n-of-1 randomized controlled trials: an opportunity for complementary and alternative medicine evaluation

RCTs and other clinical trial designs in Ayurveda: A review of challenges and opportunities

Currently, there is a paucity of clinical trial designs that comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of most complementary and alternative systems of medicine (CAMs) like Ayurveda. Several factors such as complex interventions, individualized therapy, etc., make designing Ayurveda clinical trials challenging. The prevalent randomized control trial (RCT) designs largely involve symptomatology/pathology-based recruitment and standardized interventions in carefully monitored trial environments. The present paper critically reviews the suitability of the dominant RCT model to Ayurveda and argues for newer, more sensitive trial models including modified RCTs and other clinical trial designs. It also explores the merits of a non-hierarchical approach to clinical evidence generation.

Modified Sijunzi decoction in the treatment of ulcerative colitis in the remission phase: study protocol for a series of N-of-1 double-blind, randomised controlled trials

Background

Modified Sijunzi decoction (SJZD) has been used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) in remission. However, more rigorous clinical trials are necessary to evaluate its effectiveness. Therefore, a series of single-case randomised controlled trials (N-of-1 trials) is proposed to compare the efficacy of modified SJZD with mesalazine for treating UC in remission.

Methods

This is a single-site, hospital-based, double-blind N-of-1 trial for 10 single subjects. Three cycles of N-of-1 trials are planned. There are two treatment periods in each cycle. Modified SJZD combined with mesalazine placebo or mesalazine combined with modified SJZD placebo will be randomised during each 8-week treatment period. There is no washout period in the study. Subjects will be selected by the researcher strictly in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Discussion

Paired t tests and mixed-effect models will be used to analyse the visual analogue scale (VAS) for clinical symptoms and the quality of life questionnaire responses. The findings will be interpreted with caution. We anticipate that the results will show that modified SJZD is effective for patients with UC in remission.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register, ID: ChiCTR1900024086. Registered on 24 June 2019.

Practice-Based Research in Complementary Medicine: Could N-of-1 Trials Become the New Gold Standard?

Complementary medicines and therapies are popular forms of healthcare with a long history of traditional use. Yet, despite increasing consumer demand, there is an ongoing exclusion of complementary medicines from mainstream healthcare systems. A lack of evidence is often cited as justification. Until recently, high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy was defined as findings from well-conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. In a recent and welcome move by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, however, the N-of-1 trial design has also been elevated to the highest level of evidence for treatment efficacy of an individual, placing this research design on par with the meta-analysis. N-of-1 trial designs are experimental research methods that can be implemented in clinical practice. They incorporate much of the rigor of group clinical trials, but are designed for individual patients. Individualizing treatment interventions and outcomes in research designs is consistent with the movement towards patient-centered care and aligns well with the principles of holism as practiced by naturopaths and many other complementary medicine practitioners. This paper explores whether rigorously designed and conducted N-of-1 trials could become a new ‘gold standard’ for demonstrating treatment efficacy for complementary medicine interventions in individual patients in clinical practice.

Clinical Usefulness of Bright White Light Therapy for Depressive Symptoms in Cancer Survivors: Results from a Series of Personalized (N-of-1) Trials

Purpose: Little is known about the effectiveness of bright white light therapy (BWL) for depressive symptoms in cancer survivors, many of whom prefer non-pharmacological treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of BWL versus dim red light therapy (DRL) on depressive symptoms within individual cancer survivors using personalized (N-of-1) trials. Methods: Cancer survivors with at least mild depressive symptoms were randomized to one of two treatment sequences consisting of counterbalanced crossover comparisons of three-weeks of lightbox-delivered BWL (intervention) or DRL (sham) for 30 min each morning across 12 weeks. A smartphone application guided cancer survivors through the treatment sequence and facilitated data collection. Cancer survivors tracked end-of-day depressive symptoms (primary outcome) and fatigue using visual analog scales. Within-patient effects of BWL were assessed using an autoregressive model with adjustment for linear time trends. Results: Eight of nine cancer survivors completed the 12-week protocol. Two survivors reported significantly (i.e., p < 0.05) lower depressive symptoms (−1.3 ± 0.5 and −1.30 ± 0.9 points on a 10-point scale), five reported no difference in depressive symptoms, and one reported higher depressive symptoms (+1.7 ± 0.6 points) with BWL versus DRL. Eight of nine cancer survivors recommended personalized trials of BWL to others. Conclusions: There were heterogeneous effects of three-week BWL on self-reported depressive symptoms among cancer survivors, with some finding a benefit but others finding no benefit or even harm. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Personalized trials can help cancer survivors learn if BWL is helpful for improving their depressive symptoms.

