Zucker Deborah R, Ruthazer Robin, Schmid Christopher H, Feuer Jacqueline M, Fischer Peter A, Kieval Raphael I, Mogavero Nicola, Rapoport Ronald J, Selker Harry P, Stotsky Sharon A, Winston Eileen, Goldenberg Don L
Tufts University School of Medicine and Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111, USA.
J Rheumatol. 2006 Oct;33(10):2069-77.
Applying population research to individual treatment requires understanding the connections between patient-specific characteristics, population-based studies, and treatment responses. Conducting practice-based research using individual-focused (N-of-1) trials may aid this process. We combined N-of-1 trials to compare fibromyalgia therapies and to assess the feasibility and outcomes of this approach for practice-based effectiveness research.
Community- and center-based rheumatologists enrolled patients with fibromyalgia syndrome in randomized, double-blind, multi-crossover, N-of-1 trials comparing amitriptyline and the combination amitriptyline and fluoxetine. Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire outcomes were used for the individuals' treatment and combined across patients for sample-based analyses. Outcomes were compared with results from more standard trial designs.
Eight rheumatologists enrolled 58 patients in N-of-1 trials. Most physicians and patients had not previously participated in clinical trials. Using several analytic methods, the pooled results showed a better outcome score (mean difference: -6.1 +/- 2.0 to -8.0 +/- 3.7 points) in patients taking combination therapy. These population results are similar to published outcomes from a more traditional crossover trial. Neither practice type nor patient characteristics were significantly associated with the observed treatment-effect variation. Most participants, irrespective of selected treatment, felt their individual N-of-1 trials were helpful.
Implementation of the combined N-of-1 methodology is feasible in rheumatology practices and results confirm greater fibromyalgia improvement with combination therapy. This research approach broadens participation, although our trials' specifics likely influenced enrollment eligibility. In addition to individual benefits, combining N-of-1 trial data provides population research benefits. This patient-focused approach should be further explored to bridge research and practice.
将人群研究应用于个体治疗需要理解患者特定特征、基于人群的研究与治疗反应之间的联系。使用以个体为中心的(单病例)试验开展基于实践的研究可能有助于这一过程。我们结合单病例试验来比较纤维肌痛疗法,并评估这种方法用于基于实践的有效性研究的可行性和结果。
社区和中心的风湿病学家让纤维肌痛综合征患者参与随机、双盲、多交叉的单病例试验,比较阿米替林以及阿米替林与氟西汀的联合用药。纤维肌痛影响问卷的结果用于个体治疗,并在患者间合并以进行基于样本的分析。将结果与更标准试验设计的结果进行比较。
8名风湿病学家让58名患者参与了单病例试验。大多数医生和患者此前未参与过临床试验。使用几种分析方法,汇总结果显示联合治疗的患者有更好的结果评分(平均差异:-6.1±2.0至-8.0±3.7分)。这些人群结果与更传统交叉试验公布的结果相似。实践类型和患者特征均与观察到的治疗效果差异无显著关联。大多数参与者,无论选择何种治疗,都觉得他们的单病例试验有帮助。
联合单病例方法在风湿病实践中是可行的,结果证实联合治疗能使纤维肌痛有更大改善。这种研究方法扩大了参与度,尽管我们试验的具体情况可能影响了纳入资格。除了个体受益外,合并单病例试验数据还能带来人群研究的益处。这种以患者为中心的方法应进一步探索以弥合研究与实践之间的差距。