Commentary|Videos|September 16, 2024

The Importance of Relationships Between CROs and Clinical Trial Sites

In an interview with Applied Clinical Trials Associate Editor Don Tracy, Sonia Lwoff, director, clinical operations, Rho, discusses the importance of CROs building strong relationships with trial sites.

ACT: How important is it for CROs to form strong relationships with sites, especially in the rare disease space?

Lwoff: If the CRO has a strong relationship with sites, the sites will be more proactive in addressing issues, providing timely feedback and ultimately ensuring trial success. In addition to this, fostering a good side relationship can lead to long term ownership, which can streamline processes and improve overall efficiency for future trials that we want to do.

First and most importantly, addressing issues and providing prompt feedback is the most important piece. I think those relationships will affect how far they go to get patients enroll and the care they give to them to retain them in the study afterwards. This is especially important in their rare disease space, considering the challenges that we have for enrolling patients due to the small population available. They’ll put in more effort when the CRO is working closely with them.

ACT: What are currently some key drivers influencing the decision-making process of sponsors?

Lwoff: Clinical trials are often expensive. Before engaging in a clinical trial, sponsors weigh the cost of the trial with its potential benefit and seek ways to optimize resources and reduce expenses without compromising quality. The main driver for selecting sites in rare disease is where the patients are, as well as timelines to have those sites activated once this is known. Regions and countries are selected and within those sites having the experience and capabilities to conduct the study with high quality are identified. An important consideration to be made by sponsors is trying to keep a balance between a sound and detailed protocol and ensuring that they are not excluding too much of the population by having eligibility criteria that is too restrictive, leading to a declining number of sites participating in clinical trials.


Related to this article

What Expanding AI Ecosystems Mean for Sponsor Complexity and Oversight
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, argues that CROs must act as orchestrators rather than aggregators—and that the real test of any AI ecosystem is whether it reduces sponsor coordination burden or just hands it back to them.
© photon_photo - © photon_photo - stock.adobe.com
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.
Where the Industry Is Headed as Clinical, Operational, and Real-World Data Connect
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.
Where AI Governance in Clinical Development Falls Short
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, identifies three recurring failure modes in AI governance frameworks—and explains why responsible AI must be an ongoing operating discipline, not a one-time approval gate.