Actigraphy Informs Distinct Patient-Centered Outcomes in Pre-COPD

Lemlem Weldemichael, Jianhong Chen, Brian Giang, Jeroen Geerts, Siyang Zeng, Wendy Czerina Ching, Melissa Nishihama, Warren M Gold, Mehrdad Arjomandi
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.01.21256454

ABSTRACT

Background Actigraphy can clarify useful patient-centered outcomes for quantification of physical activity in the “real-world” setting.

Methods To characterize the relationship of actigraphy outputs with “in-laboratory” measures of cardiopulmonary function and respiratory symptoms in pre-COPD, we obtained actigraphy data for 8 hours/day for 5 consecutive days a week before in-laboratory administration of respiratory questionnaires, PFT, and CPET to a subgroup of subjects participating in the larger study of the health effects of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke who had air trapping but no spirometric obstruction (pre-COPD). Using machine learning approaches, we identified the most relevant actigraphy predictors and examined their associations with symptoms, lung function, and exercise outcomes.

Results Sixty-one subjects (age=66±7years; BMI=24±3kg/m2; FEV1/FVC=0.75±0.05; FEV1=103±17%predicted) completed the nested study. In the hierarchical cluster analysis, the activity, distance, and energy domains of actigraphy, including moderate to vigorous physical activity, were closely correlated with each other, but were only loosely associated with spirometric and peak exercise measures of oxygen consumption, ventilation, oxygen-pulse, and anaerobic threshold (VO2AT), and were divergent from symptom measures. Conversely, the sedentary domain clustered with respiratory symptoms, air trapping, airflow indices, and ventilatory efficiency. In Regression modeling, sedentary domain was inversely associated with baseline lung volumes and tidal breathing at peak exercise, while the activity domains were associated with VO2AT. Respiratory symptoms and PFT data were not associated with actigraphy outcomes.

Discussion Outpatient actigraphy can provide information for “real-world” patient-centered outcomes that are not captured by standardized respiratory questionnaires, lung function, or exercise testing. Actigraphy activity and sedentary domains inform of distinct outcomes.

What is the key question?How do real-world activity monitoring outputs correlate with in-laboratory measures of cardiopulmonary function or respiratory symptoms?

What is the bottom line?Actigraphy provided distinct information about functionality and daily physical activity that was not captured by in-laboratory lung function, exercise testing, or standardized respiratory questionnaires.

Why read on?Although in-laboratory functional assessments are helpful in evaluating functional capacity, actigraphy may be more informative of the real-world functional status, and may serve as an additional objective patient-centered outcome in observational and interventional studies aiming to assess functionality.

INTRODUCTION

The ability to assess and quantify the physical activity levels of patients can offer valuable insights into their general health and day-to-day functioning that may not be captured by traditional objective measurements of disease status, such as interview- or questionnaire-based evaluations or physiological or laboratory testing.1–3 Wearable activity monitors that measure “real-world” physical activity levels may thus serve as objective and reliable tools to assess health status and disease activity.4–7 The current-generation wearable activity monitors, including pedometers and accelerometers, are transforming the field of biomedical research by their capacity to approximate free-living conditions and measure real-world physical activity in a continuous and longitudinal, yet objective manner.8 However, the correlation between physical activity measurements obtained by actigraphy and the physical activity outcomes measured by physiologic and questionnaire-based tools has not been clearly identified.

In this study, we aimed to understand the relationship between physical activity measures obtained from a wearable activity monitor and those obtained from standardized respiratory questionnaires and “in-laboratory” lung function and exercise testing. We hypothesized that “real-world” actigraphy provides distinct outcomes that are not completely captured by standardized symptom questionnaires or traditional “in-laboratory” functional assessments. To assess this hypothesis, we examined the association of outpatient actigraphy measures with patient-reported respiratory physical activity and symptoms as well as lung function and exercise test results in a never-smoker cohort subgroup of a study on the health effects of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS); the participants were at risk for COPD due to their prolonged occupational exposure to SHS but showed preserved spirometry.

