Simulated versus physical bench tests: The economic evaluation of the InSilc platform for designing, developing, and assessing vascular scaffolds.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jun 2021
25 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
28
12
2020
accepted:
12
05
2021
entrez:
23
6
2021
pubmed:
24
6
2021
medline:
2
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In silico medicine allows for pre-clinical and clinical simulated assessment of medical technologies and the building of patient-specific models to support medical decisions and forecast personal health status. While there is increasing trust in the potential central role of in silico medicine, there is a need to recognize its degree of reliability and evaluate its economic impact. An in silico platform has been developed within a Horizon 2020-funded project (In-Silc) for simulations functional to designing, developing, and assessing drug-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.The main purpose of this study was to compare the costs of 2 alternative strategies: the adoption of In-Silc platform versus the performance of only physical bench tests. A case study was provided by a medical device company. The values of the model parameters were principally set by the project partners, with use of interviews and semi-structured questionnaires, and, when not available, through literature searches or derived by statistical techniques. An economic model was built to represent the 2 scenarios. The InSilc strategy is superior to the adoption of physical bench tests only. Ceteris paribus, the costs are 424,355€ for the former versus 857,811€ for the latter. In silico medicine tools can decrease the cost of the research and development of medical devices such as bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. Further studies are needed to explore the impact of such solutions on the innovation capacity of companies and the consequent potential advantages for target patients and the healthcare system.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In silico medicine allows for pre-clinical and clinical simulated assessment of medical technologies and the building of patient-specific models to support medical decisions and forecast personal health status. While there is increasing trust in the potential central role of in silico medicine, there is a need to recognize its degree of reliability and evaluate its economic impact. An in silico platform has been developed within a Horizon 2020-funded project (In-Silc) for simulations functional to designing, developing, and assessing drug-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.The main purpose of this study was to compare the costs of 2 alternative strategies: the adoption of In-Silc platform versus the performance of only physical bench tests.
METHODS
METHODS
A case study was provided by a medical device company. The values of the model parameters were principally set by the project partners, with use of interviews and semi-structured questionnaires, and, when not available, through literature searches or derived by statistical techniques. An economic model was built to represent the 2 scenarios.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The InSilc strategy is superior to the adoption of physical bench tests only. Ceteris paribus, the costs are 424,355€ for the former versus 857,811€ for the latter.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In silico medicine tools can decrease the cost of the research and development of medical devices such as bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. Further studies are needed to explore the impact of such solutions on the innovation capacity of companies and the consequent potential advantages for target patients and the healthcare system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34160384
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026198
pii: 00005792-202106250-00007
pmc: PMC8238264
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e26198Subventions
Organisme : European Union
ID : Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - grant agreement No 777119
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
European Commission DG CONNECT. Glossary | Shaping Europe's digital future. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/glossary . Accessed September 18, 2020.
Insigneo Institute for in silico Medicine. In Silico Medicine: Definition, History, Institutions, Main Achievements - Insigneo. Available at: https://insigneo.org/in-silico-medicine-definition-history-institutions-main-achievements/ . Accessed September 18, 2020.
Harder BN. Use of simulation in teaching and learning in health sciences: a systematic review. J Nurs Educ 2010;49:23–8.
McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med 2011;86:706–11.
Cumin D, Boyd MJ, Webster CS, Weller JM. A systematic review of simulation for multidisciplinary team training in operating rooms. Simul Healthc 2013;8:171–9.
BIS Reseach. Global In-Silico Drug Discovery Market: Focus on Products, Technologies, Workflow, End Users, Country Data (17 Countries), and Competitive Landscape – Analysis and Forecast, 2018-2029; 2020. Available at: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4986909/global-in-silico-drug-discovery-market-focus-on?utm_source=dynamic&utm_medium=GNOM&utm_code=fvw8lw&utm_campaign=1352832+-+Global+In-Silico+Drug+Discovery+Market+2018-2029%3A+Focus+on+Products%2C+Technolog . Accessed October 14, 2020
Karanasiou GS, Rigas GA, Kyriakidis SK, Tachos NS, Sakellarios AI, Fotiadis DI. InSilc: 3D reconstruction and plaque characterization tool. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS Vol 2018-July Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc 2018;4528–4531.
Cassese S, Byrne RA, Juni P, et al. Midterm clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents for percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention 2018;13:1565–73.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)-explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Heal 2013;16:231–50.
Ormiston J, Motreff P, Darremont O, Webber B, Guerin P, Webster M. Bioresorbable scaffolds on the bench. EuroIntervention 2015;11:V166–9.
International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. ISO 25539-1 - Cardiovascular Implants — Endovascular Devices — Part 1: Endovascular Prostheses; 2017. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/66925.html . Accessed September 23, 2020.
International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. ISO 25539-2 - Cardiovascular Implants — Endovascular Devices — Part 2: Vascular Stents; 2012. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/60604.html . Accessed September 23, 2020.
Council EP and E. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices; 2017. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02017R0745-20170505 . Accessed November 10, 2020.
Avicenna Alliance. In silico Clinical Trials: How Computer Simulation will Transform the Biomedical Industry; 2015. Available at: https://avicenna-alliance.com/files/user_upload/PDF/Avicenna_Roadmap.pdf . Accessed September 18, 2020.