ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2023
Digital Tools-Regulatory Considerations for Application in Clinical Trials.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regulatory Considerations for Combined Drug-Device Studies in Europe: A Case Study Involving Bile Sampling.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Review
- How Digital Health Technologies have been Used to Support Regulatory Drug Approval.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Pharmacovigilance Data From Digital Health Systems: Regulations, Implications, and Opportunities-A TransCelerate Perspective.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Future Designs of Clinical Trials in Nephrology: Integrating Methodological Innovation and Computational Power.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Use and Acceptance of Innovative Digital Health Solutions Among Patients and Professionals: Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Impact of Rule 11 on the European Medical Software Landscape: Analysis of EUDAMED and Further Databases Three Years After MDR Implementation.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Regulatory considerations for developing remote measurement technologies for Alzheimer's disease research.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Digital Health Technology (DHT) in European Clinical Trials, How to Improve the Status-Quo of the Regulatory Landscape?Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2024Article
- Incorporating digitally derived endpoints within clinical development programs by leveraging prior work.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the last few years, the pharmaceutical industry has adopted digital technologies/digital health technology (DHT) to improve the drug development process and the commercialization of new products. Technological advances are strongly supported by both the US-FDA and the EMA, but the regulatory landscape in the US seems to be more suitable to promote innovation in the digital health sector (e.g. Cures Act). In contrast, the new Medical Device Regulation sets high hurdles for Medical Device software to pass regulatory scrutiny.On both sides of the Atlantic, a digital tool must be fit-for-purpose for the intended use in the clinical drug trial. Irrespective of its status as a Medical Device, at least the basic safety and performance requirements according to local regulations should be met, quality system and surveillance requirements should be fulfilled, and the sponsor must ensure conformity with GxP and the local data privacy and cybersecurity legislations.There is an overlap in technical and clinical validation for drug development tool qualification in both regions to ensure that the digital tools deliver reliable data with tangible clinical benefits. Based on an analysis of the regulatory framework of the FDA and the EMA, this study proposes regulatory strategies for a global pharma company: It would be prudent for drug development companies to a) use approved solutions or b) consider qualification of drug development tools early and in parallel to clinical development. Early engagement with the FDA and the EMA/CA is recommended to define evidentiary standards and corresponding regulatory pathways for different contexts-of-use and to clarify regulator's expectations as to what extent data collected by digital tools are acceptable to support marketing authorization applications (MAA).Hence a harmonization of the partly disparate regulatory requirements in the US and the EU accompanied by further development of the regulatory landscape in the EU, could further foster the use of digital tools in drug clinical development. The outlook for the use of digital tools in clinical trials is hopeful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.