A proposed multi-domain, digital model for capturing functional status and health-related quality of life in oncology.

Whereas traditional oncology clinical trial endpoints remain key for assessing novel treatments, capturing patients' functional status is increasingly recognized as an important aspect for supporting clinical decisions and assessing outcomes in clinical trials. Existing functional status assessments suffer from various limitations, some of which may be addressed by adopting digital health technologies (DHTs) as a means of collecting both objective and self-reported outcomes. In this mini-review, we propose a device-agnostic multi-domain model for oncology capturing functional status, which includes physical activity data, vital signs, sleep variables, and measures related to health-related quality of life enabled by connected digital tools. By using DHTs for all aspects of data collection, our proposed model allows for high-resolution measurement of objective data as patients navigate their daily lives outside of the hospital setting. This is complemented by electronic questionnaires administered at intervals appropriate for each instrument. Preliminary testing and practical considerations to address before adoption are also discussed. Finally, we highlight multi-institutional pre-competitive collaborations as a means of successfully transitioning the proposed digitally enabled data collection model from feasibility studies to interventional trials and care management.

Study protocol: A comparison of mobile and clinic-based spirometry for capturing the treatment effect in moderate asthma.

Several inefficiencies in drug development trial implementation may be improved by moving data collection from the clinic to mobile, allowing for more frequent measurements and therefore increased statistical power while aligning to a patient-centric approach to trial design. Sensor-based digital health technologies such as mobile spirometry (mSpirometry) are comparable to clinic spirometry for capturing outcomes, such as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1); however, the impact of remote spirometry measurements on the detection of treatment effect has not been investigated. A protocol for a multicenter, single-arm, open-label interventional trial of long-acting beta agonist (LABA) therapy among 60 participants with uncontrolled moderate asthma is described. Participants will complete twice-daily mSpirometry at home and clinic spirometry during weekly visits, alongside continuous use of a wrist-worn wearable and regular completion of several diaries capturing asthma symptoms as well as participant- and site-reported satisfaction and ease of use of mSpirometry. The co-primary objectives of this study are (A) to quantify the treatment effect of LABA therapy among participants with moderate asthma, using both clinical spirometry (FEV1c ) and mSpirometry (FEV1m ); and (B) to investigate whether FEV1m is as accurate as FEV1c in detecting the treatment effect using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Study results will help inform whether the deployment of mSpirometry and a wrist-worn wearable for remote data collection are feasible in a multicenter setting among participants with moderate asthma, which may then be generalizable to other populations with respiratory disease.

Digital technologies: Innovations that transform the face of drug development.

Recently, digital health technologies (DHTs) and digital biomarkers have gained a lot of traction in clinical investigations, motivating sponsors, investigators, and regulators to discuss and implement integrated approaches for deploying DHTs. These new tools present new and unique challenges for optimal technology integration in clinical trial processes, including operational, ethical, and regulatory issues. In this paper, we gathered different perspectives to discuss challenges and perspectives from three different stakeholders: industry, US regulators, and a public-private partnership consortium. The complexities of DHT implementation, which include regulatory definitions, defining the scope of validation experiments, and the need for partnerships between BioPharma and the technology sectors, are highlighted. Most of these challenges are related to translation of DHT-derived measures into endpoints that are meaningful to clinicians and patients, participant safety, training, and retention and privacy of data. The example of the Wearable Assessments in the Clinic and Home in PD (WATCH-PD) study is discussed as an example that demonstrated the advantages of pre-competitive collaborations, which include early regulatory feedback, data sharing, and multistakeholder alignment. Future advances in DHTs are expected to spur device-agnostic measured development and incorporate patient reported outcomes in drug development. More efforts are needed to define validation experiments for a defined context of use, incentivize data sharing and development of data standards. Multistakeholder collaborations via precompetitive consortia will help facilitate broad acceptance of DHT-enabled measures in drug development.

Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures: Inviting Patients to the Conversation.

