In the early stages of clinical development, biotech companies stand at a fragile and formative crossroads. Phase I is not simply a technical milestone; it is a strategic proving ground. It marks the first real-world test of a company’s scientific hypothesis, operational readiness, and investor credibility. Yet despite the enormous effort it takes to reach the clinic, most programs never make it beyond this point.
Statistical analyses from recent years reveal a sobering truth: fewer than 30 percent of drug development programs that enter Phase I successfully transition to Phase II. The overall likelihood that a drug entering Phase I ultimately achieves marketing approval is approximately 8 percent, reflecting the steep attrition across clinical development. Some industry surveys suggest that close to half of all candidates fail before even completing Phase I. For early-stage biotech companies, often working with lean teams, limited capital, and intense investor oversight, this level of attrition is not just statistic. It is a constant threat.
The reasons behind these early failures are often misunderstood. While biology and safety play their part, a more systemic issue is frequently overlooked: the misalignment between the biotech sponsor’s evolving needs and the operational realities of their chosen CRO partner. This is the CRO fit problem.
Emerging biotechs require more than technical execution. They need strategic adaptability, high responsiveness, and a partner that shares their urgency. Their protocols are iterative. Their timelines are shaped by investor conversations and preclinical data. Their internal capacity is limited, often without dedicated clinical operations infrastructure. In this context, the CRO is not just a vendor. It becomes part of the biotech capability set. Yet many CROs continue to operate with models designed for scale rather than specificity. Their structures prioritize standardization over flexibility. They escalate problems slowly. They select study geographies by default rather than design. And they frequently propose full-service packages that introduce complexity instead of clarity.
Avoiding this breakdown is possible, but it requires more than simply changing vendors. It requires rethinking how partnerships are formed. Sponsors should engage CROs well before protocol finalization, ideally at the preclinical stage, to allow for alignment in trial design, feasibility, and regulatory logic. Quality should be embedded early, not as a post hoc checklist but as a structural pillar. Sponsors benefit from conducting trial simulations, operational walk throughs, and internal external alignment meetings before activation. Protocol design itself must be simplified and intentional. Every endpoint, procedure, and eligibility criterion shouldserve a clearly defined purpose. Choosing the right engagement model, whether full service, functional, or hybrid, based on the sponsor’s internal capacity and therapeutic goals is another critical safeguard. Finally, regulatory input should be embraced early and operational budgets monitored transparently with milestone linked reporting.
These are not theoretical ideals. They are emerging best practices, and they distinguish sponsors who reach Phase II from those who do not.
At People Value Research, we approach these questions not as abstract frameworks but as operating realities. Our model is built to meet the specific demands of early-stage development. We operate with integrated teams, real time oversight, and senior level accountability. Every trial we take on is shaped around the sponsor’s goals, funding stage, and development pathway. We believe that CRO partnerships should function as strategic extensions of the biotech’s internal capacity, aligned in vision, execution, and adaptability.
Choosing a CRO is not an administrative decision. It is a strategic inflection point. The partner selected at Phase I will influence not just cost and timelines but the very trajectory of the development program. In a sector where more than seventy percent of programs never reach Phase II and where nearly ninety percent of biotech companies ultimately fail, the question of CRO fit is not peripheral. It is existential.
The question is not merely whether a CRO can execute. The question is whether it can grow, adapt, and solve alongside you. That is what true fit looks like. And that is what makes it worth getting right from the beginning.
.png)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.jpg)
