Phase I Respiratory CTIS Timelines and Drivers
Clinical Trial Intelligence

What Drives Phase I Respiratory CTIS Timelines and Delays?

20 July 2026

Across 34 Phase I respiratory trials, the median EU CTIS submission to first authorization time was 111 days. Country specific Part II review had a 60.5 day median, but its 245.9 day SD shows a pronounced long tail. Larger multicountry and multisite submissions, first in human programs, combination regimens, and adaptive or escalation designs were the clearest correlates of longer review.

EU end to end
111 days
Population SD 43.8 · range 9 to 293
Country Part II
60.5 days
92 decisions · population SD 245.9
Within 90 days
35.3%
12 of 34 EU submissions
90 days or longer
67.6%
23 of 34 EU submissions

How long does Phase I respiratory EU CTIS review take?

End to end review is measured from the initial EU CTIS submission to the first authorization. Part II is measured separately at country level and is not assigned to an individual country as an end to end metric.

Core timing distribution
111
days median EU end to end
Mean: 102.4 days
Population SD: 43.8 days
Range: 9 to 293 days
60.5
days median Part II
Mean: 227.9 days
Population SD: 245.9 days
Range: 7 to 784 days
Interpretation

The EU end to end distribution is concentrated near four months, whereas Part II has a much wider country specific tail. The median is therefore more representative than the Part II mean.

What percentage is approved within 30, 60, 90 and 120 days?

Only 1 of 34 trials (2.9%) reached first EU authorization within 30 days, while 28 of 34 (82.4%) did so within 120 days. Part II reached 50.0% within 60 days but then accumulated slowly because of the long country tail.

Cumulative authorization rate by time threshold
Within 30 days
EU end to end2.9%
Country Part II31.5%
Within 60 days
EU end to end14.7%
Country Part II50.0%
Within 90 days
EU end to end35.3%
Country Part II54.3%
Within 120 days
EU end to end82.4%
Country Part II57.6%
Within 180 days
EU end to end97.1%
Country Part II57.6%
Within 365 days
EU end to end100.0%
Country Part II69.6%
Interpretation

A 120 day planning assumption captures 82.4% of first EU authorizations, but only 57.6% of country Part II decisions. Operational plans requiring all selected countries should therefore use country specific benchmarks rather than the EU first authorization median alone.

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

Denmark had the lowest country median at 12 days across 3 observations. Among countries with at least 6 observations, the median ranged from 31 days in the Netherlands to 284 days in Belgium. End to end timing is intentionally not shown by country because it is an EU submission level measure.

Country specific Part II median and population SD
CountrynMedian daysSDRelative median
Denmark312.041.0
Ireland325.0242.8
Austria326.0259.8
Sweden228.017.0
Czechia329.010.4
Latvia129.00.0
Netherlands931.0204.1
Poland738.0182.4
Italy858.5256.0
Spain1361.0273.1
Portugal470.0205.7
Greece291.08.0
France9191.0270.0
Romania2207.0107.0
Germany15231.0271.9
Belgium6284.0229.3
Finland1461.00.0
Bulgaria1532.00.0
Interpretation

Country choice is a major source of Part II variability. Germany, France, Belgium and several smaller cohorts show both high medians and high SD, indicating that predictability is as important as the point estimate when selecting countries.

How strongly do country and site scale correlate with delay?

Country count and site count each had a moderate positive correlation with EU review time. Single country and 1 to 3 site trials had an 83 day median; every trial with 4 or more sites took at least 90 days.

Scale related timing profiles
Countries included
1 country
n=17 · 76.5% below median · 35.3% at 90+ days
83.0 d
2 to 3 countries
n=8 · 12.5% below median · 100.0% at 90+ days
117.0 d
4 or more countries
n=9 · 33.3% below median · 100.0% at 90+ days
114.0 d
EU sites
1 to 3 sites
n=17 · 76.5% below median · 35.3% at 90+ days
83.0 d
4 to 10 sites
n=7 · 0.0% below median · 100.0% at 90+ days
117.0 d
11 or more sites
n=10 · 40.0% below median · 100.0% at 90+ days
114.5 d
ρ 0.50Countries versus review days · p=0.002
ρ 0.50Sites versus review days · p=0.002
Interpretation

Scale was the most consistent measurable correlate. Among 17 single country trials, 13 (76.5%) were faster than the 111 day median; among 17 trials with more than one country, only 4 (23.5%) were faster.