Background: Digital measures offer an unparalleled opportunity to create a more holistic picture of how people who are patients behave in their real-world environments, thereby establishing a better connection between patients, caregivers, and the clinical evidence used to drive drug development and disease management. Reaching this vision will require achieving a new level of co-creation between the stakeholders who design, develop, use, and make decisions using evidence from digital measures. Summary: In September 2022, the second in a series of meetings hosted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium, and sponsored by Wellcome Trust, entitled "Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures," was held in Zurich, Switzerland, with a broad range of stakeholders sharing their experience across four case studies to examine how patient centricity is essential in shaping development and validation of digital evidence generation tools. Key Messages: In this paper, we discuss progress and the remaining barriers to widespread use of digital measures for evidence generation in clinical development and care delivery. We also present key discussion points and takeaways in order to continue discourse and provide a basis for dissemination and outreach to the wider community and other stakeholders. The work presented here shows us a blueprint for how and why the patient voice can be thoughtfully integrated into digital measure development and that continued multistakeholder engagement is critical for further progress.

Digital health technology derived measures: Biomarkers or clinical outcome assessments?

Digital health technologies (DHTs) present unique opportunities for clinical evidence generation but pose certain challenges. These challenges stem, in part, from existing definitions of drug development tools, which were not created with DHT-derived measures in mind. DHT-derived measures can be leveraged as either clinical outcome assessments (COAs) or as biomarkers since they share properties with both categories of drug development tools. Examples from the literature indicate a variety of applications for DHT-derived data, including capturing disease physiology, symptom tracking, or response to therapies. The distinction between the categorization of DHT-derived measures as COAs or as biomarkers can be very fine, with terminology variability among regulatory authorities. This has significant implications for integration of DHT-derived measures in clinical trials, leading to confusion regarding the evidence required to support these tools' use in drug development. There is a need to amend definitions and create clear evidentiary requirements to support broad adoption of these new and innovative tools. The biopharma industry, the technology sector, consulting businesses, academic researchers, and regulators need a dialogue via multi-stakeholder collaborations to clarify questions around DHT-derived measures, to unify definitions, and to create the foundations for evidentiary package requirements, providing a path forward to predictable results.

Empowering drug development: Leveraging insights from imaging technologies to enable the advancement of digital health technologies.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has publicly recognized the importance of improving drug development efficiency, deeming translational biomarkers a top priority. The use of imaging biomarkers has been associated with increased rates of drug approvals. An appropriate level of validation provides a pragmatic way to choose and implement these biomarkers. Standardizing imaging modality selection, data acquisition protocols, and image analysis (in ways that are agnostic to equipment and algorithms) have been key to imaging biomarker deployment. The best known examples come from studies done via precompetitive collaboration efforts, which enable input from multiple stakeholders and data sharing. Digital health technologies (DHTs) provide an opportunity to measure meaningful aspects of patient health, including patient function, for extended periods of time outside of the hospital walls, with objective, sensor-based measures. We identified the areas where learnings from the imaging biomarker field can accelerate the adoption and widespread use of DHTs to develop novel treatments. As with imaging, technical validation parameters and performance acceptance thresholds need to be established. Approaches amenable to multiple hardware options and data processing algorithms can be enabled by sharing DHT data and by cross-validating algorithms. Data standardization and creation of shared databases will be vital. Pre-competitive consortia (public-private partnerships and professional societies that bring together all stakeholders, including patient organizations, industry, academic experts, and regulators) will advance the regulatory maturity of DHTs in clinical trials.

Considerations for Conducting Bring Your Own "Device" (BYOD) Clinical Studies.

