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. The TGA’s Pharmacovigilance Branch is responsible for evaluating and authorizing certain clinical trials for all types of therapeutic products. According to the G-TrialsSOP and AUS-32, the TGA also 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.

Other Considerations

According to AUS-74, the TGA closely aligns its regulatory approaches to therapeutic products with those of comparable international regulatory counterparts, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA), wherever possible. For more information on the international scientific guidelines adopted in Australia, see AUS-74.

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

Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS)

As set forth in GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is the regulatory authority responsible for approving all clinical studies in human beings and/or their biological samples, for scientific research purposes. COFEPRIS is authorized to monitor and verify approved clinical studies to be conducted in Mexico in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned documents.

Under the terms of Reg-COFEPRIS and GenHlthLaw, the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) supervises the regulation, control, and promotion of health through COFEPRIS. Per MOH-Org, COFEPRIS, a decentralized administrative body, is overseen by the Ministry of Health’s head of the Undersecretariat of Prevention and Health Promotion. Reg-COFEPRIS and GenHlthLaw state that COFEPRIS is headed by a Federal Commissioner appointed by the President of Mexico, upon the Ministry’s recommendation. Per GenHlthLaw, the Ministry of Health is also responsible for supervising COFEPRIS. Per Reg-COFEPRIS and GenHlthLaw, the agency has technical, administrative, and operational autonomy in regulating, evaluating, controlling, promoting, and disseminating the conditions and requirements to prevent and manage health risks in the Mexican population.

Reg-COFEPRIS specifies that COFEPRIS comprises eight (8) administrative units and four (4) government advisory bodies that manage the agency’s organizational and operational responsibilities. Included among COFEPRIS’s administrative units, and central to the research protocol authorization process, is the Sanitary Authorization Commission (Comisión de Autorización Sanitaria (CAS)). As delineated in Reg-COFEPRIS, GenHlthLaw, and MEX-53, CAS is responsible for issuing, extending, or revoking research protocol authorizations. According to MEX-104, CAS’s work is performed by its protocols area.

Other Considerations

Per MEX-41, Mexico is a regulatory member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). As indicated in MEX-2, COFEPRIS is in the process of implementing the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R2) (MEX-22). However, COFEPRIS-GCP complies with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32).

Please note: Mexico is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (MEX-5), 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 MEX-35.

Contact Information

As per MEX-71 and MEX-15, COFEPRIS’s contact information is as follows:

Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios
Oklahoma No. 14
Colonia Nápoles
Del. Benito Juárez
C.P. 03810, Ciudad de México

Note: Per MEX-37, MEX-15, and MEX-25, the preceding address should also be used to contact COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37) for technical inquiries or those inquiries requiring an official response.

COFEPRIS Call Center Phone: 01-800-033-5050 (toll free within Mexico) or 55 53 40 09 96 (international calls) (per MEX-37)
Foreign Processing Area Phone (for entry and/or tracking number of procedure): 01-800-420-4224 (toll free within Mexico) (per MEX-25)
Email: contactociudadano@cofepris.gob.mx (per MEX-71 and MEX-37)

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. The TGA can conduct a GCP inspection at any stage of the clinical trial lifecycle from the early phase of participant recruitment to completed trials. Additionally, the TGA can request certain information or documents about therapeutic goods exempt under the CTN scheme or approved under the CTA scheme. This can include the investigator’s brochure and protocol, further information about safety reports, clarification about the safety profile of a specific therapeutic good, and/or details of problems or complaints. The TGA will normally give advance notice of its intention to conduct a GCP inspection but has the right to perform an inspection at any time. In exceptional circumstances, the TGA can perform an inspection without notice.

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.

Overview

In accordance with GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is the regulatory authority responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving all requests for research protocol authorization in human beings and/or their biological samples using registered or unregistered investigational products (IPs). Per NOM-257-SSA1-2014, COFEPRIS requires biotechnological drugs used in clinical research studies to follow the same protocol authorization procedure as is required for all IPs. COFEPRIS-GCP and HlthResRegs specify that the scope of COFEPRIS’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV).

As indicated in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, COFEPRIS’s review and approval of a protocol authorization request is dependent upon obtaining a favorable decision from the health institution’s Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Research Committee where the study is being conducted, and when applicable, the Biosafety Committee. Therefore, the COFEPRIS and EC reviews may not be conducted in parallel. In addition, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the REC’s favorable decision is only later submitted to COFEPRIS with the protocol authorization request. Refer to the Ethics Committee section for detailed information on the REC, and the Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for additional information on the Research Committee and Biosafety Committee.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As delineated in Reg-COFEPRIS and MEX-53, COFEPRIS’s Sanitary Authorization Commission (Comisión de Autorización Sanitaria (CAS)) is responsible for recording, evaluating, and issuing opinions on requests for human research protocol authorizations. According to MEX-104, CAS’s work is performed by its protocols area. Per MEX-15, CAS’s technical/protocols area conducts its work via COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37), a public service system established by the Mexican government to facilitate the processing of the agency’s standardized procedures and services.

As indicated in G-HumResProt and G-ResProtocolAmd, the applicant must submit an application to the CIS (MEX-37) to request protocol authorization or modification/amendment of a protocol authorization, and the application is then forwarded to CAS’s technical/protocols area for evaluation. (Note: COFEPRIS refers to applications as requests or procedures). Per G-HumResProt, the designated evaluator reviews and evaluates the information, comparing the information presented to assess whether it complies with current Mexican legislation on the matter. The information is also evaluated for completeness and accuracy and is reviewed to detect deficiencies or anomalies in the documentation or in the study process. Once the evaluator issues a resolution of authorization or a prevention letter, it is forwarded to the head of CAS for signature.

Following its review of the application documentation, per G-HumResProt and G-ResProtocolAmd, CAS’s technical/protocols area issues an official resolution of authorization or a prevention letter (in which additional or missing information is requested). If authorized, the clinical study may begin. However, if a prevention letter is received, the applicant must respond to what is stated in the letter and resubmit a request for continued processing after addressing all of the issues raised. CAS’s technical/protocols area will issue a final resolution following resubmission of the application for protocol authorization or modification/amendment. G-HumResProt also indicates that for in-person submissions, applicants can go to the CIS (MEX-37) to obtain the resolution.

G-ResProtocolAmd specifies that protocol modifications may be submitted to amend the research protocol, amend the informed consent/assent form, update the clinical and/or preclinical sections of the investigator’s brochure (also known as investigator’s manual in Mexico), remove or add research center(s)/research institution(s), or provide updated clinical and/or preclinical security/safety IP information. Refer to G-ObsrvStdies information on submitting applications to conduct risk-free research (observational studies), and G-BioequivStud for information on submitting applications to conduct bioequivalence studies.

Additionally, as indicated in G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, once an official authorization from COFEPRIS is obtained, some of the data provided by the applicant via COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86), will be migrated to the CIS (MEX-37) and to the National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC)) database (MEX-68). According to MEX-109, the G-RNECManual is useful for information on registering with RNEC for clinical trial applications submitted in person at the CIS (MEX-37). See also G-DIGIPRiS-DocComp for instructions on validating and comparing resolutions issued through DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) for research protocols). See Submission Process section for detailed DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) submission requirements.

Reg-HlthProd further explains that applicants must submit a request to COFEPRIS to obtain a sanitary registration for biosimilar biotechnological drug products. The specific requirements for the approval of each biosimilar biotechnological drug (e.g., in vitro studies, preclinical study reports, and comparative pharmacokinetic study reports) will be determined by the Ministry of Health, who will take into consideration the opinion of the Committee of New Molecules. When there is no relevant information in the Pharmacopoeia of the United Mexican States (Farmacopea de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (FEUM)) and its supplements, nor in national guides or monographs, the Ministry may evaluate biosimilar tests using clinical data obtained from biosimilar biotechnological drug studies conducted in other countries. However, clinical trials are required to be conducted in Mexico when an applicant requests the renewal of an approval for a biosimilar biotechnological drug product. According to MEX-91, COFEPRIS’s acceptance of data produced abroad will accelerate the introduction of biosimilar drug products into Mexico. Additionally, per MEX-120, COFEPRIS has implemented modifications to NOM-177-SSA1-2013, the standard which establishes the tests and procedures to demonstrate that generic drugs or biosimilar biotechnological drugs comply with established interchangeability tests and delineates requirements for the authorized third parties that perform these tests. Pursuant to NOM-177-SSA1-2013-Mod, the modification expands the standard to include studies that are carried out in Mexico as well as in other countries to demonstrate interchangeability and biocomparability. MEX-120 also notes the modifications in NOM-177-SSA1-2013-Mod are designed to expedite the registration of generic and biosimilar biotechnological drugs. See NOM-177-SSA1-2013 and NOM-177-SSA1-2013-Mod for details.(Note: In Mexico, biosimilar is also referred to as biocomparable.)

UHAP Evaluations

Per HlthResRegs, prior to submitting an authorization request, applicants may also obtain a pre-assessment evaluation by an authorized third party that helps to facilitate COFEPRIS’s review. MEX-21 and MEX-10 explain that rather than submitting the application directly to the CIS, the applicant has the option of first choosing to obtain a pre-assessment (third party) evaluation of the application through an Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamen (UHAP)) (MEX-69) within the Coordinating Commission of National Institutes of Health and High Speciality Hospitals (Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad (CCINSHAE)) (referred to as the UHAP-CCINSHAE) or a UHAP within the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)). MEX-9 states that the CCINSHAE oversees (12) UHAPs. According to MEX-90, the Faculty of Medicine of the Autonomous University of Nuevo León (Facultad de Medicina de Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL)) UHAP is another third-party unit authorized by COFEPRIS to assist in the evaluation and assessment of human research protocols. Refer to MEX-19, MEX-69, and MEX-70 for detailed information on the CCINSHAE, the IMSS, and the UANL UHAP application submission requirements and evaluation process. See also HlthResRegs for information on the third party authorization process by the Secretariat, and MEX-10 and MEX-121 for additional information on authorized third parties. See Timeline of Review section for timeline information on submitting UHAP applications.

According to MEX-10, the UHAP has a maximum of 30 calendar days to respond to an evaluation request. See the Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for detailed UHAP information.

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 on TGA fees and payments. Also see AUS-49 for additional guidance and system screenshots related to paying CTN fees.

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

Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS)

As indicated in G-HumResProt, G-BioequivStud, G-ObsrvStdies, G-ResProtocolAmd, MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant is responsible for paying a non-refundable fee (also referred to as “Proof of Payment of Rights”) to submit a request for protocol authorization to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)).

According to MEX-37 and MEX-15, applicants may obtain the fee information for a specific procedure or service using COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37). Per MEX-15, CIS is a public service system established by the Mexican government to facilitate the processing of the agency’s standardized procedures and services. MEX-15 and MEX-37 indicate that applicants may call CIS (MEX-37) or schedule an appointment for assistance with determining the COFEPRIS procedure code to obtain the correct processing instructions and fees and for help with submitting the payment. See MEX-37 and MEX-15 for information on scheduling an appointment with CIS.

G-HumResProt, G-BioequivStud, G-ObsrvStdies, G-ResProtocolAmd, and MEX-11 provide requirements and corresponding costs to submit requests to COFEPRIS for protocol authorizations or amendments/modifications. The costs linked to these procedures are as follows:

• Request for authorization of research protocol in humans for medicines, biological, and biotechnological: 7,553.00 Mexican Pesos (G-HumResProt and MEX-11)
• Authorization of research protocol in humans (bioequivalence studies): 7,553 Mexican Pesos (G-BioequivStud)

• Authorization of research protocol without risk (observational) in humans: 7,553.00 Mexican Pesos (G-ObsrvStdies)
• Amendment or modification to the research protocol or inclusions to the protocol: 5,665 Mexican Pesos (G-ResProtocolAmd and MEX-11)

In addition, per G-UnregDrugImprts, the fee to request a health permit to import investigational products for research purposes is 6,727.65 Mexican Pesos.

As indicated in MEX-10, the fee for requesting a pre-assessment application evaluation through an Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamen (UHAP)) (MEX-69) within the Coordinating Commission of National Institutes of Health and High Speciality Hospitals (Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad (CCINSHAE)) (referred to as the UHAP-CCINSHAE) is 60,000 Mexican Pesos. The cost is the same for obtaining a review from any of the UHAPs within CCINSHAE. In addition, if the applicant selects a scientific committee within an institution that has a UHAP, the cost is 40,000 Mexican Pesos. The cost for each amendment is 3,500 Mexican Pesos, and corrections to the pre-assessment document are free.

Payment Instructions

As explained in MEX-50, G-HumResProt, G-BioequivStud, G-ObsrvStdies, and G-ResProtocolAmd, applicants should make payments for these procedures and services through an authorized credit institution using E5cinco (MEX-52). (See also MEX-52 for a link to participating financial institutions). Per MEX-50 and MEX-52, E5cinco is an electronic scheme created to enable users to submit the Payment of Rights, Products and Benefits (Derechos, Productos y Aprovechamientos (DPAs)) to a participating credit institution through its Internet portal or banking window. See also MEX-51 and MEX-6 for detailed DPA payment instructions via E5cinco (MEX-52).

