Effect of a Progressive Treadmill Training Protocol for Parkinson's Disease

Biomarkers of Rehabilitation Outcome in Patients With Parkinson's Disease: Effect of a Customized Protocol on Treadmill Training With and Without Augmented Virtual Reality Application, a Randomized Controlled Trial

The primary objective of this single-center, no-profit, longitudinal interventional randomized controlled, single-blind trial is to compare the effects of 2 different treadmill training treatments using C-Mill: the experimental one, endowed with augmented virtual reality (AVR) applications, versus the conventional one, the standard treadmill training in PD patients with gait and or balance disturbances. The main questions the study aims to answer are 1) Is the experimental treatment more effective than the conventional one? 2) Is it possible to identify predictive and indicative biomarkers of an outcome measure of rehabilitation using extracellular vesicles (cEVs) assessed by Raman spectroscopy? Participants will be randomized into two groups: the experimental group that will receive the experimental intervention, and the control group that will receive the conventional intervention. Both groups will train three times per week for 8 weeks, the first session starting from 25 minutes (25'). The experimental and the conventional treatments are planned to be progressive and will be individualized to the participant's level of performance.

Clinical, neuropsychological, and instrumental variables will be collected at baseline (T0), at the end of the treatment (T1), and 3 months after the end of treatment (T2). At 6 months after the end of treatment (T3), a phone interview will be performed. Both within-group and between-group analyses will be conducted. Biosamples will be collected at baseline (T0) and at the end of treatment (T1).

Study Overview

• Status: Recruiting
• Conditions: Parkinson Disease; Gait, Unsteady; Gait, Shuffling; Gait, Festinating; Fall Due to Loss of Equilibrium
• Intervention / Treatment: Device: AVR Treadmill training with C-Mill; Device: Conventional Treadmill training with C-Mill

Detailed Description

Study design: single-center, no-profit, randomized controlled single-blind trial (clinicians that assessed the effect of the interventions will be blind), with an active comparator. The study reflects the design of superiority of the experimental treatment versus the standard one. The treatment arm will be assigned by randomization. The results obtained with the 2 treatments will be compared.

The sponsor of the study is the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Florence, Italy; the study will be performed at "Struttura Organizzativa Dipartimentale (SOD) di Riabilitazione Generale- Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Florence".

Collaborators for external services:

• Movement Analysis Laboratory at IRCCS Don Carlo Gnocchi Florence
• Laboratory of Nanomedicine and Clinical Biophotonics (LABION) at IRCCS Don Carlo Gnocchi Milan

Study start and length: study started on 6 July 2022 and will terminate on December 2023.

Study length for single participant 8 months: enrollment and baseline assessment (T0), treatment (2 months duration), end-of-treatment assessment (T1), follow-up assessment at 3 months after the end of treatment (T2), telephone interview at 6 months after the end of treatment.

Primary objective: to compare the effects of an integrated rehabilitation intervention using a new treadmill training that includes AVR applications, versus a conventional treadmill-based intervention in patients with PD (Hoehn and Yahr stage II-III) affected by walking and or balance disorders.

Secondary objective: to stratify PD patients based on their biological profile and identify predictive biomarkers and biomarkers indicative of an outcome measure of rehabilitation.

Description of the intervention. The intervention includes three sessions per week for 8 weeks. The intervention will be delivered during the "on" time of patients, every day at the same time.

The experimental and the conventional treatments are planned to be progressive and customizable to the participant's level of performance:

• progression in gait speed: gait speed is set at 80% of the individual's overground walking speed at the beginning of training, and will be weekly progressively increased to a maximum of 120%
• progression in trial duration: at the beginning of training, the duration is set at 25 minutes, including 5 slots of exercises lasting 5 minutes, with a 4-minute rest between each slot; every two weeks it will be increased by 1 minute per slot, reaching a maximal duration of 45 minutes in the last two weeks of treatment;
• progression in trial difficulty (only for the experimental group): the protocol has 5 difficulty levels for each C-Mill application, and the transition among levels is set at 80% success achievement.

Safety measures: participants will exercise wearing an anti-fall device and heart rate control; when the heart rate exceeds the safety threshold (set at 75% of HRmax, i.e., 220-age for males; 200-age for females), the treadmill speed will be lowered until the parameter is normalized.

