EXOPULSE Mollii Suit, Motor Function & Multiple Sclerosis (EXOSEP 2)

Spasticity, Muscle Clinical Trial

Official title:

The Effects of EXOPULSE Mollii Suit on Motor Functions in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis (EXOSEP 2)

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05857280
• Other study ID #: EXOSEP2
• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: March 21, 2023
• Est. completion date: April 15, 2025

Study information

• Verified date: April 2024
• Source: Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City
• Contact: Naji J Riachi, MD
• Phone: +971 2 314 4444
• Email: nriachi[@]ssmc.ae
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to demonstrate the improvement of motor functions related symptoms in patients with MS and spasticity using Exopulse Mollii suit stimulation in Multiple Sclerosis patients with spasticity. The main questions it aims to answer are: - to evaluate the short-term impact of EXOPULSE Mollii suit on balance in adult MS patients suffering from spasticity. - to assess the effects of EXOPULSE Mollii suit on mobility, upper and lower limbs muscle tone, pain, fatigue and quality of life. Participants will participate in: - One baseline visit for inclusion during which the patient will undergo the first session (active or sham) along with evaluations (before and after the session) - One visit after two weeks during which the patient will undergo the second session (active or sham) along with evaluations (before and after the session) - One visit after two weeks of the second stimulation condition; the patients will undergo a third evaluation and receive the EXOPULSE Mollii Suit for the four-week open label phase and will use the suit at home for an active stimulation session every other day for four weeks. - One visit at the end of the open label phase to perform the fourth and last evaluation and return the EXOPULSE Mollii suit. Researchers will compare both Active and Sham groups to demonstrate the improvement of motor functions related symptoms in patients with MS and spasticity using Exopulse Mollii suit.

Description:

The study is a randomized crossover, sham-controlled, double-blind trial to demonstrate the improvement of motor functions and MS related symptoms following a single session of "active" versus "sham" EXOPULSE Mollii suit stimulation. in phase 1, the patient will receive two stimulations separated by a two-week washout period. The patients will be randomized to receive either active/sham or sham/active and both patients and investigators will be blinded to the order in which the stimulation will be given. A 2-week washout period should be enough to prevent a potential carry over effect. Two weeks after the end of phase 1, a second open label phase (phase 2) of this trial will be proposed to all patients where they will receive active stimulation every other day at home over four weeks (for a total of 14 sessions). This will help understand the long term effects of EXOPULSE Mollii suit stimulation on MS related symptoms.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 36
• Est. completion date: April 15, 2025
• Est. primary completion date: December 31, 2024
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 75 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Definite MS diagnosis according to the 2017 McDonald criteria since at least one month.
• Age between 18 and 75 years.
• Ability to walk freely or with the need of support (expanded disability status scale score (EDSS) < 7).
• Being free of relapses in the last three months.
• Being able to understand verbal instructions.
• Having spasticity with a score of at least 1+ on the MAS.
• Having a BBS score =46 associated in the literature with a risk of fall.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Being included in another research protocol during the study period.
• Inability to undergo medical monitor for the study purposes due to geographical or social reasons.
• Having a cardiac stimulator, a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, an intrathecal baclofen pump or other contraindications to using EXOPULSE Mollii suit.
• Being pregnant.
• Having a change in their pharmacological therapy in the last three months.
• Suffering from other somatic or neuropsychiatric diagnoses (e.g., arrhythmias, uncontrolled epilepsy, diseases causing osteoarticular and muscular pain).
• Having a body mass index above 35 kg/m^2.
• In case of the introduction of a medical device other than EXOPULSE Mollii suit during the study period.
• Patients under juridical protection.
• Prisoners.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• MS (Multiple Sclerosis)
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Muscle Spasticity
• Sclerosis
• Sclerosis, Multiple
• Spastic
• Spasticity, Muscle

