Clinical Trial Data Sharing Platforms Compared

Clinical trial data sharing platforms now fall into two structural models: sponsor-branded request processes with their own eligibility rules and review committees, and independent multi-sponsor infrastructure that hosts data from dozens of contributors under one governance framework. Pfizer and GSK each set their own scope, timelines and review criteria, but both now direct external researchers through Vivli, the non-profit platform that has become the shared backbone for pharmaceutical-sponsored data access.

Vivli is a non-profit, independently governed platform that lets qualified researchers search, request and analyse de-identified patient-level data contributed by pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions and funders under a single, standardised data use agreement.

• What are the main clinical trial data sharing platforms?
• How does Pfizer’s data sharing process work?
• How does GSK’s data sharing process compare?
• What makes Vivli’s model structurally different?
• Common questions about clinical trial data sharing platforms
• What this means for research administrators

What are the main clinical trial data sharing platforms?

Three governance types dominate pharmaceutical clinical trial data sharing: sponsor-specific review processes layered on shared infrastructure (Pfizer, GSK), standalone multi-sponsor consortia (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, CSDR), and independent non-profit platforms (Vivli). Each imposes different eligibility criteria, review bodies and access windows on top of a broadly similar workflow: proposal submission, feasibility and scientific review, a signed data use agreement, then time-limited access to de-identified data in a secure environment.

The table below summarises how the three named models compare on governance, review body and typical timeline, based on each organisation’s published data sharing commitments.

How does Pfizer’s data sharing process work?

Pfizer submits its studies to the Vivli platform rather than operating a fully separate request portal. Researchers search Vivli’s catalogue, then submit a research proposal naming a qualified statistician and a defined analysis plan.

Pfizer makes de-identified patient-level data available from global interventional studies of medicines, vaccines and devices that have been approved in the US and/or EU, or from programmes that were terminated during development. Data becomes available 18 months after the primary study completion date, and Pfizer’s own internal review committee — comprising the relevant programme lead, statisticians and data-sharing staff — assesses scientific validity before Vivli releases the dataset.

• Scope: approved or terminated global interventional trials only
• Review: internal Pfizer committee, feeding into Vivli’s independent scientific review
• Anonymisation: identifiers replaced, dates shifted, sensitive fields redacted before release

How does GSK’s data sharing process compare?

GSK historically ran its own clinical study register and, for many years, used the separate ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com consortium. As of 2023, GSK directs all new patient-level data requests to Vivli, but its review criteria and timeline remain distinct from Pfizer’s.

GSK makes data available once a medicine or vaccine has been approved by regulators and the primary study results have been published — a release window of within six months of both events. Requests are assessed by an independent panel of external experts rather than an internal sponsor committee, and GSK excludes some rare-disease studies where anonymisation would be technically difficult, along with data that predates electronic recordkeeping.

• Scope: approved, published interventional trials; some rare-disease and pre-electronic-record exclusions
• Review: independent external expert panel (not an internal GSK committee)
• Output: raw and analysis-ready datasets, plus protocol and amendments, for approved requests

What makes Vivli’s model structurally different?

Vivli is not a sponsor — it is the shared, independently governed infrastructure that Pfizer, GSK and dozens of other contributors now use to process requests. Per the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), Vivli’s catalogue spans more than 6,000 clinical studies from pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions and funders including Harvard University and the NIH HEAL Initiative.

Every request passes through the same three-stage sequence regardless of which sponsor contributed the trial: a Vivli administrative completeness check, a sponsor feasibility review, and an independent scientific review panel. A single, standardised data use agreement then governs access, rather than each sponsor negotiating its own contract. This is the structural difference that matters for researchers comparing platforms: sponsor-run processes (Pfizer, GSK) still set the eligibility and review criteria, but Vivli supplies the common technical and legal infrastructure — search catalogue, secure analysis environment and template agreements — that makes cross-sponsor research feasible without a separate negotiation for every trial.

Common questions about clinical trial data sharing platforms

What is Vivli used for?

Vivli is used to let qualified researchers request de-identified patient-level data from multiple pharmaceutical, academic and funder contributors through one standardised process. It replaces the need to negotiate separately with each trial sponsor, providing a shared catalogue, review workflow and secure analysis environment.

How do I request Pfizer clinical trial data?

Researchers submit a research proposal through the Vivli platform, naming a qualified statistician and a defined analysis plan. Pfizer’s internal review committee assesses scientific validity, and approved requests receive access to de-identified data 18 months after primary study completion, within Vivli’s secure environment.

Does GSK still use ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com?

No. As of 2023, GSK directs all new patient-level data requests to Vivli rather than ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR), which it used for many years as a founding consortium member. Older GSK-sponsored studies may still appear in CSDR’s historical listings.

What is a clinical trial data sharing agreement?

A data use agreement (DUA) is the binding contract a researcher’s institution signs before receiving trial data. It sets permitted uses, publication obligations, data-security requirements and the access period — typically 12 months on Vivli, extendable on request.

What this means for research administrators

For institutional research offices, the practical implication is that due diligence now happens at two levels: the sponsor’s eligibility and review criteria, and the shared platform’s data use agreement and technical access terms. A proposal that meets Vivli’s administrative requirements can still be rejected at the sponsor feasibility stage if it falls outside Pfizer’s or GSK’s specific scope — so checking sponsor-level policy before drafting a proposal saves review cycles.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has required a data sharing statement at trial registration since 1 January 2019, which has pushed sponsors toward standing infrastructure like Vivli rather than one-off, trial-by-trial arrangements. As more sponsors consolidate onto shared platforms, research administration teams negotiating data access agreements should expect fewer bespoke contracts but more variation in sponsor-specific eligibility rules layered on top of a common technical process. Institutions that track these sponsor-level differences — rather than assuming one data use agreement covers every contributor — will move proposals through review faster.