Skip to main content

Cholinesterase inhibitor to prevent falls in Parkinson’s disease (CHIEF-PD) trial: a phase 3 randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of rivastigmine to prevent falls in Parkinson’s disease



Falls are a common complication of Parkinson’s disease. There is a need for new therapeutic options to target this debilitating aspect of the disease. Cholinergic deficit has been shown to contribute to both gait and cognitive dysfunction seen in the condition. Potential benefits of using cholinesterase inhibitors were shown during a single centre phase 2 trial. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a cholinesterase inhibitor on fall rate in people with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.


This is a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial in 600 people with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1 to 4) with a history of a fall in the past year. Participants will be randomised to two groups, receiving either transdermal rivastigmine or identical placebo for 12 months. The primary outcome is the fall rate over 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures, collected at baseline and 12 months either face-to-face or via remote video/telephone assessments, include gait and balance measures, neuropsychiatric indices, Parkinson’s motor and non-motor symptoms, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.


This trial will establish whether cholinesterase inhibitor therapy is effective in preventing falls in Parkinson’s disease. If cost-effective, it will alter current management guidelines by offering a new therapeutic option in this high-risk population.

Trial registration

REC reference: 19/SW/0043.

EudraCT: 2018–003219-23.

ISCRTN: 41639809 (registered 16/04/2019). Identifier: NCT04226248

Protocol at time of publication

Version 7.0, 20th January 2021.

Peer Review reports


Falls are a common complication of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Prospective studies report that around 61% of people with PD have at least one fall in a year and 39% fall recurrently [1]. Falls are cited as one of the worst aspects of the disease [2], and a major determinant of quality of life, mobility and predictor of life expectancy [3, 4]. The reported median survival in patients who have recurrent falls is around 6 years [5].

Falls can cause injury [6], hospitalisation [7] and fear of further falling [8]. This in turn contributes to social isolation, restricted activity, loss of independence and carer burden [9]. Targeting falls has been identified as a top research priority by people living with Parkinson’s [10].

Current approaches to fall prevention are largely based on physical activity interventions [11]. Whilst exercise training can improve balance and gait and reduce the number of falls [1, 12], the cost-effectiveness and long-term benefit have not been established [13].

To compensate for gait slowing and instability, people with PD need to pay more attention to gait to avoid falling. Cognitive impairment is recognised as a risk factor for falls in Parkinson’s disease and the degree of cognitive impairment in PD is closely related to the incidence of falls [14,15,16]. Functional imaging has identified two key areas of cholinergic degeneration in the forebrain neocortex and mesencephalic locomotor area [17, 18] that are responsible for cognitive and gait changes, respectively. The loss of cholinergic function leads to cognitive and gait dysfunction. Amelioration of this underlying cholinergic deficiency with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEis) represents a promising strategy, targeting one of the underlying pathways in the aetiology of falls in PD.

Three small single-centre randomised controlled trials have shown that ChEis may reduce the incidence of falls [14, 19, 20]. Our previous phase 2 placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial suggested that 32-weeks of treatment with oral rivastigmine improved gait variability, walking speed and balance and resulted in a 45% (95% CI 62 to 19%) reduction in fall rate [20].


The CHolinesterase Inhibitors to Prevent Falls in Parkinson’s Disease (CHIEF-PD) trial will compare the fall rates of people with PD treated for 12 months with either transdermal rivastigmine or matched placebo.

Design and methods


CHIEF-PD is a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial using a parallel-arm design (see Fig. 1). In this trial, double blind refers to blinding of the patient, assessor and clinician as well as the research team. Protocol amendments will be brought to the attention of all relevant parties and updated on all relevant registries by the national coordinating team on behalf of the Sponsor.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Trial flow chart

Participants and setting

Participants from at least 26 centres in England, Scotland and Wales will be identified by specialist Parkinson’s clinicians. In addition, the trial will be advertised through the Parkinson’s-UK network, and other similar organisations.

Potential participants will be provided with an information booklet giving details of the trial. Eligibility will be assessed according to the criteria in Table 1 and will be confirmed by the site clinician. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants by the site trial team, and consent will be sought to link their trial data to routine hospital data. Following consent, participants will complete the baseline assessment either face-to-face or using remote video and/or telephone consultation.

