Parkinson DiseaseNCT00784563
Effects of Aerobic Exercise in Parkinson's Disease
A study testing Continuous training and Interval training in people with Parkinson Disease, run by US Department of Veterans Affairs at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Motivated by reported improvements in aerobic fitness and executive functions after a 6-month aerobic walking intervention in normal sedentary elderly, we conducted a Phase I/II study to investigate effects of aerobic exercise on motor function, cognition, and quality of life in mild-moderate patients with Parkinson's… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 50 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Parkinson Disease
- What is being tested?
- Continuous training and Interval training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 104 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2009to May 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 50 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Veteran or non-veteran;
- Presence of all 3 cardinal features of Parkinson's disease (resting tremor, bradykinesia, and rigidity), which have to be asymmetrical;
- Hoehn and Yahr Scale stage I-III;
- Men or women aged 50-80 capable of performing the planned exercise programs;
- Intention to remain in the local area over the study period;
- Stable dopaminergic treatment regimen for at least 4 weeks prior to baseline without any clinical need for medication adjustment at the time of screening
Who cannot join
- Secondary parkinsonism;
- Parkinson-plus syndromes;
- MMSE score <24;
- Participating in a aerobic exercise program;
- An unstable dosage of drugs active in the central nervous system (e.g., anxiolytics, antidepressants) during the 60 days before the baseline visit;
- Participation in drug studies or the use of investigational drugs within 30 days before screening; structural brain disease;
Show all 12Show fewer
- Active epilepsy;
- Acute illness or active, confounding medical, neurological, or musculoskeletal conditions; alcoholism or other forms of drug addiction;
- Inability to complete the graded exercise test;
- Lack of medical clearance from our pulmonologist;
- Intention to move or take a >1 month vacation during the study period;
- Contraindications to MRI or claustrophobia requiring sedation
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
VA Medical Center, Iowa City
Iowa City, Iowa, 52246-2208
About this study
Motivated by reported improvements in aerobic fitness and executive functions after a 6-month aerobic walking intervention in normal sedentary elderly, we conducted a Phase I/II study to investigate effects of aerobic exercise on motor function, cognition, and quality of life in mild-moderate patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). To identify the best method to deliver fitness training, we also aimed to compare safety, tolerability, and fitness benefits between different training methods (continuous/moderate intensity vs. interval/alternating between low and vigorous intensity) and exercise settings (individual vs. group). Interval training reportedly facilitates higher fitness gains than continuous training. Group training may promote success through social interaction, whereas individual training offers greater flexibility.
Details of the study can be found in the publication below:
Read more
Phase I/II randomized trial of aerobic exercise in Parkinson disease in a community setting.
Uc EY, Doerschug KC, Magnotta V, Dawson JD, Thomsen TR, Kline JN, Rizzo M, Newman SR, Mehta S, Grabowski TJ, Bruss J, Blanchette DR, Anderson SW, Voss MW, Kramer AF, Darling WG.
Neurology. 2014 Jul 29;83(5):413-25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000644. Epub 2014 Jul 2.
PMID: 24991037
Read the detailed description
Participants:
The participants were recruited in Spring 2009, 2010, and 2011 through regional newspaper advertisements and solicitations in the Movement Disorders Clinic at the University of Iowa and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center of Iowa City. We phone screened respondents and evaluated eligible candidates in-person using clinical examination, MMSE, 12-lead ECG, blood count and biochemistry, followed by graded exercise test using cycle ergometry within one week of starting the intervention. At each visit, we obtained body weight and height, heart rate and blood pressure after 5 minutes of supine rest [Goldberg et al. 1988] and after 3 minutes of standing. Throughout the study, the medications of participants continued to be managed by their treating neurologists.
Inclusion criteria: Idiopathic PD; Hoehn and Yahr Scale I-III; men or women aged 50-80; stable dopaminergic treatment regimen for at least 4 weeks prior to baseline not requiring adjustment.
Exclusion criteria: Current participation in an aerobic exercise program; Mini Mental Status Exam score <24; confounding medical, orthopedic or psychiatric disorders; cardiac abnormalities during cycle ergometry.
Design:
Initial design was a 2x2 randomized trial of different training methods (continuous vs. interval) and settings (individual vs. group). Sample size was estimated using 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.66 SD in VO2max (estimated improvement=10% /estimated SD of change=15%) within each arm at alpha=0.05 and an attrition rate of 25%.
