Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which CROs Are Most Active in European Cardiology Phase III CTIS Trials?

21 June 2026

Across 207 European Cardiology Phase III CTIS trials authorized in 2024–2026, 82/207 trials (39.6%) listed explicit CRO support. IQVIA was the most active CRO with 31 supported trials, followed by ICON Clinical Research with 24 and Parexel/Perceptive with 19. CRO need was strongest when CTIS/EU submission footprints reached 11+ countries (18/21; 85.7%), 51+ sites (13/18; 72.2%), or 3,000+ planned participants (18/27; 66.7%).

CRO-supported trials82/20739.6% of cardiology Phase III CTIS trials.
Top CROIQVIA31/82 CRO-supported trials (37.8%).
Highest capacity trigger11+ countries18/21 trials used CRO support (85.7%).
Top outsourced functionClinical operations69/207 trials had clinical-operations CRO/vendor support.
CRO adoption by authorization year
202434/108 · 31.5%
202529/65 · 44.6%
202619/34 · 55.9%

Which CROs appear most often in Cardiology Phase III CTIS trials?

Among the 82 trials with explicit CRO support, IQVIA appeared in 31 trials (37.8%), ICON Clinical Research in 24 (29.3%), and Parexel/Perceptive in 19 (23.2%). The ranking counts distinct trial appearances, not contract value.

Top CROs by distinct supported trial appearances
IQVIA31 trials · 37.8%
ICON Clinical Research24 trials · 29.3%
Parexel / Perceptive19 trials · 23.2%
Labcorp17 trials · 20.7%
Medidata17 trials · 20.7%
Syneos Health14 trials · 17.1%
PPD / Thermo Fisher Scientific11 trials · 13.4%
Clario / ERT / BioTelemetry10 trials · 12.2%
Medpace10 trials · 12.2%
Suvoda8 trials · 9.8%
Signant Health7 trials · 8.5%
Almac Clinical Services7 trials · 8.5%
Population: 82 CRO-supported cardiology Phase III CTIS trials, Europe, 2024–2026.
Interpretation

The CRO market is broad but not evenly distributed: three large global providers account for the highest visible trial presence, while laboratory, eClinical, IRT, and specialty providers appear frequently as function-specific outsourcing partners.

At what trial capacity level is CRO support most common?

CRO support increased sharply with operational footprint. Trials spanning 11+ countries used CROs in 18/21 cases (85.7%); trials with 51+ European sites used CROs in 13/18 cases (72.2%); and trials planning 3,000+ participants used CROs in 18/27 cases (66.7%).

CRO-use rate by CTIS country, site, and participant capacity
Countries in CTIS/EU submission footprint
1 country8/101 · 7.9%
2–5 countries9/27 · 33.3%
6–10 countries29/36 · 80.6%
11+ countries18/21 · 85.7%
European site footprint
1–5 sites5/45 · 11.1%
6–20 sites13/63 · 20.6%
21–50 sites27/50 · 54.0%
51+ sites13/18 · 72.2%
Planned participant capacity
<100 participants18/46 · 39.1%
100–499 participants23/73 · 31.5%
500–999 participants12/30 · 40.0%
1,000–2,999 participants11/31 · 35.5%
3,000+ participants18/27 · 66.7%
Each denominator is the number of trials in the relevant capacity band.
Interpretation

The strongest capacity trigger is not simply sample size; it is multi-country CTIS/EU execution. Once a trial moves beyond 6 countries or 21 sites, CRO support becomes the dominant operating model.

Which cardiology indications show the highest CRO need?

CRO use was highest in Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (17/22; 77.3%), Cardiac amyloidosis (9/12; 75.0%), Pulmonary arterial hypertension (6/8; 75.0%), and Lipid disorders/hypercholesterolemia (7/10; 70.0%). Heart failure had the largest broad disease workload among major indications, with 15/28 trials (53.6%) using CRO support.

CRO-use rate by major cardiology indication group
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease17/22 · 77.3%
Cardiac amyloidosis9/12 · 75.0%
Pulmonary arterial hypertension6/8 · 75.0%
Lipid disorders / hypercholesterolemia7/10 · 70.0%
Heart failure15/28 · 53.6%
Thrombosis / thromboembolism5/11 · 45.5%
Hypertension4/10 · 40.0%
Atrial fibrillation3/8 · 37.5%
Indication groups are normalized from CTIS disease terms to show demand patterns across related diseases.
Interpretation

CRO demand concentrates where cardiology trials combine large event-driven outcomes, specialist sites, imaging or biomarker workflows, and multi-country regulatory execution. ASCVD and heart failure produce the biggest absolute workload; amyloidosis, PAH, and lipid disorders show the highest proportional CRO reliance.

Where is CRO-supported CTIS/EU country execution concentrated?

The largest CRO-supported CTIS country footprints were Spain (52 trial-country records), Italy (43), Germany (42), France (39), Poland (38), and Czechia (35). Among countries with at least 10 trial-country records, CRO-use rates were highest in Romania (11/12; 91.7%), Portugal (19/21; 90.5%), Greece (21/24; 87.5%), Hungary (23/27; 85.2%), and Czechia (35/42; 83.3%).

