Clinical Trial Intelligence

How Fast Are CTIS Cardiology Phase I Reviews and What Drives Delay?

19 July 2026

Across 28 European Phase I cardiology trials, the median CTIS/EU submission-to-first-authorization review was 66 days (SD 41). Across 39 country-specific Part II records, the median was 185 days (SD 201), and only 15/39 (38.5%) finished within 90 days. Multicountry submissions, larger site footprints and dose-escalation designs carried the clearest delay signals.

66 days
Median end-to-end CTIS review
SD 41 days
185 days
Median country-specific Part II
SD 201 days
64.3%
End-to-end authorized within 90 days
18/28 trials
28.2%
Part II records exceeding one year
11/39 country records

How long does CTIS review take overall?

The trial-level end-to-end CTIS interval was substantially shorter and less variable than the country-specific Part II interval. The end-to-end distribution spanned 11–133 days, while Part II spanned 2–687 days.

Median, standard deviation and interquartile range
End to end · trial level
66 days
SD 41 days · mean 71 days
Middle 50%: 32–110 days
Part II · country level
185 days
SD 201 days · mean 227 days
Middle 50%: 36–377 days
Interpretation

Country-specific Part II was 2.8× longer at the median and almost five times more variable by SD, making national Part II execution the less predictable CTIS planning component.

How often are CTIS decisions reached within key intervals?

End-to-end authorization accumulated steadily: 7/28 (25.0%) by 30 days, 13/28 (46.4%) by 60 days and 18/28 (64.3%) by 90 days. Country Part II progressed more slowly, reaching 15/39 (38.5%) by 90 days and 28/39 (71.8%) by one year.

Cumulative share completed by threshold
End-to-end · 28 trials
```
≤30 days25.0%
7/28
≤60 days46.4%
13/28
≤90 days64.3%
18/28
≤120 days85.7%
24/28
≤180 days100.0%
28/28
≤365 days100.0%
28/28
Part II · 39 country records
≤30 days23.1%
9/39
≤60 days33.3%
13/39
≤90 days38.5%
15/39
≤120 days41.0%
16/39
≤180 days48.7%
19/39
≤365 days71.8%
28/39
```
Interpretation

A 90-day planning assumption covered nearly two-thirds of end-to-end authorizations but fewer than two-fifths of country Part II decisions. For Part II, a one-year contingency still left 11/39 (28.2%) beyond the threshold.

How long does country-specific CTIS Part II take?

Median country-specific Part II duration ranged from 11 days in Sweden to 441 days in Greece. Among countries represented by at least four records, Belgium had a median of 83 days, the Netherlands 88 days, Spain 113 days, Germany 265 days and France 422 days.

Part II processing time by country, ranked by median days
CountryNMedian daysSD daysRange days
Sweden 1 11 11–11
Hungary 1 35 35–35
Denmark 1 36 36–36
Belgium 5 83 143 12–355
Netherlands 6 88 279 2–687
Spain 4 113 164 7–366
Latvia 1 128 128–128
Austria 1 137 137–137
Czechia 2 193 233 28–358
Poland 2 238 213 87–388
Germany 7 265 241 10–628
Italy 3 350 198 202–595
France 4 422 84 264–440
Greece 1 441 441–441
Interpretation

Country choice materially changed the observed Part II planning range. The most stable multi-record benchmark was France at a high 422-day median with 84-day SD; Belgium and the Netherlands were faster at the median but had wider dispersion because of long-tail records.

Which factors are associated with faster end-to-end CTIS authorization?

Four descriptive signals aligned with shorter-than-median approval: Q1 submission, a pure Phase I stage, small-molecule modality and non-industry sponsorship. The cohort median used to define “faster” was 65.5 days.

Submission timing
Q1 submission
47 days
Below cohort median: 4/5 (80.0%)
≥60 days: 1/5 (20.0%)
≥90 days: 0/5 (0.0%)
Other quarters
75 days
≥60 days: 15/23 (65.2%)
≥90 days: 11/23 (47.8%)
Q1 submissions were 28 days faster at the median.
Development stage
Pure Phase I
60 days
Below cohort median: 8/14 (57.1%)
≥60 days: 8/14 (57.1%)
≥90 days: 4/14 (28.6%)
Mixed Phase I stages
90 days
≥60 days: 8/14 (57.1%)
≥90 days: 7/14 (50.0%)
Pure Phase I studies had an approximately 30-day shorter median.
Modality
Small molecule
49 days
Below cohort median: 5/8 (62.5%)
≥60 days: 3/8 (37.5%)
≥90 days: 2/8 (25.0%)
Other modalities
72 days
≥60 days: 13/20 (65.0%)
≥90 days: 9/20 (45.0%)
Small molecules had a 24-day shorter median.
Sponsor profile
Non-industry sponsor
27 days
Below cohort median: 7/11 (63.6%)
≥60 days: 4/11 (36.4%)
≥90 days: 2/11 (18.2%)
Industry sponsor
109 days
≥60 days: 12/17 (70.6%)
≥90 days: 9/17 (52.9%)
The 82-day median gap is descriptive and likely reflects different submission complexity.
Interpretation

