In this episode of the Clinical Trials Spotlight podcast, host Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO, sits down with Heidi Durham and Prateek Gajwani to discuss the important, yet underappreciated, role of the clinical research associate (CRA). They share insights into how sites can best prepare for the CRA visit and offer advice to those looking to become a CRA.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Welcome to Clinical Trials Spotlight, the podcast where innovation, research, and patient care comes into focus. I’m Andrew Pucker, Chief Development Officer at Mintra Health, and your host for this series exploring the latest developments in optometry and ophthalmology clinical trials. Each episode, we’ll sit down with leading clinicians, researchers, industry experts, and innovators shaping the future of eyecare. From emerging innovations in study design, patient outcomes, and regulatory insights, we’ll take you behind the scenes of the clinical research transforming optometry and ophthalmology.
Whether you’re a clinician, researcher, industry professional, or simply passionate about advancing vision science, this podcast is designed to bring you thoughtful conversations and practical insights from across the ophthalmology and optometry community. Clinical Trials Spotlight is co-produced by Mintra Health and Ophthalmology 360 and Optometry 360. Thank you for joining us. Let’s get started.
In this episode of Clinical Trials Spotlight, we’re taking an inside look at one of the most essential and underappreciated roles in clinical research: the clinical research associate, or CRA, is also sometimes called a monitor.
Joining us are 2 experienced clinical research professionals from Mintra Health. Heidi Durham is a clinical research associate who works directly with investigative sites to ensure studies are conducted safely, accurately, and in compliance with regulatory requirements. We’re also joined today by Prateek Gajwani, a project manager who previously served as the CRA and now oversees study execution from the CRO perspective. Together, they’ll share what happens during monitoring visits, what CRAs look for when they’re on site, how project managers and CRAs work together to keep studies on track, and practical insights for research sites looking to build stronger partnerships with their monitors. Let’s get into today’s episode.
Thanks for being here, Heidi and Prateek. Heidi, could you just give us a little background on you and how you became a CRA?
Heidi Durham:
Sure. I’m a pharmacist by education, so the scientific aspect of clinical research was a natural fit for me. It wasn’t something that I intended to pursue. Not long after, I became a parent, and the work-life balance became critical. I started working part-time for a small clinical research organization where I could work from home, and that was the initial grab. Of course, everybody works from home some now, I feel like, so it’s not as unusual. Shortly after I had started working in that capacity, although I appreciated the flexibility, I started to really fall in love with research and with ophthalmology. It wasn’t long after that before I was working full-time, and I was learning by doing and just went through a lot of different roles in the CRO world. Fast-forward to now, my lifestyle is much easier to accommodate some of the demands of the CRA role, and I find that I just like it the best.
I seem to fit well with the work of a CRA, and I know we’ll talk more about that, but I really love having a specific set of things that I can do on site, and I like partnering with the sites. I love having FaceTime with them and just feeling like I’m more connected with the research.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
I love seeing people who took alternative career paths. You’re a pharmacist, I’m an optometrist. We’re both doing something completely different than what we started off thinking we were going to do, so good for you. Prateek, how about you? Tell us a little bit about you and how you became a project manager.
Prateek Gajwani:
Hi, my name is Prateek Gajwani. I don’t have a pharmacy degree, but I completed my master’s here in biotechnology with a minor in regulatory affairs. My love for clinical research and regulatory affairs started there, and I started my career as a clinical research coordinator, which most people would call a site coordinator at a medical university. You might have heard of Johns Hopkins in the nuclear medicine research and oncology department. Then I started supporting NIH-funded and industry-sponsored clinical trials, which gave me a strong foundation in clinical research. My first exposure to a CRA role or a CRA-type role came when I started supporting an NIH study where our site served as a coordinating center. I became involved with source data verification and investigator site file reviews. That’s when I realized how critical this role is to overall clinical research and development over the next several years.
