Clinical Research Regulation For Australia and Mexico

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, 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-86, 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. See AUS-91 for TGA summaries of recent clinical trial reforms.

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.

However, as noted in AUS-88, the CTA scheme is mandatory for certain Class 4 biologicals. See AUS-86 for more general information on choosing a clinical trial scheme.

CTN Scheme

As per the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-87, 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 notification. AUS-87 further notes that some ECs and institutions may need the TGA’s acknowledgement before beginning their own approval processes. In these cases, the TGA will accept a CTN submission while the sponsor gets the required approvals from the EC and institution. 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 and AUS-87 indicate 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/variations to the trial details notified to the TGA, the sponsor must update the relevant fields on the online CTN form. AUS-87 notes that some changes/variations (such as the addition of a new site to a trial, a change to the notified therapeutic good that creates a separate and distinct good, or the addition of a new therapeutic good to a previously notified trial) will incur a fee.

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

AUS-88 indicates that the CTA scheme involves an application to the TGA for approval to supply an unapproved therapeutic good(s) in a clinical trial, where the TGA will evaluate scientific data about the therapeutic good(s) (quality, preclinical, and early clinical safety data) prior to the start of a trial. The sponsor can, either following TGA approval or in parallel with the TGA’s evaluation, contact their chosen EC to initiate the EC’s review of the scientific and ethical details of the trial proposal. However, trials can only commence once both TGA and EC approvals have been received.

According to AUS-88, the TGA is in the process of reviewing the CTA scheme. Stakeholders seeking more information on the CTA process are encouraged to contact the TGA at clinical.trials@health.gov.au. Sponsors planning to submit a CTA application are also encouraged to request a pre-submission meeting with the TGA. See the Submission Process section for more information on pre-submission meetings.

AUS-88 states that after the sponsor submits the CTA application form and supporting data, the TGA generally conducts a preliminary assessment to ensure that the data is sufficient to begin evaluation. If there is critical data missing, the TGA will request further information. Once it is satisfied that there is sufficient data/information to commence evaluation, the TGA will send an invoice. The TGA’s evaluation begins after the sponsor pays the fee. During its review, the TGA generally evaluates the quality of the therapeutic good, the safety of the therapeutic good, compliance with applicable Therapeutic Goods Orders (TGOs) (see AUS-93), compliance with international guidelines, and labelling (including traceability). The evaluation process usually consists of two (2) rounds of evaluation and one (1) round of request for information from the sponsor. Additional rounds may be required if there is outstanding information required to support the evaluation process or decision.

As delineated in AUS-88, evaluation reports with recommendations are then submitted to the decision maker, a TGA senior medical officer, for consideration. The decision maker considers the overall risk-benefit profile of the trial, which may include TGA evaluation reports; the trial’s usage guidelines (such as the trial protocol, investigator’s brochure, literature references, and pharmacy guidelines); and plans for shipment and storage at trial sites. The decision maker may seek expert advice from TGA statutory advisory committees. The TGA will inform the sponsor in a letter of the decision whether to approve the trial or not.

AUS-88 further states that if a sponsor wishes to change the therapeutic good(s) or any aspect of the clinical trial that was evaluated in the original CTA submission, a variation requiring additional evaluation by the TGA may be required. These changes are assessed to ensure that the quality and safety of the good(s), or the overall risk-benefit profile of the trial, will not be inadvertently altered by the variation. Examples may include significant changes to the manufacturing process, intended patient group, route of administration, and/or container. CTA variations incur a fee. Any changes that were not evaluated in the original submission or are predicted to have no effect on the therapeutic good or safety of the trial will not be assessed by the TGA. However, all changes should be communicated to and approved by the EC before commencement. Sponsors are encouraged to contact the TGA at clinical.trials@health.gov.au for specific advice on what constitutes a variation to a previously approved CTA application.

As indicated in the G-CTHandbook, 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, which typically occurs over one (1) to three (3) consecutive days, 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. See AUS-90 for more information on the TGA’s GCP inspection program.

About this handbook, Is the product a therapeutic good?, Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’, Choosing between the CTN and CTA schemes, The CTN scheme, The CTA scheme, and Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes

Introduction, Terms, and SOP 05

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document

Preparing for an Inspection, Inspection Process, and During an Inspection

Part 3 (12 and 12AA-12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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). (Note: COFEPRIS refers to applications as requests or procedures and refers to official procedure codes as homoclaves).

As indicated in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, 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 GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, and MEX-88, COFEPRIS’s Health Authorization Commission (Comisión de Autorización Sanitaria (CAS)) is responsible for issuing, extending, or revoking requests for human research protocol authorizations. According to Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, G-HumResProt, MEX-88 and MEX-104, CAS’s technical review and approval of research protocol submissions and amendments are managed through COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86). See MEX-104 for a flowchart of CAS’s review and approval process via MEX-86.

Per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, which simplifies COFEPRIS’s administrative review process, requests for human research protocol authorization have been merged into a single procedure, the Application for Authorization of a Research Protocol on Human Beings (Homoclave COFEPRIS-04-010). The merged requests include those for medicines, biologicals, and biotechnologicals; medications (bioequivalence studies); new non-pharmacological medical methods or materials; and risk-free research (observational studies).

Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts specify that protocol modification applications (Homoclave COFEPRIS-09-012) must be submitted to CAS to amend the underlying documents including the research protocol, the investigator’s brochure (also known as researcher’s manual in Mexico), and the informed consent/assent form. Other types of amendments include: the inclusion of research centers, research center address and/or name changes, principal investigator (PI) changes, research team changes, emergency center address and/or name changes, evaluation committee changes (REC, Research Committee, or Biosafety Committee), security amendment(s), authorization holder (or owner) address and/or name changes, sponsor address and/or name changes, importer change or addition, and other modifications. See Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and MEX-87 for additional information.

As indicated in G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, CAS will begin its evaluation process once the applicant submits an application via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) to request protocol authorization or to modify/amend a protocol authorization. The stages involved in this process are as follows:

Request (user submits an authorization application request under Homoclave COFEPRIS-04-010 or COFEPRIS-09-012)
Evaluation (CAS reviews and processes the application)
Verification (CAS verifies the draft resolution to confirm whether to approve, deny, or request additional information)
Signature (CAS signs the resolution)
Resolution (Signed resolution is released to the user)

G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts further note that once COFEPRIS issues an official authorization, some of the data provided by an applicant via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) is automatically migrated to its National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC v2.0)) database (MEX-68). Per MEX-88, MEX-68 was integrated into MEX-86 as RNEC v2.0. See Submission Process section for detailed DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) submission requirements.

(Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.)

In addition, per Reg-HlthProd, applicants must submit a request to COFEPRIS to obtain a health 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.

Additionally, per NOM-177-SSA1-2013 and NOM-177-SSA1-2013-Mod, COFEPRIS requires interchangeability and biocomparability studies for generic and biosimilar (biocomparable) drugs; these studies maybe conducted in Mexico or in other countries and must be performed by authorized third parties in accordance with applicable testing and procedural requirements. See NOM-177-SSA1-2013, NOM-177-SSA1-2013-Mod, and MEX-120 for details.

Reliance Reviews

Under Agrmnt_FRAAuth, COFEPRIS issued an agreement establishing the list of Foreign Regulatory Authorities (FRAs) and the criteria for recognizing prior FRA authorizations of research protocols involving human beings using the regulatory “reliance” model. In evaluating applications, COFEPRIS will use reliance to consider the regulatory decisions submitted and approved by one (1) of the following FRAs:

Agrmnt_FRAAuth also notes that human research protocol applications must only include:

Phase III research protocol submissions
Trials authorized through regulatory processes under an ordinary evaluation scheme (i.e., this does not include trials approved by reliance, accelerated, or expedited methods)
Trials with non-adaptive trial designs or designs that do not allow planned changes or that do not correspond to master protocols
Trials that correspond to the following areas: oncology, endocrinology, cardiology, rheumatology, allergology, neurology, dermatology, pulmonology, gastroenterology, hematology, ophthalmology and nephrology, and/or those that address pathologies of high epidemiological impact in Mexico (e.g., diabetes mellitus, hypertension, lung cancer, melanoma, colon cancer, B cell lymphoma)
Active trials (i.e., trials that are not suspended or cancelled)
Investigational product (IP) trials that do not have special alerts or warnings from other regulatory authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO)
Trials of drugs that have not been withdrawn from the market in any country for reasons of safety, efficacy, and quality

See Agrmnt_FRAAuth the additional details. See also the Submission Process and Timeline of Review sections for information on application submission procedures and review timelines.

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 COFEPRIS, 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)). 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-98 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.

Inspections

As outlined in MEX-88, COFEPRIS carries out health surveillance inspections (known as health verification visits) of all the parties responsible for conducting, developing, and monitoring authorized research protocols (e.g., sponsors, owners/authorization holders, RECs, Research Committees, Biosafety Committees, the PI, research centers, emergency care centers, and contract research organizations). The inspections are intended to:

Confirm compliance with applicable legislative requirements
Obtain information and identify health anomalies in the establishment’s physical and sanitary conditions
Verify the clinical research studies are carried out in accordance with the provisions of authorized research protocols, as well as national and international regulations
Ensure compliance with standards regarding ethics in clinical research, good clinical practice (GCP) and good manufacturing practice (GMP)

Refer to MEX-93 for the verification report health inspectors use to ensure compliance in clinical trial sites. See also MEX-92 for a complete list of verification reports related to medicines and other health supplies.

9.2

Actors Involved in the Supervision of Clinical Trials in Mexico, Procedures for Submitting Applications for Authorization of Research Protocols, and Health Surveillance

“Process for handling procedures 04-010 and 09-012 in DIGIPRiS”

Data Classification and Access to Information, Status and Actions allowed for an Application or Procedure, Application for Authorization of Research Protocol on Human Beings (COFEPRIS-04-010), and Classification of Amendments and Modifications within the platform

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (IX and XI-XIII)

Preamble, 1.3, 1.7, and 2

Requirements (9) and Additional Information

Title II (Chapter II, Article 17 Bis), Title III (Chapter III, Article 41 Bis), Title V (Chapter I, Articles 98 and 102), and Title XVI (Chapter III, Article 391 Bis)

Preamble, Articles Two-Six, Transients (Fifth), and Single Annex (Single Committee Format)

Preamble, Chapters I (Articles 1-2) and II (Articles 4-6)

Chapter I (Articles 1-3) and Chapter IV (Article 14)

Article 177

Title II (Chapter I, Article 14), Title III (Chapter I, Article 62) and (Chapter II, Articles 65-66 and 69), and Title V (Chapter I, Articles 99, 102, and 109-111)

7

4.2, 5.2, 6.3, 9.2, and 10.3

1-2

2.1-2.2

Regulatory Fees

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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:

$443 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTN, and for each notification of one (1) or more additional trial sites
$2,111 Australia dollars for unapproved medicines CTA (30-day evaluation)
$580 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA – variation (30-day evaluation)
$26,240 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA (50-day evaluation)
$7,162 Australian dollars for unapproved medicines CTA – variation (50-day evaluation)
$443 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTN, and for each notification of one (1) or more additional trial sites
$31,955 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTA
$8,718 Australian dollars for unapproved biologicals CTA – variation

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

Paying for Your CTN

Clinical Trials

Schedules 5A, 9 (Part 2), and 9A (Part 2)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS)

As indicated in G-HumResProt, G-ResProtocolAmd, MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant is responsible for paying a non-refundable fee to submit a request for research protocol authorization to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)).

G-HumResProt, G-ResProtocolAmd, and MEX-11 delineate the following fees (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Research protocol authorization (medicines, biological, and biotechnological in humans): 7,896 Mexican Pesos
Research protocol amendment, modification, or addition of new research centers: 5,922 Mexican Pesos

For health permit authorization, the fees are as follows:

Health permit to import investigational products for research purposes: 7,033.09 Mexican Pesos (G-UnregDrugImprts)
Health permit to import cells and tissues including blood, its components, and derivatives: 866.45 Mexican Pesos (G-ImprtPermit)
Health permit modification to import cells and tissues including blood, its components, and derivatives: 649.84 Mexican Pesos (G-ImprtPermitMod)
Health permit to export cells and tissues including blood, its components, and derivatives: 866.45 Mexican Pesos (G-ExprtPermit)

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 Specialty 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 G-HumResProt, G-ResProtocolAmd, G-UnregDrugImprts, G-ImprtPermit, G-ImprtPermitMod, and G-ExprtPermit, fees must be paid to the applicant’s preferred bank. See G-ResProtocolAmd, G-UnregDrugImprts, G-ImprtPermitMod, and MEX-84 for access to a procedure-based form to pay fees at a chosen banking institution.

