Clinical Trial Safety Monitoring: Adverse Events and Reporting

Clinical trial safety monitoring rests on a structured system for identifying, classifying, documenting, and reporting adverse events that occur during human research. This article explains how adverse events are categorized, what reporting timelines apply, how Data Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) function, and what practical systems research teams can implement to meet their obligations. The content is intended for students, researchers, life-science professionals, and informed general readers who need a working understanding of safety monitoring in clinical trials.

At a Glance: Adverse Event Classification and Reporting

Adverse event monitoring in clinical trials follows a defined pathway from initial detection through classification, documentation, and regulatory reporting. The table below summarizes the core categories and their key features.

The classification of an adverse event determines the speed and format of reporting. Events that are serious and suspected to be related to the investigational product and unexpected in nature trigger the most urgent regulatory obligations.

Core Principles of Adverse Event Detection

Adverse event detection begins with a clear definition of what constitutes an event and a consistent method for capturing it. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) from the National Cancer Institute provides a standardized framework that investigators use to report side effects experienced by participants. This system assigns severity grades and provides consistent terminology across trials, which supports comparability of safety data across studies and therapeutic areas.

The history of clinical trials includes periods where unethical practices occurred. Since 1945, robust frameworks have evolved to standardize the collection and reporting of safety data. These frameworks emerged in response to recognized failures and now form the backbone of modern clinical research oversight. The CTCAE represents one of the most widely adopted tools for this purpose, and its use has become standard practice in oncology and increasingly in other therapeutic areas.

Detection methods vary by trial design and therapeutic area. Passive detection relies on participants reporting symptoms spontaneously during study visits. Active detection involves systematic questioning at each visit using standardized checklists or questionnaires. Laboratory monitoring captures abnormalities that may not produce symptoms. Each method has strengths and limitations, and most trials combine multiple approaches.

Patient-reported adverse events have gained attention as medicine moves toward a patient-centered model. A systematic scoping review examined the inclusion of patient-reported adverse event data within safety and tolerability analyses. The review identified 68 studies and found an increase over time in studies incorporating patient-reported adverse event data. Seventy instruments were used for collection, with recall periods, modes, frequency, and sites of administration varying across studies. The duration of data collection ranged from 28 days to 6 years. Despite growing calls for inclusion of patient-reported adverse events, this has not consistently translated into published reports. The collection and reporting of these data were variable and often conducted using instruments not designed for the purpose. The review authors concluded that standardization of data collection is needed to address these inconsistencies.

Adverse Event Classification Systems

Classification systems provide the structure needed to compare safety data across trials and to identify signals that require further investigation. The CTCAE system assigns grades from 1 to 5, where grade 1 represents mild events, grade 2 moderate events, grade 3 severe or medically significant events, grade 4 life-threatening events, and grade 5 death related to the adverse event.

The distinction between an adverse event and an adverse reaction is important. An adverse event is any untoward medical occurrence, regardless of causal relationship to the investigational product. An adverse reaction implies that a causal relationship is at least reasonably possible. This distinction matters because reporting obligations differ based on the assessed causality.

Seriousness is a separate dimension from severity. An event can be grade 1 in severity but still meet the definition of serious if it results in hospitalization or requires intervention to prevent permanent impairment. Conversely, a grade 3 event may not be serious if it does not meet any of the seriousness criteria. The seriousness determination drives the reporting timeline, while the severity grade describes the intensity of the event.

Serious Adverse Event Identification and Documentation

Serious adverse events require prompt identification and complete documentation. The definition of serious includes events that result in death, are life-threatening, require inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, result in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, cause a congenital anomaly or birth defect, or require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of these outcomes.

The documentation of a serious adverse event begins at the moment the site becomes aware of the event. The initial report should capture the participant identifier, the event description, the onset date, the severity, the assessed causality, and any actions taken. Follow-up information should be added as it becomes available, including diagnostic test results, treatment administered, and the final outcome.

Electronic data collection systems can reduce errors and delays in serious adverse event reporting. A project at a UK academic clinical trials unit developed a module in the REDCap system to facilitate electronic SAE reporting. The system enables an adverse event form to automatically trigger an SAE form for any event that also meets the seriousness criteria, prepopulating relevant fields and reducing the risk of delay and error when entering data. The system also includes embedded code that allows for instant visual recognition of any data updated following reporting, allowing the sponsor to immediately review and resolve SAEs in a timely manner.

