Clinical Research Regulation For Australia and Thailand

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

Overview

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

CTN Scheme

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

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

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

CTA Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

Inspection

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

See the G-GCP-Inspect for more details on how the TGA prioritizes and schedules GCP inspections, the kinds of inspections the TGA might conduct, the inspection process, and how the TGA reports and follows up on inspections.

CTN Scheme, CTA Scheme, and FAQs

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 and Inspection Process

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

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Overview

In accordance with the DrugAct and ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) is responsible for overseeing the import or ordering of drugs for clinical research purposes, and also uses this authority to indirectly regulate drug clinical trials in humans. Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the Thai FDA is also responsible for approving requests for permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies. As per G-ResEthics, the scope of the Thai FDA’s assessment includes Phases I through IV clinical trials for new drugs (also referred to as “modern drugs”), traditional drugs (drugs intended for use in the practice of traditional medicine or to cure animal disease), unregistered drugs, registered drugs being studied in new doses or for indications not previously approved, and locally produced drugs that require efficacy testing.

As indicated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and ECRegProc, the Thai FDA’s approvals of a drug import license and of a request for permission to produce sample drugs for human research studies are dependent upon obtaining proof of ethics committee (EC) approval to conduct the clinical trial by a Thai FDA approved EC. ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr further specify that for both types of approval requests, the application is either submitted to the Thai FDA after the research project and all of the research site(s) have been approved by an EC, or in parallel, pending review by the relevant EC.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and G-CT-DIPApp, the Thai FDA coordinates the review of applications submitted to obtain drug import licenses for clinical research purposes (N.Y.M.1) and applications submitted to request permission to produce drug samples for human research studies (P.Y.8). Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, an applicant should submit the application along with supporting documents to the Medicines Regulation Division.

Per G-CT-DIPApp, upon receipt of a drug import license application (N.Y.M.1) package, the Thai FDA’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) sends the application package to an officer in the Thai FDA’s International Affairs and Investigational Drug Section. After administrative processing and troubleshooting, the officer will send the application package to the assigned reviewer to proceed. The reviewer then receives the application package and performs a technical assessment. If the reviewer determines the package is technically correct, then it will be forwarded to the Thai FDA for approval. ClinImprtOrdr specifies that the Secretary-General is responsible for authorizing all drugs to be imported into the country. (See Submission Process and Timeline of Review sections for details on the administrative and technical processing and review timelines.)

According to the DrugAct, the Thai FDA’s approval of a drug import license application for clinical research purposes also serves as an import license that allows the sponsor to import investigational drugs into Thailand. The license will remain valid until December 31^st of the year of issue. The license holder who would like to renew the license must file an application for renewal prior to the license expiration date. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for detailed license renewal instructions).

Per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must inform or request permission from the Thai FDA prior to initiating the following:

Changes to clinical trial drug supplies
Changes to an approved protocol (protocol amendment) or changes related to or affecting participant safety

In cases where the sponsor is required to immediately make one (1) or more amendments because the clinical trial or the use of investigational products in the trial endangers the health of a clinical trial participant or other person, the applicant may immediately make the amendment without prior review by the Thai FDA. A corresponding notification clearly identifying the change and the rationale for immediate implementation of the change must be filed within 15 working days after the amendment implementation date. A corresponding notification letter referring to the related approved import license along with supplemental documents to be provided in the Form for Requesting Corrections/Additional Clarifications are also required (see ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 12) and THA-18 (Appendix 12)).

Per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must also notify the Thai FDA of changes to the protocol that do not affect the safety of the trial participants.

No information is currently available on the review process for P.Y.8 application submissions.

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) may also establish an academic committee or subcommittee for certain drugs requiring special supervision (e.g., the Academic Subcommittee on AIDS Vaccine Trials).

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, the Thai FDA has procedures to monitor the research project before, during, and after the trial ends or is terminated. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd specify that the authorized Thai FDA officer will contact the licensee to schedule an inspection appointment and provide a letter notifying the licensee at least seven (7) days in advance, except in those cases where the Thai FDA has a special request to carry out an inspection immediately and does not notify the licensee in advance. Refer to ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd for detailed licensee information on preparing for the inspection. See also THA-18 (Appendix 11) and THA-76 (Appendix 7) for the self-examination form containing the Thai officer’s inspection summary).

Refer to the Submission Process section for submission requirements.

Appendices 1-4, 7-9, and 12

Appendices 2-4, 11-13, and 17

7

2-3 and 15

Section 4, Chapter I (10), Chapter II (12 and 17-18), and Chapter V (46)

Preface, Summary of Changes in this Edition, 1-3, and Appendices 1-4, 7-9, and 12

Preface, 1-3, and Appendices 1-5, 11-13, and 17

5 and 9-10

Appendix 12

Regulatory Fees

Last content review/update: February 5, 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:

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

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

Payment Instructions

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

As stated in AUS-25, online payment is made via the TGA Online Payment Portal (AUS-16). Once the payment has been finalized, the Portal will confirm that the payment has been successful. The user may request an email confirmation. Certain payments, including a CTN fee and a variation to a medicine (e.g., a therapeutic good), may be made online without an invoice. See AUS-25 for more information on TGA fees and payments. Also see AUS-49 for additional guidance and system screenshots related to paying CTN fees.

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

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

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

IBAN: 06290910215498
Swift Code: CTBAAU2S

Paying for Your CTN

FAQs

Clinical Trials

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

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Thai Food and Drug Administration

In accordance with ClinDrugFees, the applicant is required to pay a fee to the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) to submit an application to request permission to import or order drugs for research purposes in Thailand. The ClinDrugFees states that the Thai FDA requires an administrative processing fee of 1,000 Baht to review and verify the correctness of certain application requests related to authorization, including:

Applications to request permission to import or order drugs into the Kingdom for research purposes without registering a drug formula (N.Y.M.1 form) (See ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2) for N.Y.M.1 form)
Applications for drug samples produced for research studies (P.Y.8 form) (See ClinSampleProd (Appendix 1) and THA-76 (Appendix 1) for P.Y.8 form)

In addition, per ClinDrugFees and THA-78, the Thai FDA charges the following fees for the technical evaluation of documents of any application request related to authorization:

Application for permission to import or order drugs for research purposes in the country (N.Y.M.1) or to request permission to register and produce sample drugs for human research studies (P.Y.8): 4,000 Baht
Application to expand the scope of a license to produce drug samples and register new drugs for human research studies (for drugs in bioequivalence studies): 1,000 Baht
New research drug application to expand the scope of a license to produce drug samples and register a new drug for human research studies (for drugs other than those in bioequivalence studies): 4,000 Baht
Application to amend and request specific changes related to the application requests listed in the preceding bullets: 500 Baht
Requesting a certificate of pharmaceutical product (Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product/Certificate of Free Sale): 500 Baht
Request for review of accuracy and translation of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) assessment report from Thai version to English version: 1,500 Baht

In addition, per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, in the case of the applicant designating a power of attorney to submit a paper application in person or via PDF file, the Stamp Duty fee is 30 Baht per attorney designation.

Payment Instructions

According to the Thai FDA’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) and THA-66, the OSSC’s finance section provides payment services in cases where expenses need to be paid for various submissions, and accepts multiple payment methods including the cash payment counter, cashier’s check, credit cards, and mobile banking applications for the processing of application fees. However, per THA-79, in order to submit an electronic payment using the Thai FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), the applicant must first submit documentation and supporting evidence to request access as required by the OSSC. Once the OSSC approves e-submission system access, the applicant can submit a payment electronically to request a drug importation waiver via THA-54. See Submission Process section for detailed submission instructions and documentation requirements to access THA-54. Refer to THA-57 for the Skynet e-submission user manual and THA-87 for a guide to request a drug importation waiver via THA-54.

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Items 2, 11, 33, 34, and 49

1.14 and Appendices 1 and 7

1.16 and Appendices 2 and 11

Preamble and Tables 1 (Item 4.5 and Note) and 2 (Item 10)

Ethics Committee

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Overview

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CTN Scheme and CTA Scheme

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: March 21, 2024

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

Version 5.1 of the CREC’s Standard Operating Procedures for the Operations of the CREC and Office Staff took effect on July 24, 2024 and replaces THA-37. (Google Translation of SOPs)

Overview

As per ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and ECRegProc, clinical trials require ethics committee (EC) approval for each trial site from an EC recognized by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA). ECRegProc indicates that an EC may function as a committee under a government agency (e.g., the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH)); as a committee affiliated with a private hospital/institution licensed to comply with the HospitalAct; or, as a committee operating as a part of a non-profit partnership between a government agency and a private organization(s) (e.g., the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC)). ECRegProc states that the Thai FDA posts a list of the approved/renewed ECs on its website (see THA-90), and as noted in THA-3, this usually occurs every two (2) years. According to THA-4, the ECMOPH and the CREC are both government ECs whose approvals are still active. As discussed in THA-63, the ECMOPH and the CREC are also collaborating on a multi-institutional clinical research project to reduce redundancy during the review process and to develop joint human research ethics guidelines. (See THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.) (Note: The ECMOPH website is not accessible to users residing outside of Thailand.)

Per THA-1, the ECMOPH and the CREC represent the two (2) central ECs recognized by the Thai FDA to review and approve clinical research protocols involving humans. THA-1 further explains that both the ECMOPH and the CREC are categorized as central ECs because they can accept all clinical research studies for review, regardless of the trial sites involved.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

Per THA-39, the ECMOPH is responsible for controlling, supervising, and monitoring research in accordance with international ethical principles; developing research policies; suspending unethical research programs; creating a national database of clinical research; establishing a regional/international committee network system; developing personnel capacity to support clinical research in Thailand; and other related or assigned academic projects. See THA-13 for additional details about the ECMOPH, and THA-13 and THA-39 for requirements specifically related to studies approved by the ECMOPH.

Central Research Ethics Committee

Per THA-1, the CREC was formed in 2014 through the cooperative efforts of 26 public and private institutions in Thailand, including the Thai FDA. THA-44 explains that the focus of the CREC is on reviewing multi-center clinical research projects to improve the efficiency of the EC review and to reduce the duplicative review of multi-institutional studies. See THA-44 for additional information on the CREC, and the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for detailed CREC submission requirements.

Ethics Committee Composition

As per G-ResEthics, institutional ECs should consist of at least five (5) members, both male and female, with the following qualifications:

At least one (1) member with knowledge and experience in research fields regularly reviewed (e.g., medicine, public health, social science, etc.)
At least one (1) member who is a lawyer or has legal expertise
At least one (1) member who is unaffiliated with the institution, and, if possible, that member should be selected from the community where the institution is based
At least two (2) members who have patient care, counseling, and treatment knowledge and experience
At least one-third of the total EC should be knowledgeable or trained in human research ethics

ECRegProc, by comparison, also requires institutional ECs to have at least five (5) members who are experts on science, medicine, and ethics. In addition, the committee must include members representing the following qualifications:

At least three (3) members who are medical professionals
At least one (1) member must be an expert in a non-scientific category
At least one (1) member from outside of the institution where the trial is taking place

The International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) similarly indicates that ECs should be composed of medical personnel, scientists, and non-scientists, and also notes that while these committees may have differences in legal status, composition, and function, the duties of an EC should be consistent with THA-28. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

Because each EC has its own requirements, it is recommended that the individual ECs be contacted to confirm their specific requirements.

No information is available on ECMOPH and CREC composition requirements.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As delineated in G-ResEthics and ECRegProc, ECs must conduct clinical protocol reviews according to THA-28 using written standard operating procedures (SOPs) that are periodically updated, and develop a process for conducting reviews. The SOPs should include information on EC composition, meeting schedules, timeframes for protocol reviews, quorum requirements, decision-making procedures, channels of communicating the decision(s), complaint processes, reviewing fees (if any), protection of protocol confidentiality, and prevention of possible conflicts of interests. The G-ResEthics also states that each EC must establish the composition, member terms of service, and criteria for selecting the committee members, as appropriate. The members must also be appointed officially as evidenced by a written document.

Additionally, per ECRegProc, ECs must meet the following requirements:

Have the legal qualifications or comply with the government regulations related to providing research or research-related services
Have a clearly defined structure with proof of appropriately appointed members, including the secretary and secretariat
Have voting rights and the right to issue independent research opinions without investigator/sponsor involvement, and with no direct or indirect interest or conflict of interest with the investigator or clinical research study
Have members who are trained in conducting research and clinical trials in human participants, and who participate in ethics training or other related training at least once every two (2) years while serving on the committee
Have experience in reviewing human research involving experimental drugs for at least 10 studies

For detailed EC requirements and information on other administrative processes, see G-ResEthics and ECRegProc.

Also, refer to THA-47 for a list of CREC forms needed to prepare for initial protocol submission, and THA-37 for a complete list of CREC SOPs.

No information is available on the ECMOPH’s terms of reference, review procedures, and meeting schedule.

Which EC? And CREC

Important Modifications in the New List

Important Updates in the New List and Saving Time…and Cost!

Appendices 3-4, 7, and 9

Appendices 1-5, 11, and 13

1.27 and 3.3

Chapter 6

Preface, 1, 3, and Appendices 3-4, 7, and 9

1, 3, and Appendices 1-5, 11, and 13

4-6 and 9-10

Scope of Review

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Overview

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Ethics Approval and the National Mutual Acceptance Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exemption from Ethics Review

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

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

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

CTN Scheme, CTA Scheme, and FAQs

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: March 21, 2024

Overview

As delineated in G-ResEthics, ECRegProc, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the primary scope of information assessed by Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) recognized ethics committees (ECs) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. According to THA-10, clinical research and trials (i.e., research studies and experiments on humans) are subject to the medical ethics standards delineated in the Regulations of the Medical Council on Maintaining the Ethics of the Medical Profession (B.E. 2549) (MCEthics), the Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11), and the Researcher’s Code of Ethics (THA-14).

MCEthics explains that ECs are established to review the ethical aspects of research studies and human trials to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of participants in research studies and human trials. THA-14 further states that researchers should treat all research participants, whether animate or inanimate, with appropriate respect and consideration and should take full responsibility for the impact and consequences of their research. Researchers should also have respect for the dignity and rights of their human participants. THA-11 indicates that every patient has the fundamental right to receive professional medical and health care from health professionals without discrimination as provided for in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (B.E. 2560). Per G-ResEthics, ECRegProc, and THA-28, ECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses, and Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations).

