You think slow patient recruitment is about having trouble finding patients? Think again!
Knowing this remains a critical success factor in clinical operations, we took it to the stage at SCOPE 2025 with an exciting game of Pharma Feud!
Two pharma teams of three Sponsors each squared off in a friendly, yet insightful, competition to see whose patient recruitment knowledge was strongest. The two teams raced to guess the most popular responses from sites around what really drives patient recruitment success. The answers on the board had some jaws dropping!
Meet the Teams
Representing “Big Pharma & Healthcare” were Jim Carroll from Walgreens, Amanda Decoker from Takeda, and Shivi Stanley from Astellas.
Facing off with them was the "Biotech” team, represented by Randy Brown from Altimmune, Eva Topole from Chiesi, and Peter O’Neill from TuHURA.
Both teams brought some fierce competition, with decades of expertise across clinical trials, patient engagement, and digital transformation.
Phone Tag Fatigue
Our Pharma Feud host, Joe Kim, kicked off the competition with the question: “How many hours a week will someone spend playing phone tag with potential participants?”
All contestants woefully underestimated the time it takes to call back potential patients. The top answer was 40 hours a week!
But whether it’s 40 hours or 10, time wasted on phone tag leads not only to recruitment delays, but puts extra strain on already-burdened resources, frustrates patients and costs sites money. Each contestant gained a better understanding of the need for a better solution for patient scheduling.
A Tale of Two Study Choices
The next question examined the effect of the ease of study conduct on recruitment: “Given two competing studies, what percent of the time will sites divert patients into the study that’s better organized, more profitable, or easier to run?”
Again, contestants drastically underestimated the degree to which profitability can drive the choices of sites. After all, sites, like pharma companies and CROs are businesses. And if a trial is more complicated to run, it will take longer and create more non-revenue generating work for the site, reducing profitability.
In fact, nearly 100% of the time, sites will divert patients away from disorganized, complicated studies, into studies that are just easier to run. This was a real eye-opener for our contestants. After all, you can’t spin the scientific merits of a drug into something more than it is, and FMV dictates payment maximums. But Sponsors can make a difference by adopting strategies and solutions to reduce site burden.
Where Do Patients Come From?
Finally, Joe asked the teams: “What percentage of patients come from the site database versus patients who are outside the practice?”
Certainly, this split will depend on the disease. Enrollment in a migraine trial can be greatly improved with participants from outside the practice. However, Parkinson’s might be a different story.
But all studies rely on some level of external patient recruitment, and at the very least, all studies require real-time insight into enrollment progress at the site level. As our contestants agreed, successful trials demand recruitment strategies that are fit for purpose and tools that can measure ROI.
The Winner: Big Pharma...But Everyone, Really
While Jim, Amanda, and Shivi earned the most points, every contestant won by walking away with a better understanding of what sites truly need to solve the most challenging patient recruitment pain points.
Ready for the Fast Money Round?
Let us answer some final questions for you about how ProofPilot’s recruitment solution is purpose-built to address all of these challenges and more. Reach out to us today to learn more!
%201.svg)