METHODS

Study overview

This observational study was nested in a larger study examining the cardiopulmonary health effects of SHS exposure in a cohort of nonsmoking individuals with a range of occupational SHS exposure, as previously described.9 Briefly, between July 2007 and March 2020, we recruited US airline flight crewmembers with a history of occupational exposure to SHS, along with nonsmoker controls without such occupational exposure, who were participating in a larger study of the cardiopulmonary health effects of prolonged exposure to SHS (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02797275). The participants underwent respiratory symptom questionnaire assessments, full pulmonary function testing (PFT), and maximum-effort cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). For the actigraphy nested study, beginning February 2014, participants were asked to wear an activity monitor eight hours a day for five consecutive days during the week before they came in for in-laboratory evaluation and maintain a daily diary. The actigraphy data were then obtained and analyzed along with the respiratory questionnaire, PFT, and CPET data to examine its association with reported physical activity, symptoms, and in-laboratory measures of physical activity. The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the San Francisco VA Medical Center Committee on Research and Development approved the study protocols. Full details of the methods are available in the Supplemental Appendix.

Study Population

US airline crewmembers, including flight attendants and pilots, were eligible to participate if they had worked for ≥5 years in an aircraft. A reference group of “sea-level” participants who lived in San Francisco Bay area and had never been employed as flight crewmembers was also recruited. Participants were eligible if they were nonsmokers defined by never-smoking or, in ever smokers, no smoking for ≥20 years and a cumulative smoking history of <20 pack-years. Eligible participants were excluded if they had a known history of cardiopulmonary disease or recreational drug use, including marijuana consumption. All participants enrolled in the larger cohort were invited to participate in this nested study. For the nested actigraphy study, recruitment began in February 5, 2014 and continued through March 17, 2020.

Physical Activity Monitoring using Actigraphy

Physical activity was monitored using a triaxial accelerometer-based activity monitor (ActiGraph GT3X; Actigraph Corporations, Pensacola, FL). Technical details of the device can be found in the Supplemental Appendix. The ActiGraph monitor was initialized to continuously collect data over a period of 5 days. It was then mailed to participants along with a daily diary to keep a log of the time the monitor was worn and the activities the participants performed during that time. All participants received the ActiGraph monitors at least 7 days prior to the in-laboratory visit, during which respiratory symptom questionnaire, PFT, and CPET data were collected. Participants were instructed to wear the ActiGraph monitor on the waist upon awakening using a wrist band provided and to keep it on continuously for at least 8 hours for 5 consecutive days beginning the start of the first day of their work week. The 5-day monitoring period was chosen to allow for adequate weekday data collection10 while avoiding recording of non-routine rest or activity periods that typically occur during weekends. All participants were carefully instructed on correctly positioning the device.

Actigraphy Data Description and Processing

Actigraphy data were processed using the ActiLife software program (Version 6.11.9; ActiGraph LLC) and saved in raw format as GT3X files. The ActiLife software generates a total of 52 variables in the distance, time (activity and sedentary), and energy domains. The list of variables and their definitions are shown in Table S1. The actigraphy data were matched against the diary to ascertain appropriate usage of the monitor, and the data were considered to be acceptable if the participants wore the monitor for a minimum of 3 days and for more than 5 hours (300 min) per day. The data was summarized into 5-day average values (weekly “mean” values) and the highest values of “maximum” values (maximum per epoch) across all 5 days (weekly “highest” values). The total amount of the time that the monitor was worn was included in the regression models as total time worn.

View this table:
Table 1 Subject characteristics.

Actigraphy Data Variable Selection

Actigraphy generates a large number of variables, some of which are highly correlated. Given the low number of participants in our study, we decided to reduce the number of actigraphy variables to increase the robustness of the analysis. To achieve this, we pursued two approaches of variable selection: (1) machine learning approach, and (2) literature-guided approach (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Figure 1 Actigraphy variable selection.

A schematic to show the process of variable selection by combining machine learning and literature guided approaches. Machine learning approach was done by implementing random forest and lasso regression. The top ranked 10 variables from each method were done used against a list of variables extracted from the available literature, and a final “focused” set of variables representing all actigraphy domains were selected. “Highest” and “Mean” for actigraphy variables represent the highest and mean of 5-day activity monitoring measurements.

