Findings
Patient experience data provides critical context for regulatory review by illuminating disease burden, unmet medical needs, and the aspects of a condition that matter most to patients.
A systematic approach is necessary to ensure patient experience data is robust enough for regulatory consideration, moving beyond anecdotal evidence to scientifically rigorous data collection.
Early engagement between sponsors and the FDA is a key factor for successfully incorporating patient perspectives into a drug development program.
The value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and other clinical outcome assessments (COAs) is highly context-dependent, varying significantly across different diseases and patient populations.

Recommendations
Drug sponsors should leverage the FDA's meeting process to discuss their strategies for collecting and submitting patient experience data early in the development lifecycle.
Sponsors should utilize the repository of meeting reports as a learning resource to understand best practices and common challenges in patient-focused drug development for specific conditions.
Patient advocacy groups should actively participate in these discussions to ensure the full spectrum of patient experiences is captured and communicated to both regulators and developers.
Researchers should develop and validate novel tools and methodologies for capturing and analyzing patient experience data that are meaningful for both clinical and regulatory purposes.

Regulatory Considerations
Patient experience data is a key component of the benefit-risk assessment, providing evidence that can inform regulatory decisions regarding a drug's approval and labeling.
The FDA's review of patient experience data is guided by a commitment to patient-focused drug development, as mandated by the 21st Century Cures Act and supported by user fee agreements like PDUFA.
The scientific rigor of data collection and analysis is paramount; for patient experience data to be influential, it must meet high standards of validity and reliability.
Transparency is a core principle, and the publication of these meeting reports is intended to provide clear examples of how patient input can be effectively integrated into regulatory submissions.

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
The database provides a transparent and accessible way for the public to track the progress of various Drug Development Tools (DDTs) through the FDA's qualification pipeline. This includes biomarkers, clinical outcome assessments, and animal models. The information available, such as submission status and supporting documentation, offers insight into the types of tools being developed and the evidence required for their qualification. The platform reveals that a wide range of tools are in development across numerous therapeutic areas, highlighting active areas of research and innovation in drug development.

Recommendations
Stakeholders in the drug development ecosystem are encouraged to utilize this database to inform their research and development strategies. By reviewing the status of existing DDT submissions, sponsors can identify opportunities for collaboration, avoid duplicative efforts, and better understand the evidentiary requirements for tool qualification. Prospective tool developers should use the database to learn from successful submissions and to align their own development plans with FDA expectations.

Regulatory Considerations
This database is a direct implementation of the transparency provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act. The public availability of this information is intended to foster trust and collaboration in the DDT qualification process. By providing a clear view of the regulatory journey of various tools, the FDA aims to standardize the qualification process and encourage the development and use of novel, validated tools in drug development. Users of the database should be aware that the information reflects the status of a DDT at a particular point in time and that the qualification process is an iterative one.

Findings
The guidance applies to four types of Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs): Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), Observer-Reported Outcomes (ObsROs), Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs), and Performance Outcomes (PerfOs). A COA is considered fit-for-purpose when the validation evidence is sufficient to support its context of use (COU). To determine if a COA is fit-for-purpose, sponsors must clearly describe the Concept of Interest (COI) and the COU, and present sufficient evidence to support a clear rationale for the COA's proposed interpretation and use. The rationale for using a COA should include up to eight components, such as justification for the COA type, capturing the important parts of the COI, appropriate administration and scoring, minimal influence from irrelevant factors or measurement error, and correspondence with the Meaningful Aspect of Health (MAH). The most direct assessment of how a patient feels or functions (MAH) should be used as the COI whenever possible.

Recommendations
Sponsors should use the Roadmap to Patient-Focused Outcome Measurement to guide the selection, modification, or development of a COA. The process begins with understanding the disease/condition (including patient perspectives) and conceptualizing clinical benefits and risks (defining the MAH, COI, and COU). When feasible, existing COAs are generally preferred, especially for well-established COIs, as this approach is often the least burdensome. If an existing COA is modified or used in a different context, additional evidence (e.g., cognitive interviews, psychometric studies) must be collected to justify its fitness for the new context of use. For new COA development, sponsors should involve patients, document all steps, and generally avoid using the new COA for the first time in a registration (pivotal) trial; a standalone observational study or early phase trial is recommended for evaluation.

