Skip to content

Exercise and Cognitive Retraining to Improve Cognition in Heart Failure.

The Feasibility of Exercise and Cognitive Retraining to Improve Memory, Attention and Concentration in Heart Failure.

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02151266
Acronym
EXCITE
Enrollment
69
Registered
2014-05-30
Start date
2013-07-31
Completion date
2017-12-30
Last updated
2021-01-25

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

Conditions

Heart Failure

Keywords

Heart failure, Exercise, Cognitive training

Brief summary

Cognitive impairment (CI) is a prevalent problem in persons with HF heart failure (HF) and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, higher mortality and poorer quality of life. Studies designed to attenuate or alleviate CI in persons with HF are limited, and evidenced based guidelines for screening and provision of care are practically nonexistent. Improvement in cognition has been reported following some therapies in HF and is thought to be the consequence of enhanced cerebral perfusion and oxygenation, suggesting that CI may be amenable to intervention in this population. Exercise is documented to increase cerebral perfusion and oxygenation by promoting neuroplasticity and neurogenesis, and, in turn, cognitive functioning. Brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is a key mechanism underlying the effect of exercise, but most studies of BDNF have not included individuals with CI or chronic illness populations, and its relationship to cognitive outcomes in HF is unknown. Cognitive retraining techniques, originally developed to treat traumatic brain injury, have also shown efficacy in broader neurologically-affected conditions and may provide added benefit to that of exercise. Animal studies suggest exercise and plasticity-based cognitive training could act synergistically through different neural mechanisms to have a more pronounced and positive impact on cognitive outcomes than either approach alone; but this has not been previously tested as an intervention to improve CI. The proposed feasibility study is designed to test the acceptability and limited efficacy of a combined exercise (Ex) and cognitive training (CT) program to improve CI in stable NYHA class II and III HF patients compared to either exercise alone or a no-intervention, attention-control group. Findings will be used to support the development of a future, large scale study to test the efficacy of this intervention to improve cognitive functioning, quality of life, and physiological markers of improved brain function in HF. In addition, we have an optional sub-study that participants may participate in order to further our understanding of biomarkers of inflammation and gen e expression before and after exercise.

Detailed description

Persons with heart failure (HF) have a four-fold greater likelihood of developing cognitive impairment (CI) than their age matched healthy counterparts, placing them at high risk for adverse clinical outcomes, poorer quality of life (QOL) and higher mortality. CI is a subtle but measurable deficit in one or multiple cognitive domains; it is a deficit greater than cognitive losses associated with normal aging. The few studies that have documented CI in HF are inconsistent. Few have used standard neuropsychological testing, and little is known about change in cognitive function over time in HF. Further, if CI is detected, there are currently no effective or evidenced-based guidelines to help restore or improve cognition in this population.Despite the aging population and projected rise of CI in HF, only 2 small intervention studies have been documented, indicating a critical need for further research in this area. The etiology of CI in HF is not fully understood, but several underlying mechanisms are consistently reported: reduced cerebral perfusion and oxygenation, brain structural changes (i.e., hippocampal damage, atrophy, loss of gray matter), and micro emboli.Clinical studies have shown that CI is improved after cardiac transplantation and is modifiable with standard therapies that improve cardiac output, oxygenation, fluid overload, and systemic and cerebral perfusion; these findings are inconsistent and anecdotal. The ability to positively influence cognitive function has important implications for patient adherence to a complex self-care regimen and the development of interventions that may partially reverse CI. Exercise improves clinical outcomes in HF by altering the deleterious peripheral and central mechanisms that contribute to HF exacerbations, worsen symptom severity, and lead to poor clinical outcomes. Less is known about the effect of exercise on cognitive function. Animal research has provided the most compelling evidence that exercise positively affects neuronal growth and the neural systems involved in learning and memory. Similar human findings have emerged; recent advances in neuroimaging support that participation in regular exercise leads to specific changes in brain structure and function. Exercise is also thought to enhance brain plasticity. BDNF appears to play a crucial role in this process: when BDNF levels increase following exercise, cognitive function improves. The association between exercise, BDNF and cognitive function has not been previously reported in HF. This feasibility study will clarify these important relationships and increase the potential for improving clinical outcomes in a future trial. Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity are means for the brain to recover from poor perfusion and oxygen deprivation such as that occurring in HF. Animal studies again provide the strongest evidence to date for using cognitive training (CT) to promote better cognitive functioning and provide a rationale for why a combined exercise and CT approach may be superior to monotherapy. Animal studies show that, like exercise, learning tasks and performing cognitively stimulating activities also increase BDNF levels and improve learning and memory. The effect of BDNF on brain function due to exercise however, is thought to be different from that occurring with CT. Exercise increases the proliferation and division of neuronal cells through BDNF, whereas CT appears to promote cell survival,suggesting a synergistic relationship may exist with greater benefit obtained when both are used together. The combination of exercise and plasticity-based CT has not been previously tested in HF or in other populations as an intervention for improving cognitive outcomes, but may be most optimal for targeting the underlying mechanisms for CI in HF. The proposed feasibility study is designed to test the acceptability, implementation and limited efficacy of a combined exercise (Ex) and cognitive training (CT) intervention in stable NYHA class II and III heart failure patients with cognitive impairment. A total of 60 participants will be randomized to one of three study arms: Ex/CT (N=20), Ex-alone (N=20), and attention control (N=20). The study aims are: Aim 1: To evaluate the feasibility of a 3-arm intervention (ExCT, Ex, AC) in heart failure patients with CI. Aim 1a. To test the acceptability and implementation of each study arm. Aim 2: To ascertain limited efficacy of the 3-arm intervention on changes in cognitive abilities Aim 3: To ascertain limited efficacy of the 3-arm intervention to improve cerebral oxygenation, physiological status, physical function and QOL.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALExercise and Cognitive retraining

