Accelerating Adoption of Patient-Facing Technologies in Clinical Trials: A Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective on Opportunities and Challenges

Abstract

Background

Patient-facing digital technologies (also called “Patient Technology” [PT]) have the potential to serve a variety of functions in clinical trials, such as capturing clinical endpoints, engaging patients, and facilitating remote study conduct. However, these technologies are not yet accepted as mainstream research tools, and the opportunities, challenges, and facilitators associated with their implementation in clinical trials have not been fully characterized.

Methods

In order to understand the factors affecting PT adoption, the TransCelerate Patient Technology Initiative conducted a series of surveys, interviews, and focus groups with approximately 600 subject matter experts, including pharmaceutical company representatives, clinical trial investigators at a number of trial sites worldwide, and clinical trial participants. All interview and survey responses were blinded and aggregated by a third-party consultant and themes were extracted.

Results

There was general consensus around the potential value of patient-facing technology as a clinical research tool, though a variety of challenges faced by each stakeholder were discussed. Detailed accounts of opportunities (improved patient experience, compliance, and engagement; clinical trial efficiencies; improved data quality and insights) and barriers (organizational and corporate cultural challenges, business-related challenges, user willingness and burden, and regulatory challenges) are reported.

Conclusions

While the barriers to PT adoption explored here were numerous, they were also generally consistent. A number of proposals for establishing more holistic, collaborative, and strategic approaches to PT implementation in clinical trials are discussed. Such approaches could facilitate more effective, widespread adoption of PT, and thereby a more patient-centric clinical trial paradigm.

References

  1. 1.

    Dorsey ER, Topol EJ. State of Telehealth. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(2):154–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Darkins A, Ryan P, Kobb R, et al. Care coordination/home telehealth: the systematic implementation of health informatics, home telehealth, and disease management to support the care of veteran patients with chronic conditions. Telemed e-Health. 2008;14(10):1118–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Amante DJ, Hogan TP, Pagoto SL, English TM, Lapane KL. Access to care and use of the Internet to search for health information: results from the US National Health Interview Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(4):e106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Perdew C, Erickson K, Litke J. Innovative models for providing clinical pharmacy services to remote locations using clinical video telehealth. Am J Health Pharm. 2017;74(14):1093–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Uscher-Pines L, Malsberger R, Burgette L, Mulcahy A, Mehrotra A. Effect of teledermatology on access to dermatology care among medicaid enrollees. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(8):905–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kruse CS, Soma M, Pulluri D, Nemali NT, Brooks M. The effectiveness of telemedicine in the management of chronic heart disease—a systematic review. JRSM Open. 2017;8(3):205427041668174.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Stewart RW, Orego-Aguayo RE, Cohen JA, Mannarino AP, de Arellano MA. A pilot study of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy delivered via telehealth technology. Child Maltreat. 2017;22(4):324–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cutler DM, Everett W. Thinking outside the pillbox—medication adherence as a priority for health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1553–1555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Mahtani K, Heneghan C, Glasziou P, Perera R. Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self-administered long-term medications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9:CD005025.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Jaén CR, Ferrer RL, Miller WL, et al. Patient outcomes at 26 months in the patient-centered medical home national demonstration project. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(suppl 1):S57–S67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):557–565.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dellifraine JL, Dansky KH. Home-based telehealth: a review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(2):62–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Salisbury C, O’Cathain A, Edwards L, et al. Effectiveness of an integrated telehealth service for patients with depression: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(6):515–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Perry B, Herrington W, Goldsack JC, et al. Use of mobile devices to measure outcomes in clinical research, 2010–2016: a systematic literature review. Digit Biomarkers. 2018;2:11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    TransCelerate eConsent Workstream. 2016: eConsent Country Overview. http://www.transceleratebiopharmainc.com/econsent/#where-is-econsent. Published 2016. Accessed July 1, 2018.

  16. 16.

