Updated Recommendations on Evidence Needed to Support Measurement Comparability Among Modes of Data Collection for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

The ISPOR Task Force on measurement comparability between modes of data collection for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has updated the good practice recommendations from the 2009 ISPOR electronic patient-reported outcome and 2014 patient-reported outcome mixed modes Good Research Practices Task Force reports in light of accumulated evidence of measurement comparability among different modes of PROM data collection. Furthermore, with the increasing use of electronic formats of clinical outcome assessments in clinical trials and the US Food and Drug Administration's encouragement of electronic data collection, this new task force report provides stakeholders with best practice recommendations reflecting the current body of evidence and enables them to respond to future developments in research and technology. This task force recommends an evidence-based approach to determine whether new research is needed to evaluate measurement comparability for a given questionnaire or technology. The suitability of existing evidence depends upon whether it satisfactorily demonstrates that the change in data collection mode has not affected the PROM's measurement properties. In cases where sufficient evidence of measurement comparability exists and best practices for faithful migration are followed, this task force concludes that further testing of measurement comparability among the data collection modes is unnecessary, including cases of "mixing modes" within clinical trials such as bring your own device designs.

Mobilizing Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Real-World Digital Technology Solutions: Tutorial.

Although the value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities in the development of new interventions and tools is well known, little guidance exists on how to perform these activities in a meaningful way. This is particularly true within large research consortia that target multiple objectives, include multiple patient groups, and work across many countries. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that PPIE may not capture patient opinions and needs correctly, thereby reducing the usefulness and effectiveness of new tools. Mobilise-D is an example of a large research consortium that aims to develop new digital outcome measures for real-world walking in 4 patient cohorts. Mobility is an important indicator of physical health. As such, there is potential clinical value in being able to accurately measure a person's mobility in their daily life environment to help researchers and clinicians better track changes and patterns in a person's daily life and activities. To achieve this, there is a need to create new ways of measuring walking. Recent advancements in digital technology help researchers meet this need. However, before any new measure can be used, researchers, health care professionals, and regulators need to know that the digital method is accurate and both accepted by and produces meaningful outcomes for patients and clinicians. Therefore, this paper outlines how PPIE structures were developed in the Mobilise-D consortium, providing details about the steps taken to implement PPIE, the experiences PPIE contributors had within this process, the lessons learned from the experiences, and recommendations for others who may want to do similar work in the future. The work outlined in this paper provided the Mobilise-D consortium with a foundation from which future PPIE tasks can be created and managed with clearly defined collaboration between researchers and patient representatives across Europe. This paper provides guidance on the work required to set up PPIE structures within a large consortium to promote and support the creation of meaningful and efficient PPIE related to the development of digital mobility outcomes.

Recommendations for the Electronic Migration and Implementation of Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments in Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Although best practices from electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are transferable, the migration of clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessments to electronic modes requires recommendations that address their unique properties, such as the user (eg, clinician), and complexity associated with programming of clinical content. Faithful migration remains essential to ensuring that the content and psychometric properties of the original scale (ie, validated reference) are preserved, such that clinicians completing the ClinRO assessments interpret and respond to the items the same way regardless of data collection mode. The authors present a framework for how to "faithfully" migrate electronic ClinRO assessments for successful deployment in clinical trials. METHODS: Critical Path Institute's Electronic PRO Consortium and PRO Consortium convened a consensus panel of representatives from member firms to develop recommendations for electronic migration and implementation of ClinRO assessments in clinical trials based on industry standards, regulatory guidelines where available, and relevant literature. The recommendations were reviewed and approved by all member firms from both consortia. CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS: Standard, minimal electronic modifications for ClinRO assessments are described. This article also outlines implementation steps, including planning, startup, electronic clinical outcome assessment system development, training, and deployment. The consensus panel proposes that functional clinical testing by a clinician or clinical outcome assessment expert, as well as copyright holder review of screenshots (if possible) are sufficient to support minimal modifications during migration. Additional evidence generation is proposed for modifications that deviate significantly from the validated reference.

