Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41044886›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025

Regulatory Interactions and Learnings-RADIAL the Trials@Home Proof-of-Concept Trial on Decentralization.

Helga Gardarsdottir, Hamidou Traore, Kate Huntley, Dinesh Mistry, Amos J de Jong, Agnes Legathe, Tim de Smedt, Scott Askin, Megan Heath, Solange Corriol-Rohou and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Helga GardarsdottirDivision Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5623-9684
Hamidou TraoreUCB Biopharma, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5836-4142
Kate HuntleyGlobal Regulatory Sciences, Pfizer R&D UK Limited, Kent, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6893-7617
Dinesh MistryFortrea Development Ltd UK, Leeds, UK.
Amos J de JongDivision Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6860-9213
Agnes LegatheSanofi, Paris, France.
Tim de SmedtUCB Biopharma, Brussels, Belgium.
Scott AskinNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Megan HeathSanofi, Reading, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6272-3003
Solange Corriol-RohouAstraZeneca R&D, Paris, France.
Bart LagerwaardJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8558-2385
Mira G P ZuidgeestJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1463-8243
IMI Trials@Home Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper is part of a series of six publications presenting lessons learned during the setup, regulatory submission, and conduct of the proof-of-concept Trials@Home RADIAL trial. The three-arm RADIAL trial, comprising fully decentralized, hybrid, and conventional arms, is the first clinical study to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of decentralized clinical trial elements across six European countries. In this paper, insights from multiple formal regulatory interactions related to the RADIAL trial, conducted between 2021 and 2022, are presented. These interactions included (i) a consultation with the European Medicines Agency's Innovation Task Force, (ii) a national Scientific Advice procedure, and (iii) the clinical trial application submission under the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation EU 536/2014). Given the novelty of the decentralized approach and lack of guidelines, many constructive comments and questions were received that supported the finalization of the protocol and conduct of the trial. It is important to acknowledge that clinical trials often span multiple countries and regulatory jurisdictions, creating complexity due to variations in complementary national legal and regulatory requirements. We conclude that early and continuous regulatory engagement is essential for the successful implementation of innovative trial designs. Although progress has been made in supporting decentralized clinical trials, persistent challenges related to legislative heterogeneity remain. Harmonized regulatory guidance and greater transparency through the sharing of regulatory experiences will be key to facilitating the broader adoption of decentralized approaches and advancing clinical trials in Europe.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicProof of Concept StudyEuropeEuropean UnionHumansPoliticsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID41044886
PMCPMC12598124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.