Valerie J. Block
Riley Bove
Bardia Nourbakhsh2†- 1Department of Neurology, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
- 2Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
Fatigue is one of the most common multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms. Despite this, monitoring and measuring fatigue (subjective lack of energy)– and fatigability (objectively measurable and quantifiable performance decline)– in people with MS have remained challenging. Traditionally, administration of self-report questionnaires during in-person visits has been used to measure fatigue. However, remote measurement and monitoring of fatigue and fatigability have become feasible in the past decade. Traditional questionnaires can be administered through the web in any setting. The ubiquitous availability of smartphones allows for momentary and frequent measurement of MS fatigue in the ecological home-setting. This approach reduces the recall bias inherent in many traditional questionnaires and demonstrates the fluctuation of fatigue that cannot be captured by standard measures. Wearable devices can assess patients' fatigability and activity levels, often influenced by the severity of subjective fatigue. Remote monitoring of fatigue, fatigability, and activity in real-world situations can facilitate quantifying symptom-severity in clinical and research settings. Combining remote measures of fatigue as well as objective fatigability in a single construct, composite score, may provide a more comprehensive outcome. The more granular data obtained through remote monitoring techniques may also help with the development of interventions aimed at improving fatigue and lowering the burden of this disabling symptom.
Introduction
Evaluating Fatigue or Fatigability?
One of the more challenging aspects of research in multiple sclerosis (MS) fatigue is a lack of consensus on how to define, and therefore measure, this heterogeneous symptom.
Fatigue has variably been described as “an overwhelming sense of tiredness that is out of proportion to the performed activity” (1), “a feeling of difficulty initiating, or sustaining voluntary effort” (2), or “a feeling related to a lack of motivation to deploy resources” (3). A panel of experts (the MS Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines) defined MS fatigue as “a subjective lack of physical and/or mental energy that the individual or caregiver perceives to interfere with usual activities” (4). This definition not only points to the multidimensionality of MS fatigue and its negative impact on patient's life, but also emphasizes the subjective nature of this symptom.
However, this expert definition is still vague and does not answer many important and practical questions about the severity, temporality, or triggers of fatigue. For example, one patient may feel they do not have enough energy for going on a hike, and another may feel they do not have the energy to go from the living room to the mailbox. The severity, and perhaps, the “quality” of fatigue is very different between these two patients, yet the definition does not distinguish between the two, nor does it clarify if the subjective lack of energy happens before or after an effortful activity.
In contrast to the subjective feeling of lack of energy (fatigue), fatigability has been defined as a more objectively measurable and quantifiable performance decline in physical or cognitive tasks. Unfortunately, even the association between subjective fatigue and objective fatigability in MS is not straightforward, as noted in people with advanced MS where change in subjective fatigue did not correlate with cognitive fatigability (5). More encouragingly, subjective fatigue (measured with a validated questionnaire) was associated with an objective measure of physical activity (step count from an accelerometer, as a proxy for physical fatigability) in a cohort of MS with a wide range of disability scores (6). After exertion, a 6-min walk test, gait and motor parameters (postural sway, arm-swing and hand grip strength) demonstrated potential associations with fatigue ratings and fatigability scores (7). These emphasize the need for objective, validated measures that are able to capture real-time fatigability in people with MS (PwMS), during all moments of the day (i.e., during and after going for a hike, going to the mailbox, or sitting watching TV) and over many days at a time.
Current Methods Of Evaluation For Fatigue and Fatigability and Their Limitations
Fatigue
Clinical methods to characterize patients' feeling of fatigue use self-reported questionnaires (8). Data derived from self-report scales depend on the scale developer's conceptualization of fatigue and the respondent's interpretation of the questions (9). Some scales, developed to quantify fatigue in other medical conditions, are not specific to MS. Most fatigue questionnaires ask patients to retrospectively evaluate previous fatigue, and many have a look-back period of seven to 28 days (hence, calling these measurements “trait” fatigue) (10). However, the scores usually do not portray the average fatigue severity in the look-back period and are mainly influenced by the most recent and most severe fatigue states (11). These scales do not provide any information about either diurnal or day-to-day variations in fatigue severity, phenomena that are well-known to patients with MS and their clinicians (i.e. “having good days and bad days”) (10). The lack of granularity and placebo-responsiveness of fatigue measures from self-report questionnaires could represent significant limitations to identifying or developing effective fatigue treatments in MS (12).
To address the problem with recall bias, there has been an attempt to use self-report questions or questionnaires to assess the fatigue “state” (fatigue severity at the moment) (13). These include visual analog scales and/or asking patients to rate how severe their fatigue is at the moment of assessment. However, because of the diurnal and day-to-day variations of fatigue severity, “state” fatigue needs to be measured several times a day and over a longer epoch to provide a more comprehensive picture of a patient's fatigue severity. This in turn may increase the sense of fatigue in the patient.