Background: Digital health technologies are attracting attention as novel tools for data collection in clinical research. They present alternative methods compared to in-clinic data collection, which often yields snapshots of the participants' physiology, behavior, and function that may be prone to biases and artifacts, e.g., white coat hypertension, and not representative of the data in free-living conditions. Modern digital health technologies equipped with multi-modal sensors combine different data streams to derive comprehensive endpoints that are important to study participants and are clinically meaningful. Used for data collection in clinical trials, they can be deployed as provisioned products where technology is given at study start or in a bring your own "device" (BYOD) manner where participants use their technologies to generate study data. Summary: The BYOD option has the potential to be more user-friendly, allowing participants to use technologies that they are familiar with, ensuring better participant compliance, and potentially reducing the bias that comes with introducing new technologies. However, this approach presents different technical, operational, regulatory, and ethical challenges to study teams. For example, BYOD data can be more heterogeneous, and recruiting historically underrepresented populations with limited access to technology and the internet can be challenging. Despite the rapid increase in digital health technologies for clinical and healthcare research, BYOD use in clinical trials is limited, and regulatory guidance is still evolving. Key Messages: We offer considerations for academic researchers, drug developers, and patient advocacy organizations on the design and deployment of BYOD models in clinical research. These considerations address: (1) early identification and engagement with internal and external stakeholders; (2) study design including informed consent and recruitment strategies; (3) outcome, endpoint, and technology selection; (4) data management including compliance and data monitoring; (5) statistical considerations to meet regulatory requirements. We believe that this article acts as a primer, providing insights into study design and operational requirements to ensure the successful implementation of BYOD clinical studies.

Sensor Verification and Analytical Validation of Algorithms to Measure Gait and Balance and Pronation/Supination in Healthy Volunteers.

Numerous studies have sought to demonstrate the utility of digital measures of motor function in Parkinson's disease. Frameworks, such as V3, document digital measure development: technical verification, analytical and clinical validation. We present the results of a study to (1) technically verify accelerometers in an Apple iPhone 8 Plus and ActiGraph GT9X versus an oscillating table and (2) analytically validate software tasks for walking and pronation/supination on the iPhone plus passively detect walking measures with the ActiGraph in healthy volunteers versus human raters. In technical verification, 99.4% of iPhone and 91% of ActiGraph tests show good or excellent agreement versus the oscillating table as the gold standard. For the iPhone software task and algorithms, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) > 0.75 are achieved versus the human raters for measures when walking distance is >10 s and pronation/supination when the arm is rotated more than two times. Passively detected walking start and end time was accurate to approx. 1 s and walking measures were accurate to one unit, e.g., one step. The results suggest that the Apple iPhone and ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers are fit for purpose and that task and passively collected measures are sufficiently analytically valid to assess usability and clinical validity in Parkinson's patients.

Recommendations for Defining and Reporting Adherence Measured by Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal adherence to data collection procedures or a study intervention is often the cause of a failed clinical trial. Data from connected sensors, including wearables, referred to here as biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs), are capable of capturing adherence to both digital therapeutics and digital data collection procedures, thereby providing the opportunity to identify the determinants of adherence and thereafter, methods to maximize adherence. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the methods and definitions by which adherence has been captured and reported using BioMeTs in recent years. Identifying key gaps allowed us to make recommendations regarding minimum reporting requirements and consistency of definitions for BioMeT-based adherence data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2014 and 2019, which deployed a BioMeT outside the clinical or laboratory setting for which a quantitative, nonsurrogate, sensor-based measurement of adherence was reported. After systematically screening the manuscripts for eligibility, we extracted details regarding study design, participants, the BioMeT or BioMeTs used, and the definition and units of adherence. The primary definitions of adherence were categorized as a continuous variable based on duration (highest resolution), a continuous variable based on the number of measurements completed, or a categorical variable (lowest resolution). RESULTS: Our PubMed search terms identified 940 manuscripts; 100 (10.6%) met our eligibility criteria and contained descriptions of 110 BioMeTs. During literature screening, we found that 30% (53/177) of the studies that used a BioMeT outside of the clinical or laboratory setting failed to report a sensor-based, nonsurrogate, quantitative measurement of adherence. We identified 37 unique definitions of adherence reported for the 110 BioMeTs and observed that uniformity of adherence definitions was associated with the resolution of the data reported. When adherence was reported as a continuous time-based variable, the same definition of adherence was adopted for 92% (46/50) of the tools. However, when adherence data were simplified to a categorical variable, we observed 25 unique definitions of adherence reported for 37 tools. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that quantitative, nonsurrogate, sensor-based adherence data be reported for all BioMeTs when feasible; a clear description of the sensor or sensors used to capture adherence data, the algorithm or algorithms that convert sample-level measurements to a metric of adherence, and the analytic validation data demonstrating that BioMeT-generated adherence is an accurate and reliable measurement of actual use be provided when available; and primary adherence data be reported as a continuous variable followed by categorical definitions if needed, and that the categories adopted are supported by clinical validation data and/or consistent with previous reports.