During the first two years, the participants were randomized in blocks of four to continuous or interval training. Logistical factors (e.g., rural residence) precluded randomization to group setting, leading to convenience-based assignments in the first year, and dropping of the group setting afterwards. In the third year, all participants were assigned to the continuous arm after preliminary analyses of prior data raised safety concerns about interval training.
Intervention:
The maximal heart rate (HRmax) in the exercise prescription was based on age [Goldberg, Elliot, and Kuehl1988] and reduced by 20% in participants who used beta-blockers [Wonisch et al. 2003]. The duration of exercise sessions (3x/week) was advanced from 15 to 45 minutes over the first 6 weeks. The goal for continuous training was to remain within 70-80% of HRmax throughout the session. Interval trainees alternated every 3 minutes between slower (60-70% of HRmax) and faster (80-90% of HRmax) walking[Wisloff et al. 2007]. We emphasized that these parameters were for guidance only and that the participants should give their best effort without feeling uncomfortable or unsafe.
Participants were asked to wear electronic heart rate and walking speed monitors (Polar RS400, Kempele, Finland) and fill out diaries for each session. A trainer facilitated group training at a track and collected monitor data and exercise diaries. Trainers conducted home visits for the individual arm participants to choose walking routes (a primary outdoor route and an alternative indoor route) and orient the participant about safe exercise procedures, followed by biweekly home visits to monitor safety and compliance.
Efficacy Measures:
The participants were tested while on their usual antiparkinsonian regimen, always with adequate symptom control to allow comfortable participation in the protocol, at baseline and at the end of the intervention by evaluators blinded to the treatment arm, but not to pre-post training status.
Aerobic fitness: Oxygen uptake (VO2) was measured from expired air samples on a breath-by-breath basis during cycle ergometry. We verified maximal effort when 2 of 3 criteria were met [Balady et al. 2010]: 1) a plateau in VO2 between two or more workloads, 2) respiratory exchange ratio ≥1.10, and 3) HR > 85% of the age predicted HRmax.
Cognition: Due to sensitivity of the Eriksen's flanker task performance to changes in aerobic fitness status [Colcombe et al. 2004;Kluding et al. 2011], we chose change in Percent Increase Score (PIS) on flanker task as the primary cognitive outcome measure. Participants were asked to identify the orientation of a central arrow cue ('<' or '>'), which was flanked on both sides by two arrow cues that either pointed in the same direction (congruent: <<<<<) or a different direction (incongruent: >><>>). Using reaction times (RT) during congruent and incongruent trials, the PIS was calculated as =((RT_incongruent - RT_congruent) / RT_congruent) * 100.[Colcombe, Kramer, Erickson, Scalf, McAuley, Cohen, Webb, Jerome, Marquez, and Elavsky2004] The Stroop test was used as another measure of inhibition.
We assessed set shifting using Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and Trail-Making Test (B-A),[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] visual perception using Judgment of Line Orientation and Complex Figure Test (CFT)-Copy, verbal memory using Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, visual memory using CFT-Recall, language using Controlled Oral Word Association Test,[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] and general cognition using Montreal Cognitive Assessment.[Chou et al. 2010] Parkinsonism: Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and timed motor tests (7m Walk and finger tapping),[Defer et al. 1999] Functional Reach test for balance,[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] total daily levodopa equivalents,[Tomlinson et al. 2010] and a patient diary [Hauser et al. 2004].
Quality of life: Fatigue Severity Scale,[Friedman et al. 2011] Geriatric Depression Scale,[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] PD Quality of Life Scale (PDQUALIF) [Welsh et al. 2003].
Statistical analysis Two-sample t-tests, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum, or Fisher's Exact tests were used to compare baseline features and exercise characteristics and outcomes between different treatment arms, and between the completers and dropouts, and to compare baseline cognitive performance of our PD participants with controls from our driving studies.[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] Regression methods were used to adjust these comparisons for age, education, and gender.
As all treatment arms were designed to deliver a similar average aerobic intensity, we planned to pool a priori all completers throughout the study to analyze the effects of aerobic exercise with higher statistical power. We used Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests or paired t-tests to compare final vs. baseline outcomes. When a significant change in outcomes was observed, we used regression models to assess and adjust for the effect of different settings and training methods, calendar year, and change in levodopa equivalent. We also used Pearson correlations and regression models to quantify associations of changes in outcomes with changes in aerobic fitness.
