A Useful and Sustainable Role for N-of-1 Trials in the Healthcare Ecosystem.

Clinicians and patients often try a treatment for an initial period to inform longer-term therapeutic decisions. A more rigorous approach involves N-of-1 trials. In these single-patient crossover trials, typically conducted in patients with chronic conditions, individual patients are given candidate treatments in a double-blinded, random sequence of alternating periods to determine the most effective treatment for that patient. However, to date, these trials are rarely done outside of research settings and have not been integrated into general care where they could offer substantial benefit. Designating this classical, N-of-1 trial design as type 1, there also are new and evolving uses of N-of-1 trials that we designate as type 2. In these, rather than focusing on optimizing treatment for chronic diseases when multiple approved choices are available, as is typical of type 1, a type 2 N-of-1 trial tests treatments designed specifically for a patient with a rare disease, to facilitate personalized medicine. While the aims differ, both types face the challenge of collecting individual-patient evidence using standard, trusted, widely accepted methods. To fulfill their potential for producing both clinical and research benefits, and to be available for wide use, N-of-1 trials will have to fit into the current healthcare ecosystem. This will require generalizable and accepted processes, platforms, methods, and standards. This also will require sustainable value-based arrangements among key stakeholders. In this article, we review opportunities, stakeholders, issues, and possible approaches that could support general use of N-of-1 trials and deliver benefit to patients and the healthcare enterprise. To assess and expand the benefits of N-of-1 trials, we propose multistakeholder meetings, workshops, and the generation of methods, standards, and platforms that would support wider availability and the value of N-of-1 trials.

The "Coming of Age" of Real-World Evidence in Drug Development and Regulation.

Real world evidence (RWE) has the potential to inform drug discovery, development, and regulatory decision making. The emergence and availability of large population-based datasets around the globe have stoked enthusiasm in the research community. However, much work remains to refine research methodologies, evolve the science, and define the place of RWE as a complementary source of evidence to randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy and Effectiveness Too Trials: Clinical Trial Designs to Generate Evidence on Efficacy and on Effectiveness in Wide Practice.

Efficacy trials, designed to gain regulatory marketing approval, evaluate drugs in optimally selected patients under advantageous conditions for relatively short time periods. Effectiveness trials, designed to evaluate use in usual practice, assess treatments among more typical patients in real-world conditions with longer follow-up periods. In "efficacy-to-effectiveness (E2E) trials," if the initial efficacy trial component is positive, the trial seamlessly transitions to an effectiveness trial component to efficiently yield both types of evidence. Yet more time could be saved by simultaneously addressing efficacy and effectiveness in an "efficacy and effectiveness too (EE2) trial." Additionally, hybrids of the E2E and EE2 approaches with differing degrees of overlap of the two components could allow flexibility for specific drug development needs. In planning EE2 trials, each stakeholder's current and future needs, incentives, and perspective must be considered. Although challenging, the ultimate benefits to stakeholders, the health system, and the public should justify this effort.

Improving the quality of adverse drug reaction reporting by 4th-year medical students.

PURPOSE: Evaluate whether a 15-minute lecture intervention will improve adverse drug reaction reporting quality on standard MedWatch forms. METHODS: Seventy-eight 4th-year medical students were randomized to intervention 'Group-A' or non-intervention 'Group-B' on the first day of a required five-day clinical pharmacology rotation. Group-A participants attended a 15-minute lecture on completing a MedWatch form with quality information considered by the Food and Drug Administration as critical to adequate adverse drug reaction reporting. Group-B participants did not attend this lecture. Both groups then watched a standardized patient interview of a recognizable adverse drug reaction and completed MedWatch forms. Four Safety Evaluators from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rated student responses in a blinded fashion for the primary efficacy variable of Overall Impression and six informational domins using a standardized data quality analysis form that was developed within the Office of Postmarketing Drug Risk Assessment of the FDA. RESULTS: Seventy-eight MedWatch forms were evaluated (Group-A = 40, Group B = 38). Overall MedWatch information quality scores for the intervention group were significantly higher than the non-intervention group (p < 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: As little as a 15-minute intervention can significantly improve the quality of adverse drug reaction reporting by 4th-year medical students. Academic medical centers should consider incorporating adverse drug reaction reporting curriculum into the clinical training of medical students.