A multinational trial sponsored from the United States runs under three regulatory architectures at once: the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, the Swiss HFG with its ordinance, the KlinV, and the FDA's own framework. The contracts that hold the trial together, from the site agreement to the cross-border coordination structure, carry that divergence into liability allocation, insurance and data protection, where one informed-consent form does not discharge the duties the GDPR and the DSG attach to the same health data. The analyses below cover accelerated national pathways such as Austria's 35-day timeline, the contracting of trials that span Switzerland, the EU and the UK, and a four-part comparative series on trials with pregnant participants, where protective rules become exclusion in practice.
8 insights · latest May 2026
Post-Brexit trilateral clinical trials involving Switzerland, the EU, and the UK require fundamentally revised contractual structures.
Austria's 35-day BASG pathway, 14% Forschungsprämie, FAST-EU role, and EU Biotech Act SPC extension attract US biotech R&D investment. Layered compliance, AGES interactions, and mononational-trial constraints qualify each headline benefit.
Multi-jurisdictional clinical research faces an increasingly complex web of data protection requirements. How do GDPR and the Swiss DSG intersect, and where do they diverge?
One HFG informed-consent form does not discharge the DSG duties attaching to the same sensitive health data. For US sponsors, the unresolved legal-basis question surfaces in protocol design and site contracts, not during the trial.
Swiss law (HFG) permits clinical trials with pregnant participants under graduated risk-benefit conditions. Ethics-committee review, KlinV liability allocation, and insurance requirements create underappreciated operational complexity that drives default exclusion.
The EU CTR Article 33 permits including pregnant participants in clinical trials, yet fewer than 0.4% do. ICH E21 gaps, ethics-committee variation across Member States, and liability allocation drive the underrepresentation.
FDA guidance and the PRGLAC Task Force encourage pregnant-participant inclusion in clinical trials. The dual FDA/HHS framework, Subpart B risk thresholds, and undefined operational rules leave unresolved compliance questions.
Clinical trials with pregnant participants across Switzerland, the EU, and the US confront three regulatory frameworks diverging on risk thresholds, liability allocation, and ethics-review architecture. Multi-site sponsors face structural protocol-design tensions.
Counsel on this topic: Clinical trial contracting.
Good questions deserve specific answers.
Get in Touch