Abstract
• Frequent substantial modifications for initiating new trial parts slow down development and reduce transparency.
• Combining healthy volunteers and patients in a single early-phase trial raises safety, feasibility, and regulatory concerns.
• A multi-stakeholder consensus in Germany identified regulatory pathways to enable seamless transitions within integrated protocols for non-ATMP (advanced therapy medicinal product), non-oncology trials.
• The EMA FIH (first-in-human) guideline supports predefined transitions if scope, safety thresholds, and decision rules are clearly described.
• The German guardrail concept clarifies when transitions do not require a substantial modification, enhancing planning certainty.
• Actionable recommendations are provided on protocol design, decision criteria, and governance structures to enable early inclusion of patients without compromising safety or compliance.
• First positive experience has been gained with the presented framework in Germany.
1 Introduction
Combining separate smaller clinical trials into a single protocol has become common practice in early medicines development over the past decade (
Erb-Zohar et al., 2018;
Fruhner et al., 2017). For first-in-human trials (FIH), a single ascending dose (SAD) part followed by a multiple ascending dose (MAD) part is
de factothe standard approach. This approach has benefits for sponsors and investigators:
Sponsors benefit from unified planning and submission processes, and improved data integrity due to harmonised methodologies and centralised oversight. Adaptive designs allow for overlapping parts, streamlining development timelines. Cross-part pooling of placebo trial participants can further optimise sample sizes and statistical power.
Investigators also benefit by becoming increasingly familiar with the investigational medicinal product (IMP) over the course of conducting several sub-trials, enabling more nuanced safety monitoring and interpretation of observations. Clinical trial participants in later phases benefit from this accumulated experience and oversight.
Despite these advantages, increasing complexity of early clinical trials poses significant challenges to ensure safety and wellbeing of trial participants and maintain data integrity and scientific validity. Furthermore, overly lengthy protocols impair readability and increase risks of implementation errors. Prolonged studies that continually add sub-parts via substantial modifications risk regulatory opacity, particularly regarding EU transparency requirements (European Medicines Agency, 2025). Timely publication of trial outcomes should be prioritised to enhance transparency and support informed decision-making among stakeholders, including patient advocacy groups. Thus, the wish for combining various sub-trials needs to be carefully balanced with ICH requirements for clarity and simplicity in design, conduct and presentation of a trial (ICH, 1995; ICH, 2021).
Also, sponsors struggle with ambiguity of when substantial modifications are required under EU Clinical Trial Regulation 536/2014 or expected by authorities when transitioning from one trial part to the next. Although the EMA FIH guideline (European Medicines Agency, 2017) provides core principles for addressing such questions, it leaves room for interpretation—especially regarding patient inclusion, governance structures, and transition criteria within integrated protocols.
In response, German regulatory authorities have proposed—based on the experience with SAD/MAD transitions in healthy volunteers—the “guardrail concept” (BfArM and PEI, 2024) to define protocol-internal boundaries that allow progression without requiring new approvals. This paper seeks to expand on the guidance of this guardrail concept by consolidating regulatory and ethical expectations into a coherent framework with three key components: (1) defining the permissible scope of integrated protocols, (2) establishing robust, data-driven criteria for transitions between trial parts, and (3) specifying governance processes for transitioning to new trial parts.
By providing actionable, consensus-based recommendations, this brief supports sponsors in designing compliant, flexible, and patient-inclusive early-phase trials. The framework presented here reflects current best practices and the regulatory consensus in Germany derived from a meeting in Bonn in December 2023 (AGAH Discussion Forum with participants from Regulatory Authorities, Ethics Committees, Research Organisations and Sponsors) around the two aspects of handling substantial modifications and the possibility of including patients in such trials.
2 Policy review on combined protocols
The key guideline for integrating sub-studies into a single protocol in Europe is the “Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human (FIH) and early clinical trials with investigational medicinal products” (European Medicines Agency, 2017), further on referred to as “EMA FIH” in this text. The 2017 revision introduced integrated protocols, primarily to guide transitions from SAD to MAD in healthy volunteers. The scope of EMA FIH only covers clinical trials with new chemical and biotechnological entities. ATMP (advanced therapy medicinal product) and oncology trials are outside this paper’s scope.