The analyses of magnetic resonance imaging studies and other biomarkers is continuing and will be published in the future.
Reference List
Balady GJ, Arena R, Sietsema K et al. Clinician's Guide to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010; 122: 191-225.
Chou KL, Amick MM, Brandt J et al. A recommended scale for cognitive screening in clinical trials of Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2010; 25: 2501-2507.
Colcombe SJ, Kramer AF, Erickson KI et al. Cardiovascular fitness, cortical plasticity, and aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101: 3316-3321.
Defer GL, Widner H, Marie RM, Remy P, Levivier M. Core assessment program for surgical interventional therapies in Parkinson's disease (CAPSIT-PD). Mov Disord 1999; 14: 572-584.
Friedman JH, Abrantes A, Sweet LH. Fatigue in Parkinson's disease. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2011; 12: 1999-2007.
Goldberg L, Elliot DL, Kuehl KS. Assessment of exercise intensity formulas by use of ventilatory threshold. Chest 1988; 94: 95-98.
Hauser RA, Deckers F, Lehert P. Parkinson's disease home diary: Further validation and implications for clinical trials. Mov Disord 2004; 19: 1409-1413.
Kluding PM, Tseng BY, Billinger SA. Exercise and executive function in individuals with chronic stroke: a pilot study. J Neurol Phys Ther 2011; 35: 11-17.
Tomlinson CL, Stowe R, Patel S, Rick C, Gray R, Clarke CE. Systematic review of levodopa dose equivalency reporting in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2010; 25: 2649-2653.
Uc EY, Rizzo M, Johnson AM, Dastrup E, Anderson SW, Dawson JD. Road Safety in Drivers with Parkinson Disease. Neurology 2009; 73: 2112-2119.
Welsh M, McDermott MP, Holloway RG, Plumb S, Pfeiffer R, Hubble J. Development and testing of the Parkinson's disease quality of life scale. Mov Disord 2003; 18: 637-645.
Wisloff U, Stoylen A, Loennechen JP et al. Superior cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus moderate continuous training in heart failure patients: a randomized study. Circulation 2007; 115: 3086-3094.
Wonisch M, Hofmann P, Fruhwald FM et al. Influence of beta-blocker use on percentage of target heart rate exercise prescription. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2003; 10: 296-301.
- Conditions
- Parkinson Disease
- Being tested
- Continuous training, Interval training
- Keywords
- Parkinson Disease, Exercise/*physiology, *Physical Fitness, Rehabilitation, Cognition
- Medical subject headings
- Parkinson Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Continuous trainingBehavioural
The maximal heart rate (HRmax) in the exercise prescription was based on age[Goldberg, Elliot, and Kuehl1988] and reduced by 20% in participants who used beta-blockers.[Wonisch et al. 2003] The duration of exercise sessions (3x/week) was advanced from 15 to 45 minutes over the first 6 weeks. The goal for continuous training was to remain within 70-80% of HRmax throughout the session.
Interval trainingBehavioural
Interval trainees alternated every 3 minutes between slower (60-70% of HRmax) and faster (80-90% of HRmax) walking [Wisloff et al. 2007].
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous training | Active comparator | Aerobic walking using continuous heart rate training. Receives: Behavioral: Continuous training |
| Interval training | Active comparator | Aerobic walking using interval heart rate training Receives: Behavioral: Interval training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Aerobic Fitness
VO2max after the training - VO2max at baseline (Adjusted for levodopa-equivalent, year, training mode, setting).
Please see publication PMID: 24991037 for details.
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (7)
Change in 7 Meter Walk Time
Time complete the 7 m Walk test after 6 months aerobic training - Time complete the 7 m Walk test at baseline
Measured: 6 months
Change in the UPDRS Section I Score
=Score after 6 months training - baseline score Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) is an ordinal scale with all items scored from 0=normal function to 4=very severely disabled. It has 3 sections: I) Mental, Behavior, and Mood: Comprises four questions on intellectual impairment, thought disorder, depression, and apathy (scores range 0-16). II) The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale is based on interview and comprises 13 items (scores range 0-52). III) UPDRS motor section is based on physical examination evaluates the components of parkinsonism (tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, gait/posture). There are 27 items resulting in a maximum score of 108. Higher scores are worse.
