Metabolic SyndromeVIRTUAL-METSNCT07040748
Immersive Virtual Reality Training for Improving Cognition in Adults With Metabolic Syndrome
A study testing Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS) in people with Metabolic Syndrome, run by Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention using immersive virtual reality (Virtual-METS) to improve cognitive function in middle-aged adults with metabolic syndrome and subjective cognitive complaints. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 45 to 70 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Metabolic Syndrome
- What is being tested?
- Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 84 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2025to 1 Apr 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 45 to 70 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Demonstrated criteria for the MetS: central obesity (waist circumference ≥ 94 cm for men or ≥ 80 cm for women) and at least 2 of the criteria described as follow: Triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dl or specific treatment of this lipid disorder; HDL-C < 40 mg/dl (men) or < 50 mg/dl (women) or specific treatment of this lipid disorder; Systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 85 mmHg or previously diagnosed hypertension treatment; Basal glycemia ≥ 100 mg/dl or type 2 diabetes previously diagnosed).
- Age: between 45 and 70 years old.
- Subjective cognitive complaints: Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (≥ 7).
- Ability to fully understand and speak Spanish or Catalan.
Who cannot join
- Confirmed or suspicion of dementia (MMSE<24).
- Diagnosis of severe psychiatric, neurological, developmental disorders, systemic pathologies, hematological, hormonal, nutritional pathology, and/or neoplasm that are known to cause cognitive deficits.
- Other severe comorbidities considered a probable bias for the study: a cardiac history of unstable angina, recent myocardial infarction within the last 3 months, congestive heart failure, significant heart valve dysfunction, or unstable hypertension; taking medications that could negatively affect cognitive function.
- Physical, motor, or sensory alterations that impede the neuropsychological examination or the rehabilitation program.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Spain1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa
Terrassa, 08227
Maite Garolera, +34937310007, mgarolera@cst.cat
About this study
Official title: Multimodal Immersive Virtual Reality Training for Improving Cognition in Adults With Metabolic Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention using immersive virtual reality (Virtual-METS) to improve cognitive function in middle-aged adults with metabolic syndrome and subjective cognitive complaints. The intervention combines cognitive training and physical exercise in group sessions over 12 weeks.
Read the detailed description
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) has been associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and potentially Alzheimer's disease. Given the high prevalence of MetS in older adult populations, there is an urgent need for alternative, non-pharmacological solutions to improve cognitive impairment associated with MetS. Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) technology offers a unique opportunity to improve traditional interventions and accessibility for populations with physical, cognitive, or emotional constraints. The Virtual-METS project aims to evaluate the effects of a multimodal IVR intervention that combines cognitive training and physical exercise on eighty- four adults with MetS, aged between 45 and 70 years, and with subjective cognitive complaints. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group (Virtual-METS) or the control group (treatment as usual, TAU) in a single-blind, randomized clinical trial. The Virtual-METS intervention will be delivered in a group session with 5 participants, twice per week for 12 weeks (24 sessions). Measures of cognition, assessed by a neuropsychological battery and eye-tracking tasks (primary measures), as well as treatment compliance, functionality, and quality of life (secondary measures), will be assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and after 6 months. In addition, ophthalmologic examinations, carotid Doppler ultrasound, and a panel of blood-based and gut-derived biomarkers will be collected to explore physiological mechanisms underlying cognitive and clinical changes. An economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness, treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years, compared to TAU, will also be conducted.