Fatigability
Considering the inherent limitations of self-report measures, efforts to measure fatigue more objectively have involved several physical and cognitive performance-based measures. In these tests, compared to healthy controls, patients with MS demonstrate a decline in physical (e.g., sustained muscle contraction) and cognitive function (e.g., visual and verbal memory) after an effortful continuous performance task (14). These declines can happen even if baseline muscle strength and cognitive performance are normal. To date, such objective declines in performance (which we defined as fatigability) may not correlate with self-reported fatigue (15, 16). This lack of correlation might be because self-reported fatigue has a look-back period and is supposed to measure “the average fatigue severity” over the look-back period, while the performance-based test measures the fatigability “at the moment.” This issue could be overcome by more frequent (or continuous) assessments of the performance.
The lack of correlation between subjective fatigue and objective fatigability may also be due to the multidimensionality of MS-related fatigue. In this case, it is important to incorporate both self-reported and performance-based measures when assessing fatigue in the research setting. Thus far, most clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of medication and interventions for MS-related fatigue have relied solely on self-reported questionnaires.
Remote Evaluation of Fatigue and Fatigability
Subjective Assessments: Fatigue
Almost all validated fatigue questionnaires can be administered and answered remotely by PwMS. These surveys can be accessed via a web page on patients' computers, smartphones or tables, from their homes or workplace. Remote evaluation of fatigue using patient surveys can obviate the need for a clinic visit and facilitates participation in fatigue research by reducing barriers (i.e., eliminating commutes to testing centers). Such a strategy was used in a clinical trial assessing the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for MS fatigue (12). The readability and acceptability of an electronic version of a recently-developed MS-specific fatigue questionnaire were formally demonstrated during the initial evaluation of the instrument (17). The advantage of computerized questionnaires also includes adaptive features, where the list of questions offered to a patient can change based on their answers to previous questions [e.g., Neuro-QOL fatigue survey (18)].
The ubiquitous availability and versatility of portable electronic devices and smartphones provide a unique opportunity to continuously obtain self-reported (fatigue; state and trait) and performance-based (fatigability) measures in patients' real-life settings. This methodology, referred to as ecological momentary assessment (EMA), involves the repeated sampling of subjects' experiences and behavior in the subjects' natural environment and in real-time (19). Applying the EMA to smartphones and electronic devices can create a set of observable behaviors from the interaction between human disease and the person's use of the technology, collectively referred to as digital phenotypes (20). In a study that used a handheld portable electronic device, a self-report of fatigue severity (by asking a single question) was prompted by auditory alarms multiple times a day. Fluctuation in fatigue in both PwMS and healthy individuals was demonstrated in this study (21). In another study, PwMS used a wrist-worn device to record Real-Time Digital Fatigue Scores (RDFS) several times a day, over 3 weeks. Mean RDFS correlated with traditional validated fatigue scores, and captured circadian variation in fatigue severity (22). In a similar way, smartphones can be used for gathering real-time, patient-reported fatigue severity several times a day and in various social situations. This eliminates the recall bias inherent to the currently used questionnaires. Smartphones can also be used to present patients with tasks (such as a reaction time task) to assess performance-based fatigue.
Objective Assessments: Fatigability
In a disease as fluctuating as MS, where symptoms can change hourly, one-time clinic-based measures do not provide us with a complete picture of the persons' performance or deficits. Wearable technology has greatly enhanced the ability to monitor patients' function outside of the clinic; smaller and more discreet wearable monitors can be worn on various parts of the body to provide data from everyday life.
Changes in accelerometer or sensor-based gait and muscle activation metrics can be used to infer the users fatigability over minutes, hours or days (23, 24). Physical activity in PwMS is influenced by multiple factors, one of which is the patients current subjective energy levels (state fatigue) (25, 26). As noted, physical activity outcomes from accelerometry have been associated with conventional measures of perceived fatigue in MS (27–32). Self-reported fatigue (state and trait) has also been associated with sensor-based gait parameters, providing a more objective correlate to an otherwise subjective measure (7, 33–36).
Smartphones
Because texting and web browsing are among smartphones' most used features, keystroke dynamics (KD) data can be studied as a possible measure of fatigue in MS. KD is one of the behavioral biometric characteristics and is based on the assumption that different people have different typing manners. KD has constant and variable components. The constant component is dependent on the person's physical data and does not change over time. The variable component, however, is dependent on the person's psychological state. By associating changes in parameters such as typing speed, the number of mistakes, and usage of specific keys, changes in physical and mental behavior could be determined. For example, in a study of healthy subjects using specific key press and release timing information from text input tasks, average daytime fatigue recognition accuracy of 98% could be reached (37). Also, specific changes in smartphone usage and KD metadata were correlated with mood states in patients with bipolar affective disorder (38). Keystroke features differentiated between PwMS and healthy controls and were correlated with measures of disability, such as the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). However, KD data were not associated with traditional trait fatigue questionnaires, such as Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) (39). This lack of correlation could be due to recall bias associated with traditional questionnaires. There is a possibility that KD data better reflect fatigability (as opposed to subjective fatigue). Future longitudinal studies with concurrent measurements of fatigue and fatigability can answer these questions.
