BioPharmaTrend
Latest Insights
Companies
  • Companies Directory
  • Case Studies
Newsletter
About
  • At a Glance
  • Our Team
  • Advisory Board
  • Citations and Press Coverage
  • Partner Events Calendar
  • Advertise with Us
 
 Subscribe 
Sign in
  • AI in Bio
  • Tech Giants
  • Next-Gen Tools
  • Business Intelligence

  Business Intellilgence

Simulating the Control Arm: Virtual Patients at the Trial Bottleneck

by BiopharmaTrend   •   March 14, 2026

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed by Contributors are their own and do not represent those of their employers, or BiopharmaTrend.com.
Contributors are fully responsible for assuring they own any required copyright for any content they submit to BiopharmaTrend.com. This website and its owners shall not be liable for neither information and content submitted for publication by Contributors, nor its accuracy.

Share:   Share in LinkedIn  Share in Bluesky  Share in Reddit  Share in Hacker News  Share in X  Share in Facebook

Digital twins promise smaller, faster trials, and the regulatory scaffolding is forming. But there’s still a validation gap.

Clinical trials remain the most expensive bottleneck in drug development. And although this stage comes after all the high tech pharmacological tinkering is over, a trial conduct runs into its own obstacles.

⚠️ The most immediate one is patient recruitment. Far back in 1979, the father of clinical pharmacology Louis Lasagna observed that the pool of eligible patients shrinks by 90% the moment a trial opens, only to reappear once it closes. Lasagna’s Law remains as relevant as ever: according to a 2022 article, 11% of trial sites enrol zero participants and nearly 90% of trials face meaningful delays. With Phase II and III trials costing roughly $40,000 per day, the financial toll is brutal.

⚠️ Another issue is clinical attrition. Research from VU Amsterdam found that between 2012 and 2019, the share of trials successfully completing each phase declined steadily—particularly at Phase II. In the first half of 2024, nearly a third (32%) of trials were discontinued at Phase II—a 56% rise compared to pre-pandemic levels. Combined with stagnant rates of Phase III initiation over that same decade, the picture is one of a systemic bottleneck: trials that begin are increasingly unlikely to see the finish line.

⚠️ Rare disease research presents its own distinct challenge. As the FDA’s Rare Disease Evidence Principles note, shrinking patient populations make it progressively harder to generate reliable efficacy data through conventional designs—especially placebo-controlled trials, where enrolling enough participants to reach statistical significance can be close to impossible.

⚠️ Apart from operational intricacies, there is the ethical dilemma. Randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating new therapies, but randomization isn’t always defensible. When an effective treatment already exists, assigning patients to a placebo raises serious moral questions, e.g. HIV cure trials with the antiretroviral treatment interruption.

The question, then, is whether parts of the control process can be simulated rather than physically recruited.

Digital twins are emerging as a compelling response. Last October, Sanofi Ventures invested in a digital twin platform developer QuantHealth, bringing its total funding to $30M. In 2025, the FDA announced plans to phase out animal testing requirements for monoclonal antibodies in favor of human-relevant methods, including AI-driven computational models—with the EMA moving in the same direction. Both industry and regulators, it seems, are taking this technology seriously.

👥 How it Works

A digital twin is a virtual replica of a physical object, continuously updated with real-world data so it mirrors the original’s behavior in real time. The concept, first applied by NASA in the 1960s, has since migrated from engineering into healthcare.

The applications are wide-ranging: optimizing industrial processes as Eli Lilly did to boost production of their GLP-1 drugs, predicting equipment failures, streamlining supply chains, and accelerating product development.

In a clinical trial patients are generally divided into two groups, also known as arms. The intervention arm receives the experimental treatment; the control arm receives a placebo, standard-of-care treatment or sham, serving as the baseline against which results are measured. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard because randomization minimizes bias, but that randomization isn’t always flawless.

The traditional workaround of drawn from historical trials, health records, or registries all carry their own limitations. For instance, data like those don’t include underrepresented groups or don’t account for placebo effect due to their observational nature.

To read the rest of this article, upgrade to a BiopharmaTrend Pro subscription.

Gain full access to all of our deep dives and content archives.

 Upgrade to Pro 

Already a member? Sign in here.
Share:   Share in LinkedIn  Share in Bluesky  Share in Reddit  Share in Hacker News  Share in X  Share in Facebook

BiopharmaTrend.com

Where Tech Meets Bio
mail  Newsletter
in  LinkedIn
x  X
rss  RSS Feed

About


  • What we do
  • Press & Citations
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies Policy
  • Disclaimer

Topics


  • News
  • AI in Bio
  • Tech Giants
  • Next-Gen Tools

Explore


  • Premium Insights
  • Business Intelligence
  • Companies
  • Events
  • Authors

Partner


  • Sponsorship
  • Editorial Calendar

© WTMB Research & Media, S.L. (WTMB Group)   2026
We use cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Read more details in our cookies policy.