Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which CROs Are Most Active in European Gastroenterology Phase III Trials?

21 June 2026

Across 153 European gastroenterology Phase III trials, CRO or specialist service-provider support appeared in 72 trials, equal to 47.1%. IQVIA and ICON / PRA were the most active named providers, each appearing in 21 trials. CRO use was most concentrated where CTIS / EU submission complexity expanded across countries and sites: 20 of 21 trials with 11+ countries used CRO support.

153
Included trials
47.1%
CRO-supported
21
Top CRO trial count
95.2%
CRO use in 11+ country trials

Most active CROs and specialist providers

IQVIA and ICON / PRA each supported 21 of 72 CRO-supported trials, equal to 29.2%. PPD / Thermo Fisher followed with 18 of 72 CRO-supported trials, or 25.0%.

Top CROs by share of CRO-supported trials
IQVIA
29.2%
ICON / PRA
29.2%
PPD / Thermo Fisher
25.0%
Almac
23.6%
Labcorp / Q2
22.2%
Medidata
18.1%
Provider share calculated across 72 CRO-supported European gastroenterology Phase III trials.
Interpretation

The CRO landscape is not dominated by one provider. The top two providers each covered less than one-third of CRO-supported trials, while specialist vendors in supply, laboratory, imaging, eCOA, and data systems appeared frequently enough to show that outsourcing is modular rather than purely full-service.

Where CRO support becomes most common

CRO use rose sharply with European operational spread. Trials with 4 or more countries used CRO support in 55 of 60 trials, or 91.7%. The highest capacity signal was 11+ countries, where CRO support appeared in 20 of 21 trials, or 95.2%.

CRO use by operational scale
11+ countries
95.2%
20 of 21 trials
51+ sites
90.9%
20 of 22 trials
1,000+ participants
62.5%
5 of 8 trials
73+ month recruitment
55.3%
26 of 47 trials
CRO presence by trial-level geography, site count, planned enrollment, and recruitment window.
Interpretation

Country and site footprint were stronger outsourcing triggers than planned sample size alone. In CTIS / EU submission terms, CRO demand appears when sponsors must coordinate parallel country participation, site activation, Part II documentation, and local execution across multiple Member States.

Indications where CRO support is most concentrated

By absolute CRO-supported trial count, inflammatory bowel disease dominated. CROs supported 23 of 28 Crohn’s disease trials, or 82.1%, and 20 of 27 ulcerative colitis trials, or 74.1%. MASLD / MASH showed the highest large-indication rate at 8 of 9 trials, or 88.9%.

CRO use by gastroenterology indication
Crohn’s disease
82.1%
Ulcerative colitis
74.1%
MASLD / MASH
88.9%
Biliary tract cancer
62.5%
Upper GI cancer
60.0%
Percentage of trials within each indication group that listed CRO or specialist provider support.
Interpretation

The strongest indication-level CRO demand sits in inflammatory bowel disease and metabolic liver disease. These areas combine long recruitment windows, repeated clinical assessments, frequent patient-reported outcomes, central reading, and multi-country competition for eligible patients.

Most outsourced trial functions

The most frequent outsourced function was broad CRO execution, monitoring, or study start-up, present in 68 of 153 trials, or 44.4%. Central laboratory and sample services appeared in 64 trials, or 41.8%, followed closely by clinical trial systems, electronic clinical outcome assessment, and data support in 62 trials, or 40.5%.

Outsourced function frequency across all included trials
CRO / monitoring / start-up
44.4%
Central lab / samples
41.8%
Systems / eCOA / data
40.5%
Imaging / endoscopy reading
30.7%
Drug supply / logistics
25.5%
Recruitment / retention
17.0%
Function categories counted at trial level across 153 trials.
Interpretation

Gastroenterology Phase III outsourcing is concentrated around operational execution, lab infrastructure, data capture, eCOA, and central reading. This fits IBD and liver-disease development, where endpoints often depend on centralized endoscopy, imaging, laboratory, diary, and outcome-assessment workflows.

CTIS / EU submission footprint and country load

The 153 trials generated 646 country-level European entries across 25 countries. CRO-supported trials had a median of 6.5 countries, compared with 1.0 country for trials without CRO support. France carried the largest site load with 860 site allocations, while Poland had the highest CRO-supported trial concentration among the largest country footprints at 49 of 52 country entries.

Largest country footprints by site allocations
Country Site allocations CRO-supported entries CRO share
France86042 of 8052.5%
Poland42149 of 5294.2%
Germany39046 of 5879.3%
Spain35648 of 5784.2%
Italy34745 of 5188.2%
Country entries reflect trial-by-country CTIS / EU submission participation and site allocation.
Interpretation

The CTIS signal is clear: once gastroenterology Phase III trials move beyond a single-country footprint, outsourcing becomes the default operating model. Large site countries such as France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland create the practical need for local submission coordination, site activation, translation, monitoring, and vendor oversight.

Adjacent signal: recruitment infrastructure clusters around CRO-supported trials

Digital or remote recruitment appeared in 30 of 72 CRO-supported trials, or 41.7%, compared with 3 of 81 trials, or 3.7%, without CRO support. Registry or advocacy-linked recruitment appeared in 15 of 72 CRO-supported trials, or 20.8%, compared with 4 of 81, or 4.9%, without CRO support.

Recruitment infrastructure by CRO support
Digital / remote recruitment
CRO-supported
41.7%
No CRO support
3.7%
Registry / advocacy recruitment
CRO-supported
20.8%
No CRO support
4.9%
Recruitment architecture by CRO support status.
Interpretation

CRO-supported gastroenterology trials are more likely to include patient-access infrastructure, not only operational monitoring. This is relevant for competitive IBD and liver-disease trials where patient identification, retention, eConsent, and advocacy-linked materials can materially affect feasibility.

Executive interpretation

European gastroenterology Phase III CRO demand is driven less by trial size alone and more by multi-country, multi-site execution. The most active CRO ecosystem combines global CROs, lab vendors, imaging/endoscopy readers, eCOA/data platforms, recruitment vendors, and logistics providers.

Clinical and operational implication

The clearest CRO-demand threshold is the CTIS / EU submission footprint: 11+ countries, 51+ sites, and IBD or MASLD / MASH indications. In these settings, CRO support is not merely administrative; it reflects the need to coordinate country submissions, site activation, recruitment infrastructure, central reading, laboratory workflows, eCOA/data capture, and study logistics at European scale.