Activity Monitors
Types of Activity Monitors
Many gait and activity assessment wearables exist, chiefly divided into Activity monitors: measuring the quantity of activity, and Movement monitors: for gait quality or movement. The pedometer is the simplest activity monitor - traditionally used to record step counts only (40). The most commonly used research devices in MS are triaxial waist-worn accelerometers (e.g., ActiGraphs) (41). However, these devices tend to express output in activity counts rather than step counts, which are potentially harder to interpret for the lay person. Some devices are designed to wear on lower limbs (i.e., ankle or thigh) (42). Despite variable correlation accuracy with manual step counts, they may not be practical for longer-term use as they look less like ‘trendy wearables' and more research or monitoring devices (43, 44). Other devices used in research adhere to the skin, for example, the ActivPAL or the BioStamp (45). A study in MS found that the BioStamp had high accuracy for detecting gait patterns and step number and perceived differences in gait characteristics by disability level (45). Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) devices are also used for evaluation and monitoring. These small devices are comprised of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers which measure linear acceleration, angular velocity, and magnetic field strength, respectively. They can be embedded in shoes or clothing, providing spatio-temporal data. Multisensors, using biaxial accelerometers with heat flux sensors, skin temperature sensors, near-body ambient sensors, galvanic skin response sensors are worn on an armband around the upper arm. These provide a comprehensive picture of activity as well as the environment and physiological state of the user at the time of data capture (46), and by measuring multiple elements are likely to be advantageous for the study of a heterogeneous, multidimensional symptom like fatigue.
Types of Monitoring Outcomes
Remote monitors generate an array of outcomes, including activity counts or step counts (using different levels of granularity and aggregated data summaries; daily or minute-by-minute, intensity, duration), gait kinematics (such as walking speed, stride length, width and cadence), energy expenditure, heart rate, breathing rate, burnt calories, sleep quality and duration, estimation of activity type, range of movement, distance traveled - and more. Due to the many factors and symptoms that can affect fatigue (state or trait) and fatigability, the use of remote wearable devices that can measure various outcomes concurrently in everyday life would be ideal. Supposedly due to restrictions in size and weight of the devices, none to date evaluate all outcomes in the home setting.
Real-World Examples
A significant benefit of wearable devices is their potential for ecological and continuous use. Therefore, commercially available devices made for ‘ease of use' and with fashion-conscious designs have made their way into clinical research to improve adherence in longitudinal studies. The Apple iWatch and Fitbit specifically have gained wide publicity (47–73).
In MS, studies evaluating physical activity using commercial wearables have shown (1) strong-moderate correlations between clinical and patient-reported disability measures (6, 74–80), (2) continuous observation provides less biased assessment vs. sporadic cross-sectional measures (6, 74, 81, 82), (3) fatigue is not the only factor affecting sedentary behavior and physical activity in MS (83, 84) and (4) that average daily step count (STEPS) is responsive to change over 1-year, even when conventional measures remain stable (74).
Associations With Fatigability (Performance) and Trait Fatigue (Patient Rating)
In the FITriMS study (a year-long observational study of continuous, remote ambulatory activity in PwMS) participants wore a Fitbit Flex for up to 2 years on their non-dominant wrist and were asked to complete online surveys every 6 months, including a subjective, validated measure of fatigue: the 5-item Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS-5) (6, 74, 85). Results indicated that STEPS strongly correlate not only with ambulatory function (6) but also with worse MFIS-5 scores (r = −0.44, p < 0.05).
Remote Monitoring Captures Fatiguability and State Fatigue
Initial research using bilateral foot-worn sensors (small IMUs) demonstrated the ability of spatio-temporal gait parameters to predict fatigue level (using the BORG scale for perceived exertion as a proxy for state fatigue) (86). Results from the foot-worn sensors demonstrate a significant change in gait parameters pre and post a 6-min walk test – providing information about the subjects' performance/fatigability. These data highlight the promising use of remote monitors as objective measures to evaluate fatigue as well as fatigability in PwMS both inside and out of the clinic setting.
Trait and state fatigue has been correlated to poor sleep quality and quantity (87). Increased physical activity (moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) has been correlated with improved sleep quality and reductions in subjective fatigue (88–90). Given the heterogeneity of symptoms associated with fatigue and the lack of insight into sleep quality and quantity in the home setting, remote devices monitoring sleep and physical activity are beneficial for evaluating personalized correlations on a patient-by-patient basis. Similarly, restless leg syndrome (RLS) is common in PwMS and has been correlated with higher fatigue (trait) and worse sleep quality and quantity (91)– using wearables to evaluate night-time lower extremity movement (from RLS) and sleep metrics can provide tailored information about factors exacerbating or involved in MS fatigue and potentially also fatiguability.
