Abstract

Built on the foundation of the randomized controlled trial (RCT), Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is at its best when optimizing outcomes for homogeneous cohorts of patients like those participating in an RCT. Its weakness is a failure to resolve a clinical quandary: patients appear for care individually, each may differ in important ways from an RCT cohort, and the physician will wonder each time if following EBM will provide best guidance for this unique patient. In an effort to overcome this weakness, and promote higher quality care through a more personalized approach, a new framework has been proposed: Medicine-Based Evidence (MBE). In this approach, big data and deep learning techniques are embraced to interrogate treatment responses among patients in real-world clinical practice. Such statistical models are then integrated with mechanistic disease models to construct a “digital twin,” which serves as the real-time digital counterpart of a patient. MBE is thereby capable of dynamically modeling the effects of various treatment decisions in the context of an individual's specific characteristics. In this article, we discuss how MBE could benefit patients with congenital heart disease, a field where RCTs are difficult to conduct and often fail to provide definitive solutions because of a small number of subjects, their clinical complexity, and heterogeneity. We will also highlight the challenges that must be addressed before MBE can be embraced in clinical practice and its full potential can be realized.

Highlights

  • Medicine remains both art and a science

  • The randomized controlled trial (RCT) generates evidence about “average treatment effects” that would apply for an “average patient in the trial population,” thereby potentially obfuscating important differences [5]

  • With Medicine-Based Evidence (MBE), a comprehensive profile is produced for each patient, including biological, clinical, social, behavioral, and environmental data collected over a lifetime

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Medicine remains both art and a science. It is the art of selecting a plan for care of individual patients, informed by what science reveals through clinical trials and observational studies on groups of patients who share their condition. The RCT generates evidence about “average treatment effects” that would apply for an “average patient in the trial population,” thereby potentially obfuscating important differences [5].

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call