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

The PICOTS-ComTeC Framework for Defining Digital Health Interventions: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report

OBJECTIVES

Digital health definitions are abundant, but often lack clarity and precision. We aimed to develop a minimum information framework to define patient-facing digital health interventions (DHIs) for outcomes research.

METHODS

Definitions of digital-health-related terms (DHTs) were systematically reviewed, followed by a content analysis using frameworks, including PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, and setting), Shannon-Weaver Model of Communication, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Measures, and the World Health Organization's Classification of Digital Health Interventions. Subsequently, we conducted an online Delphi study to establish a minimum information framework, which was pilot tested by 5 experts using hypothetical examples.

RESULTS

After screening 2610 records and 545 full-text articles, we identified 101 unique definitions of 67 secondary DHTs in 76 articles, resulting in 95 different patterns of concepts among the definitions. World Health Organization system (84.5%), message (75.7%), intervention (58.3%), and technology (52.4%) were the most frequently covered concepts. For the Delphi survey, we invited 47 members of the ISPOR Digital Health Special Interest Group, 18 of whom became the Delphi panel. The first, second, and third survey rounds were completed by 18, 11, and 10 respondents, respectively. After consolidating results, the PICOTS-ComTeC acronym emerged, involving 9 domains (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, setting, communication, technology, and context) and 32 optional subcategories.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-facing DHIs can be specified using PICOTS-ComTeC that facilitates identification of appropriate interventions and comparators for a given decision. PICOTS-ComTeC is a flexible and versatile tool, intended to assist authors in designing and reporting primary studies and evidence syntheses, yielding actionable results for clinicians and other decision makers.

Quantitative Gait and Balance Outcomes for Ataxia Trials: Consensus Recommendations by the Ataxia Global Initiative Working Group on Digital-Motor Biomarkers

With disease-modifying drugs on the horizon for degenerative ataxias, ecologically valid, finely granulated, digital health measures are highly warranted to augment clinical and patient-reported outcome measures. Gait and balance disturbances most often present as the first signs of degenerative cerebellar ataxia and are the most reported disabling features in disease progression. Thus, digital gait and balance measures constitute promising and relevant performance outcomes for clinical trials.This narrative review with embedded consensus will describe evidence for the sensitivity of digital gait and balance measures for evaluating ataxia severity and progression, propose a consensus protocol for establishing gait and balance metrics in natural history studies and clinical trials, and discuss relevant issues for their use as performance outcomes.

Conducting a systematic review and evaluation of commercially available mobile applications (apps) on a health-related topic: the TECH approach and a step-by-step methodological guide

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the methodological considerations for conducting commercial smartphone health app reviews (mHealth reviews), with the aim of systematising the process and supporting high-quality evaluations of mHealth apps.

DESIGN

Synthesis of our research team's experiences of conducting and publishing various reviews of mHealth apps available on app stores and hand-searching the top medical informatics journals (eg, The Lancet Digital Health, npj Digital Medicine, Journal of Biomedical Informatics and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association) over the last five years (2018-2022) to identify other app reviews to contribute to the discussion of this method and supporting framework for developing a research (review) question and determining the eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

We present seven steps to support rigour in conducting reviews of health apps available on the app market: (1) writing a research question or aims, (2) conducting scoping searches and developing the protocol, (3) determining the eligibility criteria using the TECH framework, (4) conducting the final search and screening of health apps, (5) data extraction, (6) quality, functionality and other assessments and (7) analysis and synthesis of findings. We introduce the novel TECH approach to developing review questions and the eligibility criteria, which considers the Target user, Evaluation focus, Connectedness and the Health domain. Patient and public involvement and engagement opportunities are acknowledged, including co-developing the protocol and undertaking quality or usability assessments.

CONCLUSION

Commercial mHealth app reviews can provide important insights into the health app market, including the availability of apps and their quality and functionality. We have outlined seven key steps for conducting rigorous health app reviews in addition to the TECH acronym, which can support researchers in writing research questions and determining the eligibility criteria. Future work will include a collaborative effort to develop reporting guidelines and a quality appraisal tool to ensure transparency and quality in systematic app reviews.

