and the analysis of the results was considered a limitation by the 40.7% of the neurologists. Importantly, 89% would use the device in their daily clinical practice. In Supplementary Material all the information about the answers to the 30 questions of the survey is shown. 329 D. Santos García, N. López Ariztegui, E. Cubo et al. Discussion This is the first publication about the opinion of a group of PD experts on the STAT-ONTM system after using it in a RCPS. In general, the opinion was favorable although there are aspects that could be improved. Despite the analysis being based on survey data, it is valuable as it has been carried out by an independent large group of experts in PD, with previous experience with other devices to monitor the disease, and after having jointly evaluated more than 100 patients with this novel system. STAT-ONTM is a non-invasive Class II A medical device according to Directive 93/42/EEC that has been developed after different R&D European projects since 2009 and being validated in different clinical studies.13—23 However, until now, no information about the opinion of the neurologists on STAT-ONTM after using it in a RCPS had been reported. In our study, the survey response rate was acceptable (73%).24 Additional strengths of the study were the referred experience on PD of the neurologists, the number of neurologists who participated and the fact that the questionnaire was anonymous and the responses were independent. The best scored parameters about the usability of STAT-ONTM were ‘‘ON-OFF daily distribution’’ and ‘‘Weekly hours during the OFF state distribution’’, agreeing with the prior evidence on the ability of the system to detect ON-OFF states in PD patients in real conditions.16,17 One of the main advantages of the system is that patients need to wear only a single sensor, making it compatible with an active life. Participants in previous studies considered STAT-ONTM to be user-friendly and were satisfied with the system,16,25 being these findings in accordance with the opinion expressed by the neurologists in the survey. One of the important findings is that a large majority of the neurologists considered STAT-ONTM to be a better method for monitoring PD patients than diaries. Although diaries have been used in trials as the gold standard, what method is better has not been reported and a trial for comparing PD holter vs PD diary is on-going (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04176302). A second important aspect is, as the result of the survey suggest, the possibility of using STAT-ONTM in a high percentage of PD patients due to the fact that motor fluctuations are frequent and disabling even in early PD patients.26 Finally, a very important finding is that STAT-ONTM could be a useful method for monitoring PD patients under DBS or an infusion therapy.27 Although the experience was limited to 21 patients treated by 13 neurologists, 10 out of 11 that replied to the survey stated that STAT-ONTM could be useful, being this observation interesting because it would allow to monitor the response before and after the therapy. Since these are expensive treatments and not free of complications, this is a great area of interest for using these new systems. STAT-ONTM is an objective method for monitoring OFFON fluctuations. However, the subjective component of the patient’s opinion is necessary to know what happens when the patient is not moving as the sensor does not collect data in inactivity periods. This limitation was the most frequently reported and should be taken into account when using STAT-ONTM in patients who spend a lot of time sitting or inactive. Although previous trials demonstrated a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting dyskinesia and FOG,18,20—22 a limitation reported by the neurologists was that the device was not capable of distinguishing disabling and non-disabling dyskinesias. Moreover, the proper identification of FOG episodes and/or falls was the second most frequent limitation reported. Some experts considered that the system overestimated falls in some instances. Integrated information on medication intake hours was also demanded by the experts. Finally, although only one neurologist commented the fact of not informing about non-motor symptoms as a limitation of the system, this is an essential point because non-motor symptoms are frequent and related to motor fluctuations.26,28 Alternatively, the patient could be trained to press the alarm button when a specific non-motor symptoms, such as pain or anxiety, appear and analyze their appearance in relation to the motor state at that moment.29 The device was used a total of 119 times in 114 patients. However, the average use by neurologist was less than five with a range from 2 to 9 times, the device was used for a brief time, and for