As the founder and managing director of Complete Phase, Negin Rahmani’s story is an intersection of all the angles in the clinical trial world. From junior placement on site in hospitals to working with big-box CROs and pharma, Negin details her journey to and after the creation of Complete Phase, and why a clinical trial partner model like hers is needed in today’s CRO landscape.
So I started out trying to get into medicine. The plan was biomedical science first, then transfer into a medical degree. But in that first year the drug R&D subjects — pharmacology, how trials are run, how a therapy actually reaches patients — those were the subjects that lit me up. So I pivoted into a four-year pharmaceutical science degree focused on bringing drugs to market. My first role was a year-long placement at a phase 1 unit where they rotated me through the whole thing, direct patient assessments, submissions and documentation, data management, then study coordination. It gave me a ground-level view. You’re with patients, you see how treatment actually happens, not just the theory. I loved the work.
I’d say my journey in the CRO world has really evolved from being very hands-on in operations to now shaping strategy and guiding sponsors through the bigger picture. Early on, it was all about learning the mechanics — monitoring, project management, the nuts and bolts of running a study. Over the years, I started to see the gaps smaller sponsors face, especially those without in-house expertise, and that’s what drove me to build Complete Phase.
Now my role is much more about partnership — helping sponsors think through regulatory strategy, trial design, and risk early, while still staying close to the operational realities. What’s evolved the most is that shift from executing studies to co-creating solutions with sponsors, so they feel they have a senior team walking alongside them.
The CRO world has definitely evolved a lot since I first started. It used to be very transactional — you handed a study to a CRO, and they executed it. Now sponsors are looking for true partners, not just service providers. They want CROs who bring strategic input, help design smarter trials, and anticipate regulatory and operational challenges early on.
Technology has also changed things dramatically — from ePRO and remote monitoring to the use of AI and data analytics — and that’s reshaped how efficiently we can run trials. But at the same time, timelines and budgets have only gotten tighter, which makes experience and judgment even more critical.
So overall, the biggest shift I’ve seen is from CROs being task-focused vendors to becoming consultative partners who are embedded in a sponsor’s journey, especially for smaller biotechs that really rely on senior expertise.
For me, “clinical trial partner” is much more than a label — it’s about the way we show up for sponsors. Traditional CROs can feel very transactional: here’s your budget, here’s your scope, we’ll deliver the milestones. At Complete Phase, we operate as an extension of our clients’ business.
Smaller sponsors, often lean teams of just two to five people, turn to us for the seasoned expertise and guidance they don’t have in-house. That’s why we set things up to be transparent, high-trust, and sleeves-up. From experience, I can tell you that when you’re a small company, you don’t want a vendor sitting outside your business dictating what to do — you want a team that shares accountability for the plan, the pivots, and the outcomes.
Being a partner also means staying close to the science, helping shape decisions, and anticipating challenges — not just reacting to them. It’s about trust and alignment, making sponsors feel they’re not outsourcing a study, but gaining a team that’s just as invested in their success as they are.
I think the Clinical Trial Partner model is especially relevant today because small sponsors face three big pain points: resources, flexibility, and budget. They don’t have the luxury of excess time or money, and they can’t afford to get lost in layers of process.
At Complete Phase, we built our model to directly address that. We only bring in senior staff, so sponsors get real expertise from day one without the learning curve. We’re agile — we know strategies shift, and we move with them. And we’ve deliberately chosen lean systems that are purpose-built for small studies, not weighed down by enterprise bloat.
With a large CRO, sponsors often pay for overhead, tools, and structures they simply don’t need. With a true clinical trial partner, they get exactly what moves the trial forward — experience, adaptability, and value aligned to their scale.
Yes, the funding landscape is definitely shifting — especially in the U.S. — and we’re seeing that ripple through globally. What it means in practice is that smaller biotechs are being a lot more cautious. Instead of diving straight into big, multi-country Phase 2 or 3 programs, they’re asking, “How can we stretch our dollars further and still get the data we need?”
That’s where regions like Australia and New Zealand come in — faster start-up timelines, strong clinical infrastructure, and the added benefit of R&D incentives. It gives them a way to generate proof-of-concept data quickly before going back to investors.
And it also changes what they expect from CRO partners. It’s no longer just about running a study; it’s about being a sounding board, helping them design leaner trials, manage risk, and think ahead about regulatory pathways.
So overall, funding pressures are making sponsors more resourceful, more value-driven, and much more reliant on partners who bring both execution and strategic guidance to the table.
From both U.S. and Australian clients, we’re definitely seeing a push toward efficiency — trial designs are getting leaner and more focused. U.S. biotechs in particular are trying to get to proof-of-concept with smaller, smarter studies before they go back to investors. That means adaptive designs, biomarker-driven endpoints, and creative use of digital tools are showing up more often.
On budgets, there’s a real sensitivity. Sponsors want predictability and transparency — no surprises — and they’re looking for ways to cut costs without cutting corners. In Australia, the R&D tax incentive helps, but even local sponsors are under pressure to justify spend and keep timelines tight.
As for gaps, one that stands out is resourcing. Smaller sponsors may not have in-house regulatory, data, or pharmacovigilance expertise, so they lean heavily on CROs to fill those roles. Another gap is around long-term planning, many are so focused on getting the first patient that they sometimes under-invest in thinking through what comes after early-phase readouts.
So the big trend is: leaner designs, tighter budgets, faster timelines and the gap is making sure they still have the senior guidance and infrastructure to support that without increasing risk.
Three things. First, we offer senior-only teams — people who’ve done the hard parts before. Automatically, that makes start-up and troubleshooting much faster. Second, the right-sized infrastructure for your small company, and lean tools that don’t weigh you down. The third thing is genuine agility. Clinical trial partners do fewer handoffs, and we have fewer layers in our organization, so a protocol tweak happens in days, not months. Add Australia’s faster start-up ramp to that and you turn the CTP operating model into tangible wins for not only your calendar and budget but also – and, honestly, this is the most important part – your enrolled patients.
So, you know from my back story that I have worked with sponsors of all sizes, but our current focus with Complete Phase is on small sponsors, specifically across immunology, oncology, and CNS. Small sponsors need that agility, that efficiency and that hands-on approach I was talking about.
As for our specific therapeutic areas of focus, I’ve been drawn to all three of these throughout my career, and that is where all of my team members’ expertise lies as well. Both immunology and CNS are big umbrellas with intricate etiologies and many moving parts — and that complexity is exactly where our team thrives. And, you know, each area demands a different enrollment and site strategy — recruiting for a cancer trial is not the same as recruiting for depression or panic disorder.
An under-appreciated advantage we offer is pairing operational efficiency with medical depth: our medics have 20+ years in these domains, so we can help shape protocols to be not just “feasible” but executable at the sites you actually have. That’s where you save time and avoid churn.
I’m energized by what’s happening in immunology and the evolving frontiers in CNS — there’s so much we still don’t know, which is exciting. I’m also curious about how AI can responsibly support recruitment and operations. For small sponsors, the potential agility and efficiency, if leveraged appropriately and ethically, can be really game-changing. Most of all, we feed off the passion of small, science-driven teams who genuinely want to improve patients’ lives. Those are the partners we love working with, the ones who want to get started asap, stay close to the science, and run smart, focused, small-sized trials that move the needle. I’d really say that’s our sweet spot, both now and in the future.
_____
Interested in getting your trial started today? Have more questions for Negin?
Get in touch and learn more about what our Clinical Trial Partner model can do for you.