EMA FIH outlines three critical elements which must be defined in an integrated early-phase trial design: (1) the scope of what can be combined in a single protocol, (2) the criteria for progressing from one trial part to the next, and (3) the decision-making process and responsible parties. These steps form the regulatory and operational backbone for constructing complex protocols that include different populations or treatment regimens while ensuring participant safety and regulatory compliance.
2.1 Scope: What can be combined in a single protocol?
EMA FIH does not restrict which or how many trial parts might be combined. The guideline generally covers trials on safety, tolerability, PK (pharmacokinetics) and PD (pharmacodynamics). Section 2 of the guideline explicitly mentions that the following research interests might be included in such a trial: “These trials may also include collection of data on, e.g., food or drug interactions, different age groups or gender, proof of concept and relative bioavailability of different formulations”. The guideline acknowledges that such trials may involve both healthy volunteers and patients. It states: “These trials are often undertaken in healthy volunteers but can also include patients.” Thus, combining populations is acceptable if justified. EMA FIH requires that “all parts (…) should be predefined within an integrated protocol” (Section 8.2.2), including the maximum number of participants, dosing regimens, and transition criteria.
Additional limitations are drawn from the Clinical Trials Coordination Group (CTCG), which calls for an overarching scientific hypothesis to tie all parts together (CTCG, 2019). ICH E8 (ICH, 2021) adds that protocols must remain operationally feasible and should avoid unnecessary complexity, reinforcing the need to limit scope to what is feasible and meaningful.
Thus, a protocol combining multiple dose regimens, populations, or sub-studies is acceptable if:
the scope is well-justified by a unifying hypothesis,
the design avoids avoidable complexity, and
each component’s contribution to the overarching research question is clearly described.
This understanding of scope aligns with ICH E8(R1), Section 4.3.1, which defines Human Pharmacology Studies as including PK, PD, safety, tolerability and—where appropriate—exploratory efficacy. Consolidating these elements within a single, methodologically coherent protocol is therefore both scientifically and regulatorily justified.
2.2 Decision criteria for progressing between trial parts
Transitions between trial parts—such as from SAD to MAD or from healthy volunteers to patients—must be based on predefined, data-driven decision rules. According to EMA FIH (Section 8.2.1): “The protocol should define dose escalation and stopping rules and other criteria guiding the decision to progress from one part of the trial to another.”
These rules must be based on the totality of data, including:
Safety data (e.g, adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory parameters, vital signs, ECG)
Pharmacokinetic (PK) data to assess exposure and compare it to nonclinical predictions
Pharmacodynamic (PD) data, if relevant and available
Section 6.7 of the guideline further requires that for patient populations, the starting dose is expected to have a minimal pharmacological effect and must be safe to use. In contrast, for healthy participants, the starting dose should stay below predicted PAD (pharmacologically active dose) exposure.
The guideline emphasises that escalation steps should be conservative and justified, especially once a pharmacologically active range has been reached. It explicitly advises that “when pharmacodynamic activity has been reached, dose increments above a two-fold increase should be avoided unless appropriately justified” (EMA FIH, Section 8.2.2).
The protocol should outline specific “stopping rules” that require dosing or progression to pause. Examples include:
Occurrence of serious or severe AEs judged related to the IMP
Safety signals in laboratory, ECG, or clinical parameters crossing predefined thresholds
Exposure levels exceeding pre-established PK limits
These rules act as guardrails for risk management. Clear documentation of such rules in the protocol facilitates timely decisions and regulatory alignment, especially in complex early clinical trials where flexibility must not compromise safety.
Optional parts and flexible design elements (e.g., optional cohorts) must also follow predefined boundaries. As stated in Section 8.2.2: “All parts and options within an integrated protocol should be predefined, and the data to be used to make decisions about proceeding should be clearly described.”
2.3 Governance of trial part transitions
EMA FIH underlines the need for a defined decision-making process. Typically, a decision-making group (DMG) evaluates whether criteria are met for transitions. Its composition (e.g., principal investigator (PI), sponsor representatives, possibly external experts) should be stated in the protocol.
