Evaluating the effect of a digital health intervention to enhance physical activity in people with chronic kidney disease (Kidney BEAM): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in the UK

BACKGROUND: Remote digital health interventions to enhance physical activity provide a potential solution to improve the sedentary behaviour, physical inactivity, and poor health-related quality of life that are typical of chronic conditions, particularly for people with chronic kidney disease. However, there is a need for high-quality evidence to support implementation in clinical practice. The Kidney BEAM trial evaluated the clinical effect of a 12-week physical activity digital health intervention on health-related quality of life. METHODS: In a single-blind, randomised controlled trial conducted at 11 centres in the UK, adult participants (aged ≥18 years) with chronic kidney disease were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the Kidney BEAM physical activity digital health intervention or a waiting list control group. Randomisation was performed with a web-based system, in randomly permuted blocks of six. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the difference in the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form version 1.3 Mental Component Summary (KDQoL-SF1.3 MCS) between baseline and 12 weeks. The trial was powered to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 3 arbitrary units (AU) in KDQoL-SF1.3 MCS. Outcomes were analysed by an intention-to-treat approach using an analysis of covariance model, with baseline measures and age as covariates. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04872933. FINDINGS: Between May 6, 2021, and Oct 30, 2022, 1102 individuals were assessed for eligibility, of whom 340 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the Kidney BEAM intervention group (n=173) or the waiting list control group (n=167). 268 participants completed the trial (112 in the Kidney BEAM group and 156 in the waiting list control group). All 340 randomly assigned participants were included in the intention-to treat population. At 12 weeks, there was a significant improvement in KDQoL-SF.13 MCS score in the Kidney BEAM group (from mean 44·6 AU [SD 10·8] at baseline to 47·0 AU [10·6] at 12 weeks) compared with the waiting list control group (from 46·1 AU [10·5] to 45·0 AU [10·1]; between-group difference of 3·1 AU [95% CI 1·8-4·4]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The Kidney BEAM physical activity platform is an efficacious digital health intervention to improve mental health-related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. These findings could facilitate the incorporation of remote digital health interventions into clinical practice and offer a potential intervention worthy of investigation in other chronic conditions. FUNDING: Kidney Research UK

Evaluating the effect of a digital health intervention to enhance physical activity in people with chronic kidney disease (Kidney BEAM): A multi-centre, randomised controlled trial

BackgroundRemote digital health interventions to enhance physical activity provide a potential solution to improve the sedentary behaviour, physical inactivity, and poor health-related quality of life that are typical of chronic conditions, particularly for people with chronic kidney disease. However, there is a need for high-quality evidence to support implementation in clinical practice. The Kidney BEAM trial evaluated the clinical effect of a 12-week physical activity digital health intervention on health-related quality of life.MethodsIn a single-blind, randomised controlled trial conducted at 11 centres in the UK, adult participants (aged ≥18 years) with chronic kidney disease were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the Kidney BEAM physical activity digital health intervention or a waiting list control group. Randomisation was performed with a web-based system, in randomly permuted blocks of six. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the difference in the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form version 1.3 Mental Component Summary (KDQoL-SF1.3 MCS) between baseline and 12 weeks. The trial was powered to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 3 arbitrary units (AU) in KDQoL-SF1.3 MCS. Outcomes were analysed by an intention-to-treat approach using an analysis of covariance model, with baseline measures and age as covariates. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04872933.FindingsBetween May 6, 2021, and Oct 30, 2022, 1102 individuals were assessed for eligibility, of whom 340 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the Kidney BEAM intervention group (n=173) or the waiting list control group (n=167). 268 participants completed the trial (112 in the Kidney BEAM group and 156 in the waiting list control group). All 340 randomly assigned participants were included in the intention-to treat population. At 12 weeks, there was a significant improvement in KDQoL-SF.13 MCS score in the Kidney BEAM group (from mean 44·6 AU [SD 10·8] at baseline to 47·0 AU [10·6] at 12 weeks) compared with the waiting list control group (from 46·1 AU [10·5] to 45·0 AU [10·1]; between-group difference of 3·1 AU [95% CI 1·8–4·4]; p<0·0001).InterpretationThe Kidney BEAM physical activity platform is an efficacious digital health intervention to improve mental health-related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. These findings could facilitate the incorporation of remote digital health interventions into clinical practice and offer a potential intervention worthy of investigation in other chronic conditions

