Industry spotlight

Findings
Long and Unpredictable Timelines: The COA Qualification Program is lengthy and unpredictable, with an average qualification time of six years. Nearly half of all submissions experience review times that exceed the FDA’s own published targets.
Low Qualification and Uptake: As of October 2024, only seven COAs (8.1% of those listed) have been qualified, and only three of those have been used to support the benefit-risk assessment of new medicines. No COAs submitted after the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 have been qualified.
Limited Regulatory Impact: Qualified COAs are consistently designated for “exploratory use” and have never been accepted as a primary endpoint in a clinical trial. In contrast, some non-qualified COAs have been used as key endpoints and included in drug labels, questioning the utility of the formal qualification pathway.
Discrepancy Between FDA Centers: There is a notable difference in how COAs are qualified between the drug (CDER/CBER) and device (CDRH) centers. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) was qualified by CDRH for use as a primary or secondary endpoint, while for drugs, it was only qualified as an “exploratory” measure.

Recommendations
Increase Transparency of Timelines: The FDA should publish its actual, historical review timelines for COA qualification so that drug developers can better plan and integrate these tools into their development programs.
Clarify the Use of Qualified COAs: The FDA should clearly articulate how and when qualified COAs can be used as primary or secondary endpoints to support regulatory decision-making and provide a clear pathway for updating a COA’s status from “exploratory” to a key endpoint.
Publish Best Practices: Both sponsors and the FDA should be encouraged to publish their experiences with the qualification program to share best practices and learnings with the broader drug development community.
Create a List of Accepted Endpoints: The FDA should create and maintain a public list of qualified COAs that can be used as surrogate endpoints to support drug approval decisions, thereby increasing their utility and adoption.

Regulatory Considerations
“Qualified as a Measure” Ambiguity: The FDA’s practice of qualifying COAs as “measures” for “exploratory use” creates regulatory uncertainty for sponsors, as it implies that significant additional evidence is still needed before the tool can be relied upon for a key endpoint.
Qualification is Not Required: The analysis shows that COAs can be accepted for regulatory decision-making and included in drug labels without going through the formal qualification program, suggesting that qualification is not a prerequisite for use as a reliable endpoint.
Unclear Path to Endpoint Progression: The current DDT guidance does not specify the process for upgrading a COA’s qualification status (e.g., from exploratory to a primary endpoint) after additional data has been generated, which hinders its evolution and broader use.

Findings
Scarcity of reliable and frequent ground truth labels in real-world conditions.
Challenges in extracting clinically meaningful information from digital device data.
Lack of standardized methods for data collection, storage, organization, curation, and analysis.
Issues with participant diversity and digital literacy affecting patient engagement and adherence.
Need for alignment on methods to establish reliability and validity of DHT measures.

Recommendations
Focus on clinically meaningful outcomes for patients in PD drug development.
Build consensus on data and metadata standards for data exchangeability.
Develop open-source platforms for analysis across device types and studies.
Engage early and often with regulatory agencies via consortia.
Align with FDA review divisions and utilize EMA qualification methodologies.

Regulatory Considerations:
Align with regulatory science pathways to ensure scientific rigor and clinical validity.
Engage with regulatory agencies like FDA and EMA early in the process.
Adhere to standardized data collection and analytical approaches.

Findings
Early and ongoing engagement with regulatory bodies is essential to align endpoint development with regulatory expectations.
There are distinct pathways for drugs and medical devices, with specific meeting types (e.g., Type B and Type C meetings) available for each.
Qualification programs help establish the utility and validity of digitally-derived endpoints across different drugs, devices, or diseases.
Regulatory agencies provide detailed feedback on analytical and clinical validation, ensuring endpoints meet clinical relevance and reliability standards.
The document emphasizes the importance of understanding and navigating distinct regulatory frameworks (e.g., IND/NDA for drugs and IDE/510(k) for devices).

Recommendations
Engage with regulatory bodies, such as the FDA and EMA, early in the development process to obtain critical input.
Utilize structured programs, like the Drug Development Tool (DDT) and Medical Device Development Tools (MDDT) qualification pathways, to validate endpoints.
Schedule appropriate regulatory meetings, including Type B and Type C meetings for drugs or Q-Submission and Agreement Meetings for devices.
Consider utilizing general advisory sessions (e.g., Critical Path Innovation Meetings or Innovation Task Force Briefings) to enhance endpoint development strategies.
Document and align endpoint development with regulatory frameworks, ensuring compliance with safety, efficacy, and performance standards.

Regulatory Considerations
Use FDA’s IND/NDA and IDE/510(k) pathways for endpoint validation, tailoring engagement to the specific type of medical product.
Schedule Type B and Type C meetings for focused discussions on endpoint development, including context of use and validation.
Engage with EMA through pre-submission meetings for scientific advice, ensuring endpoints meet requirements for clinical relevance and robustness.
Leverage qualification advice meetings with EMA for methodologies applicable across multiple products or diseases.
Seek assistance from regulatory initiatives, such as the FDA’s Digital Health Center of Excellence or EMA’s Qualification Advice Programs, for specialized guidance.