Preliminary experiences with a single-patient trials service in general practice

Nutrition-Related N-of-1 Studies Warrant Further Research to Provide Evidence for Dietitians to Practice Personalized (Precision) Medical Nutrition Therapy: A Systematic Review

N-of-1 trials provide a higher level of evidence than randomized controlled trials for determining which treatment works best for an individual, and the design readily accommodates testing of personalized nutrition. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize nutrition-related studies using an N-of-1 design. The inclusion criterion was adult participants; the intervention/exposure was any nutrient, food, beverage, or dietary pattern; the comparators were baseline values, a control condition untreated or placebo, or an alternate treatment, alongside any outcomes such as changes in diet, body weight, biochemical outcomes, symptoms, quality of life, or a disease outcome resulting from differences in nutritional conditions. The information sources used were Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and PsychInfo. The quality of study reporting was assessed using the Consort Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) statement or the STrengthening Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines, as appropriate. From 211 articles screened, a total of 7 studies were included and were conducted in 5 countries with a total of 83 participants. The conditions studied included prediabetes, diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, weight management, and investigation of the effect of diet in healthy people. The quality of reporting was mostly adequate, and dietary assessment quality varied from poor to good. The evidence base is small, but served to illustrate the main characteristics of N-of-1 study designs and considerations for moving research forward in the era of personalized medical nutrition therapy.

Examining negative affect, sleep duration, and using food to cope as predictors of weight in midlife women

Midlife women are vulnerable to developing obesity. Behavioral and psychosocial factors including sleep duration, stress eating, and negative emotionality are risk factors. However, little is known about the complex daily interplay between sleep, eating, emotion, and weight among midlife women. The current study examined how daily sleep, using food to cope, and negative emotionality are associated with weight using a daily process research design. An archival analysis was performed using the Midlife in the United States-II study (MIDUS II). The sample consisted of 489 midlife women (40-64 years of age). Variables included ecological momentary assessments of daily sleep duration, using food to cope, and negative affect (means and intraindividual variability) and a standardized measurement of BMI. Sleep duration variability was a significant predictor of BMI, albeit the model only accounted for .8% of the variance in BMI (b = .019, p < .05). In the final adjusted model, sleep duration variability, using food to cope, age, and physical activity were all significant predictors of BMI F(5, 559) = 21.503, p < .001, R² = .161, ⨂R² = .024, p = .001. Variability in negative affect, mean sleep duration or negative affect and the interactions between sleep duration (mean, variability) and negative affect (mean, variability) were not significant. Greater variability in sleep duration and greater use of food to cope predicted higher BMI in this sample across age and physical activity levels. Results highlight that daily health and psychosocial factors play an important role in weight.

Status of N-of-1 Trials in Chronic Pain Management: A Narrative Review

N-of-1 trials are randomized controlled clinical trials conducted exclusively on a single patient. The ultimate aim of N-of-1 trials is to optimize a strategy in a particular individual. Chronic pain is a common but refractory clinical problem. Its diverse etiologies and broad variations among patients often lead to the requirement of individualizing medicine. Thus, chronic pain represents a classical condition for N-of-1 clinical trials. Studies have indicated that N-of-1 benefits patients with chronic pain, multiple comorbidities, and uncertain variations during therapies; however, this approach it is not yet adopted as the first choice in pain clinics. To dissect the current status of N-of-1 in chronic pain management, as well as the limitations for its implementation, we herein studied all N-of-1 studies related to chronic pain by searching three major databases (PubMed, ClinicalTrial.gov, Cochrane Library) for publications between 1985 and 2020. Of 35 eligibility papers, 19 were selected for analysis. Results confirmed that N-of-1 trials have solved the refractory cases including osteoarthritis, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and neuropathic pain; however, none of the trials dealt with cancer pain. Longer time and more efforts are needed from investigators when carrying out N-of-1 trials, which inevitably result in implementation difficulties. Of note, all recruited trials were conducted in developed countries. As mobile devices have been introduced and protocols improve, renewed interest in the implementation of N-of-1 trials will occur. Collectively, a previously underestimated conflict between "precision medicine" and "poor implementation" has put N-of-1 in a challenging position for chronic pain management.