- Conditions
- Metabolic Syndrome
- Being tested
- Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS)
- Keywords
- Metabolic syndrome, Cognitive impairment, Virtual Reality, Cognitive Training
- Medical subject headings
- Metabolic Syndrome, Cognitive Dysfunction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS)Behavioural
This intervention consists of a 12-week, group-based program using immersive virtual reality technology (MK360) without head-mounted displays. Each 60-minute session combines mindfulness practices adapted from the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program, cognitive training targeting attention, processing speed, memory, and executive function through realistic virtual environments (such as parks, markets, or home interiors), and chair-based physical exercises focused on balance, stretching, and muscle strengthening. The intervention is delivered in small groups of five participants, twice per week, for a total of 24 sessions, and is led by a trained neuropsychologist.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental: Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS) | Experimental | Participants in this arm will receive a multimodal group-based intervention using immersive virtual reality (IVR) without headsets. The intervention includes mindfulness (10 minutes), cognitive training (30 minutes), and physical exercises (20 minutes) delivered through MK360 immersive technology. Sessions are conducted in groups of 5 participants, twice per week for 12 weeks (24 sessions in total), led by a neuropsychologist. Receives: Behavioral: Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS) |
| No Intervention: Treatment as Usual (Control Group) | No intervention | Participants in this arm will continue with their usual care, including routine medical visits and remotely administered psychoeducational guidelines to support diet, physical activity, and adherence to pharmacological treatment. They will not receive any specific intervention during the study period. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Differences between groups in scores of global cognition
Global cognition is assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) a screening tool designed to identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and other cognitive deficits. The MoCA takes around 10-15 minutes to complete and consists of 30 items (range=0-30). Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of sustained attention
Sustained attention is measured with the Test of Word Accentuation. Scores range from 0-30, higher scores mean a better performance.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in verbal memory
Verbal memory is measured with the Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT). It is a word-learning test where five presentations of a 15-word list are given, each followed by an attempted recall. This is followed by a second 15-word interference list (list B), followed by recall of list A. Delayed recall and recognition are also tested. For each trial, the score ranges from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating better memory performance. The total learning score (sum of the five List A trials) ranges from 0 to 75. Delayed recall and recognition scores also range from 0 to 15. Higher scores indicate better verbal memory performance.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of auditory attention
Auditory attention is measured with Digit Span Forward (WAIS-IV). Participants are asked to repeat numbers in the same order as read aloud by the examiner. Scores range from 2 to 8, with higher scores indicating better attention span.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of working memory
Working memory is assessed using Digit Span Backward (WAIS-IV), where participants repeat number sequences in reverse order. Scores range from 2 to 8, with higher scores indicating better working memory.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of processing speed
Processing speed is measured with the Digit Symbol Coding subtest from the WAIS-III. It consists of replacing symbols that lack verbal meaning with numbers based on a key. Scores range from 0 to 133, with higher scores indicating better processing speed.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of sustained attention and impulsivity
Conners Continuous Performance Test - 3rd Edition (CPT-3) is task-oriented computerised assessment of attention-related problems. Participants are presented with a repetitive array of visual stimuli on a computer screen for 14 min. Participants are instructed to press the space bar every time a letter other than "X" appears and to not press the space bar when "X" appears. The rate of stimulus presentation varies according to 1, 2, and 4 s intervals throughout the task. Measures: Correct Detection (Higher rates indicate better outcome), Reaction times (Lower scores indicate better outcome), Omission errors (Lower rates indicate better outcome), and Commission errors (Lower rates indicate better outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of visuospatial memory
Visuospatial memory is assessed with the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test - Revised (BVMT-R). Immediate memory is evaluated through the total score of three learning trials, with scores ranging from 0 to 36. Delayed memory is assessed through free recall (score range: 0 to 12) and recognition (number of correctly identified figures, corrected for false positives). Higher scores indicate better visuospatial memory performance.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of logical memory
Verbal episodic memory is assessed with Logical Memory I and II (WMS-IV), evaluating immediate and delayed recall of short stories. Scores range from 0 to 25 for each story, with a maximum total score of 50 when two stories are administered. In addition, a recognition phase is included, with scores ranging from 0 to 30. Higher scores across all components indicate better verbal episodic memory.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of visual scanning and processing speed
Visual scanning and processing speed are measured with the Trail-Making Test-A version. Participants are asked to connect a series of numbered circles on a page in numerical order. Completion time is recorded in seconds, with lower scores indicating better performance.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of executive function and cognitive flexibility
Executive functioning and cognitive flexibility are measured with the Trail-Making Test-B version. Participants are asked to connect a series of circles that contain both numbers and letters in alternating numerical and alphabetical order. Completion time is recorded in seconds, with lower scores indicating better performance.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of executive functioning
Executive functioning is assessed with the Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (M-WCST), which evaluates abstract reasoning, cognitive flexibility, and the ability to shift problem-solving strategies. Performance is scored based on the number of categories completed, total errors, and perseverative errors. Higher scores in perseverative errors (range: 0 to >23) and total errors (range: 0 to >31) indicate worse performance, while more categories completed reflect better executive functioning (range: 0 to 8).
