Commentary|Videos|October 17, 2025

Adaptive Trial Design as a Pathway to Faster Development

See how early patient inclusion, integrated regulatory planning, and seamless CRO partnerships can help biotechs accelerate progression from Phase I to Phase II.

In a recent video interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Ben Edwards, chief operating officer, Avance Clinical, discussed common challenges in biotech, emphasizing the importance of addressing preclinical package gaps to avoid delays. He highlighted the need for CROs with deep scientific capabilities to create a sound scientific argument for new drugs. In the current funding climate, he stressed the importance of obtaining patient data early to inform decision-making. Edwards also noted the shift towards adaptive trial designs and the benefits of staying with the same CRO for continuity. Effective coordination across functions requires integrated teams and data visualization. Parallel execution strategies, combined with rigorous protocol design and early regulatory engagement, can accelerate development while maintaining compliance.

ACT: Some emerging biotechs are moving away from traditional linear development and instead mapping the full pathway from the start. How does this change the way trials are designed and executed?

Edwards: It's about adaptive design and really obtaining that patient data as part of the Phase I program. Historically, again, we used to see just that single Phase I SAD, MAD, healthy volunteer study, but most study designs today are looking for that patient cohort. So it's really about adaptive design, moving quickly from Phase I to Phase II as well. So rolling in a regulatory package and overlaying that so that you have your Phase I healthy volunteer study ongoing. You might look to accelerate that through Australia, engage with the regulators internationally, so that you can quickly move from whether it's a traditional Phase I or Phase Ia, to Phase Ib to Phase II, so that there's not a junction that's between those that's slowing that progress down. It's really working with the CRO or a program that can actually expand quickly, so really develop, high quality Phase I data, but also then quickly pivot into a broader patient study in the geographies that that they can find the patients. In my view, it doesn't really make sense for a biotech company, if they're looking to conduct a study and outsource that to a CRO to change CROs between Phase I and Phase II. I think there's time lost in that instance, so I would stay with the same provider, get to know the team, plan your regulatory strategy, and expand into Phase II to really obtain that data quickly. I think that's key for emerging biotech today.


Related to this article

What It Actually Means to Embed the Patient Voice in Trial Design
In this video interview, Amélie Lothe, global medical community head for rare epilepsies at UCB Pharma, explains why genuine patient partnership begins before the protocol is written—and what it looks like when patients and caregivers tell you a trial was designed with them in mind.
What This Study Means for Sponsors Still Struggling to Justify RBQM at Scale
In this video interview, Sylviane de Viron of CluePoints and Abigail Dirks of Tufts CSDD explain how ICH E6(R3) and new empirical evidence of RBQM's net financial impact give sponsors the tools they need to build the multi-functional buy-in required for successful adoption—and why RBQM only delivers full value when it replaces, not supplements, traditional monitoring.
What the Epilepsy Community Has Taught Us About Trial Feasibility
In this video interview, Amélie Lothe, global medical community head for rare epilepsies at UCB Pharma, shares what she has learned firsthand from families living with Dravet syndrome and CDKL5 deficiency disorder about what makes trial participation possible—and what makes it not.