Findings
Collaborative Communities are sustained, multi-stakeholder forums (including patients, industry, academia, and the FDA) dedicated to solving shared challenges in the medical device ecosystem. These communities are not intended to replace formal regulatory mechanisms. They are equipped to perform activities such as:
Developing best practices and strategies.
Generating and evaluating evidence to support novel approaches.
Clarifying ill-defined challenges and generating consensus on definitions.
Addressing issues related to product quality and safety.

Recommendations
The FDA/CDRH does not establish or fund these communities. Instead, the FDA recommends that interested stakeholders convene and lead these groups. The FDA reviews opportunities on a case-by-case basis for participation, considering:
The community's potential public health impact.
Alignment with the CDRH mission, priorities, and resources.
The existence of a formal governance structure, a convener, a plan to measure success, and a mechanism for sustained engagement.

Regulatory Considerations
The FDA's participation in these communities is a strategic priority for advancing regulatory science and fostering responsible medical device innovation. Examples of digital health-related collaborations include those focused on AI/ML, Digital Biomarkers, Digital Health Technologies (DHTs), and Real-World Data (RWD). The outcomes developed by these groups can inform and accelerate the development of science-based solutions to policy and scientific challenges.

Findings
Clinically Acceptable Performance: A clinical study demonstrated that the weekly AFib burden estimates from the Apple AFib History Feature were in close agreement with a reference ECG patch, with an average difference of just 0.67%. The vast majority of measurements had paired differences within ±10% of the reference device.
Generalizable Across Subgroups: The device's accuracy was similar across various subgroups, including different sexes, races, ages, and skin tones.
Performance Post-Ablation is Uncertain: In a small subgroup of patients with a prior cardiac ablation, the device's performance, while still strong, showed slightly more variability and exceeded a pre-specified acceptance criterion. The study was not designed or powered to demonstrate equivalent performance in this specific group.
Technical Limitations Exist: The feature only provides a retrospective weekly estimate and does not give specific timestamps or durations of AFib episodes. It also does not detect other atrial tachyarrhythmias, like atrial flutter.

Recommendations
Appropriate Use: The document implicitly recommends using the tool precisely within its qualified context of use—as a secondary, not primary, endpoint for comparing AFib burden between study arms in cardiac ablation device trials.
Supplemental Data Collection: For studies involving patients who have had a prior ablation, it would be beneficial to assess the tool alongside other methods of determining AFib burden to better characterize its performance in this population.
Define Study-Specific Endpoints: Investigators using the tool are responsible for defining and justifying their specific study designs and what constitutes a clinically significant reduction in AFib burden.

Regulatory Considerations
MDDT Qualification: The Apple AFib History Feature is officially qualified by the FDA as a Medical Device Development Tool (MDDT), which reduces the burden on device developers, as they no longer need to independently justify its methodology for collecting weekly AFib burden estimates in their clinical studies.
Secondary Endpoint Only: A key limitation for its regulatory use is its qualification only as a secondary endpoint. It cannot, by itself, be used to evaluate the primary safety and effectiveness of cardiac ablation devices. This is partly because FDA typically requires the inclusion of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (not just AFib) for defining ablation success in pivotal studies.
Not a Replacement for Primary Endpoints: The tool's utility is intended to provide supplemental data and help better understand post-treatment AFib burden; it is not meant to replace more clinically well-defined primary endpoints.

Findings
The development and evaluation of medical devices require scientifically plausible and reliable tools for collecting data to support regulatory submissions. A lack of standardized, pre-vetted tools can lead to inefficiencies and unpredictability in the device development and review process. The qualification of development tools can be applied across a wide range of device areas, including cardiovascular, neurology, imaging, and cybersecurity. The evidence required for tool qualification must be robust enough to support its intended context of use.

Recommendations
Tool developers, medical device sponsors, research organizations, and academic institutions are encouraged to voluntarily submit proposals to the MDDT program to qualify their tools. Submissions should include a detailed description of the tool, a clearly defined context of use (COU), specific performance criteria, and a comprehensive plan for collecting evidence to validate the tool's performance and scientific plausibility. Collaboration in developing tools and supporting evidence is recommended to pool resources and increase the acceptance of qualified tools.