Table 1 Participants will be eligible if they meet the following criteria

Randomisation and blinding

After eligibility has been confirmed and informed consent obtained, participants will be randomly allocated either the active (rivastigmine transdermal patch) or placebo treatment (transdermal patch with no active substance). The randomisation will be stratified by site, and minimised on age (18–64 years versus 65+ years), degree of cognitive impairment (quantified using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA score) (1–25 versus 26–30) and number of self-reported falls sustained in the past year (1–4 versus 5+). To avoid the next allocation being predictable, the random allocation ratio is 4:1 in favour of the group that minimises between-group differences on the stratification variables. The randomisation list will be generated by a web-based program which issues a blinded randomisation code that is matched to a transdermal patch treatment, thereby ensuring concealment of allocation (Sealed Envelope Ltd., London, UK). Assessors, clinicians and participants will be blinded to the treatment allocation throughout the trial. Apart from the trial statistician who reports to the Data Monitoring Committee, the research team will only see unblinded analyses of the trial results once assessments are complete and the database has been locked unless there is a clinical indication for unblinding to ensure patient safety in which case the treating physician will contact a central unblinding service.

Blinding will be assessed at the end of the trial using the Schultz questions [23] with the Bang Blinding Index [24]. Both patients and the raters making the monthly phone calls will be assessed.

Assessment procedures

Participants will undergo assessment at baseline and 12 months. Assessors will receive appropriate training for each assessment undertaken. Assessments may take place face-to-face, or by means of using communication technology such as video calls and/or telephone calls. More than one method of data collection may be used per participant, as determined by the site and participant preference.

Assessments at baseline and 12 months include quantification of fall risk, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognition, Parkinson’s severity, quality of life, comorbidities and medical and drug history. At baseline and at each titration, an ECG may be collected where the participant has a low heart rate (< 60 beats per minute) or where clinically relevant. The ECG will be collected in clinic, or remotely using the KardiaMobile 6 L device (AliveCor, US).

Quality of Life (QoL) and Cost Effectiveness (CE) will be assessed at months 1, 3, 6, 9 and month 12 of the trial. QoL and CE will be collected by postal questionnaire or over the telephone.

Records of adverse events will be collected throughout the trial via the monthly telephone calls and via spontaneous reporting. Table 2 illustrates the assessments performed at each visit.

Table 2 Schedule of assessments and measurement of outcomes


Participants will receive transdermal rivastigmine or identically matched placebo patches (Luye Pharma, Germany). The transdermal patches will be sent to the participant’s home by Royal Mail or courier following the baseline assessment. Participants will be instructed to apply one patch once a day (having removed the patch applied the previous day). The starting dose will be 4.6 mg/24 h. All participants will up-titrate the dose after 1 month (30 days) to 9.5 mg/24 h, and again at 6 months (180 days) to 13.3 mg/24 h. Participants will remain on 13.3 mg/24 h for the remaining 6 months of the trial. The total treatment duration will be 360 days. The titration schedule is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Titration schedule for transdermal patches of rivastigmine or placebo

If unacceptable side effects are experienced, participants will be instructed to down titrate or cease taking the medication according to clinical advice. These participants will continue to be followed-up for the remaining duration of the trial. Boxes containing the patches will be colour-coded according to the dose to assist with concordance and titration.


Diaries will be used to monitor concordance with the treatment regimen. Participants are required to place a colour-coded sticker in the diary each day which corresponds to the dose of the patch applied. A blue sticker will be available to indicate that no patch was worn in order to differentiate from missing data.

Primary outcome – fall rate

The primary outcome will be fall rate. Falls will be assessed in accordance with ProFaNE guidance [25] prospectively using self-reported written diaries and monthly phone calls, starting on the day the first transdermal patch is applied. A fall is defined as “unintentionally coming to rest on the ground or other lower surface without overwhelming external force or a major internal event” [25]. At the start of each month of follow-up, the participant will return the previous month’s written diary in pre-paid envelopes to the central research team. The calendar is in a grid format that allows recording of the number of falls and medication.

Secondary outcomes

The secondary outcomes, in so far as is feasible, utilise outcome measures that are endorsed by the Movement Disorder Society [26].