General Limitations and Possible Solutions (i.e., Future Work)
Fatigue, by definition, remains a subjective symptom, and similar to pain, the measurement and monitoring tools will rely on patients' reports. Although subjective fatigue contributes to reduced physical, cognitive, and psychosocial activities among patients, many other factors result in decreased activity and fatigability. The pathophysiology of MS fatigue is also multifactorial and is different among patients and even for a given patient over the disease course. So, finding a single serological, cerebrospinal fluid, structural, or functional imaging biomarker for MS fatigue may not be attainable.
In this situation, we recommend combining ecological momentary fatigue assessment (i.e., for state and trait fatigue, using repeated questionnaires via smartphone applications) and remote real-world measurement of physical and cognitive function (fatigability) as a solution to this complex problem. Perhaps, it is possible to design a combined ‘composite score' that incorporates both subjective fatigue and objective fatigability into a single construct. Isolating the concept of fatigue from similar concepts, such as depression and excessive daytime sleepiness, and understanding how they affect and interact with each other may lead to more specific and targeted treatments for patients.
Looking forward, remote monitors can be used for therapeutic intervention. Exercise, as well as energy conservation methods, are known to be beneficial for treating MS fatigue (89, 92, 93). Using monitors can help personalize when, how and how much activity a person can perform before getting exhausted. A real-world example, from the FITriMS study, was the use of the Fitbit step count as a “dose-meter” – allowing the participant to know when they needed to slow down to ensure sufficient energy for the rest of the day, and even subsequent days.
Conclusion
Subjective fatigue is one of the most common MS symptoms. Validated questionnaires are the most common tools for monitoring and measuring this disabling symptom. Most fatigue questionnaires can be administered remotely and can therefore be used for remote evaluation of fatigue in patients. Through deployment via smartphones and other mobile technologies, ecological momentary assessment may enable clinicians and researchers to better understand the patients' fatigue level, and its fluctuation and response to treatment in real-life settings. Objective decline of patients' function with exertion: what has been defined as fatigability, can be evaluated using wearable devices assessing level of physical activity - that can be influenced by fatigue severity. Wearables can also quantify the objective decline. By combining validated questionnaires, momentary and frequent subjective assessments, and objective measures of function and its decline with exertion, remote monitoring techniques will provide a more comprehensive picture of a patient's burden of symptoms and treatment response.
Author Contributions
VB and BN contributed to conception and design as well as drafting and revision of the manuscript. RB contributed to concept and revision of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of Interest
As recipient of the Career Transition Award, VB received funding from The National Multiple Sclerosis Society. As recipient of the Harry Weaver Award, RB received funding from The National Multiple Sclerosis Society. BN has received research funding from NMSS, PCORI, NIH, DoD and Gentech. BN also received personal fees from Jazz Pharmaceutical.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Induruwa I, Constantinescu CS, Gran B. Fatigue in multiple sclerosis - a brief review. J Neurol Sci. (2012) 323:9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2012.08.007
2. Chaudhuri A, Behan PO. Fatigue in neurological disorders. Lancet. (2004) 363:978–88. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15794-2
3. Dantzer R, Heijnen CJ, Kavelaars A, Laye S, Capuron L. The neuroimmune basis of fatigue. Trends Neurosci. (2014) 37:39–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2013.10.003
4. Penner I-K, Paul F. Fatigue as a symptom or comorbidity of neurological diseases. Nature Rev Neurol. (2017) 13:662–75. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2017.117
5. Bailey A, Channon S, Beaumont JG. The relationship between subjective fatigue and cognitive fatigue in advanced multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis. (2007) 13:73–80. doi: 10.1177/1352458506071162
6. Block VJ, Lizée A, Crabtree-Hartman E, Bevan CJ, Graves JS, Bove R, et al. Continuous daily assessment of multiple sclerosis disability using remote step count monitoring. J Neurol. (2017) 264:316–26. doi: 10.1007/s00415-016-8334-6
7. Drebinger D, Rasche L, Kroneberg D, Althoff P, Bellmann-Strobl J, Weygandt M, et al. Association between fatigue and motor exertion in patients with multiple sclerosis—a prospective study. Front Neurol. (2020) 11:2085. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00208
8. Elbers RG, Rietberg MB, van Wegen EE, Verhoef J, Kramer SF, Terwee CB, et al. Self-report fatigue questionnaires in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and stroke: a systematic review of measurement properties. Qual Life Res. (2012) 21:925–44. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0009-2
9. Donovan KA, Jacobsen PB, Small BJ, Munster PN, Andrykowski MA. Identifying Clinically meaningful fatigue with the fatigue symptom inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2008) 36:480–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.11.013
