The Importance of Efficient Data Governance in Clinical Trials

The importance of data governance in clinical research cannot be overstated. With over 90% of clinical trials experiencing delays due to patient recruitment and retention challenges, a significant portion of clinical trial data often requires remediation due to inconsistencies or errors. Therefore, a proper data governance approach does more than help organizations ensure compliance; it is the backbone of clinical trial data integrity even when dropout rates and other unexpected events happen.

Life sciences produces a lot of data. In clinical trials specifically, a single Phase III trial, which can run for years and involve hundreds or thousands of participants, may generate millions of data points. Strong data governance is how organizations maintain and optimize the usage of all that data. It enables to achieve accurate safety reporting, keep audits on track, ensure the completeness of regulatory submissions, and more.

Understanding Data Governance in Clinical Trials

In clinical research, data governance refers to the standards, processes, and roles that ensure trial data meets ALCOA+ principles (Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original, Accurate plus Complete, Consistent, Enduring, Available). Here’s what it covers:

• Protocol-specific data collection standards
• Cross-border regulatory requirements (e.g., FDA 21 CFR Part 11, EU Annex 11)
• Risk-based monitoring methodologies
• Source data verification workflows
• Clinical endpoint adjudication processes

Key Elements of Clinical Trial Data Governance

Effective clinical trial data governance requires a nuanced understanding of the unique demands of clinical research, which are driven by study protocols, regulatory mandates, and the imperative for patient safety and information integrity. The following

key elements differentiate clinical trial governance from broader healthcare data approaches:

Protocol-Driven Framework

At the heart of clinical trial data governance is a protocol-driven framework. Unlike general hospital data policies that focus on operational efficiencies or general patient care, governance rules in clinical trials must be intricately aligned with the specific objectives of each study. This entails:

• Study-specific endpoints. Every clinical trial has defined primary and secondary endpoints – the specific outcomes or measures used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intervention. Data governance ensures that data collection, quality checks, and reporting mechanisms are precisely tailored to accurately capture and report these endpoints.

• Statistical analysis plans (SAPs). The SAP outlines how the collected data will be analyzed to answer the study questions. Data governance ensures that the data is collected, cleaned, and structured in a way that directly supports the statistical methods described in the SAP. This includes defining data formats, handling missing data, and ensuring variables are correctly coded to facilitate accurate statistical computations. Deviations can lead to invalid analyses or the need for costly data transformations.

Regulatory-Focused Roles

Clinical trial data governance is underpinned by clearly defined roles, each with specific responsibilities geared towards regulatory compliance and data quality:

• Clinical Data Managers (CDMs). These professionals ensure data quality and compliance. They oversee the design of electronic case report forms (eCRFs), manage the data cleaning process (query resolution), and ensure that data adheres to industry standards like CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium). CDISC standards, such as CDASH (Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization) for data collection and SDTM (Study Data Tabulation Model) for data submission, are crucial for standardizing data globally, making it easier for regulatory bodies like the FDA to review and compare data across different studies.
• Medical Monitors (MMs). Medical monitors are the physicians responsible for the medical oversight of the trial, including patient safety. They play a critical role in validating safety data, such as adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs). Their involvement in data governance ensures that safety signals are accurately captured, consistently graded, and promptly reported according to regulatory requirements, often collaborating closely with data management and pharmacovigilance teams.
• QA auditors. QA auditors assess the trial’s adherence to the protocol, Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines, and relevant regulatory requirements. They ensure the inspection-readiness of all trial documentation and data. Their role in data governance involves auditing data management processes, reviewing data trails, and verifying that quality control measures are effectively implemented, preparing the trial for potential regulatory inspections.
• Biostatisticians. While not exclusively a governance role, biostatisticians work closely with data management to ensure that the data collected is suitable for statistical analysis. They help define data validity checks, advise on data structure for statistical integrity, and ensure that the final datasets are fit for purpose for the SAP.

