3D Kinematics Quantifies Gait Response to Levodopa earlier and to a more Comprehensive Extent than the MDS‐Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale in Patients with Motor Complications

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Quantitative 3D movement analysis using inertial measurement units (IMUs) allows for a more detailed characterization of motor patterns than clinical assessment alone. It is essential to discriminate between gait features that are responsive or unresponsive to current therapies to better understand the underlying pathophysiological basis and identify potential therapeutic strategies. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to characterize the responsiveness and temporal evolution of different gait subcomponents in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients in their OFF and various ON states following levodopa administration, utilizing both wearable sensors and the gold-standard MDS-UPDRS motor part III. METHODS: Seventeen PD patients were assessed while wearing a full-body set of 15 IMUs in their OFF state and at 20-minute intervals following the administration of a supra-threshold levodopa dose. Gait was reconstructed using a biomechanical model of the human body to quantify how each feature was modulated. Comparisons with non-PD control subjects were conducted in parallel. RESULTS: Significant motor changes were observed in both the upper and lower limbs according to the MDS-UPDRS III, 40 minutes after levodopa intake. IMU-assisted 3D kinematics detected significant motor alterations as early as 20 minutes after levodopa administration, particularly in upper limbs metrics. Although all "pace-domain" gait features showed significant improvement in the Best-ON state, most rhythmicity, asymmetry, and variability features did not. CONCLUSION: IMUs are capable of detecting motor alterations earlier and in a more comprehensive manner than the MDS-UPDRS III. The upper limbs respond more rapidly to levodopa, possibly reflecting distinct thresholds to levodopa across striatal regions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.