Parkinson’s disease symptoms

Symptoms and stage of Parkinson’s disease will be measured at baseline and 12 months using the Movement Disorder Society’s Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) [21]. The assessment will be made in the practically defined ‘on’ medication state, with participants taking their usual PD, medication and the total score and the score for each sub-scale (part 1–4) will be calculated. Where participants are seen remotely, MDS-UPDRS rigidity and postural stability with retropulsion testing, will not be undertaken.

Freezing of gait

Freezing of gait, defined as “an episodic inability to generate effective stepping in the absence of any known cause other than Parkinsonism or high level gait disorders” [27], will be assessed by the New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [28] which assesses the presence, impact and severity of freezing of gait episodes.

A walk designed to elicit freezing of gait will be assessed which consists of getting up from a chair, walking 5 m in a straight line, then turning 360 degrees in one direction, followed by a 540 degrees turn in the opposite direction, returning to the start position and sitting back down in a chair [29,30,31]. Freezing of gait will be qualified according to the type of freezing (festination versus tremulous legs versus akinesia), and the location in the walk where the episode occurred (start, straight walk, turning 360 degrees, turning 540 degrees, return walk, sitting down).

Frailty and physical performance

Frailty will be assessed by the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Frailty Instrument [32, 33]. The instrument consists of a questionnaire and measurement of maximum handgrip strength. A Jamar Handgrip or GripX dynamometer will be used to measure handgrip strength (GripX, formerly known as a Camry hand dynamometer).

Physical performance will be assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB, [34, 35]). The SPPB entails balance and gait speed tests. The first balance test asks the participant to stand unassisted whilst placing their feet first side-by- side, then in a semi-tandem position, and finally in a tandem stand, taking each stand for 10 s.

The second balance test asks the participant to stand up repeatedly from a seated position without using their arms. The SPPB gait speed test records the normal walking speed over 4 m in a straight line from a standing start.

The presence of orthostatic hypotension will be determined from blood pressure readings taken upon immediate, 1 min and 3 min of standing following 10 min of supine rest [36]. Where assessments are performed remotely, an Omron automated sphygmomanometer will be sent to the participant. Remote assessment will be supine to seated blood pressure to minimise risk.

Dysphagia will be measured by the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire (SDQ, [37]. The questionnaire uses 15 items to address the frequency of swallowing and dysphagia-related difficulties.

The ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O), [38, 39], will also be used to measure the broader impact on participant wellbeing. This includes five attributes: attachment, security, role, enjoyment and control.

Cognitive and psychometric outcomes

Cognitive ability will be assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA, [40]) or MoCA Test Blind whereby the visuospatial/executive and naming sections are omitted and each score is out of 22 which pro-rated to a score out of 30). Where physical disability such as significant tremor prevent the participant from completing the test, it will be adapted by e.g. omitting the visuospatial/executive section with the score out of 25 pro-rated to a score out of 30).

The ability to walk whilst performing a cognitive task, so-called ‘dual tasking’ will be assessed by first recording the participants’ normal walking speed over 10 m, and then asking the participant to repeat the timed walk whilst performing a word fluency test in which the participant is asked to name as many words as possible beginning with a randomly selected letter provided (from: M, H, R, P, D, C, L, A, W, B, or T) [41].

Depressive symptoms will be assessed using the 15-item short geriatric depression scale [42, 43]. Apathy is the most common non-motor symptom of PD [44]. Apathy will be measured using the Starkstein Apathy Scale [45] which consists of 14 self-rated items to address signs of apathy.

Fear of falling will be assessed using the Iconographical 10-item Fall Efficacy Scale (ICON-FES) [46]. This scale uses pictures to describe a range of activities and situations associated with daily living and quantifies the level of concern around the possibility of falling if the activity was undertaken.

Health-related quality of life

The EuroQoL 5D-5L health status questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L, [47]) will be administered at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using paper forms and/or phone calls. This questionnaire is a generic measure which assesses health related quality of life across 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression [9], with 5 levels of severity in each domain [47]. An index score anchored at 0 (equivalent to death) and 1 (best health) is derived using a UK value set and can be used to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs [48]), and allows for the comparison of quality of life between patient groups [49].


