| Literature DB >> 30327596 |
Simona Mrakic-Sposta1, Simona G Di Santo2, Flaminia Franchini2, Sara Arlati3,4, Andrea Zangiacomi3, Luca Greci3, Sarah Moretti1, Nithiya Jesuthasan5, Mauro Marzorati1, Giovanna Rizzo1, Marco Sacco3, Alessandra Vezzoli1.
Abstract
The growing elderly population and the increased incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) call for the improvement of the quality and the efficacy of the healthcare and social support services. Exercise and cognitive stimulation have been demonstrated to mitigate cognitive impairment and oxidative stress (OxS) has been recognized as a factor that contributes to the advancement of neurodegenerative diseases. Taking these aspects into account, the impact of a novel virtual reality (VR)-based program combining aerobic exercise and cognitive training has been evaluated in the pilot study proposed here. Ten patients (aged 73.3 ± 5.7 years) with MCI (Mini-Mental State Examination, MMSE: 23.0 ± 3.4) were randomly assigned to either 6 weeks physical and cognitive training (EXP) or control (CTR) group. Evaluations of cognitive profile, by a neuropsychological tests battery, and OxS, by collection of blood and urine samples, were performed before and at the end of the experimental period. The assessment of the patients' opinions toward the intervention was investigated through questionnaires. EXP group showed a tendency towards improvements in the MMSE, in visual-constructive test and visuo-spatial tests of attention, while CTR worsened. EXP group showed a greater improvement than CTR in the executive test, memory functions and verbal fluency. No statistical significance was obtained when comparing within and between both the groups, probably due to small number of subjects examined, which amplifies the effect of the slight heterogeneity in scores recorded. Despite a greater worsening of Daily Living Activities tests, all participants reported a better performance in real life, thanks to the elicited self-perceived improvement. After training intervention OxS (i.e., reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, oxidative damage of lipids and DNA) decreased resulting in significantly (range p < 0.05-0.001) lower in EXP vs. CTR group. Although not conclusive, the recorded effects in the present study are promising and suggest that this proposal would be a useful tool in support of cognitive training reducing OxS too. However, further studies on larger scale samples of patients are needed.Entities:
Keywords: EPR; MCI; oxidative stress; physical-cognitive training; virtual reality
Year: 2018 PMID: 30327596 PMCID: PMC6174250 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Figure 1Experimental protocol of the virtual reality (VR)-based training program. The training consisted of 18 sessions for six consecutive weeks, with three sessions per week. All the assessments were carried out at baseline (PRE) and after (POST) 6 weeks for both groups (EXP—see upper part of the figure and CTR—lower part of the figure).
Figure 2Sketch of the Physical and Cognitive Training protocol. (A) The cycle-ergometer. (B) The back view of the subject while conducting the test in virtual environments (VEs, 1,3). (C,D) VEs (1): “riding a bike in a park”. (E,F) VEs (2): “crossing roads—avoiding cars”. (G,H) VEs (3): “making the grocery shopping in a supermarket”.
Baseline characteristics.
| EXP | CTR | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 72.00 ± 5.15 | 74.60 ± 6.43 |
| Height (m) | 1.63 ± 0.11 | 1.64 ± 0.59 |
| Weight (kg) | 62.63 ± 7.69 | 57.82 ± 7.54 |
| BMI | 23.64 ± 2.02 | 21.28 ± 1.89 |
| Fat Mass (kg) | 15.82 ± 4.77 | 12.65 ± 1.79 |
| Free Fat Mass (kg) | 47.10 ± 9.66 | 45.76 ± 8.08 |
| Total Body Water (kg) | 36.78 ± 8.02 | 33.5 ± 5.90 |
| SaO2 (%) | 97.00 ± 0.71 | 97.20 ± 0.84 |
| HR (bit/min) | 78.40 ± 11.46 | 71.80 ± 7.56 |
Mean (±SD) values of the anthropometric features and physiological parameters measured before the intervention in experimental (EXP) and control (CTR) group. BMI, Body Mass Index; SaO.
