A decentralized or hybrid neurology trial is a clinical study that selectively applies remote and digital elements (ePRO diaries, telehealth visits, eConsent, home health visits, and wearable data collection) for the specific protocol components where remote execution is validated, feasible for the CNS patient population, and compliant with the FDA’s September 2024 final guidance on conducting clinical trials with decentralized elements.

The critical design constraint in CNS programs is that the primary endpoint in most neurodegenerative and psychiatric trials is a rater-administered cognitive or motor scale, and the question of whether that scale can be administered remotely is a scientific and regulatory determination, not a logistical preference. The ADAS-Cog, MDS-UPDRS Part III, and EDSS cannot be administered remotely in their validated forms for use as primary endpoints in pivotal programs. Daily ePRO symptom diaries, caregiver-administered functional scales, and eConsent can be administered remotely without compromising endpoint validity. Hybrid design decisions made at protocol development determine which category each protocol element falls into, a determination that cannot be corrected after the first patient is enrolled.

A hybrid neurology trial applies decentralized elements (ePRO diaries, telehealth screens, home health visits, eConsent) to protocol components where remote execution is validated, while retaining in-person site visits for assessments that require physical presence or direct observation. A fully decentralized neurology trial would execute all protocol activities remotely, a model that is not currently viable for programs where the primary endpoint is a rater-administered cognitive or motor scale like the ADAS-Cog or MDS-UPDRS Part III, which require in-person administration in their validated forms.

ePRO symptom diaries (Hauser diary for Parkinson’s, MS fatigue and disability scales, AD caregiver burden instruments) are validated for remote completion and represent the highest-value decentralized element in CNS programs. Brief cognitive screening tools like the MoCA have been validated for telephone administration. Caregiver-administered functional scales (ADCS-ADL, NPI) are feasible for remote completion by study partners with adequate technology access. The C-SSRS can be administered remotely by a certified rater. eConsent and re-consent workflows are explicitly supported by the FDA’s 2024 DCT guidance including LAR and caregiver co-consent.

The MDS-UPDRS Part III motor examination requires the rater to observe movement characteristics under standardized conditions that video administration cannot reliably replicate; published ICC values for postural tremor fall below 0.14 before calibration even in in-person settings, and remote video introduces additional variables (camera angle, lighting, latency) that further reduce reliability. The ADAS-Cog 13 cannot be administered remotely in its standard validated form: the Commands, Ideational Praxis, and Number Cancellation subtests require physical materials and examiner proximity. The EDSS requires physical observation of ambulation and coordination. None of these have sufficient validation evidence to support use as a primary endpoint in a pivotal program via remote administration.

The FDA’s September 2024 final guidance on conducting clinical trials with decentralized elements requires sponsors to specify in the protocol which visits may be remote and which must be in-person; for CNS programs, this means the in-person/remote designation for each assessment must be resolved at protocol development, not handled case-by-case during the study. The guidance also requires that remote data collection meet the same data quality and integrity standards as in-person collection, and that the visit date, personnel, and whether the visit was conducted via telehealth be documented in study records. For CNS scales without validated remote administration, using them remotely without protocol-level accommodation and SAP modifications would put the sponsor out of compliance with the data quality standard.

eConsent in a hybrid Alzheimer’s trial must support three distinct consent pathways: participant self-consent at enrollment; legally authorized representative (LAR) co-consent when the IRB or the participant’s cognitive status requires it; and re-consent when protocol amendments require updated consent documentation. The eConsent platform must be configured for accessibility for cognitively impaired participants (simplified navigation, audio prompts, larger text, caregiver co-completion workflow) and must handle the IRB-specific requirements for LAR authorization in each participating country. The FDA’s 2024 DCT guidance explicitly supports remote eConsent including remote visits for obtaining informed consent, provided all applicable regulatory requirements are met.

1. For each scale in the protocol that is a primary or key secondary endpoint, has the sponsor confirmed whether that scale has been validated for remote administration in the proposed modality?
2. If any primary endpoint scales cannot be administered remotely in their validated form, have the site-based visit requirements and patient burden implications been factored into the site feasibility assessment?
3. For ePRO diary instruments, has the compliance monitoring infrastructure been confirmed to provide real-time visibility integrated with the EDC, or does it require a separate system and reconciliation step?
4. For Alzheimer’s programs, what is the eConsent and LAR workflow for participants with early cognitive impairment, and is this process IRB-approved before site activation begins?
5. For Parkinson’s programs with ON/OFF motor fluctuation diaries, what is the patient technology literacy assessment process, and what is the contingency for patients who cannot reliably complete electronic diaries?
6. Has the hybrid design been reviewed against the FDA’s September 2024 final DCT guidance requirement to specify in the protocol which visits may be remote and which must be in-person?
7. For mobility-limited populations (ALS, advanced PD), has the home visit logistics model (home health nurse qualifications, assessment execution at home, device provisioning) been built into the site activation critical path?
8. What is the plan for participants who lose technology access or cognitive capacity to use remote tools during a long-duration study?
9. For remote consent in cognitively impaired populations, is the eConsent platform designed with accessibility features (larger text, audio prompts, simplified navigation) required for an Alzheimer’s or MCI population?
10. How are remote site visits documented in the trial master file to satisfy the FDA’s requirement to record visit date, personnel, and whether the visit was via telehealth?

