Clinician-trialist rounds: 4. why not do an N-of-1 RCT?

Factors Associated With Trial Completion and Adherence in App-Based N-of-1 Trials: Protocol for a Randomized Trial Evaluating Study Duration, Notification Level, and Meaningful Engagement in the Brain Boost Study

Background

N-of-1 trials promise to help individuals make more informed decisions about treatment selection through structured experiments that compare treatment effectiveness by alternating treatments and measuring their impacts in a single individual. We created a digital platform that automates the design, administration, and analysis of N-of-1 trials. Our first N-of-1 trial, the app-based Brain Boost Study, invited individuals to compare the impacts of two commonly consumed substances (caffeine and L-theanine) on their cognitive performance.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to evaluate critical factors that may impact the completion of N-of-1 trials to inform the design of future app-based N-of-1 trials. We will measure study completion rates for participants that begin the Brain Boost Study and assess their associations with study duration (5, 15, or 27 days) and notification level (light or moderate).

Methods

Participants will be randomized into three study durations and two notification levels. To sufficiently power the study, a minimum of 640 individuals must begin the study, and 97 individuals must complete the study. We will use a multiple logistic regression model to discern whether the study length and notification level are associated with the rate of study completion. For each group, we will also compare participant adherence and the proportion of trials that yield statistically meaningful results.

Results

We completed the beta testing of the N1 app on a convenience sample of users. The Brain Boost Study on the N1 app opened enrollment to the public in October 2019. More than 30 participants enrolled in the first month.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this will be the first study to rigorously evaluate critical factors associated with study completion in the context of app-based N-of-1 trials.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04056650; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04056650

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/16362

A Randomized Placebo-Controlled N-of-1 Trial: The Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitor in the Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Background

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most frequent chronic gastrointestinal disorder. It is defined as a condition developed when the reflux of gastric contents causes troublesome symptoms (heartburn and regurgitation). This requires adequate treatment since it can lead to long-term complications including esophagus adenocarcinoma. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are generally used to treat GERD due to their high-security profile and efficiency on most patients. However, recurrent reflux despite initial treatment is frequent. N-of-1 trial is a study that allows the identification of the best treatment for each patient. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of standard dose with double dosage of esomeprazole, to improve the GERD symptoms in a single patient.

Methods

A single-patient trial, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, was carried out from September 25th, 2012, to April 26th, 2013. It included one outpatient at the gastroenterology service in a fourth-level hospital, diagnosed with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). Yet, his symptoms were heartburn and reflux, and his endoscopic results were normal esophageal mucosa, without hiatal hernia, though pathological pH values. A no-obese male without any tobacco or alcohol usage received esomeprazole 40 mg/day and 40 mg/bid for 24 weeks. A standardized gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GerdQ) was used weekly to evaluate symptom frequency and severity. The consumption of 90% of the capsules was considered as an adequate treatment adherence. D'agostino-Pearson and Wilcoxon test were used to determine normal or nonnormal distribution and compare both treatments, respectively, both with a significant statistical difference of p < 0.05.

Results

The patient completed the study with 96% of adherence. The double dosage of esomeprazole did not improve the control of symptoms compared with the standard dosage. Mean symptomatic score was 9.5±0.5 and 10.2±0.6 for each treatment, respectively (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

There was no significant improvement in the patient GERD symptoms increasing the dose of oral esomeprazole during the 6 months of study. N-of-1 trials in chronic pathologies including GERD are recommended due to their potential value as systematic methods that evaluate therapies without strong scientific evidence.

N-of-1 Randomized Trials of Ultra-Micronized Palmitoylethanolamide in Older Patients with Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Ultra-micronized palmitoylethanolamide (um-PEA) represents an attractive option for chronic pain control in complex older patients at higher risk of adverse effects with traditional analgesics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of um-PEA versus placebo on chronic pain intensity and function in individual geriatric patients.

DESIGN

We performed randomized, blinded N-of-1 trials with two 3-week um-PEA versus placebo comparisons, separated by 2-week washout periods.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included outpatients aged ≥ 65 years with chronic, non-cancer, non-ischemic pain in the back, joints, or limbs.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to Um-PEA 600 mg or placebo twice daily.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain intensity was measured using an 11-point visual numeric scale. Functional impairment was measured using a Back Pain Functional Scale. Impact of each N-of-1 trial was measured on the clinician's intention to treat and confidence.

