Physical activity and exercise outcomes in Huntington's disease (PACE-HD): results of a 12-month trial-within-cohort feasibility study of a physical activity intervention in people with Huntington's disease

Introduction While physical activity (PA) is recognized as important in Huntington's disease (HD) disease management, there has been no long-term evaluation undertaken. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a nested (within cohort) randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a physical therapist-led PA intervention. Methods Participants were recruited from six HD specialist centers participating in the Enroll-HD cohort study in Germany, Spain and U.S. Assessments were completed at baseline and 12 months and linked to Enroll-HD cohort data. Participants at three sites (cohort) received no contact between baseline and 12 month assessments. Participants at three additional sites (RCT) were randomized to PA intervention or control group. The intervention consisted of 18 sessions delivered over 12 months; control group participants received no intervention, however both groups completed monthly exercise/falls diaries and 6-month assessments. Results 274 participants were screened, 204 met inclusion criteria and 116 were enrolled (59 in cohort; 57 in RCT). Retention rates at 12-months were 84.7% (cohort) and 79.0% (RCT). Data completeness at baseline ranged from 42.3 to 100% and at 12-months 19.2–85.2%. In the RCT, there was 80.5% adherence, high intervention fidelity, and similar adverse events between groups. There were differences in fitness, walking endurance and self-reported PA at 12 months favoring the intervention group, with data completeness >60%. Participants in the cohort had motor and functional decline at rates comparable to previous studies. Conclusion Predefined progression criteria indicating feasibility were met. PACE-HD lays the groundwork for a future, fully-powered within cohort trial, but approaches to ensure data completeness must be considered

The UK stand together trial: protocol for a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of KiVa to reduce bullying in primary schools

Background Reducing bullying is a public health priority. KiVa, a school-based anti-bullying programme, is effective in reducing bullying in Finland and requires rigorous testing in other countries, including the UK. This trial aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of KiVa in reducing child reported bullying in UK schools compared to usual practice. The trial is currently on-going. Recruitment commenced in October 2019, however due to COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures was re-started in October 2020. Methods Design: Two-arm pragmatic multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded process and cost-effectiveness evaluation. Participants: 116 primary schools from four areas; North Wales, West Midlands, South East and South West England. Outcomes will be assessed at student level (ages 7–11 years; n = approximately 13,000 students). Intervention: KiVa is a whole school programme with universal actions that places a strong emphasis on changing bystander behaviour alongside indicated actions that provide consistent strategies for dealing with incidents of bullying. KiVa will be implemented over one academic year. Comparator: Usual practice. Primary outcome: Student-level bullying-victimisation assessed through self-report using the extensively used and validated Olweus Bully/Victim questionnaire at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes: student-level bullying-perpetration; student mental health and emotional well-being; student level of, and roles in, bullying; school related well-being; school attendance and academic attainment; and teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing with bullying, mental well-being, and burnout. Sample size: 116 schools (58 per arm) with an assumed ICC of 0.02 will provide 90% power to identify a relative reduction of 22% with a 5% significance level. Randomisation: recruited schools will be randomised on 1:1 basis stratified by Key-Stage 2 size and free school meal status. Process evaluation: assess implementation fidelity, identify influences on KiVa implementation, and examine intervention mechanisms. Economic evaluation: Self-reported victimisation, Child Health Utility 9D, Client Service Receipt Inventory, frequency of services used, and intervention costs. The health economic analysis will be conducted from a schools and societal perspective. Discussion This two-arm pragmatic multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial will evaluate the KiVa anti-bullying intervention to generate evidence of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and scalability of the programme in the UK. Our integrated process evaluation will assess implementation fidelity, identify influences on KiVa implementation across England and Wales and examine intervention mechanisms. The integrated health economic analysis will be conducted from a schools and societal perspective. Our trial will also provide evidence regarding the programme impact on inequalities by testing whether KiVa is effective across the socio-economic gradient

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

Examining the effect of exercise on the progression and severity of Huntington's disease using different covariate balancing methods and simulated data derived from the PACE-HD study

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for measuring the causal effects of treatments on clinical outcomes. However, randomized trials are not always feasible, and causal treatment effects must, therefore, often be inferred from observational data. Observational study designs do not allow conclusions about causal relationships to be drawn unless statistical techniques are used to account for the imbalance of confounders across groups while key assumptions hold. Propensity score (PS) and balance weighting are two useful techniques that aim to reduce the imbalances between treatment groups by weighting the groups to look alike on the observed confounders. There are many methods available to estimate PS and balancing weights. However, it is unclear a priori which will achieve the best trade-off between covariate balance and effective sample size. Weighted analyses are further complicated by small studies with limited sample sizes, which is common when studying rare diseases. To address these issues, we present a step-by- step guide to covariate balancing strategies, including how to evaluate overlap, obtain estimates of PS and balancing weights, check for covariate balance, and assess sensitivity to unobserved confounding. We compare the performance of a number of commonly used estimation methods on a synthetic data set based on the Physical Activity and Exercise Outcomes in Huntington Disease (PACE-HD) study, which explored whether enhanced physical activity affects the progression and severity of the disease. We provide general guidelines for the choice of method for estimation of PS and balancing weights, interpretation, and sensitivity analysis of results