Digital Therapeutics Safety: Rethinking Pharmacovigilance

Because their design is tailored to fit patient’s needs, patients can self-manage symptoms and thereby improve their quality of life. But unlike wellness apps, DTx are often classified as Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), so regulators treat them as medical devices. That means they’re expected to impact patient care and clinical outcomes.

Now, these digital solutions are showing up everywhere from clinics to smartphones and everyone is worried about how safe, reliable, and effective they are in the long run. Traditional pharmacovigilance was built for pills and injections. Now, digital therapeutics bring risks we’ve never had to monitor: buggy code, algorithmic bias, data leaks, patients losing interest, and bad advice from bots. It’s a new challenge in healthcare safety science, and honestly, many people haven’t figured it all out yet.

Digital Therapeutics and Software as a Medical Device

The International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) says SaMD is any software that serves a medical purpose but doesn’t need hardware to function. Digital therapeutics are a subcategory—think cognitive behavioral therapy apps, diabetes management platforms, addiction recovery programs, AI-guided mental health systems, and digital rehab tools. Products like NightWare™, Deprexis®, My Dose Coach™, and Insulia® have already gotten the green light from agencies like the FDA. The steady rise in software-based treatments really shows just how much we need solid safety systems that work after these products hit the market.

What Does Pharmacovigilance Mean for Digital Therapeutics?

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines pharmacovigilance as the science and activities related to the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse effects or any other medicine-related problems. Although originally focused on pharmaceuticals, this concept is now expanding toward digital healthcare technologies.

Pharmacovigilance for DTx means keeping an eye out for:

• Software failures and bugs
• Usability problems
• Cybersecurity vulnerabilities
• Algorithm mistakes
• Patient engagement and adherence
• Ongoing clinical effectiveness

 

 

Safety Concerns: What’s Different About Digital Therapeutics?

DTx products aren’t static like pills or injections. They change with every software update, shifting guidelines, tweaks from machine learning, and interface refreshes. Their safety profile doesn’t stay the same, it can shift after release. Key risks include:

1. Software Malfunctions and Errors

Bugs can mean wrong treatment advice, delayed intervention, inaccurate monitoring, failed algorithms, or app crashes. Even little glitches can mess up patient outcomes, especially with chronic diseases.

2. Algorithmic Bias

AI-powered DTx can spit out biased recommendations when trained on skewed data. That means minority groups, or special population (pediatrics, elderly, during pregnancy) might not get equal care.

3. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy

DTx products gobble up heaps of sensitive health data. Hacking, unauthorized access, or leaks threaten patient confidentiality. Cybersecurity is now a major worry in digital pharmacovigilance.

4. Patient Engagement and Drop-Off

These tools only work when patients stick with them. If people lose interest, experience app fatigue, or quit altogether, the therapy stops working. Attrition is a big problem, especially in mental health DTx.

5. Behavioral or Psychological Adverse Effects

Some interventions may worsen anxiety, cause sleep problems, or spark unhealthy digital habits. Monitoring for these effects is still a work in progress.

 

Regulatory Frameworks for Digital Therapeutics

Regulatory agencies worldwide are adapting existing frameworks to address DTx safety and effectiveness.

United States FDA: FDA treats most DTx as SaMD and mobile medical apps, using a risk-based approach focused on patient safety. They push for adverse event reporting, post-market monitoring, and continuous risk management.

European Union: No explicit DTx law yet, but they fall under the Medical Device Regulation (MDR), so conformity checks, clinical evaluation, and post-market surveillance are required.

IMDRF: This global group set harmonized principles for SaMD, including classification, quality standards, and clinical evaluation to keep rules consistent across countries.

German Digital Healthcare Act (DiGA): National guidelines explain the application process, evidence requirements, and regulatory sequence.

Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia: TGA regulates DTx under medical device rules and expects clinical evidence, just like FDA.

 

Post-Marketing Surveillance: Why It Matters for DTx

Most risks only show up after DTx hit the real world. Surveillance methods include:

• Spontaneous adverse event reports
• Real-world evidence
• Patient-reported outcomes
• Usability analytics
• Software performance tracking
• Cybersecurity incident logs

 

Recent research in the FDA’s MAUDE database suggests prescription DTx need stronger, systematic safety monitoring. Unlike classic drugs, here you’re watching for app crashes, interoperability problems, UI glitches, and algorithms drifting after updates.

 

Challenges in DTx Pharmacovigilance

There is no standardized reporting system yet; old ones were meant for drugs and hardware, not software. There are constant updates/ changes to the software, so safety can shift and it’s tough to keep up. Regulatory definitions and approval pathways aren’t the same everywhere. Doctors and patients often don’t realize that software failures count as adverse events, so they don’t report them. Integrating digital real-world data into traditional pharmacovigilance databases is tricky. Even if its reported, it is hard to pinpoint whether a safety problem comes from the software, patient behavior, underlying medical issues, or connected devices.

 

 

Future Directions

Pharmacovigilance for DTx is heading toward smarter systems with AI-assisted signal detection, real-time analytics, integration with wearables, blockchain for data integrity, and digital-first reporting platforms. Everybody needs to work together: regulators, software makers, clinicians, and safety experts. And with AI-driven, constantly adapting therapeutics coming up, even the way we monitor these tools will have to change, focusing more on transparency and algorithm oversight.

Conclusion

Digital therapeutics have rebooted modern healthcare, delivering software-driven solutions for prevention and treatment. But they bring their own set of safety challenges which are very different from traditional drugs. Pharmacovigilance has to level up, tracking bugs, bias, hacker threats, engagement problems, and behavioral side effects. As regulatory systems grow more sophisticated, plugging in real-world evidence, AI-powered monitoring, and better reporting tech will matter more and more. Setting up strong pharmacovigilance for DTx isn’t just important, it’s vital for keeping patients safe, earning public trust, and making sure digital healthcare evolves responsibly.

 

Author

Parag Kinage, Senior PV Physician I

 

References

1. Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) | FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)
2. Device Software Functions Including Mobile Medical Applications | FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)
3. Watson A, Chapman R, Shafai G and Maricich YA (2023) FDA regulations and prescription digital therapeutics: Evolving with the technologies they regulate. Front. Digit. Health 5:1086219. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1086219
4. Crisafulli S, Santoro E, Recchia G and Trifirò G (2022) Digital Therapeutics in Perspective: From Regulatory Challenges to Post-Marketing Surveillance. Front. Drug Saf. Regul. 2:900946. doi: 10.3389/fdsfr.2022.900946
5. Denecke K, May R, Gabarron E, Lopez-Campos GH. Assessing the Potential Risks of Digital Therapeutics (DTX): The DTX Risk Assessment Canvas. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2023; 13(10):1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13101523
6. Fürstenau, D., Gersch, M. & Schreiter, S. Digital Therapeutics (DTx). Bus Inf Syst Eng 65, 349–360 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00804-z
7. Lakhan SE. Postmarket Safety Surveillance of FDA-Cleared Prescription Digital Therapeutics Using the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database: A Pharmacovigilance Study. Cureus. 2025 Jun 4;17(6):e85343. doi: 10.7759/cureus.85343.
8. Nwosu A, Boardman S, Husain MM, Doraiswamy PM. Digital therapeutics for mental health: Is attrition the Achilles heel? Front Psychiatry. 2022 Aug 5;13:900615. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.900615.
9. FDA Guidance – Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)
10. https://www.bfarm.de/EN/Medical-devices/Tasks/DiGA-and-DiPA/Digital-Health-Applications/_node.html
11. https://www.tga.gov.au/products/medical-devices/software-and-artificial-intelligence-ai/overview/types-software-based-medical-devices/digital-therapeutics
12. Phan P, Mitragotri S, Zhao Z. Digital therapeutics in the clinic. Bioeng Transl Med. 2023 May 3;8(4):e10536. doi: 10.1002/btm2.10536.