CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06688357Updated Feb 17, 2025Results posted

Revitalize Cognition: Near Infrared Stimulation in Parkinson Patients

An interventional study of Active NIR-PBM (MedX 1116, MCT502) and Sham NIR-PBM (MedX 1116, MCT502) in Parkinson Disease, sponsored by University of Florida. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 62 Years to 89 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-02-17.

Sponsored by University of Florida · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 5 years 4 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jun 2019, registered Nov 2024).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
23
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
62 Years to 89 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The overall goal of this pilot, proof of concept study is to test a novel, relatively low cost, low risk and potentially high impact intervention for cognitive and motor symptoms associated with idiopathic Parkinson Disease. The intervention involves transcranial delivery of near infrared (NIR) light, aka as photobiomodulation (PBM). This pilot randomized controlled trial will examine whether NIR stimulation influences cognitive, mood, and motor symptoms in Parkinson patients relative to a sham treated group. The goal is to determine effect sizes for a potentially larger study.

Aims 1-3 of this study (Older Adult Specific) is registered separately under NCT02582593

Read the detailed description

There are few validated approaches for minimizing cognitive changes that frequently accompany Parkinson disease (PD). The goal of this study is to test a novel and potentially high impact brain stimulation approach for enhancing cognitive, mood, and motor symptoms in individuals with PD. This brain stimulation approach involves transcranial delivery of near infrared (NIR) light, which is painless and undetectable, and enhances brain metabolism. This NIR stimulation approach is also known as photobiomodulation (PMB).

The study builds on the following premises:

Mitochondrial dysfunction has been implicated in both familial and nonfamilial Parkinson disease.

NIR stimulation is a novel intervention for enhancing mitochondrial energy metabolism; Indeed, research in cellular and animal models suggests that application of light in red (630-700nm) and near infrared wavelengths (808-904nm) is neuroprotective and improves mitochondrial function by promoting increased production of intracellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP), important for cellular metabolism and oxygenation.

Findings of positive effects of NIR stimulation on motor and cognitive symptoms in animal models of PD, both rodent and macaques. In these animal studies, strong evidence supports neuroprotective and 'rescue' effects of NIR stimulation from MPTP-induced neurodegeneration, including preservation of locomotor activity and midbrain dopaminergic neurons. It is unclear whether similar beneficial effects might be afforded humans with idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD).

As such, the goal is to conduct a proof-of-concept randomized control pilot study to determine feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of a NIR stimulation protocol in individuals with Parkinson disease (PD). The intervention will involve six sessions over a 2-week period, in which active or sham stimulation is applied to the head using a delivery system that has been approved as a nonsignificant risk since 2003. The delivery system involves six MedX superluminous light emitting diode clusters positioned on the head in distinct configurations for a total of 40 minutes of stimulation. Dosing was based on a pilot study. The investigators plan to enroll 24 non-demented individuals with PD who will be randomized to active or sham groups. Cognitive, motor, and mood outcomes will be obtained before and after the intervention. An exploratory aim involves neuroimaging changes (1P MRS, resting state fMRI). Outcomes will be obtained during the off-dopamine medication state (i.e., standard overnight withdrawal from dopamine medications). The investigators hope to learn whether NIR stimulation has potential for influencing motor and cognitive symptoms in individuals with PD, with goal of determining effect sizes for a potentially larger randomized clinical trial.

02

Conditions studied

  • Parkinson Disease

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Photobiomodulation
  • Near Infrared Light
  • Parkinson Disease
  • Neurostimulation
03

In context

Parkinson Disease

4,487 studies on the registry are indexed under Parkinson Disease; 1,082 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 23 is below the median of 40 across 3,294 interventional studies indexed under Parkinson Disease.

Browse Parkinson Disease studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Florida is the lead sponsor of 1,254 studies on the registry; 201 are open to participants now.

