What Drives Phase I Pediatric CTIS Timelines?
Clinical Trial Intelligence

What Drives Phase I Pediatric CTIS Timelines?

20 July 2026

Across 147 Phase I or Phase I/II pediatric trials, the median EU Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) submission-to-authorization timeline was 77 days with a 49.9-day standard deviation. 79/147 trials (53.7%) were authorized within 90 days. Country-specific CTIS Part II timelines were substantially more dispersed, with a 254-day median and 259.7-day standard deviation across 393 country observations.

Trials
147
EU end to end
77 d
SD 49.9
Within 90 days
53.7%
79/147 trials
Country Part II
254 d
SD 259.7

How quickly are EU CTIS submissions authorized?

The median end-to-end interval from initial EU CTIS submission to first authorization was 77 days. Only 38/147 trials (25.9%) cleared within 30 days, while 119/147 (81.0%) cleared within 120 days.

Cumulative share authorized
≤ 30 days
25.9%
≤ 60 days
48.3%
≤ 90 days
53.7%
≤ 120 days
81.0%
≤ 180 days
96.6%
End to end means initial EU CTIS submission to first authorization; denominator: 147 trials.
Interpretation

The largest gain occurs between 90 and 120 days: the cumulative authorization rate rises from 53.7% to 81.0%, a 27.2-percentage-point increase.

Which countries have the shortest CTIS Part II timelines?

Across 393 country-specific Part II observations in 18 countries, Austria had the lowest median at 24 days, followed by Sweden at 49 days and Norway at 89 days. Greece had the highest median at 448 days.

Country Part II ranking
Country
n
Relative median
Median
SD
Austria
12
24.0
194.5
Sweden
15
49.0
237.1
Norway
5
89.0
115.5
Ireland
4
100.5
270.3
Czechia
9
129.0
225.1
Netherlands
42
180.0
267.8
Slovakia
2
226.5
6.4
Denmark
20
233.0
281.5
Hungary
5
254.0
288.7
Belgium
20
269.5
249.5
Poland
14
275.5
248.3
Finland
3
280.0
156.4
Germany
47
288.0
263.3
Italy
61
296.0
261.1
France
61
323.0
252.2
Spain
66
328.0
284.8
Slovenia
2
357.0
287.1
Greece
5
448.0
156.3
Days from earliest country Part II submission to latest country decision or authorization. SD is the sample standard deviation.
Interpretation

Country medians vary 18.7-fold, from 24 to 448 days. Large SDs in major countries, including Spain (284.8) and Germany (263.3), indicate that country choice alone does not make Part II timing predictable.

How often is CTIS Part II completed within key intervals?

133/393 Part II observations (33.8%) were completed within 60 days and 148/393 (37.7%) within 90 days. Even at 365 days, the cumulative share was 63.4%.

Cumulative share of country observations
≤ 30 days
22.1%
≤ 60 days
33.8%
≤ 90 days
37.7%
≤ 120 days
39.2%
≤ 180 days
41.5%
≤ 365 days
63.4%
Denominator: 393 country-specific CTIS Part II observations.

Which modalities and diseases are associated with shorter reviews?

Cell therapy had the shortest modality median at 42 days, while gene therapy had a 109-day median. Solid tumour indications had a 34-day median, compared with 106.5 days for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Modality association screen
Modality
n
Median
Fast
≥60 d
≥90 d
Cell therapy
37
42.0
21/37 (56.8%)
17/37 (45.9%)
14/37 (37.8%)
Monoclonal antibody
20
56.5
11/20 (55.0%)
9/20 (45.0%)
9/20 (45.0%)
Small molecule
79
70.0
40/79 (50.6%)
42/79 (53.2%)
36/79 (45.6%)
Peptide/protein/enzyme
13
94.0
6/13 (46.2%)
7/13 (53.8%)
7/13 (53.8%)
Oligonucleotide
11
101.0
4/11 (36.4%)
7/11 (63.6%)
7/11 (63.6%)
ADC
5
105.0
1/5 (20.0%)
4/5 (80.0%)
4/5 (80.0%)
Gene therapy
20
109.0
7/20 (35.0%)
13/20 (65.0%)
12/20 (60.0%)
Fast means shorter than the cohort median of 77 days. Multi-modality trials can appear in more than one row.
Disease family association screen
Disease family
n
Median
Fast
≥90 d
Solid tumour indications
20
34.0
15/20 (75.0%)
4/20 (20.0%)
Glioma or CNS tumour
16
68.5
8/16 (50.0%)
6/16 (37.5%)
Neuroblastoma
13
70.0
7/13 (53.8%)
6/13 (46.2%)
Duchenne muscular dystrophy
6
82.0
3/6 (50.0%)
3/6 (50.0%)
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia
22
106.5
6/22 (27.3%)
15/22 (68.2%)
Interpretation

