Background: The lack of an international standard for assessing and communicating health app quality and the lack of consensus about what makes a high-quality health app negatively affect the... Show moreBackground: The lack of an international standard for assessing and communicating health app quality and the lack of consensus about what makes a high-quality health app negatively affect the uptake of such apps. At the request of the European Commission, the international Standard Development Organizations (SDOs), European Committee for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization, and International Electrotechnical Commission have joined forces to develop a technical specification (TS) for assessing the quality and reliability of health and wellness apps.Objective: This study aimed to create a useful, globally applicable, trustworthy, and usable framework to assess health app quality.Methods: A 2-round Delphi technique with 83 experts from 6 continents (predominantly Europe) participating in one (n=42, 51%) or both (n=41, 49%) rounds was used to achieve consensus on a framework for assessing health app quality. Aims included identifying the maximum 100 requirement questions for the uptake of apps that do or do not qualify as medical devices. The draft assessment framework was built on 26 existing frameworks, the principles of stringent legislation, and input from 20 core experts. A follow-up survey with 28 respondents informed a scoring mechanism for the questions. After subsequent alignment with related standards, the quality assessment framework was tested and fine-tuned with manufacturers of 11 COVID-19 symptom apps. National mirror committees from the 52 countries that participated in the SDO technical committees were invited to comment on 4 working drafts and subsequently vote on the TS.Results: The final quality assessment framework includes 81 questions, 67 (83%) of which impact the scores of 4 overarching quality aspects. After testing with people with low health literacy, these aspects were phrased as "Healthy and safe," "Easy to use," "Secure data," and "Robust build." The scoring mechanism enables communication of the quality assessment results in a health app quality score and label, alongside a detailed report. Unstructured interviews with stakeholders revealed that evidence and third-party assessment are needed for health app uptake. The manufacturers considered the time needed to complete the assessment and gather evidence (2-4 days) acceptable. Publication of CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2:2021 Health software - Part 2: Health and wellness apps - Quality and reliability was approved in May 2021 in a nearly unanimous vote by 34 national SDOs, including 6 of the 10 most populous countries worldwide.Conclusions: A useful and usable international standard for health app quality assessment was developed. Its quality, approval rate, and early use provide proof of its potential to become the trusted, commonly used global framework. The framework will help manufacturers enhance and efficiently demonstrate the quality of health apps, consumers, and health care professionals to make informed decisions on health apps. It will also help insurers to make reimbursement decisions on health apps. Show less
Background The majority of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) develop resistance to imatinib and sunitinib, the standard of care for these patients. This study... Show moreBackground The majority of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) develop resistance to imatinib and sunitinib, the standard of care for these patients. This study evaluated the combination of buparlisib, an oral phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor, with imatinib in patients with advanced GIST, who have failed prior therapy with imatinib and sunitinib. Methods This Phase 1b, multicentre, open-label study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or a recommended Phase 2 dose of buparlisib in combination with 400 mg of imatinib through a dose-escalation part and a dose-expansion part, and also evaluated the clinical profile of the combination. Results Sixty patients were enrolled, including 25 in the dose-escalation part and 35 in the dose-expansion part. In the combination, MTD of buparlisib was established as 80 mg. No partial or complete responses were observed. The estimated median progression-free survival was 3.5 months in the expansion phase. Overall, 98.3% of patients had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), including 45% with grade 3 or 4 AEs. Conclusions Buparlisib in combination with imatinib provided no additional benefit compared with currently available therapies. Due to the lack of objective responses, further development of this combination was not pursued for third-line/fourth-line advanced/metastatic GIST. Show less
Mir, O.; Touati, N.; Lia, M.; Litiere, S.; Cesne, A. le; Sleijfer, S.; ... ; Gronchi, A. 2019
Purpose: Pazopanib is active in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Because pazopanib absorption is pH-dependent, coadministration with gastric acid-suppressive (GAS) agents such as proton pump inhibitors... Show morePurpose: Pazopanib is active in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Because pazopanib absorption is pH-dependent, coadministration with gastric acid-suppressive (GAS) agents such as proton pump inhibitors could affect exposure of pazopanib, and thereby its therapeutic effects.Patients and Methods: The EORTC 62043 and 62072 were single-arm phase II and placebo-controlled phase III studies, respectively, of pazopanib in advanced STS. We first compared the outcome of patients treated with pazopanib with or without GAS agents for >= 80% of treatment duration, and subsequently using various thresholds. The impact of concomitant GAS therapy was assessed on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using multivariate Cox models, exploring and comparing also the potential effect on placebo-treated patients.Results: Of 333 eligible patients, 59 (17.7%) received concomitant GAS therapy for > 80% of pazopanib treatment duration. Median PFS was shorter in GAS therapy users versus nonusers: 2.8 vs. 4.6 months, respectively [HR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.99; P = 0.01]. Concomitant administration of GAS therapy was also associated with a shorter median OS: 8.0 vs. 12.6 months (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.31-2.49; P < 0.01). The longer the overlapping use of GAS agents and pazopanib, the worse the outcome with pazopanib. These effects were not observed in placebo-treated patients (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51-1.34; P = 0.43 for PFS and HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.48-1.48; P = 0.54 for OS).Conclusions: Coadministration of long-term GAS therapy with pazopanib was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS. Withdrawal of GAS agents must be considered whenever possible. Therapeutic drug monitoring of pazopanib plasma concentrations may be helpful for patients on pazopanib and GAS therapy. Show less
Gelderblom, H.; Blay, J.Y.; Seddon, B.M.; Leahy, M.; Ray-Coquard, I.; Sleijfer, S.; ... ; Hohenberger, P. 2014
