Clinical trial protocols routinely state that subjects must be:Clinical trial protocols frequently require that subjects be naïve to the investigational product. That requirement was not placed there casually. It exists for two fundamental reasons: 1. Patient safety2. Study integrity If prior exposure to the compound can alter safety signals, PK/PD behavior, dose response, or endpoint …
Your clinical trial is complete.Enrollment is closed.The database is locked. Then you uncover something serious: Several duplicate subjects were enrolled in your study. Not suspected. Confirmed. And you only learned this at the end. Here is the uncomfortable truth: If you found several duplicate subjects, there are not “possibly” more. There are more. Duplicate enrollment …
Clinical research has long tolerated a quiet but persistent risk: duplicate subjects in clinical trials, professional research subjects, and dual enrollment in clinical trials.For years, these issues were viewed as operational nuisances—manageable, unfortunate, but expected. Sponsors adjusted. Sites absorbed the burden. CROs implemented workarounds. But at what point does “manageable” become materially dangerous? At what …
Duplicate subjects in clinical trials and professional research subjects do not operate in isolation. They move across studies, sponsors, CROs, therapeutic areas, and geographies—often undetected when safeguards are fragmented or limited to individual sites. This is precisely why point solutions fail and why a networked research subject database becomes exponentially more powerful as adoption grows. …
Verified Clinical Trials (VCT) will be attending SCOPE Summit 2026, where leaders from across the industry convene to advance the future of Clinical Trials. At SCOPE, our team will be reconnecting with many of our long-standing clients, colleagues, and friends, while also meeting new sponsors, CROs, and research partners. These conversations are essential as the …
Duplicate subjects in clinical trials and professional patients are no longer rare anomalies—they are structural risks in modern clinical research. As trials scale globally and indications become increasingly crowded, these issues quietly undermine data integrity, inflate costs, and delay life-saving therapies. A recent investigative article in Science brings this problem into sharp focus:👉 Alzheimer’s drug …
When Verified Clinical Trials began, there wasn’t a crowd waiting for us — but there were investigative sites, Phase 1 units, and forward-thinking sponsors quietly rooting for someone to build critical mass around a problem they knew was real. They were seeing the same patterns over and over again: What was missing wasn’t awareness — …
When Verified Clinical Trials (VCT) first launched, the idea was simple: What if sponsors and sites could share a single, privacy-protective way to see when a research participant was already in another study? At the time, preventing duplicate subjects in clinical trials, catching professional patients, and using a shared research subject database / clinical trial …
Verified Clinical Trials: The global research subject database Most discussions about clinical trial economics start with big, visible levers: Those all matter. But there’s another lever that’s usually underplayed in financial models—precisely because it’s quiet and hard to see: The quality of who you actually randomize. Not just how many participants you enroll, but how …
In the hottest therapeutic areas today, it can feel like everyone is looking at the same recruitment map. GLP-1 and obesity. CNS and psychiatry. Dermatology. Vaccines. Rare diseases in concentrated geographies. Sponsors design different protocols, contract with different CROs, choose different sites—and yet, in practice, they’re often competing for the same limited patient pools at …