Multimodal biometric monitoring technologies drive the development of clinical assessments in the home environment.

Biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) have attracted the attention of the health care community because of their user-friendly form factor and multi-sensor data-collection capabilities. The potential benefits of remote monitoring for collecting comprehensive, longitudinal, and contextual datasets span therapeutic areas, and both chronic and acute disease settings. Importantly, multimodal BioMeTs unlock the ability to generate rich contextual data to augment digital measures. Currently, the availability of devices is no longer the main factor limiting adoption but rather the ability to integrate fit-for-purpose BioMeTs reliably and safely into clinical care. We provide a critical review of the state of art for multimodal BioMeTs in clinical care and identify three unmet clinical needs: 1) expand the abilities of existing ambulatory unimodal BioMeTs; 2) adapt standardized clinical test protocols ("spot checks'') for use under free living conditions; and 3) develop novel applications to manage rehabilitation and chronic diseases. As the field is still in an early and quickly evolving state, we make practical recommendations: 1) to select appropriate BioMeTs; 2) to develop composite digital measures; and 3) to design interoperable software to ingest, process, delegate, and visualize the data when deploying novel clinical applications. Multimodal BioMeTs will drive the evolution from in-clinic assessments to at-home data collection with a focus on prevention, personalization, and long-term outcomes by empowering health care providers with knowledge, delivering convenience, and an improved standard of care to patients.

EVIDENCE Publication Checklist for Studies Evaluating Connected Sensor Technologies: Explanation and Elaboration.

The EVIDENCE (EValuatIng connecteD sENsor teChnologiEs) checklist was developed by a multidisciplinary group of content experts convened by the Digital Medicine Society, representing the clinical sciences, data management, technology development, and biostatistics. The aim of EVIDENCE is to promote high quality reporting in studies where the primary objective is an evaluation of a digital measurement product or its constituent parts. Here we use the terms digital measurement product and connected sensor technology interchangeably to refer to tools that process data captured by mobile sensors using algorithms to generate measures of behavioral and/or physiological function. EVIDENCE is applicable to 5 types of evaluations: (1) proof of concept; (2) verification, (3) analytical validation, and (4) clinical validation as defined by the V3 framework; and (5) utility and usability assessments. Using EVIDENCE, those preparing, reading, or reviewing studies evaluating digital measurement products will be better equipped to distinguish necessary reporting requirements to drive high-quality research. With broad adoption, the EVIDENCE checklist will serve as a much-needed guide to raise the bar for quality reporting in published literature evaluating digital measurements products.

Remote Cardiac Safety Monitoring through the Lens of the FDA Biomarker Qualification Evidentiary Criteria Framework: A Case Study Analysis.

Clinical safety findings remain one of the reasons for attrition of drug candidates during clinical development. Cardiovascular liabilities are not consistently detected in early-stage clinical trials and often become apparent when drugs are administered chronically for extended periods of time. Vital sign data collection outside of the clinic offers an opportunity for deeper physiological characterization of drug candidates and earlier safety signal detection. A working group representing expertise from biopharmaceutical and technology sectors, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) public-private partnerships, academia, and regulators discussed and presented a remote cardiac monitoring case study at the FNIH Biomarkers Consortium Remote Digital Monitoring for Medical Product Development workshop to examine applicability of the biomarker qualification evidentiary framework by the FDA. This use case examined the components of the framework, including the statement of need, the context of use, the state of the evidence, and the benefit/risk profile. Examination of results from 2 clinical trials deploying 510(k)-cleared devices for remote cardiac data collection demonstrated the need for analytical and clinical validity irrespectively of the regulatory status of a device of interest, emphasizing the importance of data collection method assessment in the context of intended use. Additionally, collection of large amounts of ambulatory data also highlighted the need for new statistical methods and contextual information to enable data interpretation. A wider adoption of this approach for drug development purposes will require collaborations across industry, academia, and regulatory agencies to establish methodologies and supportive data sets to enable data interpretation and decision-making.

