Using mobile wearables to establish sleep bioprofiles in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients.

Abstract

8040 Background: Passive monitoring using wearables can objectively measure sleep over extended time periods. MM patients (PTs) are susceptible to fluctuating sleep patterns due to pain and dexamethasone (dex) treatment. In this prospective study, we remotely monitored sleep patterns on 40 newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) PTs while administering electronic PT reported outcome (ePRO) surveys. The study aim was to establish sleep bioprofiles during therapy and correlate with ePROs. Methods: Eligible PTs for the study had untreated NDMM and assigned to either Cohort A – PTs < 65 years or Cohort B – PTs ≥ 65 years. PTs were remotely monitored for sleep 1-7 days at baseline [BL] and continuously up to 6 therapy cycles. PTs completed ePRO surveys (EORTC - QLQC30 and MY20) at BL and after each cycle. Sleep data and completed ePRO surveys were synced to Medidata Rave through Sensorlink technology. Associations between sleep measurement trends and QLQC30 scores were estimated using a linear mixed model with a random intercept. Results: Between Feb 2017 - Sep 2019, 40 PTs (21 M and 19 F) were enrolled with 20 in cohort A (mean 54 yrs, 41-64) and 20 in cohort B (mean 71 yrs, 65-82). Regimens included KRd 14(35%), RVd 12(30%), Dara-KRd 8(20%), VCd 5(12.5%), and Rd 1(2.5%). Sleep data was compiled among 23/40 (57.5%) PTs. BL mean sleep was 578.9 min/24 hr for Cohort A vs. 544.9 min/24 hr for Cohort B (p = 0.41, 95% CI -51.5, 119.5). Overall median sleep trends changed for cohort A by -6.3 min/24 hr per cycle (p = 0.09) and for cohort B by +0.8 min/24 hr per cycle (p = 0.88). EPRO data trends include global health +1.5 score/cycle (p = 0.01, 95% CI 0.31, 3.1), physical +2.16 score/cycle (p < 0.001, 95% CI 1.26, 3.07), insomnia -1.6 score/cycle (p = 0.09, 95% CI [-3.47, 0.26]), role functioning +2.8 score/cycle (p = 0.001, 95% CI 1.15, 4.46), emotional +0.3 score/cycle (p = 0.6, 95% CI -0.73, 1.32), cognitive -0.36 score/cycle (p = 0.44, 95% CI -1.29,0.56), and fatigue -0.36 score/cycle (p = 0.4, 95% CI -1.65, 0.93). No association between sleep measurements and ePRO were detected. Difference in sleep on dex days compared to all other days during the sample cycle period for cohort A was 81.4 min/24 hr (p = 0.004, 95% CI 26, 135) and for cohort B was 37.4 min/24 hr (p = 0.35, 95% CI -41, 115). Conclusions: Our study provides insight into wearable sleep monitoring in NDMM. Overall sleep trends in both cohorts do not demonstrate significant gains or losses, and these trends fit with HRQOL ePRO insomnia responses. Upon further examination, we demonstrate objective differences (younger PTs) in intra-cyclic sleep measurements on dex days compared to other cycle days (less sleep by > 1 hr). For older patients, less variation in sleep profiles was detected during dex days, possibly due to higher levels of fatigue or longer sleep duration. Sleep is an integral part of well-being in the cancer patient. Future studies should continue to characterize sleep patterns as it relates to HRQOL.

Application of wearables for remote monitoring of oncology patients: A scoping review

“… 37 However, consistent correlations of wearable data to subjectively reported PA or sleep were not established due to inaccurate sleep tracking and misinterpretation of inactivity as sleep by wearables. 38 – 40 Similarly, according to the authors, a correlation between activity and hospitalization duration could not be demonstrated consistently due to variations in the study population. 41 …”