Although I worked on and off as a CRA, conducting site qualifications and monitoring visits across oncology, cardiology, and ophthalmology, that experience eventually led me into project management. Now I’m a project manager by trade at a CRO, Mintra, and I oversee study execution, and I partner with sponsors and CRA sites, acting like a bridge between all of them, and not forgetting the role of a CRA is as important as anything else. I would call it more important because they are a direct bridge between sites and the sponsor.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
That’s exactly why I wanted to have Prateek today. He can speak to both sides. He can speak to being on site as a CRA and then being at the CRO as a project manager and knowing why you do certain things a certain way. We’ll come back to that in a little bit. Before we do that, I want to jump into what I think is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the CRA role. Heidi, could you maybe say what a CRA does and why you do it? We know that you go to sites, and I’m sure some sites think you’re kind of up in their business for no good reason, but why are we going there? Why are you important?
Heidi Durham:
Yes, I agree. This is an important question and probably one that’s misunderstood. CRA stands for clinical research associate; you’ll also hear it called a monitor or study monitor. Those terms are fairly interchangeable. In a nutshell, a CRA’s job is to monitor clinical trials, to monitor a study site, just to make sure that the research is being done ethically according to the protocol, and that the rights of the research subjects are being protected as they’re laid out. That ultimately the data that we are collecting is of high quality.
As Prateek was saying about being a liaison between the CRO or the pharma company and the sites, the CRA’s job is essentially that as well, but we also liaise between the sites and the project managers. While we’re onsite, we can see things, or we can look into things from both points of view and hopefully get a better, clearer picture of what’s actually going on.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
I think that’s really important. I think some people start off just doing their small academic project at a university where they can just do things how they feel like. Whereas what we’re doing for regulated FDA trials, we’re following a protocol. We need to make sure it’s exactly the same across all the sites. Your role is to make sure that everyone’s doing it the same so we get good quality data at the end, right?
Heidi Durham:
Absolutely.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Yeah. I think that attention to detail is probably a good thing for this position. Prateek, what do you think are some great traits for someone who wants to be a CRA?
Prateek Gajwani:
I’ve always considered clinicals to be standing on main pillars: patient safety, data integrity, data quality, and regulatory compliance. I think for me, the best CRAs have a balance of technical knowledge and compliance knowledge and strong people skills. You need to understand the complexity of the protocol, regulations, and good clinical practices that we call GCPs. Just as importantly, you need to build trust with the investigators and the study coordinators. Being detail-oriented is very, very essential because small issues can affect patient safety and data quality. You also need to be adaptable and a good problem solver since every site, every study comes with their own set of unique challenges. Since you, as a CRA, are on the site, you can build that trust with the site coordinators and help them solve the problem, not just point out the problems.
That way, I think a successful CRA approaches sites as partners rather than monitors. You have to be good at communication and at being a collaborator, rather than being an auditor, in my opinion. That’s the role I think is unique. Obviously, being detail-oriented is very important.
Heidi Durham:
Absolutely. That is something that took a little while to learn is that distinction between the sites opening their arms to you and saying, “Please come monitor our data. They see you as a partner.” Because ultimately, if a CRA does their job right, everybody comes out on top. I mean, an auditor, perhaps that’s the same way, but auditors don’t approach a site in that same collaborative vein. Their goal is to see what they can find wrong. As a monitor, I don’t approach a site visit or my job in terms of finding what’s wrong. A lot of times, it’s just a matter of figuring out what it will take to motivate this site. Whether it’s enrollment, keeping things cleaner, or training… Whatever it is, it’s that collaborative approach that really makes a difference.
Prateek Gajwani:
Yeah, not pointing out what’s wrong. Obviously, working with them to make it better and understanding the patterns of where things could go missing. Yeah, be a friend, not a boss.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Heidi, you’re trying to be their friend and help them ahead of time before the auditor comes and gives them some sort of citation, right?
Heidi Durham:
Definitely. I have said that as well, especially to sites that we know from our experience might be targeted for audits, that they’d rather, if there is something to find, they would rather that we find it together or that I find it and we have all kinds of time to approach the documentation or the fix, or even for them to implement corrective and preventive measures that go a long way if that is discovered in an audit versus being surprised by it by someone who’s there from the FDA.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Yeah, the FDA should be the last person to find any problems, right?
Heidi Durham:
Exactly.
Prateek Gajwani:
We should hit the panic button now rather than when the FDA approaches.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Heidi, you already mentioned this before. You talked about this job being a really good work-life balance for you. What does your work week look like, or maybe even your work month? Because we know that studies vary a lot over time.
