Clinical Trial Intelligence

What Shapes EU Phase III Respiratory CTIS Timelines?

20 July 2026

Across 119 Phase III respiratory trials, the median EU CTIS end to end review was 102 days with a population standard deviation of 45.0 days. Only 41.2% reached authorization within 90 days, while 84.9% did so within 120 days. Country specific CTIS Part II review had a lower median of 53 days but a pronounced long tail, and broader country/site scope, CRO involvement and monoclonal antibody programs were the clearest markers of longer timelines.

Trials included
119
Phase III respiratory EU CTIS submissions
End to end median
102 days
IQR 34 to 115 days; SD 45.0
Part II median
53 days
427 country review observations; SD 219.0
Authorized by 120 days
84.9%
101 of 119 EU submissions

How long did EU CTIS authorization take?

End to end time, defined as initial CTIS submission to first authorization, ranged from 1 to 231 days. The median was 102 days, the mean was 82.5 days and the interquartile range was 34 to 115 days.

Cumulative EU CTIS authorization rate
Within 30 days
21.8%
26 of 119 EU CTIS submissions
Within 60 days
34.5%
41 of 119 EU CTIS submissions
Within 90 days
41.2%
49 of 119 EU CTIS submissions
Within 120 days
84.9%
101 of 119 EU CTIS submissions
Within 180 days
98.3%
117 of 119 EU CTIS submissions
119 Phase III respiratory trials; cumulative percentages
Interpretation

A 90 day planning assumption covered only 49 of 119 submissions. A 120 day assumption covered 101 of 119, making four months the more reliable operational benchmark for Phase III respiratory EU submissions.

How variable was country specific CTIS Part II review?

Across 427 country review observations, the median CTIS Part II interval was 53 days, but the mean was 182.3 days and the population SD was 219.0 days. The 22.5 to 328.5 day interquartile range shows that country specific Part II timing was strongly right skewed.

Country Part II decisions within each interval
Within 30 days
37.0%
158 of 427 country Part II reviews
Within 60 days
50.6%
216 of 427 country Part II reviews
Within 90 days
56.0%
239 of 427 country Part II reviews
Within 120 days
61.8%
264 of 427 country Part II reviews
Within 180 days
66.3%
283 of 427 country Part II reviews
Within 60 days
50.6%
216 of 427 country reviews
Beyond 180 days
33.7%
144 of 427 country reviews
Maximum observed
844 days
Earliest Part II submission to latest decision
Country specific Part II only; end to end timing is not assigned to individual countries
Interpretation

The 53 day median is useful for a typical country, but the 219 day SD and 33.7% share beyond 180 days make a single average unsafe for country launch sequencing.

Which countries had the fastest and slowest CTIS Part II timelines?

Among countries with at least 10 observations, Denmark had the lowest median at 20.5 days, followed by the Netherlands at 22.5, Czechia at 28.0 and Austria at 29.0. France had the highest median at 142.0 days, followed by Romania at 114.0, Greece at 104.0 and Italy at 98.5.

All country specific Part II benchmarks
Country n Median days SD days Within 60 d
Denmark 22 20.5 215.8 63.6%
Croatia 3 21.0 4.1 100.0%
Netherlands 24 22.5 187.8 66.7%
Latvia 4 26.5 7.9 100.0%
Czechia 17 28.0 202.6 64.7%
Estonia 5 28.0 196.4 80.0%
Austria 13 29.0 197.3 76.9%
Sweden 12 30.0 237.3 58.3%
Finland 10 30.5 170.1 60.0%
Norway 5 31.0 231.0 60.0%
Poland 31 35.0 240.5 64.5%
Ireland 9 38.0 182.1 77.8%
Portugal 13 46.0 168.6 53.8%
Germany 42 49.5 188.8 50.0%
Spain 42 52.5 221.6 52.4%
Belgium 27 55.0 230.4 51.9%
Hungary 19 69.0 225.0 36.8%
Bulgaria 13 92.0 251.0 38.5%
Slovenia 1 98.0 0.0 0.0%
Italy 30 98.5 235.7 36.7%
Greece 15 104.0 247.0 20.0%
Romania 10 114.0 203.3 20.0%
Slovakia 6 141.5 111.7 50.0%
France 54 142.0 223.6 29.6%
Population SD across observed country Part II reviews; countries ordered by median
Interpretation

Country selection materially changes the Part II risk profile. High volume countries ranged from 20.5 to 142.0 median days, a 121.5 day spread before accounting for within country variability.

How did trial scale correlate with EU CTIS review time?

The number of countries correlated positively with end to end review time (Spearman ρ=0.35, p<0.001), as did total sites (ρ=0.32, p=0.001). Target sample size showed a weaker correlation (ρ=0.19, p=0.044), while planned participant count did not (ρ=0.08, p=0.364).

