Background: The world is aging. The number of older patients is on the rise, and along with it comes the burden of noncommunicable diseases, both clinical and economic. Attempts with mobile health (mHealth) have been made to remedy the situation with promising outcomes. Researchers have adopted human-centered design (HCD) in mHealth creation to ensure those promises become a reality. Objective: This systematic review aims to explore existing literature on relevant primary research and case studies to (1) illustrate how HCD can be used to create mHealth solutions for older adults and (2) summarize the overall process with recommendations specific to the older population. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to address the study objectives. IEEE Xplore, Medline via Ovid, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for HCD research of mHealth solutions for older adults. Two independent reviewers then included the papers if they (1) were written in English, (2) included participants equal to or older than 60 years old, (3) were primary research, and (4) reported about mHealth apps and their HCD developments from start to finish. The 2 reviewers continued to assess the included studies’ qualities using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A narrative synthesis was then carried out and completed. Results: Eight studies passed the eligibility criteria: 5 were mixed methods studies and 3 were case studies. Some studies were about the same mHealth projects with a total of 5 mHealth apps. The included studies differed in HCD goals, target groups, and details of their HCD methodologies. The HCD process was explored through narrative synthesis in 4 steps according to the International Standardization Organization (ISO) standard 9241-210: (1) understand and specify the context of use, (2) specify the user requirements, (3) produce design solutions to meet these requirements, and (4) evaluate the designs against requirements. The overall process and recommendations unique to older adults are summarized logically with structural order and time order based on the Minto pyramid principle and ISO 9241-210. Conclusions: Findings show that HCD can be used to create mHealth solutions for older adults with positive outcomes. This review has also summarized practical HCD steps and additional suggestions based on existing literature in the subfield. However, evidence-based results are still limited because most included studies lacked details about their sampling methods and did not set objective and quantifiable goals, leading to failure to draw significant conclusions. More studies of HCD application on mHealth for older adults with measurable design goals and rigorous research strategy are warranted.

The nuclear farnesoid X receptor (FXR) regulates bile acid homeostasis and is a drug target for metabolic liver diseases. FXR also plays an important role in hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA transcription. In vitro and in mice, FXR agonist treatment leads to inhibition of viral replication and a decline in viral proteins, pregenomic RNA (pgRNA) and HBV DNA levels. We aimed to translate this to a clinical use by primarily evaluating the safety and secondary the anti‐viral effect of Vonafexor, a FXR agonist, in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. In total, 73 CHB patients were enrolled in a two‐part Phase Ib double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Patients were randomized to receive oral Vonafexor (100, 200 and 400 mg once daily, or 200 mg twice daily), placebo, or entecavir (Part A, n = 48) or to receive Vonafexor (300 mg once daily or 150 mg twice daily), or placebo, combined with pegylated‐interferon‐α2a (Part B, n = 25) for 29 days. Patients were followed up for 35 days. Enrolled CHB patients were mostly HBeAg‐negative. Vonafexor was overall well tolerated and safe. The most frequent adverse events were moderate gastrointestinal events. Pruritus was more frequent with twice‐daily compared with once‐daily regimens (56%–67% vs. 16%, respectively, p < 0.05). Vonafexor monotherapy of 400 mg once daily decreased HBsAg concentrations (–0.1 log₁₀ IU/mL, p < 0.05), and Vonafexor/pegylated‐IFN‐α2a combination therapy decreased HBcrAg and pgRNA. In conclusion, Vonafexor was safe with a decline in HBV markers observed in CHB patients suggesting a potential anti‐viral effect the therapeutic potential of which has to be evaluated in larger trials.