There is growing interest in having objective assessment of health-related outcomes using technology-based devices that provide unbiased measurements which can be used in clinical practice and scientific research. Many studies have investigated the clinical manifestations of Parkinson’s disease using such devices. However, clinimetric properties and clinical validation vary among the different devices. Given such heterogeneity, we sought to perform a systematic review in order to (i) list, (ii) compare and (iii) classify technological-based devices used to measure motor function in individuals with Parkinson's disease into three groups, namely wearable, non-wearable and hybrid devices. A systematic literature search of the PubMed database resulted in the inclusion of 168 studies. These studies were grouped based on the type of device used. For each device we reviewed availability, use, reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. The devices were then classified as (i) ‘recommended’, (ii) ‘suggested’ or (iii) ‘listed’ based on the following criteria: (1) used in the assessment of Parkinson’s disease (yes/no), (2) used in published studies by people other than the developers (yes/no), and (3) successful clinimetric testing (yes/no). Seventy-three devices were identified, 22 were wearable, 38 were non-wearable, and 13 were hybrid devices. In accordance with our classification method, 9 devices were ‘recommended’, 34 devices were ‘suggested’, and 30 devices were classified as ‘listed’. Within the wearable devices group, the Mobility Lab sensors from Ambulatory Parkinson’s Disease Monitoring (APDM), Physilog®, StepWatch 3, TriTrac RT3 Triaxial accelerometer, McRoberts DynaPort, and Axivity (AX3) were classified as ‘recommended’. Within the non-wearable devices group, the Nintendo Wii Balance Board and GAITRite® gait analysis system were classified as ‘recommended’. Within the hybrid devices group only the Kinesia® system was classified as ‘recommended’.

Currently, assessment of symptoms associated with Parkinson’s disease is mainly performed in the clinic. However, these assessments have limitations because they provide only a snapshot of the condition. The feasibility and usability of an objective, continuous and relatively unobtrusive system (SENSE-PARK System), which consists of wearable sensors (three worn during the day and one worn at night), a smartphone-based App, a balance board and computer software, was tested 24/7 over 12 weeks in a study including 22 PD patients. During the first four weeks of the study, patients did not get feedback about their performance, during the last eight weeks they did. The study included seven clinical visits with standardized interviews, and regular phone contact. The primary outcome was the number of drop-outs during the study. As secondary outcomes, the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ), score and information obtained from the standardized interviews were used to evaluate the usability of the system. All patients completed the study. The participants rated the usability of the SENSE-PARK System with a mean score of 2.67 (±0.49) on the PSSUQ. The interviews revealed that most participants liked using the system and appreciated that it signaled changes in their health condition. This 12 week controlled study demonstrates that the acceptance level of PD patients using the SENSE-PARK System as a home-based 24/7 assessment is very good. Particular emphasis should be given to a user-friendly design. Motivation to wear such a system can be increased by providing direct feedback about the individual health condition.

Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients are affected by hypokinetic dysarthria, characterized by hypophonia and dysprosody, which worsens with disease progression. Levodopa’s (L-dopa) effect on quality of speech is inconclusive; no data are currently available for late-stage PD (LSPD). Objective: To assess the modifications of speech and voice in LSPD following an acute L-dopa challenge. Method: LSPD patients (Schwab and England 3 [MED ON]) performed several vocal tasks before and after an acute L-dopa challenge. The following was assessed: respiratory support for speech, voice quality, stability and variability, speech rate and motor performance (MDS-UPDRS-III). All voice samples were recorded and analyzed by a speech and language therapist blinded to patients’ therapeutic condition using Praat 5.1 software. Results: 24/27 (14 men) LSPD patients succeeded in performing voice tasks. Median age and disease duration of patients was 79 [IQR: 71.5-81.7] and 14.5 [IQR: 11-15.7] years, respectively. In MED OFF, respiratory breath support and pitch break time of LSPD patients were worse than the normative values of non-parkinsonian. A correlation was found between disease duration and voice quality (R=0.51; p=0.013) and speech rate (R= -0.55; p=0.008). L-dopa significantly improved MDS-UPDRS-III score (20%), with no effect on speech as assessed by clinical rating scales and automated analysis. Conclusion: Speech is severely affected in LSPD. Although L-dopa had some effect on motor performance, including axial signs, speech and voice did not improve. The applicability and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatment for speech impairment should be considered for speech disorder management in PD.

Non-motor symptoms (NMS) are extremely common among late-stage Parkinson's disease (LSPD) patients. Levodopa (L-dopa) responsiveness seems to decrease with disease progression but its effect on NMS in LSPD still needs to be investigated. To assess the response of blood pressure (BP), pain, fatigue and anxiety to L-dopa in LSPD patients. 20 LSPD patients, defined as Schwab and England ADL Scale 3 (MED ON) and 22 PD patients treated with subthalamic deep brain stimulation (advanced PD group) underwent an L-dopa challenge. BP and orthostatic hypotension (OH) assessment, a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and fatigue and the Strait Trait Anxiety (STAI) were evaluated before and after the L-dopa challenge. Systolic BP dropped significantly after L-dopa intake (p < 0.05) in LSPD patients, while there was no change in pain, fatigue or anxiety. L-dopa significantly improved (p < 0.05) pain and anxiety in the advanced PD group, whereas it had no effect on BP or fatigue. L-dopa-related adverse effects (AEs), namely OH and sleepiness, were more common among LSPD patients. 40% and 65% of LSPD patients were not able to fill out the VAS and the STAI, respectively, while measurement of orthostatic BP was not possible in four LSPD patients. This exploratory study concludes that some non-motor variables in LSPD do not benefit from the acute action of L-dopa while it can still induce disabling AEs. There is a need for assessment tools of NMS adapted to these disabled LSPD patients.