A centralized safety function can support multiple clinical trials and provide efficient, standardized processes for the management of serious adverse events. One data coordinating center used pharmacovigilance software compliant with FDA regulations, including 21 CFR Part 11, from 2017 to 2022. The software assisted with processing safety cases, including capture of event data, process flow management, documentation storage, and transmission of safety reports to the FDA. The organization experienced incompatibilities with other clinical research software and found that the small number of periodic and SUSAR cases rendered the annual license fee not cost-effective. An internal analysis revealed that developing a customized solution using existing electronic data capture systems and document management solutions was feasible, ensuring 21 CFR Part 11 compliance without additional expenses. This approach is particularly advantageous for data coordinating centers or academic clinical research sites that must meet regulatory reporting requirements without depending on specialized pharmacovigilance software.

Reporting Timelines and Regulatory Obligations

Reporting timelines differ based on the event category and the applicable regulatory framework. Investigators must report serious adverse events to the sponsor promptly, typically within 24 hours of becoming aware of the event. The sponsor then assesses the event for causality and expectedness against the known safety profile of the investigational product.

Suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions require expedited reporting to regulatory authorities. The timelines for this reporting vary by jurisdiction but generally range from 7 to 15 days depending on the outcome of the event. Events that result in death or are life-threatening typically require faster reporting than other serious events.

The distinction between expected and unexpected events is based on the reference safety information for the investigational product. This information is typically contained in the Investigator's Brochure or the product label. An event is unexpected if its nature, severity, or frequency is not consistent with the applicable product information.

Aggregate safety reporting provides a broader view of the safety profile over time. Development Safety Update Reports and periodic safety reports summarize all adverse events, serious adverse events, and suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions that have occurred during a reporting period. These reports support ongoing benefit-risk assessment and inform decisions about trial continuation or modification.

The Role of Data Safety Monitoring Boards

Data Safety Monitoring Boards provide independent oversight of safety data during clinical trials. These boards are composed of experts in relevant clinical, scientific, and statistical fields who are independent of the trial investigators and sponsor. Their role includes reviewing accumulating safety data at planned intervals and making recommendations about trial continuation, modification, or termination.

The responsibilities of a DSMB include reviewing adverse event data, assessing whether the benefit-risk profile remains acceptable, and evaluating whether interim analyses suggest that the trial should stop early for efficacy, safety, or futility. The board operates under a charter that defines its membership, meeting schedule, and decision-making processes.

The importance of an efficient DSMB is illustrated by examples from high-risk clinical trials. An efficient board can review data promptly, make clear recommendations, and communicate those recommendations to the sponsor and investigators without unnecessary delay. Inefficient boards can delay decisions, prolong exposure of participants to potentially harmful treatments, or allow trials to continue when the evidence supports stopping.

DSMB decision-making becomes more complex when a similar clinical trial is stopped early. The board must consider whether the findings from the other trial apply to the current trial, whether differences in patient populations or treatment protocols affect the relevance of those findings, and whether the interim results from the current trial support a similar decision.

Secure sharing of DSMB reports can speed decision-making across multiple, concurrent, independent studies of similar treatments. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to share safety information across trials of similar treatments became particularly important. The approach to sharing DSMB reports must balance the need for timely information with the need to protect trial integrity and maintain blinding where appropriate.

Views on sharing certain interim trial result measures by the DSMB with non-DSMB members vary. Some stakeholders support broader sharing of safety data to inform clinical care and public health decision-making, while others express concern about the potential for interim results to influence trial conduct or create bias. The DSMB charter should specify what information will be shared, with whom, and under what circumstances.

Practical Workflow for Adverse Event Reporting

A structured workflow ensures that adverse events are consistently identified, documented, classified, and reported. The following steps provide a practical framework for research teams.

Step 1: Train all study personnel on adverse event definitions and reporting procedures. Every member of the research team who interacts with participants must understand what constitutes an adverse event, how to document it, and when to escalate for serious event reporting. Training should be documented and repeated at intervals appropriate to the trial duration.

