Individual point-of-care trials: a new approach to incorporate patient's preferences into personalized pragmatic clinical trials

A qualitative study on the facilitators and barriers to adopting the N-of-1 trial methodology as part of clinical practice: potential versus implementation challenges

PURPOSE

To investigate opinions among healthcare stakeholders whether implementation of the N-of-1 trial approach in clinical practice is a feasible way to optimize evidence-based treatment results for unique patients.

METHODS

We interviewed clinicians, researchers, and a patient advocate (n = 13) with an interest in or experience with N-of-1 trials on the following topics: experience with N-of-1, measurement, validity and reliability, informally gathered data usability, and influence on physician-patient relationship. Interviews were analysed using qualitative, thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The N-of-1 approach has the potential to shift the current healthcare system towards embracing personalized medicine. However, its application in clinical practice carries significant challenges in terms of logistics, time investment and acceptability. New skills will be required from patients and healthcare providers, which may alter the patient-physician relationship. The rise of consumer technology enabling self-measurement may leverage the uptake of N-of-1 approaches in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong belief that the N-of-1 approach has the potential to play a prominent role in transitioning the current healthcare system towards embracing personalized medicine. However, there are many barriers deeply ingrained in our healthcare system that hamper the uptake of the N-of-1 approach, making it momentarily only interesting for research purposes.

The Personalized Priority and Progress Questionnaire (PPPQ): A personalized instrument for quality of life and self-management for use in clinical trials and practice

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a brief personalized instrument that (1) defines patients' priorities for improvement, (2) measures progress in prioritized quality of life (QoL) and self-management outcomes, and (3) is applicable in both clinical practice and clinical trials.

METHODS

The instrument was developed based on the literature on personalized assessment and patient priorities, feedback by clinicians, and six cognitive interviews with patients with chronic kidney disease. The resulting questionnaire, the Personalized Priority and Progress Questionnaire (PPPQ), contains a baseline and follow-op measurement. The baseline measurement assesses functioning on QoL (8 items) and self-management (5 items). The final item evaluates patients' priorities for improvement. The follow-up measurement assesses progress in QoL and self-management. A personalized progress score can be calculated indicating the amount of progress on the QoL or self-management domain that is prioritized by the individual patient. Psychometric properties of the PPPQ were evaluated among patients with chronic kidney disease (n = 121) and patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis (n = 22).

RESULTS

The PPPQ showed to be a feasible instrument that is easy and quick to complete. Regarding the construct validity, small to large correlations were found between the items and existing validated questionnaires measuring related constructs.

CONCLUSION

The PPPQ proved to be a feasible and valid instrument. The PPPQ can be adapted to match diverse populations and could be a useful tool both in clinical practice (e.g., to identify priorities and tailor treatment) and clinical trials (e.g., to evaluate the effectiveness of personalized interventions).

Individualized Net Benefit estimation and meta-analysis using generalized pairwise comparisons in N-of-1 trials

BACKGROUND

The Net Benefit (Δ) is a measure of the benefit-risk balance in clinical trials, based on generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) using several prioritized outcomes and thresholds of clinical relevance. We extended Δ to N-of-1 trials, with a focus on patient-level and population-level Δ.

METHODS

We developed a Δ estimator at the individual level as an extension of the stratum-specific Δ, and at the population-level as an extension of the stratified Δ. We performed a simulation study mimicking PROFIL, a series of 38 N-of-1 trials testing sildenafil in Raynaud's phenomenon, to assess the power for such an analysis with realistic data. We then reanalyzed PROFIL using GPC. This reanalysis was finally interpreted in the context of the main analysis of PROFIL which used Bayesian individual probabilities of efficacy.

RESULTS

Simulations under the null showed good size of the test for both individual and population levels. The test lacked power when being simulated from the true PROFIL data, even when increasing the number of repetitions up to 140 days per patient. PROFIL individual-level estimated Δ were well correlated with the probabilities of efficacy from the Bayesian analysis while showing similarly wide confidence intervals. Population-level estimated Δ was not significantly different from zero, consistently with the previous Bayesian analysis.

CONCLUSION

GPC can be used to estimate individual Δ which can then be aggregated in a meta-analytic way in N-of-1 trials. GPC ability to easily incorporate patient preferences allow for more personalized treatment evaluation, while needing much less computing time than Bayesian modeling.

Challenges of Research on Person-Centered Care in General Practice: A Scoping Review

Background: Delivering person-centered care is one of the core values in general practice. Due to the complexity and multifaceted character of person-centered care, the effects of person-centered care cannot be easily underpinned with robust scientific evidence. In this scoping review we provide an overview of research on effects of person-centered care, exploring the concepts and definitions used, the type of interventions studied, the selected outcome measures, and its strengths and limitations. Methods: Systematic reviews on person-centered care compared to usual care were included from Pubmed, Embase, and PsycINFO. The search was conducted in February 2021. Data selection and charting was done by two reviewers. Results: The literature search yielded 481 articles. A total of 21 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Four systematic reviews, published between 2012 and 2018, were finally included in this review. All reviews used different definitions and models and classified the interventions differently. The explicit distinction between interventions for providers and patients was made in two systematic reviews. The classification of outcomes also showed large differences, except patient satisfaction that was shared. All reviews described the results narratively. One review also pooled the results on some outcome measures. Most studies included in the reviews showed positive effects, in particular on process outcomes. Mixed results were found on patient satisfaction and clinical or health outcomes. All review authors acknowledged limitations due to lack of uniform definitions, and heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes measures. Discussion: Person-centered care is a concept that seems obvious and understandable in real life but is complex to operationalize in research. This scoping review reinforces the need to use mixed qualitative and quantitative methods in general practice research. For spreading and scaling up person-centered care, an implementation or complexity science approach could be used. Research could be personalized by defining therapeutic goals, interventions, and outcome variables based on individual preferences, goals, and values and not only on clinical and biological characteristics. Observational data and patient satisfaction surveys could be used to support quality improvement. Integrating research, education, and practice could strengthen the profession, building on the fundament of shared core values.