- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02380859
Prism Adaptation Treatment of Parkinson's Disease
Treatment of Gait Disturbance in Parkinson's Disease With Prism Adaptation
Study Overview
Detailed Description
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
New Hampshire
-
Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States, 03756
- Darmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's Disease
- Referral for gait training
- Aged 40 -85
- If the subject is taking CNS-acting medications (benzodiazepines, hypnotics, antidepressants), regimen must be stable for 30 days prior to baseline visit
- Subjects with Stage 11.5 - Stage IV (Hoehn and Yahr scale) where stage II.5 is bilateral involvement with axial involvements, but without balance difficulty, to Stage IV where one has severe disability but is still able to walk or stand unassisted
- Subjects with any of the following abnormal scores (greater than 0) in the MDS-UPDRS Part III; a) Part III.10 Gait; b) Part III.11 Freezing of gait c) Part III.12 Postural Stability; subjects with Timed up and go test >12 seconds
- Right handed participants are preferred due to the cortical lateralization of functions related to sensorimotor adaptation and postural control.
- However, we will recruit left-handed participants if there are insufficient right-handed volunteers.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Subjects with a known psychiatric comorbidity that in the investigator's opinion would compromise participation in the study; subjects with a neurologic diagnosis, other than Parkinson's disease that can cause imbalance and gait impairment (e.g., multiple sclerosis, stroke, subdural hematoma, peripheral neuropathy)
- Injury or impairment to the right arm (other than that which is due to Parkinson's disease) that would affect pointing movements; subjects with normal score on UPDRS part III
- Classified as legally blind or lacking sufficient visual acuity to view the target and pointing hand during prism adaptation
- Lacking sufficient understanding of verbal and written information in English to complete any of the consent screening forms.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Active Comparator: Prism adaptation
Patients will undergo twice daily adaptation to upward shifts in vision.
Participants will be provided with goggles fitted with prismatic lenses that shift vision upward by 25 dioptres (about 17 degrees).
While wearing the lenses, participants point to two 10cm-diameter visual targets positioned one above the other (about 20cm apart) on a wall, returning their pointing arm to their chest between each pointing movement.
Participants make 50 pointing movements, as fast and as accurately as possible.
Such a procedure induces a downward sensorimotor adaptation of pointing movements.
Participants undergo this training twice a day (morning and evening) for two weeks in a self-guided fashion.
|
Prism adaptation is one type of sensorimotor adaptation.
Prism adaptation described any adaptation to a prismatic shift in vision (i.e.
any magnitude or direction of shift).
In this study we are using adaptation to upward-shifting prisms, which induces a downward sensorimotor after-effect.
Other Names:
|
|
Sham Comparator: Sham adaptation
Participants undergo the same treatment protocol as described in the active comparator arm, with the exception that they wear goggles fitted with neutral lenses that do not induce sensorimotor adaptation.
|
Prism adaptation is one type of sensorimotor adaptation.
Prism adaptation described any adaptation to a prismatic shift in vision (i.e.
any magnitude or direction of shift).
In this study we are using adaptation to upward-shifting prisms, which induces a downward sensorimotor after-effect.
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Postural Control - Reaction Time on the Limits of Stability Test (Smart Equitest Balance Master System)
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
The participant stood on the platform in front of a monitor.
Nine squares were presented on the monitor representing locations relative to the upright starting position: one in the centre of the screen (upright) and the remaining eight forming an ellipse around the central square.
The participant's COG was indicated on the screen by the position of a stick figure avatar.
At the beginning of each trial the participant was instructed to stand upright, keeping the COG cursor over the central target.
A circular target appeared in one of eight other targets.
The participant was required to move the COG cursor towards the second target as quickly and as accurately as possible by leaning their body while keeping their feet in the same location, and to then hold a position as close to the target as possible.
Reacting times were recorded for 8 trials per location.
Mean change (post-pre) in seconds
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Postural Control - Maximum Velocity on the Limits of Stability Test (Smart Equitest Balance Master System)
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
The participant stood on the platform in front of a monitor.
Nine squares were presented on the monitor representing locations relative to the upright starting position: one in the centre of the screen (upright) and the remaining eight forming an ellipse around the central square.
The participant's COG was indicated on the screen by the position of a stick figure avatar.
At the beginning of each trial the participant was instructed to stand upright, keeping the COG cursor over the central target.
A circular target appeared in one of eight other targets.
