Therapeutic Goods Administration

As per the TGAct, the TGR, and the G-CTHandbook, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, oversight, and inspections in Australia at the national level. The TGA allows for the supply of unapproved therapeutic goods to be used in clinical trials for experimental purposes in humans in accordance with the provisions in the TGAct and the TGR. There are two (2) regulatory schemes for supplying unapproved therapeutic goods in clinical investigations, which are more fully examined in the Scope of Assessment section.

As per AUS-28, the TGA is part of the Health Products Regulation Group (HPRG) within the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care. According to the G-TrialsSOP and AUS-32, the TGA regulates the supply, import, export, manufacturing, and advertising of therapeutic goods. Per AUS-31, therapeutic goods include prescription medicines, vaccines, sunscreens, vitamins and minerals, medical devices, blood, and blood products.

The TGA manages the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) (AUS-22), a public database of therapeutic goods that can be legally supplied in Australia. According to the TGAct, the TGA grants exemptions from inclusion in the ARTG for unapproved therapeutic goods to be supplied in clinical trials.

Contact Information

Per AUS-23 and AUS-47, the contact information for the TGA is as follows:

Postal Address:
P.O. Box 100
Woden ACT 2606
Australia

For general questions:

Phone: 1 800 020 653 (free call within Australia) or +61 2 6289 4124 (international calls)
Fax: 02 6203 1605
E-mail: use online form (see AUS-11)

For clinical trial questions:

Phone: Same as the general questions numbers
E-mail: clinical.trials@health.gov.au

National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)

As per ResNo9 and ResNo255, the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial oversight, approval, and inspection of drugs to be registered in Brazil. ANVISA grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ResNo9 and ResNo255.

LawNo9.782 states ANVISA is an independent administrative agency linked to the Ministry of Health (MOH) that is responsible for regulating, controlling, and supervising products and services involving public health risks. LawNo9.782 and ResNo255 explain that the goods and products under the agency’s purview include medicines for human use and their active ingredients, immunobiologicals and their active substances, and blood and blood derivatives.

As indicated in LawNo9.782 and ResNo255, ANVISA is headed by a Collegiate Board of Directors composed of up to five (5) members, one (1) of whom serves as the Chief Executive Officer. Among the Collegiate Board’s key responsibilities are its role in defining ANVISA’s strategic guidelines and proposing governmental policies and directives to the Minister in support of the agency’s health surveillance objectives.

LawNo9.782 and ResNo255 further indicate that ANVISA has an Advisory Board. Per ResNo255 and BRA-36, the Advisory Board’s main objectives include requesting information and proposing guidelines and technical recommendations to the Collegiate Board to be addressed by ANVISA, and providing opinions on proposed governmental policies. Refer to LawNo9.782, ResNo255, and BRA-36 for detailed Collegiate Board and Advisory Board responsibilities.

As delineated in ResNo255, ANVISA’s General Management of Medicines and Biological Products (Gerência-Geral de Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (GGMED)) coordinates and supervises the organizational units responsible for the regulation of active pharmaceutical ingredients, medicines, and biological products, and manages the implementation of international cooperation activities aimed at regulating active pharmaceutical ingredients, medicines, and clinical research involving human beings. The Coordination of Clinical Research on Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC)) is an administrative unit operating within GGMED that evaluates the processes and petitions related to clinical research on drugs and biological products, and issues technical opinions with the goal of granting approval to initiate clinical research in Brazil. See ResNo255 for detailed information on ANVISA’s organizational structure and administrative units.

Other Considerations

Per BRA-65, Brazil is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). BRA-73 and BRA-113 indicate that Brazil implemented the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28) in 2019.

Please note: Brazil is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (BRA-63), which may have implications for studies of investigational products developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see BRA-81.

Contact Information

Per BRA-42, the following is ANVISA’s contact information:

ANVISA
Setor de Indústria e Abastecimento (SIA)
Trecho 5
Área Especial 57
CEP: 71.205-050
Brasília - DF

Phone: 0 800 642 9782 (Public Service Center for domestic inquiries)*

*Per BRA-99, while ANVISA does not have phone service to receive international calls, general inquiries may be sent via email using ANVISA’s Electronic Contact Form (BRA-68). In-country calls can be made to specific administrative offices posted on ANVISA’s Who’s Who website (BRA-39).

Per BRA-12, the medicines and biological products contact information is as follows:

General Management of Medicines (GGMED)
Phone: (61) 3462-6724
Email: medicamento.assessoria@anvisa.gov.br

Per BRA-18, the clinical research contact information is as follows:

Coordination of Clinical Research in Medicines and Biological Products (COPEC)
Phone: (61) 3462-5599/5526
Email: pesquisaclinica@anvisa.gov.br

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) allows for the supply of unapproved therapeutic goods to be used in clinical trials under two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. The G-CTHandbook specifies that the scope of the TGA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV).

Under either regulatory scheme, per the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, an ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) must approve the research protocol. The G-NatlStmt further specifies that any research that involves greater than low risk must be reviewed by an EC.

According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must also undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. This allows the institution to consider whether the project is suitable for the site and whether it has the capacity to conduct the research at that site. Per the G-TrialsSOP, the SSA and ethics review may occur in parallel. However, EC approval must be obtained and submitted to the research governance officer (RGO) of each participating institution before institutional authorization is granted.

For summaries of the clinical trials regulatory environment, legislation, and guidance, see AUS-40.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Per the G-CTHandbook, the sponsor is responsible for the overall decision as to whether the CTN or CTA scheme should be used. Consulting the EC responsible for protocol approval may assist the sponsor in making the decision. The main difference between the CTN and CTA schemes is the TGA’s level of involvement in reviewing data about the therapeutic goods before the clinical trial commences.

See AUS-27 for more information on choosing a clinical trial scheme.

CTN Scheme

As per the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, under the CTN scheme, the sponsor must notify the TGA of its intention to sponsor a clinical trial involving an unapproved therapeutic good. The TGA does not assess any data relating to the proposed trial at the time of submission. As further indicated in AUS-47, sponsors may submit the CTN to the TGA concurrently with the EC’s and institution’s review and approval/authorization. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial.

The G-CTHandbook indicates that a clinical trial is deemed to be notified as soon as the online CTN form (via the TGA Business Services (TBS) webpage (AUS-36)) has been submitted and the relevant fee has been paid. If there are any changes to the trial details notified to the TGA (such as a change in the details of the principal investigator (PI), the address of the site, or the therapeutic good), the sponsor must update the relevant fields on the online CTN form.

The G-CTHandbook further states that the TGA may request additional information if the trial raises any concern, or ask specific questions to address any deficiencies. Specifically, the TGA can request certain information or documents from the sponsor relating to the supply and handling of the goods, as well as the monitoring and results of the supply of the goods. If the TGA directs a trial notified under the CTN scheme not to be conducted or becomes aware that conducting or continuing the trial would be contrary to the public interest, then the goods used in the trial would no longer be exempt from inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) (AUS-22) and cannot be lawfully supplied. This may occur if the TGA becomes aware that allowing the trial to proceed or continue carries an unacceptable risk of death, serious illness, or serious injury.

CTA Scheme

According to AUS-47, parties that are considering submitting a CTA application are strongly encouraged to contact the TGA at clinical.trials@health.gov.au for advice regarding the application process (some class IV biologicals must be submitted under the CTA scheme). Pre-submission meetings with the TGA may be requested through the forms found on AUS-17.

AUS-47 indicates that the CTA scheme consists of a two (2)-part process. Part 1 constitutes the formal CTA application, which the sponsor completes and submits directly to the TGA. Part 2 requires the sponsor to notify the TGA when a trial commences and alert the TGA to new sites in ongoing CTA trials.

As per the G-CTHandbook, the TGA reviews relevant, but limited, scientific data, and its primary responsibility is to review the safety of the product. In addition, the TGA can request certain information or documents from the sponsor about therapeutic goods approved under the CTA scheme relating to the supply and handling of the goods, as well as the monitoring and results of the supply of the goods.

AUS-47 further specifies that the evaluation of a CTA application includes consideration of the manufacturing and quality and safety data in conjunction with the trial's usage guidelines, to inform a risk-benefit decision by the TGA on whether or not to approve the clinical trial. Any significant changes to the information provided in support of the trial are considered a variation and need to be approved, since they have the potential to affect the initial decision to approve a trial. The TGA advises clinical trial sponsors to contact them via clinical.trials@health.gov.au if they intend to change a previously approved CTA application.

The G-CTHandbook further states that the TGA can revoke an approval of a clinical trial under the CTA scheme where the conditions of approval are not met.

Inspection

According to the G-GCP-Inspect, clinical trials of medicines and biologicals regulated under the CTN or CTA schemes are subject to the TGA’s Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Inspection Program. See the G-GCP-Inspect for more details on how the TGA prioritizes and schedules GCP inspections, the kinds of inspections the TGA might conduct, the inspection process, and how the TGA reports and follows up on inspections. Additionally, see AUS-59 for frequently asked questions about the GCP Inspection Program.

Overview

As delineated in ResNo9 and ResNo255, the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) is responsible for reviewing and approving clinical trial applications (referred to as Clinical Drug Development Dossiers (Dossiês de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCMs))) for drugs to be registered in Brazil. Per ResNo9, the G-DDCMManual, and BRA-8, the DDCM must contain at least one (1) Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) in order for the application to be approved. ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual define a DEEC as a collection of documents submitted as part of the Experimental Drug Development Plan in the DDCM, also known as Experimental Drug Dossiers. Per the G-DDCMManual, the DEEC may be linked as a new process to the DDCM being submitted or as a process that modifies a previously submitted DDCM. Per ResNo9 and BRA-8, while the DDCM may be submitted at any stage of development, Phase IV post-marketing trials are only subject to Clinical Trial Notification by ANVISA after obtaining ethical approvals. See ResNo506 for information on ANVISA’s role in reviewing and approving clinical trial applications submitted for studies using advanced therapy products in Brazil (i.e., medicines for human use that are based on genes, tissues, or cells).

In addition, ResNo205 repealed the ResNo9 requirement that the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) approval must be submitted as part of the DDCM submission to ANVISA. Therefore, as explained in BRA-2 and BRA-1, regulatory and ethics reviews may be conducted in parallel. As indicated in ResNo9 and also noted in BRA-2, the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP))’s approval is required for certain studies (e.g., foreign studies), but ANVISA’s decision to approve the DDCM is not dependent on CONEP. Similarly, when a protocol amendment is submitted to ANVISA, CONEP approval is not mandatory for all studies, but may be requested, according to BRA-1. However, per ResNo9, the EC (CEP) is required to approve substantial protocol amendments prior to implementation. Refer to the Ethics Committee topic for additional information on the CEP/CONEP System; CLNo038 for the criteria CONEP uses to process protocol amendments; and CLNo24 and CLNo24-Note for general guidelines on conducting clinical trials.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As delineated in ResNo255, ANVISA’s Coordination of Clinical Research in Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC)) is responsible for conducting the review and approval of clinical trial applications (DDCMs). ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual explain that following DDCM analysis and approval, ANVISA issues an authorizing document known as a Special Notice (Comunicado Especial (CE)). The CE lists all the trials included in the DDCM that are permitted to initiate the clinical study. BRA-8 further explains COPEC experts conduct a preliminary review that includes a benefit-risk assessment based on various criteria such as drug registration status and drug status in other agencies (e.g., fast-track or breakthrough therapy). After this evaluation, the reviewer may release the dossier by the expiration deadline date so that the sponsor (applicant) may proceed with conducting the trial, requesting a meeting, or conducting a more detailed and complete dossier evaluation. See the Timeline of Review section for additional ANVISA timeline information. Also, see BRA-79 for additional information on ANVISA’s clinical trial review and approval framework, and BRA-40 for information on ANVISA drug registration requirements.

ANVISA has also released ServBltnNo104 to expedite the evaluation of clinical drug research development in Brazil without compromising the quality of the technical analysis. ServBltnNo104 provides detailed procedures for a simplified technical review of the following:

• DDCM petitions containing at least one (1) clinical trial protocol, at any stage of development, approved by at least one (1) regulatory authority of a member country of the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) or by the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The protocol submitted to ANVISA need not be the same as the protocol approved by the member country.
• DDCMs for experimental drugs (also referred to as investigational products (IPs)) that are registered in at least one (1) ICH member country or the UK. This DDCM must be identical to the one (1) approved by the ICH member country or the UK, with the exception of the labels and secondary packaging models.
• Substantial quality changes approved by at least one (1) ICH member country or the UK (i.e., changes potentially impacting the quality or safety of the IP, active comparator, or placebo).

According to ServBltnNo104, the IP manufacturing process must also meet the criteria and recommendations described in the ICH guidelines, as applicable, according to the phase of clinical development. In addition, COPEC technical experts require DDCM petitions and substantial quality modifications to meet ServBltnNo104 criteria and be accompanied by the documentation required in ResNo9. COPEC will then analyze: the results of stability studies under accelerated and long-term conditions that support the proposed expiration date for the IP and, where applicable, for the modified placebo and comparator, when the storage recommendation is at room temperature (between 15 and 30 degrees Celsius); and the sample IP label for DDCM petitions.

In the event of non-compliance, COPEC will conduct a non-simplified analysis per ResNo9. ServBltnNo104 further explains that ANVISA may also at any time analyze all the documents required by ResNo9 relating to the IP risk analysis. Refer to the Submission Content section for DDCM petitions and substantial quality modifications documentation requirements.

See also BRA-19 and BRA-90 for guidance on scheduling pre-submission meetings with COPEC to discuss the clinical development of a drug (e.g., DDCM, an amended DDCM (secondary petition), or DEEC), or a meeting to discuss a clinical trial application previously submitted to ANVISA. BRA-90 also provides the items required for scheduling each type of meeting and the corresponding request form to be submitted.

Priority Submissions

In addition to the previously stated DDCM requirements, ResNo204 establishes a priority category to register, amend previously registered, or request prior approval for drug submissions. ResNo204 states that the priority submission may be submitted as a DDCM or DEEC. A priority DDCM submission is required to meet one (1) or more of the following criteria: new drug trial in any phase to be carried out in Brazil, the drug is part of the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Immunization Program, or the product is determined to be of strategic public health interest and included under the MOH’s Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)) (BRA-53). A priority DEEC submission is required to comply with the following: the drug is to be used for neglected, emerging, or reemerging diseases, health emergencies, or serious debilitating conditions for which there is no alternative; the trial is to be conducted exclusively with the pediatric population; or the drug will be used in a Phase I trial only to be manufactured in Brazil. The sponsor should specify at the time of submission that the new or amended protocol is a priority category request. If not confirmed prior to the technical review phase, the request for approval may be denied. ANVISA is required to first issue a written opinion letter within 45 calendar days from the first business day following protocol submission, a final opinion in 120 days for new drug registration requests, and a final opinion 60 days for post-registration petitions. See the Timeline of Review section detailed timeline information. Refer to ResNo204, ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo204), and BRA-14 for detailed information on priority submission requirements.

See also BRA-2, BRA-1, and BRA-42 for additional information on priority submission.

New Drugs for Rare Diseases

ResNo205 sets forth specific approval procedures for clinical trials to be conducted to register new drugs to treat, diagnose, or prevent rare diseases. The applications may be submitted as an initial DDCM, a secondary petition linked to the original DDCM, or a DEEC either linked to the original DDCM or for a new process. The sponsor must delineate at the time of submitting a new drug submission (DDCM), an amended DDCM (secondary petition), or DEEC, whether the DDCM is pertaining to a rare disease drug. If not confirmed prior to the technical review phase, the request for approval may be denied.

In addition, per ResNo763, which modifies ResNo205, ANVISA has suspended the requirement for the sponsor to hold a pre-submission meeting to present a rare disease DDCM or amended DDCM. The pre-submission meeting is optional, if the sponsor deems necessary, and ANVISA should hold the meeting within 60 days following this request. Refer to ResNo205 and ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo205) for additional submission documentation requirements. BRA-2 also provides a helpful summary of ResNo204 and ResNo205.

Equivalent Foreign Regulatory Authority Submissions

ResNo741 provides general criteria for the admissibility of the Equivalent Foreign Regulatory Authority (Autoridade Regulatória Estrangeira Equivalente (AREE)) regulatory documentation that ANVISA requires to conduct a technical evaluation using the “optimized analysis procedure”. ANVISA defines the optimized analysis procedure as a technical evaluation mechanism that uses the AREE’s documentation, which includes reports, opinions, or technical/legal documents used to issue an opinion, as a sole or complementary reference. The optimized analysis procedure is facilitated by regulatory trust practices that are based on collaborative work and recognition, mutual or unilateral, among regulatory authorities or international entities. Among other requirements, in order for ANVISA to adopt the optimized analysis procedure, the health product covered in the AREE’s documentation must be essentially identical to the one submitted for ANVISA’s evaluation; and the products authorized for distribution should also have been adequately evaluated, and meet recognized standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. The specific criteria and procedures for defining the AREEs will be established in normative acts in a phased approach, according to each type of health surveillance process or product category. RegNo289 and RegNo292 are the initial normative acts adopted by ANVISA to define these processes/categories.

In accordance with ResNo741, ANVISA approved RegNo289, which establishes the criteria and procedures for ANVISA’s technical evaluation, known as the optimized analysis procedure, of one (1) or more AREE assessments to analyze registration and post-registration authorization requests for medicines, vaccines, biological products, and their active substances that are already approved in the reference country. ANVISA will issue a Letter of Adequacy of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Dossier (Carta de Adequação de Dossiê de Insumo Farmacêutico Ativo (CADIFA)) to certify the AREE has regulatory practices aligned with those of ANVISA and has ensured that products authorized for distribution have been adequately evaluated and meet recognized standards of quality, safety, and effectiveness. Additionally, RegNo289 also provides procedures for regulatory authorities to be designated as AREEs and a list of the currently approved AREEs.

Pursuant to RegNo289, ANVISA has designated the following foreign agencies as AREEs:

• European Medicines Agency (EMA)
• Health Canada
• European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM)
• Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic)
• MHRA, UK
• US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
• Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia

Refer to RegNo289 for detailed requirements on submitting a request for ANVISA authorization via the optimized analysis procedure. See also BRA-26 for additional background information on RegNo289. See ResNo741 for additional information on the optimized analysis procedure and AREE related requirements. See also the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information on RegNo292.

Therapeutic Goods Administration

As per the TGR, the sponsor is responsible for paying a fee to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to submit an application under the clinical trial notification (CTN) or clinical trial approval (CTA) scheme for evaluation. Per the G-FeesCharges, the fees are as follows:

• $429 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTN, and for each notification of one (1) or more additional trial sites
• $2,046 Australia dollars for unapproved medicines CTA (30-day evaluation)
• $562 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA – variation (30-day evaluation)
• $25,426 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA (50-day evaluation)
• $6,940 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA – variation (50-day evaluation)
• $429 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTN, and for each notification of one (1) or more additional trial sites
• $30,964 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTA
• $8,448 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTA – variation

According to AUS-47, a higher fee is applicable to clinical trial applications under the CTA scheme due to the more complex nature of the evaluation process. Certain variations to an existing CTN may incur a fee, such as the addition of a new site, change to a previously notified therapeutic good that creates separate and distinct goods, or the addition of a new therapeutic good to a previously notified trial. For additional fee information, refer to Schedules 9 and 9A of the TGR and the G-FeesCharges.

Payment Instructions

AUS-66 indicates that regulatory fees and charges may be paid online or by bank transfer (electronic funds transfer (EFT)). Online payment by credit card is the preferred payment option, and all payments must be in Australian dollars.

As stated in AUS-25, online payment is made via the TGA Online Payment Portal (AUS-16). Once the payment has been finalized, the Portal will confirm that the payment has been successful. The user may request an email confirmation. Certain payments, including a CTN fee and a variation to a medicine (e.g., a therapeutic good), may be made online without an invoice. See AUS-25 for more information.

AUS-66 further indicates that to ensure all payments made by EFT are correctly allocated, the organization’s Identification Number (e.g., TGA00xxxxx) should be included in the payment ‘Reference’ field. Bank transfer fees are the payer’s responsibility. Additionally, bank transfers must be accompanied by a remittance advice, which must be issued within 24 hours for all bank transfers. Remittance advices must be emailed to TGARemittanceAdvices@health.gov.au and contain the organization’s Identification Number in the subject field. The TGA’s bank account details are as follows:

Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
BSB: 062-909
Account Number: 10215498

Per AUS-66, payments from overseas can only be accepted in Australian denominations. Payers must ensure that their payment covers any international banking fees. The TGA’s international banking details are as follows:

IBAN: 06290910215498
Swift Code: CTBAAU2S

National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)

As set forth in ResNo9 and ResNo857, the sponsor is responsible for paying a Health Surveillance Inspection Fee (Taxa de Fiscalização de Vigilância Sanitária (TFVS)) to submit a clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)). As per ResNo857 and BRA-47, once the sponsor has completed the process of submitting a DDCM request (“petition” in Portuguese), ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56) generates a document known as the Union Collection Guide (Guia de Recolhimento da União (GRU)). According to ResNo857, ANVISA uses the GRU as its primary method to generate TFVS fees. In addition to ResNo857, see also BRA-51 for detailed information on the GRU, BRA-69 for information on the TFVS fee, and BRA-10 for additional information on TFVS requirements. See BRA-38 for additional information on accessing ANVISA’s electronic petitioning request systems.

Per BRA-69, ANVISA determines the TFVS fee based on the company’s size and the subject code assigned to the application request. Per the TFVS fee table provided in ResNo857 and BRA-11, the fees range from 983.85 Brazilian Reals to 19,677 Brazilian Reals to obtain clinical research approval. BRA-8 further notes that ANVISA charges a fee for substantial amendments to the clinical protocol. Additionally, per BRA-69, users can also obtain their petition fee prior to submission by searching ANVISA’s Consultation System webpage (BRA-44) using the “Subject Consultation” (Consulta de Assuntos) tool. BRA-44 provides the fee value based on the petition description subject code. See BRA-69 for further information.

Payment Instructions

As described in ResNo857, the TFVS fee must be paid by GRU; the Federal Revenue Collection Document (Documento de Arrecadação de Receitas Federais (DARF)) (BRA-111), which is a document used to pay taxes, fees, or contributions; PagTesouro (BRA-114); or other methods that may be established. BRA-43 also states that bank payments may be completed at any financial institution participating in the bank clearing system, via the Internet, self-service (ATM) terminals, or directly at the cashier’s window. Per ResNo857 and BRA-43, payment must be made within 30 days after the GRU has been issued.

Per BRA-115, for payments made using ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56), users can select payment through the PagTesouro online payment system (BRA-114). As explained in BRA-115, PagTesouro (BRA-114) is programmed to allow the payment of all fees related to ANVISA petitions in the Solicita system (BRA-56). As per BRA-47, users choosing to pay via PagTesouro (BRA-114) may do so by credit card, or by Pix, which is an instant payment method where a QR Code is generated to complete the payment. Per BRA-47 and BRA-115, users may also choose the “Generate Boleto” option in the Solicita system (BRA-56) to generate the GRU payment slip that can be used to pay via conventional banking methods, with confirmation within two (2) business days. See BRA-47 for further guidance on how to complete the payment process via the Solicita system (BRA-56). See also BRA-115 for additional information on PagTesouro (BRA-114).

Overview

As indicated in the TGAct, the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-NatlStmt, and AUS-47, Australia has a decentralized process for the ethics review and approval of clinical trial research. According to the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, Australia requires human research protocols to be reviewed by an institutional-level ethics committee (EC). The G-NatlStmt further specifies that any research that involves greater than low risk must be reviewed by an EC. (Note: Institutional ECs are referred to as Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in Australia.)

The G-NatlStmt indicates that one (1) or more institutions can individually or jointly establish an EC or any other ethics review body. Institutions that establish an EC are responsible for adequately resourcing and maintaining it, including providing sufficient administrative support. Per the TGAct and AUS-20, ECs are required to be constituted and operate in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and to have notified the NHMRC of their existence. According to the TGR, the G-NatlStmt, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-20, institutional ECs ensure that clinical trial research complies with the NHMRC’s ethical standards published in the G-NatlStmt. See the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for more information on notification.

For summaries of the clinical trials regulatory environment, legislation, and guidance, see AUS-40.

Ethics Committee Composition

As stated in the G-NatlStmt, an EC must be composed of at least eight (8) members in the following categories:

• A chairperson with suitable experience
• Two (2) people who bring a broader community or consumer perspective and have no paid affiliation with the institution
• One (1) person with knowledge of and current experience in the professional care, counseling, and/or treatment of people
• One (1) person who performs a pastoral care role in the community
• One (1) qualified lawyer, who may or may not be currently practicing and, where possible, is not engaged to advise the institution on research-related or any other matters
• Two (2) people with current research experience relevant to the research proposals to be considered at the meetings they attend

The G-NatlStmt further states that wherever possible, one (1) or more of the members listed above should be experienced in reflecting on and analyzing ethical decision-making. As far as is practicable, institutions should ensure that their EC’s membership at each meeting has diversity, including gender diversity, and at least one third of those participating in each meeting are from outside of the institution. ECs that review research about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or communities should appoint one (1) or more members who have knowledge of research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples or are familiar with relevant cultural knowledge, if such a person has not already been appointed.

Per the G-NatlStmt, ECs may also include other members with the above areas of expertise or with additional areas of expertise. Institutions are encouraged to establish a pool of appointed EC members to draw on as needed to help meet minimum membership requirements and/or provide additional experience or expertise. The institution should ensure that its EC has access to the expertise necessary to properly review research, which may necessitate going outside of the EC’s membership.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As delineated in the G-NatlStmt, institutional ECs must ensure that it documents, implements, and publicizes standard operating procedures (SOPs) that promote good ethics review, including:

• Meeting frequency, attendance, and conduct
• Minutes and agenda preparation
• Timely distribution of materials to members before meetings
• Timely consideration of applications
• Methods of deliberation and decision-making
• Processes, if any, for reviewing applications from unaffiliated or international researchers
• Disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest
• Appropriate confidentiality of the content of applications and the deliberations of review bodies
• Prompt notification of decisions to researchers
• Communicating with researchers, including face to face, by telephone and in writing, (including available forms of electronic communication)
• Record keeping
• Monitoring of approved research
• Reporting and handling of adverse events
• Receiving and handling of complaints
• Advising the institution(s) of decisions to suspend or withdraw ethics approval of research projects
• Attendance of people other than members at meetings

Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, EC members should be familiar with the G-NatlStmt and other relevant guidelines; prepare for and attend EC meetings or, if unavailable, provide opinions before the meetings; and attend research ethics training programs or continuing education at least every three (3) years. Members should be appointed to an EC using open and transparent processes, and institutions should consider reviewing appointments to the EC at least every three (3) years.

The G-NatlStmt states that as far as possible, each EC meeting should be arranged to enable attendance of all members of the minimum membership categories listed above and other relevant appointed members, either in person or via available technology. Meeting papers should be provided enough in advance to enable members to be fully informed. An EC’s decision about whether a research proposal meets the requirements of the G-NatlStmt must be informed by an exchange of opinions from all members of the EC participating in the meeting. The exchange should, ideally, take place at a meeting with all those members present. Where there is less than full attendance of the minimum membership categories at a meeting, the chairperson must be satisfied, before a decision is reached, that the views of those absent who belong to the minimum membership have been received and considered. The EC should attempt to reach decisions by general agreement or consensus. Voting is neither required nor prohibited. Some decisions may not be unanimous, and a dissent should be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Where requested by a dissenting member, the reasons for the dissent should also be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

According to the G-NatlStmt, ECs may invite researchers, and researchers may request, to be present for discussion of their proposed research. In addition, ECs may seek advice from external experts to help in considering a research proposal. Communication between the sponsor and the EC is not prohibited but should be restricted so that it does not inappropriately influence the review of any relevant research proposals.