EMA FIH does not mandate the use of an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) (European Medicines Agency, 2005) for early-phase trials. The German authorities BfArM (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte/PEI (Paul-Ehrlich Institute) have addressed this in their national recommendations for complex protocols (BfArM and PEI, 2024): it supports context-sensitive governance structures adapted to trial complexity and participant vulnerability.
In practice, decisions must follow:
Defined criteria,
Documented procedures, and
A DMG
While EMA FIH provides well-defined criteria for transitions between SAD and MAD parts in healthy volunteers, its guidance becomes less specific when considering the integration of patient cohorts into early-phase protocols. Nevertheless, the underlying principles—namely, the requirement for predefined boundaries, data-driven progression rules and clear governance—remain applicable.
Inclusion of patients is not a default option but requires careful justification by the absence of suitable PD readouts in healthy trial participants, the availability of an acceptable safety margin or the prospect of direct clinical benefit. When these conditions are met, the same framework that governs escalation and transition decisions in healthy volunteers can be extended to patient populations.
Similarly, the concept of predefined protocol limits—guardrails—applies also to broader transitions between trial parts. Section 8.2.2 of the EMA FIH guideline establishes that substantial modifications are required when changes exceed these predefined boundaries. This includes, for example, exceeding maximum exposure limits, introducing major alterations in escalation strategy or adjusting eligibility or stopping rules.
Accordingly, sponsors must define boundaries clearly to distinguish in-protocol adaptations from those requiring prior approval. The next section “Actionable recommendations” outlines how to operationalise these principles—ensuring scientific, ethical and regulatory robustness.
While EMA FIH is the most fundamental document for designing early-phase clinical trials, other guidance documents must also be considered for compliance and adequacy. These include but are not limited to:
Substance-specific guidelines (e.g., for monoclonal antibodies or small molecules) addressing pharmacology and risks.
Indication-specific guidelines on clinical efficacy and safety requirements, published by the EMA (Clinical efficacy and safety guidelines, European Medicines Agency).
These additional guidelines can impose specific requirements for patient selection, monitoring, and risk mitigation and must align with protocol design. Other general guidelines, such as ICH E8 (ICH, 2021), ICH E20 (ICH, 2025) and CTCG recommendations (CTCG, 2019) also offer supportive design guidance.
The three elements of an integrated protocol—definition of scope, decision criteria, and decision-making group—are summarised in Figure 1. While this framework is well established for transitions between SAD and MAD in healthy volunteers, its applicability to patient populations without requiring a substantial modification depends on the strength of justification and the robustness of predefined decision criteria. The following section outlines the key elements for developing such justifications and for formulating appropriate decision criteria.
FIGURE 1
Flowchart illustrating the German Guardrail concept within the context of EMA FIH guideline. It includes three main steps: defining trial scope, establishing transition pass criteria, and forming a decision-making group. The process leads to an integrated protocol without substantial modification.
3 Actionable recommendations
The multi-stakeholder discussion focused on practical strategies for designing and conducting integrated early-phase clinical trials, particularly those that include patient populations. The German regulatory authorities BfArM and PEI have recently published guidance on transitioning to patient-involving trial parts, which further inform this section (BfArM and PEI, 2024). The recommendations below provide concrete advice on how to present trial part transitions and justify decision-making processes within an integrated clinical trial protocol. It is acknowledged that each trial must ultimately be assessed on a case-by-case basis, applying the ‘totality of data’ principle outlined in the EMA FIH guideline. In this ‘totality of data’ context, non-clinical data or IMP characteristics might be understood as “overarching guardrails”. The recommendations in this section are therefore not prescriptive requirements, but serve as a practical toolkit to support justification and promote consistency in integrated early-phase designs.
3.1 Trial design and decision process in the protocol
Commonly used protocol templates (e.g., TransCelerate (Gill, 2014)) lack dedicated sections summarising the design logic and decision processes governing trial part progression. However, ICH M11 (currently in Step 2b (ICH, 2022)) recommends consolidating this information in Section 4.1, “Description of the Trial Design,” with further justifications to be presented in Section 4.2.
To improve clarity and transparency, we recommend summarising key decision points and criteria using structured formats such as bullet points or tables. Table 1 outlines the typical decision points that should be addressed, along with requirements for minimum datasets, evaluation timelines, and responsible parties.