In the machine learning approach, we built two models, random forest and lasso regression. Using random forest modeling, we generated a list of top-ranked actigraphy variables that were predictive of various questionnaire, PFT, and CPET outcomes by ranking variables based on minimizing prediction error at the splitting of the decision tree nodes. For lasso regression, we used a similar strategy to generate a list of important variables by utilizing the l1-norm penalized terms to force unimportant variables to become zero. To rank the variables in lasso regression, we then compared the magnitude of variable coefficients in various models. Finally, we summarized the actigraphy variables by including the top 10 variables from each model.

In the literature-guided approach, we reviewed the available literature on actigraphy and selected 9 variables to represent distance, energy, and the activity and sedentary time domains as described below (Table S2). The final set of variables was selected based on a combination of the machine learning and literature-guided approaches to provide meaningful variables of highest predictive value for our proposed analysis.

View this table:
Table 2 Definitions of final selection of actigraphy variables

Pulmonary Function and Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing

Details of our PFT and CPET procedures are presented in the Supplemental Appendix and have been previously described.9, 11, 12

Respiratory Questionnaires

Patient-reported respiratory symptoms, physical activity, and quality of life assessments were conducted using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT),13 modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale,14 the Short Form 12-Item Health Survey (SF-12),15 International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ),16 and Airway Questionnaire 20 (AQ20).17

Data Analysis

Distributions of patients’ actigraphy, respiratory symptom, lung function, and exercise data were visualized and inspected (Figure S1). Because most variables were not normally distributed, Spearman’s rank correlation was used throughout the analysis. We then examined the association of actigraphy distance, energy, and activity and sedentary time domains with respiratory questionnaire, PFT, and CPET outputs after adjustment for age, sex, height, weight, and time worn using hierarchical clustering with the Spearman correlation coefficient as the distance metric.

Even after selection of a focused set of actigraphy variables, the initial exploratory analyses showed two potential statistical challenges, namely, high dimensionality and high collinearity, for the application of these variables to ordinary linear regression modeling. To address these challenges, we employed partial principal component regression, which combined principal component analysis with adjustment for covariates to reduce the number of dimensions and transformed the original variables into orthogonal principal component (PC) axes. Next, we performed ordinary linear regression using the top six PC axes as the new predictive actigraphy variables within the model. We later computed the Pearson correlation coefficients between the original actigraphy variables versus the transformed PC axes to help interpret the representation of each PC axis. We used P-values of 0.05 as the cutoff for statistical significance and considered Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients ±0.5 as indicating strong correlation (either positive or negative).

RESULTS

Participant Characteristics

Overall, 64 volunteers participated in the nested study and wore the actigraphy monitor during the week before participating in the in-laboratory assessments with respiratory questionnaires, PFT, and CPET. Three of the 64 subjects wore the actigraphy monitor for <3 consecutive days or <300 consecutive min/day and thus were excluded from the analysis. The characteristics of the 61 participants included in the analysis are shown in Table 1. The participants were aged 65.7±10.7 years, predominantly female (57 [93%]), and never-smokers. All participants had a history of occupational exposure to SHS through their airline employment as flight crew for a median (interquartile range, [IQR]) period of 15.6 (6.0-25.0) years. All participants showed preserved spirometry, with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) percent predicted values of 103±17 and 98±6, respectively. All of them showed mild air trapping, as defined by residual volume (RV)/total lung capacity (TLC) > 0.35 (0.38±0.06), and an overall reduced average diffusing capacity adjusted for hemoglobin of 67%±28% predicted. The percent predicted values for the measures of VO2, VE, and oxygen-pulse at the peak of exercise (VO2Peak, VEPeak, and O2-PulsePeak) were 103.8±18.1, 61.1±14.3, and 109.4±20.7, respectively, and VO2 at anaerobic threshold (VO2AT) was 63.8%±16.7% of VO2Peak. Table 1 also shows the selected actigraphy data in the distance, energy, and activity and sedentary time domains. Overall, the participants wore the actigraphy monitor for a median (IQR) period of 5 (4-5) days and 38.9 (33.0-39.9) h (2,334 [1,980-2,396] min).