In addition, G-HumResProt, G-BioequivStud, G-ObsrvStdies, G-ResProtocolAmd, and MEX-84 provide a website link, Help Sheet for the Generation of the Fee Payment Format, for users to generate a payment form for fees based on their procedure in order to make a payment at the banking institution of their choice. Refer to G-HumResProt, G-BioequivStud, G-ObsrvStdies, G-ResProtocolAmd, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts for additional information on this process.

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 delineated in GenHlthLaw, HlthResRegs, REC-Op, REC-Op-Ref, G-RECs-Op-2018, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Mexico has a decentralized process for the ethics review and approval of clinical trial research. Accordingly, every health care institution which carries out research activities in human beings is required to have a Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) that is responsible for evaluating and ruling on research protocols in human beings. RECs are subject to current legislation and the criteria established by the National Bioethics Commission (Comisión Nacional de Bioética (CONBIOÉTICA)).

RECs must also comply with guidelines for the ethical evaluation of research involving human beings as delineated in GenHlthLaw, G-RECs-Op-2018, HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012. Pursuant to G-RECs-Op-2018, RECs must adhere to international guidelines relevant to research with human beings including the Declaration of Helsinki (MEX-76) and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (MEX-22)).

In addition, per GenHlthLaw, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, every health institution where research is conducted is required to establish a Research Committee and a Biosafety Committee. Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, REC and Research Committee approval is required for each trial site where a study is being conducted, and when applicable, Biosafety Committee approval is required as well.

GenHlthLaw further notes that in addition to establishing an REC, public, social, or private sector health care establishments of the National Health System must have a Hospital Bioethics Committee for the resolution of problems arising from medical care along with engaging in other bioethical and ethical related activities.

As per HlthResRegs, REC-Op, REC-Op-Ref, G-RECs-Op-2018, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Hospital Bioethics Committees also operate through CONBIOÉTICA. MEX-47 specifies that CONBIOÉTICA is responsible for registering RECs and Hospital Bioethics Committees. See the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for details on ethics committee registration.

Ethics Committee Composition

Research Ethics Committee Composition

As indicated in GenHlthLaw, RECs must be interdisciplinary gender-balanced groups composed of medical personnel from different specialties; professionals from psychology, nursing, social work, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, or law fields who have bioethics training; and community representatives affected by the health condition under study or other health services users who may or may not be attached to the health unit or institution. In addition to the previously stated criteria, G-RECs-Op-2018 indicates that these professionals should have a professional license and accredited training and experience in research ethics, good clinical practice, bioethics, and have experience related to the research area they will be evaluating. HlthResRegs further notes that the REC must consist of at least three (3) scientists including both genders and recommends that at least one (1) of them be based outside the health institution. The medical professionals should also represent the moral, cultural, and social values of the research groups. By comparison, NOM-012-SSA3-2012 states that REC health professionals should have expertise in the subjects investigated at the institution, regardless of whether the professionals have experience in the scientific methodology applied to the research. Further, the community representatives should embody the moral, cultural, and social values of the research participants.

Per REC-Op and REC-Op-Ref, the REC members must also be recognized and able to document their professional excellence in research/research bioethics, have personal records that prove ethical suitability and conduct, and advanced knowledge in qualitative and quantitative methodology. Additionally, GenHlthLaw, G-RECs-Op-2018, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 state that REC members may or may not be based at the associated institution where the study is being conducted.

Additionally, NOM-012-SSA3-2012 specifies that the REC should be composed of a minimum of three (3) scientists, plus community representatives, as deemed necessary, with a total of at least six (6) members and a maximum of 20. G-RECs-Op-2018, REC-Op, and REC-Op-Ref note that the REC should comprise a president, at least four (4) members, one (1) of whom will serve as secretary, a representative from the affected study group or other health services users, with at least one (1) member who has expertise in bioethics and research ethics, and internal or external specialists to be included on an as needed basis. G-RECs-Op-2018 also notes that the member acting as a representative is not required to have a professional license in research or medical care and may include individuals with basic education or technical training.

Hospital Bioethics Committee Composition

Per GenHlthLaw and G-CHBs-Op, Hospital Bioethics Committees must be multidisciplinary, diverse, gender-balanced groups composed of medical personnel from different specialties and the health team; professionals from psychology, nursing, social work, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy fields; lawyers with knowledge in health matters, and community representatives affected by the health condition under study or other health services users who may or may not be attached to the health unit or institution. G-CHBs-Op notes that the members must have previous bioethics training or receive the training within the six (6) months after joining the Committee. Administrative personnel, directors of institutions, or people who occupy managerial positions in the institution should not be included, in order to promote an environment of equity.

In addition, per G-CHBs-Op, the Hospital Bioethics Committee should be composed of a president and a minimum of four (4) members with assistance from a secretary, to be appointed from among the members by the president. At least one (1) member not assigned to the health establishment must be included.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

Research Ethics Committees

Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the constitution and operation of the REC will be subject to the provisions of current legislation and, where appropriate, to the criteria referred to in article 41 Bis of the GenHlthLaw. REC-Op, G-RECs-Op-2018, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP specify that RECs should operate within written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to conduct their reviews. REC-Op and G-RECs-Op-2018 indicate that the health institution owner must approve the SOPs and issue a certificate of appointment to each of the REC members. HlthResRegs, G-RECs-Op-2018, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 note that members must hold office for three (3) years and may be approved for an equal period.

Per REC-Op, G-RECs-Op-2018, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP, the following minimum requirements must be met (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• RECs must meet at least six (6) times a year, and at least once every two (2) months
• The minimum number of members required to complete a quorum must be greater than 50% of the members, and the president and/or secretary must be present to form a quorum
• In the evaluation of multicenter studies and when otherwise warranted, the REC may meet jointly with other RECs that belong to other establishments in the country, for the assessment and opinion for these protocols
• Minutes must be prepared for legal and administrative purposes in meetings
• An annual report of activities should be presented to the institutional head in the first 30 calendar days of the year
• Avoid conflicts of interest in protocol evaluations or be declared disqualified for that particular review
• Participation is required in initial training and bioethics continuing education
• Liaisons with other RECs within and outside the country to better carry out its functions
• A general policy on the confidentiality of information for protocols reviewed must be established and implemented
• A code of conduct for REC members must be established and implemented
• Members must refrain from participating in the evaluation and opinion of their own research
• Members will remain in office for the time established in each committee’s installation act and may be ratified at the end of each period, if applicable. Members may be replaced in a staggered manner, for which documentary evidence must be kept
• The committee will designate the person who will occupy the position of president and who will be responsible to the head of the institution or establishment and for the committee’s activities
• In the committee sessions, members of external committees may participate or have the support of external advisors, who will have a voice but no vote. In these cases, researchers from the institution or establishment itself may also participate as long as they work in areas related to the subject of the project or research protocol in the opinion phase
• It is the responsibility of the committee to issue the technical opinion on ethics, according to the nature of the proposed investigations

For detailed REC procedures and information on other administrative processes, see REC-Op, G-RECs-Op-2018, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP. See also MEX-72 for information on CONBIOÉTICA’s REC follow-up monitoring reports.

As per G-RECs-Op-2018, the REC should also keep documentation related to its integration, operation, and registration activities for up to three (3) years after the conclusion of the committee’s activities. The committee should also define the procedure for transferring the files and appoint the responsible person at the institution where the REC registration was granted. In addition, the REC will keep all the essential documents reviewed and related to each evaluated investigation, up to five (5) years following the end of the investigation or during the period established in the applicable provisions.

See G-RECs-Op-2018 for additional REC recordkeeping requirements.

Hospital Bioethics Committees

As indicated in G-CHBs-Op, Hospital Bioethics Committees must establish operating rules, which specify member functions as well as the internal mechanisms and procedures for operations during the sessions. In newly created Committees and during the first six (6) months, the members must be trained in bioethics on an ongoing basis. Per G-CHBs-Op and GenHlthLaw, the Committee will also promote, with the head of the hospital, the dissemination, elaboration and implementation of institutional bioethical guidelines and guides for medical care and teaching. It will also promote the ongoing the bioethical education of its members and hospital staff. GenHlthLaw also notes the Hospital Bioethics Committees must comply with current legislation and CONBIOÉTICA guidelines.

G-CHBs-Op further explains that Hospital Bioethics Committees must meet in an ordinary manner, at least six (6) times a year, and in an extraordinary way, at any time, at the President’s request, or when requested by the majority of its members. Quorum requirements to review and decide on a request must include attendance of at least half the number of committee members and the president. Minutes will also be prepared for each of the Committee sessions. The resolutions issued by the Committee are the result of the analysis and deliberation of the members present at the session and must be communicated through a letter addressed to the applicant who presented the case. The recommendations issued by the Committee must not be incorporated into the clinical file. The Committee President is responsible for safeguarding the files. For detailed Hospital Bioethics Committee procedures and information on other administrative processes, see G-CHBs-Op.

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

According to HlthResRegs, REC-Op, and G-RECs-Op-2018, the primary scope of information assessed by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of human research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. Per HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018, RECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed vulnerable. (See Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations.)

HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018 also state that RECs must ensure an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants, and they must verify the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. See HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018 for detailed ethical review guidelines.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant must obtain a favorable decision from the REC and the Research Committee at the health institution where the study is being conducted, and when applicable, a favorable decision from the Biosafety Committee. As per COFEPRIS-GCP, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the REC must provide a favorable decision for the research protocol and informed consent form prior to the applicant submitting a request for protocol authorization to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)). Consequently, the REC and COFEPRIS reviews may not be conducted in parallel.

HlthResRegs, GenHlthLaw, and G-HumResProt explain that the REC provides ethics recommendations on protocols for research in human beings, including a review of the research risks and benefits, and per G-HumResProt, assesses the technical quality and scientific merit of the protocol. HlthResRegs further notes that RECs also prepare ethics guidelines for conducting research in humans.

As delineated in G-RECs-Op-2018, the REC agenda and documents corresponding to each session should be delivered at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. It is then recommended that the REC’s decision be sent within a period not exceeding five (5) working days after the committee has met, or if applicable, not to exceed 30 calendar days from the review request date. G-RECs-Op-2018 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also state that the approval of a new application is valid for one (1) year.

After obtaining a favorable opinion from the REC that validated the initial project or protocol, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the principal investigator (PI) must submit an amended protocol to the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) to request a new authorization for any amendments to be made to the methodological design of the initial research project. In those cases where the lives of research participants are endangered, amendments can be applied immediately, prior to approval by the REC and authorization by the Ministry of Health. However, in these situations, it will be necessary for the PI to provide documentary evidence following the event to the REC and the Ministry.

In addition, G-RECs-Op-2018 indicates that the REC should establish procedures for monitoring approved studies, from the point at which the decision was made until the completion of the investigation and reporting of results. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and G-RECs-Op-2018, the REC must assess and approve the research protocol at the beginning of the project, and periodically throughout the project’s duration to ensure conformance with ethical principles and applicable regulations. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 further specifies that the REC must propose to the head of the institution or establishment where health research is carried out that the research be suspended or cancelled in the presence of any adverse effect that is an impediment from an ethical or technical point of view to continue with the study.

(See Submission Process and Timeline of Review sections for detailed REC submission process and timeline details.)

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.

As set forth in G-RECs-Op-2018, COFEPRIS-GCP, and REC-Op, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) (Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEIs)) do not charge sponsors/investigators for their review. Rather, the health institution must finance REC operating expenses, without this causing any conflict of interest in the committee’s functions.

G-RECs-Op-2018 further states that the institution may also receive support from external sources for evaluating protocols. However, this funding should not be given directly to any of the REC members, and the contributions should not lead to a conflict of interest between the funding source and the REC’s functions. Similarly, the committee’s evaluations should not result in financial gains as a result of these contributions.

Per G-RECs-Op-2018, REC financial support should not be used for purposes other than for its operation, and all activities should be handled with full transparency. Support is provided for the following activities:

• Time for participation in committee meetings
• Work recognition for their performance in the REC
• Support for training in bioethics and research ethics inside and outside the institution
• Physical space for the REC headquarters, both for meetings and receipt of documents, and safeguarding of documentation protocols, opinions, and minutes
• Administrative assistance for REC activities

No information is available on Hospital Bioethics Committee fees.

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

The National Bioethics Commission (Comisión Nacional de Bioética (CONBIOÉTICA)) was established as a decentralized entity of the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) in 2005, as specified in D-CONBIOETICA. According to D-CONBIOETICA and MEX-55, the agency has technical and operational autonomy in defining and establishing national bioethics policies in medical care and health research. Per D-CONBIOETICA, GenHlthLaw, G-RECs-Op-2018, and MEX-57, CONBIOÉTICA is also responsible for promoting the organization and operation of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) (Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEIs)) and Hospital Bioethics Committees in public and private health institutions, for establishing and disseminating criteria to support development of REC activities, and for providing committee member training support.

In addition, per D-CONBIOETICA, CONBIOÉTICA’s other roles include:

• Exercising the Commission’s legal authority and head Commission operations
• Presiding over the Commission’s Advisory Council
• Issuing positions on bioethical issues relevant to society
• Establishing links with federal entities to promote the creation and operation of state bioethics commissions
• Signing and implementing collaborative agreements with organizations and opportunities that favor the development and consolidation of bioethical culture
• Carrying out activities assigned by the Secretary of Health
• Providing information and technical cooperation required by the Ministry of Health’s administrative units and other dependencies/entities within the Federal Public Administration

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Research Ethics Committees

As delineated in HlthResRegs, REC-Op, REC-Op-Ref, REC-Op-Amd, G-RECs-Op-2018, G-RECReg, and MEX-57, all RECs are required to register with CONBIOÉTICA in order to conduct health research in humans.

