Davidson Karina W, Peacock James, Kronish Ian M, Edmondson Donald
Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York ; Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2014 Aug;8(8):408-421. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12121.
Behavioral interventions are typically studied with the use of a conventional between-subject randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. In this design, the effect of an intervention on one group of patients is compared with the effect of a control condition on another group of patients, such that a between-subject change is tested. A between-subject design has an underlying assumption that there is a homogenous treatment effect for a behavioral intervention, drug or psychotherapy, and that the way the intervention operates in the study that will tend to operate in the same way in many other patients. We review some of the philosophical and practical problems with the use of this design when a clinician is attempting to decide on a course of behavioral treatment aimed at change in patients who are likely to have heterogeneous or unique responses to behavioral treatment. We also review the biases inherent in our current clinical practice model, which does not use any empirical data collection or design for testing if a treatment is useful, and also in the conventional between-subject personalized medicine RCT designs. We propose increased use of single-patient (also known as N-of-1) trials that employ within-subject designs, in cases where treatment response is heterogeneous-as is the case for most psychological and behavioral treatments. Limitations of such designs include that they can only be used when the treatment is potentially reversible, the patient can act as their own control, and the outcome can be measured repeatedly. Increased use of within-subject trials may address in many more instances the more clinically relevant question of how a specific patient will respond to a specific treatment, and could introduce a more harmonious scientific approach into the way we treat our patients. We have incorporated a case presentation that illustrates the complexities of applying evidence drawn from these different designs to selecting and evaluating treatments for the behavioral issues commonly faced by clinicians and patients.
行为干预通常采用传统的组间随机对照试验(RCT)设计进行研究。在这种设计中,将一组患者的干预效果与另一组患者的对照条件效果进行比较,从而检验组间变化。组间设计有一个潜在假设,即行为干预、药物或心理治疗具有同质的治疗效果,并且干预在研究中的作用方式在许多其他患者中也会以相同方式起作用。当临床医生试图为可能对行为治疗有异质性或独特反应的患者选择旨在改变的行为治疗方案时,我们回顾了使用这种设计时存在的一些哲学和实际问题。我们还回顾了当前临床实践模式中固有的偏差,该模式不使用任何实证数据收集或设计来测试治疗是否有用,以及传统的组间个性化医学RCT设计中的偏差。对于治疗反应存在异质性的情况(大多数心理和行为治疗都是如此),我们建议在更多情况下增加使用采用组内设计的单病例(也称为N-of-1)试验。这种设计的局限性包括,它们仅在治疗可能可逆、患者可以作为自身对照且结果可以重复测量时才能使用。增加组内试验的使用可能在更多情况下解决更具临床相关性的问题,即特定患者对特定治疗的反应如何,并可能为我们治疗患者的方式引入更和谐的科学方法。我们纳入了一个病例展示,以说明将这些不同设计得出的证据应用于为临床医生和患者常见的行为问题选择和评估治疗方法时的复杂性。