Step 2: Collect adverse event information at every participant contact. Use a combination of spontaneous reporting, systematic questioning, and laboratory monitoring. Ask participants about any new symptoms, changes in existing symptoms, hospitalizations, or other health care encounters since the last visit.

Step 3: Document each adverse event in the source documents and case report form. Record the event description, onset date, resolution date or ongoing status, severity grade, assessed causality, actions taken, and outcome. Use the participant's own words where possible and add clinical assessment.

Step 4: Assess each adverse event for seriousness. Apply the seriousness criteria consistently. When in doubt, consult the protocol or the sponsor. Document the assessment and the rationale.

Step 5: Report serious adverse events to the sponsor within the required timeline. Use the sponsor's designated reporting mechanism. Include all available information and indicate what follow-up is pending.

Step 6: Track adverse events through resolution. Continue to collect follow-up information until the event resolves, stabilizes, or the participant is lost to follow-up. Update the case report form and the sponsor as new information becomes available.

Step 7: Participate in safety review activities. Provide complete and accurate data for DSMB reviews, interim analyses, and aggregate safety reports. Respond promptly to queries from the sponsor or the DSMB.

Records and Measurements for Safety Monitoring

Complete and accurate records are the foundation of safety monitoring. The following records should be maintained for each participant and each adverse event.

The participant's source documents should include the medical history, baseline assessments, and all clinical findings during the trial. Adverse event information should be recorded in the source documents at the time it is collected, with the date and time of the report and the identity of the person who collected the information.

The case report form should capture all protocol-required adverse event data. This includes the event term, onset and resolution dates, severity grade, causality assessment, actions taken, and outcome. The case report form should be completed in accordance with the protocol and the sponsor's instructions.

The serious adverse event report should include all information required by the sponsor and applicable regulations. This includes participant identifiers, the event description, the seriousness criteria met, the investigational product and dose, concomitant medications, relevant medical history, and the investigator's assessment of causality.

Safety measurements include the frequency and severity of adverse events, the proportion of participants experiencing serious adverse events, the proportion experiencing treatment-related adverse events, and the rates of specific events of interest. These measurements should be summarized at intervals specified in the protocol and reviewed by the DSMB.

Common Failure Patterns in Adverse Event Reporting

Several recurring problems have been identified in adverse event reporting across clinical trials. Understanding these failure patterns can help research teams design systems that avoid them.

Underreporting of adverse events is a persistent problem. A meta-analysis of finasteride trials for androgenic alopecia found that none of the 34 trials had adequate safety reporting, 19 were partially adequate, 12 were inadequate, and 3 reported no adverse events. The analysis found evidence of systematic underdetection of sexual adverse effects. No reports assessed the adequacy of blinding, and the duration of drug safety evaluation was one year or less for 76% of the trials. These findings illustrate how incomplete reporting can distort the safety profile of a product.

Poor reporting quality in immunotherapy trials has also been documented. A systematic review of 123 publications from head-to-head phase II and III clinical trials assessing cancer immunotherapy found a mean harm reporting quality score of 11.1 out of 16. The most common poorly reported items were harms addressed in the title, adverse event collection methodology, the statistical approach for analyzing harms, and immune-related adverse event onset patterns and management. Higher impact factor journals and phase III trials were associated with higher quality scores, but overall reporting remained suboptimal.

Adverse event reporting in acupuncture trials for pain has also been found lacking. A review of randomized controlled trials published from 2005 through 2008 found that only 6 of 10 studies mentioned or discussed adverse events. Four of the 6 studies did not detail how adverse events were collected, and only 2 studies discussed how adverse events were assessed. The review authors concluded that acupuncture clinical trials for pain reduction had yet to comprehensively meet the CONSORT guidelines for adverse event reporting.

Inconsistent collection and reporting of patient-reported adverse events represents another failure pattern. The variability in instruments, recall periods, and administration methods makes it difficult to compare safety data across studies and to draw conclusions about the true incidence of adverse events.

Quality Controls and Verification

Quality controls for adverse event reporting should be built into the trial's quality management system. These controls include source data verification, where the monitor compares case report form entries against source documents to confirm accuracy. Monitoring visits should include a review of adverse event documentation, with particular attention to serious adverse events and events that may meet seriousness criteria but were not reported as such.