Refer to G-ResProtocolAmd, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts for additional information on this process.

2. General Requirements (2.2 Proof of Payment of Fees)

Other Permits or Authorizations – Health Supplies (p.10)

Costs

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (III)

Requirements (4) and Costs

Costs

Requirements (10) and Costs

Requirements (2) and Costs

Ethics Committee

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

As indicated in the TGAct, the TGR, the G-CTHandbook, the G-NatlStmt, and AUS-86, 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-86, 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.

The CTN and CTA schemes and Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes

Terms

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document, and Section 5 (Chapters 5.1 and 5.2)

Chapter 1 (3) and Chapter 3 (Part 3-2 (18 and 19))

Part 3 (12AA and 12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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)). (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 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, 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 a 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 six (6) months after joining the Committee. See G-CHBs-Op for additional information.

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 REC member. 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 activities report should be presented to the institutional head in the first 30 calendar days of the year
Conflicts of interest in protocol evaluations should be avoided 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 conducted to better carry out its functions
A general policy on the confidentiality of information for reviewed protocols 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 project or research protocol subject 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. Per G-CHBs-Op and GenHlthLaw, the Committee promotes, with the head of the hospital, the dissemination, elaboration, and implementation of institutional bioethical guidelines and guides for medical care and teaching. GenHlthLaw notes the Hospital Bioethics Committees must comply with current legislation and CONBIOÉTICA guidelines. For detailed Hospital Bioethics Committee procedures and information on other administrative processes, see G-CHBs-Op.

9.2

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (XI-XIII)

2

1.2-1.3, 2-3, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, 5.1-5.2, 6.1-6.2, 8.1, 9, 11, and Annexes 1 and 2

Integration, Operation, Sessions, Minutes, Quorum, Issuance of Recommendations, and Information and Files

Title III (Chapter III, Article 41 Bis) and Title V (Chapter I, Articles 98 and 100)

Preamble, Fourth, Sixth-Tenth, and Twelfth

Preamble, Article One (Twelfth, Twelfth Bis 1, Twelfth Bis 2, and Sixteenth)

Title II (Chapter I, Articles 13-14), Title V (Chapter I, Articles 99-102, 104, and 108-109)

0-1 and 9

Scope of Review

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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-86, 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. AUS-87 notes that some ECs and institutions may need the TGA’s acknowledgement before beginning their own approval processes. In these cases, the TGA will accept a CTN submission while the sponsor gets the required approvals from the EC and institution. 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. AUS-88 indicates that the sponsor can, either following TGA approval or in parallel with the TGA’s evaluation, contact their chosen EC to initiate ethics review of the CTA scheme trial proposal. However, trials can only commence once both TGA and EC approvals have been received.

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-GCP
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-GCP, if requirements specified in the G-NatlStmt appear to differ from those specified in the AU-ICH-GCP, 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.

State and territory ethics review processes

Health Privacy

Clinical trials involving therapeutic goods, The CTN and CTA schemes, and Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes (Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs))

3

Terms and SOP 05

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document, and Sections 1 (Introduction and Guidelines), 2, 3 (Introduction), 4, and 5 (Chapters 5.1-5.2 and 5.4-5.5)

Part 3 (12 and 12AA-12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, 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 and GenHlthLaw, explain that the REC provides ethics recommendations on protocols for research in human beings, including a review of the research risks and benefits. 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.)

9.2

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (XI-XIII)

2

3.1-3.3, 4.3-4.4, 7.2, 8.1-8.2, 11, and Annexes 5 and 6

Requirements (9) and Additional Information

Title V (Chapter I, Article 100)

Article Four and Single Annex (Single Committee Form)

Preamble and Fifth

Preamble, Title II (Chapter I, Article 13 and Chapter II, Article 29), Title III (Chapter I, Article 61-62), and Title V (Chapter I, Articles 99-102, 104, and 108-109)

0, 6.3, 8.4, 9.2, and 10.3

Ethics Committee Fees

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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.

Section 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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.

2.7

4.2

Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh

Oversight of Ethics Committees

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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 project monitoring
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.

Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs)

Terms

Section 5 (Introduction and Chapters 5.1 and 5.8)

Part 1 (3) and Part 2 (5B, 5C)

Chapter 1 (3)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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. See MEX-100 for REC registration renewal instructions.

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 indicates 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. However, G-CHBReg states that CONBIOÉTICA is required to issue a registration within 25 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.

Registration Process of Research Ethics Committees (CEI) and List of Registered CEI

Preamble, Articles One-Three and Seven

Requirements, Who Can Apply?, Legal Basis, Steps, Response Time, Validity, and Additional Information

5.3, 11, and Annex 4

Registry of the Hospital Bioethics Committees, Proof of Registration, Validity of the Registration, Renewal of the Registration, and Appendix 1

Title III (Chapter III, Article 41 Bis) and Title V (Chapter I, Article 98)

Preamble, Article One (Twelfth and Twelfth Bis 1), and Transients (Third)

Preamble, Fourth, Sixth-Tenth, Twelfth, and Annex 1

Article One (Seventh, Twelfth, Twelfth Bis 2, and Sixteenth), and Annex 1

Title V (Chapter I, Articles 99-102, 104, and 108-109)

4.8 and 9.1.4

Submission Process

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, 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-86, 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-87 notes that some ECs and institutions may need the TGA’s acknowledgement before beginning their own approval processes. In these cases, the TGA will accept a CTN submission while the sponsor gets the required approvals from the EC and institution. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial. Additionally, AUS-88 indicates that the sponsor can, either following TGA approval or in parallel with the TGA’s evaluation, contact their chosen EC to initiate ethics review of the CTA scheme trial proposal. However, trials can only commence once both TGA and EC approvals have been received.

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-92, sponsors may request pre-submission meetings with the TGA. A pre-submission meeting can help both the applicant and the TGA to obtain a common understanding of the therapeutic good and what supporting documentation is needed to evaluate the application, as well as any issues to resolve before submitting applications. A meeting can also help the applicant and the TGA plan for the submission and manage both timeframes and resources.

AUS-88 indicates that all sponsors considering a CTA application submission are encouraged to request a pre-submission meeting. In the meeting, the TGA can clarify any questions the applicant has about existing studies or the proposed data package for a CTA application and give specialized advice on the CTA application process (including the best ways to submit the application and dossier).

See AUS-92 for more information on pre-submission meetings and AUS-17 for the applicable forms.

CTN Scheme

According to AUS-87 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.

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-88 and AUS-89, the sponsor must submit the application form (AUS-56) and supporting data to the TGA as part of a CTA application, followed by a trial commencement notification form (AUS-57). Per AUS-89, all CTA forms should be submitted to the TGA via email at clinical.trials@health.gov.au (PDFs or Word files). If sending the forms by email (the recommended method), the sponsor is not required to send physical copies to the mailing addresses detailed in each form. Electronic/digital signatures can be used.

AUS-89 indicates that the sponsor should submit the supporting data in an electronic dossier (searchable PDFs). This should be sent via email to clinical.trials@health.gov.au. The sponsor is encouraged to contact the TGA for advice if the file is too large. See AUS-94 for more information on electronic dossiers and submissions.

As stated in AUS-89, the sponsor must send the notification form (AUS-57) to the TGA within 28 days of commencing supply of the unapproved therapeutic goods at each site.

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.

Authorised Agent and Manual Submission

About this Handbook, Clinical Trials Involving Therapeutic Goods (Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’), The Australian Regulatory Environment, The CTN and CTA schemes, and Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes (Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs))

Terms and SOP 05

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document, and Section 5 (Chapter 5.5)

Part 3 (12 and 12AA-12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Overview

In accordance with GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Mexico requires the applicant to submit a request 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, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, 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

Pre-submission Registrations

As delineated in G-DIGIPRiS-Regis, prior to submitting a protocol authorization request to COFEPRIS, an applicant must first register in COFEPRIS’S digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86), using an e.signature (also known as e.firma) digital certificate. An e.signature can be obtained from the Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT)) as described in MEX-83. See G-DIGIPRiS-Regis, G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess, and MEX-89, for additional 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

As per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, G-HumResProt, and MEX-89, research protocol authorization and amendment/modification requests must be submitted electronically via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86). MEX-89 specifies that an exception to this requirement is if the user is required to present printed documents with a handwritten signature, or a physical inspection is required. Per G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts and MEX-89, 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. According to G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, and MEX-89, once the procedure has begun, the user will be notified in MEX-86 of all request-related administrative acts (known as resolutions) (e.g., approvals, denials, and requests for additional information). Additionally, per G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess, multiple requests and procedures can be in process simultaneously in MEX-86. Refer to G-DIGIPRiS-DocComp for instructions on validating and comparing research protocol documents issued through MEX-86. See also MEX-106 for additional DIGIPRiS user guides. (Note: COFEPRIS refers to applications as requests or procedures).

Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and MEX-87 further indicate that COFEPRIS will not request documentation in its physical or electronic files if the information was previously obtained in paper or electronic form. Per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, once the research protocol has been authorized, applicants must submit the required documentation within 15 business days (See the Submission Content section for details.) Applications that do not include all required and accurate information outlined in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs may be revoked. If this occurs, applicants must resubmit their application to prevent delays in processing.

Per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, for protocol authorization and protocol modification/amendment requests, the application must also include the original proof of payment along with two (2) copies of the receipt, as well as one (1) copy of a simple power of attorney for natural persons (i.e., a third-party signature, validation, certification, authorization, or approval), or, a public instrument which accredits legal representation must be presented for legal entities, if applicable. The G-HumResProt also indicates the same requirements for protocol authorization.

Per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, all documents uploaded to DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) must be in “.pdf” format (unrestricted text file), unless another format is specified. In addition, G-HumResProt and G-ResProtocolAmd indicate that all documentation related to submitting applications for research protocol authorization and protocol modification/amendment must 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.

(Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.)

In addition, as specified in Agrmnt_FRAAuth, research protocol applications relying on prior authorizations from Foreign Regulatory Authorities (FRAs) under the regulatory “reliance” model must be submitted exclusively via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86). A certified, legalized, or apostilled copy (with Spanish translation) of the FRA’s authorization to conduct the clinical protocol must be attached under “Other documents.” The authorization must be issued within one (1) year to ensure document traceability. Copies of the protocol and the investigator’s brochure (IB) in English with Spanish translations must also be provided; only the Spanish versions require approval by the respective committees in Mexico. See the Scope of Assessment section for additional requirements governing the FRA reliance model.

As per MEX-71, for technical inquiries related to submitted procedures, applicants may contact the Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS):

Call Center (CAT) Phone: 800 033 5050 (toll free within Mexico) or 55 53 40 09 96 (international calls) (per MEX-37)
Email: contactociudadano@cofepris.gob.mx

See also MEX-37, G-CIS, and G-CISMod for additional information on the CIS.

Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (UHAP) Evaluation Submissions

Per MEX-21 and MEX-10, rather than submitting an application directly to COFEPRIS, an applicant may choose to have their application pre-assessed through an Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamen (UHAP)) (MEX-69). A UHAP may be selected from 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 from 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, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, 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.