Of its 170 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 136 (80%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
62 Years to 89 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson disease by movement disorder neurologist using UK Brain Bank criteria
  • Early-mid stage of disease severity
  • Willingness to undergo baseline and post-intervention 'off' their normal dopamine medications
  • Between 62 and 89 years of age
  • Able to provide informed consent and perform cognitive and mood measures on a computer
  • Willingness to be randomized to Sham or Real intervention
  • Can devote 2 weeks to the intervention, and additional time for pre and post testing
  • 8th grade education and ability to read on 8th grade level based on scores on the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR) or the Wide Range Achievement Test-IV (WRAT-IV); ability to see 14 pt. text
  • On stable doses of major medications for at least two months

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of brain abnormalities/ neurological disorders affecting cognition other than PD; No history of brain surgery
  • Evidence of potential dementia based on cognitive screening (e.g., scores \< 5th %ile on the Montreal Cognitive Assessement (MoCA) or the Dementia Rating Scale-2 (DRS-2) based on appropriate age, education and sex norms.
  • Use of psychotics, sedatives or other medications with anticholinergic properties;
  • Unstable or uncontrolled medical conditions (e.g.,HIV, severe kidney disease)
  • Diagnosis of active cancer
  • Use of photosensitive medications within 15 days of intervention
  • Sensory loss (vision, hearing) or motor deficits that would preclude participation in the experimental cognitive tasks or neuropsychological assessment
  • Current or past history of major psychiatric disturbance including schizophrenia, or active psychosis, bipolar disorder, current major depressive episode, current alcohol or substance abuse or history thereof within the past six months. The investigators are not excluding individuals who are taking antidepressants or anti-anxiety medications, however, use of antidepressants and anxiolytics will be recorded and data will be analyzed in post-hoc analyses
  • Previous participation in a cognitive training study within the last six months
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
23 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Active NIR-PBM Parkinson Group

    The Active condition involves baseline testing, two weeks of Near Infrared-Photobiomodulation (NIR-PBM), and post-intervention testing. Cognitive, motor, mood, and neuroimaging outcomes are obtained before (baseline) and after the intervention. During outcome testing, Parkinson patients are evaluated "Off" their normal dopamine medications, following a standard 'overnight' washout. Otherwise, the PD patients were "ON" dopamine medications. The intervention consists of 6 sessions of NIR-photobiomodulation given 3 times/week for 2 weeks. During each session, NIR light is delivered via placement of six MedX LED superluminous diode clusters over the scalp for a total of 40 minutes. During stimulation, participants sit in front of a videomonitor and view nature documentaries (BBC Life series). This is done to standardize behavior during the intervention sessions.

    Device: Active NIR-PBM (MedX 1116, MCT502)

  • Sham comparator
    Sham NIR-PBM Parkinson Group

    The Sham condition is identical in all respects to the Active condition except for use of a "sham" MedX device. The sham device was modified from the original MedX system to not deliver NIR light but was otherwise identical to the active device. Because NIR light is invisible, neither the participants nor interventionists can discern whether active or sham stimulation was being delivered. Otherwise, the Sham condition involved baseline testing (off medication), 2 weeks of sham NIR stimulation, and post-intervention procedures (Off dopamine medication).

    Device: Sham NIR-PBM (MedX 1116, MCT502)

Interventions

  • DeviceActive NIR-PBM (MedX 1116, MCT502)

    Near infrared light was delivered using two MedX Rehab Console systems (MedX Health, 1116). Each MedX console included a control unit and 3 superluminous light emitting diode (LED) clusters. Each LED cluster (3MedX MCT502) consisted of 52 near infrared diodes and 9 visible red diodes. The 9 red diodes were deactivated. The energy delivered by each cluster was 1 joule \[J\]/cm2 in 45 sec at treatment wavelength of 870 nm per each 20 min. The LED cluster has an irradiance of 22.2 mW/cm2, treats an area of 22.48 cm2, with an energy density of 26.64/cm2 per cluster (total energy of 599J/cluster). During each session, the 6 clusters were arrayed on the scalp in 2 configurations, 20 minutes per array. Each configuration targeted 6 transcranial sites, guided by the 10-20 system, for a total of 12 sites during the 40-min session. Total energy delivered was 599J/cluster X 12 sites = 7188J. Dosing was based on a pilot study. This intervention was given 3 times/week for 2 weeks.