As delineated in the G-NatlStmt, ECs must maintain a complete record of all research proposals received and reviewed. Approved project documentation and any relevant correspondence must also be retained. Records must be maintained in accordance with the requirements of relevant Commonwealth and state or territory legislation and guidelines. See G-NatlStmt for detailed records requirements.

For more details on the governance and responsibilities of Australian institutional ECs, see the G-NatlStmt.

Overview

As per ResNo466, ResNo446, and OSNo001, Brazil has a centralized registration process for research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisas (CEPs)) and requires institutional level EC (CEP) approval for each trial site. The National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) is the central body responsible for coordinating the network of institutional ECs (CEPs), and for registering and accrediting the ECs (CEPs). ResNo466, ResNo446, and OSNo001 state that CONEP is a collegiate advisory body directly linked to the National Health Council (Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS)), a permanent body within the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)) (BRA-53).

Both the ECs (CEPs) and CONEP are responsible for evaluating the ethical aspects of all research involving human beings and for approving the research protocols when applicable, as explained in ResNo466, ResNo446, OSNo001, and ResNo706. ResNo466 further notes that institutions conducting research involving human participants may establish one (1) or more ECs (CEPs) according to their particular requirements. For those institutions lacking an EC (CEP), or in the case of an investigator without an institutional affiliation, CONEP is required to suggest an EC (CEP) to conduct the protocol review. Together, the ECs (CEPs) and CONEP represent the ethical review system in Brazil, known as the CEP/CONEP System, as described in ResNo466, OSNo001, G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, and ResNo706. See also BRA-50, BRA-16, and BRA-49 for useful information on CONEP and the CNS.

Ethics Committee Composition

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As per OSNo001 and ResNo446, CONEP is an independent and multidisciplinary organization consisting of 30 appointed members and five (5) alternate members. The members represent a balanced gender composition; eight (8) members must equally represent various segments of the CNS. In addition, according to BRA-16, five (5) members must have a background in ethical research and health, and eight (8) members must represent the theological, legal, health management, and other related professions. Per ResNo446, CONEP also has an Executive Secretary appointed by the MOH’s Secretariat for Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs and an Assistant Secretary appointed by the CNS to coordinate CONEP’s work and to manage the technical and operational work to be carried out by the Executive Secretary. See ResNo466, OSNo001, ResNo446, and BRA-16 for detailed information on CONEP composition and responsibilities. See also BRA-50 for useful information on CONEP.

Research Ethics Committees (CEPs)

As per the PANDRH-GCPs, an institutional EC (CEP) must have at least five (5) members who collectively encompass the qualifications and experience required to review and evaluate the scientific, medical, and ethical aspects of a proposed clinical trial. By comparison, the OMREC requires the EC (CEP) to be composed of a minimum of seven (7) members having proven expertise in research. ResNo706, in turn, states the EC (CEP) must be composed of at least nine (9) members with at least two (2) Research Participant Representatives (Representantes de Participante de Pesquisa (RPPs)).

The PANDRH-GCPs, the OSNo001, OMREC, and ResNo706 also indicate that the EC (CEP) should be multidisciplinary, represent a balanced gender and age composition, and consist of members embodying community interests and concerns. The OMREC and ResNo706 further state that not more than half of its members should belong to the same professional category. ResNo706 also notes that at least half of members must demonstrate experience in research. In addition, as per the PANDRH-GCPs, in communities where minority ethnic populations predominantly reside, the EC (CEP) should include a member, alternate, or consultant from that group. The EC (CEP) may also designate alternate members whose functions are delineated in the EC’s (CEP’s) standard operating procedures (SOPs). Per ResNo706, any changes to the infrastructure, composition of members or administrative employees must be communicated to CONEP. When there is a change in CEP member composition, at least one third of the members of the previous composition must be maintained. Changes in CEP coordination must also be communicated and approved by CONEP. See ResNo706 for additional information. Additional criteria for EC (CEP) membership is also available in Section 3.2 of the PANDRH-GCPs and Section 2 of OMREC.

ResNo647 establishes standards and mandatory requirements for all ECs (CEPs) in Brazil to include RPPs who represent the interests of research participants. RPPs must be at least 18 years old; have a history of participation in a social and/or community movement in which the participation is not limited to health areas and can cover all segments of social movement activity; and must be able to express the viewpoints and interests of individuals and/or groups of research participants in order to represent the collective interests of different audiences in the CEP/CONEP System. See ResNo647 for detailed information on RPPs. See also BRA-29 for additional information.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As set forth in the PANDRH-GCPs and OMREC, each EC (CEP) must have written SOPs, including a process for conducting reviews. The SOPs should include information on EC (CEP) composition, meeting schedules, frequency of reviews, requirements for initial and ongoing evaluation of the research study, and requirements for notifying the investigator and the institution of results related to the study’s initial and ongoing evaluation. ResNo706 further specifies the EC (CEP) is responsible for the following:

• Maintaining adequate composition
• Choosing, for coordination, an EC (CEP) member that does not present a potential conflict of interest, by vote of the absolute majority (50% plus one) of the total number of full members
• Issuing opinions and sending CONEP reports on its activities within regulatory deadlines
• Maintaining confidentiality of all information regarding research protocols and the content of EC (CEP) meetings
• Preparing the internal regulations
• Analyzing research protocols of the proposing institutions, located only in the same Federative Unit as the EC (CEP) registration
• Ensuring periodic training of its members, through a permanent training plan on ethics in research involving human beings, including content targeted and accessible to RPPs
• Promoting educational activities in the area of research ethics involving human beings, with its members and the community in general
• Maintaining regular and effective communication with CONEP
• Receiving complaints and investigating ethical infractions, especially those that involve risks to research participants, communicating the facts to the competent bodies for investigation and, when appropriate, to the public prosecutor's office

Also, as noted in ResNo706, an EC (CEP) is responsible for receiving and considering, from an ethical point of view, the research protocols indicated by CONEP. However, the committee may also refuse the ethical assessment of research protocols indicated by CONEP, upon justification.

Per the PANDRH-GCPs, OMREC, and ResNo706, the majority of committee members must be involved in the review and approval process, and the necessary quorum must be obtained to approve or deny permission to conduct a study as specified in each EC’s (CEP’s) SOPs. As per ResNo706, the term of office of EC (CEP) members is valid for four (4) years, with the possibility of reappointment, at the discretion of the CEP. At the end of the term of office, an EC (CEP) member may remain in this role up to 90 days, until a replacement or reappointment takes place.

The PANDRH-GCPs also state that the EC (CEP) must retain all relevant records (e.g., SOPs, member lists, member affiliations and occupations, documents presented, meeting minutes, and correspondence) for three (3) years after the study’s conclusion, and make them available to the regulatory authorities upon request.

For detailed EC (CEP) procedures and information on other administrative processes, see Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the PANDRH-GCPs and the OMREC. Also, see CLNo1-2022 for instructions on submitting administrative documents via email to CONEP to speed up EC (CEP) accreditation and renewal processes and maintain regular functioning of ECs (CEPs), and CLNo25 for guidance on conducting virtual CEP/CONEP system meetings.

Overview

According to the G-NatlStmt, the institutional ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) is responsible for protecting the interests of research participants and for promoting good research by ensuring adherence to the values of research merit and integrity, beneficence, justice, and respect for persons throughout the conduct of the research project. The EC must review the recruitment and consent processes, weigh the benefits and risks of the research, and consider the impact of the research on certain groups of participants deemed to merit special consideration. Additionally, ECs may conduct both scientific and ethics review or may delegate scientific review to a sub-committee.

Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, the establishment and maintenance of ethics review processes and processes for assessing the risk level of the research are part of an institution’s overall governance responsibility. In addition to ethics approval, research must also be authorized by each institution with responsibility for oversight of the research before it can proceed. See the Oversight of Ethics Committees, Submission Process, Submission Content, Timeline of Review, and Initiation, Agreements & Registration sections for more information on research governance requirements.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

According to the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, ECs are responsible for reviewing and approving protocols involving unapproved therapeutic goods under one (1) of two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme or the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme—prior to the sponsor initiating a trial. According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must also undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. This allows the institution to consider whether the project is suitable for the site, and whether it has the capacity to conduct the research at that site. Per the G-TrialsSOP, the SSA and ethics review may occur in parallel. However, EC approval must be obtained and submitted to the research governance officer (RGO) of each participating institution before institutional authorization is granted.

The G-CTHandbook states that a CTN scheme is a notification scheme under which the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) does not review or evaluate any data relating to the clinical trial. The EC is responsible for assessing the scientific validity of the trial design, the balance of risk versus harm of the therapeutic good(s), and the overall ethical acceptability of the trial. Per AUS-47, EC and institutional review and approval/authorization may be conducted in parallel to the CTN form submission to the TGA; however, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial.

Under the CTA scheme, as delineated in the G-CTHandbook, the TGA reviews relevant, but limited, scientific data, while the EC is responsible for considering the scientific and ethical issues of the proposed trial protocol.

Per the G-CTHandbook, the sponsor determines whether to conduct a clinical trial under the CTN or CTA scheme. Consulting the EC responsible for protocol approval may assist the sponsor in making the decision. One of the determining factors for an EC is whether the committee has access to appropriate scientific and technical expertise in order to assess the safety of the product. If an EC feels that it requires additional expertise to review a CTN, it may seek advice from external authorities or it may seek to collaborate with another EC that has the required expertise. An EC may also determine that it does not have access to the appropriate scientific and technical expertise to review the proposed trial under the CTN scheme and recommend review under the CTA scheme.

AUS-14 states that prior to approving a clinical trial, the EC must be satisfied that the trial protocol complies with the following requirements:

• G-NatlStmt
• Declaration of Helsinki (AUS-52)
• AU-ICH-GCPs
• TGA requirements, including the G-CTHandbook and the G-SafetyDataMgt
• Any relevant Australian Government and/or state/territory laws

The G-CTHandbook and the TGR state that during its review, the EC also needs to be aware of relevant state and territory laws pertaining to the supply of therapeutic goods or other clinical trial-related matters. The G-CTHandbook further indicates that ECs have a high level of independence and are responsible for establishing their own processes for reviewing research proposals. According to the G-CTHandbook and the AU-ICH-GCPs, if requirements specified in the G-NatlStmt appear to differ from those specified in the AU-ICH-GCPs, the TGA recommends compliance with the G-NatlStmt.

As stated in AUS-20, ECs also consider the protection of privacy for humans participating in research and their data. ECs do this by considering whether the research proposal conforms to relevant legislation, principles, and guidelines, including federal and/or state/territory legislation as well as the G-PrivacyAct95 and G-PrivacyAct95A guidelines. See the Personal Data Protection section for more information.

Per the G-NatlStmt, an EC may approve, request modification of, reject, or withdraw approval of a research proposal. The EC must clearly communicate its decision to the researcher(s):

• Where a proposal is approved or rejected, or where approval is withdrawn, communication must be in writing (which may include electronic formats) and should include an explicit statement that the proposal meets or did not meet the requirements of the G-NatlStmt. If rejecting or withdrawing approval of a research proposal, the EC should provide the rationale for its decision, including citing the provisions of the G-NatlStmt or relevant institutional policy that underpins its decision, if relevant.
• Where modifications are requested, communication may be written or, where appropriate, informal; however, a record should be kept of any informal communication, and guidance should be clearly communicated regarding to whom the researcher’s response should be directed .

According to the G-NatlStmt, varying processes may be used for the review and approval of project extensions, amendments to an approved project, progress reports, and renewal of project approval. Appropriate processes depend on the nature of the original project and any proposed changes, but any process authorized by an institution for these purposes must prioritize the safety and well-being of participants, researchers, and/or the community.

Pursuant to the G-CTHandbook and the TGR, when the EC approves a trial protocol, it takes responsibility for monitoring the progress and conduct of the trial. However, the G-NatlStmt indicates that each institution has ultimate responsibility for ensuring, via its research governance arrangements, that all its authorized research is monitored. Monitoring arrangements should be commensurate with the risk, size, and complexity of the research. Monitoring responsibilities that are performed by the institution’s EC should be based on the EC’s review of the project. However, where research that will take place at multiple sites has been reviewed by only one (1) EC, the ECs of the other institutions participating in the project do not have knowledge of the project. In such cases, only the reviewing EC can take on those elements of monitoring a research project that are commonly performed by ECs.

Per the G-NatlStmt, if the EC or institution has reason to believe that continuance of a research project would compromise participants' welfare, or if the conditions of ethics approval for the project are not being adhered to, it should immediately seek to establish whether ethical approval for the project should be suspended or withdrawn. If an institution or EC considers that suspension of research is necessary, the instruction to stop should come from the management of the institution. If ethics approval for a research project is suspended, the researcher, the institution(s), and, where possible, the participants should be informed of the suspension.

As indicated in the G-NatlStmt, ECs may require researchers to amend research procedures to protect participants. If an EC determines that such changes cannot achieve that end, the EC may decline to grant an extension to project approval or decide to withdraw approval for the research. Where ethics approval for a research project is withdrawn:

• The researcher, the institution(s), and, where possible, the participants should be informed of the withdrawal
• Continuation of the research project is subject to re-application and re-approval by the EC

See the G-NatlStmt for more details on institutional and EC responsibilities regarding research monitoring.

External Ethics Approval and the National Mutual Acceptance Scheme

The G-NatlStmt encourages the minimization of unnecessary duplication of ethics review, including for research conducted in multiple Australian jurisdictions or across international boundaries. Institutions may accept an ethics review conducted by an entity external to the institution (including overseas review bodies) and should determine their criteria for this acceptance.

Per the G-NatlStmt, researchers who wish to submit evidence of ethics approval by an external EC in support of single ethics review should be aware of existing national or international programs, protocols, policies, standards, and guidance that may be relevant to the institutional decision to accept the review. To facilitate the efficient ethics review of research, researchers must inform any EC of:

• All sites at which the research will be conducted
• Any information on local site circumstances that is relevant to the ethics review
• Any other body that will be considering ethical issues related to the research
• Any previous decisions to approve, re-consider, or deny approval of the research by another review body in Australia or elsewhere

See the G-NatlStmt for more information on external ethics approval.

As described in AUS-21 and AUS-41, the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme further supports the acceptance of a single scientific and ethical review of multicenter research conducted in publicly funded health services. All state and territory-certified public health organizations in Australia are part of the NMA scheme.

Per AUS-68, in order for ethics reviews of human research to be accepted under NMA, the EC conducting the review must be certified under the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) National Certification Scheme of Institutional Processes Related to the Ethical Review of Multi-centre Research (National Certification Scheme), and also be a “Certified Reviewing HREC” under the NMA scheme.

For more information on submissions to ECs under the NMA scheme and the National Certification Scheme, see the Submission Process and Oversight of Ethics Committees sections.

Exemption from Ethics Review

As stated in the G-NatlStmt, some research may be eligible for exemption from ethics review. Where appropriate, exemption is granted, or not, by the institution responsible for the research. Where there is no institution providing oversight of the research, researchers should request a grant of exemption from an EC. Research that may be eligible for exemption from ethics review includes research that carries a lower risk to participants or the community, and satisfies one (1) or more of the following conditions:

• The research involves the use of collections of information or data from which all personal identifiers have been removed prior to being received by the researchers, and where researchers explicitly agree: (i) not to attempt to re-identify those with whom the information or data is associated; (ii) to take all reasonable steps to prevent re-identification of the information or data for unauthorized purposes or access to the information or data by those who are not authorized; and (iii) that any sharing of any research data during or after the project will not create any additional risks of re-identification of the information or data
• The research is restricted to surveys and observation of public behavior using information that was or will be collected and recorded without personal identifiers and is highly unlikely to cause distress to anyone associated with the information or the outcomes of the research
• Is conducted as part of an educational training program in which the research activity is for training purposes only and where any outcomes or documentation are for program use only
• The research uses only information that is publicly available through a mechanism set out by legislation or regulation and that is protected by law, such as mandatory reporting information, information obtained from registries of births and deaths, coroner’s investigations, or reports of the Australian Bureau of Statistics

The G-NatlStmt indicates that institutions or other granting bodies must keep a record of any decision to grant exemption from ethics review. See the G-NatlStmt for more information on ethics review exemption.

Overview

As set forth in ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo251, and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, the primary scope of information assessed by research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisas (CEPs)) and the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)), jointly known as the CEP/CONEP System, relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial.

Per ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo251, and OSNo001, the CEP/CONEP System members must pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations). ResNo304 further establishes specific ethical requirements for research studies involving indigenous populations. Detailed information on documentation and consent requirements for studies involving indigenous populations is available in the Documentation Requirements, Vulnerable Populations, and Consent for Specimen sections.

The CEP/CONEP System members are also responsible for ensuring an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol as stated in ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and OSNo001. It must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved, evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants, confirming the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and methods, and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. Refer to ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and OSNo001 for detailed ethical review guidelines that govern the CEP/CONEP System.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)-Designated Protocol Reviews

Per ResNo580, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Secretary of Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs refers protocols to CONEP that are determined to be of strategic public health interest for the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)) (BRA-53). ResNo580 recognizes strategic research protocols as those studies that may contribute to public health, justice, reduction of social inequalities and technological dependencies, and those that address public health emergencies. Refer to the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for additional information on CONEP’s review requirements for this type of protocol. A working group was also created to support the MOH’s assessment of research involving human beings when carried out in the SUS sphere, per OrdNo552. The interagency working group includes National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)), CONEP, and the National Health Council (Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS)), and is coordinated by an MOH representative.

In addition to conducting public health and international project reviews, per ResNo466, ResNo446, and ResNo340, CONEP is required to review certain studies involving human genetics, human reproduction, invasive therapeutic procedures, indigenous populations, genetically modified organisms, embryonic stem cells, and the establishment and operation of biobanks for research. Refer to ResNo466, ResNo446, and ResNo340 for specific details on CONEP protocol review requirements. See also CLNo172 for additional guidance on classifying protocol thematic areas that require CONEP review (e.g., protocols on the constitution and operation of biobanks for research purposes); CLNo34 for guidance on processing biobank development protocols electronically, and; CLNo041 for CONEP specimens consent instructions. See also ResNo506 for information on the role of CEP/CONEP System members in reviewing protocols submitted for clinical trials with advanced therapy products in Brazil (i.e., medicines for human use based on genes, tissues, or cells).

Review Pathways

ResNo674 provides review criteria and corresponding timelines to classify research and the processing of research protocols involving human beings in the CEP/CONEP System based upon study type and level of intervention in the human body. The regulation divides research into two (2) groups: 1) studies seeking to describe or understand phenomena that has happened or happen in the research participant’s daily life; and 2) studies that aim to verify the effect of an investigational product (IP) or technique used in research, deliberately applied to the participant, prospectively monitored, and which may or may not involve a control group. The studies are further characterized according to procedure and whether it involves intervention in the human body and if it is invasive.

Classification by study design and procedure is as follows: Type A – observational research; Type B – observational research with human body intervention; and Type C – investigational research designed to verify the effect of an IP (including a medicine, drug, biological product, or health device) or an investigational technique used in research, deliberately applied to the participant, prospectively monitored, with or without a control. Type C studies are further divided into two (2) subtypes: C1 studies, in which the object of investigation is not an IP in the health area, and C2 studies, in which the object of investigation is an IP in the health area.

EC analysis varies according to the type of research and modulation factors (i.e., consent process, confidentiality, and/or research methods), and requires the reviewer to verify the documentation the investigator submits in Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34). Per BRA-93, Plataforma Brasil is a national and unified database of human subjects research records that represents the entire CEP/CONEP System. The platform is also used to track research applications from submission to final approval by the EC (CEP), and when necessary, by CONEP. See BRA-33 for the most current Plataforma Brazil CEP and investigator manuals.

There are four (4) ways of processing protocols in the CEP/CONEP System: express, simplified, collegiate, and special collegiate; the modulation factors per Annex II of ResNo674 provides additional characteristics to further modify the protocol processing method to be used. See ResNo674, BRA-4, and BRA-5 for additional information on the CEP/CONEP System’s protocol research classification and processing procedures. (Please note: Per BRA-9, the protocol classification and processing system has not yet been implemented in BRA-34. The ClinRegs team will continue to monitor the Plataforma Brasil webpage for any developments.)

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As delineated in ResNo9, ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and OSNo001, ANVISA and the EC (CEP) (and CONEP, if applicable) must approve a clinical trial application before a trial is permitted to commence. However, ResNo205 repealed the ResNo9 requirement that EC (CEP) approval must be submitted as part of the Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM)) submission to ANVISA. Therefore, as explained in BRA-2 and BRA-1, regulatory and ethics reviews may be conducted in parallel.

In addition, as indicated in ResNo9, and also noted in BRA-2, CONEP’s approval is not a requirement for ANVISA to approve the DDCM. However, the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo9, and OSNo001 state that the EC (CEP) must review and approve any protocol amendments prior to those changes being implemented. According to BRA-1, when a protocol amendment is submitted to ANVISA, CONEP approval is not mandatory, but may be requested. In these cases, only the EC (CEP) is required to approve the amended protocol prior to implementation and ANVISA should be notified. Per ResNo9, the EC (CEP) is required to approve substantial protocol amendments prior to implementation. See ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual for additional information on preparing DDCMs, and CLNo038 for the criteria CONEP uses to process protocol amendments.

ResNo466 and OSNo001 specify that the development and submission of research, as well as the implementation and disclosure of EC (CEP) and CONEP opinions, must occur via BRA-34. Also see the Timeline of Review section for additional EC timeline information. There is no stated expiration date for an EC (CEP) approval in ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo9, or OSNo001. However, in the event that an EC (CEP) revokes its approval of a clinical protocol, it must record its reasons for doing so and immediately communicate this decision to the investigator and ANVISA.

Per CLNo29, in the case of an appeal, only the researcher responsible for the protocol, which had a substantiated opinion of non-approval, may submit a request to the CEP/CONEP System via Platforma Brasil (BRA-34). The appeal must be filed within 30 calendar days, counting from the first day following the issuance of the substantiated opinion of non-approval. Appeals submitted to the EC (CEP) will be reviewed and a substantiated opinion analyzing the appeal will be issued within 30 calendar days following receipt. If the EC (CEP) considers the requirements and justifications presented in the appeal to be appropriate in order to continue the ethical analysis, the appeal will be approved, or pending approval, if the protocol requires adjustments prior to approval. However, if the appeal is not approved by the EC (CEP), the researcher may appeal to CONEP. CONEP, in turn, has a deadline of up to 45 days after receiving the appeal to issue a substantiated opinion of approved, pending, or not approved, when evaluating the appeal in relation to the substantiated opinion issued by the EC (CEP). If CONEP does not approve the appeal, the researcher, upon receiving the non-approval opinion from CONEP, may file an appeal directly to CONEP itself. From an analysis of the resources submitted to the EC (CEP) and/or CONEP, CONEP may issue an “Approve with Recommendation” opinion to the EC (CEP), when applicable. If CONEP does not approve the appeal, the processing of the appeal is terminated, the research protocol is archived, and no other appeal requests will be permitted.

Following the review process, the PANDRH-GCPs also states that the sponsor must receive the following information prior to the trial’s commencement:

• EC (CEP) member profiles (names and addresses)
• Documented approval of EC (CEP)’s favorable opinion
• Copy of EC (CEP) recommendations in case it has based its approval on change(s) in any aspect of the study (e.g., protocol modifications, written informed consent form, (ICF) or any other written information or other procedures)

Per the PANDRH-GCPs, the sponsor should also obtain documentation and dates relating to any EC (CEP) re-evaluations, re-approvals, withdrawals, or suspensions of approval from the investigator. (See the Submission Content section for additional details on the EC review process).

Additionally, CONEP has published a number of circular letters to clarify protocol review and processing procedures, submission instructions, and investigator responsibilities related to the following:

• Classifying protocol thematic areas requiring CONEP review (CLNo172)
• Processing protocol amendments (CLNo038)
• Providing general clinical trial guidelines (CLNo24 and CLNo24-Note)
• Presenting documentation required for CONEP analysis (CLNo062)
• Conducting virtual CEP/CONEP System meetings (CLNo25)
• Updating the informed consent form (ICF) (CLNo17)
• Additional clarifications on ICF text (CLNo51)
• Obtaining consent for human specimens (CLNo041)
• Using medical records data for research purposes (CLNo039)
• Submitting requests for research center inclusion/exclusion (CLNo046)
• Processing biobank development protocols electronically (CLNo34)
• Linking investigator/institutions to the responsible EC in submissions (CLNo183)
• Standardizing consent and electronic assent for research participants and biobanks (CLNo23)
• Submitting research protocols with human bodies and/or anatomical parts (CLNo26)
• Processing adverse events for Brazil and abroad (CLNo13)
• Submitting the Serious Adverse Event (SAE) form and instructions (CLNo008)
• CEP protocol processing timeline and responsibility to researchers/research participants in the event of a temporary strike or institutional recess (CLNo10)
• Submitting appeals to the CEP/CONEP System (CLNo29)
• Obtaining consent from research participants under 18 years old and people with “absence of autonomy” (CLNo11)

The above circulars are described in more detail where appropriate across the Brazil profile.

Foreign Research

As delineated in ResNo292, ResNo446, and ResNo466, applications with coordination and/or sponsorship originating outside of Brazil require additional EC review by CONEP. Per ResNo446, an exception to the required CONEP review applies to studies that have been fully carried out abroad and have been approved by an EC or equivalent body in the country of origin. ResNo580 also amends the ResNo466 requirements related to co-sponsored research projects and those involved with shipping human biological materials. This regulation states that when the MOH’s Secretariat of Science, Technology and Strategic Health Inputs issues an official agreement for a specific research project, the EC (CEP) for the proposing institution may conduct its review without the need for additional review by CONEP.

ResNo292 also explains that the scope of research from abroad or with foreign participation includes: collaboration between public or private foreign individuals or legal entities; sending and/or receiving biological materials from humans; sending and/or receiving data and information collected to aggregate research results; and international multicenter studies. For protocols within this thematic area, per ResNo292, special attention should be given to insuring the EC or equivalent institution within the originating country has issued an approval. If not, the Brazilian EC (CEP) and CONEP must approve the protocol. Refer to ResNo292 and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs for additional guidance on research studies submitted from abroad.

Multicenter Research

ResNo346 establishes the submission process for multicenter research protocols and indicates that the coordinating center’s EC (CEP) should initially review the protocol and forward it to CONEP for review. Per OSNo001, the principal investigator is also required to submit a list of the participating institutions and associated protocols, the coordinating center, and the EC (CEP) designated to monitor the study’s progress as part of the research protocol package sent to the EC (CEP) for review. ResNo346 further notes that CONEP will only evaluate the first protocol submitted and then send its final opinion to the original EC (CEP) and the other participating institutions. ResNo674 similarly explains that the initial analysis of the research protocol using the research classification procedure will occur at the EC (CEP) of the coordinating center or the accredited EC (CEP), when applicable, and will be subsequently forwarded for analysis by the EC (CEP) of the other co-participating centers and/or institutions, after approval.

See ResNo346 for additional multicenter protocol processing information and OSNo01 for detailed information on the coordinating center’s role in this process.

