What Drives Phase II Gastroenterology CTIS Timelines and Delays?
Clinical Trial Intelligence

What Drives Phase II Gastroenterology CTIS Timelines and Delays?

19 July 2026

Across 157 Phase II gastroenterology trials, the median CTIS/EU submission-to-first-authorization interval was 101 days (SD 42.6). Country-specific CTIS Part II records had a median of 108 days (SD 246.3), with only 51.3% completed within 120 days. Larger EU footprints, inflammatory bowel disease programmes, randomised designs and pharma-sponsored studies were associated with more ≥90-day end-to-end timelines, while modality and protocol criterion counts showed little relationship.

Trials analysed157Phase II gastroenterology CTIS/EU submissions
End-to-end median101 daysSD 42.6 · trial-level
Part II median108 daysSD 246.3 · country-trial level
Within 120 days86.0% / 51.3%End-to-end / country Part II

How long do CTIS/EU submissions take?

The end-to-end interval—from initial CTIS/EU submission to first authorization—had a median of 101 days across 157 trials. Country-specific Part II—from the earliest recorded Part II submission to the latest recorded country decision or authorization—had a median of 108 days across 495 country-trial records.

End-to-end CTIS/EU
101 days
SD 42.6 · n=157
Q1: 52 days
Q3: 115 days
Range: 1–224 days
Country-specific Part II
108 days
SD 246.3 · n=495
Q1: 26.5 days
Q3: 455.5 days
Range: 1–853 days
Interpretation

The similar medians conceal very different distributions. End-to-end timing was relatively concentrated, whereas Part II had a pronounced long tail; country planning therefore needs both the median and dispersion, not a single European average.

What share reaches authorization within common planning intervals?

End-to-end CTIS/EU authorization accelerated sharply between 90 and 120 days: 42.0% of trials were authorized by 90 days and 86.0% by 120 days. Country Part II progressed more gradually, reaching 47.5% by 90 days and 51.3% by 120 days.

End-to-end CTIS/EU
≤ 30 days17.2%
27 of 157 trials
≤ 60 days28.7%
45 of 157 trials
≤ 90 days42.0%
66 of 157 trials
≤ 120 days86.0%
135 of 157 trials
≤ 180 days98.1%
154 of 157 trials
Country-specific Part II
≤ 30 days30.5%
151 of 495 country-trial records
≤ 60 days41.6%
206 of 495 country-trial records
≤ 90 days47.5%
235 of 495 country-trial records
≤ 120 days51.3%
254 of 495 country-trial records
≤ 180 days54.1%
268 of 495 country-trial records
Interpretation

A 120-day end-to-end planning assumption covered 135 of 157 trials, but the same threshold covered only 254 of 495 country Part II records. Country activation plans need explicit tail-risk buffers.

How does country-specific CTIS Part II vary across Europe?

Norway had the shortest country median at 21.0 days, followed by Ireland at 23.5 days and Estonia at 24.0 days. Finland had the longest median at 398.0 days, followed by Hungary at 280.0 days and Slovakia at 242.0 days. These are recorded Part II intervals, not statutory review limits.

Country Part II interval, days
CountrynMedianSD
Norway1221.0271.6
Ireland423.5260.9
Estonia324.0373.5
Netherlands2726.0177.9
Denmark1827.5217.9
Latvia634.0335.9
Lithuania437.0315.6
Portugal548.0267.3
Austria1752.0262.9
Belgium3379.0228.3
Poland3793.0247.6
Slovenia3104.0127.6
Czechia21118.0235.0
Italy45131.0260.0
Romania21135.0278.7
France54136.0250.3
Bulgaria15170.0199.7
Spain42180.5244.5
Sweden10207.0255.3
Greece12207.5249.0
Germany51210.0242.5
Croatia12211.5260.4
Slovakia13242.0284.4
Hungary23280.0251.7
Finland7398.0301.0
Interpretation

The country median spread was 377 days—from 21 days in Norway to 398 days in Finland. High SDs in many countries confirm that local Part II performance is variable even within the same jurisdiction.

Which operational factors correlate with shorter or delayed end-to-end authorization?

