Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37195515›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2023

Digital Tools-Regulatory Considerations for Application in Clinical Trials.

Lian Gelis, Isabelle Stoeckert, Hans-Peter Podhaisky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lian GelisBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Project Management 1, Wuppertal, Germany.
Isabelle StoeckertBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Regulatory Affairs, EMEA, Wuppertal, Germany.
Hans-Peter PodhaiskyBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Regulatory Affairs, MD, Berlin, Germany. hans-peter.podhaisky@bayer.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3414-9252
Bayer (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Drug DevelopmentDrug IndustryDrug EvaluationSoftwareUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationDDTDHTDigital toolDrug developmentSaMD

Identifiers

PMID37195515
OpenAlexW4376871273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.