Stepping into a first-in-human (FIH) clinical trial is a defining moment in drug development. It’s when a new drug that’s been years in the making finally transitions from lab bench to bedside. This isn’t about proving efficacy—that comes later. FIH clinical trials are all about safety, tolerability, and understanding how the drug behaves in the human body.

With the rise of complex therapies like biologics, cell and gene treatments, and targeted small molecules, early-stage trials have grown more intricate. For sponsors, getting this first step right means laying a solid foundation for everything that follows. This article dives into the critical elements of FIH trials, from interpreting preclinical data to trial design, site selection, regulatory strategy, risk management, and transition planning for Phase II.

FIH trials: Objectives that matter

First-in-human (FIH) trials mark the first time a new drug is tested in people. At this stage, the focus isn’t on whether the drug works, but whether it’s safe—and how the body responds to it. These early insights guide dosing, safety precautions, and future trial planning.

First-in-human studies aim to answer a few essential questions:

• Is the drug safe at low doses?
• What side effects appear, and how tolerable are they?
• How is the drug absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted (ADME)?
• Does it interact with its intended target (pharmacodynamics)?

Initial doses are kept deliberately low. Researchers closely monitor for even minor adverse effects—shifts in lab values, changes in vital signs, or subjective discomfort. The primary goal is not efficacy but to define a safe exposure range.

Understanding pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) is also crucial. Early PK data helps shape dose frequency (e.g., once-daily vs. long-acting), while PD signals can validate that the drug hits its target—even if therapeutic outcomes remain distant.

With these objectives in mind, the next step is to ensure the preclinical data supports a safe transition to human trials.

Preclinical foundations: Translating theory into human strategy

A sound FIH trial starts long before human dosing—its groundwork is laid in preclinical studies. Animal and in vitro data provide key insights into the drug’s pharmacology, toxicology, and potential mechanisms of harm.

• Animal studies reveal how a drug behaves in a living system.
• In vitro models help predict cellular interactions and possible off-target effects.

These insights directly inform dose selection, route of administration, and early safety protocols. Preclinical toxicology, especially identifying a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), is vital for estimating a starting human dose.

The next challenge is translating preclinical insights into a rational and safe starting dose for first-time human exposure.

Starting dose selection: MABEL, NOAEL, and safety factors

Choosing a starting dose is a high-stakes balancing act. Common strategies include:

• MABEL (Minimum Anticipated Biological Effect Level): Used for novel agents where biological activity—not toxicity—is the first concern. It identifies the lowest dose expected to trigger any measurable effect.
• NOAEL: Based on the highest dose in animals that caused no harm. It’s often adjusted using allometric scaling to account for interspecies differences.

Even with robust calculations, safety factors (typically 10-fold or more) are applied to buffer against uncertainty. Once a starting dose is chosen, trial design becomes the next priority.

With a dose established, the next step is crafting a trial design that safely escalates exposure while collecting key data.

Trial design: SAD, MAD, and Adaptive models

The structure of an FIH trial determines how risks are managed and data are collected. Three key designs dominate:

• SAD (Single Ascending Dose): Participants receive one dose, with close monitoring. If no safety concerns arise, the next cohort receives a higher dose. It’s ideal for initial PK and tolerability assessments.
• MAD (Multiple Ascending Dose): Builds on SAD by examining repeated dosing. It’s essential for understanding drug accumulation, steady-state kinetics, and delayed adverse effects.
• Adaptive Designs: Increasingly popular, adaptive trials allow modifications based on emerging data—like dose adjustments or cohort expansions—without compromising scientific integrity.

Want to learn more about adaptive trial designs? click here

Many FIH protocols now combine SAD and MAD components under one umbrella, streamlining development timelines.

A robust design needs the right infrastructure and personnel, so choosing the right site and team is essential next.

Site and team selection: The human factor

The most elegant study design means little without the right site and personnel to carry it out.

For FIH studies, choose a Phase I unit with:

• 24/7 medical oversight
• Emergency response readiness
• Experienced staff in early-phase protocols
• Robust PK sampling and lab capabilities

Equally critical is the investigator team—they must not only understand regulatory requirements but also have the judgment to handle unexpected adverse events and protocol deviations in real time.

Once the trial setup is in place, sponsors must ensure ethical and regulatory compliance before dosing begins.

Are you looking for expert support in planning your First-in-Human (FIH) clinical trial? Our experienced team can guide you through every step — from protocol development to regulatory strategy and site selection. Please fill out the form below to get in touch with us and start the conversation.

Ethical and regulatory oversight: Protecting participants

In First-in-Human (FIH) trials, participant safety is protected through layered ethical and regulatory review — with an emphasis on anticipating the unknown.

Ethics Committees: Beyond just approval

Ethics Committees don’t just greenlight protocols — they interrogate the moral logic behind exposing humans to a novel compound. They assess whether the preclinical package justifies human risk, and whether the starting dose is grounded in rigorous translational modeling (e.g., MABEL over NOAEL for biologics or high-risk compounds).