Heidi Durham:
Well, I should say that when I first started in clinical research, I had an in-house job. As Prateek mentioned, the study coordinator is often the place where people start because it gives you a great perspective on everything that’s needed behind the scenes to make research work. That was a great place for work-life balance. As a CRA, there’s really no such thing as a typical week. Many CRAs travel a lot, although it depends on the company, the position that the CRA is hired for, and the individual. I know people in this industry who don’t have the same boundaries as I do. Currently, much of my travel is within my home state, which is really nice. I have a lot of sites that are a short drive away and don’t necessitate overnight stays in hotels, but I do still have some sites that are out of state.
It is fairly typical, I think, for CRAs to do some travel. I know friends and coworkers in the industry who spend every night Monday through Friday in a hotel. I do not, and that’s been a choice. I usually do travel somewhere at least once a week, sometimes twice a week. Sometimes we have, as would be expected with air travel, we have delays and cancellations. Air travel will mean that a site visit has to be rescheduled, and then it gets difficult because you’re left with very little availability from the sites that are working around multiple studies and multiple monitors, as are we.
We’re shuffling our schedules around. Sometimes you’re at a site, and everything goes really smoothly; sometimes you’re at a site, and it doesn’t go smoothly, and issues come up. I would say for me, what is typical is that there usually is some travel and some on-site time, which usually means monitoring at a site or at an office.
Then I think it’s smart for CRAs to schedule at least a little bit of time each week in the office or in their home office because that keeps us from having to work on the weekends to do reports, invoices, catching up with email, and training. I think it’s a good balance, really. That’s the long answer. The short answer is there’s really not anything that’s the same. I’ll mention one aspect of monitoring that I haven’t done myself, but is out there, and that’s remote monitoring or centralized monitoring. That is happening everywhere, but I’ve not done that specifically as my role. I think centralized or remote monitors actually work full-time remotely and do not travel much at all.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
It really sounds like there’s a gamut out there. You could be mostly home, or you could be traveling all the time. I’ve even met someone who does international CRA work where he’s going to South America once in a while. You can really build up your frequent flyer miles if that’s your thing.
Heidi Durham:
Yeah, it’d be nice.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Heidi, you’re going to these sites. What are the kind of visits that you do? There’s probably an initial qualification thing, and then what happens from there?
Heidi Durham:
The qualification visit is really the very beginning. Depending on the site and the company, those can sometimes be done remotely, but that’s just the basics to figure out whether or not a site would even be qualified to participate. If a site is selected, then the first official visit is the site initiation visit, and that is basically all the training for the site. That should cover not just the protocol, but all the different aspects of the equipment and each assessment that needs to be done in the protocol. It should cover access to all of the different systems that the site has to use. The CRA would be going through all of the materials that the site received, binders and logs, and walking them through how to get started. And essentially, if a site initiation visit ends and the site is soon thereafter ready to begin enrolling, that’s what you want.
The more people from the site that can be present for that visit, the better training they can get from the source. Oftentimes, a CRA might just get a short amount of the PI’s time, the principal investigator, and then the rest of the time with the coordinator. One of the things that CRAs get really good at is flexing, determining what is the absolute thing that the principal investigator needs to be here for, what do we need to cover, and what can they cover independently, or what can we follow up on by phone. The majority of the study visits are interim monitoring visits, or IMVs, and those are usually spaced based on the site’s enrollment and how many subjects they’ve enrolled. But the basic reason for those is just to keep up with the monitoring at the site throughout the course of the study.
Monitoring the study data. Then at the end there’s a closeout visit, and those typically happen after the database has been locked. It’s the last thing that a CRA and a site do together to make sure that the site can archive their documents and close out.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
I think one good take-home point from there is the study coordinator on site is really the key person. They’re managing things. The PI is important, but we need to have a really strong study coordinator to make a study happen.
Heidi Durham:
Absolutely. Yeah, they are oftentimes the doorway to the entire study. They know the PI’s schedule, they know the patients, they know who’s going to qualify for the study. Yes, the principal investigator is very important, but we should never underestimate the importance of the study coordinator.