Data quality checks can identify missing or inconsistent adverse event data. These checks should be programmed into the electronic data capture system where possible, with queries generated for missing fields, out-of-range values, or logical inconsistencies. For example, an adverse event with a resolution date before its onset date should trigger a query.

The completeness of adverse event reporting should be assessed at the end of the trial. The clinical study report should include a summary of all adverse events, with appropriate tabulations by treatment group, severity, and causality. The report should also describe the methods used to collect adverse event data and any limitations of those methods.

Limitations of Adverse Event Data

Adverse event data from clinical trials have inherent limitations that should be understood when interpreting safety information. Clinical trials typically enroll selected populations that may not represent the full range of patients who will receive the product in clinical practice. The duration of follow-up may be insufficient to detect long-term or delayed adverse events.

The quality of adverse event reporting varies across trials and therapeutic areas. A review of adverse event reporting in cancer clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy found that reporting was suboptimal, with particular weaknesses in describing adverse event collection methodology and statistical approaches for analyzing harms. These limitations affect the ability to compare safety profiles across products and to make informed treatment decisions.

Adverse event data from clinical trials may not capture the full range of events that occur in clinical practice. A review of creatine supplementation trials found that side effects were reported in 13.2% of studies in placebo groups and 13.7% of studies in creatine-supplemented groups, with no significant differences observed between the groups. The review also analyzed adverse event report databases and social media sentiment, finding that anecdotal reports about side effects persist primarily from popular and social media despite the absence of significant differences in clinical trial data.

The safety of probiotics illustrates the challenge of drawing conclusions from incomplete data. A review concluded that probiotics have been used safely for years, but safety outcomes are inconsistently reported in published clinical trials. The existing literature was not well equipped to answer questions about the safety of probiotics in intervention studies with confidence. Theoretical risks have been described, including systemic infections, deleterious metabolic activities, excessive immune stimulation in susceptible individuals, gene transfer, and gastrointestinal side effects. More research is needed to properly describe the incidence and severity of adverse events related to probiotics.

Safety Context Across Therapeutic Areas

Adverse event monitoring must be adapted to the specific safety concerns of each therapeutic area. The following examples illustrate how safety monitoring is applied in different contexts.

In oncology, treatment-related adverse events are a central consideration in the benefit-risk assessment of new therapies. A systematic review and meta-analysis of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors included 125 clinical trials involving 20,128 patients. The analysis found that 66.0% of patients developed at least one adverse event of any grade, and 14.0% developed at least one adverse event of grade 3 or higher severity. The most common all-grade adverse events were fatigue, pruritus, and diarrhea. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were fatigue, anemia, and aspartate aminotransferase increase. Hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism were also observed. Understanding the incidence and severity of these events is critical for clinical practice.

In vaccine trials, adverse event monitoring includes both solicited local and systemic reactions and unsolicited adverse events. A real-world analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System examined 50,655 reports submitted throughout 2025 and found that 9.58% were classified as serious adverse events. Factors associated with serious adverse event reporting included advanced age, male sex, longer onset times, administration in military or private facilities, and systemic symptoms. Local symptoms were protective. Patient history variables such as current illness and medical history were associated with increased odds of serious adverse event reporting, while prior reactions were protective. Vaccine characteristics including mRNA platforms, second doses, non-intramuscular administration routes, and right-arm injections were also associated with serious adverse event reporting.

In gene therapy trials, long-term follow-up is essential to detect delayed adverse events. A lentiviral vector gene therapy trial in sickle cell disease was suspended due to a reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction of acute myeloid leukemia. One patient developed myelodysplastic syndrome three years after treatment, which eventually transformed to acute myeloid leukemia. The absence of vector among the blasts suggested that this complication arose from the conditioning regimen and was unrelated to the vector. Another patient developed acute myeloid leukemia 5.5 years after treatment, and analysis of the blasts demonstrated the presence of the vector, raising the possibility of insertional mutagenesis. A suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction in another patient was being evaluated after trisomy 8 was found at the six-month marrow examination. These cases illustrate the importance of long-term follow-up and the complexity of causality assessment in gene therapy trials.

