Abstract
‘Individualized therapy’ trials (sometimes called n-of-1 trials) use patients as their own controls to evaluate treatments. Here we divide such trials into three categories: multi-crossover trials aimed at individual patient management, multi-crossover trial series and pre–post trials. These trials all customize interventions for patients; however, the latter two categories also aim to inform medical practice and thus embody tensions between the goals of care and research that are typical of other types of clinical trials. In this Perspective, we discuss four domains where such tensions play out—clinical equipoise, informed consent, reporting and funding, and we provide recommendations for addressing each.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schork, N. J. Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature 520, 609–611 (2015).
Berlin, J. A. N-of-1 clinical trials should be incorporated into clinical practice. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63, 1283–1284 (2010).
Müller, A. R. et al. Systematic review of N-of-1 studies in rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders: the power of 1. Neurology 96, 529–540 (2021).
Check Hayden, E. This girl’s dramatic story shows hyper-personalized medicine is possible—and costly. MIT Technology Review https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/09/102551/this-girls-dramatic-story-shows-hyper-personalized-medicine-is-possibleand-costly/ (9 October 2019).
Vohra, S., Eslick, I. & Naihua, D. An Ethical Framework for N-of-1 Trials: Clinical Care, Quality Improvement, or Human Subjects Research? (eds Kravitz, R. L. and Duan N.) in Design and Implementation of N-of-1 Trials: A User’s Guide. 13–22 (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014).
Kravitz, R. L., Duan, N. & Braslow, J. Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Q. 82, 661–687 (2004).
Senn, S. S. Statistical Issues in Drug Development (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
Guyatt, G. H. et al. N of 1 randomized trials for investigating new drugs. Control Clin. Trials 11, 88–100 (1990).
Guyatt, G. et al. Determining optimal therapy—randomized trials in individual patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 314, 889–892 (1986).
Lillie, E. O. et al. The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Per. Med. 8, 161–173 (2011).
Mahon, J., Laupacis, A., Donner, A. & Wood, T. Randomised study of n of 1 trials versus standard practice. Brit. Med. J. 312, 1069–1074 (1996).
Zucker, D. R., Ruthazer, R. & Schmid, C. H. Individual (N-of-1) trials can be combined to give population comparative treatment effect estimates: methodologic considerations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63, 1312–1323 (2010).
Araujo, A., Julious, S. & Senn, S. Understanding variation in sets of N-of-1 trials. PLoS ONE 11, e0167167 (2016).
Blackston, J. W., Chapple, A. G., McGree, J. M., McDonald, S. & Nikles, J. Comparison of aggregated N-of-1 trials with parallel and crossover randomized controlled trials using simulation studies. Healthcare 7, 137 (2019).
Gelinas, L., Crawford, B., Kelman, A. & Bierer, B. E. Relocation of study participants for rare and ultra-rare disease trials: ethics and operations. Contemp. Clin. Trials 84, 105812 (2019).
Cornu, C. et al. Experimental designs for small randomised clinical trials: an algorithm for choice. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 8, 48 (2013).
Nick, J. A. et al. Ivacaftor in cystic fibrosis with residual function: lung function results from an N-of-1 study. J. Cyst. Fibros. 19, 91–98 (2020).
Zucker, D. R. et al. Combining single patient (N-of-1) trials to estimate population treatment effects and to evaluate individual patient responses to treatment. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50, 401–410 (1997).
Kim, J. et al. Patient-customized oligonucleotide therapy for a rare genetic disease. N. Engl. J. Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1813279 (2019).
Fajgenbaum, D. C. et al. Identifying and targeting pathogenic PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling in IL-6-blockade-refractory idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease. J. Clin. Invest. 129, 4451–4463 (2019).
Kimmelman, J. A theoretical framework for early human studies: uncertainty, intervention ensembles, and boundaries. Trials 13, 173 (2012).
Kimmelman, J. & London, A. J. The structure of clinical translation: efficiency, information, and ethics. Hastings Cent. Rep. 45, 27–39 (2015).
Schweitzer, J. S. et al. Personalized iPSC-derived dopamine progenitor cells for Parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 1926–1932 (2020).
Collette, L. & Tombal, B. N-of-1 trials in oncology. Lancet Oncol. 16, 885–886 (2015).
Weijer, C. & Miller, P. B. When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits? Nat. Med. 10, 570–573 (2004).
Freedman, B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 141–145 (1987).
London, A. J. Equipoise: integrating social value and equal respect in research with humans. in The Oxford Handbook of Research Ethics (eds Iltis, A. S. & MacKay, D.) (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).
Senn, S. Sample size considerations for n-of-1 trials. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 28, 372–383 (2019).
Arnold, S. E. & Betensky, R. A. Multicrossover randomized controlled trial designs in Alzheimer disease. Ann. Neurol. 84, 168–175 (2018).
Kimmelman, J. & Federico, C. Consider drug efficacy before first-in-human trials. Nature 542, 25–27 (2017).
Anderson, J. A. & Kimmelman, J. Extending clinical equipoise to phase 1 trials involving patients: unresolved problems. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 20, 75–98 (2010).
Kimmelman, J., Waligora, M. & Lynch, H. F. Participant protection in phase 1 pediatric cancer trials. JAMA Pediatr. 173, 8–9 (2019).
Joseph, A. Huntington’s community grieves not just one therapeutic setback, but two. Stat https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/13/huntingtons-community-grieves-not-just-one-therapeutic-setback-but-two/ (13 April 2021).
Tourneau, C. L. et al. Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 16, 1324–1334 (2015).
Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Asadullah, K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712–712 (2011).
Kane, P. B. & Kimmelman, J. Is cancer biology research reproducible enough? eLife 67–85 (in the press).
Emmerich, C. H. et al. Improving target assessment in biomedical research: the GOT-IT recommendations. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 20, 64–81 (2021).
Appelbaum, P. S., Roth, L. H., Lidz, C. W., Benson, P. & Winslade, W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent. Rep. 17, 20–24 (1987).
Kimmelman, J. The therapeutic misconception at 25: treatment, research, and confusion. Hastings Cent. Rep. 37, 36–42 (2007).
Carlisle, B., Kimmelman, J., Ramsay, T. & MacKinnon, N. Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: an empirical analysis of recently closed trials. Clin. Trials 12, 77–83 (2015).
Sulmasy, D. P. et al. The culture of faith and hope. Cancer 116, 3702–3711 (2010).
Weinfurt, K. P. et al. Research participants’ high expectations of benefit in early-phase oncology trials: are we asking the right question? J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 4396–4400 (2012).
Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Are therapeutic motivation and having one’s own doctor as researcher sources of therapeutic misconception? J. Med. Ethics 41, 391–397 (2015).
Pentz, R. D. et al. Therapeutic misconception, misestimation, and optimism in participants enrolled in phase 1 trials. Cancer 118, 4571–4578 (2012).
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. IND submissions for individualized antisense oligonucleotide drug products: administrative and procedural recommendations guidance for sponsor-investigators. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/ind-submissions-individualized-antisense-oligonucleotide-drug-products-administrative-and-procedural (Food and Drug Administration, 2021).
Zhang, S. X., Fergusson, D. & Kimmelman, J. Proportion of patients in phase I oncology trials receiving treatments that are ultimately approved. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 112, 886–892 (2020).
Zarin, D. A., Goodman, S. N. & Kimmelman, J. Harms from uninformative clinical trials. JAMA 322, 813–814 (2019).
Zhai, J. et al. Reporting of core items in hierarchical Bayesian analysis for aggregating N-of-1 trials to estimate population treatment effects is suboptimal. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 76, 99–107 (2016).
Shrestha, S. & Jain, S. A Bayesian-bandit adaptive design for N-of-1 clinical trials. Stat. Med. 40, 1825–1844 (2021).
Senarathne, S. G. J., Overstall, A. M. & McGree, J. M. Bayesian adaptive N-of-1 trials for estimating population and individual treatment effects. Stat. Med. 39, 4499–4518 (2020).
Vohra, S. et al. CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 statement. Brit. Med. J. 350, h1738 (2015).
Tate, R. L. et al. Revision of a method quality rating scale for single-case experimental designs and n-of-1 trials: the 15-item Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) scale. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 23, 619–638 (2013).
Porcino, A. J. et al. SPIRIT extension and elaboration for n-of-1 trials: SPENT 2019 checklist. Brit. Med. J. 368, m122 (2020).
Shamseer, L. et al. CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015: explanation and elaboration. Brit. Med. J. 350, h1793 (2015).
Raman, G. et al. Evaluation of person-level heterogeneity of treatment effects in published multiperson N-of-1 studies: systematic review and reanalysis. BMJ Open 8, e017641 (2018).
Li, J. et al. Reporting quality of N-of-1 trials published between 1985 and 2013: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 76, 57–64 (2016).
Lilford, R. J., Braunholtz, D. A., Greenhalgh, R. & Edwards, S. J. L. Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studies. Brit. Med. J. 320, 43–46 (2000).
Halpern, S. D., Karlawish, J. H. T. & Berlin, J. A. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA 288, 358–362 (2002).
Chow, S.-C. Endpoint selection in clinical trials. in Innovative Methods for Rare Disease Drug Development 67–85 (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2020).
Hartman, A. L. N-of-1 trials in rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders: opportunities for improvement. Neurology 96, 513–514 (2021).
Zarin, D. A., Tse, T., Williams, R. J., Califf, R. M. & Ide, N. C. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database—update and key issues. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 852–860 (2011).
Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human and early clinical trials with investigational medicinal products. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-strategies-identify-mitigate-risks-first-human-early-clinical-trials-investigational_en.pdf (EMA, 2017).
US National Institute of Medicine. FDAAA 801 and the final rule. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa (2021).
US National Institutes of Health. NIH policy on the dissemination of NIH-funded clinical trial information. NIH Grants and Funding https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/understanding/nih-policy.htm (2017).
Tate, R. L. et al. The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 statement. Phys. Ther. 96, e1–e10 (2016).
Wenner, D. M. The social value requirement in research: from the transactional to the basic structure model of stakeholder obligations. Hastings Cent. Rep. 48, 25–32 (2018).
Sertkaya, A., Birkenbach, A., Berlind, A., Eyraud, J. & Eastern Research Group, Inc. Examination of clinical trial costs and barriers for drug development. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/examination-clinical-trial-costs-and-barriers-drug-development (2014).
Gabler, N. B., Duan, N., Vohra, S. & Kravitz, R. L. N-of-1 trials in the medical literature: a systematic review. Med. Care 49, 761–768 (2011).
Kravitz, R. L. et al. What ever happened to N-of-1 trials? Insiders’ perspectives and a look to the future. Milbank Q. 86, 533–555 (2008).
Wenner, D. M., Kimmelman, J. & London, A. J. Patient-funded trials: opportunity or liability? Cell Stem Cell 17, 135–137 (2015).
Woodcock, J. & Marks, P. Drug regulation in the era of individualized therapies. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 1678–1680 (2019).
Fetherstonaugh, D., Slovic, P., Johnson, S. & Friedrich, J. Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing. J. Risk Uncertain. 14, 283–300 (1997).
Kogut, T. & Ritov, I. The “identified victim” effect: an identified group, or just a single individual? J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 18, 157–167 (2005).
Berman, J. Z., Barasch, A., Levine, E. E. & Small, D. A. Impediments to effective altruism: the role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychol. Sci. 29, 834–844 (2018).
Fins, J. J. et al. Misuse of the FDA’s humanitarian device exemption in deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Health Aff. 30, 302–311 (2011).
Kimmelman, J., Mogil, J. S. & Dirnagl, U. Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001863 (2014).
Chalmers, I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263, 1405–1408 (1990).
Schlaepfer, T. E. & Fins, J. J. Deep brain stimulation and the neuroethics of responsible publishing: when one is not enough. JAMA 303, 775–776 (2010).
Turner, L. & Knoepfler, P. Selling stem cells in the USA: assessing the direct-to-consumer industry. Cell Stem Cell 19, 154–157 (2016).
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1979).
Mastroleo, I. & Holzer, F. New non-validated practice: an enhanced definition of innovative practice for medicine. Law Innov. Technol. 12, 318–346 (2020).
Qasim, W. et al. Molecular remission of infant B-ALL after infusion of universal TALEN gene-edited CAR T cells. Sci. Transl. Med. 9, eaaj2013 (2017).
Brierley, J. & Larcher, V. Compassionate and innovative treatments in children: a proposal for an ethical framework. Arch. Dis. Child 94, 651–654 (2009).
Earl, J. & Wendler, D. Ethics of information-gathering interventions in innovative practice. Intern. Med. J. 50, 1583–1587 (2020).
Carlisle, B., Federico, C. A. & Kimmelman, J. Trials that say “maybe”: the disconnect between exploratory and confirmatory testing after drug approval. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k959 (2018).
London, A. J., Kimmelman, J. & Emborg, M. E. Beyond access vs. protection in trials of innovative therapies. Science 328, 829–830 (2010).
Anonymous. The cost of getting personal. Nat. Med. 25, 1797 (2019).
Mullard, A. N-of-1 drugs push biopharma frontiers. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 19, 151–153 (2020).
van Overbeeke, E. et al. Market access of gene therapies across Europe, USA, and Canada: challenges, trends, and solutions. Drug Discov. Today 26, 399–415 (2021).
Senior, M. After Glybera’s withdrawal, what’s next for gene therapy? Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 491–492 (2017).
Kulkarni, J. A. et al. The current landscape of nucleic acid therapeutics. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 630–643 (2021).
Sertkaya, A., Wong, H.-H., Jessup, A. & Beleche, T. Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States. Clin. Trials 13, 117–126 (2016).
Acknowledgements
We thank H. Moyer for research assistance. Funding was provided by a large-scale applied research project grant from Genome Canada, and by CIHR.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Medicine thanks Annemieke Aartsma-Rus, Richard L. Kravitz and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Karen O’Leary was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kane, P.B., Bittlinger, M. & Kimmelman, J. Individualized therapy trials: navigating patient care, research goals and ethics. Nat Med 27, 1679–1686 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01519-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01519-y
This article is cited by
-
Perspectives of patients and clinicians on big data and AI in health: a comparative empirical investigation
AI & SOCIETY (2024)
-
Microbiota succession throughout life from the cradle to the grave
Nature Reviews Microbiology (2022)