Skip to content

Impact of Exercise Training on Pain and Brain Function in Gulf War Veterans

Impact of Exercise Training on Pain and Brain Function in Gulf War Veterans

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01350492
Enrollment
77
Registered
2011-05-09
Start date
2013-04-16
Completion date
2019-06-18
Last updated
2020-10-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

Keywords

pain, brain imaging, exercise

Brief summary

This study is intended to test the influence of weight training on physical symptoms, physical activity and brain structure and function in Gulf War Veterans with chronic widespread muscle pain.

Detailed description

Musculoskeletal pain in soldiers who returned from the Persian Gulf War is a serious problem. Numerous studies have reported musculoskeletal pain as a primary symptom of sick Gulf Veterans (GVs), with \ 100,000 Veterans (\ 15%) reporting unresolved pain affecting their social and professional lives. Pain and other symptoms are often disabling with 1 in 7 United States Veterans seeking care for war-related health concerns and \ 12% receiving disability compensation. Thus, a significant number of military personnel are no longer able to perform their duties due to medically unexplained symptoms including pain, fatigue and cognitive problems. Importantly, recent evidence suggests that chronic pain complaints in most GVs have not resolved. Similar problems appear to be on the horizon for Veterans from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. Understanding the pathophysiological consequences of chronic muscle pain is important for better determining both the efficacy and mechanism of treatments aimed at decreasing debilitating symptoms and improving physical function among Veterans coping with chronic pain. Given the dearth of experimental data in GVs with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP), we have patterned much of our research in GVs after our research in fibromyalgia (FM), a disorder with a primary symptom of muscle and joint pain in civilians. Our work and the work of others suggest that FM pain is produced and maintained by central nervous system (CNS) dysregulation of nociceptive and pain processes. Our work also suggests that phenomena similar to those observed in FM may be occurring in GVs with CMP. Like FM patients, GVs with CMP, 1) are more sensitive to experimental pain stimuli, 2) exhibit exaggerated pain responses following acute exercise, 3) experience more muscle pain during acute exercise and 4) show augmented brain responses to both painful and non-painful experimental stimuli. These data suggest that some of the same pathophysiological mechanisms involved in FM may be maintaining chronic widespread muscle pain in GVs. Critical unanswered questions include whether promising treatments for CMP in GVs can affect laboratory measures of pain sensitivity and pain regulation and whether these changes relate to clinical improvements. We intend to begin to answer these questions by examining perceptual and brain hemodynamic responses to standardized painful stimuli and documenting their relationships to clinical outcomes before, during and upon completion of a viable, novel treatment for CMP. There are no known efficacious treatments for GVs suffering CMP. Efficacy studies are needed to begin determining effective treatments for our Veterans following their service of our country. In FM, exercise training (both aerobic and resistance modes) is widely recognized as one of the few consistently efficacious treatments, resulting in improved well-being, increased physical function and in some cases decreased pain. One large scale treatment trial of aerobic exercise in GVs with chronic multi-symptom illness showed only modest improvements in pain, fatigue and mental health. We believe this trial had several limitations that greatly attenuated the treatment's effectiveness; consequently, it is premature to discount exercise training as a treatment for GVs with CMP. Further, we propose a novel approach that employs progressive resistance exercise training (RET) to treat GVs with CMP, while obtaining objective measures of nociceptive function, brain white matter tract pathways and total physical activity. In addition to exercise performed as part of a structured training program, physical activity behaviors are important determinants of physical and mental health. Greater total physical activity levels are associated with increased physical function, improved mental health, increased energy and decreased symptoms of chronic pain. To our knowledge, none of the exercise training trials in FM have actually measured the impact of the exercise training on physical activity behaviors during daytime hours outside the intervention. It is plausible that the adoption of a structured exercise training program reduces physical activities performed during the rest of the day, and that this change in total physical activity could affect health outcomes. Objective measurement of physical activity will allow us to determine whether RET increases, decreases or has no impact on total physical activity levels in GVs with CMP. This will allow us to begin to characterize sub-groups who benefit the most from RET (e.g. potentially those GVs that maintain or increase their extra-intervention physical activity). Thus, in addition to supervised RET, we will objectively measure total physical activity levels outside of the intervention using accelerometers before, during and following treatment. In summary, we propose to determine the efficacy of RET for the treatment of CMP and associated symptoms in GVs. In addition, we will assess the influence of RET on total physical activity, pain sensitivity and regulation, and brain white matter tracts. By applying functional neuroimaging techniques in conjunction with pain psychophysics we will test how the brains of Veterans with CMP respond to sensory stimuli and whether these responses can be modified by exercise training. We plan to use blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) methods to evaluate the function of brain regions involved in pain processing and control and the microstructural properties of white matter tract pathways that connect these regions. In addition, we will determine the influence of RET on extra-intervention physical activity behaviors, testing a critical and unanswered question - whether total physical activity levels change as a result of engaging in a RET program in patients with CMP. The primary goals of this project will be accomplished by comparing GVs with CMP assigned to either RET or wait-list control (WLC) in a randomized controlled trial.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALResistance Exercise Training

