What can we do about the slow nutrition related medical advancement?

| September 9, 2015

Most health institutions say they are only interested in randomised, placebo controlled and double blind research. Yvonne Coleman says while being idealistic, this is very limiting in the research read and the issues addressed.

Publishing results from even the smallest sample sizes can lead to great breakthroughs in research, innovation, dietary and medical solutions for low frequency and complex conditions without an obvious cause. Now is the time for an unbiased journal that publishes all forms of good quality research in the specialty area of the drugs and nutrition interface.

“I am not interested in any research that is not randomized, blinded and includes a control group” was stated by a group of colleagues at a clinical meeting; another colleague at a different institution made a similar statement and added the caveat “… and has large numbers.”

These statements are promoted and supported by the institutions training our health professional clinicians – but it is idealistic and reflects a perfect world.

Large-scale, randomised, blinded, control group studies are usually designed to address an already-identified issue and examples include incidence, prevalence, and treatment strategies for health problems such as heart disease, diabetes, dementia, etc.

Whilst idealistic, it is also very limiting in the research read and the issues addressed – what do these clinicians do if there aren’t any large-scale, randomised, blinded, controlled studies addressing an issue of concern?

In practice, our initial red flags seem to be case studies – an issue has been identified, a number of treatment strategies trialled until an effective one is identified, and then the case and its findings is published to advise other clinicians of an effective treatment strategy with that combination of circumstances; and this usually includes the underlying reasons as to why different strategies did not, and ultimately did, prove effective.

Once a number of case studies on a particular issue are published, then there is often a small research project evaluating the effectiveness of the trialled treatment strategies – and usually they are randomised, have a control group and are typically blinded.

There are two classic examples supporting this research process:

Excessive zinc-induced copper-deficiency myeloneuropathy. A case study identified a person with copper-deficiency myeloneuropathy and found the copper deficiency was induced by an excessive zinc intake; the source of zinc turned out to be denture cream (other high-zinc sources include some sunscreens, some barrier creams, meat, oysters, liver and pate).

Subsequently a number of other similar case studies were published supporting the initial finding, and finally a small study was conducted that also supported the initial finding. Many denture creams now do not contain zinc (as labelled on their packaging) and the finding is an accepted form of copper deficiency causation.

It is unlikely this issue will ever attract the gold-standard research criteria of being randomised, control group, blinded, and large numbers.

• Proton pump inhibitor induced magnesium deficiency. As a consequence of a case study by Australian clinicians Epstein, McGrath and Law, who found that a specific proton pump inhibitor interfered with magnesium availability, a plethora of case studies with similar findings have subsequently been published.

We are now at the stage whereby contradictory evidence is being published – which causes confusion at best.

Do we need further research to clarify both causation and treatment? – certainly. Is it likely to be conducted? – perhaps. Will it attract large trial support? – unlikely.

How will clinicians solve these complex medical conditions if there aren’t even any case studies or small research projects to refer to?

If there is no research – and the rarer the clinical issue the more likely there will be very limited available evidence, regardless of quality of the evidence – then our determinations must be guided by first principles

• Will doing nothing cause harm?

• Will the intervention cause more harm than benefit?

• Will the intervention confer benefit?

As an example of this, I assessed an “old” person (aged 60+ years) with MELAS Syndrome (Mitochondrial Encephalopathy, Lactic Acidosis, Stroke-like episodes Syndrome) which is an inherited Inborn Error of Metabolism. Most of the available research was case-study based, mostly with a sample size of 1 (n = 1), and mostly on children.

The case studies guided treatment direction, and application of first principles was necessary to underpin the decisions being made:

• Will doing nothing cause harm? – Yes, as the harm caused by the disorder would continue to progress relatively rapidly; effective treatment is likely to stabilise the condition and slow or stop progression.

• Will the proposed interventions cause more harm than benefit? – Unlikely, based on case study findings.

• Will the proposed interventions confer benefit? – Most likely, based on case study evidence, especially if it is sufficiently effective to slow or stop progression.

MELAS Syndrome raises both nutrition and pharmacological issues – and a combination of both. The subject of my “case study” was prescribed a number of drugs with seriously compromising nutritional consequences such as:

• inhibition and uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation – typically related to aspirin, and includes other drugs

• CoQ10 depletion – typically related to statins

• inhibition of carnitine transport and uptake – includes drugs such as verapamil, carbamazepine, cefepime, cimetidine, clonidine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, quinine bisulphate, quinine sulphate, sodium valproate, thyroxine, tiagabine, topiramate, verapamil, vigabatrin, zidovudine.

Would these clinicians have maintained the status quo? – Hopefully not as it contravenes the first of the first principles, i.e. doing nothing will cause harm.

The nutritional consequences of the pharmacological intervention are an excellent example of application of case study research and application of clinical first principles, as well as being an example of a health issue that will not attract large-scale, randomised, blinded, control-group-based research.

I do hope most of our current and future clinicians, academics and scientists will be more broadminded in their scientific readings than the two clinicians I refer to.

What do we need? 

An unbiased journal that publishes all forms of good quality research in the specialty area of the drugs and nutrition interface.

Dietitians and nutritionists help people discover the food that people can eat to solve medical issues. Now is the time to make this information more accessible to these health professionals and the public.

SHARE WITH:
Yvonne Coleman

Yvonne Coleman BAppSci (Food Science and Nutrition), GDip (Dietetics) is the Clinical Detective with Nutrition Consultants Australia. Yvonne sources effective solutions from clinical analysis of medications, nutrition, physical, mental and emotional factors. Yvonne is a qualified Dietitian and is internationally recognised as Australia’s leading adviser on Drugs and Nutrition, was the instigator of regular nutrition services into the Residential Aged Care Sector in 1999, is an international and national speaker on the topics of Aged Care, Nutritional Risk Screening, Drugs and Nutrition, Wounds and Nutrition, Falls and Nutrition, Behaviours and Nutrition, Food Sensitivities and Nutrition and Urinary Tract Infections and Nutrition. Yvonne has published nine books including Finger Food Menus.