Exemption from Review

Pursuant to Article 26 of ResNo674, CLNo12 provides further guidance on research that is exempt from ethical assessment by the CEP/CONEP system. Research that is exempt includes protocols that fall exclusively into the following categories: public opinion surveys with unidentifiable participants; research that uses publicly accessible information; research that uses public domain information; census research carried out by government agencies; research carried out exclusively with information or data already available in aggregate form, without the possibility of individual identification; research carried out exclusively with scientific texts to review the scientific literature; research that aims at the theoretical deepening of situations that emerge spontaneously and contingently in professional practice, as long as it does not reveal data that can identify the individuals; activity carried out with the sole purpose of education, teaching, extension or training, without the purpose of scientific research, of undergraduate students, technical course, or professionals in specialization; market research; scientific research carried out with cells, tissues, organs and organisms of nonhuman origin, including their biological products, provided there is no interaction with research participants or imply the collection or use of human biological material to obtain them; and, activity whose purpose is to describe or analyze the productive or administrative process exclusively for organizational development purposes.

The G-NatlStmt indicates that when establishing an ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia), an institution must set out and publicize its terms of reference, including its schedule of fees charged, if any, for ethics review. The institution is responsible for ensuring that its EC operates in accordance with the G-NatlStmt, which includes being satisfied that any fees charged for EC review do not discourage research that the institution has an obligation to support.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

According to ResNo466, OMREC, and ResNo706, the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) does not permit research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisas (CEPs)), to charge a fee to review clinical trial protocols. OMREC further explains that financing to support ethical reviews should come from a specific scientific committee budget designated within each institution.

Overview

As per the TGAct, the G-TrialsSOP, and the G-CTHandbook, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is responsible for receiving applications from ethics committees (ECs) (Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in Australia) to be registered. The NHMRC was established by the NHMRCAct. Per the NHMRCAct, the NHMRC’s activities are designed to raise the standard of individual and public health throughout Australia; to foster the development of consistent health standards between the various states and territories; to foster medical and public health research and training throughout Australia; and to foster consideration of ethical issues relating to health.

Research Governance

Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, institutions may fulfill their research governance responsibilities by establishing and overseeing different levels of ethics review. One (1) or more institutions can individually or jointly establish an EC or any other ethics review body. Institutions that establish an EC are responsible for adequately resourcing and maintaining it, including providing sufficient administrative support.

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions should ensure that all ethics review processes and the criteria that are used for determining the appropriate process are clear, transparent, and published to enable researchers to submit their research proposals efficiently.

The G-NatlStmt further states that institutions should clearly publicize their policy for access to their EC or other ethics review processes by researchers who are not affiliated with the institution. Additionally, institutions should regularly assess all their ethics review processes, including the criteria for allocating research to different levels of review, to ensure that those processes continue to enable the institution to meet its responsibilities under the G-NatlStmt. Where possible this assessment should be informed by the documented experience of research participants and/or by involving participants or the wider community in the assessment.

Furthermore, as delineated in the G-NatlStmt, institutions should have in place an auditing process to confirm that research is being reviewed at the levels of review that their criteria require and research is being exempted from review only in accordance with the criteria set out in the G-NatlStmt. See the Scope of Review section for more information on exemption criteria.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions that have responsibility for oversight of research and maintain ECs must register their ECs with the NHMRC. ECs that are not associated with institutions must register themselves with the NHMRC.

Per AUS-20, registration means that the EC has notified the NHMRC of its existence and declared that it meets the requirements of the G-NatlStmt. In order to review and monitor clinical trials of unregistered therapeutic goods, an EC must be notified to the NHMRC, and constituted and operating in accordance with the G-NatlStmt. Forms for registering an EC, notifying the NHMRC of changes to the EC, or terminating an EC’s registration are available at AUS-20.

As per the G-NatlStmt, an institution and its EC must report annually, or upon request, to the NHMRC. The NHMRC, through the Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC), will review the activities of ECs to ensure conformance with the G-NatlStmt. Reportable information may include:

• Membership/membership changes
• Number of meetings
• Confirmation of participation in meetings by members in minimum membership categories
• The number of research proposals presented, the number approved, the number requiring modification prior to approval, and the number rejected
• Monitoring procedures that are in place and any problems encountered with monitoring of projects
• Complaints procedures and number of complaints handled
• Any other relevant policies, procedures, or processes as determined by the NHMRC

The G-NatlStmt further indicates that failure to comply with the requirements of the G-NatlStmt may result in the EC being removed from the list of ECs registered with NHMRC. See AUS-20 for more information and the list of registered ECs.

National Certification Scheme

According to AUS-21, the NHMRC developed the National Certification Scheme of Institutional Processes Related to the Ethical Review of Multi-centre Research (National Certification Scheme) to enable the single ethics and scientific review of human research occurring at multiple institutions in Australia. Under this scheme, certified institutions can have their ethics review accepted by other institutions participating in the research project. As part of the National Certification Scheme, certified institutions and their ECs are required to report to the NHMRC on their multicenter research activities.

As per AUS-21, the NHMRC assesses each institution’s interest in certification on a case-by-case basis. Certification respects institutional decisions about research governance matters, including whether research should be conducted at a given site. Before commencing steps to apply for certification, institutions should contact HREC.admin@nhmrc.gov.au.

For more information on the National Certification Scheme and the NHMRC’s continuous certification process, see AUS-21.

As stated in AUS-68, EC certification under the National Certification Scheme is required in order for ethics reviews of human research to be accepted under the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme. The NMA scheme facilitates single scientific and ethical review of clinical trials conducted in participating jurisdiction’s public health organizations. See the Scope of Review section for more information on NMA.

Overview

As per ResNo466, OSNo001, and ResNo446, the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) is the central statutory body responsible for the registration, audit, and accreditation of research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisas (CEPs)). CONEP was created by the Ministry of Health (MOH) to provide ethical oversight of clinical research and to safeguard the rights and welfare of human participants involved in clinical studies. CONEP reports to the National Health Council (Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS)), the advisory body to the MOH.

As delineated in ResNo466, OSNo001, and ResNo446, CONEP’s core responsibilities center on:

• Examining the ethical aspects of research involving human participants
• Analyzing and monitoring research protocols and issuing opinions on applications with coordination or sponsorship originating outside Brazil, unless the co-sponsor is the Brazilian Government and applications are related to specialized thematic areas (i.e., human genetics, human reproduction, vaccines, and human biological materials)
• Preparing and updating relevant ethical standards
• Registering, auditing, accrediting, and training ECs (CEPs)
• Monitoring EC (CEP) processes
• Promoting and participating in educational EC (CEP) activities

See also the Scope of Review section for detailed EC (CEP) and CONEP review requirements associated with protocols originating outside of Brazil.

LawNo14.874, which comes into force on August 27, 2024, establishes the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings (Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos), which consists of a national research ethics body and an ethical analysis research body, represented by the ECs (CEPs). The national research ethics body, an interdisciplinary and independent collegiate body that is part of the MOH, is responsible for the following:

• Issuing regulatory standards on ethics research
• Evaluating the effectiveness of the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings
• Accrediting and certifying the ECs (CEPs) so that they are able to perform the function of ethical analysis in research, according to the degree of risk involved
• Monitoring, supporting, and supervising the ECs (CEPs) in relation to the analysis of research protocols and compliance with the pertinent standards
• Promoting and supporting the training of EC (CEP) members, with special emphasis on ethical and methodological aspects
• Acting as an appeals court for decisions made by ECs (CEPs)

The ClinRegs team will provide additional information on the implementation of LawNo14.874 as it becomes available. See also BRA-117 for additional information.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

As per ResNo466, SP006REC, OSNo001, ResNo446, and ResNo706, all ECs (CEPs) must be registered and accredited by CONEP. CONEP’s Executive Secretariat who performs a documentation review to ensure compliance with the requirements delineated in ResNo446 carries out accreditation. ResNo706 further states that CEP registration and accreditation may only be requested by health, teaching, or research institutions headquartered in Brazil, without potential conflict of interest, and in good standing with competent bodies. The granting of EC (CEP) registration and accreditation is prohibited to research centers maintained or linked to Representative Clinical Research Representative Organizations (Organização Representativa de Pesquisa Clínica (ORPCs)) and professional category associations.

CNSResNo506 states that accreditation is valid for three (3) years. ResNo706, in turn, indicates that the term of validity of EC (CEP) accreditation is four (4) years.

ResNo706 specifies that registration and accreditation of the EC (CEP), as well as its renewal, will be carried out upon submission of the following documents:

• Application sent by the supporting institution, signed by its legal guardian, containing the description of this institution and the commitment to ensure the minimum operating conditions of the EC (CEP)
• Proof of the minimum operating requirements of the supporting institution, in accordance with specific standards
• Request form, according to the model provided by CONEP
• Letters of appointment of Research Participant Representatives (RPPs), in accordance with the specific resolution
• Act of designation of the EC (CEP)
• EC (CEP) internal regulations

Additionally, per ResNo706, to begin activities, the EC (CEP) must, within 90 days after the announcement of registration and accreditation approval, prove the adequate training of its members. The approval of registration and accreditation of the EC (CEP) that does not begin its activities will be revoked within 120 days after approval of its registration. The renewal of the EC (CEP) accreditation must be initiated 90 days before the expiration date of its validity and be completed before it expires. An extension of the deadline for renewal may be requested once for a maximum period of 90 days when justified.

CNSResNo506, by comparison, states that to apply for accreditation, as well as renewal, an EC (CEP) is required to submit the following documentation along with a proposal for accreditation:

• Formal application justifying the EC (CEP)'s accreditation request
• Current EC (CEP) internal regulations
• Description of the EC (CEP)’s current functioning and infrastructure
• Proposal of the minimum number of high-risk protocols of other institutions that the EC (CEP) undertakes to evaluate on an individual basis, after obtaining the accreditation certificate
• Report of EC (CEP) activities for the three (3) years prior to the date of publication of the public call

See CNSResNo506 for additional documentation requirements.

As noted in CNSResNo506 and SP006REC, the renewal application must be submitted within the window of 60 days before to 60 days after the accreditation’s expiration date. Once the deadline has elapsed, and no renewal has been requested, the accreditation certificate will be canceled automatically. Additionally, per CNSResNo506, the accreditation certificate may be canceled, at any time, at the request of the EC (CEP), upon presentation in writing, without prejudice to the loss of its registration. In the absence of compliance with current CNS norms, CONEP will cancel the accreditation certificate, consubstantiating its decision in opinion. In case of cancellation of the accreditation by CONEP, the EC (CEP) may appeal. During the review period, the accredited CEP will maintain the rights conferred by the accreditation certificate. SP006REC also notes that if communication with CONEP during the pending renewal process is interrupted by the EC (CEP) for more than 60 days, the EC (CEP) registration will be automatically cancelled and the EC (CEP) will be notified by official letter.

See SP006REC, CNSResNo506, and ResNo706 for additional details on CONEP’s accreditation process. See CLNo1-2022 for instructions on submitting administrative documents via email to CONEP to speed up EC (CEP) accreditation and renewal processes and maintain regular functioning of ECs (CEPs).

High-Risk Research Protocols

In addition to being accredited by CONEP per the earlier stated requirements, CNSResNo506 explains that ECs (CEPs) may also be certified for their role in the ethical analysis of high-risk research protocols. As per ResNo674, the CNS has published protocol risk classification and processing guidelines to be used in the CEP/CONEP System to provide criteria to assess the risk level of research protocols.

Per CNSResNo506, until ResNo674 becomes operational, CONEP has determined that protocols falling within the special thematic areas of human genetics, human reproduction, indigenous populations, genetically modified organisms, and the establishment and operation of biobanks must be considered high risk. Refer to ResNo466, ResNo446, and ResNo340 for a complete listing of the special thematic areas. See also CLNo172 for additional guidance on classifying protocol thematic areas that require CONEP review (e.g., including protocols on the constitution and operation of biobanks for research purposes); CLNo34 for guidance on processing biobank development protocols electronically; and CLNo26 for information on submitting research protocols with human bodies and/or anatomical parts.

CNSResNo506 further states that at the time of obtaining accreditation, the EC (CEP) should submit a statement signed by the EC coordinator that commits the EC (CEP) to evaluating high-risk protocols at least equal to the protocol submitted to CONEP. This process also supports CONEP’s plan to decentralize the CEP/CONEP System and delegate more high-risk protocol reviews to certified ECs (CEPs). If the number of high-risk protocols exceeds the EC’s (CEP’s) operational capacity to review, then CONEP will evaluate the outstanding protocols. BRA-2 also provides helpful information on this process.

Additionally, ResNo674 notes CONEP will be solely responsible for the registration of biobank development protocols, and the research classification and modulation factors used to further characterize the protocols in BRA-34 will not be applicable. (Note: Per BRA-9, the protocol classification and processing system has not yet been implemented in BRA-34. The ClinRegs team will continue to monitor the Plataforma Brasil webpage for any developments.)

Suspension and Cancellation of Accreditation

As indicated in ResNo706, an EC (CEP) or the supporting institution may request suspension of the EC’s (CEP’s) accreditation for a maximum period of 90 days, upon reasoned justification, and the suspension may be extended once, for an additional 90-day period.

Per ResNo706, the suspension of EC (CEP) accreditation consists of the temporary interruption of the receipt of new research protocols for ethical assessment. The suspended EC (CEP) must maintain monitoring of the protocols under its responsibility, whether approved or in progress, while the suspension remains. New protocols, submitted for consideration by the suspended EC (CEP), will be directed to another EC (CEP), as indicated by CONEP. CONEP’s decision to suspend the EC (CEP)'s accreditation may be appealed to CONEP within 30 days. An extension of the deadline for appeal may be requested, once, for a maximum period of 30 days, upon justification.

ResNo706 further explains that the cancellation of EC (CEP) accreditation consists of revoking the registration and removing the EC (CEP) in the CEP/CONEP System. If cancelled, CONEP will transfer the protocols to another EC (CEP) for due monitoring. Cancellation, at the request of the supporting institution, will be assessed by means of a request addressed to the CONEP Coordination, containing the reasons for the request. The cancellation decision may be appealed to CONEP within 30 days. An extension of the deadline for appeal may be requested once, for a maximum period of 30 days, upon justification. In case of cancellation, requests for new registration by the supporting institution within a period of 12 months are prohibited. See ResNo706 for detailed information on EC (CEP) accreditation suspensions and cancellations.

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, Australia requires the sponsor to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for the supply of unapproved therapeutic goods for clinical trials for experimental purposes in humans. The sponsor can apply under two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme.

Under either regulatory scheme, per the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, an ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) must approve the research protocol. The G-NatlStmt further specifies that any research that involves greater than low risk must be reviewed by an EC. AUS-47 indicates that the review and approval/authorization by an EC and institution may be conducted in parallel to the CTN form submission to the TGA, but it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial.

According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must also undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. This allows the institution to consider whether the project is suitable for the site, and whether it has the capacity to conduct the research at that site. Per the G-TrialsSOP, the SSA and ethics review may occur in parallel. However, EC approval must be obtained and submitted to the research governance officer (RGO) of each participating institution before institutional authorization is granted. While there is no submission language requirement stated in the requirements, the official language of Australia is English.

Regulatory Submission

Per AUS-17, sponsors may request pre-submission meetings with the TGA. See AUS-17 for the applicable forms.

CTN Scheme

According to AUS-47 and AUS-30, CTN forms are submitted online through the TGA Business Services (TBS) webpage (AUS-36). The sponsor must have or obtain a TGA Client Identification Number.

As per AUS-49, to submit the online CTN form successfully through AUS-36, the sponsor must accept a declaration to assume responsibility for the trial. After accepting the declaration, a webpage will advise the sponsor that the CTN submission has been successful. According to AUS-47, the TGA does not send an acknowledgement letter by email since this information is available for viewing and printing via the online portal. The TGA advises clinical trial sponsors to obtain and save a printout of notification at each stage of the submission process.

AUS-49 indicates that the sponsor may delegate duties and correspondence with the TGA to an authorized agent, which is able to create and submit a CTN on behalf of a sponsor. If an agent has submitted a CTN on the sponsor’s behalf, the sponsor will not have access to view or vary the CTN. Access is only granted to the agent.

See AUS-30 and AUS-49 for additional information on using and submitting the online form.

CTA Scheme

According to AUS-47, the sponsor must complete and submit two (2) forms (AUS-56 and AUS-57) to the TGA via email at clinical.trials@health.gov.au. Supporting data for the CTA application should be provided in electronic format, preferably on USB or CD-ROM via post. The trial commencement notification form (AUS-57) must be sent to the TGA within 28 days of commencing supply of the unapproved therapeutic goods.

Per AUS-47, those with queries regarding the CTA scheme are encouraged to contact the TGA directly at clinical.trials@health.gov.au.

Ethics Review Submission

AUS-46 indicates that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) developed the Human Research Ethics Application (HREA) form (AUS-9) as a concise application to facilitate timely and efficient ethics review for research involving humans. The HREA assists researchers in considering the ethical principles of the G-NatlStmt in relation to their research and is accepted by institutions that participate in the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme, which facilitates single ethics review by multiple public health organizations for most human research.

According to the G-CTHandbook, trial sponsors and researchers should use the HREA unless advised otherwise. AUS-19 contains resources for using the HREA.

Per AUS-46, research proposals should be submitted to ECs associated with public health institutions in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Australian Capital Territory, and Victoria, as well as Mater Research, via the Research GEMS system (AUS-55), the Ethical Review Manager (ERM) website (AUS-8), and/or the Research Ethics and Governance Information System (REGIS) (AUS-10), depending on which jurisdictions are involved. For research in the Northern Territory, Tasmania, or Western Australia, the EC should be contacted for their local submission requirements.

The G-CTHandbook further states that ECs have a high level of independence and are responsible for establishing their own processes for receiving research proposals.

Research Governance

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions should publish (such as on their website) clear policies and procedures for institutional authorization of research. As noted in the G-CTHandbook, individual jurisdictions have specific requirements as a part of their SSA and authorization processes. South Australia sites use the online SSA form found in the Research GEMS system (AUS-55), while the ERM website (AUS-8) is used for SSA form submission for Mater Research, Queensland, and Victoria. New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory use REGIS (AUS-10) for site governance applications.

Overview

As stated in ResNo9, the G-DDCMManual, and BRA-8, the sponsor, the designated contract research organization (CRO), or the sponsor-investigator must apply to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) to obtain approval for a clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) for a drug to be registered in Brazil that will have all or part of its development in Brazil. Per ResNo9, ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and OSNo001, the principal investigator (PI) must also obtain approval from the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)). Applications with coordination or sponsorship originating outside of Brazil require additional EC review by the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)), unless the co-sponsor is the Brazilian Government. ResNo205 repealed the ResNo9 requirement that EC (CEP) approval must be submitted as part of the DDCM submission to ANVISA. Therefore, as explained in BRA-2 and BRA-1, regulatory and ethics reviews may be conducted in parallel.

Regulatory Submission

Per ResNo9, the G-DDCMManual, and BRA-8, the DDCM must contain at least one (1) Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) in order for the DDCM to be approved. ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual define a DEEC as a collection of documents submitted as part of the Experimental Drug Development Plan in the DDCM, also known as the Experimental Drug Dossier. Per the G-DDCMManual, the DEEC may be linked as a new process to the DDCM being submitted or as a process that modifies a previously submitted DDCM. ResNo9 further notes that DDCM submissions to ANVISA can only be made by a CRO when the sponsor has no headquarters or subsidiary in Brazil. See also BRA-42 for additional information on ANVISA protocol filing requirements.

As indicated in the G-DDCMManual and BRA-8, ANVISA recommends that the DDCM and associated documents (including the protocol, investigator’s brochure, informed consent form, and sponsor and institutional declarations) be translated into Portuguese. If a translated version of the submission is not provided, ANVISA’s technical area reviewer may issue a requirement for the sponsor to provide a free translation of the submitted documentation.

For substantial protocol modifications, the sponsor must submit a secondary petition to ANVISA, as stated in ResNo9 and the G-DDCMAmdmts. These modifications may be made at any time after initial DDCM submission. If the modification has occurred following ANVISA’s issuance of the authorizing document known as a Special Notice (Comunicado Especial (CE)), per BRA-8, ANVISA will send the sponsor an updated CE to reflect the most current approved protocol version. While sponsors are required to submit all amendments to ANVISA, per ResNo9 and the G-DDCMAmdmts, they are only required to submit substantial protocol amendments via a secondary petition whereas non-substantial DDCM protocol amendments should be submitted as part of the annual clinical trial report. Non-substantial amendments that do not impact the protocol should be presented to ANVISA as part of the drug development safety update report. See BRA-13 for updated ANVISA application forms.

See ResNo742, BRA-8, BRA-6, and BRA-7 for requirements associated with submitting DEECs for comparative bioavailability studies and comparative pharmacokinetic studies for biosimilars.

As described in the G-DDCMManual and BRA-8, all DDCM petitions (both initial and secondary) should be submitted electronically to ANVISA via the Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56). Per BRA-58, once the DDCM has been submitted, the sponsor is then required to electronically file all the documents corresponding to the initial DDCM petition’s subject code checklist. As explained in BRA-75, the sponsor must electronically attach all the documents required in the related DDCM checklist (accessed online via BRA-56) that corresponds to one (1) of the following related subject codes: 10748, 10749, 10750, 10751, 10752, 10753, 10754, and 10755. BRA-59 provides detailed instructions for submitting the DDCM checklist documents via BRA-56.

As per ResNo857, BRA-47, and BRA-43, once the sponsor has completed the process of submitting a DDCM request (“petition” in Portuguese), ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56) generates a document known as the Union Collection Guide (Guia de Recolhimento da União (GRU)). The GRU is the primary method used to generate the Health Surveillance Inspection Fee (Taxa de Fiscalização de Vigilância Sanitária (TFVS)) fees. ResNo857 explains that petitions subject to TFVS will only be eligible for filing after confirmation of full corresponding payment. Once the full TFVS payment is confirmed, the electronic petitions will be automatically filed. (See the Regulatory Fees section for detailed information on the payment process.)

ResNo857 further states that if a petition is filed without due payment of the TFVS fee, the request and the documentation will be returned to the sponsor. BRA-43 specifies that ANVISA will accept the following documents as proof of payment from the sponsor:

• Presentation of the original GRU receipt collected electronically, which must be accompanied by the original electronic banking network payment receipt
• Presentation of the original GRU receipt collected from the banking network, which must contain the original receipt stamp for authentication
• The transaction number issued by ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56)

BRA-59 explains that once the fee is paid, a reference (transaction) number is generated that will be required for the subsequent submission of the associated checklist documents. The processing of this request can take up to two (2) days, which is the time given to the banking network to clear the payment. Refer to BRA-59 for additional instructions. See also BRA-47 for step-by-step instructions on how to submit the initial DDCM petition and TFVS fee, and BRA-21 for the DDCM Petition Request Form. See BRA-38 for additional information on accessing ANVISA’s electronic petitioning request systems.

Per the G-DDCMManual, all of the other documentation associated with the original DDCM including the secondary petitions and the DEEC(s) should be submitted electronically via BRA-56. ResNo204 and BRA-14 further note that DEECs may be submitted as priority requests to ANVISA to register, amend previously registered, or request prior consent for drug submissions. For detailed information on priority petition requirements, see the Scope of Assessment and Timeline of Review sections. The G-DDCMManual also specifies that for the electronic submission of secondary petitions and DEECs, the sponsor should append at least one (1) PDF file for each item contained in the petition checklist to enable text searching. It is possible to attach up to five (5) files of 750 kb each. BRA-8 also provides an example of an electronic submission in Annex 1.

Refer to the Submission Content section for detailed DDCM petitions content requirements and substantial protocol modification documentation requirements.

See also BRA-19 and BRA-90 for guidance on scheduling pre-submission meetings with ANVISA’s Coordination of Clinical Research in Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC)) to discuss the clinical development of a drug (e.g., DDCM, secondary petition, or DEEC), or a meeting to discuss a clinical trial application previously submitted to ANVISA. BRA-90 also provides the items required for scheduling each type of meeting and the corresponding request form to be submitted.

Ethics Review Submission

Per ResNo9, ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and OSNo001, the PI must also obtain approval from the EC (CEP). The PI is responsible for submitting the EC (CEP) application online via Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34). If applicable, the PI must also submit the application to CONEP for additional review and approval via BRA-34. Applications with coordination or sponsorship originating outside of Brazil require additional EC review by CONEP, unless the co-sponsor is the Brazilian Government. See BRA-33 for the most current Plataforma Brazil CEP and investigator manuals. Please refer to Scope of Review and Oversight of Ethics Committee sections for detailed information on CONEP responsibilities and other studies requiring CONEP approval. See also CLNo183 for instructions on linking investigator/institutions to the responsible EC in submissions; CLNo062 for guidance on submitting documentation required for CONEP analysis; and CLNo046 for instructions on submitting requests for inclusion/exclusion of research center(s).

Per OSNo001, the investigator is required to submit the research protocol in Portuguese to the CEP/CONEP System via BRA-34, and when applicable, accompanied by the originals in the foreign language.

In addition, per OSNo001, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the PI is required to submit a list of the participating institutions and the associated protocols as part of the research protocol package sent to the EC (CEP) for review.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) Scheme

As delineated in AUS-49, the following information must be submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) through the online form on the TGA Business Services (TBS) webpage (AUS-36):

• Sponsor name and address
• Sponsor declaration
• Notification fee (See Regulatory Fees section)
• Organization-nominated contact’s name, phone number, and email
• An optional alternative contact, which may be chosen from the contacts for the agent or sponsor organization submitting the CTN
• Protocol number
• Expected trial start and completion dates
• Potential use of restricted goods
• Study title and description
• “This Trial” check boxes indicating whether the trial involves the use of a medicine, a medical device, and/or a biological
• Trial type
• Whether the trial is a first in human trial
• Whether the trial, in part or as a whole, has been halted/stopped/withdrawn or rejected in another country due to safety concerns
• Total number of trial participants
• Therapeutic area
• Investigational product (IP) details
• Whether it is a multi-center trial
• Whether the trial is being conducted in other countries
• Preceding trial details
• Trial site details

See AUS-49 for detailed descriptions of each required item.

Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) Scheme

AUS-47 states that the CTA scheme application consists of two (2) forms – Part 1: the application (AUS-56), and Part 2: Notification of the conduct of a trial under the CTA scheme (AUS-57).

The Part 1 CTA application form (AUS-56) requires general information (sponsor name, data details, and sponsor declaration) and details on the medicine (active ingredient)/biological be submitted to the TGA.

The Part 2 CTA application form (AUS-57) requires trial sponsor information (name and client ID code), the IP or biological, and the notification type, as well as trial and trial site details (title of study and trial type). The form also requires signed certifications from the sponsor, the principal investigator (PI), the ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia), and the authority approving the conduct of the trial.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Per the G-CTHandbook, the EC and the institution are responsible for establishing what information should be provided in support of an application. The EC should request any additional information that it believes is necessary to undertake review of the proposed research. Unless advised otherwise, trial sponsors and researchers should use the Human Research Ethics Application (HREA) for submitting proposals for research involving humans to ECs.

AUS-46 indicates that the HREA assists researchers in considering the ethical principles of the G-NatlStmt in relation to their research. The G-NatlStmt requires that those who conduct and approve human research to consider:

• How the research question/theme is identified or developed
• The alignment between the research aims and methods
• How the researchers and the participants will engage with one another
• How the research data or information are to be collected, stored, and used
• How the results or outcomes will be communicated
• What will happen to the data and information after the project is completed

For more information on the HREA, see the Submission Process section.