Sleep Duration as an Indirect Link Between Sleep Timing and Weight in Midlife Women

Objective: Midlife women are at risk of obesity. Poor sleep outcomes including inadequate sleep duration and variable sleep timing are risk factors for obesity, but there is a lack of understanding on how specific sleep constructs uniquely or concurrently are associated with weight outcomes in this population. This study examined the unique association of sleep timing with weight outcomes and how sleep timing works in conjunction with sleep duration to influence weight in midlife women. Materials and Methods: An archival analysis was performed using the Midlife in the United States-II study (MIDUS-II). The sample consisted of 132 midlife women (40-64; M = 52.9, standard deviation = 6.94). Sleep timing (mean sleep time, variability) and duration were measured through actigraphy and daily sleep diaries. Weight was assessed using body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference measures. Results: PROCESS mediation and moderation analyses assessed direct, indirect, and moderating pathways. Sleep duration emerged as an indirect link between sleep timing (mean and variability) and weight outcomes (95% CI = 0.0001-0.0123; 95% CI = 0.0007-0.0378; 95% CI = 0.0079-0.1006). Sleep timing (95% CI = -0.0144 to 0.0076; 95% CI = -0.0358 to 0.0219) and sleep time variability (95% CI = -0.0124 to 0.0438; 95% CI = -0.0533 to 0.0939) were not directly associated with BMI or waist circumference. Also, sleep timing and duration did not interact to influence weight outcomes. Conclusions: Sleep duration, rather than sleep timing, is associated with weight outcomes, and is an indirect link in the sleep timing and weight outcomes association. Future work is needed to further disentangle the impact of sleep on weight in midlife women using prospective studies, implementing daily assessments of sleep behavior.

Making the switch: From case studies to N-of-1 trials

Case studies can generate hypothesis based on unique clinical patient encounters and provide guidance among populations with limited numbers of patients. However, case studies are not blinded and are susceptible to a variety of factors that can influence study outcomes. One potential solution to minimize this bias is to use an N-of-1 trial. N-of-1 trials are a double-blinded randomized crossover trial within a limited number of patients, often as small as a single patient. These trials borrow many concepts from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which in turn increases the validity of findings compared with a case report. Situations best suited for an N-of-1 trial include chronic disease states and therapies with quick onset and offset, such as in patients with seizures. There are many opportunities to use N-of-1 trials among patients with epilepsy, and providers are encouraged to explore and employ these methods. The purpose of this article was to describe N-of-1 trials along with considerations for conducting, publishing, and evaluating N-of-1 trials.

•

The use of N-of-1 trials can minimize bias found in traditional case studies.

•

N-of-1 trials are a double-blinded randomized crossover trial within a single patient.

•

There are methods and reporting standards to guide the development and interpretation of N-of-1 trials.

Espresso Coffee for the Treatment of Somnolence in Parkinson's Disease: Results of n-of-1 Trials

There is limited information available concerning the treatment of daytime somnolence associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD); the most frequently applied therapeutic strategies include decreasing the dose of dopamine agonists or adding potential wake-promoting agents. There is recent data from a placebo-controlled trial concluding on a non-significant trend in favor of caffeine. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of espresso-coffee in the treatment of daytime somnolence in PD. To evaluate the efficacy of espresso-coffee in the treatment of daytime somnolence in PD, we have conducted multiple single-patient (n-of-1) clinical trials comparing regular espresso coffee to decaffeinated coffee in PD patients presenting moderate to severe daytime somnolence defined as an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score >9. Each single-patient (n-of-1) trial included a sequence of three crossovers (two treatment periods separated by two days of washout). Four patients were included in the studies and three completed the three pairs of treatment periods. In two of the four patients, espresso coffee was considered beneficial. This study concludes that multiple single patient trials are feasible in PD and suggests that espresso-coffee may have a beneficial effect on daytime somnolence in some patients. These results cannot be generalized beyond the patients included in these trials.