The strongest faster pattern was solid tumour indications: 15/20 (75.0%) were below the median and only 4/20 (20.0%) reached 90 days. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia showed the reverse pattern, with 15/22 (68.2%) at 90 days or longer.

Which design features correlate with delay?

First-in-human status was the clearest design-level delay marker: 13/18 trials (72.2%) required at least 90 days. Dose-escalation trials had a 92-day median, compared with 53 days for trials without dose escalation.

Delay association screen
Factor present
n
Median
Fast
≥60 d
≥90 d
First in human
18
104.5
4/18 (22.2%)
14/18 (77.8%)
13/18 (72.2%)
Dose escalation
94
92.0
41/94 (43.6%)
55/94 (58.5%)
49/94 (52.1%)
Open label
99
92.0
44/99 (44.4%)
58/99 (58.6%)
52/99 (52.5%)
CRO present
78
92.0
35/78 (44.9%)
44/78 (56.4%)
40/78 (51.3%)
Digital recruitment
13
115.0
4/13 (30.8%)
9/13 (69.2%)
9/13 (69.2%)
Interpretation

Only 4/18 first-in-human trials (22.2%) were faster than the median, versus 69/129 (53.5%) among other trials. These are associations and should be treated as planning signals rather than causal effects.

Does submission month affect EU CTIS timing?

February submissions had a 31-day median and January submissions a 25-day median. December submissions had the longest median at 119 days, with 14/19 trials (73.7%) taking at least 90 days; November followed at 116 days with 6/9 trials (66.7%) at 90 days or longer.

Combined calendar-month pattern
Month
n
Relative median
Median
≥90 d
January
9
25.0 d
3/9 ≥90 d
February
6
31.0 d
1/6 ≥90 d
March
7
42.0 d
3/7 ≥90 d
April
13
77.0 d
6/13 ≥90 d
May
4
65.5 d
2/4 ≥90 d
June
10
37.5 d
3/10 ≥90 d
July
18
48.0 d
7/18 ≥90 d
August
13
109.0 d
8/13 ≥90 d
September
17
56.0 d
8/17 ≥90 d
October
22
63.0 d
8/22 ≥90 d
November
9
116.0 d
6/9 ≥90 d
December
19
119.0 d
14/19 ≥90 d
Interpretation

The December median was 94 days longer than January and 88 days longer than February. For planning, late-calendar submissions carried the clearest observed risk of crossing the 90-day threshold.

Do more countries or sites automatically create delay?

Trial footprint was not a strong linear driver. The Spearman correlation between end-to-end days and country count was 0.11; for site count it was 0.03. Participant count showed a small negative correlation of -0.18.

Countries
ρ 0.11
Weak positive relationship with end-to-end days.
Sites
ρ 0.03
Essentially no monotonic relationship with end-to-end days.
Participants
ρ -0.18
Small inverse relationship; larger planned cohorts were not slower.
Recruitment window
ρ -0.35
Longer planned recruitment windows were associated with shorter CTIS review times.
Interpretation

Operational scale alone did not explain delay: country count and site count both had correlations close to zero. Trial type, first-in-human status, disease, modality, and submission month were more informative planning signals.

Definitions

EU CTIS end to end: initial CTIS submission date to first CTIS authorization date at trial level.

CTIS Part II: country-specific interval from earliest Part II submission to latest decision or authorization in that country.

Fast: shorter than the cohort median of 77 days.

SD: sample standard deviation; ρ: Spearman rank correlation.