Prateek Gajwani:
I would often say they are the backbone. A good study coordinator can make or break a study. The quality of the work that they provide or do, and the help that they give to the CRAs and the project managers, they are very important… The most important piece of the puzzle.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
For sure.
Prateek Gajwani:
Obviously, the PIs are oversight, and everything is important, but I think day-to-day activities and operation-wise, they are important.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
We talked about the visits that Heidi’s doing. Prateek, you have to do a whole bunch to even get ready for, say, Heidi or someone like her to go to a site. What are the things that you’re preparing to make sure that Heidi’s successful?
Prateek Gajwani:
Right. I think I have to, depending on the kind of visit that the CRA is going to. For example, if it’s a site institution visit, there’s a significant amount of preparation. I confirm that all essential regulatory documents are in place and key study staff members are trained. This will be the first time that we will allow them to start enrolling the participants in the study, or the drug will be on site. We have to ensure that all loose ends are tied up and everything is in place to green-light them to go ahead with the study and patient enrollment. I have to confirm all reg documents, like trainings and GCP documents, medical licenses, and financial disclosures are in place. Study supplies are with them, whatever they need in terms of lab kits. All the certification trainings are in place so that the pharmacy can receive an investigational product.
Our sites are technically greenlit to enroll for the study. Enroll, as in the patients can come in, get the study drug, and that’s where site initiation was at. Now, before we plan on going for an IMV, the focus is on source data verification and IMP accountability. IMP accountability means how much drug is used, how much is pending, the site has remaining vials, all of that. As a PM or a CRA, we work closely together to ensure that, now that a CRA will be on site. We can get as much information from the site that we essentially cannot get through emails. We can resolve any outstanding issues and any communication that has to happen in person. Basically, CRAs are our eyes and ears on site and have a feel for what it is to be on site. Then they give us a report, and the PM works accordingly, identifies trends and patterns, and escalates as needed.
Going back, my primary focus, or everyone’s primary focus, is that patient safety is in place, data quality, that we are getting the quality that we expect from this trial, and also keeping the study on track.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
I think Prateek mentioned one important thing, which is source data verification, or really the original document where you record your data and that eventually gets into your data capture system. I’m sure that’s something you look at, Heidi. What are other things you look at onsite to make sure that the sites are performing well, entering data correctly, that sort of thing?
Heidi Durham:
This is a great question. The SDV, or the source data verification, is one of the most tangible pieces of a monitoring visit because it is just something that’s easily reported on. Essentially, it’s the clicking of the box that says that the data they’ve entered is the same as the data on their source document. But in reality, it goes much further than that because sometimes the data is entered into the database, but there is no source documentation, or you don’t see it there, and you’re wondering where it is. There are other things that go on behind the scenes, which is having the site understand that there’s a reason why we do SDV, and that’s because we want to make sure that what’s gone in that database is supported by the collection of the data that they’re doing when they have the patient alongside them.
That’s one thing. Before I even go to a site, I usually will run a report and see what data needs to be source document verified and how much of it there is. Different studies or different sponsors will have different amounts of data needs to be monitored. How many of them need to be verified with a checkbox versus how many of them just need to be reviewed by your eyeballs. Essentially, as a CRA, those are the same thing, but it just can’t be reported on. Probably the most important first thing that I look for is the informed consent – and that’s just making sure that the patient was consented appropriately with the correct version of the ICF, which protects their rights and their well-being. They’ve been informed about what’s required for the study.
The second is their eligibility. Those eligibility visits, when those are reviewed, typically take the most time for a CRA because whether there’s one visit or two visits where the subject eligibility is reviewed, the site takes a long time to figure that out. Then we, as CRAs, need to look through everything to confirm that. That often involves looking through all of the assessments to make sure that, of course, they’ve met the criteria of the protocol for the assessments. That means: was their visual acuity eligible? Do they have the correct amount of staining if it’s a staining study? Also, looking through their history.
Oftentimes, some of those things can be buried. Surgeries, prior medication use, or concomitant diseases – all of those kinds of things can render a subject ineligible. Reviewing a patient’s medical records is really important, but it often takes more time because they don’t condense them into something small and easy to read.
