Blog

You never want to see a clinical trial fail. The consequences are enormous: And yet, many of these failures are preventable. A recent article highlighted a trial with unusually high discontinuation rates, particularly in the placebo group. Analysts were “puzzled.” I wasn’t. If a participant isn’t losing weight and suspects they’re on placebo, they can

In the clinical research world, it’s easy to assume that participants stay in their lane—only enrolling in studies within the same therapeutic area. The reality is far different. Research subjects often cross over between very different indications, creating hidden risks for trial integrity, data quality, and participant safety. These situations aren’t limited to professional subjects

Ask any seasoned research site team about the toughest protocol criteria to enforce, and you’ll likely hear the same answer: the 30-day washout rule. This requirement — that a subject must not have participated in another trial within the past 30 days — is simple to state but nearly impossible to verify without the right

In today’s competitive and complex research environment, professional patients—individuals who enroll in multiple clinical trials either simultaneously or back-to-back—pose one of the greatest threats to data integrity, subject safety, and trial success. These individuals often participate for financial gain or repeated access to investigational therapies, disregarding protocol requirements such as washout periods or exclusion criteria.

In modern clinical research, competition for eligible subjects is intense, protocols are increasingly complex, and timelines are tighter than ever. Across therapeutic areas, one persistent and costly threat continues to undermine trial integrity: duplicate and professional research subjects. These are individuals who enroll in multiple studies either at the same time or in rapid succession—often

Preventing professional patients in clinical trials, duplicate research subjects, and dual enrollment in clinical trials isn’t just a Day 1 problem — it’s a long‑term necessity. In clinical research, subject risk is often assumed to be limited to eligibility at screening. But what happens after randomization? What about long-term follow-up, crossover phases, or open-label extensions?