mhealth Wearables Report 2016 SCORR Marketing and Applied Clinical Trials

Transcription

1 mhealth Wearables Report 2016 SCORR Marketing and Applied Clinical Trials

2 Overview Mobile health technologies have great promise to improve clinical trials in the future. These technologies are widely expected to be in greater demand from trial participants who already are comfortable using mobile technology in other areas of their lives. Sponsors, too, may benefit when these technologies are used to better connect developers with patients, speed the execution of studies and reduce costs. In a follow-up to our mhealth survey last year, SCORR Marketing, in partnership with Applied Clinical Trials, conducted another survey to delve deeper into mhealth technology, this time with special emphasis on wearable technology. We wanted to know how the industry believes mhealth wearable technology will be used in the next few years and attitudes toward its implementation. Additionally, we wanted to know who is most resistant to wearables and better understand what concerns remain. Survey respondents include individuals from CROs, pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, service providers, consultancies, research sites and hospitals. These individuals hold a variety of job titles, including positions as, or in, research and development (R&D), corporate management, clinical directors, strategy or planning, business development, QA/QC, regulatory, medical affairs and clinical research associates. In this survey, we gathered information on: Where companies conduct clinical trials In which therapeutic areas clinical trials are conducted Companies current use of mhealth wearable technology in clinical trials Which stakeholders are most resistant to the application of wearable technology in clinical trials Attitudes toward present and future use of wearable technology Concerns over data security, costs, patient compliance and environmental factors when applying wearable technology Ways in which wearable technology will be utilized in the future

3 In which therapeutic areas has your company conducted trials? 56% 37% 51% 35% 47% 12% Oncology Cardiovascular Neurology Endocrinology Respiratory Sleep Studies How do you stay on top of wearable technology? 70% 62% 51% Applied Clinical Trials Web Search(es) Industry Magazine(s) 48% 43% Industry Website(s) Conference(s) /Trade show(s) 38% Infections and Infectious Diseases Do the positives of wearables outweigh the negatives? 95% NO 5% In 3 years, will your company use wearables more often? 91% 9% NO What will they use them for? 5% Drug Delivery 36% Monitoring 60% Both

4 Where does your company currently conduct trials? 41% 84% 52% 27% 36% 40% 32% 34% 31%

5 Which group is most resistant to wearables? Pharmaceutical Companies Clinical Sites Patients Other Don't Know Laboratories 3% 38% 52% 48% 22% 15% 10% In the past year, have you used a wearable drug delivery device in trials? 69% NO 12% 31% Are you familiar with pilot clinical studies using wearables? NO In the past year, have you used a wearable monitoring device in trials? 41% 59% NO

6 26% 50% 21% 3% How concerned are you about costs? VERY HARDLY NOT AT ALL 29% 40% 26% 5% How concerned are you about data context? VERY How concerned are you about patient compliance? How concerned are you about data security? SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT HARDLY NOT AT ALL 30% 43% 22% 5% VERY SOMEWHAT HARDLY NOT AT ALL 27% 42% 23% 9% VERY SOMEWHAT HARDLY NOT AT ALL Which concerns will not be sufficiently addressed in the next three years? 35% 58% 38% 33%

7 Three Main Points: 1.) Respondents overwhelmingly see wearable technology as beneficial for clinical trials. About 19 in 20 respondents (95%) believe the positives outweigh the negatives. This is true across all types of organizations, all job titles and regardless of where the company headquarters is based. Interestingly, respondents see this technology as beneficial despite a fair amount of unfamiliarity with clinical studies using wearables. Only a slight majority of respondents (52%) were familiar with pilot clinical studies being conducted with wearable technology. Regarding clinical trial usage in the past year, less than one in three (31%) respondents companies (31%) utilized a wearable drug delivery device, and just two in five respondents companies (41%) used a wearable monitoring device. 2.) If any group is skeptical about the merits of wearable technology for clinical trials, it is pharmaceutical companies. Respondents were asked which stakeholders are most resistant to the application of wearable technology in clinical trials. By a sizable plurality, pharmaceutical companies (38%) was the group most often identified, followed by clinical sites (22%), patients (15%) and laboratories (3%). These respondents include those from pharmaceutical companies. More than two in five (43%) pharmaceutical companies describe themselves as the stakeholder most reluctant to implement wearable technology. Pharmaceutical company respondents are also the least likely group to be familiar with pilot clinical studies using wearables and the least knowledgeable about their company s use of wearable monitoring devices during clinical trials. 3.) There are substantial technological and protocol-related concerns that coincide with the use of wearables, but for the most part, respondents believe these concerns will be sufficiently addressed in the next three years. A majority of respondents are very or somewhat concerned about data security (69%), costs (76%), patient compliance (73%) and environmental factors (how data is affected by context, e.g, whether the patient just ate: 69%). However, about two-thirds of respondents believe technological advances and improved protocols will sufficiently address all but one of these concerns in the next three years. Environmental factors is the exception, where just two in five (42%) respondents believe the concerns will be sufficiently addressed. continued on next page >

8 Three Main Points (cont.): The level of concern is not uniform across all groups. Regarding data security, respondents in R&D are more than twice as likely (34%) to be very concerned than are clinical directors (16%). Similarly, respondents with company headquarters in the United States are more than twice as likely (31%) to be very concerned than those with company headquarters elsewhere (13%). Those from academic institutions (36%) were much more likely to be very concerned about costs than are service providers (15%). CROs are most likely to be very concerned about patient compliance. Almost half of respondents from CROs (48%) are very concerned about environmental factors, and this group is least likely (24%) to believe technological advances or improved protocols will sufficiently address these concerns in the next three years. Other Key Takeaways: North America is by far the region most likely to host clinical trials, followed by Western Europe and Russia/Eastern Europe. Oncology is the most common therapeutic focus for clinical trials, followed by cardiovascular and neurology. Aside from following Applied Clinical Trials, respondents are most likely to use Web searches to stay informed regarding wearable technology-related issues. More than nine in 10 respondents believe that, within three years, their company will utilize wearable technology more than it does currently. Of those respondents who expect their company to utilize wearable technology more, about three in five believe it will be for both drug delivery and monitoring. More than a third believe they will just do so for monitoring, while about one in 20 believe they will do so for just drug delivery.