When Speed Becomes a Risk
Dr. Brannan put it bluntly:
“I don’t mind going fast, but if I’m in front of a brick wall, I don’t accelerate my car.” He noted that sponsors are almost always asked to accelerate, but rarely encouraged to slow down. That imbalance often results in enrolling the wrong patients or selecting the wrong sites, leading to variability that overwhelms the signal. The consequence is all too familiar: trials that fail and then get repeated at enormous cost, both to sponsors and to patients waiting for therapies.
Dr. Walling added another critical perspective. When speed becomes the priority, the relationship between sponsors, CROs, and sites can break down.
“It should never be an us versus them in clinical trials,” he said.
“When CROs, sites, and sponsors are clicking together, things go well.” He warned that when sites are pressured to hit aggressive enrollment targets, the risk of including patients who should not be randomized increases, jeopardizing both data integrity and patient safety.
A Call to Run Trials Differently
What emerged in this discussion is not just a critique of timelines, but a call for discipline and partnership. Neuropsychiatric trials will always be difficult. Placebo response, subjective outcomes, and variability cannot be completely eliminated. But they can be managed when stakeholders allow room for rigor, align with their partners, and resist shortcuts that may save weeks on a Gantt chart but cost years in the development cycle.
Watch the Full Bold Conversation
The insights from Dr. Brannan and Dr. Walling highlight both the risks of speed and the practices that give programs the best chance to succeed. To hear more on their perspective of why neuropsychiatry trials fail and what sponsors can do differently to protect their investments,
watch the full on-demand webinar now.