Whole Systems Research Methods in Health Care: A Scoping Review

Objectives: This scoping review evaluates two decades of methodological advances made by “whole systems research” (WSR) pioneers in the fields of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM). Rooted in critiques of the classical randomized controlled trial (RCT)'s suitability for evaluating holistic, complex TCIM interventions, WSR centralizes the principle of “model validity,” representing a “fit” between research design and therapeutic paradigm.

Design: In consultation with field experts, 41 clinical research exemplars were selected for review from across 13 TCIM disciplines, with the aim of mapping the range and methodological characteristics of WSR studies. Using an analytic charting approach, these studies' primary and secondary features are characterized with reference to three focal areas: research method, intervention design, and outcome assessment.

Results: The reviewed WSR exemplars investigate a wide range of multimodal and multicomponent TCIM interventions, typified by wellness-geared, multitarget, and multimorbid therapeutic aims. Most studies include a behavioral focus, at times in multidisciplinary or team-based contexts. Treatments are variously individualized, often with reference to “dual” (biomedical and paradigm-specific) diagnoses. Prospective and retrospective study designs substantially reflect established biomedical research methods. Pragmatic, randomized, open label comparative effectiveness designs with “usual care” comparators are most widely used, at times with factorial treatment arms. Only two studies adopt a double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT format. Some cohort-based controlled trials engage nonrandomized allocation strategies (e.g., matched controls, preference-based assignment, and minimization); other key designs include single-cohort pre–post studies, modified n-of-1 series, case series, case report, and ethnography. Mixed methods designs (i.e., qualitative research and economic evaluations) are evident in about one-third of exemplars. Primary and secondary outcomes are predominantly assessed, at multiple intervals, through patient-reported measures for symptom severity, quality of life/wellness, and/or treatment satisfaction; some studies concurrently evaluate objective outcomes.

Conclusions: Aligned with trends emphasizing “fit-for-purpose” research designs to study the “real-world” effectiveness of complex, personalized clinical interventions, WSR has emerged as a maturing scholarly discipline. The field is distinguished by its patient-centered salutogenic focus and engagement with nonbiomedical diagnostic and treatment frameworks. The rigorous pursuit of model validity may be further advanced by emphasizing complex analytic models, paradigm-specific outcome assessment, inter-rater reliability, and ethnographically informed designs. Policy makers and funders seeking to support best practices in TCIM research may refer to this review as a key resource.

Personalized (N-of-1) Trials for Depression: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Personalized (N-of-1) trials are single-patient, crossover-design trials that may be useful for personalizing the selection of depression treatments. We conducted a systematic review of published N-of-1 trials for depression to determine the feasibility and suitability of this methodology for personalizing depression care.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

Electronic databases were searched from database inception through October 2016. Studies were selected if they enrolled depressed patients, included a within-subject crossover design, and systematically assessed depressive symptoms during the N-of-1 trial.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Five eligible studies reporting on 47 depressed patients (range, 1-18 patients) were identified. Two studies were conducted among adults with treatment-resistant depression, 1 study among depressed inpatients, and 2 studies among patients from special populations (geriatric nursing home, human immunodeficiency virus-associated encephalopathy). All studies evaluated the effects of pharmacologic treatments (methylphenidate, D-amphetamine, ketamine, and sulpiride). Three studies compared an off-label treatment with placebo, 1 study compared 2 off-label treatments, and 1 study compared escalating doses of an off-label treatment with placebo. All 4 studies with more than 1 participant demonstrated heterogeneous treatment effects. All studies produced data that could personalize treatment selection for individual patients. No studies reported on recruitment challenges, compliance with self-tracking, or satisfaction with participation.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of N-of-1 trials for depression was demonstrated for a limited number of second-line pharmacologic treatments in treatment-resistant patients or in patients with comorbidities that would have excluded them from conventional randomized controlled trials. Additional research is needed to determine whether N-of-1 trials are suitable for improving the selection of depression treatments in clinical practice.