In addition, per G-ResEthics, ECRegProc, and THA-28, ECs are also responsible for ensuring an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. ECs must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved, evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants; confirming the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and methods; and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. G-ResEthics further states that ECs should review the ethical aspects of the protocol in compliance with current international ethical guidelines while taking into account local or national laws, religions, traditions, and cultures. Per G-ResEthics, the appointed EC is also responsible for ensuring that research conducted within the institution adheres to ethical principles including those established in the Declaration of Helsinki (THA-45), the Council for International Organizations of Medical Science (CIOMS)’ International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (THA-7), and the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Operational Guidelines for Ethics Committees that Review Biomedical Research (THA-64). See G-ResEthics, ECRegProc, and THA-28 for detailed ethical review guidelines. MCEthics further states that the medical practitioner who conducts or participates in the research study on humans must only undertake such study or experiment after it is approved by the EC responsible for the study. The medical practitioner must also conform to G-ResEthics and THA-14 when conducting the research study.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

Pursuant to ClinImprtOrdr and ECRegProc, Thai FDA-recognized ECs are responsible for reviewing and approving protocols for clinical research related to drugs to be imported into Thailand. Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the Thai FDA is also responsible for approving requests for permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies. As stated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and ECRegProc, the Thai FDA’s approvals of a drug import license and of a request for permission to produce sample drugs for human research studies are dependent upon obtaining approval by a Thai FDA approved EC. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further specify that for both types of approval requests, the application is either submitted to the Thai FDA after the research project and all the research sites have been approved by an EC, or in parallel, pending review by at least one (1) EC involved in the study. THA-5 further notes that if an approval is obtained from the EC of the research institute or university conducting the trial, an approval from the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) is usually optional (unless it is further required by the internal rules and regulations of that research facility).

In the instance of a multicenter clinical trial, G-ResEthics indicates that protocols submitted to each institution’s EC should contain the same content substance and details, and should specify the quality control techniques to ensure that research practices are the same in each institution. Although each institutional EC may independently approve or disapprove an application, G-ResEthics advises the committees from each participating institution to consult with one another to reach a clearly agreed upon decision.

There is no stated expiration date for an EC approval in G-ResEthics, in the ECMOPH guidelines (THA-13), or on the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) website (THA-36). Per ECRegProc, ECs must provide continuous supervision and monitoring, and conduct inspections to ensure that clinical trial operations are carried out in compliance with all approved research projects and research sites without any deviations or changes from those approved by the committee, unless otherwise specified according to THA-28. ECs must also supervise and monitor research projects to ensure that participants’ rights, safety, and well-being are protected (e.g., in the case of an adverse event, etc.).

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

According to THA-13, an application submitted to the ECMOPH is initially reviewed by at least two (2) advisors, followed by a final review by the ECMOPH at its regular meeting. At this meeting, the advisors present a summary of the proposal to the committee along with their recommendations. The committee discusses the proposal and sends a list of comments to the principal investigator (PI) for clarification. Once the PI provides the requested information, the committee makes a final decision, and this is reported to the ECMOPH Chairman and the Permanent Secretary for Public Health respectively. A letter of notification signed by the Permanent Secretary for Public Health is then forwarded to the PI and the responsible organization. As earlier stated, this review and approval process is specific to the ECMOPH. However, it can be used to obtain a better understanding of the EC process within Thailand.

Central Research Ethics Committee

As indicated in THA-44 and THA-24, a research project is eligible to apply for CREC review when it meets one (1) of the following criteria:

It is a pharmaceutical-sponsored multi-center clinical trial
It is an investigator-initiated multi-site study granted by a research funding organization (e.g., the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, the Health Systems Research Institute (HSRI), etc.)
It is assigned by the Thai Health Board of Directors for review
It is a single center, multi-site study of researchers at partner institutions with co-researchers from each site (THA-24)

Per THA-44, when a research proposal is submitted to the CREC for review, the committee will cooperate with all the participating ECs to confirm the researchers are qualified, the institution has adequate facilities, and the proposed research is compliant with institutional regulations, applicable laws, local contexts, and standards of professional conduct and practice. The CREC will also consider the concerns and attitudes of the various communities participating in the project. Once the review process is completed, the decision will be documented in a formal letter. The issued decision letter will be sent to the PI, the contract research organization, and all of the participating ECs. Refer to THA-44 and THA-24 for additional CREC requirements.

Clinical Trials

2

Instruction for the Submission of a Study/Research Proposal to be Reviewed by the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (p.63)

4-5

1.27 and 3.3

1.1, and Chapters 2, 4, and 6

Preface, Summary of Changes in this Edition, 1, 3, and Appendices 3-4, and 9

1, 3, and Appendices 1-5 and 13

Chapter 1 (Article 5) and Chapter 9 (Articles 50-51)

5-6

Appendix 12

Ethics Committee Fees

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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: March 21, 2024

As explained in G-ResEthics, Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA)-recognized ethics committees (ECs) should review their research budgets to ensure that fee information is addressed. In general, the sponsor will pay the investigator based on the number of research participants. The Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) are both ECs recognized by the Thai FDA to review and approve clinical trial protocols.

G-ResEthics further states that research conducted in public hospitals or public health care facilities involves expenditures such as laboratory tests and lump sum fees determined by the institution. The disclosure of these payments and other budget items enables the EC to evaluate any conflict of interest and helps the investigator to decide whether to conduct the trial.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

No information is currently available on ECMOPH fees.

Central Research Ethics Committee

As set forth in CRECFees, the CREC requires investigators to pay a nonrefundable fee to submit a clinical trial research protocol for ethical review and approval.

CRECFees and THA-50 specify the following fees for the ethical review of research projects funded by private capital (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

New research project: 50,000 Baht

· Request for certification renewal of old research project: 20,000 Baht

Amendments to the research project (research outline amendments/adding a research location): 10,000 Baht
Report requesting amendments to the research outline: Amendment certified by the local EC of the joint research institute in the CREC-certified research project, followed by a report submitted for CREC consideration (site-specific amendment): No fees charged
Reporting adverse events, reporting non-compliance, notifying the CREC of a research project closure, and various other reports: No fees charged
Edit the Certificate of Approval (COA) document: 1,000 Baht
Edit certification/acknowledgement: 500 Baht
Edit document with certified seal: 500 Baht

For research projects funded by government agencies, royal colleges, medical professional associations, or personal capital, CRECFees and THA-50 delineates the following fees:

New research project: 25,000 Baht
Request for certification renewal of old research project: 10,000 Baht
Amendments to the research project (research outline amendments/adding a research location): 5,000 Baht
Report requesting amendments to the research outline: Amendment certified by the local EC of the joint research institute in the CREC-certified research project, followed by a report submitted for CREC consideration (site-specific amendment): No fees charged
Reporting adverse events, reporting non-compliance, notifying the CREC of a research project closure, and various other reports: No fees charged
Edit the Certificate of Approval (COA) document: 500 Baht
Edit the certification/acknowledgement: 250 Baht
Edit document with certified seal: 250 Baht

Payment Instructions

THA-42 explains that investigators should submit ethics application fee payments to the following bank:

Bank Name: Krungthai Bank
Bank Address: 2/1 SOI Phahonyothin, Phahonyothin Road 40, Sena Nikhom, Jatujak, Bangkok 10900
Swift Code: KRTHTHBK
Branch: Phahonyothin 39
Account Type: Savings Account
Account Name: Foundation for Human Research Promotion in Thailand
Account number: 981-2-84782-0

Per CRECFees and THA-25, the investigators must submit proof of payment with the application submission. CRECFees indicates that the investigators and research sponsor are responsible for paying the fees and preparing the documentation to submit to the research institute. In the case of an investigator having transferred fees for a project that has been cancelled, the investigator may request a refund. The Foundation will deduct 20% of the transferred fee. The investigator should contact the bank for any service fee applied.

THA-50 and THA-25 indicate that any questions regarding the payment submission process may be directed to the following contact:

Miss Netdao Kanseecha
Financial Officer
Phone: 061-089-9966
Email: natdown@crecthailand.org

Per THA-25, if the CREC has no evidence of payment, the application submission will be considered incomplete. See THA-50 for additional information on fee rate based on funding source and fee receipts.

Type of Funding Source, Fee Rate, and Notes

7.1.5

Oversight of Ethics Committees

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Overview

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

Research Governance

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

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

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

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

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

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

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

National Certification Scheme

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

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

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

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

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: March 21, 2024

Overview

As indicated in ECRegProc, ClinImprtOrdr, and ClinSampleProd, institutional ethics committees (ECs) and other types of ECs, including the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC), must be authorized by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) to conduct ethical reviews of drug clinical trial protocols. ClinImprtOrdr and ECRegProc specify that authorized ECs are responsible for reviewing and approving protocols for clinical research involving drugs to be imported into Thailand. (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices relating to EC authorization in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd.)

As per ECRegProc, an acceptance letter issued to the ECs by the Thai FDA is valid for two (2) years and may be obtained by applying to the agency using the Jor Thor Form EC-1 (THA-23). Each EC is also required to submit an annual report (THA-21) to the Thai FDA, and to apply for an acceptance extension no later than 60 days before the expiration date.

ECRegProc states that the Thai FDA posts a list of the approved/renewed ECs on its website (see THA-90) and as noted in THA-3, this usually occurs every two (2) years. These ECs are approved in addition to the centralized ECMOPH and the CREC.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Pursuant to EC-QualAccredReq, in addition to the ECRegProc approval and renewal of approval documentation requirements, the Thai FDA requires ECs to submit proof of accreditation based on an evaluation by a quality accreditation agency in compliance with international accreditation standards. The following organizations are approved by the Thai FDA to provide quality accreditation reviews:

National Ethics Committee Accreditation System of Thailand (NECAST)
The Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER)/The Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP)
The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP)
Other Thai FDA-approved quality accreditation agencies

Per EC-QualAccredReq, EC submissions will be reviewed and completed within one (1) business day.

Important Modifications in the New List

Appendices 3-4 and 9

Appendices 2-5 and 13

Preface, 1, 3, and Appendices 3-4 and 9

1 and Appendices 1-5, and 13

Preface, 4-6, 9, and 11

Submission Process

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Overview

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

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

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

Regulatory Submission

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

CTN Scheme

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

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

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

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

CTA Scheme

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

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

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

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

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

Research Governance

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

Authorised Agent and Manual Submission

CTN Scheme, CTA Scheme, Clinical Trials Guidance, and FAQs

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: March 21, 2024

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

As of November 20, 2024, CREC’s online submission system is suspended. All research project documents should be submitted via email to official@crecthailand.org. See the announcement on CREC’s website.

Overview

In accordance with ClinImprtOrdr and G-CT-DIPApp, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for submitting a drug import license application for clinical research purposes to the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA). Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the Thai FDA is also responsible for approving requests for permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies.

As set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and ECRegProc, the Thai FDA’s approvals of a drug import license and of a request for permission to produce drug samples for human research studies are dependent upon obtaining proof of ethics committee (EC) approval from the Thai FDA to conduct the clinical trial. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further specify that for both types of approval requests, the application is either submitted to the Thai FDA after the research project and all the research sites have been approved by an EC, or in parallel, pending review by at least one (1) EC involved in the study. (Note: Per ClinImprtOrdr, the sponsor is also referred to as the applicant or importer.)

Regulatory Submission

OSSC Pre-Submission Permission

According to THA-77 and THA-75, prior to submitting a drug import license application (N.Y.M.1 form), an applicant must first request permission from the Thai FDA’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) to use the OSSC’s online consultation system (E-Consult) (THA-77). Per THA-65, requesting E-Consult permission is a two-part process that initially requires applicants who are Thai citizens to create a user account and register via Digital ID (THA-89) which enables Thai citizens to access all government agency electronic services using a single user account/password. The user account can then be used to submit applications and supporting documentation to the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54).

Per THA-65 and THA-77, once registered in THA-89, Thai applicants (i.e., the general public, entrepreneurs, or researchers) are subsequently required to provide documentation to E-Consult (THA-77) to confirm that they, or representatives authorized to act on their behalf, are authorized to use the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54). Although non-citizens cannot register directly with THA-89, they can request permission to authorize a juristic person who receives power of attorney (i.e., agency representatives, registration agents, or researchers who submit applications on behalf of an agency). Documentation should be submitted to E-Consult (THA-77) either in person or via email (econsultcenter@fda.moph.go.th) specifying in the subject line: “Request to open the right to use the information system.”

Per THA-77, for Thai applicants, this documentation includes:

Form for Requesting Permission to Use the Health Product Consultation Information System (E-Consult) (THA-80)
Copy of identity card

Per THA-77, for juristic applicants with power of attorney, this documentation includes:

Form Requesting Power of Attorney Permission to Use the Health Product Consultation Information System (E-Consult) (THA-81)
Copy of juristic person certificate (if any)
Power of attorney form
Copy of identity card of grantor (the national identity card issued to Thai citizens)
Copy of identity card of attorney-in-fact (refers to a passport)

THA-66 indicates that when an applicant completes the process of submitting an in-person request within one (1) day at the service center, a service provider can then forward the request for review and may receive a response within one (1) day. For requests that take more than one (1) day to be reviewed, the service center will forward the application to the Product Division for consideration. See also THA-51 for additional information on services provided by the OSSC’s E-Consult Service.

Import and Export Division Pre-Submission Permission

Per THA-79, the Thai FDA’s Import and Export Inspection Division also requires applicants to request permission to access the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54) prior to being permitted to submit a drug import waiver application for clinical trial purposes. Applicants requesting access may submit documentation via email to bie.thaifda@gmail.com to open temporary rights first. After reviewing the emailed documentation for correctness/completeness, the officer will reply to the email and request original copies of the documents. A request for permission can also be mailed to the OSSC (THA-35), 4th floor. Also, per THA-87, Thai applicants may register and submit authorization documentation via THA-54 once they have obtained access.