Regulatory Considerations
Sponsors are encouraged to interact early and throughout medical product development with the relevant FDA review division to ensure COAs are appropriate for the intended COU. Sponsors should communicate their proposed COA-based endpoint approach, including the MAH, COI, COA type/name/score, and the final COA-based endpoint, ideally using the suggested format. The type and amount of evidence required to support the rationale for a COA's use is weighed against the degree of uncertainty regarding that part of the rationale. For ClinROs, it is recommended to use an assessor masked to treatment assignment and study visit for primary endpoints, if feasible. FDA strongly discourages proxy-reported measures for concepts known only to the patient (e.g., pain) and recommends using an ObsRO to measure observable behaviors instead when the patient cannot self-report.

Recommendations
Clearly define the concept of interest and its context of use to ensure COAs align with trial objectives.
Use conceptual and measurement frameworks to communicate how COAs measure patient experiences and generate interpretable scores.
Leverage existing COAs where possible, modifying them only when justified, and document all modifications rigorously.
Ensure COAs are accessible and inclusive, incorporating features like large fonts, touch interfaces, or audio assistance for diverse populations.
Conduct early engagement with FDA to discuss COA selection, development, and validation plans.

Regulatory Considerations
Fit-for-purpose validation requires evidence of conceptual alignment, scoring reliability, and sensitivity to clinically meaningful changes.
Digital health technologies used for COAs must comply with FDA’s guidance on data integrity, usability, and technical performance.
COAs intended for regulatory submissions must be developed and validated before pivotal trials to avoid jeopardizing trial outcomes.
Modifications to COAs or scoring methods during trials necessitate justification and revalidation.
Sponsors should submit comprehensive documentation on COA development, including scoring algorithms and item tracking matrices.

Findings
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) is being applied to a broad range of drug development activities with the potential to accelerate the process and make clinical trials safer and more efficient. The inclusion of AI/ML is most common in the clinical development/research phase of regulatory submissions. Concerns exist that AI/ML algorithms could amplify errors and preexisting biases in underlying data sources, which raises issues related to generalizability and ethical considerations. Other challenges include limited explainability due to model complexity and proprietary reasons, as well as managing risks related to data quality, reliability, and representativeness. The FDA recognizes that a careful, risk-based assessment of the specific context of use (COU) is needed when evaluating AI/ML.

Recommendations
Stakeholders should adhere to practices in three key areas: human-led governance, accountability, and transparency; quality, reliability, and representativeness of data; and model development, performance, monitoring, and validation. A risk management plan should be applied to identify and mitigate risks based on the COU, guiding the level of documentation and transparency. Practices are needed to ensure the integrity of AI/ML and address issues like bias and missing data. For models, developers should use pre-specification steps and clear documentation for development and assessment criteria. Models must be monitored over time for reliability and consistency, and Real-World Data (RWD) performance can provide valuable feedback, including for potential re-training.

Regulatory Considerations
The FDA encourages early engagement through mechanisms like the Critical Path Innovation Meetings (CPIM), ISTAND Pilot Program, and Emerging Technology Program to discuss relevant AI/ML methodologies or technologies. The Verification and Validation (V&V 40) risk-informed credibility assessment framework and the principles for Good Machine Learning Practices (GMLP), while not specific to drug development, are helpful guides for evaluating models. The industry is exploring the use of a Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) mechanism for AI/ML-based devices to proactively specify and manage modifications, enhancing adaptability. In general, a risk-based approach should guide the level of evidence and record keeping needed for the verification and validation of AI/ML models for a specific COU.

Findings
Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCTs), which shift activities away from sites, rely heavily on technology to reduce participant burden and improve access to trials. Digital platforms are essential for this shift, providing centralized data capture, remote monitoring, and streamlined workflows. Benefits include allowing participants to be monitored remotely, which can improve self-management and clinical outcomes, and giving researchers better insight into the real-world variability of disease activity. Currently, commercial platforms are often limited in functionality and face major challenges due to a lack of interoperability and specific data standardization protocols for clinical trial platforms, making it difficult to integrate third-party modules.