WITHDRAWN: Botulinum toxin for subacute/chronic neck pain

Withdrawn due to non‐compliance with The Cochrane Collaboration’s Commercial Sponsorship Policy

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

WITHDRAWN: Medicinal and injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders

Withdrawn due to non‐compliance with The Cochrane Collaboration’s Commercial Sponsorship Policy

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

GCC women: causes and processes of midlife weight gain

Perimenopausal obesity is a particular problem in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. This study examined the culturally specific views of perimenopausal GCC women, and the causes and processes of midlife weight gain using a qualitative descriptive design with semistructured interviewing and content analysis. Constructs derived from the health belief model and Kleiman's explanatory model were used to identify and sort themes into conceptual categories. The findings of this study suggest that weight-management program plans targeting perimenopausal GCC women should take into consideration the multiple levels of factors and cultural influences on their behavior.

Predictors of weight variation and weight gain in peri- and post-menopausal women

This research encompasses a community sample of 497 women in peri- and post-menopause and uses structural equation modelling to investigate the structural models of weight variation and weight gain. Variables such as body shape concerns, depression, stress and life events are explored. Weight gain (from pre-menopause to current menopausal status) was observed in 69 per cent of participants. The predictors of weight gain were lower education level ( β = −.146, p = .017), less or no physical exercise ( β = −.111, p = .021), having a recent psychological problem ( β = .191, p < .001), transition from peri- to post-menopause ( β = .147, p = .013) and more frequent body shape concerns ( β = .313, p < .001). Prevention of weight gain in pre-menopause is recommended; risk groups should be targeted considering the predictors of weight increase.

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.

Botulinum toxin for subacute/chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND

Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. Botulinum toxin (BoNT) intramuscular injections are often used with the intention of treating neck pain.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the literature on the treatment effectiveness of BoNT for neck pain, disability, global perceived effect and quality of life in adults with neck pain with or without associated cervicogenic headache, but excluding cervical radiculopathy and whiplash associated disorder.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, AMED, Index to Chiropractic Literature, CINAHL, LILACS, and EMBASE from their origin to 20 September 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which BoNT injections were used to treat subacute or chronic neck pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A minimum of two review authors independently selected articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria. In the absence of clinical heterogeneity, we calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) and relative risks, and performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations were assigned an overall grade for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials (503 participants). Only BoNT type A (BoNT-A) was used in these studies.High quality evidence suggests there was little or no difference in pain between BoNT-A and saline injections at four weeks (five trials; 252 participants; SMD pooled -0.07 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.36 to 0.21)) and six months for chronic neck pain. Very low quality evidence indicated little or no difference in pain between BoNT-A combined with physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics and saline injection with physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics for patients with chronic neck pain at four weeks (two trials; 95 participants; SMD pooled 0.09 (95% CI -0.55 to 0.73)) and six months (one trial; 24 participants; SMD -0.56 (95% CI -1.39 to 0.27)). Very low quality evidence from one trial (32 participants) showed little or no difference between BoNT-A and placebo at four weeks (SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.86)) and six months (SMD 0.00 (95% CI -0.69 to 0.69)) for chronic cervicogenic headache. Very low quality evidence from one trial (31 participants), showed a difference in global perceived effect favouring BoNT-A in chronic neck pain at four weeks (SMD -1.12 (95% CI: -1.89 to -0.36)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence fails to confirm either a clinically important or a statistically significant benefit of BoNT-A injection for chronic neck pain associated with or without associated cervicogenic headache. Likewise, there was no benefit seen for disability and quality of life at four week and six months.

Marketing therapeutic precision: Potential facilitators and barriers to adoption of n-of-1 trials

BACKGROUND

N-of-1 trials may enhance therapeutic precision by predicting the long-term effectiveness of medical treatment on an individual basis. However, the n-of-1 approach has gained little traction with the clinical community. To learn why, we interviewed physicians and patients, focusing on the perceived benefits and drawbacks of n-of-1 trials and factors influencing these perceptions.

METHODS

We convened focus groups and individual interviews with 21 physicians and 32 patients, most with chronic conditions. The study employed qualitative interview methods to explore and analyze subjects' views of n-of-1 trials. Analysis involved an iterative process of review and data abstraction after specific topics for coding, definitions of codes, and strategies for abstraction had been established. Previously defined domains and topics were then expanded and enriched, with key themes emerging during the analytic process.