The participant was required to move the COG cursor towards the second target as quickly and as accurately as possible by leaning their body while keeping their feet in the same location, and to then hold a position as close to the target as possible.
Maximum velocity was recorded for 8 trials per location.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Postural Control - Maximum Extension on the Limits of Stability Test (Smart Equitest Balance Master System)
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
The participant stood on the platform in front of a monitor.
Nine squares were presented on the monitor representing locations relative to the upright starting position: one in the centre of the screen (upright) and the remaining eight forming an ellipse around the central square.
The participant's COG was indicated on the screen by the position of a stick figure avatar.
At the beginning of each trial the participant was instructed to stand upright, keeping the COG cursor over the central target.
A circular target appeared in one of eight other targets.
The participant was required to move the COG cursor towards the second target as quickly and as accurately as possible by leaning their body while keeping their feet in the same location, and to then hold a position as close to the target as possible.
Maximum extension of the COG over the feet was recorded for 8 trials per location.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Postural Control - Composite Score on the Sensory Organisation Test SMART EquiTest Balance Master
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
The participant is asked to maintain an upright posture under six different conditions of sensory feedback:
The equilibrium score for each condition compares the subject's anterior/posterior (AP) sway during each trial to the theoretical sway stability limit of 12.5 degrees. A composite equilibrium score (0-100, higher score indicates better outcome) quantifies the overall COG sway or postural stability across the sensory conditions and is calculated by:
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Postural Control - Forward-backward Displacement of Centre of Gravity on the Sensory Organisation Test SMART EquiTest Balance Master
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
The participant is asked to maintain an upright posture under different conditions of sensory feedback.
Proprioceptive feedback to the feet and joints is manipulated by allowing the platform to tilt to directly follow the participant's anteroposterior body sway (constant proprioception) or by maintaining the standing platform in a fixed horizontal position (normal proprioceptive feedback).
Visual feedback is provided by asking the participant to close their eyes (no visual feedback), asking the participant to open their eyes and allowing the visual surround to tilt directly following the participant's anterioposterior body sway (constant visual feedback), or by asking the participant to keep their eyes open and maintaining the visual surround in a fixed position (normal visual feedback).
Forward-backward displacement of COG is recorded in degrees.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Postural Control - Composite Latency Score on the Motor Control Test
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
The MCT assesses the ability of the automatic motor system to quickly recover following an unexpected external disturbance.
Sequences of small, medium or large platform translations (scaled to the patient's height) in forward and backward directions elicit automatic postural responses.
Translation of the surface in one horizontal direction results in displacement of the COG away from center in the opposite direction relative to the base of support.
To restore normal balance, a quick movement of the COG back to the center position is required.
A composite latency value is provided as the time in milliseconds between the force plate translation and the patient's active corrective responses, averaged across all translation sizes and directions.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Postural Control - Composite Latency Score on the Berg Balance Scale
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Berg Balance Scale.
This 14-item test assesses balance during different tasks.
Items consist of specific items such as standing with eyes closed, retrieving an object from the floor, and turning to look behind.
The assessor rates the patient's performance from 0 ("lowest level of function") to 4 ("highest level of function") and a total is calculated out of a maximum score of 56.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Gait - Step Length on the Walk Across Test (SMART Equitest Balance Master)
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
The WA quantifies characteristics of gait as the patient walks across the length of the force plate.
The test characterizes steady state gait by having the patient begin well behind and continuing beyond the force plate.
Measured parameters are average step width, average step length, speed and step length symmetry.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Gait - Step Speed in the Walk Across (SMART Equitest Balance Master)
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
The WA quantifies characteristics of gait as the patient walks across the length of the force plate.
The test characterizes steady state gait by having the patient begin well behind and continuing beyond the force plate.
Measured parameters are average step width, average step length, speed and step length symmetry.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Gait - Timed Up and Go Task
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Timed Up and Go Test (TUG).
Patients are seated in a chair and instructed to stand up, walk three meters, turn around, walk back, and sit down.
The time (in seconds) is recorded.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Gait - Functional Gait Assessment
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Functional Gait Assessment.
This 10-item test assesses dynamic balance and postural stability during gait.
Items consist of specific walking tasks such as stepping over an obstacle, changing speed of walking upon the assessor's instruction, and walking backwards.
The assessor scores the patient's performance from 0 ("severe impairment") to 3 ("normal") and a total is calculated out of 30.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Activities of Daily Living - New Freezing of Gait
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Average change in score relating to new freezing of gate utilizing the New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire.