Walking 5 times per week at moderate intensity; cognitive retraining one-hour 2 times per week.

BEHAVIORALExercise Only

Sponsors

National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
CollaboratorNIH
Emory University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
40 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

men and women between the ages of 40 and 75; English speaking; live independently within a 60 mile radius of Atlanta; meet education corrected cut-offs on the MMSE indicating cognitive impairment (score of 20 for 8-9 yrs of schooling; 22 for 10-12 yrs of schooling; 23 for \>12 yrs) have a computer with internet connection; documented medical diagnosis of NYHA class II or III systolic. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 10% that is documented within the last year by echocardiogram, cardiac catheterization ventriculography or radionuclide ventriculography; Receiving medication therapy for HF according to American College of Cardiology (ACC) American Heart recommendation guidelines for at least 8 weeks prior to study enrollment. \-

Exclusion criteria

NYHA class I or IV; change in HF therapy within 8 weeks; worsening HF symptoms within last 5 days; unstable angina; renal insufficiency (serum creatinine \> 3.o mg/dL); fixed rate pacemaker; uncontrolled hypertension; not involved in any structured exercise program or exercising 3 or more times per week for a minimum of 30 minutes and; not hospitalized within the last 30-days; not diagnosed with any neurological disorder that may interfere with cognitive function; Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) score greater than 25; any disorder interfering with exercise participation. \-