THA-79 states that for Thai applicants, the required authorization documentation includes:

Copy of the registration certificate of the company or partnership, or a copy of the commercial registration (which has been issued no more than six (6) months and has a grantor to sign)
Copy of grantor’s identity card (which has not expired on the date of document submission along with a signature to certify the copy)
Copy of the identity card of the attorney-in-fact (which has not expired on the date of document submission along with a signature to certify the copy)

THA-79 further notes that the applicant has the right to use the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54) for import/export purposes for no more than one (1) year. The following forms are also provided on the Import and Export Inspection Division webpage (THA-85) to complete these requests: Form Requesting Access to the FDA E-Submission System for Permission to Import Drugs for Other Purposes (THA-83), Form Requesting Power of Attorney Access to the FDA E-Submission System for Permission to Import Drugs for Other Purposes (THA-82), and Application Form for Medicine Importation (THA-84). See also THA-85 for additional related forms that may be useful.

Submissions

N.Y.M.1

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai FDA accepts paper and electronic clinical trial application submission packages for requests to import or order drugs for clinical research. However, paper applications are only to be submitted at the discretion of an agency officer when it is determined that the application process cannot be completed electronically via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54) for Medicines Regulation Division review and approval (see Submission Content section for content details).

As per ClinImprtOrdr, for paper submissions, sponsors must submit two (2) original sets with real signatures of the completed N.Y.M.1 form (ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2)) with the required attachments to the Thai FDA. For paper submissions, the applicant must also submit an MS Word template file for importing the data electronically, so that the file can be connected to the information in the drug importation and clinical research sections in the information system. A copy of all the submitted documents should also be provided in PDF format. G-CT-DIPApp also states that two (2) sets of the application package must be submitted to the Thai FDA. Per ClinImprtOrdr, if the Thai FDA reviewer determines that submitted documents require correction or additional documentation needs to be submitted, the applicant must make corrections/clarifications based on the evaluation results within the specified time by submitting a correction/clarification request form (see ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 12) and THA-18 (Appendix 12)).

Additionally, per ClinImprtOrdr, the non-local applicant must authorize a qualified person through a power of attorney to submit an application and respond to requests to provide clarification, amend, and/or receive documents related to the submission. The attorney-in-fact should be someone who has knowledge in pharmacy or a related medical field as well as an understanding of requests, permissions, etc. relating to the application submission and associated documentation. The scope and responsibilities of the attorney-in-fact must be specified in the authorization to include filing application submission clarifications and corrections. The authorization documentation should be submitted with the paper application. ClinImprtOrdr further notes that one (1) set of power of attorney submission documentation may only be used for one (1) application submission request.

ClinImprtOrdr also states that the application submission should include documentary evidence for quality control and drug production separated by drug. The identification of the manufacturer of each drug included in the submission must match the one specified in the Microsoft Excel files for the Logistics System (See ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 7) and THA-18 (Appendix 7) for the manufacturer’s form).

As indicated in ClinImprtOrdr and G-CT-DIPApp, Thai and English are the preferred languages for use in preparing an application package for requests to import or order drugs for clinical research. The following requirements are specified (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Research project name and summary of research project in Thai
Drug packaging documents for already registered drugs presented in Thai or English (Note: if drug formula documentation from abroad is in a foreign language other than English, then it should be translated into Thai or English and certified that the text matches the Thai/English language version)
Protocol synopsis in Thai
Detailed study protocol specification (completed version of study protocol) in Thai or English
Patient information sheet in Thai or translated to an appropriate language and certified the text matches the Thai version
Drug labels for every package size in Thai or English
EC approval document in Thai
Certificate of Free Sale in English and translated by a trusted certification authority and any other language in which it has been originally issued
Progress report in Thai

Additionally, as explained in THA-79, once the applicant has obtained permission from the Import and Export Inspection Division to access the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), a drug import waiver application (N.Y.M.1) may be submitted electronically. Per THA-87, following official review of the submitted documentation, a response will sent within one (1) business day. THA-87 and THA-79 indicate that once the request is approved, a License Per Invoice (LPI) number will be used in making a goods declaration with the Thai Customs Department. See THA-48, THA-86, and THA-88 for additional information and instructions on submitting an LPI to Customs). Refer to THA-57 and THA-87 for detailed instructions on submitting a drug importation waiver request via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54).

P.Y.8

As indicated in ClinSampleProd, the Thai FDA also accepts paper and electronic clinical trial application submission packages for requests for permission to produce sample drugs for human research studies. However, if the electronic system is not available, the application must be submitted in paper form, along with the appropriate supporting documentation (see Submission Content section for content details). In the case of filing via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), information will be filled in the system in a P.Y.8. form, and the research project information will be created automatically. If the Thai FDA reviewer determines that submitted documents require correction or additional documentation needs to be submitted, the applicant must make corrections/clarifications based on the evaluation results within the specified time by submitting a correction/clarification request form (see ClinSampleProd (Appendix 8) and THA-76 (Appendix 8)). The paper documentation should be submitted to the New Drugs and Drug Research Promotion Group within the Medicines Regulation Division or submitted electronically via THA-54. When submitting a paper application, the applicant must also submit a template file for importing the data via THA-54 to serve as a starting point for operators in the electronic process and for use in overseeing the trial. A copy of all the submitted documents should also be provided in PDF format.

Additionally, per ClinSampleProd, the non-local applicant must authorize a qualified person through a power of attorney to submit an application and respond to requests to provide clarification, amend, and/or receive documents related to the submission. The attorney-in-fact should be someone who has knowledge in pharmacy or a related medical field as well as an understanding of requests, permissions, etc. relating to the application submission and associated documentation. The scope and responsibilities of the attorney-in-fact must be specified in the authorization to include filing application submission clarifications and corrections. The authorization documentation should be submitted with the paper application, or via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), if the application is being submitted electronically. ClinSampleProd further notes that one (1) set of power of attorney submission documentation may only be used for one (1) application submission request.

As indicated in ClinSampleProd, Thai and English are the preferred languages for use in preparing an application package to request permission to produce investigational drugs for clinical research. The following requirements are specified:

Research project name in Thai and English
Summary of research project in Thai
Drug labels for every package size in Thai or English
Patient Information Sheet in Thai
EC approval document in Thai
Complete research project details in Thai or English

OSSC Contact Information for Application Submissions

Per THA-74, THA-65, and THA-77, the following is contact information for submitting an application to the OSSC (THA-35) in person or via email, and for requesting permission to access the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54):

One Stop Service Center (OSSC)
Building 6, 5^th Floor
Food and Drug Administration Building
Ministry of Public Health
88/24 Tiwanon Road
Talat Khwan Subdistrict
Mueang District, Nonthaburi Province 11000

Email (E-Consult): econsultcenter@fda.moph.go.th
Phone: 02 590 7614 (Consultation E-service for general inquiries, reporting usage problems, and issues related to requesting permissions)

See also THA-52 for the Medicines Regulation Division staff list.

Ethics Review Submission

Per G-ResEthics, each institutional EC should establish its own requirements for protocol submission along with the required documents including the application, number of research protocol copies to be submitted, the patient information sheet, the informed consent form, and the case report form. Each EC should also communicate these requirements to personnel or staff within the institution.

According to THA-4, if a trial site is not affiliated with a Thai FDA-recognized EC, the investigator(s) usually needs to apply to two (2) ECs for approval—the unaffiliated local EC and a central EC approved by the Thai FDA. THA-1 further explains that both the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) are categorized as central ECs because they can accept all clinical research studies for review, regardless of the trial sites involved.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

According to THA-13, the ECMOPH requires one (1) original and 20 copies of the protocol submitted in Thai, and one (1) copy submitted in English for review purposes.

Per THA-41, investigators can electronically submit applications to the ECMOPH to obtain approval for new research projects or to request other services via the ECMOPH e-submission login page (THA-40).

Central Research Ethics Committee

THA-36 and THA-29 indicate that investigators applying for a new research project should submit an application to the CREC for review via its Online Submission System (THA-43).

THA-29 further explains that in some cases, hard copies may be requested by the CREC officer, with the number of additional hard copies requested subject to the reviewer’s requirements. Per THA-29, one (1) set of hard copy documents, consisting of a project folder and a CD with project information should be submitted. Documents should be placed in a folder indicating the correct number of files in order to avoid processing delays.

THA-29 also states that if a local EC requires a hard copy for the local assessment, the CREC will prepare an introduction letter and local issue assessment form. These documents will be sent to every local EC by email; the researcher/coordinator will be copied on this email. The researcher/coordinator will attach the local CREC introductory letter and assessment form to the hard copy submission package for the local EC.

See also THA-34 for detailed application package documentation submission requirements, and THA-37 for a comprehensive list of all the CREC Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

Per THA-34 and THA-38, in the case where the research project is in English, a brief research outline should be provided in Thai as well. In addition, an explanation about the research participants and letter of intent to consent should be provided, if the master version of the informed consent documents are written in English.

Which EC?

Saving time...and cost!

Guidelines for the preparation of a research proposal submitted to the Ethical Review Committee for Research on Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (p. 67)

Chapters 1-2

Requirements before using the E-consult system, Applying for service, Requesting Permissions, and Form

1 and 3

4-5

Appendices 1-4 and 7-9

Appendices 1-13, 15, and 17

Online Submission – For Researchers/Research Coordinators

1. Introduce the Ethics Request System (E-Submission)

6.1

3, 11-13, and 15

1-2 and Appendices 1-4 and 7-9

Preface; Summary of Changes in this Edition; 1-3; and Appendices 1-13, 15, and 17

5 and Form EC-1

Appendix 12

Submission Content

Last content review/update: February 5, 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-47 states that the CTA scheme application consists of two (2) forms – Part 1: the application (AUS-56), and Part 2: Notification of the conduct of a trial under the CTA scheme (AUS-57).

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

The research question or questions that the project is intended to explore
The potential benefit of exploring the question or questions including to whom that potential benefit is likely to flow, and whether that benefit is a contribution to knowledge or understanding, improved social or individual wellbeing, or the skill and expertise of researchers
The basis for that potential benefit as described in either relevant literature or a review of prior research unless, due to the novelty of the question, there is scarce literature or prior research
How the design and methods of the project will enable adequate exploration of the research questions and achieve the aims of the research
How the design of the project will maintain respect for the participants
Where relevant, that the research meets the requirements of any relevant regulations or guidelines authorized by law (such as those related to privacy and reporting requirements for disclosure of child abuse)
Whether or not the project has been reviewed by a formally constituted academic, scientific, or professional review process, and, if so, the outcome of that review

Research Governance

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

Creating a New CTN Form

CTA Scheme and FAQs

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: March 21, 2024

Regulatory Authority Requirements

N.Y.M.1

As per ClinImprtOrdr and G-CT-DIPApp, sponsors must submit the following documents to the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) to request a drug import waiver request (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Cover letter
Application for Permission to Import or Order Drugs for Research Purposes in the Kingdom (N.Y.M.1 form) (see ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2))
Checklists and Attached Documents for N.Y.M.1 form (see appendices in ClinImprtOrdr and THA-18)
Drug labels for every package size in Thai or English
Package inserts (for registered drugs)
Prescriptions (for registered drugs)
Investigator’s Brochure (IB) (for unregistered drugs)
Informed Consent Form in Thai
Patient Information Sheet in Thai
Research project summary in Thai
Completed version of study protocol in Thai or English
Chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information
Ethics Committee (EC) approval from a Thai FDA-recognized institutionally-based EC and/or an independent EC. If waiting for approval from the relevant EC, instead submit the latest protocol version under consideration.
Estimates of the amount of study drug, comparators, or other goods to be imported
Certificate of Analysis
Certificate of Free Sale in English and other language used
Drug registration authorization document
Summary of product characteristics
Literature review
Description (name and content) and pictures of lab/materials to be imported
Power of attorney
Investigational medicinal product (IMP) information

Per ClinImprtOrdr, when an applicant authorizes a qualified person through a power of attorney to submit an application package, the following documents must also be included with the submission:

Copy of identity card of the grantor and the attorney-in-fact with signatures to certify that they are true copies
Stamp duty in the amount of 30 Baht per one (1) power of attorney designation

As delineated in G-CT-DIPApp, applicants are also required to submit the following documents to the Thai FDA regarding EC approval:

Protocol title
List of principal investigator(s) (PIs)
Proposed study site
List of documents reviewed and approved by the EC, including the document version
Period of approval and/or date of expired approval

As noted in ClinImprtOrdr, the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) may also establish an academic committee or subcommittee for certain drugs requiring special supervision (e.g., the Academic Subcommittee on AIDS Vaccine Trials to review AIDS vaccines, etc.). Therefore, when submitting an application to request permission to import or order a specialized drug for clinical research requiring this type of oversight, an additional approval letter from the relevant committee is also required. Additional information on obtaining the approval for the committee is not available.

