How to reduce costly delays in Clinical Trials
A practical guide for CROs, pharma sponsors and clinical operations teams
| The short answer |
| Every day a Clinical Trial runs late costs an average of $40,000 in direct operating costs and erodes the commercial value of the drug under development. Equipment supply failures, patient drop-out, and slow lab turnaround are the most common causes. Most are preventable. |
Key takeaways
- $40,000 - mean direct daily cost of a Phase II/III clinical trial delay (Tufts CSDD, 2024) [1]
- $800,000 - estimated lost prescription sales per day of delay to market [1]
- Around 80% of Clinical Trials fail to meet their initial enrolment timelines [2]
- 30% of patients drop out; replacing one costs an average of $19,533 [3]
- POCT can cut time to clinical decision by nearly half vs central laboratory testing [4]
- 56% of sites say trial complexity has increased in the last three years (Bain, 2022) [5]
Why delays are a financial problem, not just a scheduling one
There's a tendency to track delays in days and weeks - how far behind schedule a site is, when the SIV date got pushed to. That framing underestimates what those slippages actually cost. Research published by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) in 2024 provides the clearest picture yet.[1] The direct daily cost of running a Phase III clinical trial is $55,716. Phase II runs at around $23,737 per day. Across later-stage trials, the mean daily burn rate is roughly $40,000 - and that's before the commercial picture is factored in.
The long-cited figure of $4-5 million per delay day turns out to be a significant overestimate, built on 1990s blockbuster drug revenues that no longer reflect the market. Tufts CSDD's updated analysis of 645 drugs and biologics puts the real figure at approximately $800,000 per day in lost commercial sales value. For cardiovascular drugs, the median daily sales value is $1.97 million. A Phase III oncology study running four weeks late absorbs over $1.56 million in direct costs alone, with commercial losses on top.
| A real-world illustration |
| A Phase III immunology study — the highest-cost therapeutic area in the Tufts CSDD dataset at $51,340 per day — running six weeks late would accrue over $2.1 million in additional direct operating costs. That's before a single day of commercial sales value is counted. |
How widespread is the problem?
Around 80% of Clinical Trials fail to meet their initial timelines.[2] Bain & Company found that more than one in five trials are delayed by more than 40% of their planned duration.[5] At the same time, trial complexity has grown sharply — the average number of endpoints per protocol increased by 86% between 2001 and 2015,[6] and the total number of procedures per trial rose by 67% between 2009–2012 and 2017–2020.[7] The result: 53% of sites now report insufficient bandwidth to support their current Phase II or III trials — up from 14% before the pandemic.[5]
More complexity means more points of failure. More points of failure mean more delays.
The most common — and preventable — causes of delay
1. Late equipment supply
Equipment that doesn't arrive on time creates a cascade. Sites can't complete SIVs. Investigators can't begin screening. And the budget keeps burning. A single oversight - inaccurate paperwork, delayed customs clearance, a supplier unfamiliar with Clinical Trial import requirements - can ripple across the entire timeline.
| What to look for in a supplier |
| Work with a supplier that treats SIV delivery as a primary commitment, not a best-effort estimate. That means confirmed delivery dates tied to your site activation calendar, Importer of Record (IoR) capability in every country on your site list, and a documented escalation process for customs delays or shipment failures. A supplier without clinical trial logistics experience will often underestimate what it takes - and the cost of that gap lands on your study budget. |
2. Unsuitable or poor-quality equipment
Late delivery gets the attention. But equipment that arrives on time and then fails - or turns out to be incompatible with the protocol - is equally disruptive. Sites that receive uncalibrated devices, equipment that doesn't integrate with their data infrastructure, or devices not cleared for use in a specific jurisdiction face delays that are often harder to resolve than a late shipment.