Regulatory Considerations
The MDDT program is a formal regulatory mechanism for the FDA to qualify tools that can be used to support assessments of medical device safety, effectiveness, or performance. Once a tool is qualified for a specific context of use, the FDA accepts assessments from that tool in support of regulatory submissions without needing to re-evaluate the tool's suitability. The program recognizes four main categories of tools: Non-clinical Assessment Models (NAM), Biomarker Tests (BT), Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA), and an "Other" category for tools that do not fit the primary classifications.

Findings
Lack of publicly available qualified MDDTs may limit their widespread adoption.
Challenges in collecting robust evidence for novel or innovative tools without established paradigms.
Regulatory complexities for tools with dual uses as MDDTs and clinical diagnostic devices.
The need for transparent communication of MDDT advantages and limitations for their qualified COU.
Limited industry awareness of the benefits and processes for MDDT qualification.

Recommendations
Develop clear and specific Context of Use (COU) statements for proposed MDDTs, detailing their application in device evaluation.
Ensure thorough validation of tool performance characteristics, including accuracy, reproducibility, and reliability, to support qualification.
Foster collaboration among stakeholders, such as consortia and organizations, to share resources for MDDT development and qualification.
Provide detailed qualification plans outlining data collection methods, protocols, and acceptance criteria for each performance metric.
Promote transparency by publishing high-level summaries of evidence and qualification decisions while protecting proprietary information.

Regulatory Considerations
MDDTs intended only for device evaluation are typically not classified as medical devices unless used for clinical treatment or diagnosis.
Clinical study tools used as MDDTs must comply with Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) regulations under 21 CFR Part 812.
Qualification does not imply FDA clearance or approval for clinical use; labeling and promotional materials must clearly communicate this distinction.
Modifications to an MDDT’s COU or qualification status may require reevaluation based on new data or scientific advancements.
FDA emphasizes the complementary role of MDDTs alongside consensus standards and device-specific guidance for regulatory evaluations.

Findings
Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) instruments are a type of Clinical Outcome Assessment that provides valid scientific evidence for regulatory and healthcare decision-making regarding medical devices. The FDA encourages the integration of patient perspectives throughout the Total Product Lifecycle (TPLC). PRO instruments can be used to measure the effects of a medical intervention, including the impact on patient well-being and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL). The validity evidence needed to support a PRO instrument's use is determined by its specific Context of Use (COU) and role (e.g., primary, secondary endpoint) in the clinical study protocol. To be "fit-for-purpose," a PRO instrument must measure a Concept of Interest (COI) that is meaningful to patients and whose measurement is supported by evidence that is consistent with the intended use population.

Recommendations
Sponsors should establish and clearly define the Concept of Interest (COI) the PRO instrument is intended to capture. It is recommended that sponsors clearly identify the role of the PRO (e.g., primary, secondary, effectiveness, safety) in the clinical study protocol and statistical analysis plan. The development or modification of PRO instruments should measure concepts important to patients to reduce unnecessary patient burden and ensure the outcomes are relevant to a patient's daily lived experience. Cognitive interviews should be conducted to ensure the instrument's instructions and items are understandable to the intended use population, including patients with limited English language proficiency. Sponsors are encouraged to leverage existing PRO instruments (by using them as-is, modifying, or adapting) as a least burdensome approach to take advantage of existing validity evidence. Alternative approaches, such as using Real-World Data (RWD) platforms or conducting parallel development work during clinical studies, are encouraged to efficiently generate validity evidence.

Regulatory Considerations
The FDA encourages sponsors to engage with the Agency regarding the relevance and suitability of a proposed PRO instrument early in the development process, prior to the Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) submission or pivotal study. The Q-Submission program is the recommended pathway for sponsors to obtain feedback from the FDA regarding cognitive interview approaches and the modification or adaptation of existing instruments. The Agency uses the fit-for-purpose concept as a flexible approach to determine the validity evidence needed for a PRO instrument's specified use for a regulatory purpose. The use of PRO instruments that have been qualified under the Medical Device Development Tools (MDDT) program is encouraged. Sponsors should prospectively specify the intent to generate validity evidence in the clinical study protocol and statistical analysis plan, even if the evidence will only support future studies.

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.