How Fast Are Phase I Immunology CTIS Reviews—and What Shapes Delay?
Clinical Trial Intelligence

How Fast Are Phase I Immunology CTIS Reviews and What Shapes Delay?

19 July 2026

Across 90 European Phase I-containing immunology trials, the median CTIS end-to-end EU submission-to-authorization timeline was 94 days (SD 40.9). Country-specific CTIS Part II took a median 128 days (SD 223.5) across 211 country observations, with a pronounced long-delay tail. The strongest observed delay signals were broader country scope, more sites, country review month, and cell-therapy involvement.

Trials analyzed
90
Phase I-containing immunology trials with CTIS/EU submission timelines
Country Part II observations
211
Country-specific CTIS Part II review records
End-to-end median
94 days
SD 40.9 days; 48.9% authorized within 90 days
Part II median
128 days
SD 223.5 days; 42.7% completed within 90 days

How long does the full CTIS/EU authorization pathway take?

The end-to-end measure runs from the initial CTIS submission to first authorization. The median was 94 days and the SD was 40.9 days. Thirteen of 90 trials (14.4%) were authorized within 30 days, while 74 of 90 (82.2%) were authorized within 120 days.

Cumulative end-to-end authorization
≤30 days 14.4% (13/90)
≤60 days 33.3% (30/90)
≤90 days 48.9% (44/90)
≤120 days 82.2% (74/90)
≤150 days 97.8% (88/90)
Population: 90 Phase I-containing immunology trials; one end-to-end value per trial.
Interpretation

A 90-day planning assumption covers 44 of 90 trials (48.9%). Expanding the operational allowance to 120 days covers 74 of 90 (82.2%), making 120 days a more defensible portfolio planning point for Phase I immunology CTIS submissions.

How long does country-specific CTIS Part II take?

Country-specific Part II had a median of 128 days and an SD of 223.5 days. Fifty-one of 211 country reviews (24.2%) finished within 30 days, 90 (42.7%) within 90 days, and 124 (58.8%) within 180 days.

Cumulative country-specific Part II completion
≤30 days 24.2% (51/211)
≤60 days 35.5% (75/211)
≤90 days 42.7% (90/211)
≤120 days 47.9% (101/211)
≤180 days 58.8% (124/211)
≤365 days 77.3% (163/211)
Population: 211 country-specific CTIS Part II observations. End-to-end timing is not allocated to individual countries.
Interpretation

Part II is substantially less predictable than the end-to-end trial metric: 121 of 211 country observations (57.3%) lasted at least 90 days, and 48 (22.7%) exceeded 365 days. Portfolio planning should therefore use country-level contingencies rather than a single EU-wide Part II assumption.

Which countries had the shortest CTIS Part II timelines?

Median country-specific Part II time ranged from 23 days in Norway to 540 days in Ireland. Among countries with at least five observations, Austria had the shortest median at 29 days, followed by Hungary at 54.5 days and Germany at 60 days; Portugal had the longest at 302 days.

Country-specific Part II performance
CountrynMedian daysSD≤60 days≤90 days
Norway 3 23.0 241.5 66.7% 66.7%
Austria 5 29.0 242.1 60.0% 60.0%
Denmark 4 39.5 223.9 75.0% 75.0%
Hungary 6 54.5 213.5 50.0% 66.7%
Germany 32 60.0 255.0 50.0% 53.1%
Czechia 5 75.0 170.2 20.0% 60.0%
Netherlands 22 93.5 209.6 45.5% 50.0%
Sweden 4 98.0 93.6 50.0% 50.0%
Belgium 15 104.0 275.7 26.7% 46.7%
Romania 6 124.0 243.2 16.7% 33.3%
Croatia 3 137.0 194.0 33.3% 33.3%
Poland 14 143.0 213.2 35.7% 42.9%
France 26 144.5 240.4 26.9% 34.6%
Italy 12 146.0 252.1 25.0% 33.3%
Spain 31 161.0 228.8 29.0% 35.5%
Finland 1 163.0 0.0% 0.0%
Bulgaria 9 163.0 179.0 33.3% 33.3%
Latvia 1 171.0 0.0% 0.0%
Greece 5 188.0 142.8 0.0% 0.0%
Lithuania 1 235.0 0.0% 0.0%
Portugal 5 302.0 252.8 40.0% 40.0%
Ireland 1 540.0 0.0% 0.0%
SD is not estimable from a single observation and is shown as “—”. Country rankings reflect the observed Phase I immunology CTIS Part II cohort.
Interpretation

Country selection materially changes schedule risk. Germany combined a 60-day median with 32 observations, while France, Spain and Italy had medians of 144.5, 161 and 146 days, respectively. The high SDs show that country medians should be paired with contingency buffers.

What factors were associated with shorter or delayed end-to-end review?

Geographic and site complexity produced the clearest end-to-end gradient. Single-country trials had a 74-day median, versus 117 days for trials spanning four or more countries. One-site trials had a 70-day median, versus 115 days for trials with six or more sites.