Motek's C-Mill is a newly developed treadmill for gait and balance assessment and training that will be used for the study in both groups in a safe way (with an anti-fall device application and heart rate control). It is a treadmill sensor inclusive of a force platform. The patient is instructed to avoid using the side support bars during the training. The AVR applications of the C-Mill included in the training protocol are "nature island", "stepping stones", "walking area", "obstacles avoidance", and "tracks". These applications train balance and changes in walking speed, promote gait adaptation strategies and strategies to overcome freezing of gait, in a safe and controlled environment. Moreover, feedback to promote proper walking is provided (by physiotherapists and applications) including feedback on gait parameters such as stride symmetry, stride length, and cadence.

Visits planning and assessment timing Clinical, neuropsychological, and instrumental variables will be collected at baseline (T0), at the end of the treatment (T1), and 3 months after the end of treatment (T2). At 6 months after the end of treatment (T3) a phone interview will be performed.

All the assessments will be performed at each time point (T0, T1, T2) with some exceptions: automatic acquisition of gait parameters using C-Mill in C-Gait mode will be collected only at T1 and T2; at the end of treatment (T1), a 5-point Likert scale will also be administered to register patient satisfaction; during the phone interview at T3 only the falls questionnaire will be administered.

All visits will be planned in the "on" time of patients. Pharmacological treatments should be stable until T1.

Definition of adherence: adherence to the intervention will be considered sufficient if the patient respects the times and methods of execution of the rehabilitation treatment indicated in the intervention scheme. Missing up to 5 sessions is allowed, and lost sessions will be possibly recovered at the end of treatment. In case of discontinuation of treatment (one or more sessions missed), the treatment will be restarted with the gait speed, trial duration, and level of difficulty used in the last completed session. Participants who will miss more than 5 sessions will be considered dropouts.

Sample size. The G*Power software was used to estimate the sample size. From the literature, previous studies that aimed to evaluate the effects of treadmill training other than routine (partial weight-supported treadmill training) on patients with PD had observed a high effect size (ɳ2=0.737). In our estimate, a medium effect size (f=0.25) was conservatively chosen. Assuming a statistical power of 95% and an α=0.05, the resulting sample is 22 subjects per arm. To compensate for possible drop-outs, estimated at around 35%, the enrollment of a further 16 patients is appropriate, 8 per treatment arm, reaching an estimate of 30 subjects per group.

Data analysis. For all data, the distribution will be assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (assuming the presence of normal distribution when p>0.05). Data will then be summarised as mean and standard deviation, median and interquartile range, or absolute and percentage frequency, as appropriate. The two groups will be compared at baseline to explore significant differences in clinical and demographic variables. Both within- and between-groups analysis will be conducted to assess the effects of the treatments delivered, for both primary and secondary outcome measures. Specifically, a repeated measures ANOVA will be used with a within-factor (Time of assessment) and a between-factor (Group). Statistical analysis will be conducted using the software International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v28.

The acquired Raman spectra will be analyzed by multivariate Principal Component Analysis - Linear Discriminant Analysis (PCA-LDA) classification. PCA will reduce the number of variables into principal components, which will be used to build the LDA model. The model will be built to discriminate clinical improvement detected as quantifiable change on clinical scales, defined based on the minimum clinically important difference, when available from the literature. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the predicting model based on spectra data will be assessed. In addition, correlation analysis will be conducted to evaluate the association between spectral data and change on clinical scales recorded between the beginning and the end of the treatment. Statistical analysis of the Raman data will be performed using Origin2021 software.

Univariate analysis models will be applied to select the best prognostic markers of clinical improvement to be included in the multivariate model. For all analyses, statistical significance will be set at p<0.05

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Estimated): 60
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: Francesca Cecchi, MD; Phone Number: 00393388627184; Email: francesca.cecchi@unifi.it

Study Locations

• Italy
  • Florence, Italy, 50100
    • Recruiting
    • IRCCS Fondazione Don Gnocchi Firenze
    • Contact: Gemma Lombardi, MD, PhD; Phone Number: 00393403056313; Email: glombardi@dongnocchi.it

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Diagnosis of Parkinson's disease according to the diagnostic (POSTUMA criteria)
• Hoehn and Yahr Stage II-III
• Age>18 years
• One fall in the past 3 months/presence of postural instability /gait disturbance
• Able to walk for at least 5 minutes without assistance
• Stable drug therapy by at least 1 month
• Willingness to participate in the study, ability to understand and willingness to sign informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