G-RECs-Op-2018, and G-RECReg further state that CONBIOÉTICA has 10 working days from the business day following application receipt to accept the application, or require the applicant to correct omissions in the application within 15 working days from the business day following the date when the applicant is notified. If the applicant fails to respond within this timeframe, the application must be deemed not filed. Once the application has been admitted for processing, the Commission has 30 working days to notify the applicant of receipt, and if appropriate, to issue the corresponding registration certificate, which will be valid for three (3) years. The registration record must also be visibly displayed in the institution where REC operations occur and on its website, if applicable. Additionally, the registration number must be included in all official committee communications.

Per REC-Op-Amd, MEX-58, and G-RECReg, the REC registration form (MEX-29) is available for completion or download via MEX-58 or G-RECReg, and should be submitted in person according to the requirements outlined in REC-Op-Amd, MEX-58, and G-RECReg. The application must include the REC’s health institution identification data, an email address in order to receive Commission notifications, and the name and signature of the responsible person heading the REC. G-RECReg specifies that the applicant may request an appointment by phone or email to deliver all the documentation in printed form to CONBIOÉTICA, or send the application documentation via certified mail.

Refer to REC-Op-Amd, G-RECs-Op-2018, MEX-58, and G-RECReg for detailed registration application instructions and documentation requirements. See also MEX-57 for a list of registered RECs.

As delineated in REC-Op-Amd, G-RECs-Op-2018, and G-RECRegRenew, a registration renewal application must be submitted by the principal or owner of the health establishment or by the legal representative to CONBIOÉTICA within 45 working days prior to the expiration of the validation period covered by the registration certificate. From this point, the timing requirements are the same as for the initial application. See REC-Op-Amd, G-RECs-Op-2018, and G-RECRegRenew for detailed registration renewal application requirements and the application form.

In addition to CONBIOÉTICA’s REC registration requirement, per GenHlthLaw, G-RECs-Op-2018, REC-Op, and REC-Op-Ref, RECs must be installed under the responsibility of the head of the health institution where the study is taking place. They are required to sign a REC Installation Certificate (MEX-27), which stipulates its characteristics and functions. Refer to G-RECs-Op-2018 for detailed certificate requirements. See also MEX-72 for information on CONBIOÉTICA’s REC follow-up monitoring reports.

According to NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the research institution owner must also register the REC with the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud), and report on the modification, designation, or substitution of any of its members. Additionally, an annual report documenting the integration and activities of these committees must be submitted to the Ministry during the first 10 business days of June each year.

Hospital Bioethics Committees

G-CHBs-Op and G-CHBReg indicate that Hospital Bioethics Committees must also register with CONBIOÉTICA, who is, in turn, required to issue a registration record within a maximum of 15 business days. CONBIOÉTICA’s registration is valid for three (3) years. Per G-CHBs-Op, the Hospital Bioethics Committee registration form must be submitted electronically through CONBIOÉTICA’s website. The application for registration renewal can be submitted one (1) month prior to the registration’s expiration date. Refer to G-CHBs-Op, MEX-56, MEX-59, and G-CHBReg for additional Hospital Bioethics Committee registration information.

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

In accordance with GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Mexico requires the applicant to obtain research protocol authorization from the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)). Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant must also obtain a favorable decision from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee at the health institution where the study is being conducted, and when applicable, a favorable decision from the Biosafety Committee. Because COFEPRIS’s review and approval of a protocol authorization request is dependent upon obtaining a favorable decision from the REC and Research Committee, the COFEPRIS and ethics committee (REC and Research Committee) reviews may not be conducted in parallel.

Regulatory Submission

MEX-15 states that applicants may submit research authorization requests or protocol modification/amendment requests in person or by mail to COFEPRIS at the Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37), a public service system established by the Mexican government to facilitate the processing of the agency’s standardized procedures and services. According to G-HumResProt, G-ResProtocolAmd, MEX-109, and MEX-37, however, requests should be submitted to the CIS (MEX-37) in person or electronically via COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86). (Note: COFEPRIS refers to applications as requests or procedures).

Pre-submission Registrations

As delineated in G-DIGIPRiS-Regis and G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess, prior to submitting a request for research protocol authorization via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86), an applicant must first register in (MEX-86) using an e.signature (also known as e.firma) digital certificate. MEX-49 explains that the signature is a secure, encrypted digital file that identifies an applicant, and can be used to carry out procedures electronically with various government agencies. An e.signature can be obtained from the Tax Administration Service (Servicio de administración tributaria (SAT)) as described in MEX-105. G-DIGIPRiS-Regis and G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess further explain that an e.signature is used to validate the natural person or legal entity registering in MEX-86. DIGIPRiS’s Terms of Use, which is accessible via MEX-86, also notes that the applicant is required to be registered with the Federal Taxpayer Registry (Registro Federal de Contribuyentes (RFC)). See G-DIGIPRiS-Regis, G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess, and DIGIPRiS’s Terms of Use for details on registering in MEX-86. See also MEX-106 for an instructional tutorial on registering in MEX-86, and see G-DIGIPRiS-FAQs for frequently asked questions on using MEX-86.

DIGIPRiS Submissions

DIGIPRiS’s Terms of Use further explains that the application process is carried out entirely electronically via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86), unless the user is required to present printed documents with a handwritten signature or a physical inspection is required. The application request will be considered active when the documentation is signed and submitted, otherwise it will only remain in the system for 90 calendar days. When the request is active, the user receives a “Procedure Entry Receipt” through which COFEPRIS assigns a procedure number and the entry date and time is recorded. Once the procedure has begun, the user will be notified in MEX-86 of all request related administrative acts (e.g., requirements, actions, preventions or missing information, and resolutions). Authorizations issued via MEX-86 will take effect on the date and time indicated in the corresponding document. The email address the user provides during registration will be used to send notices of notification availability related to submitted applications. Refer to DIGIPRiS’s Terms of Use for detailed information on the administrative act notification process via MEX-86. See also G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess for instructions on registering and updating emails in MEX-86.

Pursuant to G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, users can view the flow and status of the entire application process (application, evaluation, verification, signature and resolution) in DIGIPRiS (MEX-86), as well as view previously authorized applications. Additionally, multiple requests and procedures can be in process simultaneously in MEX-86. See also G-DIGIPRiS-DocComp for instructions on validating and comparing documents issued through MEX-86 for research protocols. Refer to MEX-96, MEX-97, and MEX-108 for additional background information on MEX-86. Per G-HumResProt, electronic submissions via MEX-86 are tracked via the applicant’s e.signature (MEX-105). See also G-DIGIPRiS-Reqs&Amdts for instructions on submitting requests for protocol amendment/modification via MEX-86.

CIS Submissions

As indicated in MEX-37 and MEX-15, applications submitted in person at the CIS (MEX-37) can be tracked via a CIS assigned reference number in the COFEPRIS Electronic Procedures Portal (MEX-103). MEX-109 specifies that the Electronic Procedures Portal (MEX-103) is only to be used for procedures submitted in person at the CIS (MEX-37) while procedures submitted via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) should be tracked through the DIGIPRiS platform.

As per MEX-15, and MEX-71, applications as well as technical inquiries, or those inquiries requiring an official response, should be submitted to the CIS (MEX-37) at:

COFEPRIS
Centro Integral de Servicios
Oklahoma No. 14
Colonia Nápoles
Del. Benito Juárez
CP 03810, Ciudad de México

COFEPRIS Call Center Phone: 01-800-033-5050 (toll free within Mexico) or 55 53 40 09 96 (international calls) (per MEX-37)
Foreign Processing Area Phone (for entry and/or tracking number of procedure): 01-800-420-4224 (toll free within Mexico) (per MEX-25)
Email: contactociudadano@cofepris.gob.mx (per MEX-71 and MEX-37)

Per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, all documents uploaded to DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) must be in “.pdf” format (unrestricted text file), unless another format is specified.

Per G-HumResProt, G-ResProtocolAmd, and MEX-18, the Authorizations, Certificates and Visits form (MEX-25) should also be included in the application submission, as well as the original proof of payment of rights with two (2) copies of the receipt for protocol authorization and protocol modification/amendment requests. See the Submission Content section for detailed submission documentation requirements.

G-HumResProt and G-ResProtocolAmd state that all documentation related to submitting applications for research protocol authorization and protocol modification/amendment is required to be in Spanish. MEX-84 also specifies that the protocol, investigator’s brochure (known as the researcher’s manual in Mexico), and the informed consent forms should be in Spanish.

Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (UHAP) Evaluation Submissions

Per MEX-21 and MEX-10, rather than submitting the application directly to the CIS, the applicant has the option of first choosing to obtain a pre-assessment evaluation of the application through an Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamen (UHAP)) (MEX-69) within the Coordinating Commission of National Institutes of Health and High Speciality Hospitals (Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad (CCINSHAE)) (referred to as the UHAP-CCINSHAE) or a UHAP within the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)). See Scope of Assessment section for detailed information on UHAPs.

Ethics Review Submission

As earlier stated, per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, all requests for research protocol authorization in human beings and/or their biological samples in Mexico require the applicant to obtain a favorable decision from the REC and the Research Committee, and when applicable, a favorable decision from the Biosafety Committee. Because the submission process at individual institutional RECs will vary, applicants should review and follow their institution’s specific requirements.

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. An Australian contact number is required to be listed with either the primary sponsor contact or the alternate sponsor contact
• Protocol number
• Expected trial start and completion dates
• Potential use of restricted goods
• Study title and description, which must be a minimum of 250 characters (spaces included) and up to a maximum of 2,500 characters
• “This Trial” check boxes indicating whether the trial involves the use of a medicine, a medical device, and/or a biological. For a medicine or biological, additional information must be provided, such as dosage form, route of administration, indication, and the good manufacturing practice (GMP) license/clearance number of a relevant exemption
• 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 specified in GenHlthLaw, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, COFEPRIS-GCP, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the following documentation must be submitted to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) as part of the approval process (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Authorizations, Certificates and Visits form (original and two (2) copies) (MEX-25)
• Proof of payment of rights (original and two (2) copies)
• Request letter (in editable format (.docx) containing study data (title, investigator’s name, etc.), description of study risk level and duration (including estimated start and end dates (DD/MM/YYYY), and documents submitted for research protocol authorization (original)
• Response to COFEPRIS prevention letter requesting missing or additional information should be submitted in a new request letter
• Research protocol (original and one (1) copy)
• Acceptance letter from research institution head and responsible principal investigator (PI)
• Sponsor letter of acceptance of position and delegation of responsibilities (must include at least sponsor contact information, description of obligations and protocol rights, sponsor legal representative/authorized person signature, protocol number, when applicable, a certified copy of the apostilled, notarized, and translated power of attorney) (one (1) copy)
• Letter of No Conflict of Interest from the sponsor (one (1) copy)
• Document proving applicant’s legal identity (e.g., health license, operating notice or, where appropriate, the Federal Taxpayer Registry (Registro Federal de Contribuyentes (RFC)) (one (1) copy)
• Follow-up letter from sponsor providing monitoring/auditing plan
• Model letter of informed consent in Spanish
• Informed consent of the research participant or, where appropriate, the legal representative (original and one (1) copy)
• Study schedule (original and one (1) copy)
• Health warehouse license for operation of storage and distribution warehouse for biological products for human use, with handling of medications: narcotics, psychotropics, vaccines, toxoids, serums and antitoxins of animal origin and/or blood derivatives (one (1) copy)
• Letter of acceptance of responsibility from the importer (signed by legal representative of the importer)
• Importer name, license number, and address
• Sanitary license of the warehouse for storage and distribution of the research product (only narcotics, psychotropics, biologicals, radiopharmaceuticals, and vaccines)
• Letter of import supplies providing approximate total quantity and description of investigational products (IPs) requiring importation at each stage of the study; letter serves as acknowledgement of information, not authorization (original and one (1) copy)
• IP route of administration
• Insurance policy or current document from the financial fund that covers all study participants at the local level (one (1) copy)
• Current Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and Research Committee registration and Biosafety Committee registration, where applicable (one (1) copy)
• Favorable opinion of REC, Research Committee, and where appropriate, Biosafety Committee (original and one (1) copy)
• REC member list
• REC member letters recusing themselves if on research team (one (1) copy)
• REC letter describing study follow-up monitoring process (one (1) copy)
• Letter of No Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality signed by REC members (one (1) copy)
• Institution’s or establishment’s sanitary license or notice of operation (one (1) copy)
• Letter of authorization to carry out the research, signed by institutional head or health institution owner (must include protocol title/number, PI name, institution/establishment head signature and position, research center name/address) (original and one (1) copy)
• Where applicable, copy of agreement between research centers that have agreements for emergency medical care with other institutions
• Acceptance letter from the head of the institution or establishment describing resources available for emergency management (original and one (1) copy)
• Health license of the establishment to carry out medical emergency care
• Agreement or contract of the establishment for the care of medical emergencies of the research (must include at least title/protocol number; PI name; scope, clauses, and validity; signature of holders and legal representatives of both institutions; statement establishing the care of medical emergencies)
• Agreement or contract with institution or establishment to provide care for research related medical emergencies (one (1) copy)
• Letter of acceptance, confidentiality, and commitment to report suspected adverse reactions and events signed by the PI (original and one (1) copy)
• Summary of PI’s professional record/official professional documentation issued and registered by competent educational authorities (original and one (1) copy)
• Professional background of the PI (one (1) copy)
• Summary of academic preparation and experience of medical personnel, paramedics, and other experts involved in study (include updated Curriculum Vitae (CV), dated and signed, for each member; include a copy of documentation issued and registered by competent educational authorities accrediting academic preparation) (original and one (1) copy)
• Express letter of No Conflict of Interest to conduct the research, signed by the PI and research team
• PI letter describing research team’s delegation of responsibilities (must including protocol title/number, detailed description of activities, PI name/signature, team member signatures) (one (1) copy)
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB) (original and one (1) copy) (also known as investigator’s manual in Mexico)
• Letter describing the sponsoring institution’s or establishment’s resources for the study’s development (include institution/establishment name, PI name, protocol title/number, type of support required (e.g., human, material, financial, advisory information, equipment, auxiliary laboratory services, cabinets, and other resources), and how support will be provided and distributed) (original and one (1) copy)
• Document indicating drugs used in study comply with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and have the expected quality characteristics for IPs to be used in study, or letter documenting GMPs (one (1) copy)
• Status of stability studies, or letter documenting IP stability studies comply with applicable regulations (one (1) copy)
• Basic pharmacological and preclinical product information
• Additional study information (countries where research will be conducted, health conditions/problems, public consultation contact, scientific consultations contact)
• Optional pre-assessment evaluation opinion (See Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for details on pre-assessment evaluations)

See also Scope of Assessment and Timeline of Review sections for additional COFEPRIS review process and timeline information.