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Visual Memory Score ChangeBaseline, 3 months, 6 monthsVisual memory will be assessed using Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). RBANS figure recall requires the participant to remember a recent figure and redraw it from memory. The range of possible scores is 0-20. Scores are averaged, and then converted to z score. Z-scores are used when neurocognitive test scores use different measurement scales, e.g., time to completion and number correct. This allows to report performance in a straightforward manner, with low and high scores reflecting poor and good performance consistently across different types of tests, and to provide interpretation of a person's performance in comparison to a group. For interpretive purposes, a z-score has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This means that an individual who has a z-score of 1.5 is performing one and a half standard deviations above the group to which he/she is compared.
Change in Working Memory ScoreBaseline, 3 months, 6 monthsDigit Span Forward (0-16), Digit Span Backwards (0-16), Digit Span Sequencing (0-16) and Letter Number Sequencing (0-48) sections from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition are used to assess Working Memory. The range of possible scores for each section are in parentheses. The Digit Span subtest require the repetition of verbally presented series of numbers that increase in length; trials include the repeating of numbers in forward, backward, and numerical order. The Letter-Number sequencing test requires the repeating strings of letters and numbers in numerical and then in alphabetical order. Color Trails Test (CTT) Part 2, participants rapidly connect numbered circles in sequence while alternating between pink and yellow circles. Higher scores reflect better outcome. Scores reflect number correct and are averaged for total correct Working Memory score; are then converted to Z-score.
Change in Reaction TimeBaseline, 3 months, 6 monthsScores are automatically calculated via the scoring software embedded within the CalCap and are standardized based on age and education level norms. Normative data are stratified by both age (20-34, 35-44, 45+) and education (\< 16 years, 16 years, \> 16 years). Lower scores reflect slower reaction time and higher scores reflect faster reaction time. Scores are automatically converted to age/education based standard scores and are reported as a T-score. T-scores (as Z-scores) are used when neurocognitive test scores use different measurement scales, e.g., time to completion and number correct. This allows to report performance in a straightforward manner, with low and high scores reflecting poor and good performance consistently across different types of tests, and to provide interpretation of a person's performance in comparison to a group.
Verbal Memory Score ChangeBaseline, 3 months, 6 monthsList Learning (0-40), List Recall (0-10), and List Recognition (0-20) sections from the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) are used to assess Verbal memory.The range of scores for each section are in parentheses. Higher scores reflect better verbal memory. Scores are averaged for a total Verbal memory score, then converted to Z-score. Z-scores are used when neurocognitive test scores use different measurement scales, e.g., time to completion and number correct. This allows to report performance in a straightforward manner, with low and high scores reflecting poor and good performance consistently across different types of tests, and to provide interpretation of a person's performance in comparison to a group. For interpretive purposes, a z-score has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This means that an individual who has a z-score of 1.5 is performing one and a half standard deviations above the group to which he/she is compared.
Change in Processing Speed/Attention ScoreBaseline, 3 months, 6 monthsRBANS coding (0-89) Color Trails 1 (timed test, 1-5 minutes) measures attention. The length of time to complete each part is recorded; lower raw scores reflect better processing speed and attention. Lower raw scores reflect better processing speed and attention. Scores are averaged for a total score, then converted to Z scores. Z-scores are used when neurocognitive test scores use different measurement scales, e.g., time to completion and number correct. This allows to report performance in a straightforward manner, with low and high scores reflecting poor and good performance consistently across different types of tests, and to provide interpretation of a person's performance in comparison to a group. For interpretive purposes, a z-score has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This means that an individual who has a z-score of 1.5 is performing one and a half standard deviations above the group to which he/she is compared.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Functional CapacityBaseline, 3 months, 6 monthsFunctional capacity will be assessed by six-minute walk across all 3 arms of the study.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Peak V02Baseline and 3 monthsTo evaluate change in cardio-respiratory fitness Peak V02 was assessed at baseline and 3 months using a motorized treadmill test across 3 arms of the study

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Exercise and Cognitive Retraining
Aerobic exercise; Computerized cognitive retraining program; Heart failure education; Home visits; telephone follow-up. Exercise and Cognitive retraining: Walking 5 times per week at moderate intensity; cognitive retraining one-hour 2 times per week.
19
Exercise Only
Each participant will be provided with an individualized target heart rate (THR)zone based on treadmill results. Under the supervision of a research nurse, participants will begin the walking sessions at 60% of THR and increase to 70% by week 5. Participants will walk a minimum of 5 times per week for a duration of 30 minutes. Exercise Only
29
Stretching and Flexibility
Stretching and flexibility movements; heart failure education; home visits; telephone follow-up. Stretching and Flexibility
21
Total69

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002
Overall StudyDid NOT receive intervention362
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up141
Overall StudyNot able to exercise454

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicExercise and Cognitive RetrainingTotalStretching and FlexibilityExercise Only
Age, Continuous59 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11
61 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10
63 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9
60 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
13 Participants38 Participants9 Participants16 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
2 Participants4 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
4 Participants27 Participants11 Participants12 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
19 participants69 participants21 participants29 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
12 Participants37 Participants8 Participants17 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
7 Participants32 Participants13 Participants12 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 190 / 290 / 21
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 190 / 290 / 21
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 190 / 290 / 21