10. Heine M, van den Akker LE, Blikman L, Hoekstra T, van Munster E, Verschuren O, et al. Real-time assessment of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis: how does it relate to commonly used self-report fatigue questionnaires? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.04.019
11. Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, Redelmeier DA. When more pain is preferred to less: adding a better end. Psychol Sci. (1993) 4:401–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x
12. Nourbakhsh B, Revirajan N, Morris B, Cordano C, Creasman J, Manguinao M, et al. Safety and efficacy of amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-blind trial. Lancet Neurol. (2021) 20:38–48. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30354-9
13. Natsheh JY, DeLuca J, Costa SL, Chiaravalloti ND, Dobryakova E. Methylphenidate may improve mental fatigue in individuals with multiple sclerosis: a pilot clinical trial. Mult Scler Relat Disord. (2021) 56:103273. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.103273
14. Enoka RM, Almuklass AM, Alenazy M, Alvarez E, Duchateau J. Distinguishing between fatigue and fatigability in multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2021) 35:960–73. doi: 10.1177/15459683211046257
15. Gould JR, Reineberg AE, Cleland BT, Knoblauch KE, Clinton GK, Banich MT, et al. Adjustments in torque steadiness during fatiguing contractions are inversely correlated with IQ in persons with multiple sclerosis. Front Physiol. (2018) 9:1404. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01404
16. Taul-Madsen L, Dalgas U, Kjølhede T, Hvid LG, Petersen T, Riemenschneider M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of an isometric and a concentric fatigability protocol and the association with fatigue and walking in persons with multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2020) 34:523–32. doi: 10.1177/1545968320920250
17. Hudgens S, Schüler R, Stokes J, Eremenco S, Hunsche E, Leist TP. Development and validation of the FSIQ-RMS: a new patient-reported questionnaire to assess symptoms and impacts of fatigue in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Value in Health. (2019) 22:453–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.11.007
18. Healy BC, Zurawski J, Gonzalez CT, Chitnis T, Weiner HL, Glanz BI. Assessment of computer adaptive testing version of the Neuro-QOL for people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis. (2019) 25:1791–9. doi: 10.1177/1352458518810159
19. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. (2008) 4:1–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
20. Jain SH, Powers BW, Hawkins JB, Brownstein JS. The digital phenotype. Nat Biotechnol. (2015) 33:462–3. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3223
21. Powell DJH, Liossi C, Schlotz W, Moss-Morris R. Tracking daily fatigue fluctuations in multiple sclerosis: ecological momentary assessment provides unique insights. J Behav Med. (2017) 40:772–83. doi: 10.1007/s10865-017-9840-4
22. Kim E, Lovera J, Schaben L, Melara J, Bourdette D, Whitham R. Novel method for measurement of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: real-time digital fatigue score. J Rehabil Res Dev. (2010) 47:477–84. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2009.09.0151
23. Ocampo JPFE, Dizon JAT, Reyes CVI, Capitulo JJC, Tapang JKG, Prado SV editors. Evaluation of muscle fatigue degree using surface electromyography and accelerometer signals in fall detection systems. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Signal and Image Processing Applications (ICSIPA) 2017 12-14 Sept. 2017. doi: 10.1109/ICSIPA.2017.8120573
24. Foong YC, Chherawala N, Aitken D, Scott D, Winzenberg T, Jones G. Accelerometer-determined physical activity, muscle mass, and leg strength in community-dwelling older adults. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. (2016) 7:275–83. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12065
25. Kratz AL, Atalla M, Whibley D, Myles A, Thurston T, Fritz NE. Calling out MS fatigue: feasibility and preliminary effects of a pilot randomized telephone-delivered exercise intervention for multiple sclerosis fatigue. J Neurol Phy Therapy. (2020) 44:23–31. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000296
26. Smith C, Olson K, Hale LA, Baxter D, Schneiders AG. How does fatigue influence community-based exercise participation in people with multiple sclerosis? Disabil Rehabil. (2011) 33:2362–71. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.573054
27. Motl RW, McAuley E, Snook EM, Gliottoni RC. Physical activity and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: intermediary roles of disability, fatigue, mood, pain, self-efficacy and social support. Psychol Health Med. (2009) 14:111–24. doi: 10.1080/13548500802241902
28. Blikman LJ, van Meeteren J, Horemans HL, Kortenhorst IC, Beckerman H, Stam HJ, et al. Is physical behavior affected in fatigued persons with multiple sclerosis? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2015) 96:24–9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.08.023
29. Cavanaugh JT, Gappmaier VO, Dibble LE, Gappmaier E. Ambulatory activity in individuals with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Physical Therapy: JNPT. (2011) 35:26–33. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e3182097190
