What Are EU Phase II Nephrology CTIS Timelines and What Shapes Them?
Clinical Trial Intelligence

What Are EU Phase II Nephrology CTIS Timelines and What Shapes Them?

19 July 2026

Across 48 EU Phase II nephrology trials, the median CTIS end-to-end timeline was 107 days (SD 39.3). Country-specific CTIS Part II took a median 114 days across 131 member-state observations (SD 205.3), with substantially greater dispersion. Smaller EU footprints shortened end-to-end review, while CRO involvement, combination treatment, larger enrolment and paediatric studies were the clearest markers of prolonged Part II.

107 d
Median CTIS end-to-end
48 trials · SD 39.3 days
114 d
Median CTIS Part II
131 country observations · SD 205.3 days
35.4%
End-to-end within 90 days
17 of 48 EU submissions
45.0%
Part II within 90 days
59 of 131 country observations

Two CTIS timelines answer different operational questions

End-to-end is a trial-level EU submission metric; it is not attributable to an individual country. Part II is the country-specific ethics and local-requirements span, so member-state comparisons use Part II only.

EU end-to-end
107 days

Initial CTIS submission to first CTIS authorisation. Median 107 days; mean 89.3; SD 39.3; observed range 7–132 days.

Country-specific Part II
114 days

Earliest Part II submission in a member state to the latest recorded decision or authorisation in that state. Median 114 days; mean 194.3; SD 205.3; range 5–734 days.

Interpretation

The Part II distribution is markedly right-skewed: the median is 114 days, but the mean rises to 194 days because a minority of country processes extend well beyond one year. Planning should therefore use both the median and a long-delay contingency.

How quickly do EU nephrology CTIS approvals accumulate?

Only 10 of 48 trials (20.8%) reached first CTIS authorisation within 60 days, rising to 38 of 48 (79.2%) within 120 days. For Part II, 47 of 131 country observations (35.9%) closed within 60 days, while 18 of 131 (13.7%) exceeded one year.

End-to-end cumulative
Within 30 days
16.7%
8 of 48 trials
Within 60 days
20.8%
10 of 48 trials
Within 90 days
35.4%
17 of 48 trials
Within 107 days
50.0%
24 of 48 trials
Within 120 days
79.2%
38 of 48 trials
Within 150 days
100.0%
48 of 48 trials
Part II cumulative
Within 30 days
19.8%
26 of 131 country observations
Within 60 days
35.9%
47 of 131 country observations
Within 90 days
45.0%
59 of 131 country observations
Within 114 days
50.4%
66 of 131 country observations
Within 180 days
59.5%
78 of 131 country observations
Within 365 days
86.3%
113 of 131 country observations
Interpretation

A 90-day planning assumption captures only 35.4% of end-to-end authorisations and 45.0% of Part II country decisions. A 120-day end-to-end allowance is substantially more realistic, covering 79.2% of trials.

How long does country-specific CTIS Part II take?

Among countries with at least three observations, Austria had the lowest median at 46.5 days, followed by Hungary at 64 and Germany at 83. France and Belgium had the longest medians at 201 and 225 days, respectively. High SDs show that country performance was often inconsistent rather than uniformly fast or slow.

Country-specific Part II elapsed time
CountrynMedian daysSD≤60 days≥180 days
Finland128100.0%0.0%
Ireland135100.0%0.0%
Austria646.5308.666.7%33.3%
Sweden246.548.850.0%0.0%
Hungary364274.433.3%33.3%
Bulgaria26575.050.0%0.0%
Germany1583189.940.0%40.0%
Czechia6101121.733.3%33.3%
Greece311054.00.0%33.3%
Portugal3110133.20.0%33.3%
Italy18112.5222.338.9%38.9%
Spain20114208.135.0%35.0%
Denmark7114306.442.9%28.6%
Netherlands11135208.236.4%45.5%
Poland7147238.728.6%42.9%
France19201196.526.3%57.9%
Belgium7225222.728.6%71.4%
Countries are ordered by median Part II time. SD is not estimable for a single observation.
Interpretation

Country choice alone is not sufficiently predictive: Austria combined a 46.5-day median with a 308.6-day SD, and Germany combined an 83-day median with a 189.9-day SD. Country medians should be paired with trial-complexity and submission-timing signals.

What was associated with shorter end-to-end CTIS approval?

The clearest end-to-end signal was EU footprint. Single-country trials reached a 77-day median, versus 115 days for 2–3 countries and 109 days for 4+ countries. The number of countries correlated positively with elapsed time (Spearman ρ=0.31).