Outcome results

Primary

Change in Processing Speed/Attention Score

RBANS coding (0-89) Color Trails 1 (timed test, 1-5 minutes) measures attention. The length of time to complete each part is recorded; lower raw scores reflect better processing speed and attention. Lower raw scores reflect better processing speed and attention. Scores are averaged for a total score, then converted to Z scores. Z-scores are used when neurocognitive test scores use different measurement scales, e.g., time to completion and number correct. This allows to report performance in a straightforward manner, with low and high scores reflecting poor and good performance consistently across different types of tests, and to provide interpretation of a person's performance in comparison to a group. For interpretive purposes, a z-score has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This means that an individual who has a z-score of 1.5 is performing one and a half standard deviations above the group to which he/she is compared.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Processing Speed/Attention Score3 months-0.09 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.12
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Processing Speed/Attention Scorebaseline-0.09 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.11
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Processing Speed/Attention Score6 months0.20 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.13
Exercise OnlyChange in Processing Speed/Attention Score3 months0.13 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.11
Exercise OnlyChange in Processing Speed/Attention Scorebaseline-0.02 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.1
Exercise OnlyChange in Processing Speed/Attention Score6 months-0.02 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.12
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Processing Speed/Attention Scorebaseline0.12 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.11
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Processing Speed/Attention Score6 months-0.18 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.14
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Processing Speed/Attention Score3 months-0.01 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.13
Primary

Change in Reaction Time

Scores are automatically calculated via the scoring software embedded within the CalCap and are standardized based on age and education level norms. Normative data are stratified by both age (20-34, 35-44, 45+) and education (\< 16 years, 16 years, \> 16 years). Lower scores reflect slower reaction time and higher scores reflect faster reaction time. Scores are automatically converted to age/education based standard scores and are reported as a T-score. T-scores (as Z-scores) are used when neurocognitive test scores use different measurement scales, e.g., time to completion and number correct. This allows to report performance in a straightforward manner, with low and high scores reflecting poor and good performance consistently across different types of tests, and to provide interpretation of a person's performance in comparison to a group.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Reaction Time3 months-0.05 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.25
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Reaction Timebaseline0.14 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.22
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Reaction Time6 months0.02 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.24
Exercise OnlyChange in Reaction Time3 months0.07 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.21
Exercise OnlyChange in Reaction Timebaseline0.11 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.18
Exercise OnlyChange in Reaction Time6 months-0.13 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.23
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Reaction Timebaseline0.29 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.22
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Reaction Time6 months0.30 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.26
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Reaction Time3 months0.18 t scoresStandard Deviation 0.24
Primary

Change in Working Memory Score

Digit Span Forward (0-16), Digit Span Backwards (0-16), Digit Span Sequencing (0-16) and Letter Number Sequencing (0-48) sections from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition are used to assess Working Memory. The range of possible scores for each section are in parentheses. The Digit Span subtest require the repetition of verbally presented series of numbers that increase in length; trials include the repeating of numbers in forward, backward, and numerical order. The Letter-Number sequencing test requires the repeating strings of letters and numbers in numerical and then in alphabetical order. Color Trails Test (CTT) Part 2, participants rapidly connect numbered circles in sequence while alternating between pink and yellow circles. Higher scores reflect better outcome. Scores reflect number correct and are averaged for total correct Working Memory score; are then converted to Z-score.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Working Memory Score3 months-0.03 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.13
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Working Memory Scorebaseline-0.04 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.12
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingChange in Working Memory Score6 months-0.15 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.13
Exercise OnlyChange in Working Memory Score3 months0.12 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.11
Exercise OnlyChange in Working Memory Scorebaseline0.09 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.1
Exercise OnlyChange in Working Memory Score6 months0.10 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.12
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Working Memory Scorebaseline-0.07 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.12
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Working Memory Score6 months-0.03 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.14
Stretching and FlexibilityChange in Working Memory Score3 months-0.16 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.13
Primary

