Identifying the patient harms to include in an in silico clinical trial

Mechanisms of aortic dissection: From pathological changes to experimental and in silico models

Aortic dissection continues to be responsible for significant morbidity and mortality, although recent advances in medical data assimilation and in experimental and in silico models have improved our understanding of the initiation and progression of the accumulation of blood within the aortic wall. Hence, there remains a pressing necessity for innovative and enhanced models to more accurately characterize the associated pathological changes. Early on, experimental models were employed to uncover mechanisms in aortic dissection, such as hemodynamic changes and alterations in wall microstructure, and to assess the efficacy of medical implants. While experimental models were once the only option available, more recently they are also being used to validate in silico models. Based on an improved understanding of the deteriorated microstructure of the aortic wall, numerous multiscale material models have been proposed in recent decades to study the state of stress in dissected aortas, including the changes associated with damage and failure. Furthermore, when integrated with accessible patient-derived medical data, in silico models prove to be an invaluable tool for identifying correlations between hemodynamics, wall stresses, or thrombus formation in the deteriorated aortic wall. They are also advantageous for model-guided design of medical implants with the aim of evaluating the deployment and migration of implants in patients. Nonetheless, the utility of in silico models depends largely on patient-derived medical data, such as chosen boundary conditions or tissue properties. In this review article, our objective is to provide a thorough summary of medical data elucidating the pathological alterations associated with this disease. Concurrently, we aim to assess experimental models, as well as multiscale material and patient data-informed in silico models, that investigate various aspects of aortic dissection. In conclusion, we present a discourse on future perspectives, encompassing aspects of disease modeling, numerical challenges, and clinical applications, with a particular focus on aortic dissection. The aspiration is to inspire future studies, deepen our comprehension of the disease, and ultimately shape clinical care and treatment decisions.

Toward trustworthy medical device in silico clinical trials: a hierarchical framework for establishing credibility and strategies for overcoming key challenges

Computational models of patients and medical devices can be combined to perform an in silico clinical trial (ISCT) to investigate questions related to device safety and/or effectiveness across the total product life cycle. ISCTs can potentially accelerate product development by more quickly informing device design and testing or they could be used to refine, reduce, or in some cases to completely replace human subjects in a clinical trial. There are numerous potential benefits of ISCTs. An important caveat, however, is that an ISCT is a virtual representation of the real world that has to be shown to be credible before being relied upon to make decisions that have the potential to cause patient harm. There are many challenges to establishing ISCT credibility. ISCTs can integrate many different submodels that potentially use different modeling types (e.g., physics-based, data-driven, rule-based) that necessitate different strategies and approaches for generating credibility evidence. ISCT submodels can include those for the medical device, the patient, the interaction of the device and patient, generating virtual patients, clinical decision making and simulating an intervention (e.g., device implantation), and translating acute physics-based simulation outputs to health-related clinical outcomes (e.g., device safety and/or effectiveness endpoints). Establishing the credibility of each ISCT submodel is challenging, but is nonetheless important because inaccurate output from a single submodel could potentially compromise the credibility of the entire ISCT. The objective of this study is to begin addressing some of these challenges and to identify general strategies for establishing ISCT credibility. Most notably, we propose a hierarchical approach for assessing the credibility of an ISCT that involves systematically gathering credibility evidence for each ISCT submodel in isolation before demonstrating credibility of the full ISCT. Also, following FDA Guidance for assessing computational model credibility, we provide suggestions for ways to clearly describe each of the ISCT submodels and the full ISCT, discuss considerations for performing an ISCT model risk assessment, identify common challenges to demonstrating ISCT credibility, and present strategies for addressing these challenges using our proposed hierarchical approach. Finally, in the Appendix we illustrate the many concepts described here using a hypothetical ISCT example.

Developing and Validating a Model of Humeral Stem Primary Stability, Intended for In Silico Clinical Trials

In silico clinical trials (ISCT) can contribute to demonstrating a device's performance via credible computational models applied on virtual cohorts. Our purpose was to establish the credibility of a model for assessing the risk of humeral stem loosening in total shoulder arthroplasty, based on a twofold validation scheme involving both benchtop and clinical validation activities, for ISCT applications. A finite element model computing bone-implant micromotion (benchtop model) was quantitatively compared to a bone foam micromotion test (benchtop comparator) to ensure that the physics of the system was captured correctly. The model was expanded to a population-based approach (clinical model) and qualitatively evaluated based on its ability to replicate findings from a published clinical study (clinical comparator), namely that grit-blasted stems are at a significantly higher risk of loosening than porous-coated stems, to ensure that clinical performance of the stem can be predicted appropriately. Model form sensitivities pertaining to surgical variation and implant design were evaluated. The model replicated benchtop micromotion measurements (52.1 ± 4.3 µm), without a significant impact of the press-fit ("Press-fit": 54.0 ± 8.5 µm, "No press-fit": 56.0 ± 12.0 µm). Applied to a virtual population, the grit-blasted stems (227 ± 78µm) experienced significantly larger micromotions than porous-coated stems (162 ± 69µm), in accordance with the findings of the clinical comparator. This work provides a concrete example for evaluating the credibility of an ISCT study. By validating the modeling approach against both benchtop and clinical data, model credibility is established for an ISCT application aiming to enrich clinical data in a regulatory submission.

A risk and credibility framework for in silico clinical trials of medical devices

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The use of in silico clinical trials (ISCTs) to generate clinically-relevant data on new medical devices is an emerging area of regulatory research. Interest in ISCTs stems from recognized challenges in acquiring sufficient clinical data and the continued maturation of in silico technologies. There is currently no guidance in place for evaluating the credibility of ISCT applications. The objective of this work was to adapt an existing risk-based credibility framework specifically for ISCT applications, and demonstrate its utility on a contemporary case study.

METHODS

Expanding on guidance currently in place for assessing the risk of traditional modeling applications of medical devices and demonstrating model credibility through benchtop validation activities, a framework is proposed to (1) evaluate the model risk for ISCT applications based on the independent factors of scope, coverage, and severity, and (2) assess the credibility of clinical validation activities based on consideration of the clinical comparator, the validation model, the agreement between the two, and the applicability of the clinical validation activities to the ISCT application.

RESULTS

The resulting framework spans across the range of ISCT applications that may be envisioned, as well as the variety of clinical datasets that can be used to demonstrate model credibility. Credibility factors reflect the expected clinical variability in the validation comparator and validation model, the statistical power of the comparator, the rigor of agreement between the comparator and model in terms of both inputs and outputs, and the overall similarity of the device in the validation activities to the device within the intended ISCT. When applied to a high-risk case study, the framework reveals that planned clinical validation activities require additional rigor in order to achieve the credibility targets, enabling an assessment of the validation effort relative to the potential benefit prior to investing in the validation studies.

DISCUSSION

An objective and risk-based framework for establishing credibility requirements for ISCT applications is a critical step in advancing ISCT from theory to practice. The proposed framework enforces that appropriate validation of ISCT applications requires evidence that the intended clinical environment is accurately represented. The framework will contribute to reducing uncertainty amongst technical, clinical, and regulatory constituents on ISCT applications, and promote rational adoption.