Sponsor Oversight of CROs
Applied Clinical Trials
The perennial sponsor complaint: "Outsourcing costs too much." The perennial CRO response: "If you didn't assign so much internal resource to manage us, it would be cheaper."
The perennial sponsor complaint: "Outsourcing costs too much." The perennial CRO response: "If you didn't assign so much internal resource to manage us, it would be cheaper."
Well, it's true and both groups acknowledge it. Over 90% of sponsor and CRO respondents indicate that resources are assigned to oversee outsourced studies. While CROs and sponsors agree that oversight may be excessive, they do not agree on the consequences. In ISR's Staff Quality and Models report, 78% of CROs believe that oversight increases the amount of time necessary to complete a clinical trial compared to only 25% of sponsors. Sponsors hold what may be considered contradictory beliefs regarding their oversight of CROs. They believe their own oversight to be excessive; however many believe there are benefits too. Nearly half of the sponsor respondents indicated oversight reduces time; 53% believe it either reduces costs or has no impact on costs; and 77% believe it increases data quality.
From ISR's perspective, the size, global scope, and complexity of today's clinical trials are justification enough for a degree of oversight. Pharma's business challenge is identifying when enough is enough; the point when investing in more oversight no longer returns a better clinical trial. Service providers' business challenge is to better understand why sponsors insist on oversight, and then develop systems, training, and people to arrive at the right balance.
This is an evolving issue and having a better understanding of development outsourcing models as well as sponsor and service provider oversight rationale are important first steps to increasing trial efficiency and lowering industry clinical development spending. Achieving the right oversight balance can have profound effects on both individual development programs and companies.
—Industry Standard Research, www.ISRreports.com
FDA Approves Nipocalimab for the Treatment of Generalized Myasthenia Gravis
April 30th 2025Approval is based on results from the pivotal Vivacity-MG3 trial in which IMAAVY (nipocalimab-aahu) demonstrated superior disease control throughout 24 weeks when compared to placebo plus standard of care.
Improving Relationships and Diversifying the Site Selection Process
April 17th 2025In this episode of the Applied Clinical Trials Podcast, Liz Beatty, co-founder and chief strategy officer, Inato, discusses a number of topics around site engagement including community-based sites, the role of technology in improving site/sponsor relationships, how increased operational costs are impacting the industry, and more.
Behind the Buzz: Why Clinical Research Leaders Flock to SCOPE Summit
February 7th 2025In this episode, we meet with Micah Lieberman, Executive Conference Director for SCOPE Summit (Summit for Clinical Ops Executives) at Cambridge Innovation Institute. We will dive deep into the critical role of collaboration within the clinical research ecosystem. How do we bring together diverse stakeholders—sponsors, CROs, clinical trial tech innovators, suppliers, patients, sites, advocacy organizations, investors, and non-profits—to share best practices in trial design, program planning, innovation, and clinical operations? We’ll explore why it’s vital for thought leaders to step beyond their own organizations and learn from others, exchanging ideas that drive advancements in clinical research. Additionally, we’ll discuss the pivotal role of scientific conferences like SCOPE Summit in fostering these essential connections and collaborations, helping shape the future of clinical trials. Join us as we uncover how collective wisdom and cross-industry partnerships are transforming the landscape of clinical research.