Connecting real-world digital mobility assessment to clinical outcomes for regulatory and clinical endorsement-the Mobilise-D study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The development of optimal strategies to treat impaired mobility related to ageing and chronic disease requires better ways to detect and measure it. Digital health technology, including body worn sensors, has the potential to directly and accurately capture real-world mobility. Mobilise-D consists of 34 partners from 13 countries who are working together to jointly develop and implement a digital mobility assessment solution to demonstrate that real-world digital mobility outcomes have the potential to provide a better, safer, and quicker way to assess, monitor, and predict the efficacy of new interventions on impaired mobility. The overarching objective of the study is to establish the clinical validity of digital outcomes in patient populations impacted by mobility challenges, and to support engagement with regulatory and health technology agencies towards acceptance of digital mobility assessment in regulatory and health technology assessment decisions. METHODS/DESIGN: The Mobilise-D clinical validation study is a longitudinal observational cohort study that will recruit 2400 participants from four clinical cohorts. The populations of the Innovative Medicine Initiative-Joint Undertaking represent neurodegenerative conditions (Parkinson's Disease), respiratory disease (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), neuro-inflammatory disorder (Multiple Sclerosis), fall-related injuries, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and frailty (Proximal Femoral Fracture). In total, 17 clinical sites in ten countries will recruit participants who will be evaluated every six months over a period of two years. A wide range of core and cohort specific outcome measures will be collected, spanning patient-reported, observer-reported, and clinician-reported outcomes as well as performance-based outcomes (physical measures and cognitive/mental measures). Daily-living mobility and physical capacity will be assessed directly using a wearable device. These four clinical cohorts were chosen to obtain generalizable clinical findings, including diverse clinical, cultural, geographical, and age representation. The disease cohorts include a broad and heterogeneous range of subject characteristics with varying chronic care needs, and represent different trajectories of mobility disability. DISCUSSION: The results of Mobilise-D will provide longitudinal data on the use of digital mobility outcomes to identify, stratify, and monitor disability. This will support the development of widespread, cost-effective access to optimal clinical mobility management through personalised healthcare. Further, Mobilise-D will provide evidence-based, direct measures which can be endorsed by regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies to quantify the impact of disease-modifying interventions on mobility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12051706.

A Roadmap to Inform Development, Validation and Approval of Digital Mobility Outcomes: The Mobilise-D Approach.

Health care has had to adapt rapidly to COVID-19, and this in turn has highlighted a pressing need for tools to facilitate remote visits and monitoring. Digital health technology, including body-worn devices, offers a solution using digital outcomes to measure and monitor disease status and provide outcomes meaningful to both patients and health care professionals. Remote monitoring of physical mobility is a prime example, because mobility is among the most advanced modalities that can be assessed digitally and remotely. Loss of mobility is also an important feature of many health conditions, providing a read-out of health as well as a target for intervention. Real-world, continuous digital measures of mobility (digital mobility outcomes or DMOs) provide an opportunity for novel insights into health care conditions complementing existing mobility measures. Accepted and approved DMOs are not yet widely available. The need for large collaborative efforts to tackle the critical steps to adoption is widely recognised. Mobilise-D is an example. It is a multidisciplinary consortium of 34 institutions from academia and industry funded through the European Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. Members of Mobilise-D are collaborating to address the critical steps for DMOs to be adopted in clinical trials and ultimately health care. To achieve this, the consortium has developed a roadmap to inform the development, validation and approval of DMOs in Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and recovery from proximal femoral fracture. Here we aim to describe the proposed approach and provide a high-level view of the ongoing and planned work of the Mobilise-D consortium. Ultimately, Mobilise-D aims to stimulate widespread adoption of DMOs through the provision of device agnostic software, standards and robust validation in order to bring digital outcomes from concept to use in clinical trials and health care.

Building clinical trials around patients: Evaluation and comparison of decentralized and conventional site models in patients with low back pain.

Clinical trials are slow and costly, built around the research centers that study local participants. Building clinical trials around patients in their homes and community through remote visits and monitoring could enhance recruitment and increase convenience for participants. This study evaluated different trial settings, a decentralized arm via telemedicine center (virtual study conduct), a conventional arm via health clinic (onsite study conduct) and a mixed model arm. Acute low-back pain patients (20-65 years) were recruited to this non-interventional trial in Switzerland. The study consisted of a screening period and a 2-week data collection period using direct data capture (eSource), electronic informed consent form (eICF), electronic diary (eDiary) and wearable actigraphy sensor. A higher number of patients were enrolled in the decentralized arm (N = 18) compared to the conventional arm (N = 5) and none in the mixed model arm. The decentralized arm consisted of a diverse population with increased participation from rural areas. In the decentralized arm 89% of enrolled patients completed the study compared to 60% in the conventional arm. All the patients reported satisfaction with the use of eICF, eDiary and remote visits; whereas patients reported a lower level of satisfaction with the wearable sensor. The decentralized setting was operationally feasible and well accepted by patients. Faster recruitment and improved access to patients was observed in the decentralized arm. This study supports broader adoption of the decentralized model in clinical trials, though further investigations in larger interventional trials are needed to confirm the benefits from this patient-centric approach.