RESULTS

Physicians and patients remarked on 4 salient aspects of n-of-1 trials: scientific, relational, clinical, and logistical. Neither physicians nor patients were highly familiar with the n-of-1 concept, but both groups readily grasped the fundamental logic and appreciated the potential scientific benefits. Physicians saw n-of-1 trials as promoting an exciting but possibly threatening paradigm shift in the doctor-patient relationship, while patients viewed the relational consequences as modest. The best n-of-1 candidates were felt to be proactive, cognitively intact, reliable, motivated, and engaged in a trusting physician-patient relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers interested in expanding the appeal of n-of-1 trials will need to address these concerns by carefully explaining the approach, emphasizing the benefits, and minimizing the effort required of doctors and patients.

What ever happened to N-of-1 trials? Insiders' perspectives and a look to the future

CONTEXT

When feasible, randomized, blinded single-patient (n-of-1) trials are uniquely capable of establishing the best treatment in an individual patient. Despite early enthusiasm, by the turn of the twenty-first century, few academic centers were conducting n-of-1 trials on a regular basis.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the literature and conducted in-depth telephone interviews with leaders in the n-of-1 trial movement.

FINDINGS

N-of-1 trials can improve care by increasing therapeutic precision. However, they have not been widely adopted, in part because physicians do not sufficiently value the reduction in uncertainty they yield weighed against the inconvenience they impose. Limited evidence suggests that patients may be receptive to n-of-1 trials once they understand the benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

N-of-1 trials offer a unique opportunity to individualize clinical care and enrich clinical research. While ongoing changes in drug discovery, manufacture, and marketing may ultimately spur pharmaceutical makers and health care payers to support n-of-1 trials, at present the most promising resuscitation strategy is stripping n-of-1 trials to their essentials and marketing them directly to patients. In order to optimize statistical inference from these trials, empirical Bayes methods can be used to combine individual patient data with aggregate data from comparable patients.

Medicinal and injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists regarding medicinal therapies and injections.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of medication and injections on primary outcomes (e.g. pain) for adults with mechanical neck disorders and whiplash.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MANTIS, CINAHL from their start to May 2006; MEDLINE and EMBASE to December 2006. We scrutinised reference lists for other trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with adults with neck disorders, with or without associated headache or radicular findings. We considered medicinal and injection therapies, regardless of route of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected articles, abstracted data and assessed methodological quality. When clinical heterogeneity was absent, we combined studies using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 36 trials that examined the effects of oral NSAIDs, psychotropic agents, steroid injections, and anaesthetic agents. Trials had a mean of 3.1 on the Jadad Scale for methodological quality; 70% were high quality. For acute whiplash, administering intravenous methylprednisolone within eight hours of injury reduced pain at one week (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.24), and sick leave but not pain at six months compared to placebo in one trial. For chronic neck disorders at short-term follow-up, intramuscular injection of lidocaine was superior to placebo (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.80); NNT 3, treatment advantage 45% and dry needling, but similar to ultrasound in one trial each. In chronic neck disorders with radicular findings, epidural methylprednisolone and lidocaine reduced neck pain and improved function more than when given by intramuscular route at one-year follow-up, in one trial. In subacute and chronic neck disorders, muscle relaxants, analgesics and NSAIDs had limited evidence and unclear benefits. In participants with chronic neck disorders with or without radicular findings or headache, there was moderate evidence from five high quality trials that Botulinum toxin A intramuscular injections had similar effects to saline in improving pain (pooled SMD: -0.39, 95%CI -1.25 to 0.47), disability or global perceived effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The major limitations are the lack of replication of the findings and sufficiently large trials. There is moderate evidence for the benefit of intravenous methylprednisolone given within eight hours of acute whiplash, from a single trial. Lidocaine injection into myofascial trigger points appears effective in two trials. There is moderate evidence that Botulinum toxin A is not superior to saline injection for chronic MND. Muscle relaxants, analgesics and NSAIDs had limited evidence and unclear benefits.

"Me's me and you's you": Exploring patients' perspectives of single patient (n-of-1) trials in the UK

BACKGROUND

The n-of-1 trial offers a more methodologically sound approach to determining optimum treatment for an individual patient than "trials of therapy" routinely conducted in clinical practice. However, such methodology is rarely used in the UK. This pilot study explores the acceptability of n-of-1 trials to patients in the UK.

METHODS

Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee were recruited to their own 12-week n-of-1 trial comparing either two knee supports or an NSAID with simple analgesic. Patients were interviewed at the start and completion of their trial to explore reasons for participation, understanding of the trial design and experiences of participation. Daily diaries were completed to inform future treatment.