This nine-item questionnaire detects and evaluates the impact and severity of freezing of gait on locomotion and daily activities.
Items are scored from 0 or 1 to 3 or 4, with higher numbers indicating greater impact and severity.
A total score out of 28 is calculated.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Activities of Daily Living - Falls Efficiency
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Average change in score evaluated using the Falls Efficiency Scale.
This ten-item questionnaire asks people to rate their confidence in performing daily activities without falling.
Responses are given on a scale from 0 ("very confident") to 10 ("not very confident") and a total score out of 100 is computed.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Activities of Daily Living - Activity-specific Balance Confidence Scale
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale.
This 16-item questionnaire is similar to the Falls Efficiency Scale, but has greater sensitivity to gait impairments in more ambulatory patients.
Responses are given on a scale from 0 ("very confident") to 10 "not very confident") and a total score out of 100 is computed.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
|
Change in Activities of Daily Living - Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire
Time Frame: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), mobility and activities of daily living sections.
This 39-item questionnaire is the most widely-used Parkinson's Disease specific measure of health and daily function.
Participants indicate the extent to which they have experienced problems with different aspects of mobility and self-care.
Each item is scored from 0 ("never have problems") to 4 ("always have problems"), and a percentage is calculated.
In addition to the total score, the mobility (questions 1-10) and activities of daily living (questions 11-16) sub-sections can be analysed separately to assess changes in these specific outcomes.
The responses are summed and scored as a percentage.
We analysed the percentage scores for the mobility sub-section, the activities of daily living sub-section, and the total percentage.
Higher values indicate worse outcome.
|
Baseline (Day 0) and Day 15
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Stephen L. Lee, MD, PhD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
Publications and helpful links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- D15047
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Parkinson
-
Bezmialem Vakif UniversityRecruitingParkinson Disease | Parkinson | Parkinson Disease (PD) | PARKINSON DISEASE (Disorder) | Parkinson s DiseaseTurkey (Türkiye)
-
CND Life SciencesDigestive Disease Associates of CTRecruitingParkinson Disease | Parkinson | PARKINSON DISEASE (Disorder) | Parkinson s DiseaseUnited States
-
University of LahoreCompleted
-
Neuron23 Inc.Roche Diagnostic Ltd.; Qiagen Manchester LimitedRecruitingParkinson Disease | Parkinson | Idiopathic Parkinson Disease | Parkinson Disease, Idiopathic | Early Parkinson Disease (Early PD)United States, Spain, Israel, Poland, Italy, United Kingdom
-
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and...Not yet recruiting
-
San Francisco Neurology and Sleep CenterNot yet recruitingPARKINSON DISEASE (Disorder) | Parkinson s DiseaseUnited States
-
Haukeland University HospitalUniversity of Bergen; SPARK NSRecruitingParkinson Disease (PD) | Parkinson s DiseaseNorway
-
Bezmialem Vakif UniversityIstanbul University - CerrahpasaNot yet recruitingParkinson Disease | PARKINSON DISEASE (Disorder) | Parkinson Disease (PD), Postural Balance
-
CND Life SciencesOregon Health and Science UniversityRecruitingParkinson Disease | Parkinson | Parkinson's Disease and Parkinsonism | PARKINSON DISEASE (Disorder)United States
-
Danish Research Centre for Magnetic ResonanceUniversity Hospital Bispebjerg and FrederiksbergRecruitingHealthy | Parkinson | Medication AdministrationDenmark
Clinical Trials on Prism adaptation
-
Rigshospitalet, DenmarkRecruiting
-
Kessler FoundationCompleted
-
VA Office of Research and DevelopmentRecruitingSpatial Neglect After Right Brain StrokeUnited States
-
University of RochesterTerminatedExotropiaUnited States, Canada, Italy, India, Israel
-
Kessler FoundationU.S. Department of EducationActive, not recruitingSpatial Neglect | Deficits in Attention Motor Control and PerceptionUnited States
-
VA Office of Research and DevelopmentCompleted
-
Sunnyview Rehabilitation HospitalCompleted
-
Kessler FoundationCompletedStroke | Aphasia | Spatial NeglectUnited States
-
University of UtahWithdrawnStroke | Perceptual Disorders | BiomarkerUnited States
-
Nova Scotia Health AuthorityRecruiting