16 weeks of resistance exercise training for the treatment of chronic muscle pain compared to wait-list control

Sponsors

VA Office of Research and Development
Lead SponsorFED

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
35 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Veteran of the Persian Gulf War * Chronic muscle pain

Exclusion criteria

* Regular participation in resistance exercise * Color blindness * Claustrophobia * Medical conditions that could explain the Veteran's pain * Use of exclusionary drugs 3 weeks prior to testing * Major depressive disorder with melancholic features * Substance abuse * Schizophrenia * Bipolar disorder

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.The Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire VAS ranges from 0 (No pain) to 100 (Worst possible pain). The respondent was asked to report how bad their pain has been over the past week. A higher score indicates a greater severity of pain.
Physical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.The PCS is a composite summary score of items from the VR-36 related to physical health. Individual subscale scores are z transformed using US normative data, multiplied by a factor score coefficient, summed, and transformed to a T-score of a distribution (Mean = 50; Standard Deviation = 10). Higher scores represent better physical health.
Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.The PGIC is a 7-item, self-report scale indicating the degree to which a patient has experienced any change since starting treatment. Each respondent was asked to rate ...the change (if any) in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions, and overall quality of life. related to their pain since beginning treatment. Scores range from 1, No change (or condition has got worse) to 7, A great deal better, and a considerable improvement that has made all the difference. A higher score indicates greater improvement.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Physical Activity (Accelerometer)6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.Physical activity is measured via accelerometer. The measure is a unit-less average of the number of counts per day. The higher the count, the greater the amount and intensity of physical activity accumulated over course of the day. Values range from 30,000 (sedentary) to 800,000 (highly active).
Physical Activity (Self-report)6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.Total weekly self-reported physical activity was quantified using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). The outcome is expressed as the number of metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week. One MET is defined as the amount of oxygen consumed while sitting at rest and is equal to 3.5 ml O2 per kg body weight x min, so 1 minute spent at rest is equal to 1 MET-minute. Respondents are only asked to report on physical activity of a light intensity or greater (≥3 METs, e.g., briskly walking). Higher values equal greater amount/intensity of activity.
Brain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 monthsFractional anisotropy (FA) is a scalar value between 0 and 1 that describes the degree of anisotropy of a diffusion process. In the case of brain white matter integrity, it gives us an indication of the tract integrity at a particular region within the brain. 0 would indicate flow is completely unrestricted (no integrity), 1 that all flow is in the same direction (high integrity). In this instance we are using the FA at the body of the corpus callosum as an indicator of overall brain white matter integrity.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Between May 2013 and March 2018, participants were recruited through digital and print advertisements in area medical centers, presentations at Veteran Service Organizations and via a mailed letter targeting Veterans from a VA database search. The first participant was enrolled in June 2013 and the last participant was enrolled in March 2018.

Pre-assignment details

Following phone screening, 119 participants were invited to participate. Of those, 77 were enrolled and underwent a more substantial screening process. 54 participants were randomly assigned to a group. The remaining 23 participants were not assigned to a group as they were ineligible (n=17) or declined to continue (n=6).