Combined Approach for Selection of Appropriate Actigraphy Variables

In the machine learning approach, random forest and lasso regression analyses were performed to identify the most relevant actigraphy variables that are predictive of the respiratory questionnaire, PFT, and CPET outcomes. The top-ranked variables for each machine learning approach, which are shown in Figure S2 A and B, were a mix of actigraphy domains, including the sedentary time domain. The ten top ranked variables from each approach were then matched against a list of most highly cited actigraphy variables in the literature, and a final set of actigraphy variables, which included variables from all domains, were then generated for further analysis (Figure 1). The final set of variables obtained by this combined approach is shown in Table 2.

The correlations among all and the final selection of actigraphy variables are shown in Figure S1 and Figure 2, respectively. Variables from the distance, energy, and activity time domains were highly and directly correlated with each other, with the strongest correlation observed between the energy and activity time domains and the weakest between these domains and the distance domain. However, sedentary time domain variables were poorly and inversely correlated with the variables from the distance, energy, and activity time domains (Figure 2). Within the sedentary time domain, the total amount of time spent in the sedentary condition (Sedentary Time) was closely and directly associated with the number of times participants broke their sedentary condition (No. of Sedentary Breaks; r=0.65; P<0.001).

Figure 2
Figure 2 Correlation among final set of actigraphy variables.

Spearman correlation coefficient in clustering heat map of the final selection of actigraphy variables. Visualization shows that almost all of actigraphy variables are highly correlated.

Hierarchical Clustering Identified Two Clusters of Actigraphy Domains That Distinctly Group with Respiratory Questionnaire, PFT, and CPET Outcomes

Hierarchical clustering analysis categorized actigraphy domains into two distinct clusters (Figure S3 and Figure 3). Measures of the distance, energy, and activity time domains, including moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), maximum number of steps taken per epoch (Max. Step Count), and average hourly energy expenditure (Avg. Kcal/hour), clustered together and were best correlated with the rate of increase in O2-Pulse, tidal breathing, systolic blood pressure over workload (O2-PulseSlope, SBPSlope, and VTSlope,), and SF-12 and its “physical” component score, and to a lesser extent with air trapping (RV and RV/TLC), airflow obstruction (FEV1/FVC), ventilatory efficiency at peak exercise (VE/VCO2Peak), and other respiratory questionnaires (AQ-20 and CAT) scores. Conversely, measures of the sedentary domain, including Sedentary Time and No. of Sedentary Breaks, clustered together with spirometric indices (FEV1, FVC), TLC, and peak exercise measures of oxygen consumption (VO2Peak), ventilation (VEPeak), tidal volume (VTPeak), and oxygen-pulse (O2-PulsePeak).

Figure 3
Figure 3 Hierarchical clustering analysis and heatmap representation of final selection of actigraphy variables with questionnaire, PFT, and CPET measures.

We performed cluster analysis using Spearman correlation coefficients as the distance metric. The clustered relationships were present as the dendrograms on the top and left size of the heat map. Two distinct clusters of actigraphy variables were grouped together from the three domains (time, distance, energy). The two clusters were based on activity related (such as total energy spent in Kcals, number of steps walked, etc.) and sedentary related (such as sedentary time, break, etc.) respectively. Each row represents one subject. Grey box are missing values.

Principal Component Analysis of a Focused Dataset of Actigraphy Variables Reproduced Contrasting Actigraphy Domains Represented by Two Principal Components

