ABSTRACT
Digital health technologies (DHTs) at the intersection of health, medical informatics, and business aim to enhance patient care through personalised digital approaches. Ensuring the efficacy and reliability of these innovations demands rigorous clinical validation. A PubMed literature review (January 2006 to July 2023) identified 1250 papers, highlighting growing academic interest. A focused narrative review (January 2018 to July 2023) delved into challenges, highlighting issues such as diverse regulatory landscapes, adoption issues in complex healthcare systems, and a plethora of evaluation frameworks lacking pragmatic guidance. Existing frameworks often omit crucial criteria, neglect empirical evidence, and clinical effectiveness is rarely included as a criterion for DHT quality. The paper underscores the urgency of addressing challenges in accreditation, adoption, business models, and integration to safeguard the quality, efficacy, and safety of DHTs. A pivotal illustration of collaborative efforts to address these challenges is exemplified by the Digital Health Validation Center, dedicated to generating clinical evidence of innovative healthcare technologies and facilitating seamless technology transfer. In conclusion, it is necessary to harmonise evaluation approaches and frameworks, improve regulatory clarity, and commit to collaboration to integrate rigorous clinical validation and empirical evidence throughout the DHT life cycle.
ABSTRACT
(1) Background: In the mHeart trial, we showed that an eHealth intervention, mHeart, improved heart transplant (HTx) recipients' adherence to immunosuppressive therapy compared with the standard of care. Herein, we present the analysis assessing whether mHeart reduces complication frequency and healthcare resource use, and whether this reduction depends on patients' adherence. (2) Methods: The mHeart was a single-center randomized-controlled trial (IIBSP-MHE-2014-55) in 134 adult HTx recipients (n = 71 intervention; n = 63 controls). The endpoints were mortality, complications, and resource use during follow-up (mean 1.6 ± 0.6 years). (3) Results: A significantly lower proportion of HTx recipients in mHeart had echocardiographic alteration (2.8% vs. 13.8%; p = 0.02), cardiovascular events (0.35% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.006), infections (17.2% vs. 56%; p = 0.03), and uncontrolled Hba1c (40.8% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.03) than controls. In addition, a significantly lower proportion of patients in the intervention needed hospital (32.4% vs. 56.9%; p = 0.004) or urgent admissions (16.9% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.002) and emergency room visits (50.7% vs. 69.0%; p = 0.03). Adherence status (measured by the self-reported SMAQ) influenced only controls regarding hospitalizations and emergency room visits. Differences were not significant on deaths (intervention 4.2% vs. control 9.5%; p = 0.4) (4) Conclusions: the mHeart strategy significantly reduced the occurrence of the studied post-transplant complications and the need for medical attention in HTx recipients. Adherence status influenced controls in their need for medical care.