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of selective attention, inhibition, and processing speed
Selective attention, inhibition, and processing speed are measured with the Stroop Color and Word Test. Participants are asked to name the color of a series of color patches (Stroop Color Naming), read a series of color words (Stroop Word Reading), and name the color of a series of color words where the word and color do not match (e.g., the word "red" written in blue ink), Stroop Color-Word Interference. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of phonetic fluency
Phonemic verbal fluency is assessed using the PMR test, in which participants are asked to produce as many words as possible beginning with the letters P, M, and R, one minute per letter. The total score is the sum of all correct, non-repeated words across the three trials. Higher scores indicate better phonemic fluency and executive function.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of semantic verbal fluency
Semantic verbal fluency is assessed with a category fluency task in which participants are asked to name as many words as possible belonging to a specific semantic category (e.g., animals, fruits) within one minute. The total score is the number of correct, non-repeated words produced. Higher scores indicate better semantic fluency and lexical access.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Secondary outcomes (43)
Differences between groups in Body Weight
Body weight measured in kilograms, used as an indicator of metabolic status.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in waist circumference
Waist circumference measured in centimeters at the midpoint between the lower margin of the last palpable rib and the top of the iliac crest. Indicator of abdominal fat.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up
Differences between groups in blood pressure
Systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured in mmHg using an automated sphygmomanometer after 5 minutes of rest.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in fasting glucose
Fasting glucose levels obtained from a venous blood sample after 8-12 hours of fasting. Indicator of glycemic control.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in lipid profile
Lipid profile including total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, and triglycerides measured via fasting blood samples (milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)).
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in fasting insulin
Serum insulin measured after overnight fasting using standardized immunoassay methods. Reflects insulin resistance.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of functionality
Functionality is measured with a 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-II (WHODAS-II). Patients are asked to state the level of difficulty experienced, considering how they usually do the activity. The scale scores each item as "none" (1) to "cannot do" (5). The total score is calculated with an SPSS syntax, and the range varies from 0 to 100, with higher scores reflecting more significant disability.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of quality of life
Quality of Life is measured with EuroQol a self-completion questionnaire, which consists of five questions: covering mobility, hygiene, activities, pain, and anxiety. The descriptive system divides each of the 5 dimensions into three levels of response: the absence of a problem, some problem, and extreme problem. Lower scores indicate better outcomes. In addition, the questionnaire has a plus scale where the participants rated their health state on a scale of 0-100. In this scale, higher scores indicate better outcome.
The WHOQOL-BREF assesses quality of life (QOL) within the context of an individual's culture, value systems, personal goals, standards and concerns.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in cognitive reserve
Cognitive reserve is assessed with the Cognitive Reserve Questionnaire, which evaluates factors such as education, occupation, and engagement in cognitive and social activities. Scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive reserve.
Measured: Baseline only.
Expectation for treatment at baseline
Treatment expectations are assessed with the Expectation for Treatment Scale (ETS), a validated questionnaire that measures participants' beliefs and expectations about the potential benefits of the intervention. Total scores range from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating more positive treatment expectations.
Measured: Baseline only.
Differences between groups in subjective cognitive complaints
Subjective cognitive complaints are measured using the MiCog questionnaire, which evaluates participants' perceived difficulties in daily cognitive functioning. Total scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more cognitive complaints.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in general health status
General health is assessed using the Goldberg Health Questionnaire, a screening tool for psychological distress and general well-being. Higher scores indicating higher psychological distress.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of depressive symptoms
Depression is measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "not at all" (0 points) to "nearly every day" (3 points). Total scores range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of anxiety symptoms
Anxiety is measured with the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), a Likert-type scale with questions ranging from "not at all" (0 points) to "nearly every day" (3 points). The maximum score is 24. Higher scores mean a worse outcome.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in healthy lifestyle habits
Healthy lifestyle habits are evaluated using the Healthy Lifestyle Questionnaire, a validated Spanish-language instrument that evaluates physical activity, nutrition, and psychological well-being. Total scores range from 0 to 120, with higher scores indicating healthier lifestyle behaviors.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in sedentary behavior
Sedentary behavior is measured with the short version of the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ-s), which asks about time spent in sedentary activities on weekdays and weekends. Total scores are reported in average hours per day, with higher values indicating greater sedentary behavior.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of Sleep Quality
Sleep Quality is measured with The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). This test presents 24 items, although only 19 are taken into account for the correction. This test is divided into 7 dimensions, namely, sleep quality, sleep onset latency, sleep duration, sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, hypnotic drugs, and daytime dysfunction. Total scores range from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating worse sleep quality.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in physical performance
Physical performance is assessed using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which includes balance, walking speed, and chair stand tests. Each component is scored from 0 to 4, and the total score ranges from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating better physical function.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in carotid artery ultrasound measures
Intima-media thickness of the carotid arteries is measured using Doppler ultrasound to assess subclinical atherosclerosis.