TABLE 1
| 1. Key decision points | |
|---|---|
| Decision point | Explanation |
| Sentinels | Sentinel dosing in any cohort is generally considered appropriate and implies dosing of the active IMP (investigational medicinal product) in one participant, followed by an observation period before dosing the next. Deviations must be risk-justified in the protocol |
| Dose escalation | In line with EMA FIH’s (first-in-human), focus on exposure rather than absolute doses. Dose steps and maximum dose must be clearly linked to objectives (e.g., systemic exposure) and justified. Increments >2-fold above biologically active dose need thorough justification |
| Transition to new trial part | Requires pre-defined and unambiguous conditions to proceed without a substantial modification |
| Optional cohorts or trial parts | Planned options and conditions for adding or dropping parts must be specified |
| Cohort expansion | Optional expansions must be pre-specified and justified |
| Addition or shift of data collection timepoints | If emerging data (e.g., PK/biomarkers) suggest suboptimal timing, the protocol must define under which conditions adjustments are allowed |
| 2. Minimum dataset per decision point | |
|---|---|
| Data | Details |
| Safety data | Always required. Includes AE grading, physical examination, vital signs, clinical laboratory and ECG. Additional assessments based on, e.g., population, safety profile, MoA (mechanism of action) to be considered. Multi-centre trials must define inter-site communication |
| PK data | Expected unless justified. Required to link safety findings to exposure |
| PD data | Should be considered. Plateauing PD response may limit further escalation |
| Time after last dosing | Cut-off for data collection must be stated. Sentinel focus tmax, escalation/part transition PK/PD-driven |
| Evaluable trial participants | Cumulative assessment expected. If incomplete data are used for decision, this must be justified in the protocol |
| 3. Additional considerations | |
|---|---|
| Aspect | Details |
| Tailoring of criteria | Criteria should reflect MoA, non-clinical evidence, population, and trial phase. EMA FIH minimum standards apply |
| Cut-off values and lab re-tests | Must be pre-defined, including rules for re-measurement and context-sensitive interpretation |
| Multiple populations | Separate criteria may apply per population; to be reflected in stopping rule section |
| Decision maker | Must be named for each decision point: PI (principal investigator), PI + sponsor, or defined decision-making group (e.g., for escalation/transition). No decision may override the PI |
Considerations for possible decision points in an integrated early phase trial.
Staggering refers to spacing of dosing within a given cohort after sentinel dosing. There are two reasons for staggering:
Safety staggering should be considered as an additional risk mitigation tool, particularly in substances with a pharmacological risk profile that suggests the potential for early-onset serious adverse events (SAEs) or clinically relevant warning signals. Dosing is spaced to allow sufficient observation time before proceeding with subsequent participants. Staggering in this sense functions as an additional decision point in the trial. The pharmacological rationale, safety signals to be monitored, and the duration of observation would then be outlined in the protocol.
Organisational staggering refers to the spacing of dosings to ensure that sites can adequately respond to AEs occurring in close temporal proximity. This approach is driven by logistical capacity and ensures that staff and infrastructure would not be overburdened if intervention-requiring events occurred. This type of staggering is typically not outlined in the protocol but part of general suitability assessment of the trial site.
In FIH trials, safety and tolerability constitute the primary endpoints, and safety criteria underpin all key decisions. Accordingly, the grading of AE severity must be carefully justified. Grading systems should consider the required level of intervention, symptom tolerability, and impact on daily activities, and must extend beyond symptomatic AEs to include laboratory abnormalities and vital signs. Definitions should provide operational clarity while allowing sufficient flexibility to account for clinical context—for example, the same laboratory deviation may warrant different actions depending on the trial population’s vulnerability. Protocols should specify when confirmation of out-of-range laboratory results is required with analysis of a new sample. While sponsors may define study-specific grading criteria, established references such as the FDA toxicity grading scale for healthy volunteers (FDA, 2024) and the CTCAE (National Cancer Institute, 2017) may offer suitable frameworks.
