How Quickly Do EU Phase III Immunology Trials Clear CTIS and What Shapes Timing?
Clinical Trial Intelligence

How Quickly Do EU Phase III Immunology Trials Clear CTIS and What Shapes Timing?

20 July 2026

Across 257 European Phase III immunology trials, the median CTIS end-to-end timeline was 105 days (SD 40.6), while country-specific CTIS Part II took a median 99.5 days (SD 255.8). Only 48.3% of Part II reviews concluded within 90 days, and country medians ranged from 21.5 days in Latvia to 173 days in Bulgaria. Submission month was the clearest timing signal; autumn submissions had a 125-day end-to-end median versus 88 days in spring.

257
Phase III immunology trials
EU CTIS submissions included
105 days
End-to-end median
SD 40.6 days; trial-level measure
99.5 days
Part II median
SD 255.8 days; country-specific measure
48.3%
Part II within 90 days
596 of 1,234 country reviews

What are the overall EU CTIS review times?

End-to-end timing—from initial CTIS submission to first authorization—is a trial-level measure and is not attributable to individual countries. Country comparisons therefore use only CTIS Part II, measured from the earliest country Part II submission to the latest country decision or authorization.

Trial-level end to end
105 days
Median · SD 40.6
Q1: 41Q3: 117
Range: 3–152 days
Country-specific Part II
99.5 days
Median · SD 255.8
Q1: 28Q3: 395.8
Range: 0–900 days
Interpretation

The Part II median resembles the overall end-to-end median, but its SD is more than six times larger, indicating that country-level timing is the main source of long-tail operational risk.

What percentage of approvals fall within common planning intervals?

Cumulative approval rates show a sharp end-to-end concentration around 105–120 days, while Part II remains widely dispersed beyond the median.

End to end · 257 trials
Within 30 days 12.1%
31 of 257
Within 60 days 36.2%
93 of 257
Within 90 days 40.9%
105 of 257
Within 105 days · median 51%
131 of 257
Within 120 days 80.9%
208 of 257
Within 150 days 99.6%
256 of 257
Part II · country reviews
Within 30 days 27%
333 of 1,234
Within 60 days 42%
518 of 1,234
Within 90 days 48.3%
596 of 1,234
Within 100 days · ≈ median 50.2%
620 of 1,234
Within 180 days 56.2%
693 of 1,234
Within 365 days 73%
901 of 1,234
Interpretation

A 120-day end-to-end planning assumption covered 80.9% of trials. The same buffer covered only 53.0% of country Part II reviews, and 27.0% remained unresolved beyond one year.

How long does country-specific CTIS Part II take?

Among countries with at least 10 observations, Slovakia had the shortest median at 29.5 days, followed by Austria and Croatia at 35 days. Bulgaria was longest at 173 days, followed by Portugal at 161 and Poland at 144 days.

Fastest established medians
Slovakia 29.5 days
Austria 35 days
Croatia 35 days
Norway 45 days
Ireland 57 days
Longest established medians
Bulgaria 173 days
Portugal 161 days
Poland 144 days
Denmark 134 days
Spain 131 days
All country results · sorted by median
COUNTRY N MEDIAN SD ≤90 DAYS
Latvia 4 21.5 9.6 75.0%
Slovakia 24 29.5 272.8 62.5%
Estonia 4 32.0 301.1 50.0%
Lithuania 12 34.0 300.4 58.3%
Croatia 13 35.0 260.0 69.2%
Austria 37 35.0 241.9 59.5%
Norway 19 45.0 282.7 63.2%
Ireland 10 57.0 164.0 60.0%
Sweden 24 58.5 298.3 54.2%
Finland 8 65.0 281.9 62.5%
Hungary 63 75.0 257.3 52.4%
Germany 130 75.5 256.4 52.3%
Slovenia 6 86.0 337.0 66.7%
Czechia 71 91.0 258.9 50.7%
Belgium 65 93.0 258.8 50.8%
Greece 41 110.0 238.8 58.5%
France 123 113.0 268.6 47.2%
Romania 35 120.0 270.5 48.6%
Italy 118 120.5 261.0 45.8%
Netherlands 50 122.0 273.5 46.0%
Spain 141 131.0 260.2 42.6%
Denmark 30 134.0 234.3 46.7%
Poland 115 144.0 254.0 47.8%
Portugal 42 161.0 260.1 45.2%
Cyprus 2 171.0 230.5 50.0%
Bulgaria 47 173.0 247.0 46.8%
Days from earliest country Part II submission to latest decision or authorization. Estimates with n<10 are directional.
Interpretation

Country selection changes the expected Part II median by more than fivefold. High SDs across most countries show that a low median does not eliminate long-tail risk, so country-specific buffers remain necessary.

