By Asad KhanThere's a particular kind of energy at the World Vaccine Congress that's hard to describe unless you've been in it. Hundreds of scientists, executives, policymakers, pharma leaders, CRO teams, and site networks, all in one convention centre, all sitting with the same fundamental tension. We know how to make vaccines that save lives. So why does getting them to patients still take so long?I spent three days in Washington this week as part of the Medable team. Washington in late March meant that the cherry blossoms were just past their peak but still stunning, and catching them along the Tidal Basin between sessions was one of those small, unexpected gifts that a busy conference week doesn't always make room for.For the conference, I came in with a clear intention. I wanted to reconnect with partners I respect, listen more than I talk, and have honest conversations about where this industry is and where it needs to go. What I didn't fully anticipate was how much the week would reinforce something I already believed but needed reminding of.The urgency is real. And it's shared.The mood in the roomThe congress opened with a keynote from senior US government leadership on federal strategy for public health and pandemic preparedness. The fact that the speaker lineup was still being confirmed close to the event said something in itself. The policy ground under the vaccine industry is shifting, and nobody in that opening session pretended otherwise.Nicole Lurie from CEPI was direct about it during the pandemic preparedness plenary. "We have a long way to go to rebuild trust, not just in the US but globally." That landed with weight in the room. Because the trust deficit isn't just about public perception of vaccines. It runs deeper, into data sharing, into international cooperation, into whether countries will report surveillance information when there are real social and economic consequences for doing so. No platform fixes that. It's a human problem before it's a technology problem.What I kept noticing alongside all of that was a stubborn determination to keep going. Scientists presenting new data, site networks sharing what's working, regulatory specialists wrestling with AI governance frameworks in real time. Nobody was waiting for the policy environment to sort itself out. That resilience is one of the things I find most compelling about this community.The AI conversation nobody's fully figured out yetThomas Waite, Deputy Chief Medical Officer at the UK Department of Health, said something that hasn't left me. "Maintaining public trust when deploying AI surveillance agents is challenging." He also raised the point that if you're training AI on datasets where certain populations are over or underrepresented, you risk making existing inequalities worse. It's not just about what AI can do. It's about how you do it and who it serves.In almost every conversation I had at the congress, excitement about AI's potential existed right alongside genuine uncertainty about whether it can be trusted and governed responsibly. I think both of those things are true at the same time. The potential is real. So is the responsibility. The companies that'll matter in five years are the ones holding both of those thoughts without letting one crowd out the other.The question the whole congress was really askingCristina Cassetti from CEPI and WHO framed something that stuck with me. "How do we weave all responsibilities into one unit? When there's an outbreak, it's always chaotic." The argument from the main stage was that you can't build rapid response infrastructure in the middle of a crisis. It has to already exist.That felt directly relevant to everything I think about in my day job. The systems, processes, and partnerships that let trials move at the speed the science demands have to be in place before the pressure arrives. You can't retrofit speed into something built that is slow.COVID proved that when urgency is real and barriers are genuinely removed, trials can move at a pace nobody thought possible. The question I came to Medable to work on is why that should require a global emergency to unlock. Every unnecessary delay in trial startup or enrollment or conduct is a delay in patient access to therapies that could genuinely change or save lives. That's not a commercial point. It's a human one.What we shared over dinnerOn Tuesday evening Medable hosted an intimate dinner at Ocean Prime for a group of vaccine development leaders. There were small tables, honest exchanges, no polished presentation competing with the actual conversation.Our guests came from right across the clinical trial ecosystem, pharma, biotech, site networks, and CROs. Chief executives, chief medical officers, regulatory leaders, portfolio directors, and clinical operations specialists. People who design trials and people who run them at scale and people who are responsible for the vaccines themselves. The whole ecosystem around one table.I shared Medable's 1:1:1 vision, one day to start a study, one day to open enrollment, one year to complete study conduct. Not as a pitch. As an honest articulation of what we're genuinely building toward and why it matters.What surprised me was how it landed. The response wasn't just polite interest. It was recognition. Immediate and consistent, regardless of where people sat in the ecosystem. Every person in that room had felt that friction from their own angle.My colleague Toai then gave a live demonstration of some of the technology behind that vision. Watching the room engage with it, the questions people asked, the connections they drew to their own programmes, reminded me why showing something real matters so much more than describing it. One result I shared made that concrete in a way no slide ever could. A recent vaccine megatrial we supported delivered 100% cohort enrollment within five days, at a scale where weeks or months would've been completely normal. That study became a blueprint, that blueprint became a programme, and three additional vaccine trials launched immediately after. Nobody needed me to explain what that meant. They'd all lived the alternative.The conversation that mattered mostHowever, the most memorable part of the evening came up naturally around the table and it's stayed with me more than anything else from the week.The people in that room care deeply about what they do. They're genuinely invested in vaccine development, they live the science,and they want to get safe and effective vaccines to the people who need them. That passion was unmistakable.Yet, almost every person there described being held back by the same things. Manual processes. Paper. Operational friction that really shouldn't exist in 2026. Systems designed around how trials used to run rather than how they need to run now.What came through just as strongly was a real fatigue with vendors. Not with technology. With a particular kind of vendor relationship where someone sells you a solution without ever truly understanding your problem, where the pitch is confident but the partnership is thin. Where you end up feeling like a number rather than a partner.That hit me hard, because I think it's the most honest thing the industry is trying to communicate to technology companies right now. Better tools aren't enough on their own. Real partnership combined with the right technology is what'll actually shift the status quo. You can't have one without the other. It's also the standard I try to hold myself to, and a conversation like that one is a reminder of why it matters.What I'm taking awayThe policy environment is genuinely uncertain and the congress didn't try to dress that up. The questions around AI governance and trust are real and unresolved. But what I felt most strongly across the whole week was something much simpler. The people in this industry are committed to getting it right. The challenge isn't will or capability. It's the infrastructure and the processes and the weight of how things have always been done.The work is urgent. The community doing it is serious. And what'll move it forward isn't technology on its own. It's technology in the hands of people who've taken the time to genuinely understand the problem they're there to solve.That's why I do this. A week in Washington reminded me not to take it for granted.‍‍
Blog posts