In trials involving medical devices, adverse event monitoring must capture device-related events as well as events related to the underlying condition. A case report described a serious adverse event in an 83-year-old female participating in a clinical trial of a hip-protecting wearable airbag. On day three of study participation, the belt slipped down to her thighs while she was walking outdoors, ultimately straddling her stride and resulting in a fall and distal femur fracture. She required surgical fixation and had a prolonged, complicated hospital stay. This case illustrates that even devices designed to prevent injury can contribute to adverse events, and that safety monitoring must include device function and fit.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Research teams should have clear criteria for escalating safety concerns beyond routine reporting. The following situations warrant immediate escalation to the sponsor, the DSMB, or the relevant regulatory authority.

Any death or life-threatening event that occurs during a clinical trial should be reported immediately, regardless of the assessed causality. The sponsor should be notified within the timeline specified in the protocol, and the DSMB should be informed at its next scheduled meeting or earlier if the event raises concerns about participant safety.

Any suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction should be reported to the regulatory authority within the applicable expedited reporting timeline. The sponsor is responsible for this reporting, but the investigator must provide complete and accurate information to the sponsor without delay.

Any pattern of adverse events that suggests a new safety signal should be escalated. This includes multiple events of the same type, events of increasing severity, or events occurring in a cluster that suggests a common cause. The DSMB should review these patterns and make recommendations about whether the trial should continue, be modified, or be stopped.

Any event that raises questions about the integrity of the trial data or the conduct of the trial should be escalated. This includes suspected fraud, fabrication of data, or failure to follow the protocol. These situations require investigation and may have implications for the validity of the trial results.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between an adverse event and a serious adverse event?

An adverse event is any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, regardless of whether it is suspected to be related to the investigational product. A serious adverse event is a subset of adverse events that meets specific seriousness criteria, including death, life-threatening condition, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability, congenital anomaly, or an event requiring intervention to prevent permanent impairment. The seriousness determination drives the reporting timeline, while the severity grade describes the intensity of the event.

What is a SUSAR in clinical trials?

A SUSAR is a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction. It is a serious adverse event that is suspected to be caused by the investigational product and is not consistent with the known safety profile of that product. The expectedness assessment is based on the reference safety information, typically the Investigator's Brochure or the product label. SUSARs require expedited reporting to regulatory authorities and ethics committees within defined timelines.

What is a TEAE in clinical trials?

A TEAE is a treatment-emergent adverse event, defined as an adverse event that occurs or worsens after the initiation of the investigational treatment. The treatment-emergent period typically begins at the time of the first dose and continues through the end of the follow-up period specified in the protocol. TEAEs are distinguished from adverse events that were present before treatment initiation and did not worsen during treatment.

How does a Data Safety Monitoring Board work?

A Data Safety Monitoring Board is an independent group of experts that reviews accumulating safety data during a clinical trial. The board operates under a charter that defines its membership, meeting schedule, and decision-making processes. The board reviews adverse event data, assesses whether the benefit-risk profile remains acceptable, and makes recommendations about trial continuation, modification, or termination. The board communicates its recommendations to the sponsor, who is responsible for implementing them.

What are the reporting timelines for serious adverse events?

Investigators must report serious adverse events to the sponsor promptly, typically within 24 hours of becoming aware of the event. The sponsor then assesses the event for causality and expectedness. Suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions require expedited reporting to regulatory authorities, with timelines that vary by jurisdiction but generally range from 7 to 15 days depending on the outcome of the event. Events that result in death or are life-threatening typically require faster reporting.

Why is adverse event reporting quality often poor in clinical trials?

Adverse event reporting quality varies across trials and therapeutic areas. Common problems include incomplete documentation of collection methods, inadequate description of statistical approaches for analyzing harms, and inconsistent use of standardized terminology. A review of immunotherapy trials found that the most common poorly reported items were harms addressed in the title, adverse event collection methodology, and the statistical approach for analyzing harms. These limitations affect the ability to compare safety profiles across products and to make informed treatment decisions.

How are patient-reported adverse events collected in clinical trials?