Measured: Baseline and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of eye-tracking data
Eye-tracking tasks will measure cognitive processing through saccades, fixations, and pupil response during attention and memory tasks.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in intraocular pressure
Intraocular pressure (IOP) measured in both eyes using Goldmann applanation tonometry (millimeters of mercury (mmHg). Reflects ocular and cerebrovascular dynamics.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in retinal vascular density (OCTA)
Retinal vascular density measured using Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA). Reported as percentage of perfused area in superficial and deep retinal layers.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in Peak systolic velocity of the ophthalmic artery
Peak systolic velocity (PSV) of the ophthalmic artery will be measured by Doppler ultrasound. Values are expressed in centimeters per second (cm/s). Higher values may reflect increased arterial flow.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in End-diastolic velocity of the ophthalmic artery
End-diastolic velocity (EDV) of the ophthalmic artery will be measured by Doppler ultrasound. Values are expressed in centimeters per second (cm/s).
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in Resistive index of the ophthalmic artery
The resistive index (RI) of the ophthalmic artery will be calculated using Doppler ultrasound as (PSV - EDV) / PSV. The RI is a dimensionless value ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values typically indicating increased vascular resistance.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in gut microbiota and intestinal permeability biomarkers
Gut microbiota is assessed using 16S rRNA sequencing. Permeability markers include zonulin (ZO-1) and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP).
Measured: Baseline and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in lipid profile
Serum levels of total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides will be measured. Values will be reported in mg/dL. Lower LDL and triglycerides, and higher HDL, are considered more favourable cardiovascular risk profiles.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in apolipoproteins and lipoprotein(a)
Apolipoprotein B (ApoB), apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA1), and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] will be measured. Units will be reported as mg/dL or nmol/L, depending on the marker. Higher ApoB and Lp(a) levels indicate greater cardiovascular risk, while higher ApoA1 is considered protective.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in liver function enzymes
Plasma activities of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and γ-glutamyl transferase (GGT) will be measured by standard kinetic assays. Results are expressed in U/L; lower values indicate better liver function.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in fasting insulin levels
Serum insulin concentration will be determined by chemiluminescent immunoassay and reported in µU/mL; lower values reflect better insulin sensitivity.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in fasting glucose
Plasma glucose will be measured by the hexokinase method and expressed in mg/dL.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in glycated haemoglobin
Glycated haemoglobin will be analysed and reported as percentage of total haemoglobin (%); lower percentages indicate better long-term glycaemic control. Only for prediabetic and diabetic participants.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in renal function markers
Serum urea, creatinine and uric acid will be measured by enzymatic assays and reported in mg/dL.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in glomerular filtration rate (GFR)
GFR will be calculated and expressed in mL/min/1.73 m²; higher values denote better kidney function.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in albuminuria
Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio will be determined and reported in mg/g creatinine; lower values indicate better renal integrity.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in serum electrolytes
Serum sodium, potassium and calcium will be quantified and expressed in mmol/L.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in leptin levels
Serum leptin will be measured and reported in ng/mL.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in cortisol levels
Serum cortisol will be determined and expressed in µg/dL.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)
Serum TSH will be analysed by immunoassay and reported in mIU/L.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in creatine phosphokinase (CPK)
Serum CPK will be measured and expressed in U/L.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB)
Serum BHB will be quantified and reported in mmol/L.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in inflammatory cytokines
Plasma levels of IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α and IL-10 will be determined using commercial ELISA kits. Values are expressed in pg/mL; lower pro-inflammatory (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α) and higher anti-inflammatory (IL-10) levels are considered favourable.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF)
Serum BDNF will be quantified and reported in ng/mL; higher concentrations may reflect enhanced neuroplasticity.
