Blog

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

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