Commentary|Videos|June 30, 2026

Why Four Regulatory Scenarios Could De-Risk Selective Safety Data Collection

In this video interview, Rob DiCicco, vice president of portfolio management at TransCelerate Biopharma, explains how four jointly developed regulatory scenarios give sponsors a blueprint for adopting selective safety data collection with greater confidence and stronger agency alignment.

Full interview summary

In a recent video interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Rob DiCicco, vice president of portfolio management at TransCelerate Biopharma, discussed the collaborative work underway with FDA and CTTI to explore selective safety data collection as a model for de-risking and modernizing clinical trial design. He opened by highlighting four regulatory scenarios developed across different therapy areas and asset maturity levels, describing them as a blueprint that sponsors can use to identify where this approach might fit within their own portfolios and engage the agency with greater confidence and the right cross-functional representation.

DiCicco pointed to concrete evidence supporting the approach, citing a CTTI white paper that found reductions of 50 to 75% in the number of visits and assessments across three programs using selective safety data collection, with no corresponding loss in data quality. He emphasized that this is not zero safety data collection, but a selective approach applied specifically to mature assets with robust existing safety and efficacy data, where the risk of missing a meaningful signal is low.

He connected the approach directly to the broader push toward decentralized and pragmatic trial designs, arguing that the real value lies not in running a single pragmatic or decentralized trial successfully, but in building the scalability to repeat that success across a sponsor's portfolio. DiCicco also stressed that meaningful progress requires alignment not just between regulators and sponsors, but across a broader ecosystem that includes healthcare practitioners and patient communities, pointing to the ICH E6(R3) update's emphasis on quality by design and stakeholder engagement as a structural opportunity to formalize that collaboration.

He closed with an optimistic outlook on where selective safety data collection could lead, framing it as an entry point into a broader practice of simplification that could ease the operational burden of pragmatic and decentralized trials more broadly, while also helping address a shrinking investigator pool by making trial participation more accessible and sustainable for sites.


Related to this article

What This Study Means for Sponsors Still Struggling to Justify RBQM at Scale
In this video interview, Sylviane de Viron of CluePoints and Abigail Dirks of Tufts CSDD explain how ICH E6(R3) and new empirical evidence of RBQM's net financial impact give sponsors the tools they need to build the multi-functional buy-in required for successful adoption—and why RBQM only delivers full value when it replaces, not supplements, traditional monitoring.
The Human Side of Clinical Trials: How Measuring Readiness at Training Predicts Trial Risk Before It Shows Up in the Data
This episode of The Human Side of Clinical Trials, hosted by Brian S. McGowan, PhD, FACEHP, chief learning officer and co-founder of ArcheMedX, Inc., and Kelly Ritch, chief operating officer of ArcheMedX, Inc., explores why training completion metrics like attendance and quiz scores fail to capture true study readiness, and how measuring both competence and confidence can reveal trial risks before enrollment even begins.
Why Seizure Counts Alone Can't Define Success in Epilepsy Trials
In this video interview, Amélie Lothe, global medical community head for rare epilepsies at UCB Pharma, explains why the full burden of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies extends far beyond clinical symptoms—and why endpoints must reflect what families are actually hoping for.