Trial-Specific Procedures

Clinical trial data governance also necessitates a suite of highly specific procedures tailored to the intricacies of trial execution:

• SAE reconciliation workflows. SAEs are critical safety information that must be reported promptly to regulatory authorities. Data governance defines rigorous workflows for the reconciliation of SAEs between the clinical trial database and the pharmacovigilance database. This ensures that all SAEs are consistently recorded, classified, and reported, preventing discrepancies that could delay regulatory approval or compromise patient safety oversight.
• ePRO device validation standards. Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) devices (e.g., tablets, smartphones) are increasingly used to collect data directly from patients. Data governance establishes strict validation standards for these devices and the associated software to ensure data integrity, security, and patient privacy. This includes confirming the device functions correctly, that data transmission is secure, and that the patient interface is clear and easy to use.
• Central lab data integration rules. In multi-site trials, samples are often sent to central laboratories for analysis to ensure consistency. Data governance dictates the precise rules for integrating laboratory data (e.g., blood test results, biomarker data) into the central clinical database. This involves defining data transfer formats, reconciliation processes for discrepancies, and quality checks to ensure accurate and timely integration of critical lab results.

Risk-Based Quality Management (RBQM)

Modern clinical trial management emphasizes Risk-Based Quality Management (RBQM). This approach shifts from exhaustive, all-encompassing monitoring to focusing governance resources on the most critical aspects of the trial:

Data governance under RBQM identifies “critical-to-quality” (CTQ) factors, such as primary efficacy endpoints, key safety signals, and critical protocol deviations. Governance resources (e.g., monitoring, data cleaning efforts) are then strategically allocated to areas that pose the highest risk to data integrity, patient safety, or regulatory compliance. This allows for more efficient use of resources and earlier identification of potential issues that could impact trial success. For instance, data for a primary endpoint might undergo more stringent validation checks than demographic data.

Enhance quality and compliance in your clinical research.

Learn more

Inspection-Readiness Controls

A paramount aspect of clinical trial data governance is maintaining inspection-readiness controls. This means ensuring that all data, documentation, and processes are continually prepared for scrutiny by regulatory authorities.

Regulations such as the FDA 21 CFR Part 11 (Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures) require that electronic systems generate and maintain comprehensive, time-stamped audit trails of all data entries, modifications, and deletions. Data governance ensures these audit trails are immutable, easily retrievable, and clearly show who did what, when, and why. This level of transparency is crucial during regulatory inspections to demonstrate data integrity and accountability. Furthermore, all related documentation, including protocols, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and data management plans, must be readily accessible and version-controlled.

AI Governance in Clinical Research

Since virtually any data-related operation can be significantly simplified with AI, it’s no wonder that the technology is being widely adopted in clinical research too – from drug discovery to clinical trial execution and post-market surveillance.

However, alongside the convenience and automation it offers, AI also introduces a new layer of complexity in data governance. In a highly regulated environment that is clinical trials, its usage requires specific, additional governance frameworks and measures to ensure reliability, fairness, and regulatory acceptance. These typically include:

Model Validation

A cornerstone of AI governance in clinical research is rigorous model validation. Unlike static software, AI models change over time. Therefore, they need both initial and ongoing validation.

Prospective Validation of Machine Learning Algorithms

Any ML algorithm intended for use in critical clinical trial functions – such as optimizing patient recruitment, predicting dropout risk, detecting emerging safety signals from large datasets (e.g., electronic health records, adverse event reports), or assisting in diagnostic image analysis – must undergo prospective validation. This validation ensures that the model performs reliably not only in retrospective testing but also under real-world conditions. Key components of prospective validation are as follows:

• External validation. The algorithm must be tested on datasets entirely independent of those used for model training and internal testing. Ideally, these datasets should come from different institutions, geographic regions, or populations to assess the model’s robustness and generalizability across diverse clinical environments.
• Clinical utility validation. Beyond technical accuracy, validation should demonstrate tangible clinical benefits. This might involve showing that the ML tool reduces patient screening failures, shortens enrollment timelines, improves early detection of adverse events, or otherwise supports meaningful trial outcomes.
• Performance metrics. Validation efforts must define, and measure key performance indicators appropriate to the task. For classification models, this could include accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. For regression models, R² or Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) may be relevant. Each metric should meet predefined thresholds aligned with the clinical risk of the use case. For example, a model intended to flag drug-induced liver injury must prioritize sensitivity to minimize the risk of missing serious safety concerns.

Explainability Requirements

The “black box” nature of some advanced AI models presents a significant challenge for regulatory acceptance. So, there are also laws around model explainability.

