Using N-of-1 trials to improve patient management and save costs.

BACKGROUND: N-of-1 trials test treatment effectiveness within an individual patient. OBJECTIVE: To assess (i) the impact of three different N-of-1 trials on both clinical and economic outcomes over 12 months and (ii) whether the use of N-of-1 trials to target patients' access to high-cost drugs might be cost-effective in Australia. DESIGN: Descriptive study of management change, persistence, and costs summarizing three N-of-1 trials. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer patients with osteoarthritis, chronic neuropathic pain or ADHD whose optimal choice of treatment was uncertain. INTERVENTIONS: Double-blind cyclical alternative medications for the three conditions. MEASURES: Detailed resource use, treatment and health outcomes (response) data collected by postal and telephone surveys immediately before and after the trial and at 3, 6 and 12 months. Estimated costs to the Australian healthcare system for the pre-trial vs. 12 months post-trial. RESULTS: Participants persisting with the joint patient-doctor decision 12 months after trial completion were 32% for osteoarthritis, 45% for chronic neuropathic pain and 70% for the ADHD trials. Cost-offsets were obtained from reduced usage of non-optimal drugs, and reduced medical consultations. Drug costs increased for the chronic neuropathic pain and ADHD trials due to many patients being on either low-cost or no pharmaceuticals before the trial. CONCLUSIONS: N-of-1 trials are an effective method to identify optimal treatment in patients in whom disease management is uncertain. Using this evidence-based approach, patients and doctors tend to persist with optimal treatment resulting in cost-savings. N-of-1 trials are clinically acceptable and may be an effective way of rationally prescribing some expensive long-term medicines.

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.