Intervention

Device:
• EXOPULSE Mollii Suit Stimulation
We designed a randomized crossover, sham-controlled, double-blind trial to demonstrate the improvement of motor functions and MS related symptoms following a single session of "active" versus "sham" EXOPULSE Mollii suit stimulation. in phase 1, the patient will receive two stimulations separated by a two-week washout period. The patients will be randomized to receive either active/sham or sham/active and both patients and investigators will be blinded to the order in which the stimulation will be given. A 2-week washout period should be enough to prevent a potential carry over effect. Two weeks after the end of phase 1, a second open label phase (phase 2) of this trial will be proposed to all patients where they will receive active stimulation every other day at home over four weeks (for a total of 14 sessions). This will help understand the long term effects of EXOPULSE Mollii suit stimulation on MS related symptoms.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United Arab Emirates	SSMC	Abu Dhabi

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United Arab Emirates, 

References & Publications (46)

Andringa A, van de Port I, van Wegen E, Ket J, Meskers C, Kwakkel G. Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin Treatment for Upper Limb Spasticity Poststroke Over Different ICF Domains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Sep;100(9):1703-1725. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.016. Epub 2019 Feb 21. — View Citation

Arroyo R, Massana M, Vila C. Correlation between spasticity and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis: the CANDLE study. Int J Neurosci. 2013 Dec;123(12):850-8. doi: 10.3109/00207454.2013.812084. Epub 2013 Jul 15. — View Citation

Bakaniene I, Urbonaviciene G, Janaviciute K, Prasauskiene A. Effects of the Inerventions method on gross motor function in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2018 Sep-Oct;52(5):581-586. doi: 10.1016/j.pjnns.2018.07.003. Epub 2018 Jul 20. — View Citation

Bar-On L, Molenaers G, Aertbelien E, Van Campenhout A, Feys H, Nuttin B, Desloovere K. Spasticity and its contribution to hypertonia in cerebral palsy. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:317047. doi: 10.1155/2015/317047. Epub 2015 Jan 11. — View Citation

Baude M, Nielsen JB, Gracies JM. The neurophysiology of deforming spastic paresis: A revised taxonomy. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019 Nov;62(6):426-430. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2018.10.004. Epub 2018 Nov 28. — View Citation

Beard S, Hunn A, Wight J. Treatments for spasticity and pain in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(40):iii, ix-x, 1-111. doi: 10.3310/hta7400. — View Citation

Bennett SE, Bromley LE, Fisher NM, Tomita MR, Niewczyk P. Validity and Reliability of Four Clinical Gait Measures in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2017 Sep-Oct;19(5):247-252. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2015-006. — View Citation

Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987 Feb;67(2):206-7. doi: 10.1093/ptj/67.2.206. — View Citation

Burke D, Wissel J, Donnan GA. Pathophysiology of spasticity in stroke. Neurology. 2013 Jan 15;80(3 Suppl 2):S20-6. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31827624a7. — View Citation

Busner J, Targum SD. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007 Jul;4(7):28-37. — View Citation

Cattaneo D, Regola A, Meotti M. Validity of six balance disorders scales in persons with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2006 Jun 30;28(12):789-95. doi: 10.1080/09638280500404289. — View Citation

Christine C, Dolk H, Platt MJ, Colver A, Prasauskiene A, Krageloh-Mann I; SCPE Collaborative Group. Recommendations from the SCPE collaborative group for defining and classifying cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl. 2007 Feb;109:35-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.tb12626.x. No abstract available. — View Citation

Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2008 Oct 25;372(9648):1502-17. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61620-7. — View Citation

Ertzgaard P, Alwin J, Sorbo A, Lindgren M, Sandsjo L. Evaluation of a self-administered transcutaneous electrical stimulation concept for the treatment of spasticity: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Aug;54(4):507-517. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04791-8. Epub 2017 Oct 25. — View Citation

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146. — View Citation

Fernandez O, Costa-Frossard L, Martinez-Gines M, Montero P, Prieto JM, Ramio L. The Broad Concept of "Spasticity-Plus Syndrome" in Multiple Sclerosis: A Possible New Concept in the Management of Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms. Front Neurol. 2020 Mar 17;11:152. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00152. eCollection 2020. — View Citation

Flachenecker P, Henze T, Zettl UK. Spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis--clinical characteristics, treatment and quality of life. Acta Neurol Scand. 2014 Mar;129(3):154-62. doi: 10.1111/ane.12202. Epub 2013 Nov 20. — View Citation