Refer to GenHlthLaw, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, and MEX-18 for more detailed submission information. See also MEX-36 for information on obtaining a certificate of GMPs.

Ethics Committee Requirements

As indicated in MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the following documentation should be submitted to obtain the favorable opinion of the REC, the Research Committee, and where appropriate, the Biosafety Committee:

• Full title and number of the research protocol
• Research protocol with the version and date in Spanish
• IB with the version and date in Spanish
• Full name of the IP corresponding to the research center
• Research center company name and address
• Informed consent forms with the version and date in Spanish
• Protocol summary
• Detailed description of the documents evaluated and approved in Spanish, citing version and date
• Validity of the approval opinion (not greater than one (1) year)
• Name, position, and signature of the person responsible who supports the opinion
• Confirmation of the evaluation of aspects of a scientific nature, the risk/benefit of the protocol as well as the guarantee and well-being of the participants

Additionally, a signed opinion issued on letterhead should be submitted that includes:

• Committee name and address (in accordance with its current registration)
• Date the opinion was issued
• PI name
• Company name and address of the research center
• Title of the study and protocol number
• Status/result of the evaluation of the documents (must be approved)
• Date of issue of the opinion (day, month, and year)
• Name and position of the signatory who supports the opinion (must be the President or the Secretary Member)

G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, also notes that only the opinions with the signature of the President of the REC (or, where appropriate, the Secretary-Vocal) will be accepted with a letter attached stating “NO VOTE” or a justification for the absence of the president. See MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts for additional ethics committee requirements.

Clinical Protocol

As set forth in MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, which are in compliance with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R2) (MEX-22), and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the research protocol should include the following elements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Title, acronym, and protocol number (corresponds to the opinion of the committee(s) evaluators)
• Document version and date, and amendments (if applicable) (corresponds to the opinion of the committee(s) evaluators)
• Sponsor name/address and monitor, if different from sponsor
• Theoretical framework (IP name/description, preclinical findings summary, etc.)
• Definition of problem
• Participant selection and withdrawal criteria
• Statement that the clinical trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol, good clinical practices, and local regulatory requirements
• Background
• Rationale
• Hypotheses (if applicable, includes statistical hypotheses)
• General objective (if applicable, includes specific, primary, secondary, or exploratory objectives)
• specific objectives)
• Materials and methods
• Study design (e.g., inclusion/exclusion and elimination criteria; information input, processing, analysis, and interpretation)
• Phase and type of study
• Study duration
• Sample size (global and local, as appropriate)
• Countries where the research will be carried out
• Health conditions or problems studied
• Capture, processing, analysis, and interpretation of the information obtained
• Route of administration, dose, dosing regimen, and treatment period(s) and justification
• Accountability procedure for handling the IP and placebo (if applicable)
• Mechanisms for maintaining randomization and blinding (if applicable), and codes for breaking them (e.g., criteria for premature unblinding, etc.)
• Statistical considerations
• Ethical considerations
• Efficacy and safety assessments
• Study schedule (document detailing activities to be carried out during the investigation)
• Bibliographic references and relevant trial data
• Names and signatures of PI and associate researchers (no more than five (5), classified according to their involvement in the research project)
• Other documents related to the research project or protocol
• Optional pre-assessment evaluation opinion (See Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for details on pre-assessment evaluations)

In addition to the protocol submission, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, an additional letter should accompany the application. Please refer to NOM-012-SSA3-2012 for more specific letter instructions. See also MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts for more detailed protocol requirements.

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

As delineated in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS))’s review and approval of a protocol authorization request is dependent upon obtaining a favorable decision from the health institution’s Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee, and where applicable, the Biosafety Committee. Therefore, COFEPRIS and ethics committee (REC, Research Committee, and Biosafety Committee) reviews may not be conducted in parallel. However, per HlthResRegs, the REC, the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee may meet together to decide whether to authorize a protocol to conduct research on humans, as appropriate.

Regulatory Authority Approval

Pursuant to HlthResRegs, COFEPRIS must approve a request for research protocol authorization within 30 working days from the day following an application’s filing. However, according to G-HumResProt, COFEPRIS is required to complete its review of a research protocol authorization request and notify the applicant within three (3) months.

According to Reg-COFEPRIS and MEX-53, COFEPRIS’s Sanitary Authorization Commission (Comisión de Autorización Sanitaria (CAS)) is responsible for recording, evaluating, and issuing opinions on requests for human research protocol authorizations. Per G-HumResProt, the evaluator in CAS issues a resolution of authorization or a prevention letter, and it is forwarded to the head of the area (CAS) for signature. If a prevention letter is issued in which additional or missing information is requested, the applicant is required to address the issues within 30 calendar days. See Submission Process section for details on tracking submitted procedures via the Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37) or COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86).

Per G-ResProtocolAmd, G-ObsrvStdies, and G-BioequivStud, COFEPRIS’s review deadlines (three (3) months or 90 calendar days) to notify applicants are also applicable to requests for authorization of protocol amendments or modifications and requests for authorization to conduct risk-free research (observational studies) and bioequivalence studies. Refer to G-ResProtocolAmd, G-ObsrvStdies, and G-BioequivStud for details. See Submission Process section for detailed submission requirements.

Additionally, per Reg-HlthProd and G-UnregDrugImprts, COFEPRIS has 10 days to approve import requests for investigational drug products. If COFEPRIS does not respond within this timeframe, the request is deemed approved. G-UnregDrugImprts also notes that COFEPRIS has four (4) business days to send the applicant a prevention notification regarding missing or additional information required. The applicant, in turn, has five (5) business days to respond.

Per HlthResRegs and G-RNECManual, once the applicant obtains an official authorization from COFEPRIS, the applicant has a maximum of five (5) working days to enter this information into the National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC)) database (MEX-68). The RNEC is in charge of the CAS’s Clinical Trials technical area and serves as the interface through which applicants are required to submit their application documentation in order to maintain an updated national inventory of clinical studies involving humans and/or their biological samples.

Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (UHAP) Evaluations

Per HlthResRegs, prior to submitting an authorization request, applicants may also obtain a pre-assessment evaluation by an authorized third party that helps to facilitate COFEPRIS’s review. MEX-21 and MEX-10 explain that rather than submitting an application directly to the CIS, the applicant has the option of first choosing to obtain a pre-assessment (third party) evaluation of the application through an Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamen (UHAP)) (MEX-69) within the Coordinating Commission of National Institutes of Health and High Specialty Hospitals (Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad (CCINSHAE)) (referred to as the UHAP-CCINSHAE) or a UHAP within the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)). According to MEX-10, the UHAP has a maximum of 30 calendar days to respond to an evaluation request. See MEX-10 and MEX-121 for additional information on authorized third parties. See the Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for detailed UHAP information.

Ethics Committee Approval

As delineated in G-RECs-Op-2018, the REC agenda and documents corresponding to each session should be delivered at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. It is then recommended that the REC’s decision be sent within a period not exceeding five (5) working days after the committee has met, or if applicable, not to exceed 30 calendar days from the date of request for its review. G-RECs-Op-2018 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also state that the approval of a new application is valid for one (1) year.

In addition, G-RECs-Op-2018 indicates that the REC should establish procedures for monitoring approved studies, from the point at which the decision was made until the completion of the investigation and reporting of results. RECs should conduct at least one (1) review a year.

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 GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, COFEPRIS-GCP, G-HumResProt, and MEX-84, a clinical trial can only commence after an applicant receives authorization from Mexico’s Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)). Per HlthResRegs, G-HumResProt, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant must also obtain a favorable decision from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee at the health institution where the study is being conducted, and when applicable, a favorable decision from the Biosafety Committee. No waiting period is required following the applicant’s receipt of these approvals.

As per GenHlthLaw, an applicant must be a resident of Mexico and is required to obtain an import license from COFEPRIS for the shipment of an investigational product to be used in the trial. The applicant must be a resident of Mexico or have a legal representative submit the application on their behalf. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information).

As set forth in NOM-220-SSA1-2016, the health record holder, principal investigator (PI), sponsor, or person responsible for a study authorized by COFEPRIS must also issue a notice of a study’s commencement (e.g., first visit of the first patient) and a notice of its completion (e.g., last visit of the last patient).

Clinical Trial Agreement

Prior to initiating the trial, as set forth in NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, if applicable, the sponsor must sign a letter of acceptance that serves as an agreement to assume the project obligations and rights stated in the letter. G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also notes that the letter must include the sponsor’s delegation of activities to other institutions and/or companies duly authorized to accept the obligations, responsibilities, and rights imposed by the development and conduct of the study. Per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, in the case of corporate entities, this position must be accepted by an individual authorized to do so or by a corporation’s legal representative, according to its organizational structure or incorporation regime.

Additionally, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts state that the sponsor must sign a letter to ensure there are no conflicts of interest that could lead to the interruption of treatment for the research participant. NOM-012-SSA3-2012, further specifies that when the research is sponsored by a public or private organization, that it must be guaranteed that this will not generate conflicts of interest that could cause the interruption of treatment for the research participant. A detailed explanation of the resources available and the way in which they will be provided and distributed must also be attached in the research protocol.

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, COFEPRIS requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32) for conducting clinical trials. COFEPRIS-GCP indicates that the sponsor must establish in writing each of the research team member functions and responsibilities, and the financial agreement with the PI. The sponsor or the CRO must also establish a declaration of financing, sponsorship, affiliations, contracts of agreements with other institutions involved, and procedures for handling any conflict(s) of interest, and a system for providing incentives and quantity/payments to research participants. MEX-32 specifies that the financial aspects of the trial should be documented in an agreement between the sponsor and the investigator and the institution.

Further, per MEX-32, 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 and should provide sufficient time for the investigator and institution to review the protocol and the information provided.

COFEPRIS-GCP further states that in the case of delegating investigation-related activities to a CRO, the sponsor must also establish in writing each of the activities that are delegated. However, the ultimate responsibility for all CRO activities remains with the sponsor. Additionally, COFEPRIS-GCP indicates that the sponsor or the CRO must establish a declaration of financing, sponsorship, affiliations, contracts, or agreements with other institutions involved, handling of any conflict of interest, incentives, and quantity and payments to the research participants.

According to MEX-32, the sponsor or the CRO must also obtain the investigator(s)’s and the institution(s)’s agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with MEX-32 and the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and approved by the ethics committee
• Comply with data recording and reporting procedures
• Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• Retain essential documents until the sponsor informs them that they are no longer needed

Per MEX-32, the sponsor and the investigator/institution should sign the protocol, or an alternative document, to confirm this agreement.

Clinical Trial Registration

Per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, once an official authorization from COFEPRIS is obtained, some of the data provided by the applicant in COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86), will be migrated to COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37) and to the National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC)) database (MEX-68). According to MEX-109, the G-RNECManual is useful for information on registering with RNEC for clinical trial applications submitted in person at the CIS (MEX-37).

Governance

Per GenHlthLaw, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, every health institution where research is conducted is required to establish a Research Committee and a Biosafety Committee. Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, REC and Research Committee approval is also required for each trial site where a study is being conducted, and when applicable, Biosafety Committee approval is required as well.