    Vogel MME, Combs SE, Kessel KA. mHealth and application technology supporting clinical trials: today’s limitations and future perspective of smartRCTs. Front Oncol. 2017;7(37):1–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Rogozinska MZ. Can the use of novel digital devices improve the productivity of drug development? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;104(1):35–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Davis MM, Freeman M, Kaye J, Vuckovic N, Buckley DI. A systematic review of clinician and staff views on the acceptability of incorporating remote monitoring technology into primary care. Telemed e-Health. 2014;20(5):428–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gagnon MP, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):212–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    LeRouge C, Garfield MJ. Crossing the telemedicine chasm: have the U.S. barriers to widespread adoption of telemedicine been significantly reduced? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(12):6472–6484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Brooks E, Turvey C, Augusterfer EF. Provider barriers to telemental health: obstacles overcome, obstacles remaining. Telemed e-Health. 2013;19(6):433–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Parker SJ, Jessel S, Richardson JE, Reid MC. Older adults are mobile too! Identifying the barriers and facilitators to older adults’ use of mHealth for pain management. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Simblett S, Greer B, Matcham F, et al. Barriers and facilitators to engagement with remote measurement technology for managing health: a systematic review and content analysis of findings. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(7):e10480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gale N, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(117):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Anderson D, Fox J, Elsner N. Digital R&D: Transforming the future of clinical development. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/industry/life-sciences/digital-research-and-development-clinical-strategy.html?id=us:2em:3na:4di3967:5awa:6di:MMDDYY::author. Published 2018. Accessed June 5, 2018.

  26. 26.

    International Conference on the Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. E6(R2) Integrated Addendum To ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R2__Step_4_2016_1109.pdf. Published 2016.

  27. 27.

    Kellar E, Bornstein SM, Caban A, et al. Optimizing the use of electronic data sources in clinical trials: the landscape, part 1. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50(6):682–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kellar E, Bornstein S, Caban A, et al. Optimizing the use of electronic data sources in clinical trials: the technology landscape. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2017;51(5):551–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Rosenblatt M. The large pharmaceutical company perspective. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices & Radiological Health Digital Health Program. Digital health innovation action plan. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/UCM568735.pdf. Published 2017.

  31. 31.

    European Commission. eHealth Action Plan 2012–2020—innovative healthcare for the 21st century. Communication from the Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ehealth-action-plan-2012-2020-innovative-healthcare-21st-century. Published 2012.

  32. 32.

    US Food and Drug Administration. Digital Health Software Precertification (Pre-Cert) Program. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/DigitalHealthPreCertProgram/default.htm. Published 2017. Accessed July 1, 2017.

  33. 33.

    US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-focused drug development: collecting comprehensive and representative input; guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders (Draft). https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM610442.pdf. Published 2018.

  34. 34.

    European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679: General Data Protection Regulation. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN. Published 2016.

  35. 35.

    US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: electronic source data in clinical investigations guidance for industry electronic source data in clinical investigations. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm328691.pdf. Published 2013.

  36. 36.

    European Parliament, European Commission. EU regulation No 536/2014. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2014_536/reg_2014_536_en.pdf. Published 2014.

  37. 37.

    Bottomley A, Jones D, Claassens L. Patient-reported outcomes: assessment and current perspectives of the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration and the reflection paper of the European Medicines Agency. Eur J Cancer. 2008;45(3):347–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Dittrich C, Negrouk A, Casali P. An ESMO-EORTC position paper on the EU clinical trials regulation and EMA’s transparency policy: making European research more competitive again. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(5):829–832.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Mobile Clinical Trials Working Group. Developing novel endpoints generated by mobile technology for use in clincial trials. Clinical trials transformation initiative. https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/projects/novel-endpoints. Published 2017. Accessed July 1, 2018.

  40. 40.

    Critical Path Institute. Electronic patient-reported outcome consortium. https://c-path.org/programs/epro/. Published 2017. Accessed July 1, 2018.

  41. 41.

    Byrom B, Watson C, Doll H, et al. Selection of and evidentiary considerations for wearable devices and their measurements for use in regulatory decision making: recommendations from the ePRO consortium. Value Health. 2018;21(6):631–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Electronic Source Data Interchange Group. Leveraging the CDISC standards to facilitate the use of electronic source data within clinical trials. Clinial data interchange standards consortium. https://www.cdisc.org/system/files/all/reference_material_category/application/pdf/esdi.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed July 1, 2018.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashley M. Polhemus MSE.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Polhemus, A.M., Kadhim, H., Barnes, S. et al. Accelerating Adoption of Patient-Facing Technologies in Clinical Trials: A Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective on Opportunities and Challenges. Ther Innov Regul Sci 53, 8–24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018801566

Download citation

Keywords

  • TransCelerate
  • mHealth
  • patient-facing technologies
  • clinical trial technology
  • digital R&D
  • patient centricity