Patient-reported adverse events are collected directly from participants using questionnaires, diaries, or electronic data capture systems. A systematic scoping review found that 70 instruments were used for collection, with recall periods, modes, frequency, and sites of administration varying across studies. The duration of data collection ranged from 28 days to 6 years. Despite growing calls for inclusion of patient-reported adverse events, this has not consistently translated into published reports, and the collection and reporting of these data were variable and often conducted using instruments not designed for the purpose.

What should a research team do when a serious adverse event occurs?

The research team should document the event immediately, assess it for seriousness and causality, and report it to the sponsor within the required timeline. The team should continue to collect follow-up information until the event resolves, stabilizes, or the participant is lost to follow-up. The event should be recorded in the source documents and the case report form, and the participant should receive appropriate medical care. The team should also consider whether the event raises concerns that warrant escalation to the DSMB or the regulatory authority.

Related Articles

• Laboratory Results Template: How to Present Data Clearly and Reproducibly
• Digital Droplet PCR (ddPCR) for Absolute Quantification of Swine Enteric Coronaviruses in Fecal and Oral Fluid Samples: Analytical Sensitivity and Clinical Utility
• Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR for Differential Diagnosis of Canine Infectious Respiratory Disease Complex (CIRDC): Panel Design, Validation, and Clinical Utility
• Clinical Biochemistry and Urinalysis
• How to Set Up a No-Template Control in PCR and qPCR

References and Further Reading

• Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook. World Health Organization.
• Laboratory Biosafety Manual. World Health Organization.
• Assay Guidance Manual. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
• Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Adverse Event Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials: Incorporating Patient-Reported Methods. A Systematic Scoping Review.. The patient, 2024.
• Improving adverse drug event reporting by healthcare professionals.. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024.
• Treatment-Related Adverse Events of PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitors in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. JAMA oncology, 2019.
• Adverse Event Reporting Quality in Cancer Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: A Systematic Review.. Frontiers in immunology, 2022.
• Adverse event reporting in acupuncture clinical trials focusing on pain.. The Clinical journal of pain, 2010.
• Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials of Finasteride for Androgenic Alopecia: A Meta-analysis.. JAMA dermatology, 2015.
• Safety of creatine supplementation: analysis of the prevalence of reported side effects in clinical trials and adverse event reports.. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2025.
• Risk and safety of probiotics.. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2015.
• Investigating the investigations: senior healthcare leaders’ perspectives on the organisational value, burden and effectiveness of serious adverse event investigations
• Factors associated with serious adverse event following immunization: a real-world analysis of the vaccine adverse event reporting system 2025.. 2026.
• Case report of a hip-protecting, wearable airbag contributing to a serious adverse event in an older adult.. 2025.
• Pulmonary arterial blowout syndrome as a serious adverse event in patients with advanced lung cancer: a 12-year retrospective study.. 2026.
• Exploring Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Serious Adverse Event Reports Following COVID-19 Bivalent Vaccines. 2025.
• 101. Serious Adverse Event Rates for Cefazolin and Ceftriaxone Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy. 2023.
• An action card - treatment of suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction in clinical trials. 2012.
• Streamlining electronic reporting of serious adverse events (SAEs) using the REDCap data collection system: the eSAE Project. Trials, 2024.
• Developing a cost-effective and efficient safety case management solution for data coordinating center projects.. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 2025.
• Safety and efficacy of the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in five groups of immunocompromised patients and healthy controls in a prospective open-label clinical trial. medRxiv, 2021.
• Aggregate IND Safety Reporting for Smaller Companies and Programs. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 2024.
• Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular injection of allogeneic adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) ELIXCYTE®: a phase I/II, randomized, active-control, single-blind, multiple-center clinical trial. Stem cell research & therapeutics, 2021.
• A pause in gene therapy: Reflecting on the unique challenges of sickle cell disease.. Molecular Therapy, 2021.
• DSMB. 2. The importance of an efficient DSMB: Some examples of high-risk clinical trials. Medecine Sciences, 2005.
• DSMB case study: Decision making when a similar clinical trial is stopped early. Controlled Clinical Trials, 2003.
• Securely sharing DSMB reports to speed decision making from multiple, concurrent, independent studies of similar treatments in COVID-19. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2022.
• Exploring factors associated with views on sharing of certain interim trial result measures by the data safety monitoring board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members. Trials, 2018.
• DSMB. 1. What role, what responsabilities?. Medecine Sciences, 2005.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.