HlthResRegs explains that the Research Committee evaluates the technical quality and scientific merit of the proposed research, and its opinion must contain the REC opinion and, where applicable, the Biosafety Committee opinion. The Biosafety Committee, in turn, is responsible for determining and regulating the use of ionizing radiation or genetic engineering techniques within the health institution as indicated in HlthResRegs, GenHlthLaw, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012. Pursuant to HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and G-HumResProt, the Biosafety Committee issues a technical opinion on the biosafety aspects of the proposed research and ensures that research study staff, research participants, the community, and the environment are protected against radiological risks.

Additionally, per MEX-47, COFEPRIS is responsible for registering Research Committees and Biosafety Committees. Refer to MEX-47, G-BiosafetyReg, and G-ResCommReg for detailed Research Committee and Biosafety Committee registration requirements. See MEX-26 for COFEPRIS’s Research Committee and Biosafety Committee registration form.

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 NOM-220-SSA1-2016, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-ClinResPV, and G-PharmPerSafRpt, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Mexico’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 undesirable medical event that may occur in a research participant during the clinical investigation stage of a drug/vaccine, but does not necessarily have a causal relationship to it
• Adverse Drug Reaction or Adverse Reaction (ADR) – An unwanted response to a drug, in which the causal relationship with it is, at least, reasonably attributable
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction – One whose nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information, or in the documentation presented for its sanitary registration
• Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction (SRAM) – Any clinical or laboratory manifestation that occurs after administration of one (1) or more drugs

Safety Reporting Requirements

As specified in NOM-220-SSA1-2016-Mod, for clinical study related incidents involving health professionals (public and private) or institutions conducting health research, notifications to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS))’s National Pharmacovigilance Center (CNFV) must be submitted according to the following timelines:

• Serious SRAMs or serious AEs/ADRs must be reported within a maximum of seven (7) calendar days, if fatal, and within a maximum of 15 days, if not fatal (severe cases from abroad should only be included in the final study safety report, if the study has a research center in Mexico)
• Not serious SRAMs or AEs/ADRs must be reported at the end of the study
• Two (2) or more serious cases, in the same place with the same drug and the same batch, must be reported immediately, and no later than 48 hours
• When a review of scientific literature shows a safety issue, it should be reported within a maximum of 30 calendar days from first knowledge of the AE/ADR

HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 state that the institution must notify and provide a report to the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) within a period of 15 days after the suspension or cancellation of the research has been agreed upon. The report should specify the effect(s) detected, all medical care steps adopted, and the consequences produced. A detailed report on the research participant(s) physical condition should also be included. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 indicates that all serious or deadly adverse reactions or effects must be immediately reported to the Ministry. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the principal investigator (PI), the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)), the institutional head(s), or the Ministry of Health must also suspend or cancel the research as soon as any AE representing an ethical impediment to research is identified.

Additionally, per NOM-220-SSA1-2016, institutions must notify the CNFV of a study’s suspension or cancellation within a maximum of 15 days. If the study is resumed, the CNFV must also be notified within a maximum of 15 working days following the study’s recommencement.

Per MEX-2, COFEPRIS has also implemented the following International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guidelines:

• Guideline E2B (R3) on Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) – Data Elements and Message Specification – Implementation Guide (MEX-79)
• ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (MEX-80)
• ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Pharmacovigilance Planning (E2E) (MEX-82)

Investigator Responsibilities

As specified in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP, the PI must report to the REC all probable AEs or any AEs directly related to the research study. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the investigator is also responsible for submitting safety reports to the CNFV.

Other Safety Reports

As indicated in NOM-220-SSA1-2016, a pharmacovigilance study protocol should be prepared and submitted to the Executive Director of Pharmacopeia and Pharmacovigilance through COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37).

Per NOM-220-SSA1-2016, a clinical safety report is also required to be submitted to the CNFV for all trials, sponsored or not, that have at least one (1) site or research center in Mexico. In addition, G-ClinResPV explains that a final safety report must be submitted to the CNFV in the following circumstances:

• A study is completed that has included at least one (1) research center in Mexico
• A study has been cancelled, discontinued, or definitively suspended
• A bioequivalence, bioavailability, and pharmacokinetics study is concluded

Refer to G-ClinResPV and G-PharmPerSafRpt for additional report writing instructions and criteria that align with the safety reporting requirements delineated in NOM-220-SSA1-2016 and NOM-220-SSA1-2016-Mod. See also G-PharmRptReq for detailed pharmacovigilance reporting guidelines and to extend sanitary registrations for drug products.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

G-ClinResPV specifies that clinical safety reports must be written in Spanish and submitted electronically (in PDF format) to the CNFV. In addition, reports should be submitted by either the health record holder or the sponsor or the legal representative to avoid sending duplicate information to the CNFV. G-PharmPerSafRpt states, in turn, that the safety report must be written in Spanish in the sections delineated in Annex 1 of G-PharmPerSafRpt and submitted electronically via CD or USB in editable PDF format. As indicated in G-ClinResPV and G-PharmPerSafRpt, the annual safety report submission date is determined by the date of the study’s first national authorization by COFEPRIS.

As per MEX-117, the E-Reporting Industry platform, which is linked to VigiFlow (MEX-43), was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Uppsala Monitoring Centre for the pharmaceutical industry to manage individual case safety reports at the national level. Reports are submitted by pharmaceutical industry professionals including health registration holders or their legal representatives and institutions/establishments where research is conducted as well as contract research organizations, distributors, and marketers. MEX-117 also specifies the CNFV is responsible for granting access to the E-Reporting Industry tool, and requests can be made via email: xmlvigiflow@cofepris.gob.mx. Refer to MEX-117 for details. Additionally, per MEX-77, state centers, institutional coordinating centers, institutional centers, and pharmacovigilance units of the National Health System should also report AE/ADRs, SRAMs, ESAVIs, and other safety issues via MEX-43.

MEX-78, in turn, provides patients, consumers, and health professionals instructions on reporting ADRs via VIGIRAM (MEX-118). See MEX-12 for instructions on using MEX-118, see MEX-30 for the form to be completed via MEX-118, and see MEX-119 for additional information on MEX-118. See also G-ADR-PatientRpt for information on how patients, consumers, and/or family members report suspected ADRs.

Refer to NOM-220-SSA1-2016 for detailed reporting requirements, and the G-AENotif, MEX-44, and MEX-117 for submitting safety reports via VigiFlow (MEX-43). See also MEX-54 for additional CNFV issued pharmacovigilance guidelines and requirements.

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.

Additionally, the TGA has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)’s Topic E 3: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (AUS-81). For more information, see AUS-81.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and MEX-28, the principal investigator (PI) must prepare and submit a progress report (also referred to as a partial technical or technical-descriptive report) (MEX-31) to the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) at any time, but at least once a year, to communicate progress and partial research study results. In addition, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, information related to any investigation that the PI submits to the Ministry of Health must be classified as confidential. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 further states that the PI must also provide a copy of every report to the head of the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee, and if applicable, the Biosafety Committee of the institution where the research takes place.

NOM-012-SSA3-2012 specifies that the progress reports should describe the results obtained and at a minimum should include the following elements:

• Identification data
• Materials and methods
• Results
• Conclusions
• Bibliographic references
• Any relevant exhibits

In accordance with NOM-012-SSA3-2012, a report should be submitted annually to the Ministry of Health on the integration and activities of the REC, the Research Committee, and, if applicable, the Biosafety Committee, during the first 10 business days of June.

Final Report

As set forth in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and MEX-28, the PI is also required to submit a final report to the Ministry of Health in order to communicate the final results of a research protocol or project as well as the major findings obtained throughout the course of the study. Additionally, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the PI must deliver a copy of this report to the research team members, the REC, the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee, as applicable, where the study was conducted.

As per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the final reports should describe the results obtained and at a minimum should include the following elements:

• Identification data
• Summary
• Introduction
• Materials and methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusions
• Bibliographic references
• Any relevant exhibits/Annexes

See section 7.4 of NOM-012-SSA3-2012 for additional required report information.

HlthResRegs further states that the PI is also required to submit a final report to the Research Committee at the institution where the study was conducted. Refer to MEX-31 for the reporting form.

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.

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 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 set forth in NOM-012-SSA3-2012, COFEPRIS-GCP, and MEX-84, a sponsor is defined as an individual or corporation willing to undertake responsibilities to participate and finance a research project or protocol, in full or in part.

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32) for conducting clinical trials. Per COFEPRIS-GCP and MEX-32, a sponsor is an individual, company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial. A sponsor may also hire a CRO to conduct one (1) or more of the activities related to health research that are sponsored in the country. The sponsor must specify in writing any trial-related duty and function that is transferred to and assumed by a CRO. However, the ultimate responsibility for all CRO activities remains with the sponsor. Additionally, MEX-32 notes the ultimate responsibility for the quality and integrity of the trial data always resides with the sponsor, and any trial-related duties and functions not specifically transferred to and assumed by a CRO are retained by the sponsor. COFEPRIS-GCP also indicates that CROs of foreign origin must also have a registered address in Mexico, and an authorization to carry out clinical research activities in the country.

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) (also referred to as Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs)) 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

Additionally, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has adopted the European Medicines Agency (EMA)’s Guideline on Data Monitoring Committees (AUS-78), which discusses the key issues involved when sponsors include DSMBs as part of their trial management. For more information, see AUS-78.

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 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

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32) for conducting clinical trials. COFEPRIS-GCP states the sponsor or the CRO is responsible for selecting each research center and ensuring that COFEPRIS has authorized its operation as well as the human and material resources needed to conduct research. MEX-32 indicates the sponsor should ensure the investigator(s) have adequate resources to properly conduct the trial for which they are selected. Additionally, MEX-32, explains the investigator should have available an adequate number of qualified staff and adequate facilities for the foreseen duration of the trial to conduct the trial properly and safely.

Per COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor must establish in writing each of the research team member functions and responsibilities, and the financial agreement with the principal investigator (PI). G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also note the sponsor or the CRO must specify in a letter the human and material resources that will be allocated for the research and the way in which they will be provided and distributed to the research sites.

As stated in the HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, all investigators must possess appropriate qualifications, training, and experience. Per COFEPRIS-GCP, the PI is also responsible for selecting a research team with knowledge, education, and training in MEX-32, and in the process of the investigation in which the investigator is involved. Per MEX-32, the sponsor must ensure each investigator is qualified by education, training, and experience to assume responsibility for the proper conduct of the trial; meets all the qualifications specified by the applicable regulatory requirement(s); and provides evidence of such qualifications through updated curriculum vitae (CV) and/or other relevant documentation requested by the sponsor, the ethics committee (EC), and/or COFEPRIS. G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also indicate the PI should provide legally issued and registered documentation delineating appropriate academic training and experience appropriate to the research to be conducted, which includes academic preparation, representative scientific production, and clinical practice.

G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also indicate that institutions in charge of providing medical care for study related medical emergencies are required to sign an agreement or contract to provide these services, and a provide letter stating the institution’s acceptance, authorization, and description of the available resources.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

COFEPRIS-GCP indicates that foreign CROs must have a registered address in Mexico, and an authorization or notice specifying the activities to be carried out in the country.

Data Safety Monitoring Board

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the CRO is responsible for the continuous monitoring of the study which should be established based on the nature of the study, and must ensure study monitoring is carried out in compliance with MEX-32. Per MEX-32, the sponsor or the CRO may consider establishing an independent data monitoring committee to assess the progress of a clinical trial, the safety data, the critical efficacy endpoints, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial. The committee should have written operating procedures and maintain written records of its meetings.

Multicenter Studies

As delineated in MEX-32, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the sponsor or the CRO must ensure that:

• All investigators conduct the trial in strict compliance with the protocol agreed to by the sponsor, and, if required, by COFEPRIS, and given ethics committee approval
• The case report forms (CRFs) are designed to capture the required data at all multicenter trial sites
• Investigator responsibilities are documented prior to the start of the trial
• All investigators are given instructions on following the protocol, complying with a uniform set of standards to assess clinical and laboratory findings, and completing the CRFs
• Communication between investigators is facilitated

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 COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) must establish a financial fund or have insurance to cover serious adverse events that result from the medication or the research study.

Additionally, per COFEPRIS-GCP, which requires the sponsor or the CRO to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32), the sponsor should provide insurance or should indemnify (legal and financial coverage) the investigator/institution against claims arising from the trial, except for those claims arising from malpractice and/or negligence. Per MEX-32, if required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), the sponsor should provide insurance or should indemnify (legal and financial coverage) the investigator and the institution against claims arising from the trial, except for claims that arise from malpractice and/or negligence.

Compensation

As specified in COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the designated CRO must establish a statement of funding and describe the quantity and payments to be allocated for research participants.

Per MEX-32, the ethics committee (EC) should review both the amount and method of payment to participants to ensure that neither presents problems of coercion or undue influence on the trial participants. Payments to a participant should be prorated and not wholly contingent on the completion of the trial by the participant.

Injury or Death

Although NOM-012-SSA3-2012 does not specifically ascribe responsibility to the sponsor, it indicates that the research budget must include the availability of a financial fund as well as mechanisms to guarantee continuity of medical treatment and indemnity of the research participant, in the event of trial-related injuries. Additionally, the head of the institution or establishment, the, Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)), Research Committee, or Biosafety Committee, the PI, and, where applicable, the sponsor, must be responsible, in accordance with their area of ​​competence, for the damage to health resulting from the development of the research as well as damage resulting from the interruption or early suspension of treatment for reasons not attributable to the research participant.