The G-NatlStmt further specifies that in an application for review of their research, researchers should determine and state in plain language:

• The research question or questions that the project is intended to explore

• The potential benefit of exploring the question or questions including to whom that potential benefit is likely to flow, and whether that benefit is a contribution to knowledge or understanding, improved social or individual wellbeing, or the skill and expertise of researchers

• The basis for that potential benefit as described in either relevant literature or a review of prior research unless, due to the novelty of the question, there is scarce literature or prior research

• How the design and methods of the project will enable adequate exploration of the research questions and achieve the aims of the research

• How the design of the project will maintain respect for the participants

• Where relevant, that the research meets the requirements of any relevant regulations or guidelines authorized by law (such as those related to privacy and reporting requirements for disclosure of child abuse)

• Whether or not the project has been reviewed by a formally constituted academic, scientific, or professional review process, and, if so, the outcome of that review

Research Governance

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions should publish (such as on their website) clear policies and procedures for institutional authorization of research. See the Research GEMS system (AUS-55), the Ethical Review Manager (ERM) (AUS-8), and the Research Ethics and Governance Information System (REGIS) (AUS-10) websites for public health organization site-specific assessment (SSA) forms, which may differ between institutions and states or territories.

Clinical Protocol

The G-TrialsSOP indicates that where the investigator is responsible for the protocol development, the investigator must ensure the protocol follows the outline in the AU-ICH-GCPs. Specific content of a protocol will vary depending on the research area, the level of risk to participants, the phase of the research and study design, and whether a medicinal product or a device or a therapeutic intervention is being researched. If satellite sites for a teletrial are involved in the study, no specific additional wording is required in the protocol, as relevant considerations will be addressed in other study-specific documents which may be annexed to the protocol.

The AU-ICH-GCPs provides the following outline of the protocol:

• General information (protocol title, identifying number, and date; contact information for the sponsor, medical expert, investigator(s), trial site(s), qualified physician(s), and laboratory and/or institutions involved in the study)
• Background information
• Objectives and purpose
• Trial design
• Selection, withdrawal, and treatment of participants
• Assessment of efficacy
• Assessment of safety
• A description of the statistical methods to be used in the trial
• Direct access to source data and documents
• Quality control and quality assurance
• Ethical considerations
• Data handling and recordkeeping
• Financing and insurance
• Publication policy

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As delineated in ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual, to complete the clinical trial application (Drug Clinical Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))), the sponsor, the designated contract research organization (CRO), or the sponsor-investigator is required to submit the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA))’s DDCM Petition Request Form (BRA-21) along with the following documentation (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Health Surveillance Inspection Fee (Taxa de Fiscalização de Vigilância Sanitária (TFVS)) as per ResNo857 (fee required by individuals and companies engaged in clinical research)
• Drug development plan (known as experimental drug dossier) (See the G-BioIProdManual for instructions on completing a biological products dossier and the G-SynthDrugProdManual for completing a synthetic/semi-synthetic products dossier)
• Certified copy of the clinical agreement (contract or statement) that has been written, dated, and signed by the sponsor or the CRO
• Clinical research protocol
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB)
• Summary of the investigational product (IP)’s safety aspects based on previous research in humans
• Information on any discontinued development or withdrawal of IP
• IP dossier
• Specific dossier for each clinical trial to be conducted in Brazil
• Proof of clinical trial registration in a registry listed on the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (BRA-52) or any other registry recognized by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (Note: the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC) (BRA-45) is a primary registry in the ICTRP network.) Per ResNo449, which amends ResNo9, if a registration receipt is not available to submit with the DDCM, it must be provided with the Start of Clinical Trial Notification Form in Brazil (BRA-25). Note that per ResNo205, the ResNo9 requirement to include the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) approval in the initial DDCM or in any protocol amendment submission has been revoked.

Substantial Protocol Modifications

For substantial protocol modifications, the sponsor must submit a secondary petition to ANVISA using the DDCM Petition Request Form (BRA-21), as stated in ResNo9 and the G-DDCMAmdmts. These modifications may be made at any time after initial submission of the DDCM. Per BRA-8, if the modification has occurred following ANVISA’s issuance of the authorizing document known as the Special Notice (Comunicado Especial (CE)), ANVISA will send the sponsor an updated CE to reflect the most current approved protocol version.

While the sponsor is required to submit all amendments to ANVISA, per ResNo9 and the G-DDCMAmdmts, they are only required to submit substantial protocol amendments via a secondary petition whereas non-substantial DDCM protocol amendments should be submitted as part of the annual clinical trial report. Non-substantial amendments that do not impact the protocol should be presented to ANVISA as part of the drug development safety update report. See ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual for detailed ANVISA application submission requirements, BRA-22 for the clinical trial submission form, and BRA-13 for updated ANVISA application forms. See also BRA-95 for instructions on providing expiration date information for imported IPs to be used during the trial and which the sponsor must include in its submission in BRA-22.

In order to fulfill the DDCM and the substantial quality modification requirements delineated in ServBltnNo104, the sponsor or the legal representative (also known as CRO in some sources) must provide all of the documentation required in ResNo9 and the following:

• An official document issued by at least one (1) of the regulatory authorities from one (1) International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) member country to prove the clinical trial or the substantial quality modification is authorized to be carried out
• A declaration of compliance with the ServBltnNo104 Form Attachment criteria regarding the IP to be administered in the trial to be conducted in Brazil: that it is identical to the one (1) administered in the ICH authorized country; is registered in at least one (1) ICH member country; contains the same substantial quality changes as the IP, active comparator, or placebo, if applicable, as those approved in at least one (1) ICH member country; complies with ICH manufacturing guidelines, where applicable, to the clinical development phase

Per ServBltnNo104, in the absence of the previously described official document, a justification must be presented showing that the conduct of the clinical trial or the substantial quality modification has been authorized.

In addition, ServBltnNo104 states that the previously listed documentation must be presented using the subject code of “11634 – ENSAIOS CLÍNICOS – Análise Simplificada de Dossiê de Qualidade” (11634 – CLINICAL TRIALS – Simplified Analysis of the Quality Dossier) to be linked to the DDCM petition or the substantial quality modification of interest, while the petition is in the queue waiting for ANVISA’s Coordination of Clinical Research in Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC))’s technical analysis to begin. The status of the petition code will remain as the subject code of simplified analysis if all of the documentation requirements are met. In the event of non-compliance with the ServBltnNo104 criteria, COPEC will proceed with the non-simplified analysis per ResNo9. These provisions may be applied to DDCM and substantial quality modification petitions submitted prior to the publication of ServBltnNo104, upon request using the subject code of “11634 – ENSAIOS CLÍNICOS – Análise Simplificada de Dossiê de Qualidade” (11634 – CLINICAL TRIALS – Simplified Analysis of the Quality Dossier), as long as the relevant petition is still in the queue waiting for the technical analysis to begin. The ServBltnNo104 provisions do not presuppose prioritizing the analysis of these petitions. Furthermore, ANVISA may at any time analyze all of the documents required in items VII, art. 38 and item III, art. 43 of ResNo9 based on the risk analysis related to the IP. See ServBltnNo104 for detailed information.

Ethics Committee Requirements

As per OMREC and OSNo001, the CONEP requires sponsors to submit the following documentation online via BRA-34 (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements)):

• Cover Sheet for Research Involving Human Beings (BRA-20)
• Clinical research protocol (in Portuguese)
• Background, justification, and registration in the country of origin for drug and device health products
• Description of materials, methods, rationale, expected results, and bibliography
• Critical risk and benefit analysis
• Duration
• Responsibilities of investigator, institution, and sponsor
• Criteria for project suspension or termination
• Location of implementation of various project steps
• Necessary infrastructure and agreement of the institution
• Statement of Commitment from the principal investigator (PI)
• Informed consent form (ICF) (See Informed Consent topic for additional information)
• Detailed research financial budget and investigator remuneration
• Ownership of information
• Characteristics of the participant population, and justification for the use of vulnerable groups
• Number of participants locally and globally (multicenter)
• Description of methods that affect research participants
• Sources of material and details of the specific collection
• Recruitment plans, inclusion and exclusion criteria
• PI/investigator(s) Curriculum Vitaes (CVs)
• Research project schedule
• Foreign Research or Foreign Cooperation documentation (commitments and advantages for research participants and the country; identification of the national investigator and co-responsible institution; EC approval document in the country of origin or justification; response to the need for personnel training in Brazil; and lists of participating centers abroad and in Brazil)
• Research with new drug, vaccine, and diagnostic test document requirements (current clinical trial phase and demonstration of compliance with previous clinical trial phases; drug substance registration in the country of origin and status of research; IB; clinical information from previous trial phases; justification for using placebo or wash out period; access to the drug, if its superiority is proven; investigator’s statement to agree to comply with BRA-20; justification for inclusion of healthy participants; forms of recruitment)

See OMREC and OSNo001 for detailed CEP/National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) System submission requirements. See also BRA-33 for the most current Plataforma Brazil CEP and investigator manuals.

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in the PANDRH-GCPs, OMREC, and OSNo001, the clinical protocol should include the following elements:

• Protocol summary
• Sponsor or authorized representative name and contact information
• PI CV and contact information
• PI statement of responsibility
• IP description (See Investigational Products topic for detailed coverage of this subject)
• Form, dosage, route, method, and frequency of administration; and treatment period
• Summary of potential risks and known benefits to research participants
• Trial objectives and purpose
• Trial design, random selection method, and blinding level
• Participant selection/withdrawal
• Participant treatment
• Safety evaluation
• Adverse event reporting requirements (See Safety Reporting section for additional information)
• Statistics and methods to track trial data
• Sponsor specifications for direct access to source data/documents
• Quality control/quality assurance procedures and practices
• Ethical considerations
• Data management and record maintenance
• Financing and insurance details
• Publication policy

For complete protocol requirements, refer to the PANDRH-GCPs, OMREC, and OSNo001.

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is responsible for authorizing the supply of unapproved therapeutic goods for clinical trials under two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. According to the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, under either regulatory scheme, an ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) must approve research protocols. The G-NatlStmt further specifies that any research that involves greater than low risk must be reviewed by an EC. AUS-47 indicates that the review and approval/authorization by an EC and institution may be conducted in parallel to the CTN form submission to the TGA, but it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial.

According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must also undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. Per the G-TrialsSOP, the SSA and ethics review may occur in parallel.

Regulatory Authority Approval

AUS-47 states that the TGA’s target time to process online CTNs is five (5) to seven (7) working days, but the agency tries to process the notification as soon as possible. This timeframe does not include the time taken for TGA finance to match the payment (if required) to a submission. For information on how to check the status of a CTN, see AUS-49.

No timeline information is available for applications under the CTA scheme. Per AUS-47, parties that are considering submitting a CTA application are strongly encouraged to contact the TGA at clinical.trials@health.gov.au for advice regarding the application process.

Ethics Committee Approval

The EC review and approval process timeline varies by institution. However, according to the G-NatlStmt, the institutional EC must implement standard operating procedures that promote good ethics review, including timely consideration of applications.

Research Governance

The G-GovHndbk indicates that ethical review and site assessment, both components of research governance, are two (2) distinct processes relating to the ethical approval and institutional authorization of research involving humans. However, because evidence of EC approval is a component of the site assessment process, institutional authorization of a research project cannot be given until EC approval has been provided. The G-TrialsSOP further specifies that EC approval must be obtained and submitted to the research governance officer (RGO) of each participating institution before institutional authorization is granted.

While some parts of the research governance review must occur after the EC review, the G-GovHndbk recommends that as part of the national approach to single ethical review, institutions establish processes to facilitate parallel review. Project documentation processes related to site assessment may be considered as falling into these categories:

• That which can be assessed independent of ethical review, such as evidence of research qualifications, supporting department approval forms, contracts, budgets, and insurance and indemnity documents
• That which is subject to ethical review, but can be submitted prior to or in parallel with ethical review to enable independent assessment of other documentation, such as initial project application documents
• That which can only be assessed subsequent to ethical approval, such as approved project application documents, fully signed regulatory documents, and a certificate of ethical approval

See the G-GovHndbk for additional National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidance on best practices in the governance of multicenter human research as part of the national approach to single ethical review.

The NHMRC also developed the GPP-SiteAssess to help institutions streamline the research governance process and shorten clinical trial start-up times. See the GPP-SiteAssess for more information.

Overview

ResNo205 repealed the ResNo9 requirement that research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) approval must be submitted as part of the clinical trial application to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)). Therefore, as explained in BRA-2 and BRA-1, the regulatory and ethics reviews may be conducted in parallel.

Regulatory Authority Approval

As specified in ResNo9, upon receipt of the clinical trial application (Drug Clinical Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))), ANVISA has 90 calendar days to evaluate the application. If the agency fails to issue a response within 90 days of receipt, clinical development can begin as long as all of the ethical approvals have been obtained. ResNo9 further notes that ANVISA will conduct a technical review within 180 days following receipt of DDCMs that fall into at least one (1) of the following categories: national development, biological product clinical development including vaccines, and Phase I or II clinical development studies. For DDCMs in one (1) of these categories, ANVISA’s technical area only evaluates the clinical study technical reports.

Timeline information for ANVISA’s simplified analysis of DDCMs that meet the criteria for ServBltnNo104 is not available. (See Scope of Assessment section for details on the criteria for the DDCM to undergo a simplified analysis.) See also BRA-60 for details on the median analysis timelines for ANVISA to complete its technical review of prioritized and ordinary petitions.

Priority Submissions

As delineated in ResNo204, ANVISA is required to issue a final decision on applications for registration and post-registration of drugs classified as a priority within 120 days for new drug registration requests and in 60 days for post-registration petitions. The deadlines will be counted from the date of submission, and any requests for clarification or additional technical requirements will result in suspending the counting of deadlines until the requests have been met. See also BRA-40 for additional information on ANVISA drug registration requirements.

In addition, per ResNo204, ANVISA must first issue a written opinion letter within 45 calendar days from the first working day following protocol submission for priority petitions in the following categories:

• Prior consent petitions in the clinical development dossier process
• Prior consent petitions in the drug research process
• Secondary petitions referring to the prioritized primary process

Refer to ResNo204 and ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo204) for detailed information on Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) submissions.

In addition, as set forth in ResNo205, for a clinical trial with medicines for rare diseases to be conducted in Brazil, ANVISA must evaluate a DDCM, DEEC, or substantial modification due to inclusion of a clinical trial protocol within 30 days after submission, with an issuance of a notification of requirement or a manifestation of conclusion. ANVISA will evaluate secondary petitions referring to a DDCM, DEEC, or substantial modification due to inclusion of a clinical trial protocol according to the same timeline. Refer to ResNo205 for detailed submission requirements and deadlines.

See also ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo205), BRA-8, and BRA-14 for additional information on priority petitions. See the Scope of Assessment section for further information on priority submissions.

Ethics Committee Approval

As set forth in LawNo14.874, which comes into force on August 27, 2024, a research ethics review carried out by the EC (CEP), with the issuance of the opinion, may not exceed 30 business days from the date of acceptance of all research documents, and the EC (CEP) must accept or deny these documents within 10 business days from the date of submission. Additionally, before issuing the opinion, the EC (CEP) may request additional information or documents from the researcher or research sponsor or make adjustments to the research documentation, for up to 20 business days. See the Scope of Review section for details on the EC (CEP) review processes.

The ClinRegs team will provide additional information on the implementation of LawNo14.874 as it becomes available. See also BRA-117 for additional information.

As delineated in OSNo001 and BRA-91, the institutional EC (CEP) is required to issue an initial report in 30 days from the date the principal investigator (PI) submits an application for review. The CEP’s review of the protocol documentation for completeness should be accomplished within 10 days following submission. Per BRA-91, the review period must be counted from the date the project entered “Ethical Assessment” (i.e., after going through the validation of documents which takes around 10 days and when the Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Assessment (Certificado de Apresentação de Apreciação Ética) (CAAE)) is issued). In addition, per BRA-91, if the project needs to be reviewed by CONEP, the deadline is 15 days for document validation, and 45 days for ethical assessment. If these deadlines have expired, BRA-91 further suggests that the investigator responsible for the research project, contact the CEP to request explanations and, in parallel, send a notification to CONEP (conep.cep@saude.gov.br) requesting a case investigation.

CLNo040 further explains that new investigational brochure (IB) versions to be uploaded to the CEP/CONEP System via Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) are often limited to updates pertaining to the investigational product’s efficacy and safety data and research team instructions. Updates should not alter research that has already been approved and must be processed as notifications in BRA-34. However, CLNo040 specifies that if the IB changes result in modifications to the detailed protocol and/or the informed consent form (ICF), it is necessary to submit a protocol amendment. In this case, the EC (CEP) will analyze the IB together with the other documents pertaining to the amendment, and, if necessary, the required amendments and/or clarifications will be requested. If the project needs to go through CONEP’s appraisal, the deadline for Document Validation is 15 days and for Ethical Review, 45 days.

Per CLNo10, in the event that EC (CEP) activities are temporarily suspended due to a strike or institutional recess, the EC (CEP) must notify CONEP of measures to be adopted to ensure the continuity of protocol processing for ethical assessment according to the deadlines delineated above per OSNo001, specifically, 10 days for document checking for completeness and 30 days to release the opinion.

See the Submission Process section for CEP/CONEP System submission requirements.

Overview

In accordance with the G-TrialsSOP, the G-CTHandbook, and AUS-47, clinical trials involving unapproved therapeutic goods can only commence under the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme or the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. According to the G-GovHndbk and the G-TrialsSOP, under either scheme, both institutional ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in Australia) approval and research governance authorization are required before a research project can commence at a site.

Research Governance

Per the G-GovHndbk, research must be governed by the institution at all stages of a project. Ethical review and site assessment, both components of research governance, are two (2) distinct processes relating to the ethical approval and institutional authorization of research involving humans. According to AUS-40, all public and private health organizations must undertake a site-specific assessment (SSA) of each research project. This allows the institution to consider whether the project is suitable for the site, and whether it has the capacity to conduct the research at that site. Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, authorization of research by the institution should consider, but not re-review, any issues raised during the ethics review of the research proposal, and each institution should have a process or processes for assessing the risk level of the research. These processes may involve seeking advice from relevant clinical or administrative staff, members of an EC, or a full meeting of the EC. All research should be developed, reviewed, authorized, conducted, and monitored in accordance with a research governance framework as described in an institution’s policy. For more information on institutional responsibilities, see the Site/Investigator Selection section.

The G-TrialsSOP states that in the case of a teletrial, the principal investigator (PI) must ensure that a robust site assessment is undertaken that fully quantifies the capabilities of each satellite site to inform the extent to which trial related activities can be delegated to the site. This may include a pre-commencement assessment before a specific trial is proposed so that the process of trial start up is expedited when a suitable trial is identified.

Per the G-TrialsSOP, prior to a study’s commencement, the PI must:

• Submit the primary site's Clinical Trial Research Agreement (CTRA), EC approval, the SSA form, evidence of any relevant good clinical practice (GCP) training, and any other required documentation to the institution’s research governance officer (RGO)
• Ensure all documentation and correspondence pertaining to the submission and approval processes is filed in the study master file (SMF) (see Appendix 8 of the G-TrialsSOP)
• Ensure each satellite site completes and submits to their RGO a clinical trial sub-contract and a SSA form
• Await site specific RGO authorization before any study related activity can occur at that site
• Ensure the satellite site files all documentation in the satellite site study file (SSSF)

The G-TrialsSOP further states that prior to the initiation of a study, the investigator must also mutually agree with the sponsor on a scheduled date, time, and location for a study initiation visit at the participating site to ensure the site is prepared to commence the study. In the case of a teletrial, this may be at the primary site only, or could include (remotely) the satellite site(s) as determined by the study complexity by the sponsor/PI.

See the G-TrialsSOP for more information on site initiation requirements for primary and satellite sites.

The G-GovHndbk further indicates that in the national approach to single ethical review, site assessment and project authorization are the responsibility of each institution participating in a multicenter human research project while ethical review is provided by a single EC using certified ethical review processes. Each institution collaborating in a multicenter project utilizing the outcome of a single ethical review must individually authorize the commencement of research at their institution. To avoid unnecessary delays in research commencing at all collaborating centers and sites, each institution should consider relevant local matters prior to or in parallel with ethical review.

Clinical Trial Agreement

As delineated in the AU-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor must sign an agreement between all involved parties, including investigators, institutions, contract research organizations, and others for documentation purposes. Further, the sponsor should obtain the investigator’s/institution's agreement:

• To conduct the trial in compliance with good clinical practice, with the applicable regulatory requirement(s), and with the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and given approval/favorable opinion by the EC
• To comply with procedures for data recording and reporting
• To permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• To retain the trial-related essential documents until the sponsor informs the investigator/institution these documents are no longer needed

The sponsor and the investigator/institution should sign the protocol, or an alternative document, to confirm this agreement.

For the purposes of the G-TrialsSOP, the CTRA for the primary site and the sub-contract for each satellite site constitute part of a research governance application, which is submitted to the RGO. The CTRA covers matters such as confidentiality, intellectual property, ownership of data, insurance, and indemnity. The Medicines Australia CTRA (see AUS-38) is the recommended standard form.

Clinical Trial Registration

The G-NatlStmt requires that clinical trials be registered on a publicly accessible register complying with international standards before recruitment of the first participant. For information on these standards, see the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (AUS-67). Per AUS-15, the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (AUS-12) recommends applying for registration at the same time as ethics submission.

Overview

In accordance with ResNo9, the PANDRH-GCPs, and the G-DDCMManual, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor, the designated contract research organization (CRO), or the sponsor-investigator receives clinical trial application (Drug Clinical Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) approval from the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)). Per ResNo9, ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and OSNo001, the principal investigator (PI) must also obtain approval from the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)). Applications with coordination or sponsorship originating outside Brazil require an additional review and approval by the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)), unless the co-sponsor is the Brazilian Government. Please refer to Scope of Review and Oversight of Ethics Committees sections for detailed information on CONEP responsibilities and other studies requiring CONEP approval. No waiting period is required following the sponsor’s receipt of these approvals.

In addition, per ResNo9, the sponsor or the designated CRO is required to obtain an import license from ANVISA for the shipment of the investigational product (IP) to be used in the trial. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information). The trials should be conducted in compliance with the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo466, and ResNo9. Clinical trials must also be conducted in a laboratory complying with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Principles on Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) (BRA-15) as mandated by Brazil’s National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (INMETRO). Refer to BRA-15 and BRA-48 for additional information on GLP requirements.

ResNo9 further states that the sponsor should register the clinical trial start and end dates within 30 calendar days of each date by submitting a secondary petition to the corresponding DDCM (see BRA-21 for the DDCM Petition Request Form).

Clinical Trial Agreement

As delineated in the PANDRH-GCPs, the sponsor or the CRO must sign an agreement or contract with the participating institution(s) and the investigator. In addition, if a sponsor decides to engage a CRO to conduct the trial, a letter of agreement should also be submitted to ANVISA as specified in the PANDRH-GCPs and ResNo9.

Clinical Trial Registration

As delineated in ResNo9, the sponsor must register the clinical trial in a registry listed on the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (BRA-52) or any other registry recognized by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). According to BRA-52, the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC)) (BRA-45) is a primary registry in the ICTRP network. See also BRA-45 and BRA-46 for further information about ReBEC. Per ResNo449 which amends ResNo9, if a registration receipt is not available to submit with the DDCM, it must be provided with the Start of Clinical Trial Notification Form in Brazil (BRA-25).

In addition, per BRA-32, ANVISA has developed a clinical trials search tool to obtain detailed information about scientific/academic research or clinical trials authorized by the agency to support the registration of medicines since 2015. The Clinical Trials (Ensaios Clínicos) tool may be accessed via ANVISA’s Consultation System webpage (BRA-44). BRA-44 provides public information about the status of each clinical trial, the trial location, and the researchers responsible for conducting the trial. See BRA-32 for additional instructions on searching BRA-44.

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the G-SftyRpt, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Australia’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical trial participant administered a medicinal product and that does not necessarily have to have a causal relationship with this treatment
• Adverse Reaction (AR) – Any untoward and unintended response to an investigational medicinal product related to any dose administered
• Unexpected Adverse Reaction (UAR) – An adverse reaction, the nature or severity of which is not consistent with the applicable product information (e.g., investigator's brochure (IB) for an unapproved investigational medicinal product)
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Reaction (SAR) – Any adverse event/adverse reaction that results in death, is life-threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly or birth defect
• Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) – An adverse reaction that is both serious and unexpected
• Significant Safety Issue (SSI) – A safety issue that could adversely affect the safety of participants or materially impact the continued ethical acceptability or conduct of the trial
• Urgent Safety Measure (USM) – A measure required to be taken in order to eliminate an immediate hazard to a participant’s health or safety (Note: This type of SSI can be instigated by either the investigator or sponsor and can be implemented before seeking approval from ethics committees (ECs) or institutions)

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As specified in the G-SftyRpt, the investigator is responsible for recording and assessing all AEs that occur at the site. The investigator is also required to inform the sponsor of all SAEs, and all USMs instigated by the site, within 24 hours of becoming aware of the event. All safety critical events must be reported to the sponsor, and for reported deaths, the investigator should supply the sponsor with any additional requested information. Further, the investigator must report to the institution all SSIs and SUSARs arising from the local site within 72 hours of becoming aware of the event.

However, the G-TrialsSOP states that the investigator must also report any SUSARs to the sponsor within 24 hours of becoming aware of the event, and USMs instigated by the investigator or site must be reported to the sponsor within 72 hours. Furthermore, the investigator must report all other significant issues to the sponsor within 15 days of instigating or becoming aware of the event. The investigator must notify the sponsor promptly regarding any changes significantly affecting the conduct of the trial, and/or increasing the risk to participants. The investigator must also be available to meet with the sponsor to discuss study progress, issues, and safety.

The G-TrialsSOP requires that within 72 hours of instigating or becoming aware of the event, the investigator must notify the institution of:

• USMs
• SUSARs arising from the local site
• Any information received from the sponsor that may be new and have an impact on the continued ethical acceptability of the trial or may indicate the need for amendments to the trial protocol, including monitoring of safety

The G-TrialsSOP indicates that for satellite site(s) in teletrials, staff must report safety issues directly to the sponsor as per the timelines specified in the clinical trial protocol and the safety monitoring plan or similar document, in the same way as the primary site. Certified copies of the relevant safety reports/documentation generated at the satellite site must be sent to the primary site for filing in a study master file.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the principal investigator (PI) must ensure that study staff, including those at teletrial satellite sites, are trained in the protocol, investigator’s brochure (IB), study procedures, and AE/SAE reporting. The PI must also ensure that a system for safety reporting duties is in place for all study staff. For more information on investigator responsibilities related to standard operating procedures (SOPs), see the G-TrialsSOP.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in the G-SafetyDataMgt, the G-SftyRpt, and the G-CTHandbook, the sponsor is required to expedite reporting of SUSARs to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

The G-SafetyDataMgt indicates that other situations requiring expedited reporting may include information that might materially influence the benefit-risk assessment of an investigational product, or that would be sufficient to consider changes in the administration or conduct of a clinical trial.

According to the G-SftyRpt and the G-TrialsSOP, expedited reporting requires the sponsor to file reports to the TGA in the following specified timelines:

• For an Australian SUSAR that is fatal or life-threatening, immediately, but no later than seven (7) calendar days, with any follow-up information within eight (8) calendar days
• For all other Australian SUSARs, no later than 15 calendar days after becoming aware of the case

The G-SftyRpt and the G-TrialsSOP further indicate that the TGA, the EC, and investigators must also be notified of all SSIs that adversely affect the safety of participants, or materially impact the continued ethical acceptability or conduct of the trial. SSIs that meet the definition of a USM should be reported within 72 hours, and all other SSIs should be reported within 15 calendar days of the sponsor being made aware of the issue. It is strongly recommended that the sponsor contact the TGA within 24 hours of a USM being taken, and if initial contact is by telephone, it should be followed up with a written notification provided by e-mail within 72 hours. See AUS-53 for additional information on SSIs and USMs.