To address the high dimensionality and collinearity of actigraphy variables, we performed principal component analysis (Table 3) and regression of the final set of variables (Table 4). The first six principal components (PC) explained 87.8% of the variation in the dataset and were chosen for further analysis. The most contributing PC (PC1) showed high positive values for the following parameters: measures of energy expenditure (Avg. Kcal/hour=0.92, Highest MET=0.94, and Mean MET=0.96), maximum number of steps taken per epoch (Max. Step Count=0.56), average number of steps taken per minute (Avg. Steps/min=0.91), maximum number of steps counts on actigraphy axes 1 and 3, and as a vector magnitude across all 3 axes (Vector Magnitude Max. Count=0.4), time spent in MVPA (Highest Total MVPA=0.92; Avg. MVPA/hour=0.94). Therefore, PC1 was determined to be a reflection of the measures of activity time, distance, and energy domains of actigraphy. The second PC (PC2) was highly correlated with participant sex (0.77), height (0.84), and weight (0.84). The third PC (PC3) was highly correlated with the total time spent in the sedentary condition (Highest Sedentary Time=0.66), and thus was determined to be representative of the sedentary time domain of actigraphy. PC4 was only highly correlated with subject’s age (0.77).

View this table:
Table 3 Results of the principal component analysis.
View this table:
Table 4 Results of principal component regression analysis.

Results of the principal component regressions of the cardiopulmonary function and questionnaires outcomes over PC1 (“activity component) and PC3 (“sedentary component”) are presented in Table 4. In the activity domains represented by PC1, a significant positive association was only observed with the volume of oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (VO2AT) (P=0.026). In the actigraphy sedentary domain represented by PC3, significant negative associations were observed with FEV1 (P=0.042) (marginally non-significance with FVC [P=0.075] and TLC [P=0.057]) and the total and “mental” component of SF-12 score (P=0.042 and P=0.035, respectively). No other significant associations were present.

DISCUSSION

In this observational study, actigraphy variables were grouped into two distinct clusters of (1) distance, energy, and activity time domains and (2) sedentary time domain. Remarkably, these clusters did not show a simple inverse relationship, were rather poorly correlated, and grouped together differently with various measures of in-laboratory cardiopulmonary functional assessment and self-reported symptomatology, indicating that they are influenced by distinct physiological processes. Despite their grouping patterns, the actigraphy variables were significantly associated with only a few in-laboratory measures of cardiopulmonary function or symptoms. For example, the principal component representing activity domains was only significantly associated with the anaerobic threshold (VO2AT), and the principal component representing sedentary domain was only significantly associated with lower airflow (FEV1) and possibly smaller lung volumes (TLC and FVC), and worse symptoms and quality of life score by one questionnaire (SF-12). Overall, actigraphy provided distinct information about functionality and daily physical activity that was not captured by in-laboratory lung function, exercise testing, or standardized respiratory questionnaires. Thus, while in-laboratory functional assessments may help evaluate functional capacity, actigraphy may be more informative of the real-world functional status, and may serve as an additional objective patient-centered technique in studies aiming to assess functionality.

Wearable activity monitors that measure the real-world physical activity level in individuals provide objective and reliable data for assessment of health status and disease activity.4–7 The advantage of using wearable technology for functional assessment stems from its niche ability to provide invaluable data pertaining to the daily functioning and overall health of patients that is otherwise inaccessible and unobtainable through traditional clinical assessments.18, 19 For example, in COPD, activity monitor outputs may have predictive value in the assessment of disease severity as measured by exercise capacity and healthcare utilization.20, 21 A multicenter trial in which several activity monitors were validated against directly measured energy expenditure showed certain accelerometers, including ActiGraph GT3X used in our study, provide great correlations with most measures of exercise capacity in COPD.22 However, the utility of these activity monitors has not been sufficiently studied in those at risk for COPD but without airflow obstruction (early disease with preserved spirometry or pre-COPD). Similarly, their relationships with other laboratory or clinical outcome modalities of disease assessment such as lung function and exercise performance are not clear. Our study used the literature and machine learning approaches to examine the associations of various domains of actigraphy with in-laboratory and self-reported measures of cardiopulmonary function in people at risk for COPD but with preserved spirometry.