P.Y.8

Per ClinSampleProd, applicants must submit the following documents to the Thai FDA to request permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies:

Application for Permission to Produce Drug Samples for Drug Formula Registration (P.Y.8. Form) (see ClinSampleProd (Appendix 1) and THA-76 (Appendix 1))
Research project summary in Thai
Certification of compliance with the terms and conditions related to the production of drug samples for use in human research studies
Certificate of Compliance for Principal Investigators
Evidence of insurance or compensation
Power of attorney (for paper submissions)
A copy of the license to produce modern drugs (for paper submissions)
Drug labels for every package size in Thai or English
Copy of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Certificate
Drug leaflet (for bioequivalence study drugs)
IB (for research drugs)
Patient Information Sheet in Thai
EC approval from a Thai FDA-recognized institutionally-based EC and/or an independent EC, except in the case of waiting for approval from the relevant EC
Drug quality control and pharmaceutical production documentation
Documents approved by relevant technical committees (if any)
Complete research proposal in Thai or English
Document self-verification form (see ClinSampleProd (Appendix 7) and THA-76 (Appendix 7))

Per ClinSampleProd, when an applicant authorizes a qualified person through a power of attorney to submit an application package, the following documents must also be included with the submission:

Copy of identity card of the grantor and the attorney-in-fact with signatures to certify that they are true copies
Stamp duty in the amount of 30 Baht per one (1) power of attorney designation

As noted in ClinSampleProd, the MOPH may also establish an academic committee or subcommittee for certain drugs requiring special supervision (e.g., the Academic Subcommittee on AIDS Vaccine Trials to review AIDS vaccines, etc.). Therefore, when submitting an application to request permission to import or order a specialized drug for clinical research requiring this type of oversight, an additional approval letter from the relevant committee is also required. Additional information on obtaining the approval for the committee is not available.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Per G-ResEthics, each institutional EC should establish its own requirements for protocol submission along with the required documents including the application, number of research protocol copies to be submitted, the patient information sheet, the informed consent form, and the case report form. Each EC should also communicate to personnel or staff within the institution.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

Per THA-13, the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) requires investigators (applicants) to submit the following documentation for ethics approval:

One (1) original set and 20 copies of the protocol in Thai and one (1) copy in English for review
Ethical considerations
Combined information sheet and informed consent certificate for research participants
Budget details and funding source
Curriculum Vitae (CV) for each research team member
Letter of approval from implementing institution
Results of ethical review by EC of implementing institution, if available
Data collection/questionnaire tools
Letter signed by PI’s supervisor
For an international project, Thai and foreign PIs required for each side
Material transfer agreement for transfer of blood or biomedical samples
References

Refer to THA-13 for detailed ECMOPH submission requirements respectively.

Central Research Ethics Committee

According to THA-34 and THA-38, investigators applying for an initial research project review by the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) should submit the following:

Books/memorandum for research presentation signed by investigator (Word and PDF files required)
Ethics Consideration Proposal Form for Biomedical Research Projects (CREC form AP 04-S04) signed by investigator (Word and PDF files required)
Complete research proposal
Brief research proposal in Thai
Documents clarifying information about research participants and letter of intent to consent (in the case of a master informed consent form (ICF) version, single document in English is used for all institutions; alternatively, each institution may also use their own documents) (See also THA-46 for ICF template and checklist links)
Case report form
IB (including Investigator’s Guide; a certificate that the drug has been approved by the Thai FDA; invoice in the case of a drug that has been registered with the Thai FDA; and a drug leaflet)
Other documents (including questionnaire or interview form; notebook; documents for invitation to participate in the research, such as brochures, posters, public relations scripts; other documents applicable to volunteers/research participants; documents requiring issuance of a certificate)
Research injury compensation insurance documents
Material transfer agreement (MTA) (must be uploaded according to each institution’s form)
(Draft) Research project budget
Letter of approval from the junior supervisor (separate documents by institution) (including a list of researchers at all data collection institutes in Thailand)
Investigator CVs and evidence of good clinical practice (GCP) training or research ethics training
Conflict of Interest Form completed by PIs/co-investigators (CREC form AP 06-S04) (separate documents by institution)
Research Outline Completeness Check Form (CREC form AO 01-S04)
PI for clinical trial phase I/II research projects (CREC form AP02-S04)
Proof of fee payment

Refer to THA-34 and THA-38 for detailed CREC submission requirements.

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, and G-CT-DIPApp, the clinical 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):

Protocol summary/synopsis
General information (e.g., sponsor and investigator(s) name(s) and address(es))
Background information (e.g., investigational product name and description)
Trial objectives and purpose
Trial design
Number of trial participants
Participant selection/withdrawal criteria
Participant treatment
Safety and efficacy assessments
Quality control/quality assurance
Adverse event reporting requirements (See the Safety Reporting section for additional information)
Statistics and methods to track trial data
Sponsor specifications for direct access to source data/documents
Ethical considerations
Data management and recordkeeping
Financing and insurance details
Publication policy
Supplements
Information about each research facility in Thailand
Number of institutions participating in the research in Thailand
Other countries where the research project is being conducted
IMPs to be used

For complete protocol requirements, refer to ClinImprtOrdr and Annex 6 of G-ResEthics, which is directly based upon the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) and the ICH guideline Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) (THA-27). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. Both of these ICH guidelines are also referenced in G-ResEthics.

G-CT-DIPApp also provides protocol synopsis requirements for submission to the Thai FDA. Please refer to G-CT-DIPApp for detailed information.

In the instance of a multicenter clinical trial, G-ResEthics indicates that protocols submitted to each institutional EC should contain the same content and should specify the quality control techniques to ensure that the research practices are the same in each institution.

Also, see THA-13 for ECMOPH and THA-29 for CREC protocol submission requirements. (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

Guidelines for the preparation of a research proposal submitted to the Ethical Review Committee for Research on Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (p.67); Ethical Criteria

Appendices 1-2 and 7

Appendix 2-11 and 13

6

Annex 6

3, 12-13, and 15

Preface, 1, 4, and Appendices 1-2, and 7

Summary of Changes in this Edition, 1, 3, and Appendices 1-11, and 13

Timeline of Review

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Overview

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

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

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

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

Ethics Committee Approval

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

Research Governance

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

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

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

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

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

CTN Scheme, CTA Scheme, and FAQs

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

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

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: March 21, 2024

Overview

ClinImprtOrdr specifies that a drug import license application for clinical research purposes is submitted to the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) after the research project and all the research sites have been approved by the ethics committee (EC), or in parallel, pending review by at least one (1) EC involved in the study. Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the application to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies must also be submitted to the Thai FDA either after the research project and all the research sites have been approved by an EC, or in parallel, pending review by at least one (1) EC involved in the study.

Regulatory Authority Approval

As specified in THA-78, the Thai FDA has 60 working days to evaluate an application to import or order drugs in the country for clinical research (N.Y.M.1); 60 working days to evaluate an application to produce drug samples to request modern drug registration for human research studies (P.Y.8); 20 working days to review an application to amend a N.Y.M.1 or P.Y.8 submission; one (1) working day to review an application for a certificate of pharmaceutical product (Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product/Certificate of Free Sale); and 30 working days to evaluate the accuracy and translation of a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) assessment report from a Thai version to an English version.

Per G-CT-DIPApp, upon receipt of an application package, the Thai FDA’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) sends the application package to an officer in the Thai FDA’s International Affairs and Investigational Drug Section. The officer then screens the package for completeness and informs the eligible sponsor of the results within five (5) working days from the date the application was received. If deemed complete, the officer sends the package to the assigned technical reviewer to proceed. If the officer finds the package to be incomplete, a “Screening Result Notification form” will be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s attorney for correction. If the applicant or the applicant’s attorney fails to fully correct the package within five (5) working days, then the Thai FDA will send a rejection letter and return all the documents to the applicant. However, the applicant may later correct or amend the application package and resubmit it to the OSSC. Once the correction is completed, the officer will send the application package to the assigned reviewer to proceed.

Per G-CT-DIPApp, the reviewer then receives the application package and performs a technical assessment. If the reviewer determines the package is technically correct, then it will be forwarded to the Thai FDA’s Secretary-General for approval. If the reviewer finds the application package technically incorrect, then it will be forwarded to the Thai FDA’s Secretary-General for rejection. If the reviewer finds the technical information to be incomplete, then the applicant or the applicant’s attorney will be asked to clarify and/or submit additional documents/information. If the documentation or amended information is not submitted within five (5) working days, the Thai FDA will issue a rejection letter and return the package to the applicant. However, the applicant may resubmit a corrected package to THA-35 (timeline not specified in G-CT-DIPApp). If the applicant can completely correct the application package, the officer will forward the package to the assigned reviewer for re-assessment.

In addition, ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further specify that once the Thai FDA receives the EC approval documentation, the agency will complete its review within 15 days. See also THA-18 (Appendix 13) and THA-76 (Appendix 9) for the form to submit results of EC review to the Thai FDA. Refer to the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for detailed submission requirements.

Ethics Committee Approval

The review and approval process by a Thai FDA recognized EC will vary by institution. However, according to THA-13, which provides the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) requirements, and THA-5, which provides more general EC requirements, the EC review and approval process can take between two (2) and three (3) months.

Per G-ResEthics, each EC should establish its own requirements for protocol submission and timeline of review.

Clinical Trials

Instruction for the Submission of a Study/Research Proposal to be Reviewed by the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (p. 63)

Appendices 1-3, 7, and 9

Appendices 2-4, 11, and 13

Items 2, 11, 33, 34, and 49

Annex 6

2-3 and 15

1-3, and Appendices 1-3, 7, and 9

1, 3, and Appendices 1-4, 11, and 13

Appendix 12

Initiation, Agreements & Registration

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Overview

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

Research Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

CTN Scheme and CTA Scheme

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: March 21, 2024

Overview

In accordance with ClinSampleProd, ClinImprtOrdr, and ECRegProc, a clinical trial can only commence after a sponsor receives approval of a drug import application for clinical research purposes or of a request to produce drug samples for human research studies from the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA), as well as approval to conduct the clinical trial from a Thai FDA recognized ethics committee (EC). No waiting period is required following the sponsor’s receipt of these approvals. (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd.)

Additionally, the clinical trial should be conducted in compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is now implementing THA-28.

Clinical Trial Agreement

G-ResEthics and THA-28 require the sponsor to sign a letter of agreement with the participating institution(s) before the trial begins. THA-28 also notes that any agreements between the sponsor and the investigator(s)/institution(s) and any other parties involved with the trial should be in writing either as part of the protocol or in a separate agreement.

Per THA-14, researchers should also abide by research obligations and agreements specified by and entered into with fellow researchers, funding agencies, and their affiliates.

Clinical Trial Registration

The ClinImprtOrdr application document checklist (Appendix 3) includes clinical trial registry information as one (1) of the items to be included in the application submission package, specifying that sponsors may register with either the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) (THA-31) or a foreign registry. Sponsors may register in more than one (1) location.

2

Appendices 1-3, 7, and 9

Appendices 2-4, 11, and 13

1.25, 2.8, 4.1, 5.1, and 5.5

Annex 5 (6)

Preface, 1-3, and Appendices 1-4, 7, and 9

Preface, 1-3, and Appendices 1-4, 11, and 13

4-5 and 9-10

Safety Reporting

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Safety Reports

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

Safety reporting to TGA for CTN and CTA trials

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)

SOPs 02, 05, and 12

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-AEReptReqs, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Thailand’s safety reporting requirements:

Adverse Event (AE) – Any untoward or unfavorable medical occurrence in a research participant to whom a drug product was administered, and which does not necessarily bear a causal relationship to the treatment
Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – All dangerous and adverse reactions resulting from any dose of an investigational drug, for which it is at least reasonably likely that the adverse reaction is attributable to the drug being studied, that is, a relationship cannot be ruled out
Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect
Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) – An unexpected SAE/SADR given the nature of the research procedures and the population being studied
Unexpected Adverse Event/Adverse Drug Reaction – A reaction where the nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information

Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. THA-28 also notes that the ICH Guideline for Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (THA-26) should be referenced for additional safety terms not defined in this list.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As stated in G-AEReptReqs, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for reporting all SAEs/SADRs to the sponsor and the ethics committee (EC) no later than 24 hours after the PI becomes aware of the event. The PI must also report all AEs/ADRs to the sponsor and the EC no later than seven (7) calendar days following first knowledge.

For safety reporting requirements specific to the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC), please see THA-13 and THA-37 respectively.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in THA-28, sponsors who are permitted to import or order drugs for research in Thailand and those who are licensed to produce drug samples for human research studies, must comply with the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA)’s safety monitoring and reporting requirements. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd state that the following information is viewed as urgent and is required to be reported:

SAEs/SADRs that never occurred before because the research team used safety reporting information from other countries to substantiate investigational product (IP) use
Other safety and security information useful to evaluating IP risk-benefit assessment, IP changes to the method of administration, or changes required to the overall research process
Unexpected SAE/SADR incidents that never occurred before, with an increased incidence or severity and considered to be of clinical importance
Significant harm to the participant, such as the ineffectiveness of an IP used to treat a life-threatening disease
Significant new information about experimental animal safety studies, such as carcinogenicity

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, an ADR report must be filed in the following specified timelines:

Unexpected SAEs/SADRs that are fatal or life-threatening must be reported to the Thai FDA within seven (7) days from the first knowledge of the incident’s occurrence. Any additional relevant information should be sent within eight (8) days of the initial report
Unexpected SAEs/SADRs that are not fatal or life-threatening must be reported to the Thai FDA within 15 days from the date of SAE/SADR notification. A report must also be submitted periodically with any additional information.
AEs/ADRs that occur following the research participant’s participation in the study or after the study has been completed must be reported within 15 days from first knowledge of the event

According to G-AEReptReqs and G-ResEthics, the sponsor is also required to report all SUSARs to the EC as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days for all fatal or life-threatening events, and no later than 15 calendar days for any non-fatal or non-life-threatening events. The sponsor must include the main points of concern. In addition, the sponsor must report to the EC any other non-local adverse reactions that may increase risks to participants within 15 days. Additionally, the sponsor must report any non-local SAEs/SADRs including SUSARs at least every six (6) months to the EC.

G-ResEthics and THA-28 state that the sponsor is responsible for expediting the reporting of all SUSARs to the investigator(s)/institution(s) participating in the trial, the EC(s), and to the Thai FDA. These reports should comply with G-AEReptReqs and the ICH Guideline for Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (THA-26). See G-AEReptReqs for detailed reporting requirements for the investigator and sponsor.

Other Safety Reports

THA-28 indicates that the sponsor should submit to the Thai FDA all safety updates and periodic reports as required by applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor is also responsible for the ongoing safety evaluation of investigational drug(s) and should promptly notify all concerned parties of findings that could adversely impact the safety of research participants, the conduct of the trial, or alter the EC’s approval or favorable opinion to continue the trial.

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, annual and end of study safety reports must be provided to the New Drugs and Drug Research Promotion Group within the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division. The annual report must be submitted as a document within three (3) months of the one (1) year anniversary of the study, and the final safety report must be submitted as a document within six (6) months after the study has concluded. In addition, a list of all SAE/SADR incidents involving research participant(s) should be included in the annual report. A detailed summary table with the number of SAEs/SADRs organized by terminology (symptoms and diagnosis) should be provided. See Appendix 21 in ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 21 in THA-18) and Appendix 17 in ClinSampleProd (Appendix 17 in THA-76) for an example of the reporting form.

ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further notes that other reports must be made in writing with information such as summary of risk assessment issues and related details for submission to the New Drugs and Drug Research Promotion Group.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per G-AEReptReqs, all SAEs/SADRs and SUSARs must be reported on the Thai FDA’s Health Product Vigilance Center (HPVC) (THA-30) SAE reporting form (THA-22) or the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS)’ form (THA-20). According to THA-37 and THA-20, AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs must be reported to the Thai FDA. THA-22 indicates that the SAE form should be sent to the HPVC via mail, fax, or email at:

Health Product Vigilance Center
Food and Drug Administration
Ministry of Public Health
88/24 Tiwanon Road
Nonthaburi 11000
Thailand

Fax: 02 590 7253 or 02 591 8457
Email: adr@fda.moph.go.th

Pursuant to ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, individual reports should be submitted electronically via the Thai FDA’s HPVC (THA-30), unless the system is unavailable. The report may also be submitted as a document to the New Drugs and Drug Research Promotion Group within the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division.

Individual report data should include at minimum the following information:

Research participant information for those that can be identified (e.g., participant codes)
Investigational drugs used in research study
AE/ADR symptoms or results suspected of being connected to the drugs
Source of follow-up reports
Research project code or name
Reporting numbers (e.g., report number specified by sponsor)

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, for research studies involving participants whose identities are disclosed, submitted AE/ADR reports should include the participant codes unless the Thai FDA’s Office of the Board of Directors deems it necessary to reveal the code immediately.

Ethical Criteria

Appendix 17

Appendix 21

II

1.1-1.2, 1.50, 1.60, 5.5, and 5.17

CREC 11 / v.4.0 Review of Adverse Event Reports

Annex 5 (17)

Descriptions and Definitions, 1, 2, 4, and Appendices 1-4

4.6 and Appendix 17

4.6 and Appendix 21

Progress Reporting

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

Submitting a Completion Advice

CTA Scheme

4

SOP 05

Section 5 (Chapter 5.4)

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As delineated in G-ResEthics, the investigator(s) must submit progress reports on the status of the trial to the ethics committee (EC) at the designated interval (not specified). For high-risk research protocols, investigator(s) should report the progress more frequently than for a low-risk protocol. The investigator should also provide a proposed schedule to submit a progress report to the EC from the date of protocol submission for ethical review, which should be at least once a year.

The International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) further notes that investigator(s) should submit a research summary report in writing to the EC once a year, or more often, as required by the EC. Investigator(s) should send a written report to the EC and the institution, if applicable, regarding any changes that may impact the research process and/or cause increased risk to the research participants. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

In addition, according to ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, the sponsor must submit a study progress report annually to the Director of the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA)'s Medicines Regulation Division between October 1 and 31 every year until the study ends. Per ClinImprtOrdr, for N.Y.M.1/investigational product (IP) import applications, this report should be submitted using the progress report form in Appendix 15 in THA-18, and accompanied by a delivery letter to the Thai FDA’s Director of the Bureau of Medicine using the format in Appendix 14 in THA-18. Per ClinSampleProd, for P.Y.8/IP sample production applications, the report should be submitted using the progress report form in Appendix 11 in THA-76, and accompanied by a delivery letter to the Thai FDA’s Director of the Bureau of Medicine using the format in Appendix 10 in THA-76.

Requests that already have information in the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54) must submit documents according to the system’s procedures. See Submission Process section for detailed information on submitting information via the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54).

Final Report

As specified in ClinImprtOrdr, in the event of early termination of the research study, the sponsor must submit a summary report (Appendix 19 of ClinImprtOrdr) to the Thai FDA within 60 days after the closeout of the last study site.

G-ResEthics also requires investigator(s) to submit a final report to the EC upon the trial’s termination.

For reporting requirements specific to the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH), please see THA-13. Also, refer to THA-37 for Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) reporting requirements. The ECMOPH and the CREC are both ECs recognized by the Thai FDA to review and approve clinical trial protocols.

Individual ECs should be contacted to confirm their specific requirements.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (Revised 2007) (p. 72); Additional Resolution of the Committee (2005) (p. 76); Additional Resolution of the Committee (2006) (p. 80)

Appendices 10-11

Appendices 14-15 and 19

4.10

CREC 12 / v.4.0 Review of Close Study Reports; CREC 13 / v.4.0 Management of Study Termination Report

6.6

4.1 and Appendices 10-11

4.1 and Appendices 14-15 and 19

Definition of Sponsor

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

As per the AU-ICH-GCPs and the G-TrialsSOP, a sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial.

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

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

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

FAQs

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

1.53 and 5.2

Terms

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

In accordance with G-ResEthics, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), 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. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

Per G-ResEthics and THA-28, the Thai government also permits a sponsor to authorize a contract research organization (CRO) to perform one (1) or more of a sponsor’s trial-related duties and functions. However, the ultimate responsibility for the trial data’s quality and integrity always resides with the sponsor. Any trial-related responsibilities to be transferred and assumed by a CRO should be specified in a written agreement or contract. A sponsor may be domestic or foreign.

Per THA-65 and THA-77, although applicants residing outside Thailand cannot register directly with Digital ID (THA-89), they can request permission to authorize a juristic person who receives power of attorney to use the OSSC’s online consultation system (E-Consult) (THA-77) and to submit applications to the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54).

THA-28 also states that the sponsor may be a sponsor-investigator if the individual both initiates and conducts, alone or with others, a clinical trial, and under whose immediate direction the investigational product is administered or dispensed. The sponsor-investigator’s obligations include both those of a sponsor and those of an investigator.

According to THA-13, the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) requires the sponsor and/or CRO to be legally registered in Thailand. The ECMOPH is one (1) of the ethics committees approved by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) to approve clinical research protocols. See THA-13 for additional ECMOPH sponsor requirements.

Per ClinImprtOrdr, the sponsor is also referred to as the applicant or importer, and in ClinSampleProd, the sponsor is also referred to as applicant.

Additional Resolution of the Committee (2005) (p. 76) and Additional Resolution of the Committee (2006) (p. 77)

Requirements before using the E-consult system, Applying for service

1.20, 1.53-1.54, and 5.2

Annex 5

Site/Investigator Selection

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

Overview

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

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

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

Research Governance

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

Data Safety Monitoring Boards

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

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

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

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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: March 21, 2024

Overview

In accordance with G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial, and for ensuring that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. THA-14 also states that researchers must have basic knowledge in the field of research.

Additionally, per THA-28 and G-ResEthics, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. 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.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is available regarding foreign sponsor regulatory requirements.

Data Safety Monitoring Board

Although not specified as a sponsor requirement, G-ResEthics, G-AEReptReqs, and THA-28 encourage the establishment of a Data Safety Monitoring Board.

Multicenter Studies

As delineated in G-ResEthics and THA-28, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the sponsor must ensure that:

All investigators conduct the trial in strict compliance with the protocol agreed to by the sponsor, and if required, by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA), and are 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

3

1.25, 4.1, 5.1, 5.5, and 5.7

Annex 5 (5, 6, 7, and 23)

Descriptions and Definitions and Appendix 3

Insurance & Compensation

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Insurance

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

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-Trial Access

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

3, 4, 5, and 8

Guidance Statements

IV

SOP 05

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

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Insurance

ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd specify that financing and insurance information should be included in the study protocol and protocol summary. If not included in the protocol and research project summary, a financial/insurance agreement should be attached separately in the application package as one (1) of the documents that the ethics committee (EC) considers approved or certified (e.g., Patient Information Sheets, etc.). G-ResEthics also states that the sponsor should provide insurance or indemnify the investigator/institution against claims arising from the trial, except for claims that arise from malpractice and/or negligence, if required by applicable regulatory requirements.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the sponsor or the designated contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for providing information related to compensation in the event of trial-related injuries or death to research participants and/or their legal heirs. ClinImprtOrdr further states that payment of compensation (if any) will be determined on a monthly basis to participants involved in the research. (See THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. The sponsor must also inform the participants of any available medical treatment in the event of trial-related injuries. MCEthics further indicates that medical practitioners are responsible for harm or damage because the research studies involving the participant were not the fault of the participant.

Trial Participation

As per G-ResEthics, Phase I trial participants should be compensated for travel, loss of work, or other expenses incurred while participating in the trial.

Appendices 2 and 7

Appendices 3 and 11

4.8

3.2 and Annex 5 (8)

11

1.5, 1.10, and Appendices 2 and 7

1.3, 1.9-1.10, and Appendices 3 and 11

Chapter 9 (Article 49)

Risk & Quality Management

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsible Research Conduct

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

The TGR further states that the sponsor must provide a written assurance to comply with any trial-related requests by an authorized TGA officer(s), which includes allowing inspection of clinical trial sites. The PI is required to comply with requests and answer any questions the authorized officer(s) may have. According to the G-GCP-Inspect, clinical trial sites that have been notified of a GCP inspection should prepare for the inspection by:

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

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

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

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

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

The institution must ensure that the researcher promptly suspends the research and makes arrangements to meet the needs of participants, such as ensuring that appropriate counselling support or the provision of standard care continues
The research may not be resumed unless: (i) the research is modified to provide sufficient protection or participants or address the concerns that led to the suspension; or (ii) the researcher establishes to the satisfaction of the EC that continuation of the research will not compromise participants’ welfare; and (iii) the institution authorizes the continuation of the research

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

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)

Who We Inspect and Preparing for an Inspection

Background and Scope

Part 3 (12AB and 12AC)

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and G-ResEthics, the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)'s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

G-ResEthics and THA-28 explain that the sponsor 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.

G-ResEthics and THA-28 further specify that the sponsor must also obtain the investigator(s) and the institution(s) agreement to:

Conduct the trial in compliance with THA-28, applicable regulatory requirement(s), and the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and approved by the ethics committee (EC)
Comply with data recording and reporting procedures
License monitoring, auditing, and inspection
Retain essential documents until the sponsor informs them that they are no longer needed

Any agreements should be made in writing and the sponsor should sign the protocol, or a separate agreement.

Pursuant to G-ResEthics and THA-28, QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. In addition, per THA-28, the sponsor should focus on trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results. The quality management system should also use a risk-based approach that includes:

During protocol development, identify processes and data that are critical to ensure participant protection and the reliability of trial results (Critical Process and Data Identification)
Identify risks to critical trial processes and data (Risk Identification)
Evaluate the identified risks against existing risk controls (Risk Evaluation)
Decide which risks to reduce and/or which risks to accept (Risk Control)
Document quality management activities and communicate to those involved in or affected by these activities (Risk Communication)
Periodically review risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented quality management activities are effective and relevant (Risk Review)
In the clinical study report, describe the quality management approach implemented in the trial and summarize important deviations from the predefined quality tolerance limits and remedial actions taken (Risk Reporting)

ClinImprtOrdr states that the trial must be conducted in accordance with the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) principles.

Monitoring Requirements

G-ResEthics and THA-28 note that the sponsor may choose to perform a clinical trial audit as part of its QA system. The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, and other applicable regulatory requirements. 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 the SOPs, the auditor observations are documented, and data are available as needed for the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA). No specific timeframe is provided for the audit process.

Per ClinImprtOrdr, the sponsor and investigator must facilitate the Thai FDA’s monitoring of the clinical trial to ensure compliance with GCP and GLP, safety reporting, and progress reporting requirements.

In addition, per THA-28, the sponsor should develop a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. The extent and nature of monitoring is flexible and permits varied approaches that improve effectiveness and efficiency. The sponsor may choose onsite monitoring, a combination of onsite and centralized monitoring, or, where justified, centralized monitoring. The sponsor should document the rationale for the chosen monitoring strategy (e.g., in the monitoring plan). See THA-28 for detailed information on the sponsor’s role in developing monitoring systems.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

G-ResEthics and THA-28 state that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should promptly inform the investigators/institutions and the regulatory authority(ies) of the termination or suspension and the reason(s) for the termination or suspension. The sponsor or the investigator/institution should also promptly inform the EC and provide the reasons for the study’s termination or suspension.

G-CT-DIPApp also specifies that in the event of the premature discontinuance of a trial, the Thai FDA must be notified no later than 30 working days after the date of discontinuance. G-CT-DIPApp further notes that a corresponding notification letter referring to the related approved import license along with supplemental documents as indicated in Appendix 13 is needed, and a corresponding notification letter along with supplement documents as indicated in Appendix 14 is needed. (Note: Appendices 13 and 14 as referenced in G-CT-DIPApp are only available in the ClinImprtOrdr.) As stated in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, at the conclusion or termination of a clinical trial, a summary report must also be submitted within 60 days after the closeout of the last study site. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further explain that details of remaining medicines to be destroyed and evidence supporting the destruction or return of the study drugs should also be included (Appendix 20 in ClinImprtOrdr and Appendix 16 in ClinSampleProd each contain a sample notification form required to be completed when terminating a research project). (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

Per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must also notify the Thai FDA when the clinical trial has been discontinued in its entirety or at any clinical trial site for reasons not related to the safety of clinical trial, or if the trial has been discontinued prematurely.

Appendices 7 and 16

Appendices 2, 5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20

1.65, 4.9, 4.12, 5.0-5.1, 5.5-5.6, 5.18-5.19, 5.21, 5.23, and 6.10

Annex 5 (1, 5, 6, 19, and 21)

16.2

1.8-1.10, 2, 4.5, and Appendices 7 and 16

1.6-1.7, 1.10-1.11, 4.2, and Appendices 2, 5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20

Data & Records Management

Last content review/update: February 5, 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-GCPs for additional information.

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

Records Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Management Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: March 21, 2024

Electronic Data Processing System

Per G-ResEthics and THA-28, when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor must ensure that the electronic data processing system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance, and that standard operating procedures are maintained for using these systems. Per THA-28, the sponsor’s approach to validate such systems should be based on a risk assessment that takes into consideration the intended use and the potential of the system to affect participant protection and reliability of trial results. Refer to G-ResEthics and THA-28 for detailed information on electronic trial data systems. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd also note that sponsors should ensure that research facilities are prepared for inspections by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) by ensuring that research participant source data and case report forms are stored in electronically based data collection systems.