Country scope
0 to 1 country
82.5 d
n=66; 6.1% at 120+ days
2 to 3 countries
106.5 d
n=12; 16.7% at 120+ days
4 to 6 countries
103.0 d
n=13; 23.1% at 120+ days
7 or more
115.0 d
n=28; 39.3% at 120+ days
Site scope
0 to 5 sites
91.0 d
n=27; 3.7% at 120+ days
6 to 15 sites
82.0 d
n=30; 6.7% at 120+ days
16 to 30 sites
102.0 d
n=25; 12.0% at 120+ days
31 or more
112.5 d
n=34; 38.2% at 120+ days
Median end to end days and share at 120 days or longer
Interpretation

Coordination breadth was more predictive than enrollment volume. Submissions covering seven or more countries were 32.5 median days slower than submissions covering zero or one country, and large site networks were over ten times as likely to exceed 120 days as the smallest networks.

Did submission month affect EU CTIS timing?

Excluding months with fewer than five submissions, August had the shortest median at 32.5 days and October followed at 56.5 days. November had the longest median at 125.0 days, with 8 of 12 submissions taking at least 120 days.

Median end to end days by month
January
93.5 d
n=8
February
98.0 d
n=10
April
104.0 d
n=8
May
112.0 d
n=6
June
106.0 d
n=12
July
98.5 d
n=14
August
32.5 d
n=10
September
82.0 d
n=13
October
56.5 d
n=16
November
125.0 d
n=12
December
94.5 d
n=8
Months pooled across the dataset; no year based analysis
Interpretation

Calendar timing was a strong descriptive signal: the November median was 92.5 days longer than August. This pattern should be treated as a planning indicator rather than a causal seasonal effect.

Which respiratory indications and modalities moved fastest?

Rare and structural lung disease submissions had the shortest median at 30.0 days, while airway and allergic disease, pulmonary fibrosis/ILD, sleep apnoea/obesity and thoracic oncology all had medians between 109.0 and 112.0 days. Monoclonal antibody only programs had a 115.0 day median versus 96.0 days for small molecule only programs.

Indication group
Group n Median days Below median 120+ days
Rare and structural lung disease 11 30.0 100.0% 0.0%
Neonatal and prematurity 5 32.0 60.0% 0.0%
Critical care and pulmonary vascular 16 70.0 56.2% 25.0%
Respiratory infection 19 94.0 68.4% 0.0%
Other respiratory 8 107.0 50.0% 25.0%
Airway and allergic disease 37 109.0 35.1% 21.6%
Pulmonary fibrosis and ILD 9 111.0 33.3% 33.3%
Sleep apnoea and obesity 5 112.0 0.0% 20.0%
Thoracic oncology 9 112.0 33.3% 22.2%
Disease groups based on trial indication text; groups shown have at least five trials
Drug modality
Modality n Median days Below median 90+ days
Other only 5 29.0 60.0% 40.0%
Vaccine only 4 85.5 75.0% 50.0%
Small molecule only 55 96.0 54.5% 52.7%
Mixed modalities 23 102.0 47.8% 65.2%
Peptide or protein only 10 104.5 50.0% 60.0%
Monoclonal antibody only 17 115.0 11.8% 88.2%
Trial level modality classification; placebo and support products excluded from interpretation
Interpretation

Modality separated timelines more clearly than combination treatment. Only 2 of 17 monoclonal antibody only trials were below the 102 day median, compared with 30 of 55 small molecule only trials.

Which organizational factors marked delay?

Trials with a CRO had a 112.0 day median versus 91.5 days without a CRO. Pharmaceutical company sponsored trials had a 110.0 day median versus 86.5 days for noncommercial or institutional sponsors.

CRO present
112.0 days
n=41; 26.8% below median; 34.1% at 120+ days
No CRO
91.5 days
n=78; 61.5% below median; 7.7% at 120+ days
Pharmaceutical sponsor
110.0 days
n=63; 38.1% below median; 23.8% at 120+ days
Institutional sponsor
86.5 days
n=56; 62.5% below median; 8.9% at 120+ days
Descriptive associations; CRO presence and sponsor type may proxy underlying trial complexity
Interpretation

CRO associated trials had 6.2 times the odds of taking at least 120 days compared with trials without a CRO. This is more plausibly a complexity marker than evidence that CRO use itself causes delay.

Which design features did not materially change timing?

Open label and blinded trials had similar medians of 100.5 and 103.5 days. Combination and noncombination trials were also similar at 101.5 and 103.0 days. Randomized trials were somewhat slower at 105.0 days versus 87.0 days for nonrandomized trials, but the 120 day delay rate was almost identical at 17.2% versus 16.7%.

Open label vs blinded
100.5 vs 103.5
38 vs 78 trials
Combination vs single
101.5 vs 103.0
44 vs 75 trials
Randomized vs not
105.0 vs 87.0
87 vs 30 trials
Median end to end days; design classifications from CTIS trial records
Interpretation

Operational footprint, indication and modality separated EU CTIS timelines more strongly than labeling a trial open label, blinded or combination based.

Planning benchmarks for Phase III respiratory EU submissions

The data support three practical CTIS planning tiers.

Lean submission
80 to 95 days
One country or a smaller site network, often without a CRO.
Typical submission
102 to 120 days
The overall median and the interval covering 84.9% of trials.
Complex submission
120+ days
Seven or more countries, 31+ sites, CRO use or monoclonal antibody programs.
Definitions

End to end means initial CTIS submission to first authorization at trial level. CTIS Part II is country specific and is measured from the earliest Part II submission to the latest country decision or authorization. SD denotes population standard deviation.