Q1: What is a hybrid or decentralized neurology clinical trial?

A hybrid neurology clinical trial selectively applies decentralized elements (ePRO diaries, telehealth visits, eConsent, home health visits) to protocol components where remote execution is validated and feasible for the CNS patient population, while retaining in-person site visits for assessments that require physical presence or direct observation. The FDA’s September 2024 final guidance on conducting clinical trials with decentralized elements (the “DCT guidance”) supports this approach and requires sponsors to specify in the protocol which visits may be remote and which must be in-person. The key design constraint in CNS programs is that several primary endpoint scales (ADAS-Cog, MDS-UPDRS Part III, EDSS) cannot be administered remotely in their validated forms for use as primary endpoints.

Q2: Which neurology assessments can and cannot be administered remotely in a clinical trial?

ePRO symptom diaries (Hauser diary for Parkinson’s, MS fatigue scales, AD caregiver burden instruments) are validated for remote completion and represent the highest-value decentralized elements in CNS programs. The C-SSRS can be administered remotely by a certified rater. eConsent including LAR workflows is explicitly supported by the FDA’s 2024 DCT guidance. The ADAS-Cog 13 cannot be administered remotely in its standard validated form (Commands, Ideational Praxis, and Number Cancellation subtests require physical materials). The MDS-UPDRS Part III motor examination is not validated for remote use as a primary endpoint. The EDSS requires physical observation. Amyloid PET and CSF biomarker collection require specialized on-site facilities.

Q3: What does the FDA’s 2024 decentralized clinical trials guidance require?

The FDA’s September 2024 final guidance on conducting clinical trials with decentralized elements requires sponsors to specify in the protocol which visits may be remote and which must be in-person; to document whether visits were conducted via telehealth in study records; and to ensure that remote data collection meets the same data quality and integrity standards as in-person collection. The guidance explicitly supports telehealth visits, eConsent, remote-administered PRO instruments, and digital health technologies for data collection. It does not create new regulatory requirements but clarifies how existing regulations apply to decentralized elements, and emphasizes that regulatory requirements are the same for trials with and without decentralized elements.

Q4: How does eConsent work for cognitively impaired participants in an Alzheimer’s trial?

eConsent in a hybrid Alzheimer’s trial must support three distinct consent pathways: participant self-consent at enrollment; legally authorized representative (LAR) co-consent when the IRB or the participant’s cognitive status requires it; and re-consent when protocol amendments require updated consent documentation. The eConsent platform must be configured for accessibility for cognitively impaired participants (simplified navigation, audio prompts, larger text, caregiver co-completion workflow) and must handle the IRB-specific requirements for LAR authorization in each participating country. The FDA’s 2024 DCT guidance explicitly supports remote eConsent provided all applicable regulatory requirements are met, including IRB oversight of the remote consent process.

Q5: Why can’t the MDS-UPDRS Part III be administered remotely as a primary endpoint in a Parkinson’s trial?

The MDS-UPDRS Part III motor examination requires the rater to observe the participant perform specific movements under standardized conditions including instructions about patient positioning, timing, and examiner proximity. Published inter-rater reliability data from video-based UPDRS assessments show poor agreement on several motor subscales even after training, with ICC values below 0.14 for postural tremor in in-person settings. Remote video administration introduces additional variables (camera angle, lighting, background noise, network latency) that further reduce reliability. Until validation evidence supports remote MDS-UPDRS Part III as a primary endpoint, using it remotely in a pivotal program creates a regulatory submission risk. A 2025 hybrid Parkinson’s trial (SUNRISE-PD) is specifically designed to evaluate whether remote motor assessments can generate valid comparative data, indicating the question remains unsettled.

Sitero has supported more than 230 CNS, neurology, psychiatry, and behavioral health studies across 67 countries. The hybrid design decisions that shape a neurology program’s operational performance are made at protocol development: which assessments are in-person, which are remote, how the eConsent workflow handles cognitively impaired populations, and how ePRO diary data integrates with the site-based EDC.

Learn more on Sitero’s clinical operations capabilities, or click the button below to talk to a neurology trial expert:

1. Cognitive Research Corporation. (2026). Hybrid and decentralized CNS clinical trials: Finding the right balance. https://cogres.com/hybrid-and-decentralized-cns-clinical-trials-finding-the-right-balance/
2. Pandey, D. (2026). Decentralized clinical trials in neurology market size, share, trends, companies, and forecast 2026-2035. Precedence Research. https://www.precedenceresearch.com/decentralized-clinical-trials-in-neurology-market
3. Sitero. (n.d.). CNS/neurology program operational data [Unpublished internal dataset]. https://sitero.com/neurology/
4. Stacy, M., Palumbo, J. M., & Ciccone, I. (2025, July 21). Designing a hybrid trial of bezisterim for early-stage Parkinson disease. NeurologyLive. https://www.neurologylive.com/view/designing-hybrid-trial-bezisterim-early-stage-pd-mark-stacy-joseph-palumbo
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024a, September). Conducting clinical trials with decentralized elements: Guidance for industry, investigators, and other interested parties. https://www.fda.gov/media/167696/download
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024b, September 18). Conducting clinical trials with decentralized elements; guidance for industry, investigators, and other interested parties; availability. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/18/2024-21078/conducting-clinical-trials-with-decentralized-elements-guidance-for-industry-investigators-and-other