3.2 Combining different populations
Before initiating a new trial part—particularly when transitioning from healthy volunteers to patient cohorts—it is essential that the preceding part has been sufficiently evaluated. Sponsors should ensure that all relevant safety, PK, and, where applicable, PD data have been collected, reviewed, and interpreted in line with the predefined criteria before proceeding to the next part. This sequential evaluation safeguards participants, upholds data integrity, and aligns with both regulatory expectations and ethical standards.
Including patient populations alongside healthy volunteers is increasingly explored in early-phase trials. When justified by the limitations of PD data in healthy trial participants, such integration can add valuable insights—but requires clear risk-benefit reasoning, appropriate safeguards, and a well-defined therapeutic context. Especially the specific patient risk arising from a lack of efficacy should be duly addressed when justifying the inclusion of a patient population.
Table 2 outlines key considerations and criteria for justifying inclusion of a patient population in the trial to support clinical trial planning.
TABLE 2
| Key points for justifying the scientific and clinical rationale |
| PD response in healthy trial participants not adequately assessable |
| Working within therapeutic dose range |
| Disease progress/stability of baseline data |
| Consequences of lack of efficacy |
| Possible differences in PK and safety profile between populations |
| Consideration of disease grade |
| Uncertainties with the IMP (investigational medicinal product) (first in class, limited safety data) |
| Ability to assign AEs to disease or IMP |
| Risk mitigation and study design considerations |
| Suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) profile |
| Risks deriving from the IMP with regard to PK predictability and activity/duration of action |
| Burden from trial procedures (often more demanding in early safety trials) |
| Need for pausing baseline therapy (‘do not harm’) |
| Co-medication use in patient population |
| Protocol and operational implications |
| Recruitability of trial participants |
| Meaningful definition of population through in-/exclusion criteria |
| Consideration of disease grade |
| Ethical and regulatory aspects |
| Qualification of the investigator, expertise with patient condition at the site |
| Informed consent adapted to specific patient risks |
| Predefinition of safety criteria and their application in patients |
| Clearly defined and documented responsibilities at site level |
Considerations for target populations in early clinical trials.
3.3 Route of administration: i.v. versus s.c.
The use of subcutaneous (s.c.) instead of intravenous (i.v.) route of administration is sometimes regarded as additional risk and therefore was discussed as well during the consensus meeting in the context of cohort/part transitioning requirements. Usually, in case of biologics, starting with an i. v. infusion is regarded as safer. Starting directly with s. c. administration, however, can be justified under certain conditions. While i. v. offers predictability and real-time control, s. c. may align better with development goals. Regulatory consensus now acknowledges that a mandatory i. v. lead-in is not always necessary when the considerations in Table 3 are being adhered to.
TABLE 3
| Topic | Consideration |
|---|---|
| i.v. requirement | For new medicines intended for s.c. administration only, there is no mandatory requirement for investigating the i.v. administration before the s.c. route is explored |
| Justification of s.c. only | It should be clearly described and justified in the protocol if and why the sponsor considers s.c. arms sufficient to address all relevant research questions |
| Need for i.v. arm(s) | The potential need of i.v. arm(s) should be derived from the specific questions to be addressed in the trial |
| PK relevance | For many clinically relevant PK and PK/PD-related questions, s.c. data—also in combination with nonclinical data and modeling—can replace i.v. clinical data |
| Dose selection | To account for unknown bioavailability after s.c. administration, doses should be selected assuming 100% bioavailability, unless otherwise justified |
| Dose escalation | Dose selection and escalation must consider the expected variability of exposure to mitigate risks at each step. Greater variability with s.c. does not require larger cohorts, as sizes are not based on formal sample size calculation |
| Safety monitoring | Planned safety monitoring and decision points must reflect PK/PD specificities of the chosen route (e.g., later tmax with s.c.). |
| Modeling and simulation | If meaningful and available, modeling and simulation summaries should be provided to support justification and facilitate protocol review |
Considerations for i.v./s.c administration in early clinical trials with biologics.
3.4 Involvement of independent experts
Integrated early-phase trials may not formally require an independent data monitoring committee (IDMC/DSMB), particularly in Germany. However, in scenarios involving vulnerable populations, long trial durations, or partially unblinding outcomes, the involvement of external expert reviewers can enhance transparency, safety oversight, and public trust.