What correlates with faster or slower end-to-end approval?

Submission timing was the clearest independent signal. CRO involvement and larger country footprints also marked slower trials, while sample size and total site count showed little direct correlation.

Submission season
FASTER GROUP
Spring: 88-day median
SLOWER GROUP
Autumn: 125-day median
+37 days; fast approvals 62.5% vs 31.1%
Adjusted median regression retained a 32.6-day spring advantage over autumn.
Country footprint
FASTER GROUP
1–7 countries: 96 days
SLOWER GROUP
8+ countries: 112.5 days
+16.5 days; fast approvals 59.1% vs 31.4%
Country count had a modest unadjusted correlation with duration (Spearman ρ=0.21).
CRO-linked complexity
FASTER GROUP
No CRO: 90-day median
SLOWER GROUP
CRO present: 111-day median
+21 days; fast approvals 66.7% vs 40.2%
After adjustment for season and design flags, CRO presence remained associated with about 18 additional days; this is a complexity marker, not proof of causation.
Disease grouping
FASTER GROUP
Renal immune: 75 days
SLOWER GROUP
Dermatologic immune: 114 days
+39 days across disease groups
Rheumatologic/systemic autoimmune trials also ran relatively faster at an 80.5-day median.
Modality medians · groups with at least 8 trials
mAb + small molecule · 64 days 61.3%
61.3% shorter than the 105-day overall median
Cell therapy · 76.5 days 62.5%
62.5% shorter than the overall median
Monoclonal antibody · 102 days 51.8%
51.8% shorter than the overall median
Small molecule · 108 days 47.9%
47.9% shorter than the overall median
Protein / enzyme · 115 days 30.4%
30.4% shorter than the overall median
Interpretation

Calendar timing dominates the observed end-to-end signal. Operational complexity matters, but neither target sample size (ρ=−0.02) nor total site count (ρ=0.10) independently explained much of the variation.

What correlates with Part II delays of two or three months or longer?

Overall, 58.0% of country Part II reviews lasted at least 60 days and 51.7% lasted at least 90 days. Month of Part II submission, country, disease area, and modality showed the largest differences.

Median Part II days and ≥90-day delay rate
FEBRUARY
29 days
23.0% reached ≥90 days
APRIL
37.5 days
39.7% reached ≥90 days
MAY
287 days
60.7% reached ≥90 days
JULY–SEPTEMBER
200–224 days
62.2–64.8% reached ≥90 days
Population
FASTER GROUP
Adult: 90-day median
SLOWER GROUP
Paediatric: 145.5-day median
+55.5 days; ≥90-day delay 50.1% vs 55.8%
Paediatric requirements were associated with slower Part II timing.
Orphan status
FASTER GROUP
Non-orphan: 95 days
SLOWER GROUP
Orphan: 176 days
+81 days; ≥90-day delay 51.1% vs 55.3%
The median difference was larger than the threshold-rate difference because of a heavier upper tail.
Trial design
FASTER GROUP
Non-randomised: 78 days
SLOWER GROUP
Randomised: 113 days
+35 days; ≥90-day delay 47.7% vs 53.4%
Randomisation was associated with a moderately higher delay rate.
Modality
FASTER GROUP
Monoclonal antibody: 72.5 days
SLOWER GROUP
Small molecule: 217 days
+144.5 days; ≥90-day delay 47.3% vs 59.2%
Mixed mAb–small-molecule trials had a 119-day median and 59.3% ≥90-day delay rate.
Interpretation

The largest actionable Part II differences were country and submission month. Trial attributes such as paediatric status, orphan designation, randomisation, and modality were secondary signals and may partly reflect document and review complexity.

What should EU submission teams plan for?

120 days
Core end-to-end buffer
Covered 80.9% of Phase III immunology trials
>365 days
Part II tail risk
27.0% of country reviews exceeded one year
Spring
Faster E2E window
88-day median versus 125 days in autumn
Country-specific
Part II planning
Country medians ranged from 21.5 to 173 days
Planning implication

Use one trial-level end-to-end forecast, then layer country-specific Part II assumptions. A single EU-wide Part II average obscures both the fivefold country-median spread and the substantial long tail.

Definitions. CTIS: Clinical Trials Information System. End to end: initial CTIS submission to first authorization. Part II: earliest country-specific Part II submission to latest country decision or authorization. SD: sample standard deviation. Comparisons use month of submission but do not use submission year as an analytical factor.