Flodstrom C, Viklund Axelsson SA, Nordstrom B. A pilot study of the impact of the electro-suit Mollii(R) on body functions, activity, and participation in children with cerebral palsy. Assist Technol. 2022 Jul 4;34(4):411-417. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2020.1837288. Epub 2021 Mar 29. — View Citation

Goldenberg MM. Multiple sclerosis review. P T. 2012 Mar;37(3):175-84. No abstract available. — View Citation

Gupta AD, Chu WH, Howell S, Chakraborty S, Koblar S, Visvanathan R, Cameron I, Wilson D. A systematic review: efficacy of botulinum toxin in walking and quality of life in post-stroke lower limb spasticity. Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 5;7(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0670-9. — View Citation

Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006 Jan;15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S17-24. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1044-x. Epub 2005 Dec 1. — View Citation

Henze T, Rieckmann P, Toyka KV; Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Consensus Group of the German Multiple Sclerosis Society. Symptomatic treatment of multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Consensus Group (MSTCG) of the German Multiple Sclerosis Society. Eur Neurol. 2006;56(2):78-105. doi: 10.1159/000095699. Epub 2006 Sep 8. — View Citation

Hughes C, Howard IM. Spasticity management in multiple sclerosis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2013 Nov;24(4):593-604. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2013.07.003. — View Citation

Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52. doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. — View Citation

Mai J, Pedersen E. Mode of action of dantrolene sodium in spasticity. Acta Neurol Scand. 1979 Jun;59(6):309-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1979.tb02941.x. — View Citation

Meseguer-Henarejos AB, Sanchez-Meca J, Lopez-Pina JA, Carles-Hernandez R. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the Modified Ashworth Scale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Aug;54(4):576-590. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04796-7. Epub 2017 Sep 13. — View Citation

Mills PB, Dossa F. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Management of Limb Spasticity: A Systematic Review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Apr;95(4):309-18. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000437. — View Citation

Mukherjee A, Chakravarty A. Spasticity mechanisms - for the clinician. Front Neurol. 2010 Dec 17;1:149. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2010.00149. eCollection 2010. — View Citation

Nielsen JB, Petersen NT, Crone C, Sinkjaer T. Stretch reflex regulation in healthy subjects and patients with spasticity. Neuromodulation. 2005 Jan;8(1):49-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1094-7159.2005.05220.x. — View Citation

Nordstrom B, Prellwitz M. A pilot study of children and parents experiences of the use of a new assistive device, the electro suit Mollii. Assist Technol. 2021 Sep 3;33(5):238-245. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2019.1579267. Epub 2019 Apr 4. — View Citation

Palmcrantz S, Pennati GV, Bergling H, Borg J. Feasibility and potential effects of using the electro-dress Mollii on spasticity and functioning in chronic stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Aug 10;17(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00740-z. — View Citation

Pandyan AD, Gregoric M, Barnes MP, Wood D, Van Wijck F, Burridge J, Hermens H, Johnson GR. Spasticity: clinical perceptions, neurological realities and meaningful measurement. Disabil Rehabil. 2005 Jan 7-21;27(1-2):2-6. doi: 10.1080/09638280400014576. No abstract available. — View Citation

Perrot A, Castanier C, Maillot P, Zitari H. French validation of the modified-falls efficacy scale (M-FES Fr). Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Sep-Oct;78:233-239. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2018.07.001. Epub 2018 Jul 4. — View Citation

Picelli A, Santamato A, Chemello E, Cinone N, Cisari C, Gandolfi M, Ranieri M, Smania N, Baricich A. Adjuvant treatments associated with botulinum toxin injection for managing spasticity: An overview of the literature. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019 Jul;62(4):291-296. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2018.08.004. Epub 2018 Sep 13. — View Citation

Pozzilli C. Overview of MS spasticity. Eur Neurol. 2014;71 Suppl 1:1-3. doi: 10.1159/000357739. Epub 2014 Jan 22. No abstract available. — View Citation

Pugliatti M, Rosati G, Carton H, Riise T, Drulovic J, Vecsei L, Milanov I. The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Eur J Neurol. 2006 Jul;13(7):700-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2006.01342.x. — View Citation