9.2

Contact Information

Access with Electronic Signature of the SAT

Introduction and General Application Information

Access to the platform, profiles and roles, and Accessing the system and creating a profile

Introduction, XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (IX and XI-XIII)

Requirements (1 and 9-10), Steps, and Additional Information

Requirements (1-2) and Additional Information

Title II (Chapter II, Article 17 Bis) and Title III (Chapter III, Article 41 Bis), and Title V (Chapter I, Article 98)

Articles Two – Five, Transients, and Single Annex (Single Committee Form)

Chapters I (Article 1) and II (Article 7), and Transitional Provisions (Second)

Chapter I (Articles 1 and 3) and Chapter IV (Article 14)

Title III (Chapter II, Article 65) and Title V (Chapter I, Articles 99 and 109-111)

5.2, 6.3, and 9.2

Submission Content

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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-89 states that the CTA scheme includes two (2) forms – Part 1: the CTA application (AUS-56), which is submitted along with supporting data, and Part 2: Notification of the conduct of a trial under the CTA scheme (AUS-57).

Part 1: the CTA application (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.

Part 2: Notification of the conduct of a trial under the CTA scheme (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-GCP. 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-GCP 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

Creating a New CTN Form

Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes (Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs))

SOP 04

Sections 3 (Introduction and Chapter 3.1) and 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As delineated in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, 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):

Online application form (Authorization, Certificates and Visits form) (MEX-25) (see MEX-18 for instructions on completing MEX-25)
Simple power of attorney, for natural persons (i.e., a third-party signature, validation, certification, authorization, or approval), or a public instrument which accredits legal representation for legal entities, if applicable
Payment receipt and request letter
Duly completed single form by institutional/establishment head where research will be conducted (one (1) copy) (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
Duly completed single form by principal investigator (PI)/research team (including certificates of studies accrediting technical competence, good clinical practice (GCP), and specialized experience by PI/research team (one (1) copy)) (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
Duly completed single form by sponsor (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
Single Committee form which consolidates approvals from applicable committees, duly required (one (1) copy) (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) Registry (one (1) copy)
Research protocol (one (1) copy)
Study schedule (one (1) copy)
Investigator’s Brochure (IB) (also known as Researcher’s Manual in Mexico) or equivalent document (one (1) copy)
Informed consent form
Research site(s)
Emergency care center (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
Certificate of compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) for investigational products (IPs) or equivalent document, stability report, and IP/placebo results, except for risk-free research (observational studies) (one (1) copy)

(Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.)

In addition, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs states that once the research protocol has been authorized, applicants must submit within 15 business days, the following:

Consent and/or informed assent, previously approved by the Research Ethics Committee
Study insurance (Policy/Certificate) or current financial fund that certifies coverage for research participants, and
Standard form for medical emergencies and the agreement or contract for the care of medical emergencies, if applicable

Risk-free research (observational studies) only requires the REC-approved consent and/or informed assent form to be submitted per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs.

Refer to Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts for more detailed submission information. See also MEX-36 for information on obtaining a certificate of GMP.

As outlined in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, for any protocol authorization amendment or modification (COFEPRIS-09-012), applicants must submit a Single Amendment or Modification Request Form (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs) and proof of payment. If applicable, a simple power of attorney for natural persons (i.e., a third-party signature, validation, certification, authorization, or approval), or a public instrument which accredits legal representation for legal entities, if applicable, must also be provided. In addition, per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, specific documentation are required depending on which of the following amendment/modification categories is being updated:

Protocol, informed consent/assent, or IB
Center inclusion
Research center change
PI change
Research team changes
Emergency care center changes
Evaluation committee changes
Security amendment
Establishment owner change
Sponsor change
Change/addition of importer
Other modifications

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

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.

However, per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, COFEPRIS has published a Single Committee form, which merges the REC, Research Committee, and where applicable, Biosafety Committee documentation requirements into a single form. The form includes a section for the appropriate committee to provide information concerning its review and approval of the research protocol based on the following elements:

PI and research center names
Committee session data (including folio, protocol number, session data, approval date, session type (ordinary/extraordinary), and minutes number)
Research protocol data (including protocol number, study phase, title, short title, study risk level, research sponsor)
List of approved documents (including document names, versions, and dates)
List of committee members (including names, professions/disciplines, and positions)
Committee registration data (including establishment name or business name, address, registration number, start of validity or issue date, validity, expiration date)
Declaration of no conflict of interest and confidentiality
Research monitoring (periodic and continuous monitoring)
Express declaration of no vote for each member who is part of the research team

See Agrmnt_ResProtProcs for detailed requirements.

G-HumResProt also indicates that the Single Committee form should provide information related to the tests performed on the IP for a specific period of time under the influence of temperature, humidity, or light in the container that contains it, to ensure its shelf life from the date of manufacture to the date of the last administration.

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)
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. (Note: Per MEX-2, COFEPRIS is in the process of implementing MEX-22).

2-10

6. Clinical Trial Protocol and Protocol Amendment(s)

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

Application for Authorization of Research Protocol on Human Beings (COFEPRIS-04-010) and Classification of Amendments and Modifications within the platform

Change Control, V. Application Procedures for Authorization of Research Protocols, X. Sections that Make Up a Request for Research Protocols in Human Beings, and XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (I - XV)

Requirements

Article Two, Article Five, and Single Annex (Single Committee Form, Single Form for the Principal Investigator and the Research Team, Single Form for Medical Emergencies, Single Sponsor Form, Single Form of the Head of the Institution or Establishment Where the Research will be Conducted, and Single Amendment or Modification Request Form)

6.1-6.3

Timeline of Review

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, and AUS-86, 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-86, 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-87 notes that some ECs and institutions may need the TGA’s acknowledgement before beginning their own approval processes. In these cases, the TGA will accept a CTN submission while the sponsor gets the required approvals from the EC and institution. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant approvals and authorizations are in place before commencement of the trial. Additionally, AUS-88 indicates that the sponsor can, either following TGA approval or in parallel with the TGA’s evaluation, contact their chosen EC to initiate ethics review of the CTA scheme trial proposal. However, trials can only commence once both TGA and EC approvals have been received.

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

No timeline information is available for applications under the CTN or CTA schemes.

For information on how to check the status of a CTN, see AUS-49. Per AUS-88, stakeholders seeking more information on the CTA process are encouraged to contact the TGA at clinical.trials@health.gov.au.

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.

Report of the pilot of the Good Practice Process – Executive summary

Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes (Role of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs))

Terms and SOP 05

Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document and Section 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Part 3 (12 and 12AA-12AD) and Schedule 5A

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Overview

As delineated in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, 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 business days from the day following an application’s filing. However, according to Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and G-HumResProt, COFEPRIS is required to complete its review of research protocol authorization requests within 30 calendar days. Agrmnt_ResProtProcs further specifies that this timeline applies to the review of human research protocols that have already been authorized by a foreign regulatory authority, as well as to research protocol modifications or amendments.

In addition, per G-HumResProt, during the prevention period, COFEPRIS has 10 calendar days to notify an applicant of any deficiencies or request additional information, and an applicant must respond within five (5) business days. If COFEPRIS does not respond within the 30-day timeline, the application will be deemed denied.

See the Scope of Assessment section for additional information on COFEPRIS’s evaluation process, and see Submission Process section for details on tracking submitted procedures via COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86).

Also, as specified in Agrmnt_FRAAuth, COFEPRIS must issue a decision within 45 calendar days for research protocol applications involving human beings submitted under the regulatory “reliance” model, which are based on prior authorization from a Foreign Regulatory Authority (FRA). See the Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for additional requirements governing the FRA reliance model and submission procedures.

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 eight (8) 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.

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. Per MEX-21 and MEX-10, third parties are also known as Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Units (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamens (UHAPs)) (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 UHAPs 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-98 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.

9.2

10

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (XI-XIII)

Term

3.3, 6.2, 8.1, and 8.2

Requirements (9), Term, and Additional Information

Articles Four and Six, Transients (Sixth), and Single Annex (Single Committee Form)

Chapters I (Article 1) and II (Article 8)

Title VI (Chapter IV, Article 196)

Title III (Chapter I, Article 62) and (Chapter II, Articles 65 and 69) and Title III Bis

5.2, 6.3, 9.2, and 10.3

Initiation, Agreements & Registration

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the G-TrialsSOP, the G-CTHandbook, and AUS-86, 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.

AUS-87 notes that for trials conducted under the CTN scheme, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to have all relevant approvals in place. All approvals must be obtained before supplying the unapproved therapeutic good(s) in the clinical trial. After submission of the online CTN form with payment of the relevant fee is made to the TGA, the clinical trial is deemed to have been notified. Once this notification occurs, the sponsor may lawfully supply the unapproved therapeutic good(s) for the purposes of the trial. A CTN acknowledgement from the TGA is not required before the trial can begin recruiting.

AUS-89 indicates that the sponsor must send a trial commencement notification form (AUS-57) to the TGA within 28 days of commencing supply of the good(s) at each site for each new trial conducted under the CTA scheme, as well as additional sites in ongoing CTA trials.

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 an 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-GCP, 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
Comply with procedures for data recording and reporting
Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
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.

The CTN and CTA schemes

1.17, 5.1.2, 5.6.3, and 8.2.6

Terms; SOPs 03, 05, and 06; and Appendix 8

Sections 3 (Chapter 3.1) and 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Overview

In accordance with GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, COFEPRIS-GCP, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, 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, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, 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

While NOM-012-SSA3-2012, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts state that prior to initiating the trial, 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, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, has eliminated this requirement as of June 2025.

Additionally, as of June 2025, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs has eliminated the requirement stated in MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 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.

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 conflicts 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 and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, once COFEPRIS approves an authorization request, some of the data provided by the applicant in COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86), is automatically migrated to COFEPRIS’s National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC)) database (MEX-68). Per MEX-88, RNEC was integrated into MEX-86 as RNEC v2.0.

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 and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, 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, G-ResCommReg, and MEX-102 for detailed Research Committee and Biosafety Committee registration requirements. See MEX-26 for COFEPRIS’s Research Committee and Biosafety Committee registration form.

2, 4.1, 4.5, and 9.2

4.9, 5.6, and 5.9

Data Classification and Access to Information and Status and Actions allowed for an Application or Procedure

IX. General Considerations for Capturing Information and Uploading Documentation, XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (IX and XI-XIII)

Preamble, 2, 4.1, 4.9-4.11, 4.13, and 5.7

Preamble, Requirements (9), Term, and Additional Information

Title V (Chapter I, Article 98), Title XII (Chapter I, Articles 194 and 194 bis) and (Chapter XIII, Articles 238-239 and 283-285), and Title XVI (Chapter I, Articles 368-369 and 371-372)

Preamble; Articles One, Four, and Six; and Single Annex (Single Committee form)

Chapter I (Articles 1 and 3) and Chapter IV (Article 14)

Title I (Chapter I, Articles 9 and 10), Title III (Chapter I, Article 62 and Chapter II, Articles 65 and 69), Title V (Chapter I, Articles 99-102 and 110-111), and Title VI (Chapter I, Articles 113 and 117)

7.4

5.2, 6.3, 7.4, and 9.1-9.2

Safety Reporting

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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, PO Box 100, Woden ACT 2606. More information about reporting to the TGA may be found on the Adverse Event Management System (AEMS) (AUS-7).

See AUS-37 for the SSI/USM reporting form, which should be submitted to clinical.trials@health.gov.au.

Introduction, Definitions and Terminology Associated with Clinical Safety Experience, Standards for Expedited Reporting, and Attachment 1

Summary of Main Changes to Reporting Requirements and Part 1 - Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) Trials (C. An Overview of Safety Monitoring and Reporting Responsibilities)

Safety reporting to TGA for CTN and CTA trials

SOPs 02, 05, and 12

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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 health 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)
E2B(R3) Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) Specification and Related Files (MEX-101)
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 permanently 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 health 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, adverse events following immunization (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 and see MEX-30 for the form to be completed via 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.

1. Generalities, 3. Content Development (3.1), and 5. Annex A

3.6

2-6

1, 4, 6, Table 1, and Annex 1

1-5

Title III (Chapter I (Article 64))

4.21, 4.44-4.45, 4.53, 4.55-4.56, 4.59, 4.72, 7.5, 7.7, and 8.1-8.3

8.1.2, 8.1.11, and 8.2.1-8.2.10

4.5, 8.7-8.10, and 10.9

Progress Reporting

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As per the AU-ICH-GCP, 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-GCP 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-88 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) after the trial has been completed at all sites. There is no fee for this notification. 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. AUS-87 further notes that there is no fee to submit a CTN completion. See AUS-49 for additional information on the completion advice.