    Also known as: Transcranial Near Infrared Stimulation, Photobiomodulation

  • DeviceSham NIR-PBM (MedX 1116, MCT502)

    The MedX sham intervention device is identical in all respects to the active device, except that the MedX console and diode clusters were modified to NOT deliver NIR light when turned on. The sham MedX devices were modified to deliver 'warmth', similar to that of the active devices. As with the active condition, a total of six sham interventions were given over a 2-week period, following the identical procedures described in the active condition.

    Also known as: Placebo

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Fluency Composite From NIH Examiner (Kramer et al., 2014).

    The Fluency Composite is derived from the NIH Examiner, a computer-based battery of executive functioning tasks (Kramer et al., 2014). This composite was chosen due to known verbal fluency difficulties in individuals with Parkinson Disease. Verbal fluency tasks in the NIH Examiner include 2 trials of letter fluency and 2 trials of semantic fluency which are combined to yield a Fluency Composite that ranges from -3.0 to 3.0; higher scores correspond to better fluency performance. A change score is calculated by subtracting the baseline scores from the post-test scores. Greater positive change scores mean better outcome.

    Time frame: Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)

  2. ARENA Spatial Navigation Memory Task-Learning Composite

    ARENA is a task of spatial memory-navigation that has been linked to hippocampal function and is a human analogue to the Morris water maze, which has shown sensitivity to NIR stimulation in Alzheimer's transgenic mice. ARENA requires participants to learn and navigate to a hidden target location in a simulated environment. It involves use of a joystick over a series of 8 learning trials and one final probe trial. On each learning trial, the path length and time to reach the target are recorded. The Learning dependent variable is a composite score consisting of mean z-scores for path length and for time to reach the target (Learning Composite). A change score is computed by subtracting the baseline Learning Composite from the post-intervention Learning Composite z-score. Higher scores mean a better outcome.

    Time frame: Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)

  3. ARENA Spatial Navigation Memory Task - Total Composite

    ARENA is a computer-based task of spatial memory-navigation that has been linked to hippocampal function and is a human analogue to the Morris water maze. ARENA consists of 9 learning trials and one final probe trial. On each learning trial, the path length and time to reach the target are recorded. On each probe trial, the percent time spent in the spatial quadrant where the target is located is recorded. The dependent variable is a total composite score consisting of mean z-scores for path length, time to reach the target, and %time in the target quadrant during the probe trial (Total Composite). A change score is computed by subtracting the baseline Total Composite z-score from the post-intervention Composite z scores. Higher scores mean better outcome.

    Time frame: Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)

  4. Gait Stride Length Variability

    Gait is assessed using the Primary Gait Screen (Schmidt et al., 2019) that requires participants to walk the length of an 8-meter pressure sensitive mat (Zeno Walkway, 120Hz, Zeno Metrics), turn around, and return to the beginning of the walkway. Gait variability during forward walking was selected because in PD, greater variability is associated with increased number of falls and is one of the most disabling symptoms in PD. For this outcome, variability in stride length is indexed by the individual's standard deviation (SD) of stride length measured in centimeters; higher SD scores indicate worse performance. A change score is calculated by subtracting baseline SD of stride length from the post-intervention scores. Negative change scores mean better performance, whereas positive change scores mean worse performance.

    Time frame: Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Working Memory Composite From the NIH Examiner (Kramer et al., 2014)

    This Working Memory composite is derived from a computer-based battery of executive functioning tasks (NIH Examiner). This composite was chosen due to known working memory difficulties in individuals with Parkinson disease. The Working Memory composite consists of scores from the N-back task and a Dot Counting task, which are combined to yield a composite score that ranges from -3 to 3.0; higher scores correspond to better working memory. A change score is calculated by subtracting the baseline Working Memory Composite from the post-intervention Working Memory Composite.

    Time frame: Baseline and Post (2 weeks)

  2. Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT)

    The RAVLT is a commonly used memory task in clinical settings. It is a 15-item word list learning task given over 5 trials followed by delayed recall of the list 20-30 minutes later. The major outcome is number of items freely recalled after the delay. Scores can range from 0 to 16 (maximum number of words), with higher score reflecting better performance. A change score is calculated by subtracting the baseline score from the post-intervention score. Higher difference scores indicate better performance due to intervention.

