Connecting real-world digital mobility assessment to clinical outcomes for regulatory and clinical endorsement-the Mobilise-D study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The development of optimal strategies to treat impaired mobility related to ageing and chronic disease requires better ways to detect and measure it. Digital health technology, including body worn sensors, has the potential to directly and accurately capture real-world mobility. Mobilise-D consists of 34 partners from 13 countries who are working together to jointly develop and implement a digital mobility assessment solution to demonstrate that real-world digital mobility outcomes have the potential to provide a better, safer, and quicker way to assess, monitor, and predict the efficacy of new interventions on impaired mobility. The overarching objective of the study is to establish the clinical validity of digital outcomes in patient populations impacted by mobility challenges, and to support engagement with regulatory and health technology agencies towards acceptance of digital mobility assessment in regulatory and health technology assessment decisions. METHODS/DESIGN: The Mobilise-D clinical validation study is a longitudinal observational cohort study that will recruit 2400 participants from four clinical cohorts. The populations of the Innovative Medicine Initiative-Joint Undertaking represent neurodegenerative conditions (Parkinson's Disease), respiratory disease (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), neuro-inflammatory disorder (Multiple Sclerosis), fall-related injuries, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and frailty (Proximal Femoral Fracture). In total, 17 clinical sites in ten countries will recruit participants who will be evaluated every six months over a period of two years. A wide range of core and cohort specific outcome measures will be collected, spanning patient-reported, observer-reported, and clinician-reported outcomes as well as performance-based outcomes (physical measures and cognitive/mental measures). Daily-living mobility and physical capacity will be assessed directly using a wearable device. These four clinical cohorts were chosen to obtain generalizable clinical findings, including diverse clinical, cultural, geographical, and age representation. The disease cohorts include a broad and heterogeneous range of subject characteristics with varying chronic care needs, and represent different trajectories of mobility disability. DISCUSSION: The results of Mobilise-D will provide longitudinal data on the use of digital mobility outcomes to identify, stratify, and monitor disability. This will support the development of widespread, cost-effective access to optimal clinical mobility management through personalised healthcare. Further, Mobilise-D will provide evidence-based, direct measures which can be endorsed by regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies to quantify the impact of disease-modifying interventions on mobility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12051706.

The risk of melanoma with rasagiline compared with other antiparkinsonian medications: A retrospective cohort study in the United States medicare database.

PURPOSE: Compare the risk of melanoma between initiators of rasagiline or other antiparkinsonian drugs (APDs) in a Parkinson's disease (PD) population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the US Medicare claims research database (2006-2015) in adults aged ≥65 years with PD claims. Other APD initiators were randomly matched (4:1) to rasagiline initiators on age, sex, and cohort entry year. Cutaneous melanoma events were identified by a validated claims algorithm. Incidence rates (IRs), incidence rate ratios (IRRs), and Cox-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for melanoma comparing rasagiline with other APD initiators were calculated and analyzed by duration of study medication use and cumulative dose of rasagiline. Potential indicators of surveillance bias were explored. RESULTS: Among 23 708 rasagiline initiators and 96 552 matched APD initiators, the crude IR of melanoma/100 000 person-years was 334.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 291.5-381.6) and 208.2 (95% CI, 190.1-227.5), respectively (crude IRR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.36-1.89). The adjusted HR was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.14-1.65) and increased with longer rasagiline exposure and higher cumulative rasagiline doses. Rasagiline initiators more frequently had dermatologist visits or skin biopsies before cohort entry than APD initiators and had a higher incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer during follow-up (crude IRR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.35-1.54). CONCLUSIONS: A small increased incidence of melanoma with exposure to rasagiline compared with other APDs was observed. Although the pattern with dose and duration is consistent with a hypothesized biologic effect, the increased skin cancer surveillance among rasagiline users suggests surveillance bias as a contributing explanation for the observed results.

Inter- and intrarater reliability of the Ashworth Scale and the Disability Assessment Scale in patients with upper-limb poststroke spasticity.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of the Ashworth Scale and the Disability Assessment Scale (DAS) in poststroke patients with upper-limb spasticity and functional disability. DESIGN: Single-center trial. SETTING: University medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Nine patients > or = 6 months poststroke with upper-limb spasticity and impairment in the areas of hygiene, dressing, limb posture, or pain were included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Ten experienced medical professionals rated each patient in randomized order twice on the same day (results based on mean of evaluations at times 1 and 2). Elbow, wrist, finger, and thumb flexion tones were assessed by using the Ashworth score (range, 0-4), and functional disability was assessed using the DAS (range, 0-3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intra- and interrater reliability of the Ashworth Scale and DAS. RESULTS: For the Ashworth parameters, 38 of 40 evaluations indicated excellent (weighted kappa > or = .75) or good (weighted kappa > or = .4) intrarater reliability. For DAS parameters, 31 of 40 evaluations indicated excellent or good intrarater reliability. The interrater reliability was also good for both the Ashworth Scale (Kendall W=.598-.792) and DAS (Kendall W=.494-.772) with statistically significant agreement found among raters (all P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with upper-limb spasticity after stroke, the Ashworth Scale and DAS had good intra- and interrater reliability when used by trained medical professions.