CRO-supported CTIS country volume and country-level CRO-use rate
Highest CRO-supported CTIS country volumes
Spain52 trials · 63.4%
52/72 trial-country records used CRO support (72.2%).
Italy43 trials · 52.4%
43/65 trial-country records used CRO support (66.2%).
Germany42 trials · 51.2%
42/67 trial-country records used CRO support (62.7%).
France39 trials · 47.6%
39/86 trial-country records used CRO support (45.3%).
Poland38 trials · 46.3%
38/60 trial-country records used CRO support (63.3%).
Czechia35 trials · 42.7%
35/42 trial-country records used CRO support (83.3%).
Netherlands34 trials · 41.5%
34/51 trial-country records used CRO support (66.7%).
Belgium28 trials · 34.1%
28/43 trial-country records used CRO support (65.1%).
Hungary23 trials · 28.0%
23/27 trial-country records used CRO support (85.2%).
Denmark22 trials · 26.8%
22/30 trial-country records used CRO support (73.3%).
Highest CRO-use rates among countries with ≥10 records
Romania11/12 · 91.7%
Portugal19/21 · 90.5%
Greece21/24 · 87.5%
Hungary23/27 · 85.2%
Czechia35/42 · 83.3%
Bulgaria18/22 · 81.8%
Denmark22/30 · 73.3%
Spain52/72 · 72.2%
Slovakia7/10 · 70.0%
Austria19/28 · 67.9%
Measure: CTIS trial-country records, not site counts; countries may appear in multiple trials.
Interpretation

Large Western European markets drive the absolute volume of CRO-supported activity, but CRO reliance is proportionally highest in several Central, Eastern, and Southern European CTIS country operations where local submission, contracts, site activation, and language workflows often require execution depth.

Which trial functions are most often outsourced?

Third-party outsourcing appeared in 126/207 trials (60.9%). The most common outsourced functions were Clinical operations/CRO management (69/207; 33.3%), Central laboratory/bioanalysis (61/207; 29.5%), Randomisation/IRT/supply logistics (48/207; 23.2%), eCOA/ePRO or digital patient data (40/207; 19.3%), and Imaging/ECG/cardiac diagnostics (29/207; 14.0%).

Outsourced functions by distinct trial count
Clinical operations / CRO management69/207 · 33.3%
59/69 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (85.5%).
Central laboratory / bioanalysis61/207 · 29.5%
59/61 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (96.7%).
Randomisation / IRT / supply logistics48/207 · 23.2%
45/48 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (93.8%).
eCOA / ePRO / digital patient data40/207 · 19.3%
40/40 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (100.0%).
Imaging / ECG / cardiac diagnostics29/207 · 14.0%
28/29 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (96.6%).
Endpoint adjudication / DMC27/207 · 13.0%
27/27 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (100.0%).
Data management / EDC / statistics25/207 · 12.1%
25/25 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (100.0%).
Safety / pharmacovigilance / medical information20/207 · 9.7%
19/20 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (95.0%).
Recruitment / prescreening / retention19/207 · 9.2%
19/19 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (100.0%).
Medical writing / regulatory / CTIS submission support16/207 · 7.7%
14/16 function-positive trials also had explicit CRO support (87.5%).
Population: all 207 Cardiology Phase III CTIS trials; function counted once per trial when detected in third-party roles or CRO responsibilities.
Interpretation

Cardiology outsourcing is functionally specialized. Even when a record does not list a single full-service CRO, sponsors frequently outsource the operational spine: site execution, laboratories, randomisation/IRT, eCOA/ePRO, imaging/ECG review, endpoint adjudication, and CTIS/regulatory support.

What adjacent CRO-demand questions can this CTIS dataset answer?

The same dataset answers several adjacent operational questions numerically: CRO use rose from 34/108 trials in 2024 (31.5%) to 19/34 in 2026 (55.9%); adaptive designs used CROs in 8/9 trials (88.9%); digital recruitment trials used CROs in 29/42 cases (69.0%); and orphan-drug cardiology trials used CROs in 13/17 cases (76.5%).

Adjacent demand signals available from the same CTIS variables
CRO use is rising31.5% → 55.9%34/108 in 2024; 19/34 in 2026.
Adaptive designs8/988.9% of adaptive trials used CRO support.
Digital recruitment29/4269.0% of trials using digital or remote recruitment had CRO support.
Registry/advocacy recruitment15/2462.5% of registry or advocacy recruitment trials had CRO support.
Orphan-drug trials13/1776.5% of orphan-drug cardiology Phase III trials had CRO support.
CTIS Part II processing60 vs 113 daysMedian country processing: CRO-supported vs non-CRO records.
CTIS Part II processing medians are based on 480 CRO-supported and 237 non-CRO trial-country records with processing-day values.
Interpretation

The strongest additional signal is that CRO support is associated with complex execution rather than with phase alone: adaptive design, orphan-drug status, digital recruitment, and multi-country CTIS Part II workflows all show above-average CRO reliance.

Definitions

CRO means contract research organisation. CTIS means Clinical Trials Information System, the EU portal used for clinical-trial applications and country-level Part II submissions. IRT means interactive response technology for randomisation and drug-supply management. eCOA/ePRO means electronic clinical outcome assessment/electronic patient-reported outcome. DMC means data monitoring committee.