Per HlthResRegs and GenHlthLaw, the health care institution and the sponsor or the CRO must provide medical attention to injured participants, and where appropriate, legally required compensation, if the injuries are directly related to the study. Medical attention that is provided to such participants will not prejudice the compensation that may be legally due from the study.

In addition, per COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the CRO is also responsible for ensuring that research institutions provide urgent care resources, or where appropriate, have a written agreement with the health institution that will handle the emergencies. The agreement must comply with NOM-206-SSA1-2002, which establishes the criteria for the operation and attention in providing emergency services in health care institutions

MEX-32 explains the sponsor's policies and procedures should address the costs of treatment of trial subjects in the event of trial-related injuries in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s). In addition, when study participants receive compensation, the method and manner of compensation should comply with applicable regulatory requirement(s).

In addition, per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts and G-HumResProt, the sponsor should provide the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) with a copy of the financial fund or current insurance policy, which guarantees the continuity of the medical treatment and the compensation to which the participant will be legally entitled in the event of suffering damages directly related to the development of the research. MEX-84 specifies that the insurance policy or current document from the financial fund should cover all study participants at the local level. The document guarantees coverage to the participant in case of any injury or damage related to the research. The insurance policy and certificate must indicate the number of participants that will be covered, study title, protocol number, and must be on behalf of the license holder and the sponsor.

Trial Participation

Per COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the CRO must ensure that each and every treatment, clinical analysis procedure, and other study procedures are delivered in a timely manner, in good condition, and free of charge to the research participant.

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.

As per AUS-74, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has adopted certain guidelines released by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regarding quality management and technical aspects of clinical trials. See each of these documents for additional details:

· ICH Guideline E8 (R1) on General Considerations for Clinical Studies (AUS-76)

· Guideline on Strategies to Identify and Mitigate Risks for First-in-Human Clinical Trials with Investigational Medicinal Products (AUS-77)

· Guideline on Clinical Trials in Small Populations (AUS-79)

· ICH E11(R1) Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population (AUS-80)

· Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations - Guidance for Industry (AUS-82)

· Considerations for the Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products - Guidance for Industry (AUS-83)

· ICH Topic E 10 Choice of Control Group in Clinical Trials (AUS-84)

· ICH Topic E 9 - Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials (AUS-85)

See AUS-74 for more information on, as well as a list of, the international scientific guidelines adopted by the TGA.

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 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. According to the G-GCP-Inspect, clinical trial sites that have been notified of a GCP inspection should prepare for the inspection by:

· Ensuring their authorizing institution, trial sponsor, and clinical team are advised of the inspection (the G-GCP-Inspect notes that although the TGA does not require that the sponsor be informed, there is generally a requirement in the contract between the site and the sponsor to share this type of information)

· Ensuring access for the inspectors to clinical trial records and source documents is arranged for the time of the inspection

· Ensuring their IT processes allow them to grant view-only access to the inspectors

The G-GCP-Inspect adds that ECs and trial sponsors are not included in the scope of the TGA’s GCP inspection program. The site PI can invite the sponsor representative(s) to attend the inspection opening and closing meeting. See the Scope of Assessment section and the G-GCP-Inspect for more information on TGA inspections.

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

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32), and to ensure and control the quality of the research during a study. Per COFEPRIS-GCP and MEX-32, the sponsor or the CRO is also responsible for establishing written standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each stage of the investigation. In addition, the sponsor or the CRO must implement and maintain quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems to make certain the trial is conducted, and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol.

MEX-32 further delineates the sponsor or the CRO is required to obtain 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 and investigator(s) agreement should be confirmed in writing prior to the trial. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed.

Monitoring Requirements

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the CRO must ensure and control the quality of the research through periodic monitoring visits and audits to ensure compliance with the protocol and the SOPs, and if necessary, compliance with reports derived from inspections or verifications by COFEPRIS. The principal investigator (PI) is responsible for reporting and guaranteeing the quality and validity of the data obtained during the investigation. MEX-32 indicates the sponsor should ensure that the trials are adequately monitored and determine the appropriate extent and nature of monitoring, which should be based on considerations such as the objective, purpose, design, complexity, blinding, size, and endpoints of the trial.

Additionally, per MEX-32, the sponsor should also appoint the monitors who should be appropriately trained, and have the scientific and/or clinical knowledge needed to monitor the trial adequately. A monitor’s qualifications should be documented. Monitors should also be thoroughly familiar with the investigational product(s), the protocol, written informed consent form, and any other written information to be provided to research participants, the sponsor’s SOPs, COFEPRIS-GCP, and the applicable regulatory requirement(s).

MEX-32 further indicates the sponsor should appoint individuals, who are independent of the clinical trials/systems, to conduct audits and ensure the auditors are qualified by training and experience to conduct audits properly. An auditor’s qualifications should be documented. The sponsor should also ensure the auditing of clinical trials/systems is conducted in accordance with the sponsor's written procedures on what to audit, how to audit, the frequency of audits, and the form and content of audit reports. The sponsor's audit plan and procedures for a trial audit should be guided by the importance of the trial to submissions to regulatory authorities, the number of study participants, the type and complexity of the trial, the level of risks to the study participants, and any identified problem(s). Auditor(s) observations and findings of the auditor should be documented.

Pursuant to MEX-32, noncompliance with the protocol, SOPs, good clinical practice, and/or applicable regulatory requirement(s) by an investigator/institution, or by member(s) of the sponsor's staff should lead to prompt action by the sponsor to secure compliance. If the monitoring and/or auditing identifies serious and/or persistent noncompliance on the part of an investigator/institution, the sponsor should terminate the investigator's/institution’s participation in the trial and notify promptly the regulatory authority(ies). Also, upon the request of the monitor, auditor, ethics committee (EC), or COFEPRIS, the investigator/institution should also make available for direct access all requested trial-related records. See MEX-32 for detailed monitoring and auditing requirements.

Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the institutional head, the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)), Research Committee, or Biosafety Committees, the PI, and, where applicable, the sponsor, must be responsible, in accordance with their area of competence, for monitoring the research. NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts further require the sponsor or the CRO to provide a follow-up letter to COFEPRIS describing the monitoring and auditing plan to be carried out during the investigation. G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts specify the letter must contain the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Type of plan: audit or monitoring
• Frequency of application
• Responsibility for monitoring, and where appropriate, cite the third party to carry out the activity
• Objective and scope of monitoring
• Evaluation tools and methodology implemented
• Methodology to carry out the scientific, technical, and ethical monitoring
• Communication and notification strategies between investigator, sponsor, ECs, and COFEPRIS
• Profile of the monitor or auditor
• Classification of findings and decision-making
• Decision-making derived based on severity classification
• Notification mechanism to the PI, ECs, and COFEPRIS
• Design of the Action Plan: Corrective, Improvement, or Preventive
• Reporting results through the partial and annual technical report (See MEX-31 for the partial reporting form)

COFEPRIS-GCP also states that the PI is responsible for reporting and guaranteeing the quality and validity of the data obtained during the investigation.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Per HlthResRegs the PI, the REC, the institutional head or other authorized institutional officers, or the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) must order the immediate suspension or cancellation of a research study as soon as any adverse effect is identified that might become an ethical or technical impediment to continuing with the study. The health care institution will submit a report to the Secretariat within 15 business days following the day in which the suspension or cancellation of the study was agreed, specifying the effect noticed, the measures adopted, and consequences produced. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 similarly states the head of the institution or establishment, the REC, the Research Committee, the Biosafety Committee, or PI must order the immediate suspension or cancellation of research, in the presence of any severe adverse effects, which become an ethical or technical impediment to continue with the study and notify the Secretariat in detail. The institutional head must notify the Secretariat of any adverse effect resulting from the experimental research within a maximum period of 15 working days from the event occurrence, including the care measures adopted, the identified sequelae, as well as a detailed report on the physical condition of the patient, which mentions whether the patient is free of any risk at the time of notification. In such case, the resumption of the research will require a new authorization. The investigator is also responsible for suspending the investigation if there is a risk of serious injury, disability, or death of the research subject in accordance with GenHlthLaw. Additionally, per NOM-220-SSA1-2016, institutions must notify the National Pharmacovigilance Center (CNFV) of a study’s suspension or cancellation within a maximum of 15 days. If the study is resumed, the CNFV must also be notified within a maximum of 15 working days following the study’s recommencement. The investigator is responsible for submitting safety reports to the CNFV.

MEX-32 delineates 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). The EC should also be provided with a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension.

MEX-32 further indicates that if the trial is prematurely terminated or suspended for any reason, the investigator/institution should promptly inform the trial participants, ensure appropriate therapy and follow-up for the participants, and, where required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), inform the regulatory authority(ies). If the investigator terminates or suspends a trial without prior agreement of the sponsor, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should promptly inform the sponsor and the EC and provide the sponsor and the EC with a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension. If the EC terminates or suspends its approval/favorable opinion of a trial, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should promptly notify the sponsor and provide the sponsor with 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.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has adopted the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations - Guidance for Industry (AUS-82). For more information, see AUS-82.

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 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.

The TGA has adopted the European Medicines Agency (EMA)’s Guideline on the Content, Management and Archiving of the Clinical Master File (Paper and/or Electronic) (AUS-75). For more information on the clinical trial master file, see AUS-75.

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

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32) for conducting clinical trials. Per MEX-32, the sponsor should utilize appropriately qualified individuals to supervise the overall conduct of the trial, to handle the data, to verify the data, to conduct the statistical analyses, and to prepare the trial reports.

In addition, per MEX-32, when using electronic trial data processing or handling systems or remote electronic trial data systems, the sponsor should:

• Ensure and document that the electronic data processing system(s) conform(s) to the sponsor's established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistent intended performance
• Maintain standard operating procedures (SOPs) for using these systems
• Ensure that the systems are designed to permit data changes in such a way that the data changes are documented and that there is no deletion of entered data
• Maintain a security system that prevents unauthorized access to the data
• Maintain a list of the individuals who are authorized to make data changes
• Maintain adequate backup of the data
• Safeguard the blinding, if any

See MEX-32 for additional data processing requirements.

Records Management

As indicated in MEX-32, the sponsor, or other owners of the data, should retain all of the sponsor-specific essential documents pertaining to the trial (see section 8 of MEX-32). The sponsor should retain all sponsor-specific essential documents in conformance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s) of the country(ies) where the investigational product (IP) is approved, and/or where the sponsor intends to apply for approval(s). If the sponsor discontinues the clinical development of an IP (i.e., for any or all indications, routes of administration, or dosage forms), the sponsor should maintain all sponsor-specific essential documents for at least two (2) years after formal discontinuation or in conformance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s).

MEX-32 also states the essential documents should be retained until at least two (2) years after the last marketing approval or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of clinical development of the IP. These documents should be retained for a longer period, however, if required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s) or if needed by the sponsor. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s)/institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and should notify the investigator(s)/institution(s) when trial-related records are no longer needed.

In addition, as delineated in COFEPRIS-GCP, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for preparing, integrating, using, filing, and ensuring the safekeeping of the research participant’s clinical file for a minimum of five (5) years in accordance with NOM-004-SSA3-2012, MEX-32, and Good Documentation Practices per NOM-164-SSA1-2015.

Per NOM-004-SSA3-2012, clinical records are the property of the institution or the medical services provider that generates them. However, the patient/participant has ultimate ownership rights over this information to protect their health and the confidentiality of their data. Consequently, because the documents are prepared in the interest and benefit of the patient/participant, they must be kept for a minimum period of five (5) years, which is calculated from the date of the last medical procedure/visit.

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

According to the PDP-PrivateLaw, the PDP-Reg, the PDP-Public, and MEX-4, a private entity that processes personal data is called the “responsible person or entity” or “controller.” Federal, state, or local authorities are referred to as “obliged subjects” and make decisions about the processing of personal data. The private and public entities must protect personal data in accordance with the above laws and regulations.

Data Protection

PDP-PrivateLaw, PDP-Reg, and PDP-Public provide the requirements, responsibilities, and restrictions for handling personal data in the public and private sectors. The PDP-Public regulates the processing of personal information in the public sector by “obliged subjects”. The PDP-PrivateLaw and the PDP-Reg regulate the processing of personal information in the private sector by an individual or legal entity of a private nature.

Per the PDP-PrivateLaw, the PDP-Reg, and the PDP-Public, the sponsor or the sponsor’s representative(s) must comply with the principles of data protection: legality, purpose, loyalty, consent, quality, proportionality, information, and responsibility in the processing of personal data.

According to the PDP-PrivateLaw, the PDP-Reg, and the PDP-Public, the sponsor is also required to protect the confidentiality of the owner of the personal data and their background. The PDP-PrivateLaw further notes that this obligation will remain in place even after the data processing activities have been completed and the relationship between the sponsor or the sponsor’s representative(s) and the data owner has concluded.

Additionally, the PDP-PrivateLaw and the PDP-Public provide definitions to address health related data. Sensitive personal data refers to the most intimate sphere of its owner, whose improper use may result in discrimination, or carries a serious risk of resulting in discriminatory activities. More specifically, data considered to be sensitive may reveal personal information such as racial or ethnic origin, present or future health status, genetic information, religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs, political opinions, and sexual preferences.