Table 4 outlines specific conditions under which independent expert involvement should be considered. These are not regulatory requirements but reflect best practices drawn from both regulatory interpretation and stakeholder consensus.
TABLE 4
| Condition | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Trial duration and frequency of multiple dosing | Longer or repeated exposure increases risk; expert oversight supports ongoing risk assessment; independent interim analyses |
| Inclusion of patients (the more vulnerable, the higher the need for additional safety monitoring) | Vulnerable populations may require enhanced protection through independent expert input |
| In case observed effects unblind the trial team (e.g., certain adverse effects or PD reactions) | Independent experts can help interpret unblinded data objectively and manage potential bias |
| Assessments which need specialists to evaluate | Complex or specialised assessments benefit from external expertise to ensure accuracy and safety |
| Criticality of mechanism of action/treatment | High-risk or novel mechanisms may require external review to evaluate unexpected findings |
| Critical events (pause of the trial) or critical trial part transitions | Independent experts provide objective judgement during trial interruptions or key progression steps |
Conditions when involving independent experts should be considered.
3.5 Substantial modifications
A recurring concern for sponsors is whether the initiation of a new trial part constitutes a substantial modification. The German guardrail approach addresses this by allowing predefined boundaries for progression without triggering new submissions. The guardrails must be clearly described in the protocol and respected throughout.
Table 5 provides practical recommendations on how to define such boundaries for both regulatory and ethical oversight, including guidance on updating participant information and determining when a formal modification is required.
TABLE 5
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Protocol-defined boundaries | For trial part transitions, the protocol should clearly define the boundaries beyond which a substantial modification is required |
| Typical cases triggering substantial modifications (European Medicines Agency, 2017; European Commission, 2014; European Commission, 2025) | – Observed exposure exceeds approved maximum exposure – Steeper dose escalations than stipulated in the trial protocol – Events impacting the reference safety information – New data changing the risk-benefit assessment – Changes to the sample size – Changes to inclusion or exclusion criteria – Changes to discontinuation criteria/stopping rules – Changes in dose levels outside predefined decision criteri |
| Divergence of guardrails | Guardrails might differ between the national competent authority and the ethics committee |
| Participant information updates without re-assessment | The protocol should state the boundaries within which participant information can be updated for a new trial part without re-assessment |
| Typical updates covered by ‘EC guardrails’ | – Type, number and severity of related AEs – Doses, including highest dose, administered to humans – Number of participants treated with the IMP (investigational medicinal product) – Description of overall tolerability of the IMP |
| Principle of dynamic integration | Participant information must keep pace with the frequent integration of new information in a complex trial |
| Protocol-based information update rules | Integration of new information into the participant information must follow clear rules, outlined in the protocol |
Practical considerations: substantial modifications.
4 Conclusion
Integrated early-phase clinical trials that combine healthy participants and potential patient cohorts under a single protocol represent a modern and pragmatic approach to drug development. When properly planned and guided by predefined decision criteria, such designs can generate pharmacodynamic insights earlier in the development timeline, accelerate progression to later phases, and reduce the administrative burden caused by frequent substantial modifications.
EMA FIH provides a robust regulatory framework for these trials. However, as this paper highlights, additional clarification is needed—particularly regarding the integration of patient populations and the conditions under which transitions between trial parts do not require substantial modifications. The recently articulated German “guardrail” approach offers valuable guidance in this regard and may serve as a model for broader implementation.
By incorporating these principles and applying the actionable recommendations outlined in this policy brief, sponsors can uphold trial integrity and participant safety while gaining efficiencies in design and execution. Embracing this consensus-driven approach will greatly facilitate approval and execution of early clinical trials in Germany, and has already been accepted by authorities in selected cases involving patient cohorts without the need for substantial modifications.
Statements
Author contributions
RS-H: Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft. SB: Writing – review and editing. RB: Writing – review and editing. AB: Writing – review and editing. KB-G: Writing – review and editing. UB-H: Writing – review and editing. MC: Writing – review and editing. KE-Z: Writing – review and editing. NF: Writing – review and editing. GG: Writing – review and editing. JH: Writing – review and editing. AK: Writing – review and editing. AM: Writing – review and editing. JR: Writing – review and editing. CR: Writing – review and editing. BS: Writing – review and editing. TS: Writing – review and editing. AW: Writing – review and editing. BZ: Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The authors gratefully acknowledge the German Association for Applied Human Pharmacology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Angewandte Humanpharmakologie, AGAH e.V., Hamburg, Germany) for covering the publication costs of this article.