You oftentimes have to go through faxed documents or old charts to confirm the subject is eligible. We also check to make sure that they’re following the protocol. If something was supposed to be done and it wasn’t, we need to flag those things. We want to see that the principal investigator is actively involved in the study. I’m always looking to see that they’ve participated, they’ve seen patients, they’ve been involved in training, and that they’ve signed off on reports. We’re looking at safety, so that is adverse events that have been reported, and also changes in the subject’s status. Changes in their eye health might be adverse events, and we should figure out whether or not those need to be reported. We always find ourselves in a situation where we’re talking about recruitment. At a site, we’ll frequently just try to figure out what they’re doing to try to get patients who qualify.
Other things: handling of the study medication or the investigational product and reconciling that, checking to make sure that they have all the IRB approvals that they need, and that their staff is qualified. Sites will frequently change staff members in the middle of a study or add people. You have to make sure the documentation is in place. That’s essentially that’s the meat of it, but all of this happens in an ongoing one-day or two-day monitoring visit.
Prateek Gajwani:
I do want to add for your audience that the source document, as Heidi mentioned, is the first time the information is collected. It could be part of the medical records; it could be part of the initial forms. Like she said on eligibility, when the medical history is buried in long medical history notes… that is your first source, and that’s your primary document. It does take a lot of time to verify all of that. I also want to add, CRA is essentially talking to the PI and investigators and the site coordinators, understanding their needs to do the project or do the clinical trial in the way sponsors are expecting them to do it, or in the way it’s federally required.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
I think your point is: don’t use the Post-It note, right?
Prateek Gajwani:
Do not. Yes, that’s what I wanted to highlight: the information. Please make sure that it’s recorded in a proper place, and not on the back of your hand, like, “Oh, I washed my hands.” No, don’t do that.
Heidi Durham:
Yeah. If your study site has a process where you are relying on Post-It notes or beverage napkins to write down a person’s IOP or their blood pressure, then we’re explaining to the site why it’s important that we figure out a better process for that and understanding why the source documentation is so important. Definitely had those conversations before, and I’ve seen sticky notes that, worst-case scenario, if they put it on there, let’s put it in the binder because I can at least…
Prateek Gajwani:
Yeah, I have taped those sticky notes in there so that they don’t fall off. Or I’ve seen refraction notes – the printouts that come out of auto refractors – the dye on it; they get blurry over time. Ensure that there are photocopies of that in there. Although it’s a source document, they won’t stay for five years of the study; you’ll be like, “All right, where’s the source?” Because it’s all blank now.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Prateek, what do you think makes an exceptional site? You’ve seen it all; you’ve seen protocol deviations, which is where people are not doing what they should be doing. What’s a good site to you?
Prateek Gajwani:
I think the best sites are the ones that can communicate proactively, stay organized, and also take ownership of the study. The best sites are the ones that don’t wait for the CRAs to identify issues. They’re already reviewing their data, resolving queries, and thinking ahead about the upcoming visits and participant needs. I think the ones who communicate with the CRA before the visit and are constantly asking questions and relaying what’s happening in real time are the best sites. They also work as a team with investigators who are engaged and coordinators who understand the protocol inside out. I know people say, “You don’t have to be a scientist to understand the protocol.” All you have to do is get the schedule of assessments right, the order of procedures right, and the eligibility criteria. Everything else will fall into place, and we’ll work with you on that.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
For sure. Again, we need the right patients, right?
Prateek Gajwani:
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Heidi, I’m sure you work very closely with different project managers. What are some things that they help you overcome as you do your job?
Heidi Durham:
Oh gosh, project managers are essential. For one, they keep us apprised of whatever kinds of deadlines there may be coming up on the study. Sometimes I find myself at a site, and there’s more work than I can get done in the time that I’ve allowed. Having a project manager who communicates the status of the study to you, whether on an as-needed basis or every week or every other week on a CRA call, and knowing if there’s going to be a database lock coming up or some sort of interim analysis, I almost always will run situations by the project manager if I’m unsure how to handle them. When you think you’ve handled every possible kind of issue or mistake, you’re constantly surprised that someone’s figured out some new way to mess something up. The project manager can often help the CRA figure out what the best solution is.
