How Long Are Phase III Infectious Disease CTIS Reviews and What Drives Delay?
Phase III Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Intelligence

How Long Are Phase III Infectious Disease CTIS Reviews and What Drives Delay?

20 July 2026

Across 142 Phase III infectious disease CTIS EU submissions, the median end to end review was 93.5 days with an SD of 40.9 days, and 86.6% reached authorization within 120 days. Country specific CTIS Part II review was substantially longer and more variable, with a median of 228 days and an SD of 235.0 days across 327 country decisions. Larger country and site footprints, CRO use, pharmaceutical sponsorship, randomisation, combination treatment, orphan status, HIV, and viral hepatitis aligned with longer timelines.

142
Phase III infectious disease trials included
93.5 days
Median CTIS submission to first EU authorization · SD 40.9
228 days
Median country specific CTIS Part II review · SD 235.0
86.6%
Authorized within 120 days of initial CTIS submission

How quickly did CTIS EU submissions reach authorization?

The end to end timeline was calculated once per trial from initial CTIS submission to first authorization. The median was 93.5 days and the SD was 40.9 days; 53 of 142 trials were authorized within 60 days and 123 of 142 within 120 days.

Cumulative authorization rate after initial CTIS submission
Within 30 days22 of 142
15.5%
Within 60 days53 of 142
37.3%
Within 90 days68 of 142
47.9%
Within 120 days123 of 142
86.6%
Within 150 days141 of 142
99.3%
Trial level measure · Europe · cumulative percentagesMedian 93.5 days
Interpretation

Only 15.5% cleared within 30 days and 37.3% within 60 days. The authorization curve accelerated after the 90 day point: 47.9% had cleared by day 90, rising to 86.6% by day 120 and 99.3% by day 150.

How long did country specific CTIS Part II take?

Across 327 country level observations, CTIS Part II had a median of 228 days and an SD of 235.0 days. Part II is the only country specific timeline in this report; the end to end measure is not assigned to individual countries.

Cumulative country Part II decision rate
Within 30 days62 of 327
19.0%
Within 60 days91 of 327
27.8%
Within 90 days101 of 327
30.9%
Within 120 days120 of 327
36.7%
Within 180 days145 of 327
44.3%
Within 365 days221 of 327
67.6%
Within 540 days277 of 327
84.7%
Country level measure · earliest Part II submission to latest decision or authorizationn=327
19.0%62 of 327 country decisions within 30 days
44.3%145 of 327 country decisions within 180 days
67.6%221 of 327 country decisions within 365 days
Interpretation

Country Part II was the dominant source of long tail variability. Fewer than one third of country decisions were recorded within 90 days, while 15.3% required more than 540 days.

Which countries had shorter or longer CTIS Part II timelines?

The Netherlands had the lowest Part II median among countries with repeated observations at 95 days across 17 records. Ireland had the highest median among countries with at least three records at 519 days, while Norway recorded 589 days from one observation.

Country specific CTIS Part II review times
CountrynMedian daysSD daysWithin 6090 days or longer
Netherlands 17 95.0 188 47.1% 52.9%
Bulgaria 9 117.0 155 33.3% 66.7%
Denmark 13 137.0 236 46.2% 53.8%
Austria 12 172.5 154 33.3% 66.7%
Romania 10 189.0 177 30.0% 60.0%
Portugal 3 199.0 439 33.3% 66.7%
Hungary 4 200.0 295 25.0% 75.0%
Slovakia 4 204.5 133 25.0% 75.0%
Belgium 25 212.0 220 28.0% 68.0%
Italy 26 217.0 247 26.9% 73.1%
Estonia 7 224.0 169 14.3% 85.7%
Spain 36 230.5 259 25.0% 66.7%
Greece 8 240.0 273 12.5% 75.0%
Czechia 7 242.0 188 28.6% 71.4%
Sweden 9 243.0 304 22.2% 77.8%
France 66 265.0 237 22.7% 74.2%
Germany 35 270.0 244 28.6% 65.7%
Lithuania 2 295.5 77 0.0% 100.0%
Poland 16 322.5 250 31.2% 68.8%
Finland 12 343.5 227 33.3% 66.7%
Ireland 5 519.0 319 20.0% 80.0%
Norway 1 589.0 n/a 0.0% 100.0%
Sorted by median Part II time · sample SDSD is not calculated where n=1
Interpretation

Country selection materially changes the expected Part II profile. Among the larger country samples, the Netherlands combined the lowest median with 47.1% of decisions within 60 days; France and Germany had medians of 265 and 270 days, while Poland reached 322.5 days.

How strongly did geographic and site complexity relate to CTIS speed?

The number of participating countries had the strongest continuous association with end to end timing among the operational variables tested (Spearman ρ=0.40, p<0.001). Total site count also correlated with longer review (ρ=0.36, p<0.001).

