Connecting real-world digital mobility assessment to clinical outcomes for regulatory and clinical endorsement – the Mobilise-D study protocol

Abstract

BackgroundThe development of optimal strategies to treat impaired mobility related to ageing and chronic disease requires better ways to detect and measure it. Digital health technology, including body worn sensors, has the potential to directly and accurately capture real-world mobility. Mobilise-D consists of 34 partners from 13 countries who are working together to jointly develop and implement a digital mobility assessment solution to demonstrate that real-world digital mobility outcomes have the potential to provide a better, safer, and quicker way to assess, monitor, and predict the efficacy of new interventions on impaired mobility. The overarching objective of the study is to establish the clinical validity of digital outcomes in patient populations impacted by mobility challenges, and to support engagement with regulatory and health technology agencies towards acceptance of digital mobility assessment in regulatory and health technology assessment decisionsMethods/DesignThe Mobilise-D clinical validation study is a longitudinal observational cohort study that will recruit 2400 participants from four clinical cohorts. The populations of the Innovative Medicine Initiative-Joint Undertaking represent neurodegenerative conditions (Parkinson’s Disease), respiratory disease (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), neuro-inflammatory disorder (Multiple Sclerosis), fall- related injuries, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and frailty (Proximal Femoral Fracture). In total, 17 clinical sites in ten countries will recruit participants who will be evaluated every six months over a period of two years. A wide range of core and cohort specific outcome measures will be collected, spanning patient-reported, observer-reported, and clinician-reported outcomes as well as performance-based outcomes (physical measures and cognitive/mental measures). Daily-living mobility and physical capacity will be assessed directly using a wearable device. These four clinical cohorts were chosen to obtain generalizable clinical findings, including diverse clinical, cultural, geographical, and age representation. The disease cohorts include a broad and heterogeneous range of subject characteristics with varying chronic care needs, and represent different trajectories of mobility disability.DiscussionThe results of Mobilise-D will provide longitudinal data on the use of digital mobility outcomes to identify, stratify, and monitor disability. This will support the development of widespread, cost- effective access to optimal clinical mobility management through personalised healthcare. Further, Mobilise-D will provide evidence-based, direct measures which can be endorsed by regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies to quantify the impact of disease-modifying interventions on mobility.Trial registrationISRCTN12051706

On the use of wearable sensors as mobility biomarkers in the marketing authorization of new drugs: A regulatory perspective

“…The clinical validation plan has not been published yet, but the key elements can be found here ( 15 ). The multicentric observational clinical study will involve 600 patients for each of the four disease groups (MS, PD, PFF, COPD) for a total of 2,400 participants recruited in 17 centers across Europe.…”

Predicting hospitalization from real-world measures in patients with chronic kidney disease: A proof-of-principle study

“… 6 Importantly, such measures can be captured remotely, passively, and continuously to generate large amounts of objective RWD that directly or indirectly represent a patient's physical functioning in their own real-world environment. 7 , 8 This is a departure from the status quo where physical function outcome assessments have historically relied on subjective report (from the patient, caregiver, or clinician) or standardized in-clinic performance tests. Subjective assessments have the benefit of directly surveying physical function within a range of relevant contexts, but their reliability compared to objective measures can be limited by reporting bias.…”