Measured: 6 months
Change in UPDRS Section II Score
=Score after 6 months training - baseline score Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) is an ordinal scale with all items scored from 0=normal function to 4=very severely disabled. It has 3 sections: I) Mental, Behavior, and Mood: Comprises four questions on intellectual impairment, thought disorder, depression, and apathy (scores range 0-16). II) The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale is based on interview and comprises 13 items (scores range 0-52). III) UPDRS motor section is based on physical examination evaluates the components of parkinsonism (tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, gait/posture). There are 27 items resulting in a maximum score of 108. Higher scores are worse.
Measured: 6 months
Change in the UPDRS Section III Score
=Score after 6 months training - baseline score Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) is an ordinal scale with all items scored from 0=normal function to 4=very severely disabled. It has 3 sections: I) Mental, Behavior, and Mood: Comprises four questions on intellectual impairment, thought disorder, depression, and apathy (scores range 0-16). II) The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale is based on interview and comprises 13 items (scores range 0-52). III) UPDRS motor section is based on physical examination evaluates the components of parkinsonism (tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, gait/posture). There are 27 items resulting in a maximum score of 108. Higher scores are worse.
Measured: 6 months
Change in the Total UPDRS Score
=Score after 6 months training - baseline score The total UPDRS score is calculated by adding Section I, Section II, and Section III scores (below). Higher scores are worse. The score ranges 0-176.
Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) is an ordinal scale with all items scored from 0=normal function to 4=very severely disabled. It has 3 sections: I) Mental, Behavior, and Mood: Comprises four questions on intellectual impairment, thought disorder, depression, and apathy (scores range 0-16). II) The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale is based on interview and comprises 13 items (scores range 0-52). III) UPDRS motor section is based on physical examination evaluates the components of parkinsonism (tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, gait/posture). There are 27 items resulting in a maximum score of 108.
Measured: 6 months
Change in the MOCA Score
=Score after 6 months training - baseline score. MOCA=Montreal Cognitive Training Assessment Scores range 0-30, higher is better.
Measured: 6 months
Change in Percent Increase Score (PIS) on Eriksen's Flanker Task
performance on the Eriksen's flanker task (see PMID: 24991037). Participants were asked to identify the orientation of a central arrow cue ('<' or '>'), which was flanked on both sides by two arrow cues that either pointed in the same direction (congruent: <<<<<) or a different direction (incongruent: >><>>). Using reaction times (RT) during congruent and incongruent trials, the PIS was calculated as =((RT_incongruent - RT_congruent) / RT_congruent) * 100. Higher PIS is worse.
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Nov 2008 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2009
- Primary completionMay 2012
- Study completionMay 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Parkinson DiseaseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 104 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- US Department of Veterans Affairs
- Sponsor type
- US federal agency
- Collaborators
- University of Iowa
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Ergun Y. Uc, MD, Principal investigator, VA Medical Center, Iowa City
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00784563
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- B6261-R
- Status last verified
- Aug 2015
- First submitted
- 30 Oct 2008
- Last updated
- 15 Sep 2015
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Uc EY, Doerschug KC, Magnotta V, Dawson JD, Thomsen TR, Kline JN, Rizzo M, Newman SR, Mehta S, Grabowski TJ, Bruss J, Blanchette DR, Anderson SW, Voss MW, Kramer AF, Darling WG. Phase I/II randomized trial of aerobic exercise in Parkinson disease in a community setting. Neurology. 2014 Jul 29;83(5):413-25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000644. Epub 2014 Jul 2.
PubMed 24991037
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Sep 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Aerobic Exercise in Parkinson's Disease
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00784563
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- B6261-R
- Conditions
- Parkinson Disease
- Keywords
- Parkinson Disease, Exercise/*physiology, *Physical Fitness, Rehabilitation, Cognition
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 104 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- US Department of Veterans AffairsUS federal agency
- Collaborators
- University of Iowa
- Study start
- Feb 2009
- Primary completion
- May 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Nov 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 15 Sep 2015
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Motivated by reported improvements in aerobic fitness and executive functions after a 6-month aerobic walking intervention in normal sedentary elderly, we conducted a Phase I/II study to investigate effects of aerobic exercise on motor function, cognition, and quality of life in mild-moderate patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). To identify the best method to deliver fitness training, we also aimed to compare safety, tolerability, and fitness benefits between different training methods (continuous/moderate intensity vs. interval/alternating between low and vigorous intensity) and exercise settings (individual vs. group). Interval training reportedly facilitates higher fitness gains than continuous training. Group training may promote success through social interaction, whereas individual training offers greater flexibility.