| What to look for in a supplier |
| Choose a supplier that reviews your protocol before making any device recommendations — not one that takes your order and ships. A proper protocol review should cover the study's requirements across all site locations, regulatory clearance in each country, compatibility with the site's data collection systems, and calibration documentation. Being open about your budget at this stage allows the supplier to recommend the best-fit devices for the study, rather than the most expensive ones available. |
3. Patient drop-out and the cost of replacement
Around 30% of Clinical Trial participants drop out before study completion.[3] The average initial recruitment cost per patient is $6,533. The average cost to replace a patient who withdraws is $19,533 - three times as much.[3] In narrow therapeutic areas, the timeline impact can be severe: 85% of Clinical Trials fail to retain enough patients to meet their original statistical goals. [2]
Poor patient experience is a consistent driver of dropout. Site staff burdened with complex, time-consuming administrative tasks have less capacity to focus on the patient — and patients notice. A 2023 WCG survey found that trial complexity ranked third among the biggest challenges facing clinical research sites, with 52% of sites reporting it had already affected their ability to open trials. [8]
| What to look for in a supplier |
| Look for kitting solutions that take preparation work away from site staff entirely. Pre-assembled, protocol-compliant patient kits - built centrally, delivered to site ready to use - reduce administrative burden, lower the risk of kit preparation errors, and give site staff more time for patient-facing work. Between 2009–2012 and 2017–2020, the average number of procedures per trial rose by 67%. [7] That burden lands on sites. Suppliers who help absorb it protect your retention rates. |
4. Slow laboratory turnaround at screening
Central laboratory testing can take days to return results, and at screening that creates a bottleneck. In competitive trials where eligible patients have other options, waiting several days for a lab result can mean losing that patient entirely. During the study, slow turnaround delays data collection and pushes interim analysis windows. The evidence on what POCT does to this problem is hard to ignore. A randomised controlled trial found that median time from patient arrival to clinical decision dropped from 204.5 minutes to 106.5 minutes - nearly half - when POCT replaced central laboratory testing.[4] A systematic review in BMJ Open found panel tests at point of care led to clinical decisions around 40 minutes faster than central lab processing.[9]
| What to look for in a supplier |
| Where the protocol permits, introduce Point of Care Testing (POCT) at screening to confirm patient eligibility during the visit itself rather than waiting days for central lab results. A well-stocked POCT supplier should offer a broad device range - CBC, chemistry panels, haemostasis, coagulation, blood gas, HbA1c and more - available for rental or purchase, with global delivery and calibration documentation included. |
5. Underuse of technology that keeps data moving
Central laboratory testing can take days to return results, and at screening that creates a bottleneck. In competitive trials where eligible patients have other options, waiting several days for a lab result can mean losing that patient entirely. During the study, slow turnaround delays data collection and pushes interim analysis windows. The evidence on what POCT does to this problem is hard to ignore. A randomised controlled trial found that median time from patient arrival to clinical decision dropped from 204.5 minutes to 106.5 minutes — nearly half — when POCT replaced central laboratory testing.[4] A systematic review in BMJ Open found panel tests at point of care led to clinical decisions around 40 minutes faster than central lab processing.[9]
| What to look for in a supplier |
| When specifying metabolic monitoring devices — CGM, BGM, or BKM — ask whether they support automated, secure data transfer direct to the CRO or sponsor platform. Look for compatibility with multi-device platforms that cover a wide range of clinics and languages, and ask specifically about in-clinic and remote sync options. A supplier with genuine clinical trial experience will raise this conversation proactively, not after devices are already on site. |
A practical delay-reduction checklist
| Use this at study planning stage |
Equipment supply |
| Screening efficiency - POCT devices assessed for eligibility confirmation at screening visit? - Device range covers all panels required by your protocol? |
| Patient retention - Kit preparation handled centrally, not by site staff? - Patient-facing materials and devices language-appropriate for all study countries? |
| Data flow - Metabolic monitoring devices support automated transfer to your CRO's platform? - Multi-language, multi-clinic compatibility confirmed? |
| Supplier due diligence - ISO 9001:2015 certified? - Full protocol reviewed — including site locations — before device recommendation? |
Frequently asked questions
Q: What is the average daily cost of a clinical trial delay?
