The regulatory landscape for drug evaluation is shifting. For digital twins and in silico trials to become reliable evidence for drug approvals, these digital tools will require input from regulators and the public sector to ensure safe and responsible adoption.
Sertkaya, A. & Berger, C.
Eastern Research Group, Inc . https://go.nature.com/4bYwDcL (2024).
US Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/4viKGkW (15 December 2025).
Center for Devices and Radiological Health. US Food and Drug Administration https://go.nature.com/4tFiUO6 (2023).
International Council For Harmonization Of Technical Requirements For Pharmaceuticals For Human Use. European Medicines Agency https://go.nature.com/4dwRZ25 (2024).
Thorlund, K., Dron, L., Park, J. J.
H. & Mills, E.
J. Clin.
Epidemiol. 12 , 457–467 (2020).
Savelli, G., Oliviero, S., La Mattina, A. A.
& Viceconti, M. Ann.
Biomed. Eng.
53 , 578–587 (2025). Gouda, M.
A., Buschhorn, L., Schneeweiss, A., Wahida, A. & Subbiah, V.
Cancer Discov. 13 , 1301–1309 (2023).
This work was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures (to A.L.E., H.F.L., N.S. and R.B.P.).
Digital twins and in silico trials are emerging tools in drug development that are attracting regulatory attention.
The regulatory environment is evolving to consider these computational models and virtual-trial approaches as potential sources of evidence for product evaluation and approval, contingent on appropriate oversight and validation.
This Research Highlight summarizes work by Eadie et al., published in Nature Medicine (2026).
The article lists contributing institutions including Emory University, University of Pennsylvania, and The Ohio State University.
Financial support included a grant from Arnold Ventures to several authors.
Multiple author disclosures are reported; some authors have received grants, fees, equity, or hold unpaid positions unrelated to the submitted work.
Other authors declare no competing interests.
The piece references multiple regulatory documents and expert groups as relevant to the adoption of digital trials: outputs from the US Food and Drug Administration (including the Center for Devices and Radiological Health), the International Council for Harmonisation, and recent reports or analyses by research groups and agencies dated between 2020 and 2025.
These sources are cited as shaping an evolving framework for evidence generated by computational models.
The article cites methodological and application-focused literature on in silico approaches and digital-twin modeling across biomedical engineering, clinical epidemiology, and oncology.
Specific references include reviews and empirical studies addressing model development, validation, and the potential use of synthetic cohorts for trial simulation.
Eadie et al.
underscore that reliable use of digital twins and in silico trials for regulatory decision-making will require involvement from regulators and the public sector.
The authors emphasize the need for structures that ensure safe and responsible deployment, suggesting that advancing these approaches depends on collaborative input to set standards and expectations.
The summary notes that adoption is contingent on further work but does not provide specific empirical performance metrics, validation thresholds, or detailed regulatory criteria within the article text.
The source does not report concrete, universally accepted standards or definitive regulatory pathways that would immediately enable digital-twin–derived evidence to substitute for traditional clinical data.
The article frames digital twins and in silico trials as promising but nascent contributors to drug evaluation, with key open questions about validation, transparency, oversight, and public-sector engagement.
Specific operational steps, timelines, or demonstrated cases leading to regulatory approvals are not detailed in the source.
The original article provides DOI and links to cited regulatory and methodological documents.