Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which CROs Are Most Active in European Respiratory Phase III Trials, and Where Is CRO Capacity Needed Most?

22 June 2026

Across 119 European respiratory Phase III trials authorized through CTIS in 2024–2026, CROs were named in 41 trials, equal to 34.5% of the cohort. CRO demand concentrated in operationally complex trials: 18 of 21 trials with 50+ sites used CRO support, and 11 of 12 trials spanning 11+ countries used CROs. PPD / Thermo Fisher, IQVIA, and ICON / PRA were the most recurrent CRO groups, while the most outsourced functions were eClinical systems, central laboratory or biomarker work, IMP logistics, and patient-support operations.

Trials analyzed
119
Respiratory Phase III trials in Europe, 2024–2026
CRO-supported trials
41
41 / 119 = 34.5%
Top CRO group
PPD / Thermo Fisher
15 / 41 CRO-supported trials = 36.6%
Highest capacity signal
50+ sites
18 / 21 trials = 85.7% CRO-supported

CRO use rose sharply in 2026 respiratory Phase III trials

CRO support was present in 20 of 68 respiratory Phase III trials in 2024, 12 of 35 in 2025, and 9 of 16 in 2026. The CRO-use rate therefore increased from 29.4% in 2024 to 56.3% in 2026.

CRO-supported trials by CTIS authorization year
2024 20 / 68 · 29.4%
2025 12 / 35 · 34.3%
2026 9 / 16 · 56.3%
Population: European respiratory Phase III trials; measure: share with named CRO support.
Interpretation

The 2026 cohort shows a clear move toward outsourced execution. In CTIS respiratory Phase III submissions, CRO demand is no longer limited to the largest legacy studies; it is increasingly visible in newly authorized respiratory development programs.

PPD, IQVIA and ICON were the most recurrent CRO groups

Among the 41 CRO-supported respiratory Phase III trials, PPD / Thermo Fisher appeared in 15 trials, IQVIA in 13, ICON / PRA in 8, Labcorp in 7, and Clario / eRT / Bioclinica in 7. Because a single trial can name multiple CROs or specialist providers, the ranking reflects CRO-group presence rather than exclusive trial ownership.

CRO-group presence across CRO-supported trials
PPD / Thermo Fisher15 / 41 · 36.6%
IQVIA13 / 41 · 31.7%
ICON / PRA8 / 41 · 19.5%
Labcorp7 / 41 · 17.1%
Clario / eRT / Bioclinica7 / 41 · 17.1%
Syneos Health6 / 41 · 14.6%
Measure: trial-level CRO-group presence among 41 CRO-supported trials; groups are not mutually exclusive.
Interpretation

The most active CRO groups combine global trial operations with specialist respiratory execution infrastructure. Their presence is strongest in trials that need central labs, respiratory-function reading, eCOA, interactive response technology, supply logistics, and EU country activation through CTIS.

CRO need is highest once trials become multi-country and high-site-count

CRO use was rare in single-country trials, where only 3 of 63 trials used a CRO. It became dominant in larger European footprints: 16 of 21 trials with 6–10 countries and 11 of 12 trials with 11+ countries used CRO support. The site-count threshold was even clearer: 18 of 21 trials with 50+ sites were CRO-supported.

CRO-use rate by operational capacity level
Countries
1 country4.8%
2–5 countries55.0%
6–10 countries76.2%
11+ countries91.7%
Sites
1–10 sites13.2%
11–25 sites22.2%
26–49 sites47.6%
50+ sites85.7%
Country buckets: 63, 20, 21, and 12 trials respectively. Site buckets: 38, 36, 21, and 21 trials respectively.
Interpretation

The strongest CRO trigger is not respiratory therapy area alone; it is European execution complexity. Once a Phase III respiratory trial crosses roughly 6 countries or 50 sites, the CTIS operational workload usually requires outsourced activation, site management, vendor coordination, and country-level execution support.

CRO-supported trials had larger operational footprints

The median CRO-supported respiratory Phase III trial involved 7 countries, 43 sites, 249 participants, and 9 third parties. The median non-CRO trial involved 1 country, 11.5 sites, 193.5 participants, and no third parties.

Median trial footprint: CRO-supported vs non-CRO trials
Countries
7
vs 1 non-CRO
Sites
43
vs 11.5 non-CRO
Participants
249
vs 193.5 non-CRO
Third parties
9
vs 0 non-CRO
Median comparison across 41 CRO-supported and 78 non-CRO respiratory Phase III trials.
Interpretation

CRO support is most strongly associated with multi-vendor operating models. The jump from 0 to 9 median third parties shows that outsourcing demand often reflects the need to coordinate laboratories, technology vendors, logistics providers, imaging or respiratory assessment specialists, and patient-support services under one EU submission framework.

Outsourcing demand was strongest in OSA, nasal polyps and fibrotic lung disease

Among indication groups with at least four trials, CRO use was highest in obstructive sleep apnoea, where 5 of 5 trials used CROs; chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, where 4 of 4 used CROs; idiopathic or progressive pulmonary fibrosis, where 4 of 5 used CROs; interstitial lung disease, where 3 of 6 used CROs; and asthma, where 6 of 13 used CROs.