The AU-ICH-GCP 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.

Submitting a Completion Advice

4

SOP 05

Section 5 (Chapter 5.4)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

Per HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, 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. 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 and MEX-31 specify that the progress reports should describe the results obtained and at a minimum should include the following elements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Study data
Participating research centers
Amendments and modifications authorized during study development
Partial technical-descriptive reports (include official responses to the partial/annual technical-descriptive reports carried out) (see Annex I of MEX-31)
Materials and methods
Summary of adverse event (AE) reports identified during study development (include a simple copy of the response letters (or a simple copy of the CIS entry form for the AE reports) issued by Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS))’s National Pharmacovigilance Center (CNFV), which corresponds with the reports submitted) (Annex I)
Results
Conclusions
Bibliographic references (include only those references that served as the basis for the planning and execution of the research)
Any relevant exhibits

MEX-31 also indicates the following annexes must be submitted:

Annex I – A simple copy of the COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) entry form for the Free Letter of Notification of AE(s) (submitted to the CNFV); and a simple copy of the official authorization letter of the respective Security Amendment (Homoclave COFEPRIS-09-012), when applicable
Annex II – A simple copy of the Technical Sheet of the National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC)), duly completed and in its entirety (except for the section referring to results, which must be presented in the Final Technical Report submission)
Annex III – A simple copy of the PI’s signed Delegation of Responsibilities Letter, which was submitted with the initial authorization process for the research protocol and/or inclusion of the research center (including a simple copy of the amendment/modification letter, if applicable)
Annex IV – Patient materials (documents that do not require COFEPRIS authorization, but which are acknowledged and are the same as those approved by the evaluation committees) generated from the authorization of the protocol’s implementation until the clinical study’s conclusion
Annex V – A simple copy of the signed letters from the REC (CEI), the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee (as applicable) of each center where the study is carried out; the letters should notify or acknowledge receipt of each research center’s annual activities report
Other Annexes – The researcher may include any annexes deemed necessary to support the partial technical-descriptive report, or those documents required by the institution or establishment where the research is carried out. This section must also indicate which and how many annexes are attached to the form.

Additionally, 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 and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the PI is 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. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the PI must also deliver a copy of this report to the research team members, the REC (CEI), the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee, as applicable, where the study was conducted.

However, per MEX-94 and MEX-28, the sponsor/the sponsor’s contract research organization (CRO) and the PI share responsibility for submitting the final report to the CIS (MEX-37). Once the final report is submitted, MEX-94 specifies that the CIS assigns an entry number to the submitted application along with the procedural code, “ES45”. The CIS’s acknowledgement of the receipt of information submitted should not be interpreted as an official authorization.

As per NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and MEX-94, the final reports should include the same basic requirements as those indicated in the Interim and Annual Progress Reports, with the following differences: they must also contain a clinical study synopsis with the main research results (including the corresponding analysis and interpretation), conclusions, and bibliographic references (including only those sources that served as a basis for planning and executing the research, as well as for analyzing the results).

Additionally, per MEX-94, the following annexes must also be submitted:

Annex I – A simple copy of the CIS Entry Slip of the Final Safety Report Entry Form submitted to the CNFV
Annex II – A simple copy of the RNEC Technical Data Sheet, duly completed and in its entirety
Annex III – A simple copy of the PI’s signed Letter of Delegation of Responsibilities, which was submitted with the initial authorization process for the research protocol and/or inclusion of the research center (including a copy of the amendment/modification letter, if applicable)
Annex IV – Patient materials (documents that do not require COFEPRIS authorization, but which are acknowledged and are the same as those approved by the evaluation committees) generated from the authorization of the protocol’s implementation until the clinical study’s conclusion
Annex V – A simple copy of the signed letters from the REC (CEI), the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee (as applicable) of each center where the study was carried out, specifying that they are aware of the study’s completion
Annex VI – Letters signed by each PI, notifying them of the study’s completion, the closure of the center's activities, and the conclusion and follow-up of the research participants enrolled at their respective research center
Other Annexes – The researcher may include any annexes deemed necessary to support the technical-descriptive report or those required by the institution or establishment where the research is carried out. This section must also indicate which and how many annexes are attached to the form.

See section 7.4 of NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and MEX-94 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-94 for the reporting form.

Title VI (Chapter I (Articles 116 and 119-120))

4.8-4.10, 7.1, 7.4, 10.10, and 12.1

Definition of Sponsor

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

As per the AU-ICH-GCP 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-GCP, 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 and the G-TrialsSOP, a sponsor must be an Australian entity.

Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’ and Role of trial sponsors

1.53 and 5.2

Terms

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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.

4.1

1.53 and 5.2

1.5-1.6, 4.1-4.2, and 4.15

4.18

Site/Investigator Selection

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

As set forth in the AU-ICH-GCP, 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 and the G-TrialsSOP, 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-GCP, 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-GCP, 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.

National Clinical Trials Governance Framework and User Guide

What is a DSMB and what is its role?

Role of trial sponsors

5

Introduction, Terms, SOP 03, and SOP 12

Section 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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. Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, and MEX-84 also specify the PI should provide legally issued and registered documentation (e.g., certificates of studies and professional licenses) delineating appropriate academic training and experience appropriate to the research to be conducted, which includes academic preparation, representative scientific production, and good clinical practice (GCP).

Additionally, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts 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 provide a letter stating the institution’s acceptance, authorization, and description of the available resources. The agreement must comply with NOM-027-SSA3-2013, which establishes the criteria for the operation and care in providing emergency services in health care institutions.

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

4.6, 7.2-7.3, and 8.2

1.25, 4.1-4.2., 5.5-5.7, and 5.23

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (IV, VIII, and IX)

Preamble, 3.8, 4.14.7, 4.10-4.11, 4.13, and 4.15

Requirements (5-6), and Additional Information

Articles One, Two, and Five and Single Annex (Single Form for the Principal Investigator and the Research Team and Single Form for Medical Emergencies)

Title III (Chapter I, Article 62) and Title VI (Chapter I, Articles 113 and 117)

10.1

0-2

Insurance & Compensation

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Insurance

The AU-ICH-GCP 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-GCP 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-GCP, 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.

Guidance Statements

IV

3, 4, 5, and 8

SOP 05

Sections 2 (Chapter 2.2), 3 (Chapter 3.1), and 5 (Chapter 5.1)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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, COFEPRIS-GCP requires the sponsor or the CRO to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (MEX-32), which states that 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

Per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, once the research protocol has been authorized, applicants must provide the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) with a policy or certificate of study insurance or a copy of the current financial fund that certifies coverage for research participants. G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also indicates the sponsor should provide 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, which must be on behalf of the license holder and the sponsor, must indicate the number of participants that will be covered, the study title, and the protocol number.

(Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.)

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, will 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. HlthResRegs and GenHlthLaw also specify that 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.

MEX-32 explains the sponsor's policies and procedures should address the costs of treatment of trial participants 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).

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.

4.3

3.1 and 5.8

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (IV)

Preamble, 4.1, 4.8, and 4.13-4.14

Title V (Chapter I, Article 100)

Article Five

Title II ((Chapter I, Article 14), (Chapter II, Article 21), and (Chapter V, Article 58))

5.14 and 7.2

Risk & Quality Management

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As per the AU-ICH-GCP, 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. 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 communicating 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 summarizing 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-GCP 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-GCP, 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-GCP 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-GCP, 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 other personnel, including the sponsor and institution/EC representative(s), to attend the inspection opening and closing meeting. See the Scope of Assessment section, the G-GCP-Inspect, and AUS-90 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-GCP 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 the 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.

Preamble, Responsibilities of institutions, and Responsibilities of researchers

Introduction

Responsibilities under the CTN and CTA schemes

5

SOPs 02, 05, and 13

Section 5 (Chapter 5.4)

About the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Inspection Program and Preparing for an Inspection

Background and Scope

Part 3 (12AB and 12AC)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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 verify 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 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, 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 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 (GCP), 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)), the Research Committee, or the Biosafety Committee (where applicable), the PI, and the sponsor, must be responsible, in accordance with their area of competence, for monitoring the research. Agrmnt_ResProtProcs specifies that the sponsor is required to submit a monitoring and audit plan to ensure that clinical trial oversight mechanisms are in place to verify that all trial-related activities are subject to quality and other controls to reduce errors, increase objectivity, and ensure consistent processes. However, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts require the sponsor or the CRO to provide a letter to COFEPRIS describing the monitoring and auditing plan to be carried out during the investigation. 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 both 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 scientific, technical, and ethical monitoring
Communication and notification strategies between the 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)

Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.

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 (CEI), 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 to, 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 (CEI), the Research Committee, the Biosafety Committee (where applicable), or the 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 participant 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 the sponsor’s prior agreement, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should promptly inform the sponsor and the EC and 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.

4.2 and 7

4.9, 4.12, 5.1, 5.12, and 5.18-5.21

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (IV)

Preamble, 3.5, 4.1, 4.6, 4.9, and 4.13

Title V (Chapter I, Article 100)

Article Two and Single Annex (Single Sponsor Form)

Title III (Chapter I, Article 64)

7.5

7.2, 8.7-8.8, 9.2, and 10.5

Data & Records Management

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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-GCP 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-GCP, 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.

Preamble, Responsibilities of Institutions, and Responsibilities of Researchers

5

Responsibilities of Institutions and Responsibilities of Researchers

SOPs 07 and 08

Section 3 (Chapter 3.1)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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.

4.9, 5.5, and 8

3.7 and 4.1

4.1, 5.1, and 5.2

5.4

Personal Data Protection

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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. Additionally, see the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)’s guidelines on the APP (G-APP) for more information.

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 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.

Part II (6), Part III (15 and 16B), and Schedule 1

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Responsible Parties

For the purposes of data protection in Mexico, PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public delineate responsibilities of the “data controller.” In PDP-PrivateLaw, which regulates the right of private individuals and legal entities to protect their personal data, the data controller who carries out the processing of personal data is the “responsible” party (or “regulated subject”). The “person in charge” is a natural or legal person who, alone or jointly with others, processes personal data on behalf of the controller.

In comparison, in PDP-Public, which regulates personal data held by public entities, the data controller who decides on the processing of the data is the “responsible” party (or “obligated subject”). The “person in charge” is a natural or legal person, public or private, outside the organization of the responsible person, who alone or jointly with others, processes personal data on behalf of and for the account of the responsible person. Public entities that process personal data include government authorities at all levels (federal, state, municipal, and Mexico City), the three (3) branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), autonomous bodies, political parties, and public trusts and funds.

In addition, PDP-Trnspcy, which guarantees access to public information and promotes transparency and accountability, also addresses personal data protection. It requires public entities to manage and safeguard personal data as part of their broader mandate to ensure access to publicly available information. Oversight is carried out by “guarantor authorities,” which are the federal and local authorities that oversee compliance across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and independent constitutional bodies.

Data Protection

PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public provide the requirements, responsibilities, and restrictions for handling personal data in the private and public sectors respectively. Under both laws, the data controller or responsible party must comply with the principles of data protection: legality, purpose, loyalty, consent, quality, proportionality, information, and responsibility in the processing of personal data. The data controller or responsible party must also ensure that the personal data contained in the databases are accurate, complete, correct, and updated for the purposes for which they were collected.

According to both PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public, the data controller or responsible party must also establish and maintain administrative, physical, and technical security measures to protect personal data against damage, loss, alteration, destruction, or unauthorized use, access, or processing. Under PDP-Public, the controller must also guarantee the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data. PDP-PrivateLaw requires the data controller or responsible party to report immediately any security breaches occurring at any stage of personal data processing that significantly affect the property or moral rights of the data owners, so that they can take appropriate measures to defend their rights. Additionally, the data controller or responsible party must establish controls or mechanisms to ensure that all persons involved in processing maintain confidentiality. This obligation must continue even after their relationship with the data controller ends.

PDP-Public further provides that the data controller or the responsible party must analyze the causes of the breach and implement preventive and corrective actions in its work plan to adapt security measures and the processing of personal data, if applicable, to prevent the breach from recurring. The data controller or responsible party must promptly inform the data owner, and as appropriate, the Secretariat and the guarantor authorities (i.e., government bodies that oversee compliance with data protection obligations), of any violations that significantly affect property or moral rights. Notification must be made as soon as the violation is confirmed and once the responsible party has begun to take steps to initiate a comprehensive review of its impact, so that the affected data owners can take the appropriate measures to defend their rights.

PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public also both delineate that any time, a data owner, or where applicable, their legal representative, may exercise their rights of access, rectification, cancellation, and opposition, known as ARCO rights. The exercise of any of the ARCO rights is not a prerequisite, nor does it prevent the exercise of any other rights. The data owner must have the right to:

Access their personal data, as well as to know information related to the conditions and generalities of their processing
Request the rectification or correction of their personal data when they are found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated
Request the erasure of their personal data from the files, records, files, and systems, so that they are no longer in the data controller’s or responsible party’s possession
Object to the processing of their personal data or demand its cessation when: even if the processing is lawful, to prevent it from causing harm or damage; or, the personal data is subject to automated processing, which produces undesired legal effects or significantly affects the data owner’s interests, rights, or freedoms, and is intended to evaluate, without human intervention, certain personal aspects of their data, or to analyze or predict, in particular, their professional performance, economic situation, health status, sexual preferences, reliability, or behavior

Per PDP-PrivateLaw, the data owner’s right to object will not be exercised in cases where processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation imposed on the data controller. Additionally, the data controller should not be obliged to erase personal data when:

The data relate to the parties of a private, social, or administrative contract and are necessary for its development and fulfillment
The data must be processed by a legal provision
The erasure hinders judicial or administrative proceedings related to tax obligations, the investigation and prosecution of crimes, or the updating of administrative sanctions
The data are necessary to protect the data owner’s legally protected interests
The data are necessary to carry out an action based on the public interest
The data are necessary to comply with a legal obligation acquired by the data owner
The data are processed for prevention or for medical diagnosis, or for the management of health services, provided that such treatment is carried out by a health professional subject to a duty of secrecy

Please refer to PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public for detailed information on the principles guiding the protection and handling of personal data. See also MEX-95 for additional information on the protection of personal data held by private parties.

Additionally, per PDP-Trnspcy, obligated subjects and individuals must be responsible for the personal data in their possession, and may not disseminate, distribute, or commercialize the personal data contained in the information systems, developed in the exercise of their functions, unless there has been the express consent, in writing or by a similar means of authentication, of the persons to whom the information refers. See PDP-Trnspcy for detailed requirements.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

As explained in PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public, the consent document or “privacy notice” is a physical, electronic, or any format document generated by the data controller or responsible party, that is made available to the data owner prior to processing that informs them of the purpose of collecting their data. Processing must be limited to the fulfillment of purposes delineated in the privacy notice. If the data controller or responsible party intends to process the data for another purpose, the data owner’s consent must be obtained again. PDP-Public specifies that the data controller or responsible party may process personal data for purposes other than those established in the privacy notice, provided that it has the authority granted by applicable law and the data owner has given their consent, unless the data owner has been reported missing, in accordance with the terms set forth in this law and other applicable provisions.

PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public further explain that the consent may be given expressly or tacitly. Consent is understood to be expressed when the data owner’s will is expressed verbally, in writing, by electronic means, optically, with unequivocal signs, or by any other technology. Consent is tacit when the privacy notice has been made available to the owner, but the owner does not express their will to the contrary. As a general rule, tacit consent will be valid, unless the applicable legal provisions require that the data owner’s consent will be expressly stated. Per PDP-PrivateLaw, consent may be revoked at any time without retroactive effects being attributed to it. To revoke consent, the data controller must specify the mechanisms and procedures to be followed in the privacy notice.

PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public state that in the case of sensitive data, the data owner or responsible party is required to obtain the data owner’s express written consent. PDP-PrivateLaw further indicates that the consent should be obtained through a written or electronic signature, or any authentication mechanism established for that purpose. Databases containing sensitive personal data may not be created without justifying their creation for legitimate, concrete purposes, and in accordance with the specified activities delineated and pursued by the data controller or responsible party. The data controller or the responsible party must also make reasonable efforts to limit the processing to the minimum time necessary.

As delineated in PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public, the data controller or the responsible party will not be required to obtain consent when processing sensitive data in the following cases (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

When an applicable law authorizes such processing
There is a court order, resolution, or well-founded and reasoned mandate from a competent authority
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 is contained 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

Also, as outlined in PDP-PrivateLaw, when a data controller or responsible party intends to transfer personal data to national or foreign third parties, the privacy notice and the purposes to which the data owner subjected the processing must be communicated. National or international data transfers carried out with the data owner’s consent may be necessary when it is:

Provided for in a law or treaty to which Mexico is a party
Necessary for medical prevention or diagnosis, the provision of health care, medical treatment, or the management of health services
Made to holding companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates under the data controller’s common control, or to a parent company, or to any company of the same group that operates under the same internal processes and policies
Necessary by virtue of a contract entered into, or to be entered into, in the data owner’s interest, by the data controller and a third party
Necessary or legally required to safeguard a public interest, or to procure or administer justice
Necessary for the recognition, exercise, or defense of a right in a judicial proceeding
Necessary for the maintenance or fulfilment of a legal relationship between the data controller and the data owner

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data of Minors

Per 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.)

6.1

Title One (Article 3) and Title Four (Article 64)

Chapters I (Articles 1-3), II-III, and V

Title One (Articles 2-3 and 7), Title Two (Articles 10-12, 15-17, 25, 37, and 40), and Title Three (Chapter I)

Documentation Requirements

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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-GCP and the G-NatlStmt. According to the AU-ICH-GCP, if requirements specified in the G-NatlStmt appear to differ from those specified in the AU-ICH-GCP, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) recommends compliance with the G-NatlStmt.

As per the AU-ICH-GCP, 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-GCP 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-GCP, 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-GCP, 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-GCP 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-GCP 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.

1, 3, 4, and 8

SOP 09

Sections 2 (Chapters 2.2 and 2.3), 3 (Chapter 3.1), and 5 (Chapter 5.3)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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 an 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 (CEI) 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.

3.3

25-32

1.28, 2.9, and 4.8

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (V)

3.1 and 3.9

1.2, 3.3, 10, Annexes 5 and 6, and Glossary

Requirements (9) and Additional Information

Title III (Chapter IV, Article 51 Bis 2) and Title V (Chapter I, Article 100)

Title II (Chapter I, Articles 20-22)

0 (Introduction)

4.3 and 10.6

Required Elements

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Based on the AU-ICH-GCP 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 ICF, 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

4.8.10

Section 2 (Chapter 2.2)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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 (CEI), 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.

3.3

4.8

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

Annex 5

Title II (Chapter I, Article 21)

4.3, 4.6, 9.29, 10.6-10.7, 11.2-11.3

Participant Rights

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the AU-ICH-GCP 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-GCP 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-GCP 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-GCP 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-GCP 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-GCP (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.

Introduction, 2, and 4

SOP 09

Purpose, Scope, and Limits of this Document, Section 1, Section 2 (Chapters 2.2 and 2.3), and Section 5 (Chapter 5.7)

Part II

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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, which 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.

3.3

Introduction and 4.8

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

Preamble and 3.1

1.1, 1.2, 3.2, and Annex 5

Title II (Chapter I, Articles 13 and 21)

5.4

0, 5.3, and 11.3

Emergencies

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

The AU-ICH-GCP 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-GCP, 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.

4.8.15

Section 4 (Chapter 4.4)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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 (CEI) 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 of 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.

4.8

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

3.1

Title V (Chapter I, Article 100) and Title VI (Chapter II, Article 166 Bis 8)

Title III (Chapter II, Article 71)

Vulnerable Populations

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Overview

The AU-ICH-GCP 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 upon 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.

1

Section 4 (Introduction and Chapters 4.1, 4.3-4.4, and 4.6-4.8)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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 (CEI) 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 existed
If resident doctors or partners are recruited for the study, the program director must provide the REC (CEI) 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 (CEI) 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 (CEI) 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 person is a minor, or is incapable of expressing their consent, consent should be provided by the parent(s)/guardian(s), and in their absence, by their legal representative(s).

1.61

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

3.1

Annex 5

Title VIII Bis (Chapter II (Article 166 Bis 8))

Title II (Chapters II and V)

Children/Minors

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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-GCP 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.

Clinical trials and children

4

Section 4 (Chapter 4.2)

Part I-Preliminary (4 Interpretation)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Per GenChldRtsLaw, a child is defined as under 12 years of age, and adolescents are those between 12 and 18 years of age. For the purposes of the age of majority, children are those under 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 (CEI) 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.

Annex 5

Title One (Article 5)

Title II (Chapter III)

Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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.

Section 4 (Chapter 4.1)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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.

Annex 5

Title XIV (Chapter I, Article 318 and Chapter III, Article 330)

Title II (Chapter IV, Articles 41-55)

Prisoners

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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.

Section 4 (Chapter 4.3)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

No applicable requirements

Mentally Impaired

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

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.

SOP 09

Section 4 (Chapters 4.4 and 4.5)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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.

Title III (Chapter VII, Articles 72 and 75)

Title I (Chapter I, Article 1)

Title II (Chapter I, Article 14 and Chapter III, Articles 34 and 36-39)

Definition of Investigational Product

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

According to the AU-ICH-GCP 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.

The G-CTHandbook adds that an IP is any therapeutic good being tested or used as reference in a clinical trial. Therapeutic goods must be included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) (AUS-22) before those goods can be lawfully imported into, exported from, or supplied in Australia. The Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) schemes provide for the lawful importation into and/or supply in Australia of unapproved therapeutic goods for use solely for experimental purposes in humans. When a product is included in the ARTG, the entry applies to a particular sponsor (i.e., the individual or company intending to supply the goods). If a same or similar product is imported by another company or individual it is considered “unapproved”.

As per the G-CTHandbook, unapproved therapeutic goods include:

Any medicine, biological, or medical device not entered on the ARTG, including any new formulation, strength or size, dose, name, indications, directions for use or type of container of a medicine already in the ARTG
Therapeutic goods already in the ARTG to be used in a manner not covered by the existing ARTG entry

Determine the type of therapeutic good and Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’

1

Terms

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

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 way different from 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”).

1.33

1.7

1 and 4.16

3.77

Manufacturing & Import

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Manufacturing

As specified in the TGAct and the G-CTHandbook, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) authorizes the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) (i.e., therapeutic goods being used in a clinical trial) in Australia. As per AUS-88 and AUS-49, the sponsor provides manufacturing 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 009-17 (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-95 for the TGA’s summary of the changes in version 17 of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide.

Import

The G-CTHandbook indicates 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.

Creating a New CTN Form

The CTN and CTA schemes, Manufacturing, and Importing

Part I (Chapter 1 (Principle)), Annex 13 (Introduction), and Annex 16

Part 1 (Section 4) and Schedule 1 (Part 1)

Chapter 3 (Part 3-2 (19) and Part 3-3 (34-38))

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Manufacturing

According to GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, and Reg-HlthProd, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of all drug products for human use, including investigational products (IPs), in Mexico. Pursuant to GenHlthLaw, COFEPRIS, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud), also issued NOM-059-SSA1-2015 and NOM-164-SSA1-2015 to provide standards delineating the minimum requirements necessary for the manufacture of drugs or active ingredients to be marketed in the country or used in clinical research. See NOM-059-SSA1-2015-Annexes to access the annexes to NOM-059-SSA1-2015.

As indicated in GenHlthLaw and Reg-HlthProd, drug manufacturers must submit a request to COFEPRIS to obtain a health registration prior to initiating any drug manufacturing activities. Reg-HlthProd states that COFEPRIS must complete its review in 60 days, or the application will be deemed approved. Per GenHlthLaw, the health registration is valid for five (5) years. The health registration may be extended for an additional five (5) years if the extension is requested prior to the expiration of the current authorization, or the registration will be cancelled or revoked. See also GenHlthLaw and Reg-HlthProd, for detailed drug manufacturer registration submission requirements. In addition, per MEX-110, COFEPRIS is recognized as a National Regulatory Authority of Regional Reference of Medicines and Biological Products by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)/World Health Organization (WHO), and per MEX-111, is also a member of Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S). Per MEX-2, COFEPRIS has also implemented the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)’s Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (Q7) (MEX-81).

Import

As delineated in GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, Reg-HlthProd, and G-UnregDrugImprts, COFEPRIS is also responsible for authorizing the import of IPs. According to Reg-HlthProd and G-UnregDrugImprts, an applicant or the legal representative may submit a request to import an IP after COFEPRIS has approved the health authorization request for those drugs that are neither narcotic nor psychotropic, that do not have health registrations, and that are intended to be used for human research. As per GenHlthLaw, the applicant must be a resident of Mexico or have a legal representative submit an import request on the applicant’s behalf.

Per Reg-HlthProd, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, foreign manufacturers must submit a license, a good manufacturing practices (GMP) certificate, or a document issued by the competent authority in the country of origin that proves the company has permission to manufacture drugs. See MEX-36 for additional information on obtaining a GMP certificate.

Additionally, as provided in Agrmnt_GMPCert, COFEPRIS has issued an agreement establishing the use of a regulatory “reliance” model for GMP certification. Under this agreement, COFEPRIS will recognize the GMP certificates or equivalent documents for drugs and medicines issued by Recognized Regulatory Authorities (RRA). RRAs include:

National Regulatory Authorities that are PIC/S members
National Regulatory Authorities included in the WHO List of Authorities (WLAs)
Regional Reference National Regulatory Authorities (RRNs)
National Regulatory Authorities of the country of origin, exclusively for foreign-manufactured drugs

Per Agrmnt_GMPCert, COFEPRIS will also consider Certificates of Pharmaceutical Product (CPP) that demonstrate GMP compliance when the issuing authority does not provide a GMP certificate. See Agrmnt_GMPCert for detailed requirements governing the reliance model for GMP certificates.

Per NOM-059-SSA1-2015-Mod, COFEPRIS uses the reliance model to recognize GMP certificates from National Regulatory Authorities (e.g., PIC/S members, WLAs, or those with equivalence agreements) to ensure access to new, safe, effective, and high-quality therapeutic options for the treatment of diseases requiring advanced therapies (mainly biotechnological drugs), such as cancer, diabetes and mellitus. See NOM-059-SSA1-2015-Mod for additional information.

Reg-HlthProd further states that COFEPRIS may grant permission to import raw materials or finished products without health registration only in the following cases:

When a contingency arises
When required by health policy
For purposes of scientific research, registration, or personal use, or
For laboratory tests

In addition, Reg-HlthProd indicates that three (3) types of sanitary import permits may be issued:

Definitive import – authorizes the entry of products to remain in the national territory for an unlimited time
Temporary import – authorizes the entry of products for a limited time and with a specific purpose, with the understanding that they must return to the country of origin in a period not exceeding one (1) year
Import in transit – authorizes the entry of products for their transfer from one (1) national office to another, for their departure to leave the country, within a period not exceeding 30 days, and for sale or temporary distribution. The sale or distribution is authorized exclusively for medicines to be used for strategic purposes

Reg-HlthProd, MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, and G-UnregDrugImprts state that an import request may be submitted to COFEPRIS once the agency has authorized the protocol for research to be conducted on human beings. The following documentation should be included (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 (see MEX-25) (original)
Proof of payment of fees (original and two (2) copies)
Health License
Notice of Operation (original and one (1) copy)
Approval from the research protocol office authorized by COFEPRIS and its amendments, (only in the case of research on human beings) (original and one (1) copy)
Power of attorney
Technical and scientific information demonstrating the identity and purity of its components in accordance with Pharmacopoeia of the United Mexican States (Farmacopea de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (FEUM)) and its supplements; the stability of the finished product in accordance with the corresponding standards; and therapeutic efficacy and safety according to the corresponding scientific information
Prescribing information (broad and reduced versions)
Sample label
Free sale certificate issued by the health authority of the country of origin
Certificate that the company has permission to manufacture medicines and proof of GMP issued by the corresponding authority of the country of origin
Letter of representation, when the laboratory that manufactures the import product abroad is not a subsidiary or parent company of the laboratory requesting the registration
Letter of delegation of responsibility to the importer signed by the sponsor
Letter of acceptance of responsibility from the importer signed by the importer’s legal representative

In addition, Reg-HlthProd requires documents originating from a foreign country to be presented in Spanish, or if in another language, with a Spanish translation made by an expert translator.

Per Reg-HlthProd and G-UnregDrugImprts, COFEPRIS has 10 days to approve the request. If COFEPRIS does not respond within this timeframe, the request is deemed approved. G-UnregDrugImprts also notes that COFEPRIS has eight (8) business days to send the applicant a prevention notification requesting missing or additional information required. The applicant, in turn, has five (5) business days to respond. Reg-HlthProd and G-UnregDrugImprts further states that the maximum validity of import authorizations is 180 days, which may be extended for an equal period, provided the conditions in which they have been granted have not changed.

In addition, as set forth in Agrmnt_RegHlthSup, COFEPRIS issued an agreement adopting the WHO’s Good Reliance Practices for evaluating health registration applications. Under this framework, COFEPRIS may consider and rely upon the decisions of other RRAs to determine whether their requirements, tests, and evaluation procedures are equivalent to those conducted in Mexico for ensuring the quality, safety, efficacy, and performance of health supplies. In reviewing these applications, COFEPRIS will also consider the regulatory decisions of other RRAs, as well as the evaluations carried out by the WHO’s Prequalification Programme.

Per Agrmnt_RegHlthSup, for the treatment of emerging diseases, neglected tropical diseases, or in cases of national emergency, the Ministry must determine the medicines, vaccines, and medical devices that may be acquired through the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)’s Strategic Fund or Revolving Fund (regional pooled procurement mechanisms), or through other procurement mechanisms, which will be imported for the prevention and control of diseases and health emergencies. Vaccines, medicines, and medical devices that have been acquired by the Ministry through these procurement mechanisms are exempt from health registration in Mexico. When the products are of biological origin, they are also exempt from obtaining a distribution or sale authorization. In the case of vaccines, medicines, and medical devices that have been acquired at the Ministry’s request, more than one (1) import permit may be requested under this Agreement, in accordance with the request made in an official letter submitted to COFEPRIS. See Agrmnt_RegHlthSup for additional information on COFEPRIS’s reliance model for health registration and on the import mechanisms for public health emergencies.

Mexico also has rules that govern how pharmaceutical products are transported and imported. D-CargoTransprt bars exclusive cargo shipments to the Mexico City International Airport (AICM). See D-CargoTransprt and D-ModCargoTransprt for more details regarding the relocation of cargo shipments to other airports in Mexico.

Please note: Mexico is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (MEX-5), which may have implications for studies of IPs developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see MEX-35.

4.4, 5.1, and 10.1

Introduction (Box 1)

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (VI and XIV)

Requirements, Term, Form, and Additional Information

Requirements (8)

Title V (Chapter I, Article 102), Title XII ((Chapter I, Articles 194, 194 Bi., 195, 197, 198, and 200-204), (Chapter IV, Articles 221-222), (Chapter VII, Articles 257-258), and (Chapter XIII, Articles 285 and 295)), and Title XVI ((Chapter I, Articles 368-376, 376 Bis, and 378) and (Chapter III, Article 391 Bis))

Article Two

Chapters I (Articles 1-2) and IV

Chapter I (Article 3)

Preamble, Chapters I (Articles 1 and 3), II (Articles 4-5), and V

Title IV ((Chapter I, Articles 99-100) and (Chapter II, Article 113)), Title V (Chapter I, Article 132), Title VI ((Chapter I, Articles 160-161), (Chapter II, Articles 162-163), (Chapter III, 167-171, 185-186, 190-bis 1, 190-bis 2, 190-bis 5, 190-bis 6), and (Chapter IV, Articles 193-194 and 196)), and Title VII

1 and 16

1 and 10.9

Quality Requirements

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Investigator’s Brochure

According to the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor is responsible for providing the investigators with an investigator’s brochure (IB). The IB must contain all of the relevant information on the investigational product(s) (IPs), including significant physical, chemical, pharmaceutical, pharmacological, toxicological, pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and clinical information. The sponsor must ensure that an up-to-date IB is made available to the investigator(s), and the investigator(s) must provide an up-to-date IB to the ethics committee. (Note: In Australia, therapeutic goods being used in a clinical trial are IPs.)

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

Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties and formulation parameters

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

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

Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)

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

Quality Management

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

Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, GMP ensures that products are consistently produced and controlled to the quality standards appropriate to their intended use and as required by the clinical trial authorization. A pharmaceutical quality system designed, set up, and verified by the manufacturer or importer should be described in written procedures, taking into account the guidance in Chapter 1 or Part I of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide. Manufacturers should maintain documentation including specifications and instructions; the IP order; manufacturing formulae and processing instructions; packaging instructions; and batch records. The product specifications and manufacturing instructions may be changed during development, but full control and traceability of the changes should also be maintained. The product specification file should be continually updated as development of the product proceeds, ensuring appropriate traceability to the previous versions.

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

5, 7, and 8

SOP 04

Part I (Chapter 1 (1.8)) and Annex 13 (2. Pharmaceutical Quality System and 5. Documentation)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Investigator’s Brochure

As indicated in MEX-2, Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is in the process of implementing the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (MEX-22). Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts are in compliance with MEX-22 regarding investigational product (IP) quality/manufacturing and investigator’s brochure (IB) requirements (also known as researcher’s manual in Mexico), while COFEPRIS-GCP complies with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (MEX-32).

As set forth in GenHlthLaw, and G-HumResProt, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, which are in compliance with MEX-22, the applicant or sponsor is responsible for providing the investigators with an IB. MEX-22 specifies that the sponsor is generally responsible for ensuring that an updated IB is made available to the investigator(s), and the investigators are responsible for providing the updated IB to the responsible ethics committees (ECs). The sponsor should also update the IB as relevant new information becomes available. According to MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, and MEX-22, the IB 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
Confidentiality statement
Table of contents
Summary
Introduction
IP identification data (IP number, generic name of the drug or device, international nonproprietary name, trade name, if applicable)
Collection of clinical and preclinical IP data relevant to the study of IP(s) in human participants
Preclinical information (includes non-clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism in animals, toxicology)
Clinical information (includes pharmacokinetics and metabolism in humans, safety and efficacy, experience during commercialization)
Data summary and guide for the investigator
Document version and version date (coinciding with the approving opinions of the ECs)
For drug authorization requests: (include IP physicochemical and pharmaceutical properties, formulation, presentation, manufacturing, labeling, storage, packaging and stability, when applicable, etc.)
For COFEPRIS-04-010-D modality (risk-free research (observational studies)) authorization requests: include prescribing information

MEX-84 further notes the purpose of the IB is to provide researchers and others involved in the trial with information to facilitate their understanding of the rationale for and compliance with key protocol features such as: dose, dose frequency/interval, administration methods, and safety monitoring. The IB also provides information to support the design of the clinical phase of the study participants over the course of the clinical trial. The information in this document must be presented in a concise, objective, and balanced manner which allows the principal investigator, as well as the other parties involved in the trial, to assess the suitability of the proposed trial, emphasizing the relevant and updated scientific information on the IP to monitor participant safety.

See MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, and MEX-22 for detailed IB guidelines.

Quality Management

As specified in COFEPRIS-GCP, GenHlthLaw, Reg-HlthProd, NOM-059-SSA1-2015, NOM-164-SSA1-2015, NOM-176-SSA1-1998, NOM-073-SSA1-2015, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, and MEX-22, the sponsor must verify that the products are manufactured in accordance with the current codes of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). See NOM-059-SSA1-2015-Annexes to access the annexes to NOM-059-SSA1-2015.

In accordance with the GenHlthLaw, Reg-HlthProd, NOM-059-SSA1-2015, NOM-164-SSA1-2015, NOM-176-SSA1-1998, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, and MEX-22, COFEPRIS requires that drug manufacturers ensure IPs meet the required safety, efficacy, and quality characteristics and are manufactured, handled, and stored in accordance with applicable GMP and provide the following additional information (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Issue the corresponding certificate of analysis signed by the health officer to verify the drugs comply with the quality specifications indicated in the current edition of the Pharmacopoeia of the United Mexican States (Farmacopea de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (FEUM)) and its supplements, or those specified in the pharmacopeias from other countries, if applicable (per NOM-176-SSA1-1998)
In case of foreign manufacture, the manufacturer must have a GMP certification, license, or document proving that the manufacturer has permission to manufacture medicines, issued by the competent authority in the country of origin (per Reg-HlthProd)

MEX-84 further specifies that the following IP documentation is required to demonstrate compliance with GMP:

Letter under oath, declaring that the IP and placebo are manufactured under standards that ensure a product is safe for use and that it has the ingredients and potency it claims to have in accordance with established quality requirements, or
Certificate of good practices for the IP, or
Certificate of pharmaceutical product

Additionally, per GenHlthLaw, verification of GMP compliance must be conducted by the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) or the Ministry’s authorized third parties, or if necessary, recognition of the respective certificate issued by the competent authority of the country of origin, provided there are recognition agreements in place between the competent authorities from both countries. See MEX-36 for additional information on obtaining a GMP certificate.

NOM-059-SSA1-2015 also notes that the manufacture of IPs for use in clinical studies presents greater complexity than marketed drug products due to the lack of systematic procedures resulting from the variety of clinical trial designs. In addition to applying basic GMP principles, drugs for research use in Mexico must also be released in accordance with good clinical practices, and the personnel involved in IP production and control must be experienced in handling drugs in the clinical research phase and be familiar with GMP.

Per NOM-059-SSA1-2015-Mod, COFEPRIS also uses the reliance model to recognize a GMP certificate and quality control laboratory analyses from National Regulatory Authorities (e.g., Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) members, World Health Organization (WHO) List of Authorities (WLAs), or those with equivalence agreements) to ensure access to new, safe, effective, and high-quality therapeutic options for the treatment of diseases requiring advanced therapies (mainly biotechnological drugs), such as cancer, diabetes and mellitus. See NOM-059-SSA1-2015-Mod for additional information.

In addition, per MEX-110, COFEPRIS is recognized as a National Regulatory Authority of Regional Reference of Medicines and Biological Products by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)/WHO, and per MEX-111, is also a PIC/S member.

3.2 and 10.1

2.12, 5.6, 7, and 8.2-8.3

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (V-VI)

4.3

Requirements (7-8)

Title V (Chapter I, Article 102) and Title XII (Chapter IV, Article 222)

Article Two and Single Annex (Single Committee Form)

Title II (Chapter I, Articles 7-9), Title IV (Chapter II, Article 113), Title V (Chapter II, Article 168 and 170), and Title VII

0, 1.2, 3.14, and 16

1

4.1

1-3, 6.1, and 9

Labeling

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Investigational product (IP) labeling must comply with the requirements set forth in the G-CTHandbook, the AU-ICH-GCP, and the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide. (Note: In Australia, therapeutic goods being used in a clinical trial are IPs.) Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, as annotated by the G-CTHandbook, the following information must be included on the IP label:

Sponsor’s name, address, and phone number. The main contact details for information on the product, clinical trial, and emergency unblinding must be an Australian contact
Pharmaceutical dosage form, route of administration, and quantity of dosage units. For closed blinded trials, the labeling should include a statement indicating “placebo or [name/identifier] + [strength/potency]”
The batch and/or code number to identify the contents and packaging operation
A trial reference code, which should identify the particular trial site, unless provided elsewhere or its absence can be justified. The trial reference code used should also identify the Australian trial sponsor, unless provided as the main contact or its absence can be justified
The trial participant identification number/treatment number
Investigator’s name. The name of the principal investigator should appear on the label unless already included in a trial reference code or unless its absence can be justified
Directions for use
“For clinical trial use only” or similar wording
The storage conditions
The period of use (use-by date, expiry date, or re-test date as applicable) in month/year format and in a manner that avoids any ambiguity
“Keep out of reach of children” except when the product is not taken home by participants

The G-CTHandbook recognizes that in exceptional circumstances, it may not be possible to meet the requirements of Annex 13 of the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide for labeling IPs. In this case, the sponsor must contact the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) (see AUS-23) if they wish to request a departure from the requirements of Annex 13.

In addition, the AU-ICH-GCP states that the IP must be coded and labeled in a manner that protects the blinding, if applicable.

Per the G-CTHandbook, labeling is a manufacturing step under the TGAct. However, an exemption from the requirement to hold a manufacturing license may apply to certain persons identified within the TGR, to allow relabeling of the IP with name and address of the new sponsor. If there is a change of Australian trial sponsor, the clinical trial medication should be relabeled appropriately with the details of the new trial sponsor at the time of transfer. See the G-CTHandbook for more details on these manufacturing exemptions.

Additional details on IP labeling are provided in the G-CTHandbook and the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide.

Manufacturing

5.13

Annex 13 (6.6 Labelling)

Chapter 3 (Part 3)

Schedule 8

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Mexico must comply with the requirements set forth in COFEPRIS-GCP, NOM-164-SSA1-2015, NOM-059-SSA1-2015, and the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (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)).

As delineated in COFEPRIS-GCP and NOM-059-SSA1-2015, the IP label must be written in Spanish and contain, at a minimum, the following information (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Name, address, and telephone number of the sponsor or main contact
Protocol identification number
Pharmaceutical form and route of administration
Manufacturer name and address
Lot number, identification code, and dosage form
Statements: “For clinical studies only” or "Permitted use only investigation, " "Forbidden marketing," and "Keep away from the reach of children"
Symbol or pictograms warning, if applicable
Expiration date
Storage conditions

NOM-164-SSA1-2015 also states that the IP label must indicate it is material under investigation.

In addition, MEX-22 indicates the sponsor should verify the IPs are coded and labeled in a manner that protects the blinding, if appropriate. In blinded trials, the IP coding system should include a mechanism that permits rapid identification of the product(s) in case of a medical emergency, but does not permit undetectable breaks of the blinding. A sample of the attached IP container label(s) should also be provided to document compliance with applicable labelling regulations and appropriateness of instructions provided to the study participants.

Per NOM-164-SSA1-2015 and NOM-059-SSA1-2015, IPs for use in clinical trials should be packaged in a way that protects the products from alteration, contamination, and damage during storage and shipment. Additionally, procedures or instructions for the control of packaging, labeling, and distribution operations should be prepared.

Per NOM-059-SSA1-2015, in the case of products packaged for blinded clinical studies, manufacturers must ensure that the unused products and supplies are completely (100%) retrieved.

5.13, 8.2.13, and 8.2.17

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

4.4

5.2

10.9.8

Product Management

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As stated in the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor must supply the investigator(s) with the investigational product(s) (IP(s)) (i.e., therapeutic good(s) being used in a clinical trial). The G-CTHandbook indicates that Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approval through the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme or notification through the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme must occur prior to supplying the IP(s) to the trial site(s).

The AU-ICH-GCP specifies that the sponsor must ensure the following:

Timely delivery of the IP(s)

Records maintained for IP document shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction

A system for retrieving or disposing of IP(s) and documenting this retrieval or disposal

Written procedures including instructions for IP handling and storage, adequate and safe receipt of the IP(s), dispensing of the IP(s), retrieval of unused IP(s), return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor, and disposal of unused IP(s) by the sponsor
IP product quality and stability over the period of use
IP manufactured according to any application of the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)
Proper coding packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)
Acceptable IP handling and storage conditions and shelf-life

In addition, the AU-ICH-GCP states that the IPs must also be suitably packaged in a manner that will prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage. Refer to the AU-ICH-GCP for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements.

As per the G-TrialsSOP, responsibility for IP management and accountability at the trial site rests with the principal investigator (PI). However, the PI may delegate responsibility for IP management to the site pharmacist or, where a pharmacist is not available or involved, to an appropriately qualified person. The site pharmacist or the appropriately qualified person will undertake IP management at the primary site and/or the satellite site in a teletrial. The investigator, pharmacist, or appropriately qualified non-pharmacist must ensure the IP is used only in accordance with the approved protocol and confirm IP certification and all relevant trial approvals/notifications are in place before releasing the IP for dispensing to participants. Refer to the G-TrialsSOP for detailed investigator-related IP requirements.

The AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide indicates that the manufacturer or sponsor’s representative should destroy IPs only with prior written authorization by the sponsor. The arrangements for destruction of IPs must be described in the protocol. Any related arrangement between the sponsor and manufacturer should be defined in their technical agreement. Destruction of unused IPs should be carried out only after reconciliation of delivered, used, and recovered products and after investigation and satisfactory explanation of any discrepancies upon which the reconciliation has been accepted.

Record Requirements

According to the G-TrialsSOP, the investigator, pharmacist, or appropriately qualified non-pharmacist must maintain records of all IP management aspects. These records at a minimum should include: shipping documents; date of each transaction; quantities; batch/serial numbers; expiration dates/retest dates (if applicable); temperature logs showing the storage conditions of the IP throughout the trial period; the set of unique code numbers assigned to the IP and to the trial participant; and record of destruction/return.

As set forth in the AU-ICH-GCP, the sponsor must retain essential documents for 15 years following completion of the trial. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing when record retention is needed and when the trial-related records are no longer needed. Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, documents which are part of the product specification file must be retained for at least five (5) years. If the sponsor and the manufacturer are not the same entity, the sponsor must make appropriate arrangements with the manufacturer to fulfil the sponsor’s requirement to retain the clinical trial master file. Arrangement for retention of such documents and the type of documents to be retained should be defined in an agreement between the sponsor and manufacturer.

Importing

5 and 7

SOP 11

Annex 13 (5. Documentation and 11.3 Destruction)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

COFEPRIS-GCP and the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (MEX-22) state the sponsor is responsible for supplying investigators with the investigational products (IP(s)) while ensuring that only the quantity of products necessary to carry out the study is provided, and that none of the products will be marketed or used for purposes unrelated to the investigation. (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 MEX-22).

MEX-22 further specifies that the sponsor is responsible for supplying the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the IP(s) and for ensuring the timely delivery of the IPs. However, the sponsor should not supply an investigator/institution with the IP(s)) until all the required documentation is obtained, such as the favorable opinion of the ethics committee (EC) and approval from COFEPRIS.

The sponsor should ensure written procedures include instructions that the investigator/institution should follow for the handling and storage of IP(s), adequate and safe receipt of the IP(s), dispensing of the IP(s), retrieval of unused IP(s), return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor, and disposal of unused IP(s) by the sponsor (or alternative disposition if authorized by the sponsor and in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s)).

Additionally, MEX-22 indicates the IP should be manufactured, handled, and stored in accordance with applicable good manufacturing practice (GMP). The sponsor should determine acceptable storage temperatures, storage conditions (e.g., protection from light), storage times, reconstitution fluids and procedures, and devices for product infusion, if any, for the IPs, and inform all involved parties (e.g., monitors, investigators, pharmacists, storage managers) of these determinations. Additionally, the sponsor should:

Take steps to ensure that the IP(s) are stable over the period of use
Maintain sufficient quantities of the IP(s) used in the trials to reconfirm specifications, should this become necessary, and maintain records of batch sample analyses and characteristics. To the extent stability permits, samples should be retained either until the analyses of the trial data are complete or as required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), whichever represents the longer retention period

Refer to MEX-22 for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements and MEX-36 for additional information on obtaining a GMP certificate.

COFEPRIS-GCP also delineates the sponsor is responsible for ensuring that IP manufacturing complies with NOM-073-SSA1-2015, which states that during the clinical trial, the manufacturer must validate the stability of the IP until the date of the last administration. The sponsor and the contract research organization (CRO) are responsible for ensuring that the research institution has a restricted storage area to protect the IPs and other products required for the investigation, including adequate temperature controls, humidity, and other conditions according to the manufacturer’s provisions. Additionally, the principal investigator is required to keep track of the receipt, storage, distribution, administration, destruction, or retrieval of the IP and other products required for the clinical study, in accordance with the research protocol provisions.

