How Much Evidence Is Enough? Research Sponsor Experiences Seeking Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Health Technology-Derived Endpoints

Overview

Journal Digit Biomark

Date 2023 Jul 5

PMID 37404865

Authors

Brian Perry

Lindsay Kehoe

Teresa Swezey

Quentin Le Masne

Jorg Goldhahn

Alicia Staley

Amy Corneli

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Digital health technologies (DHTs) provide opportunities for real-time data collection and assessment of patient function. However, use of DHT-derived endpoints in clinical trials to support medical product labelling claims is limited.

Methods: From November 2020 through March 2021, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews with sponsors of clinical trials that used DHT-derived endpoints. We aimed to learn about their experiences, including their interactions with regulators and the challenges they encountered. Using applied thematic analysis, we identified barriers to and recommendations for using DHT-derived endpoints in pivotal trials.

Results: Sponsors identified five key challenges to incorporating DHT-derived endpoints in clinical trials. These included (1) a need for additional regulatory clarity specific to DHT-derived endpoints, (2) the official clinical outcome assessment qualification process being impractical for the biopharmaceutical industry, (3) a lack of comparator clinical endpoints, (4) a lack of validated DHTs and algorithms for concepts of interest, and (5) a lack of operational support from DHT vendors.

Discussion/conclusion: CTTI shared the interview findings with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and during a multi-stakeholder expert meeting. Based on these discussions, we provide several new and revised tools to aid sponsors in using DHT-derived endpoints in pivotal trials to support labelling claims.

Citing Articles

Digital Health Technologies for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias: Initial Results from a Landscape Analysis and Community Collaborative Effort.

Lott S, Streel E, Bachman S, Bode K, Dyer J, Fitzer-Attas C J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2024; 11(5):1480-1489.

PMID: 39350395 PMC: 11436391. DOI: 10.14283/jpad.2024.103.

Unleashing the full potential of digital outcome measures in clinical trials: eight questions that need attention.

Tackney M, Carpenter J, Villar S BMC Med. 2024; 22(1):413.

PMID: 39334286 PMC: 11438362. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03590-x.

In-Clinic and Natural Gait Observations master protocol (I-CAN-GO) to validate gait using a lumbar accelerometer.

Welbourn M, Sheriff P, Tuttle P, Adamowicz L, Psaltos D, Kelekar A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):20128.

PMID: 39209869 PMC: 11362325. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-67675-6.

Innovative research methodologies in the EU regulatory framework: an analysis of EMA qualification procedures from a pediatric perspective.

Giannuzzi V, Bertolani A, Torretta S, Reggiardo G, Toich E, Bonifazi D Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1369547.

PMID: 38606157 PMC: 11007141. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1369547.

A proposed multi-domain, digital model for capturing functional status and health-related quality of life in oncology.

Izmailova E, Wagner J, Bakker J, Kilian R, Ellis R, Ohri N Clin Transl Sci. 2024; 17(1):e13712.

PMID: 38266055 PMC: 10774540. DOI: 10.1111/cts.13712.

References

Goldsack J, Dowling A, Samuelson D, Patrick-Lake B, Clay I . Evaluation, Acceptance, and Qualification of Digital Measures: From Proof of Concept to Endpoint. Digit Biomark. 2021; 5(1):53-64. PMC: 8077605. DOI: 10.1159/000514730. View

Polhemus A, Kadhim H, Barnes S, Zebrowski S, Simmonds A, Masand S . Accelerating Adoption of Patient-Facing Technologies in Clinical Trials: A Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective on Opportunities and Challenges. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018; 53(1):8-24. DOI: 10.1177/2168479018801566. View

Haberkamp M, Moseley J, Athanasiou D, de Andres-Trelles F, Elferink A, Rosa M . European regulators' views on a wearable-derived performance measurement of ambulation for Duchenne muscular dystrophy regulatory trials. Neuromuscul Disord. 2019; 29(7):514-516. DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2019.06.003. View

Perry B, Geoghegan C, Lin L, McGuire F, Nido V, Grabert B . Patient preferences for using mobile technologies in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019; 15:100399. PMC: 6610628. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100399. View

Landers M, Dorsey R, Saria S . Digital Endpoints: Definition, Benefits, and Current Barriers in Accelerating Development and Adoption. Digit Biomark. 2021; 5(3):216-223. PMC: 8490914. DOI: 10.1159/000517885. View

Jaeger S, Wohlrab M, Schoene D, Tremmel R, Chambers M, Leocani L . Mobility endpoints in marketing authorisation of drugs: what gets the European medicines agency moving?. Age Ageing. 2022; 51(1). PMC: 8789320. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afab242. View

Walton M, Cappelleri J, Byrom B, Goldsack J, Eremenco S, Harris D . Considerations for development of an evidence dossier to support the use of mobile sensor technology for clinical outcome assessments in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020; 91:105962. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105962. View

Perry B, Herrington W, Goldsack J, Grandinetti C, Vasisht K, Landray M . Use of Mobile Devices to Measure Outcomes in Clinical Research, 2010-2016: A Systematic Literature Review. Digit Biomark. 2018; 2(1):11-30. PMC: 6008882. DOI: 10.1159/000486347. View

McKenna K, Geoghegan C, Swezey T, Perry B, Wood W, Nido V . Investigator Experiences Using Mobile Technologies in Clinical Research: Qualitative Descriptive Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021; 9(2):e19242. PMC: 7910119. DOI: 10.2196/19242. View

10.

Kruizinga M, Stuurman F, Exadaktylos V, Doll R, Stephenson D, Groeneveld G . Development of Novel, Value-Based, Digital Endpoints for Clinical Trials: A Structured Approach Toward Fit-for-Purpose Validation. Pharmacol Rev. 2020; 72(4):899-909. DOI: 10.1124/pr.120.000028. View

11.

Marra C, Chen J, Coravos A, Stern A . Quantifying the use of connected digital products in clinical research. NPJ Digit Med. 2020; 3:50. PMC: 7125096. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-020-0259-x. View

12.

Goldsack J, Coravos A, Bakker J, Bent B, Dowling A, Fitzer-Attas C . Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs). NPJ Digit Med. 2020; 3:55. PMC: 7156507. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-020-0260-4. View

13.

Crouthamel M, Mather R, Ramachandran S, Bode K, Chatterjee G, Garcia-Gancedo L . Developing a Novel Measurement of Sleep in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Study Proposal for Approach and Considerations. Digit Biomark. 2021; 5(3):191-205. PMC: 8460981. DOI: 10.1159/000518024. View

14.

Dodge H, Zhu J, Mattek N, Austin D, Kornfeld J, Kaye J . Use of High-Frequency In-Home Monitoring Data May Reduce Sample Sizes Needed in Clinical Trials. PLoS One. 2015; 10(9):e0138095. PMC: 4574479. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138095. View

15.

Mantua V, Arango C, Balabanov P, Butlen-Ducuing F . Digital health technologies in clinical trials for central nervous system drugs: an EU regulatory perspective. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020; 20(2):83-84. DOI: 10.1038/d41573-020-00168-z. View