Unlike the unified US system, running a multi-country clinical trial in Europe is a bureaucratic nightmare. A single trial can require three slightly different protocols for Switzerland, the UK, and Spain, for example, creating significant delays, costs, and complexity for investigators.

Related Insights

Clinical trial protocols become overly complex because teams copy and paste from previous studies, accumulating unnecessary data points and criteria. Merck advocates for "protocol lean design," which starts from the core research question and rigorously challenges every data collection point to reduce site and patient burden.

With a highly concentrated population, a single-payer system, and vast hospital capacity (90,000 beds in Seoul vs. 4,000 in Boston), South Korea offers a significant advantage for clinical development. This infrastructure allows trials to be completed 40% faster and at 40% lower cost compared to the US.

While the UK's world-class universities provide a rich pipeline of scientific talent for biotechs, the country's clinical trial infrastructure is a significant hurdle. Immense pressure on the NHS creates delays in site opening and patient recruitment, creating a fundamental friction point in the biotech value chain.

The CEO highlights a stark contrast in regulatory speed. Getting a microbe approved to replace a fertilizer takes 6-8 years in Europe, versus just two years in Brazil. This regulatory friction significantly throttles the pace of sustainable innovation in key markets.

While the FDA is often blamed for high trial costs, a major culprit is the consolidated Clinical Research Organization (CRO) market. These entrenched players lack incentives to adopt modern, cost-saving technologies, creating a structural bottleneck that prevents regulatory modernization from translating into cheaper and faster trials.

The FDA is predicted to approve new PARP inhibitors from trials like AMPLITUDE only for BRCA-mutated patients, restricting use to where data is strongest. This contrasts with the EMA's potential for broader approvals or denials. This highlights the diverging regulatory philosophies that create different drug access landscapes in the US and Europe.

To de-risk clinical programs from recruitment and activation hurdles within the UK's strained NHS, companies like Resolution Therapeutics run an equal number of trial sites in other countries, like Spain. This geographic diversification provides a valuable real-time benchmark and a hedge against single-country operational delays.

Amidst growing uncertainty at the US FDA, biotech companies are using a specific de-risking strategy: conducting early-stage clinical trials in countries like South Korea and Australia. This global approach is not just about cost but a deliberate move to get fast, reliable early clinical data to offset domestic regulatory instability and gain a strategic advantage.

Modernizing trials is less about new tools and more about adopting a risk-proportional mindset, as outlined in ICH E6(R3) guidelines. This involves focusing rigorous oversight on critical data and processes while applying lighter, more automated checks elsewhere, breaking the industry's habit of treating all data with the same level of manual scrutiny.

The median $40,000 cost per trial enrollee is high because pharma companies essentially run a parallel, premium healthcare system for participants. They pay for all care and level it up globally to standardize the experiment.