Details of the study can be found in the publication below:
Phase I/II randomized trial of aerobic exercise in Parkinson disease in a community setting.
Uc EY, Doerschug KC, Magnotta V, Dawson JD, Thomsen TR, Kline JN, Rizzo M, Newman SR, Mehta S, Grabowski TJ, Bruss J, Blanchette DR, Anderson SW, Voss MW, Kramer AF, Darling WG.
Neurology. 2014 Jul 29;83(5):413-25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000644. Epub 2014 Jul 2.
PMID: 24991037
Detailed description
Participants:
The participants were recruited in Spring 2009, 2010, and 2011 through regional newspaper advertisements and solicitations in the Movement Disorders Clinic at the University of Iowa and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center of Iowa City. We phone screened respondents and evaluated eligible candidates in-person using clinical examination, MMSE, 12-lead ECG, blood count and biochemistry, followed by graded exercise test using cycle ergometry within one week of starting the intervention. At each visit, we obtained body weight and height, heart rate and blood pressure after 5 minutes of supine rest [Goldberg et al. 1988] and after 3 minutes of standing. Throughout the study, the medications of participants continued to be managed by their treating neurologists.
Inclusion criteria: Idiopathic PD; Hoehn and Yahr Scale I-III; men or women aged 50-80; stable dopaminergic treatment regimen for at least 4 weeks prior to baseline not requiring adjustment.
Exclusion criteria: Current participation in an aerobic exercise program; Mini Mental Status Exam score <24; confounding medical, orthopedic or psychiatric disorders; cardiac abnormalities during cycle ergometry.
Design:
Initial design was a 2x2 randomized trial of different training methods (continuous vs. interval) and settings (individual vs. group). Sample size was estimated using 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.66 SD in VO2max (estimated improvement=10% /estimated SD of change=15%) within each arm at alpha=0.05 and an attrition rate of 25%.
During the first two years, the participants were randomized in blocks of four to continuous or interval training. Logistical factors (e.g., rural residence) precluded randomization to group setting, leading to convenience-based assignments in the first year, and dropping of the group setting afterwards. In the third year, all participants were assigned to the continuous arm after preliminary analyses of prior data raised safety concerns about interval training.
Intervention:
The maximal heart rate (HRmax) in the exercise prescription was based on age [Goldberg, Elliot, and Kuehl1988] and reduced by 20% in participants who used beta-blockers [Wonisch et al. 2003]. The duration of exercise sessions (3x/week) was advanced from 15 to 45 minutes over the first 6 weeks. The goal for continuous training was to remain within 70-80% of HRmax throughout the session. Interval trainees alternated every 3 minutes between slower (60-70% of HRmax) and faster (80-90% of HRmax) walking[Wisloff et al. 2007]. We emphasized that these parameters were for guidance only and that the participants should give their best effort without feeling uncomfortable or unsafe.
Participants were asked to wear electronic heart rate and walking speed monitors (Polar RS400, Kempele, Finland) and fill out diaries for each session. A trainer facilitated group training at a track and collected monitor data and exercise diaries. Trainers conducted home visits for the individual arm participants to choose walking routes (a primary outdoor route and an alternative indoor route) and orient the participant about safe exercise procedures, followed by biweekly home visits to monitor safety and compliance.
Efficacy Measures:
The participants were tested while on their usual antiparkinsonian regimen, always with adequate symptom control to allow comfortable participation in the protocol, at baseline and at the end of the intervention by evaluators blinded to the treatment arm, but not to pre-post training status.
Aerobic fitness: Oxygen uptake (VO2) was measured from expired air samples on a breath-by-breath basis during cycle ergometry. We verified maximal effort when 2 of 3 criteria were met [Balady et al. 2010]: 1) a plateau in VO2 between two or more workloads, 2) respiratory exchange ratio ≥1.10, and 3) HR > 85% of the age predicted HRmax.
