Assessing the net financial benefits of employing digital endpoints in clinical trials.

In the last few decades, developers of new drugs, biologics, and devices have increasingly leveraged digital health technologies (DHTs) to assess clinical trial digital endpoints. To our knowledge, a comprehensive assessment of the financial net benefits of digital endpoints in clinical trials has not been conducted. We obtained data from the Digital Medicine Society (DiMe) Library of Digital Endpoints and the US clinical trials registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. The benefit metrics are changes in trial phase duration and enrollment associated with the use of digital endpoints. The cost metric was obtained from an industry survey of the costs of including digital endpoints in clinical trials. We developed an expected net present value (eNPV) model of the cash flows for new drug development and commercialization to assess financial value. The value measure is the increment in eNPV that occurs when digital endpoints are employed. We also calculated a return on investment (ROI) as the ratio of the estimated increment in eNPV to the mean digital endpoint implementation cost. For phase II trials, the increase in eNPV varied from $2.2 million to $3.3 million, with ROIs between 32% and 48% per indication. The net benefits were substantially higher for phase III trials, with the increase in eNPV varying from $27 million to $40 million, with ROIs that were four to six times the investment. The use of digital endpoints in clinical trials can provide substantial extra value to sponsors developing new drugs, with high ROIs.

A sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools: results of a modified Delphi process.

Among the thousands of eHealth tools available, the vast majority do not get past pilot phases because they cannot prove value, and only a few have been systematically assessed. Although multiple eHealth assessment frameworks have been developed, these efforts face multiple challenges. This study aimed to address some of these challenges by validating and refining an initial list of 55 assessment criteria based on previous frameworks through a two-round modified Delphi process with in-between rounds of interviews. The expert panel (n = 57) included participants from 18 countries and 9 concerned parties. A consensus was reached on 46 criteria that were classified into foundational and contextual criteria. The 36 foundational criteria focus on evaluating the eHealth tool itself and were grouped into nine clusters: technical aspects, clinical utility and safety, usability and human centricity, functionality, content, data management, endorsement, maintenance, and developer. The 10 contextual criteria focus on evaluating the factors that vary depending on the context the tool is being evaluated for and were grouped into seven clusters: data-protection compliance, safety regulatory compliance, interoperability and data integration, cultural requirements, affordability, cost-benefit, and implementability. The classification of criteria into foundational and contextual helps us assess not only the quality of an isolated tool, but also its potential fit in a specific setting. Criteria subscales may be particularly relevant when determining the strengths and weaknesses of the tool being evaluated. This granularity enables different concerned parties to make informed decisions about which tools to consider according to their specific needs and priorities.

Evolving regulatory perspectives on digital health technologies for medicinal product development.

Digital health technology tools (DHTTs) present real opportunities for accelerating innovation, improving patient care, reducing clinical trial duration and minimising risk in medicines development. This review is comprised of four case studies of DHTTs used throughout the lifecycle of medicinal products, starting from their development. These cases illustrate how the regulatory requirements of DHTTs used in medicines development are based on two European regulatory frameworks (medical device and the medicinal product regulations) and highlight the need for increased collaboration between various stakeholders, including regulators (medicines regulators and device bodies), pharmaceutical sponsors, manufacturers of devices and software, and academia. As illustrated in the examples, the complexity of the interactions is further increased by unique challenges related to DHTTs. These case studies are the main examples of DHTTs with a regulatory assessment thus far, providing an insight into the applicable current regulatory approach; they were selected by a group of authors, including regulatory specialists from pharmaceutical sponsors, technology experts, academic researchers and employees of the European Medicines Agency. For each case study, the challenges faced by sponsors and proposed potential solutions are discussed, and the benefit of a structured interaction among the different stakeholders is also highlighted.

Role of innovation in pharmaceutical regulation: A proposal for principles to evaluate EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation from the innovator perspective.

Because the EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation is under review, the EFPIA Innovation Board developed evaluation principles for the policy proposals and key considerations on how the regulatory framework can support innovation while ensuring only safe, efficacious and quality medicines are authorized. The evaluation principles are anchored on actions to promote: agile adoption of new methodologies with soft law tools; continued emphasis on regulatory science to inform policies; a cost/benefit assessment of the new regulation to ensure they have an overall positive impact; and mitigation of any negative externalities or unintended effects for any type of innovation or products. The evaluation principles are intended to guide the impact assessment of the pharmaceutical legislation in the EU but the principles can be applied globally.

Development of novel IVD assays: a manufacturer's perspective.

IVD manufacturers are heavily reliant on novel IVD assays to fuel their growth and drive innovation within the industry. They represent a key part of the IVD industry's value proposition to customers and the healthcare industry in general, driving product differentiation, helping to create demand for new systems and generating incremental revenue. However, the discovery of novel biomarkers and their qualification for a specific clinical purpose is a high risk undertaking and the large, risky investments associated with doing this on a large scale are incompatible with IVD manufacturer's business models. This article describes the sources of novel IVD assays, the processes for discovering and qualifying novel assays and the reliance of IVD manufacturers on collaborations and in-licensing to source new IVD assays for their platforms.