Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Arizona State University | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Falls are common in Veterans with multiple sclerosis (MS), and current rehabilitation approaches to reduce falls are inadequate. Protective step training (in which a person is exposed to repeated "slips") is a promising tool to reduce falls in older adults. However, whether this approach is effective in people with MS is unknown. Investigating the effect of promising therapies, such as protective step training, will enhance our ability to treat Veterans with MS who are at risk for falls. Therefore, we will assess whether people with MS improve postural control and reduce falls through protective step training. we will also determine whether cognitive ability or brain structure can predict who will improve most. These data will inform clinical treatment strategies in people with MS at risk for falls.
Current rehabilitation strategies to prevent falls in people with MS are inadequate. Protective step training is a novel and promising treatment in which people are exposed to repeated slips. This training aims to improve automatic postural control including quick, protective steps, which are a critical aspect of fall avoidance, and are delayed in people with MS. This therapy has been shown to prevent falls in healthy older adults. However, the effectiveness of perturbation training in Veterans with MS is unknown. Identifying effective methods of fall prevention in people with MS, such as perturbation training, can lead to fewer falls in this population.
People with MS often exhibit considerable variability in their "responsiveness" to rehabilitation. Said differently, improvement in performance through training is variable across individuals. The ability to predict responsiveness to treatment would be extremely beneficial for clinicians; improving the efficiency by which they provide care. Recent work suggests cognitive ability and structural brain connectivity may predict responsiveness to motor rehabilitation. However, the degree to which these characteristics predict responsiveness in people with MS is currently unknown.
Therefore, the overall goals of this project are to understand 1) whether people with MS can improve postural control and reduce falls through perturbation training, and 2) whether the investigators can predict (via cognitive testing and neuroimaging), who will benefit most from treatment. The investigators will achieve these goals through three specific aims. Aim 1: identify whether people with MS can improve protective stepping, a critical skill for fall prevention, through 2 weeks of protective step training. Aim 2: determine if cognitive capacity predicts postural improvement through training in people with MS. Aim 3: determine if brain structural connectivity predicts postural improvements through training. The imaging data collected will also allow the investigators to investigate whether MS-related changes in brain connectivity contributes to postural response dysfunction.
The efficacy of perturbation training in people with MS (Aim 1) will be studied by measuring protective stepping performance before and after a 2-week perturbation training protocol. In addition, the investigators will gather prospective falls data through a falls calendar over the course of 8 weeks prior to and 8 weeks after the perturbation training to gain preliminary data regarding the effect of this training on falls. To determine which baseline characteristics predict "responsiveness" to training (Aims 2 and 3), the investigators will also assess baseline cognitive capacity and brain structural integrity (via diffusion tensor imaging; DTI). The investigators will determine whether these baseline participant characteristics predict which participants exhibit the most improvement through the course of training.
This project will provide insight into 1) the effectiveness of a promising fall prevention intervention, and 2) the ability to predict which patients will benefit most from the intervention. This knowledge will be an important step toward improving care of people with MS who are at risk for falls.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step training | Experimental | This group will undergo a baseline control period, as well as an intervention period. As such, they will serve as their own control subjects. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protective step training | Behavioral | Participants will undergo 2 weeks of training, in which they will be exposed to repeated slips on a treadmill. This approach is aimed at improving protective steps. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Training-related Change in Margin of Stability | Margin of Stability is a measure of stepping effectiveness; characterized as the difference between the extrapolated center of mass and the base of support at the instance of first foot contact. The primary endpoint was the change in Margin of Stability before to after training (i.e. Baseline to Post-test). The units of this measure are in meters. Large values represent better steps. So, positive change scores represent improvement in stepping. | Baseline and Post-test (immediately after the intervention) |
| Symbol Digit Modality Test | The Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT) is a cognitive assessment that probes processing speed. The score is the number of symbols and digits that one correctly matches over 90 seconds, and is assessed via paper and pencil. As such, the lower bound is 0, and there is no upper bound. Larger values are better. | Baseline |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Training-related Changes in Reactive Step Length | Reactive Step Length is the length of the first step after the participant loses their balance. The primary endpoint was the immediate change in performance through training (i.e., initial training period; Base2-Post1). The primary endpoint was the change in Reactive Step Length before to after training (i.e., Baseline to Post-test). The units of this measure are in meters. Large values represent better steps. So, positive change scores represent improvement in stepping. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Daniel S Peterson, PhD MS BS | Phoenix VA Health Care System, Phoenix, AZ | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phoenix VA Health Care System, Phoenix, AZ | Phoenix | Arizona | 85012 | United States |
All IPD will be collected at Arizona State University, and thus will be accessible by study-team members at this institution.
