The Ethics of Decentralised Clinical Trials

Sponsors should know that ethical obligations in decentralised clinical trials go well beyond obtaining informed consent remotely.

As digitalisation moves patient recruitment, symptom monitoring, and data collection away from traditional sites, sponsors must rethink how they protect participant safety, patient rights, scientific validity, and ethical oversight.

Image

Ethical Obligations in Decentralisation Clinical Trials

Decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) can reduce travel, improve convenience, and potentially widen access to research. Digital consent, telehealth, home visits, wearable devices, local healthcare providers, and direct-to-patient medicine delivery can move trial activities closer to participants.

The ethical question is whether those benefits are achieved without moving disproportionate responsibility or risk onto participants.

Research shows that there are three important areas requiring increased ethical vigilance: Participant safety and rights, scientific validity, and ethics oversight.

That makes a different DCT discussion about whether to decentralise activities for that particular trial and participant population.

Participant Safety Can Never Be Remote

Moving trial activities into participants’ homes changes who performs tasks that were previously managed by clinical research staff.

Investigational products may need to be delivered, stored, administered, or returned outside a clinical site and biological samples may also be collected by participants or local providers.

Protocols must explicitly address these risks and provide appropriate instructions and support.

Safety monitoring creates another challenge. Reduced face-to-face contact must not mean reduced access to clinical support.

Digital systems could potentially improve monitoring by allowing participants to report adverse events continuously. But sponsors need clear escalation routes when a reported problem requires immediate clinical intervention or an in-person assessment.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) 2024 final guidance similarly emphasises appropriate planning, training, oversight, and risk management when decentralised elements are used.

Image

Privacy and Consent Need More Than a Digital Interface

DCTs can generate large volumes of information through apps, wearables, electronic questionnaires, and remote monitoring. That creates additional privacy and cybersecurity considerations.

Approaches to uphold privacy and cybersecurity in decentralised clinical trials include data minimisation, privacy-by-design, privacy impact assessments, and appropriate technical safeguards. 

It’s very worth noting that risks to people often go beyond the participant, such as to family members who may inadvertently appear during remote interactions.

Informed consent presents a related challenge.

Electronic consent can improve accessibility, but sponsors still need to establish identity, ensure participation is voluntary, and communicate complex research information in ways participants can understand. Digital convenience cannot replace meaningful consent.

The FDA’s current DCT guidance confirms that informed consent can be obtained remotely, while retaining investigator responsibility for the consent process.

Pharmatica’s analysis of CRO oversight explores the wider governance challenge as clinical research becomes increasingly distributed across organisations and technology providers.

Read Maximise Pharma Innovation With Quality-by-Design

Maximise Pharma Innovation With Quality-by-Design

Find out how Quality-by-Design improves reliability and compliance in pharma and how you can maximise innovation through quality-based pharma development systems.

Scientific Validity Is an Ethical Obligation in Decentralised Clinical Trials

Ethics is not limited to protecting individuals.

A clinical trial that cannot produce reliable evidence also exposes participants to research without sufficient scientific value.

DCTs can introduce self-selection and digital-access bias. People without reliable internet, suitable devices, or confidence with digital technologies may be less likely to participate. This could undermine the representativeness that decentralisation is intended to improve. 

Participant-led data collection can create additional questions. Self-reported adverse events, home measurements, and digital endpoints may behave differently from assessments performed by trained site personnel.

Sponsors therefore need to assess whether decentralised methods preserve the validity of endpoints and whether the digital capabilities required by the protocol exclude particular populations.

This matters commercially as well as ethically. Pharmatica’s analysis of clinical trial success rates shows the scale of attrition across drug development.

Generating evidence that is convenient but unreliable does little to reduce that risk.

Oversight Must Evolve with the Decentralised Clinical Trial Model

Traditional ethics committees and institutional review boards have extensive experience assessing clinical research risks.

DCTs introduce risks involving digital privacy, cybersecurity, remote identity verification, technology usability, and participant-generated data that may require additional expertise. 

This provides a stronger impetus for better digital expertise among ethics oversight bodies, transparent reporting of safeguards, and tools that can identify privacy and digital-access risks before a trial begins.

Regulation is moving in this direction. The FDA issued final DCT guidance in 2024, while the European Medicines Agency has developed recommendations designed to facilitate decentralised elements while protecting participant rights and data reliability. 

International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E6(R3) framework goes further. ICH GCP Annex 2 specifically addresses DCTs and is designed to ensure that evolving trial approaches remain fit for purpose while protecting participants and maintaining reliable results. Annex 2 is expected to take full effect in January 2027.

Ethical Design Should Start Before Trial Decentralisation

Decentralisation should be more than an upgrade applied after a protocol has been designed.

Sponsors should ask whether each decentralised element is appropriate, what new risks it introduces, and whether safeguards are proportionate to those risks.

That means evaluating:

• Participant safety: Can the activity be performed safely outside a site?
• Privacy: What additional data and cybersecurity risks are created?
• Consent: Can participants make a genuinely informed decision remotely?
• Validity: Could technology or self-selection alter the evidence?
• Equity: Who might be excluded by the digital model?
• Oversight: Do investigators, vendors, and ethics committees have the expertise to manage the new risks?

Upholding Ethical Obligations in Decentralisation Clinical Trials

DCTs can make clinical research more accessible and potentially more representative, but patient centricity cannot mean transferring the burden of research onto patients.

Ethical obligations in decentralised clinical trials therefore need to evolve alongside the technology.

For sponsors, the strongest DCT strategy is the one that decentralises the right activities while preserving safety, scientific integrity, participant autonomy, and trust.

At Pharmatica, we examine the systems, strategies, and technologies shaping modern clinical development. Our analysis connects regulatory change, trial innovation, and operational realities so pharma decision-makers can understand where new approaches create meaningful value.

Pharmatica: Insight. Connection. Impact.

Image