Pre-post assessment.
| PRE | Delta score (POST—PRE) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXP | CTR | EXP | CTR | |||
| MMSE | −1.63 ± 1.52 | −1.68 ± 1.46 | 0.17 ± 1.58 | −0.17 ± 0.48 | ||
| RAVLT_I | −1.18 ± 1.08 | −0.68 ± 1.37 | 0.68 ± 1.40 | 0.06 ± 0.25 | ||
| RAVLT_D | −1.11 ± 1.22 | −1.19 ± 1.37 | 0.63 ± 0.63 | 0.06 ± 0.35 | ||
| ROCFT | −2.15 ± 2.85 | −2.71 ± 2.45 | 0.17 ± 1.74 | −0.07 ± 0.23 | ||
| AM | −0.35 ± 0.6 | −1.75 ± 2.25 | 0.06 ± 0.69 | −0.14 ± 0.99 | ||
| TMT-A | −0.14 ± 0.67 | −1.87 ± 3.42 | −0.03 ± 0.57 | 0.00 ± 0.59 | ||
| FAB | −1.66 ± 1.49 | −2.29 ± 2.59 | 1.00 ± 0.82 | 0.54 ± 1.31 | ||
| VF | −0.14 ± 0.83 | −1.06 ± 1.28 | 0.28 ± 0.97 | 0.11 ± 0.44 | ||
Mean standardized scores at the baseline (PRE) for the experimental (EXP) and control (CTR) groups and mean change in standardized scores between the baseline and the end of experimental phase calculated as delta scores (POST—PRE; except for Trail Making Test A that implies decreasing scores in relation to better performance, for which the changes were calculated as PRE—POST). MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; RAVLT_I, Immediate Recall of Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; RAVLT_D, Delayed Recall of Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; ROCFT, Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test; AM, Attentional Matrices; TMT-A, Trail Making Test A; FAB, Frontal Assessment Battery; VF, Verbal Fluency test.
Figure 3The influence of physical and cognitive training on oxidative stress (OxS) is shown by the histogram plots of: (A) reactive oxygen species (ROS) production rate (μmol · min−1), (B) total antioxidant capacity (TAC; nW), (C) lipids peroxidation (8-iso; pg.mg−1 creatinine) and (D) DNA damage (8-OH-dG; ng.mg−1 creatinine) obtained from capillary blood and urine samples in the control (CTR) and experimental (EXP) groups at PRE and POST (after 6 weeks). Results are expressed as mean ± SD. Statistically significant differences symbols: *p < 0.05, #p < 0.01, and §p < 0.001.
Results (median and iqr) of the questionnaire administered after the sixth week of training.
| Score | ||
|---|---|---|
| General Satisfaction | Are you satisfied with this training? | 2.0 (2.0–2.5) |
| Did this training meet your expectations? | 2.5 (2.0–3.0) | |
| Park/Road-crossing scenarios | Did you enjoy pedaling? | 2.5 (2.0–3.0) |
| Did you get tired? | 1.0 (0.0–1.0) | |
| Was it difficult to keep the required velocity? | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | |
| Did you feel comfortable wearing the smart garment? | 4.0 (4.0–4.0) | |
| Was it comfortable to use the joystick? | 3.0 (1.8–4.0) | |
| Did you enjoy looking at the park while pedaling? | 3.0 (2.8–3.0) | |
| Did you get sick? | 0.5 (0.0–0.5) | |
| Did you get bored? | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | |
| Did you get anxious? | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | |
| Supermarket Scenario | Did you enjoy doing the shopping? | 2.3 (1.8–3.0) |
| Was it comfortable to interact with the touch screen? | 2.0 (2.0–3.0) | |
| Was the shopping list clear? | 3.0 (2.8–3.5) | |
| Was the guiding voice clear? | 3.0 (2.9–3.5) | |
| Were the hints useful? | 3.0 (3.0–3.0) | |
| Did you encounter specific complications? | 1.5 (1.0–1.5) | |
| Did you get sick? | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | |
| Did you get bored? | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | |
| Did you get anxious? | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) |
The evaluation was based on a Likert scale whose elements indicated: not at all (0), not really (1), neutral (2), somewhat (3) and very much (4). Results in this table were previously published in Arlati et al. (.