Measured: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Jun 2025
- Study start1 Mar 2025
- Primary completion1 Apr 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Apr 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Metabolic SyndromeStudies 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
- Model description
- Randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups: one receiving a multimodal group-based intervention using immersive virtual reality (Virtual-METS), and a control group receiving treatment as usual. The intervention consists of 24 sessions over 12 weeks.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 84 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Maite Garolera, Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07040748
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 202316-10Fundació la MaratóTV3
- Acronym
- VIRTUAL-METS
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 28 May 2025
- Last updated
- 23 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Multimodal Immersive Virtual Reality Training for Improving Cognition in Adults With Metabolic Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07040748
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- VIRTUAL-METS / 202316-10Fundació la MaratóTV3
- Conditions
- Metabolic Syndrome
- Keywords
- Metabolic syndrome, Cognitive impairment, Virtual Reality, Cognitive Training
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 84 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Consorci Sanitari de TerrassaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Apr 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Apr 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 27 Jun 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention using immersive virtual reality (Virtual-METS) to improve cognitive function in middle-aged adults with metabolic syndrome and subjective cognitive complaints. The intervention combines cognitive training and physical exercise in group sessions over 12 weeks.
Detailed description
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) has been associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and potentially Alzheimer's disease. Given the high prevalence of MetS in older adult populations, there is an urgent need for alternative, non-pharmacological solutions to improve cognitive impairment associated with MetS. Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) technology offers a unique opportunity to improve traditional interventions and accessibility for populations with physical, cognitive, or emotional constraints. The Virtual-METS project aims to evaluate the effects of a multimodal IVR intervention that combines cognitive training and physical exercise on eighty- four adults with MetS, aged between 45 and 70 years, and with subjective cognitive complaints. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group (Virtual-METS) or the control group (treatment as usual, TAU) in a single-blind, randomized clinical trial. The Virtual-METS intervention will be delivered in a group session with 5 participants, twice per week for 12 weeks (24 sessions). Measures of cognition, assessed by a neuropsychological battery and eye-tracking tasks (primary measures), as well as treatment compliance, functionality, and quality of life (secondary measures), will be assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and after 6 months. In addition, ophthalmologic examinations, carotid Doppler ultrasound, and a panel of blood-based and gut-derived biomarkers will be collected to explore physiological mechanisms underlying cognitive and clinical changes. An economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness, treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years, compared to TAU, will also be conducted.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups: one receiving a multimodal group-based intervention using immersive virtual reality (Virtual-METS), and a control group receiving treatment as usual. The intervention consists of 24 sessions over 12 weeks.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental: Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS) | Experimental | Behavioral: Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS)Participants in this arm will receive a multimodal group-based intervention using immersive virtual reality (IVR) without headsets. The intervention includes mindfulness (10 minutes), cognitive training (30 minutes), and physical exercises (20 minutes) delivered through MK360 immersive technology. Sessions are conducted in groups of 5 participants, twice per week for 12 weeks (24 sessions in total), led by a neuropsychologist. |
| No Intervention: Treatment as Usual (Control Group) | No intervention | –Participants in this arm will continue with their usual care, including routine medical visits and remotely administered psychoeducational guidelines to support diet, physical activity, and adherence to pharmacological treatment. They will not receive any specific intervention during the study period. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 45 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Demonstrated criteria for the MetS: central obesity (waist circumference ≥ 94 cm for men or ≥ 80 cm for women) and at least 2 of the criteria described as follow: Triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dl or specific treatment of this lipid disorder; HDL-C < 40 mg/dl (men) or < 50 mg/dl (women) or specific treatment of this lipid disorder; Systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 85 mmHg or previously diagnosed hypertension treatment; Basal glycemia ≥ 100 mg/dl or type 2 diabetes previously diagnosed).
- Age: between 45 and 70 years old.
- Subjective cognitive complaints: Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (≥ 7).
- Ability to fully understand and speak Spanish or Catalan.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Confirmed or suspicion of dementia (MMSE<24).