In addition, NOM-164-SSA1-2015 and NOM-059-SSA1-2015 indicate that there must be a procedure for the retrieval of IPs for clinical use that describes the responsibilities of all the members of the supply chain using the drug to include the manufacturer, the sponsor, the investigator, the clinical monitor, and the head of the research unit. NOM-164-SSA1-2015 further states that a system must be in place for the release of each lot of manufactured IPs and that a qualified person must approve the release. See NOM-059-SSA1-2015-Annexes to access the annexes to NOM-059-SSA1-2015.

According to MEX-84, the following IP documentation is also required to be submitted to COFEPRIS:

Letter under oath guaranteeing the shelf life (stability) of the IP from the date of manufacture to the date of the last administration that will be carried out as part of the investigational protocol, or a protocol and report of results of the accelerated and long-term stability study of the IP and placebo, guaranteeing its stability from the date of manufacture to the date of the last administration in the research protocol
Letter under oath, declaring that the IP and placebo are manufactured under standards that ensure a product is safe for use and that it has the ingredients and potency it claims to have in accordance with established quality requirements; a certificate of good practices for the IP; or a certificate of pharmaceutical product
Letter of description of import inputs that expresses the approximate quantity of the IP

MEX-84 further notes that compliance with GMP and product stability are not equivalent. In the case of a letter under oath, it is valid to declare together compliance with GMP and that the shelf life of the IP is guaranteed at least until the date of the last administration of the IP and/or placebo.

In addition, per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, a letter of import supplies should be provided to COFEPRIS that clearly establishes the quantity and description of supplies that will be imported during each stage of the study. The letter should include the IP or placebo (when applicable), pharmaceutical form, presentation, concentration, and number of participants to be enrolled in Mexico. A letter of the stability studies should also be provided to support the IP and the placebo comply with the physical, chemical, and biological parameters which must be complied with throughout its useful life, and to maintain established quality specifications during storage and use.

Record Requirements

As indicated in the MEX-22, the sponsor should:

Maintain records that document shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction of the IP(s)
Maintain a system for retrieving IPs and documenting this retrieval (e.g., for deficient product recall, reclaim after trial completion, expired product reclaim)
Maintain a system for the disposition of unused IP(s) and for the documentation of this disposition

MEX-22 further states the investigator/institution and/or a pharmacist, or other appropriate individual who is designated by the investigator/institution, should maintain records of the IP's delivery to the trial site, the inventory at the site, the use by each participant, and the return to the sponsor or alternative disposition of unused product(s). These records should include dates, quantities, batch/serial numbers, expiration dates (if applicable), and the unique code numbers assigned to the IP(s) and trial participants. Investigators should maintain records that document adequately that the participants were provided the doses specified by the protocol and reconcile all IP(s) received from the sponsor.

Per NOM-059-SSA1-2015, the sponsor is also responsible for storing files related to the manufacture and control of the IP for at least five (5) years after product registration has been granted. Additionally, the sponsor must ensure that this documentation is safeguarded, and that the files are stored at the sponsor’s facilities or in specific facilities contracted for this purpose.

4.7 and 10.1-10.2

2.12, 4.6, 5.13-5.14, and 8.2.14-8.2.15

Search for the Status of Implementation of ICH Guidelines by ICH Members

XIII. Specific Sections of the Procedure on the Platform (VI)

3.4, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.12

3.24, 10.2, and 16.10

10.9

10.27

Definition of Specimen

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

In Australia, a specimen is referred to as a “biological” or a “human biospecimen.” According to the TGAct, a biological is made from, or contains, human cells or human tissues that are likely to be taken to:

Treat or prevent disease, ailment, defect, or injury
Diagnose the condition of a person
Alter the physiological processes of a person
Test the susceptibility of a person to disease
Replace or modify a person’s anatomy

The G-NatlStmt defines human biospecimen as any biological material obtained from a person, including tissue, blood, urine, sputum, and any derivative from these including cell lines.

Legislation in Australian states and territories do not use standard terminology, but generally refer to human biospecimens as “human tissue.”

Section 3 (Chapter 3.2)

Chapter 3 (Part 3-2A)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

In Mexico, a specimen is referred to as a “product of human beings.” According to GenHlthLaw and Reg-HumSpecDisp, products of human beings include any tissues or substances, excreted or expelled by the human body as a result of normal physiological processes.

GenHlthLaw and Reg-HumSpecDisp also provide more specific definitions for specimens including germ cells, stem cells, blood and derivatives, plasma, tissue, cellular concentrates, and organs. Please refer to these sources for more detailed information.

Additionally, G-RECs-Op-2018 states that human biological material includes organs, tissues, tissue components, cells, and products and cadavers of human beings.

14

Title XIV (Chapter I, Article 314)

Chapter I (Article 6)

Specimen Import & Export

Last content review/update: September 30, 2025

Import

Per the G-NatlStmt, if a human biospecimen will be, or has been, imported for research, researchers must establish whether the human biospecimen was obtained in a manner consistent with the requirements of the G-NatlStmt and relevant Australian legislation. If this cannot be established, then the human biospecimen should not be used for research in Australia.

Per the G-CTHandbook, other legislation and requirements may impose restrictions on the import of therapeutic goods for clinical trials involving materials of biological origin (human, animal, plant, or microbial), genetically modified organisms, and other substances. See the G-CTHandbook for a non-exhaustive list.

Export

The G-NatlStmt states that a human biospecimen obtained in Australia may be sent overseas for research if its exportation is consistent with the original consent, and if ethics committee (EC) (known as a Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia) approval is obtained.

Per the G-SpecExport, a permit to export human body fluids, organs, and other tissue must be obtained from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) when the volume of a container exceeds 50 mL. If exporting substances derived from human blood, a TGA permit is required regardless of the volume. The application form requires the reason for the request, which can include research purposes. See the G-SpecExport for more details on when export permits are required, and AUS-24 for the application forms.

Other Considerations

The G-TrialsSOP indicates that to ensure the integrity of biological samples has been maintained, there should be evidence of the chain of custody from their point of collection through processing, storage, transport, through to disposal, with evidence of appropriate storage and transit conditions. Equipment used for processing and storage of samples (e.g., centrifuges, fridges, and freezers) should be maintained by suitably qualified persons and periodically inspected, cleaned, and calibrated to the relevant International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard according to local policy and manufacturer’s manuals. Additionally, the investigator must ensure all study staff, who have cause to handle or ship biological substances, hold a current certificate in the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Approved, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Certified Dangerous Goods Packaging Course. The investigator must also ensure that documentation (e.g., receipts, shipping records, order forms, and proformas) related to handling and shipment of biological specimens is maintained and filed in the respective site file.

Additional details on import and export requirements are provided in the G-CTHandbook, the G-TrialsSOP, the G-SpecExport, and AUS-24.

Importing and exporting

Purpose, Determining if You Need a TGA Export Permit, and Applying for a TGA Export Permit

SOP 10

Section 3 (Chapter 3.2)

Last content review/update: October 31, 2025

Import

As delineated in GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, and Reg-HumSpecDisp, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is responsible for authorizing the import of specimens (referred to as “products of human beings” in Mexico).

According to G-ImprtPermit, institutions that import products of human beings including tissues, cells, blood and its components or derivatives intended for research, diagnosis, teaching, or treatment for therapeutic purposes, must comply with specific COFEPRIS documentation submission requirements to apply for an import permit. The documentation required to obtain an import permit specifically for research purposes is as follows:

Import or Export of Products of Human Beings form (original) (see MEX-24)
Proof of payment of fees (one (1) original; G-ImprtPermit also specifies that in terms of the Federal Rights Law, proof of payment of fees is applicable only to the application for a permit for the hospitalization of blood units, their components, and hematopoietic progenitor cells)
Document certifying the operation of the foreign establishment issued by the health authority of the country of origin (original)
Health license for the corresponding line of business (original)
Notice of operation for the corresponding line of business (original)
Authorization document issued by COFEPRIS for the protocol when it is intended for humans, or a summary of the study when in vitro is being carried out, where appropriate (original)
Letter of acceptance in which the establishment that will receive the samples, justifying the reason and use of the samples (original)
Letter of transmission justifying the use and purpose of sending the samples (original)
Report on the date and procedure of destruction, if applicable (original)
Document certifying the operation of the establishment that supplies human blood, its components and derivatives, issued by the health authority of the country of origin (original)
Health license with the corresponding line of business (related to blood, its components or derivatives) (original)
Power of attorney (accreditation of the legal representative)

G-ImprtPermit further notes that COFEPRIS has 45 business days to respond to the import request, and 15 business day to notify the applicant of missing or additional information required in a prevention letter. The applicant, in turn, has five (5) business days to respond to COFEPRIS’s prevention letter. The import permit approval is valid for 180 business days. Refer to G-ImprtPermit for detailed information necessary to obtain import permits for teaching, diagnosis, and therapeutic purposes including the use of human blood (i.e., umbilical cord blood or hematopoietic progenitor cells) and corneas.

D-CargoTransprt bars exclusive cargo shipments to the Mexico City International Airport (AICM). See D-CargoTransprt and D-ModCargoTransprt for more details regarding the relocation of cargo shipments to other airports in Mexico.

Export

According to G-ExprtPermit, institutions that dispose of or export products of human beings including tissues, cells, blood and its components or derivatives that are intended for diagnosis, treatment, research, or teaching purposes must also submit documentation to COFEPRIS to apply for an export permit.

G-ExprtPermit indicates the following general documentation must be provided to export cells, tissues, and products of human beings and their components:

Import or Export of Products of Human Beings form (see MEX-24)
Proof of payment of fees (original and two (2) legible copies) (applicable only to requests for an export permit for units of blood, its components, and hematopoietic progenitor cells)
Document issued by the health authority of the destination country that certifies the operation of the establishment (original)
Letter of acceptance of the establishment abroad (original)
Authorization letter issued by COFEPRIS for the protocol when it is intended for humans, or a summary of the study when in vitro is being carried out, if applicable (original)
Notice of operation of health establishment (original)
Health license (original) (for cells, tissues, human products, and their components)
Power of attorney (original)

G-ExprtPermit further notes that COFEPRIS has 45 business days to respond to the export request, and 15 business days to notify the applicant of missing or additional information required in a prevention letter. The applicant, in turn, has five (5) business days to respond to COFEPRIS’s prevention letter. The permit approval is valid for 180 business days.

In addition, G-ExprtPermit outlines the following required documentation to be submitted to COFEPRIS to export umbilical cord blood or hematopoietic progenitor cells, for cryopreservation, research, or therapeutic purposes:

Import or Export of Products of Human Beings form (original) (see MEX-24)
Proof of payment of fees (one (1) original and two (2) legible copies; G-ExprtPermit also specifies that in terms of the Federal Rights Law, proof of payment of fees is applicable only to the application for a permit for the hospitalization of blood units, their components and hematopoietic progenitor cells)
Letter of acceptance of the establishment abroad (original)
Health license (original)
Document issued by the health authority of the destination country that certifies the operation of the establishment (original)
Power of attorney (original)

Import/Export Permit Submission Procedures

MEX-24 indicates that an applicant may submit a request to obtain a permit to import or export specimens in print, in person via COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37), or electronically via the Mexican Digital Window for Foreign Trade (Ventanilla Única de Comercio Exterior Mexicano (VUCEM)) (MEX-114). Per G-ImprtPermit and G-ExprtPermit, the application should be submitted electronically via MEX-114 (Refer to MEX-114 for submission instructions). G-ImprtPermit and G-ExprtPermit state that to submit an application online, it is necessary to obtain an e.signature (also known as e.firma). An e.signature can be obtained from the Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT)) as described in MEX-83.

See MEX-116 for instructions on completing MEX-24. See also G-ImprtPermitMod for the required documentation and submission procedures to modify an import/export permit for products of human beings including tissues, cells, and blood and its components or derivatives.

Requirements, Form, Term, Validity, and Steps

Title I (Chapter I, Article 3), Title II (Chapter II, Articles 17 Bis), Title XII (Chapter XIII, Articles 283-286 Bis), and Title XVI (Chapter I, Article 375)

Chapter I (Article 3)

Chapter VI (Articles 89 and 100)

Consent for Specimen