In early phase trials, operations is where speed is won or lost

Most early phase programs don’t falter for lack of good science or software. They slip the timeline because a decision comes weeks too late. Recruitment lags, and teams “wait and hope” that it will recover on its own; a safety signal flickers but isn’t reviewed until the next prespecified time point. By the time the data forces a decision, weeks or months are gone. When a competing molecule is advancing in parallel, a lost quarter can decide the program. One of the hardest problems in early development is maintaining the discipline to act early.

Emerging biotechs face acute pressure to meet aggressive timelines while managing limited internal infrastructure and precarious funding. But speed is not just a small-company concern. Large pharmaceutical organizations, with deep pipelines and deeper pockets, face the same imperative to move faster to stay competitive, even as protocols grow more complex.

Smaller companies are often constrained by operational silos and a thin global regulatory footprint, which can lead to inefficient trial designs and costly delays. Larger organizations have the resources, yet still lose time when early phase execution is treated as a checklist rather than an imperative. The time pressure is universal, but the cost is asymmetric. Many biotechs exhaust their capital running trials that look sound on paper, only to discover late that a candidate was never viable or that the data they collected will not support a global submission. Operational errors do not add risk linearly; they multiply it, for companies of every size.

Operational excellence in early phase trials is less about tools than about how teams work. Three strategies, applied proactively, can change a program's trajectory: early engagement to optimize protocols, continuous monitoring to safeguard recruitment, and active, real-time data review to manage risks. Each is people-led. Connected data platforms, advanced analytics, and real-time reporting make these approaches faster and more reliable—but judgment and follow-through come from experienced teams. The differentiator is not the technology but the operating culture it enables.

1.    Engage early to stress-test the protocol and bank ethnobridging data

Often, sponsors come to us with a finished study synopsis: scientifically sound, but built without an operational stress test. The number and types of assessments, in-house stays, and eligibility criteria often impose burdens that quietly slow recruitment. If we can partner with a sponsor before the design is locked, our team can redesign these elements rather than work around them later.

The highest-leverage early decision many sponsors overlook is ethnobridging—generating data in subjects of Asian ancestry, at Western sites, to facilitate global development. A small biotech focused on Phase 1 rarely plans for global submission. Yet regulators in Japan and China generally require local safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) data before patient studies can proceed in those countries. By generating this data early in the West, sponsors can avoid separate bridging studies later, which are slower and more expensive than incorporating them from the start.

At Parexel, we embed small ethnobridging cohorts—typically 16 to 20 first-generation Japanese and/or Chinese subjects, not hundreds—directly into the first-in-human (FIH) study, run through our Early Phase Clinical Units (EPCUs) in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and London, with most conducted in Los Angeles. The sponsor can then carry that data straight into a global Phase 2 or 3 and submit in Japan and China without a standalone bridging study.

Because acceptance rests on a small number of subjects rather than 100, the data must be exceptionally clean, and that quality is deliberately engineered. It requires first-generation participants (born in their native countries) who meet strict eligibility criteria, a culturally controlled environment, and rigorous monitoring. A sponsor cannot simply recruit subjects of Asian descent locally; the conditions must be reproduced to a standard acceptable to Asian regulators, a standard Parexel developed in close collaboration with those authorities. That is the difference between collecting data and collecting data that counts.

Recently, we enrolled individuals of Chinese and Japanese descent at our Los Angeles and London EPCUs, supported by bilingual staff, traditional-diet meals, and culturally sensitive amenities, and completed FIH single- and multiple-ascending-dose studies for a large pharmaceutical sponsor. They subsequently launched Phase 2 trials directly in Japan and China, saving roughly 15 months of development time and the cost of separate ethnobridging studies.

The early-engagement payoff is twofold: a more operationally realistic protocol, and a global strategy de-risked before the first dose.

2.    Trade ‘wait and hope’ for continuous monitoring

Monitoring clinical trial operations is a discipline, not a proprietary system. There is no black box here. What elevates it is granularity and constancy; eligibility screening is reviewed continuously from day one rather than at prespecified checkpoints. In practice, that means tracking not only whether the screen-fail (SF) rate exceeds estimates but also the reasons behind every failure, so trends surface early; managing competitive recruitment across multiple sites to avoid both under- and over-enrollment; and maintaining transparent communication with the sponsor.