Indication groups with highest CRO-use signal
Obstructive sleep apnoea5 / 5 · 100.0%
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps4 / 4 · 100.0%
Idiopathic / progressive pulmonary fibrosis4 / 5 · 80.0%
Interstitial lung disease / CTD-ILD3 / 6 · 50.0%
Asthma6 / 13 · 46.2%
Non-small cell lung cancer3 / 8 · 37.5%
Indication grouping is trial-level; only groups with at least four trials are emphasized.
Interpretation

The highest CRO-demand indications are not simply the most frequent diseases. They are indications that require distributed specialist sites, patient-identification support, device or respiratory-function workflows, eCOA, imaging, central reading, or complex site activation across multiple EU countries.

Small molecules dominate trial volume, but biologics and peptides show higher CRO intensity

Small molecules appeared in 71 trials and accounted for 21 CRO-supported trials, a CRO-use rate of 29.6%. Monoclonal antibodies appeared in 31 trials with 15 CRO-supported trials, equal to 48.4%, while peptide, protein, or enzyme therapies appeared in 15 trials with 7 CRO-supported trials, equal to 46.7%.

CRO-use rate by modality presence
Small molecule
29.6%
21 / 71 trials
Monoclonal antibody
48.4%
15 / 31 trials
Peptide / protein / enzyme
46.7%
7 / 15 trials
Modality is measured by presence in the trial; combination trials can contribute to more than one modality category.
Interpretation

Small molecules drive the largest absolute trial volume, but biologics and peptide or protein programs show stronger outsourcing intensity. This points to additional vendor demand around sample handling, biomarker workflows, safety monitoring, device-enabled assessment, and specialist trial operations.

The most outsourced functions were eClinical systems, central labs and IMP logistics

Among 41 CRO-supported trials, eClinical systems such as IRT, EDC, eCOA or RTSM appeared in 29 trials; central laboratory, biosample or biomarker services appeared in 27; IMP logistics, depot, QP release or supply-chain services appeared in 21; and patient recruitment, retention or reimbursement support appeared in 20.

Outsourced function categories among CRO-supported trials
eClinical systems / IRT / EDC / eCOA29 / 41 · 70.7%
Central lab / biosamples / biomarkers27 / 41 · 65.9%
IMP logistics / depot / supply chain21 / 41 · 51.2%
Patient recruitment / retention / reimbursement20 / 41 · 48.8%
Imaging / respiratory-function central reading17 / 41 · 41.5%
Clinical operations / CRO management15 / 41 · 36.6%
Safety / pharmacovigilance / adjudication11 / 41 · 26.8%
Function categories are not mutually exclusive; denominator is 41 CRO-supported trials.
Interpretation

Respiratory Phase III outsourcing is heavily systems-and-measurement driven. The demand pattern is strongest where EU trials need CTIS-ready country documents, site activation, central lab logistics, respiratory-function standardization, eCOA capture, randomization systems, and patient-support services.

CRO-supported programs had longer trial-level CTIS timelines but faster country-level Part II processing

At the trial level, the median interval from initial CTIS submission to first authorization was 112 days for CRO-supported trials versus 91.5 days for non-CRO trials. At country level, where Part II country processing times were available, CRO-supported country entries had a median processing time of 39 days versus 97 days for non-CRO country entries.

Median CTIS timing by CRO status
Trial-level initial submission to first authorization
112
days · CRO
91.5
days · non-CRO
Country-level CTIS Part II processing
39
days · CRO
97
days · non-CRO
CTIS = Clinical Trials Information System. Part II reflects country-specific assessment and authorization workflow.
Interpretation

The trial-level CTIS interval is longer for CRO-supported trials because these programs are typically larger and more complex. The country-level Part II signal points in the opposite direction: once country submissions are active, CRO-supported execution appears concentrated in more structured, faster-moving country operations.

Digital and patient-support models were more common in CRO-supported trials

Digital or remote recruitment was present in 22 of 41 CRO-supported trials, equal to 53.7%, compared with 7 of 78 non-CRO trials, equal to 9.0%. Registry, advocacy or patient-association recruitment was present in 6 of 41 CRO-supported trials versus 5 of 78 non-CRO trials.

Recruitment model signal by CRO status
Digital / remote recruitment
53.7%
22 / 41 CRO-supported trials
vs 7 / 78 non-CRO trials = 9.0%
Registry / advocacy recruitment
14.6%
6 / 41 CRO-supported trials
vs 5 / 78 non-CRO trials = 6.4%
Recruitment signals are trial-level and based on documented recruitment approaches.
Interpretation

CRO-supported respiratory trials are more likely to use patient-facing recruitment infrastructure, especially digital materials, direct-to-patient workflows, online screeners, patient-association materials, or reimbursement and travel-support vendors. This is most relevant for chronic respiratory indications where eligible patients are dispersed across specialist sites.

Definitions

CRO means contract research organization or named outsourced clinical-trial service provider. CTIS means Clinical Trials Information System, the EU platform used for clinical trial submissions and authorizations. IMP means investigational medicinal product. IRT, IWRS and RTSM refer to randomization, treatment assignment and supply-management systems. eCOA and ePRO refer to electronic clinical outcome assessment and electronic patient-reported outcome capture.

Executive interpretation

For respiratory Phase III sponsors planning European CTIS submissions, CRO need is most predictable when a trial combines multiple countries, 50+ sites, specialist respiratory assessments, patient-facing recruitment, central lab or imaging vendors, and complex IMP logistics. CRO selection should therefore be matched to EU country activation capacity and respiratory-specific vendor orchestration, not only broad therapeutic-area experience.