Investigating the prognostic value of digital mobility outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 37993126
- PMCID: PMC10663939
- DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0134-2023
Investigating the prognostic value of digital mobility outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Reduced mobility is a central feature of COPD. Assessment of mobility outcomes that can be measured digitally (digital mobility outcomes (DMOs)) in daily life such as gait speed and steps per day is increasingly possible using devices such as pedometers and accelerometers, but the predictive value of these measures remains unclear in relation to key outcomes such as hospital admission and survival.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review, nested within a larger scoping review by the MOBILISE-D consortium, addressing DMOs in a range of chronic conditions. Qualitative and quantitative analysis considering steps per day and gait speed and their association with clinical outcomes in COPD patients was performed.
Results: 21 studies (6076 participants) were included. Nine studies evaluated steps per day and 11 evaluated a measure reflecting gait speed in daily life. Negative associations were demonstrated between mortality risk and steps per day (per 1000 steps) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.88, p<0.001), gait speed (<0.80 m·s-1) (HR 3.55, 95% CI 1.72-7.36, p<0.001) and gait speed (per 1.0 m·s-1) (HR 7.55, 95% CI 1.11-51.3, p=0.04). Fewer steps per day (per 1000) and slow gait speed (<0.80 m·s-1) were also associated with increased healthcare utilisation (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.88, p<0.001; OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.42-7.94, p=0.01, respectively). Available evidence was of low-moderate quality with few studies eligible for meta-analysis.
Conclusion: Daily step count and gait speed are negatively associated with mortality risk and other important outcomes in people with COPD and therefore may have value as prognostic indicators in clinical trials, but the quantity and quality of evidence is limited. Larger studies with consistent methodologies are called for.
Copyright ©The authors 2023.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest declaration: S.C. Buttery reports educational speaker fees for Pulmonx. J.K. Quint has received grants from the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Data Science (HDR UK), GlaxoSmithKline, Bohringer Ingelheim and Taskforce via Asthma + Lung UK, and AstraZeneca; and personal fees for advisory board participation, consultancy or speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Evidera, AstraZeneca and Insmed. M.I. Polkey reports consultancy for Philips Respironics. J. Garcia-Aymerich reports speaker honoraria from Chiesi and a grant from AstraZeneca paid to her institution for a COVID-19-related project and is also a paid advisory board member for AstraZeneca. A. Polhemus is a paid employee of Merck & Co, Inc. and IQVIA AG. T. Troosters reports a Mobilise-D Innotive Medicines Initiative grant. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical