Clinical Research Regulation For Australia and Uganda

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 10, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-TrialsGCP, the National Drug Authority (NDA) is responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving clinical trial applications for registered or unregistered medicines in Uganda. The scope of the NDA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV).

Per the NDPA-CTReg, the NDA’s review and approval of a clinical trial application are dependent upon the applicant submitting proof in the application of institutional level ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) approval and a research permit from the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that parallel submissions may be made to the NDA and the UNCST. In that instance, the NDA would not make a final decision until after the trial receives ethical clearance. NDA approval will be dependent on receipt of the protocol’s approval by the institutional EC in consultations with the UNCST.

Clinical Trial Review Process

National Drug Authority

The NDPA-CTReg, the G-TrialsGCP, and the G-CTConduct indicate that upon receipt of a clinical trial application, the NDA initially screens the application for completeness. If the NDA is not satisfied with the information provided, the applicant will be advised in writing to provide further information or clarification. According to the G-CTConduct, the applicant must submit their responses in writing or in any other format as advised by the NDA, and in the timeframe determined by the NDA. NDA reviews are performed following a first-in first-out principle, except for clinical trials that are to be conducted in public health emergencies such as disease outbreaks, which may be exempted.

The NDPA-CTReg indicates that in considering an application for a clinical trial, the NDA must take into account the following:

Relevance of the clinical trial
Suitability of the principal investigator (PI)
Quality of the facilities to be used for the clinical trial
Adequacy and completeness of the information and procedures to obtain consent of the clinical trial participants
Provision for indemnity for the PI and insurance for the clinical trial participants
Terms of the agreement between the sponsor and the PI

Per the G-CTConduct, complete applications are given a Clinical Trial Application code. Applications verified as complete will undergo one (1) of three (3) types of reviews:

Internal review, which is further subdivided into expedited or routine review
Expert review, which involves external reviewers co-opted by the NDA following internal procedures
Joint reviews, which are carried out jointly with other regulatory bodies including the UNCST, Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), and the primary EC. These reviews will be coordinated by the UNCST

As stated in the G-CTConduct and the NDPA-CTReg, fast track review/authorization of an application is applicable for the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Clinical trial applications for investigational drugs to provide treatment where no therapy exists (decision will be given to the applicant within 30 working days)
Clinical trials conducted in an emergency, such as during a disease outbreak (eligible for fast track review with a timeline of 15 working days)
Clinical trial applications that do not explicitly meet either above criterion, but are led by the Ministry of Health in the interest of a public health intervention
Any other circumstance that the NDA may determine

According to the G-CTConduct, the NDA may decide to a) authorize the clinical trial and issue a clinical trial certificate; b) request additional information to support the application; or c) reject the clinical trial application, providing reasoning. The NDA’s decision is communicated to the applicant in writing. The clinical trial certificate is valid for one (1) year from the date it is awarded. Per the NDPA-CTReg, the NDA may also issue a clinical trial certificate with conditions. See Appendix XI of the G-CTConduct for the NDA clinical trial process flowchart and Form 34 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg for the format of the clinical trial certificate.

See the Submission Content section for detailed information on the contents of the clinical trial application.

The G-CTConduct states that any new information that becomes available regarding the product, such as new adverse effects or changes in formulation or the manufacturer, must be submitted to the NDA as soon as possible. Unless otherwise stated, additional information that is submitted prior to issuance of a clinical trial certificate will be considered as part of the submission and reviewed accordingly. The NDA may request supplementary information or documentation when appropriate, which should be submitted within the stated timeline, usually four (4) weeks. The NDA secretariat may grant additional time to provide information upon request by the applicant on a case-by-case basis. If the requested information is not submitted, the application will be archived within 50 working days. The application will need to be resubmitted for review.

Per the G-CTConduct, annual renewal of authorization to conduct the clinical trial is required for the trial prior to expiration of the validity. For studies that have completed follow-up for the last participant where there is no product or human participant, oversight will be deferred to the primary EC and the UNCST.

The NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct indicate that the NDA may, on its own initiative, make amendments to the conditions for conducting a clinical trial where it is necessary for the safety or scientific validity of the clinical trial. The NDA will give 15 days’ notice of the intended amendment to the sponsor and the PI with reasons for the amendment and request a written response to the proposed amendments prior to effecting the amendments. As stated in the NDPA-CTReg, the NDA will, in making amendments to the conditions of conducting a clinical trial, take into consideration the response of the sponsor or PI.

The NDPA-CTReg indicates that a sponsor who intends to amend any condition of the clinical trial specified in the clinical trial certificate, or who intends to add investigators, add clinical trial sites, or change investigators, must make an application to the NDA for authorization of the amendment. The amendment applications will be considered using the procedure and requirements for an application for authorization to conduct a clinical trial.

The G-CTConduct specifies that the application to amend the conditions of a clinical trial will be screened for completeness and will essentially be complete in the first instance if it includes all the required documents, appendices, and finished checklist. Applications which are incomplete will not be evaluated, and a letter documenting the deficiencies in the application will be issued to the applicant. The NDA may request supplementary data or documentation where applicable. The NDA will consider the favorable opinion of the EC(s), the UNCST, and other relevant information, and may request that the applicant to submit an interim clinical trial study report to support the decision. Additionally, the NDA may take other regulatory action such as an inspection of the clinical trial site or investigational product (IP) manufacturing facility for regulatory and protocol compliance prior to making a decision. The NDA may approve or reject the application and specify the reasons for rejection. The decision will be communicated to the applicant in writing. Changes made to the informed consent forms will be acknowledged electronically unless they are directly related to the safety of the IP. Additionally, the NDA must be notified within 90 days about delays in trial initiation once a clinical trial has been approved and a clinical trial certificate issued.

See the G-CTConduct for detailed NDA amendment review procedures and Appendix IV of the G-CTConduct for the Categorization of Amendments.

As per the G-CTConduct, the NDA may at any reasonable time conduct inspections of the trial site prior to or after issuance of a clinical trial certificate. The purpose of the inspections is to assess the staff and facilities to be used or that are being used for the conduct of the clinical trial, and to verify the availability of the necessary resources and feasibility of conducting the study at the proposed site(s). These inspections will assess the compliance of the trial conduct with the conditions of the certificate. The NDA secretariat may contact the PI or sponsor notifying them of the date(s) of inspection. The secretariat will conduct inspections routinely, or as a result of a trigger. In addition, the inspections may be done jointly with the UNCST and/or the EC.

As indicated in the G-TrialsGCP, an inspection by the NDA may involve a comparison of the practices and procedures of the clinical trial with the commitments made in the application to conduct the trial; a comparison of the data submitted to the sponsor and the NDA with the source data; and a system inspection of the sponsor, clinical laboratory, or contract research organization generating data for submission to regulatory authorities. For more information on NDA inspections, see the G-TrialsGCP.

The NDPA-CTReg states that the NDA may, by notice, suspend or terminate a clinical trial where the conditions of a clinical trial certificate are not complied with or the NDA has information regarding the safety or scientific validity of the clinical trial or the conduct of the clinical trial. The NDA notice, which must be delivered to the sponsor or PI, will apply to the clinical trial generally or to one (1) or more of the clinical trial sites. Where a notice is for the suspension of the clinical trial, the suspension must be for the period specified in the notice. The notice must indicate, where applicable, the conditions to be fulfilled before the clinical trial or, as applicable, the conduct of the clinical trial at a particular site, may resume. Before issuing a notice, the NDA must inform the sponsor or PI of the notice and the reasons for the notice, and then advise the sponsor or PI to make a written representation on the intended suspension or termination within five (5) days. The NDA must consider the written representation and inform the sponsor or PI of its decision within seven (7) working days. However, the NDA is not required to inform the sponsor or PI of the notice if it appears that there is an imminent risk to the health or safety of any person participating in or involved in a clinical trial.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the NGHRP, and the G-CTConduct, an applicant must also submit a research proposal for review and approval to the UNCST. Per the G-UNCSTreg, the UNCST receives and reviews research protocols for their scientific merit, safety, and ethical appropriateness, and when satisfied, issues permits to conduct the research in Uganda. The research permit is granted at a national level to facilitate access to research resources within the country. The G-UNCSTreg states that as a part of its review, the UNCST liaises with the Research Secretariat in the Office of the President of Uganda to obtain security verification and clearance for the investigator. The investigator must pay a Research Administration and Clearance fee for the entire period of the research project, but such a period must not exceed five (5) years. Investigators interested in continuing a study using an approved protocol beyond the UNCST research permit expiration date should make a written request for an extension or renewal of the permit to the UNCST Executive Secretary. The request should be accompanied by a progress report, the EC approval, and any other institutional approvals, where applicable. See the G-UNCSTreg for detailed extension/renewal request submission information.

The G-UNCSTreg indicates that any changes, amendments, and addenda to the research protocol, research instruments, or the consent form must be submitted to the designated local EC or the lead agency (NDA) for review and approval prior to implementing the changes. The UNCST should be notified of the EC- or lead agency-approved changes within 10 working days.

The UNCST also reserves the right to revoke, suspend, or terminate a research permit, and, if necessary, without giving notice to the investigator, in the event of gross misconduct or violation of the G-UNCSTreg guidelines.

3.1-3.2

Introduction, 6.0-7.0, 12.0-13.0, and 14.2

1.6-1.7 and Appendix II (10.1-10.2)

Introduction, 5.0-5.5, 5.7, 6.0, 7.0, 7.3, 8.0, and Appendices II, IV, and XI

Part II (3-9, 11-12, and 14) and Schedule 1 (Forms 29 and 34)

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 10, 2025

National Drug Authority

In accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the NDPA-FeesReg, applicants are responsible for paying a non-refundable processing fee to submit a clinical trial application for human drugs and vaccines (except for locally manufactured herbal drugs) to the National Drug Authority (NDA). As set forth in the NDPA-FeesReg, the following fees apply:

Application to undertake a clinical trial for a registered drug – $2,500 USD
Application to undertake a clinical trial for an unregistered drug – $4,000 USD
Application to amend a clinical trial application – $200 USD

Payment Instructions

According to the G-CTConduct, the application fee payment details are as follows:

National Drug Authority: TIN 1000054563
Bank: Stanbic Bank Uganda
Account numbers: 9030008068851 (US Dollars) and 9030005759829 (Ugandan shillings)
Swift code: SBICUGKXXXX

Sort Code: 040147
Acceptable forms of payment: cash in the bank, real time gross settlement (RTGS), electronic funds transfer (EFT), telegraphic transfer (TT), or check

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

As delineated in the G-UNCSTreg, the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) charges a non-refundable Research Administration and Clearance fee of $300 USD, or its equivalent in Ugandan shillings, to register a research proposal. The UNCST will not register the protocol or issue a research permit until this fee has been paid. Permits are valid for the entire duration specified for a project. However, the fee covers a research period not to exceed five (5) years. Projects that extend beyond the initial five (5) year period are required to pay $300 USD for the extension. All applicants, excluding East African students, are responsible for paying this fee. East African students are only required to pay a fee of $50 USD. However, UGA-20 further indicates that this excludes those pursuing post doctorate studies.

Payment Instructions

The G-UNCSTreg delineates that applicants should make their payments to the UNCST bank accounts and are encouraged to make cash payments to avoid additional bank fees. An official receipt is issued once the UNCST receives a stamped copy of the bank deposit. See Section 6.0 of the G-UNCSTreg for detailed payment information.

According to UGA-20, the payment information is as follows:

Bank: Any Standard Chartered Bank
Account title: Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST)
Account numbers: 8705611811400 (US Dollars) and 0105610632101 (Ugandan shillings)
Swift code: SCBLUGKA

6.0

4.4

2 and Schedule (Part 9)

Part II (4)

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 10, 2025

Overview

As per the G-UNCSTreg and the NGHRP, research involving human participants must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (referred to as a research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda), which must be accredited by the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST).

Ethics Committee Composition

The NGHRP states that an EC must have at least five (5) members who collectively encompass the qualifications and experience required to review and evaluate the scientific, medical, and ethical aspects of a proposed clinical trial. Specifically, the composition should include:

Individuals of varying backgrounds, including consideration of gender, cultural backgrounds, and sensitivity to social issues in the community from which research participants are drawn
At least one (1) individual whose primary concern is scientific, and at least one (1) whose primary concern is non-scientific
At least one (1) individual who is unaffiliated with the institution
At least one (1) lay person from the community, whose primary background is not in scientific research involving human participants, and who is capable of sharing insights about the community from which participants are likely to be drawn

Additional criteria for EC membership are available in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the NGHRP.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

According to the NGHRP, each EC member must take at least one (1) course in human research protection within one (1) year of appointment to an EC, and thereafter, should undergo continued research ethics education at least once every two (2) years. Membership terms in any EC have a maximum three (3) year duration, after which a member is eligible for reappointment. A person may not serve as a member in more than two (2) ECs concurrently.

As set forth in the NGHRP, each EC must have written procedures, including a process to be followed for conducting reviews. The following minimum requirements must be met:

Meet at least once every three (3) months
At least 50% of members, including one (1) member representing community interests, must be present to conduct reviews
Project approval requires a simple majority of those members present at the meeting
Respond to any allegations of ethical violations in approved or rejected research projects
Liaise with other ECs within and outside the country to better carry out its functions
Submit annual performance reports to the UNCST

The NGHRP further indicates that no EC member may participate in the EC’s initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflict of interest, except to provide information as may be requested by the EC. An EC may also, at its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of protocols which require expertise beyond, or in addition to, that available in the EC. These individuals do not vote at EC meetings. See Sections 4.5.1 and 4.9 of the NGHRP for additional EC review requirements.

As per the NGHRP, an EC must also prepare and maintain the following:

Detailed written procedures
Copies of reviewed proposals and corresponding documentation (e.g., scientific evaluations, progress reports, correspondence with investigators)
Meeting minutes
Records of continuing review activities

Documents relating to research projects must be retained for at least five (5) years after the research project has been completed. All documents must be accessible for inspection and use by authorized UNCST representatives. See Section 4.6 of the NGHRP for additional EC recordkeeping requirements.

1.0, 3.1, 3.4-3.6, 4.1-4.6, and 4.8-4.9

7.0

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 10, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the NGHRP, the central scope assessed by institutional ethics committees (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda) relates to safeguarding the rights, safety, and well-being of all trial participants. An EC’s primary functions include:

Maintaining ethical standards of practice in research
Protecting participants and investigators from harm or exploitation
Preserving the participants’ rights and welfare
Providing assurance to society of the protection of participants’ rights and well-being
Ensuring adherence to an ethical conduct of research protocol

An EC must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses, and Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations).

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

Per the NDPA-CTReg, proof of institutional EC approval must be submitted in a clinical trial application to the National Drug Authority (NDA). However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that parallel submissions may be made to the NDA and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). In that instance, the NDA would not make a final decision until after the trial receives ethical clearance. NDA approval will be dependent on receipt of the protocol’s approval by the institutional EC in consultations with the UNCST.

As stated in the NGHRP, the EC will notify investigators in writing about the outcome of its review. If the EC does not approve a research activity, it will include reasons for its disapproval in the written notification.

As per the NGHRP, ECs may use an expedited review process for research involving no more than minimal risk or for minor changes in previously approved research protocols during a period of one (1) year or less from which approval was given. Minor changes include an addition of a collaborator, a small change in the number of research participants, or spelling corrections. Expedited review processes may also be applied to annual renewal of studies, in which the only outstanding activity is data analysis and report writing. Major changes include, but are not limited to, significant changes in the research methodology or a change in procedures for research participants. Each EC must develop standard operating procedures to define eligibility for expedited review. See the NGHRP for more details on expedited review procedures.

According to the NGHRP, if a multicenter or collaborative trial is being conducted and the same clinical protocol is being used for all the sites, the participating institutions may enter into a joint EC review arrangement. The joint EC review must comply with the requisite ethical standards outlined in the NGHRP.

The NGHRP indicates that ECs must conduct continuing/periodic review of approved trials to ensure compliance with scientific and ethical requirements in accordance with the NGHRP. The EC must conduct the continuing review at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, but not less than once a year, and have a plan for onsite monitoring of approved studies.

The NGHRP further delineates that changes/amendments in the research protocol cannot be implemented without prior approval from the EC, except when necessary to eliminate an apparent immediate hazard or danger to research participants. Per the NDPA-CTReg, evidence of ethical approval of the amendment to the protocol is a required element of an application to the NDA for amendment of conditions of a clinical trial.

Additionally, the NGHRP states that ECs have the authority to halt, suspend, or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the EC’s requirements, has been associated with unexpected serious harm to research participants, or contravenes the NGHRP. If an EC suspends or terminates its approval, it must provide a written statement for its reasons for doing so, and immediately communicate this decision to the investigator, as well as to the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST).

3.0-5.0 and 7.1

1.6-1.7

Part II (3-5, 8, and 11) and Schedule 1 (Forms 29 and 35)

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 10, 2025

No applicable requirements.

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 10, 2025

Overview

The Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) is the central statutory body responsible for the registration and accreditation of institutional ethics committees (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda). The UNCST’s NGHRP establishes a national framework for research involving humans to ensure that the rights, interests, values, and welfare of research participants are not compromised.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

As per the NGHRP, the UNCST’s Accreditation Committee for RECs in Uganda (ACREC) must accredit all ECs. An organization that wishes to establish an EC must apply for accreditation of the EC at the UNCST, with assurance that the organization will comply with the requirements set forth in the NGHRP. The assurance must at the minimum include:

A statement of principles for protecting the rights and welfare of human research participants of research conducted at or sponsored by the organization. This may include an appropriate existing code, declaration, or statement of ethical principles, or a statement formulated by the organization itself
Assurance of availability of staff; office and meeting space for the EC; and sufficient resources to support the EC’s operations
A list of EC members appointed by the head of the organization or the head’s designee. The members should be identified by name, qualifications, profession, specialty, organization of affiliation, and representative capacity in the EC
Written standard operating procedures for the EC

The NGHRP indicates that the ACREC will review the organization’s application, and if satisfied, will accredit the EC. An EC is not permitted to commence its activities until ACREC authorization is received.

Per UGA-33, the National Research Information Management System (NRIMS) (UGA-33) supports users in applying for accreditation as an institutional EC. See UGA-9 for the accreditation application form and the NGHRP for details on EC establishment requirements. A list of UNCST-accredited ECs is also available at UGA-37.

3.2, 3.4-3.5, and 4.1-4.2

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 10, 2025

Overview

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the NGHRP, the G-UNCSTreg, and the G-TrialsGCP, institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) approval, National Drug Authority (NDA) approval, and Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) registration are mandatory before a study may commence.

Per the NDPA-CTReg, the NDA’s review and approval of a clinical trial application are dependent upon the applicant submitting proof in the application of institutional EC approval and a research permit from the UNCST. However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that parallel submissions may be made to the NDA and the UNCST. In that instance, the NDA would not make a final decision until after the trial receives ethical clearance. NDA approval will be dependent on receipt of the protocol’s approval by the institutional EC in consultations with the UNCST.

Regulatory Submission

National Drug Authority

According to the NDPA-CTReg, an application to the NDA for authorization to conduct a clinical trial is submitted by a sponsor, who must be one (1) of the following:

The drug patent holder
A licensed person
The drug manufacturer
An agent of the drug patent holder or the drug manufacturer

The NDPA-CTReg states that where an agent submits the clinical trial application, the agent must also submit a power of attorney verifying their appointment as an agent or a letter of authorization (See Form 30 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-18). Where an application for authorization to conduct a clinical trial is for a drug under patent, the principal investigator (PI) must submit a letter of authorization from the manufacturer of the drug. Furthermore, the G-CTConduct indicates that based on the clinical trial agreement between the sponsor and the PI, the NDA will liaise with the in-country PI representing the sponsor regarding the application.

As per the G-CTConduct, the sponsor or authorized person should submit one (1) copy of the completed clinical trial application form for each application. The application must be bound in a single volume (or series of volumes), and the pages numbered sequentially. Appended documents should be bound together with the application, with tabbed sections clearly identifying each appended document. The text and diagrams must be clear and legible in 12 pt Times New Roman font. Incomplete submissions will not be received at the NDA registry. See Form 29 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg, Appendix I of the G-CTConduct, or UGA-39 for the clinical trial application form.

According to the G-CTConduct, the application package should be submitted physically to the NDA or electronically. Electronic submissions should be sent by email to clinicaltrials@nda.or.ug or through the NDA’s integrated Regulatory Information Management System (iRIMS) (UGA-40). Physical applications must be submitted to:

The Secretary to the Authority
National Drug Authority
NDA Tower
Plot 93, Buganda Road
P.O. Box 23096
Kampala, Uganda
Phone: +256-417788100; Toll Free: 0800101999

As per the G-CTConduct, all applications and supporting data submitted to the NDA should be presented in English. Supporting documents that are not in English must be accompanied by an authenticated English translation.

The NDPA-CTReg and G-CTConduct further indicate that an application to amend the conditions of a clinical trial must use Form 35, in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg and Appendix III of the G-CTConduct. The G-CTConduct also notes that that the form is on the NDA website (see UGA-19). Per the G-CTConduct, the proposed changes must be listed in a cover letter signed by the applicant. In the cover letter, a clear step-by-step justification for each proposed change(s) must be provided, and the possible consequences with regard to the benefit/risk balance for participants already enrolled in the trial must be summarized. The subject of the cover letter must be “Application to amend CTA XXX” where XXX is the Clinical Trial Application code assigned by the NDA upon authorization of the clinical trial and indicated on the clinical trial certificate. Only one (1) copy of the completed form must be sent to the NDA. As stated in the NDPA-CTReg, an application for additional investigators, additional clinical trial sites, or change of the investigators must use Form 36 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-13. The application forms must, where applicable, be accompanied by evidence of ethics approval of the amendment to the clinical trial protocol and the prescribed fees. Applicants may apply for renewal of a clinical trial approval using the form found in Appendix VIII of the G-CTConduct or on the NDA website at UGA-32. See Appendix VI of the G-CTConduct for the Checklist for Application for Authorization of Renewal of Conduct of a Clinical Trial, and UGA-2 for a related clinical trial application screening renewal form.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

Per the G-UNCSTreg, research protocols submitted to the UNCST for registration and approval must be well written and fully developed. Draft research protocols will not be accepted for registration. In order to register a research protocol, the PI should complete the necessary research application forms. Where a research protocol requires ethical approval by a foreign-based EC, it is advisable that such approval be obtained prior to submitting the protocol to the UNCST.

Applications for UNCST permission to conduct research in Uganda should be made through the National Research Information Management System (NRIMS) (UGA-33).

UGA-20 also provides the following contact information for further information on the UNCST research clearance process:

Beth Mutumba
Phone: 0414 557 025/0755 423 321
Email: b.mutumba@uncst.go.ug

Samuel Barasa
Phone: 0414 557 021/0779 452 441
Email: s.barasa@uncst.go.ug

Ethics Review Submission

UGA-20 indicates that for EC submissions, the applicant should contact the accredited committee at their institution of affiliation or obtain contacts via the UNCST website. After identifying the appropriate EC, the applicant must create an account and fill out the application on NRIMS (UGA-33).

Per UGA-33, NRIMS is an integrated online platform for accessing digital services provided by the UNCST. The platform supports users in applying for institutional EC permits and applying for UNCST approval to conduct research in Uganda. See UGA-33 for more information.

Each EC has its own required submission procedures, which can differ regarding the application format and number of copies.

2.2 and 3.1-3.4

6.0 and 8.0

1.6-1.7

Introduction, 4.2-4.3, 4.5-4.7, 5.1, 7.1, and Appendices I, III, VI, and VIII

Part II (3-5, 8, and 11) and Schedule 1 (Forms 29, 30, 35, and 36)

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 10, 2025

Regulatory Authority Requirements

National Drug Authority

As per the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, UGA-39, and UGA-1, the following documentation must be submitted to the National Drug Authority (NDA) in a clinical trial application (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Proof of payment of the prescribed fees
Applications for import and/or export of biological materials (if required)
Application Form for Clinical Trial (See Form 29 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg, Appendix I of the G-CTConduct, or UGA-39)
Trial protocol (See Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg)
Investigator’s Brochure (See UGA-4 or Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg)
If the investigational product (IP) is unregistered, a dossier following the Format for Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier (See Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg)
Phytochemical analysis report and microbiological contamination report, where the clinical trial is for an herbal medicinal product
Participant Information Leaflet and informed consent form, which must be approved by the ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda)
Certificate of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) of the IP or other evidence of manufacturing quality, safety, and consistency
Package insert(s)/product information leaflet for the comparator and concomitant medications
Certificate of GMP of the placebo, if appropriate
Evidence of accreditation of the designated laboratories or other evidence of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and assay validation
Insurance certificate specific for the trial sourced from a local provider or in consultation with the NDA (valid evidence of insurance for the participants by a local insurance company and of professional indemnity for the principal investigator (PI))
Signed and completed declarations by all investigators (See UGA-16 or Form 31 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg)
Approval of ECs for the protocol
Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) approval
Full, legible copies of key, peer-reviewed published articles supporting the application
Sample of the label for the IP
Letter of authorization from the manufacturer/product owner (See UGA-18 or Form 30 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg)
Pharmaceutical data on dosage form (See UGA-14)
Duly signed declaration of the monitor (See UGA-17 or Form 32 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg)
Clinical trial agreement between the sponsor and the PI
Duly signed declaration by the sponsor and PI of funds of the clinical trial (See UGA-15 or Form 33 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg)
Other supporting documents and any other requirement as may be determined by the NDA

See Appendix II of the G-CTConduct and UGA-1 for the clinical trial application checklist.

The C-InstitutionCert further indicates that clinical trial certificates will not be issued without submission of a valid certificate of suitability of the premises supplying drugs within the respective institutions.

Applicants may apply for renewal of a clinical trial approval using the form found in Appendix VIII of the G-CTConduct or on the NDA website at UGA-32. See Appendix VI of the G-CTConduct for the Checklist for Application for Authorization of Renewal of Conduct of a Clinical Trial, and UGA-2 for a related clinical trial application screening renewal form.

As per the NDPA-CTReg, an application to amend the conditions of a clinical trial must use Form 35, and an application for additional investigators, additional clinical trial sites, or for change of the investigators must use Form 36 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-13.

According to the G-CTConduct, an application for amendment of the conditions of a clinical trial can also be found in Appendix III of the G-CTConduct and on the NDA website at UGA-19. The amendment application must be accompanied by a cover letter signed by the applicant together with required supporting documentation, including a submission of the protocol amendment in tracked changes, a clean copy clearly indicating the protocol version number, valid evidence of payment of amendment fees, and ethical approval of the proposed amendment. See the NDPA-CTReg, G-CTConduct, and UGA-19 for more detailed amendment application content requirements. See Appendix V of the G-CTConduct or UGA-22 for the amendments screening form.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

As per UGA-20, the PI should have soft copies of the following documents ready before making an online submission through the National Research Information Management System (NRIMS) (UGA-33) to the UNCST:

A letter of introduction or recommendation from the affiliated institution in Uganda (for foreign investigators only). The letter should mention the names of the foreign investigators and it should be addressed to the UNCST Executive Secretary
An administrative clearance letter from the head of the institution where the research is going to be conducted, addressed to the PI and/or the UNCST Executive Secretary
Admission letter for academic research (applies to only East African students)
Curriculum vitaes (CVs) for each investigator, dated and signed or initialed on each page
Proof of payment of research administration and clearance fees for the study

Additionally, a permit must be obtained from the UNCST to export and import plant or animal specimens for further investigations.

See UGA-20 for detailed application requirements.

Ethics Committee Requirements

According to UGA-20, EC approval is obtained through NRIMS (UGA-33).

The NGHRP further indicates that all ECs must develop detailed standard operating procedures for submission of protocols and other requirements. However, at a minimum, the requirements should include:

Research protocol with version and date
Informed consent documents
Study instruments such as questionnaires, case report forms, videos, flip charts, and any other data collection tools or forms
Samples of trial drugs
Evidence that the investigator(s) is appropriately qualified, experienced and, where applicable, licensed, and has adequate facilities for the safe and efficient conduct of research
A plan for disseminating research findings to the community in which the research was carried out, and other authorized agencies in Uganda

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg and UGA-12, the clinical protocol should contain the following information (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

General information (trial identification; contact information of sponsor, monitor, sponsor’s medical expert, and qualified physician; name and title of investigator(s); name(s) and address(es) of clinical trial laboratory(ies) and other medical and/or technical department(s)/institutions involved in the trial; etc.)
Background information (product name, dosage form, description of population to be studied, etc.)
Trial objectives and purpose
Trial design
Selection and withdrawal of participants
Treatment profile
Trial parameters
Assessment of efficacy
Assessment of safety
Operational aspects
Adverse event reporting methods
Evaluation of results, including statistics
Direct access to source data/documents
Quality control and quality assurance
Description of ethical considerations relating to the trial
Data handling and recordkeeping
Financing and insurance, if not addressed in a separate agreement
Publication policy, if not addressed in a separate agreement
Supplements/appendices

For detailed information on these elements, please refer to the NDPA-CTReg and UGA-12.

4.8

4.6, 7.1-7.2, and Appendices I-III, V-VI, and VIII

Part II (4 and 11), Schedule 1 (Forms 29-33, 35, and 36), and Schedule 2 (Format for Clinical Trial Protocol, Format for Investigator’s Brochure, and Format for Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier)

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 10, 2025

Overview

Per the NDPA-CTReg, the National Drug Authority (NDA)’s review and approval of a clinical trial application are dependent upon the applicant submitting proof in the application of institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) approval and a research permit from the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that parallel submissions may be made to the NDA and the UNCST. In that instance, the NDA would not make a final decision until after the trial receives ethical clearance. NDA approval will be dependent on receipt of the protocol’s approval by the institutional EC in consultations with the UNCST.

Regulatory Authority Approval

National Drug Authority

Per the G-CTConduct, NDA reviews for clinical trials are performed following a first-in first-out principle, except for clinical trials conducted in public health emergencies such as disease outbreaks, which may be exempted.

According to UGA-24, the NDA will screen and acknowledge receipt of a clinical trial application within 10 working days and reach a decision on the application within 50 working days. The G-CTConduct further specifies that the total processing time for a new clinical trial application routine review is 60 working days. Fast track reviews, under which a regulatory decision is given to the applicant within 15 or 30 working days, are applicable for certain clinical trial applications. See the Scope of Assessment section for more information.

The G-CTConduct states that the NDA may request supplementary information or documentation when appropriate, which should be submitted within the stated timeline, usually four (4) weeks. The NDA secretariat may grant additional time to provide information upon request by the applicant on a case-by-case basis. If the requested information is not submitted, the application will be archived within 50 working days. The application will need to be resubmitted for review. If the NDA, on its own initiative, makes amendments to the conditions for conducting a clinical trial for safety reasons or the scientific validity of the clinical trial, the NDA will give 15 calendar days’ notice to the sponsor or the principal investigator (PI) and request submittal of a written response to the proposed amendments.

Additionally, according to UGA-24, the NDA conducts annual reviews of ongoing trials within 20 working days and reviews amendments of clinical trial authorization within 20 working days. Per the G-CTConduct, the NDA review timelines published on UGA-24 do not include the time taken by the applicant to respond to any NDA requests for additional information. A stop-clock mechanism is applied each time the NDA requests additional information.

See Appendices X and XI of the G-CTConduct for the Service Delivery Timelines for Submitted Documents by the Authority and for the Clinical Trial Process Flow, respectively.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

The G-UNCSTreg states that the UNCST provides feedback on the registration status of a protocol within 10 working days from the submission date. According to the NGHRP, the UNCST registration process is normally completed within 14 working days.

Ethics Committee Approval

Per the G-TrialsGCP, an applicant must also submit the clinical trial protocol for review and approval by a UNCST-accredited institutional EC. As indicated in the NGHRP, the EC is required to review a clinical protocol within 60 days from the date of its receipt. In the case of an annual continuing review, the EC should maintain the same anniversary date of approval for any given protocol. Review outcomes must be communicated to the applicant within 14 days of the EC’s review.

3.2 and 4.9

6.0

1.6-1.7 and 2.2

5.0, 5.3-5.5, 7.0, and Appendices X and XI

Part II (3-5 and 8)

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 10, 2025

Overview

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the NGHRP, the G-UNCSTreg, and the G-TrialsGCP, institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) approval, National Drug Authority (NDA) approval, and Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) registration are mandatory before a study may commence.

As per the NGHRP and the UNHRO-Act, the UNCST also works in collaboration with the Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO) to register all health research protocols. However, the registration is conducted centrally at the UNCST.

The G-CTConduct and the NDPA-CTReg indicate that following the NDA’s approval of the clinical trial application, the applicant is also required to obtain a permit from the NDA to import investigational products (IPs) approved for the clinical trial. See the Manufacturing & Import section for more information on IP import permit requirements.

As stated in the G-TrialsGCP, research intended to be carried out at the community level (e.g. vaccine trials) should ideally ensure adequate consultation with civil society organizations that may exist within affected communities at all phases of the trial. Sponsors are encouraged to establish Community Advisory Groups/Community Advisory Boards (CAGs/CABs), which act as liaisons between the investigator and the community. Additionally, per the NGCER, community engagement is an opportunity for communities to participate in the design and conduct of research, and enhances the relevance, ownership, and applicability of research findings. See the G-TrialsGCP for more information on CAGs/CABs, and see the NGCER for UNCST guidance on how to ensure community engagement as a way to improve responsiveness to community needs and accountability in research.

Clinical Trial Agreement

As delineated in the NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct, before the trial begins, the sponsor must sign a clinical trial agreement with the principal investigator (PI).

According to the G-TrialsGCP, if the sponsor decides to use a contract research organization (CRO) to conduct the trial, the transferred duties should be specified in writing and evidence of a mutual agreement must be provided. The sponsor is responsible for securing agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, and reports for the purpose of monitoring and auditing by the sponsor, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. A signed agreement between involved parties (such as the PI/institution and sponsor; the PI/institution and CRO; and the sponsor and CRO), is considered an essential document before a clinical trial can commence.

Per the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should obtain the investigator's agreement to:

Conduct the trial in compliance with the G-TrialsGCP, the principles of good clinical practice (GCP), the requirements of the NDA, and the protocol agreed upon by the sponsor and given approval by the relevant EC
Comply with procedures for data recording/reporting
Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
Retain the trial-related essential documents until the sponsor informs the investigator/institution that these documents are no longer needed

According to the NGHRP, collaborating research partners must agree on appropriate data access and use rights before commencement of the study.

Clinical Trial Registration

The G-CTConduct states that clinical trial registration with a publicly accessible clinical trial registry is a requirement for all industry-funded trials in Uganda. Details of registration should be provided with the clinical trial application. It also states that clinical trials conducted in Uganda must be registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (UGA-35) and any other publicly accessible clinical trials registry recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO). The respective number should be submitted upon application. Additionally, the NDA maintains a clinical trials register (see UGA-36) that details all clinical trials that have received a regulatory decision. This includes information on clinical trial applications that are authorized, suspended, rejected, terminated, and completed.

3.1-3.4, 4.8, and 11.2

6.0-7.0

1.6-1.7, 2.4, 4.4-4.5, 4.9, 6.10, and 10.3

Introduction, 4.3, 4.6, 4.8, 7.3, 10.0-10.1, and Appendix I

Part II

Part II (3-6, 8, and 10) and Schedule 1 (Form 29)

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 10, 2025

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the NDPA-PVReg, the NDPA-PVRegAmdt, the G-CTConduct, the NGHRP, and the G-TrialsGCP, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Uganda’s safety reporting requirements:

Adverse Event (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a research participant who is administered an investigational product (IP), and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment
Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – All noxious and unintended responses to a medicinal product related to any dose
Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or results in a congenital anomaly/birth defect
Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction – An adverse reaction, the nature or severity of which is not consistent with the applicable product information (e.g., Investigator's Brochure for an unapproved IP)

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As per the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP, the principal investigator (PI) must report all SAEs to the sponsor within 48 hours of first knowledge. The report must identify each participant by an assigned number. When the SAE results in a participant’s death, the PI must supply the sponsor, the National Drug Authority (NDA), and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) with any additional information requested.

The NGHRP states that the PI is required to report to the EC no later than seven (7) calendar days upon receiving notice of an SAE. A detailed report of the SAE should be submitted within seven (7) calendar days from the date it is reported to the EC. All other AEs should be reported by the PI to the EC as soon as possible, but no later than 14 calendar days. As set forth in the NDPA-CTReg, the PI must record and report to the sponsor any suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction (SUSAR) that occurs during the course of the trial.

Sponsor Responsibilities

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor is responsible for the ongoing safety evaluation of the IP(s). The sponsor should promptly notify all concerned investigator(s), the NDA, and the EC in writing of findings that could adversely affect the safety of participants, impact the conduct of the trial, or alter the EC's approval to continue the trial. Study participants should also be informed of any new information that could adversely affect their safety.

The NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP state that the sponsor should keep detailed records of the trial-related AEs/ADRs reported by the PI.

The G-CTConduct delineates that the sponsor (or the PI, when delegated) must report all SAEs to the NDA as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days upon receiving notice of the event. Additional follow up information must be made available to NDA as soon as possible, but in any case, no later than 15 calendar days. However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that the PI is responsible for the aforementioned reporting of SAEs to the NDA.

In addition, according to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should expedite the reporting of all AEs/ADRs that are both serious and unexpected to all concerned investigator(s)/institutions(s), EC(s), and to the NDA. The expedited reporting should occur within the timeframe and format specified by the NDA. Serious and unexpected AEs/ADRs suspected to be related to the IP(s) should be reported to the relevant EC as soon as possible. If the study is multicenter, the sponsor should ensure that all serious and unexpected AEs/ADRs that occur in other study sites are also reported within 15 calendar days of becoming aware of them.

As set forth in the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor and the PI must also take appropriate safety measures to protect participants against any immediate hazards to their health and safety. When safety measures are taken, the sponsor must, within three (3) working days, provide written notice to the NDA of this action and the reasons why this action was taken.

As set forth in the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor or their appointed representative must report any SUSARs within seven (7) days of first knowledge to the NDA and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), or a UNCST-accredited EC.

The G-CTConduct further specifies that the sponsor (or the PI, when delegated) must report all SUSARs to the NDA as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days of becoming aware of the event. If the initial report is not complete within the seven (7) days, a completed report should be submitted within 15 calendar days of the initial report. SUSAR reports originating from other studies using the same IP internationally must be submitted as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days following notification of the PI by the sponsor.

However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that the sponsor should report any SUSARs to the NDA within 15 calendar days of becoming aware of the event. The initial reports should be followed promptly by detailed, written follow-up reports after investigations have been completed, no later than 15 calendar days of becoming aware of the event.

According to the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should also inform the PI of any SUSARs which occur during the course of another trial for which the sponsor is responsible, where the reaction relates to the IP used in the trial. The NDA should maintain a record of all IP-related SUSARs reported to the authority.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Per UGA-31, the NDA has stated that it does not have a template for reporting AEs for clinical trials. The NDA recommends the use of internationally acceptable forms, such as the one provided by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (UGA-8).

7.1-7.2 and 9.1-9.4

1.1, 3.13, and 4.18-4.19

2.0 and 9.1

2-3, 6, and Schedule (Format of Report on Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions for Human Drugs)

Part I (2), Part III (19-20), and Part IV (22-23)

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 10, 2025

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As per the G-TrialsGCP, the principal investigator (PI) is obliged to submit progress reports as required by the sponsor, the institutional ethics committees (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), and the National Drug Authority (NDA). These reports should contain information on:

How the study is progressing
The number of participants included in relation to the number screened and the target sample size
The number of dropouts and withdrawals
Adverse events
If the planned time schedule is still appropriate

The format and frequency of reporting is as prescribed by the relevant authorities.

The NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct also state that the NDA may request the sponsor to submit an interim report. See Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-6 for the format of the clinical trial report.

Additionally, per the G-UNCSTreg, although annual renewal of a study is not required, investigators should electronically submit annual progress reports to the UNCST within four (4) weeks following every 12 months of the study for informational purposes only. Failure to do so may result in termination of the research.

Final Report

The NGHRP states that the sponsor is responsible for approving a final study report, regardless of whether the trial has been completed. In addition, the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP require the sponsor to inform the NDA in writing of the conclusion of the trial within 90 days, using the format of the clinical trial report in Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg.

However, according to the G-CTConduct, either the sponsor or PI must notify the NDA upon conclusion of a trial within 90 calendar days using the format conforming to the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) (UGA-38). This notification must be accompanied by:

The final soft and hard copies of the clinical trial report as specified
A comprehensive summary of the essential findings of the trial
Evidence of destruction or shipment of remaining investigational products or any other course of action approved by the sponsor

As stated in the G-CTConduct, the definition of the end of the study will be as defined by the specific study protocol. The NDA requires that the PI submit an end of study notification according to the end as defined in the study protocol. End of trial reports will be submitted once the trial data can answer the study endpoints. The NDA defines the end of the trial as a time when the trial ends and end points are available.