the vast majority it was their first experience with the system (data not collected) being necessary to learn about the usage of the device, so our findings on the possible usefulness of STAT-ONTM to monitor PD patients in a RCPS should be considered with caution. Although 81.5% of the evaluators considered that the device could be useful for detecting patients with advanced PD, obviously, it is an opinion survey and not a study designed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the device for detecting advanced PD based on defined criteria (e.g., CDEPA30). The fact that there was a better opinion on the device in more frequent users should be confirmed in future studies to rule out different perception according to technology adoption and exposure. Finally, other biases related to the methodology of the present study cannot be excluded (e.g., question types). In summary, this is the first opinion survey of a group of PD experts who evaluated the utility of STAT-ONTM in a RCPS. STAT-ONTM could be a useful device for monitoring PD patients in clinical practice. More experience is needed for having a contrasted and confident opinion. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The present study consists of an opinion poll and there are no identifiable data collected from patients and/or participants. Therefore, it does not require the approval of an ethical committee. The first author, Diego Santos García, is a member of an autonomous ethics committee, the ‘‘Comité Autonómico de Ética de Investigación de Galicia’’, and is fully familiar with the regulations as they apply. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and material The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. 330 Neurología 38 (2023) 326—333 Authors’ contributions Santos García D.: conception, organization, and execution of the project; statistical analysis; writing of the first draft of the manuscript; evaluation of participants; survey response. López Ariztegui N.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Cubo E.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Vinagre Aragón A.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. García-Ramos R.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Borrué C.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Fernández-Pajarín G.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Caballol N.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Cabo I.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Barrios López J M.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Hernández Vara J.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Ávila Rivera M. A.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Gasca-Salas C.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Escalante S.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Manrique de Lara P. : review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Pérez Noguera R.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Álvarez Sauco M.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Sierra M.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Monje M. H. G.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Sánchez Ferro A.: review and critique; evaluation of participants. Novo Ponte S.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Alonso-Frech F. : review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Macías-García D.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Legarda I.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Rojo A.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Álvarez Fernández I.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Buongiorno M. T.: review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Pastor P. : review and critique; evaluation of participants. García Ruíz P. : review and critique; evaluation of participants; survey response. Financial disclosures Santos García D. has received honoraria for educational presentations and advice service by Abbvie, UCB Pharma, Lundbeck, KRKA, Zambon, Bial and Teva. López Ariztegui N. has received honoraria for educational presentations and advice service by Abbvie, Italfarmaco, Zambon, and Bial. Cubo E: Travel grants: Abbvie, Allergan, Boston; Lecturing honoraria: Abbvie, International Parkinson’s disease Movement Disorder Society. Vinagre Aragón A. has received honoraria for educational presentations by UCB Pharma. García-Ramos R. has received honoraria for educational presentations and advice service by Abbvie, Zambon, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Krka, Teva and Italfarmaco. Borrué C.: None. Fernández-Pajarín G. has received honoraria from Italfarmaco, Zambon and Bial and sponsorship from Italfarmaco, Boston Scientific and Zambon for attending conferences. Caballol N. has received honoraria from