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Resistance Exercise Training
Resistance Exercise Training: 16 weeks of resistance exercise training, performed twice weekly, for the treatment of chronic muscle pain.
28
Waitlist Control
Waitlist Control: Individuals assigned to this condition were asked to maintain their usual routine while enrolled. Upon completion they were offered the opportunity to undertake the resistance training protocol.
26
Total54

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
InterventionLost to Follow-up25
InterventionWithdrawal by Subject31
Post Intervention Follow-UpLost to Follow-up61
Post Intervention Follow-UpWithdrawal by Subject01

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicWaitlist ControlTotalResistance Exercise Training
Age, Continuous50.19 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.64
49.94 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.44
49.71 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.2
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)6.73 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.62
7.94 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.78
9.07 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.85
Education
College graduate (including associates degree)
11 Participants20 Participants9 Participants
Education
Did not finish high school
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Education
Graduate degree
2 Participants5 Participants3 Participants
Education
High school graduate
6 Participants10 Participants4 Participants
Education
Some college
6 Participants17 Participants11 Participants
Education
Some post-graduate
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Fractional anisotropy (FA) at the corpus callosum0.521 Scalar value b/w 0-1
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.031
0.524 Scalar value b/w 0-1
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.03
0.528 Scalar value b/w 0-1
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.03
Marital Status
Divorced
4 Participants10 Participants6 Participants
Marital Status
Living as married
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Marital Status
Married
21 Participants36 Participants15 Participants
Marital Status
Never married
1 Participants4 Participants3 Participants
Marital Status
Separated
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Marital Status
Widowed
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)8.65 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.98
10.28 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.44
11.79 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.72
Physical Activity (Accelerometer)337629 Counts per day
STANDARD_DEVIATION 165554
283704 Counts per day
STANDARD_DEVIATION 148202
236520 Counts per day
STANDARD_DEVIATION 114918
Physical Activity (Self-report)5848 MET-minutes/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7410
5315 MET-minutes/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6715
4820 MET-minutes/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6094
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black, not Hispanic
3 Participants4 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White Hispanic
3 Participants5 Participants2 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White, not Hispanic
20 Participants45 Participants25 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
26 Participants54 Participants28 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
4 Participants11 Participants7 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
22 Participants43 Participants21 Participants
State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) - Y2 Form36.00 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.21
36.81 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.54
37.57 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.94

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 280 / 26
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 280 / 26
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 280 / 26

Outcome results

Primary

Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).

The PGIC is a 7-item, self-report scale indicating the degree to which a patient has experienced any change since starting treatment. Each respondent was asked to rate ...the change (if any) in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions, and overall quality of life. related to their pain since beginning treatment. Scores range from 1, No change (or condition has got worse) to 7, A great deal better, and a considerable improvement that has made all the difference. A higher score indicates greater improvement.

Time frame: 6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to either resistance exercise training or wait-list control). Last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method. THE PGIC, however, was not administered until the 6-week in-person visit. So participants who were withdrawn or lost to follow up before the 6-week visit were not included.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Resistance Exercise TrainingPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).11 weeks3.67 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.52
Resistance Exercise TrainingPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).6 months3.21 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2
Resistance Exercise TrainingPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).17 weeks3.88 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.83
Resistance Exercise TrainingPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).12 months2.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.81
Resistance Exercise TrainingPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).6 weeks3.58 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.59
Waitlist ControlPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).12 months2.45 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.47
Waitlist ControlPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).6 weeks1.77 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.02
Waitlist ControlPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).11 weeks2.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.87
Waitlist ControlPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).17 weeks2.05 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.95
Waitlist ControlPatients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC).6 months2.18 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.47
Comparison: General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.p-value: 0.0002Multivariate regression
Primary

Physical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).

The PCS is a composite summary score of items from the VR-36 related to physical health. Individual subscale scores are z transformed using US normative data, multiplied by a factor score coefficient, summed, and transformed to a T-score of a distribution (Mean = 50; Standard Deviation = 10). Higher scores represent better physical health.

Time frame: 6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to either resistance exercise training or wait-list control). Last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).11 weeks41.82 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 5.95
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).6 months43.03 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 5.96
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).17 weeks42.66 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 5.6
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).12 months41.14 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 5.85
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).6 weeks43.01 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 5.17
Waitlist ControlPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).12 months42.99 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 6.59
Waitlist ControlPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).6 weeks44.53 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 6.06
Waitlist ControlPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).11 weeks43.37 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 6.68
Waitlist ControlPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).17 weeks42.92 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 5.8
Waitlist ControlPhysical Component Score (PCS) From the Veterans Rand 36 Item Heath Survey (VR-36).6 months43.94 units on a scale, T-score transformedStandard Deviation 7.07
Comparison: General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.p-value: 0.854Mulitvariate regression
Primary

Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

The Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire VAS ranges from 0 (No pain) to 100 (Worst possible pain). The respondent was asked to report how bad their pain has been over the past week. A higher score indicates a greater severity of pain.

