Clinical Trial Intelligence

How Long Are Phase I Gastroenterology CTIS Reviews and What Shapes Them?

19 July 2026

Across 41 Phase I gastroenterology trials submitted through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) in Europe, the trial-level EU submission-to-first-authorisation timeline was a median 89 days (SD 42). Country-specific CTIS Part II was more variable: median 152.5 days (SD 242.3) across 76 country decisions, with country medians ranging from 51 days in Belgium to 506 days in Italy. Smaller geographic footprints and small-molecule-containing programmes aligned with faster review, while multi-country, three-or-more-site, cell-therapy and randomised programmes concentrated more 90-day delays.

EU trials
41
End-to-end median
89d
Part II median
153d
E2E ≥90 days
48.8%

How long does an end-to-end EU CTIS submission take?

The median was 89 days with a 42-day SD, spanning 7 to 194 days. Eleven of 41 trials (26.8%) reached first EU authorisation within 60 days, 22 (53.7%) within 90 days and 34 (82.9%) within 120 days.

Cumulative EU CTIS authorisations
≤30d
E2E 14.6%
Part II 23.7%
≤60d
E2E 26.8%
Part II 31.6%
≤90d
E2E 53.7%
Part II 36.8%
≤120d
E2E 82.9%
Part II 40.8%
≤180d
E2E 97.6%
Part II 52.6%
Trial-level end-to-end Country-specific Part II
Interpretation

A 90-day planning assumption covers only 53.7% of Phase I gastroenterology EU submissions. A 120-day regulatory plan covers 82.9%, while 1 of 41 trials (2.4%) still exceeded 180 days.

How long does country-specific CTIS Part II take?

Across 76 country-specific Part II decisions, the median was 152.5 days with a 242.3-day SD. Eighteen decisions (23.7%) completed within 30 days, 24 (31.6%) within 60 days and 28 (36.8%) within 90 days; 48 of 76 (63.2%) lasted at least 90 days.

Country-specific Part II processing time
Country n Median and SD
Belgium 5
51 days SD 260.0
Denmark 4
53.5 days SD 281.7
France 8
79 days SD 251.7
Bulgaria 2
85 days SD 78.0
Portugal 3
86 days SD 228.8
Poland 5
128 days SD 103.3
Romania 1
135 days SD 0.0
Croatia 1
137 days SD 0.0
Netherlands 8
151 days SD 233.5
Sweden 5
163 days SD 218.6
Germany 10
201 days SD 257.3
Greece 2
257.5 days SD 148.5
Ireland 2
282.5 days SD 257.5
Hungary 3
406 days SD 131.7
Austria 1
438 days SD 0.0
Finland 1
461 days SD 0.0
Spain 9
463 days SD 276.9
Italy 6
506 days SD 216.7
Population SD; n is the number of country-specific Part II observations. Single-observation countries have SD 0 by definition.
Interpretation

Among countries with at least three observations, Belgium had the shortest median at 51 days, followed by Denmark at 53.5 and France at 79. Italy had the longest median at 506 days, followed by Spain at 463 and Hungary at 406. Large SDs show that country alone does not fully predict the Part II outcome.

Which factors align with faster CTIS review?

The strongest shorter-than-median signals were a small-molecule-containing programme, a single-country EU submission and a footprint of one or two sites. August submissions also had the shortest descriptive monthly median.

Small-molecule-containing
77 days
n=16; 12/16 (75.0%) below 89 days; 3/16 (18.8%) at least 90 days.
Without small molecules: median 103 days; p=0.032.
Single-country EU submission
85 days
n=32; 18/32 (56.2%) below 89 days; 13/32 (40.6%) at least 90 days.
Multi-country: median 115 days; p=0.055.
One or two sites
84 days
n=27; 16/27 (59.3%) below 89 days; 11/27 (40.7%) at least 90 days.
Three or more sites: median 114.5 days; p=0.039.
August submission
44 days
n=4; 3/4 (75.0%) below 89 days; 1/4 (25.0%) at least 90 days.
Descriptive month signal; interpret with the small denominator.
Interpretation

The most actionable upstream choice was submission footprint. The number of countries correlated positively with end-to-end time (Spearman ρ=0.31; p=0.047), while total sites showed a similar relationship (ρ=0.30; p=0.054).

What concentrates two- and three-month delays?

Overall, 30 of 41 trials (73.2%) required at least 60 days and 20 (48.8%) required at least 90 days. The highest 90-day delay rates occurred in multi-country and cell-therapy-containing programmes.

Delay concentration by trial attribute
Attribute n Median ≥60d ≥90d
Multi-country EU submission9115d8/9 · 88.9%7/9 · 77.8%
Three or more sites14114.5d12/14 · 85.7%9/14 · 64.3%
Cell-therapy-containing5105d5/5 · 100%4/5 · 80.0%
Randomised design9118d7/9 · 77.8%6/9 · 66.7%
September submission7103d5/7 · 71.4%5/7 · 71.4%
December submission3121d3/3 · 100%2/3 · 66.7%
Interpretation

Geographic complexity was the clearest operational delay signal. Cell therapy and randomisation were directionally slower, but their smaller groups and non-significant timing comparisons mean they should be treated as risk markers rather than deterministic causes.

Does submission month matter?

Without using year as an analytical factor, August had the shortest monthly median at 44 days, followed by February at 53 days. September, November and December had medians of 103, 102 and 121 days, respectively.

Median days from EU CTIS submission to first authorisation
January
n=1
114.0d
February
n=2
53.0d
March
n=5
87.0d
April
n=2
80.0d
May
n=2
96.5d
July
n=7
84.0d
August
n=4
44.0d
September
n=7
103.0d
October
n=4
81.5d
November
n=4
102.0d
December
n=3
121.0d
Month groups are pooled across the cohort; no year-level comparison is included.
Interpretation

The month pattern is useful for contingency planning, not scheduling optimisation: several months had only one or two submissions. The more stable signal was the September group, where 5 of 7 trials (71.4%) reached 90 days or longer.

Which factors did not materially explain review time?

Participant count was essentially unrelated to end-to-end timing, and CRO presence or adaptive design did not produce a clear acceleration signal.

Planned sample size
ρ=0.05
Spearman p=0.755; larger enrolment did not correspond to longer CTIS review.
CRO present
74 vs 90d
Seven CRO-supported trials versus 34 without; p=0.603.
Adaptive design
91 vs 85.5d
Eleven adaptive versus 30 non-adaptive trials; p=0.546.
Disease mix
100 vs 85d
GI oncology median versus non-oncology gastroenterology; geography and modality produced stronger separation.

Definitions

End-to-end CTIS timeline: initial EU CTIS submission to first CTIS authorisation, calculated once per trial. It is not assigned to individual countries.

CTIS Part II: country-specific interval from earliest Part II submission to the latest recorded national decision or authorisation.

SD: population standard deviation. End-to-end and Part II timelines are separate measures and should not be added together.