The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that upon completion of the trial, the investigator, where applicable, should inform the institution. The investigator/institution should provide the EC with a summary of the trial’s outcome and furnish the regulatory authorities with any reports required. All aspects (statistical and clinical) of the protocol should be integrated in order to obtain a final study report that is entirely consistent with the study data generated. Essential elements in the presentation of the results include:

Baseline comparisons between the treatment groups
The number of participants actually randomized into the study by treatment group and the number of participants excluded from any of the analyses, by reason and by treatment group
Major efficacy and safety results by treatment group in the form of tables, graphs, test variables, and statistical parameters, as appropriate
An assessment of between-group differences with confidence intervals

An account must be made of missing, unused, or spurious data during statistical analyses. All omissions of this type must be documented to enable review.

In accordance with the G-UNCSTreg, it is the investigator’s obligation to submit final reports of the research projects to the UNCST. Investigators are free to adopt any format for writing a final report, but the report should have an abstract, a results section, a discussion of the results, and recommendations. Investigators who are foreign nationals are required to submit a study completion report before returning to their countries.

7.2

14.1 and 14.4

1.7, 3.15, and 5.2

5.6 and 9.4-9.5

Part II (13) and Schedule 2 (Format of Clinical Trial Report)

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 10, 2025

As defined in the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the G-GMPAnnexes, and the G-TrialsGCP, a sponsor is the person, company, institution, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, or financing of a clinical trial. The NGHRP specifically assigns responsibility to the sponsor for providing all the necessary financial support to initiate and complete a research study.

The NDPA-CTReg also specifies that in order to submit a clinical trial application, the sponsor must be one (1) of the following:

The drug patent holder
A licensed person (a pharmacist)
The drug manufacturer
An agent of the drug patent holder or the drug manufacturer

As stated in the G-TrialsGCP, a sponsor may transfer any or all of the sponsor's trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO), but the ultimate responsibility for the quality and integrity of the trial data always rests with the sponsor. The CRO must have the required skills, experience, and competencies to safely conduct clinical trials. Any trial-related duty and function that is transferred to and assumed by a CRO should be specified in writing and evidence of a mutual agreement provided. The sponsor should ensure oversight of any trial-related duties and functions carried out on the sponsor’s behalf, including trial-related duties and functions that are subcontracted to another party by the sponsor's contracted CRO(s). Any trial-related duties and functions not specifically transferred to and assumed by a CRO are retained by the sponsor.

Per the NDPA-CTReg, a local company in Uganda may act as an agent in the clinical trial for a foreign sponsor.

7.2

1.1 and 4.5

Annex 13 (Glossary to Annex 13)

2.0

Part I (2), Part II (4), and Schedule 1 (Form 30)

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 10, 2025

Overview

As per the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor oversees the selection of the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial. The G-CTConduct indicates that based on the clinical trial agreement between the sponsor and the principal investigator (PI), the National Drug Authority (NDA) will liaise with the in-country PI representing the sponsor regarding the application. The PI should be a Ugandan resident (local) and licensed by the relevant body in Uganda.

The G-TrialsGCP states that before entering an agreement with an investigator to conduct a trial, the sponsor should provide the investigator with the protocol and an up-to-date Investigator's Brochure (IB). The investigator should also be given sufficient time to review the protocol and the information provided. The PI/investigator(s) should be qualified by education, training, and experience to assume responsibility for the proper conduct of the trial, meet all the qualifications specified by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), and provide evidence of such qualifications through an up-to-date curriculum vitae and/or other relevant documentation requested by the sponsor, the accredited institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda), and/or the NDA. The PI/investigator(s) should also be thoroughly familiar with the appropriate use of the investigational product(s) (IP(s)), as described in the protocol, current IB, product information, and other information sources provided by the sponsor. Furthermore, the PI/investigator(s) should be aware of, and comply with, good clinical practice (GCP) and the applicable regulatory requirements.

According to the NDPA-CTReg, an application for additional investigators, change of investigator, or additional clinical trial sites must be made using Form 36 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or using UGA-13. The application must be accompanied by evidence of ethical approval of the clinical trial protocol amendment, where applicable, and the prescribed fees.

In accordance with the G-UNCSTreg, all investigators who are foreign nationals are required to identify and become affiliated with a local organization appropriate for their type of research in Uganda. Investigators arrange the affiliation themselves with the local organization. The investigator should obtain a letter of recommendation from the local organization and submit it to the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST).

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

The NDPA-CTReg states that in the case of foreign sponsors, a local company in Uganda must submit a letter of authorization from the holder of the patent of the drug, licensed person, or manufacturer of the drug to be the agent in the clinical trial that is responsible for all matters pertaining to the NDA clinical trial certificate. See Form 30 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-18 for the letter of authorization, and Form 34 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg for the clinical trial certificate.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

According to the NGHRP, the G-TrialsGCP, and the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor is responsible for establishing a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) (also referred to as an Independent Data-Monitoring Committee (IDMC)) prior to the trial’s commencement. Per the NGHRP, the DSMB ensures that the study and the data are handled in accordance with the protocol provisions, monitors adverse events/adverse drug reactions and safety data, and preserves the integrity and credibility of the trial. The composition of the DSMB must be provided to the EC. All Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III trials must have a safety monitoring plan and a DSMB. For additional details on DSMB requirements, see 3.6.2 of the NGHRP.

The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that a DSMB should have written operating procedures and maintain written records of all its meetings. A duly signed DSMB charter must be submitted to the NDA prior to recruitment of participants, and any decision not to create a DSMB should be clearly documented and justified in the protocol.

Multicenter Studies

The G-TrialsGCP indicates that multicenter trials must adhere to all national regulatory requirements, ensuring consideration and adaptation of the local context into the general study design. The following should be considered regarding multicenter trials:

Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be appropriate to consider local realities, as well as trial site-specific differences
The informed consent procedure must be tailored to local conditions and informed consent forms translated into the local language submitted to the EC for approval
Study design differences between the Ugandan site(s) and other sites must be fully explained, as well as differences between sites within Uganda Study extrapolations and conclusions should be relevant to the Ugandan context
Where necessary, site investigators should develop site-specific standard operating procedures and/or a site implementation plan to guide the respective sites on protocol implementation

Per the G-TrialsGCP, for multicenter trials, the PI is responsible for appointing co-investigators that will be responsible for the various trial sites in Uganda. However, it is the responsibility of the sponsor to ensure all investigators conduct the trial in strict compliance with the approved protocol. In addition, the sponsor should ensure that:

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 at the various sites is facilitated

3.6

8.0

1.6, 3.0, 3.2, 4.8-4.9, and 4.25

4.3

Part II (4, 8, and 11) and Schedule 1 (Forms 29, 30, 34, and 36)

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 10, 2025

Insurance

As set forth in the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor is responsible for providing insurance coverage for any unforeseen injury to research participants. The sponsor should provide indemnity for the investigator(s) against claims arising from the clinical trial, except for claims that arise from malpractice or negligence.

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-InsuranceCover, an insurance certificate must be provided to the National Drug Authority (NDA) that is specific to the trial for which the clinical trial application is being submitted. The G-CTConduct and the NDPA-CTReg also indicate that the clinical trial application must provide evidence that each member of the clinical trial team is covered by relevant malpractice insurance for the trial.

