Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Oct 1;178(10):1368-1377.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3981.

Effect of Mobile Device-Supported Single-Patient Multi-crossover Trials on Treatment of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of Mobile Device-Supported Single-Patient Multi-crossover Trials on Treatment of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Richard L Kravitz et al. JAMA Intern Med. .

Abstract

Importance: Individually designed single-patient multi-crossover (n-of-1) trials can facilitate tailoring of treatments directed at various conditions, including chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) but are potentially burdensome, which may limit uptake in research and practice.

Objectives: To determine whether patients randomized to participate in an n-of-1 trial supported by a mobile health (mHealth) app would experience less pain and improved global health, adherence, satisfaction, and shared decision making compared with patients assigned to usual care.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized clinical trial compared participation in an individualized, mHealth-supported n-of-1 trial vs usual care. The participating 215 patients had CMSP for at least 6 weeks, had a smartphone or tablet with a data plan, were enrolled in northern California from July 2014 through July 2016, and were followed for up to 1 year by 48 clinicians in academic, community, Veterans Affairs, and military settings.

Interventions: Intervention patients met with their clinicians and used a desktop interface to select treatments and trial parameters for an n-of-1 trial comparing 2 pain-management regimens. The mHealth app provided reminders to take designated treatments on assigned days and to upload responses to daily questions on pain and treatment-associated adverse effects. Control patients received care as usual.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was change in the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) pain-related interference 8-item short-form scale (full scale range, 41-78) from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported pain intensity, overall health, analgesic adherence, trust in clinician, satisfaction with care, medication-related shared decision making, and, for the n-of-1 group only, participant engagement and experience.

Results: Among 215 patients (108 randomized to the n-of-1 intervention and 107 to control), 102 (47%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 55.5 (11.1) years. At the 6-month follow-up, pain interference was reduced in both groups, though there was no difference between the intervention and control groups (-1.36 points; 95% CI, -2.91 to 0.19 points; P = .09). There were no advantages in secondary outcomes for intervention patients vs control patients except for higher medication-related shared decision making at 6 months (between-group difference, 11.9 points; 95% CI, 2.6-21.2 points; P = .01). Among patients assigned to the n-of-1 group, 88% (n = 86) affirmed that the mHealth app could help people like them manage their pain.

Conclusions and relevance: In this population of patients with CMSP, mHealth-supported n-of-1 trials were feasible and associated with a satisfactory user experience, but n-of-1 trial participation did not significantly improve pain interference at 6 months vs usual care.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02116621.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Examples of Graphical Output Provided to Patients and Their Clinicians in the n-of-1 Arm During Results Review Visits
Patients and clinicians were provided with 6 graphs during the results review visit; 3 are depicted here. The graphs were intended to be devoid of jargon and easily understood and interpreted by patients and clinicians. Clinicians were provided access to brief web-based training videos to assist them in interpreting the graphs for their patients. The patient in this example compared acetaminophen as treatment A (shown in light blue) with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug as treatment B (shown in dark blue). The graphs in panels B and C depict 6 patient-centered outcomes (pain intensity, fatigue, drowsiness, sleep problems, thinking problems, and constipation) comparing treatment A with treatment B. A, The daily ratings on a 0- to 10-point scale for pain intensity, which were entered into the Trialist app by the patient. Zero indicates no pain, and 10 the highest level of pain. Each data point indicates 1 day. B, The average of daily ratings on a 0-10 scale for each outcome. Zero designates the best outcome. C, The outcomes are shown as squares representing point estimates for relative improvement, with lines representing the 95% credible intervals, and color shading and labeling to facilitate decision making. The analysis in this panel was based on a Bayesian model that estimated the posterior distribution of the difference between symptom scores comparing treatment A with treatment B.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Enrollment Flowchart for Personalized Research for Monitoring Pain Treatment Study Patient Recruitment and Enrollment
Patients who no longer wished to continue in the study were classified as withdrew. Patients who could not be located were classified as lost to follow-up, while those missing data at a particular follow-up time point were classified as did not complete follow-up. Patients who had not completed the intervention before the 3-month window ended were classified as completed the results review visit after the follow-up window had closed. Patients enrolled at the end of the recruitment period and not followed beyond 6 months were classified as enrolled within 12 months of end of study.

Comment in

  • A Randomized Clinical Trial of n-of-1 Trials-Tribulations of a Trial.
    Mirza RD, Guyatt GH. Mirza RD, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 1;178(10):1378-1379. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3979. JAMA Intern Med. 2018. PMID: 30193302 No abstract available.
  • A Case for n-of-1 Trials.
    Vohra S, Punja S. Vohra S, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):452. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7166. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. PMID: 30830183 No abstract available.
  • A Case for n-of-1 Trials.
    Smith AK. Smith AK. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):452-453. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7183. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. PMID: 30830184 No abstract available.
  • Finding Benefit in n-of-1 Trials.
    Chapple AG, Blackston JW. Chapple AG, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):453-454. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8379. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. PMID: 30830189 No abstract available.
  • Finding Benefit in n-of-1 Trials.
    McDonald S, McGree J, Bazzano L. McDonald S, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):454-455. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8382. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. PMID: 30830190 No abstract available.
  • A Case for n-of-1 Trials-Reply.
    Kravitz RL, Sim I, Duan N. Kravitz RL, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):453. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7180. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. PMID: 30830192 No abstract available.
  • Finding Benefit in n-of-1 Trials-Reply.
    Kravitz RL, Schmid CH, Sim I. Kravitz RL, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):455. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8330. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. PMID: 30830195 No abstract available.

References

    1. Duan N, Kravitz RL, Schmid CH. Single-patient (n-of-1) trials: a pragmatic clinical decision methodology for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8)(suppl):S21-S28. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.006 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kravitz RL, Duan N, Braslow J. Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):661-687. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00327.x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials. 2010;11:85. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-85 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cook DJ. Randomized trials in single subjects: the N of 1 study. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1996;32(3):363-367. - PubMed
    1. Gabler NB, Duan N, Vohra S, Kravitz RL. N-of-1 trials in the medical literature: a systematic review. Med Care. 2011;49(8):761-768. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318215d90d - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data