Rabchevsky AG, Kitzman PH. Latest approaches for the treatment of spasticity and autonomic dysreflexia in chronic spinal cord injury. Neurotherapeutics. 2011 Apr;8(2):274-82. doi: 10.1007/s13311-011-0025-5. — View Citation

Rammohan KW, Rosenberg JH, Lynn DJ, Blumenfeld AM, Pollak CP, Nagaraja HN. Efficacy and safety of modafinil (Provigil) for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a two centre phase 2 study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Feb;72(2):179-83. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.72.2.179. — View Citation

Sadowska M, Sarecka-Hujar B, Kopyta I. Cerebral Palsy: Current Opinions on Definition, Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Classification and Treatment Options. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020 Jun 12;16:1505-1518. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S235165. eCollection 2020. — View Citation

Sanger TD, Delgado MR, Gaebler-Spira D, Hallett M, Mink JW; Task Force on Childhood Motor Disorders. Classification and definition of disorders causing hypertonia in childhood. Pediatrics. 2003 Jan;111(1):e89-97. doi: 10.1542/peds.111.1.e89. — View Citation

Sidovar MF, Limone BL, Coleman CI. Mapping of Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12) to five-dimension EuroQol (EQ-5D) health outcomes: an independent validation in a randomized control cohort. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2016 Feb 3;7:13-8. doi: 10.2147/PROM.S96956. eCollection 2016. — View Citation

Stevenson T. Berg balance test. Phys Ther. 1996 Oct;76(10):1124, 1126. doi: 10.1093/ptj/76.10.1124. No abstract available. — View Citation

Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, Carroll WM, Coetzee T, Comi G, Correale J, Fazekas F, Filippi M, Freedman MS, Fujihara K, Galetta SL, Hartung HP, Kappos L, Lublin FD, Marrie RA, Miller AE, Miller DH, Montalban X, Mowry EM, Sorensen PS, Tintore M, Traboulsee AL, Trojano M, Uitdehaag BMJ, Vukusic S, Waubant E, Weinshenker BG, Reingold SC, Cohen JA. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Feb;17(2):162-173. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2. Epub 2017 Dec 21. — View Citation

Toomey E, Coote S. Between-rater reliability of the 6-minute walk test, berg balance scale, and handheld dynamometry in people with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2013 Spring;15(1):1-6. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2011-036. — View Citation

van Vliet R, Hoang P, Lord S, Gandevia S, Delbaere K. Falls efficacy scale-international: a cross-sectional validation in people with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 May;94(5):883-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.10.034. Epub 2012 Dec 13. — View Citation

Vivancos-Matellano F, Pascual-Pascual SI, Nardi-Vilardaga J, Miquel-Rodriguez F, de Miguel-Leon I, Martinez-Garre MC, Martinez-Caballero I, Lanzas-Melendo G, Garreta-Figuera R, Garcia-Ruiz PJ, Garcia-Bach M, Garcia-Aymerich V, Bori-Fortuny I, Aguilar-Barbera M; Spanish Group on Spasticity. [Guide to the comprehensive treatment of spasticity]. Rev Neurol. 2007 Sep 16-30;45(6):365-75. Spanish. — View Citation