    Time frame: Baseline and Post (2 weeks)

  3. Negative Affect Scale From the Emotion Module of the NIH Toolbox

    The Negative Affect scale is derived from the emotion module of the NIH Toolbox, a 12-22 minute self-report assessment that surveys current emotion health. The Negative Affect Scale is based on ratings of a series of emotion words. Questions comprise Likert-type items using computerized adaptive testing based on item response theory, resulting in a normed T score (mean of 50, SD of 10). The Negative Affect scale includes items pertaining to fear, anger, sadness. Scores below 40T indicate low levels of negative affect and scores above 60T indicate higher levels of negative affect. A difference score is computed by subtracting the baseline score from the post-intervention score.

    Time frame: Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)

Other outcomes

  1. Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Motor Scale (Part III) - Off Dopamine Medication

    Part III of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) is a standard clinical rating scale for motor symptoms in individuals with Parkinson disease. It is clinician administered by a trained rater and involves ratings of motor tremors, rigidity, and slowness. In the research setting, the scale is videotaped for later scoring by a trained rater who is blinded to group assignment. The Part III motor scale score ranges from 0 to 108 and involves 27 responses to 14 questions. Higher scores are worse and reflect more severe motor symptoms. A change score is computed by subtracting baseline UPDRS motor score from the post-intervention score. Greater change in negative direction reflects better outcome.

    Time frame: Baseline and Post-Intervention

07

Results

Posted Feb 17, 2025
Limitations and caveats
This trial was designed to assess feasibility and determine effect sizes for larger trial. Moving forward, the ARENA task is not an ideal memory measure in the PD cohort due to reliance on motor skills (i.e., using a joystick); this caveat is further amplified given that outcome testing took place when PD participants were "off" dopamine medications and thus experiencing more severe motor symptoms. This trial took place during COVID epidemic and resulted in smaller than hoped for sample.

Participant flow

All Parkinson participants were recruited from the Fixel Institute of Neurological Disease at the University of Florida. Participants were recruited directly from clinics and/or from the INFORM database, an IRB approved database which includes individuals who agreed to be contacted by researchers for potential participation in ongoing IRB approved studies.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneActive NIR-PBM ParkinsonSham NIR-PBM Parkinson
Started88
Completed87
Not completed01
Withdrew: Adverse event01

Outcome measures

PrimaryFluency Composite From NIH Examiner (Kramer et al., 2014).

The Fluency Composite is derived from the NIH Examiner, a computer-based battery of executive functioning tasks (Kramer et al., 2014). This composite was chosen due to known verbal fluency difficulties in individuals with Parkinson Disease. Verbal fluency tasks in the NIH Examiner include 2 trials of letter fluency and 2 trials of semantic fluency which are combined to yield a Fluency Composite that ranges from -3.0 to 3.0; higher scores correspond to better fluency performance. A change score is calculated by subtracting the baseline scores from the post-test scores. Greater positive change scores mean better outcome.

Time frame:
Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · z-score
Fluency Composite From NIH Examiner (Kramer et al., 2014).
z-scoreParkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM
Fluency Composite From NIH Examiner (Kramer et al., 2014).0.334 ± 0.374-0.0287 ± 0.354
Statistical analysis
  • Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBM vs Parkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM · t-test, 2 sided · p = .077 (t (13) = 1.920. Only 1 comparison with 2 means, thus no adjustment necessary) · Cohen's d: 0.99
PrimaryARENA Spatial Navigation Memory Task-Learning Composite

ARENA is a task of spatial memory-navigation that has been linked to hippocampal function and is a human analogue to the Morris water maze, which has shown sensitivity to NIR stimulation in Alzheimer's transgenic mice. ARENA requires participants to learn and navigate to a hidden target location in a simulated environment. It involves use of a joystick over a series of 8 learning trials and one final probe trial. On each learning trial, the path length and time to reach the target are recorded. The Learning dependent variable is a composite score consisting of mean z-scores for path length and for time to reach the target (Learning Composite). A change score is computed by subtracting the baseline Learning Composite from the post-intervention Learning Composite z-score. Higher scores mean a better outcome.