Per the G-SftyRpt, submitting individual reports of AEs, SAEs, and SUSARs to ECs, institutions, and investigators are no longer required. However, according to the G-TrialsSOP, the sponsor must provide the EC with an updated IB at least annually that supports trial oversight, depicts a clear picture of the evolving trial safety profile, and provides evidence that the sponsor is conducting its safety monitoring appropriately.

The G-CTHandbook and the G-SftyRpt further require the sponsor to maintain records of all other single case AEs and submit them to the TGA upon request. The G-CTHandbook indicates that the TGA does not require sponsors to submit individual SUSARs from outside Australia. Sponsors should continually monitor the safety of their clinical program and advise the TGA of any SSIs that arise from their analysis of overseas reports, or of any action that has been taken by another country’s regulatory agency. Investigators and ECs should also be informed of this information, and sponsors must be able to provide the TGA with the clinical details of any individual overseas AE reports if requested.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the sponsor’s plans for safety data monitoring should be documented in a safety monitoring plan or similar document and be given to the PI prior to commencement of the clinical trial. The plan must be continually reviewed and updated during the trial, as real-time assessments of safety data are performed, and outcomes are made available.

Other Safety Reports

The G-SftyRpt delineates that the sponsor must provide the EC with an annual safety report including a clear summary of the evolving trial safety profile. The annual safety report should generally include:

• A brief description and analysis of new and relevant findings
• For investigational products (IPs) not on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) (AUS-22), a brief analysis of the safety profile of the IP and its implications for participants
• A brief discussion of the implications of the safety data to the trial’s risk-benefit ratio
• A description of any measures taken or proposed to minimize risks

A Development Safety Update Report (DSUR) or other similar document may also serve as the annual safety report. See the G-SftyRpt for more information.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per the G-CTHandbook, all SUSARs from Australian sites must be reported to the TGA using one (1) of three (3) formats:

• The Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) functionality, which allows sponsors to submit AE reports directly from their system to the TGA (more information can be found at AUS-26)
• The online reporting form, which can be accessed from AUS-51
• The CIOMS Form I (AUS-4) or the TGA’s Blue Card Adverse Reaction Reporting Form (AUS-3)

Per AUS-3, the Blue Card form may be emailed to adr.reports@tga.gov.au or mailed to Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, Reply Paid 100, Woden ACT 2606. More information about reporting to the TGA may be found at AUS-7.

See AUS-37 for the SSI/USM reporting form.

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo9, the AESafetyManual, and CLNo13, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Brazil’s safety reporting requirements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Adverse Event/Experience (AE) – Any adverse medical occurrence in a research participant to whom a drug product was administered, and which does not necessarily bear a causal relationship to the treatment
• Adverse Drug Reaction or Adverse Reaction (ADR) – All harmful unintended responses to a medicinal product related to any dose
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) – Any unfavorable occurrence that at any dose results in death, is life-threatening, requires or extends patient hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability or permanent damage, or is a birth defect or congenital anomaly; significant medical occurrence, which based on appropriate medical judgment, may harm the participant and/or require medical or surgical intervention to prevent any of the other occurrences mentioned
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction – One whose nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information (i.e., the investigator’s brochure for an unapproved investigational product (IP), or package insert/summary of the characteristics of an approved product)

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As specified in ResNo9 and the AESafetyManual, the investigator must inform the sponsor within 24 hours of all SAEs/SADRs occurring during the study. The PANDRH-GCPs also states that the immediate reports should be followed promptly by detailed, written reports in which the participants are identified by unique code numbers. AEs/ADRs identified in the protocol as critical to safety evaluations should also be reported to the sponsor. Per the AESafetyManual, the investigator(s) should treat all participants who incur AEs/ADRs and assist them until the situation is resolved. In the event of a participant’s death, the investigator must provide the sponsor and the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa) (CEP)) with any additional requested information (e.g., autopsy reports and terminal medical reports).

Sponsor Responsibilities

The AESafetyManual states that the sponsor should classify all AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs according to the World Health Organization’s Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC)’s standardized causality assessment system (BRA-31). The recommended criterion to categorize each event is as follows: Certain, Probable/Likely, Possible, Unlikely, Conditional/Unclassified, and Unassessable/Unclassifiable.

As per ResNo9 and the AESafetyManual, the sponsor should ensure all relevant information pertaining to fatal or life-threatening SAEs/SADRs occurring in Brazil is documented and electronically reported to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) no more than seven (7) days after first knowledge. ResNo9 also indicates that any additional information should be included in the assessment up to eight (8) calendar days from the notification date. Additionally, per ResNo9 and the AESafetyManual, all other unexpected SAEs/SADRs whose causality is possible, probable, or certain for the products under investigation should be reported to ANVISA within 15 calendar days from the date of first knowledge by the sponsor.

Per the AESafetyManual, AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs do not need to be reported to ANVISA under the above timelines when they occur outside of Brazil or are defined in the protocol as a primary or secondary outcome. Additionally, SAEs/SADRs that are categorized as Unlikely, Conditional/Unclassified, or Unassessable/Unclassifiable do not need to be reported under the above timelines. Per ResNo9 and the AESafetyManual, for events occurring within Brazil, this information should be included in the annual drug development safety update report (DDSUR), which must be filed within a maximum of 60 calendar days of the yearly anniversary of the date that ANVISA approves the clinical trial application (Drug Clinical Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))). Per ResNo9, in the case of international trials, within 12 months of the study in all countries, the sponsor must submit a final report, which must include information on AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs occurring in other countries.

ResNo9 requires the sponsor to notify investigators of AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs for which the causality has been assessed as possible, probable, or certain. The sponsor must adopt procedures for updating the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) and reassess the risk and benefits to study participants. The PANDRH-GCPs states that the sponsor is also required to notify all concerned investigator(s), institution(s), and ANVISA of findings that could adversely affect participant safety, impact the conduct of the trial, or alter the EC (CEP)’s approval of the trial.

In addition, ResNo9 and the G-DDCMAmdmts state that in cases where the sponsor temporarily suspends a clinical trial or DDCM as an immediate safety measure, they must notify ANVISA within seven (7) consecutive days from the suspension date. Per ResNo9, the reasons for suspension, the scope, the interruption of treatment, and the suspension of participant recruitment must be clearly explained in the notification of temporary suspension. See also BRA-8 for additional information on ANVISA’s AE reporting requirements.

Per BRA-73, Brazil has implemented the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (BRA-66) and the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Development Safety Update Report (E2F) (BRA-72).

See ResNo506 for detailed information on AE and SAE safety reporting requirements involving investigational advanced therapy products.

Ethics Committee Responsibilities

CLNo13 establishes specific CEP/National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) System processing requirements for SAEs occurring in Brazil and outside the country. As delineated in CLNo13, only SAEs should be reported to the CEP/CONEP System; it is optional for the investigator or sponsor to report an AE. SAE ethical analysis is the exclusive responsibility of CEPs, and CONEP prefers not to be involved in the review, except when at the CEP’s discretion, it is deemed necessary.

Per CLNo13, CEPs must present SAE notifications about a participant’s SAE index (initial SAE) and subsequent events in a single document, in tabular format, and submit it online to the CEP/CONEP System via Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) using the “notification” function. This document must also be updated with each occurrence of a subsequent SAE. The document must contain the study identification research title and Certificate of Presentation of Ethical Appreciation (Certificado de Apresentação de Apreciação Ética) (CAAE)) number, name of the research center, name of the responsible investigator, coded identification of the participant and description of the index and subsequent events. Per BRA-91, the CAAE is the number generated by Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) to identify the research project when it is received by CEP for ethical review.

CLNo13 explains that each SAE must be characterized according to the following:

• Date of SAE occurrence
• Participant number or code
• SAE number or code
• SAE classification (index or subsequent)
• Breakdown of the occurrence (e.g., febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, etc.)
• SAE type (death, life threatening, need for hospitalization, prolonged hospitalization, significant damage, permanent damage, congenital anomaly, at the investigator’s discretion, others)
• Participant status on the date of the last update (in progress, recovered without sequelae, recovered with sequelae, and death)
• Description of research participant withdrawal(s)

Additionally, in the case of multicenter studies, the investigator at the coordinating center must prepare the consolidated report (partial and final reports) containing information on SAEs from all of the participating research centers and submit it to the CEP to which it is linked via Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) using the “notification” functionality. CLNo13 also explains that for SAEs occurring outside the country, it is the responsibility of the coordinating research center investigator to prepare the consolidated SAEs report. If the CEP is linked to the coordinating center, CONEP will also evaluate the SAEs if the protocol is included in item IX.4 of ResNo466.

Refer to CLNo008 for detailed instructions and the CONEP form to report SAEs to the CEP/CONEP System for review, and CLNo13 for information on processing AEs for Brazil and abroad.

Other Safety Reports

For investigational advanced therapy products, SAEs must be reported through the Online Adverse Event Notification Form for Advanced Therapy Products (BRA-101).

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per BRA-37, VigiMed (BRA-83) is ANVISA’s online system for citizens, health professionals, drug registration holders, and study sponsors to report unexpected SAEs related to drugs and vaccines. Upon registration with BRA-83, BRA-37 indicates that companies (sponsors) must submit SAE notifications exclusively via BRA-83. See also BRA-85 for additional information on VigiMed.

Per BRA-78 and BRA-37, sponsors must email notifications of unexpected SAEs to notivisa.pesquisa@anvisa.gov.br. BRA-78 indicates that the title of the email must state “EVENTO ADVERSO GRAVE INESPERADO [NOME DO MEDICAMENTO]” (Unexpected Serious Adverse Event [Name of the medication]). BRA-78 and BRA-37 specify that the email must include the ANVISA Serious Adverse Event Notification Spreadsheet (BRA-84) containing all of the information that was previously registered with ANVISA. BRA-37 states that ANVISA advises sponsors of clinical research with medicines and biological products that have not yet been registered in VigiMed (BRA-83) to also include the following information for the company’s registration in the system:

• Corporate name
• Sender identifier (the official name should be used, if possible, since it will be used to identify the company in VigiMed)
• CNPJ (National Registry of Legal Entities (Cadastro Nacional de Pessoas Jurídicas), which serves as tax identification
• Short name: company name abbreviation [the company name abbreviation will be used in the Notification Identification, following the structure: BR-Company Name-Notification Number (Data element C.1.1 Sender’s (case) Safety Report Unique Identifier, from the ICH E2B (R3) (Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports) (BRA-88)
• Data of users to be registered in VigiMed: name and e-mail of two (2) notifiers, who will be registered to enter data from notifications of SAEs occurring in clinical trials

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As per the AU-ICH-GCPs, the G-NatlStmt, and the G-TrialsSOP, the investigator(s) is responsible for submitting progress reports to the ethics committee (EC) (known as Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) annually, or more frequently if requested. The AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-TrialsSOP state that if there are significant changes in trial conduct or safety, the investigator should submit a written report to the sponsor, the EC, and where applicable, the institution. The G-NatlStmt indicates that at regular periods (reflecting the degree of risk, and at least annually), researchers should provide reports to the relevant EC(s) and institution(s), including information on:

• Progress to date
• The security of project-related data and information
• Compliance with the approved proposal
• Compliance with any conditions of approval

According to the G-NatlStmt, progress report forms should be designed to collect information that can provide meaningful assistance to reviewers in determining whether continuation of ethics approval is warranted. See the G-NatlStmt for more details.

Final Report

AUS-47 indicates that for trials conducted under the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme, the CTA clinical trial completion advice form (AUS-58) is used to notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of the trial completion. AUS-58 indicates that upon completion, the form may be emailed to the TGA at clinical.trials@tga.gov.au (preferred) or faxed to 02 6232 8112.

Per AUS-49, for trials conducted under the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme, a completion advice should be submitted through the TGA Business Services (TBS) webpage (AUS-36). The completion advice must include the date the trial was completed at all Australian sites, as well as the completion reason. See AUS-49 for additional information on the completion advice.

The AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-TrialsSOP indicate that the investigator should provide the EC with a final clinical study report. As per the G-TrialsSOP, the investigator must also notify the research governance officer that the trial has been terminated/closed. At the completion of the project, a report with the same information as described above for progress reports (per G-NatlStmt) must also be provided to the relevant EC(s) and institution(s), but it should include information on the outcome of the completed research.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As per ResNo9 and the G-CTReptsManual, the sponsor must file a progress report, known as an annual clinical trial protocol monitoring report, to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) in the form of a secondary petition electronically attached to the respective protocol to which it is linked. ResNo9 indicates that the annual report should contain the following information for each clinical trial protocol, in tabulated form, exclusively from Brazilian centers:

• Trial title
• Protocol code
• Participant(s) status
• Number of participants recruited by center
• Number/description of deviations and protocol violations by center
• Description of all adverse events/adverse drug reactions occurring by center

The report should be filed within 60 calendar days from the annual anniversary date of the trial’s commencement in Brazil. BRA-8 further explains that currently ANVISA does not require a template to be used to complete the annual clinical trial protocol monitoring report since the information should be based on the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) standardized report format (BRA-27). See BRA-23 for the annual/final report form that may be used.

The PANDRH-GCPs state that the investigator or institution must submit written summaries on the status of the trial to the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) in Brazil) annually, or more frequently, if requested by the EC (CEP).

Final Report

ResNo9 and the G-CTReptsManual state that the sponsor should submit a final report to ANVISA in the form of a secondary petition electronically attached to the respective protocol to which it is linked. The final report must be filed within 12 months of the clinical trial end date. Per ResNo9 the final report should contain at least the following:

• Trial title
• Protocol code
• Breakdown of the number of participants recruited or removed from the trial
• Description of participants included in each statistical analysis and those who were excluded from the efficacy analysis
• Participant demographics and statistics
• Number/description of protocol deviations and violations
• All adverse events/laboratory abnormalities with causality assessment occurring in participants
• Results obtained in the measurement of outcomes for each participant
• Rationale for early termination in Brazil or elsewhere in the world, where applicable

Per G-CTReptsManual, the annual and final reports for each clinical protocol shall contain the minimum requirements set forth in Articles 68 and 69 of ResNo9, or they may be submitted using the ICH E3 format (BRA-27). See BRA-23 for the annual/final report form.

As specified in the PANDRH-GCPs, upon the trial’s completion, the investigator or the institution should also provide the sponsor with all required reports, present the EC (CEP) with a summary of the trial’s outcome, and supply any additional report(s) required by ANVISA.

Other Reporting Requirements

As stated in ResNo9 and the G-CTReptsManual, in addition to submitting a final report, the sponsor is also responsible for submitting clinical trial start and end date forms for trials conducted in Brazil. The forms with the trial start and end dates must be filed as a secondary petition to the corresponding trial dossier within 30 calendar days after each start and end date. The secondary petition should be submitted to ANVISA using the Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM)) Petition Request Form (BRA-21). See BRA-56 to access ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System website that allows users to submit these forms electronically, and BRA-25 and BRA-24 for links to the notification forms. See also BRA-38 for additional information on accessing ANVISA’s electronic petitioning request systems.

As per the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-TrialsSOP, a sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial. As stated in the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, sponsors undertake the ultimate responsibility for all aspects of the clinical trial, including the quality of investigational products (IPs).

In accordance with the AU-ICH-GCPs, Australia permits a sponsor to transfer any or all of its trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO). Any trial-related duties and functions transferred to a CRO should be specified in a written agreement, and the sponsor should ensure oversight of such transferred responsibilities. Any trial-related duties and functions not specifically transferred to and assumed by a CRO are retained by the sponsor. The AU-ICH-GCPs further indicates that the sponsor retains overall responsibility for the trial data’s quality and integrity, as well as the conduct of the trial. As stated in the G-TrialsSOP, the sponsor is also responsible for ensuring that appropriate approvals are obtained prior to the commencement of the clinical trial, that conditions of any approvals are adhered to during the course of the clinical trial, and that the ethics principles of research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence, and respect are applied to the conduct of clinical trials.

According to the G-CTHandbook, if the investigator initiates and organizes the trial, the role of trial sponsor is assumed. If another party (such as a pharmaceutical company) provides the IP or other support for an investigator-led trial, that party is not required to assume the sponsor role.

As per the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, a sponsor must be an Australian entity.

As per ResNo466, ResNo9, and the PANDRH-GCPs, a sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization that supports research through the initiation, management, or financing of a clinical trial.

ResNo9 states that a sponsor can authorize a contract research organization (CRO) to carry out certain work and obligations regarding the trial. As delineated in ResNo9, any trial-related responsibilities to be transferred and assumed by a CRO should be specified in a written agreement or contract.

As delineated in ResNo9, when a clinical trial is developed by a sponsor-investigator, the institution with which the individual is linked is the primary sponsor. The primary sponsor may delegate responsibilities to the investigator, who will be responsible for conducting the clinical trial at the institution, and the sponsor-investigator will serve as the secondary sponsor. See also BRA-79 for additional information on sponsor and CRO requirements in Brazil.

Overview

As set forth in the AU-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor should select the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities. The sponsor must also ensure that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an investigator’s brochure.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the principal investigator (PI) must ensure that all required staff who assist with the clinical trial are informed about and trained on the protocol, any investigational product (IP), and their research-related duties and functions. This can be in the form of an initiation meeting held by any communication means, including face-to-face, videoconference, telehealth, etc. The PI must also have sufficient time to properly conduct and complete the research within the specified period, as well as an adequate number of qualified staff and adequate facilities for the foreseen duration of the research. When a teletrial is being conducted, the PI, who is always at the primary site and never at the satellite site, remains responsible for the trial across the cluster. For more information on PI site staff training and qualification requirements, see the G-TrialsSOP.

See AUS-64 for additional clinical trial and researcher resources.

Research Governance

The G-NatlStmt indicates that institutions must ensure that any human research for which they are responsible is designed, reviewed, approved, authorized, conducted, and monitored in accordance with the G-CodeConduct and the G-NatlStmt, along with any policies that they have developed that form part of their research governance framework. Each institution should be satisfied that the human research for which it is responsible meets both relevant ethical standards and scholarly or scientific standards, and ensure that those conducting the research (i) are either adequately experienced and qualified, or supervised; (ii) understand the need to assess risks to their own safety and that of participants; and (iii) are aware they are free to withdraw from research on conscientious grounds. Institutions should publish (such as on their website) clear policies and procedures for ethics review and approval and institutional authorization of research. They may establish their own processes for ethics review of research or use the review processes of another institution or external ethics review body.

Per AUS-63, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care developed the National Clinical Trials Governance Framework (AUS-63), which embeds clinical trials into routine health service provisions and strengthens the clinical and corporate governance arrangements for parties that deliver clinical trials. All jurisdictions have agreed to implement the framework in health service organizations, meaning the organizations will be assessed concurrently for clinical and corporate services and clinical trial service provisions. The framework describes the systems and processes that should be in place to implement an effective governance system considering local needs, values, and the context in which services are provided. For more information about implementation timing and assessments under the National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) standards, see AUS-63.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

As per the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-47, a sponsor must be an Australian entity.

Data Safety Monitoring Boards

G-DSMB indicates that the sponsor may establish a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) to review accumulating trial data in order to monitor the progress of a trial. The role of a DSMB is to provide advice on safety and/or trial conduct issues by making recommendations to the sponsor or trial steering committee on whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial. Per the AU-ICH-GCPs, the DSMB should have written standard operating procedures (SOPs) and maintain written records of all its meetings.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the sponsor may utilize a DSMB or independent individuals (e.g., a medical monitor) to:

• Review accruing trial safety data in either an unblinded or blinded manner to assess treatment exposure
• Access, assess, and review emerging efficacy data for the trial
• Assess the balance of risks and benefits within the trial
• Document the outcome of these reviews

Multicenter Studies

As delineated in the AU-ICH-GCPs, in the event of a multicenter trial, the sponsor must ensure that:

• All investigators conduct the trial in strict compliance with the protocol that was agreed to by the sponsor and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) (if required), and that was approved by the ethics committee (EC)
• The case report forms (CRFs) capture the required data at all multicenter trial sites
• The responsibilities of coordinating investigator(s) and the other participating investigators are documented prior to the start of the trial
• All investigators are given instructions on following the protocol, on complying with a uniform set of standards to assess clinical and laboratory findings, and on completing the CRFs
• Communication among investigators is facilitated

As noted in the G-TeletrialPrncpls, Australian jurisdictions agree that “traditionally” multicenter clinical trials assume one (1) PI per geographic site, differing from teletrials. However, for the purposes of teletrials, multicenter trials may include some sites that have satellite sites supervised under teletrial guidance, including the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA)’s Australasian Tele-trial Model (AUS-2), the G-TeletrialPrncpls, and the G-TrialsSOP. Sponsor responsibilities in teletrials, as described in the G-TrialsSOP, are discussed throughout the Australia profile alongside other clinical trial regulations and guidance. See each section of the Sponsorship topic for additional applicable information.

Overview

As set forth in the PANDRH-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial while taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities. The sponsor must also ensure that the investigator(s) are qualified by education, training, and experience to assume responsibility for the proper conduct of the trial. Investigator(s) should also provide evidence of all the qualifications specified by the applicable regulatory requirements through up-to-date curriculum vitae(s) (CVs) and/or other relevant documentation requested by the sponsor, the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)), and/or the regulatory authority(ies).

Prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an investigator’s brochure. Additionally, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. See the Submission Content section for additional information on clinical trial application requirements. See also CLNo046 for the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) guidance on submitting requests for inclusion/exclusion of research center(s).

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

As specified in the PANDRH-GCPs and ResNo9, the sponsor may transfer any or all of the sponsor’s study related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO). However, the sponsor is ultimately responsible for the study data’s quality and integrity. Any study related duties, functions, or responsibilities transferred to and assumed by a local representative or CRO must be specified in writing. Other duties, functions, or responsibilities not specifically transferred shall be deemed as retained by the sponsor. However, as per ResNo9, a CRO can only submit a clinical trial application on the sponsor’s behalf when the sponsor has no headquarters or subsidiary in Brazil.

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

According to ResNo9, an Independent Safety Monitoring Committee (ISMC) should be established to systematically evaluate aggregate adverse event/adverse drug reaction data.

Multicenter Studies

Per the PANDRH-GCPs, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the sponsor or the CRO should ensure that all investigators conduct the trial in strict compliance with the protocol as well as with the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA))’s and the EC (CEP)’s requirements. The sponsor must also organize a coordinating committee or select coordinating investigators.

Insurance

The AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-NatlStmt state that the sponsor should provide insurance in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, according to the G-NatlStmt, institutions must ensure that sponsors have insurance arrangements in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The federal documents cited here do not explicitly require insurance.

Per the G-GovHndbk, the institution and investigator are responsible for managing risks of any proposed research, including providing appropriate insurance coverage.

Compensation

Injury or Death

According to the G-NatlStmt, institutions must ensure that sponsors have indemnity and compensation arrangements in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, and that arrangements are in place to compensate trial participants for harm resulting from negligence in research. The AU-ICH-GCPs further indicates that the sponsor must explain to participants the compensation and/or treatment available to them in the event of trial-related injuries. The federal documents cited here do not explicitly require indemnity.

The G-TrialsSOP states that if the investigator is notified or becomes aware that a trial participant intends to make a claim against the institution or sponsor for injuries arising as a result of participating in a clinical trial undertaken at the institution (or any of the satellite sites under supervision by the institution in a teletrial), the investigator must promptly notify the following parties in writing that such an action is intended:

• The institution’s authority
• The coordinating principal investigator (CPI)/principal investigator (PI)/associate investigator, as relevant
• The sponsor

In addition, if the institution is notified or becomes aware that a trial participant intends to make a claim for compensation against the institution or sponsor for injuries arising as a result of participating in a clinical trial undertaken at the institution (or any of the satellite sites under supervision by the institution in a teletrial), the institution must promptly notify the institution’s insurer in writing that such an action is intended.

See AUS-39 for indemnity and injury compensation guidelines for commercially-sponsored trials.

Trial Participation

The G-NatlStmt states that it is generally appropriate to reimburse participants for the costs associated with taking part in research including travel, accommodations, and parking. Sometimes participants may also be paid for time involved. However, payment may not be disproportionate to the time involved, or include other incentives that encourage participants to take risks. Further, payment or reimbursement decisions should consider customs and practices of the community in which the trial will be conducted.

According to the G-ResearchPayment, any proposal for payment of participants should be considered by the ethics committee (EC) reviewing the research. The EC should be provided with a payment plan that includes:

• A rationale for the proposed payments
• The method and timing of any disbursements, including how they have been calculated, and
• Information about how prospective participants will be advised of the provision of payment

Payment of participants is ethically appropriate if it is equitable and proportionate to the burden of the research, and does not:

• Undermine a participant’s capacity to provide voluntary and informed consent
• Unduly influence a participant to accept a risk or burden that is greater than they would otherwise accept in everyday living or to compromise their fundamental values
• Unduly influence a participant to make false representations about or conceal information that is relevant to their eligibility for the research, their contribution to the research, or the risks related to participation

To minimize the likelihood of a payment acting as an undue influence, the G-ResearchPayment further indicates that payment of participants should generally be limited to reimbursement of documented expenses and remuneration for time and inconvenience. Payment may be offered as an incentive to participate in cases where the research offers little or no benefit to individuals or where the research requires the participation of target populations that are difficult to recruit. In these cases, adequate processes must be in place to promote valid consent. For more information and examples of payment models, see the G-ResearchPayment.

According to the AU-ICH-GCPs, payments to a participant should be prorated and not wholly contingent on completion of the trial by the participant.

Post-Trial Access

Per the G-NatlStmt, researchers must make clear to the participant if there are any intended therapeutic benefits from the trial, and if the treatment will be available only through participation in the trial. In addition, researchers must make it clear to the participant whether they will have access to the treatment or information they received after completion of the trial.

Insurance

As set forth in the PANDRH-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for providing insurance coverage for any unforeseen injury to research participants. Before the clinical trial begins, the sponsor should also provide insurance or indemnify the investigator and the institution against claims arising from malpractice or negligence.

In addition, according to BRA-1, in the event that National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) asks for additional information to assess insurance and indemnity coverage for injures related to the study, the sponsor must provide a Medical Assistance Letter. See BRA-79 for additional information on sponsor/contract research organization (CRO) insurance coverage requirements in Brazil.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the PANDRH-GCPs and ResNo466, the sponsor is responsible for providing compensation to research participants and/or their legal heirs in the event of trial-related injuries or death. The sponsor must also ensure that participants who suffer any trial-related injuries are provided with free medical treatment for such injuries.

Trial Participation

As specified in ResNo466 and the G-ClinResSubjectRts, compensation to participants is only provided for transportation costs and meals for the participants or legal representative/guardian during the trial.

See also BRA-29 for additional information on participant compensation rights.

Post-Trial Access

According to ResNo563, for protocols involving research participants diagnosed with ultra-rare diseases, the sponsor must ensure free access to the best prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods that have proven to be effective at the end of the study, for a period of five (5) years after obtaining ANVISA registration. In addition, per ResNo466, at the end of the study, the sponsor much ensure free and indefinite access to the best prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods that have proven to be effective. Access must also be guaranteed to participants between the time they stop their participation in the trial and the end of the study.

Furthermore, ResNo311, which amends ResNo38, states that the sponsor/CRO should guarantee access to the post-study drug supply program for research participants enrolled in a clinical study in accordance with the Resolutions of the National Health Council (Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS)). The free supply of medicines should also be made available to participants when the study is terminated early. The sponsor is required to complete the Sponsor’s Responsibility and Commitment Statement Form for Expanded Access, Compassionate Use, or Post-Study Medicine Supply Programs (see Annex VI of ResNo38). See also BRA-79 for additional information on sponsor/CRO insurance coverage.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As per the TGR and the AU-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor should implement a system to manage quality throughout all stages of the trial process, focusing on trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results.