RESULTS

Nine patients participated (5 supports, 4 drugs). Patients were keen to participate, believing that the trial may lead to personal gains such as improved symptom control and quality of life. However, recruitment to the pharmacological comparison was more difficult since this could also entail risk. All patients were eager to complete the trial, even when difficulties were encountered. Completing the daily diary provided some patients with greater insight into their condition, which allowed them to improve their self-management. The n-of-1 trial design was viewed as a 'logical' design offering an efficient method of reaching a personalised treatment decision tailored to suit individual needs and preferences.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that patients perceive the n-of-1 trial as an acceptable approach to the individualisation of treatment. In addition, further benefits over and above any gained from the interventions can be derived from involvement in such a study.

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 role of paracetamol in chronic pain: an evidence-based approach

Chronic pain is a significant public health burden. Several international guidelines and influential reviews recommend the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) as the first-line analgesic of choice for the management of chronic pain. These recommendations are based largely on the balance of evidence, which favorably demonstrates the efficacy, safety, and low cost of paracetamol relative to other analgesics.A decade ago, March et al suggested that because of the dangers associated with conventional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory (NSAID) use, particularly in the elderly, they should ideally not be used without an individual n-of-1 trial to show that they are more effective than paracetamol. Today, the results of our investigations into the individualization of pain management options continue to support this suggestion. Based on the data available to date, it still seems prudent to use NSAIDs only in those patients in whom there is good evidence of improved efficacy over paracetamol. In patients with chronic pain, paracetamol can play an important role as an NSAID sparer, with resultant benefits in terms of reduced adverse effects and cost savings.

Do individualized medication effectiveness tests (n-of-1 trials) change clinical decisions about which drugs to use for osteoarthritis and chronic pain?

To assess the impact of individualized medication effectiveness tests (IMETs, or n-of-1 trials), on patients' short-term decision making about medications for chronic pain. Survey evaluation of patients undergoing a double-blind, crossover comparison of drug versus placebo, drug versus drug, or drug versus drug combination using paracetamol and ibuprofen in 3 pairs of treatment periods, randomized within pairs. General practice patients (supplemented by a few from 2 tertiary pain clinics) with either chronic pain (> or =3 months), or osteoarthritis (with pain for > or =1 month) severe enough to warrant consideration of long-term nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) use but for whom there was doubt about the efficacy of NSAID or alternative. Pain and stiffness in sites nominated by the patient, global pain, use of escape analgesia, and side effects. Of 116 IMETs started, 71 were completed. Drug management changed for 46 of 71 (65%). The most common change was to add paracetamol or to substitute the NSAID or COX-2 inhibitor with paracetamol (25 of 71 patients and 54% of changes). Of the 37 who were using NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors before the IMET, 12 (32%) ceased these afterward. Paracetamol was as effective or more effective than ibuprofen in 37 (68%) of the 54 IMETs directly comparing these drugs. IMETs provide useful information for clinical decisions. Paracetamol continues to be useful for patients with chronic pain whose optimal drug choice is in doubt. Our results provide a new (individual) perspective on the well-known recommendation for paracetamol as first-line treatment for chronic pain and demonstrate that it is feasible to provide IMETs nationally by mail and telephone.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents versus acetaminophen in the treatment of osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of recommended dosages of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors, versus acetaminophen in the treatment of symptomatic hip and knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Medline and EMBASE searches were performed for original clinical trials directly comparing NSAIDs with acetaminophen. A standardized form was used to abstract all data, including outcome measures of pain at rest, walking pain, and dropouts due to adverse effects. Inverse-variance-weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for pain measures were determined for treatment groups. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated for withdrawals due to adverse events. Results were compared using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Seven articles met inclusion criteria with sufficient data for analysis. Participants had a mean age of 61.1 years and 71.1% were women. Test of heterogeneity was not significant for either rest (P = 0.73) or walking (P = 0.76) pain. The scores for overall pain at rest (WMD -6.33 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS], 95% CI -9.24, -3.41) and walking pain (WMD -5.76 mm on a 100-mm VAS, 95% CI -8.99, -2.52) favored the NSAID-treated group. Although NSAIDs elevated the risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, the difference was not statistically significant (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93, 2.27).