Time frame:
Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · z-score
ARENA Spatial Navigation Memory Task-Learning Composite
z-scoreParkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM
ARENA Spatial Navigation Memory Task-Learning Composite-0.1088 ± 1.06-0.8495 ± 0.799
Statistical analysis
  • Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBM vs Parkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM · t-test, 2 sided · p = .159 (t(13) = 1.504; only 1 comparison of 2 values, thus no adjustment is necessary) · Cohen's d: 0.779
PrimaryARENA Spatial Navigation Memory Task - Total Composite

ARENA is a computer-based task of spatial memory-navigation that has been linked to hippocampal function and is a human analogue to the Morris water maze. ARENA consists of 9 learning trials and one final probe trial. On each learning trial, the path length and time to reach the target are recorded. On each probe trial, the percent time spent in the spatial quadrant where the target is located is recorded. The dependent variable is a total composite score consisting of mean z-scores for path length, time to reach the target, and %time in the target quadrant during the probe trial (Total Composite). A change score is computed by subtracting the baseline Total Composite z-score from the post-intervention Composite z scores. Higher scores mean better outcome.

Time frame:
Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
ARENA Spatial Navigation Memory Task - Total Composite
units on a scaleParkinson Group- Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM
ARENA Spatial Navigation Memory Task - Total Composite-0.1750 ± .91776-0.4478 ± .5372
Statistical analysis
  • Parkinson Group- Active NIR-PBM vs Parkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM · t-test, 2 sided · p = .503 (t (13) = 0.688; only 1 comparison, adjustment not necessary) · Cohen's d: 0.356df = 13
PrimaryGait Stride Length Variability

Gait is assessed using the Primary Gait Screen (Schmidt et al., 2019) that requires participants to walk the length of an 8-meter pressure sensitive mat (Zeno Walkway, 120Hz, Zeno Metrics), turn around, and return to the beginning of the walkway. Gait variability during forward walking was selected because in PD, greater variability is associated with increased number of falls and is one of the most disabling symptoms in PD. For this outcome, variability in stride length is indexed by the individual's standard deviation (SD) of stride length measured in centimeters; higher SD scores indicate worse performance. A change score is calculated by subtracting baseline SD of stride length from the post-intervention scores. Negative change scores mean better performance, whereas positive change scores mean worse performance.

Time frame:
Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · standard deviation
Gait Stride Length Variability
standard deviationParkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM
Gait Stride Length Variability-0.388 ± 1.097.854 ± 1.442
Statistical analysis
  • Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBM vs Parkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.08 (t(13) = 1.893; only one comparison of 2 scores, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary) · Cohen's d: -.922df = 13
SecondaryWorking Memory Composite From the NIH Examiner (Kramer et al., 2014)

This Working Memory composite is derived from a computer-based battery of executive functioning tasks (NIH Examiner). This composite was chosen due to known working memory difficulties in individuals with Parkinson disease. The Working Memory composite consists of scores from the N-back task and a Dot Counting task, which are combined to yield a composite score that ranges from -3 to 3.0; higher scores correspond to better working memory. A change score is calculated by subtracting the baseline Working Memory Composite from the post-intervention Working Memory Composite.

Time frame:
Baseline and Post (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · z-score
Working Memory Composite From the NIH Examiner (Kramer et al., 2014)
z-scoreParkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM
Working Memory Composite From the NIH Examiner (Kramer et al., 2014)0.1491 ± 0.1516-0.1253 ± .4822
Statistical analysis
  • Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBM vs Parkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM · t-test, 2 sided · p = .149 (t (13) = 1.533; only 1 comparison, no adjustment necessary) · Cohen's d: 0.793
SecondaryRey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT)

The RAVLT is a commonly used memory task in clinical settings. It is a 15-item word list learning task given over 5 trials followed by delayed recall of the list 20-30 minutes later. The major outcome is number of items freely recalled after the delay. Scores can range from 0 to 16 (maximum number of words), with higher score reflecting better performance. A change score is calculated by subtracting the baseline score from the post-intervention score. Higher difference scores indicate better performance due to intervention.

