Clinical Trial Safety: Risk Management and Compliance
They include ethical approaches, participant safety monitoring, consent, data integrity, regulatory compliance, and quality assurance in various stages of clinical trials.
Larger aspects like risk management, communication, and a well-defined protocol are duly intertwined with these. Among the best practices are obtaining voluntary and informed consent from participants for the trial after updating them with clear information about the purpose, procedures, risks, and general benefits.
These elements also govern the market response of the product in terms of reporting on drug safety and pharmacovigilance services of the clinical trial provider.
Participants safety is ensured with consistent risk assessment by identifying potential risks to participants before and during the trial. The project leaders have to put in place all facilities for reporting adverse events such as unintended signs, symptoms, or illnesses with timely monitoring.
In an elaborate safety monitoring plan, regular assessments and interventions minimize risks. The best part of it will be an effective data management plan that follows standard operating procedures for collating data, recording, and managing them accurately and how that data is collected, stored, and analysed.
Since the future direction of the drug safety and pharmacovigilance services relies on the strengths of the clinical trials, the launch-pad stage has to be error-free.
In clinical trials, risk management is a critical responsibility of project managers, who execute the responsibility in all stages from study design to close-out.
Often the managers face the challenge of both foreseeing the risk and getting ready to handle them with professional timelines, budgets, and plans for foolproof patient safety. For this they have to follow strict non-deviation from the approved plans and excellent site selection to avoid delays, protocol amendments, and abrupt regulatory audits.
Risk management must be like an article of faith and a permanent strategy, and it must pervade all phases of the clinical trial and align with international protocols like ICH-GCP.
The trial managers achieve optimum risk mitigation when they work with structured tools and processes to identify, rank, and communicate risks across all teams and sponsors. They have to work within key frameworks and tech platforms and be well versed on all risk categories that matter most in complex clinical environments.
Successful companies active in the clinical trials market, including reputed contract research organizations (CROs) like Allucent, have elaborate safety management and risk mitigation protocols and systems in place. Their portfolio of flawless services has increased their client base in the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical device sectors.
Having developed agile systems that can take care of international studies with hundreds of patients and single studies with a limited number of patients, Allucent inspires confidence.
In short, the success of a drug launch has more to do with a partner running trials and handling drug safety and pharmacovigilance services backed by highly qualified medical, scientific, and regulatory experts with experience. The clinical trial process, designed with end-to-end solutions from planning to the final report, will happen on schedule, causing no room for anxiety.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
05-08-2025
- Time Business News
Clinical Trial Safety: Risk Management and Compliance
The success of efforts around drug safety and pharmacovigilance services hinges mainly on best practices for clinical trial safety at so many levels. They include ethical approaches, participant safety monitoring, consent, data integrity, regulatory compliance, and quality assurance in various stages of clinical trials. Larger aspects like risk management, communication, and a well-defined protocol are duly intertwined with these. Among the best practices are obtaining voluntary and informed consent from participants for the trial after updating them with clear information about the purpose, procedures, risks, and general benefits. These elements also govern the market response of the product in terms of reporting on drug safety and pharmacovigilance services of the clinical trial provider. Participants safety is ensured with consistent risk assessment by identifying potential risks to participants before and during the trial. The project leaders have to put in place all facilities for reporting adverse events such as unintended signs, symptoms, or illnesses with timely monitoring. In an elaborate safety monitoring plan, regular assessments and interventions minimize risks. The best part of it will be an effective data management plan that follows standard operating procedures for collating data, recording, and managing them accurately and how that data is collected, stored, and analysed. Since the future direction of the drug safety and pharmacovigilance services relies on the strengths of the clinical trials, the launch-pad stage has to be error-free. In clinical trials, risk management is a critical responsibility of project managers, who execute the responsibility in all stages from study design to close-out. Often the managers face the challenge of both foreseeing the risk and getting ready to handle them with professional timelines, budgets, and plans for foolproof patient safety. For this they have to follow strict non-deviation from the approved plans and excellent site selection to avoid delays, protocol amendments, and abrupt regulatory audits. Risk management must be like an article of faith and a permanent strategy, and it must pervade all phases of the clinical trial and align with international protocols like ICH-GCP. The trial managers achieve optimum risk mitigation when they work with structured tools and processes to identify, rank, and communicate risks across all teams and sponsors. They have to work within key frameworks and tech platforms and be well versed on all risk categories that matter most in complex clinical environments. Successful companies active in the clinical trials market, including reputed contract research organizations (CROs) like Allucent, have elaborate safety management and risk mitigation protocols and systems in place. Their portfolio of flawless services has increased their client base in the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical device sectors. Having developed agile systems that can take care of international studies with hundreds of patients and single studies with a limited number of patients, Allucent inspires confidence. In short, the success of a drug launch has more to do with a partner running trials and handling drug safety and pharmacovigilance services backed by highly qualified medical, scientific, and regulatory experts with experience. The clinical trial process, designed with end-to-end solutions from planning to the final report, will happen on schedule, causing no room for anxiety. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Forbes
28-07-2025
- Forbes
From Promise To Practice: Why Technology Breakthroughs Struggle To Take Hold In Healthcare