Rigorous and rapid evidence assessment in digital health with the evidence DEFINED framework

Dozens of frameworks have been proposed to assess evidence for digital health interventions (DHIs), but existing frameworks may not facilitate DHI evidence reviews that meet the needs of stakeholder organizations including payers, health systems, trade organizations, and others. These organizations may benefit from a DHI assessment framework that is both rigorous and rapid. Here we propose a framework to assess Evidence in Digital health for EFfectiveness of INterventions with Evaluative Depth (Evidence DEFINED). Designed for real-world use, the Evidence DEFINED Quick Start Guide may help streamline DHI assessment. A checklist is provided summarizing high-priority evidence considerations in digital health. Evidence-to-recommendation guidelines are proposed, specifying degrees of adoption that may be appropriate for a range of evidence quality levels. Evidence DEFINED differs from prior frameworks in its inclusion of unique elements designed for rigor and speed. Rigor is increased by addressing three gaps in prior frameworks. First, prior frameworks are not adapted adequately to address evidence considerations that are unique to digital health. Second, prior frameworks do not specify evidence quality criteria requiring increased vigilance for DHIs in the current regulatory context. Third, extant frameworks rarely leverage established, robust methodologies that were developed for non-digital interventions. Speed is achieved in the Evidence DEFINED Framework through screening optimization and deprioritization of steps that may have limited value. The primary goals of Evidence DEFINED are to a) facilitate standardized, rapid, rigorous DHI evidence assessment in organizations and b) guide digital health solutions providers who wish to generate evidence that drives DHI adoption.

Feasibility and usability of a digital health technology system to monitor mobility and assess medication adherence in mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease

Introduction

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder which requires complex medication regimens to mitigate motor symptoms. The use of digital health technology systems (DHTSs) to collect mobility and medication data provides an opportunity to objectively quantify the effect of medication on motor performance during day-to-day activities. This insight could inform clinical decision-making, personalise care, and aid self-management. This study investigates the feasibility and usability of a multi-component DHTS to remotely assess self-reported medication adherence and monitor mobility in people with Parkinson's (PwP).

Methods

Thirty participants with PD [Hoehn and Yahr stage I (n = 1) and II (n = 29)] were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Participants were required to wear, and where appropriate, interact with a DHTS (smartwatch, inertial measurement unit, and smartphone) for seven consecutive days to assess medication adherence and monitor digital mobility outcomes and contextual factors. Participants reported their daily motor complications [motor fluctuations and dyskinesias (i.e., involuntary movements)] in a diary. Following the monitoring period, participants completed a questionnaire to gauge the usability of the DHTS. Feasibility was assessed through the percentage of data collected, and usability through analysis of qualitative questionnaire feedback.

Results

Adherence to each device exceeded 70% and ranged from 73 to 97%. Overall, the DHTS was well tolerated with 17/30 participants giving a score > 75% [average score for these participants = 89%, from 0 (worst) to 100 (best)] for its usability. Usability of the DHTS was significantly associated with age (ρ = −0.560, BCa 95% CI [−0.791, −0.207]). This study identified means to improve usability of the DHTS by addressing technical and design issues of the smartwatch. Feasibility, usability and acceptability were identified as key themes from PwP qualitative feedback on the DHTS.

Conclusion

This study highlighted the feasibility and usability of our integrated DHTS to remotely assess medication adherence and monitor mobility in people with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease. Further work is necessary to determine whether this DHTS can be implemented for clinical decision-making to optimise management of PwP.

Functional and Symptomatic Clinical Trial Endpoints: The HFC-ARC Scientific Expert Panel

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations.

Digital Devices for Assessing Motor Functions in Mobility-Impaired and Healthy Populations: Systematic Literature Review

Background

With the advent of smart sensing technology, mobile and wearable devices can provide continuous and objective monitoring and assessment of motor function outcomes.

Objective

We aimed to describe the existing scientific literature on wearable and mobile technologies that are being used or tested for assessing motor functions in mobility-impaired and healthy adults and to evaluate the degree to which these devices provide clinically valid measures of motor function in these populations.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL (January 1, 2015, to June 24, 2020), the United States and European Union clinical trial registries, and the United States Food and Drug Administration website using predefined study selection criteria. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers.

Results

A total of 91 publications representing 87 unique studies were included. The most represented clinical conditions were Parkinson disease (n=51 studies), followed by stroke (n=5), Huntington disease (n=5), and multiple sclerosis (n=2). A total of 42 motion-detecting devices were identified, and the majority (n=27, 64%) were created for the purpose of health care–related data collection, although approximately 25% were personal electronic devices (eg, smartphones and watches) and 11% were entertainment consoles (eg, Microsoft Kinect or Xbox and Nintendo Wii). The primary motion outcomes were related to gait (n=30), gross motor movements (n=25), and fine motor movements (n=23). As a group, sensor-derived motion data showed a mean sensitivity of 0.83 (SD 7.27), a mean specificity of 0.84 (SD 15.40), a mean accuracy of 0.90 (SD 5.87) in discriminating between diseased individuals and healthy controls, and a mean Pearson r validity coefficient of 0.52 (SD 0.22) relative to clinical measures. We did not find significant differences in the degree of validity between in-laboratory and at-home sensor-based assessments nor between device class (ie, health care–related device, personal electronic devices, and entertainment consoles).

