For biotech and mid-sized pharma companies, selecting the right CRO partner can make the difference between a successful, on-time clinical development program and one plagued by delays, budget overruns, and management headaches.
While large, global CROs offer undeniable infrastructure and scale advantages, many sponsors report experiencing diminishing returns on their CRO investments—including canned strategies, inflexible approaches, costly protocol changes and lack of team continuity on their study. Frustrations with the operations of the five biggest CROS have led to a phenomenon known as Big Five Fatigue.
Before committing your next study to a large CRO, consider asking these four critical questions:
The distinction between therapeutic area experience and specific indication expertise is crucial, especially in complex fields like oncology and rare disease. Large CROs may showcase impressive therapeutic breadth, but depth in your particular indication can make a meaningful difference in study execution.
Specialized knowledge in your specific indication directly impacts protocol design, site selection, patient recruitment strategies, and overall study efficiency. At Precision for Medicine, over 70% of our trials are in oncology, creating a depth of specialized experience that translates to operational advantages.
Staff turnover represents one of the most disruptive elements in clinical research partnerships. The industry average CRO turnover rate hovers around 20%, but this figure varies significantly between organizations.
Each staff transition creates knowledge gaps, relationship disruptions, and operational delays that compound over time. With less than half the average turnover, Precision for Medicine provides significant team stability and continuity.
Protocol amendments are virtually inevitable as new data emerges. The ability to adapt quickly can preserve months of development time.
Protocol amendment implementation timelines can vary dramatically between CROs. Specialized providers with streamlined processes can often implement changes in a fraction of the time required by large organizations with more complex approval hierarchies.
The "true cost" of a CRO relationship extends well beyond the contract value to include the internal resources required for oversight, coordination, and governance.
Sponsors frequently report spending more internal resources managing CRO relationships than initially projected. Understanding these requirements upfront allows for more accurate financial and resource planning.
Specialized providers have a demonstrated ability to deliver comparable quality with greater efficiency for specific therapeutic areas. Organizations like Precision for Medicine have developed purpose-built approaches for oncology and rare disease trials that address many of the challenges sponsors face with larger, more generalized CROs.
Before defaulting to a large CRO, consider whether a more specialized partner might better align with your specific program needs, timeline objectives, and resource constraints.