Fabian J David1, Julie A Robichaud2, Sue E Leurgans3, Cynthia Poon1, Wendy M Kohrt4, Jennifer G Goldman5, Cynthia L Comella5, David E Vaillancourt6, Daniel M Corcos1,5. 1. Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. Departments of Neurological Sciences and Preventive Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 5. Department of Neurological Sciences, Section of Parkinson Disease and Movement Disorders, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 6. Departments of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, Biomedical Engineering, and Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article reports on the findings of the effect of two structured exercise interventions on secondary cognitive outcomes that were gathered as part of the Progressive Resistance Exercise Training in Parkinson's disease (PD) randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: This study was a prospective, parallel-group, single-center trial. Fifty-one nondemented patients with mild-to-moderate PD were randomly assigned either to modified Fitness Counts (mFC) or to Progressive Resistance Exercise Training (PRET) and were followed for 24 months. Cognitive outcomes were the Digit Span, Stroop, and Brief Test of Attention (BTA). RESULTS:Eighteen patients in mFC and 20 patients in PRET completed the trial. At 12 and at 24 months, no differences between groups were observed. At 12 months, relative to baseline, mFC improved on the Digit Span (estimated change: 0.3; interquartile range: 0, 0.7; P = 0.04) and Stroop (0.3; 0, 0.6; P = 0.04), and PRET improved only on the Digit Span (0.7; 0.3, 1; P < 0.01). At 24 months, relative to baseline, mFC improved on the Digit Span (0.7; 0.3, 1.7; P < 0.01) and Stroop (0.3; 0.1, 0.5; P = 0.03), whereas PRET improved on the Digit Span (0.5; 0.2, 0.8; P < 0.01), Stroop (0.2; -0.1, 0.6; P = 0.048), and BTA (0.3; 0, 0.8; P = 0.048). No neurological or cognitive adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides class IV level of evidence that 24 months of PRET or mFC may improve attention and working memory in nondemented patients with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This article reports on the findings of the effect of two structured exercise interventions on secondary cognitive outcomes that were gathered as part of the Progressive Resistance Exercise Training in Parkinson's disease (PD) randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: This study was a prospective, parallel-group, single-center trial. Fifty-one nondemented patients with mild-to-moderate PD were randomly assigned either to modified Fitness Counts (mFC) or to Progressive Resistance Exercise Training (PRET) and were followed for 24 months. Cognitive outcomes were the Digit Span, Stroop, and Brief Test of Attention (BTA). RESULTS: Eighteen patients in mFC and 20 patients in PRET completed the trial. At 12 and at 24 months, no differences between groups were observed. At 12 months, relative to baseline, mFC improved on the Digit Span (estimated change: 0.3; interquartile range: 0, 0.7; P = 0.04) and Stroop (0.3; 0, 0.6; P = 0.04), and PRET improved only on the Digit Span (0.7; 0.3, 1; P < 0.01). At 24 months, relative to baseline, mFC improved on the Digit Span (0.7; 0.3, 1.7; P < 0.01) and Stroop (0.3; 0.1, 0.5; P = 0.03), whereas PRET improved on the Digit Span (0.5; 0.2, 0.8; P < 0.01), Stroop (0.2; -0.1, 0.6; P = 0.048), and BTA (0.3; 0, 0.8; P = 0.048). No neurological or cognitive adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides class IV level of evidence that 24 months of PRET or mFC may improve attention and working memory in nondemented patients with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease.
Authors: Marco Pahor; Jack M Guralnik; Walter T Ambrosius; Steven Blair; Denise E Bonds; Timothy S Church; Mark A Espeland; Roger A Fielding; Thomas M Gill; Erik J Groessl; Abby C King; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Todd M Manini; Mary M McDermott; Michael E Miller; Anne B Newman; W Jack Rejeski; Kaycee M Sink; Jeff D Williamson Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Szofia S Bullain; Maria M Corrada; Barbara Agee Shah; Farah H Mozaffar; Martina Panzenboeck; Claudia H Kawas Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 18.302
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
Authors: Ergun Y Uc; Kevin C Doerschug; Vincent Magnotta; Jeffrey D Dawson; Teri R Thomsen; Joel N Kline; Matthew Rizzo; Sara R Newman; Sonya Mehta; Thomas J Grabowski; Joel Bruss; Derek R Blanchette; Steven W Anderson; Michelle W Voss; Arthur F Kramer; Warren G Darling Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Miriam R Rafferty; Janey Prodoehl; Julie A Robichaud; Fabian J David; Cynthia Poon; Lisa C Goelz; David E Vaillancourt; Wendy M Kohrt; Cynthia L Comella; Daniel M Corcos Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Fabian J David; Julie A Robichaud; David E Vaillancourt; Cynthia Poon; Wendy M Kohrt; Cynthia L Comella; Daniel M Corcos Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 2.714