How Fast Are Phase II Rare Disease CTIS Reviews and What Drives Delay?
Clinical Trial Intelligence

How Fast Are Phase II Rare Disease CTIS Reviews and What Drives Delay?

20 July 2026

Across 237 Phase II rare disease trials, the median EU CTIS end to end review was 104 days with an SD of 45.0 days. Only 76 of 237 trials (32.1%) reached first authorization within 60 days and 98 of 237 (41.4%) within 90 days. The recorded country specific CTIS Part II median was 245.5 days with an SD of 246.6 days, while smaller single country and low site submissions moved fastest.

Trials
237
EU Phase II rare disease CTIS submissions
End to end
104 days
Median · SD 45.0 days
Part II
245.5 days
Country median · SD 246.6 days
Within 90 days
41.4%
98 of 237 first authorizations

What is the end to end EU CTIS review time?

The end to end timeline runs from the initial EU CTIS submission to the first CTIS authorization. The median was 104 days, the mean was 85.8 days, and the interquartile range was 38 to 116 days.

Share of trials reaching first CTIS authorization by day
Within 30 days 17.7%
Within 60 days 32.1%
Within 90 days 41.4%
Within 120 days 80.6%
Within 180 days 98.7%
Cumulative percentages across 237 Phase II rare disease EU CTIS submissions.
Largest interval
39.2%
93 of 237 authorized in 91 to 120 days
Beyond 180 days
1.3%
3 of 237 trials
Interpretation

EU CTIS authorization was concentrated around the three to four month window: 93 of 237 trials (39.2%) finished between 91 and 120 days. The distribution was bounded at the upper end, with only 3 trials (1.3%) exceeding 180 days.

How fast is country specific CTIS Part II?

CTIS Part II is country specific and is reported separately from the overall EU submission timeline. Across 804 country level records, the recorded median was 245.5 days and SD was 246.6 days.

Country specific Part II timing milestones
Within 30 days 20.5%
Within 60 days 32.5%
Within 90 days 37.2%
Within 180 days 44.5%
Within 365 days 61.6%
Cumulative percentages use earliest recorded Part II submission to latest recorded country decision or authorization.
Part II median and SD by country
CountryRecordsMedian daysSD daysWithin 60Within 90
Estonia116.0100.0%100.0%
Latvia120.0100.0%100.0%
Lithuania130.0100.0%100.0%
Ireland1139.0261.463.6%63.6%
Finland441.0212.375.0%75.0%
Croatia282.517.70.0%50.0%
Romania889.5246.137.5%50.0%
Slovenia291.089.150.0%50.0%
Norway18115.0266.338.9%44.4%
Sweden22128.5253.931.8%45.5%
Bulgaria8133.0146.925.0%50.0%
Netherlands68203.0265.938.2%39.7%
Poland50214.5224.440.0%42.0%
Germany101233.0249.231.7%36.6%
Portugal15237.0207.833.3%40.0%
Belgium45261.0252.935.6%35.6%
France112263.5251.630.4%34.8%
Spain124265.0251.629.0%36.3%
Czechia23269.0242.526.1%34.8%
Italy116270.0240.626.7%31.0%
Slovakia2276.5344.450.0%50.0%
Greece20325.5219.320.0%25.0%
Austria16349.5217.525.0%25.0%
Denmark20398.0284.645.0%45.0%
Hungary14405.0278.828.6%28.6%
All countries are shown; SD is not calculated for a single record. End to end timing is intentionally not assigned to individual countries.
Interpretation

Among countries with at least eight records, Ireland had the lowest median at 39.0 days (n=11), followed by Romania at 89.5 days (n=8) and Norway at 115.0 days (n=18). The highest medians were Hungary at 405.0 days (n=14) and Denmark at 398.0 days (n=20); wide SDs show substantial within country dispersion.

Which submission months were fastest?

Submission month was associated with materially different end to end CTIS timelines even without using year as an analytical variable. September submissions had the shortest median at 51.0 days, while November and December had medians of 127.0 and 123.0 days.

Initial EU CTIS submission month
MonthTrialsMedian daysBelow median60 days or more90 days or more
January1394.061.5%69.2%61.5%
February1891.550.0%72.2%50.0%
March16109.043.8%87.5%68.8%
April2290.559.1%63.6%50.0%
May1795.052.9%52.9%52.9%
June18103.050.0%61.1%55.6%
July26101.553.8%65.4%65.4%
August23108.043.5%73.9%69.6%
September2551.076.0%44.0%36.0%
October22122.036.4%72.7%68.2%
November13127.030.8%92.3%76.9%
December24123.033.3%79.2%70.8%
Below median means less than the overall 104 day median. Month names are pooled across the cohort.
September
51 days
19 of 25 below median · 76.0%
November
127 days
10 of 13 at 90 days or more · 76.9%
December
123 days
17 of 24 at 90 days or more · 70.8%
Interpretation

September was the strongest timing window: 19 of 25 submissions (76.0%) finished below the 104 day median and only 9 of 25 (36.0%) reached 90 days or more. November was the clearest delay month, with 12 of 13 (92.3%) lasting at least 60 days and 10 of 13 (76.9%) at least 90 days.

How does submission footprint affect CTIS timing?

Smaller EU submissions were consistently faster. Single country trials had a median of 85.0 days, compared with 112.0 days for trials spanning four to five countries. Trials with one to five sites had a median of 85.5 days, versus 109.0 days above 20 sites.

