From Meaningful Outcomes to Meaningful Change Thresholds: A Path to Progress for Establishing Digital Endpoints.

This paper examines the use of digital endpoints (DEs) derived from digital health technologies (DHTs), focusing primarily on the specific considerations regarding the determination of meaningful change thresholds (MCT). Using DHTs in drug development is becoming more commonplace. There is general acceptance of the value of DHTs supporting patient-centric trial design, capturing data outside the traditional clinical trial setting, and generating DEs with the potential to be more sensitive to change than conventional assessments. However, the transition from exploratory endpoints to primary and secondary endpoints capable of supporting labeling claims requires these endpoints to be substantive with reproducible population-specific values. Meaningful change represents the amount of change in an endpoint measure perceived as important to patients and should be determined for each digital endpoint and given population under consideration. This paper examines existing approaches to determine meaningful change thresholds and explores examples of these methodologies and their use as part of DE development: emphasizing the importance of determining what aspects of health are important to patients and ensuring the DE captures these concepts of interest and aligns with the overarching endpoint strategy. Examples are drawn from published DE qualification documentation and responses to qualification submissions under review by the various regulatory authorities. It is the hope that these insights will inform and strengthen the development and validation of DEs as drug development tools, particularly for those new to the approaches to determine MCTs.

The Burden of a Remote Trial in a Nursing Home Setting: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite an aging population, older adults are typically underrecruited in clinical trials, often because of the perceived burden associated with participation, particularly travel associated with clinic visits. Conducting a clinical trial remotely presents an opportunity to leverage mobile and wearable technologies to bring the research to the patient. However, the burden associated with shifting clinical research to a remote site requires exploration. While a remote trial may reduce patient burden, the extent to which this shifts burden on the other stakeholders needs to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the burden associated with a remote trial in a nursing home setting on both staff and residents. METHODS: Using results from a grounded analysis of qualitative data, this study explored and characterized the burden associated with a remote trial conducted in a nursing home in Dublin, Ireland. A total of 11 residents were recruited to participate in this trial (mean age: 80 years; age range: 67-93 years). To support research activities, we also recruited 10 nursing home staff members, including health care assistants, an activities co-ordinator, and senior nurses. This study captured the lived experience of this remote trial among staff and residents and explored the burden associated with participation. At the end of the trial, a total of 6 residents and 8 members of staff participated in semistructured interviews (n=14). They reviewed clinical data generated by mobile and wearable devices and reflected upon their trial-related experiences. RESULTS: Staff reported extensive burden in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities to support activities of the trial. Among staff, we found eight key characteristics of burden: (1) comprehension, (2) time, (3) communication, (4) emotional load, (5) cognitive load, (6) research engagement, (7) logistical burden, and (8) product accountability. Residents reported comparatively less burden. Among residents, we found only four key characteristics of burden: (1) comprehension, (2) adherence, (3) emotional load, and (4) personal space. CONCLUSIONS: A remote trial in a nursing home setting can minimize the burden on residents and enable inclusive participation. However, it arguably creates additional burden on staff, particularly where they have a role to play in locally supporting and maintaining technology as part of data collection. Future research should examine how to measure and minimize the burden associated with data collection in remote trials.

Selection of and Evidentiary Considerations for Wearable Devices and Their Measurements for Use in Regulatory Decision Making: Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices offer huge potential to collect rich sources of data to provide insights into the effects of treatment interventions. Despite this, at the time of writing this report, limited regulatory guidance on the use of wearables in clinical trial programs has been published. OBJECTIVES: To present recommendations from the Critical Path Institute's Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium regarding the selection and evaluation of wearable devices and their measurements for use in regulatory trials and to support labeling claims. METHODS: The evaluation group was composed of Critical Path Institute's clinical outcome assessment (COA) scientists and COA specialists from pharmaceutical trial eCOA solution providers, including COA development and validation specialists. The resulting recommendations were drawn from a broad range of backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise that enriched the development of this report. Recommendations were developed through analysis of existing regulatory guidance relating to COA development and use in clinical trials, medical device certification/clearance regulations, literature-reported best practice, and practical experience of wearable technology application in clinical trials. RESULTS: We identify the essential properties of fit-for-purpose wearables and propose evidence needed to support their use. In addition, we overview the activities required to establish clinical endpoints derived from wearables data. CONCLUSIONS: Using this framework, we believe there is enough current understanding to promote the appropriate use of wearables in study protocols. We hope this will provide a basis for discussion among clinical trial stakeholders and catalyze the development of more robust regulatory guidance.