Short answer: Dr. Chadi Nabhan says 80% of trials run behind schedule and 50% of sites enroll zero to one patients. Ryght matches trials to the best sites and principal investigators, ranking sites into three tiers by likelihood of enrollment success.
Watch this answer from Episode 34 (starts at 5:43) · Episode 34 notes and transcript
From Episode 34: AI Is Rebuilding Clinical Trials, starting at 5:43.
Dr. Chadi Nabhan [5:42]: Yeah. I mean, I think somewhat. So, for the sites to execute on any clinical trial, they need to have qualitative capabilities for their specific study or quantitative capabilities in terms of what they can actually do in terms of enrollment and getting patients on. And these vary between sites. And to your earlier point, there are large academic sites, there are also the smaller community sites, there are sites in The US, there are sites in Europe, Australia, and so on. Our goal is to help rapidly identify the best sites for this specific study. If I step back, Sam, I will say, why do clinical trials fail? First of all, they're costly. It takes ten to fifteen years to get a clinical trial to enroll. These are the trials that go to change standard of therapy, standard of care. And 1 to $3,000,000,000, and by the way, 90% of drugs and trials don't really, get you a drug to market. But trials fail because either the drug doesn't work that you are studying or because it's toxic so you cannot give it because it's really it could work but it's just too toxic, or simply because the trial did not enroll, so you never really got to the yes or no, you never got to that point. And when you look at the statistics don't lie. 80% of trials run behind schedule, 50% of sites enroll just zero to one patients, and from a sponsor perspective, time is money. This is a lot of money to activate the sites and then don't enroll.
Dr. Chadi Nabhan [7:19]: So we wanted to disrupt this by focusing on the third element. We're not making drugs, we're not really reducing toxicity, but what we can do, we can help sponsors identify the sites that are best for this particular study. And we also connect them with the right principal investigator, with the right person who's going to bring that trial and champion it internally because that's to help with enrollment. Subsequent to that, we also automate a lot of the mundane work. So we allow actually the exchange between sponsors, between sites, and so on. So there's really this end to end solution between the two major stakeholders in that space. So your point is well taken that you have all of these sites, but maybe the site that is ranked in this particular list as number 20, it could be the best site for this specific trial that is going on there. And the only way to do that is by linking the trial and the specific needs of that trial against the capabilities of that site. And I'll just say one other thing is there are nuances. So you're talking with a sponsor that have a specific interest of having that particular trial enrolled in Europe because they have a regulatory goal in Europe as an example, strategically.
Dr. Chadi Nabhan [8:44]: Well, where do you go in Europe if you have a specific regulatory component that you need to actually achieve? So we select the right sites that are able to execute on that. So I like what you've built here. I think it's pretty easy and you certainly picked up on what we're doing. We're literally I mean, that's what we're doing. We're trying to make that link and be able to really rank these sites. So when whenever we get these sites, we end up having a score. We tier the sites into three tiers, tier one, tier two, tier three. And the tier one usually the ones that are most likely to succeed in enrollment, tier two less, and tier three the least.