Median end-to-end days
EU footprint
22 vs 11 trials; 45.5% vs 81.8% took ≥90 days
77 d
1 country
115 d
2–3 countries
Site footprint
19 vs 10 trials; 63.2% vs 40.0% were faster than the 107-day median
77 d
1–3 sites
114 d
4–10 sites
Sponsor setting
20 vs 28 trials; 50.0% vs 75.0% took ≥90 days
85 d
Academic / healthcare
109.5 d
Industry
Masking
27 vs 20 trials; 63.0% vs 35.0% were faster than median
104 d
Not open-label
111.5 d
Open-label
Modality
6 vs 3 trials; small subgroups, directional only
77 d
Cell therapy
115 d
RNA / gene
Adjusted check

In an exploratory multivariable model, open-label design remained associated with approximately 69% longer end-to-end time, while paediatric status was associated with approximately 58% shorter time. The small paediatric subgroup means the latter should be treated as a cohort signal, not a causal effect.

What was associated with substantial Part II delay?

Across country observations, 84 of 131 (64.1%) took at least 60 days and 73 of 131 (55.7%) took at least 90 days. CRO involvement, combination treatment, larger planned enrolment and paediatric studies showed the largest delay gradients.

Median Part II days
CRO involvement
73 vs 58 country observations; ≥90-day delay 39.7% vs 75.9%
52 d
No CRO
266 d
CRO present
Treatment structure
103 vs 28 observations; ≥90-day delay 49.5% vs 78.6%
89 d
Single treatment
193 d
Combination
Planned enrolment
54 vs 43 observations; ≥90-day delay 37.0% vs 83.7%
69 d
31–100 participants
238 d
>100 participants
Population
105 vs 26 observations; ≥90-day delay 49.5% vs 80.8%
89 d
Adult
227 d
Paediatric
Sponsor setting
27 vs 104 observations; ≥90-day delay 37.0% vs 60.6%
42 d
Academic / healthcare
130.5 d
Industry
Adjusted check

A trial-clustered model retained two strong Part II signals after accounting for scale, sponsor type and design: CRO-present observations had about 2.84× the elapsed time, and combination-treatment observations about 2.04×. These variables likely proxy operational and dossier complexity rather than causing delay themselves.

Does the month of Part II submission matter?

Part II submissions made in October–December had a 52-day median and 28.3% reached ≥90 days. July–September submissions had a 199-day median and 96.3% reached ≥90 days; April–June was longest at 291.5 days. No comparable, stable seasonal pattern appeared for trial-level end-to-end approval.

32.5 d
Jan–Mar
24 Part II observations · 33.3% ≥90 days
291.5 d
Apr–Jun
34 Part II observations · 76.5% ≥90 days
199 d
Jul–Sep
27 Part II observations · 96.3% ≥90 days
52 d
Oct–Dec
46 Part II observations · 28.3% ≥90 days
Interpretation

Submission month is a useful planning flag for Part II, but not a causal calendar rule. The observed pattern also reflects which countries and trial types entered CTIS Part II in each month.

How do disease and modality relate to Part II time?

Small-molecule country observations had the shortest modality median at 83 days. Antibody and RNA/gene programmes had medians of 210 and 225 days. Transplant/rejection and inherited/rare nephropathy observations were shortest by disease cluster, while polycystic kidney disease was longest.

Part II by modality
Small molecule
83.0 d
Peptide / protein
133.0 d
Cell therapy
171.5 d
Antibody
210.0 d
RNA / gene
225.0 d
Part II by disease cluster
Transplant / rejection
42.0 d
Inherited / rare
52.0 d
Glomerular / immune
102.0 d
Acute kidney injury
119.0 d
CKD / dialysis / metabolic
143.0 d
Polycystic kidney disease
273.0 d
Interpretation

Modality and disease are useful complexity markers, but their effects overlap with paediatric status, sponsor model, CRO use, country mix and enrolment scale. They are best used for scenario planning rather than deterministic forecasts.

What should EU submission teams plan for?

Base case
107 + 114 days

Use 107 days as the trial-level end-to-end median and 114 days as the country-specific Part II median; do not add them mechanically because they measure overlapping CTIS processes.

Risk case
≥180 days

Part II exceeded 180 days in 53 of 131 observations (40.5%). Build this contingency for CRO-heavy, combination, large or paediatric programmes.

Footprint choice
−32 to −38 days

Single-country EU submissions were 32 days faster than 4+ country trials and 38 days faster than 2–3 country trials at the median.

Country planning
Median + SD

Use country medians for base scheduling and SD for contingency. A low median without low variability is not a reliable fast-track signal.

Definitions

CTIS: Clinical Trials Information System. Part II: member-state assessment of ethics and local requirements. SD: standard deviation. “Faster than median” means below 107 days for end-to-end and below 114 days for Part II. Factor findings are observed associations across the full cohort and are not causal estimates.