According to the AU-ICH-GCPs, the quality management system should use a risk-based approach that includes:

• Identifying processes and data that are critical to ensure participant protection and the reliability of trial results during protocol development
• Identifying risks to critical trial processes and data
• Evaluating the identified risks against existing risk controls
• Deciding which risks to reduce and/or accept
• Documenting quality management activities and communicate to those involved in or affected by these activities
• Periodically reviewing risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented quality management activities are effective and relevant
• Describing the quality management approach implemented in the trial and summarize important deviations from the predefined quality tolerance limits and remedial actions taken in the clinical study report

The G-RBMgmtMntring provides further guidance on the application of risk-based trial processes, particularly as a reference to sponsors of non-commercial trials.

The AU-ICH-GCPs further indicates that the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol, the AU-ICH-GCPs, and the applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor is responsible for obtaining agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial-related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. The sponsor should implement a system to manage quality throughout all stages of the trial process, and QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. Any agreements between the sponsor and investigator, or with any other parties involved in the clinical trial, should be written, either within the protocol or in a separate agreement.

Responsible Research Conduct

The G-CodeConduct outlines principles, responsibilities, and expectations for institutions and researchers to facilitate responsible research practices. Australian institutions must establish and maintain good governance and management practices for responsible research conduct. In addition, researchers must comply with the relevant laws, regulations, disciplinary standards, ethics guidelines, and institutional policies related to responsible research conduct. Compliance with the G-CodeConduct is a requirement to receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) or the Australian Research Council (ARC).

The G-CodeBreaches describes the preferred model for institutions to use to investigate and manage potential code breaches, to determine any corrective actions, and when a finding of research misconduct may be made. The Australian Research Integrity Committee uses the G-CodeBreaches as a guide for reviewing how NHMRC- and ARC-funded institutions manage potential code breaches.

The G-RptBreachGCP requires the sponsor to notify the reviewing ethics committee (EC) (Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) in Australia) within seven (7) days of confirming a serious breach of good clinical practice (GCP). A serious breach is defined as one that is likely to affect to a significant degree: the safety or rights of a trial participant or the reliability and robustness of the data generated in the trial. Sponsors should also develop documented processes for managing serious breaches. The G-TrialsSOP notes that although all deviations or breaches of the protocol must be reported by the investigator to the sponsor, only serious breaches must be reported to the EC. Serious breaches should also be reported by the principal investigator (PI) to their institution, as they may have an impact on medico-legal risk, the responsible conduct of research, or adherence to contractual obligations.

The supplementary guidance G-RptBreachGCP should be read alongside the G-CodeConduct and the G-CodeBreaches.

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the AU-ICH-GCPs notes that the sponsor should ensure the trial is monitored and audited. The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, the AU-ICH-GCPs, and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor should appoint auditors to review the clinical trial. The sponsor should ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and the auditor’s qualifications should be documented. The sponsor must also ensure that the audit is conducted in accordance with its own SOPs and that the auditor’s observations are documented.

Per the G-TrialsSOP, the PI must ensure audit/inspection readiness throughout the study, have oversight of any audit or inspection of the trial at both primary and satellite sites, and ensure any deficiencies identified through audit or inspection are actively managed to ensure continuous improvement.

The TGR further states that the sponsor must provide a written assurance to comply with any trial-related requests by an authorized Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) officer(s), which includes allowing inspection of clinical trial sites. The PI is required to comply with requests and answer any questions the authorized officer(s) may have.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

As per the G-CTHandbook, procedures following the TGA’s revocation of approval under the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme or a breach of the conditions of the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme would be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the impact on participants and their ongoing safety. The AU-ICH-GCPs states that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should promptly inform the investigator(s), institution(s), the EC, and the TGA. The sponsor should provide the reason(s) for the termination or suspension. Additionally, as indicated in the G-CTHandbook, the sponsor must notify all sites in the case of a multicenter trial. A lead EC in a multicenter study will need to liaise with the sites and sponsor when determining which, if any, are affected and the actions they need to apply.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended for any reason, the investigator must:

• Promptly inform the sponsor, EC, research governance officer, associate investigator, any satellite site, and the TGA by providing a detailed written explanation of the premature termination or suspension
• Promptly inform the trial participant and the participant’s primary care physician where the trial participant has consented, of the termination or suspension and, if applicable, of the investigational product (IP) and dose that was administered
• Assure appropriate therapy and follow up for the participant’s continued care

As per the G-NatlStmt, if an institution or EC considers that suspension of research is necessary, the instruction to stop should come from the management of the institution. Where ethics approval for a research project is suspended:

• The institution must ensure that the researcher promptly suspends the research and makes arrangements to meet the needs of participants, such as ensuring that appropriate counselling support or the provision of standard care continues

• The research may not be resumed unless: (i) the research is modified to provide sufficient protection or participants or address the concerns that led to the suspension; or (ii) the researcher establishes to the satisfaction of the EC that continuation of the research will not compromise participants’ welfare; and (iii) the institution authorizes the continuation of the research

The G-NatlStmt further indicates that if ethics approval for a research project is withdrawn, the researcher must promptly halt the research, make arrangements to meet the needs of participants, and notify the institution that these steps have been taken.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in ResNo9, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) must ensure that quality assurance and quality control be implemented in all areas of the institution’s development of the investigational drug in accordance with the PANDRH-GCPs and the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28). The PANDRH-GCPs and BRA-28 specify that the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol, good clinical practices (GCP), and other applicable requirements.

Per the PANDRH-GCPs and BRA-28, the sponsor is responsible for obtaining agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed.

Additionally, the PANDRH-GCPs and BRA-28 state that the sponsor must also obtain the investigator(s) and the institution(s) agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with GCP, applicable regulatory requirement(s), and the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and approved by the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP))
• Comply with data recording and reporting procedures
• Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• Retain essential documents until the sponsor indicates they are no longer needed

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the PANDRH-GCPs, and BRA-28, note that the sponsor or the CRO should ensure the trial is adequately monitored. The PANDRH-GCPs and BRA-28, also explain that if or when the sponsor performs audits as part of implementing QA, the following should be considered:

· The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, GCP, and other applicable regulatory requirements.

· The sponsor should appoint auditors to review the clinical trial who are independent of the clinical trial/data collection system(s).

· The sponsor should ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and the auditor’s qualifications should be documented. The sponsor must also verify that the audit is conducted in accordance with their own SOPs, the auditor observations are documented, and data is available as needed for the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA))’s review.

No specific timeframe is provided for the audit process. Refer to the PANDRH-GCPs and BRA-28 for detailed audit requirements.

In addition, per ResNo449, which amends ResNo9, ANVISA is allowed to use remote GCP inspection mechanisms for temporary and emergency use in lieu of in-person inspections. Remote inspections are carried out by means of videoconferencing and data transmission technologies for GCP verification. Remote inspections replace the need for in-person inspectors in the establishment. Establishments under inspection may be inspected remotely at any time by ANVISA.

RegNo122 provides further guidance on ANVISA inspection procedures to ensure drug clinical trials are conducted in compliance with the GCPs delineated in ResNo9, the PANDRH-GCPs, and the BRA-28. Per BRA-30, ANVISA’s administrative unit, the Coordination of Clinical Research on Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC)), requires all clinical trial inspections to be conducted in accordance with BRA-28.

In the event of a routine inspection, RegNo122 states that ANVISA will notify the institution at least 15 calendar days in advance of the visit. Both the sponsor and/or the CRO are responsible for preparing for the inspection. ANVISA shall also notify the principal investigator (PI) of the scheduled visit to the center to be inspected, when applicable, by means of a GCP Inspection Notification Letter. For more detailed information on ANVISA’s inspection process, refer to RegNo122.

ANVISA has also published GuideNo35-2020 and GuideNo36-2020 to provide guidance on the procedures for conducting GCP inspections in clinical trial centers, and provide guidance for sponsors and CROs respectively for clinical trials involving medicines and biological products. Both guides describe ANVISA’s compliance with the GCP inspection requirements set forth in RegNo122 with the goal of guiding those involved in the inspection procedures to ensure a unified standard and the safety of all involved parties.

GuideNo35-2020 and GuideNo36-2020 explain that GCP inspections of sponsors and CRO representatives and in clinical trial centers may be carried out before, during, or after a clinical trial has been conducted and will be classified as either a routine inspection or complaint/suspected irregularity, per RegNo122. In addition, per GuideNo35-2020 and GuideNo36-2020, the inspections will involve at least two (2) ANVISA inspectors, one (1) of whom will be the lead inspector and the focal point for communication with either the clinical trial center or the sponsor/CRO(s). The inspections for both entities will take place over a maximum period of five (5) working days unless the period is altered with due justification. See GuideNo35-2020 and GuideNo36-2020 for additional details.

See ResNo620 for information on the Certification of Good Practices for conducting bioavailability/bioequivalence drug studies and requirements for which bioavailability/bioequivalence drug studies must be carried out in certified research centers.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

As set forth in ResNo9, the sponsor may cancel or suspend a clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) or a clinical trial, at any time, provided that the appropriate technical-scientific justifications are submitted to ANVISA along with a plan to monitor the research participants in clinical trial(s) that have already begun. Per ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual, DDCM or clinical trial suspensions and cancellations must be submitted to ANVISA in the form of a secondary petition attached to the previously submitted DDCM or Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)). Refer to the Submission Content section for instructions on submitting a secondary petition to suspend or cancel a DDCM or clinical trial.

ResNo9 and the G-DDCMAmdmts state that the sponsor must notify ANVISA within a maximum period of 15 consecutive days following a decision to suspend or cancel a clinical trial or DDCM. In cases of the temporary suspension of a clinical trial or DDCM as an immediate safety measure, the sponsor must notify ANVISA within seven (7) consecutive days from the suspension date. Per ResNo9, the reasons for suspension, the scope, the interruption of treatment, and the suspension of participant recruitment must be clearly explained in the notification of temporary suspension. As per the G-DDCMAmdmts, in the case of a temporary suspension of a DDCM or a clinical trial protocol, the suspension can be reversed with the submission of a secondary petition to ANVISA. ResNo9 specifies that these requests must be accompanied by due justification so that the trial(s) can be restarted. The clinical trial(s) or DDCM may be reactivated only after approval is obtained by ANVISA. The timeline for ANVISA’s review of these cases is not delineated in ResNo9 or in the G-DDCMAmdmts.

Regarding DDCM cancellations, the G-DDCMAmdmts emphasizes that cancellations, under the terms of ResNo9, are definitive, with no possibility of further reactivation, and that once a DDCM is cancelled, no clinical trial related to it can be continued in the country. In the specific case of a voluntary request to cancel a DDCM, the sponsor must follow the requirements detailed in the AESafetyManual when submitting the follow-up plan and the risk minimization/mitigation measures to protect the participants of clinical trials already underway. A DDCM cancellation can occur even if it has not yet been evaluated. Similarly, clinical trial cancellations are also definitive under ResNo9, with no possibility of further reactivation. The cancellation only applies to clinical trial protocols that have already been initiated by the sponsor. If the protocol is provided for in the DDCM, but has not yet been started, the protocol must be deleted.

In addition, ResNo9 states that ANVISA may, at any time, cancel or suspend a DDCM or any related clinical trial if it believes that the approval conditions have not been met or if there are safety or efficacy reports that significantly affect either the trial participants or scientific validity. In this case, ANVISA will inform the sponsor of the reasons for this cancellation or suspension. Per ResNo9, the sponsor must immediately inform those involved in a clinical trial when it is prematurely cancelled or suspended for any reason. The PANDRH-GCPs and BRA-28 also explain that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should promptly inform the investigators/institutions, and the regulatory authority(ies) of the termination or suspension and the reason(s) for the termination or suspension. The EC should also be informed promptly and provided the reason(s) for the termination or suspension by the sponsor or by the investigator/institution, as specified by the applicable regulatory requirement(s). Additionally, per the PANDRH-GCPs and BRA-28, if the investigator terminates or suspends a trial without the sponsor’s prior agreement, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should promptly inform the sponsor and the EC, and should provide the sponsor and the EC a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension.

Electronic Data Processing System

When using electronic trial data handling systems, the sponsor must ensure and document that the electronic data processing system conforms to its established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistent intended performance, and that standard operating procedures (SOPs) are maintained for using these systems. Refer to the AU-ICH-GCPs for additional information.

Records Management

According to the G-CodeConduct and the G-DataInfoMgt, institutions must provide access to facilities for the safe and secure storage and management of research data, records, and primary materials.

The G-DataInfoMgt requires that institutional policy include guidance for managing research data and primary materials that addresses the following:

• Ownership, stewardship, and control
• Storage, retention, and disposal
• Safety, security, and confidentiality
• Access by interested parties

Furthermore, institutional policies on ownership of, and access to, databases and archives must require that:

• Researchers are informed of relevant confidentiality agreements and restrictions on the use of research data
• Computing systems are secure
• Information technology personnel understand their responsibilities for network security and access control
• Those holding primary material, including electronic material, understand their responsibilities for security and access

The G-CodeConduct and the G-DataInfoMgt further state that researchers must retain clear, accurate, secure, and complete records of all research including research data and primary materials. Additionally, the G-NatlStmt indicates that when multiple researchers are collaborating on the collection, storage, and/or analysis of data or information, they should agree to the arrangements for custodianship, storage, retention, and destruction of those materials, as well as the rights of access, rights to analyze/use and re-use the data or information, and the right to produce research outputs based upon them.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the investigator must maintain adequate source documents and trial records, including all key observations on each of the trial participants. The investigator must also store all trial related documents in a study master file (SMF) and take measures to prevent accidental or premature destruction of these documents. In the case of a teletrial, the SMF is stored at the primary site, and the principal investigator (PI) must have control of all essential documents and records generated by the investigator(s), institution, and satellite site(s) before, during, and after the trial. The PI must also establish the maintenance rules of the SMF and relationship between the primary site’s SMF and any satellite site study files. For more information on the SMF, see the G-TrialsSOP.

As set forth in the annotated AU-ICH-GCPs, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) requires that the sponsor retain records for 15 years following the completion of a clinical trial. However, product liability is the overriding consideration, and the sponsor should be able to produce records at any time, including possibly beyond the life of a product, in the event of an adverse event claim. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

Data Management Plan

According to the G-NatlStmt and the G-DataInfoMgt, researchers should create a data management plan, which should be developed as early as possible in the research process and should include details regarding:

• Physical, network, system security, and any other technological security measures
• Policies and procedures
• Contractual and licensing arrangements and confidentiality agreements
• Training for members of the project team and others, as appropriate
• The form in which the data or information will be stored
• The purposes for which the data or information will be used and/or disclosed
• The conditions under which access to the data or information may be granted to others
• What information from the data management plan, if any, needs to be communicated to potential participants

The G-NatlStmt states that in the data management plan, researchers should also clarify whether they will seek extended or unspecified consent for future research, or permission from a review body to waive the requirement for consent. In addition, the security arrangements specified in the plan should be proportional to the risks of the research project and the sensitivity of the information.

In accordance with the G-NatlStmt, researchers must comply with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements that pertain to the data or information collected, used, or disclosed as well as the conditions of the consent provided by participants. Data, information, and biospecimens used in research should be disposed of in a manner that is safe and secure, consistent with the consent obtained and any legal requirements, and appropriate to the research design.

The G-NatlStmt indicates that in the absence of justifiable ethical reasons and to promote access to the benefits of research, researchers should collect and store data, or information generated by research projects, in such a way that they can be used in future research projects. A justification must be provided when a researcher believes there are valid reasons for not making data or information accessible. More details are provided in the G-NatlStmt.

In addition, for details related to secondary use and sharing of data or information, see the G-NatlStmt.

Electronic Data Processing System

Per the PANDRH-GCPs, when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) must ensure that the system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance, and that standard operating procedures (SOPs) are maintained when using these systems. Refer to the PANDRH-GCPs for detailed information on electronic trial data systems.

Records Management

As set forth in ResNo9, the sponsor or the CRO should maintain the clinical trial data on file in physical or digital format for a period of five (5) years after the last approval of a request for registration in Brazil. ResNo9 and the PANDRH-GCPs also state that the sponsor should retain clinical trial data in physical or digital format for at least two (2) years in case of the following instances: the investigational product’s clinical development is discontinued, completion of the registration application is not achieved, a marketing application receives the last approval, or there are no pending or contemplated marketing applications. Per the PANDRH-GCPs, the sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

Responsible Parties

Per AUS-70, the PrivacyAct regulates how certain health service providing organizations collect and handle personal information, including health information. It also includes provisions that generally allow an individual to access information held about them.

According to the PrivacyAct, agencies and organizations as defined in the PrivacyAct must comply with the Act and the Australian Privacy Principles (APP), found in Schedule 1, and are referred to as APP entities.

Data Protection

Per the PrivacyAct’s APP, an APP entity must have a clearly expressed and up-to-date policy about the management of personal information by the entity. Individuals must have the option of not identifying themselves or of using a pseudonym, and an APP entity must not collect sensitive information about an individual unless the individual consents to the collection of the information.

The APP outline further requirements for the consideration of personal information privacy; the collection of personal information; dealing with personal information; the integrity of personal information; and access to, and correction of, personal information. For the full list of APP, see Schedule 1 of the PrivacyAct.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

The PrivacyAct’s APP indicate that if an APP entity holds personal information about an individual that was collected for a particular purpose, the entity must not use or disclose the information for another purpose unless consent is obtained from the individual. There are limited exceptions to this requirement, which can be found in Schedule 1 of the PrivacyAct.

AUS-70 notes that in certain circumstances, the PrivacyAct permits the handling of health information and personal information for health and medical research purposes, where it is impracticable for researchers to obtain individuals' consent, recognizing: the need to protect health information from unexpected uses beyond individual healthcare, and the important role of health and medical research in advancing public health. To promote these ends, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) approved the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)’s legally binding guidelines, G-PrivacyAct95 and G-PrivacyAct95A, which researchers must follow when handling health information for research purposes without individuals' consent. The guidelines also assist ethics committees (ECs) (known as the Human Research Ethics Committees in Australia) in deciding whether to approve research applications. The guidelines are:

• G-PrivacyAct95, which sets out procedures that ECs and researchers must follow when personal information is disclosed from a federal agency for medical research purposes
• G-PrivacyAct95A, which provides a framework for ECs to assess proposals to handle health information held by organizations for health research (without individuals' consent). It ensures that the public interest in the research activities substantially outweighs the public interest in the protection of privacy

See the PrivacyAct, the G-PrivacyAct95, and the G-PrivacyAct95A for more information.

Responsible Parties

For the purposes of data protection requirements, the LGPD delineates that the sponsor acts as the “controller” who is responsible for decisions regarding the processing of personal or sensitive personal research data. Within this context, the controller (sponsor) may carry out studies as a research body, guaranteeing, whenever possible, the anonymization of personal data.

Per CD-ANPD-No18, which regulates the performance of the person responsible for processing data, the person in charge is appointed by the controller and operator to act as a communication channel between the controller, data subjects, and the National Data Protection Authority (Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANPD)). The person in charge may be a natural person, member of the organizational structure of the processing agent or external to it, or a legal entity, and must be able to communicate with the holders and with the ANPD, clearly and precisely and in Portuguese. Additionally, the exercise of activity of the person in charge does not presuppose registration with any entity or any specific certification or professional training. See CD-ANPD-No18 for details on the activities and duties of the person in charge and how conflicts of interest are handled. See also BRA-116 for additional information.

Data Protection

As set forth in C-AmndtNo115, the protection of personal data is a guaranteed fundamental right in Brazil. The LGPD further delineates data protection principles (e.g., purpose, adequacy, necessity, free access, data quality, transparency, security, prevention, non-discrimination, and accountability) with which the controller must comply.

Per the LGPD, the data quality principle is fulfilled when the controller can guarantee to the data subjects that their personal data is processed with accuracy, clarity, and relevance, and is updated as required to meet the compliance requirements for the stated purpose. The controller must keep a record of the personal data processing operations carried out, especially when the processing operation is for an official purpose. The controller must also provide instructions to the operator, the person responsible for processing the personal data on the controller’s behalf, to check compliance with the specified instructions and rules. Additionally, the controller is required to protect the confidentiality of the personal data holder and their background. The holder is defined as the person whose personal data are being processed.

The LGPD also provides a definition for sensitive personal data or information that encompasses health related considerations. Sensitive personal data refers to personal data about racial or ethnic origin; religious belief; political opinion; union membership or organization of a religious, philosophical, or political nature; data relating to health or sexual life; and genetic or biometric data, when linked to a natural person.

Pursuant to the LGPD, the controller may implement a privacy governance program that, at a minimum:

• Demonstrates the controller’s commitment to adopt internal processes and policies that ensure comprehensive compliance with the rules and good practices regarding the protection of personal data
• Is applicable to the entire set of personal data that are under its control, regardless of the way it was collected
• Be adapted to the structure, scale, and volume of its operations, as well as to the sensitivity of the processed data
• Establish adequate policies and safeguards based on a systematic assessment of impacts and risks to privacy
• Has the objective of establishing a relationship of trust with the holder through transparent action and that ensures participation mechanisms exist for the holder
• Is integrated into its general governance structure and establishes and applies internal and external supervisory mechanisms
• Counts on incident response and remediation plans
• Is constantly updated based on information obtained from continuous monitoring and periodic evaluations

See the LGPD and BRA-76 for detailed information on data protection requirements in Brazil.

As per OrdNo1.184, the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) has established a personal data protection policy to comply with the provisions in Article 23 of the LGPD, which define personal data processing requirements for legal entities governed by public law. OrdNo1.184 specifically delineates internal guidelines for ANVISA for the protection of personal data, and for compliance with legislation, standards, guidelines, and other acts related to privacy, personal data protection, transparency, access to public information, and the protection of freedoms and fundamental rights of individuals. The guidelines are applicable to employees, collaborators, outsourced workers, interns, suppliers, service providers, and everyone who carries out activities that involve, directly or indirectly, the processing of personal data held by ANVISA. See OrdNo1.184 for details, and BRA-77 for additional background information.

Additionally, per ResNo738, which aims to standardize the use of databases for the purpose of scientific research involving human beings, database information is protected to preserve the dignity and fundamental rights of research participants, especially as it relates to their informational self-determination, freedom, privacy, honor, and image. Researchers, sponsors, and institutions involved in the creation and use of databases must act with integrity and responsibility when processing data, and are responsible for:

• Respecting the rights of participants
• Guaranteeing the confidentiality of information
• Preserving the freedom, privacy, intimacy, honor and image of participants, especially when there is identifying or sensitive data
• Applying information security measures
• Keeping the database in a safe place, where access is restricted, controlled, and traceable
• Adopting measures to reduce the risk of damage, tampering, or loss of data
• Respecting the principles of research integrity

ResNo738 further explains that research protocols, which involve the creation of a database or the use of existing databases, must be processed in accordance with the type of research and the modulation factors established in ResNo674. The research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP))/National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)), jointly known as the CEP/CONEP System, is responsible for this review process. (See Scope of Review section for detailed information on research classification and protocol review pathways.) Personal data processing may be carried out to execute studies by a research body that guarantees, whenever possible the anonymization and security of personal data. Unless the participant or legal representative/guardian provides a signed consent that is approved by the CEP/CONEP system, personal identifying data must also be removed when the data is deposited, partially or completely, in national or international banks, with public or restricted access. Refer to ResNo738 for additional details on the management and use of database information for research purposes.

In the event of a security incident, per CD-ANPD-No15, the controller must communicate to the ANPD and the data holder the occurrence of a security incident that could cause significant risk or damage to the holders in compliance with Article 48 of the LGPD. CD-ANPD-No15, which defines a security incident as any confirmed adverse event, related to the violation of the confidentiality, integrity, availability and authenticity properties of personal data security, involves at least one (1) of the following criteria:

• Sensitive personal data
• Data on children, adolescents, or elderly people
• Financial data
• Authentication data in systems
• Data protected by legal, judicial, or professional secrecy
• Large-scale data

Per CD-ANPD-No15, the controller must communicate the incident to the ANPD and to the personal data holder within three (3) working days from the date of first awareness. The controller must also keep a record of the security incident for a minimum of five (5) years, counting from the date of registration, unless additional obligations are established that require a longer period of record maintenance. See CD-ANPD-No15 for detailed reporting requirements. See also BRA-61 and BRA-62 for additional background information.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per LGPD, the processing of personal data can only be carried out in the following cases:

• By providing consent by the holder
• For the fulfillment of a legal or regulatory obligation by the controller
• By the public administration, for the treatment and shared use of data necessary for the implementation of public policies provided for in laws and regulations or supported by contracts, agreements, or similar instruments per Chapter IV (LGPD)
• To carry out studies by a research body, guaranteeing, whenever possible, the anonymization of personal data
• When necessary for the execution of a contract or preliminary procedures related to a contract to which the holder is a party, at the request of the data subject
• For the regular exercise of rights in judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceedings

The LGPD further specifies that the processing of sensitive personal data may only be carried out when the holder or the holder’s legal guardian consents, in a specific and obvious way, for the purpose of processing sensitive personal data. The consent must be provided in writing or by another means that demonstrates the holder’s intention. If the consent is provided in writing, it must be included in a separate clause of the other contractual clauses. The sponsor bears the burden of proving that the consent was obtained in accordance with the provisions of this law. The processing of personal data is prohibited by the absence of consent. The consent must refer to specific purposes; generic authorizations for the processing of personal data will be voided. The consent can be revoked at any time by express statement of the holder, by a free and facilitated procedure. If the information is changed, the sponsor must inform the holder and specifically highlight the content of the amendments. In cases where the holder’s consent is required, the holder can revoke consent if opposed to the changes.

Further, per the LGPD, the processing of sensitive personal data may occur without the holder’s consent in those cases where it is indispensable for:

• Compliance with legal or regulatory obligations by the controller
• Shared processing of data necessary for the execution, by the public administration, of public policies provided for in laws or regulations
• Carrying out studies by a research body, guaranteeing, whenever possible, the anonymization of sensitive personal data
• Regular exercise of rights, including in contract and in judicial, administrative, and arbitration proceedings
• Protection of the life or physical safety of the holder or third party
• Guardianship of health, exclusively, in a procedure performed by health professionals, health services, or health authority
• Guarantee of fraud prevention and security of the holder, in the processes of identification and registration authentication in electronic systems, safeguarding the rights mentioned in Article 9 of this law, and, except in the event that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the holder prevail that require the protection of personal data

Data holders also have the right to be informed about the collection and use of their personal data. The data holder is entitled to obtain from the sponsor access to their treated data at any time and upon request. Treatment is defined as any operation performed with personal data. See Chapter III of the LGPD for additional information on the rights of data holders.

See CLNo1-2021 for CONEP guidelines for investigators and CEPs related to contact with research participants (e.g., obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality) and/or data collection at any phase of a research study in a virtual environment. See also CLNo039 for CONEP guidance on accessing and using a participant’s medical records for research purposes while ensuring compliance with privacy and confidentiality standards. The guideline also states that all participants should be treated with dignity, respect for their autonomy, and ensure protection for vulnerable populations. See also BRA-29 for additional resources on participant rights to data privacy. Refer to the G-PDP-Acad for recommendations and good practices to support the processing of personal data for academic purposes and for performing studies and research in compliance with the LGPD.

In addition, as indicated in ResNo738, participants in research databases are the owners of their data and must be guaranteed fundamental rights to access their stored information at any time. Participants may request corrections or updates to their database information that they believe to have been entered incorrectly. They may request the partial or total removal of their information, with the cancellation valid from the date they first communicated their concern. Participants also have the right to request compensation if there is damage resulting from the misuse or breach of security or confidentiality of their stored data.

