Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Can composite digital monitoring biomarkers come of age? A framework for utilization

  • Christopher Kovalchick (a1), Rhea Sirkar (a1), Oliver B. Regele (a1), Lampros C. Kourtis (a1), Marie Schiller (a1), Howard Wolpert (a1), Rhett G. Alden (a1), Graham B. Jones (a2) and Justin M. Wright (a1)...

Abstract

Introduction

The application of digital monitoring biomarkers in health, wellness and disease management is reviewed. Harnessing the near limitless capacity of these approaches in the managed healthcare continuum will benefit from a systems-based architecture which presents data quality, quantity, and ease of capture within a decision-making dashboard.

Methods

A framework was developed which stratifies key components and advances the concept of contextualized biomarkers. The framework codifies how direct, indirect, composite, and contextualized composite data can drive innovation for the application of digital biomarkers in healthcare.

Results

The de novo framework implies consideration of physiological, behavioral, and environmental factors in the context of biomarker capture and analysis. Application in disease and wellness is highlighted, and incorporation in clinical feedback loops and closed-loop systems is illustrated.

Conclusions

The study of contextualized biomarkers has the potential to offer rich and insightful data for clinical decision making. Moreover, advancement of the field will benefit from innovation at the intersection of medicine, engineering, and science. Technological developments in this dynamic field will thus fuel its logical evolution guided by inputs from patients, physicians, healthcare providers, end-payors, actuarists, medical device manufacturers, and drug companies.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Can composite digital monitoring biomarkers come of age? A framework for utilization
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Can composite digital monitoring biomarkers come of age? A framework for utilization
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Can composite digital monitoring biomarkers come of age? A framework for utilization
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence: G. B. Jones, Ph.D., Clinical & Translational Science Institute, Tufts University Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA. (Email: graham.jones@tufts.edu)

Footnotes

Hide All

Current address: Hyalex Orthopaedics, Lexington, MA 02421, USA.

Current address: Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ 07936, USA.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1. Paone, JF, et al. Serum UDP-galactosyl transferase as a potential biomarker for breast carcinoma. Journal of Surgical Oncology 1980; 15: 5966.
2. Lyons, TJ, Basu, A. Biomarkers in diabetes: hemoglobin A1c, vascular and tissue markers. Translational Research 2012; 159: 303312.
3. Prensner, JR, et al. Beyond PSA: the next generation of prostate cancer biomarkers. Science Translational Medicine 2012; 4: 127rv3.
4. James, CR, et al. BRCA1, a potential predictive biomarker in the treatment of breast cancer. The Oncologist 2007; 12: 142150.
5. Boone, CW, Kelloff, GJ. Intraepithelial neoplasia, surrogate endpoint biomarkers, and cancer chemoprevention. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry Supplement 1993; 17: F37F48.
6. Price, ND, et al. A wellness study of 108 individuals using personal, dense, dynamic data clouds. Nature Biotechnology 2017; 35: 747756.
7. Poste, G, Compton, CC, Barker, AD. The National Biomarker Development Alliance: confronting the poor productivity of biomarker research and development. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 2015; 15: 211218.
8. FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource [Internet]. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration, 2016. Co-published by National Institutes of Health (US), Bethesda, MD. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326791)
9. Ross, JS. Breast cancer biomarkers and HER2 testing after 10 years of anti-HER2 therapy. Drug News & Perspectives 2009; 22: 93106.
10. Goossens, N, et al. Cancer biomarker discovery and validation. Translational Cancer Research 2015; 4: 256269.
11. Ferlini, A, Scotton, C, Novelli, G. Biomarkers in rare diseases. Public Health Genomics 2013; 16: 313321.
12. Ferreira, D, et al. Improving CSF biomarkers’ performance for predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease by considering different confounding factors: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2014; 6: 287.
13. Kreitmair, KV, Cho, MK, Magnus, DC. Consent and engagement, security, and authentic living using wearable and mobile health technology. Nature Biotechnology 2017; 35: 617620.
14. Bouallègue, B, et al. Comparison of CSF markers and semi-quantitative amyloid PET in Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and in cognitive impairment prognosis using the ADNI-2 database. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy 2017; 9: 32.
15. Weiner, MW, et al. The Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative: a review of papers published since its inception. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 2013; 9: e111e194.
16. Kawas, C, et al. Age-specific incidence rates of Alzheimer’s disease: the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Neurology 2000; 54: 20722077.
17. Zhan, A, et al. High frequency remote monitoring of Parkinson’s disease via smartphone: platform overview and medication response detection. 2016. Epub ahead of print, arXiv: 1601.00960.
18. Rentz, DM, et al. The feasibility of at-home iPad cognitive testing for use in clinical trials. Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease 2016; 3: 812.
19. Adams, JL, et al. Multiple wearable sensors in Parkinson and Huntington disease individuals: a pilot study in clinic and at home. Digital Biomarkers 2017; 1: 5263.
20. Wortley, D, An, JY, Nigg, CR. Wearable technologies, health and well-being: a case review. Digital Medicine 2017; 3: 1117.
21. Giggins, OM, Clay, I, Walsh, L. Physical activity monitoring in patients with neurological disorders: a review of novel body-worn devices. Digital Biomarkers 2017; 1: 1442.
22. Wortley, D. The future of digital medicine in the aging society. Digital Medicine 2016; 2: 4345.
23. Dorsey, ER, Marks, WJ Jr. Verily and its approach to digital biomarkers. Digital Biomarkers 2017; 1: 9699.
24. Wang, T, Azad, T, Rajan, R. The emerging influence of digital biomarkers on healthcare [Internet], 2016 [cited Jan 16, 2018]. (https://rockhealth.com/reports/)
25. Wortley, DJ. The consumerization of digital medicine. Digital Medicine 2016; 2: 135139.
26. Dorsey, ER. A digital journal for a digital era. Digital Biomarkers 2017; 1: 13.
27. Rodarte, C. Pharmaceutical perspective: how digital biomarkers and contextual data will enable therapeutic environments. Digital Biomarkers 2017; 1: 7381.
28. Heldman, DA, et al. Telehealth management of Parkinson’s disease using wearable sensors: an exploratory study. Digital Biomarkers 2017; 1: 4351.
29. Tamborlane, WV, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2008; 359: 14641476.
30. Lind, M, Polonsky, W, Hirsch, IB. Continuous glucose monitoring vs. conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. Journal of American Medical Association 2017; 317: 379387.
31. Doyle, FJ III, et al. Closed-loop artificial pancreas systems: engineering the algorithms. Diabetes Care 2014; 37: 11911197.
32. Lee, JM, Hirschfeld, E, Wedding, J. A patient-designed do-it-yourself mobile technology system for diabetes: promise and challenges for a new era in medicine. Journal of American Medical Association 2016; 315: 14471448.
33. Bergenstal, RM, et al. Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in patients with type-1 diabetes. Journal of American Medical Association 2016; 316: 14071408.
34. Tamura, T, et al. Wearable photoplethysmographic sensors—past and present. Electronics 2014; 3: 282302.
35. Allen, J. Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical physiological measurement. Physiological Measurement 2007; 28: R1.
36. Kinter, M, et al. Measurement of cholesterol in serum by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry at moderate mass resolution, with a nonendogenous cholesterol isomer as internal standard. Clinical Chemistry 1988; 34: 531534.
37. Silva de Lima, AL, et al. Large-scale wearable sensor deployment in Parkinson’s patients: the Parkinson@ Home Study Protocol. JMIR Research Protocols 2016; 5: e172.
38. Steinberg, D, Horwitz, G, Zohar, D. Building a business model in digital medicine. Nature Biotechnology 2015; 33: 910920.
39. Knuston, KL, Ryden, AM, Mander, BA. Role of sleep duration and quality in the risk and severity of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Archives of Internal Medicine 2006; 166: 17681774.
40. Riddell, MC, et al. Exercise management in type 1 diabetes: a consensus statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017; 5: 377390.
41. Yong, PL, Saunders, RS, Olsen, L. The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes: Workshop Series Summary . Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010; PMID: 21595114.
42. Marshall, A. Wanted: biotech for an aging population. Nature Biotechnology 2017; 35: 597.
43. Li, X, et al. Digital health: tracking physiomes and activity using wearable biosensors reveals useful health-related information. PLoS Biology 2017; 15: e2001402.
44. Britt, R. Fourteen percent of US adults cant read [Internet], 2009. Live Science. (http://www.livescience.com/3211-14-percent-adults-read.html)
45. Torous, J, Rodriguez, J, Powell, A. The new digital divide for digital biomarkers. Digital Biomarkers 2017; 1: 8791.
46. Carrigan, P, Krahn, T. Impact of biomarkers on personalized medicine. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology 2016; 232: 285311.
47. Hood, L, Price, ND. Promoting wellness and demystifying disease: the 100K wellness project. Clinical Omics 2014; 1: 2023.
48. Case, MA, et al. Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. Journal of American Medical Association 2015; 313: 625626.
49. Malinowski, JR, et al. Genetic variants associated with serum thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in European Americans and African Americans from the eMERGE network. PLoS One 2014; 9: e111301.
50. Stockigt, J. Assessment of thyroid function: towards an integrated laboratory – clinical approach. Clinical Biochemist Review 2003; 24: 109122.
51. Collins, FS, Varmus, H. A new initiative on precision medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 2015; 372: 793795.
52. Dorsey, ER, et al. The first frontier: digital biomarkers for neurodegenerative disorders. Digital Biomarkers 2017; 1: 613.
53. US Food and Drug Administration. Digital health innovation action place [Internet], 2017 [cited Jan 16, 2018]. (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/UCM568735.pdf)
54. US Food and Drug Administration. Mobile medical applications [Internet], 2015 [cited Jan 16, 2018]. (https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/MobileMedicalApplications/default.htm)
55. US Food and Drug Administration. Public workshop - physiological closed loop controlled devices [Internet], 2016 [cited Jan 16, 2018]. (https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/newsevents/workshopsconferences/ucm457581.htm)

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Can composite digital monitoring biomarkers come of age? A framework for utilization

  • Christopher Kovalchick (a1), Rhea Sirkar (a1), Oliver B. Regele (a1), Lampros C. Kourtis (a1), Marie Schiller (a1), Howard Wolpert (a1), Rhett G. Alden (a1), Graham B. Jones (a2) and Justin M. Wright (a1)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.