Fit-for-Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience.

Biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) are becoming increasingly common to aid data collection in clinical trials and practice. The state of BioMeTs, and associated digitally measured biomarkers, is highly reminiscent of the field of laboratory biomarkers 2 decades ago. In this review, we have summarized and leveraged historical perspectives, and lessons learned from laboratory biomarkers as they apply to BioMeTs. Both categories share common features, including goals and roles in biomedical research, definitions, and many elements of the biomarker qualification framework. They can also be classified based on the underlying technology, each with distinct features and performance characteristics, which require bench and human experimentation testing phases. In contrast to laboratory biomarkers, digitally measured biomarkers require prospective data collection for purposes of analytical validation in human subjects, lack well-established and widely accepted performance characteristics, require human factor testing, and, for many applications, access to raw (sample-level) data. Novel methods to handle large volumes of data, as well as security and data rights requirements add to the complexity of this emerging field. Our review highlights the need for a common framework with appropriate vocabulary and standardized approaches to evaluate digitally measured biomarkers, including defining performance characteristics and acceptance criteria. Additionally, the need for human factor testing drives early patient engagement during technology development. Finally, use of BioMeTs requires a relatively high degree of technology literacy among both study participants and healthcare professionals. Transparency of data generation and the need for novel analytical and statistical tools creates opportunities for precompetitive collaborations.

Remote FEV1 Monitoring in Asthma Patients: A Pilot Study.

Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1 ) is a critical parameter for the assessment of lung function for both clinical care and research in patients with asthma. While asthma is defined by variable airflow obstruction, FEV1 is typically assessed during clinic visits. Mobile spirometry (mSpirometry) allows more frequent measurements of FEV1 , resulting in a more continuous assessment of lung function over time and its variability. Twelve patients with moderate asthma were recruited in a single-center study and were instructed to perform pulmonary function tests at home twice daily for 28 days and weekly in the clinic. Daily and mean subject compliances were summarized. The agreement between clinic and mobile FEV1 was assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. The test-retest reliability for clinic and mSpirometry was assessed by interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Simulation was conducted to explore if mSpirometry could improve statistical power over clinic counterparts. The mean subject compliance with mSpirometry was 70% for twice-daily and 85% for at least once-daily. The mSpirometry FEV1 were highly correlated and agreed with clinic ones from the same morning (r = 0.993) and the same afternoon (r = 0.988) with smaller mean difference for the afternoon (0.0019 L) than morning (0.0126 L) measurements. The test-retest reliability of mobile (ICC = 0.932) and clinic (ICC = 0.942) spirometry were comparable. Our simulation analysis indicated greater power using dense mSpirometry than sparse clinic measurements. Overall, we have demonstrated good compliance for repeated at-home mSpirometry, high agreement and comparable test-retest reliability with clinic counterparts, greater statistical power, suggesting a potential for use in asthma clinical research.

An Evaluation of Biometric Monitoring Technologies for Vital Signs in the Era of COVID-19.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has shifted how many patients receive outpatient care. Telehealth and remote monitoring have become more prevalent, and measurements taken in a patient's home using biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) offer convenient opportunities to collect vital sign data. Healthcare providers may lack prior experience using BioMeTs in remote patient care, and, therefore, may be unfamiliar with the many versions of BioMeTs, novel data collection protocols, and context of the values collected. To make informed patient care decisions based on the biometric data collected remotely, it is important to understand the engineering solutions embedded in the products, data collection protocols, form factors (physical size and shape), data quality considerations, and availability of validation information. This article provides an overview of BioMeTs available for collecting vital signs (temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate) and discusses the strengths and limitations of continuous monitoring. We provide considerations for remote data collection and sources of validation information to guide BioMeT use in the era of COVID-19 and beyond.

Remote Monitoring in Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly challenged the pharmaceutical industry to implement remote clinical trials. The industry's lack of extensive experience with remote measurements initiates multiple questions about how to select candidates for remote collection, their validity, and regulatory implications of moving certain assessments to a remote mode. We propose a decision tree for migration of clinic to remote assessments and highlight activities required to ensure that these measurements are valid, safe, and usable.