Given their practicality, low cost, and general acceptance, standardized questionnaires are frequently used for assessing self-reports of symptoms and quality of life as well as physical activity. Questionnaires can evaluate a wide range of physical activities, including stationary activities such as weight lifting, over long timeframes. However, they are subjective in nature, suffer from social desirability and recall bias,23, 24 and often tend to over- or under-estimate true physical activity, energy expenditure, and sedentary behavior.3, 25, 26 Activity monitors could provide more objective assessments of physical activity. Physical activity scores measured by questionnaires and accelerometry show a weak-to-moderate correlation.27–29 In our study, the outcome measures of respiratory questionnaires (especially SF-12 and its physical component) were loosely clustered together with the distance, energy, and activity domains of actigraphy, while in PCA regression, SF-12 and its mental component were negatively associated with the sedentary domain of actigraphy. These features of the clustering of the sedentary and activity domains of actigraphy indicates that actigraphy activity and sedentary domains are informative of distinct outcomes, which are only partially and incompletely captured by outcome measures of respiratory questionnaires, consistent with the findings of other studies in which the sedentary domain of actigraphy could predict metabolic outcomes and risk of mortality independent of the activity domain.30, 31

CPET is a relatively noninvasive in-laboratory physiological test that objectively measures the cardiopulmonary response to exercise and is used to diagnose early cardiopulmonary and metabolic diseases and monitor their response to treatment. However, CPET may be less feasible in clinical applications because of its cost and technical requirements. Activity monitors provide a less labor-intensive and yet real-world representative assessment of the physical activity state of patients. In healthy youth, a positive relationship between accelerometer-measured intensity of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness as measured by maximum volume of oxygen consumption (VO2MAX) has been established.32, 33 Similarly, in healthy adults, the physical activity variables of the time spent in MVPA or vigorous physical activity were shown to be related to the VO2MAX.34 In the present study of older adults at risk for COPD but with preserved spirometry, the actigraphy activity domains (including MVPA) did not group together with CPET outcomes at peak exercise (e.g. VO2Peak) in cluster analysis, nor were they significantly associated with these outcomes in PCA regression. Interestingly, while they were not statistically significant in PCA regression, actigraphy activity domains were closely associated with the rate of increase in some of the cardiovascular responses to exercise, including O2-PulseSlope and SBPSlope, suggesting a possible correlation between the activity domains of actigraphy and cardiovascular performance. Accordingly, the association of the activity domains of actigraphy with VO2AT likely represents the level of subjects’ fitness, with the more physically active individuals reaching their anaerobic threshold at a higher VO2.

Limitations

Our study had several limitations. First, this study had a relatively small sample of 61 participants, which may have diminished the learning power of our machine learning approach for variable selection as well as the statistical power of the final regression modeling. This study was nested in a larger cohort study of the cardiopulmonary health effects of prolonged occupational exposure to SHS, the inclusion and exclusion criteria of which were more stringent and limited our ability to expand our sample size. Nevertheless, our sample size was comparable if not larger relative to other published studies that have characterized physical activity using extensive examination including CPET,35–37 and thus provides similar statistical power.

Second, actigraphy data were only collected for five days. In adults, a minimum of 3 to 5 days of accelerometer monitoring is usually considered appropriate to obtain reliable estimates of physical activity.10 On the other hand, a longer measurement period of more than 7 days may be desirable to obtain reliable estimates of sedentary behavior since sedentary behavior is more difficult to capture as it might vary more on a day-by-day basis than other activities performed on a higher intensity-level.38 However, we aimed to avoid the potential biases that usually occur with variations in level of activity, either increased or decreased, during the weekends by asking the participants to wear the activity monitor for 5 weekdays at the beginning of their working week and the beginning of their day to capture their usual and customary level of activity. In fact, our findings demonstrate a greater number of significant associations for the sedentary domain, suggesting the adequacy of the timeframe within the population studied.

Third, a single activity monitor placed on the waist may not have detected all physical activity since accelerometers have a key limitation in that they are insensitive to certain types of movements, especially non-ambulatory physical activities with arms and/or limbs. However, studies employing multiple accelerometers to increase the accuracy of predicting energy expenditure reported only marginal improvements that would not be justifiable by the increased burden associated with wearing multiple accelerometers.39, 40

Conclusion

In conclusion, in this study of a population with early obstructive lung disease or pre-COPD showed that (1) outpatient actigraphy provides “real-world” patient-centered outcomes that objectively inform of patients’ physical activity status, and (2) the activity and sedentary domains of actigraphy are divergent and provide distinct information likely representing the different physiologic processes highlighted by those domains. Furthermore, actigraphy measures are not entirely explained by measures of standardized respiratory questionnaires, lung function, or exercise testing, and thus provide added physical activity measures that are valuable as objective patient-centered outcomes in observational and interventional research studies.