N-of-1 trials in the clinical care of patients in developing countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

N-of-1 trials have a potential role in promoting patient-centered medicine in developing countries. However, there is limited academic literature regarding the use of N-of-1 trials in the clinical care of patients in resource-poor settings.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent of use, purpose and treatment outcome of N-of-1 trials in developing countries.

METHOD

A systematic review of clinical N-of-1 trials was conducted between 1985 and September 2015 using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Grey literature databases and clinical trial registers were also searched. This review included randomized, multi-cycle, crossover within individual patient trials involving drug intervention. Quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers.

RESULT

Out of 131 N-of-1 trials identified, only 6 (4.5%) were conducted in developing countries. The major reason that N-of-1 trials were used was to provide evidence on feasibility, effectiveness and safety of therapies. A total of 72 participants were involved in these trials. Five of the studies were conducted in China and all evaluated Chinese traditional medicine. The remaining study was conducted in Brazil. The completion rate was 93%. More than half, 46 (69%) of subjects made medication changes consistent with trial results after trial completion. A number of threats to the validity of the included evidence limited the validity of the evidence. In particular, the estimated overall effect in four of the included studies could have been affected by the "carry over" of the previous treatment effect as no adequate pharmacokinetic evidence regarding traditional medicines was presented.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence and scope of N-of-1 trials in developing countries is low. A coordinated effort among government, clinicians, researchers and sponsor organizations is needed to increase their uptake and quality in developing countries.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015026841 .

Research methods in complementary and alternative medicine: an integrative review

The scientific literature presents a modest amount of evidence in the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). On the other hand, in practice, relevant results are common. The debates among CAM practitioners about the quality and execution of scientific research are important. Therefore, the aim of this review is to gather, synthesize and describe the differentiated methodological models that encompass the complexity of therapeutic interventions. The process of bringing evidence-based medicine into clinical practice in CAM is essential for the growth and strengthening of complementary medicines worldwide.

Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of IBD and colorectal cancer: a review

OPINION STATEMENT

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are a group of chronic inflammatory gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, mainly represented by Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Although the etiology of IBD is not fully understood, there is substantial evidence that immunologic, genetic, and environmental factors are the main contributors in IBD pathogenesis. Conventional therapies for IBD include anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs, such as 5-aminosalicylic acid, corticosteroids, antibiotics, and biologicals, such as anti-TNFα antibodies. However, because of low efficacy and high risk of side effects, there is a clear need for the development of novel and efficient pharmacologic strategies in IBD treatment. Among various complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches, which are used for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is one of the most developed and diversified. TCM encompasses methods and therapies that emerged over centuries and is based mostly on ethnic wisdom and observations transmitted from generation to generation. In the recent years, the efficacy of TCM as treatment of IBD has been extensively characterized in preclinical and clinical studies, which resulted in a significant number of research reports. Moreover, the popularity of TCM among patients with IBD has rapidly increased not only in Asia, but also in the Western hemisphere.

Key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in complementary and alternative medicine--a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

In the last 2 decades there has been a large increase in publications on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, CAM research methodology was heterogeneous and often of low quality. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate scientific publications with regards to general issues, concepts and strategies. We also looked at research priorities and methods employed to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological research of CAM in the past to identify the basis for consensus-based research strategies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for papers published between 1990 and 2010 in 7 electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, PsychArticles, PsycInfo, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) on December 16 and 17, 2010. In addition, experts were asked to nominate relevant papers. Inclusion criteria were publications dealing with research methodology, priorities or complexities in the scientific evaluation of CAM. All references were assessed in a multistage process to identify relevant papers.

