Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37404865›Full record

ArticleDigital biomarkers

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

Brian Perry, Lindsay Kehoe, Teresa Swezey, Quentin Le Masne, Jörg Goldhahn, Alicia Staley, Amy Corneli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital biomarkers. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Brian PerryClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Durham, NC, USA.
Lindsay KehoeClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Durham, NC, USA.
Teresa SwezeyClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Durham, NC, USA.
Quentin Le MasneClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Durham, NC, USA.
Jörg GoldhahnClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Durham, NC, USA.
Alicia StaleyClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Durham, NC, USA.
Amy CorneliClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Increasing the Quality and Efficiency of Clinical Trials (R18)R18FD005292 · FDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JENNIFER S · 2014 to 2019
$26.8M
Increasing the Quality and Efficiency of Clinical Trials (U18)U18FD005292 · FDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI John H Alexander · 2019 to 2026
$26.1M
FDA HHS R18 FD005292FDA HHS U18 FD005292
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Clinical outcome assessmentDigital health technologyEndpointRegulatory trial

Identifiers

PMID37404865
PMCPMC10315005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.