The most actionable upstream signal was submission timing: 4/5 Q1 submissions (80.0%) finished below the cohort median and none reached 90 days. Modality and stage also mattered, while the sponsor-type result should be treated as a marker of cohort complexity rather than a causal sponsor effect.

Which factors signal two- and three-month CTIS delay?

Substantial delay was defined as ≥60 days and ≥90 days. Multicountry scope, more than three total sites, dose escalation and combination treatment all increased both the median review time and the share crossing the 90-day threshold.

Geographic scope
Multicountry submission
125 median days
3/3 ≥90 days
≥60 days3/3 (100.0%)
≥90 days3/3 (100.0%)
Single-country submission: median 60 days; ≥90 days 8/25 (32.0%).
Multicountry EU submissions had the strongest delay signal.
Site footprint
>3 total sites
103 median days
5/8 ≥90 days
≥60 days6/8 (75.0%)
≥90 days5/8 (62.5%)
≤3 total sites: median 60 days; ≥90 days 6/20 (30.0%).
Larger site networks doubled the share reaching 90 days.
Dose design
Dose-escalation design
114 median days
4/6 ≥90 days
≥60 days5/6 (83.3%)
≥90 days4/6 (66.7%)
No documented escalation: median 60 days; ≥90 days 7/22 (31.8%).
Dose escalation added 54 median days.
Treatment structure
Combination treatment
119 median days
3/3 ≥90 days
≥60 days3/3 (100.0%)
≥90 days3/3 (100.0%)
Monotherapy or single intervention: median 60 days; ≥90 days 8/25 (32.0%).
All three combination trials reached both delay thresholds; treat this small subgroup as exploratory.
Interpretation

Geographic and protocol complexity compounded. Every multicountry trial and every combination trial reached 90 days, while dose escalation doubled the 90-day delay rate from 31.8% to 66.7%. These are planning signals, not proof of causation.

What shapes country-specific Part II duration?

Country site count was the clearest continuous Part II correlate: Spearman ρ=0.37, p=0.021. Multi-site country submissions had a median of 264 days versus 102 days for single-site country submissions.

Country-level operational signals
Single site in country
102 median days
≥90 days: 6/12 (50.0%)
More than one site
264 median days
≥90 days: 18/27 (66.7%)
Q1 Part II submission · n=16
310 days
Q2 Part II submission · n=7
36 days
Q3 Part II submission · n=8
321 days
Q4 Part II submission · n=8
128 days
Interpretation

Part II duration rose with national site burden: multi-site country records were 162 median days longer. Q2 submissions were fastest at 36 days, while Q1 and Q3 were slowest at 310 and 321 days, respectively.

Which variables did not explain CTIS speed?

The full cohort scan found little end-to-end relationship with planned sample size, endpoint count or eligibility-criteria count. By contrast, the number of countries showed a moderate positive association with longer review.

Correlation with end-to-end review days
```
Number of countries
ρ +0.43p=0.021
Moderate positive
Total sites
ρ +0.31p=0.113
Directional positive
Planned sample size
ρ -0.04p=0.837
No meaningful relationship
Endpoint count
ρ +0.06p=0.756
No meaningful relationship
Eligibility-criteria count
ρ -0.06p=0.777
No meaningful relationship
```
Interpretation

Protocol scale was not equivalent to regulatory delay: planned sample size had ρ=−0.04, endpoint count ρ=0.06 and eligibility-criteria count ρ=−0.06. Geographic breadth was more informative at ρ=0.43.

Definitions

CTIS / EU submissionClinical Trials Information System submission under the European Union clinical-trial process.
End-to-end reviewTrial-level interval from initial CTIS submission to first CTIS authorization. It is not assigned to individual countries.
Country-specific Part IIInterval from the earliest Part II submission date to the latest decision or authorization date recorded for that country.
Faster and delayed reviewFaster means below the cohort median of 65.5 days. Two-month and three-month delays are defined as ≥60 and ≥90 days.
SDSample standard deviation, describing dispersion around the mean. It is not calculated for a single country record.