Cognition: Due to sensitivity of the Eriksen's flanker task performance to changes in aerobic fitness status [Colcombe et al. 2004;Kluding et al. 2011], we chose change in Percent Increase Score (PIS) on flanker task as the primary cognitive outcome measure. Participants were asked to identify the orientation of a central arrow cue ('<' or '>'), which was flanked on both sides by two arrow cues that either pointed in the same direction (congruent: <<<<<) or a different direction (incongruent: >><>>). Using reaction times (RT) during congruent and incongruent trials, the PIS was calculated as =((RT_incongruent - RT_congruent) / RT_congruent) * 100.[Colcombe, Kramer, Erickson, Scalf, McAuley, Cohen, Webb, Jerome, Marquez, and Elavsky2004] The Stroop test was used as another measure of inhibition.
We assessed set shifting using Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and Trail-Making Test (B-A),[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] visual perception using Judgment of Line Orientation and Complex Figure Test (CFT)-Copy, verbal memory using Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, visual memory using CFT-Recall, language using Controlled Oral Word Association Test,[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] and general cognition using Montreal Cognitive Assessment.[Chou et al. 2010] Parkinsonism: Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and timed motor tests (7m Walk and finger tapping),[Defer et al. 1999] Functional Reach test for balance,[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] total daily levodopa equivalents,[Tomlinson et al. 2010] and a patient diary [Hauser et al. 2004].
Quality of life: Fatigue Severity Scale,[Friedman et al. 2011] Geriatric Depression Scale,[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] PD Quality of Life Scale (PDQUALIF) [Welsh et al. 2003].
Statistical analysis Two-sample t-tests, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum, or Fisher's Exact tests were used to compare baseline features and exercise characteristics and outcomes between different treatment arms, and between the completers and dropouts, and to compare baseline cognitive performance of our PD participants with controls from our driving studies.[Uc, Rizzo, Johnson, Dastrup, Anderson, and Dawson2009] Regression methods were used to adjust these comparisons for age, education, and gender.
As all treatment arms were designed to deliver a similar average aerobic intensity, we planned to pool a priori all completers throughout the study to analyze the effects of aerobic exercise with higher statistical power. We used Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests or paired t-tests to compare final vs. baseline outcomes. When a significant change in outcomes was observed, we used regression models to assess and adjust for the effect of different settings and training methods, calendar year, and change in levodopa equivalent. We also used Pearson correlations and regression models to quantify associations of changes in outcomes with changes in aerobic fitness.
The analyses of magnetic resonance imaging studies and other biomarkers is continuing and will be published in the future.
Reference List
Balady GJ, Arena R, Sietsema K et al. Clinician's Guide to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010; 122: 191-225.
Chou KL, Amick MM, Brandt J et al. A recommended scale for cognitive screening in clinical trials of Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2010; 25: 2501-2507.
Colcombe SJ, Kramer AF, Erickson KI et al. Cardiovascular fitness, cortical plasticity, and aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101: 3316-3321.
Defer GL, Widner H, Marie RM, Remy P, Levivier M. Core assessment program for surgical interventional therapies in Parkinson's disease (CAPSIT-PD). Mov Disord 1999; 14: 572-584.
Friedman JH, Abrantes A, Sweet LH. Fatigue in Parkinson's disease. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2011; 12: 1999-2007.
Goldberg L, Elliot DL, Kuehl KS. Assessment of exercise intensity formulas by use of ventilatory threshold. Chest 1988; 94: 95-98.
Hauser RA, Deckers F, Lehert P. Parkinson's disease home diary: Further validation and implications for clinical trials. Mov Disord 2004; 19: 1409-1413.
Kluding PM, Tseng BY, Billinger SA. Exercise and executive function in individuals with chronic stroke: a pilot study. J Neurol Phys Ther 2011; 35: 11-17.
Tomlinson CL, Stowe R, Patel S, Rick C, Gray R, Clarke CE. Systematic review of levodopa dose equivalency reporting in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2010; 25: 2649-2653.
Uc EY, Rizzo M, Johnson AM, Dastrup E, Anderson SW, Dawson JD. Road Safety in Drivers with Parkinson Disease. Neurology 2009; 73: 2112-2119.