This is a cultural shift driven by meticulous planning. Teams agree trigger points and red flags up front—specific recruitment-rate thresholds over defined periods that automatically prompt pre-planned remedies, each with a fixed timeline. This replaces the most common and most expensive failure mode: assuming a stalled trial will spontaneously recover while critical weeks elapse. Protocol risks identified early are flagged to the sponsor and captured in the risk management plan, with proposed mitigations and built-in flexibility, before recruitment begins.

Recruitment is designed around patients’ lives. Teams monitor advertising campaign metrics, including social media footprint, clicks, target demographics, and geographic radius, and adapt outreach in real time. They anticipate how summer and winter holidays affect specific populations (participants of childbearing potential, students, or working-age adults with families) and then strategize timelines to avoid those windows, front-load enrollment, or focus on more flexible candidates. The campaign is dynamic and responsive, not a one-time launch.

Continuous monitoring costs more than periodic check-ins but offers commensurate rewards. In one recent Phase 1 trial of a new agent for NSCLC, Parexel’s trial team held frequent, in-depth meetings—sometimes for eight to ten hours a week—to review data, discuss patient safety, and strategize about enrollment. The intensive cadence paid off: the trial completed enrollment on time, with no rescue sites needed. Discovering a stalled site weeks late and standing up rescue sites is far more expensive and slower; the investment in proactive screening is recovered when timelines are met or beaten. 

For example, we recently worked on a competitive obesity study spanning internal EPCUs in the UK and the US, as well as external sites. Recruitment competed against trials conducted by other CROs, with sites coming online in a staggered sequence. We anticipated a high SF rate and mitigated it early. Rather than simply re-screening new candidates, we drilled into the values behind each failure. Borderline body mass index (BMI) cases (the protocol set a tight range plus a waist-circumference criterion that differed by sex) were rechecked after a few weeks as weight fluctuated; participants with elevated liver enzymes were given lifestyle guidance and brought back for re-screening. Flags were kept on screened participants for active follow-up, and sites shared tactics in joint meetings, so later sites inherited lessons the first had learned. The counterintuitive obesity-trial problem—a study so attractive to patients that candidate volume is high, yet criteria are strict—was solved through people, not automation. The study enrolled ahead of schedule.

3.    Review data in real time — and act on it 

Real-time data review is active management, not passive monitoring. It requires a new mindset: instead of waiting for a database lock to learn what happened, the team engages with emerging data to decide what happens next. This is most consequential in dose-finding. Dose optimization, now expected by the FDA in oncology and increasingly relevant in obesity, where higher doses drive adverse events and dropouts, depends on reviewing safety signals as they emerge and adjusting before the next cohort.

Platforms such as Elluminate consolidate all medical data (PK, electronic case report forms, and safety) into a single source in near real time, with built-in analysis and graphing. That replaces the old workflow of pulling fragmented data into spreadsheets and waiting two days for a usable picture. These platforms are commercially available rather than unique to any one CRO, and they are reporting tools, not predictive ones. Predictive alerts may be on the horizon; they are not here yet.

In one recent trial, we introduced two intermediate doses after observing toxicities at higher planned doses, and added a pre-medication regimen to better manage adverse events. That extended the timeline: the sponsor had expected to finish dose escalation within a year, but adjusted the plan once the value of thorough optimization became clear. The breadth of that dose optimization data, paired with careful planning, carried them through their End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA.

The competitive advantage lies in the combination of connected data, experienced overseers, and an active management approach, which together deliver what no single component can. The platform surfaces the trend; people decide what to do about it. Human engagement makes decisions smarter and faster

Operational discipline drives early phase speed

Early operational decisions determine how quickly a program moves. The programs that move fastest are not the ones with the most tools—they are the ones that engage early, monitor continuously, and actively manage data, with experienced people making the calls and technology accelerating them.

For sponsors, the practical steps are clear: bring operational expertise in before the protocol is locked; build ethnobridging and other downstream requirements into the FIH design; agree on trigger points and remedies in advance; and treat early phase data as something to act on weekly, not to review quarterly. Partner with a team that has built these disciplines into its way of working, and use the earliest stage of development to avoid the delay you cannot afford later.

Start a conversation

Continue exploring Phase I Strategies

Gain practical perspectives from the recent panel discussion featuring biotech leaders and early phase experts on the strategies that can accelerate proof of concept.

Watch on-demand

Explore more episodes