End to end review by operational footprint
FootprintnMedian daysBelow median90 days or longer
1 country9362.064.5%38.7%
2 to 3 countries18104.527.8%72.2%
4 to 7 countries22110.027.3%72.7%
8 or more countries9116.00.0%100.0%
0 to 5 sites4353.074.4%27.9%
6 to 20 sites5196.045.1%56.9%
21 to 50 sites43110.037.2%65.1%
51 or more sites4113.00.0%100.0%
Trial level end to end timingOverall median 93.5 days
Country Part II review by sites in that country
Country site countnMedian daysWithin 6090 days or longer
0 to 1 site5156.051.0%47.1%
2 to 5 sites129242.021.7%76.0%
6 to 15 sites111254.024.3%71.2%
16 or more sites36426.027.8%69.4%
Country level Part II timingSite count association ρ=0.23, p<0.001
Interpretation

Single country trials had a 62 day median versus 116 days for trials spanning eight or more countries. Trials with no more than five sites had a 53 day median, compared with 110 days for 21 to 50 sites. Within Part II, countries with zero or one site had a 56 day median, versus 426 days where 16 or more sites were listed.

Which factors aligned with shorter than median authorization?

Seventy one of 142 trials were authorized in less than the 93.5 day median. The strongest descriptive signals were smaller footprints, nonrandomised designs, institutional sponsorship, absence of a CRO, and selected non HIV viral disease groups.

Shorter timeline profiles
Other viral infections
45.0 days
n=18 · 72.2% below the overall median · 27.8% at 90 days or longer
0 to 5 sites
53.0 days
n=43 · 74.4% below the overall median · 27.9% at 90 days or longer
Nonrandomised design
56.0 days
n=40 · 72.5% below the overall median · 32.5% at 90 days or longer
One country
62.0 days
n=93 · 64.5% below the overall median · 38.7% at 90 days or longer
Institutional sponsor
62.0 days
n=85 · 63.5% below the overall median · 38.8% at 90 days or longer
No CRO
67.0 days
n=100 · 62.0% below the overall median · 41.0% at 90 days or longer
Associations are descriptive and not causalBelow median means under 93.5 days
Interpretation

The clearest operational advantage came from limiting scope. Trials with no more than five sites had a 74.4% probability of finishing below the median, and nonrandomised trials had a 72.5% probability. Institutional trials had a 62 day median compared with 109 days for pharmaceutical company sponsored trials.

Which factors marked delays of two or three months?

Overall, 89 of 142 trials (62.7%) required at least 60 days and 74 of 142 (52.1%) required at least 90 days from initial CTIS submission to first authorization. The profiles below had the highest delay rates.

Profiles with elevated 60 and 90 day delay rates
Viral hepatitis
112.0 days
n=8 · 100.0% at 60 days or longer · 100.0% at 90 days or longer
Eight or more countries
116.0 days
n=9 · 100.0% at 60 days or longer · 100.0% at 90 days or longer
Orphan drug
109.0 days
n=11 · 81.8% at 60 days or longer · 81.8% at 90 days or longer
CRO present
109.5 days
n=42 · 83.3% at 60 days or longer · 78.6% at 90 days or longer
Pharmaceutical sponsor
109.0 days
n=57 · 78.9% at 60 days or longer · 71.9% at 90 days or longer
Combination treatment
104.0 days
n=52 · 76.9% at 60 days or longer · 67.3% at 90 days or longer
HIV
109.0 days
n=19 · 89.5% at 60 days or longer · 73.7% at 90 days or longer
Randomised design
102.0 days
n=101 · 68.3% at 60 days or longer · 59.4% at 90 days or longer
Trial level end to end timingRates show at least 60 or 90 days
Interpretation

All eight viral hepatitis trials and all nine trials spanning at least eight countries required 90 days or longer. CRO supported trials reached 90 days or longer in 78.6% of cases, orphan trials in 81.8%, HIV trials in 73.7%, and combination trials in 67.3%. These characteristics overlap with larger and more complex multinational programs, so they should be treated as planning signals rather than independent causes.

Did submission month change the CTIS timeline?

Submission month showed a visible pooled pattern. May had the lowest median at 52.5 days across 10 trials, followed by October at 61.5 days across 22 and September at 66 days across 21. December had the highest median at 109.5 days across eight trials.

Median end to end review by submission month
Jan13 trials
103.0 days
Feb6 trials
93.5 days
Mar8 trials
97.0 days
Apr14 trials
90.0 days
May10 trials
52.5 days
Jun14 trials
95.5 days
Jul11 trials
93.0 days
Aug8 trials
93.5 days
Sep21 trials
66.0 days
Oct22 trials
61.5 days
Nov7 trials
96.0 days
Dec8 trials
109.5 days
Months pooled across the full cohortAll available CTIS submissions pooled
Interpretation

Late spring and early autumn submissions were generally faster in this cohort, but month was less discriminating than country and site footprint. Paediatric status showed almost no separation at 94 versus 93 days, and open label status showed 94 versus 93 days, indicating that neither was a major standalone timing signal.

Definitions

End to end CTIS review

Calendar days from the initial CTIS EU submission date to the first CTIS authorization date. This is a trial level measure and is not attributed to individual countries.

Country specific CTIS Part II

Calendar days from the earliest recorded Part II submission in a country to the latest recorded decision or authorization in that country.

SD

Sample standard deviation, describing dispersion around the group average. Median is retained as the primary timing statistic because the distributions contain long delays.

Association

Observed differences and rank correlations describe how characteristics moved with review time in this dataset; they do not prove that the characteristic caused the delay.