BACKGROUND Quality‐of‐life (QoL) issues have become increasingly important as the number of newly diagnosed patients with cancer increases and survival improves. In 1983, Coates et al. reported a survey of patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy and showed the importance of including patient feedback for the accurate assessment of QoL (Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1983;19:203–208.). The authors carried out a similar survey in 100 patients with cancer with the objectives of 1) investigating the changes in patient perceptions that have occurred and 2) evaluating the impact of new treatments on the profile of chemotherapy side effects among patients receiving anticancer drugs. METHODS One hundred patients attending the outpatient Medical Oncology Department of the Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital Group were surveyed between August 1998 and February 2000 by trained interviewers who were blinded to the patients' treatment. Patients identified all side effects associated with their treatment using a set of 45 cards that named physical side effects (Group A) and a set of 27 cards that named nonphysical side effects (Group B), and the patients ranked these side effects according to severity. The top 5 cards from each group were then combined, and the resulting 10 cards were rated again by severity, regardless of group. Results were analyzed for the entire cohort and for demographic, social, and clinical subgroups. RESULTS The participants included 65 women and 35 men; the most common malignancies were breast carcinoma (40 patients), gastrointestinal carcinoma (19 patients), lung carcinoma (7 patients), and ovarian carcinoma (9 patients). Patients rated affects my family or partner as the most severe side effect, alopecia was second, and fatigue was the third most severe. Effects on work or home responsibilities, effects on social activities, and loss of interest in sex were ranked fourth, fifth, and sixth, respectively. The results contrasted with those of Coates et al., in which affects my family or partner was ranked 10th, and fatigue was ranked 8th. CONCLUSIONS Patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy have changed markedly. In the current study, fatigue and psychosocial QoL concerns predominated, compared with emesis, nausea, and negative reactions to the treatment visit in the original survey. The current findings are consistent with the progress that has been made in reducing certain chemotherapy‐associated toxicities. Fatigue, however, although it often is related to anemia and is treatable with recombinant human erythropoietin, remains a major concern. The emotional, social, and sexual consequences of cancer treatment present continuing challenges in efforts to optimize QoL and to develop effective supportive care. Cancer 2002;95:155–63. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10630

IntroductionMobile health systems (MHS) are one of the more spreading technologies in the field of medicine. However, identification of useful MHS is rather challenging. Few of them are, or could be, connected medical devices (cMD). Like other medical devices, cMD must be assessed to validate claimed benefits for reimbursement purposes. Clinical added value demonstration is a major criterion used to satisfy administrative requirements. With the increase of clinical studies that are including MHS, study registries can be used for insight into the type of evidence expected to become available in the near future.MethodsIn 2018, the French National Authority for Health (HAS) performed a review of registered MHS clinical study designs. The Clinicaltrials.gov database was consulted for all studies indexed with the terms “mHealth” and “mobile health” for the search fields “study title”, “conditions” and “interventions”.ResultsFour hundred and fifteen clinical studies were registered. Three hundred and eighty studies were interventional with most comprised of a randomized study design (75 percent). Fifteen had a crossover design. Only few observational studies (n = 35) were registered. These mainly concerned (59 percent) patient use of an app on a smartphone without any other device.ConclusionsPatterns of clinical studies were not found to significantly differ between MHS and other medical devices. Most of the clinical studies were randomized and specific criteria to assess MHS could easily be identified. However, specific methodologies for clinical development are not used in practice for cMD health technology assessment. In the absence of validated and specific methodology for clinical development, current methods that are being used in these ongoing studies will nonetheless be generating evidence for the upcoming years.

Introduction:More and more software programs, including those with medical device status, are coming into the market that aim to facilitate management of diabetic patients. In France, their coverage requires a positive opinion from the French National Health Agency (HAS) dedicated committee. To understand the utility of these products for patients, real-life experiments are in progress. Since the evaluation principles are similar for all medical devices, it was important to find out with this first connected software if specific methods or evaluation criteria are necessary.Methods:After obtaining CE marking, the manufacturer submitted a dossier to HAS outlining the clinical data and technical performance of the software. HAS assessed the dossier and the opinion of stakeholders (i.e. professionals and patient associations) in order to determine the actual clinical benefit of this software. At the same time, HAS set technical features in particular to secure patient data and limit access to only those involved in telemonitoring. Terms of prescription and use of this connected software had also been defined.Results:Two feasibility studies and one randomized controlled trial were analyzed. Specific clinical data demonstrated that the risk-benefit balance was positive in type 1 diabetic patients.Conclusions:In addition to the need to keep personal data confidential and to integrate the technology in the organization of healthcare, this assessment shows that randomized clinical trials are feasible and necessary to demonstrate the clinical benefit of connected software; however, specificities exist regarding data collection methods and the scope of healthcare organization that should be taken into account. A specific guide to connected medical devices for industry has been developed by HAS to help them build their application dossier for reimbursement. The second step for HAS is to develop guidelines on the specificities of the assessment of these connected devices.