EU footprint was the clearest continuous correlate of longer end-to-end timing. Number of countries correlated with review duration at Spearman ρ=0.34 (p<0.001); sites showed a weaker positive correlation (ρ=0.20, p=0.012), and planned sample size was also weakly positive (ρ=0.19, p=0.021).

Country footprint

1 country · n=9688.0 d47.9% ≥90 days
4+ countries · n=44115.0 d81.8% ≥90 days

Site footprint

≤10 sites · n=7990.0 d50.6% ≥90 days
31+ sites · n=29112.0 d79.3% ≥90 days
Interpretation

Single-country submissions had an 88-day median and 47.9% ≥90-day rate, versus 115 days and 81.8% for submissions spanning four or more countries. Trials with 31+ sites also had a higher ≥90-day rate than trials with ten or fewer sites: 79.3% versus 50.6%.

Which clinical and organisational profiles show the greatest delay risk?

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) trials had a 112-day median and 77.6% ≥90-day rate, compared with 84 days and 44.4% for GI oncology or treatment-effect trials. Randomised, pharma-sponsored and CRO-supported programmes also had higher unadjusted ≥90-day rates.

Disease cluster

GI oncology / treatment effects · n=6384.0 d44.4% ≥90 days
Inflammatory bowel disease · n=49112.0 d77.6% ≥90 days

Trial design

Non-randomised · n=6285.5 d46.8% ≥90 days
Randomised · n=95106.0 d67.4% ≥90 days

Sponsor profile

Academic / public / nonprofit · n=7981.0 d44.3% ≥90 days
Pharma / biotech · n=78112.0 d74.4% ≥90 days
CRO association

CRO-supported trials had a 110-day median and 69.0% ≥90-day rate (40 of 58), versus 91 days and 53.5% (53 of 99) without a recorded CRO.

Interpretation

These are descriptive associations, not causal effects. Pharma sponsorship, CRO use and randomisation commonly co-occur with larger, more complex multinational programmes; the operational footprint is likely an important upstream contributor.

Does submission month influence CTIS/EU timing?

Submission month showed meaningful pooled variation without using year. October submissions had the shortest median at 44.0 days, followed by July at 67.5 days; March had a 108.0-day median and the highest ≥90-day share among months with at least eight trials at 76.9%.

MonthnMedian days≥90 days
January8105.587.5%
February1297.558.3%
March13108.076.9%
April14100.064.3%
May10102.070.0%
June1191.054.5%
July1867.544.4%
August14109.064.3%
September1989.047.4%
October1644.043.8%
November8103.562.5%
December14107.064.3%
Interpretation

Month effects were non-monotonic and probably mix workload, holiday and cohort-composition effects. They are useful as planning signals, but weaker than country and footprint variables for operational decisions.

Which factors did not materially separate CTIS/EU timelines?

Drug modality medians clustered tightly between 96.0 and 103.5 days. Counts of inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, primary endpoints and secondary endpoints had near-zero correlations with end-to-end timing (|ρ|≤0.02).

ModalitynMedian days≥90 days
Mixed / other2596.064.0%
Antibody + small molecule2498.554.2%
Other modality11102.063.6%
Monoclonal antibody27103.055.6%
Small molecule70103.560.0%
Interpretation

For Phase II gastroenterology CTIS/EU submissions, operational geography separated timelines more clearly than molecule class or the simple number of protocol criteria and endpoints.

What planning benchmarks follow from the dataset?

The dataset supports three practical CTIS/EU submission planning bands.

Base planUse 101 days as the overall end-to-end median, with 120 days covering 86.0% of observed trial authorizations.
Expanded EU footprintFor four or more countries or 31+ sites, plan around 112–115 days and recognize an approximately 79–82% probability of crossing 90 days.
Country Part IIUse country-specific medians rather than a European average. A 120-day Part II assumption covered only 51.3% of recorded country-trial intervals.
Definitions: CTIS = Clinical Trials Information System. End-to-end = initial CTIS/EU submission to first authorization at trial level. Part II = earliest recorded country-specific Part II submission to latest recorded country decision or authorization. SD = sample standard deviation. Associations are descriptive and do not establish causality.