• Other pathology concurrent with gait disturbance (symptomatic arthritis involving hip/knee/ankle, stroke outcomes, severe polyneuropathy)
• Cognitive impairment capable of interfering with rehabilitation procedures, estimated as a score less than 18.58 at the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), row score corrected according to Aiello et al, 2022
• Hallucinations
• Psychiatric disorder not controlled by current drug therapy
• Alcohol/drug use
• Uncompensated visual/auditory deficit that limits enjoyment of the cues provided by the AVR
• Communication deficit from any cause that impairs understanding of the task and the objectives of the intervention
• Recurrent episodes of severe orthostatic hypotension
• Severe cardiovascular diseases
• Patient undergoing other experimental protocol (patients regularly undergoing physical activity or sport will not be excluded)

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: AVR Treadmill training with C-Mill; Participants (N=30) will undergo the AVR Treadmill training intervention with 5 AVR applications named "Nature Island", "stepping stones", "walking area": "obstacles avoidance", and "track".	Device: AVR Treadmill training with C-Mill; The protocol will include three sessions per week for 8 weeks of gait training using C-Mill with AVR applications. An anchoring system will prevent possible falls, activities will be stopped on patient request, or when a heart rate considered safe will be exceeded. The patient will be supervised by a physical therapist and asked not to use lateral bars. Treatment is planned to be progressive and will be individualized to the participant's level of performance. Progression in gait speed: at the training start, gait speed will be set at 80% of the individual's overground walking speed and weekly increased by 10%, to a maximum of 120%; progression in trial duration: at the training start the duration will be set at 25' and every two weeks increased by 5'; the maximum duration of a session will reach 45'; progression in difficulty: the protocol has 5 levels for each AVR application, and the transition among levels will be set at 80% success achievement.
Active Comparator: Conventional Treadmill training with C-Mill; Participants (N=30) will undergo the "Traditional Treadmill" intervention.	Device: Conventional Treadmill training with C-Mill; The protocol will include three sessions per week for 8 weeks of gait training using C-Mill without AVR applications, walking on the treadmill. An anchoring system will prevent possible falls, activities will be stopped on patient request, or when a heart rate considered safe will be exceeded. All sessions will be supervised by a physical therapist, who will give guidance and standardized cues on walking patterns (e.g., step length). The patient will be asked not to use the lateral bars. Treatment is planned to be progressive and will be individualized to the participant's level of performance: progression in gait speed: at the training start, gait speed will be set at 80% of the individual's overground walking speed and weekly increased by 10%, to a maximum of 120%; progression in trial duration: at the training start the duration will be set at 25' and every two weeks increased by 5'; the maximum duration of a session will reach 45'.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Mean change in gait and balance parameters assessed by the Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment - POMA scale (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	The POMA scale is an easily administered task-oriented test that measures an older adult's balance (9 items) and gait (7 items) abilities. Items are scored with a three-point (0-2) or a two points (0-1) scale, where "0" indicates the highest level of impairment and "2" - "1" for dichotomic items - the individual's independence. Total Balance Score = 16; Total Gait Score = 12.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in motors parameters assessed by the Modified Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), part III (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	The MDS-UPDRS part III includes 18 items concerning the motor examination in PD, evaluating different aspects: walking, balance, speech, bradykinesia, tremor, and rigidity. Each item is scored on a five-point ordinal rating scale, ranging from 0 to 4, where "0" indicates normal function and "4" is the highest level of impairment. Some items inclusive of evaluation of a symptom in different parts of the body, e.g on the right side, on the left side, upper and lower limbs). Score range 0-132.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Correlation between Raman spectra of blood cEVs and primary outcomes after patient stratification	The biological characterization of patients at T0 analyzing cEVs performed by Raman Spectroscopy will provide numerical scores that will be correlated with motor parameters obtained at T1 to identify predictive biomarkers of an outcome measure of rehabilitation	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks)
Changes in individual Raman spectra of blood-derived cEVs before and after treatment	The Raman spectrum of blood-derived cEVs before and after treatment will be compared to identify spectral differences and to monitor the effect of rehabilitation on the spectral biomarker. Changes in the presence/absence of peaks and peaks intensity will be evaluated.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks)