All cause and Parkinson’s disease-related mortality, ascertained as the underlying cause of death, occurring during the 12 months follow-up will be recorded using linked Office of National Statistics mortality data provided by NHS Digital.

Health care use

Falls-related NHS hospital visits, admissions and medication changes will be collected each month using patient diaries. At months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12, patients will complete a questionnaire asking about any community care use, informal care and home adaptations. For participants recruited in England, we will link to data held by NHS Digital on admissions, outpatient and emergency department visits in the 12 months after randomisation. Depending on recruitment numbers and expense, we may also link to routine hospital data in other nations of the UK.


Participants will inform the research team if they experience any adverse events (AEs) and be prompted to report these during the monthly phone calls. Serious adverse events will be defined as events that result in death, hospitalisation (except for a pre-existing condition(s) that has not worsened), significant disability or incapacity. AEs will be reported in accordance with the requirements set out by the European Commission Detailed Guidance CT-32011 including the terminology of adverse events and reactions and the assessment of seriousness, causality and expectedness of an event. A phone call will be received at 12.5 months (circa 2 weeks after the follow up visit) to determine whether any withdrawal effects have resulted from medication cessation.

Carer study

With the participant’s consent, the primary caregiver for each participant will be invited to take part in the CHIEF-PD carer study. For purposes of this trial a carer is defined as an individual who undertakes informal or formal care responsibility for the participant. The aim of the carer study is to ascertain whether cholinesterase inhibitor or placebo treatment has any effect on those caring for participants in the main CHIEF-PD study. The carer will be consented separately from the PD participant. Demographics (gender, age and ethnicity) and the Carer Experience Scale [50] will be collected at baseline and 12 months.

Sample size

A total of 480 participants with primary outcome data (240 per group) will allow a 25% difference in geometric mean fall rate between the two treatment groups to be detected with 90% power at the two-sided 5% significance level. We previously demonstrated this to be the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for a falls intervention in Parkinson’s using a Delphi approach [51]. In order to achieve this we have allowed for up to 20% loss to follow-up by setting a recruitment target of 600 participants.

For simplicity, a standard sample size calculation for continuous normally distributed measures was applied to the log transformed falls rates. We have taken into account that the primary analysis will adjust for the baseline measure of fall rates; to be conservative we have assumed that the correlation between baseline and follow-up log-transformed fall rate is 0.58, the lower bound for the 95% confidence interval of this correlation coefficient estimated from our phase II trial data. Log transforming the fall rates from our phase II trial indicates that the control group had a mean of 0.3 (standard deviation 1.2), i.e. a geometric mean of 1.35 falls per month [20]. A 25% reduction in fall rates with treatment corresponds to a − 0.29 reduction on the log scale and hence a mean in the intervention group of 0.012, corresponding to a geometric mean of 1.01 falls per month.

Statistical analysis

A detailed statistical analysis plan will be written and made publicly available ahead of unblinded data analysis. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle as far as possible, by including all participants providing outcome data in the treatment group to which they were randomly allocated.

The log-linear model described in the sample size section for the primary outcome analysis will be elaborated as a mixed Poisson regression model. The number of falls observed for each individual is the outcome variable for this model, with the follow-up period for each participant being incorporated separately, this approach allowing greater flexibility in accommodating variations in follow-up duration. Allocated group, study centre, age at baseline, MoCA cognitive score, and fall history at baseline will be included as covariates. Any individual variation in rate of falls during follow-up will be included in the model using a random effect term with appropriate distribution. The exponential of the coefficient of the allocated group covariate will estimate the treatment effect as a rate ratio. This will be presented with its 95% confidence interval and p-value.

This approach will be adapted, by the choice of a suitable regression model, for the analysis of secondary outcomes. Pre-specified subgroup analyses will be specified in the Statistical Analysis Plan.

For the evaluation of safety endpoints, descriptive statistics will describe adverse events for participants who applied at least one patch.

Economic analysis

Hospital, medications and primary and community care will be costed using national unit costs [52,53,54]. EQ-5D-5L response at each follow up time point will be converted to utilities using the NICE-recommended UK tariff at the time of analysis. Utility scores will be combined with mortality data to estimate QALYs, controlling for differences in baseline utility scores [55].

