Cargando…

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

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, th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Perry, Brian, Kehoe, Lindsay, Swezey, Teresa, Le Masne, Quentin, Goldhahn, Jörg, Staley, Alicia, Corneli, Amy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: S. Karger AG 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10315005/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37404865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000529878
_version_ 1785067421758914560
author Perry, Brian
Kehoe, Lindsay
Swezey, Teresa
Le Masne, Quentin
Goldhahn, Jörg
Staley, Alicia
Corneli, Amy
author_facet Perry, Brian
Kehoe, Lindsay
Swezey, Teresa
Le Masne, Quentin
Goldhahn, Jörg
Staley, Alicia
Corneli, Amy
author_sort Perry, Brian
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10315005
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher S. Karger AG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103150052023-07-03 How Much Evidence Is Enough? Research Sponsor Experiences Seeking Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Health Technology-Derived Endpoints Perry, Brian Kehoe, Lindsay Swezey, Teresa Le Masne, Quentin Goldhahn, Jörg Staley, Alicia Corneli, Amy Digit Biomark Interview 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. S. Karger AG 2023-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10315005/ /pubmed/37404865 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000529878 Text en © 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC) (http://www.karger.com/Services/OpenAccessLicense). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes requires written permission.
spellingShingle Interview
Perry, Brian
Kehoe, Lindsay
Swezey, Teresa
Le Masne, Quentin
Goldhahn, Jörg
Staley, Alicia
Corneli, Amy
How Much Evidence Is Enough? Research Sponsor Experiences Seeking Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Health Technology-Derived Endpoints
title How Much Evidence Is Enough? Research Sponsor Experiences Seeking Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Health Technology-Derived Endpoints
title_full How Much Evidence Is Enough? Research Sponsor Experiences Seeking Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Health Technology-Derived Endpoints
title_fullStr How Much Evidence Is Enough? Research Sponsor Experiences Seeking Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Health Technology-Derived Endpoints
title_full_unstemmed How Much Evidence Is Enough? Research Sponsor Experiences Seeking Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Health Technology-Derived Endpoints
title_short How Much Evidence Is Enough? Research Sponsor Experiences Seeking Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Health Technology-Derived Endpoints
title_sort how much evidence is enough? research sponsor experiences seeking regulatory acceptance of digital health technology-derived endpoints
topic Interview
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10315005/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37404865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000529878
work_keys_str_mv AT perrybrian howmuchevidenceisenoughresearchsponsorexperiencesseekingregulatoryacceptanceofdigitalhealthtechnologyderivedendpoints
AT kehoelindsay howmuchevidenceisenoughresearchsponsorexperiencesseekingregulatoryacceptanceofdigitalhealthtechnologyderivedendpoints
AT swezeyteresa howmuchevidenceisenoughresearchsponsorexperiencesseekingregulatoryacceptanceofdigitalhealthtechnologyderivedendpoints
AT lemasnequentin howmuchevidenceisenoughresearchsponsorexperiencesseekingregulatoryacceptanceofdigitalhealthtechnologyderivedendpoints
AT goldhahnjorg howmuchevidenceisenoughresearchsponsorexperiencesseekingregulatoryacceptanceofdigitalhealthtechnologyderivedendpoints
AT staleyalicia howmuchevidenceisenoughresearchsponsorexperiencesseekingregulatoryacceptanceofdigitalhealthtechnologyderivedendpoints
AT corneliamy howmuchevidenceisenoughresearchsponsorexperiencesseekingregulatoryacceptanceofdigitalhealthtechnologyderivedendpoints