RESULTS

From the 3,279 references derived from the search and 98 references contributed by CAM experts, 170 papers fulfilled the criteria and were included in the analysis. The following key issues were identified: difficulties in past CAM research (e.g., randomisation, blinding), utility of quantitative and qualitative research methods in CAM, priority setting in CAM research and specific issues regarding various CAM modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Most authors vote for the use of commonly accepted research methods to evaluate CAM. There was broad consensus that a mixed methods approach is the most suitable for gathering conclusive knowledge about CAM.

A comparison of four methods for the analysis of N-of-1 trials

OBJECTIVE

To provide a practical guidance for the analysis of N-of-1 trials by comparing four commonly used models.

METHODS

The four models, paired t-test, mixed effects model of difference, mixed effects model and meta-analysis of summary data were compared using a simulation study. The assumed 3-cycles and 4-cycles N-of-1 trials were set with sample sizes of 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 respectively under normally distributed assumption. The data were generated based on variance-covariance matrix under the assumption of (i) compound symmetry structure or first-order autoregressive structure, and (ii) no carryover effect or 20% carryover effect. Type I error, power, bias (mean error), and mean square error (MSE) of effect differences between two groups were used to evaluate the performance of the four models.

RESULTS

The results from the 3-cycles and 4-cycles N-of-1 trials were comparable with respect to type I error, power, bias and MSE. Paired t-test yielded type I error near to the nominal level, higher power, comparable bias and small MSE, whether there was carryover effect or not. Compared with paired t-test, mixed effects model produced similar size of type I error, smaller bias, but lower power and bigger MSE. Mixed effects model of difference and meta-analysis of summary data yielded type I error far from the nominal level, low power, and large bias and MSE irrespective of the presence or absence of carryover effect.

CONCLUSION

We recommended paired t-test to be used for normally distributed data of N-of-1 trials because of its optimal statistical performance. In the presence of carryover effects, mixed effects model could be used as an alternative.

Evidence-based practice of Chinese medicine in physical rehabilitation science

Chinese medicine is among other traditional medical systems practiced either as a coadjutant intervention to Greek medicine or as the unique therapeutic intervention for illness prevention, treatment or rehabilitation. The complete spectrum from that traditional system includes acupuncture and moxibustion, herbal and food therapy, massage therapy (tuina), physical exercises (taijiquan), and breathing exercises (qigong). In this article, it is presented several randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the application of all therapeutic modalities from Chinese medicine in the physical rehabilitation scenario. The discussed studies encompasses both "positive" and "negative" results of Chinese medicine intervention for disabilities due to illnesses of the nervous, musculoskeletal or cardiovascular systems. Additionally, the importance of the personalized approach for Chinese medicine and rehabilitation is emphasized together with the need for reproducible methods for pattern differentiation and intervention selection. Chinese medicine resources are recognized as promising methods for therapeutic rehabilitation and can be incorporated into the rehabilitation science. The wide variety of therapeutic resources explains why Chinese medicine is currently a multidisciplinary practice for health protection and promotion, early diagnosis and treatment as well as rehabilitation with roles in the public health care system.

The Peter Brojde lung cancer centre: a model of integrative practice

BACKGROUND

The generally poor prognosis and poor quality of life for lung cancer patients have highlighted the need for a conceptual model of integrative practice. Although the philosophy of integrative oncology is well described, conceptual models that could guide the implementation and scientific evaluation of integrative practice are lacking.

PURPOSE

The present paper describes a conceptual model of integrative practice in which the philosophical underpinnings derive mainly from integrative oncology, with important contributions from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and the discipline of nursing. The conceptual model is described in terms of its purpose, values, concepts, dynamic components, scientific evidence, clinical approach, and theoretical underpinnings. The model argues that these components delineate the initial scope and orientation of integrative practice. They serve as the needed context for evaluating and interpreting the effectiveness of clinical interventions in enhancing patient outcomes in lung cancer at various phases of the illness. Furthermore, the development of relevant and effective integrative clinical interventions requires new research methods based on whole-systems research. An initial focus would be the identification of interrelationship patterns among variables that influence clinical interventions and their targeted patient outcomes.