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs are statistically superior in reducing rest and walking pain compared with acetaminophen for symptomatic osteoarthritis. Safety, measured by discontinuation due to adverse events, was not statistically different between NSAID- and acetaminophen-treated groups.

Valerian does not appear to reduce symptoms for patients with chronic insomnia in general practice using a series of randomised n-of-1 trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of valerian for the management of chronic insomnia in general practice.

DESIGN

Valerian versus placebo in a series of n-of-1 trials, in Queensland, Australia.

RESULTS

Of 42 enrolled patients, 24 (57%) had sufficient data for inclusion into the n-of-1 analysis. Response to valerian was fair for 23 (96%) participants evaluating their "energy level in the previous day" but poor or modest for all 24 (100%) participants' response to "total sleep time" and for 23 (96%) participants' response to "number of night awakenings" and "morning refreshment". As a group, the proportion of treatment successes ranged from 0.35 (95% CI 0.23, 0.47) to 0.55 (95% CI 0.43, 0.67) for the six elicited outcome sleep variables. There was no significant difference in the number (P=0.06), distribution (P=1.00) or severity (P=0.46) of side effects between valerian and placebo treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Valerian was not shown to be appreciably better than placebo in promoting sleep or sleep-related factors for any individual patient or for all patients as a group.

Switching from NSAIDs to paracetamol: a series of n of 1 trials for individual patients with osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate for individual patients who have been using NSAIDs regularly, whether paracetamol is as effective as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of pain and disability related to osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

METHODS

A series of n of 1 trials were conducted in general practices in Amsterdam and the surrounding area. Each patient was his or her own control and received five pairs of treatments comprising two weeks of an NSAID and two weeks of paracetamol. For each pair, the order of treatments was randomised. Outcome measures were severity of individual main complaints, intensity of pain, satisfaction with drugs, function test, and side effects.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were selected. Six patients did not complete the study. For five patients completing the study little or no difference was found between NSAIDs and paracetamol, for one patient the results favoured the NSAID, and for one patient there was no association between outcome and type of drug. It was recommended that six patients changed to paracetamol; the others continued with NSAIDs. Three months after the end of the study, four of the six patients for whom paracetamol had been recommended were taking NSAIDs for practical reasons or perceived lack of efficacy.

CONCLUSION

The results of the n of 1 trials varied across patients. n of 1 trials can be used to investigate which treatment is best for any specific person, thus avoiding unnecessary prolonged treatment with NSAIDs. However, practical reasons may cause patients to switch from NSAIDs to paracetamol or not.

"Only a GP?": is the solution to the general practice crisis intellectual?

General practice is suffering a crisis of status, as shown by financial, power and intellectual markers. This is serious as a strong general-practice workforce is important to deliver cost-effective, high-quality healthcare. We argue that strengthening the intellectual aspects of general practice (particularly critical thinking) is essential. Most strategies to achieve this centre on research, with many initiatives in Australia and overseas to enhance research by general practitioners; there is still insufficient clinical research in general practice. Other ways to improve critical thinking include promoting use of evidence-based medicine, provided it is not implemented only via "cook-book" guidelines. Other innovations are desperately needed.

Analgesia and public health: what are the challenges?

Pain is a common problem, but unfortunately, it is one that is still notoriously neglected and poorly managed. Although it usually is not rated highly in public health statistics, it forms a substantial proportion of the everyday work of health care professionals, and thus remains a major public health burden. The first challenge in successful pain management is overcoming the ineffective learning processes most health care practitioners use to update their procedures and therapies in response to the latest research. The ready availability of over-the-counter analgesics means that much of the pain in the community is now self-medicated, and it is vital that they also have ready access to the latest evidence-based recommendations. Second, better methods are needed to tailor treatment to individual patients because differences in comorbidities, drug metabolism, or the nature and severity of disease processes lead to different responses from individual patients. Such tailoring should also account for differences in side-effect profiles of the various treatment options available. Finally, even if health practitioners are aware of the latest in clinical evidence and recommended practices, they may not be able to implement the most appropriate treatment because of legal or financial barriers. This article will to review these three challenges to the management of pain and discuss practical ways in which they may be handled to help reduce the burden of pain care in society.