According to Tufts CSDD's 2024 analysis of 447 protocols, the mean direct daily cost across Phase II and III trials is approximately $40,000. Phase III specifically averages $55,716 per day. On top of direct operating costs, every delay day is also worth approximately $800,000 in lost prescription drug sales, based on analysis of 645 drugs and biologics launched since 2000.
Q: What causes most clinical trial delays?
Around 80% of Clinical Trials miss their initial timelines. The most common operational causes include late or unsuitable equipment supply, patient drop-out (affecting around 30% of all participants), slow central laboratory turnaround at screening, and failure to use available technology to automate data flow. Trial complexity has also increased significantly — 56% of sites report greater complexity compared to three years ago.
Q: How can POCT devices help reduce clinical trial delays?
POCT devices return test results within minutes at the clinical site, compared to hours or days for central laboratory processing. A randomised controlled trial published in BMC Emergency Medicine found that median time from patient arrival to clinical decision dropped from 204.5 to 106.5 minutes when POCT replaced central lab testing. At screening, this means eligibility can be confirmed during the visit itself — accelerating enrolment and reducing drop-out from waiting.
Q: How does site burden contribute to patient drop-out?
Site staff stretched by administrative tasks — kit preparation, data entry, procedure volumes — have less time for patient interaction. Studies consistently link poor patient experience at site level to higher drop-out rates. Centralised kitting solutions reduce that burden directly, freeing site staff to focus on the patient. Given that replacing a dropped-out patient costs an average of $19,533, reducing site burden has a clear financial return.
Q: What should I look for in a clinical trial equipment supplier?
Key criteria: ISO 9001:2015 certification, in-house calibration with documented traceability, Importer of Record services in your study countries, and a protocol review process before any device is recommended. A supplier that reviews your full protocol - including all site locations - will identify logistical and regulatory issues before they become delays. One that just takes your order and ships will find them for you on SIV day.
How Woodley Trial Solutions can help
Woodley Trial Solutions has been supporting global Clinical Trials since 1989. We are an ISO 9001:2015 certified supplier of Clinical Trial equipment, POCT devices, metabolic monitoring devices, Site-Ready Patient Kits, digital health technology, and Importer of Record services in 120+ countries. Our team - which includes biomedical scientists, medical electronics engineers and dedicated project managers — reviews every study brief before recommending equipment, and works to your SIV dates, not around them. If you want to discuss equipment supply, kitting, or logistics for an upcoming study, please get in touch.
References
[1] Smith Z., DiMasi J., Getz K. New Estimates on the Cost of a Delay Day in Drug Development. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38773058/
[2] LeapCure. Why Time Is The Most Expensive Resource In Clinical Trials. 2025. https://blog.leapcure.com/why-time-is-the-most-expensive-resource-in-clinical-trials-and-how-to-make-every-second-count/
[3] MD Group. The True Cost of Patient Drop-Outs in Clinical Trials. https://mdgroup.com/blog/the-true-cost-of-patient-drop-outs-in-clinical-trials/
[4] Dasri T. et al. Role of Point-of-Care Testing in Reducing Time to Treatment Decision-Making in Urgency Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Emergency Medicine. 2020. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7081845/
[5] Bain & Company. How Customer-First Clinical Trials Cut Complexity and Delays. 2023. https://www.bain.com/insights/how-customer-first-clinical-trials-cut-complexity-and-delays/
[6] Xtalks / Tufts CSDD. 10 Trends and Statistics for Clinical Trials in 2023. https://xtalks.com/10-trends-and-statistics-for-clinical-trials-in-2023-3377/
[7] SubjectWell, citing Getz K. et al. Protocol Design and Performance Benchmarks by Phase and by Oncology and Rare Disease Subgroups. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2023. 57:49–56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9373886/
[8] WCG. 2023 Clinical Research Site Challenges Survey Report. https://www.wcgclinical.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/WCGs-2023-Clinical-Research-Site-Challenges-Survey-Report.pdf
[9] ScienceInsights. What Is POCT? Point-of-Care Testing Explained, citing BMJ Open systematic review. 2026. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK592387/
Share