They evaluate:

• Trial design defensibility: Is there a clear escalation strategy? Are sentinel cohorts used appropriately?
• Investigator readiness: Are staff trained to respond to first-dose reactions? Is ICU access guaranteed?
• Risk communication: Does the consent form reflect real-world uncertainty, not just regulatory compliance?
• Volunteer vulnerability: Is recruitment targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups through compensation?

Ethical and regulatory oversight: Protecting participants

Ethics review also includes assessment of insurance coverage, post-trial care commitments, and biological sample use, which are often overlooked in early-phase trials.

Regulatory authorities: Scientific risk governance

Agencies like the FDA, EMA, or CDSCO verify whether the science warrants first-in-human exposure. They examine:

• Toxicology & PK bridging data
• Manufacturing controls (CMC) under GMP
• Dosing rationale with conservative safety margins
• Real-time safety oversight (e.g., halting rules, telemetry, DMCs)

Jurisdiction-specific variations matter — India mandates SAE compensation and EC registration, while the EU requires unified trial submission under the CTR system.

Global compliance: Harmonizing across borders

FIH trials often span multiple regions, demanding alignment with ICH-GCP, ICH M3(R2), and the Declaration of Helsinki. Yet ethical expectations vary — for instance, standards for informed consent or data privacy may diverge. Sponsors must synchronize ethics and regulatory submissions, ensure consistent safety oversight, and build flexibility for local nuances.

Risk management and safety monitoring

Participant safety is the cornerstone of FIH trials. Key mechanisms include:

• Sentinel dosing: The first few participants receive the dose alone before the rest of the cohort. If any issues arise, escalation stops immediately.
• Stopping rules: Predefined criteria halt the study or a dose level if adverse events surpass set thresholds.
• Adverse Event Monitoring: Real-time tracking and rapid analysis of events allow for early intervention if patterns emerge.
• Independent Safety Boards (DSMBs): Regular review of unblinded safety data ensures independent oversight and scientific accountability.

Many sponsors choose to outsource operations, making CRO collaboration the next critical focus.

Not Just a CRO — A Partner Who Gets the Stakes

In First-in-Human (FIH) trials, outsourcing to a CRO is common — but the type of CRO you choose can quietly define your trial’s trajectory. Are you hiring a task-taker, or aligning with a partner who thinks with you?

Not Just “Can They Do It?” — But “Will They Own It?

A CRO with the right certifications and SOPs can run a study. But a true partner helps you navigate uncertainty — from dose escalations and regulatory queries to unexpected safety flags. You want a CRO that:

• Knows the regulatory nuance of early-phase work in your region(s)
• Has handled adaptive designs, MABEL-based dosing, or real-time risk monitoring
• Can spot site-level red flags before you see them in the metrics

Set the Relationship Up Right

Great outsourcing starts with clarity. Define:

• Ownership boundaries: Who leads protocol deviations? Who manages urgent SAEs?
• Escalation pathways: What happens when a dose-halting rule is triggered on a weekend?
• Shared visibility: Live dashboards and data access keep everyone aligned — without micromanagement

Oversight Without Friction

You don’t want to chase updates — but you do want oversight that lets you sleep at night. Best practices include:

• Joint risk reviews during screening and post-dose windows
• Co-created KPIs that measure more than timelines — think data quality, protocol fidelity, and patient safety
• Audit-ready documentation flows from day one

Choosing the right CRO in FIH isn’t about cost or capacity — it’s about trust, reflexes, and shared risk. In high-uncertainty trials, your CRO shouldn’t just follow your protocol. They should be ready to think with you when the unexpected hits — because it will.

After trial completion, the final step is integrating results to inform and shape the next phase of development.

Preparing for Phase II: Turning insights into strategy

Once an FIH trial concludes, the focus shifts to leveraging data for the next phase.

• Go/No-Go Decisions: If safety, PK, and early PD signals align the program advances. If not, this is the point to reconsider or modify the asset.
• Dose and Formulation Refinement: FIH results often reveal the need for formulation tweaks (e.g., shifting from capsule to tablet) or adjusting the dosing schedule based on bioavailability or patient feedback.
• Informing Phase II Design: Early human data sharpen future protocols. This includes refining inclusion criteria, safety monitoring plans, and selecting endpoints that are more likely to show meaningful clinical signals.

All of these components reinforce why a well-executed FIH trial is essential to long-term development success.

Conclusion: FIH as the bedrock of clinical development

First-in-human trials are more than a procedural checkpoint—they’re the bedrock of modern clinical development. These trials translate theoretical promise into practical reality, guiding whether a compound should proceed or pivot. When executed with precision, FIH studies provide the clarity sponsors need to move confidently into Phase II and beyond.

The future of medicine depends on safe, smart, and ethically grounded early-phase research. Sponsors who get this step right don’t just reduce risk—they gain critical strategic insight that informs every subsequent decision on the path to approval.

---

Have questions about how to kickstart your First-in-Human (FIH) clinical trial?

Whether you’re planning your first FIH study or refining your strategy, our experts are here to support you every step of the way. Share your requirements using the form below, and we’ll help you get started with confidence.

---