Time frame:
Baseline and Post (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT)
score on a scaleParkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM
Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT)2.38 ± 2.4460.57 ± 1.272
Statistical analysis
  • Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBM vs Parkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM · t-test, 2 sided · p = .104 (t(13) = 1.749; only 1 comparison with 2 values, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons) · Cohen's d: 0.905df = 13
SecondaryNegative Affect Scale From the Emotion Module of the NIH Toolbox

The Negative Affect scale is derived from the emotion module of the NIH Toolbox, a 12-22 minute self-report assessment that surveys current emotion health. The Negative Affect Scale is based on ratings of a series of emotion words. Questions comprise Likert-type items using computerized adaptive testing based on item response theory, resulting in a normed T score (mean of 50, SD of 10). The Negative Affect scale includes items pertaining to fear, anger, sadness. Scores below 40T indicate low levels of negative affect and scores above 60T indicate higher levels of negative affect. A difference score is computed by subtracting the baseline score from the post-intervention score.

Time frame:
Baseline and Post-Intervention (2 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · T-score
Negative Affect Scale From the Emotion Module of the NIH Toolbox
T-scoreParkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM
Negative Affect Scale From the Emotion Module of the NIH Toolbox-1.95 ± 3.59-.922 ± 4.16
Statistical analysis
  • Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBM vs Parkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM · t-test, 2 sided · p = .614 (t(13) = -.516; only 1 comparison of 2 means, no adjustment needed) · Cohen's d: -0.267
Other pre-specifiedUnified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Motor Scale (Part III) - Off Dopamine Medication

Part III of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) is a standard clinical rating scale for motor symptoms in individuals with Parkinson disease. It is clinician administered by a trained rater and involves ratings of motor tremors, rigidity, and slowness. In the research setting, the scale is videotaped for later scoring by a trained rater who is blinded to group assignment. The Part III motor scale score ranges from 0 to 108 and involves 27 responses to 14 questions. Higher scores are worse and reflect more severe motor symptoms. A change score is computed by subtracting baseline UPDRS motor score from the post-intervention score. Greater change in negative direction reflects better outcome.

Time frame:
Baseline and Post-Intervention
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Motor Scale (Part III) - Off Dopamine Medication
score on a scaleParkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBM
Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Motor Scale (Part III) - Off Dopamine Medication-3.87 ± 5.220.43 ± 7.91
Statistical analysis
  • Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBM · t-test, 2 sided · p = .230 (t(13) = -1.260; only 1 comparison of 2 values, no need for adjustment) · Cohen's d: 0.652

Adverse events

Collected over 3 Weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Parkinson Group NIR0/8 (0%)0/8 (0%)0/8 (0%)
Parkinson Group - Sham0/8 (0%)1/8 (12.5%)0/8 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventParkinson Group NIRParkinson Group - Sham
MedicationNervous system disorders0/81/8

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBMTotal
Mean73 ± 5.5368.8 ± 2.6771.07 ± 4.78
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBMTotal
Female347
Male538
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBMTotal
Hispanic or Latino101
Not Hispanic or Latino7714
Unknown or Not Reported000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBMTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American000
White8715
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported000
MoCA
MoCA(units on a scale)Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBMTotal
Mean25.2 ± 4.1727.4 ± 3.226.4 ± 3.75
Duration of Parkinson symptoms
Duration of Parkinson symptoms(years)Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBMTotal
Mean7.75 ± 6.395.29 ± 2.216.6 ± 4.91
Parkinson Subtype- Tremor Predominant
Parkinson Subtype- Tremor Predominant(Participants)Parkinson Group - Active NIR-PBMParkinson Group - Sham NIR-PBMTotal
Tremor Predominant6511
Akinetic Rigid224
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases
    Gainesville, Florida 32608, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Sep 4, 2019
  • Statistical analysis plan · Nov 13, 2024

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — De-identified cognitive, mood, and motor data will be made available to other researchers upon request.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf, Analytic code

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 17, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06688357
Lead sponsor
University of Florida
Collaborators
Parkinson's Disease Foundation, The Parkinson's Institute
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 14, 2024
Start date
Jun 26, 2019
Primary completion
Feb 17, 2021
Completion
Aug 15, 2022
Results posted
Feb 17, 2025
Last update
Feb 17, 2025

Study contacts

Dawn Bowers, PhD
principal investigator · The University of Florida

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion