Aggregated N-of-1 trials for unlicensed medicines for small populations: an assessment of a trial with ephedrine for myasthenia gravis

Stephanie S. Weinreich*, Charlotte Vrinten, Marja R. Kuijpers, Alexander F. Lipka, Kirsten J.M. Schimmel, Erik W. Van Zwet, Christine Gispen-De Wied, Yechiel A. Hekster, Jan J.G.M. Verschuuren, Martina C. Cornel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Inexpensive medicines with a long history of use may currently be prescribed off-label for rare indications. Reimbursement is at the discretion of health insurance companies, and may be unpredictable. The example addressed was ephedrine as add-on treatment for myasthenia gravis. Stakeholders from academia, a patient organization, the Dutch National Health Care Institute (NHCI) and Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) advised on the trial design. The NHCI and MEB agreed to provide scientific advice on the suitability of the evidence generated by the trial, for regulatory decisions. This paper describes the feasibility of the trial and the utility of its aggregated results. Results: The trialists experienced the trial as feasible. Retrospective interviews showed that the trial as performed was acceptable to patients. The treatment effect in the primary outcome measure, muscle strength, was statistically significant when inferred to the population level, though the effect size was modest. Secondary outcomes were statistically significant in a preplanned, fixed effects analysis within the four patients. The NHCI advised that it could potentially make reimbursement decisions based on the Fitting Evidence framework, should the trialists decide to apply for reimbursement. The MEB advised that for a licensing decision, the N-of-1 design is a last-resort option for demonstrating treatment benefit in a rare disease. N-of-1 trials alone do not provide enough evidence on potential risk. The MEB found the current trial inconclusive. It suggested doing a 2-armed trial of longer duration, possibly with a different outcome measure (postponement of corticosteroid use). It suggested engaging a consultancy or commercial sponsor, should the trialists decide to seek market authorization of the drug. Conclusions: In theory, evidence from aggregated N-of-1 trials is suitable for use in licensing and reimbursement decisions. The current example illustrates differences in interpretation of N-of-1 results by health authorities. In the era of personalized medicine, consensus is required on the interpretation of data from study designs geared to small groups. Demonstrating effectiveness of inexpensive medicines in small populations may require involvement of non-commercial parties, to preserve affordability.

Original languageEnglish
Article number88
JournalOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 May 2017

Cite this