The development and internal pilot trial of a digital physical activity and emotional well-being intervention (Kidney BEAM) for people with chronic kidney disease

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2023-09-15, registration 2023-12-20, accepted 2023-12-20, epub 2024-01-06, online 2024-01-06, collection 2024-12Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge the work of the various research teams at each site and thank all the participants involved in this research. This research was prospectively registered NCT04872933.Publication status: PublishedPelagia Koufaki - ORCID: 0000-0002-1406-3729 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1406-3729This trial assessed the feasibility and acceptability of Kidney BEAM, a physical activity and emotional well-being self-management digital health intervention (DHI) for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), which offers live and on-demand physical activity sessions, educational blogs and videos, and peer support. In this mixed-methods, multicentre randomised waitlist-controlled internal pilot, adults with established CKD were recruited from five NHS hospitals and randomised 1:1 to Kidney BEAM or waitlist control. Feasibility outcomes were based upon a priori progression criteria. Acceptability was primarily explored via individual semi-structured interviews (n = 15). Of 763 individuals screened, n = 519 (68%, 95% CI 65 to 71%) were eligible. Of those eligible, n = 303 (58%, 95% CI 54–63%) did not respond to an invitation to participate by the end of the pilot period. Of the 216 responders, 50 (23%, 95% CI 18–29%) consented. Of the 42 randomised, n = 22 (10 (45%) male; 49 ± 16 years; 14 (64%) White British) were allocated to Kidney BEAM and n = 20 (12 (55%) male; 56 ± 11 years; 15 (68%) White British) to the waitlist control group. Overall, n = 15 (30%, 95% CI 18–45%) withdrew during the pilot phase. Participants completed a median of 14 (IQR 5–21) sessions. At baseline, 90–100% of outcome data (patient reported outcome measures and a remotely conducted physical function test) were completed and 62–83% completed at 12 weeks follow-up. Interview data revealed that remote trial procedures were acceptable. Participants’ reported that Kidney BEAM increased their opportunity and motivation to be physically active, however, lack of time remained an ongoing barrier to engagement with the DHI. An randomised controlled trial of Kidney BEAM is feasible and acceptable, with adaptations to increase recruitment, retention and engagement. Trial registration NCT04872933. Date of first registration 05/05/2021.This trial was funded by a grant from Kidney Research UK. Funding for Kidney Beam is currently supported by the four major UK charities: Kidney Research UK, Kidney Care UK, National Kidney Federation and the UK Kidney Association. HMLY is funded by the NIHR [NIHR302926]. Part of this research was carried out at the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in the design, collection, analysis, interpretation of the data, or writing of this protocol.pubpu

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367.FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications.InterpretationSurgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional outcome after acute stroke (AFFINITY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Trials of fluoxetine for recovery after stroke report conflicting results. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) trial aimed to show if daily oral fluoxetine for 6 months after stroke improves functional outcome in an ethnically diverse population. Methods AFFINITY was a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (four), and Vietnam (ten). Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of acute stroke in the previous 2–15 days, brain imaging consistent with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, and a persisting neurological deficit that produced a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 1 or more. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm to once daily, oral fluoxetine 20 mg capsules or matching placebo for 6 months. Patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured by the mRS, at 6 months. The primary analysis was an ordinal logistic regression of the mRS at 6 months, adjusted for minimisation variables. Primary and safety analyses were done according to the patient's treatment allocation. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000774921. Findings Between Jan 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1280 patients were recruited in Australia (n=532), New Zealand (n=42), and Vietnam (n=706), of whom 642 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 638 were randomly assigned to placebo. Mean duration of trial treatment was 167 days (SD 48·1). At 6 months, mRS data were available in 624 (97%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 632 (99%) in the placebo group. The distribution of mRS categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·76–1·15; p=0·53). Compared with patients in the placebo group, patients in the fluoxetine group had more falls (20 [3%] vs seven [1%]; p=0·018), bone fractures (19 [3%] vs six [1%]; p=0·014), and epileptic seizures (ten [2%] vs two [<1%]; p=0·038) at 6 months. Interpretation Oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and epileptic seizures. These results do not support the use of fluoxetine to improve functional outcome after stroke

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p&lt;0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p&lt;0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p&lt;0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP &gt;5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification