[en] In Silico Trials methodologies will play a growing and fundamental role in the development and de-risking of new medical devices in the future. While the regulatory pathway for Digital Patient and Personal Health Forecasting solutions is clear, it is more complex for In Silico Trials solutions, and therefore deserves a deeper analysis. In this position paper, we investigate the current state of the art towards the regulatory system for in silico trials applied to medical devices while exploring the European regulatory system toward this topic. We suggest that the European regulatory system should start a process of innovation: in principle to limit distorted quality by different internal processes within notified bodies, hence avoiding that the more innovative and competitive companies focus their attention on the needs of other large markets, like the USA, where the use of such radical innovations is already rapidly developing.
Disciplines :
Engineering, computing & technology: Multidisciplinary, general & others
Author, co-author :
Pappalardo, Francesco
Wilkinson, John
Busquet, Francois
Bril, Antoine
Palmer, Mark
Walker, Barry
Curreli, Cristina
Russo, Giulia
Marchal, Thierry
Toschi, Elena
Alessandrello, Rossana
Costignola, Vincenzo
Klingmann, Ingrid
Contin, Martina
Staumont, Bernard ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département d'aérospatiale et mécanique > Génie biomécanique
Woiczinski, Matthias
Kaddick, Christian
Salvatore, Valentina Di
Aldieri, Alessandra
Geris, Liesbet ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département d'aérospatiale et mécanique > Génie biomécanique
P. Hunter et al., “A vision and strategy for the virtual physiological human: 2012 update,” Interface Focus, vol. 3, no. 2, Apr. 2013, Art. no. 20130004, doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2013.0004.
A. G. Hoekstra, E. van Bavel, M. Siebes, F. Gijsen, and L. Geris, “Virtual physiological human 2016: Translating the virtual physiological human to the clinic,” Interface Focus, vol. 8, no. 1, Feb. 2018, Art. no. 20170067, doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2017.0067.
F. Pappalardo, G. Russo, F. M. Tshinanu, and M. Viceconti, “In silico clinical trials: Concepts and early adoptions,” Briefings Bioinf., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1699–1708, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1093/bib/bby043.
IMDRF SaMD Working Group, “Software as a medical device (SaMD): Key definitions,” 2013. Accessed: Jun. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-131209-samd-key-definitions-140901.pdf
D. Ali and S. Sen, “Finite element analysis of mechanical behavior, permeability and fluid induced wall shear stress of high porosity scaffolds with gyroid and lattice-based architectures,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 75, pp. 262–270, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.07.035.
H. Seddiqi et al., “Inlet flow rate of perfusion bioreactors affects fluid flow dynamics, but not oxygen concentration in 3D-printed scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: Computational analysis and experimental validation,” Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 124, Sep. 2020, Art. no. 103826, doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103826.
J. R. Haanstra and B. M. Bakker, “Drug target identification through systems biology,” Drug Discov. Today: Technol., vol. 15, pp. 17–22, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ddtec.2015.06.002.
B. S. Yadav and V. Tripathi, “Recent advances in the system biology-based target identification and drug discovery,” Curr. Topics Med. Chem., vol. 18, no. 20, pp. 1737–1744, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.2174/1568026618666181025112344.
O. M. H. Salo-Ahen et al., “Molecular dynamics simulations in drug discovery and pharmaceutical development,” Processes, vol. 9, Jan. 2021, Art. no. 71, doi: 10.3390/pr9010071.
A. K. Padhi, S. L. Rath, and T. Tripathi, “Accelerating COVID-19 research using molecular dynamics simulation,” J. Phys. Chem. B, vol. 125, no. 32, pp. 9078–9091, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c04556.
T. M. Morrison, “Modeling studies in medical device submissions,” 2016. Accessed: Jun. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.fda.gov/media/87586/download
ASME, “Assessing credibility of computational modeling through verification and validation: Application to medical devices,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Technical Standard V V 40, 2018. Accessed: Aug. 17, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/v-v-40-assessingcredibility-computational-modeling-verification-validation-application-medical-devices
M. Viceconti, C. Cobelli, T. Haddad, A. Himes, B. Kovatchev, and M. Palmer, “In silico assessment of biomedical products: The conundrum of rare but not so rare events in two case studies,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Engineers, Part H, vol. 231, no. 5, pp. 455–466, May 2017, doi: 10.1177/0954411917702931.
O. Faris and J. Shuren, “An FDA viewpoint on unique considerations for medical-device clinical trials,” New England J. Med., vol. 376, no. 14, pp. 1350–1357, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1512592.
European Parliament and Council, “Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European parliament and of the council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending directive 2001/83/EC, regulation (EC) no 178/2002 and regulation (EC) no 1223/2009 and repealing council directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) text with EEA relevance,” 2017. Accessed: Jun. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/2020-04-24
‘Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX: 32017R0745. Apr. 5, 2017. Accessed: Feb. 14, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/oj/eng
M. Viceconti et al., “Possible contexts of use for in silico trials methodologies: A consensus-based review,” IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 3977–3982, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2021.3090469.
C. M. Lang, “The cost of animal research,” Lab Animal, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 335–338, Oct. 2009, doi: 10.1038/laban1009-335.
T. J. Moore, H. Zhang, G. Anderson, and G. C. Alexander, “Estimated costs of pivotal trials for novel therapeutic agents approved by the U.S. food and drug administration, 2015-2016,” JAMA Intern. Med., vol. 178, no. 11, pp. 1451–1457, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3931.
“Examination of clinical trial costs and barriers for drug development,” ASPE, Jul. 2014. Accessed: Dec. 19, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/examination-clinical-trial-costsbarriers-drug-development-0
European Parliament, “Plans and actions to accelerate a transition to innovation without the use of animals in research, regulatory testing and education,” 2021. Accessed: Jun. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0387_EN.pdf
S. Beken, P. Kasper, and J.-W. van der Laan, “Regulatory acceptance of alternative methods in the development and approval of pharmaceuticals,” in Validation of Alternative Methods For Toxicity Testing, C. Eskes and M. Whelan, Eds., Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2016, pp. 33–64, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33826-2_3.
C. M. North, M. L. Dougan, and C. A. Sacks, “Improving clinical trial enrollment—In the covid-19 era and beyond,” New England J. Med., vol. 383, no. 15, pp. 1406–1408, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2019989.
I. Kola and J. Landis, “Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?,” Nature Rev. Drug Discov., vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 711–716, Aug. 2004, doi: 10.1038/nrd1470.
In Silico World, “In silico world: A community of practice,” 2022. Accessed: Jun. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://insilico.world/community/
Avicenna Alliance, “Avicenna alliance association for predictive medicine,” 2018. Accessed: Jun. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://avicenna-alliance.com/
VPH Institute, “VPH Institute building the virtual physiological human,” 2022. Accessed: Jun. 23, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.vphinstitute.org/