* Note: There are 46 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Balance using Berg Balance Scale (BBS)	Balance will be assessed using the 14-item Berg Balance Scale (BBS) which has good psychometric properties in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis (concurrent validity, interrater reliability). The scale rates the balance using 56 points, with higher scores indicating better balance abilities. A score equal to or below 45 is commonly associated with risk of fall across the literature.	To be assessed at baseline.
Primary	Balance using Berg Balance Scale (BBS)	Balance will be assessed using the 14-item Berg Balance Scale (BBS) which has good psychometric properties in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis (concurrent validity, interrater reliability). The scale rates the balance using 56 points, with higher scores indicating better balance abilities. A score equal to or below 45 is commonly associated with risk of fall across the literature.	To be assessed at week 2.
Primary	Balance using Berg Balance Scale (BBS)	Balance will be assessed using the 14-item Berg Balance Scale (BBS) which has good psychometric properties in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis (concurrent validity, interrater reliability). The scale rates the balance using 56 points, with higher scores indicating better balance abilities. A score equal to or below 45 is commonly associated with risk of fall across the literature.	To be assessed at week 4.
Primary	Balance using Berg Balance Scale (BBS)	Balance will be assessed using the 14-item Berg Balance Scale (BBS) which has good psychometric properties in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis (concurrent validity, interrater reliability). The scale rates the balance using 56 points, with higher scores indicating better balance abilities. A score equal to or below 45 is commonly associated with risk of fall across the literature.	To be assessed at week 8.
Secondary	Visual Analog Score for spasticity.	Spasticity will be measured using a visual analog score from 0 to 10, 0 being no spasticity and 10 being the worst possible spasticity.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4 and week 8.
Secondary	Mobility.	Mobility will be evaluated by the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Each one of the 12 items will be assessed and assigned numbers from 1 to 5, 1 being not at all to 5 being extremely common, and the results will be added to a total of 60, so the higher the score, the better the mobility.	Two weeks after the second stimulation and 4 weeks later at the end of phase 2.
Secondary	Visual Analog Score for pain.	Pain will be measured using a visual analog score from 0 to 10, 0 being no pain, to 10 being the worst possible pain.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4 and week 8.
Secondary	Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life Questionnaire.	Quality of life will be measured using the 31-item Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life Questionnaire (MusiQoL). This questionnaire consists of 31 questions covering 9 domains including: 1- activity of daily living; 2- physical well-being; 3- relationships with friends; 4- symptoms; 5- relationships with family; 6- relationships with health care systems; 7- sentimental and sexual life; 8- coping; and 9- rejection. The questions are answered by ticking or checking the box that describes best of what patients would feel ranging from 0 to 4, 0 being not at all and 4 always or very much.; For MusiQoL, the score of each of the nine sub domains is calculated as the average for the set of questions making up the domain. An overall score is then calculated as the average of all the scores for each subdomain. Prior to computing the final overall score, each domain-specific score is linearly transformed to a 0-100 scale with 0 being the worst quality of life and 100 the best.	Two weeks after the second stimulation and 4 weeks later at the end of phase 2.
Secondary	Overall Clinical improvement.	Evaluation of overall Clinical improvement will be done using the 7-point Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Patient will fill a questionnaire that will address their clinical situation as follows: Very much improved.; Much improved.; Slightly improved.; No change.; Slightly worse.; Much worse.; Very much worse.; The score will range from 1-7, 1 being the best clinical outcome and 7 the worst.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, and week 8.
Secondary	Blinding Questionnaire.	Evaluation of patient's blinding to the type of stimulation in the crossover trial periods using a dedicated questionnaire. Patients will be asked whether they think they received the sham or active stimulation.; No scale will be used for this measure.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2.
Secondary	Visual Analog Score for fatigue.	Fatigue will be measured using a visual analog score from 0 to 10, 0 being no fatigue, to 10 being the worst possible fatigue.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4 and week 8.
Secondary	Muscle tone.	Muscle tone will be evaluated by the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Scores will range from 0 to 4, 0 being no increase or normal muscle tone, to 4 being rigidity in flexion or extension of muscles.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4 and week 8.
Secondary	Fall Risk	Fall risk will be assessed using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International scale. It is a 16-item scale, including a range of functional activities, that assesses the perceived risk of falling, using a score that will range from 1 to 4, 1 being not at all concerned to 4 being very concerned.; Items are summed to a total score that will range from a minimum of 16 (no concern about falling) to a maximum of 64 (severe concern about falling).	Two weeks after the second stimulation and 4 weeks later at the end of phase 2.
Secondary	Weight.	The patient weight will be measured and recorded in kilograms.	Baseline
Secondary	Height.	The patient height will be measured and recorded in centimeters.	Baseline
Secondary	Time Up and Go (TUG)	Patients have to stand up from a chair when they hear the verbal instruction "go", walk a distance of 3 meters, turn around, walk back to the chair and sit down. Timing starts with the verbal instruction "go' and stops when the patients return to the seated position. The score consists of the time taken to complete the test activity, measured in seconds.	Baseline, and through study completion
Secondary	Body Mass Index (BMI)	The weight and height will be combined to report BMI in kg/m^2. BMI of 35 kg/m^2 or more will be used as an exclusion criterion for the study.	Baseline