Parkinson Disease
Conditions
Keywords
Immersive virtual reality, Neurorehabilitation
Brief summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of an immersive virtual reality (IVR) exergaming using a head-mounted display in Parkinson's disease symptomatic control. This is a parallel-group, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The intervention group perform 12 weeks of physiotherapy and IVR, whereas the control group have 6 weeks of physiotherapy only, followed by 6 weeks of physiotherapy and IVR. The primary outcome is the symptomatic effect of the intervention as measured by the change from baseline in Time Up and Go (TUG) test with cognitive dual-task (TUG cognitive).
Interventions
DEVICEHTC Vive™ Pro
A commercially available head-mounted display. Each VR session has approximately 20 minutes, performed 3 times per week. Both groups maintain similar PD specialized physiotherapy sessions throughout the duration of the study (3 times per week, 60 minutes per session).
Sponsors
Campus Neurológico Sénior
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients diagnosed with Parkinson's disease according to MDS criteria; * Hoehn and Yahr stages between I-III (MED ON); * Ability to perform the Time Up and Go test in normal pace and without assistance, in less than 11,5 seconds in ON state; * Stable medication for the past 1 month; * Ability to communicate with the investigator, to understand and comply with the requirements of the study; * Able to provide written informed consent to participate in the study.
Exclusion criteria
* Postural instability or freezing of gait in MED ON representing an increased risk of fall, according to the best clinical judgement; * A Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score \< 21; * Presence of severe visual loss that could interfere with the ability to see the VR simulation as well as vertigo, epilepsy and psychosis; * Unstable medical condition, including cardiovascular, pulmonary or musculoskeletal, that according to the clinician's judgment affect patients' ability to participate in the study; * Inability to correctly respond to the assessment protocol according to the clinician's judgment or lack of support from caregiver for this effect.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change from baseline to 6-week in TUG cognitive test | 6 week | Change from baseline to 6-week in TUG cognitive test |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in MDS-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in MDS-UPDRS |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (mini-BEST test) | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in mini-BEST test |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in MoCA |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in Stroop test | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in Stroop test |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in Visual Object and Space Perception (VOSP) Battery (cube and fragmented letters) | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in VOSP-cube analysis and VOSP-fragmented letters |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 items (PDQ-39) | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in PDQ-39 score |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in Schwab and England (S&E) scale | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in S&E scale |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in TUG and TUG with motor and cognitive dual-tasking | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in TUG and TUG with motor and cognitive dual-tasking |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in BMI | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in BMI |
| Occurrence of adverse events | 16 weeks | Difference between groups in patient's safety |
| Occurrence of cybersickness using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) | 16 weeks | Difference between groups in SSQ |
| Patients' consideration on system usability using the System Usability Scale (SUS) | 1, 6, 12 and 16 weeks | SUS after the 1st week using the IVR system and at each evaluation time point |
| Patients' Borg perceived exertion | 16 weeks | Difference between groups in perceived exertion |
| Likert scale on patients' satisfaction using the virtual reality system | 12 weeks | Difference between groups in patients' satisfaction |
| Change from baseline to each evaluation time point in Clinical and Patient Global Impression of severity | 6, 12 and 16 weeks | Difference between groups in change from baseline to each evaluation time point in Clinical and Patient Global Impression of severity |
Countries
Portugal
Outcome results
None listed