30. Halabchi F, Alizadeh Z, Sahraian MA, Abolhasani M. Exercise prescription for patients with multiple sclerosis; potential benefits and practical recommendations. BMC Neurol. (2017) 17:185. doi: 10.1186/s12883-017-0960-9
31. Kratz AL, Fritz NE, Braley TJ, Scott EL, Foxen-Craft E, Murphy SL. Daily Temporal associations between physical activity and symptoms in multiple sclerosis. Annals Behav Med: Pub Soc Behav Med. (2019) 53:98–108. doi: 10.1093/abm/kay018
32. McAuley E, White SM, Rogers LQ, Motl RW, Courneya KS. Physical activity and fatigue in breast cancer and multiple sclerosis: psychosocial mechanisms. Psychosom Med. (2010) 72:88–96. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181c68157
33. Burschka JM, Keune PM, Menge U. Hofstadt-van Oy U, Oschmann P, Hoos O. An exploration of impaired walking dynamics and fatigue in multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. (2012) 12:161. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-12-161
34. Dalgas U, Langeskov-Christensen M, Skjerbæk A, Jensen E, Baert I, Romberg A, et al. Is the impact of fatigue related to walking capacity and perceived ability in persons with multiple sclerosis? A multicenter study. J Neurol Sci. (2018) 387:179–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2018.02.026
35. Feys P, Severijns D, Vantenderloo S, Knuts K, Hannes D, Gijbels D, et al. Spatio-temporal gait parameters change differently according to speed instructions and walking history in MS patients with different ambulatory dysfunction. Mult Scler Relat Disord. (2013) 2:238–46. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2013.01.004
36. Ibrahim AA, Küderle A, Gaßner H, Klucken J, Eskofier BM, Kluge F. Inertial sensor-based gait parameters reflect patient-reported fatigue in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. (2020) 17:165. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00798-9
37. Ulinskas M, Damaševičius R, Maskeliunas R, Wozniak M. Recognition of human daytime fatigue using keystroke data. Procedia Comput Sci. (2018) 130:947–52. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.094
38. Zulueta J, Piscitello A, Rasic M, Easter R, Babu P, Langenecker SA, et al. Predicting mood disturbance severity with mobile phone keystroke metadata: a biaffect digital phenotyping study. J Med Internet Res. (2018) 20:e241. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9775
39. Lam KH, Meijer KA, Loonstra FC, Coerver EME, Twose J, Redeman E, et al. Real-world keystroke dynamics are a potentially valid biomarker for clinical disability in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal. (2021) 27:1421–31. doi: 10.1177/1352458520968797
40. Casey B, Coote S, Donnelly A. Objective physical activity measurement in people with multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil Assistive Technol. (2018) 13:124–31. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1297859
41. Block VJ, Pitsch E, Tahir P, Cree BA, Allen DD, Gelfand JM. Remote physical activity monitoring in neurological disease: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0154335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154335
42. Giggins OM, Clay I, Walsh L. Physical activity monitoring in patients with neurological disorders: a review of novel body-worn devices. Digital Biomarkers. (2017) 1:14–42. doi: 10.1159/000477384
43. Coulter EH, Miller L, McCorkell S, McGuire C, Algie K, Freeman J, et al. Validity of the activPAL3 activity monitor in people moderately affected by multiple sclerosis. Med Eng Phys. (2017) 45:78–82. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.03.008
44. Horak F, King L, Mancini M. Role of body-worn movement monitor technology for balance and gait rehabilitation. Phys Ther. (2015) 95:461–70. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20140253
45. Moon Y, McGinnis RS, Seagers K, Motl RW, Sheth N, Wright JA Jr, et al. Monitoring gait in multiple sclerosis with novel wearable motion sensors. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0171346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171346
46. Arvidsson D, Slinde F, Larsson S, Hulthen L. Energy cost in children assessed by multisensor activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2009) 41:603–11. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818896f4
47. Mammen G, Gardiner S, Senthinathan A, McClemont L, Stone M, Faulkner G. Is this bit fit? measuring the quality of the fitbit step-counter. Health Fit J Canada. (2012) 5:30–9. doi: 10.14288/hfjc.v5i4.144
48. Montgomery-Downs HE, Insana SP, Bond JA. Movement toward a novel activity monitoring device. Sleep Breath. (2012) 16:913–7. doi: 10.1007/s11325-011-0585-y
49. Adam Noah J, Spierer DK, Gu J, Bronner S. Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of fitbit tracker and ultra to the actical and indirect calorimetry. J Med Eng Technol. (2013) 37:456–62. doi: 10.3109/03091902.2013.831135
50. Fulk GD, Combs SA, Danks KA, Nirider CD, Raja B, Reisman DS. Accuracy of 2 activity monitors in detecting steps in people with stroke and traumatic brain injury. Phys Ther. (2014) 94:222–9. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120525
51. Lee JM, Kim Y, Welk GJ. Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2014) 46:1840–8. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000287
52. Lyons EJ, Lewis ZH. Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity monitors. A Sys Cont Anal. (2014) 16:e192. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3469