- Diagnosis of severe psychiatric, neurological, developmental disorders, systemic pathologies, hematological, hormonal, nutritional pathology, and/or neoplasm that are known to cause cognitive deficits.
- Other severe comorbidities considered a probable bias for the study: a cardiac history of unstable angina, recent myocardial infarction within the last 3 months, congestive heart failure, significant heart valve dysfunction, or unstable hypertension; taking medications that could negatively affect cognitive function.
- Physical, motor, or sensory alterations that impede the neuropsychological examination or the rehabilitation program.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS)This intervention consists of a 12-week, group-based program using immersive virtual reality technology (MK360) without head-mounted displays. Each 60-minute session combines mindfulness practices adapted from the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program, cognitive training targeting attention, processing speed, memory, and executive function through realistic virtual environments (such as parks, markets, or home interiors), and chair-based physical exercises focused on balance, stretching, and muscle strengthening. The intervention is delivered in small groups of five participants, twice per week, for a total of 24 sessions, and is led by a trained neuropsychologist. | Behavioural | Experimental: Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS) |
Primary outcome
Differences between groups in scores of global cognition
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Global cognition is assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) a screening tool designed to identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and other cognitive deficits. The MoCA takes around 10-15 minutes to complete and consists of 30 items (range=0-30). Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Differences between groups in scores of sustained attention
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Sustained attention is measured with the Test of Word Accentuation. Scores range from 0-30, higher scores mean a better performance.
Differences between groups in verbal memory
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Verbal memory is measured with the Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT). It is a word-learning test where five presentations of a 15-word list are given, each followed by an attempted recall. This is followed by a second 15-word interference list (list B), followed by recall of list A. Delayed recall and recognition are also tested. For each trial, the score ranges from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating better memory performance. The total learning score (sum of the five List A trials) ranges from 0 to 75. Delayed recall and recognition scores also range from 0 to 15. Higher scores indicate better verbal memory performance.
Differences between groups in scores of auditory attention
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Auditory attention is measured with Digit Span Forward (WAIS-IV). Participants are asked to repeat numbers in the same order as read aloud by the examiner. Scores range from 2 to 8, with higher scores indicating better attention span.
Differences between groups in scores of working memory
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Working memory is assessed using Digit Span Backward (WAIS-IV), where participants repeat number sequences in reverse order. Scores range from 2 to 8, with higher scores indicating better working memory.
Differences between groups in scores of processing speed
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Processing speed is measured with the Digit Symbol Coding subtest from the WAIS-III. It consists of replacing symbols that lack verbal meaning with numbers based on a key. Scores range from 0 to 133, with higher scores indicating better processing speed.
Differences between groups in scores of sustained attention and impulsivity
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Conners Continuous Performance Test - 3rd Edition (CPT-3) is task-oriented computerised assessment of attention-related problems. Participants are presented with a repetitive array of visual stimuli on a computer screen for 14 min. Participants are instructed to press the space bar every time a letter other than "X" appears and to not press the space bar when "X" appears. The rate of stimulus presentation varies according to 1, 2, and 4 s intervals throughout the task. Measures: Correct Detection (Higher rates indicate better outcome), Reaction times (Lower scores indicate better outcome), Omission errors (Lower rates indicate better outcome), and Commission errors (Lower rates indicate better outcome).
Differences between groups in scores of visuospatial memory
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Visuospatial memory is assessed with the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test - Revised (BVMT-R). Immediate memory is evaluated through the total score of three learning trials, with scores ranging from 0 to 36. Delayed memory is assessed through free recall (score range: 0 to 12) and recognition (number of correctly identified figures, corrected for false positives). Higher scores indicate better visuospatial memory performance.
Differences between groups in scores of logical memory
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Verbal episodic memory is assessed with Logical Memory I and II (WMS-IV), evaluating immediate and delayed recall of short stories. Scores range from 0 to 25 for each story, with a maximum total score of 50 when two stories are administered. In addition, a recognition phase is included, with scores ranging from 0 to 30. Higher scores across all components indicate better verbal episodic memory.
Differences between groups in scores of visual scanning and processing speed
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Visual scanning and processing speed are measured with the Trail-Making Test-A version. Participants are asked to connect a series of numbered circles on a page in numerical order. Completion time is recorded in seconds, with lower scores indicating better performance.
