Serial Cross-Sectional Observations of Sun-Protective Behaviors at an Annual Outdoor Motorsport Event in Tropical Queensland, Australia.

Skin cancer, the most prevalent cancer in Caucasians residing at low latitudes, can primarily be prevented by avoiding overexposure to sunlight. Serial cross-sectional observations were conducted at an outdoor motorsport event held in Townsville, Queensland each July (Southern winter) to determine whether sun-protection habits changed over time. Most (71.1%) of the 1337 attendees observed (97.6% lightly pigmented skin, 64.0% male) wore a hat (any style shading the face), while few (18.5%) wore three-quarter or full-length sleeves. While hat-wearing rates (any style) were similar in 2009 (326, 72.6%) and 2013 (625, 70.4%), the use of sun-protective styles (wide-brimmed/bucket/legionnaires) decreased from 29.2% to 18.6% over the same period, primarily because the use of sun-protective hats halved (from 28.7% to 14.0%) among females, while decreasing from 29.4% to 21.1% in males. Although relatively few individuals wore sun-protective (three-quarter-length or full-length) sleeves regardless of year (OR = 0.117, P < 0.0001), encouragingly, the use of sun-protective sleeves more than doubled between 2009 (10.5%) and 2013 (22.5%). Interestingly females, albeit the minority, at this sporting event were less likely to wear a hat (OR = 0.473, P < 0.0001) than males. These findings highlight the need for continued momentum toward skin cancer primary prevention through sun protection with a dedicated focus on outdoor sporting settings.

To meta-analyze or not to meta-analyze? A combined meta-analysis of N-of-1 trial data with RCT data on amphetamines and methylphenidate for pediatric ADHD.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how the inclusion of N-of-1 trial data into randomized controlled trial (RCT) meta-analyses impacts the magnitude and precision of yielded treatment effects, using amphetamines and methylphenidate for pediatric attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a model. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We combined the N-of-1 and RCT data generated from previously conducted systematic reviews using parent and teacher ratings of hyperactivity and/or impulsivity as the outcome. Data were combined using standardized mean differences assuming a random effects model. The amphetamine and methylphenidate evidence were synthesized separately. RESULTS: We found that the inclusion of N-of-1 trial data in the meta-analysis impacted both magnitude and precision. The addition of the N-of-1 trial data narrowed the confidence intervals in three of the four comparisons as compared to the treatment effect yielded by RCT-only data. Furthermore, the addition of N-of-1 trials changed the overall treatment effects yielded by the RCT-only meta-analyses from statistically nonsignificant to statistically significant in one of the four outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: If the overall goal of a meta-analysis is to synthesize all available evidence on a given topic, then N-of-1 trials should be included. This study shows it is possible to combine N-of-1 trial data with RCT data and the potential merits of this approach.

N-of-1 trials can be aggregated to generate group mean treatment effects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how data from n-of-1 trials may be used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses by examining the effects of amphetamine and methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO for English language articles published from 1950 to 2013. N-of-1 trials of pediatric participants with ADHD that assessed either amphetamine or methylphenidate vs. placebo were included. The primary outcome was improvement of core symptoms of ADHD, which was assessed by multiple rating scales. Studies with obtainable individual participant data were included in the meta-analysis. Weighted mean differences were computed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the amphetamine-placebo comparison and 10 in the methylphenidate-placebo comparison. Meta-analyses were consistently in favor of amphetamine in 10 of 11 ADHD symptom domains and methylphenidate in 7 of 12 symptom domains. A high degree of heterogeneity across participant treatment response was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of n-of-1 trials suggests that amphetamine and methylphenidate are effective treatments for pediatric ADHD. Synthesizing n-of-1 trials enables assessment of individual responses to treatment as well as aggregate summaries across individuals and studies. It offers a promising general approach with applications across diverse treatments and disorders.

Pilot study to determine the optimal dose of methylphenidate for an n-of-1 trial for fatigue in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: In advanced cancer, the prevalence of fatigue is high and can be related to treatment or disease. Methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH) is a central nervous system stimulant that has been used to palliate fatigue. There is no standard dose for MPH when used for this indication; recommended doses range from 5­20 + mg/d. METHOD: To identify a dose to test formally in a subsequent n-of-1 trial of fatigue, we recruited patients with advanced cancer and a fatigue score of 4 or more on a 10-point scale. Following a 3-day baseline assessment, each patient titrated MPH at doses ranging from 5 mg/d to 15 mg twice daily at 3-day intervals. In a daily diary, patients recorded measures of fatigue, depression, toxicity, and symptom control. RESULTS: Ten patients provided consent, 9 completed 8 days and 5 received maximum dose at day 15. Three patients were unwilling to increase the dose to maximum levels as they were satisfied with the response at a lower dose. Across all patients, there was a pattern of rapidly improving fatigue and depression scores to day 9 (5 mg twice daily), with minimal improvement thereafter. CONCLUSION: The results indicate a dose of 5 mg twice daily for the definitive study. There was little correlation between performance status and maximum tolerated dose. No patient withdrew because of toxicity.

N-of-1 randomized trials to assess the efficacy of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of gabapentin with placebo for neuropathic pain at the individual and population levels. DESIGN: This study used an n-of-1 trial methodology with three double-blind, randomized, crossover comparisons of gabapentin with placebo. SETTING: This study was carried out at specialist outpatient clinics at two Australian hospitals. Patients. The patients are adults with chronic neuropathic pain. INTERVENTIONS: Following a dose-finding period, participants underwent three comparisons of 2-week periods on gabapentin (600-1,800 mg per day) and placebo. The dose-finding period was commenced by 112 patients, of whom 39 had no response so they did not enroll, leaving 73 trial participants. Of these, 48 completed and 7 partially completed their trials, and 18 withdrew. OUTCOME MEASURES: The five outcome measures were the visual analog scale (0-10) of pain, sleep interference and functional limitation; frequency of adverse events and medication preference. The aggregate response was determined by weighting the response to each measure equally. RESULTS: Of the 55 participants who completed at least one cycle, the aggregate response to gabapentin was better than placebo in 16 (29%), of whom 15 continued gabapentin posttrial. No difference was shown in 38 (69%), and 1 (2%) showed a better response to placebo. Fifteen of these 39 continued gabapentin posttrial. Meta-analysis of the mean scores showed lower mean (standard deviation) scores for gabapentin by 0.8 (0.2) for pain, 0.6 (0.2) for sleep interference, and 0.6 (0.2) for functional limitation. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate and mean reduction in symptoms with gabapentin were small. Gabapentin prescribing posttrial was significantly influenced by the trial results.