Conflict of interest
Author RS-H was employed by Charite Research Organization GmbH. Author KB-G is self-employed. Author SB was employed by CRS Clinical Research Services Management. Authors RB, BS and AW were employed by SocraTec R&D. Author KE-Z was employed by Clinphase. Author NF was employed by Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH. Author JH was employed by Bayer AG. Author AK was employed by Sanofi. Author AM was employed by Novartis.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used for suggestions for rephrasing of individual paragraphs and for internet searching purposes.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
BfArM and PEI. (2024). Recommendations on complex clinical trials in mono-national clinical trials in the early development phase (early phase Complex clinical trials).
2
Clinical Trials Coordination Group (CTCG) (2019). Recommendation paper on the initiation and conduct of complex clinical trials.
3
Erb-Zohar K. Sourgens H. Breithaupt-Groegler K. (2018). Use of integrated protocols – a survey in early medicines development. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.56 (5), 205–211. 10.5414/CP203206
4
European Commission (2014). Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European parliament and of the council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing directive 2001/20/EC.
5
European Commission (2025). Clinical trials regulation (EU) no 536/2014 questions & answers.
6
European Medicines Agency (2005). Guideline on data monitoring committees.
7
European Medicines Agency (2017). Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human and early clinical trials with investigational medicinal products (revision 1).
8
European Medicines Agency (2025). EMA policy 0070 guidance: transparency in clinical data publication.
9
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2024). Toxicity grading Scale for healthy adult and adolescent volunteers enrolled in preventive vaccine clinical trials. Maryland, United States: FDA.
10
Fruhner K. Hartmann G. Sudhop T. (2017). Analysis of integrated clinical trial protocols in early phases of medicinal product development. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.73, 1565–1577. 10.1007/s00228-017-2335-y
11
Gill D. (2014). Re-inventing clinical trials through TransCelerate. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.13, 787–788. 10.1038/nrd4437
12
International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) (1995). ICH E3: structure and content of clinical study reports. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH.
13
International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) (2021). ICH E8(R1): general considerations for clinical trials. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH.
14
International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) (2022). ICH M11: clinical electronic structured harmonized protocol (CeSHarP). M11 template. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH.
15
International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) (2025). ICH E20 guideline on adaptive designs for clinical trials. Step 2b Draft.
16
National Cancer Institute (NCI) (2017). Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 5.0.
Summary
Keywords
clinical trials, complex trial design, first-in-human, integrated protocols, investigational medicinal product, substantial modification
Citation
Schultz-Heienbrok R, Baumann S, Böhm R, Bonertz A, Breithaupt-Groegler K, Buckpesch-Heberer U, Coenen M, Erb-Zohar K, Faisst N, Grass G, Höchel J, Kovar A, Muehlenbroich A, Rengelshausen J, Riedel C, Schug B, Sudhop T, Warnke A and Ziegele B (2026) Designing integrated early-phase protocols to reduce substantial modifications, including considerations for patient cohorts – a multi-stakeholder consensus view for a practical approach in Germany. Front. Pharmacol. 16:1699906. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1699906
Received
05 September 2025
Revised
28 November 2025
Accepted
02 December 2025
Published
26 January 2026
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited by
Jean Paul Deslypere, Aesculape CRO, Belgium
Reviewed by
Rolf Bass, Retired, Berlin, Germany
Luis Laranjeira, Ordem dos Médicos, Portugal
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Schultz-Heienbrok, Baumann, Böhm, Bonertz, Breithaupt-Groegler, Buckpesch-Heberer, Coenen, Erb-Zohar, Faisst, Grass, Höchel, Kovar, Muehlenbroich, Rengelshausen, Riedel, Schug, Sudhop, Warnke and Ziegele.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: R. Schultz-Heienbrok, Robert.Schultz-Heienbrok@charite-research.org
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.