Observed end-to-end associations
Country scope
74 → 117 days
1 country (n=54) vs 4+ countries (n=19)
≥90-day delay: 37.0% vs 89.5%
Site footprint
70 → 115 days
1 site (n=35) vs 6+ sites (n=31)
≥90-day delay: 25.7% vs 77.4%
Disease focus
36 vs 112 days
Transplant/GvHD (n=12) vs systemic autoimmune/rheumatology (n=35)
≥90-day delay: 25.0% vs 68.6%
Protocol design signals
55–56 days
Combination trials (n=21): 55-day median; adaptive trials (n=18): 56-day median
Non-combination median 103 days; non-adaptive median 96 days
Exploratory associations across the full 90-trial cohort; findings describe correlation, not causation.
Interpretation

Scope complexity was the most operationally consistent signal: the Spearman correlation with end-to-end time was 0.42 for number of countries and 0.45 for total sites. A compact single-country, single-site EU submission profile was therefore associated with the highest probability of finishing below the 94-day cohort median.

What factors were associated with country-level Part II delay?

Country site burden, Part II submission month and modality were the strongest country-level signals. One-site country applications had a 60.5-day median, compared with 174 days for country applications covering four or more sites.

Observed Part II associations
Sites per country
60.5 → 174 days
1 site (n=76) vs 4+ sites (n=49)
≥90-day delay: 44.7% vs 71.4%
Part II submission month
22.5 vs 273 days
January (n=18) vs June (n=23)
≥90-day delay: 11.1% vs 78.3%
Cell therapy
301 days
Cell-therapy-involving country records (n=53) vs 117.5 days without cell therapy (n=158)
≥90-day delay: 64.2% vs 55.1%
Pediatric/orphan signal
43–54.5 days
Orphan records (n=20): 43-day median; pediatric records (n=18): 54.5-day median
Non-orphan median 142 days; adult-only median 137 days
Country-level correlations use 211 Part II observations. Country site count correlated positively with Part II time (Spearman ρ=0.20).
Interpretation

For country-specific Part II, local site packaging appears more actionable than total trial size: the median rose by 113.5 days from one site to four or more sites, while participant count showed little monotonic association (ρ=0.03). Cell therapy and mid-year Part II submissions carried the largest observed delay tails.

Does submission month change CTIS timing?

Submission month showed a cohort pattern without using calendar year. August initial CTIS submissions had the shortest end-to-end median at 41.5 days, while February and March were 115 and 114 days. For country Part II, January was shortest at 22.5 days; June and October were longest at 273 and 195 days.

Month-of-submission comparison
MonthEnd-to-endCountry Part II
nMedian≥90 daysnMedian≥90 days
January 6 99.0 66.7% 18 22.5 11.1%
February 5 115.0 80.0% 18 85.5 50.0%
March 6 114.0 83.3% 15 175.0 60.0%
April 6 62.5 16.7% 18 240.0 55.6%
May 7 59.0 42.9% 14 74.5 42.9%
June 4 118.5 75.0% 23 273.0 78.3%
July 10 75.5 50.0% 18 162.5 55.6%
August 8 41.5 12.5% 24 176.5 62.5%
September 8 93.5 50.0% 14 98.0 50.0%
October 9 72.0 44.4% 21 195.0 85.7%
November 6 89.5 50.0% 10 110.5 60.0%
December 15 105.0 60.0% 18 150.0 61.1%
End-to-end month uses the initial CTIS/EU submission. Part II month uses the country-specific Part II submission.
Interpretation

Month should be treated as a scheduling signal rather than a causal mechanism. Nevertheless, the observed spread was operationally large: 73.5 days between the fastest and slowest end-to-end monthly medians, and 250.5 days between the fastest and slowest Part II monthly medians.

What should sponsors plan for?

For Phase I immunology CTIS submissions, a 120-day end-to-end baseline covers 82.2% of trials, but country Part II needs a differentiated risk buffer. The most delay-prone profile combined four or more countries, six or more sites, and complex country packages with four or more sites.

Baseline plan
120
days covered 74/90 end-to-end authorizations
High-risk E2E signal
89.5%
of 4+ country trials reached at least 90 days
High-risk Part II signal
71.4%
of 4+ site country packages reached at least 90 days
Interpretation

The practical lever is scope control: sequence countries, minimize sites in the initial country package where scientifically feasible, and add country-specific buffers for cell therapy and months with historically longer Part II medians. These actions address the strongest observed CTIS delay associations without assuming that any single factor is causal.

Definitions: CTIS = Clinical Trials Information System. End-to-end = initial CTIS submission to first authorization at trial level. Part II = country-specific assessment. SD = standard deviation. “Shorter than median” means below 94 days end-to-end or below 128 days for Part II. Delay thresholds were ≥60 and ≥90 days. Calendar year was not used as an analytical factor.