Abstract

The rising costs of clinical trials for medical devices in recent years has led to an increased interest in what are called in silico clinical trials, where simulation results are used to supplement or to replace those obtained from human patients. Here we present a framework for executing such a trial. This framework relies heavily on ideas already developed for model verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification. The framework uses results from an initial cohort of human patients as model validation data, recognizing that the best model credibility evidence usually comes from real patients. The validation exercise leads to an assessment of the model's suitability based on predefined acceptance criteria. If the model meets these criteria, then no additional human patients are required and the study endpoints that can be addressed using the model are met using the simulation results. Conversely, if the model is found to be inadequate, it is abandoned, and the clinical study continues using only human patients in a second cohort. Compared to other frameworks described in the literature based on Bayesian methods, this approach follows a strict model build-validate-predict structure. It can handle epistemic uncertainties in the model inputs, which is a common trait of models of biomedical systems. Another idea discussed here is that the outputs of engineering models rarely coincide with measures that are the basis for clinical endpoints. This article discusses how the link between the model and clinical measure can be established during the trial.

References

1.
Carlier
,
A.
,
Vasilevich
,
A.
,
Marechal
,
M.
,
de Boer
,
J.
, and
Geris
,
L.
,
2018
, “
In Silico Clinical Trials for Pediatric Orphan Diseases
,”
Sci Rep
,
8
(
1
), p.
2465
.10.1038/s41598-018-20737-y
2.
May
,
M.
,
2019
, “
Clinical Trial Costs Go Under the Microscope
,”
Nat. Med.
, pp.
d41591-019-00008
7
.10.1038/d41591-019-00008-7
3.
Faris
,
O.
, and
Shuren
,
J.
,
2017
, “
An FDA Viewpoint on Unique Considerations for Medical-Device Clinical Trials
,”
N. Engl. J. Med.
,
376
(
14
), pp.
1350
1357
.10.1056/NEJMra1512592
4.
FDA, 2013, “
Reporting of Computational Modeling Studies in Medical Device Submissions: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
,” FDA, Report No. Docket
FDA-2013-D-1530
.https://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/ search-fda-guidance-documents/reporting-computational-modeling-studies-medicaldevice-submissions
5.
Himes
,
A.
,
Haddad
,
T.
, and
Bardot
,
D.
, and
On Behalf of the MDIC Mock Presubmission Working Group Participants
,
2016
, “
Augmenting a Clinical Study With Virtual Patient Models: Food and Drug Administration and Industry Collaboration1
,”
J. Med. Dev.
,
10
(
3
), p.
030947
.10.1115/1.4033870
6.
Viceconti
,
M.
,
Henney
,
A.
, and
Morley-Fletcher
,
E.
,
2016
, “
In Silico Clinical Trials: How Computer Simulation Will Transform the Biomedical Industry
,”
Int. J. Clin. Trials
,
3
(
2
), p.
37
.10.18203/2349-3259.ijct20161408
7.
Pappalardo
,
F.
,
Russo
,
G.
,
Tshinanu
,
F. M.
, and
Viceconti
,
M.
,
2019
, “
In Silico Clinical Trials: Concepts and Early Adoptions
,”
Briefings Bioinform.
,
20
(
5
), pp.
1699
1708
.10.1093/bib/bby043
8.
Viceconti
,
M.
,
Cobelli
,
C.
,
Haddad
,
T.
,
Himes
,
A.
,
Kovatchev
,
B.
, and
Palmer
,
M.
,
2017
, “
In Silico Assessment of Biomedical Products: The Conundrum of Rare but Not so Rare Events in Two Case Studies
,”
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H
,
231
(
5
), pp.
455
466
.10.1177/0954411917702931
9.
Sarrami Foroushani
,
A.
,
2018
, “
In-Silico Clinical Trials for Assessment of Intracranial Flow Diverters
,” Doctoral dissertation,
University of Sheffield
.
10.
Viceconti
,
M.
,
Juarez
,
M. A.
,
Curreli
,
C.
,
Pennisi
,
M.
,
Russo
,
G.
, and
Pappalardo
,
F.
,
2020
, “
Credibility of in Silico Trial Technologies—A Theoretical Framing
,”
IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.
,
24
(
1
), pp.
4
13
.10.1109/JBHI.2019.2949888
11.
Viceconti
,
M.
,
Pappalardo
,
F.
,
Rodriguez
,
B.
,
Horner
,
M.
,
Bischoff
,
J.
, and
Musuamba Tshinanu
,
F.
,
2021
, “
In Silico Trials: Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification of Predictive Models Used in the Regulatory Evaluation of Biomedical Products
,”
Methods
,
185
, pp.
120
127
.10.1016/j.ymeth.2020.01.011
12.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
,
2018
, “
Assessing Credibility of Computational Modeling Through Verification and Validation: Application to Medical Devices
,”
ASME
Paper No. V&V40-2018.10.1115/V&V40-2018
13.
Haddad
,
T.
,
Himes
,
A.
,
Thompson
,
L.
,
Irony
,
T.
, and
Nair
,
R.
, and
on Behalf of MDIC Computer Modeling and Simulation Working Group Participants
,
2017
, “
Incorporation of Stochastic Engineering Models as Prior Information in Bayesian Medical Device Trials
,”
J. Biopharm. Stat.
,
27
(
6
), pp.
1089
1103
.10.1080/10543406.2017.1300907
14.
Chen
,
M.-H.
, and
Ibrahim
,
J.
,
2000
, “
Power Prior Distributions for Regression Models
,”
Statist. Sci.
,
15
(
1
), pp.
46
60
.10.1214/ss/1009212673
15.
Haddad
,
T.
,
Himes
,
A.
, and
Campbell
,
M.
,
2014
, “
Fracture Prediction of Cardiac Lead Medical Devices Using Bayesian Networks
,”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
,
123
, pp.
145
157
.10.1016/j.ress.2013.11.005
16.
Himes
,
A.
,
2018
, “
The Use of Computational Modeling and Simulation to Create Virtual Patients: Application to Cardiac Pacing and Defibrillation Systems
,”
J. Cardiovasc. Trans. Res.
,
11
(
2
), pp.
89
91
.10.1007/s12265-017-9780-y
17.
Jang
,
K. J.
,
Pant
,
Y. V.
,
Zhang
,
B.
,
Weimer
,
J.
, and
Mangharam
,
R.
,
2019
, “
Robustness Evaluation of Computer-Aided Clinical Trials for Medical Devices
,”
Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems
,
ACM
, Montreal, QC, Canada, pp.
163
173
.
18.
Beer
,
M.
,
Ferson
,
S.
, and
Kreinovich
,
V.
,
2013
, “
Imprecise Probabilities in Engineering Analyses
,”
Mech. Syst. Signal Process.
,
37
(
1–2
), pp.
4
29
.10.1016/j.ymssp.2013.01.024
19.
Oberkampf
,
W. L.
, and
Roy
,
C. J.
,
2010
,
Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
.
20.
Roy
,
C.
, and
Oberkampf
,
W.
,
2010
, “
A Complete Framework for Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification in Scientific Computing (Invited)
,”
48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition
,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
, Orlando, FL.10.2514/6.2010-124
21.
Roy
,
C. J.
, and
Oberkampf
,
W. L.
,
2011
, “
A Comprehensive Framework for Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification in Scientific Computing
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
200
(
25–28
), pp.
2131
2144
.10.1016/j.cma.2011.03.016
22.
Choudhary
,
A.
,
Voyles
,
I. T.
,
Roy
,
C. J.
,
Oberkampf
,
W. L.
, and
Patil
,
M.
,
2016
, “
Probability Bounds Analysis Applied to the Sandia Verification and Validation Challenge Problem
,”
J. Verification, Validation Uncertainty Quantif.
,
1
(
1
), p.
011003
.10.1115/1.4031285
23.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
,
2009
, “
Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
,”
ASME
Paper No. V&V20-2009.10.1115/V&V20-2009
24.
Ferson
,
S.
,
Oberkampf
,
W. L.
, and
Ginzburg
,
L.
,
2008
, “
Model Validation and Predictive Capability for the Thermal Challenge Problem
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
197
(
29–32
), pp.
2408
2430
.10.1016/j.cma.2007.07.030
25.
Pathmanathan
,
P.
,
Gray
,
R. A.
,
Romero
,
V. J.
, and
Morrison
,
T. M.
,
2017
, “
Applicability Analysis of Validation Evidence for Biomedical Computational Models
,”
J. Verification, Validation Uncertainty Quantif.
,
2
(
2
), p.
021005
.10.1115/1.4037671
26.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
,
2019
, “
Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics
,”
ASME
Paper No. V&V10-2019.10.1115/V&V10-2019
27.
Bodner
,
J.
,
Baxter
,
W.
,
Leung
,
C.
, and
Falkner
,
P.
,
2021
, “
A New Medical Device Modeling Framework for Predicting the Performance of Indwelling Continence Care Devices and Improving Patient Care
,”
ASME J. Med. Devices
,
15
(
4
), p.
041001
.10.1115/1.4051441
28.
Ferson
,
S.
, and
Oberkampf
,
W. L.
,
2009
, “
Validation of Imprecise Probability Models
,”
IJRS
,
3
(
1/2/3
), p.
3
.10.1504/IJRS.2009.026832
29.
FDA, 2017, “
The Least Burdensome Provisions: Concept and Principles, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff
,” FDA, Report No. Docket
FDA-2017-D-6702
.https://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/search-fda-guidance-documents/least-burdensome-provisions-concept-and-principles
You do not currently have access to this content.