Per the PDP-PrivateLaw, the PDP-Reg, and the PDP-Public, data owners have the right to be informed about the collection and use of their personal data. Per the PDP-Reg, the person responsible must also inform the information owner regarding the existence and main characteristics of the treatment to which their personal data will be subjected through the consent document, known as the “privacy notice,” in accordance with the provisions of the PDP-PrivateLaw and the PDP-Reg.

Please refer to the PDP-PrivateLaw, the PDP-Reg, and the PDP-Public for detailed information on the principles guiding the protection and handling of personal data. See also MEX-3 and MEX-4 for additional information on data protection requirements.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

As explained in the PDP-PrivateLaw and the PDP-Public, the consent document or “privacy notice” is a physical document, electronic, or any format generated by the sponsor, that is made available to the data owner prior to processing the owner’s personal data. The PDP-Reg further explains that the privacy notice must be characterized as simple, with necessary information expressed in clear and understandable language, and with a structure and design that facilitates the owner’s understanding.

The PDP-PrivateLaw states that in the case of sensitive data, the sponsor is required to obtain the express and written consent of the data owner for the sponsor’s use, through a written or electronic signature, or any authentication mechanism established for that purpose. In cases where sensitive personal data is being processed, the sponsor must make reasonable efforts to limit processing to the minimum period necessary to complete the goal as delineated in the privacy notice. Moreover, databases containing sensitive personal data may not be created without justifying their creation for legitimate, concrete purposes, and if they are not in accordance with the specified activities delineated and pursued by the sponsor. The PDP-Reg also notes that sponsors may only create databases containing sensitive personal data when they obey a legal mandate; are justified pursuant to the territorial scope of the regulation; or are required by the sponsor for legitimate, concrete purposes, and in accordance with the activities or explicit purposes indicated in the privacy notice.

The PDP-Reg, whose focus is on regulating the process of personal data held in physical or electronic media, further indicates that the sponsor must obtain prior consent to process the data when acquired personally or directly from its owner. Whether tacit or express, the consent process must be:

• Free: without error, bad faith, violence, or intent, which may affect the manifestation of the owner’s will
• Specific: referring to one (1) or more specific purposes that justify the treatment, and
• Informed: the owner has knowledge of the privacy notice prior to granting consent to the processing of their data

The sponsor must obtain the owner’s express consent when their data is deemed sensitive. The express consent must also be unequivocal; that is, there are elements that indisputably demonstrate its granting.

As delineated in the PDP-Public, the sponsor will not be required to obtain consent when processing sensitive data in the following cases:

• When an applicable law authorizes such processing, and is consistent with and does not contravene the bases, principles, and provisions set forth in the PDP-Public
• When sensitive personal data transfers are made between those responsible, the transfers are compatible with the original purpose that motivated the processing of personal data
• When there is a judicial order, resolution, or well-founded and motivated mandate of the competent authority
• For the recognition or defense of the owner's rights before the competent authority
• When personal data is required to exercise a right or fulfill obligations derived from a legal relationship between the owner and the person in charge
• When there is an emergency that could potentially harm an individual or the individual’s property
• When personal data is necessary to carry out a treatment for the prevention, diagnosis, or provision of health care
• When the personal data appear in publicly accessible sources
• When personal data is subject to a prior dissociation procedure
• When the owner of the personal data is a person reported missing under the terms of the law on the matter

Please refer to the PDP-PrivateLaw, the PDP-Reg, and the PDP-Public for detailed consent and privacy notice requirements.

Consent for Processing Personal Data of Minors

Per the PDP-Public, in processing the personal data of minors, the best interest of the children and adolescents must be prioritized in accordance with the applicable legal provisions. MEX-4 further states legal guardians must always give consent when processing children’s personal data. This applies to any individual younger than 18 years of age.

(See the Children/Minors section for additional information on consent requirements for children/minors.)

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 Mexican clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in HlthResRegs, GenHlthLaw, NOM-004-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP. Per COFEPRIS-GCP, the principal investigator (PI) is required to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32) in obtaining and documenting informed consent, and per G-RECs-Op-2018, the PI must also comply with consent requirements as delineated in the Declaration of Helsinki (MEX-76). (Note: Per MEX-2, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is in the process of implementing the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (MEX-22)).

As per HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by a Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and provided to COEFPRIS with the request for research protocol authorization. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

HlthResRegs, COFEPRIS-GCP, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 state that the PI must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. As delineated in HlthResRegs, G-RECs-Op-2018, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, MEX-32, and MEX-84, the ICF content should be presented with a clear explanation and provided in a format that facilitates understanding. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and MEX-32, the participant or legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. GenHlthLaw and MEX-84 further note the ICF should be expressed in writing in an accessible, timely manner and in understandable language, using accurate and complete information, including the possible benefits and expected risks, and the treatment alternatives, to ensure that services are provided on the basis of free and informed consent. Once comprehension of the information is guaranteed through the necessary means and supports, individuals have the right to accept or reject consent. G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, MEX-84, and G-HumResProt indicate the ICF and/or assent form, as applicable, is a document through which the research participant agrees to voluntarily participate in a research study and to undergo experimental procedures when the information is presented in a sufficient, timely, clear and truthful manner regarding the expected risk and benefits.

As per HlthResRegs, G-RECs-Op-2018, and MEX-32, 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 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.

Re-Consent

According to G-RECs-Op-2018 and MEX-32, any change in the ICF that is relevant to the participant’s consent should be approved by the REC prior to implementing any changes. Per G-RECs-Op-2018 and MEX-32, 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 participating in the trial. MEX-32 further states the communication of this information should be documented.

Language Requirements

G-HumResProt states that the applicant must submit the request for protocol authorization application and all associated documentation (including the protocol and the ICF) in Spanish.

Documenting Consent

As delineated in HlthResRegs, G-RECs-Op-2018, and MEX-32, the participant or legal representative/guardian, as well as two (2) witnesses, must sign the ICF. MEX-32 specifies that the ICF should be dated, and any updates must also be signed, and a copy of the amendments provided to the participant or legal representative/guardian. If the participant does not know how to sign, the participant will provide a fingerprint and will also need to designate someone to sign the participant’s name on their behalf. A copy of the signed ICF will be provided to the participant or legal representative/guardian. Per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, which complies with MEX-22, the ICF version and date must coincide with what is recorded as approved in the opinions of the ethics committees (ECs). G-HumResProt further specifies the ICF should be signed by the PI, the participant and the participant’s family, or a legal representative and two (2) witnesses. The names of the witnesses, the addresses, and the relationships the witnesses have with the research participant must be indicated. MEX-84 also notes a section in the ICF should be provided for the participant or the legal representative to sign the document to indicate express acceptance. The section must include general data (full name, address, relationship with the participant) and signatures of two (2) witnesses.

Waiver of Consent

No information is currently available regarding waiver requirements.

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

As delineated in G-RECs-Op-2018 and MEX-84, 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 both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Identification data (Title, protocol number, version, version date, research institution data, principal investigator (PI) name, medical emergency establishment data, and Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)), and this data must coincide with the opinions of the ethics committees)
• The study rationale and objectives
• Purpose and procedures, including all invasive procedures
• Identification of experimental aspects of the study
• Trial duration
• Participant’s responsibilities
• Investigator responsibilities
• Approximate number of participants
• Circumstances that may terminate the study
• Duration of study
• Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant
• Any expected benefits to the participant; if no benefit is expected, the participant should be informed of this point (physical examination, laboratory tests and imaging should not be considered as benefits to the participant)
• Alternative treatments that may be beneficial to the participant
• Trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
• Explains the blinding of the study (if applicable) and what it consists of
• Allocation method
• Compensation and/or treatment available for the participant by the health care institution in the case of trial-related injury
• All drugs, products, and procedures are free
• 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
• Assurance that the participant will not be identified and that their confidential information relating to their privacy will be maintained
• Confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained (including sensitive personal data and data derived from the study), and permission given to monitors, auditors, the REC, and the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) 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
• Contact information for the sponsor and PI in the event of participant problems or trial-related injuries
• Communication channels and data to request clarification and to guarantee a response to questions and clarification of concerns about procedures, risks, benefits, and other matters related to the investigation and treatment of the participant
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the PI(s) may remove the participant without their consent
• Commitment to provide updated information throughout the study although this may affect the participant’s willingness to continue
• Notification that any additional research study expenses will be absorbed by the research budget

The Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32) also mentions the following required elements:

• Any expected risks or discomforts, when applicable, to the embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
• Any anticipated prorated payment to the participant for participating in the trial
• Any expenses the participant needs to pay to participate in the trial

Additionally, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the investigator must ensure that the ICF explicitly states the compensation to which the research participant is entitled in the event of suffering damage to their health directly attributable to the research, and the availability of free medical treatment, even in the event the participant decides to withdraw from the study before it is concluded.

See HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-RECs-Op-2018, and MEX-32 for additional details related to ICF requirements. (Note: Per MEX-2, COFEPRIS is in the process of implementing the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R2) (MEX-22)).

Also, 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 HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-RECs-Op-2018, and the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32), Mexico’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. (COFEPRIS-GCP requires the principal investigator (PI) to comply with MEX-32). HlthResRegs and MEX-32 state that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. (Note: Per MEX-2, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is in the process of implementing the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R2) (MEX-22)).

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-RECs-Op-2018, MEX-32, and MEX-84, the participant or 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 Right to Information

As per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-RECs-Op-2018, MEX-32, and MEX-84, 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 or treatment in the case of injury, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to G-RECs-Op-2018, MEX-32, and MEX-84, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. In addition, per NOM-004-SSA3-2012, although clinical records are the property of the institution or the medical services provider that generates them, the participant has ultimate ownership rights over this information to protect their health and the confidentiality of their data.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

MEX-32 states that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the individual responsible for addressing trial-related inquiries and/or their rights. G-RECs-Op-2018 further specifies that the names and contact information of the PI and the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI))’s president, including a 24-hour telephone number in case of emergency, should be provided.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-RECs-Op-2018, COFEPRIS-GCP, and MEX-32 that upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (MEX-76), clearly state that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of their 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.

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.

The HlthResRegs and the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32) make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when the procedure is complicated by medical emergencies (COFEPRIS-GCP requires the principal investigator (PI) to comply with MEX-32). (Note: Per MEX-2, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is in the process of implementing the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R2) (MEX-22)).

According to HlthResRegs, in an emergency, when it is deemed necessary to use an investigational drug, or a known drug with indications, doses, or routes of administration other than the established uses, the treating physician must obtain the favorable opinion of the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee, and an informed consent form (ICF) signed by the research participant or legal representative/guardian. The terms under which this documentation is obtained must meet the following requirements:

• The REC and Research Committee will be informed of the use of the investigational drug in advance if the researcher can anticipate the need for use in emergency situations. If this is not possible, an opinion must be obtained after the situation occurs. In both cases, the committees will issue an opinion in favor or against approving the planned or recurring unintended use of the drug.
• A signed ICF must be obtained from the participant or legal representative/guardian unless the participant’s condition prevents them from signing the form, the legal representative/guardian are not available to sign the form, or stopping use of the drug constitutes an almost absolute risk of death to the participant.

Per MEX-32, 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 or legal representative/guardian cannot be obtained, the ethics committee 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 be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

In addition, per GenHlthLaw, in cases of medical emergency, and when the terminally ill patient is unable to express their consent, and in the absence of family members, a legal representative, guardian or trusted person, the specialist doctor and/or the institution’s Bioethics Committee will make the decision to apply a necessary surgical medical procedure or treatment.

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 delineated in G-RECs-Op-2018, in all Mexican clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. G-RECs-Op-2018 characterizes vulnerable populations as individuals or groups experiencing diminished autonomy due to imposing social, political, and/or economic situations that prevent them from having control over their quality of life. Populations traditionally viewed as vulnerable include minors, women, persons with disabilities, the elderly, those suffering from mental illness, immigrants, those who are illiterate, those belonging to ethnic or racial minorities, the unemployed, the homeless, and reclusive individuals.

As per COFEPRIS-GCP, the principal investigator (PI) is required to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32), which similarly characterizes vulnerable populations as those who may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response from 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, persons in nursing homes, unemployed or impoverished persons, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent. (Note: Per MEX-2, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is in the process of implementing the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R2) (MEX-22)).

G-RECs-Op-2018 specifies that Research Ethics Committees (RECs) (Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEIs)) should ensure that additional security mechanisms are implemented to minimize the specific risks for each group. MEX-32 similarly states that ethics committees must pay special attention to protecting participants who are from vulnerable populations.

See the Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these vulnerable populations. Information on the other vulnerable populations specified in HlthResRegs is provided below.