Data collected at ASU will be stored indefinitely.
Only approved study-team members at ASU will have access to IPD. These individuals will be identified and personally trained by the PI on the grant (Dr. Peterson).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Step Training (MS Group) | This group of people with MS will undergo a baseline control period, as well as an intervention period. As such, they will serve as their own control subjects. |
| FG001 | Step Training (Control Group) | This group of people without MS will undergo a baseline control period, as well as an intervention period. As such, they will serve as their own control subjects. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
|
57 people were originally screened and enrolled (38 MS and 19 control). Of these, 44 completed the baseline testing and are included in further analyses.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Step Training (MS Group) | This group of people with MS will undergo a baseline control period, as well as an intervention period. As such, they will serve as their own control subjects. |
| BG001 | Step Training (Control Group) |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Age in years | 57 people were originally screened and enrolled (38 MS and 19 control). Of these, 44 completed the baseline testing. |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Training-related Change in Margin of Stability | Margin of Stability is a measure of stepping effectiveness; characterized as the difference between the extrapolated center of mass and the base of support at the instance of first foot contact. The primary endpoint was the change in Margin of Stability before to after training (i.e. Baseline to Post-test). The units of this measure are in meters. Large values represent better steps. So, positive change scores represent improvement in stepping. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | meters | Baseline and Post-test (immediately after the intervention) |
|
Across the training period (2 weeks)
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Step Training (MS Group) | This group of people with MS will undergo a baseline control period, as well as an intervention period. As such, they will serve as their own control subjects. |
Not provided
Not provided
Technical problems with neuroimaging data analyses have resulted in unreliable or uninterpretable data at this time.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Peterson | Arizona State University | 602-543-9373 | daniel.peterson1@asu.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | May 1, 2025 | May 2, 2025 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009103 | Multiple Sclerosis |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D020278 | Demyelinating Autoimmune Diseases, CNS |
| D020274 | Autoimmune Diseases of the Nervous System |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
| D003711 | Demyelinating Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Multiple-baseline, within-subject design
Not provided
Not provided
Primary outcomes are objective (i.e. assessed via computer algorithms), thus reducing the need for masking.
Not provided
| Baseline and Post-test (immediately after the intervention) |
| Training-related Change in Reactive Step Latency | Reactive Step Latency is the time between when the balance perturbation occurs to lift-off of the foot. The primary endpoint was the change in performance through training (i.e., Baseline to Post-test). Smaller values represent faster (better) steps. So, negative change scores represent improvement in stepping through training. | Baseline and Post-test (immediately after 2 week intervention) |
This group of people without MS will undergo a baseline control period, as well as an intervention period. As such, they will serve as their own control subjects.
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Mean |
| Standard Deviation |
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | 57 people were originally screened and enrolled (38 MS and 19 control). Of these, 44 completed the baseline testing and are included in further analyses. | Count of Participants | Participants | No |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | 57 people were originally screened and enrolled (38 MS and 19 control). Of these, 44 completed the baseline testing and are included in further analyses. | Count of Participants | Participants | No |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants | No |
|
People without MS.
|
|
|
| Primary | Symbol Digit Modality Test | The Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT) is a cognitive assessment that probes processing speed. The score is the number of symbols and digits that one correctly matches over 90 seconds, and is assessed via paper and pencil. As such, the lower bound is 0, and there is no upper bound. Larger values are better. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Units on a scale | Baseline |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Training-related Changes in Reactive Step Length | Reactive Step Length is the length of the first step after the participant loses their balance. The primary endpoint was the immediate change in performance through training (i.e., initial training period; Base2-Post1). The primary endpoint was the change in Reactive Step Length before to after training (i.e., Baseline to Post-test). The units of this measure are in meters. Large values represent better steps. So, positive change scores represent improvement in stepping. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | meters | Baseline and Post-test (immediately after the intervention) |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Training-related Change in Reactive Step Latency | Reactive Step Latency is the time between when the balance perturbation occurs to lift-off of the foot. The primary endpoint was the change in performance through training (i.e., Baseline to Post-test). Smaller values represent faster (better) steps. So, negative change scores represent improvement in stepping through training. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | seconds | Baseline and Post-test (immediately after 2 week intervention) |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 27 |
| 0 |
| 27 |
| 0 |
| 27 |
| EG001 | Step Training (Control Group) | This group of people without MS will undergo a baseline control period, as well as an intervention period. As such, they will serve as their own control subjects. | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
Not provided
Not provided
| D001327 | Autoimmune Diseases |
| D007154 | Immune System Diseases |