Patients Response to Interventional Care for Chronic Pain Study (PRICS): A Cross-Sectional Survey of Community-Based Pain Clinics in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Non-image guided injection treatments ("nerve blocks") are commonly provided in community pain clinics in Ontario for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) but remain controversial. AIM: We explored patients' perspectives of nerve blocks for CNCP. METHODS: We administered a 33-item cross-sectional survey to patients living with CNCP pain attending four community-based pain clinics in Ontario, Canada. The survey captured demographic information and asked about patient experiences with nerve blocks. RESULTS: Among 616 patients that were approached, 562 (91%) provided a completed survey. The mean age of respondents was 53 (SD 12), 71% were female, and the majority (57%) reported living with CNCP for more than a decade. Fifty-eight percent had been receiving nerve blocks for their pain for >3 years, 51% on a weekly frequency. Since receiving nerve blocks, patients self-reported a median improvement in pain intensity of 2.5 points (95% CI -2.5 to -3.0) on an 11-point numeric rating scale and 66% reported stopping or reducing prescription medications, including opioids. The majority who were not retired (62%) were receiving disability benefits and were unable to work in any capacity. When asked what impact cessation of nerve blocks would have, most employed patients (52%) reported they would be unable to work, and the majority indicated their ability to function across multiple domains would decrease. CONCLUSION: Our respondents who received nerve blocks for CNCP attribute important pain relief and functional improvement to this intervention. Randomized trials and clinical practice guidelines are urgently needed to optimize the evidence-based use of nerve blocks for CNCP.

An N-of-1 Feasibility Study of Homeopathic Treatment for Fatigue in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue has been described as a subjective feeling of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness. Homeopathy has been widely used to treat side effects of chemotherapy. The n-of-1 design is a single-patient trial method to study a clinical condition that is either short lived and reversible or is chronic and stable. The n-of-1 design requires a washout/reset period. The feasibility of performing an n-of-1 study in homeopathy has not previously been tested. METHODS: A feasibility n-of-1 trial of individualized homeopathic treatment for fatigue in a single adult undergoing chemotherapy administered periodically was performed. For each matched pair of treatments, the participant was randomly allocated either placebo or verum for the period between treatments. For the subsequent treatment period, the opposite allocation was given. Participant and practitioner were blinded to the allocation. Ongoing conventional treatments were permitted. The ability to recruit and retain was monitored and changes in fatigue and quality of life were measured using two validated outcome measures. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were assessed between February 2014 and February 2015. Four patients were eligible for the study and one consented to participate. The participant enrolled in the study for six cycles of chemotherapy and completed all treatment and outcome measures. There was no improvement under homeopathic treatment compared to placebo. There were multiple confounding events such as conventional medication changes and an adverse event unrelated to therapy. CONCLUSION: Adequate recruitment was not feasible in this setting. The n-of-1 study design is feasible in this population from the perspective of the ability to complete the trial. No conclusion on the efficacy of homeopathy for this individual can be made. It is unclear as to whether multiple treatments of chemotherapy would be an appropriate clinical situation in which to apply the n-of-1 trial methodology. Future studies should pilot adaptations to this study design.

Chiropractic care in asthma and allergy.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a brief overview of the current state of evidence for chiropractic care, specifically in the management of asthma and to a lesser extent allergy. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE for English-language articles published between January 1966 and July 2002 was conducted using the keywords asthma, allergy, manual therapy, physical therapy techniques, chiropractic, physical therapy (specialty), physiotherapy, massage, and massage therapy. A hand search of the primary chiropractic and osteopathic literature on the treatment of asthma was performed, and proceedings from a recent research symposium on spinal manipulation were included. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical controlled studies and systematic reviews on spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and asthma were selected. There were no primary clinical trials on SMT and allergy found. RESULTS: Many of the claims of chiropractic success in asthma have been primarily based on anecdotal evidence or uncontrolled case studies. Three recently reported randomized controlled studies showed benefit in subjective measures, such as quality of life, symptoms, and bronchodilator use; however, the differences were not statistically significant between controls and treated groups. There were no significant changes in any objective lung function measures. The clinical issues emanating from these trials are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence to support the use of chiropractic SMT as a primary treatment for asthma or allergy. Based on reported subjective improvement in patients receiving chiropractic care, certain clinical circumstances may warrant a therapeutic trial in patients with asthma. Further properly designed, collaborative research is needed to determine if there is a role for chiropractic SMT in the care of asthma or allergy.

Ethical dimensions in the borderland between conventional and complementary/alternative medicine.

Consumer enthusiasm for complementary and alternative medicine presents complex challenges for conventional Western biomedically dominated health care systems and for those who practice within them. In particular, this trend forces new ethical dilemmas related to how we create consensus about the nature of ethical clinical practice and what constitutes evidence sufficient for public health policy. In this paper, we examine the historical context into which complementary and alternative medicine has been introduced, and consider the ethical and scientific challenges with which it confronts mainstream health systems.