Verbal Memory Score Change

List Learning (0-40), List Recall (0-10), and List Recognition (0-20) sections from the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) are used to assess Verbal memory.The range of scores for each section are in parentheses. Higher scores reflect better verbal memory. Scores are averaged for a total Verbal memory score, then converted to Z-score. Z-scores are used when neurocognitive test scores use different measurement scales, e.g., time to completion and number correct. This allows to report performance in a straightforward manner, with low and high scores reflecting poor and good performance consistently across different types of tests, and to provide interpretation of a person's performance in comparison to a group. For interpretive purposes, a z-score has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This means that an individual who has a z-score of 1.5 is performing one and a half standard deviations above the group to which he/she is compared.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingVerbal Memory Score Change3 months-0.47 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.21
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingVerbal Memory Score Changebaseline-0.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.2
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingVerbal Memory Score Change6 months-0.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.21
Exercise OnlyVerbal Memory Score Change3 months0.14 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.18
Exercise OnlyVerbal Memory Score Changebaseline-0.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.15
Exercise OnlyVerbal Memory Score Change6 months0.07 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.19
Stretching and FlexibilityVerbal Memory Score Changebaseline0.18 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.19
Stretching and FlexibilityVerbal Memory Score Change6 months0.25 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.22
Stretching and FlexibilityVerbal Memory Score Change3 months0.37 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.2
Primary

Visual Memory Score Change

Visual memory will be assessed using Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). RBANS figure recall requires the participant to remember a recent figure and redraw it from memory. The range of possible scores is 0-20. Scores are averaged, and then converted to z score. Z-scores are used when neurocognitive test scores use different measurement scales, e.g., time to completion and number correct. This allows to report performance in a straightforward manner, with low and high scores reflecting poor and good performance consistently across different types of tests, and to provide interpretation of a person's performance in comparison to a group. For interpretive purposes, a z-score has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This means that an individual who has a z-score of 1.5 is performing one and a half standard deviations above the group to which he/she is compared.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingVisual Memory Score Change3 months-0.21 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.24
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingVisual Memory Score Changebaseline-0.09 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.23
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingVisual Memory Score Change6 months-0.90 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.25
Exercise OnlyVisual Memory Score Change3 months0.08 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.21
Exercise OnlyVisual Memory Score Changebaseline-0.17 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.18
Exercise OnlyVisual Memory Score Change6 months-0.14 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.23
Stretching and FlexibilityVisual Memory Score Changebaseline0.29 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.22
Stretching and FlexibilityVisual Memory Score Change6 months0.32 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.25
Stretching and FlexibilityVisual Memory Score Change3 months0.18 z scoresStandard Deviation 0.24
Secondary

Functional Capacity

Functional capacity will be assessed by six-minute walk across all 3 arms of the study.

Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingFunctional Capacity6 months321.2 metersStandard Deviation 20.2
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingFunctional Capacity3 months311.1 metersStandard Deviation 20
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingFunctional Capacitybaseline324.1 metersStandard Deviation 19.2
Exercise OnlyFunctional Capacity6 months374.9 metersStandard Deviation 18.7
Exercise OnlyFunctional Capacitybaseline355.1 metersStandard Deviation 15.9
Exercise OnlyFunctional Capacity3 months358.8 metersStandard Deviation 16.9
Stretching and FlexibilityFunctional Capacity3 months388.4 metersStandard Deviation 20.2
Stretching and FlexibilityFunctional Capacitybaseline337.6 metersStandard Deviation 18.5
Stretching and FlexibilityFunctional Capacity6 months374.9 metersStandard Deviation 20.6
Other Pre-specified

Peak V02

To evaluate change in cardio-respiratory fitness Peak V02 was assessed at baseline and 3 months using a motorized treadmill test across 3 arms of the study

Time frame: Baseline and 3 months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingPeak V02baseline15.3 mL/kg/minStandard Deviation 1.3
Exercise and Cognitive RetrainingPeak V023 months15.9 mL/kg/minStandard Deviation 1.3
Exercise OnlyPeak V02baseline16.0 mL/kg/minStandard Deviation 1
Exercise OnlyPeak V023 months16.2 mL/kg/minStandard Deviation 1
Stretching and FlexibilityPeak V023 months19.3 mL/kg/minStandard Deviation 1.2
Stretching and FlexibilityPeak V02baseline19.3 mL/kg/minStandard Deviation 1.1

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