In one of the riski­est in­dus­tries — Biotech — a sure­fire way to neu­tral­ize some of that risk emerges

Not many would ar­gue that Biotech is one of the riski­est in­dus­tries on the globe. With costs hov­er­ing in the hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars, com­peti­tors work­ing on sim­i­lar ther­a­pies, and the sev­er­al years it takes to get a drug ap­proved, it’s un­pre­dictable — and that’s if the sci­ence holds up. But what’s one thing drug spon­sors can con­trol to help dis­cov­er the ef­fi­ca­cy of their in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug as quick­ly as pos­si­ble? En­roll­ment. It turns out there is a way to con­trol this crit­i­cal com­po­nent of clin­i­cal tri­al suc­cess: by en­list­ing the on­ly agency who cares about your pre­cious re­sources as much as you do. By on­ly charg­ing clients for suc­cess­ful­ly en­rolling pa­tients, Clin­i­cal En­roll­ment part­ners with Spon­sors to re­move risk and su­per­charge re­cruit­ment.

What Clin­i­cal En­roll­ment (CE) pro­vides for their clients:

• Dig­i­tal ad­ver­tis­ing: Cre­at­ing a dig­i­tal sphere of in­flu­ence around each op­er­a­tional clin­i­cal site, gen­er­at­ing on av­er­age 4.6 mil­lion im­pres­sions per tri­al
• EHR re­trieval: Dig­i­tal EHRs re­trieved in 3-5 days and pro­vid­ed to the ap­pro­pri­ate site through a se­cure dig­i­tal por­tal with a 1-page top sheet eval­u­a­tion
• Re­al-time phone screen­ings: Out­reach with­in 15 min­utes of on­line screen­ing, or sched­uled con­sul­ta­tion at a time con­ve­nient for the can­di­date
• Pa­tient Ad­vo­cates: 1:1 ded­i­cat­ed CE pa­tient ad­vo­cate for each tri­al, trained and equipped with a ful­ly IRB-ap­proved script and the abil­i­ty to walk the pa­tient through the com­pre­hen­sive pre-screen process or in­clu­sion/ex­clu­sion cri­te­ria
• So­phis­ti­cat­ed tar­get­ing & am­pli­fi­ca­tion: Reach meets or ex­ceeds hun­dreds of thou­sands of po­ten­tial pa­tients
• Clin­i­cal site man­age­ment: Clin­i­cal En­roll­ment con­ducts week­ly calls with each clin­i­cal site, pro­vid­ing up­dates on can­di­date flow, and work­ing to bet­ter un­der­stand (and be re­spon­sive to) chang­ing site needs
• Cus­tom da­ta re­port­ing: Re­al-time in­fo on full re­cruit­ment fun­nel from on­line screen­ing to en­roll­ment, in­clud­ing in­sights on can­di­date be­hav­ior, iden­ti­fy­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties for tri­al im­prove­ment, and im­ple­ment­ing ac­tion­able steps for im­prov­ing over­all through-put

What they in­voice spon­sors for:

• Signed ICFs + Ran­dom­iza­tions

CE’s pric­ing mod­el is both sim­ple and rev­o­lu­tion­ary at the same time. There are no man­aged ser­vice fees, month­ly charges, project man­age­ment costs, month­ly ad spend, etc. Clients just pay for pa­tients in seats, and if CE doesn’t de­liv­er, they don’t get paid. So how ex­act­ly does Clin­i­cal En­roll­ment man­age to up­hold this ze­ro-risk pric­ing mod­el? Turns out, ab­sorb­ing all of the re­cruit­ment risk for your clients isn’t so risky when you find the right pa­tients every time, and the proof is in the num­bers.

Study av­er­ages across all TAs in­clude:

• 10,000+ screen­ings
• 4.6 mil­lion im­pres­sion for high-lev­el aware­ness
• 47 en­roll­ments on av­er­age in Phase 2 tri­als
• 18% re­duc­tion in screen fail rate
• 57 day (av­er­age) re­duc­tion off to­tal re­cruit­ment time­line
• 3x screen­ing po­ten­tial pa­tients (web site, phone screen­ing, EHR pro­cure­ment) to re­lieve site bur­den

What’s more, these num­bers hold up across a wide range of clin­i­cal tri­al needs, from large Phar­ma to pri­vate monother­a­py com­pa­nies, so much so that CE was able to ex­pand their ther­a­peu­tic ar­eas by 300% in the last year alone.

Clin­i­cal En­roll­ment’s so­cial-first, hu­man-first strat­e­gy may feel like it re­lies heav­i­ly on al­go­rithms and quan­ti­ta­tive da­ta to dri­ve its ap­proach, but in ac­tu­al­i­ty it’s the qual­i­ta­tive, emo­tion-dri­ven un­der­pin­ning that serves as the com­pa­ny’s north star. Born with a rare ge­net­ic eye dis­ease called Star­gardt’s, Founder Bryan Man­ning knows the im­por­tance of giv­ing pa­tients what they de­serve: ac­cess to po­ten­tial­ly life-chang­ing sci­en­tif­ic dis­cov­er­ies. Up­on learn­ing that a clin­i­cal tri­al that could have cured his reti­nal con­di­tion failed be­cause it could not find enough pa­tients, Man­ning found that road­block un­ac­cept­able — and en­tire­ly avoid­able. He found­ed CE and be­came res­olute in his mis­sion to nev­er al­low a tri­al to fail due to un­der-en­roll­ment. And if as­sum­ing the en­roll­ment and pric­ing risk is what that re­quires, then Clin­i­cal En­roll­ment is fine with that.

In an in­creas­ing­ly un­cer­tain land­scape, CE isn’t afraid to move a lit­tle more of the risk in­to their col­umn if it means get­ting the right ther­a­pies in­to the right hands, and even bet­ter if they can do it in record time. For spon­sors look­ing to de­crease un­cer­tain­ty in their clin­i­cal tri­als, hir­ing Clin­i­cal En­roll­ment feels like an in­creas­ing­ly safe bet.

Find out how to en­list Clin­i­cal En­roll­ment for your re­cruit­ment needs and learn more about their pa­tient qual­i­ty strate­gic ap­proach here, or email part­ner@clin­i­calen­roll­ment.com.