From the Congress floor to the dinner table: A Week in Washington that reminded me why this work matters

There's a particular kind of energy at the World Vaccine Congress that's hard to describe unless you've been in it. Hundreds of scientists, executives, policymakers, pharma leaders, CRO teams, and site networks, all in one convention centre, all sitting with the same fundamental tension. We know how to make vaccines that save lives. So why does getting them to patients still take so long?

I spent three days in Washington this week as part of the Medable team. Washington in late March meant that the cherry blossoms were just past their peak but still stunning, and catching them along the Tidal Basin between sessions was one of those small, unexpected gifts that a busy conference week doesn't always make room for.

For the conference, I came in with a clear intention. I wanted to reconnect with partners I respect, listen more than I talk, and have honest conversations about where this industry is and where it needs to go. What I didn't fully anticipate was how much the week would reinforce something I already believed but needed reminding of.

The urgency is real. And it's shared.

Agentic AI doesn’t require perfect clinical trial data. Learn why “good enough” data can already drive real impact for sponsors and CROs.
Blog posts

Compounding interest: Why “good enough” data is good enough for agentic AI

Let’s ask a trick question. 

Do you think your organization’s data is ready for AI, or AI Agents?

Most sponsors and CROs instinctively answer “not yet.” What this really means is that they don’t believe their data isn’t fully centralized, dictionaries aren’t perfectly aligned, and too many systems still operate in parallel. The result is that AI gets parked on the roadmap, waiting for a future state where everything is clean, standardized, and coordinated.

Here’s the twist; waiting for that moment is very thing holding organizations back.

When it comes to implementing agentic AI, the bigger risk right now isn’t imperfect data. Instead, it’s waiting for perfection before acting.

Blog posts

eCOA standards and KPIs to include in your next RFI

eCOA
6 min

According to Gartner, a request for information, or a request for proposal, is defined as “both the process and documentation used in soliciting bids for potential business or IT solutions required by an enterprise or government agency. The RFI document typically outlines a statement of requirements (SOR) to be met by prospective respondents wishing to make a bid to deliver the required solutions. It might cover products and/or services to meet the given requirements.”