53. Takacs J, Pollock C, Guenther J, Bahar M, Napier C, Hunt M. Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walking. J Sci Med Sport. (2014) 17:496–500. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.10.241
54. Tully MA, McBride C, Heron L, Hunter RF. The validation of Fibit Zip physical activity monitor as a measure of free-living physical activity. BMC Res Notes. (2014) 7:952. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-952
55. Vooijs M, Alpay LL. Validity and usability of low-cost accelerometers for internet-based self-monitoring of physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Interact J Med Res. (2014) 3:e14. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.3056
56. Washington WD, Banna KM, Gibson AL. Preliminary efficacy of prize-based contingency management to increase activity levels in healthy adults. J Appl Behav Anal. (2014) 47:231–45. doi: 10.1002/jaba.119
57. Cadmus-Bertram LA, Marcus BH, Patterson RE, Parker BA, Morey BL. Randomized trial of a fitbit-based physical activity intervention for women. Am J Prev Med. (2015) 49:414–8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.020
58. Dempsey W, Liao P, Klasnja P, Nahum-Shani I, Murphy SA. Randomised trials for the fitbit generation. Significance. (2015) 12:20–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00863.x
59. Diaz KM, Krupka DJ, Chang MJ, Peacock J, Ma Y, Goldsmith J, et al. Fitbit(R): An accurate and reliable device for wireless physical activity tracking. Int J Cardiol. (2015) 185:138–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.038
60. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2015) 12:159. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1
61. Paul SS, Tiedemann A, Hassett LM, Ramsay E, Kirkham C, Chagpar S, et al. Validity of the Fitbit activity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults. BMJ Open Sport Exe Med. (2015) 1:13. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000013
62. Alharbi M, Bauman A, Neubeck L, Gallagher R. Validation of Fitbit-Flex as a measure of free-living physical activity in a community-based phase III cardiac rehabilitation population. Eur J Prev Cardiol. (2016) 8:33. doi: 10.1177/2047487316634883
63. An HS, Jones GC, Kang SK, Welk GJ, Lee JM. How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps? European journal of sport science. (2016) 5:1–9. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2016.1255261
64. Floegel TA, Florez-Pregonero A, Hekler EB, Buman MP. Validation of Consumer-Based Hip and Wrist Activity Monitors in Older Adults With Varied Ambulatory Abilities. J Gerontol Series A, Biol Sci Med Sci. (2016). doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw098
65. Hooke MC, Gilchrist L, Tanner L, Hart N, Withycombe JS. Use of a fitness tracker to promote physical activity in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer. (2016) 63:684–9. doi: 10.1002/pbc.25860
66. Aminian S, Motl RW, Rowley J, Manns PJ. Management of multiple sclerosis symptoms through reductions in sedentary behaviour: protocol for a feasibility study. BMJ Open. (2019) 9:e026622. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026622
67. Block VJ, Zhao C, Hollenbach JA, Olgin JE, Marcus GM, Pletcher MJ, et al. Validation of a consumer-grade activity monitor for continuous daily activity monitoring in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis J - Exp, Transl Clin. (2019) 5:2055217319888660. doi: 10.1177/2055217319888660
68. Silveira SL, Motl RW. Activity monitor use among persons with multiple sclerosis: Report on rate, pattern, and association with physical activity levels. Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. (2019) 5(4):2055217319887986. doi: 10.1177/2055217319887986
69. Manns PJ, Mehrabani G, Norton S, Aminian S, Motl RW. The sitless with ms program: intervention feasibility and change in sedentary behavior. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. (2020) 2:100083. doi: 10.1016/j.arrct.2020.100083
70. Farmer C, van den Berg ME, Vuu S, Barr CJ. A study of the accuracy of the Fitbit Zip in measuring steps both indoors and outdoors in a mixed rehabilitation population. Clin Rehabil. (2021) 3:2692155211035293. doi: 10.1177/02692155211035293
71. de Vries SI, Bakker I, Hopman-Rock M, Hirasing RA, van Mechelen W. Clinimetric review of motion sensors in children and adolescents. J Clin Epidemiol. (2006) 59:670–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.020
72. Plasqui G, Westerterp KR. Physical activity assessment with accelerometers: an evaluation against doubly labeled water. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). (2007) 15:2371–9. doi: 10.1038/oby.2007.281
73. Wright SP, Hall Brown TS, Collier SR, Sandberg K. How consumer physical activity monitors could transform human physiology research. Am J Physiol Regulat, Integrat Comp Physiol. (2017) 312:R358–r67. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00349.2016
74. Block VJ, Bove R, Zhao C, Garcha P, Graves J, Romeo AR, et al. Association of continuous assessment of step count by remote monitoring with disability progression among adults with multiple sclerosis. JAMA Network Open. (2019) 2:e190570e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0570
75. Motl RW, Zhu W, Park Y, McAuley E, Scott JA, Snook EM. Reliability of scores from physical activity monitors in adults with multiple sclerosis. Adap Phys Act Quart: APAQ. (2007) 24:245–53. doi: 10.1123/apaq.24.3.245
76. Motl RW. Physical activity and its measurement and determinants in multiple sclerosis. Minerva Med. (2008) 99:157–65.