Records Management

As set forth in G-ResEthics and THA-28, sponsor-specific essential documents should be retained until at least two (2) years after the last approval of a marketing application in an International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) region, until there are no pending or contemplated marketing applications, or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of an investigational product’s clinical development. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

In addition, THA-28 states that the sponsor and investigator/institution should maintain a record of the location(s) of their respective essential documents including source documents. The storage system used during the trial and for archiving (irrespective of the type of media used) should allow for document identification, version history, search, and retrieval. The sponsor should ensure that the investigator has control of and continuous access to the data reported to the sponsor. The investigator/institution should have control of all essential documents and records generated by the investigator/institution before, during, and after the trial.

5.5 and 8

Annex 5 (5)

4.7

Personal Data Protection

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Responsible Parties

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

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

Data Protection

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

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

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

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

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Responsible Parties

The PDPA defines the “data controller” as the person or juristic person having the power and duties to make decisions regarding the collection, use, or disclosure of the personal data.

Data Protection

Per the PDPA, the data controller must ensure that collected personal data remains accurate, up-to-date, complete, and not misleading. Personal data collection must be limited to the extent necessary in relation to the lawful purpose of the data controller. The data controller’s purpose for collecting data must meet one (1) of the purposes specified in the PDPA in order to be permitted to collect personal data, with the data subject’s explicit consent (see Section 23 of PDPA for details).

PDPA further specifies that personal data includes health and genetic data and requires the data subject’s explicit consent. Permissible personal data collection includes data collected in the interest of public health, such as protecting against cross-border dangerous contagious diseases or epidemics which may be contagious or pestilent, or ensuring standards or quality of medicines, medicinal products, or medical devices, provided there are measures to safeguard the rights and freedom of the data subject, including the confidentiality of personal data. Additionally, in the event that the data controller sends or transfers personal data to a foreign country, the destination country or international organization that receives such personal data must have an adequate data protection standard, and must be carried out in accordance with the rules for personal data protection as prescribed by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC). See PDPC-Estab and THA-62 for additional information on the PDPC. Refer to the PDPA for a detailed list of permissible data collection purposes.

As set forth in the PDPA, the data controller is responsible for the following duties:

To provide appropriate security measures for preventing the unauthorized or unlawful loss, access to, use, alteration, correction, or disclosure of personal data; such measures must be reviewed when necessary, or when technology has changed in order to efficiently maintain proper security and safety, and also comply with the minimum standard specified by the PDPC
In the case of personal data being provided to other persons or legal persons other than the data controller, the data controller must take action to prevent such person(s) from using or disclosing the personal data unlawfully or without authorization
Establish an examination system for personal data erasure or destruction when the retention period ends, when the personal data is irrelevant or beyond the purpose necessary for which it has been collected, when the data subject has requested to do so, or when the data subject withdraws consent, except where the retention of such personal data is for the purpose of freedom of expression
Notify the PDPC of any personal data breach without delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours after having become aware of it, unless such breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of the persons whose data have been breached

Refer to the PDPA for additional information on data controller responsibilities. See also PDPC-Breach, G-PDPBreaches, THA-15, THA-10, and THA-17 for data controller guidelines on assessing data breach risks and applicable PDPC reporting requirements.

As described in the PDPA, with regard to personal data record management, the data controller must maintain, at least, the following records in order to enable the data subject and the PDPC to monitor in either written or electronic form the following: the collected personal data; the purpose of the collection of personal data; data controller details; personal data retention period; rights and methods for access to the personal data, including the conditions regarding the person’s right to access their personal data and the conditions to access such data; personal data use or disclosure; rejection of or objection to a request for personal data; and details of the appropriate personal data security measures.

Per the PDPA, the data protection legislation states that a data protection officer must be designated in the event the data controller/data processor is deemed a public authority per the PDPC; if the activities of the data controller/data processor in the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data, or the system itself, requires regular monitoring, due to the large quantity of personal data; or, if the core activity of the data controller/data processor is the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data for which the explicit consent of the data subject has not been obtained. See the PDPA for guidance related to data protection officers. See also THA-61 for a detailed guidance on the PDPA.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

The PDPA states that the data controller must not collect, use, or disclose personal data, unless the data subject has given consent prior to or at the time of such collection, use, or disclosure, except in the case where the data controller is permitted to do so by the provisions of the PDPA or any other laws. These cases may include the preparation of historical documents or public interest archives, research, or statistics, or preventing or suppressing a danger to a person’s life, body, or health.

The PDPA specifies that a request for consent must be made explicitly in a written statement or via electronic means unless consent cannot be done by those means. In addition, the data controller must inform the data subject of the purpose for collecting, using, or disclosing the subject’s personal data. The request for consent must be presented in an easily accessible and intelligible form and with statements using clear and plain language that is neither deceptive nor misleading to the data subject. The data controller must also ensure that the data subject’s consent is freely given.

The PDPA further explains that the data subject may withdraw consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent must be as easy as giving consent, unless there is a restriction of the withdrawal of consent by law, or the contract which gives benefits to the data subject. However, the withdrawal of consent must not affect the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data that the data subject has already legally consented to. If the withdrawal of consent will affect the data subject in any manner, the data controller must inform the data subject of the consequences of withdrawal.

In the event that the data subject is a minor who is not sui juris by marriage or has no capacity as a sui juris person under the PDPA, the request for consent from such a data subject must be made as follows:

In the event that giving consent is not an action that the minor is entitled to exercise independently, the consent of the holder of parental responsibility over the child must be obtained
Where the minor is below the age of 10 years, the consent must be obtained from the holder of parental responsibility over the child
In the event that the data subject is incompetent, the consent must be obtained from the custodian who has the power to act on behalf of the incompetent person
In the event that the data subject is quasi-incompetent, the consent must be obtained from the curator who has the power to act on behalf of the quasi-incompetent person

The above stated provisions also apply to the withdrawal of data consent of the data subject, the notice given to the data subject, the exercise of rights of the data subject, the complaint of the data subject, and any other acts under the PDPA for the data subject who is a minor, an incompetent person, or a quasi-incompetent person.

Refer to the G-PDPConsent for detailed data controller guidance on obtaining consent, and the G-PDPNotif for data controller guidelines on the conditions to be assessed when notifying a data subject of the purpose and details related to collecting their personal data. THA-16 also provides useful information on these guidelines.

Section 6, Chapter II (Sections 19-24 and 26), Chapter III (Sections 28, 35, 37, 39, 41-42)

Documentation Requirements

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Obtaining Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The G-NatlStmt indicates that consent may be:

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

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

Re-Consent

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

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

Language Requirements

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

Documenting Consent

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

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

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

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

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

Waiver of Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: March 21, 2024

Obtaining Consent

In all Thai clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. MCEthics further states that a medical practitioner who conducts research studies and human experiments must obtain the consent of the participant and must be ready to protect the participant from harm arising from that experiment.

As per ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, and THA-28, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) recognized by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA), and provided to the Thai FDA with the drug import license application to conduct a clinical trial. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.) (Note: The ICF is referred to as the Patient Information Sheet in G-CT-DIPApp.) (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

G-ResEthics and THA-28 state that the investigator(s) or the representative(s) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. G-ResEthics and THA-28 also specify that the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the ICF, should be easy to understand and presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant and legal representative/guardian, should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. THA-11 also explains that patients who seek medical treatment have the right to receive truthful and adequate information about their illness, examination, treatment, advantages and disadvantages from the examination, and treatment from health professionals, in a language that patients can easily understand. Patients can then choose to make decisions about consenting or not consenting to the health professionals treating them, except in cases of urgent and life-threatening emergencies. THA-14 further states that researchers should take pains to explain the objectives and scope of their research to the human participants without deceiving or coercing them and they should not violate their participants’ rights as private individuals. Researchers should respect the rights and dignity of their human participants and enlist their consent prior to any research experiments involving human participants.

As per G-ResEthics and THA-28, 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 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.

THA-13 provides informed consent documentation guidelines required by the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH), which is one (1) of the institutional ECs approved by the Thai FDA.

As noted in THA-34, the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) does not have its own informed consent documentation guidelines and directs investigators to the ICF template and checklist provided by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Thailand (FERCIT) (see THA-46 for document links).

Re-Consent

No information is currently available regarding re-consent requirements.

Language Requirements

As stated in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, the ICF content and accompanying information (Patient Information Sheet) should be presented in the participant’s language, must be submitted in Thai and translated to English, and certify that the text in other languages aligns with the Thai translation. G-CT-DIPApp also indicates that the Patient Information Sheet should be presented in Thai.

Documenting Consent

G-ResEthics and THA-28 state that the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the investigator(s) must sign and date the ICF. Where the participant is illiterate, or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of and countersigned by an impartial witness. The NatHlthAct also indicates that the participant’s consent must be obtained in writing prior to conducting the trial.

Waiver of Consent

As per G-ResEthics, the EC should establish the conditions under which an informed consent discussion and/or signing the ICF can be waived. In these cases, the investigator must explore other means to protect the participant’s confidentiality. For example, if the investigator uses information from a participant’s medical records, the investigator must also ensure that the ICF is kept in the medical record by having the participant sign the form in advance and keep it in the records, or by having the participant sign the ICF later. The EC will then consider waiving the informed consent as long as the investigator provides proof that the participant is informed about the method for collecting the data, and that the participant’s privacy is protected.

Information Sheet (p.70)

Approval documents - Informed Consent

5

Appendix 7

Appendix 11

1.27-1.28, 2.9, 3.1, 4.8, and 8.2-8.3

1. Informed consent form for clinical trials

2.2 and 3.1-3.3

11

Section 9

Preface, 1.9, and Appendix 7

1.9 and Appendix 11

Chapter 9 (Article 47)

Required Elements

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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

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

4.8.10

Section 2 (Chapter 2.2)

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Based on ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, the G-ResEthics, and the G-CT-DIPApp, the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as the Patient Information Sheet in G-CT-DIPApp) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

The study purpose and objectives
The expected duration of research participant’s involvement in the trial
Experimental aspects of the study
The participant’s responsibilities in participating in the trial
Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
Disclosure of alternate procedures or treatments available to participants, including the benefits and risks
The trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
The research procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
The expected benefits that can be obtained from the study; if no benefit is expected, the participant should be made aware of this
Compensation and/or treatment available for the participant in the case of trial-related injury
Payment of compensation (if any) determined on a monthly basis to research participants
Various expenses (if any) for research participants
That participation is voluntary, and that the participant may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without guilt or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled
That the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA), research investigators, the ethics committee (EC), and regulatory agencies are permitted to directly inspect participant’s original medical records to validate the accuracy of clinical research procedures and/or other information without violating the participant's right to maintain confidentiality beyond the limits allowed by laws and regulations, and that, by signing a written ICF, the participant or legal representative/guardian is authorizing such access.
The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained
That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified in a timely manner if significant new findings develop during the course of the study which may affect the participant's willingness to continue
Individuals to contact for further information regarding the trial, the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent
Estimated number of participants participating in research for the entire project, and the number of participants at each institution in Thailand

THA-13 provides information sheet guidelines required by the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH), which is one (1) of the institutional ethics committees approved by the Thai FDA.

As noted in THA-34, the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) does not have its own informed consent documentation guidelines and directs investigators to the ICF template and checklist provided by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Thailand (FERCIT) (see THA-46 for document links).

See the Vulnerable Populations and Consent for Specimen sections for further information. See also Appendix 11 (Part 4) in THA-18 and Appendix 7 (Part 4) in THA-76 for a checklist of items to be included in the ICF.

Information Sheet (p.70)

Approval documents - Informed Consent

Appendix 7

Appendix 11

1. Informed consent form for clinical trials

3.1.1 and 3.2

11

1.9 and Appendix 7

1.9 and Appendix 11

Participant Rights

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Overview

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

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

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

The Right to Information

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

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

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

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

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

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

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

The Right to Safety and Welfare

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

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

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: March 21, 2024

Overview

In accordance with G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), Thailand’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11) also states that every patient has the fundamental right to receive professional medical care and health care from health professionals without discrimination as provided for in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (B.E. 2560). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, THA-28, the NatHlthAct, and G-CT-DIPApp, state that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as the Patient Information Sheet) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and THA-28, 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. NatHlthAct also states that the participant may withdraw consent at any time. THA-11 similarly states that the patient has the right to be fully informed in order to make a decision to participate or withdraw from being a participant in a health practitioner’s research.

The Right to Information

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, the NatHlthAct, G-CT-DIPApp, and THA-28, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study. THA-11 states that patients who seek medical treatment have the right to receive truthful and adequate information about their illness, examination, treatment, advantages and disadvantages from the examination, and treatment from health professionals, in a language that patients can easily understand. Patients can then choose to make decisions about consenting or not consenting to the health professionals treating them, except in cases of urgent and life-threatening emergency.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and THA-28, 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 G-ResEthics, which incorporates the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (THA-45), every precaution should be taken to respect the privacy of the participant, the confidentiality of the participant’s information, and to minimize the impacts of the study on the participant. THA-11 further states that unless the patient’s permission or approved legal authorization is obtained, healthcare personnel cannot disclose the patient’s information.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and THA-28 state that the research participant or the legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries. THA-11 similarly indicates that every patient has the right to know the name, surname, and profession of the healthcare personnel in charge.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

G-ResEthics states that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society. THA-14 explains that researchers should take full responsibility for the impact and consequences of their research regarding themselves, their research participants, and society at large.

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

4

1.28, 4.8, and 8.2

2.2, 3.1-3.3, and 4.1

11

Section 9

1.9

Emergencies

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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

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

4.8.15

Section 4 (Chapter 4.4)

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Per the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), research participants involved in clinical research under emergency circumstances are viewed as vulnerable and should be provided additional protections to ensure their safety and well-being. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. In addition, per the Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11), patients who are in a life-threatening condition are entitled to immediate, urgent assistance from a healthcare practitioner as required, regardless of whether the patient requests assistance.

THA-28 explains that in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) cannot be obtained from the research participant, the consent of the legal representative/guardian should be obtained. If prior consent cannot be obtained from the legal representative/guardian, the participant’s enrollment should follow measures specified in the protocol, and/or elsewhere, to ensure compliance with ethics committee (EC) and other applicable regulatory requirements. Documented EC approval to protect the participant’s rights, safety, and well-being must also be obtained. The participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible and provide consent. Consent should also continue to be obtained throughout the trial as appropriate per THA-28. However, THA-11 further notes that except in an emergency, every patient has the right to obtain sufficient information regarding their illness from healthcare personnel prior to deciding to allow any treatment.

1.61, 3.17, and 4.8.15

Vulnerable Populations

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

Overview

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

People Highly Dependent on Medical Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

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

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

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

People in Dependent Groups

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

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

People Who May Be Involved in Illegal Activities

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

People in Other Countries

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

1

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

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Overview

As per G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), in all Thai clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

G-ResEthics characterizes vulnerable populations as those who are dependent on others and are unable to express their opinion freely or make their own decisions. THA-28 adds that, whether reasonable or not, the participant may also consent to participate out of fear that they will be penalized for not participating. This may apply, for example, to members of a hierarchical organization such as medical, pharmacy, dental, or nursing students and lower-level hospital personnel and staff rooms. THA-28 also notes that participants in this study population may be persuaded to enter a trial with the hope of obtaining benefits from their participation in the research. Per G-ResEthics, these participants may include hospitalized patients, prisoners, children, the mentally impaired, critically ill and psychotic patients, pregnant women, and the disadvantaged. Per THA-28, other vulnerable participants may include drug company employees, soldiers, prisoners, patients with incurable diseases, emergency patients, unemployed or poor people, members of minority groups, the homeless, immigrants, and young people who are unable to give consent on their own.

The G-ResEthics specifies that trials involving vulnerable persons must meet the following requirements:

Irrefutable rationale for conducting research clearly explained in the protocol
Precautions against possible physical and mental harms exercised
Appropriate research procedures used
Ensure that, as applicable, the participant’s parents or legal representative/guardian are fully informed about the study
Proof that the participants are voluntarily participating in the study
Ensure that the possible risks should not be greater than minimal when a study will not have a direct health benefit to the vulnerable group, unless the ethics committee permits a greater than minimal risk study to be conducted

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

1.61

2.2.2 and 3.4

Children/Minors

Last content review/update: February 5, 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-GCPs states that minors should be informed to the extent compatible with their maturity and understanding, and if capable, they should sign and personally date the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as a participant information sheet and consent form (PICF) in Australia). In accordance with the G-NatlStmt, consent requirements for conducting clinical trials follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section.

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

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

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

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

Assent Requirements

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

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

AUS-71 further states that children should be able to express their views and any worries they might have about participating in a trial, and have their questions answered. Children should always be given information in a form that they can understand. Additionally, AUS-80 indicates that refusal to assent or withdrawal of assent by a child should be respected. Over the course of a clinical study, it may be necessary to reassess the assent of a child in recognition of their advancing age, evolving maturity, and competency, especially for long-term studies or studies that may require sample retention. During clinical studies, it is required to obtain adequate informed consent for continued participation from pediatric participants once a child reaches the age of legal consent. Local regulations related to confidentiality and privacy of pediatric participants must be followed.

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

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

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

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

Clinical trials and children

4

Section 4 (Chapter 4.2)

Part I-Preliminary (4 Interpretation)

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

According to the ThaiCode, a minor is someone under 20 years of age or unmarried. The Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) guidelines (THA-13) specifies that the age suitable to give consent is 18 years or older. The Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11) also indicates that a child is someone under 18 years of age.

As set forth in G-ResEthics, when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from the parents, guardians, or legal representatives. Additionally, precautions against possible physical and mental harms should be exercised. Furthermore, the rights of the minors should be respected for their voluntary decision to participate in a clinical study. THA-11 similarly indicates that parents or legal guardians may exercise their rights on behalf of a child patient who is not over 18 years of age.

The International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) states that when a clinical trial includes minors, the minor should be informed about the trial to the extent compatible with the minor’s understanding and, if capable, the minor should sign and personally date the written informed consent. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

Assent Requirements

THA-13 specifies that assent is required for minors seven (7) through 18 years of age. Different assent forms should be created for the following age groups: seven (7) to 13 and over 13 until 18.

Additional Suggestion of the Committee (2004) (p. 75) and Additional Resolution of the Committee (2006) (p.77)

4.8.12

2.2.2 and 3.4

Part II (Sections 19 and 20)

Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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: March 21, 2024

As per G-ResEthics, any Thai clinical studies involving pregnant women and fetuses require additional safeguards to ensure that the research conforms to appropriate ethical standards and upholds societal values. Adequate information on the safety and impacts to the fetus should also be made available.

In addition, the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) indicates that the informed consent form should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

4.8.10

2.2 and 3.4

Prisoners

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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: March 21, 2024

According to G-ResEthics, prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. A research study involving prisoners should ensure that these prospective participants are informed and are given the opportunity to make their own decisions without any interference from a higher authority.

2.2, 3.2, and 3.4

Mentally Impaired

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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: March 21, 2024

Per G-ResEthics, informed consent should be obtained from the legal representatives or guardians of participants for studies involving psychiatric or mentally incapacitated patients. The Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11) also states that parents or legal representatives may exercise their rights on behalf of a physically or mentally handicapped child patient who cannot exercise their rights on their own.

As further explained in MentalHlthAct, any research to be conducted with patients who are mentally impaired have the right to:

Receive treatment according to medical standards that protect human dignity
Have information about their illness and treatment kept confidential other than what is required to be disclosed by law
Sign an ethics committee (EC) approved consent form prior to participation
Receive equal access to state health insurance and social security systems

In addition, MentalHlthAct prohibits disclosure of health information of mentally impaired participants in a manner that may damage the individual, except in the event that the patient or others may be in danger, for public safety, or specific laws require this information to be disclosed.

MentalHlthAct also states that any research involving patients who are mentally impaired can only be performed after obtaining their consent as well as EC approval and approval from other relevant authorities to conduct the study. The patient’s approval may be revoked at any time. Treatment may only be administered once the patient has been informed as to why the treatment is necessary and provided with the details and benefits prior to giving consent. In the case of a patient under 18 years old, or one who lacks the ability to make decisions, the patient’s parent or legal guardian should provide consent. If the patient is to be admitted to a public hospital or treatment facility, signed consent is necessary. Research is permitted in the case of patients with mental impairments who are either facing dangerous conditions or compulsory treatment is required.

3.4.5

Sections 3, 17, and 20-22

Definition of Investigational Product

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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

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

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

Determine if the product is ‘unapproved’

1

Terms

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

In accordance with G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), an investigational product 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 it is 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. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

G-ResEthics states that an investigational drug used in a clinical trial falls into one (1) of four (4) categories:

New drugs
Unregistered drugs in Thailand
Drugs registered by the national drug authority, but being studied in new doses or indications not previously approved
Locally produced drugs that require efficacy testing

1.33

7.1 and Annex 5

Manufacturing & Import

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

Manufacturing

As specified in the TGAct, the TGR, and the G-CTHandbook, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) authorizes the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Australia. As per AUS-47 and AUS-49, the sponsor provides manufacturer and/or active ingredient information to the TGA in the clinical trial application under one (1) of the two (2) regulatory schemes—the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme or the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. AUS-49 indicates that as part of a CTN scheme application involving a medicine or biological, the sponsor must provide either the TGA-issued good manufacturing practice (GMP) license, the GMP certification (for overseas manufacturers), or a relevant exemption.

Pursuant to TGManuf, Australia adopted the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products, PE 009-16 (AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide) regarding the manufacture of therapeutic goods. Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, the holder of a manufacturing authorization must manufacture IPs to ensure that they are fit for their intended use, comply with the requirements of the clinical trial authorization, and do not place participants at risk due to inadequate safety, quality, or efficacy. The production of IPs involves added complexity in comparison to marketed products and therefore requires personnel with a thorough understanding of, and training in, the application of GMP to IPs. For manufacturers to be able to apply and comply with GMP for IPs, cooperation between manufacturers and sponsors of clinical trials is required.

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

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

Import

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

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

Other Considerations

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

Creating a New CTN Form

CTA Scheme and FAQs

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))

Parts 3 (12AB) and 8 (47B)

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Manufacturing

According to the DrugAct, ClinSampleProd, and ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Thailand. The Thai FDA will approve the manufacture of an IP after the clinical trial application has been approved.

As explained in ClinSampleProd, the Thai FDA’s approval of a request to manufacture drug samples for investigational purposes is obtained using the P.Y.8 form (ClinSampleProd (Appendix 1) or THA-76 (Appendix 1)).

ClinSampleProd specifies that the following information must be included with the P.Y.8 form (Appendix 1):

Detailed list of manufactured drugs
Appearance and color of medicine
Number or quantity to be produced
Quantity of drug ingredients (must be reported in metric units or in a percentage)
Packaging size (packaging details)
Specifying if drug samples are for human research studies or cases other than human research studies
Drug label (two (2) copies)
Medicine package document (two (2) copies)
Other documents in the case of producing drug samples for human research studies

See also the Appendix 6 (Evidence of Drug Quality Information) in ClinSampleProd and (THA-76 (Appendix 6)) for additional requirements included on this form.

ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr, also state that the IP must be manufactured in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) guidelines.

In addition, per ClinSampleProd, following the Thai FDA’s approval to manufacture IP samples, the applicant must also obtain approval prior to implementing changes in the following categories:

Changes that must be notified
Changes that require a change request to be submitted before proceeding, and
Changes that require a new production permit request to be submitted

ClinSampleProd indicates that when the change complies with one (1) of the listed categories, the applicant should:

Prepare documents and evidence according to the document self-check form for requesting changes using the Appendix 13 form or (THA-76 (Appendix 13))
Submit a request to amend the details regarding permission using the Appendix 14 form or (THA-76 (Appendix 14)) (1 set)

Per ClinSampleProd, along with the Appendix 14 form, the applicant should attach relevant documents showing the revised section(s) and one (1) set of power of attorney documentation for each paper submission. ClinSampleProd notes that one (1) request can only change one (1) main issue. For example, in the case of requesting to extend the validity of medicines, this is a change in quality and results in a new expiration date label) to be submitted in one (1) request. Additionally, for amendment requests that refer to information already submitted via the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), the applicant must submit documents according to the system's procedures.

For changes that require the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division to be notified, ClinSampleProd states that the applicant should submit a letter of explanation, refer to the sample drug production license for human research studies that has been received, and attach related documents showing the revised sections or other information that needs to be notified as detailed in the Appendix 15 form or (THA-76 (Appendix 15)).

Import

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai FDA is also responsible for authorizing the import of IPs. The Thai FDA’s approval of a drug import license application for clinical research purposes serves as the import license using the N.Y.M.1 form (ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2)). Per DrugImprtRules-1989 and DrugImprtRules-2009, all requests approved by the Thai FDA to order or import drugs into the country for research purposes are exempt from registration.

According to ClinImprtOrdr and THA-18, the following documents are also required to be submitted to the Thai FDA:

Import license application/N.Y.M.1 (ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2))
Summary of research project (Thai)
Ethics committee (EC) approval letter
Patient Information Sheet (in Thai)
Complete research project details (in Thai or English)
Drug labels for every package size (in Thai or English)
Drug documentation (for drug formulas that have already been registered)
Investigator’s brochure (IB) (for drugs not yet registered)
Pharmaceutical quality control and production documents
Drug name(s) (including dosage form, quantity, and details of every packaging size)

ClinImprtOrdr also states that the quantity of the IP must be calculated based on the number of study participants of each institute for the whole study duration in accordance with the information in the study protocol. The amount of the IP cannot exceed 20% to cover drug damage. Please refer to ClinImprtOrdr for more detailed IP supply requirements.

In addition, per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must inform or request permission from the Thai FDA prior to initiating the following:

Changes to clinical trial drug supplies
Changes to an approved protocol (protocol amendment) or changes related to or affecting participant safety
In cases where the sponsor is required to immediately make one (1) or more amendments because the clinical trial or the use of IP in the trial endangers the health of a clinical trial participant or other person, the applicant may immediately make the amendment without prior review by the Thai FDA. A corresponding notification clearly identifying the change and the rationale for immediate implementation of the change must be filed within 15 working days after the amendment implementation date. A corresponding notification letter referring to the related approved import license (see ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2) for N.Y.M.1 form), along with supplemental documents as stated in Appendix 12, are also required. (Note: The Additional Amendment/Clarification Request Form referenced in G-CT-DIPApp as Appendix 12 is only available in ClinImprtOrdr and THA-18 (Appendix 12))

Furthermore, per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must also notify the Thai FDA in the following cases:

Changes to the protocol that do not affect the safety of the trial participants
When the clinical trial has been discontinued in its entirety or at any clinical trial site for reasons not related to the safety of clinical trial participants
IB changes
Chemistry and manufacturing or quality changes that do not affect drug quality or safety
Premature discontinuation of a trial (See the Risk & Quality Management section for detailed notification requirements)

Per THA-19, a request for an expedited license to order or import IPs may also be submitted to the Thai FDA for the following:

Clinical research purposes
To produce sample IPs for human research
To expand the scope of drug results for human research to include a new research project
To address a public health emergency
To address an urgent clinical research need, in the event a facility runs out of an IP (an EC waiver may be required)

See the Regulatory Fees section for information on IP import fees. See also the Submission Process section for instructions on submitting a drug import waiver request to the Thai FDA.

The DrugAct states that a license will remain valid until December 31st of the year of issue. The license holder who would like to renew the license must file an application for renewal prior to the license expiration date. Once the renewal application has been filed, the license holder may continue to conduct business unless the renewal request is denied. A license holder whose license has expired for not more than one (1) month may file an exemption indicating the reason for obtaining a license extension. However, an application renewal request submitted after one (1) month from the date of license expiration is not permitted. In the event that the Thai FDA does not issue or grant a license renewal request, the applicant may appeal in writing to the Minister within 30 days from the date of receiving the notice rejecting the request. The applicant may obtain a temporary license to operate the business until a final decision is issued by the Minister.