A Novel N of 1 Trial Design and Proposed Utility in Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research

An N of 1 trial is a multiple crossover study in a single participant. N of 1trials can combine the benefits of individualized patient practice and evidence-based medicine and are amenable to complementary and alternative medicine practice and research. This article will review the basic structure of N of 1trials, discuss how they are commonly used, and review their limitations and statistical considerations. The authors also propose a novel use of the N of 1 trial in the form of mixed-methodology add-on N of 1 trials targeted to a parent trial’s responders. This design can help uncover evidence of subgroup effects in small trials, address issues surrounding the small study effect, and explore the role of interparticipant variability and random chance in the parent trial.

How do we evaluate outcome in an integrative oncology program?

Integrative oncology focuses on the roles of complementary therapies to increase the effectiveness of conventional cancer treatment programs by improving defined outcomes such as symptom control, quality of life, rehabilitation, and prevention of recurrence. Implementation of integrative oncology programs should be based on the best evidence and must continually be evaluated to ensure quality, optimization of techniques, collection of new data, and cost-effectiveness. Useful domains that can be evaluated include symptom control, adherence to treatment protocols, quality of life, individual outcomes, prevention, rehabilitation, potential advantages of a whole-systems health approach, and economics of health services.

Effectiveness of CAM therapy: understanding the evidence

By definition, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) attempts to diagnose and treat illnesses in unconventional ways. CAM has been classified as: (1) alternative medical systems (eg, traditional Chinese medicine [including acupuncture], naturopathic medicine, ayurvedic medicine, and homeopathy); (2) biologic-based therapies (eg, herbal, special dietary, and individual biologic treatments); (3) energy therapies (eg, Reiki, therapeutic touch, magnet therapy, Qi Gong, and intercessory prayer); (4) manipulative and body-based systems (eg, chiropractic, osteopathy, and massage); and (5) mind-body interventions (eg, meditation, biofeedback, hypnotherapy, and the relaxation response). This review focuses on how to assess the effectiveness of CAM therapies for chronic musculoskeletal pains, emphasizing the role of specific and nonspecific analgesic mechanisms, including placebo.

American Academy of Pediatrics. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in pediatrics

The American Academy of Pediatrics is dedicated to optimizing the well-being of children and advancing family-centered health care. Related to these goals, the American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes the increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine in children and, as a result, the need to provide information and support for pediatricians. From 2000 to 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics convened and charged the Task Force on Complementary and Alternative Medicine to address issues related to the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children and to develop resources to educate physicians, patients, and families. One of these resources is this report describing complementary and alternative medicine services, current levels of utilization and financial expenditures, and associated legal and ethical considerations. The subject of complementary and alternative medicine is large and diverse, and consequently, an in-depth discussion of each method of complementary and alternative medicine is beyond the scope of this report. Instead, this report will define terms; describe epidemiology; outline common types of complementary and alternative medicine therapies; review medicolegal, ethical, and research implications; review education and training for complementary and alternative medicine providers; provide resources for learning more about complementary and alternative medicine; and suggest communication strategies to use when discussing complementary and alternative medicine with patients and families.

Emerging paradigms in medicine: implications for the future of psychiatry

The causes of mental illness remain obscure in spite of rapid progress in the neurosciences. This is due in part to the fact that contemporary biomedical psychiatry rests on philosophically and scientifically ambiguous ground. In Western medicine paradigms, theories from physics, chemistry, and biology form the basis of an explanatory model of illness, including mental illness. Symptoms are conceptualized as subjective descriptions of effects caused by factors characterized in empirical terms. Conventional biomedicine asserts that all causes of illness, and by extension, mechanisms of action underlying legitimate treatment approaches, rest on biological processes that can be described in the reductionist language of Western science. However, in contemporary Western psychiatry, there is no single adequate explanatory model of the causes of mental illness. What remains are competing psychodynamic, genetic, endocrinologic, and neurobiological models of symptom formation reflecting disparate ideological positions and diverse clinical training backgrounds of mental health professionals. There is no unifying theory in psychiatry because no single explanatory model has been confirmed as more valid than any other. I hypothesize in this article that the synthesis of ideas and clinical approaches from Western biomedicine and non-Western systems of medicine based on understandings of human consciousness, the neurosciences, complexity theory, and quantum field theory, will lead to rapid evolution of conventional Western biomedical psychiatry toward truly integrative mental healthcare. The result will be the emergence of an integrative mental healthcare model that will more adequately address the disparate causes, conditions, and meanings of symptoms combining multimodal approaches from Western biomedicine and non-Western systems of medicine.