Differences between groups in scores of executive function and cognitive flexibility
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Executive functioning and cognitive flexibility are measured with the Trail-Making Test-B version. Participants are asked to connect a series of circles that contain both numbers and letters in alternating numerical and alphabetical order. Completion time is recorded in seconds, with lower scores indicating better performance.
Differences between groups in scores of executive functioning
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Executive functioning is assessed with the Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (M-WCST), which evaluates abstract reasoning, cognitive flexibility, and the ability to shift problem-solving strategies. Performance is scored based on the number of categories completed, total errors, and perseverative errors. Higher scores in perseverative errors (range: 0 to >23) and total errors (range: 0 to >31) indicate worse performance, while more categories completed reflect better executive functioning (range: 0 to 8).
Differences between groups in scores of selective attention, inhibition, and processing speed
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Selective attention, inhibition, and processing speed are measured with the Stroop Color and Word Test. Participants are asked to name the color of a series of color patches (Stroop Color Naming), read a series of color words (Stroop Word Reading), and name the color of a series of color words where the word and color do not match (e.g., the word "red" written in blue ink), Stroop Color-Word Interference. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Differences between groups in scores of phonetic fluency
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Phonemic verbal fluency is assessed using the PMR test, in which participants are asked to produce as many words as possible beginning with the letters P, M, and R, one minute per letter. The total score is the sum of all correct, non-repeated words across the three trials. Higher scores indicate better phonemic fluency and executive function.
Differences between groups in scores of semantic verbal fluency
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Semantic verbal fluency is assessed with a category fluency task in which participants are asked to name as many words as possible belonging to a specific semantic category (e.g., animals, fruits) within one minute. The total score is the number of correct, non-repeated words produced. Higher scores indicate better semantic fluency and lexical access.
43 secondary outcomes
Differences between groups in Body Weight
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in waist circumference
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up
Differences between groups in blood pressure
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in fasting glucose
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in lipid profile
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in fasting insulin
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of functionality
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of quality of life
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in cognitive reserve
Time frame: Baseline only.
Expectation for treatment at baseline
Time frame: Baseline only.
Differences between groups in subjective cognitive complaints
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in general health status
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of depressive symptoms
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of anxiety symptoms
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in healthy lifestyle habits
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in sedentary behavior
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of Sleep Quality
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in physical performance
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in carotid artery ultrasound measures
Time frame: Baseline and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in scores of eye-tracking data
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in intraocular pressure
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in retinal vascular density (OCTA)
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in Peak systolic velocity of the ophthalmic artery
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in End-diastolic velocity of the ophthalmic artery
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in Resistive index of the ophthalmic artery
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in gut microbiota and intestinal permeability biomarkers
Time frame: Baseline and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in lipid profile
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in apolipoproteins and lipoprotein(a)
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in liver function enzymes
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in fasting insulin levels
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in fasting glucose
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in glycated haemoglobin
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in renal function markers
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in glomerular filtration rate (GFR)
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in albuminuria
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in serum electrolytes
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in leptin levels
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in cortisol levels
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Differences between groups in creatine phosphokinase (CPK)
Time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Oct 2026.
Related trials for Metabolic Syndrome
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Effects of Meal Macronutrients on Postprandial Lipids
Nephrotic Syndrome, Lipodystrophy
RecruitingObservational study
Long-Term Follow-Up of Survivors of Pediatric Cushing Disease
Cushing Disease
Recruiting
Multi-omics Dissection of Gut Microbiome Engraftment During FMT
Recurrent C. Difficile (rCDI), Ulcerative Colitis (UC)
RecruitingObservational study
Study of the Effect of Innate on the Inflammatory Response to Endotoxin
Asthma, Atherosclerosis
RecruitingObservational study
Investigating Complex Neurodegenerative Disorders Related to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Dementia
Frontotemporal Dementia, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Immersive VR-Based Multimodal Intervention (Virtual-METS) in people with Metabolic Syndrome, run by Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa at 1 site in Spain.
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 4 inclusion and 4 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Oct 2026. 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 Spain. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Maite Garolera (+34937310007, mgarolera@cst.cat), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Differences between groups in scores of global cognition (time frame: Baseline, post-intervention (12 weeks), and 6-month follow-up.). The study lists 15 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 23 Oct 2026.