In this video interview, Kelli Aufderheide, director, laboratory decentralized trial solutions, IQVIA Laboratories, discusses the differences between working with local labs and central labs.
In a recent interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Kelli Aufderheide, director, laboratory decentralized trial solutions, IQVIA Laboratories, discussed the benefits of central and local labs for clinical trials. Central labs offer harmonized test menus, standardized data collection, and global reach, ensuring consistent results across labs. Local labs, often co-located with investigator sites, provide quick turnaround times crucial for urgent patient care. In a world of complex clinical trials, stakeholders should support sites by focusing on planning, training, and incorporating feedback to streamline processes and reduce manual work.
A transcript of Aufderheide’s conversation with ACT can be found below.
ACT: As it is important to take in the site perspective on their work with central labs or local labs, is there a noticeable difference in how they work with each?
Aufderheide: Yes, absolutely. There are complexities from a site perspective, and working with central labs, we're not the only central lab out there, and I think it would be safe to say that every central lab does things a little bit differently. If you have investigator sites that are working with multiple central labs, they are having to know from each lab perspective what is expected of them. The kits may be designed a little bit different, the way that they manage their supplies and manage their data and everything might be done a little bit different from each of the central labs’ perspectives, so that adds complexity to the site model.
Another aspect is a lot of times we see that the investigator sites have a preference for local labs because they are familiar with them. They know they're going to get their results quicker than sending it to a central lab. One of the key features of a site perspective is if they're using a local lab, a lot of times that data still has to get into the central lab database or the sponsor’s data set. How does that happen? That may be a manual data entry by the site. It may require some kind of data uptake by the central lab or even by the CRO or the sponsor, so it adds a little bit of complexity to managing the data on the back end, and then it also will tend to add some manual work on the site's side.
Stay current in clinical research with Applied Clinical Trials, providing expert insights, regulatory updates, and practical strategies for successful clinical trial design and execution.
Managing Side Effects and Dosing in Off-Label GLP-1 Use with Help from Real-World Evidence
July 18th 2025Shipra Patel, global therapeutic area section head, endocrinology, global head, pediatrics, Parexel, explains how real-world data is helping researchers navigate gastrointestinal side effects, dose flexibility, and long-term tolerability in off-label GLP-1 use.
Improving Relationships and Diversifying the Site Selection Process
April 17th 2025In this episode of the Applied Clinical Trials Podcast, Liz Beatty, co-founder and chief strategy officer, Inato, discusses a number of topics around site engagement including community-based sites, the role of technology in improving site/sponsor relationships, how increased operational costs are impacting the industry, and more.
2025 DIA Annual Meeting: Why AI and Automation Are Set to Become the New Normal in Clinical Research
June 20th 2025Peter Ronco, CEO, Emmes, shares his long-term vision for artificial intelligence in clinical research, from making automation routine to improving drug discovery, transforming regulatory oversight, reducing animal testing, and promoting ethical, equitable data use worldwide.