Persons in Dependent Groups

As indicated in HlthResRegs, for clinical trials involving participants who are involved in subordinate or dependent relationships, the REC must ensure the following:

• Participation or refusal of individuals to participate or withdrawal of consent during the study, will not affect their school, work, military status, or that which is related to the judicial process and any conditions of compliance with a sentence, if applicable
• Research results are not used to the detriment of the individuals involved
• The health institution and sponsors take responsibility for dangers associated with medical treatment, and where appropriate, provide legally required compensation for the harmful consequences of the investigation

Per G-RECs-Op-2018, the following criteria must also be met to conduct a study with a subordinate population:

• The PI must clearly define the reasons for planning to recruit a subordinate population
• Protocol approval must also be obtained in which a written statement from the immediate boss or corresponding authority of the subordinate participant(s) verifying that no coercion has existed
• If resident doctors or partners are recruited for the study, the program director must provide the REC with a letter of support issued by a person without ties to the study
• Confidentiality of research data for the group of subordinate and student participants is important to consider to avoid negatively impacting the participants’ employment possibilities, professional development, study plans, or social relationships. The REC will also need to pay special attention to the PI’s plans to safeguard data security

The HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018 further specify that these relationships include participants who are in junior or subordinate positions in hierarchically structured groups, such as students, employees, workers in laboratories and hospitals, members of the armed forces, prisoners, social rehabilitation centers, and other members of special population groups in which informed consent can be influenced by some authority.

Persons in Local Communities

As per HlthResRegs, clinical trials involving participants in local communities must meet the following requirements:

• Research will be permitted when the expected benefit is reasonably assured, and when previous studies carried out on a small scale have not produced conclusive results
• The PI must obtain the approval of the health authorities and other civil authorities of the community to be studied, in addition to obtaining informed consent from individuals who are included in the trial
• In the case of vulnerable communities due to their economic or social conditions, such as indigenous communities, the REC is also required to issue a favorable opinion
• Experimental investigations in communities may only be carried out by establishments that have the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud)’s prior authorization
• The experimental design should offer practical measures of protection for research participants, and ensure that valid results will be obtained, involving the minimum number of participants
• The most pertinent ethical considerations applicable to research on participants must be extrapolated to the communal context

Terminally Ill Persons

As stated in GenHlthLaw, if a terminally ill patient is a minor, or is incapable of expressing their consent, consent should be provided by the patient’s parent(s) or guardian(s), and in their absence, by their legal representative(s).

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

AUS-71 further states that 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. Additionally, AUS-80 indicates that refusal to assent or withdrawal of assent by a child should be respected. Over the course of a clinical study, it may be necessary to reassess the assent of a child in recognition of their advancing age, evolving maturity, and competency, especially for long-term studies or studies that may require sample retention. During clinical studies, it is required to obtain adequate informed consent for continued participation from pediatric participants once a child reaches the age of legal consent. Local regulations related to confidentiality and privacy of pediatric participants must be followed.

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.

Per ChildRts, a child is defined as under 12 years of age, and adolescents are those between 12 and 18 years of age. When there is doubt as to whether the person is over 18 years of age, it should be presumed that the person is an adolescent. When there is doubt as to whether the person is over or under 12 years of age, it should be presumed that the person is a child.

Additionally, per HlthResRegs, in all cases, a written informed consent must be obtained from those exercising parental authority, or the legal guardian(s) of the minor, except in the case of emancipated minors over 16 years of age. Moreover, when the mental capacity or psychological state of the minor or incapacitated person permits, their acceptance must also be obtained after the investigator(s) have explained what they intend to do in the study. However, the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) may waive compliance with these requirements for justified reasons.

As set forth in G-RECs-Op-2018 and HlthResRegs, a research study involving minors must ensure that similar studies have been previously done in older people and in immature animals, except when it comes to studying conditions that are specific to the neonatal stage or specific conditions associated with certain ages.

Per G-RECs-Op-2018, research studies classified as risky and likely to benefit the minor directly, will be admissible when the following requirements are met:

• The risk is justified by the importance of the benefit that the minor will receive
• The benefit is equal to or greater than other alternatives already established for its diagnosis and treatment
• When the mental capacity and psychological state of the minor allow, the informed assent must also be obtained, after explaining what is intended to be done. The REC may waive compliance with these requirements for justified reasons
• The informed consent information provided is appropriate for the understanding of minors

Per G-RECs-Op-2018 and HlthResRegs, when two (2) persons exercise the parental authority of a minor, only the consent of one (1) of them must be permitted if there is irrefutable or manifest proof that the other is unable to provide it, proof of the parental authority’s negligence, or imminent risk to the minor’s health or life.

HlthResRegs indicates that investigations classified as risky, and with a probability of direct benefit for the minor, will be permitted in the following circumstances:

• The risk is justified by the importance of the benefit that the minor will receive, and
• The benefit is equal to or greater than other alternatives already established for diagnosis and treatment

Per HlthResRegs, investigations classified as risky and without direct benefit to the minor, will be allowed in the following circumstances:

• When the risk is minimal: The intervention or procedure must represent a reasonable experience for minors, and comparable with those characteristics of their current or expected medical, psychological, social, or educational situation. Also, the intervention or procedure should have high probability of obtaining generalizable knowledge about the condition or illness of the minor to benefit others with this disorder as well
• When the risk is greater than the minimum: The research should offer a good chance of understanding, preventing, or alleviating a serious problem affecting the health and well-being of children. Also, the head of the health institution should establish strict supervision to evaluate the magnitude of the risks anticipated or others that may arise, and immediately suspend the investigation when the risk could affect the biological, psychological, or social welfare of the minor

Assent Requirements

The applicable regulatory requirements do not specify the age of assent required for minors.

Per G-RECs-Op-2018, assent must also be obtained from a minor who is deemed capable of providing assent, and the minor must be informed about the study in a manner tailored to their emotional and intellectual maturity level, considering at all times the seriousness of the decision.

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 HlthResRegs, studies involving women of childbearing age; women who are in any stage of pregnancy or are postpartum; or studies involving treatments or procedures using embryos, fetuses, or newborns, are required to obtain an informed consent form (ICF) from the woman and her spouse or partner. In addition, HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018 note that consent from the spouse or partner may only be waived in the case of their incapacity (or irrefutable or manifest inability) to provide it, or when there is imminent risk to the health or life of the woman, embryo, fetus, or newborn. All studies must also comply with the general ethics requirements that must be fulfilled prior to research involving humans as delineated in HlthResRegs.

HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018 further state that research in pregnant women will only be permitted if it is for therapeutic benefit, and represents an opportunity to understand, prevent, or alleviate any serious pathology. HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018 indicate that these studies are allowed when they are aimed at improving a pregnant woman’s health with minimal risk to the embryo or fetus, or per HlthResRegs, seek to increase the fetus’s viability, with minimal risk to a pregnant woman. G-RECs-Op-2018 adds that the ICF should mention the possible risk to the fetus.

According to HlthResRegs, investigations to be carried out on pregnant women should be preceded by studies carried out on non-pregnant woman to demonstrate the study’s safety, with the exception of studies requiring the specific condition. Those investigations classified as higher than minimum risk and will be conducted using women of childbearing age should implement the following measures:

• Certify the women are not pregnant prior to their acceptance as research participants, and
• Decrease the chances of pregnancy as much as possible during the development of the investigation

Per HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018, during studies conducted with pregnant women, the following requirements must be met:

• The investigators will not have the authority to decide on the time, method, or procedure used to terminate the pregnancy, nor will they participate in decisions regarding the viability of the fetus
• The Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI))’s authorization is required prior to any modification of the method used to terminate the pregnancy. These modifications mean that there will be minimal risk to the mother’s health and do not represent any risk to the survival of the fetus, and
• In any case, it is strictly forbidden to grant monetary or other incentives to interrupt the pregnancy, for the interest of the investigation or for other reasons

As set forth in HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018, investigators must comply with the following additional criteria when conducting studies with women who are in any stage of pregnancy or are postpartum:

• Research without therapeutic benefit in pregnant women, whose objective is to obtain general knowledge about pregnancy, should not represent a risk greater than the minimum for the woman, the embryo, or the fetus
• Investigations in pregnant women that imply an intervention or experimental procedure not related to pregnancy, but with therapeutic benefit for women (e.g., cases of toxemia gravidarum, diabetes, hypertension, and neoplasms, etc.) should not expose the embryo or the fetus to a greater than minimum risk, except when the use of the intervention or procedure is justified to save the life of the woman
• For investigations during labor, the informed consent must be obtained prior to initiating the study and must expressly state that consent may be withdrawn at any time during labor
• Investigations in women during the puerperium will be allowed when they do not interfere with the health of the mother and the newborn
• Research on women during lactation will be authorized when there is no risk for the infant, or when the mother decides not to breastfeed, she ensures her feeding by another method and provides informed consent

Per HlthResRegs, studies involving treatments or procedures using embryos, fetuses, or newborns must meet the following requirements:

• Fetuses will be permitted to be subjects of investigation only if the techniques and means used provide maximum security for them and the pregnant woman
• Newborns will not be used as subjects of investigation until it has been established with certainty whether or not they are live births, except when the research is aimed at increasing their probability of survival until the viability phase, the study procedures do not cause the cessation of their vital functions or when, without adding any risk, they seek to obtain important generalizable knowledge that cannot be obtained in any other way
• Live births may be used as subjects of investigation if the investigator(s) obtain consent from the woman and her spouse or partner

In addition, HlthResRegs indicates that investigations involving embryos, deaths, fetuses, still births, macerated fetal matter, cells, tissues and the use of biological materials extracted from them, must comply with GenHlthLaw. GenHlthLaw specifically prohibits the use, for any purpose, of embryonic or fetal tissues caused by induced abortions. G-RECs-Op-2018, by comparison, states that for investigators to use biological materials derived from abortions, the informed consent must be independent from the consent granted for an abortion, and will not include financial compensation.

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.

No applicable requirements

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.

The Mexican government has updated the GenHlthLaw to prioritize mental health with the development of health policies required to be in accordance with the provisions of the MexConstitution and international treaties on human rights. For the purposes of this law, mental health is understood as a state of physical, mental, emotional, and social well-being determined by the individual's interaction with society and linked to the full exercise of human rights. Refer to GenHlthLaw for details on consent requirements for the treatment of the mental health services user population.

Per HlthResRegs, when the mental capacity and psychological state of the participant permits, their acceptance must also be obtained after the investigator(s) explain what they intend to do during a clinical study. The Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) may waive compliance with these requirements for justified reasons. All studies must also comply with the general ethics requirements that must be fulfilled prior to research involving humans as delineated in HlthResRegs.

As indicated in HlthResRegs, investigations classified as risky, but with a probability of direct benefit for the mentally incompetent participant, will be allowed when:

• The risk is justified by the importance of the benefit that the incompetent participant will receive, and
• The benefit is equal to or greater than other alternatives already established for diagnosis and treatment

In addition, per HlthResRegs, investigations classified as risky and without direct benefit to the mentally incompetent, will be allowed in the following circumstances:

• When the risk is minimal: The intervention or procedure must represent a reasonable experience for the incompetent participant and be comparable with those characteristics of their current or expected medical, psychological, social, or educational situation. The intervention or procedure should also have a high probability of obtaining generalizable knowledge about the condition or illness of the mentally incompetent participant to benefit others with this disorder
• When the risk is greater than the minimum: The research should offer a good chance of understanding, preventing, or alleviating a serious problem affecting the health and well-being of the mentally incapacitated. In addition, the head of the health institution should establish strict supervision to evaluate the magnitude of the risks anticipated or others that may arise, and immediately suspend the investigation when the risk could affect the biological, psychological, or social welfare of the mentally incompetent participant.

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 COFEPRIS-GCP and the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32), an investigational product (IP) is defined as any pharmaceutical form containing an active ingredient or placebo, or a product of biological or biotechnological origin that is used or tested in a clinical trial, including a registered product when used or packaged in a different way with for which it was authorized, or when it is tested for indications that have not been authorized, or when it is used to obtain more information about its authorized use. COFEPRIS-GCP also notes this definition also applies to new chemical and biological entities, generics, new formulations, combination products, and biosimilars, and medical devices with or without the release of some active ingredient.

NOM-012-SSA3-2012 similarly states that investigational medicines or devices are used or applied to humans for scientific research purposes, for which there is insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate its preventative, therapeutic, or rehabilitative effectiveness, or is intended to modify the therapeutic indications of already known products.

NOM-059-SSA1-2015 further defines an IP as a drug or biological product for which there is no previous experience in the country, has not been registered by the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud), and therefore, has not been distributed commercially. This definition also encompasses medicines registered and approved for sale, when they are being investigated for an unapproved indication, dose, or route of administration, including their use in combination with other products that are different from the approved use.

(Note: In Mexico, IPs are also referred to as “drugs/products in research”).

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. AUS-49 indicates that as part of a CTN scheme application involving a medicine or biological, the sponsor must provide either the TGA-issued good manufacturing practice (GMP) license, the GMP certification (for overseas manufacturers), or a relevant exemption.

Pursuant to TGManuf, Australia adopted the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products, PE 009-16 (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 GMP to IPs. For manufacturers to be able to apply and comply with GMP for IPs, cooperation between manufacturers and sponsors of clinical trials is required.

Additionally, the principles of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide on certification by an authorized person and batch release also apply to IPs for human use. Although the ultimate responsibility for the performance of a medicinal product over its lifetime, as well as its safety, quality, and efficacy, lies with the marketing authorization holder, the authorized person is responsible for ensuring that each individual batch has been manufactured and checked in compliance with national requirements in accordance with the requirements of the marketing authorization and with GMP.

See the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide for detailed manufacturing requirements. Additionally, see AUS-73 for the TGA’s summary of the changes in version 16 of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide.

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.