New steps to individualize patients care

February 17, 2017

In the current issue of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Dr. Ralph Horwitz and colleagues outline new methodologies, in addition to the well-known randomized controlled trials, to gather information that may lead to individualized patient care.

The individualized care of patients has always been the focus of physicians in the practice of medicine. The commitment of physicians to the care of sick patients has remained steadfast despite the urgings of health policy experts who often prefer an emphasis on population medicine or of health system leaders who emphasize system-level efficiency and economic performance.

The ideal information base for a clinician choosing treatment for a particular patient is an archive of clinical histories closely matched to the patient in question, where some individuals have received the contemplated treatment and others have not.

Most of the data currently available about the results of using alternative treatments derive from RCTs. Unfortunately, the populations enrolled in such trials are far more heterogeneous than are required for a set of close matches to the patient being seen by the physician. Although these average treatment effects from heterogeneous RCTs may be acceptable for regulators licensing drugs, they are rarely sufficient for the clinician focusing on a single patient. Likewise, psychosocial features of patients at the individual level also directly affect clinical outcomes.

Dr. Horwitz and colleagues argue that rather than relying solely on the average results of groups of patients drawn exclusively from randomized trials, we can use information from biology, behavior, and psychosocial influences to describe distinct profiles of individual patients. Patient profiles would then be formed by integrating information across all of these domains, biology, behavior, and psychosocial.

To accomplish this objective requires improved taxonomic systems and improved measurement tools. Clinical medicine is fast developing new ways to profile . Current devices are capable of "digitizing" a person with wearable sensors that quantify physiological metrics such as vital signs, provide high-definition images of a persons' anatomy, and characterize the microbiome. What remains missing, however, is a comprehensive approach that seeks to understand how the interactions among genetics, mind, body, behavior, and the environment affect both the risk for disease and the response to treatment.

The new era of individualized patient care will require new ways of thinking, new types of data that describe clinical, social, and behavioral features of individuals, and new methods of analysis. What will no longer suffice is the sole reliance on the average results from to guide treatment decisions.

The first step in new ways of thinking is to acknowledge that the primary focus of the research and evidence generation must be at the individual level, rather than the group or population. Individual level data will emphasize detailed and repeated measures over time of each subject across multiple domains including deep biology, clinical physiology, social and behavioral features, and the associated environment. It will then be necessary to create individual-based "profiles" that integrate the data across these domains and to assemble large archives of these profiles to enable the identification of approximate matches for each subject. Next, it is essential that we expand the customary data beyond the usual information collected in RCTs to include genomic and other "-omics" data, the microbiome, and the newly available data made possible through new digital technologies. These capabilities already exist. What does not yet exist are analytical methods that create patient profiles with a full integration of multiple domains and with repeated measures over time.

The strategy of analysis will not proceed from large populations to smaller subgroups. Instead, it starts with the individual patient, and uses his/her characteristics to define populations relevant to guide patient management - i.e. the approximate matches to the individual patient. Personalized medicine, so constituted, will require a new kind of evidence base containing the multidimensional patient histories associated with a large number of common chronic disorders. 

Explore further: The value of randomized clinical trials in radiation oncology clinical practice

More information: Ralph I. Horwitz et al. Biology, Social Environment, and Personalized Medicine, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (2017). DOI: 10.1159/000452134

Related Stories

The value of randomized clinical trials in radiation oncology clinical practice

May 29, 2013
Cancer patients, physicians and insurers want to be sure that whatever therapy is recommended and provided to patients is based on evidence, preferably results from randomized clinical trials. But are there enough clinical ...

New technologies fuel patient participation and data collection in research

July 8, 2014
The changing dynamic of health studies driven by "big data" research projects will empower patients to become active participants who provide real-time information such as symptoms, side effects and clinical outcomes, according ...

New guidance urges improved reporting of important outcomes for patients in trials publications

February 28, 2013
Clinical trials provide us with the best evidence to guide patient treatment and inform health policy. Yet, crucial information, on outcomes reported directly by patients such as their quality of life, is often left out of ...

Achieving patient-centered care across the spectrum

May 13, 2014
Providing patient-centered care consistently in clinical practice requires practitioners who are able to recognize that different clinical situations require different approaches and are skilled enough to adapt.

Lack of voluntary data sharing from industry-funded clinical trials

June 28, 2016
In a study appearing in the June 28 issue of JAMA, Isabelle Boutron, M.D., Ph.D., of Paris Descartes University, Paris, and colleagues investigated the proportion of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ...

Review suggests vitamin D supplementation not associated with lower blood pressure

March 16, 2015
A review of clinical trial data suggests vitamin D supplementation was ineffective at lowering blood pressure (BP) and should not be used as an antihypertensive, according to an article published online by JAMA Internal Medicine.

Recommended for you

New study rebuts the claim that antidepressants do not work

August 18, 2017
A theory that has gained considerable attention in international media, including Newsweek and the CBS broadcast 60 minutes, suggests that antidepressant drugs such as the SSRIs do not exert any actual antidepressant effect. ...

Should I stay or should I leave? Untangling what goes on when a relationship is being questioned

August 17, 2017
Knowing whether to stay in or leave a romantic relationship is often an agonizing experience and that ambivalence can have negative consequences for health and well-being.

Kids learn moral lessons more effectively from stories with humans than human-like animals

August 17, 2017
A study by researchers at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto found that four to six-year-olds shared more after listening to books with human characters than books with anthropomorphic ...

History of stress increases miscarriage risk, says new review

August 17, 2017
A history of exposure to psychological stress can increase the risk of miscarriage by upto 42 per cent, according to a new review.

Study finds children pay close attention to potentially threatening information, avoid eye contact when anxious

August 17, 2017
We spend a lot of time looking at the eyes of others for social cues – it helps us understand a person's emotions, and make decisions about how to respond to them. We also know that adults avoid eye contact when anxious. ...

Communicating in a foreign language takes emotion out of decision making

August 16, 2017
If you could save the lives of five people by pushing another bystander in front of a train to his death, would you do it? And should it make any difference if that choice is presented in a language you speak, but isn't your ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.