Yet, for anyone entering into a long-term business agreement, a well-written RFI can do so much more than just assess and collect vendor capabilities. 

For the last decade, Medable has been transforming the capabilities of organizations across clinical research using the latest in new technologies. In this time, we’ve learned the best RFIs are able to define what success looks like, create alignment on measurable outcomes, and establish accountability on roles and responsibilities well before a contract is ever signed. When done correctly, it becomes a decision-making framework that offers clear vision to both organizations.

Recently, Medable received two RFIs around eCOA from top pharmaceutical organizations. They stood out to us because they were structured around performance, not promises, a distinction that makes all the difference.

Blog posts

Paper COAs in 2026? It’s not “cheaper,” it’s riskier

eCOA
6 min

eCOA’s time has come. The market is currently estimated to be worth $2.3 billion, with projections showing it reaching nearly $5 billion by 2030. Despite this, paper still plays a prominent role for some clinical trials today.  

At first glance, paper may seem simple and familiar, even economical. However, in today’s regulatory and operational environment, paper COAs are not a risk averse choice when held to the standards of what sponsors, CROs, and regulators are looking for trial data to prove.  

Blog posts

Innovation Evidence : A Tufts CSDD workshop

In the five years since the pandemic, decentralized trial elements have solidified their status in medical product development. 

Trials with decentralized elements have moved past the “pilot” phase. The question is no longer whether we can operationalize decentralized trial components, it's whether we’re doing it thoughtfully at the pace patients deserve. Our industry is ready to optimize the elements for the trial based on available evidence.  

That’s exactly why Medable, in collaboration with and facilitated by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD), has launched the Innovation Evidence Workshop series. 

Last November, the inaugural, invitation-only workshop brought leaders from 20 pharmaceutical, biotech, and CRO organizations together in Boston, with representation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Harvard MRCT Center, Tufts CSDD, and Medable.

Blog posts

What happened at Scope Summit 2026

SCOPE
6 min

To many, the SCOPE Summit is the year’s “newsroom,” setting the stage for what hot topics and driving forces will dominate the coming year. 

With this year’s conference winding down, we’re once again offering a glimpse into the evolving operational and technological conversations shaping the future of trials with our recap below.  

Blog posts

Everest analysis: How Medable eCOA solves speed, patient experience, and customer needs

eCOA has moved from a supporting tool to a foundational pillar of modern clinical trials, and Everest Group agrees. In its inaugural eCOA Products PEAK Matrix Assessment, Everest named Medable a Leader, citing strong market impact, accelerated timelines, and a platform built for real-world trial complexity. As the eCOA market surges toward nearly $1B in value, this recognition underscores how speed, patient experience, and AI-driven innovation are reshaping how trials are designed, launched, and scaled globally.

Blog posts

What happened at JPM 2026?

JPM
6 min

Each January, the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference sets the tone for the life sciences industry, serving as the year’s most influential gathering of biotech, pharma, investors, and dealmakers. 

This year was no different. 

Thus, we checked in with our conference attendees, booth visitors, and more to see what they thought were this year’s trend-setting takeaways.

Blog posts

How Agentic AI is transforming life sciences discovery and operations

The numbers are in, and they spell change for life sciences. 

That’s because nearly three-quarters (73%) of global pharmaceutical organizations are actively planning, piloting, or deploying agentic AI initiatives

This widespread means agentic AI is no longer a futuristic concept, but a present-day imperative for staying competitive and delivering life-changing medicines faster.

For those not yet in the know, agentic AI is a sophisticated form of AI designed not just to analyze data, but to act autonomously, plan, reason, and execute complex, multi-step tasks. This goes far beyond traditional automation. Instead, agentic AI is about creating intelligent systems that can drive innovation, accelerate drug development, and optimize operations like never before.

So, which companies are leading the charge, and how exactly are these intelligent agents reshaping the pharma landscape? Let's dive into the specifics.

