IMPORTANCE In rare diseases it is difficult to achieve high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy because of small cohorts and clinical heterogeneity. With emerging treatments for rare diseases, innovative trial designs are needed. OBJECTIVE To investigate the effectiveness of mexiletine in nondystrophic myotonia using an aggregated N-of-1 trials design and compare results between this innovative design and a previously conducted RCT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A series of aggregated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled N-of-1-trials, performed in a single academic referral center. Thirty Dutch adult patients with genetically confirmed nondystrophic myotonia (38 patients screened) were enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015. Follow-up was completed in September 2016. INTERVENTIONS Mexiletine (600 mg daily) vs placebo during multiple treatment periods of 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Reduction in daily-reported muscle stiffness on a scale of 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating more impairment. A Bayesian hierarchical model aggregated individual N-of-1 trial data to determine the posterior probability of reaching a clinically meaningful effect of a greater than 0.75-point difference. RESULTS Among 30 enrolled patients (mean age, 43.4 [SD, 15.24] years; 22% men; 19 CLCN1 and 11 SCN4A genotype), 27 completed the study and 3 dropped out (1 because of a serious adverse event). In 24 of the 27 completers, a clinically meaningful treatment effect was found. In the Bayesian hierarchical model, mexiletine resulted in a 100% posterior probability of reaching a clinically meaningful reduction in self-reported muscle stiffness for the nondystrophic myotonia group overall and the CLCN1 genotype subgroup and 93% posterior probability for the SCN4A genotype subgroup. In the total nondystrophic myotonia group, the median muscle stiffness score was 6.08 (interquartile range, 4.71-6.80) at baseline and was 2.50 (95% credible interval [CrI], 1.77-3.24) during the mexiletine period and 5.56 (95% CrI, 4.73-6.39) during the placebo period; difference in symptom score reduction, 3.06 (95% CrI, 1.96-4.15; n = 27) favoring mexiletine. The most common adverse event was gastrointestinal discomfort (21 mexiletine [70%], 1 placebo [3%]). One serious adverse event occurred (1 mexiletine [3%]; allergic skin reaction). Using frequentist reanalysis, mexiletine compared with placebo resulted in a mean reduction in daily-reported muscle stiffness of 3.12 (95% CI, 2.46-3.78), consistent with the previous RCT treatment effect of 2.69 (95% CI, 2.12-3.26). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In a series of N-of-1 trials of mexiletine vs placebo in patients with nondystrophic myotonia, there was a reduction in mean daily-reported muscle stiffness that was consistent with the treatment effect in a previous randomized clinical trial. These findings support the efficacy of mexiletine for treatment of nondystrophic myotonia as well as the feasibility of N-of-1 trials for assessing interventions in some chronic rare diseases.

The nondystrophic myotonias are rare muscle hyperexcitability disorders caused by gain-of-function mutations in the SCN4A gene or loss-of-function mutations in the CLCN1 gene. Clinically, they are characterized by myotonia, defined as delayed muscle relaxation after voluntary contraction, which leads to symptoms of muscle stiffness, pain, fatigue, and weakness. Diagnosis is based on history and examination findings, the presence of electrical myotonia on electromyography, and genetic confirmation. In the absence of genetic confirmation, the diagnosis is supported by detailed electrophysiological testing, exclusion of other related disorders, and analysis of a variant of uncertain significance if present.

Background: Neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) are clinically and genetically heterogeneous. Accurate molecular genetic diagnosis can improve clinical management, provides appropriate genetic counseling and testing of relatives, and allows potential therapeutic trials. Objective: To establish the clinical utility of panel-based whole exome sequencing (WES) in NMDs in a population with children and adults with various neuromuscular symptoms. Methods: Clinical exome sequencing, followed by diagnostic interpretation of variants in genes associated with NMDs, was performed in a cohort of 396 patients suspected of having a genetic cause with a variable age of onset, neuromuscular phenotype, and inheritance pattern. Many had previously undergone targeted gene testing without results. Results: Disease-causing variants were identified in 75/396 patients (19%), with variants in the three COL6-genes (COL6A1, COL6A2 and COL6A3) as the most common cause of the identified muscle disorder, followed by variants in the RYR1 gene. Together, these four genes account for almost 25% of cases in whom a definite genetic cause was identified. Furthermore, likely pathogenic variants and/or variants of uncertain significance were identified in 95 of the patients (24%), in whom functional and/or segregation analysis should be used to confirm or reject the pathogenicity. In 18% of the cases with a disease-causing variant of which we received additional clinical information, we identified a genetic cause in genes of which the associated phenotypes did not match that of the patients. Hence, the advantage of panel-based WES is its unbiased approach. Conclusion: Whole exome sequencing, followed by filtering for NMD genes, offers an unbiased approach for the genetic diagnostics of NMD patients. This approach could be used as a first-tier test in neuromuscular disorders with a high suspicion of a genetic cause. With uncertain results, functional testing and segregation analysis are needed to complete the evidence.

No abstract

N-of-1 trials can provide high-class evidence on drug treatment effectiveness at the individual patient level and have been given renewed interest over the past decade due to improvements of the initial single patient design. Despite these recent developments, there is still no consensus under what circumstances N-of-1 trials should be considered as part of evidence-based clinical care and when they represent medical research with need for institutional review board (IRB) approval. This lack of consensus forms an obstacle for a more widespread implementation of N-of-1 trials. Based upon the existing literature, we as a group of researchers involved in N-of-1 trials and members of the IRB of a tertiary academic referral center, designed a practical flowchart based on an ethical framework to help make this distinction. The ethical framework together with a practical flowchart are presented in this communication.