Recommendations
The paper strongly recommends the adoption of unified, integrated, and DCT-specific digital platforms to fully realize the benefits of decentralization. Platform developers should adopt international standards for health data exchange, such as HL7 FHIR and CDISC standards (PRM, CDASH, ADaM), to address the lack of data standardization and improve interoperability and modularity. Platforms should incorporate features that enhance participant engagement and adherence, such as customization options, simple user interfaces (UIs), push notifications, gamification, and allowing access to participant data . Security and governance teams are paramount to manage risks associated with malware, lost devices, and ensuring compliance with local legislation and data security protocols.

Regulatory Considerations
Digital platform design must maintain digital security and compliance with local legislation and data standards. The paper notes that a fully integrated, unified digital platform in a best-case scenario would use pre-existing standards (like CDISC and HL7) to guarantee interoperability. Adopting these standards and recommendations for data sharing, privacy, and security, as recommended by organizations like the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, is critical for future digital components used in DCTs. Improved data integrity and accountability in platforms could be further explored using technologies like blockchain to create an immutable ledger.

Findings
The adoption of BYOD in clinical trials has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and supportive regulatory guidance, which now recognize it as an acceptable means for remote data collection. Studies have shown high measure completion and equivalent data quality between provisioned devices and BYOD, supporting its use in diverse patient populations. Key challenges to BYOD implementation include ensuring data equivalence across a wide variety of personal devices, managing participant technical support, and addressing data privacy and security concerns. The choice between native apps and web-based solutions involves trade-offs in usability, data security, and operational complexity.

Recommendations
Sponsors should develop a clear BYOD strategy that considers the target patient population, the complexity of the required data collection, and the global regulatory landscape. A robust training and support plan is essential for both participants and site staff to ensure proper device use and troubleshooting. Sponsors should work with technology vendors to ensure their platforms are user-friendly, secure, and capable of handling data from a variety of devices. It is crucial to establish clear communication channels for participants to report technical issues and receive timely assistance.

Regulatory Considerations
Both the FDA and EMA have issued guidance that supports the use of BYOD in clinical trials, provided that data integrity, security, and privacy are maintained. Sponsors must be able to demonstrate the equivalence of data collected via BYOD with data from provisioned devices. All BYOD solutions must comply with relevant data protection regulations, such as GDPR and HIPAA. The regulatory submission should include a clear description of the BYOD strategy and a justification for its use in the trial.

Findings
Evaluating patient outcomes on a case-by-case basis within individual drug programs is an inefficient use of resources and creates regulatory unpredictability. This approach frequently leads to redundant efforts to validate the same assessment tools across different development programs. The lack of a standardized, transparent process for accepting Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) hinders the development and use of novel, patient-centric endpoints, ultimately slowing the delivery of therapies that address outcomes that matter most to patients.

Recommendations
Developers of COAs, including patient groups, academic researchers, and pharmaceutical sponsors, are encouraged to collaborate with the FDA through the qualification program. This engagement should occur early to ensure that the measures are developed with sufficient rigor to meet regulatory standards. Stakeholders should leverage the program to validate a wide range of COAs, particularly Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), making them publicly available to advance patient-focused drug development across the entire industry and reduce redundant validation work.

Regulatory Considerations
The COA Qualification Program offers a formal regulatory pathway for the FDA to review and accept a COA for a specific Context of Use (COU). This qualification is separate from the review of an individual drug application, making the validated tool accessible for any sponsor to use in their clinical trials without re-adjudicating the COA's fitness for that purpose. Qualification requires a comprehensive submission demonstrating the measure is well-defined and reliable, ensuring that it appropriately captures the patient's experience or functional status.

Findings
The need for rigorous verification and validation of DHT-generated measurements before they can be relied upon for safety, efficacy, or effectiveness.
The risk of widening health inequities due to disparities in access to healthcare and technology.
Challenges in ensuring data quality, privacy, and security.
The necessity for improved interoperability to facilitate data sharing.
The requirement for developing AI and machine learning algorithms for real-time data evaluation.

Recommendations
Improve the reach and effectiveness of DHTs, particularly among marginalized groups.
Develop and validate AI and machine learning algorithms for real-time evaluation of DHT data.
Ensure systematic protections for data privacy and security.
Enhance interoperability to unlock the full potential of DHTs.
Engage with stakeholders, including patients, to create efficient pathways for DHT adoption.

Regulatory Considerations
Compliance with rapidly changing digital health policies.
Utilization of FDA guidance documents and tools for understanding digital health regulations.
Consideration of regulatory oversight as DHTs become more integral to clinical trial design.

Findings
The US regulatory landscape is more suitable for promoting innovation in digital health compared to Europe.
Traditional regulatory approaches are not keeping pace with technological advancements.
There is a lack of specific guidance on the use of wearables and software in clinical drug trials.
The US has a more advanced regulatory framework for drug development tools than Europe.

Recommendations
Use approved solutions or consider early qualification of drug development tools.
Engage early with FDA and EMA to define evidentiary standards and regulatory pathways.
Ensure correct regulatory classification of digital tools.
Engage early with regulatory authorities to navigate the regulatory landscape.

Regulatory Considerations
Digital tools must be fit-for-purpose for their intended use.
Sponsors must ensure conformity with GxP and local data privacy and cybersecurity laws.
Data from digital tools must deliver reliable data with tangible clinical benefits.
The context of use drives the benefit-risk assessment and evidentiary criteria for regulatory acceptability.

Findings
There are gaps in assessing aspects of physical function that matter to patients.
Existing assessment methods have limitations, including their episodic nature and burden to patients.
There are currently no approved drugs in the United States for the treatment of cancer cachexia.

Recommendations
Develop and validate digital measures of health.
Ensure digital measures are meaningful to patients.
Qualify digital measures for use in clinical development and regulatory decision-making.

Regulatory Considerations
Qualification of digital measures as drug development tools is necessary.
Digital measures are gaining traction in regulatory decision-making.
The FDA recommends qualification of digital measures in their PFDD guidelines."

Findings
COA-based endpoints should reflect meaningful patient health aspects and support clear treatment effect inferences.
Selection of endpoints requires a well-supported rationale, including evidence of their importance to patients.
Use of MSD and MSR approaches enhances the interpretation of treatment effects by linking COA scores to meaningful patient experiences. Proper anchors (e.g., global impression of severity) are essential for validating these approaches.
Frequency and timing of COA data collection must align with disease characteristics and study objectives.
Adjustments for potential practice effects and assistive device use are critical for robust outcome measurement.
Proper handling of missing data and sensitivity analyses ensure valid conclusions from COA-based endpoints.
Continuous, ordinal, and dichotomized endpoints require tailored statistical methods for analysis.
Early engagement with the FDA is crucial for aligning study designs and COA approaches with regulatory expectations.

Recommendations
Engage patients and caregivers early to identify meaningful endpoints and assess potential barriers to COA use.
Use anchor-based methods to validate COA scores and define meaningful thresholds for interpretation.
Develop and pilot test study protocols to ensure COA reliability, usability, and alignment with regulatory requirements.
Implement strategies to reduce participant burden, such as concise COA instruments and patient-friendly data collection methods.
Submit comprehensive documentation, including endpoint justification and scoring rationale, to FDA for feedback before trial initiation.

Regulatory Considerations
Endpoints must be supported by evidence of their fit-for-purpose status and alignment with the trial’s objectives.
COAs used in digital or adaptive formats must meet FDA’s standards for usability and data integrity.
Trials with nonrandomized designs require robust measures to mitigate bias in COA-based endpoint analysis.
Thresholds for MSD or MSR must be prespecified and justified with empirical evidence.
Sponsors must follow FDA guidance for submitting COA-based data, ensuring compliance with electronic data standards.