77. Schwartz CE, Ayandeh A, Motl RW. Investigating the minimal important difference in ambulation in multiple sclerosis: a disconnect between performance-based and patient-reported outcomes? J Neurol Sci. (2014) 347:268–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.10.021
78. Sebastiao E, Sandroff BM, Learmonth YC, Motl RW. Validity of the timed up and go test as a measure of functional mobility in persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2016) 97:1072–7. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.12.031
79. Goldman MD, Ward MD, Motl RW, Jones DE, Pula JH, Cadavid D. Identification and validation of clinically meaningful benchmarks in the 12-item multiple sclerosis walking scale. Multiple Sclerosis. (2017) 23:1405–14. doi: 10.1177/1352458516680749
80. Motl RW, Cohen JA, Benedict R, Phillips G, LaRocca N, Hudson LD, et al. Validity of the timed 25-foot walk as an ambulatory performance outcome measure for multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis. (2017) 5:1352458517690823. doi: 10.1177/1352458517690823
81. Keller JL, Tian F, Fitzgerald KC, Mische L, Ritter J, Costello MG, et al. Using real-world accelerometry-derived diurnal patterns of physical activity to evaluate disability in multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. (2022) 9:20556683211067362. doi: 10.1177/20556683211067362
82. Engelhard MM, Dandu SR, Patek SD, Lach JC, Goldman MD. Quantifying six-minute walk induced gait deterioration with inertial sensors in multiple sclerosis subjects. Gait Posture. (2016) 49:340–5. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.07.184
83. Neal WN, Cederberg KL, Jeng B, Sasaki JE, Motl RW. Is symptomatic fatigue associated with physical activity and sedentary behaviors among persons with multiple sclerosis? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2020) 34:505–11. doi: 10.1177/1545968320916159
84. Fortune J, Norris M, Stennett A, Kilbride C, Lavelle G, Hendrie W, et al. Patterns and correlates of sedentary behaviour among people with multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. (2021) 11:20346. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99631-z
85. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, Carroll WM, Coetzee T, Comi G, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. (2018) 17:162–73. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2
86. Ibrahim AA, Flachenecker F, Gaßner H, Rothammer V, Klucken J, Eskofier BM, et al. Short inertial sensor-based gait tests reflect perceived state fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. (2022) 58:103519. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.103519
87. Attarian HP, Brown KM, Duntley SP, Carter JD, Cross AH. The relationship of sleep disturbances and fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. (2004) 61:525–8. doi: 10.1001/archneur.61.4.525
88. Cederberg KLJ, Jeng B, Sasaki JE, Sikes EM, Cutter G, Motl RW. Physical activity and self-reported sleep quality in adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Health J. (2021) 14:101133. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101133
89. D'Hooghe M, Van Gassen G, Kos D, Bouquiaux O, Cambron M, Decoo D, et al. Improving fatigue in multiple sclerosis by smartphone-supported energy management: The MS TeleCoach feasibility study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. (2018) 22:90–6. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2018.03.020
90. Heine M, van de Port I, Rietberg MB, van Wegen EE, Kwakkel G. Exercise therapy for fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2015) 9:Cd009956. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009956.pub2
91. Riccitelli GC, Disanto G, Sacco R, Sparasci D, Sacco L, Castelnovo A, et al. Contribution of sleep disturbances to fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a prospective study using clinical and polysomnographic parameters. Eu J Neurol. (2021) 28:3139–46. doi: 10.1111/ene.14984
92. Stephens S, Shams S, Lee J, Grover SA, Longoni G, Berenbaum T, et al. Benefits of physical activity for depression and fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal analysis. J Pediatr. (2019) 209:226–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.01.040
Keywords: remote monitor, accelerometry, sensors, fatigue, fatigability, remote evaluation, multiple sclerosis
Citation: Block VJ, Bove R and Nourbakhsh B (2022) The Role of Remote Monitoring in Evaluating Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: A Review. Front. Neurol. 13:878313. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.878313
Received: 17 February 2022; Accepted: 06 June 2022;
Published: 27 June 2022.
Edited by:
Anna Pokryszko-Dragan, Wroclaw Medical University, PolandReviewed by:
Letizia Leocani, San Raffaele Hospital (IRCCS), ItalyCopyright © 2022 Block, Bove and Nourbakhsh. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Valerie J. Block, Valerie.block@ucsf.edu
†These authors share last authorship