Does submission month affect EU CTIS review time?

Without using year as an analytical factor, submissions made from July through September had the shortest median at 74 days, and all 5 were faster than the overall median. October through December submissions had a 114 day median and 5 of 12 (41.7%) reached 120 days or longer.

Submission month window and EU end to end timing
January to March
n=11 · 54.5% below median · 63.6% at 90+ days
109.0 d
April to June
n=6 · 16.7% below median · 100.0% at 90+ days
113.0 d
July to September
n=5 · 100.0% below median · 40.0% at 90+ days
74.0 d
October to December
n=12 · 41.7% below median · 66.7% at 90+ days
114.0 d
Interpretation

The summer submission window was associated with shorter review in this cohort, while late calendar submissions carried the largest 120 day delay rate. The July to September group is small, so this should be treated as a planning signal rather than a deterministic rule.

Which trial characteristics track with shorter or longer approval?

First in human, combination, and adaptive or escalation programs were more frequently in the 90 day or longer group. Randomisation alone showed a smaller difference.

Design and treatment factor comparison
First in human status
First in human · n=5
115.0 days
0.0% below median · 100.0% at 90+ days
Not first in human · n=29
108.0 days
58.6% below median · 62.1% at 90+ days
Combination treatment
Combination · n=14
113.0 days
35.7% below median · 85.7% at 90+ days
Single treatment · n=20
93.0 days
60.0% below median · 55.0% at 90+ days
Adaptive or dose escalation design
Adaptive or escalation · n=12
113.0 days
41.7% below median · 91.7% at 90+ days
Non adaptive · n=22
103.0 days
54.5% below median · 54.5% at 90+ days
Randomisation
Randomised · n=8
113.0 days
37.5% below median · 75.0% at 90+ days
Non randomised · n=26
109.5 days
53.8% below median · 65.4% at 90+ days
Interpretation

All 5 first in human trials took at least 90 days. Combination trials had an 113 day median versus 93 days for single treatment trials, and adaptive or escalation designs had a 91.7% 90 day delay rate versus 54.5% for non adaptive designs.

Which respiratory indications show the shortest and longest review profiles?

Airway and inflammatory programs had the shortest disease group median at 87 days. Thoracic oncology had a 112 day median and 11 of 13 trials (84.6%) took at least 90 days. Respiratory infection trials had a 115 day median, although only 3 trials were included.

Disease group timing profile
Healthy volunteers
n=1 · 100.0% below median · 0.0% at 90+ days
74.0 d
Airway and inflammatory
n=9 · 66.7% below median · 44.4% at 90+ days
87.0 d
Fibrotic vascular and rare
n=8 · 50.0% below median · 62.5% at 90+ days
102.0 d
Thoracic oncology
n=13 · 46.2% below median · 84.6% at 90+ days
112.0 d
Respiratory infection
n=3 · 0.0% below median · 100.0% at 90+ days
115.0 d
Interpretation

Airway focused Phase I programs were more often below the cohort median, while oncology and infection programs more often crossed 90 days. Much of this difference overlaps with scale, combination treatment and adaptive design.

What distinguishes faster submissions from 90 day delays?

The faster half of the cohort was operationally compact. The 90 day or longer group was more multinational, more multisite and more likely to combine therapies or use early phase adaptive features.

Faster than median versus 90 days or longer

Faster than 111 days

Trials17 of 34
Median countries1
Median sites1
Combination treatment5 of 17 (29.4%)
First in human0 of 17 (0.0%)

90 days or longer

Trials23 of 34
Median countries3
Median sites10
Combination treatment12 of 23 (52.2%)
First in human5 of 23 (21.7%)
Operational takeaway

For planning, the most defensible fast profile is a single country, 1 to 3 site, non first in human submission without a combination regimen. Multicountry expansion and complex early phase design should be budgeted near or above the 111 day median, with country specific Part II contingencies.

Definitions

EU end to endCalendar days from initial CTIS submission to first CTIS authorization for the trial.
Country Part IICalendar days from the earliest country specific Part II submission to the latest decision or authorization recorded for that country.
SDPopulation standard deviation, used to describe dispersion within the complete cohort analyzed.
Shorter than medianEU end to end review below 111 days.
Substantial delayLonger than 60 days, with 90 days or longer reported as the principal major delay threshold.