Blog posts

Playing catch-up: FDA wants “patient’s voice” ePRO in your oncology trial

ePRO
6 min

For years now, the FDA has been making one point crystal clear to sponsors and CROs across our industry; they want the patient voice incorporated whenever possible in oncology trials.

The FDA's initiative is driven by the recognition that a patient's personal experience with a disease and its treatment is a unique and essential measure of a medical product's benefit and risk.

  • Rationale: The FDA explicitly states that "patients provide a unique perspective on treatment effectiveness" and "some treatment effects are known only to the patient." Outcomes that truly matter to patients, such as functioning, quality of life, and the burden of side effects, are often best measured directly by the patient.
  • Mandate: The Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) effort, codified in part by the 21st Century Cures Act, requires the inclusion of such patient experience data in clinical research.
  • Guidance series: To formalize this approach, the FDA has released a series of methodological guidance documents (the PFDD Guidance Series) that outline how stakeholders should collect, submit, and use patient input to inform medical product development.

Blog posts

Build vs buy: A guide on adopting AI agents for life sciences

“Big corporations can’t rely on their internal speed to match the transformation that is happening in the world. As soon as I know a competitor has decided to build something itself, I know it has lost.” 

These candid sentences from Sanofi CEO, showcase one of the most common questions that’s at the forefront of every pharmaceutical company’s mind; whether to build or buy your way into the agentic and generative AI revolutions. 

In life sciences, many teams start with the same instinct. They see a capable large language model, stand up a proof of concept, and feel close to a breakthrough. For most of us, AI prototypes can look magical. A chatbot summarizes visit reports, drafts emails, or answers protocol questions in minutes. The experience is so strong that teams assume production is a short step away.

Unfortunately, the gap is much bigger than it looks. 

According to a recent MIT study, 95% of AI pilots will fail, as they note that “Only 5% of custom GenAI tools survive the pilot-to-production cliff, while generic chatbots hit 83% adoption for trivial tasks but stall the moment workflows demand context and customization.”

Like MIT’s example shows, moving from prototype to production in clinical research means building something validated, compliant, scalable, and integrated into real workflows. That takes far more than clever prompts. It requires domain grounding, continuous monitoring, retraining loops, robust tool orchestration, and evidence that the system is safe and auditable under regulations like GxP, HIPAA, and 21 CFR Part 11.

Many organizations only discover the hidden costs after they have committed. Internal teams often invest for two years, spend millions in sunk cost, and still never reach a dependable clinical grade system. The illusion comes from how easy it is to get an early demo working, and how hard it is to make that demo survive contact with trial reality. 

Blog posts

Shaping intelligence: How a “human in the loop” keeps AI anchored

It’s been said that the only constant in the world is change. 

For decades, clinical trials have been a human only endeavor, with teams of clinicians, study teams, and patients working hand in hand to bring the latest molecules to market. Now, a new central actor has entered the clinical paradigm, agentic artificial intelligence. 

Only three years after OpenAI kicked off the artificial intelligence arms race, AI has gone from requiring users to prompt it, to pre-emptively identifying bottlenecks, safety risks, and more, thanks to agentic AI. 

Agentic AI is an autonomous, goal-oriented system that uses reasoning and external tools to independently plan, execute, and adapt multi-step actions with minimal human intervention to achieve complex objectives. 

Sponsors and CROs have begun using AI agents across their workforces to improve trials in ways that humans have traditionally struggled to accomplish. For instance, organizations have been creating AI agents to analyze prior trial protocols, benefiting from lessons learned across prior trials and real-world outcomes, enabling teams to anticipate risks and automating elements of submission drafting. Anomaly detection has helped teams better identify outliers in operational metrics or safety signals, prompting early interventions. Document intelligence accelerates medical writing by grounding generative outputs in verified data, which reduces cycle time without sacrificing accuracy. 

However, in each of these use cases, humans remain squarely “in the loop.” Or rather, the decision making isn’t left entirely to AI. Instead, the objective is to augment clinical, regulatory, and legal teams with tools that surface the right information at the right time.

This core concept, keeping a human in the loop, is essential to clinical decision making and operations as agentic AIs, while powerful, are not inherently suited to fully autonomous operation in all regulated contexts.

See how Agent Studio can transform your trials.