ResNo738 further explains in research that proposes the creation of a database, the informed consent form (ICF) (also known as the Free and Informed Consent Form (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido (TCLE)) in Brazil) must contain the following:

• Research justification and objectives, risks and benefits of data storage including information about the future use of data, when applicable
• Description of the procedures adopted to guarantee the secrecy and confidentiality of information, ensuring the preservation of the intimacy, honor, and image of the participants
• Description of strategies for controlling access to data and information
• Information about the future use of data and information for research, in a specific and highlighted way, when there is this intention, presenting alternatives that indicate the need or not for new consent
• Justification for sharing bank data and information, in a specific and prominent way, when there is this intention, presenting alternatives that indicate the participant's authorization or not
• Information on the irreversible anonymization of data, when any, with explanations of the consequences of such a procedure
• Information about the right to request correction, partial withdrawal, or complete removal of the participant’s data and information

Consent for Processing Personal Data of Children/Adolescents

Per the LGPD, the processing of personal data of children and adolescents must be carried out in their best interest with specific and highlighted consent given by at least one (1) of the parents or the legal guardian. However, the sponsors are permitted to collect personal data from children without the consent of a parent or legal guardian when collection is necessary to contact the parent or legal guardian, used only once and without storage, or for their protection, and in no case may be passed on to a third party without the consent of at least one (1) parent or the legal guardian.

The sponsor must make all reasonable efforts to verify that the consent was given by the individual responsible for the child, considering the available technologies. Additionally, information on the processing of the personal data of children and adolescents must be provided in a simple, clear, and accessible manner, considering the physical-motor, perceptual, sensory, intellectual, and mental characteristics of the user, using audiovisual resources when appropriate, in order to provide the necessary information to the parents or legal guardian, and that is appropriate to the child’s level of understanding.

To facilitate the processing of personal data of children and adolescents, the ANPD-No1 states that processing may be based on the legal hypotheses delineated in Article 7 (personal data) or in Article 11 (sensitive personal data) of the LGPD, provided that the best interest of the children and adolescents prevails, as evaluated in the specific case.

Obtaining Consent

In all Australian clinical trials, valid consent is required from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-NatlStmt. According to the AU-ICH-GCPs, if requirements specified in the G-NatlStmt appear to differ from those specified in the AU-ICH-GCPs, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) recommends compliance with the G-NatlStmt.

As per the AU-ICH-GCPs, the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) and kept on file before the trial commences. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the principal investigator (PI) for any research project retains overall responsibility for ensuring a participant’s consent has been obtained in the correct manner prior to the participant’s entry into the project. This includes where consent is obtained from participants at satellite sites in a teletrial. The PI can delegate the duty for obtaining consent to a suitably qualified associate investigator at the PI’s discretion, but the PI remains responsible for any delegated activity. Furthermore, the investigator must ensure that institutional authorization is obtained, inclusive of approval by an appropriate EC, for all written information and any other media used to provide information to potential participants prior to their usage to obtain consent from any participant.

The AU-ICH-GCPs states that the investigator must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The ICF content should be as non-technical as practical and understandable to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The G-TrialsSOP further indicates that the ICF and relevant EC-approved participant information documents can be provided in person, by telehealth, or by telephone and email or weblink. If informed consent is obtained by telephone, this must be recorded on the ICF and in the participant’s health and medical record, and/or source document, stating (as an example): “The protocol was discussed with [participant’s name] via telephone on [DD/MM/YYYY].”

According to the G-TrialsSOP, e-consent may be the preferable option for teletrials, as consent signatures can be obtained contemporaneously at both primary and satellite sites. For more information on obtaining consent using telehealth, see the G-TrialsSOP.

As per the AU-ICH-GCPs, the ICF content should be clearly presented orally, or in a written language that is easy to understand, and commensurate with the age and comprehension level of the research participant. The participant and legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. According to the G-NatlStmt, information should also be presented to potential participants in ways that help them make informed choices. To this end, the researcher should take into account cultural and language barriers, the need for accurate and reliable translation, the participant’s educational background, the participant’s age and maturity level, and whether there is a visual, hearing, or communication impairment. See AUS-65 for researcher guidance on how to talk to potential participants.

Furthermore, as delineated in the G-TrialsSOP, the PI or delegate must assess the potential participant’s understanding of what they are agreeing to, that they are aware of the purpose of the study, what will be involved, and any risks that may exist. The participants must demonstrate that they fully understand the implications of decisions that may be made within the course of the research.

Per the G-NatlStmt, where a potential participant lacks the capacity to consent, a person or appropriate statutory body exercising lawful authority for the potential participant should be provided with relevant information and decide whether the individual will participate. That decision must not be contrary to the individual’s best interests. Researchers should bear in mind that the capacity to consent may fluctuate, and even without that capacity, people may have some understanding of the research and the benefits and burdens of their participation. Additionally, within some communities, decisions about participation in research may involve not only individuals but also properly interested parties such as formally constituted bodies, institutions, families, or community elders. See the Emergencies, Vulnerable Populations, Children/Minors, Prisoners, and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations.

As per the AU-ICH-GCPs, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive their legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or their representative(s) from liability for negligence. Per the G-NatlStmt, no person should be subject to coercion or pressure in deciding whether to participate in a trial.

The G-NatlStmt indicates that consent may be:

• Specific – limited to the specific project under consideration
• Extended – given for the use of data or tissue in future research projects that are: (i) an extension of, or closely related to, the original project; or (ii) in the same general area of research (for example, genealogical, ethnographical, epidemiological, or chronic illness research)
• Unspecified – given for the use of data or tissue in any future research

The G-NatlStmt further states that when unspecified consent is sought, its terms and wide-ranging implications should be clearly explained to potential participants. When such consent is given, its terms should be clearly recorded. Subsequent reliance, in a research proposal, on existing unspecified consent should describe the terms of that unspecified consent. See the G-NatlStmt for more information on consent to future use of data and tissue in research. Additionally, see the Consent for Specimen section for more information on consent related to use of tissue in research.

Re-Consent

According to the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-TrialsSOP, any change in the ICF that is relevant to the participant’s consent should be approved by the EC prior to implementing any changes. The participant or legal representative/guardian should also be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participation in the trial. The communication of this information should be documented. The G-TrialsSOP further specifies that unless there is a significant safety concern, ECs will not usually require that participants be recontacted immediately since there are potential implications related to blinding. If approved by the EC, continued consent may be obtained verbally and recorded in the participant’s medical records and relevant documents. Re-consent may also be obtained by telephone if approved by an EC.

The G-NatlStmt notes that in some research, consent may occasionally need to be renegotiated or confirmed, especially where projects are complex or long-running, or participants are vulnerable. Research participants should be told if there are changes to the terms to which they originally agreed and given the opportunity to continue their participation or withdraw.

Language Requirements

Pursuant to the G-NatlStmt, methods for presenting research information to participants should take into account the need for accurate and reliable translation into the participant’s first language or dialect, as well as culture and its effects on the communication process. According to the G-TrialsSOP, in cases where translation is required, a professional interpreter should facilitate the process.

Documenting Consent

The AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-TrialsSOP state that the participant or legal representative(s)/guardian(s) and the investigator(s) must sign and date the ICF. Where the participant is unable to read or the legal representative/guardian is unable to read, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. After the following steps have occurred, the witness should sign and date the ICF attesting that the information in the ICF was accurately explained to, and apparently understood by the participant or legal representative/guardian:

• The written ICF and any other written information to be provided to the participant is read and explained to the participant or legal representative/guardian
• The participant or legal representative/guardian has orally consented to the participant’s involvement in the trial, and has signed and dated the ICF, if capable of doing so

Before participating in the study, the participant or legal representative/guardian should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF.

The G-TrialsSOP further indicates that where consent is obtained by telehealth or telephone, once the ICF is signed and dated by both the participant and the investigator (and any other person present, for example an interpreter), the participant must select the statement identifying that consent was obtained by telehealth or telephone with the name of the investigator. Similarly, the investigator must select the statement identifying that consent was obtained by telehealth or telephone with the name of the participant. For more information on informed consent documentation, see the G-TrialsSOP.

According to the G-NatlStmt, consent may be expressed orally, in writing, or by some other means (such as return of a survey or conduct implying consent), depending on the nature, complexity, and level of risk of the research, and the participant’s personal and cultural circumstances.

Waiver of Consent

The G-NatlStmt specifies that although voluntary consent is a requirement for every trial, the EC may approve an alteration to the consent requirements. Limited disclosure to participants of the aims and/or methods of research may be justifiable. However, only an EC can review and approve research that involves active concealment or planned deception or aims to expose illegal activity.

Per the G-NatlStmt, it may be appropriate to use an opt-out approach for participant recruitment when obtaining explicit consent is neither practical nor feasible. An opt-out approach is a method used in the recruitment of research participants where information is provided to the potential participant regarding the research and their involvement, and where their participation is presumed unless they take action to decline to participate. An EC may approve the use of an opt-out approach for research if the study satisfies all of the following conditions:

• It involves only low risk to participants
• The public interest in the proposed activity substantially outweighs the public interest in the protection of privacy
• The research activity is likely to be compromised if the participation rate is not near complete, and the requirement for explicit consent would compromise the necessary level of participation
• Reasonable attempts are made to provide participants with appropriate plain language information explaining the nature of the information to be collected, the purpose of collecting it, and procedure to decline participation or withdraw from the research
• A reasonable time period is allowed between the provision of information to prospective participants and the use of their data so that an opportunity for them to decline to participate is provided before the research begins
• A mechanism is provided for prospective participants to obtain further information and decline to participate
• The data collected will be managed and maintained in accordance with relevant security standards
• There is a governance process in place that delineates specific responsibility for the project and for the appropriate management of the data
• The opt-out approach is not prohibited by state, federal, or international law

According to the G-NatlStmt, only an EC may grant a waiver of consent for research using personal information in medical research, or personal health information. However, other review bodies may grant a waiver of consent for other research. In order to help maintain public confidence in the research process, each institution must make publicly accessible summary descriptions of all its research projects for which consent has been waived.

As stated in the G-NatlStmt, an EC may waive the requirement for consent if the study satisfies all of the following conditions:

• Involvement in the research carries no more than low risk to participants
• The benefits from the research justify any risks of harm associated with not seeking consent
• It is impracticable to obtain consent (for example, due to the quantity, age, or accessibility of records)
• There is no known or likely reason for thinking that participants would not have consented if they had been asked
• There is sufficient protection of their privacy
• There is an adequate plan to protect the confidentiality of data
• There is, where practicable, a plan for making information arising from the research available to participants in cases where the results have significance for their welfare
• The possibility of commercial exploitation of derivatives of the data or tissue will not deprive the participants of any financial benefits to which they would be entitled
• The waiver is not prohibited by state, federal, or international law

See the G-NatlStmt for more information on conditions for the opt-out approach or waiving consent.

Obtaining Consent

In all Brazilian clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo466, and the G-ClinResSubjectRts. Per OMREC and G-ClinResSubjectRts, the informed consent form (ICF) is also known as the Free and Informed Consent Form (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido (TCLE)) in Brazil.

As per the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo466, the G-ClinResSubjectRts, and OMREC, the ICF is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) and provided to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) with the clinical trial application (Drug Clinical Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))). CLNo51 further clarifies that the ICF should be written as an invitation rather than as a statement as this may reduce the participant’s autonomy. Refer to CLNo51 for detailed information. See the Required Elements section for details on contents to be included in the form.

The PANDRH-GCPs, the G-ClinResSubjectRts, and OMREC state that the investigator, or their designated representative, must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. As delineated in ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, the G-ClinResSubjectRts, OMREC, and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, the ICF content should be presented in a clearly organized format using practical and non-technical language commensurate with the participant’s level of understanding. Per the PANDRH-GCPs and the G-ClinResSubjectRts, neither the investigator nor the research staff should coerce or improperly influence a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The PANDRH-GCPs further explains that none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive their legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or their representatives from their liabilities for any negligence. ResNo466 and the G-ClinResSubjectRts further note that the investigator must bear in mind that the prospective participant’s ability to understand the information required to give consent depends on their maturity, ethics, intelligence, education, and cultural beliefs. Per the PANDRH-GCPs, the G-ClinResSubjectRts, and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, the information should be in both written and oral form, and the participant and the legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. See also BRA-29 for additional information on informed consent.

Re-Consent

According to the PANDRH-GCPs and CLNo17, any change in the ICF due to a protocol modification or an alteration in treatment modality, procedures, or site visits, should be approved by the EC (CEP) and submitted to ANVISA before such changes are implemented. Per the PANDRH-GCPs, the G-ClinResSubjectRts, and CLNo51, the investigator must ensure that the participant or legal representative/guardian sign the revised ICF and any other updated information. CLNo17 further notes that changes made to the ICF through separate documents are not considered acceptable. The update requires the investigator to generate a single and complete version of the new document, free of addenda and/or other documents associated with it. The investigator or their delegated representative should also emphasize the changes contained in the updated ICF. The clarifications delineated in CLNo17 also apply to assent forms.

Language Requirements

As earlier stated, the PANDRH-GCPs and the G-ClinResSubjectRts require the ICF to be presented orally and in writing at a level that the participant is able to understand. Per the PANDRH-GCPs, the investigator should provide the ICF in the participant’s own language when they do not speak the language currently spoken in the country. The G-ClinProtocols-FAQs further notes that the ICF must be adequately adapted and be fully revised in Portuguese to ensure that the document is properly translated.

Documenting Consent

The PANDRH-GCPs, the G-ClinResSubjectRts, and OMREC state that the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the investigator(s) must sign and date the ICF. In addition, the PANDRH-GCPs explains that if the participant or legal representative/guardian is illiterate, an impartial witness should be present throughout the consent process. At this time, the participant or legal representative/guardian will give verbal, and, if possible, written consent, and the witness should sign and date the form, certifying that the written information was explained accurately and understood.

Before participating in the study, per the PANDRH-GCPs, OMREC, and the G-ClinResSubjectRts, the participant should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF, and any other written information provided during the informed consent process. ResNo466 and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs specify that two (2) original copies of the ICF should be prepared with all pages initialed and signed by the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the investigator(s) or person(s) overseeing the consent process.

Waiver of Consent

No information is available on consent waivers for research participants. See the Consent for Specimen section information on waivers pertaining a participant’s stored genetic materials.

Based on the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-NatlStmt, both the informed consent discussion and the written informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• That the trial involves research
• The purpose of the trial
• The trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
• The trial procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
• The participant's responsibilities
• Those aspects of the trial that are experimental
• The reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant and, when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
• The reasonably expected benefits, including to the wider community. When there is no intended clinical benefit to the participant, the participant should be made aware of this
• The alternative procedure(s) or course(s) of treatment that may be available to the participant, and their important potential benefits and risks
• The compensation and/or treatment available to the participant in the event of trial-related injury, including provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research
• The amounts and sources of funding for the research, as well as financial or other relevant declarations of interests of researchers, sponsors, or institutions
• The anticipated prorated payment, if any, to the participant for participating in the trial
• The anticipated expenses, if any, to the subject for participating in the trial
• That participation in the trial is voluntary and that the participant may refuse to participate or withdraw from the trial, at any time, without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled
• Any implications of withdrawal from the trial, and whether it will be possible to withdraw data
• How the research will be monitored
• That the monitor(s), the auditor(s), the ethics committee (EC), and the regulatory authority(ies) will be granted direct access to the participant's original medical records for verification of clinical trial procedures and/or data, without violating the confidentiality of the participant, to the extent permitted by the applicable laws and regulations and that, by signing a written informed consent form, the participant or legal representative/guardian is authorizing such access
• That records identifying the participant will be kept confidential and, to the extent permitted by the applicable laws and/or regulations, will not be made publicly available. If the results of the trial are published, the participant’s identity will remain confidential
• That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be informed in a timely manner if information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant's willingness to continue participation in the trial
• The person(s) to contact for further information regarding the trial and the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
• Contact details of a person to receive complaints and of the researchers
• The foreseeable circumstances and/or reasons under which participation in the trial may be terminated
• The expected duration of participation in the trial
• The approximate number of participants involved in the trial
• The likelihood and form of dissemination of the research results, including publication
• Any other relevant information, including research-specific information required under other chapters of the G-NatlStmt

Based on the PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo466, and OMREC, the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The study purpose, the procedures, and duration of the trial
• The participant’s responsibilities
• Experimental aspects of the study
• The approximate number of participants in the study
• Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
• Any expected benefits to the participant; if no benefit is expected, the participant should be informed of this point
• Treatments available to participants, how they are administered, and the probability of receiving every treatment
• Compensation and/or treatment available for the participant in the case of trial-related injury
• The disclosure of specific appropriate alternative procedures or therapies available to the participant
• The probability for random assignment to each treatment
• Any expenses the participant needs to pay to participate in the trial
• Confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, and permission given to monitors, auditors, the ethics committee(s), and the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) to access the participant’s medical records to verify the procedures or trial data without violating the participant’s confidentiality, insofar as the applicable laws and regulations permit
• That participation is voluntary, and that the participant can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits, including medical treatment, to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• Contact information for the sponsor and investigator in the event of participant problems or trial-related injuries
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent
• The consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the research, and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant
• That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified in a timely manner if significant new findings develop during the course of the study which may affect the participant’s willingness to continue

See the Vulnerable Populations and Consent for Specimen sections for further information.

Overview

In accordance with the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-NatlStmt, Australia’s ethical standards protect participants’ rights and promote respect for human beings, research merit and integrity, justice, and beneficence. The G-NatlStmt further recognizes that state or territory authorities may have additional statutes regarding the use of human tissues, guardianship, and illegal and unprofessional conduct. Furthermore, a participant’s rights must be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia).

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-NatlStmt, the participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled. The G-TrialsSOP further specifies that participants may withdraw their consent at any time without giving a reason.

Per the G-NatlStmt, the participant should be informed of any implications of withdrawal and whether it is possible to withdraw data.

The Right to Information

As per the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-NatlStmt, a potential research participant or the legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation or treatment in the case of injury, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-NatlStmt, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. Privacy is also subject to national, state, and territory laws, including the PrivacyAct. As per the G-TrialsSOP, if telehealth is used, all measures must be taken to ensure privacy and confidentiality of the participant’s identity.

See the Personal Data Protection section for more details on personal information collection and handling requirements.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-NatlStmt state that the research participant or the legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the individual responsible for addressing trial-related inquiries and/or rights.

AUS-45 provides information on who the participant or the legal representative/guardian may contact regarding a concern with the clinical trial. The options include contacting the researcher(s) directly, the ethics committee (EC) (known as Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia), the institution, the healthcare complaints entity in the state or territory, or the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Concerns may also be reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). See AUS-45 for more information on the types of concerns that may be reported to each party.

See the G-NatlStmt for more information on institutional requirements for receipt of complaints.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The AU-ICH-GCPs (which upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (AUS-52)) and the G-NatlStmt clearly state that a research participant’s right to safety and protection of health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

See the Required Elements and Vulnerable Populations sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.

Overview

In accordance with ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and OMREC, Brazil’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants, including rights to their autonomy, culture, beliefs, and values. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. (See the Required Elements; Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.)

See CLNo1-2021 for National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) guidelines for investigators and research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisas (CEPs)) related to contact with research participants (e.g., obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality) and/or data collection at any phase of a research study in a virtual environment. See also CLNo039 for CONEP guidance on accessing and using a participant’s medical records for research purposes while ensuring compliance with privacy and confidentiality standards. The guideline also states that all participants should be treated with dignity, respect for their autonomy, and ensure protection for vulnerable populations. See also BRA-29 for additional information on participant rights during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in the ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, the G-ClinResSubjectRts, and OMREC, the participant or legal representative/guardian, should be informed that participation is voluntary, that they may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As delineated in the ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, the G-ClinResSubjectRts, and OMREC, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and OMREC, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. The PANDRH-GCPs also states that it is the responsibility of the investigator(s) to safeguard the confidentiality of research data to protect the identities and records of research participants.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The PANDRH-GCPs, OMREC, and the G-ClinResSubjectRts explain that the research participant or legal representative/guardian, should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries and/or to appeal against a violation of their rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

ResNo466 and PANDRH-GCPs clearly state that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

The AU-ICH-GCPs states that in emergency situations, when prior consent of the participant is not possible, the consent of the legal representative/guardian, if present, should be requested. When prior consent of the participant is not possible, and the legal representative/guardian is not available, enrollment of the participant should require measures described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval/favorable opinion by the ethics committee (EC) (known as the Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia), to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of the participant and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the G-NatlStmt. Per the AU-ICH-GCPs, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

The G-NatlStmt recognizes that in emergency care research, recruitment into a research project often must be achieved rapidly. Where the research involves emergency treatment and meets the G-NatlStmt’s requirements for research involving people highly dependent on medical care, consent for the research may be waived. See the Vulnerable Populations section for more information on people highly dependent on medical care, and the Documentation Requirements section for more details on waiver of consent.

As per the PANDRH-GCPs, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) cannot be obtained from the research participant, the consent of the legal representative/guardian should be obtained. If the prior consent of the participant or legal representative/guardian cannot be obtained, the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) must provide documented approval in order to protect the participant’s rights, safety, and well-being, pursuant to the applicable regulations. The participant or legal representative/guardian should provide consent as soon as possible. OMREC and ResNo251 similarly state that the EC (CEP) is responsible for approving the conditions or limits in which the informed consent should be approved in an emergency situation, and the investigator should inform the research participant in a timely manner about participation in the study.

Overview

The AU-ICH-GCPs characterizes vulnerable populations as those who may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation in a clinical trial, or of a retaliatory response for not participating. Examples are members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students, subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel, employees of the pharmaceutical industry, members of the armed forces, and persons kept in detention. Other vulnerable subjects include patients with incurable diseases, residents of nursing homes, unemployed or impoverished persons, patients in emergency situations, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent. Per the G-NatlStmt, people who may be involved in illegal activities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, ethnic minority groups, and people in other countries are other groups for which specific ethical considerations are required.

People Highly Dependent on Medical Care

According to the G-NatlStmt, research involving people who are highly dependent on medical care may be approved where:

• It is likely that the research will lead to increased understanding about, or improvements in, the care of this population
• The requirements of relevant jurisdictional laws are taken into account
• Either: 1) any risk or burden of the proposed research to this particular participant is justified by the potential benefits, or 2) where participants have capacity to consent, any risk or burden is acceptable to them and justified by the potential benefits of the research

The G-NatlStmt indicates that when a researcher is also the treating health professional, it should be considered whether an independent person should seek the consent of potential participants who are highly dependent on medical care. In addition, the participant and/or the participant’s relatives and an authorized representative should be informed of the participant’s inclusion in the research and of the option to withdraw from it without any reduction in quality of care.

The G-NatlStmt states that when neither the potential participant nor the legal representative/guardian can consider the proposal and give consent, an ethics committee (EC) (known as the Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) may, having taken account of relevant jurisdictional laws, approve a research project without prior consent if:

• There is no reason to believe that, were the participant or legal representative/guardian to be informed of the proposal, the participant would be unwilling to consent
• The risks of harm to individuals, families, or groups linked to the participant, or to their financial or social interests, are minimized
• The project is not controversial and does not involve significant moral or cultural sensitivities in the community

And, where the research is interventional, these additional conditions apply:

• The research supports a reasonable possibility of benefit over standard care
• Any risk or burden of the intervention to the participant is justified by its potential benefits
• Inclusion in the research project is not contrary to the interests of the participant

The G-NatlStmt further provides specific requirements related to conducting research on participants in terminal care, which is characterized by the short remaining life expectancy of the participants and their vulnerability to unrealistic expectations of benefits. Terminal care research should be designed so that the benefits of research justify any burden, discomfort, or inconvenience to the participants; the prospect of benefit from research participation is not exaggerated; the needs and wishes of participants to spend time as they choose are respected; and the entitlement of those receiving palliative care to participate is recognized.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

The G-NatlStmt states that research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples must be reviewed and approved by an EC and include assessment and advice from: people who have networks with and/or knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; and people familiar with the culture and practices of the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community(ies). In addition, the researcher should ensure the following:

• Research methods are respectful and acknowledge the cultural distinctiveness of participating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and groups
• There is evidence of support for the research project from relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities or groups and the research methodology engages with their social and cultural practices
• The research methods provide for mutually agreed mechanisms for recruitment, information provided about the research, notification of participants’ consent and of research progress, and final reporting
• Procedures and actions have been taken to monitor and, where appropriate, minimize any potential negative consequences of the proposed research

For more information on research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, see the G-AboriginalEthic, the G-EthicsRsrchTrackII, and the G-AIATSISCode.

People in Dependent Groups

The G-NatlStmt cautions that dependent or unequal relationships that might compromise the voluntary character of a participant’s decision should be considered. Examples of such relationships include caregivers and people with chronic conditions/disabilities; health care professionals and their patients; teachers and their students; prison authorities and prisoners; governmental authorities and refugees; employers/supervisors and their employees (including members of police and Defense Forces); and service-providers and especially vulnerable communities to whom the services are provided. Where potential participants are especially vulnerable or powerless, consideration should be given to the appointment of a participant advocate.

Per the G-NatlStmt, when a researcher and potential participant have a pre-existing relationship, it should be considered whether an independent person should seek the consent of the participant.

People Who May Be Involved in Illegal Activities

The G-NatlStmt provides specific requirements related to conducting research on participants who may be involved in illegal activities. Research that is intended to study or expose, or likely to expose, illegal activity should be reviewed and approved by an EC. Researchers should be satisfied that participants who are subject to criminal justice processes are aware that the research may discover illegal activity and do not have unrealistic expectations of benefit from their participation. Finally, research designed to expose illegal activity should only be approved where the illegal activity bears on the discharge of a public responsibility or the fitness to hold public office, the risks are justified by the benefits, and the research meets the other requirements in the G-NatlStmt.

People in Other Countries

The G-NatlStmt states that research involving people in other countries must be reviewed and approved by an EC and comply with the G-NatlStmt. The research design, protocol, and consent process should take into consideration the local cultural values, yet still result in participants being treated with no less respect and protection than what is provided in the G-NatlStmt. Additional details are provided in the G-NatlStmt.

Overview

As per the PANDRH-GCPs and the G-ClinResSubjectRts, in all Brazilian clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. The PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo466, and the G-ClinResSubjectRts characterize vulnerable populations as those who are relatively (or absolutely) incapable of protecting their own interests due to a lack of autonomy, intelligence, education, resources, strength, or other necessary attributes. These participants may include those with incurable diseases, people in convalescent homes, the unemployed or indigent, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minorities, homeless people, seasonal workers, refugees, minors, and those who cannot give their consent.

The G-ClinResSubjectRts further notes that in general, all individuals including healthy research participants should be seen as intrinsically vulnerable. These participants may currently be exposed to or are at risk of being exposed to an investigational product of unknown safety and efficacy, or one that is not fully understood, which could affect their overall health. In addition, other social, cultural, economic, psychological, or medical factors may adversely affect a participant’s ability to make rational and objective decisions that protect their own interests; however, this factor(s) may not be easily perceptible to the investigator.

The ResNo466 and PANDRH-GCPs specify that research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisas (CEPs)) must pay special attention to protecting participants who are from vulnerable populations. If the EC (CEP) regularly evaluates studies involving vulnerable populations, it should consider including members or consultants who know or have had experience working with the group in question. ResNo466 and the G-ClinResSubjectRts also state that vulnerable groups should not be included unless the research is necessary to promote the health of the population represented, and this research cannot instead be performed on legally competent participants.