Welsh M, McDermott MP, Holloway RG, Plumb S, Pfeiffer R, Hubble J. Development and testing of the Parkinson's disease quality of life scale. Mov Disord 2003; 18: 637-645.
Wisloff U, Stoylen A, Loennechen JP et al. Superior cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus moderate continuous training in heart failure patients: a randomized study. Circulation 2007; 115: 3086-3094.
Wonisch M, Hofmann P, Fruhwald FM et al. Influence of beta-blocker use on percentage of target heart rate exercise prescription. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2003; 10: 296-301.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous training | Active comparator | Behavioral: Continuous trainingAerobic walking using continuous heart rate training. |
| Interval training | Active comparator | Behavioral: Interval trainingAerobic walking using interval heart rate training |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 50 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Veteran or non-veteran;
- Presence of all 3 cardinal features of Parkinson's disease (resting tremor, bradykinesia, and rigidity), which have to be asymmetrical;
- Hoehn and Yahr Scale stage I-III;
- Men or women aged 50-80 capable of performing the planned exercise programs;
- Intention to remain in the local area over the study period;
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Secondary parkinsonism;
- Parkinson-plus syndromes;
- MMSE score <24;
- Participating in a aerobic exercise program;
- An unstable dosage of drugs active in the central nervous system (e.g., anxiolytics, antidepressants) during the 60 days before the baseline visit;
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous trainingThe maximal heart rate (HRmax) in the exercise prescription was based on age[Goldberg, Elliot, and Kuehl1988] and reduced by 20% in participants who used beta-blockers.[Wonisch et al. 2003] The duration of exercise sessions (3x/week) was advanced from 15 to 45 minutes over the first 6 weeks. The goal for continuous training was to remain within 70-80% of HRmax throughout the session. | Behavioural | Continuous training |
| Interval trainingInterval trainees alternated every 3 minutes between slower (60-70% of HRmax) and faster (80-90% of HRmax) walking [Wisloff et al. 2007]. | Behavioural | Interval training |
Primary outcome
Change in Aerobic Fitness
Time frame: 6 months
VO2max after the training - VO2max at baseline (Adjusted for levodopa-equivalent, year, training mode, setting). Please see publication PMID: 24991037 for details.
7 secondary outcomes
Change in 7 Meter Walk Time
Time frame: 6 months
Change in the UPDRS Section I Score
Time frame: 6 months
Change in UPDRS Section II Score
Time frame: 6 months
Change in the UPDRS Section III Score
Time frame: 6 months
Change in the Total UPDRS Score
Time frame: 6 months
Change in the MOCA Score
Time frame: 6 months
Change in Percent Increase Score (PIS) on Eriksen's Flanker Task
Time frame: 6 months
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 Sep 2015.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Results publication: PubMed 24991037Uc EY, Doerschug KC, Magnotta V, Dawson JD, Thomsen TR, Kline JN, Rizzo M, Newman SR, Mehta S, Grabowski TJ, Bruss J, Blanchette DR, Anderson SW, Voss MW, Kramer AF, Darling WG. Phase I/II randomized trial of aerobic exercise in Parkinson disease in a community setting. Neurology. 2014 Jul 29;83(5):413-25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000644. Epub 2014 Jul 2.
Related trials for Parkinson Disease
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
STAR0602 With Nivolumab in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer and in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer, and STAR0602 Alone in Thymic Carcinoma
NSCLC, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Early Molecular Biomarkers for Differentiating Parkinsonian Syndromes
PARKINSON DISEASE (Disorder), Atypical Parkinsonism
RecruitingPhase 3
A Clinical Study of Sacituzumab Tirumotecan (MK-2870) in Combination With Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) as First-line Maintenance Treatment of Cervical Cancer (MK-2870-036/TroFuse-036/GOG-3123/ENGOT-cx22)
Cervical Cancer
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
Clinical Safety and Efficacy of Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stromal Cells-derived Exosomes in Patients With Parkinson's Disease
Parkinson Disease (PD)
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Adaptive DBS to Offset STN Dysregulation During Exercise in PD
Parkinson Disease
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ergun Y. Uc, MD principal investigator
VA Medical Center, Iowa City
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Continuous training and Interval training in people with Parkinson Disease, run by US Department of Veterans Affairs at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 12 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Sep 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 15 Sep 2015). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Aerobic Fitness (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00784563, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 Sep 2015.