
News|Articles|May 27, 2026
The Current State of DEI in Clinical Trials: Progress, Pressure, and the Path Forward
Author(s)Andy Studna, Senior Editor
Despite political headwinds, life sciences leaders are holding their ground on DEI, but translating organizational commitment into representative enrollment requires structural changes to protocol design, site selection, and community engagement that most of the industry has yet to fully make.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The industry has been discussing clinical trial diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for decades. What is different now is the convergence of regulatory expectations, organizational accountability structures, and a political environment that is simultaneously creating pressure and hesitancy. Understanding where progress is real, where it is stalling, and what is actually working is more important than ever.
Related to this article

The clinical research industry talks about patient-centeredness constantly but embeds it too late, too narrowly, and without clear ownership, and the cost shows up in enrollment failures, protocol deviations, and outcomes that don't reflect what patients actually care about.

Cell and gene therapy access expands into community care settings only when operational coordination, site readiness, and supply chain standardization become first-order priorities equivalent to manufacturing capacity, requiring standardized processes, digital integration, and distributed logistics networks.

Mixed FSP and FSO models are gaining ground as sponsors seek agility and resource flexibility, but the oversight infrastructure, audit trails, and accountability structures needed to run them well and survive regulatory inspection are consistently lagging behind the model itself.

In this video interview, Claire Riches, VP of clinical solutions at Citeline, explains how AI is shifting trial risk management from reactive to proactive—enabling sponsors to pressure-test protocols and anticipate pivots before a single patient is enrolled.

In this video interview, Claire Riches, VP of clinical solutions at Citeline, explains why combining analog trial performance data with real-world patient data and site-level recruitment history gives sponsors a far more honest picture of whether their enrollment assumptions are actually achievable.

Decentralized trial models have demonstrated real gains in enrollment performance and patient access, but operational switching costs, fragmented technology stacks, and unresolved gaps in the patient-site relationship raise a question the industry has been slow to confront directly.

Hierarchical composite endpoints analyzed through pairwise comparisons more accurately reflect multifaceted treatment benefit than time-to-first-event composites, but transparent outcome prioritization, patient involvement in ranking, and reporting of Net Treatment Benefit remain underutilized despite their importance to interpretation.
Advertisement
Advertisement