Towards a Model for Planning Clinical Research in Oriental Medicine

BACKGROUND

Oriental medicine (OM) is widely practiced internationally and embraces many schools of thought. Western medical research is currently struggling to understand OM in purely biomedical terms, with limited success.

OBJECTIVE

We propose a research model for applying Western research methodologies to OM in a way that respects its theory and modes of clinical application. This would facilitate systematic investigations of OM's specific assumptions and make explicit the way OM studies could build on each other.

METHODS

To develop this model, the authors extracted key assumptions of Western research methodology germane to clinical research, put them in a developmentally logical sequence, and related them to the diagnostic and clinical processes of OM.

RESULTS

The model categorizes studies into seven levels. Foundation studies (level one) establish the conceptual basis for OM research by establishing the internal validity of its basic "truth statements." Measurement studies (level two) determine how OM identifies and measures diagnostic indicators, treatment outcomes, and other basic aspects of health. Group studies (level three) describe populations in ways meaningful to their health. Pattern/diagnosis studies (level four) identify and define OM patterns of disharmony. Treatment technique studies (level five) describe particular techniques or principles of treatment, their indications, and rationale. Treatment effectiveness studies (level six) evaluate techniques of treatment, often by comparing the results of one technique with those of another in similar patients. Systematic reviews (level seven) draw together studies on the same topic to see if conclusions are thereby strengthened.

CONCLUSION

The levels can be used to establish relationships between already published studies, determine if sufficient background research has been done to enable a study idea to be carried out, and generate ideas for future studies.

Conducting research in individual patients: lessons learnt from two series of N-of-1 trials

Background

Double-blind randomised N-of-1 trials (N-of-1 trials) may help with decisions concerning treatment when there is doubt regarding the effectiveness and suitability of medication for individual patients. The patient is his or her own control, and receives the experimental and the control treatment during several periods of time in random order. Reports of N-of-1 trials are still relatively scarce, and the research methodology is not as firmly established as that of RCTs. Recently, we have conducted two series of N-of-1 trials in general practice. Before, during, and after data-collection, difficulties regarding outcome assessment, analysis of the results, the withdrawal of patients, and the follow-up had to be dealt with. These difficulties are described and our solutions are discussed.

Discussion

To prevent or anticipate difficulties in N-of-1 trials, we argue that that it is important to individualise the outcome measures, and to carefully consider the objective, type of randomisation and the analysis. It is recommended to use the same dosages and dosage forms that the patient used before the trial, to start the trial with a run-in period, to formulate both general and individualised decision rules regarding the efficacy of treatment, to adjust treatment policies immediately after the trial, and to provide adequate instructions and support if treatment is adjusted.

Summary

Because of the specific characteristics of N-of-1 trials it is difficult to formulate general 'how to do it' guidelines for designing N-of-1 trials. However, when the design of each N-of-1 trial is tailored to the specific characteristics of each individual patient and the underlying medical problem, most difficulties in N-of-1 trials can be prevented or overcome. In this way, N-of-1 trials may be of help when deciding on drug treatment for individual patients.