The economic analysis will take an intention-to-treat approach with imputation of missing data. In the primary economic analysis, we will estimate the cost-effectiveness of rivastigmine patches over 12 months from the perspective of NHS and social services (to aid comparison with NICE appraisals). Based on the NICE willingness-to-pay thresholds for a QALY we will use net benefit regression to estimate the incremental net benefit (and 95% confidence intervals) [56]. Uncertainty will be explored using cost effectiveness acceptability curves to estimate the probability that rivastigmine is cost-effective at a range of plausible cost-effectiveness thresholds. In secondary analyses we will estimate the cost per fall prevented and expand the perspective of the analysis to include informal care costs, carer quality of life and participant wellbeing. If the intervention has shown sufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness at 12 months, a simple extrapolation model, supplemented with plausible longer-term estimates of costs and effects, will be developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of transdermal rivastigmine over a patient’s lifetime.

A detailed health economic analysis plan will be developed and made publicly available prior to the analysis.

Data management

Data collected will be entered onto the CHIEF-PD electronic database and monitored weekly by the national coordinating team. Data will be coded using standard ontologies such as the ICD-10 and the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Range checks, missing data and data formats are checked automatically by the electronic database. The data management plan details data security, quality management and access.

Participants consent to sharing their data with the University of Bristol as the data custodian. The University of Bristol ensures that all data is stored confidentially allowing limited access to a subset of the trial team only. Data will remain in the custody of the University of Bristol after the trial in line with the national guidance for Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products.

Trial data will be published in peer-review publications in line with the NIHR HTA research output policy. Authorship eligibility will be assessed based on the basis NIHR journal’s authorship guidance. The outcome of the trial will also be disseminated to the participants and public at the end of the trial.

Trial oversight

The trial is overseen by the Trial Steering Group which meets on a biannual basis and comprises external consultees from a clinical, scientific and lay background. The Trial Management Group meets every 2–3 months to discuss the general conduct of the trial. A Data Monitoring Committee consisting of clinical and statistical experts convenes biannually to assess progress, data collection and patient safety. The Data Monitoring Committee along with a trial statistician are unblinded to the treatment allocation. In addition to the internal auditing, the trial will be monitored by the University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust on behalf of the Sponsor.

Patient and public involvement

The trial design and all patient-facing documents have been designed in collaboration with a Parkinson’s specific patient group. Ongoing collaboration with the group includes advice on trial procedures and dissemination of results.


Falls are common in Parkinson’s and have devastating consequences. A pharmacological strategy to reduce fall risk is a feasible and promising option [20]. This trial will determine whether transdermal treatment with the cholinesterase inhibitor, rivastigmine, can reduce falls in this high-risk group. Rivastigmine is a reversible non-competitive inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase which first received marketing authorisation in 1998 [57] and is currently licensed for use in Alzheimer’s dementia and Parkinson’s dementia [52]. The present trial therefore presents a potential repurposing of a relatively low-cost off-patent medicine. Transdermal patches were selected because of their advantageous side-effect profile, particularly in respect to gastrointestinal symptoms, compared to oral rivastigmine. We will ascertain the effect on motor and non-motor symptoms of PD, including cognition, gait, balance, dysphagia, depression and quality of life. The trial will enable both in-person and remote assessments to be undertaken using video calls and/or telephone calls.

The trial will further establish the cost-effectiveness of the treatment to reduce falls in Parkinson’s Disease, to evaluate whether this may offer an effective, acceptable and affordable intervention repurposing an already established drug.

The trial has been designed in collaboration with patients and uses a primary outcome which is relevant to patients and based on the minimum clinically important difference [51]. Patients have evaluated the methods of trial delivery including the timing of the visits and the acceptability of assessments which we anticipate will lead to high levels of retention and engagement. The primary outcome assessment is informed by best evidence for minimising recall bias and collecting falls data [25]. The secondary outcome measures have, as far as possible, been based on the recommendations from the Movement Disorders Society, to ensure validity in the Parkinson population.