Bial, Italfármaco, Qualigen, Zambon, UCB, Teva and KRKA and sponsorship from Zambon, TEVA and Abbvie for attending medical conferences. Cabo I. has received honoraria for educational presentations and advice service by Abbvie, Zambon and Bial. Barrios López J.M.: None. Hernández Vara J. has received travel bursaries and educational grants from Abbvie and has received honoraria for educational presentations from Abbvie, Teva, Bial, Zambon, Italfarmaco and Sanofi-Genzyme. Ávila Rivera M. A. has received honoraria from Zambon, UCB Pharma, Qualigen, Bial, and Teva, and sponsorship from Zambon and Teva for attending conferences. Gasca-Salas C.: None. Escalante S. has received honoraria for educational presentations and advice service by Abbvie, Zambon, and Bial. Manrique de Lara P. : None. Pérez Noguera R.: Álvarez Sauco M. has received honoraria for educational presentations and advice service by Abbvie, UCB Pharma, Zambon, Bial and Teva. Sierra M. Monje M.H.G. has received speaker and travel honoraria from Novartis Pharmaceutical. She is employed by Fundación HM Hospitales. She is member of the Electronic Development of Rating Scales Committee of the Movement Disorders Society. Sánchez Ferro A. has received funding from the Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Diseases (project Reference Number: HESOCARE-329-073) and has also received speaker and travel honoraria from Teva, Zambon, Abbvie, and Novartis Pharmaceutical. He is employed by Leuko Imaging Systems S.L. and Fundación HM Hospitales. He owns common stock in Leuko Labs, Inc a company with commercial interests in a Medical Device developed for neutropenia detection. He is also an inventor of a Method and Apparatus for Motor Function characterization (US 2020/0060622 Al) that has been licensed to an independent commercial entity (nQ-Medical) by the Massachusetts of Technology. He serves as Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Technology of the 331 D. Santos García, N. López Ariztegui, E. Cubo et al. Spanish Neurological Society, Chair of Committee on Electronic Development of Rating Scales of the Movement Disorders Society and is a member of the Movement Disorders Society Technology Taskforce and Scientific and Education (European Section) Committee. Novo Ponte S. has received unrestricted educational support from Abbvie and Zambon and honoraria for educational presentations from Abbvie and Italfarmaco. Alonso-Frech F. : None. Macías-García D. has received honoraria for educational presentations by Abbvie, Teva and Zambom. Legarda I. has received honoraria for educational presentations and advice service by Abbvie, UCB Pharma, Zambon, Bial and Teva. Rojo A. has received travel bursaries from Abbvie and Zambon and honoraria for educational presentations from Teva, Bial, UCB and Zambon. Álvarez Fernández I.: None. Buongiorno M. T.: None. Pastor P: None. García Ruíz P. Conflict of interests None. This work has been carried out absolutely independently from the company sense4care, who has only provided the devices and has not participated in it. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.nrl.2020.10.013. References 1. Ahlskog JE, Muenter MD. Frequency of levodopa-related dyskinesias and motor fluctuations as estimated from the cumulative literature. Mov Disord. 2001;16:448—58. 2. Stocchi F, Antonini A, Barone P, Tinazzi M, Zappia M, Onofrj M, et al. DEEP study group. 2014;20:204—11. 3. Hauser RA, Deckers F, Lehert P. A home diary to assess functional status in patients with Parkinson’s disease with motor fluctuations and dyskinesia. Mov Disord. 2004;19:1409—13. 4. Lyons KE, Pahwa R. Electronic motor function diary for patients with Parkinson’s disease: a feasibility study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2007;13:304—7. 5. Fisher JM, Hammerla NY, Ploetz T, Andras P, Rochester L, Walker RW. Unsupervised home monitoring of Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms using body-worn accelerometers. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;33:44—50. 6. Mera TO, Filipkowski DE, Riley DE, Whitney CM, Walter BL, Gunzler SA, et al. Quantitative analysis of gait and balance response to deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture. 2013;38:109—14. 7. Cancela J, Pastorino M, Arredondo MT, Nikita KS, Villagra F, Pastor MA. Feasibility study of a wearable system based on a wireless body area network for gait assessment in Parkinson’s disease patients. Sensors (Basel). 2014;14:4618—33. 8. Tzallas AT, Tsipouras MG, Rigas G, Tsalikakis DG, Karvounis EC, Chondrogiorgi M, et al. PERFORM: a system for monitoring assessment and management of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Sensors (Basel). 2014;14:21329—57. 9. Horne MK, McGregor S, Bergquist F. An objective fluctuation score for Parkinson’s disease. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0124522. 