RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Combined physical and cognitive training for older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.08.20170654
DO 10.1101/2020.08.08.20170654
A1 Hanna Malmberg Gavelin
A1 Christopher Dong
A1 Ruth Minkov
A1 Alex Bahar-Fuchs
A1 Kathryn A Ellis
A1 Nicola T Lautenschlager
A1 Maddison L Mellow
A1 Alexandra T Wade
A1 Ashleigh E Smith
A1 Carsten Finke
A1 Stephan Krohn
A1 Amit Lampit
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.08.08.20170654.abstract
AB Background Large systematic reviews have pointed to the efficacy of cognitive training and physical exercise on cognitive performance in older adults, making them the most common interventions in multidomain dementia prevention trials. However, it remains unclear to which extent combinations of these interventions yield additive effects beyond their individual components and what combination strategies are most beneficial. Our aim therefore was to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials of combined cognitive and physical training on cognitive, physical, psychosocial and functional outcomes in older adults with or without cognitive impairment, and to compare and rank the efficacy of the three main types of combined intervention delivery formats (simultaneous, sequential or exergaming) relative to either intervention alone or control conditions.Methods and Findings We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsyclNFO from inception to 23 July 2019. Change from baseline to post-intervention were extracted for each outcome and results were analyzed using random-effects models. The overall efficacy of combined interventions was assessed using multivariate pairwise meta-analysis and the comparative efficacy across different intervention delivery formats and control conditions was investigated using network meta-analysis. A total of 47 trials encompassing 4052 participants were eligible, including cognitively healthy older adults (k=30), mild cognitive impairment (k=13), dementia (k=2) and Parkinson’s disease (k=2). Due to the small number of identified studies in dementia and Parkinson’s disease, these were excluded from the pooled analyses and instead summarized narratively. Relative to any control condition, combined interventions were associated with small and heterogeneous effects on overall cognitive (k=41, Hedges’ g = 0.22, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, prediction interval - 0.34 to 0.78) and physical function (k=32, g = 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.37, prediction interval - 0.46 to 0.96). Cognitive and physical effects were similar for cognitively healthy older adults and those with mild cognitive impairment. No robust evidence for benefit on psychosocial function (k=9) or functional abilities (k=2) was found. The efficacy of simultaneous and sequential training for cognition exceeded all control conditions apart from cognitive training alone, with small to moderate effect estimates and moderate certainty of the evidence. The efficacy of simultaneous and sequential training on physical outcomes was comparable but not significantly greater than physical exercise alone. Exergaming was ranked low for both outcomes and superior only to passive control. The certainty of the evidence was low for physical outcomes, and we were not able to compare interventions in Parkinson’s disease and dementia.Conclusion Combined cognitive and physical training, delivered either simultaneously or sequentially, is efficacious for cognitive and physical outcomes in cognitively healthy and mildly impaired older adults, but not superior to cognitive or physical exercise alone in each domain. There is little systematic evidence to support potential additive effects of combined interventions or the use of exergaming in older adults. Given simultaneous training is as efficacious but less burdensome than sequential design, the former may be better suited for practical implementation to promote cognitive alongside physical health in late life. More research is needed to establish the effects of combined interventions on everyday function and well-being.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020143509.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=143509 Funding StatementATW is funded by a grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC GNT1171313). AL is funded by a CR Roper Fellowship from the University of Melbourne.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll underlying data are appended to the manuscript.