Margaret Schenkman1, Deborah A Hall, Anna E Barón, Robert S Schwartz, Pamela Mettler, Wendy M Kohrt. 1. Physical Therapy Program, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Mailstop C-244, 13121 E 17th Ave, ED II South, Room L28-3106, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. margaret.schenkman@ucdenver.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Exercise confers short-term benefits for individuals with Parkinson disease (PD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare short- and long-term responses among 2 supervised exercise programs and a home-based control exercise program. DESIGN: The 16-month randomized controlled exercise intervention investigated 3 exercise approaches: flexibility/balance/function exercise (FBF), supervised aerobic exercise (AE), and home-based exercise (control). SETTING: This study was conducted in outpatient clinics. PATIENTS: The participants were 121 individuals with PD (Hoehn & Yahr stages 1-3). INTERVENTIONS: The FBF program (individualized spinal and extremity flexibility exercises followed by group balance/functional training) was supervised by a physical therapist. The AE program (using a treadmill, bike, or elliptical trainer) was supervised by an exercise trainer. Supervision was provided 3 days per week for 4 months, and then monthly (16 months total). The control group participants exercised at home using the National Parkinson Foundation Fitness Counts program, with 1 supervised, clinic-based group session per month. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes, obtained by blinded assessors, were determined at 4, 10, and 16 months. The primary outcome measures were overall physical function (Continuous Scale-Physical Functional Performance [CS-PFP]), balance (Functional Reach Test [FRT]), and walking economy (oxygen uptake [mL/kg/min]). Secondary outcome measures were symptom severity (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] activities of daily living [ADL] and motor subscales) and quality of life (39-item Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Scale [PDQ-39]). RESULTS: Of the 121 participants, 86.8%, 82.6%, and 79.3% completed 4, 10, and 16 months, respectively, of the intervention. At 4 months, improvement in CS-PFP scores was greater in the FBF group than in the control group (mean difference=4.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.2 to 7.3) and the AE group (mean difference=3.1, 95% CI=0.0 to 6.2). Balance was not different among groups at any time point. Walking economy improved in the AE group compared with the FBF group at 4 months (mean difference=-1.2, 95% CI=-1.9 to -0.5), 10 months (mean difference=-1.2, 95% CI=-1.9 to -0.5), and 16 months (mean difference=-1.7, 95% CI=-2.5 to -1.0). The only secondary outcome that showed significant differences was UPDRSADL subscale scores: the FBF group performed better than the control group at 4 months (mean difference=-1.47, 95% CI=-2.79 to -0.15) and 16 months (mean difference=-1.95, 95% CI=-3.84 to -0.08). LIMITATIONS: Absence of a non-exercise control group was a limitation of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrated overall functional benefits at 4 months in the FBF group and improved walking economy (up to 16 months) in the AE group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Exercise confers short-term benefits for individuals with Parkinson disease (PD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare short- and long-term responses among 2 supervised exercise programs and a home-based control exercise program. DESIGN: The 16-month randomized controlled exercise intervention investigated 3 exercise approaches: flexibility/balance/function exercise (FBF), supervised aerobic exercise (AE), and home-based exercise (control). SETTING: This study was conducted in outpatient clinics. PATIENTS: The participants were 121 individuals with PD (Hoehn & Yahr stages 1-3). INTERVENTIONS: The FBF program (individualized spinal and extremity flexibility exercises followed by group balance/functional training) was supervised by a physical therapist. The AE program (using a treadmill, bike, or elliptical trainer) was supervised by an exercise trainer. Supervision was provided 3 days per week for 4 months, and then monthly (16 months total). The control group participants exercised at home using the National Parkinson Foundation Fitness Counts program, with 1 supervised, clinic-based group session per month. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes, obtained by blinded assessors, were determined at 4, 10, and 16 months. The primary outcome measures were overall physical function (Continuous Scale-Physical Functional Performance [CS-PFP]), balance (Functional Reach Test [FRT]), and walking economy (oxygen uptake [mL/kg/min]). Secondary outcome measures were symptom severity (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] activities of daily living [ADL] and motor subscales) and quality of life (39-item Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Scale [PDQ-39]). RESULTS: Of the 121 participants, 86.8%, 82.6%, and 79.3% completed 4, 10, and 16 months, respectively, of the intervention. At 4 months, improvement in CS-PFP scores was greater in the FBF group than in the control group (mean difference=4.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.2 to 7.3) and the AE group (mean difference=3.1, 95% CI=0.0 to 6.2). Balance was not different among groups at any time point. Walking economy improved in the AE group compared with the FBF group at 4 months (mean difference=-1.2, 95% CI=-1.9 to -0.5), 10 months (mean difference=-1.2, 95% CI=-1.9 to -0.5), and 16 months (mean difference=-1.7, 95% CI=-2.5 to -1.0). The only secondary outcome that showed significant differences was UPDRS ADL subscale scores: the FBF group performed better than the control group at 4 months (mean difference=-1.47, 95% CI=-2.79 to -0.15) and 16 months (mean difference=-1.95, 95% CI=-3.84 to -0.08). LIMITATIONS: Absence of a non-exercise control group was a limitation of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrated overall functional benefits at 4 months in the FBF group and improved walking economy (up to 16 months) in the AE group.
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Patty S Freedson; Maciej S Buchowski; Bettina M Beech; Russell R Pate; Richard P Troiano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Joseph H Friedman; Richard G Brown; Cynthia Comella; Carol E Garber; Lauren B Krupp; Jau-Shin Lou; Laura Marsh; Lillian Nail; Lisa Shulman; C Barr Taylor Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: E R Dorsey; R Constantinescu; J P Thompson; K M Biglan; R G Holloway; K Kieburtz; F J Marshall; B M Ravina; G Schifitto; A Siderowf; C M Tanner Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Linda Tickle-Degnen; Terry Ellis; Marie H Saint-Hilaire; Cathi A Thomas; Robert C Wagenaar Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2010-01-30 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Victoria A Goodwin; Suzanne H Richards; Rod S Taylor; Adrian H Taylor; John L Campbell Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Giselle M Petzinger; Beth E Fisher; Sarah McEwen; Jeff A Beeler; John P Walsh; Michael W Jakowec Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Claire L Tomlinson; Clare P Herd; Carl E Clarke; Charmaine Meek; Smitaa Patel; Rebecca Stowe; Katherine H O Deane; Laila Shah; Catherine M Sackley; Keith Wheatley; Natalie Ives Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-06-17
Authors: David Sparrow; Tamara R DeAngelis; Kathryn Hendron; Cathi A Thomas; Marie Saint-Hilaire; Terry Ellis Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Janey Prodoehl; Miriam R Rafferty; Fabian J David; Cynthia Poon; David E Vaillancourt; Cynthia L Comella; Sue E Leurgans; Wendy M Kohrt; Daniel M Corcos; Julie A Robichaud Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 3.919