Data Availability

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Oliver Beech, Patricia Emerson-Healy, Emily Ghio, Liane Tolang, and Charlotte M Hunt for help with performance of cardiopulmonary exercise testing. We also would like to appreciate the contribution of the flight attendants who took time out of their busy schedules to participate as research subjects in this study.

Footnotes

  • Email Addresses:

    LW: weldemichael.lemlem{at}gmail.com

    JC: jianhong.chen{at}ucsf.edu

    BG: briangiang{at}gwmail.gwu.edu

    JG: jeroengeerts{at}msn.com

    SZ: Siyang.zeng{at}ucsf.edu

    WCC: Wendy.Ching{at}ucsf.edu

    MN: mynishihama{at}gmail.com

    WMG: warren.gold{at}ucsf.edu

    MA: mehrdad.arjomandi{at}ucsf.edu

  • Funding:

    This work was supported by:

    1. Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (012500WG to WMG and CIA190001 to MA).

    2. California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP) (T29IR0715 to MA).

    3. The Department of Veterans Affairs Airborne Hazard and Burn Pit Center of Excellence (to MA).

    4. Radboud University School of Medicine Scholarship (to JG).

    The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The statements and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding agency. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with the material reported herein is not to be construed as an actual or implied endorsement of such products.

  • Competing Interests: There are no competing interests for any author.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Kocks JW, Asijee GM, Tsiligianni IG, Kerstjens HA, van der Molen T. Functional status measurement in COPD: a review of available methods and their feasibility in primary care. Prim Care Respir J. 2011;20(3):269–275.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    Kim J, Lee CH, Lee MG, et al. Acute Exacerbation According to GOLD 2017 Categories in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Arch Bronconeumol. 2019;55(8):414–420.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:56.
  4. 4.↵
    Pevnick JM, Birkeland K, Zimmer R, Elad Y, Kedan I. Wearable technology for cardiology: An update and framework for the future. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2018;28(2):144–150.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.
    Chiauzzi E, Rodarte C, DasMahapatra P. Patient-centered activity monitoring in the self-management of chronic health conditions. BMC Med. 2015;13:77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    Ferriolli E, Skipworth RJ, Hendry P, et al. Physical activity monitoring: a responsive and meaningful patient-centered outcome for surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy? J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43(6):1025–1035.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Gresham G, Schrack J, Gresham LM, et al. Wearable activity monitors in oncology trials: Current use of an emerging technology. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;64:13–21.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Bunn JA, Navalta JW, Fountaine CJ, Reece JD. Current State of Commercial Wearable Technology in Physical Activity Monitoring 2015-2017. Int J Exerc Sci. 2018;11(7):503–515.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Arjomandi M, Zeng S, Geerts J, et al. Lung volumes identify an at-risk group in persons with prolonged secondhand tobacco smoke exposure but without overt airflow obstruction. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2018;5(1):e000284.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11 Suppl):S531–543.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Arjomandi M, Haight T, Redberg R, Gold WM. Pulmonary function abnormalities in never-smoking flight attendants exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke in the aircraft cabin. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(6):639–646.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Arjomandi M, Haight T, Sadeghi N, Redberg R, Gold WM. Reduced exercise tolerance and pulmonary capillary recruitment with remote secondhand smoke exposure. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34393.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Jones PW, Harding G, Berry P, Wiklund I, Chen WH, Kline Leidy N. Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test. Eur Respir J. 2009;34(3):648–654.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Fletcher CM, Elmes PC, Fairbairn AS, Wood CH. The significance of respiratory symptoms and the diagnosis of chronic bronchitis in a working population. Br Med J. 1959;2(5147):257–266.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Jenkinson C, Layte R. Development and testing of the UK SF-12 (short form health survey). J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2(1):14–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381–1395.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Hajiro T, Nishimura K, Jones PW, et al. A novel, short, and simple questionnaire to measure health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(6):1874–1878.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Rowe VT, Neville M. Measuring Reliability of Movement With Accelerometry: Fitbit(®) Versus ActiGraph(®). Am J Occup Ther. 2019;73(2):7302205150p7302205151-7302205150p7302205156.
  19. 19.↵