Appendices 1-3, 6-7, and 12-15

Appendices 2-4, 7-8, 11-12, and 17-19

14.2 and 16.2

Chapter I (10), Chapter II (12), Chapter III (25 and 27), and Chapter V (46)

Preface, 1.1-1.3, 1.6, 1.10-1.12, 4.2, and Appendices 1-3, 6-7, and 12-15

Preface, 1.1-1.4, 1.10-1.12, 1.15, and Appendices 1-4, 7-12, and 17-19

Articles 2 and 3

Articles 2 and 3, and Letter 1

Quality Requirements

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

Investigator’s Brochure

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

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

Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties and formulation parameters

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

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

Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)

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

Quality Management

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

Per the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide, GMP ensures that products are consistently produced and controlled to the quality standards appropriate to their intended use and as required by the clinical trial authorization. A 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: March 21, 2024

Investigator's Brochure

In accordance with ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the sponsor or the designated contract research organization (CRO) 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) obtained through the earlier research phases, including preclinical, toxicological, safety, efficacy, and adverse events data. The sponsor should also update the IB as significant new information becomes available. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further state that the IB should comply with the current version of THA-28. Per ClinImprtOrdr, the sponsor is also referred to as the applicant or importer.

As specified in G-ResEthics, ClinImprtOrdr, and ClinSampleProd, and in accordance with THA-28, the IB must provide coverage of 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 (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and pharmacodynamics; safety and efficacy; regulatory and post marketing experiences)
Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)
Bibliography

See Section 7 of THA-28 for detailed content guidelines.

ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd also indicate that evidence must be provided that the IB has been submitted to the ethics committee. In addition, per G-CT-DIPApp, the applicant must notify the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) of changes to the IB after the import license is granted.

Quality Management

ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd also state that the IP must be manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) guidelines.

As stated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and the DrugAct, the Thai FDA requires the manufacturer to provide the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Evidence of manufacture under conditions compliant with current GMPs
A Certificate of Analysis for each batch of IPs (must be in Thai if the manufacturer is foreign)
A drug registered in a foreign country is required to have a Certificate of Product (CPP)/Certificate of Free Sale (CFS)/evidence of registration from the Drug Control Department from that country and certified by a qualified translator
A Certificate of Free Sale
In the case that the product is approved for marketing authorization in Thailand, provide a copy of certificate of drug registration and evidence that the imported drug and the registered drug are produced by the same manufacturer

Per G-CT-DIPApp, the chemistry, manufacturing and control (CMC) information for an IP submission to the Thai FDA must comply with specific requirements for a new chemical entity. Depending on the phase of the clinical trial, the completed CMC template, as well as the following additional quality information as outlined in the template, must be submitted (Note: The appendices referenced in G-CT-DIPApp are only available as Appendices 7 and 8 in the ClinImprtOrdr and Appendices 7 and 8 in THA-18.)

Additionally, per ClinImprtOrdr, in cases where an applicant submits “Drug quality control and production documents” for drug formulas registered in Thailand, the drug documentation approved by the Thai FDA must be used. When the “Drug quality control and production documents” are for drug formulas registered in other countries, the drug documentation of the specific country should be used. If the documentation is in a language other than English, it should be translated to Thai or English, and certified that the text in other languages matches the Thai/English language. See Appendix 7 of ClinImprtOrdr or THA-18 (Appendix 7) for additional information.

Per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must also notify the Thai FDA of chemistry and manufacturing or quality changes that do not affect drug quality or safety.

See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd.

Refer to the Product Management section for additional information on IP supply, storage, and handling requirements, and the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for detailed application requirements.

Appendices 1, 6-7, and 12

Appendices 2, 7-8, 11, and 18

1.36, 5.14, and 7

Annex 5 (6.2, 12.2, and 13)

3, 6, 10, and 14.1

Chapter III (25 and 27)

Preface, 1.6, 1.8, 1.10-1.11, and Appendices 1, 6-7, and 12

1.7-1.8, 1.11, and Appendices 2, 7-11, and 16

Labeling

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Australia must comply with the requirements set forth in the G-CTHandbook, the AU-ICH-GCPs, and the AU-PIC-S-GMP-Guide. 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-GCPs 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: March 21, 2024

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Thailand must comply with the requirements set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. G-ResEthics and THA-28 state that the IP must be coded and labeled in a manner that protects blinding, if applicable. In addition, per G-CT-DIPApp, if a drug product is registered in Thailand, a certified copy of a certificate(s) of drug registration by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) must be submitted.

ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and G-CT-DIPApp specify that in general, primary and secondary labels must contain (at least) the following requirements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

All containers and packaging of all sizes are to use the same format as the actual label
Thai language should be used, except for the drug name/drug code and research project sponsor information, where Thai or English language may be used; in the case of drugs administered by medical study personnel, the label information may be submitted in Thai or English
Drug name/drug code, strength, pharmaceutical form, drug delivery system, unit quantity; in the case of a blind treatment study, the label must specify: “Placebo or [Drug Name/Drug Code] + [Strength]”
Research project code or name
Production model and/or code number to identify components and packaging process
Participant number or treatment number and appointment number (if applicable)
Methods of drug use may refer to documentation specifically describing participants (such as drug use records) or to communicate how medical study personnel can correctly administer the drug product
Name, address, and telephone of the sponsor, contract research organization (CRO), or the investigator (main point of contact for clinical research product information and emergency treatment disclosure), unless the participant receives an identification card displaying this information (with attached documents) and is advised to keep this document in their possession at all times
Statement indicating “for clinical research purposes only” or in other words with the same meaning in the Thai language
Drug storage conditions
Period of use (use as appropriate within the expiration date or retest date) in months/years and in a manner that avoids ambiguity
Statement indicating “keep out of the reach of children” in Thai or in other words meaning the same in Thai, unless the participant is not going to take home the medicine

As described in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, primary labels where the primary packaging is always combined with the secondary packaging, should consist of (at least) the following:

Drug name/drug code, strength, pharmaceutical form, drug delivery system (the dosing route may not be established for the oral solid dosage form), unit quantity, in the case of blind treatment study, specify: “placebo or [drug name/drug code] + [strength]"
Research project code or name
Production model and/or code number to identify the components and packaging procedure
Participant number or treatment number and appointment number (if applicable)
Sponsor/CRO/investigator name

Refer to ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd for additional primary label requirements.

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, drug labeling must be carried out in a facility licensed to manufacture drugs and in accordance with the DrugProdReqs (see Appendix 12). As indicated in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, in the case of drug preparation for administration at the research site, new labels must be attached to the drug package to be used (e.g., injectable drug preparations, preparing to dispense drugs to be taken immediately, etc.). The applicant must ensure that the principal investigator (PI) or designee:

Prepare label(s) or label image(s) with appropriate and accurate information for the purposes of the research project
Prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) manual or a standardized method for preparing drugs and labeling drugs in accordance with the rules and methods for producing modern drugs
Ensure the SOPs are administered by a pharmacist or other health professional at the research site who has received appropriate training
Provide evidence to document that practices have been inspected by a second party under strict labeling control
Preserve evidence and record various related documents to support inspection by the authorized person or the Medicines Regulation Division

The applicant does not need to submit a label in this case along with the request, but must ensure that the PI or designee complies with these requirements and is always available for inspection or inspection of the research.

Per ClinImprtOrdr, for labels on drugs authorized for importation or ordering into Thailand for research purposes and that have been submitted to the Medicines Regulation Division, the applicant may refer to the original application document if there is no change from the original submission. As described in ClinImprtOrdr, in the case of a request to change the information on the duration of drug use, an additional label indicating the new date and using the original production version should be added. The new label(s) or label image(s) should be submitted in the same format as the original label used, which may cover the original date. However, the new label must not cover the original production version for quality control reasons, and the labeling must be performed at a facility licensed to manufacture the drugs. If necessary, the on-site labeling requirement may be waived. In such cases, the drug must be labeled by a pharmacist or other health professional at the site, or an appropriately trained research supervisor.

Similarly, per ClinSampleProd, for drug labels previously submitted to the Medicines Regulation Division to produce drug samples for human research studies, the applicant may refer to the original document, if it has not been amended. Additionally, the requirements for requesting a change to the period of use on the drug label also follow the same requirements as those delineated for ClinImprtOrdr.

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, if necessary, the applicant may request that the Medicines Regulation Division consider a waiver of drug label requirements in the following cases:

Information on drug labels for clinical drug research projects that are conducted in many countries and cannot be changed in a timely manner upon submission of the first authorization request (passing the application review and entry into the system)
Information on the label that may refer to other documents (e.g., reference method of dosage administration, record of drug use, etc.) should be attached to the reference document with an explanation
Additional labeling after the drug is brought into Thailand in order to comply with the requirements for research drug labels: a label(s) or label image(s) must appear in the same format as the actual label; information on the label that may refer to other documents, such as how to give medicine, reference to medication records, etc., by attaching the reference document with an explanation; the place of labeling is a licensed facility to produce the correct drug, or, if necessary, a waiver may be requested for the labeling operation to be in a controlled location instead. In such cases, labeling procedures must be performed by a pharmacist or other research site health professional, or by an appropriately trained research supervisor. Operational procedures and a record of practices should be prepared, and these documents should be checked by a second person. The labeling should be strictly controlled, and operations must be consistent with modern drug production manufacturing guidelines and procedures.

In addition to completing the Request for Drug Waiver in Specific Cases Form (see Appendix 6 of ClinImprtOrdr, Appendix 6 of THA-18, Appendix 5 of ClinSampleProd, or Appendix 5 of THA-76), the reasons should be stated, and the SOPs should be attached.

ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd state that recommendations for how the drug is to be used should be identified in the protocol for use in accordance with the established indications. If the drug is registered in Thailand as a drug procured from the market in Thailand, there is no need to obtain approval for another production process or packing process. The following should be added to the original container, but not over the original label:

Sponsor, CRO, or investigator name
Research project code
Statements "for clinical research purposes only" or other words synonymous with the Thai language

Appendices 1, 5, 7, and 14

Appendix 2, 6-7, 11, and 18

5.13

Annex 5 (13.1)

3 and 8

1.7 and Appendices 1, 5, 7, and 14

1.6 and Appendices 2, 6-7, 11, and 18

Appendix 12

Product Management

Last content review/update: February 5, 2025

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As stated in the AU-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor must supply the investigator(s) with the investigational product(s) (IPs)). The G-CTHandbook and AUS-47 indicate 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-GCPs 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-GCPs 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-GCPs 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-GCPs, 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.

FAQs

Importing

5 and 7

SOP 11

Annex 13 (5. Documentation and 11.3 Destruction)

Last content review/update: March 21, 2024

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As defined in G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the sponsor or the designated contract research organization (CRO) must supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the investigational products (IPs), including the comparator(s) and placebo, if applicable. The sponsor or the designated CRO should not supply either party with the IP(s) until approval is obtained from the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) and the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH), another ethics committee (EC) (e.g., the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC)), and/or the local EC. The ECMOPH and the CREC are both ECs recognized by the Thai FDA. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

G-ResEthics and THA-28 specify that the sponsor or the designated CRO must ensure the following:

Timely delivery of the IP(s)
Records maintained for document shipment of the IP(s)
Written procedures including instructions for handling and storage of the 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
IP product quality and stability over the period of use
IP manufactured according to any applicable Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs)
Proper coding, packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)
Acceptable IP handling and storage conditions and shelf life

Refer to the G-ResEthics and THA-28 for detailed, sponsor-related IP requirements. As defined in G-ResEthics and THA-28, the sponsor is also accountable for supplying the IP, including the comparator(s) and placebo, if applicable.

Record Requirements

As per G-ResEthics and THA-28, the sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and should notify the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing when the trial related records are no longer needed. Additionally, the sponsor must ensure sufficient quantities of the IP(s) used in the trial to reconfirm specifications, should this become necessary, and should maintain records of batch sample analyses and characteristics. All sponsor-specific essential documents should be retained for at least two (2) years after formal discontinuation of the trial or in conformance with applicable regulatory requirements.

1.33, 4.9, 5.5, 5.13-5.14, and 7

Annex 5 (5.11, 6.2, 13, and 14)

Definition of Specimen

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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: March 21, 2024

In Thailand, a specimen is generally referred to as biological material. As delineated in G-ResEthics, biological material is defined as original material, progeny, and unmodified derivatives. In the Material Transfer Agreement template provided in G-ResEthics, material covered by the agreement includes all living or dead biological materials and any replicated or derived cells or DNA molecules.

G-ResEthics collectively classifies biomedical research as those studies that include information from a participant’s medical records or databases; laboratory specimens; bodily fluids; human tissues; and studies about the physiology, biochemistry, pathology, biochemistry, and psychology of typical participants.

In addition, G-ResEthics specifically defines human tissue samples as anything being taken out or excreted from a human body or a corpse. These samples may also include other tissues, blood, secretions, and excretions from all organ systems to be used for the diagnosis of a disease or for other purposes.

Please refer to G-ResEthics for more specific definitions for selected terms including progeny and unmodified derivatives.

1.4, 7.5-7.7, and Annex 8

Specimen Import & Export

Last content review/update: May 2, 2024

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

About this Guidance, 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: March 21, 2024

Import/Export

No information is currently available regarding the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA)’s role in approving the import and export of biological specimens.

Material Transfer Agreement

G-ResEthics states that in the case of the transfer of biological materials, the sponsor must complete the Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) form (Annex 8) to obtain or transfer biological materials for research purposes. An MTA form must also be used to transfer human tissue samples to other institutions.

See also THA-13 for the Material Transfer Agreement and Material Transfer Record forms provided by the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH).

Per THA-34, the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) requires investigators to include an MTA in the initial protocol submission package in cases where specimens are sent to an outside research institute. The MTA must be uploaded to the CREC online submission system (THA-43) using the form required by each institute. This document will be used by the CREC for consideration, but it is not endorsed.

The ECMOPH and the CREC are both ethics committees approved by the Thai FDA to review and approve clinical trial protocols.

Material Transfer Agreement (p. 83) and Material Transfer Record (p. 87)

Supporting Documents - 22. Material Transfer Agreement

7.5 and Annex 8

Consent for Specimen