Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which CROs Are Most Active in European Phase II & III Chronic Kidney Disease Trials?

20 June 2026

Across 54 CTIS chronic kidney disease phase II–III trials authorised in 2024–2026, 15 trials used at least one CRO or CRO-like operational vendor, equal to 27.8% of the cohort. ICON/PRA was the most active named CRO family, appearing in 5 of 15 CRO-supported trials, followed by IQVIA/Quintiles and Labcorp with 4 each. CRO need was highest in pharma-sponsored, multi-country, 11+ site, and multi-disease trials, making CTIS/EU country activation a stronger outsourcing trigger than trial phase alone.

Trials analysed
54
21 phase II; 33 phase III
CRO-supported trials
15
15/54 = 27.8%
Top CRO family
ICON/PRA
5/15 CRO-supported trials = 33.3%
Main trigger
Multi-country
10/24 trials with 2+ countries used CROs

Which CROs appear most often in CKD phase II–III trials?

Among 15 CRO-supported trials, ICON/PRA appeared in 5 trials, IQVIA/Quintiles in 4, Labcorp in 4, and Almac in 3. These four CRO families account for the strongest recurring operational support signal in the CTIS sponsor third-party fields.

Top CRO families, % of CRO-supported trials
ICON / PRA5/15 • 33.3%
IQVIA / Quintiles4/15 • 26.7%
Labcorp4/15 • 26.7%
Almac3/15 • 20.0%
Marken2/15 • 13.3%
OPIS2/15 • 13.3%
PPD / Thermo Fisher2/15 • 13.3%
Suvoda2/15 • 13.3%
Measure: trial-level CRO family presence among 15 CRO-supported CTIS CKD phase II–III trials.
Interpretation

The CRO market is not dominated by one provider. ICON/PRA leads, but IQVIA/Quintiles and Labcorp are nearly equal, indicating that CKD trial outsourcing is split between full-service clinical operations, central laboratory, trial technology, and supply-chain specialists.

At what trial scale are CROs needed most?

CRO use rises most clearly with CTIS/EU operational breadth. Trials with 2 or more countries used CROs in 10/24 cases, or 41.7%, compared with 2/25 single-country trials, or 8.0%. Trials with 11+ sites used CROs in 7/18 cases, or 38.9%, compared with 1/16 trials with 1–2 sites, or 6.3%.

CRO-supported share by capacity marker
Countries
1 country8.0%
2–5 countries40.0%
6+ countries44.4%
Sites
1–2 sites6.3%
3–10 sites30.8%
11+ sites38.9%
Target participants
≤5020.0%
51–20028.6%
201–100040.0%
1000+30.0%
Disease breadth
1 disease term14.3%
2+ disease terms36.4%
Capacity markers use CTIS geography fields and design target sample size across 54 trials.
Interpretation

The practical CRO trigger is CTIS/EU execution complexity: once a CKD study crosses into multiple Member States and double-digit sites, outsourced country startup, site management, lab logistics, and vendor coordination become materially more common.

Which CKD indications show the highest CRO use?

CRO use was strongest in metabolic CKD/diabetes-obesity trials at 2/3 trials, or 66.7%, followed by CKD anaemia/renal anaemia and proteinuric/genetic kidney disease, each at 3/5 trials, or 60.0%. ESRD/dialysis trials were frequent, with 14 trials, but had lower CRO use at 2/14, or 14.3%.

CRO-supported share by indication group
Indication group CRO-supported Share
Metabolic CKD / diabetes-obesity2/366.7%
CKD anaemia / renal anaemia3/560.0%
Proteinuric / genetic kidney disease3/560.0%
Cardio-renal / hypertension CKD4/1040.0%
ESRD / dialysis kidney failure2/1414.3%
General CKD0/150.0%
Indication groups are derived from CTIS disease terms in the cohort.
Interpretation

CRO targeting should prioritise CKD trials with metabolic, anaemia, proteinuric, genetic, cardio-renal, or hypertension language. Pure general CKD and many ESRD/dialysis investigator-led trials show less explicit CRO involvement.

What functions are most often outsourced?

The dataset contains 160 third-party relationships across 28 trials. Central laboratory and bioanalysis was the most common outsourced function, appearing in 17/28 outsourced trials, or 60.7%. Clinical operations/site management followed at 15/28, or 53.6%, then drug supply/QP/documentation at 9/28, or 32.1%.

Outsourced function frequency, % of trials with third parties
Central laboratory / bioanalysis17/28 • 60.7%
Clinical operations / site management15/28 • 53.6%
Drug supply / QP / documentation9/28 • 32.1%
Data systems / trial technology8/28 • 28.6%
Funding / monetary support8/28 • 28.6%
Adjudication / central reading5/28 • 17.9%
Function categories are derived from CTIS third-party duties and CRO responsibility text.
Interpretation

CKD outsourcing is not only “full-service CRO” work. The dominant functions are lab-heavy, CTIS country/site operations, IMP supply/QP release, documentation, trial technology, patient recruitment, and central adjudication.

Where is CTIS/EU submission and site-activation burden concentrated?

Across CTIS country records, the cohort includes 170 trial-country entries and 775 listed sites. Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and France account for 465/775 sites, or 60.0% of all listed sites, making these countries the highest-priority markets for EU site activation and Part II country-package execution.

Top countries by listed CTIS sites
Country Trials Sites Participants
Spain181441,546
Italy191011,523
Netherlands11771,048
Germany20722,323
France1471628
Country burden uses CTIS Part II country/site records across phase II–III CKD trials.
Interpretation

For CRO business development, the best CTIS/EU submission angle is not only “CKD experience”; it is proven ability to manage Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and the Netherlands at scale, including Part II documentation, site contracts, lab routing, recruitment materials, and country-level operational follow-through.

What adjacent commercial questions can the same data answer?

The same CTIS fields answer several CRO targeting questions beyond the core ranking. Pharma sponsorship, phase III status, and multi-disease trial design all materially increase the chance that CRO support is explicitly listed.

Sponsor targeting

Pharma/industry sponsors used CROs in 15/31 trials, or 48.4%; academic, healthcare, and research sponsors used CROs in 0/23 trials, or 0.0%.

Phase targeting

Phase III trials used CROs in 11/33 cases, or 33.3%, compared with 4/21 phase II trials, or 19.0%.

Vendor-stack depth

CRO-supported trials had a median of 9 third parties, compared with 0 in non-CRO trials, showing that CRO presence often travels with a wider outsourced vendor stack.

Disease complexity

Trials with 2+ disease terms used CROs in 12/33 cases, or 36.4%, versus 3/21 single-disease trials, or 14.3%.

Interpretation

The strongest practical target profile is a pharma-led phase III CKD trial with more than one disease term, multi-country CTIS submissions, 11+ sites, and outsourced lab or clinical operations needs.

Definitions

CRO means contract research organisation or CRO-like operational vendor as listed in the CTIS sponsor third-party CRO field. CTIS means Clinical Trials Information System. ESRD means end-stage renal disease. QP means qualified person for medicinal product release. PRO means patient-reported outcome.