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Mean changes in walking speed (intra-group and between-group comparisons).	Gait speed (m/s) will be measured at both comfortable and maximum speeds using the Optogait system (http://www.optogait.com/Gait-Phases).	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean changes in step length during walking (intra-group and between-group comparisons).	Right and left step length (m) will be measured at both comfortable and maximum speeds using the Optogait system (http://www.optogait.com/Gait-Phases).	T1 (end of treatment-8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in walking endurance assessed with the 6-Minutes Walking Test (6MWT) (intra-group and between-group comparisons).	The distance (m) walked in 6 minutes on a 30 meters walkway will be measured, indicating the greater distance, a better score	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in gait adaptability assessed by C-Gait application of C-Mill (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	Walking-adaptability task performance was defined as the percentage of correctly performed steps relative to the projected visual objects in 6 different tasks. C-gait score for each task: Level×2×Performance (%) / 100. The overall assessment score was an average score based on average performance over the six walking-adaptability tasks at the higher level of difficulty, ranging from 0 (poor performance) to 8 (excellent performance).	T1 (end of treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in freezing during walking assessed by the Freezing Of Gait Questionnaire (FOG-Q) (intra-group and between-group comparisons).	The FOG-Q includes 6 items that inquires about the subject's experiences of freezing during the previous week. Each item use a five-points ordinal scale, ranging from "0" (= absence of symptoms) to "4" (= more severe disturbance). Total score ranges from 0 to 24, and higher scores correspond to more severe freezing.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in postural stability (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	Postural sway assessed with a dynamometric footplate (postural sway in quiet standing with opened/closed eyes). Lower postural sway corresponds to better stability.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in global cognitive functions assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	The MoCA test is used to assess global cognitive functions. A score superior to 18.58 is required for inclusion in the study (Aiello et al, 2021); parallel versions will be administered at different time points (Siciliano et al, 2019). Higher values correspond to better cognition, range of score 0-30.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in global cognitive functions assessed by the Parkinson's disease-cognitive rating scale, italian version (PD-CRS) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	The PD-CRS is a suitable tool to assess cognition in PD, it evaluates different domains and permits to obtain a cortical and a subcortical score: sum of results in item 1,3,4,5,7,8,9 (range of score 0-104), represents the subcortical score; sum of results in item 2 and 6 (range of score 0-30), represents the cortical score. Higher scores correspond to better cognition	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in attention skills assessed by Trail Making Test A and B (TMTA and TMTB) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	TMTA evaluates sustained attention and the visual search capacity, and TMTB evaluates divided attention. For both tests A and B time and errors will be registered. Slowness and more errors are indicative of lower performances (No range of score).	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in executive functions as assessed by the Stroop Test (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	The Stroop test is used to assess executive functions (time and error interference effect). Slowness and higher interference effect indicative of lower performances. (No range of score).	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in executive functions as assessed by the Symbol Digit oral version (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	Digit symbol is used for the assessment of attention and working memory. Range of score 0-110. Higher score indicative of better performance	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in functional mobility assessed by the Modified Parkinson Activity Scale (MPAS) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	The MPAS scale evaluates motor skills in activities of daily living. Range of score 0-56; higher score indicative of better functional mobility.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in functional mobility assessed by the Timed up and go test (TUG) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	The TUG is a general physical performance test used to assess mobility, balance, and gait during walking, turning, and sit-to-stand tasks. Time is recorded during the test; less time indicative of better performances (no range of score).	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in functional autonomy assessed by the modified Barthel Index (mBI) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	mBI is a scale for assessing functional independence in daily life. Range of score 0-100. Lower score corresponds to less independence.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in the quality of life assessed by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire Italian version (PDQ-39-IT) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	PDQ-39 is a self-report questionnaire for assessing the quality of daily life in PD. It includes 39 items assessing how often persons experience difficulty across 8 quality of life dimensions. Each item is scored on a five-point ordinal scale from 0 (=never) to 4 (always). Each dimension total score ranges from 0 (never have difficulty) to 100 (always have difficulty). The summary total score is calculated as the mean of the 8 dimension total scores. A higher score corresponds to a lower quality of life.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in the fear to fall assessed by the Falls efficacy scale, Italian version (FES-I) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	FES-I is used for the assessment of the fear-of-fall. It includes 16 items rated on a four-point scale from 1 (not confident at all) to 4 (completely confident). Total score ranges from minimum 16 (no concern about falling) to maximum 64 (severe concern about falling).	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in mood assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory II, italian version (BDI) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	BDI II is used for the assessment of mood and consists of 21 items, each of whom corresponding to a symptom of depression. Each item is scored on a scale of 0-3 in a list of four statements arranged in increasing severity. Total score ranges from 0 to 63; higher scores indicates more severe depression.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in pain perception assessed by the Numerical rating scale (NRS) (intra-group and between-group comparisons)	NRS is suitable for the assessment of current pain severity as perceived by the participant using a 0-10 points scale. A score of 10 corresponds to the worst pain.	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Mean change in number and severity of falls assessed by the Falls Questionnaire (intra-group and between-groups comparisons)	Falls Questionnaire is used for the assessment of the frequency and severity of falls. It provides information on the modality of falls and the number of falls in the last 12 months. A superior number of falls suggests a lower balance (no range of score).	T0 (baseline); T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks); T2 (3 months after the end of treatment)
Perception of satisfaction to the treatment assessed with a subjective satisfaction questionnaire- 5 point Likert scale	A 5 points Likert scale is useful to assess subjective satisfaction from 0 (minimum) to 5 (maximum)	T1 (end of the treatment - 8 weeks)

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Florence
• Collaborators: Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Feb;39(2):142-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x.
• Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, Stebbins GT, Fahn S, Martinez-Martin P, Poewe W, Sampaio C, Stern MB, Dodel R, Dubois B, Holloway R, Jankovic J, Kulisevsky J, Lang AE, Lees A, Leurgans S, LeWitt PA, Nyenhuis D, Olanow CW, Rascol O, Schrag A, Teresi JA, van Hilten JJ, LaPelle N; Movement Disorder Society UPDRS Revision Task Force. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord. 2008 Nov 15;23(15):2129-70. doi: 10.1002/mds.22340.
• Gualerzi A, Picciolini S, Carlomagno C, Terenzi F, Ramat S, Sorbi S, Bedoni M. Raman profiling of circulating extracellular vesicles for the stratification of Parkinson's patients. Nanomedicine. 2019 Nov;22:102097. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2019.102097. Epub 2019 Oct 21.
• Keus SH, Nieuwboer A, Bloem BR, Borm GF, Munneke M. Clinimetric analyses of the Modified Parkinson Activity Scale. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2009 May;15(4):263-9. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2008.06.003. Epub 2008 Aug 8.
• Ganesan M, Sathyaprabha TN, Gupta A, Pal PK. Effect of partial weight-supported treadmill gait training on balance in patients with Parkinson disease. PM R. 2014 Jan;6(1):22-33. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.08.604. Epub 2013 Sep 8.
• Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978 Aug;37(4):378-81. doi: 10.1136/ard.37.4.378.
• Giovagnoli AR, Del Pesce M, Mascheroni S, Simoncelli M, Laiacona M, Capitani E. Trail making test: normative values from 287 normal adult controls. Ital J Neurol Sci. 1996 Aug;17(4):305-9. doi: 10.1007/BF01997792.
• Nocentini U, Giordano A, Di Vincenzo S, Panella M, Pasqualetti P. The Symbol Digit Modalities Test - Oral version: Italian normative data. Funct Neurol. 2006 Apr-Jun;21(2):93-6.
• Steffen T, Seney M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther. 2008 Jun;88(6):733-46. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070214. Epub 2008 Mar 20. Erratum In: Phys Ther. 2010 Mar;90(3):462.
• Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986 Feb;34(2):119-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1986.tb05480.x. No abstract available.
• Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 28(1), 1-11.
• Tambasco N, Simoni S, Eusebi P, Ripandelli F, Brahimi E, Sacchini E, Nigro P, Marsili E, Calabresi P. The validation of an Italian version of the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire. Neurol Sci. 2015 May;36(5):759-64. doi: 10.1007/s10072-014-2037-5. Epub 2014 Dec 17.
• Galeoto G, Colalelli F, Massai P, Berardi A, Tofani M, Pierantozzi M, Servadio A, Fabbrini A, Fabbrini G. Quality of life in Parkinson's disease: Italian validation of the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39-IT). Neurol Sci. 2018 Nov;39(11):1903-1909. doi: 10.1007/s10072-018-3524-x. Epub 2018 Aug 7.
• Ruggiero C, Mariani T, Gugliotta R, Gasperini B, Patacchini F, Nguyen HN, Zampi E, Serra R, Dell'Aquila G, Cirinei E, Cenni S, Lattanzio F, Cherubini A. Validation of the Italian version of the falls efficacy scale international (FES-I) and the short FES-I in community-dwelling older persons. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;49 Suppl 1:211-9. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2009.09.031.
• Molino-Lova R, Sofi F, Pasquini G, Gori A, Vannetti F, Abbate R, Gensini GF, Macchi C; Mugello Study Working Group. The Mugello study, a survey of nonagenarians living in Tuscany: design, methods and participants' general characteristics. Eur J Intern Med. 2013 Dec;24(8):745-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2013.09.008. Epub 2013 Oct 11.
• Ghisi M at al 2006, Beck Depression Inventory - II (BDI-II) Manuale. Firenze: O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali
• Santangelo G, Barone P, Abbruzzese G, Ferini-Strambi L, Antonini A; IRIS Study Group. Validation of the Italian version of Parkinson's disease-cognitive rating scale (PD-CRS). Neurol Sci. 2014 Apr;35(4):537-44. doi: 10.1007/s10072-013-1538-y. Epub 2013 Sep 25. Erratum In: Neurol Sci. 2015 Feb;36(2):349.
• Aiello EN, Gramegna C, Esposito A, Gazzaniga V, Zago S, Difonzo T, Maddaluno O, Appollonio I, Bolognini N. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): updated norms and psychometric insights into adaptive testing from healthy individuals in Northern Italy. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022 Feb;34(2):375-382. doi: 10.1007/s40520-021-01943-7. Epub 2021 Jul 27. Erratum In: Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022 Nov;34(11):2923.
• Chen ZY, Yan HJ, Qi L, Zhen QX, Liu C, Wang P, Liu YH, Wang RD, Liu YJ, Fang JP, Su Y, Yan XY, Liu AX, Xi J, Fang B. C-Gait for Detecting Freezing of Gait in the Early to Middle Stages of Parkinson's Disease: A Model Prediction Study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021 Mar 22;15:621977. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.621977. eCollection 2021.
• Siciliano M, Chiorri C, Passaniti C, Sant'Elia V, Trojano L, Santangelo G. Comparison of alternate and original forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): an Italian normative study. Neurol Sci. 2019 Apr;40(4):691-702. doi: 10.1007/s10072-019-3700-7. Epub 2019 Jan 14.
• Santangelo G, Lagravinese G, Battini V, Chiorri C, Siciliano M, Abbruzzese G, Vitale C, Barone P. The Parkinson's Disease-Cognitive Rating Scale (PD-CRS): normative values from 268 healthy Italian individuals. Neurol Sci. 2017 May;38(5):845-853. doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-2844-6. Epub 2017 Feb 21.
• Wang Y, Gao L, Yan H, Jin Z, Fang J, Qi L, Zhen Q, Liu C, Wang P, Liu Y, Wang R, Liu Y, Su Y, Liu A, Fang B. Efficacy of C-Mill gait training for improving walking adaptability in early and middle stages of Parkinson's disease. Gait Posture. 2022 Jan;91:79-85. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.10.010. Epub 2021 Oct 11.

Helpful Links

• gait parameters derived from Optogait assessment

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): July 6, 2022
• Primary Completion (Estimated): December 1, 2023
• Study Completion (Estimated): December 31, 2023

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 1, 2023
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 4, 2023
• First Posted (Estimated): June 13, 2023

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimated): June 13, 2023
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 4, 2023
• Last Verified: June 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: Rehabilitation; Balance; Biomarkers; Parkinson Disease; Physiotherapy; Gait rehabilitation; Falls; extracellular vesicles; Raman spectroscopy
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Brain Diseases; Central Nervous System Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Neurologic Manifestations; Parkinsonian Disorders; Basal Ganglia Diseases; Movement Disorders; Synucleinopathies; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Parkinson Disease; Gait Disorders, Neurologic
• Other Study ID Numbers: VIRTREAD-PD

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No