They’re also the liaison to the sponsor. If something does need to be reported to the sponsor, they will let them know. We’re all on the same team, I feel like. I will also use the project manager as a sounding board if I’m concerned about the quality of a site or want to get their ideas on how to motivate a site. The project manager is usually where I go. If a visit goes perfectly without any surprises, I may not interact with the PM, but that rarely happens. Usually, there’s some sort of interaction just to help guide me.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
Heidi, you just mentioned that things don’t always go as planned. What do you think are the most common mistakes you see at a site, and how can they be prevented?
Heidi Durham:
Oh gosh, I mean, almost all of the mistakes that I see at a study site don’t happen because people are being intentionally negligent. They often happen because people are working on too many things at one time, or they have more work than they can get done in a day. I think we can all relate to that. What I will often say to sites is that if there are a lot of things that need to be completed, I will try to help them prioritize what’s the most important thing and what can wait. If we can discuss this in advance, then we can prepare for those situations when they happen again. One of the things that I see again and again and again is I see sites doing a ton of work when they get my confirmation letter a couple of days before a visit; they’re doing a ton of work to prepare for me being there.
While I appreciate that, I think certain things like investigational product accountability – I’m a strong believer that that needs to be done as the patients come in and get their med, get their study medication. Just having someone updating 15 or 20 dispensations of investigational product the day before my visit, you can see why that would be problematic: they’re working quickly, they’re looking at a lot of numbers at one time, and they’re not focused on any one thing, versus if they’re making sure to document and log the IP right when it’s given to the patient, that’s the only thing they’re focused on.
If they keep up with it on a regular basis, they don’t find themselves having to spend 10, 15, 20 minutes rewriting things. I would say that. Then the other thing is sites taking accountability for errors that happen and really thinking about how to create a process change that will help them not do the same thing again, make the same mistake or error in the future.
That corrective and preventive action process is something that’s very near and dear to the heart of all of us in research. It’s not about blame; it’s about figuring out where things are falling apart and how we can keep that from happening.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
I think that’s a great point overall. I think you’re saying you should do things right away. That way it’s fresh in your mind. Then your point about the drug, I think, is extra important. If you’re not updating that regularly, you might run out of drug, and that could really mess up your study, right?
Heidi Durham:
Yep.
Prateek Gajwani:
Don’t procrastinate. That is the be-all and end-all of it. I think if things are done in real time, you can identify issues in real time, escalate them, prevent future mistakes from happening, and keep everybody in the loop. I always say it takes a village to do it right, and be it the site coordinator, CRAs, PMs, even the sponsor.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
We’re starting to run out of time. I got a couple of last questions. Heidi, what do you think is one misconception people have about CRAs that you’d like to correct?
Heidi Durham:
I think it really comes down to the difference between CRAs. CRAs, maybe they think they’re there to find something that they did wrong and to get on them for things that they did wrong. Absolutely, that is not the case. We’re there to try to make sure that things go right. If we do see things that have been done incorrectly, it’s not about finding what’s wrong; it’s about figuring out how we can correct and move forward. We’re really not trying to get sites in any trouble. We’re trying to work with them. I think that’s probably the biggest misconception.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
I think that’s great. Then, Prateek, if there’s one thing you wanted people to remember from our discussion today, what would that be?
Prateek Gajwani:
Well, I think I said it early in this episode. It’s like listeners remember only one thing. I want it to be that your CRA is your partner, not an auditor. I think the best CRAs don’t just identify issues. They work alongside you to solve problems and improve the processes. I know the CRA roles seem small, but if they get it right and the site coordinators get it right, then patients are safe. We get high-quality data. Good data means good treatment options for untreatable diseases in the future. It has a wider impact on public health. Then we have good drugs in the future. It’s not small, but use your CRA as your partner. Think of them as somebody who can help you solve problems and not an auditor.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
We’re all friends. I think that’s a good thing to close on. With that, I’d like to thank our guests, Heidi and Prateek, for joining us today.
Heidi Durham:
Thank you.
Prateek Gajwani:
Thank you. Thank you so much.
Andrew Pucker, OD, PhD, FAAO:
I would also like to thank you for joining us on Clinical Trials Spotlight. If you enjoyed today’s episode, be sure to subscribe and share the podcast with colleagues and others passionate about advancing ophthalmology research and patient care. Thanks again for listening, and we’ll see you next time.
Related Content