Countries and sites versus end to end review
Submission footprintTrialsMedian daysBelow median60 days or more90 days or more
1 country8585.064.7%63.5%49.4%
2 to 3 countries47100.051.1%63.8%59.6%
4 to 5 countries49112.030.6%81.6%75.5%
6 or more countries56108.542.9%67.9%62.5%
1 to 5 sites9685.561.5%60.4%49.0%
6 to 10 sites43109.037.2%81.4%69.8%
11 to 20 sites50103.050.0%64.0%60.0%
More than 20 sites47109.038.3%76.6%72.3%
Country and site groups use the full EU submission footprint for each trial.
Country count correlation
ρ = 0.17
Spearman correlation with end to end days · p=0.007
Site count correlation
ρ = 0.17
Spearman correlation with end to end days · p=0.009
Interpretation

The clearest operational advantage was a compact footprint: 55 of 85 single country trials (64.7%) finished below the median, compared with 15 of 49 four to five country trials (30.6%). Likewise, 47 of 96 trials with one to five sites (49.0%) reached 90 days or more versus 34 of 47 trials above 20 sites (72.3%).

Which design and operating features track with faster review?

Comparator status produced the largest design separation. Trials without a comparator had a median of 82.0 days, versus 108.5 days when a comparator was present. Combination studies were faster than single treatment studies at 86.0 versus 108.0 days.

Feature level end to end timing
FeatureTrialsMedian daysBelow median60 days or more90 days or more
Comparator absent12182.057.0%57.9%47.9%
Comparator present116108.542.2%79.3%72.4%
Nonrandomized13191.054.2%61.1%51.1%
Randomized106108.044.3%77.4%70.8%
No digital recruitment18598.054.1%63.2%55.1%
Digital recruitment used52111.034.6%86.5%76.9%
Combination treatment6486.062.5%54.7%50.0%
Single treatment173108.045.1%73.4%63.6%
Paediatric trial9592.056.8%64.2%52.6%
Adult only trial142108.045.1%71.1%64.8%
Orphan designated11396.054.0%63.7%54.0%
Not orphan designated124105.046.0%72.6%65.3%
Each row is descriptive and may overlap with other trial characteristics.
Interpretation

Comparator present trials had 84 of 116 (72.4%) at 90 days or more, compared with 58 of 121 (47.9%) without a comparator. Digital recruitment was also a marker of more complex submissions: 40 of 52 (76.9%) reached 90 days or more versus 102 of 185 (55.1%) without it. These are associations, not evidence that the feature itself caused delay.

Which modalities and diseases moved fastest?

Across recurring modalities, gene or RNA therapy had a median of 92.0 days, antibody based therapy 99.0 days, and protein or enzyme therapy 109.5 days. Disease level comparisons were more concentrated because most rare diseases appeared only once or twice.

Modality level CTIS timing
ModalityTrialsMedian daysBelow median90 days or more
Gene or RNA therapy2392.052.2%56.5%
Oligonucleotide1896.555.6%61.1%
Antibody based5499.055.6%57.4%
Cell therapy14104.050.0%57.1%
Small molecule83104.048.2%60.2%
Protein or enzyme36109.538.9%66.7%
Modality groups with at least 10 trials are shown.
Recurring disease examples
DiseaseTrialsMedian daysBelow median90 days or more
Multiple myeloma735.071.4%28.6%
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis5127.00.0%100.0%
Disease rows are limited to indications represented by at least five trials.
Interpretation

Protein or enzyme trials showed the highest modality level delay rate, with 24 of 36 (66.7%) at 90 days or more. Among recurrent diseases, multiple myeloma had a 35.0 day median (n=7), while amyotrophic lateral sclerosis had a 127.0 day median and 5 of 5 trials at 90 days or more.

What most often coincided with two and three month delays?

Overall, 162 of 237 trials (68.4%) lasted at least 60 days and 142 of 237 (59.9%) lasted at least 90 days. The highest descriptive delay rates clustered around late calendar submissions and more operationally complex designs.

Factors with the highest delay rates
FactorTrials60 days or more90 days or moreMedian days
November submission1392.3%76.9%127.0
Digital recruitment used5286.5%76.9%111.0
4 to 5 countries4981.6%75.5%112.0
Comparator present11679.3%72.4%108.5
Randomized design10677.4%70.8%108.0
More than 20 sites4776.6%72.3%109.0
December submission2479.2%70.8%123.0
Protein or enzyme modality3675.0%66.7%109.5
Factors are ranked descriptively and overlap; percentages use each factor group as denominator.
Interpretation

The strongest 90 day delay signals were digital recruitment at 76.9% (40 of 52), November submission at 76.9% (10 of 13), four to five countries at 75.5% (37 of 49), and comparator presence at 72.4% (84 of 116). For planning an EU CTIS submission, footprint and protocol complexity were more consistently associated with delay than sample size alone.

Definitions

CTIS means the Clinical Trials Information System. End to end is the interval from initial EU CTIS submission to first authorization and is reported only at trial level. Part II is country specific and uses the recorded interval from earliest Part II submission to latest country decision or authorization. SD is standard deviation.

Shorter than median: less than 104 days.
Two month delay: 60 days or more.
Three month delay: 90 days or more.
Country table: end to end time is not attributed to individual countries; only CTIS Part II is country specific.