• Interpretable frameworks for FDA-submitted AI models. AI models submitted for regulatory review or used in studies supporting regulatory submissions, sponsors may need to demonstrate how the AI arrived at its conclusions. This is achieved through the use of interpretable frameworks and techniques, such as:
  • SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations). A game theory-based approach that explains the output of any machine learning model by assigning an importance value to each feature for a particular prediction. This helps understand which patient characteristics or data points most influenced an AI’s decision (e.g., predicting a patient’s eligibility for a trial).
  • LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations). A technique that explains the predictions of any classifier or regressor in an interpretable and faithful manner by approximating it locally with an interpretable model. For example, LIME could highlight which specific words in a patient’s medical history contributed to an AI’s flagging them for a particular side effect.
• Traceability and auditability. Beyond frameworks, explainability also implies robust documentation of model development, training data, and decision logic, allowing human experts to audit and understand the model’s behavior, especially in cases of unexpected outputs.

Continuous Monitoring

AI models, especially those operating in dynamic environments like clinical trials, can suffer from “concept drift,” where the relationships between input features and outcomes change over time. This necessitates continuous monitoring.

• Regular assessment for concept drift. Algorithms used in clinical trials must be regularly assessed to ensure their performance doesn’t degrade as trial populations evolve, new data patterns emerge, or external factors change. This involves:
  • Performance drift monitoring. Regularly comparing the model’s current performance (e.g., accuracy, prediction error) against its established baseline using newly acquired data.
  • Data drift detection. Monitoring changes in the distribution of input data over time, which can indicate that the data the model is now seeing is different from what it was trained on.
  • Retraining and recalibration. Establishing clear protocols for when and how models should be retrained or recalibrated using updated data to maintain their accuracy and relevance. This might involve setting up automated alerts for performance degradation.

Data Governance Implementation Challenges in Clinical Trials

Addressing technical issues that call for strategic planning is an important part of enforcing data governance. Here are the issues in question:

System integration and interoperability. Trials often depend on legacy EDC systems, lab platforms, imaging repositories, and ePRO tools. Merging these with modern data

lakes and analytics tools requires middleware, APIs, and ETL pipelines. Uniform data standards like CDISC or HL7 FHIR are key to interoperability. Without them, data flows between systems can stall.

Data consistency and quality. Trial data comes from patients, labs, devices, and investigators – each a potential source of error. Cleaning and standardizing structured and unstructured data in real time is a challenge. ML models can flag outliers, de-duplicate entries, and validate schemas. This cuts down on protocol deviations and enhances signal detection.

Performance and scalability. As trials grow – especially decentralized or multi-country ones – governance systems must scale. Distributed frameworks like Spark help manage massive lab or imaging datasets. Streamlining pipelines and indexing ensures timely data reviews and interim analyses.

Security, privacy, and compliance automation. HIPAA, GDPR, and 21 CFR Part 11 demand strict controls. Tokenization, encryption, and role-based access limit data exposure. Real-time audit trails, masking routines, and compliance automation baked into CI/CD pipelines help reduce human error and meet inspection-readiness standards.

Metadata and lineage tracking. Clinical trials need full traceability. Systems must auto-capture metadata and track lineage – from source to analysis. Merging inputs from CRFs, labs, and wearables into a searchable catalog helps verify results, troubleshoot issues, and support regulatory audits.

Managing change in dispersed settings. Protocol amendments, lab updates, or system migrations can break data flows. Versioning tools and schema tracking detect changes early. Containerization allows isolated updates, reducing the risk of downstream disruptions.

Analytics and monitoring infrastructure. Real-time insight into data quality, pipeline health, and compliance gaps is non-negotiable. Dashboards, anomaly detection tools, and SIEM integration support proactive responses to security threats or data drift – before they derail trial timelines.

Effective Data Governance in Clinical Trials with Avenga

Strong data governance is essential to the success of clinical trials. As data volumes grow, so do the risks. A single breach can lead to major financial and reputational damage, as seen in the $4.8 million penalty faced by Columbia University and New York-Presbyterian Hospital in 2014 after a patient data exposure incident.

A solid governance framework helps achieve compliance, protects patient privacy, and improves data quality – key factors in accelerating trial timelines and meeting regulatory standards.

Need help building or optimizing your data governance approach?

Contact Us