The efficacy of goshuyuto, a typical Kampo (Japanese herbal medicine) formula, in preventing episodes of headache

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy of goshuyuto, a typical Kampo formula, in preventing episodes of headache in chronic headache patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Because the treatment target of a Kampo formula is decided on a basis different to that of Western medicine, we first selected patients belonging to a subgroup that responded to goshuyuto before conducting the usual randomized controlled trial. During stage 1, the subjects were instructed to orally consume goshuyuto for 4 weeks. Only those subjects judged as responders advanced to stage 2, during which a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted. The subjects consumed the same dose of goshuyuto or placebo for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 91 subjects enrolled in stage 1, 60 were judged as responders. Of these, 53 advanced to stage 2; 28 were assigned to the goshuyuto group and 25 to the placebo group. The decrease in the number of days on which headache episodes occurred was greater in the goshuyuto group than in the placebo group (2.6 +/- 3.7 vs. 0.3 +/- 4.0 days, p = 0.034); no difference was observed with regard to the reduction in the frequency of consuming reliever medications (2.2 +/- 4.0 vs. 1.4 +/- 8.2, p = 0.672). Improvement in the associated symptoms was observed in more than 50% of the subjects in the goshuyuto group.

CONCLUSION

Goshuyuto is useful in preventing episodes of headache in chronic headache patients. Responder-limited design is a candidate for evaluating Kampo medicine.

N-of-1 trials: innovative methods to evaluate complementary and alternative medicines in pediatric cancer

N-of-1 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are randomized trials conducted within individuals and may be an attractive methodology for conducting studies of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in pediatric oncology. These trials may be used to determine the efficacy of an intervention in an individual, or multiple N-of-1 RCTs may be combined to estimate a population effect. There are many potential advantages to the use of N-of-1 RCTs with CAM in pediatric cancer. These advantages include the ability to determine whether CAM is effective in a specific child. In addition, the N-of-1 RCT allows parents and children to voice preferences about treatment options and allows them to directly participate in balancing adverse events and therapeutic benefits. Also, in estimation of population effects, combining multiple N-of-1 RCTs tends to require smaller sample sizes than do traditional parallel-group designs. However, there also may be several challenges to the conduct of such a trial. The use of N-of-1 RCTs may be very beneficial in evaluating CAM therapies in pediatric cancer. However, careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of such a design should be undertaken prior to initiating an N-of-1 RCT.

Review article: complementary and alternative therapies for inflammatory bowel disease

Complementary and alternative medicine includes a wide range of practices and therapies outside the realms of conventional western medicine. Despite a lack of scientific data in the form of controlled trials for either efficacy or safety of complementary and alternative medicine, use by patients with inflammatory bowel disease, particularly of herbal therapies, is widespread and increasing. There is limited controlled evidence indicating efficacy of traditional Chinese medicines, aloe vera gel, wheat grass juice, Boswellia serrata and bovine colostrum enemas in ulcerative colitis. Encouraging results have also been reported in small studies of acupuncture for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Contrary to popular belief, natural therapies are not necessarily safe: fatal hepatic and irreversible renal failure have occurred with some preparations and interactions with conventional drugs are potentially dangerous. There is a need for further controlled clinical trials of the potential efficacy of complementary and alternative approaches in inflammatory bowel disease, together with enhanced legislation to maximize their quality and safety.

Complementary and alternative medicine whole systems research: Beyond identification of inadequacies of the RCT

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) often consists of whole systems of care (such as naturopathic medicine or traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)) that combine a wide range of modalities to provide individualised treatment. The complexity of these interventions and their potential synergistic effect requires innovative evaluative approaches. Model validity, which encompasses the need for research to adequately address the unique healing theory and therapeutic context of the intervention, is central to whole systems research (WSR). Classical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are limited in their ability to address this need. Therefore, we propose a mixed methods approach that includes a range of relevant and holistic outcome measures. As the individual components of most whole systems are inseparable, complementary and synergistic, WSR must not focus only on the "active" ingredients of a system. An emerging WSR framework must be non-hierarchical, cyclical, flexible and adaptive, as knowledge creation is continuous, evolutionary and necessitates a continuous interplay between research methods and "phases" of knowledge. Finally, WSR must hold qualitative and quantitative research methods in equal esteem to realize their unique research contribution. Whole systems are complex and therefore no one method can adequately capture the meaning, process and outcomes of these interventions.