Conclusions

Sensor-derived motion data can be leveraged to classify and quantify disease status for a variety of neurological conditions. However, most of the recent research on digital clinical measures is derived from proof-of-concept studies with considerable variation in methodological approaches, and much of the reviewed literature has focused on clinical validation, with less than one-quarter of the studies performing analytical validation. Overall, future research is crucially needed to further consolidate that sensor-derived motion data may lead to the development of robust and transformative digital measurements intended to predict, diagnose, and quantify neurological disease state and its longitudinal change.

Systematic review: Wearable remote monitoring to detect nonalcohol/nonnicotine-related substance use disorder symptoms

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are chronic relapsing diseases characterized by significant morbidity and mortality. Phenomenologically, patients with SUDs present with a repeating cycle of intoxication, withdrawal, and craving, significantly impacting their diagnosis and treatment. There is a need for better identification and monitoring of these disease states. Remote monitoring chronic illness with wearable devices offers a passive, unobtrusive, constant physiological data assessment. We evaluate the current evidence base for remote monitoring of nonalcohol, nonnicotine SUDs.

METHODS

We performed a systematic, comprehensive literature review and screened 1942 papers.

RESULTS

We found 15 studies that focused mainly on the intoxication stage of SUD. These studies used wearable sensors measuring several physiological parameters (ECG, HR, O2 , Accelerometer, EDA, temperature) and implemented study-specific algorithms to evaluate the data.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Studies were extracted, organized, and analyzed based on the three SUD disease states. The sample sizes were relatively small, focused primarily on the intoxication stage, had low monitoring compliance, and required significant computational power preventing "real-time" results. Cardiovascular data was the most consistently valuable data in the predictive algorithms. This review demonstrates that there is currently insufficient evidence to support remote monitoring of SUDs through wearable devices.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first systematic review to show the available data on wearable remote monitoring of SUD symptoms in each stage of the disease cycle. This clinically relevant approach demonstrates what we know and do not know about the remote monitoring of SUDs within disease states.

Considerations for Analyzing and Interpreting Data from Biometric Monitoring Technologies in Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The proliferation and increasing maturity of biometric monitoring technologies allow clinical investigators to measure the health status of trial participants in a more holistic manner, especially outside of traditional clinical settings. This includes capturing meaningful aspects of health in daily living and a more granular and objective manner compared to traditional tools in clinical settings.

SUMMARY

Within multidisciplinary teams, statisticians and data scientists are increasingly involved in clinical trials that incorporate digital clinical measures. They are called upon to provide input into trial planning, generation of evidence on the clinical validity of novel clinical measures, and evaluation of the adequacy of existing evidence. Analysis objectives related to demonstrating clinical validity of novel clinical measures differ from typical objectives related to demonstrating safety and efficacy of therapeutic interventions using established measures which statisticians are most familiar with.

KEY MESSAGES

This paper discusses key considerations for generating evidence for clinical validity through the lens of the type and intended use of a clinical measure. This paper also briefly discusses the regulatory pathways through which clinical validity evidence may be reviewed and highlights challenges that investigators may encounter while dealing with data from biometric monitoring technologies.

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.

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.

Neuromechanical Biomarkers for Robotic Neurorehabilitation

One of the current challenges for translational rehabilitation research is to develop the strategies to deliver accurate evaluation, prediction, patient selection, and decision-making in the clinical practice. In this regard, the robot-assisted interventions have gained popularity as they can provide the objective and quantifiable assessment of the motor performance by taking the kinematics parameters into the account. Neurophysiological parameters have also been proposed for this purpose due to the novel advances in the non-invasive signal processing techniques. In addition, other parameters linked to the motor learning and brain plasticity occurring during the rehabilitation have been explored, looking for a more holistic rehabilitation approach. However, the majority of the research done in this area is still exploratory. These parameters have shown the capability to become the “biomarkers” that are defined as the quantifiable indicators of the physiological/pathological processes and the responses to the therapeutical interventions. In this view, they could be finally used for enhancing the robot-assisted treatments. While the research on the biomarkers has been growing in the last years, there is a current need for a better comprehension and quantification of the neuromechanical processes involved in the rehabilitation. In particular, there is a lack of operationalization of the potential neuromechanical biomarkers into the clinical algorithms. In this scenario, a new framework called the “Rehabilomics” has been proposed to account for the rehabilitation research that exploits the biomarkers in its design. This study provides an overview of the state-of-the-art of the biomarkers related to the robotic neurorehabilitation, focusing on the translational studies, and underlying the need to create the comprehensive approaches that have the potential to take the research on the biomarkers into the clinical practice. We then summarize some promising biomarkers that are being under investigation in the current literature and provide some examples of their current and/or potential applications in the neurorehabilitation. Finally, we outline the main challenges and future directions in the field, briefly discussing their potential evolution and prospective.

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.