    Yang CC, Hsu YL. A review of accelerometry-based wearable motion detectors for physical activity monitoring. Sensors (Basel). 2010;10(8):7772–7788.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Rahman MJ, Nemati E, Rahman M, Vatanparvar K, Nathan V, Kuang J. Toward Early Severity Assessment of Obstructive Lung Disease Using Multi-Modal Wearable Sensor Data Fusion During Walking. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020;2020:5935–5938.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Lin WY, Verma VK, Lee MY, Lin HC, Lai CS. Prediction of 30-Day Readmission for COPD Patients Using Accelerometer-Based Activity Monitoring. Sensors (Basel). 2019;20(1).
  22. 22.↵
    Rabinovich RA, Louvaris Z, Raste Y, et al. Validity of physical activity monitors during daily life in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J. 2013;42(5):1205–1215.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;71(2 Suppl):S1–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    Adams SA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, et al. The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(4):389–398.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Adamo KB, Prince SA, Tricco AC, Connor-Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of indirect versus direct measures for assessing physical activity in the pediatric population: a systematic review. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2009;4(1):2–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    Kowalski K, Rhodes R, Naylor PJ, Tuokko H, MacDonald S. Direct and indirect measurement of physical activity in older adults: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Helmerhorst HJ, Brage S, Warren J, Besson H, Ekelund U. A systematic review of reliability and objective criterion-related validity of physical activity questionnaires. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    Skender S, Ose J, Chang-Claude J, et al. Accelerometry and physical activity questionnaires - a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:515.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    van Poppel MN, Chinapaw MJ, Mokkink LB, van Mechelen W, Terwee CB. Physical activity questionnaires for adults: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med. 2010;40(7):565–600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    Koster A, Caserotti P, Patel KV, et al. Association of sedentary time with mortality independent of moderate to vigorous physical activity. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e37696.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Salmon J, Shaw JE, Zimmet PZ, Owen N. Television time and continuous metabolic risk in physically active adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(4):639–645.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    Dencker M, Thorsson O, Karlsson MK, et al. Daily physical activity and its relation to aerobic fitness in children aged 8-11 years. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;96(5):587–592.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    Gutin B, Yin Z, Humphries MC, Barbeau P. Relations of moderate and vigorous physical activity to fitness and fatness in adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81(4):746–750.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    Cao ZB, Miyatake N, Higuchi M, Miyachi M, Ishikawa-Takata K, Tabata I. Predicting VO2max with an objectively measured physical activity in Japanese women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(1):179–186.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Van Remoortel H, Raste Y, Louvaris Z, et al. Validity of six activity monitors in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a comparison with indirect calorimetry. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.
    Van Remoortel H, Giavedoni S, Raste Y, et al. Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2012;9(1):84.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Demeyer H, Burtin C, Hornikx M, et al. The Minimal Important Difference in Physical Activity in Patients with COPD. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0154587.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Aadland E, Ylvisåker E. Reliability of Objectively Measured Sedentary Time and Physical Activity in Adults. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133296.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Swartz AM, Strath SJ, Bassett DR, Jr.., O’Brien WL, King GA, Ainsworth BE. Estimation of energy expenditure using CSA accelerometers at hip and wrist sites. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(9 Suppl):S450–456.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    Melanson EL, Jr.., Freedson PS. Validity of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. (CSA) activity monitor. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27(6):934–940.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
Posted May 04, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Actigraphy Informs Distinct Patient-Centered Outcomes in Pre-COPD
Lemlem Weldemichael, Jianhong Chen, Brian Giang, Jeroen Geerts, Siyang Zeng, Wendy Czerina Ching, Melissa Nishihama, Warren M Gold, Mehrdad Arjomandi
medRxiv 2021.05.01.21256454; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.01.21256454
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area