RESULTS

Ten of 11 eligible patients consented over 7 months [all female, mean age 83.2 years (SD 4.6)]. Three patients interrupted the trial: one had diarrhea (under placebo), one for low adherence, and one for intercurrent pneumonia. A small statistically significant effect in favor of um-PEA was seen at the mixed method analyses in two patients (effect size equal to 8% of the baseline pain). A statistically significant impact on function was found in one patient. After the trial, um-PEA was prescribed to four patients; in two patients the clinician changed their pre-trial intention to treat; the clinician confidence in the treatment plan either increased (5) or remained the same (2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience confirmed that N-of-1 trials may help make personalized evidence-based decisions in complex older patients, with special feasibility considerations. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02699281.

Protocol for a systematic review of N-of-1 trial protocol guidelines and protocol reporting guidelines

BACKGROUND

N-of-1 trials are multiple cross-over trials done in individual participants, generating individual treatment effect information. While reporting guidelines for the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) and the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) already exist, there is no standardized recommendation for the reporting of N-of-1 trial protocols.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate current literature on N-of-1 design and reporting to identify key elements of rigorous N-of-1 protocol design.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic search for all N-of-1 trial guidelines and protocol-reporting guidelines published in peer-reviewed literature. We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Eligible articles will contain explicit guidance on N-of-1 protocol construction or reporting. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts and then undertake full-text reviews of potential articles to determine eligibility. One reviewer will perform data extraction of selected articles, checked by the second reviewer. Data analysis will ascertain common features of N-of-1 trial protocols and compare them to the SPIRIT and CENT items.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review assesses recommendations on the design and reporting of N-of-1 trial protocols. These findings will inform an international Delphi development process for an N-of-1 trial protocol reporting guideline. The development of this guideline is critical for improving the quality of N-of-1 protocols, leading to improvements in the quality of published N-of-1 trial research.

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy in the elderly: lessons from REPOSI

The dramatic demographic changes that are occurring in the third millennium are modifying the mission of generalist professionals such as primary care physicians and internists. Multiple chronic diseases and the related prescription of multiple medications are becoming typical problems and present many challenges. Unfortunately, the available evidence regarding the efficacy of medications has been generated by clinical trials involving patients completely different from those currently admitted to internal medicine: much younger, affected by a single disease and managed in a highly controlled research environment. Because only registries can provide information on drug effectiveness in real-life conditions, REPOSI started in 2008 with the goal of acquiring data on elderly people acutely admitted to medical or geriatric hospital wards in Italy. The main goals of the registry were to evaluate drug prescription appropriateness, the relationship between multimorbidity/polypharmacy and such cogent outcomes as hospital mortality and re-hospitalization, and the identification of disease clusters that most often concomitantly occur in the elderly. The findings of 3-yearly REPOSI runs (2008, 2010, 2012) suggest the following pertinent tasks for the internist in order to optimally handle their elderly patients: the management of multiple medications, the need to become acquainted with geriatric multidimensional tools, the promotion and implementation of a multidisciplinary team approach to patient health and care and the corresponding involvement of patients and their relatives and caregivers. There is also a need for more research, tailored to the peculiar features of the multimorbid elderly patient.

Single-patient (n-of-1) trials: a pragmatic clinical decision methodology for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research

OBJECTIVE

To raise awareness among clinicians and epidemiologists that single-patient (n-of-1) trials are potentially useful for informing personalized treatment decisions for patients with chronic conditions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed the clinical and statistical literature on methods and applications of single-patient trials and then critically evaluated the needs for further methodological developments.

RESULTS

Existing literature reports application of 2,154 single-patient trials in 108 studies for diverse clinical conditions; various recent commentaries advocate for wider application of such trials in clinical decision making. Preliminary evidence from several recent pilot acceptability studies suggests that single-patient trials have the potential for widespread acceptance by patients and clinicians as an effective modality for increasing the therapeutic precision. Bayesian and adaptive statistical methods hold promise for increasing the informational yield of single-patient trials while reducing participant burden, but are not widely used. Personalized applications of single-patient trials can be enhanced through further development and application of methodologies on adaptive trial design, stopping rules, network meta-analysis, washout methods, and methods for communicating trial findings to patients and clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-patient trials may be poised to emerge as an important part of the methodological armamentarium for comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research. By permitting direct estimation of individual treatment effects, they can facilitate finely graded individualized care, enhance therapeutic precision, improve patient outcomes, and reduce costs.