The trial is based on the evidence provided in the phase 2 trial supporting a reduction in fall rate in people with Parkinson’s [20]. The trial will use the gold-standard for providing clinical evidence of efficacy, namely a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial with minimisation based on age, cognitive ability and number of falls. The inclusion of health economic measures will allow for the evaluation of the treatment for clinical use and recommendation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

The trial has been designed with broad and pragmatic eligibility criteria to allow the findings to be as generalisable as possible and reflect the population of people with Parkinson’s who are cared for in specialist clinics. If the results support the use of rivastigmine for falls in Parkinson’s, we will seek to ensure this therapeutic option is incorporated into future management guidelines to ameliorate falls as of the most devastating consequences of the disease.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable. The trial results will be published in a peer reviewed journal and made available at the end of the trial. The Investigators will have access to the final trial dataset.



Cholinesterase inhibitor to prevent falls in Parkinson’s disease


Research Ethics Committe


European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database


International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number


Parkinson’s Disease


Cholinesterase inhibitors


Movement Disorder Society


Montreal Cognitive Assessment




Quality of Life


Cost Effectiveness


Heart Rate


Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale


Short Physical Performance Battery


Geriatric Depression Scale


Starkstein Apathy Scale


New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire


Iconographical Falls Efficacy Scale


Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire


ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people


Carer Experience Scale


Investigational Medicinal Product


Prevention of Falls Network Europe


Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe


quality-adjusted life-year


National Health Service


United Kingdom


Adverse Events


minimum clinically important difference


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence


International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision


Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities


National Institute for Health Research


Health Technology Assessment


Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency


  1. Allen NE, Schwarzel AK, Canning CG. Recurrent falls in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Parkinsons Dis. 2013;2013:16. Article ID 906274.

  2. Schenkman M, Cutson TMT, Zhu CW, Whetten-Goldstein K. A longitudinal evaluation of patients’ perceptions of Parkinson’s disease. Gerontologist. 2002;42(6):790–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fasano A, Canning CG, Hausdorff JM, Lord S, Rochester L. Falls in Parkinson’s disease: a complex and evolving picture. Mov Disord. 2017;32(11):1524–36 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Crouse JJ, Phillips JR, Jahanshahi M, Moustafa AA. Postural instability and falls in Parkinson’s disease. Rev Neurosci. 2016;27(5) Available from:

  5. Wenning GK, Ebersbach G, Verny M, Chaudhuri KR, Jellinger K, McKee A, et al. Progression of falls in postmortem-confirmed parkinsonian disorders. Mov Disord. 1999;14(6):947–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Genever RW, Downes TW, Medcalf P. Fracture rates in Parkinson’s disease compared with age- and gender-matched controls: a retrospective cohort study. Age Ageing. 2005;34(1):21–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Temlett JA, Thompson PD. Reasons for admission to hospital for Parkinson’s disease. Intern Med J. 2006;36(8):524–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mak MKY, Pang MYC. Fear of falling is independently associated with recurrent falls in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a 1-year prospective study. J Neurol. 2009;256(10):1689–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schrag A, Hovris A, Morley D, Quinn N, Jahanshahi M. Caregiver-burden in parkinson’s disease is closely associated with psychiatric symptoms, falls, and disability. Park Relat Disord. 2006;12(1):35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Deane KHO, Flaherty H, Daley DJ, Pascoe R, Penhale B, Clarke CE, et al. Priority setting partnership to identify the top 10 research priorities for the management of Parkinson’s disease. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e006434.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lai C-H, Chen H-C, Liou T-H, Li W, Chen S-C. Exercise interventions for individuals with neurological disorders. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;1 Available from:

  12. Shen X, Wong-Yu ISK, Mak MKY. Effects of exercise on falls, balance, and gait ability in Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(6):512–27 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Winser SJ, Paul LF, Magnus LKL, Yan S, Shenug TP, Sing YM, et al. Economic evaluation of exercise-based fall prevention programs for people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. J Altern Complement Med. 2019;25(12):1225–37 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Li Z, Yu Z, Zhang J, Wang J, Sun C, Wang P, et al. Impact of Rivastigmine on cognitive dysfunction and falling in Parkinson’s disease patients. Eur Neurol. 2015;74(1–2):86–91 Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Camicioli R, Majumdar SR. Relationship between mild cognitive impairment and falls in older people with and without Parkinson’s disease: 1-year prospective cohort study. Gait Posture. 2010;32(1):87–91 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yarnall A, Rochester L, Burn DJ. The interplay of cholinergic function, attention, and falls in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2011;26(14):2496–503 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bohnen NI, Frey KA, Studenski S, Kotagal V, Koeppe RA, Constantine GM, et al. Extra-nigral pathological conditions are common in Parkinson’s disease with freezing of gait: an in vivo positron emission tomography study. Mov Disord. 2014;29(9):1118–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bohnen NI, Muller MLTM, Koeppe RA, Studenski SA, Kilbourn MA, Frey KA, et al. History of falls in Parkinson disease is associated with reduced cholinergic activity. Neurol Int. 2009;73(20):1670–6 Available from:

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chung KA, Lobb BM, Nutt JG, Horak FB. Effects of a central cholinesterase inhibitor on reducing falls in Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2010;75(14):1263–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Henderson EJ, Lord SR, Brodie MA, Gaunt DM, Lawrence AD, Close JCT, et al. Rivastigmine for gait stability in patients with Parkinson’s disease (ReSPonD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15(3):249–58 Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, Stebbins GT, Fahn S, Martinez-Martin P, et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord. 2008;23(15):2129–70 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Emre M, Aarsland D, Brown R, Burn DJ, Duyckaerts C, Mizuno Y, et al. Clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia associated with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2007;22(12):1689–707 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet (London, England). 2002;359(9307):696–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bang H, Ni L, Davis CE. Assessment of blinding in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(2):143–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lamb SE, Jørstad-Stein EC, Hauer K, Becker C. Development of a common outcome data set for fall injury prevention trials: the prevention of falls network Europe consensus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(9):1618–22 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society. MDS-Recommended Rating Scales [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 May 19]. Available from:

    Google Scholar 

  27. Giladi N, Nieuwboer A. Understanding and treating freezing of gait in parkinsonism, proposed working definition, and setting the stage. Mov Disord. 2008;23(S2):S423–5 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nieuwboer A, Rochester L, Herman T, Vandenberghe W, Emil GE, Thomaes T, et al. Reliability of the new freezing of gait questionnaire: agreement between patients with Parkinson’s disease and their carers. Gait Posture. 2009;30(4):459–63 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Henderson EJ, Lord SR, Close JC, Lawrence AD, Whone A, Ben-Shlomo Y. The ReSPonD trial - rivastigmine to stabilise gait in Parkinson’s disease a phase II, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial to evaluate the effect of rivastigmine on gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease who have fallen. BMC Neurol. 2013;13(1):188 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mancini M, Bloem BR, Horak FB, Lewis SJG, Nieuwboer A, Nonnekes J. Clinical and methodological challenges for assessing freezing of gait: future perspectives. Mov Disord. 2019;34(6):783–90 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Snijders AH, Haaxma CA, Hagen YJ, Munneke M, Bloem BR. Freezer or non-freezer: clinical assessment of freezing of gait. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2012;18(2):149–54 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Santos-Eggimann B, Cuenoud P, Spagnoli J, Junod J. Prevalence of frailty in middle-aged and older community-dwelling Europeans living in 10 countries. Journals Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64A(6):675–81 Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Romero-Ortuno R. The SHARE operationalized frailty phenotype: a comparison of two approaches. Eur Geriatr Med. 2013;4(4):255–9 Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994;49(2):M85–94 Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, Leveille SG, Markides KS, Ostir GV, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55(4):M221–31 Available from:

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Brignole M, Moya A, de Lange FJ, Deharo J-C, Elliott PM, Fanciulli A, et al. 2018 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(21):1883–948 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Manor Y, Giladi N, Cohen A, Fliss DM, Cohen JT. Validation of a swallowing disturbance questionnaire for detecting dysphagia in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2007;22(13):1917–21 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):1891–901 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Flynn TN, Chan P, Coast J, Peters TJ. Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) measure. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(5):317–29 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kelly VE, Eusterbrock AJ, Shumway-Cook A. A review of dual-task walking deficits in people with Parkinson’s disease: motor and cognitive contributions, mechanisms, and clinical implications. Parkinsons Dis. 2012;2012:1–14 Available from:

    Google Scholar 

  42. Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O, Huang V, Adey M, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1983;17(1):37–49 Available from:

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Yesavage JA, Sheikh JI. 9/geriatric depression scale (GDS). Clin Gerontol. 1986;5(1–2):165–73 Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. den Brok MGHE, van Dalen JW, van Gool WA, Moll van Charante EP, de Bie RMA, Richard E. Apathy in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord. 2015;30(6):759–69 Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Starkstein SE, Mayberg HS, Preziosi TJ, Andrezejewski P, Leiguarda R, Robinson RG. Reliability, validity, and clinical correlates of apathy in Parkinson’s disease. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1992;4(2):134–9 Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Delbaere K, Smith ST, Lord SR. Development and Initial Validation of the Iconographical Falls Efficacy Scale. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66A(6):674–80 Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36 Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Heal. 2012;15(5):708–15 Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Siderowf AD, Holloway RG, Stern MB. Cost-effectiveness analysis in Parkinson’s disease: determining the value of interventions. Mov Disord. 2000;15(3):439–45 Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Goranitis I, Coast J, Al-Janabi H. An investigation into the construct validity of the Carer experience scale (CES). Qual Life Res. 2014;23(6):1743–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Henderson EJ, Morgan GS, Amin J, Gaunt DM, Ben-Shlomo Y. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for a falls intervention in Parkinson’s: a delphi study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019;61:106–10 Available from:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Joint Formulary Committee. British national formulary [internet]. London; 2019. Available from:

  53. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS reference cost [internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Jan 22]. Available from:

    Google Scholar 

  54. Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit costs of health and social care 2019. Kent; 2019.

  55. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ [Internet]. 2004;14(5):487–96 Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. National Institute for Health can Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 [Internet]. 2013. Available from:

    Google Scholar 

  57. European Medicines Agency. Exelon. Medicines. 2017.

Download references


This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA 16/31/13). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

This study was designed and delivered in collaboration with the Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC), a UKCRC registered clinical trials unit which, as part of the Bristol Trials Centre, is in receipt of National Institute for Health Research CTU support funding.

We are grateful to Dr. Gordon Duncan, Dr. Veronica Lyell and Associate Professor Camille Carroll for their valuable comments on the draft protocol.


This study is sponsored by the University of Bristol who provide and oversight and governance for the running of the trial ( They were not involved in the preparation of this manuscript nor the decision to submit for publication.


This trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA 16/31/13). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Further support is received from the Clinical Research Network, Health and Care Research Wales and NHS Research Scotland.

Peer review was undertaken as part of the funding application.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors have read and approved the manuscript prior to submission. SN: supervision; project administration; resources; methodology; writing original draft. JT: supervision; project administration; methodology; writing – review & editing. AB: project administration; writing – review & editing. CM: funding acquisition; methodology; writing – review & editing. DMG: methodology; writing – review & editing. AW conceptualisation, funding acquisition, methodology; writing – review. DS: conceptualisation, funding acquisition; methodology; writing – review & editing. SE: methodology; resources; writing – review. WH conceptualisation, funding acquisition; methodology; writing – review & editing. YBS conceptualisation; funding acquisition; methodology; writing – review & editing. EJH: lead conceptualisation, lead supervision, project administration, methodology; writing – review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. J. Henderson.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for the trial was granted from the Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee on 17th of May 2019 with reference 19/SW/0043, the Health Regulatory Authority on 26th July 2019, and the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on 28th June 2019. All participants will be providing informed consent prior to participation. A copy of the consent form is provided in Additional file 1.

Consent for publication

Not applicable as study protocol.

Competing interests

EJH has received funding from the National Institute of Health Research, Parkinson’s UK, The Gatsby Foundation and The British Geriatrics Society and has received fees and / or travel support from Bial, Abbvie, Luye and Profile, Ever, and Kyowa Kirin.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Model Consent Form.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neumann, S., Taylor, J., Bamford, A. et al. Cholinesterase inhibitor to prevent falls in Parkinson’s disease (CHIEF-PD) trial: a phase 3 randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of rivastigmine to prevent falls in Parkinson’s disease. BMC Neurol 21, 422 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Accidental falls
  • Parkinson disease
  • Rivastigmine
  • Cholinesterase inhibitor
  • Randomized controlled trials