See CLNo1-2021 for National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) guidelines for investigators and ECs (CEPs) related to contact with research participants (e.g., obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality) and/or data collection at any phase of a research study in a virtual environment. See also CLNo039 for CONEP guidance on accessing and using a participant’s medical records for research purposes while ensuring compliance with privacy and confidentiality standards. The guideline also states that all participants should be treated with dignity, respect for their autonomy, and ensure protection for vulnerable populations.

Indigenous Peoples

As delineated in ResNo304, special attention should be paid when conducting a study involving indigenous peoples in Brazil. Studies involving this population should comply with ethical requirements while also considering the unique qualities of each community. The benefits and advantages resulting from conducting a study with indigenous peoples must also meet the needs of individuals or groups targeted by the study or of related societies, and/or the country as a whole. Investigators should take into account the need to promote and maintain the well-being of participants while protecting and preserving their biological, cultural, individual, and collective health while also contributing to the development of the participants’ knowledge and abilities. Refer to ResNo304 for detailed information on research and protection requirements when conducting a study with this population.

See the Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these vulnerable populations.

The FamLawAct defines a child as a person who is under 18 years of age. Per AUS-71, different states or territories may have specific legislation about a parent/guardian providing consent to medical treatment for a minor; otherwise, the FamLawAct has provisions that may apply.

According to AUS-71, children under 16 cannot give legal consent, which must be given by a parent/guardian, but they can and should be involved in the decision. Young people over 16 can give legal consent to medical treatment; however, they usually cannot provide legal consent to participate in research until they are 18. Nonetheless, some ethics committees (ECs) (known as Human Research Ethics Committees in Australia) do allow mature young people under 18 to give their consent for some kinds of research.

The AU-ICH-GCPs states that minors should be informed to the extent compatible with their maturity and understanding, and if capable, they should sign and personally date the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia). In accordance with the G-NatlStmt, consent requirements for conducting clinical trials follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section.

The G-NatlStmt states before including a child or young person in research, researchers must establish that there is no reason to believe that such participation is contrary to that child's or young person's best interest. Furthermore, a child or young person's refusal to participate in research should be respected wherever the child or young person has the capacity to give consent to that same research. Where a child or young person lacks this capacity, the child or young person’s refusal may be overridden by the judgement of the parent/guardian as to what is in the child's best interest.

The G-NatlStmt indicates that an EC may approve research to which only the child or young person consents if it is satisfied that:

• The child or young person is mature enough to understand the relevant information and give consent
• The research involves low risk
• The research aims to benefit children or young people
• The child or young person is estranged or separated from the parent/guardian and the researcher ensures the child or young person’s safety, security, and well-being in the research conduct; or it would be contrary to the best interests of the child or young person to seek consent from the parent/guardian, and the researcher ensures the child or young person’s safety, security, and well-being in the research conduct

In addition, as stated in the G-NatlStmt, children and young people who are not of sufficient maturity to consent should only participate in clinical studies when: the research is likely to advance knowledge about the health or welfare of, other matters relevant to, children and young people; or their participation is indispensable to the conduct of the research. When considering the inclusion of children and young people in research, the researchers and EC must consider their level of maturity to ensure adequate protections for their welfare.

Assent Requirements

AUS-71 indicates that when a parent/guardian gives consent for their child to take part in a clinical trial, researchers may also ask the child for their permission or agreement, also referred to as assent. The researchers must do this in an age-appropriate manner. Both the parent/guardian and the child should have the chance to ask any questions before agreeing to participate and at any time during a trial.

In order for a child to provide their consent or assent they must:

• Understand the research process
• Understand the purpose of the trial
• Be told what they are expected to do or what will happen to them during the trial

Children should be able to express their views and any worries they might have about participating in a trial, and have their questions answered. Children should always be given information in a form that they can understand.

Furthermore, the G-NatlStmt states that except in cases involving standing parental consent, specific consent must be obtained from the child or young person whenever the child or young person has the capacity to make this decision, and either one (1) parent, except when the EC decides that the risks require the consent of both parents, or the child or young person’s parent/guardian.

Per the G-NatlStmt, researchers must respect the developing capacity of children and young people to be involved in decisions about participation in research. The child or young person's particular level of maturity has implications for whether consent is necessary and/or sufficient to authorize participation. However, it is not possible to attach fixed ages to each level of maturity, which may vary from child to child. The following guidelines on maturity and corresponding capacity to consent are provided:

• Infants, who are unable to take part in discussion about the research and its effects
• Young children, who are able to understand some relevant information and take part in limited discussion about the research, but whose consent is not required
• Young people of developing maturity, who are able to understand the relevant information but whose relative immaturity means that they remain vulnerable; the consent of these young people is required, in addition to consent from a parent or guardian
• Young people who are mature enough to understand and consent, and are not vulnerable through immaturity in ways that warrant additional consent from a parent or guardian

See the G-NatlStmt for more information on consent and assent involving children and young people.

LawNo8.069 (also known as the Statute of Children and Adolescents) states that a child is a person up to 12 years of age, and a teenager is one between 12 and 18 years of age.

As per PANDRH-GCPs, ResNo466, and OMREC, when the research participant is a child, the child’s parent/legal guardian must sign the informed consent form. However, all pediatric participants should be informed to the fullest extent possible about the study in language and terms that they are easily able to understand.

As stated in the G-ClinResSubjectRts, children should only participate in clinical studies when their participation is necessary to promote the health of the population represented.

In addition, per CLNo11, the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) has established guidelines related to the process of obtaining consent from research participants under 18 years of age. The process of consent to participate is essential and should be addressed to those who exercise parental responsibility or guardianship, without prejudice to listening to the participant under 18 years of age.

Per BRA-73, Brazil has also implemented the ICH Harmonised Guideline Addendum to ICH E11: Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population E11 (R1) (BRA-74).

Assent Requirements

ResNo466 indicates that an assent form should be used to obtain informed consent from minors or those legally incapable of giving their own consent. The form should be prepared in a language that is accessible to minors or those legally incapable of giving their own consent. After the form is explained and the research study is clarified, the child participants should provide their consent to participate in the study, without the influence of their parent or legal guardian.

CLNo11 further states that researchers must ensure the assent is made in the form of an invitation without any degree of pressure or coercion, and written in simple, easy-to-understand language to ensure adequate comprehension of the research. The assent process must consider the understanding capacity of the participant under 18 years of age. Pursuant to LawNo8.069 which upholds the principle that the full protection of children and adolescents is the duty of everyone including public authorities and society in general, CLNo11 delineates that seven (7) years is the minimum age for the obligation to obtain the term or registration of consent. The guideline also recommends an assessment of each research participant’s needs, capabilities, and emotional maturity for the presentation of different terms or records of assent according to the age group (from childhood and adolescence), complexity of the research, and for analysis by the CEP/CONEP system. See CLNo11 for additional details.

See the Personal Data Protection section for requirements on processing personal data of children and adolescents.

As per the G-NatlStmt, studies involving pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates require additional safeguards to ensure that the research assesses the risks to the pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates. The wellbeing and care of the woman who is pregnant and of her fetus always takes precedence over research considerations, and research involving a fetus or fetal tissue should be conducted in a manner that maintains a clear separation between the woman’s clinical care and the research. Additionally, research should be designed to minimize pain or distress for the fetus, include steps for monitoring for signs of fetal pain or distress, and include steps for suspending or ceasing the research if necessary.

In accordance with the G-NatlStmt, consent requirements for conducting clinical trials follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section. However, except for therapeutic innovative therapy cases, the process of providing information and obtaining consent for participating in research should be clearly separate from clinical care if the woman is pregnant and the fetus is in utero. Further, per the G-NatlStmt, the woman should be informed of the following:

• That she should consider whether to seek consent to the proposed research from any other person (e.g., the other parent)
• Whether it is possible to store the fetus or fetal tissues for later use in research
• That she is free to withdraw her consent to the research at any time, whether before or after a termination or other loss of a fetus
• Whether there is potential for commercial application of outcomes of the research, including the development of cell lines
• That she will not be entitled to a share in the profits of any commercial applications
• Whether fetal organs or stem cell lines developed from them will be exported to another country

In addition, the G-NatlStmt states that if, for research purposes, fetal cells are to be derived from the fetal tissue and stored or propagated in tissue culture, or tissues or cells are to be used in human transplantation, the woman's consent is required. Others whom the woman identifies may also need to be involved in decisions about these matters.

For requirements related to assisted reproductive technology, including research involving the creation of human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human fetus, see the G-EthicsART.

As per ResNo466, the PANDRH-GCPs, and the G-ClinResSubjectRts, any Brazilian clinical studies involving women of childbearing age or who are pregnant, require additional safeguards to ensure that the participants are fully aware of the risks and that the research assesses the risks and benefits as well as any potential impact on fertility, pregnancy, the embryo or fetus, labor, lactation, and the newborn. ResNo466 further states that research on pregnant women should be preceded by research on women outside the gestational period, except when pregnancy is the fundamental purpose of the study. The investigator(s) should also ensure that female participants have the right to participate in the research without the use of compulsory contraceptives—if they have expressly indicated that they are free from the risk of pregnancy and sexual practices, or they are sexually active in a non-reproductive way.

The G-NatlStmt refers to prisoners and prison authorities as an example of people who may be in dependent or unequal relationships.

Per the G-NatlStmt, a research study involving people in dependent or unequal relationships (such as prisoners) should, wherever possible, invite prospective participants to discuss their participation with someone who is able to support them in making their decision. If prospective participants are especially vulnerable, researchers should consider appointing a participant advocate.

According to the PANDRH-GCPs, prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. ResNo466 also states that freedom of consent must be guaranteed to those research participants who are fully competent but are exposed to specific constraints or have restricted autonomy. These participants must have the freedom to decide whether to participate without any fear of reprisal.

Cognitive Impairment, Intellectual Disability, or Mental Illness

The G-NatlStmt discusses the requirements for research involving participants with cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, and mental illness together, noting that many of the ethical issues they raise about research participation are similar. An ethics committee (EC) (known as Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) must review and approve research involving such participants, except where the research uses collections of non-identifiable data and involves negligible risk.

Per the G-NatlStmt, the research design should take into account factors that may affect the capacity to receive information, to consent to the research, or to participate in it. Additionally, care should be taken to determine whether the participant’s cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, or mental illness increases the susceptibility to some forms of discomfort or distress. Ways of minimizing effects of this susceptibility should be described in the research proposal.

As delineated in the G-NatlStmt, the participant must consent if the participant has the capacity, or the participant’s legal representative/guardian must consent on behalf of the participant. Where a legal representative/guardian has given consent, the researchers still must explain to the participant what the research is about and what participation involves. If the participant recovers the capacity to consent, the researcher should offer the opportunity to continue participation or withdraw. Refusal or reluctance to participate in a research project should be respected.

The G-NatlStmt states that if the participant’s impairment, disability, or illness is temporary or episodic, researchers should seek consent when the condition does not interfere with the capacity to give consent. This consent should occur in the presence of a witness who is familiar with the participant, is independent from the research, and understands the research’s merits, risks, and procedures.

Research Involving Unconscious Persons

The G-NatlStmt states when prior consent is not possible for research involving unconscious persons, consent should be provided by the participant’s legal representative/guardian. However, relevant jurisdictional laws must be taken into account. Because of their extreme vulnerability, unconscious persons should be excluded from all but minimally invasive research, or in research designed both to be therapeutic for them and to improve treatment for the condition from which they suffer.

The G-TrialsSOP notes that as per the Declaration of Helsinki (AUS-52), for research involving participants who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent (e.g., unconscious patients/participants), the study must be relevant to the physical or mental condition of the participant(s) that prevents them from being able to consent to participate in the study.

According to ResNo466 and the G-ClinResSubjectRts, the research ethics committee (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) must approve the participation of research participants who are mentally or physically incapable of giving consent, and sufficient justification must be provided for involving this population in a study. As delineated in the PANDRH-GCPs, consent should only be provided once the participant is informed about the study, to the extent that the participant is able to understand it, and if able, the participant should sign and date the written informed consent in person. The participant’s legal representative/guardian must also be present during the informed consent process and sign and date the informed consent form.

Per CLNo11, the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) has also established guidelines related to the process of obtaining consent from research participants people with a "lack of autonomy", permanent or temporary, to consent. The process of consent to participate is essential and should be addressed to those who "lack of autonomy", permanent or temporary, to consent.

CLNo11 further states researchers must ensure the assent is made in the form of an invitation without any pressure or coercion, and written in simple, easy-to-understand language to ensure adequate comprehension of the research. The assent process must consider the discernment of the research participant with a "lack of autonomy", whether permanent or temporary, to consent. See CLNo11 for additional information.

According to the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-TrialsSOP, an investigational product (IP) is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes a product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form; when used for an unapproved indication; or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

In Australia, IPs are also referred to as unapproved therapeutic goods. As per the G-CTHandbook and AUS-47, an unapproved therapeutic good includes:

• Any medicine, biological, or medical device not entered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) (AUS-22), including any new formulation, strength or size, dose, name, indications, directions for use or type of container of a medicine already in the ARTG
• Any therapeutic good already in the ARTG to be used in a manner not covered by the existing ARTG entry

As delineated in the PANDRH-GCPs, an investigational product (IP) is defined as a dosage form of an active ingredient or placebo that is being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. ResNo9, the G-BioIProdManual, and the G-SynthDrugProdManual add that the IP may also be referred to as an experimental drug, comparator, or any other product to be used in a trial. According to BRA-8, the definition of an IP in ResNo9 differs from that of the PANDRH-GCPs because when ResNo9 was adopted, an IP was mainly thought of in relation to the imports required to carry out each clinical trial. For this reason, the definition of “product under investigation” encompasses all products to be used in a trial, including medicine comparators, equipment, and laboratory kits. In addition, the PANDRH-GCPs definition further states that an IP may include a product with a marketing authorization when it is used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form, or when it is used to gain further information about an approved use. Note: The terms experimental drug and IP are used interchangeably throughout the profile.

Manufacturing

As specified in the TGAct, the TGR, and the G-CTHandbook, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) authorizes the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Australia. As per AUS-47 and AUS-49, the sponsor provides manufacturer and/or active ingredient information to the TGA in the clinical trial application under one (1) of the two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme or the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. Pursuant to TGManuf, Australia adopted the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products (AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide) regarding the manufacture of therapeutic goods.

Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, the holder of a manufacturing authorization must manufacture IPs to ensure that they are fit for their intended use, comply with the requirements of the clinical trial authorization, and do not place participants at risk due to inadequate safety, quality, or efficacy. The production of IPs involves added complexity in comparison to marketed products and therefore requires personnel with a thorough understanding of, and training in, the application of good manufacturing practice (GMP) to IPs. Cooperation with trial sponsors, who undertake the ultimate responsibility for all aspects of the clinical trial, is also required.

See the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide for detailed manufacturing requirements.

Import

The G-CTHandbook and AUS-47 indicate that IPs may be imported and held under the direct control of the sponsor (importer) until the IPs are the subject of a notification to the TGA under the CTN scheme or an approval under the CTA scheme. The IPs must be kept in a warehouse or other properly secured area. There is no requirement for the CTN or CTA process to have been completed prior to importation of the clinical trial goods.

Per AUS-47, importers are advised to contact other relevant agencies, as there may be further restrictions on importation imposed through other legislation.

Other Considerations

AUS-47 states that Australian clinical trial product importers/manufacturers are not required to provide the TGA with six (6) monthly reports under regulation 47B of the TGR. However, the TGA can require information or documents relating to the supply (including quantity) of therapeutic goods that are exempt under the CTN scheme or approved under the CTA scheme.

Manufacturing

As stated in ResNo9, the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Brazil. ANVISA approves the manufacture of an IP as part of its review and approval of the clinical trial application (Drug Clinical Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))).

ANVISA has also released ServBltnNo104 to expedite the evaluation of clinical drug research development in Brazil without compromising the quality of the technical analysis. (See Scope of Assessment section for details on the criteria for the DDCM to undergo a simplified analysis.) According to ServBltnNo104, the IP manufacturing process must meet the criteria and recommendations described in the current International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)’s guidelines, as applicable, according to the phase of clinical development. In addition, the technical experts in ANVISA’s Coordination of Clinical Research in Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC)) require DDCM petitions and substantial quality modifications to meet ServBltnNo104 criteria and be accompanied by the documentation required in ResNo9. COPEC will then analyze the following:

• The results of stability studies under accelerated and long-term conditions that support the proposed expiration date for the IP and, where applicable, for the modified placebo and comparator, when the storage recommendation is at room temperature (between 15 and 30 degrees Celsius)
• The sample IP label for DDCM petitions

In the event of non-compliance, COPEC will conduct a non-simplified analysis per ResNo9. ServBltnNo104 further explains that ANVISA may also at any time analyze all the documents required by ResNo9, related to the IP risk analysis. Refer to the Submission Content section for DDCM petitions and substantial quality modifications documentation requirements.

In addition, per BRA-55, ANVISA is a member of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S). Per BRA-100, as a PIC/S member, ANVISA meets internationally harmonized good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspection standards and quality systems of inspectorates in the field of medicinal products for human or veterinary use. Refer to BRA-55 for additional information.

Per BRA-73, Brazil has also implemented the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (Q7) (BRA-112).

Import

Per ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual, ANVISA is responsible for authorizing the import of IPs. The sponsor may request approval to import/export IPs for study purposes at the same time that a DDCM is submitted to ANVISA, as indicated in ResNo9. Following DDCM analysis and approval, ANVISA issues an authorizing document known as a Special Notice (Comunicado Especial (CE)) that may also be used for IP import/export requests for the trial. ANVISA may also issue either a Specific Special Notice (Comunicado Especial Específico (CEE)) to permit the sponsor to import/export an IP while their DDCM is still awaiting review and is within ANVISA’s 90-day approval window, or a Document for Importation of Product(s) under Investigation in the case of non-manifestation of the DDCM. The sponsor is required to present one (1) of these ANVISA documents at the location where IPs for import/export are unloaded. (See Submission Process and Submission Content sections for additional application requirements). See also BRA-103 for detailed instructions on obtaining a drug import license authorization. See ANVISA’s Consultation System (BRA-44) to check on the status of a petition submission using the “Document Status” (Situação de Documentos) tool.

BRA-95 also provides instructions to sponsors or the legal representatives in Brazil on completing the expiration date information for imported IPs in the clinical trial submission form (BRA-22). The expiration date is frequently updated, and is, therefore, often linked to inconsistencies and requests for clarification of requirements by those responsible for importing drugs and products for clinical trials. See BRA-95 for detailed information on stability requirements and instructions on completing the form.

ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo613 (amending ResNo172) delineate the procedures associated with importing IPs for clinical research purposes following ANVISA’s approval of a DDCM. Pursuant to ResNo74 and BRA-108, the import petition must be submitted electronically. Per the G-LPCOImprtPetition, the first step in initiating ANVISA’s import protocol process is applying for an import license (Licença de Importação (LI)) via the Integrated Foreign Trade System (SISCOMEX)’s Single Foreign Trade Portal (BRA-80). As indicated in BRA-108, the electronic petition must include the documentation specified in ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and other relevant legislation. ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) explains that the following documentation must be included with the petition:

• Copy of the CE, CEE, and Document for Importation of Product(s) under Investigation from DDCM
• Knowledge of cargo on board
• Commercial invoice
• In cases of imports carried out by others than the DDCM holder, document of delegation of import responsibilities

BRA-108 also indicates that in the case of documents already in electronic form, they should be attached as individual files for each LI request in BRA-80. The documents must be attached, preferably, in the order indicated in the checklist of the procedure specified in ResNo208 (amending ResNo81). Refer to BRA-108 for detailed documentation presentation requirements. See also ResNo208 and ResNo81 for detailed import documentation requirements. See also BRA-8 for frequently asked questions on importation requirements.

Additionally, per the G-LPCOImprtPetition, once the LI is registered, the user must make a request in the Licenses, Permissions, Certificates and Other Documents (Licença, Permissão, Certificado e Outros Documentos (LPCO)) module in the SISCOMEX Single Foreign Trade Portal (BRA-80). The G-LPCOImprtPetition explains how the LPCO registration will eventually be integrated with the LI registration, however, at this time, it is necessary for the user to link the LI with the LPCO in order to initiate the import petition protocol in ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56). Refer to the G-LPCOImprtPetition for detailed instructions on registering the LI and the LPCO in BRA-80. See also BRA-106 for additional information on using BRA-80 and obtaining an LI, and See also BRA-109, for additional background on linking imported medicinal products and controlled substances to BRA-80.

As described in BRA-47 and the G-LPCOImprtPetition, users are required to complete the company registration process prior to submitting an import petition via ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56). BRA-47 provides step-by-step instructions on company registration along with the information provided in BRA-105. BRA-107 also provides additional information on registering a company with the National Register of Legal Entities (Cadastro Nacional da Pessoa Jurídica (CNPJ)).

ANVISA has also adopted a new protocol for requests for authorization to import medicines and substances subject to special control in compliance with ResNo81, as indicated in BRA-57. Per ResNo81, the import of goods and products subject to special control are referenced in OrdNo344 (Lists A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C3, D1, E, and F). OrdNo344 and BRA-110 define the substances included in these lists as follows: "A1" and "A2" (permitted narcotics), "A3”, "B1", and "B2" (permitted psychotropics), "C3" (immunosuppressants), "D1" (permitted precursors), "E" (plants that can originate narcotic and/or psychotropic substances), and "F" (substances for prohibited use in Brazil). See BRA-57 for details. Per ResNo172, investigators accredited by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development ((Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) (CNPq)) and whose tax regime is exempt, will be automatically granted an import license via BRA-80.

ResNo172 specifies that imports intended for clinical trials whose objective is registration or alteration of product registration will be analyzed within five (5) days after protocol approval and compliance with legal requirements.

Other requirements delineated in ResNo81 and ResNo172 include, but are not limited to, a prohibition on imports with accompanied and unaccompanied baggage; compliance with packaging, transportation, and storage standards provided by manufacturer or supplier; and a mandate that once research is completed, the investigator or institution authorize final destination of the materials in accordance with the legal provisions of environmental control.

LawNo10.742 (amending LawNo6.360) also notes that new drugs, intended exclusively for experimental use and under medical supervision, may be imported with the express authorization of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and are exempted from registration. This exemption will only be valid for up to three (3) years. Following this period, the product must be registered or be subject to a penalty of seizure to be determined by the MOH.

In addition, per ResNo102, in the case of a company requesting a global transfer of ownership for product registration or the updating of company operation and certification data as a result of corporate transactions or business operations, the CE, CEE, or Document for Importation of Product(s) under Investigation will be issued in the name of the new company. Company registration updates should include any changes to the company operating authorization, Good Manufacturing Practices Certificate (CBPF), or Good Distribution and Storage Practices Certificate (CBPDA). Please refer to ResNo102 for detailed instructions on submitting appropriate documentation for these updates. See also the Submission Process section for detailed information on documentation to be submitted.

Per BRA-96, ANVISA has also modified the global transfer of responsibility request process for a clinical trial or assistance program for medicines and biological products. The requests must be carried out electronically by the company that has requested the transfer via ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56) using the DDCM petition’s subject code 12130 for medicines and 11795 for advanced therapy products. See BRA-96 for additional information.

Advanced Therapy Products

Per BRA-86 and BRA-94, ANVISA has also initiated a project for applicants to request an import license for advanced therapy products to be used for clinical research or commercial/industrial purposes. The process involves obtaining an LI via the steps discussed earlier in this section followed by making a request through the LPCO module of BRA-80, and linking the LI to the LPCO registration. The user will then be able to initiate an import petition via ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56). See G-LPCOImprtPetition for additional information on registering an LI and LPCO for an advanced therapy products via BRA-80, and then initiating an import petition via BRA-56. Per ResNo506, advanced therapy products refer to medicines for human use that are based on genes, tissues, or cells. Refer to ResNo506 for information on ANVISA’s role in reviewing and approving clinical trial applications submitted for studies using advanced therapy products.

Per ResNo172, ANVISA will analyze and release imported goods and products intended for use in human subjects research within 48 hours after arrival in Brazil, provided that the legal requirements are met and that the purpose of the research is not to register or change the registration of a product. Also specified in ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo613 (amending ResNo172), is the requirement that the investigator and institution submit the imported products through one (1) of the following methods: BRA-80 or Express Shipping. As indicated earlier in this section, the import petition must be submitted electronically and should comply with the documentation submission requirements discussed above and include the information provided in ResNo74 and BRA-108. While each import option has different documentation requirements, they all require the submission of an electronic petition for import, a commercial invoice, a signed statement of responsibility (see ResNo81 (Chapter XXVII) and ResNo172 (Annex I)), research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) approval, and where applicable, National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) approval. See ResNo172 and ResNo81 for additional information on the required items based on the import method used. See BRA-38 for additional information on accessing ANVISA’s electronic petitioning request systems.

Please note: Brazil is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (BRA-63), which may have implications for studies of IPs developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see BRA-81.

Investigator’s Brochure

According to the AU-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for providing the investigators with an investigator’s brochure (IB). The IB must contain all of the relevant information on the investigational product(s) (IPs), including significant physical, chemical, pharmaceutical, pharmacological, toxicological, pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and clinical information. The sponsor must ensure that an up-to-date IB is made available to the investigator(s), and the investigator(s) must provide an up-to-date IB to the ethics committee.

According to the G-TrialsSOP, where the investigator contributes to the content and development of the IB, the investigator must ensure the IB follows the outline in the AU-ICH-GCPs. The AU-ICH-GCPs requires the IB to cover the following areas:

• Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties and formulation parameters

• Non-clinical studies (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, and metabolism profiles)

• Effects of IP in humans (pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and pharmacodynamics; safety and efficacy; and regulatory and post-marketing experiences)

• Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)

See Section 7 of the AU-ICH-GCPs for detailed content guidelines.

Quality Management

As specified in the AU-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor must ensure that the products are manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). Furthermore, the sponsor must maintain a Certificate of Analysis to document the identity, purity, and strength of the IP(s) to be used in the clinical trial.

Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, GMP ensures that products are consistently produced and controlled to the quality standards appropriate to their intended use and as required by the clinical trial authorization. A quality system designed, set up, and verified by the manufacturer or importer should be described in written procedures available to the sponsor, taking into account the GMP principles and guidelines applicable to IPs. Manufacturers should maintain documentation including specifications and instructions; the IP order; the product specification file; manufacturing formulae and processing instructions; packaging instructions; and processing, testing, and packaging batch records. The product specifications and manufacturing instructions may be changed during development, but full control and traceability of the changes should also be maintained.

See the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide for more details on quality documentation requirements.

Investigator's Brochure

In accordance with ResNo9, the PANDRH-GCPs, and the G-DDCMManual, the sponsor is responsible for providing investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB). ResNo9 and the G-DDCMManual state that the IB must provide coverage for the following areas:

• Experimental drug
• Formulation
• Pharmacological and toxicological effects of the experimental drug in animals and in humans, where applicable
• Information on safety and efficacy in humans obtained from clinical trials that have already been carried out
• Possible risks and adverse events related to experimental medications, based on past experience, as well as precautions or special procedures to be followed during development

The sponsor should also update the IB as significant new information becomes available.

Quality Management

The G-DDCMManual, the G-BiolProdManual, and BRA-8 further explain that the sponsor must include manufacturing process information in the Experimental Drug Dossier as part of the clinical trial application (Drug Clinical Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) submission as described in ResNo9. Please refer to ResNo9, the G-DDCMManual, and the G-BiolProdManual for additional experimental drug dossier requirements.