Time frame: 6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to either resistance exercise training or wait-list control). Last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Resistance Exercise TrainingShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).6 weeks29.82 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.12
Resistance Exercise TrainingShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).6 months31.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.31
Resistance Exercise TrainingShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).17 weeks30.68 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.12
Resistance Exercise TrainingShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).12 months31.68 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.37
Resistance Exercise TrainingShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).11 weeks30.07 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.37
Waitlist ControlShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).12 months33.58 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.12
Waitlist ControlShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).6 weeks37.08 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.92
Waitlist ControlShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).11 weeks31.46 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.78
Waitlist ControlShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).17 weeks35.12 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.05
Waitlist ControlShort Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Visual Analog Scale (VAS).6 months34.31 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.66
Comparison: General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.p-value: 0.68Multivariate regression
Secondary

Brain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.

Fractional anisotropy (FA) is a scalar value between 0 and 1 that describes the degree of anisotropy of a diffusion process. In the case of brain white matter integrity, it gives us an indication of the tract integrity at a particular region within the brain. 0 would indicate flow is completely unrestricted (no integrity), 1 that all flow is in the same direction (high integrity). In this instance we are using the FA at the body of the corpus callosum as an indicator of overall brain white matter integrity.

Time frame: 6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Resistance Exercise TrainingBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.11 weeks0.5256 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0312
Resistance Exercise TrainingBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.6 months0.5262 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0303
Resistance Exercise TrainingBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.17 weeks0.5261 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0298
Resistance Exercise TrainingBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.12 months0.5219 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0343
Resistance Exercise TrainingBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.6 weeks0.5263 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.031
Waitlist ControlBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.12 months0.5203 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0329
Waitlist ControlBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.6 weeks0.5213 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0325
Waitlist ControlBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.11 weeks0.5213 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0323
Waitlist ControlBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.17 weeks0.5224 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0313
Waitlist ControlBrain Structure: White Matter Tract Integrity, Operationalized With Fractional Anisotropy (FA) Measures at the Body of the Corpus Callosum.6 months0.5217 Scalar value b/w 0 and 1Standard Deviation 0.0325
Comparison: General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.p-value: 0.66Multivariate regression
Secondary

Physical Activity (Accelerometer)

Physical activity is measured via accelerometer. The measure is a unit-less average of the number of counts per day. The higher the count, the greater the amount and intensity of physical activity accumulated over course of the day. Values range from 30,000 (sedentary) to 800,000 (highly active).

Time frame: 6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.

Population: Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to either resistance exercise training or wait-list control). Last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method. Sample is limited to only those participants with a valid baseline measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)6 weeks261012 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 131113
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)11 weeks267376 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 133327
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)6 months267067 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 168249
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)12 months252940 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 144748
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)17 weeks285157 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 181804
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)12 months300769 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 132518
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)6 months295661 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 126297
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)6 weeks299872 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 124379
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)11 weeks321253 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 121150
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Accelerometer)17 weeks305315 Counts per dayStandard Deviation 122002
Comparison: General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.p-value: 0.41Multivariate regression
Secondary

Physical Activity (Self-report)

Total weekly self-reported physical activity was quantified using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). The outcome is expressed as the number of metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week. One MET is defined as the amount of oxygen consumed while sitting at rest and is equal to 3.5 ml O2 per kg body weight x min, so 1 minute spent at rest is equal to 1 MET-minute. Respondents are only asked to report on physical activity of a light intensity or greater (≥3 METs, e.g., briskly walking). Higher values equal greater amount/intensity of activity.

Time frame: 6 weeks, 11 weeks, 17 weeks and 6 and 12 months post intervention.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Self-report)11 weeks5856 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 5912
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Self-report)6 months4232 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 3771
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Self-report)17 weeks4629 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 4280
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Self-report)12 months4492 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 4739
Resistance Exercise TrainingPhysical Activity (Self-report)6 weeks4535 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 5948
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Self-report)12 months6113 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 8709
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Self-report)6 weeks6824 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 7944
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Self-report)11 weeks4978 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 7601
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Self-report)17 weeks6491 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 9020
Waitlist ControlPhysical Activity (Self-report)6 months6273 MET-minutes/weekStandard Deviation 9161
Comparison: General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.p-value: 0.16Multivariate regression

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026