Sonali Bloom is CEO of 20/20 Onsite. There is no shortage of innovation in healthcare. From AI-driven diagnostics to virtual reality platforms to telemedicine, keeping pace with new technology is daunting. Yet despite billions in funding, much of this new tech doesn't make it past press releases. It doesn't reach the front lines—primarily, from my perspective, due to adoption failure. It's not that healthcare has an innovation problem. It has an implementation problem. In our work supporting decentralized clinical trials by collaborating with pharma sponsors, sites and CROs, we've had a front-row seat to this innovation paradox. Here are a few things we've learned along the way that actually make technology adoption work. Barriers To New Technology Adoption In Healthcare Healthcare isn't one system. We all know it's a fragmented web of stakeholders with conflicting incentives. Sponsors want efficiency and data integrity. Sites want streamlined workflows. Patients want comfort and clarity. This fragmentation can result in even the best tech getting caught in limbo. Healthcare requires safety and precision, which come at the cost of speed and agility. Every new platform or device must meet strict compliance standards. This positive feature of the healthcare system tends to slow the pace of adoption, especially for newer technologies without a track record of success. Clinics and research sites are built around repeatable routines. Introducing new tech can mean changing how things are done, which can halt everything. We all know time is money, and downtime (or the thought of downtime) drops adoption rates, especially if extra steps are needed in the usual routine. After years of transformation promises, many clinicians and trial staff are skeptical of 'the next big thing.' They're exhausted, overextended and hesitant to invest time in technology that doesn't clearly indicate how it will make their life or routine easier, more efficient or more accurate. The Most Common Pitfalls Just because you have excellent tech doesn't mean you can drop a new platform into a clinic and expect seamless adoption. Even the best-designed tools can fail without hands-on training, clear protocols and responsive support. This cannot be overstated. If a new technology doesn't align tightly with a study's protocol or regulatory goals, it creates confusion. Trial sites will default to what's familiar and known to work, not what's new. Change is hard. It requires taking time to pause, onboard and adopt change. Adoption is ultimately a behavior-change challenge, not just a deployment. Your tech won't be used if it doesn't make life easier for the people using it. The Adoption Playbook After working on dozens of clinical trials in our corner of the healthcare sector, we've identified a few practices that have helped improve adoption success. The question isn't, 'What can this technology do?' Rather, ask, 'How will someone use this at 9:30 a.m. on a busy clinic day?' Thinking through the user experience during daily tasks will help build real-world utility. The best technology feels invisible. It slides into existing workflows, not around them. I've found that adoption skyrockets when the new process requires minimal workflow disruption for implementation. With tech adoption in our corner of the healthcare world, trial sites are the engine of clinical research. That means early involvement, feedback and ongoing support. You can't outsource adoption to the people at the end of the chain. It's not enough to prove something works once, though that is a start. The goal should be repeatability. That requires documentation, training modules, feedback loops and scalable support. Case In Point: Adoption In A Neurology Trial In recent neurological trials, we helped operationalize a novel assessment technology with strong clinical potential that had a few real-world implementation challenges. Our job wasn't just to deliver the tool, but to provide enablement. This included: • Standardized training materials across all trial sites. • On-site and virtual onboarding for clinicians. • A custom integration plan that aligned with visit flow. • Ongoing troubleshooting and feedback collection. We aimed to treat operationalization as a core part of adoption, not an afterthought. This helped ensure the technology wasn't just evaluated but also implemented and utilized. Pairing Innovation With Adoption In the race to revolutionize healthcare, the real winners won't be the companies with the flashiest tech. The real winners will be those who develop strategies to make their technology usable in the real world, with real people. In healthcare, innovation doesn't win. Innovation plus implementation does. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Medscape
21-07-2025
- Medscape
Anticoagulants in AF Post-ICH: The Dilemma Continues
TOPLINE: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with a recent episode of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), the use of oral anticoagulants significantly reduced net adverse clinical events — primarily driven by a reduced risk for ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism — but with an increased risk for recurrent ICH. METHODOLOGY: Oral anticoagulants prevent stroke in patients with AF, but their efficacy in those who have recently experienced an ICH remains unclear. Researchers conducted a systematic literature review through March 2025 and performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the use of oral anticoagulants with placebo or antiplatelets in patients with nonvalvular AF after a spontaneous ICH. The analysis included 653 patients (weighted mean age, 78.2 years; 38% women; 95% White) from four trials with a low risk for bias, with follow-up durations ranging from a mean of 0.53 years to a median of 1.9 years. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events — a composite of ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, recurrent ICH, and extracranial major bleeding. TAKEAWAY: The breakdown of oral anticoagulants used was 65% apixaban, 15% edoxaban, 14% dabigatran, 4% rivaroxaban, and 1% warfarin. The use of oral anticoagulants reduced net adverse clinical events by 31% (relative risk [RR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93) and ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism by 76% (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.61), translating into a number needed to treat of 12 and 8, respectively. However, oral anticoagulants carried a more than threefold higher risk or recurrent ICH (RR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.30-7.85), translating to a number needed to harm of 22. There were no significant differences in fatal ischemic stroke, fatal ICH, major extracranial hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death on the basis of oral anticoagulant use. IN PRACTICE: '[This] meta-analysis informs shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, demonstrating a net clinical benefit of OACs [oral anticoagulants] predominantly through a reduction in ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism, while being cognizant of an increased risk of recurrent ICH,' the researchers wrote. 'The magnitude of benefit and risk may differ across ICH subtypes and with the timing of OACs initiation, warranting further investigation through [individual patient data] meta-analysis,' they further added. SOURCE: This study was led by Kuan-Yu Chi, MD, and Pei-Lun Lee, MD, of Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, and Yu Chang, MD, of the National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. It was published online on July 21, 2025, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. LIMITATIONS: This study lacked individual patient data, which prevented deeper analyses such as timing of events. The number of included trials and participants were insufficient to detect the effects on outcomes that occurred less frequently. All the included trials had an open-label design. DISCLOSURES: Three authors reported receiving research funding and awards from various sources including the Johns Hopkins University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center funded by the National Institute on Aging; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Aging. One author reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Merck, and HeartFlow, Inc. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
