Search

Abstract Introduction: Ideally, real-world data (RWD) collected to generate real-world evidence (RWE) should lead to impact on the care and health of real-world patients. Deriving from care in which clinicians and patients try various treatments to inform therapeutic decisions, N-of-1 trials bring scientific methods to real-world practice. Methods: These single-patient crossover trials generate RWD and RWE by giving individual patients various treatments in a double-blinded way in sequential periods to determine the most effective treatment for a given patient. Results: This approach is most often used for patients with chronic, relatively stable conditions that provide the opportunity to make comparisons over multiple treatment periods, termed Type 1 N-of-1 trials. These are most helpful when there is heterogeneity of treatment effects among patients and no a priori best option. N-of-1 trials also can be done for patients with rare diseases, potentially testing only one treatment, to generate evidence for personalized treatment decisions, designated as Type 2 N-of-1 trials. With both types, in addition to informing individual’s treatments, when uniform protocols are used for multiple patients with the same condition, the data collected in the individual N-of-1 trials can be aggregated to provide RWD/RWE to inform more general use of the treatments. Thereby, N-of-1 trials can provide RWE for the care of individuals and for populations. Conclusions: To fulfill this potential, we believe N-of-1 trials should be built into our current healthcare ecosystem. To this end, we are building the needed infrastructure and engaging the stakeholders who should receive value from this approach.

Contracting delays remain a challenge to the successful initiation of multisite clinical research in the US. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Contracts Processing Study showed average contract negotiation duration of > 100 days for industry-sponsored or investigator-initiated contracts. Such delays create enormous costs to sponsors and to patients waiting to use new evidence-based treatments. With support from the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Accelerated Clinical Trial Agreement (ACTA) was developed by 25 major academic institutions and medical centers engaged in clinical research in collaboration with the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership and with input from pharmaceutical companies. The ACTA also informed the development of subsequent agreements, including the Federal Demonstration Partnership Clinical Trial Subaward Agreement (FDP-CTSA); both ACTA and the FDP-CTSA are largely non-negotiable agreements that represent pre-negotiated compromises in contract terms agreed upon by industry and/or medical center stakeholders. When the involved parties agree to use the CTSA-developed and supported standard agreement templates as a starting point for negotiations, there can be significant time savings for trials. Use of the ACTA resulted in an average savings of 48 days and use of the FDP-CTSA saved an average of 57 days of negotiation duration.

Health systems continue to grow in size. Financial integration-the ownership of hospitals or physician practices-often has anticompetitive effects that contribute to the higher prices for health care seen in the US. To determine whether the potential harms of financial integration are counterbalanced by improvements in quality, we surveyed nationally representative samples of hospitals ( n = 739) and physician practices ( n = 2,189), stratified according to whether they were independent or were owned by complex systems, simple systems, or medical groups. The surveys included nine scales measuring the level of adoption of diverse, quality-focused care delivery and payment reforms. Scores varied widely across hospitals and practices, but little of this variation was explained by ownership status. Quality scores favored financially integrated systems for four of nine hospital measures and one of nine practice measures, but in no case favored complex systems. Greater financial integration was generally not associated with better quality.