In this video interview, Kent Thoelke, CEO of Paradigm Health, outlines why anti-kickback guidance and modern EHR-integrated trial matching technology must work in tandem to reach representative patient populations at the community level.
Commentary|Videos|February 19, 2026
Why Sponsors Must Act Now to Stay Competitive
Author(s)Angela Zubel, Andy Studna, Senior Editor
Angela Zubel, chief development officer, Debiopharm, emphasizes that organizations willing to standardize data and adopt practical AI tools are already gaining efficiency, cost savings, and stronger real-time oversight across development programs.
Advertisement
In a recent video interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Angela Zubel, chief development officer, Debiopharm, described 2026 as an implementation year for AI and advanced analytics in drug development. She explained that many technologies had moved beyond pilot testing and were ready for broader adoption across clinical operations. Zubel highlighted opportunities to shorten timelines, reduce costs, and improve oversight through real-time monitoring, AI-supported site selection, and predictive analytics for compound prioritization. While acknowledging ongoing limitations in predictive modeling—particularly in oncology—she emphasized the importance of organizational openness to innovation. Sponsors that proactively standardized data, adopted practical AI tools, and experimented responsibly, she noted, were already seeing measurable gains in efficiency and competitiveness.
Editor's note: This transcript is a lightly edited rendering of the original audio/video content. It may contain errors, informal language, or omissions as spoken in the original recording.
ACT: What should sponsors and trial teams be preparing for now to stay competitive as new technologies reshape clinical development workflows?
Zubel: To stay competitive, sponsors and trial teams need to be open to innovation and not delay adoption out of caution.
Some organizations prefer a wait-and-see approach, hoping to choose the most successful tools later. That may work for large companies, but as a smaller organization, we’ve benefited from testing and implementing solutions quickly. We’ve already seen significant efficiencies.
For example, we’ve standardized our databases, which allows us to review data in real time instead of waiting for CRO data transfers. That alone has improved our data oversight dramatically. We’re also using AI tools for tasks like medical writing, drafting protocols, preparing investigator brochures, and generating repetitive documentation.
These tools allow us to work more efficiently, reduce manual effort, and require fewer personnel for routine tasks. The challenge now is selecting the right solutions, because there are many innovative companies in the space and it’s difficult to predict which will ultimately lead.
But if you’re willing to experiment responsibly, the savings in time and cost are already very clear.
Advertisement
Related to this article
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, argues that CROs must act as orchestrators rather than aggregators—and that the real test of any AI ecosystem is whether it reduces sponsor coordination burden or just hands it back to them.
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, identifies three recurring failure modes in AI governance frameworks—and explains why responsible AI must be an ongoing operating discipline, not a one-time approval gate.
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, explains why the shift from narrow AI tools to a continuous learning clinical operating system is where the real operational value lies—and what it takes to get there.
In this Q&A, Saamir Pasha and Carole Berini, PhD, of Ontada discuss what it takes to harmonize fragmented oncology data into reliable real-world evidence, how lab markers can proxy for missing functional status data, and where the biggest remaining barriers to consistent RWE generation lie.
Medical writing capacity pressure is fundamentally a talent development problem, not a technology problem, since hybrid resourcing and AI cannot substitute for the experienced judgment needed to review AI output and mentor the next generation of writers.
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trending on Applied Clinical Trials Online
1
How Much of the Community Participation Gap Is About Infrastructure, Not Willingness?
2
Closing the Medical Writing Capacity Gap: Why Training Beats Technology
3
Measuring What Matters: Realigning Clinical Endpoints with Patient Reality
4
Clinical Trials Do Not Have a Data Problem, They Have a Decision-Readiness Problem
5