10. Godinho C, Domingos J, Cunha G, Santos AT, Fernandes RM, Abreu D, et al. A systematic review of the characteristics and validity of monitoring technologies to assess Parkinson’s disease. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:24. 11. Sánchez-Ferro Á, Elshehabi M, Godinho C, Salkovic D, Hobert MA, Domingos J, et al. New methods for the assessment of Parkinson’s disease (2005 to 2015): a systematic review. Mov Disord. 2016;31:1283—92. 12. Espay AJ, Bonato P, Nahab FB, Maetzler W, Dean JM, Klucken J, et al., Movement Disorders Society Task Force on Technology. Technology in Parkinson’s disease: challenges and opportunities. Mov Disord. 2016;31:1272—82. 13. Samà A, Pérez-López C, Rodríguez-Martín D, Moreno-Aróstegui JM, Rovira J, Ahlrichs C, et al. A double closed loop to enhance the quality of life of Parkinson’s Disease patients: REMPARK system. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;207: 115—24. 14. Pérez-López C, Samà A, Rodríguez-Martín D, Català A, Cabestany J, Moreno-Arostegui JM, et al. Assessing motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease patients based on a single inertial sensor. Sensors (Basel). 2016;16:2132. 15. Rodríguez-Martín D, Pérez-López C, Samà A, Català A, Moreno Arostegui JM, Cabestany J, et al. A waist-worn inertial measurement unit for long-term monitoring of Parkinson’s disease patients. Sensors (Basel). 2017;17:827. 16. Bayés À, Samá A, Prats A, Pérez-López C, Crespo-Maraver M, Moreno JM, et al. A ‘‘HOLTER’’ for Parkinson’s disease: validation of the ability to detect on-off states using the REMPARK system. Gait Posture. 2018;59:1—6. 17. Rodríguez-Molinero A, Pérez-López C, Samà A, de Mingo E, Rodríguez-Martín D, Hernández-Vara J, et al. A kinematic sensor and algorithm to detect motor fluctuations in Parkinson disease: validation study under real conditions of use. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;25:5, e8. 18. Samà A, Pérez-Lopez C, Romagosa J, Rodríguez-Martín D, Català A, Cabestany J, et al. Dyskinesia and motor state detection in Parkinson’s disease patients with a single movement sensor. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:1194—7. 19. Rodríguez-Molinero A, Samà A, Pérez-Martínez DA, Pérez López C, Romagosa J, Bayés À, et al. Validation of a portable device for mapping motor and gait disturbances in Parkinson’s disease. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3:e9. 20. Pérez-López C, Samà A, Rodríguez-Martín D, Moreno-Aróstegui JM, Cabestany J, Bayes A, et al. Dopaminergic-induced dyskinesia assessment based on a single belt-worn accelerometer. Artif Intell Med. 2016;67:47—56. 21. Rodríguez-Molinero A, Samà A, Pérez-López C, RodríguezMartín D, Quinlan LR, Alcaine S, et al. Analysis of correlation between an accelerometer-based algorithm for detecting Parkinsonian gait and UPDRS subscales. Front Neurol. 2017;8: 431. 22. Rodríguez-Martín D, Samà A, Pérez-López C, Català A, Moreno Arostegui JM, Cabestany J, et al. Home detection of freezing of gait using support vector machines through a single waist-worn triaxial accelerometer. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0171764. 23. Samà A, Pérez-López C, Rodríguez-Martín D, Català A, MorenoAróstegui JM, Cabestany J, et al. Estimating bradykinesia severity in Parkinson’s disease by analysing gait through a waistworn sensor. Comput Biol Med. 2017;84:114—23. 24. Brick JM, Kalton G. Handling missing data in survey research. Stat Methods Med Res. 1996;5:215—38. 332 Neurología 38 (2023) 326—333 25. Fisher JM, Hammerla NY, Rochester L, Andras P, Walker RW. Body-worn sensors in Parkinson’s disease: evaluating their acceptability to patients. Telemed J E Health. 2016;22:63—9. 26. Santos-García D, de Deus Fonticoba T, Suárez Castro E, Aneiros Díaz A, McAfee D, Catalán MJ, et al., COPPADIS Study Group. Non-motor symptom burden is strongly correlated to motor complications in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol. 2020;27:1210—23. 27. Maetzler W, Klucken J, Horne M. A clinical view on the development of technology-based tools in managing Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2016;31:1263—71. 28. Martinez-Fernandez R, Schmitt E, Martinez-Martin P, Krack P. The hidden sister of motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease: a review on nonmotor fluctuations. Mov Disord. 2016;31:1080—94. 29. Martinez-Martin P, Kulisevsky J, Mir P, Tolosa E, García-Delgado P, Luquin MR. Validation of a simple screening tool for early diagnosis of advanced Parkinson’s disease in daily practice: the CDEPA questionnaire. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2018;4:20. 30. Witjas T, Kaphan E, Azulay JP, Blin O, Ceccaldi M, Pouget J, et al. Nonmotor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease: frequent and disabling. Neurology. 2002;59:408—13. 333