Evaluation of Wearable Digital Devices in a Phase I Clinical Trial

by | Jan 11, 2019 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Elena S. Izmailova,
  • Ian L. McLean,
  • Gaurav Bhatia,
  • Greg Hather,
  • Matthew Cantor,
  • David Merberg,
  • Eric D. Perakslis,
  • Christopher Benko,
  • John A. Wagner

Abstract:

We assessed the performance of two US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k)-cleared wearable digital devices and the operational feasibility of deploying them to augment data collection in a 10-day residential phase I clinical trial. The Phillips Actiwatch Spectrum Pro (Actiwatch) was used to assess mobility and sleep, and the Vitalconnect HealthPatch MD (HealthPatch) was used for monitoring heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), and surface skin temperature (ST). We measured data collection rates, compared device readouts with anticipated readings and conventional in-clinic measures, investigated data limitations, and assessed user acceptability. Six of nine study participants consented; completeness of data collection was adequate (> 90% for four of six subjects). A good correlation was observed between the HealthPatch device derived and in-clinic measures for HR (Pearson r = 0.71; P = 2.2e-16) but this was poor for RR (r = 0.08; P = 0.44) and ST (r = 0.14; P = 0.14). Manual review of electrocardiogram strips recorded during reported episodes of tachycardia > 180 beats/min showed that these were artefacts. The HealthPatch was judged to be not fit-for-purpose because of artefacts and the need for time-consuming manual review. The Actiwatch device was suitable for monitoring mobility, collecting derived sleep data, and facilitating the interpretation of vital sign data. These results suggest the need for fit-for-purpose evaluation of wearable devices prior to their deployment in drug development studies.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12602

References:
  • Mealer, M. et al. Remote source document verification in two national clinical trials networks: a pilot study. PLoS One 8, e81890 (2013). CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Wu, T.C. et al. Telemedicine-guided remote enrollment of patients into an acute stroke trial. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 2, 38– 42 (2015). Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Smalley, E. Clinical trials go virtual, big pharma dives in. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 561– 562 (2018). CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Rosenbaum, L. Swallowing a spy – the potential uses of digital adherence monitoring. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 101– 103 (2018). CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Izmailova, E.S., Wagner, J.A. & Perakslis, E.D. Wearable devices in clinical trials: hype and hypothesis. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 104, 42– 52 (2018). Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Clifton, L., Clifton, D.A., Pimentel, M.A., Watkinson, P.J. & Tarassenko, L. Predictive monitoring of mobile patients by combining clinical observations with data from wearable sensors. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 18, 722– 730 (2014). CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Roess, A. The promise, growth, and reality of mobile health – another data-free zone. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 2010– 2011 (2017). CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Weenk, M. et al. Continuous monitoring of vital signs using wearable devices on the general ward: pilot study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 5, e91 (2017). CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Schmier, J.K. & Halpern, M.T. Patient recall and recall bias of health state and health status. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 4, 159– 163 (2004). CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lee, J.W. et al. Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement. Pharm. Res. 23, 312– 328 (2006). CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • National Center for Biotechnology Information. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326791/>. (January 2016). Accessed November 30, 2018. Google Scholar
  • US Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) summary. < https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/K983533.pdf>. (January 2014). Accessed November 30, 2018. Google Scholar
  • US Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) summary. < https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf13/K132447.pdf>. (April 2014). Accessed November 30, 2018. Google Scholar
  • Bland, J.M. & Altman, D.G. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8, 135– 160 (1999). CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Sarzynski, M.A. et al. Measured maximal heart rates compared to commonly used age-based prediction equations in the heritage family study. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 25, 695– 701 (2013). Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Thurman, S.M. et al. Individual differences in compliance and agreement for sleep logs and wrist actigraphy: a longitudinal study of naturalistic sleep in healthy adults. PLoS One 13, e0191883 (2018). CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Bracci, M. et al. Peripheral skin temperature and circadian biological clock in shift nurses after a day off. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, (2016). CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Degaute, J.P., van de Borne, P., Linkowski, P. & Van Cauter, E. Quantitative analysis of the 24-hour blood pressure and heart rate patterns in young men. Hypertension 18, 199– 210 (1991). CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Smith, I., MacKay, J., Fahrid, N. & Krucheck, D. Respiratory rate measurement: a comparison of methods. Br. J. Healthcare Assistants 5, 18– 22 (2011). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Xu, X., Karis, A.J., Buller, M.J. & Santee, W.R. Relationship between core temperature, skin temperature, and heat flux during exercise in heat. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 113, 2381– 2389 (2013). CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Choi, J.K., Miki, K., Sagawa, S. & Shiraki, K. Evaluation of mean skin temperature formulas by infrared thermography. Int. J. Biometeorol. 41, 68– 75 (1997). CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Barrett, P.M. et al. Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring with 14-day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. Am. J. Med. 127, 95e11– 95e97 (2014). CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Steinhubl, S.R. et al. Effect of a home-based wearable continuous ECG monitoring patch on detection of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation: the mSToPS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 320, 146– 155 (2018). CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Tsien, C.L. & Fackler, J.C. Poor prognosis for existing monitors in the intensive care unit. Crit. Care Med. 25, 614– 619 (1997). CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Mitchell, I.A. et al. A prospective controlled trial of the effect of a multi-faceted intervention on early recognition and intervention in deteriorating hospital patients. Resuscitation 81, 658– 666 (2010). CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
  • Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative (CTTI). Program: Mobile Clinical Trials (MCT). < https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/projects/mobile-technologies>. (July 2018). Accessed November 30, 2018. Google Scholar