Findings
General wellness products are defined by two factors: they are intended only for general wellness use and present a low risk to user safety. The FDA categorizes wellness uses into those relating to a general state of health (e.g., weight management, physical fitness, sleep) and those relating to chronic diseases where lifestyle choices are well-accepted to play a role in health outcomes. Products are not considered low risk if they are invasive, implanted, or involve technologies like lasers or radiation that require specific regulatory controls. Software functions intended for maintaining a healthy lifestyle that are unrelated to the diagnosis or treatment of a disease are explicitly excluded from the statutory definition of a medical device.

Recommendations
Manufacturers should ensure that claims for general wellness products are limited to sustaining or improving general health functions or encouraging healthy lifestyle choices for living well with chronic conditions. Disease-related claims must be supported by peer-reviewed scientific publications or official statements from healthcare professional organizations. Labeling and marketing communications must be consistent with and not exceed the product's stated intended use. For products using non-invasive sensing to estimate physiologic parameters, manufacturers should validate these outputs if they mimic values used clinically. If a product includes notifications to see a doctor, these should not name specific diseases or characterize outputs as pathological.

Regulatory Considerations
For products meeting the low-risk general wellness criteria, the FDA does not intend to enforce requirements such as registration and listing, premarket notification, or Quality Management System regulations. The FDA may coordinate with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to determine jurisdiction over specific products. If a product targets the diagnosis, screening, or management of a disease through alerts or clinical thresholds, it is generally not considered a general wellness product and is subject to standard medical device regulations. Industry members may contact the Digital Health Center of Excellence or use the Q-Submission process to discuss alternative approaches or clarify the regulatory status of a specific product.

Findings
The DHCoE works to strategically advance science and evidence for digital health technologies (DHTs).
Key areas of focus include Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning (AI/ML) in Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), Cybersecurity, Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR), and Wireless Medical Devices.
The DHCoE develops and publishes Guidances with Digital Health Content and maintains a Digital Health Policy Navigator to provide clarity on regulatory policies.
Digital health technologies are acknowledged as having the potential to facilitate decentralized clinical trial activities and allow for continuous or frequent measurements of clinical features remotely.
Programs and initiatives include the Software Precertification (Pre-Cert) Pilot Program, the Regulatory Accelerator, and the Diagnostic Data Program.
The center is also involved in international harmonization on device regulatory policy and standards.

Recommendations
The DHCoE recommends that stakeholders, including sponsors and DHT manufacturers, engage with the agency early to discuss the use of DHTs in drug development or for decentralized clinical trials (DCTs).
Stakeholders are encouraged to use the Digital Health Policy Navigator tool to assess whether a particular software function meets the device definition and is the focus of FDA oversight.
The DHCoE emphasizes the need for a patient-centered approach for AI/ML-enabled devices that considers issues like usability, equity, trust, and accountability, and promotes transparency.

Regulatory Considerations
The DHCoE's work includes innovating the regulatory paradigm for digital health, moving towards models that may include shifting scrutiny from the pre-market to the post-market phase and focusing on the capability of firms (Software Pre-Cert Pilot Program).
The FDA has committed, as part of PDUFA VII, to activities such as publishing a Framework for the Use of DHTs in Drug and Biological Product Development and establishing a DHT Steering Committee.
The center provides information to help determine the regulatory status of various digital health products, such as Software as a medical device (SaMD), mobile medical applications (MMA), and General Wellness products.
Submissions for products with device software functions must include recommended documentation for the FDA's evaluation of safety and effectiveness.
For questions regarding upcoming premarket submissions, stakeholders are directed to contact the appropriate review division through a Q-submission.

Findings
Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) is a common and potentially life-threatening adverse event of immunotherapies, particularly in Oncology, complicating patient care and increasing healthcare costs. Standard-of-care inpatient monitoring for CRS is manual, intermittent, costly, and restrictive, providing an incomplete view of the syndrome’s development and progression. The use of Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) for continuous, remote monitoring of vital signs (like heart rate, respiratory rate, skin temperature, SpO2, and activity) can capture early indicators of CRS up to two hours earlier than standard episodic monitoring. This ability to collect multivariate continuous data is valuable for informing robust model development for CRS risk prediction.

Recommendations
Investigators should deploy DHTs available today to monitor vital signs and symptoms currently observed in the hospital setting, but in an outpatient or home environment. The goal is to develop Early Warning Products that assess the probability of developing CRS, providing clinical decision support. Product developers should follow a strategic roadmap that outlines milestones for building products that are clinically relevant and commercially viable. Researchers should use a common set of digital clinical measures to gather high-quality datasets and ensure comparability across studies to build more robust predictive models. Predictive algorithms should be built on a robust reference measure for analytical validation and be clinically validated with sufficient data.

Regulatory Considerations
The resources are designed to help developers build products that are clinically appropriate, regulatory-acceptable, and commercially viable. Future regulatory submissions for CRS de-risking products will benefit from aligning with this industry-wide dialogue that is being built in collaboration with the FDA. Developing a robust CRS safety biomarker could enhance the safety profile of clinical trials, increase trial access, and streamline regulatory decision-making, possibly through a qualification pathway. Products that aim for a higher level of autonomy, such as a Diagnostic that redefines current CRS grading classes, may require very high clinical evidence and likely stringent regulatory review.

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 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
Existing guidelines lack pragmatic application and systematic approach for device selection.
Device choice is dependent on measurement objectives, user population, and available resources.
Current frameworks do not systematically consider verification, validation, feasibility, and protocol design.
Rapid obsolescence of digital devices due to technological advancements.
Need to incorporate social/psychological factors into device selection.

Recommendations
Develop a practical guide with a systematic approach for selecting wearable devices.
Use five core criteria: continuous monitoring capability, device suitability and availability, technical performance, feasibility of use, and cost evaluation.
Prioritize feasibility of use to ensure user needs are incorporated into the selection process.
Adapt guide criteria to accommodate novel innovations.
Foster clarity and transparency in decision-making among researchers, HCPs, and device users.

Regulatory Considerations
Follow FDA guidance for digital health technology usage in clinical investigations.
Consider CTTI recommendations for improving clinical trial quality and efficiency.
Use ePRO Consortium's factors for device suitability in regulatory trials.
Apply international guidelines for specific measurements when available.

Findings
Data analytics are challenging due to diverse metrics and study aims.
Most devices lack built-in software for data output.
There is a lack of comparison and validation studies for different devices and metrics.
Validation of PA metrics is difficult due to the absence of a gold standard.
The integration of various databases is needed but challenging.

Recommendations
Conduct comparison and validation studies between different brands of devices and PA metrics.
Develop standardized metrics for measuring PA.
Improve data integration methods across different studies and databases.
Focus on developing built-in software for devices to facilitate data output.
Encourage research on the validation of PA metrics.

Regulatory Considerations
1Not mentioned

Findings
The field lacks a centralized, standardized database of validated digital health technologies, making it difficult for researchers and clinicians to select appropriate tools.
Non-wearable sensors and software applications are the most common types of DHTs, with 83% of ambient technologies categorized as software or applications.
Most DHTs focus on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer’s disease, with fewer technologies validated for moderate or severe dementia stages.
Uneven Distribution of Dementia Subtypes – The review identified a gap in DHT validation for frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Lewy Body dementia, with Alzheimer’s disease being the predominant focus.

Recommendations
Expand and maintain an open-access database of validated DHTs to improve accessibility and standardization.
Increase research on digital measures applicable to moderate and severe stages of dementia, as well as non-Alzheimer’s dementias.
Promote integration of wearable, ambient, and cognitive assessment tools to generate comprehensive digital phenotypes of patients.
Follow clear guidelines for analytical and clinical validation of DHTs to improve regulatory acceptance and research applicability.
Conduct more usability and feasibility assessments, especially for populations with cognitive decline, to ensure DHTs are accessible and effective in real-world settings.

Findings
There is a lack of systematic approaches to guide the processes of collecting, interpreting, analyzing, and translating health data from wearables into digital biomarkers.
Most wearables have fixed measurement capabilities, limiting their translation to digital biomarkers.
Current guidance lacks study design and conduct elements that involve all stakeholders in an iterative approach for implementing digital biomarkers in practice.
Researchers and health professionals often rely on limited guidance for using wearable data in clinical practice and chronic disease management.

Recommendations
Implement the DACIA framework to provide interdisciplinary guidance on using wearable sensor data for digital biomarker development.
Focus on participant needs as a crucial factor for study success, applicable to both short and long-duration studies.
Involve relevant stakeholders in each key step of the DACIA framework in an iterative manner.
Apply the DACIA framework to explore digital biomarkers using various devices or signal measurements.
Reduce participant burden through support and continuous feedback.

Regulatory Considerations
Not mentioned

Findings
Misclassification of wakefulness during sleep periods and issues with tracking outside main sleep bouts.
Bias in performance evaluation studies due to limited representation of diverse populations.
Hidden complexities in consumer-grade devices related to data access, fees, privacy, and security.

Recommendations
Carefully interpret study results based on wearable sleep-tracking technology data.
Address biases in study populations by including diverse cohorts.
Ensure proper preprocessing of data from consumer-grade devices.
Avoid inserting personally identifiable information in device settings.
Evaluate issues related to specific populations like minors.

Regulatory Considerations
Complexity of privacy laws across different countries.
Need for strategies to protect personal information in device settings.
Consideration of specific population issues, such as minors, in regulatory frameworks.

NA

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.