The G-InsuranceCover further states that the required insurance coverage for research participants in a specific trial at a given site must be obtained from a local insurance company that is registered and operating under law in Uganda. For additional details on the required elements of the insurance policy, see Section 7.0 of the G-InsuranceCover.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for ensuring participants obtain their claim from the local insurance company in the event of any trial-related injury and/or resultant disability.

Compensation

Per the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor must ensure that information on incentives offered to participants is included in the protocol and informed consent documents. If the study is multicenter, information on the incentives given at all the different trial sites must be provided. If the participating sites are multinational, then the differences in the incentives across the sites must also be explained.

According to the NGHRP, a care package for research participants should be prepared before initiation of a research project. Care and treatment for research participants should be provided with the ideal aim of providing the best proven intervention.

Injury or Death

In accordance with the NGHRP, the sponsor is responsible for providing compensation to research participants and/or their legal heirs in the event of trial-related injuries, disability, or death. The sponsor must ensure that participants who suffer any trial-related injuries receive free medical treatment for such injuries, and financial or other assistance that would compensate them equitably for any resulting impairment, disability, or handicap. The sponsor should provide care until complete cure or stabilization of a trial-related injury. The investigator and/or study sponsor must pay the cost of referral and management of the condition when a referral has been made for a trial-related injury or a serious adverse event related to the study. Furthermore, the sponsor is required to ensure that research participants are not asked to waive their legal rights to seek compensation.

Per the NGHRP, a trial-related injury may be physical, social, economic, or psychological, and may be classified as follows:

Definitely: When injury is directly caused by participation in a research project

Probably: When injury is most likely explained by participation in a research project but when no definite proof of causality is evident

Possibly: When explanation for injury is equally due to participation in a research project or other cause

Unlikely: When injury is more likely explained by another cause other than participation in a research project

Subject to applicable laws in Uganda, research participants will be entitled to compensation when injury related to their participation in a research project is classified as “Probably” or “Definitely.”

According to the NGHRP, the sponsor and investigator must put in place a mechanism for compensating trial-related injury at the commencement of a study. The mechanism, which may include, inter alia, insurance, and medical care, should be acceptable to the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda). The EC, research participant, and/or investigator may initiate the compensation process. The EC, sponsor, and investigator must agree on an appropriate mechanism for arbitration.

Trial Participation

In the clinical trial application made to the NDA, the applicant must explain how the participant(s) will be compensated for their time and other inconveniences, in accordance with the G-CTConduct and the NDPA-CTReg.

In addition, per the NGHRP, participants must be fairly compensated for inconveniences, time spent, and expenses incurred while taking part in a study such as travel costs, refreshments, meals, and any other compensation deemed appropriate by the EC. Research participants may also receive free medical services. The compensation or medical services must not be so out of proportion as to induce prospective research participants to consent to participate in the trial against their better judgment.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor must ensure that participants are reimbursed for all reasonable costs incurred by their participation in the trial.

Post-Trial Access

In accordance with the NGHRP, the duration and sustainability of care and treatment for the participant after the study should be negotiated before initiation of the study. Sponsors are encouraged, but not obliged, to provide care for concurrent illnesses not associated with the research project. However, investigators and sponsors are obliged to manage serious adverse events related to the study (including paying for associated costs thereof) until they are fully resolved or stabilized. Investigators should provide relevant follow up procedures for participants for an appropriate period of time after the trial.

3.0 and 7.0

2.2, 6.1, 6.3-6.6, and 7.2

3.12, 4.11, and 4.12

4.6 and Appendix I

Part III (15) and Schedule 1 (Form 29)

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 10, 2025

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

The NDPA-CTReg states that the sponsor should maintain quality assurance and quality control systems for the conduct of clinical trials and for the generation of documentation, recording, and reporting of data. The G-TrialsGCP indicates that the sponsor is also responsible for implementing the systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, documented (recorded), and reported in compliance with the protocol, good clinical practice (GCP), and the applicable regulatory requirement(s). Quality control should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been processed correctly.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should implement a quality management system throughout all stages of the trial process, and should focus on the trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results. The quality management system should use a risk-based approach including critical process and data identification, risk identification, risk evaluation, risk control, risk communication, risk review, and risk reporting. For additional details, see the G-TrialsGCP.

Monitoring Requirements

As per the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should ensure that the auditing of clinical trials/systems is conducted in accordance with the sponsor's written procedures on what to audit, how to audit, the frequency of audits, and the form and content of audit reports. The observations and findings of the auditor(s) should be documented and accessible to the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda) and the National Drug Authority (NDA). The audit report should be submitted to the NDA if evidence of GCP or protocol non-compliance is found.

The G-TrialsGCP further states that in accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor should appoint a monitor tasked with trial oversight and reporting on the progress of a study. The monitor should ideally have adequate medical, pharmaceutical, and scientific qualifications. The investigator(s) should accept the possibility of an audit or monitoring visit by an independent auditor appointed by the sponsor, and/or an inspection by the NDA, EC, or relevant local and international regulatory authorities.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Per the NDPA-CTReg, in the case of a sponsor-initiated clinical trial termination, the sponsor must notify the NDA within 15 days using the format specified in Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-5. The notification must give reasons for the termination, indicate the disposal process for the unused investigational product, and give the effective date of the termination. The G-CTConduct further requires that the sponsor provide evidence of notification to the EC of record and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST).

In addition, the G-TrialsGCP requires that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended for any reason, the investigator should inform the participants, assure appropriate therapy and follow-up for the participants, and inform the NDA. Furthermore, if the investigator terminates or suspends a trial without prior agreement of the sponsor, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should inform the sponsor and the EC. The investigator should provide the sponsor and the EC with a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension.

1.7, 3.9, 4.3-4.4, 4.20, 4.21

5.6

Part II (13), Part III (16), and Schedule 2 (Format of Report for Terminated Clinical Trial)

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 10, 2025

Electronic Data Processing System

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should utilize appropriately qualified individuals to supervise the overall conduct of the trial, handle the data, verify the data, conduct the statistical analyses, and prepare the trial reports. When using electronic trial data handling or remote electronic trial data systems, the sponsor should:

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

For additional details, see Section 4.8 of the G-TrialsGCP.

The G-TrialsGCP states that quality control should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been processed correctly. The sponsor should base their approach to validation of electronic data processing systems on a risk assessment that takes into consideration the intended use of the system and the potential of the system to affect human participant protection and reliability of trial results. The sponsor should maintain a documented record of SOPs that guide a step-by-step retrospective assessment of data quality and study performance. These SOPs should cover system setup, installation, and use. The SOPs should also describe system validation and functionality testing, data collection and handling, system maintenance, system security measures, change control, data backup, recovery, contingency planning, and decommissioning. The responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties with respect to the use of these computerized systems should be clear, and the users should be provided with training in their use.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, satisfactory maintenance and back-up procedures for computer databases must be provided. Case report forms (CRFs) should be designed to meet the specific data requirements set out in the study protocol. The effects of missing and inaccurate data should be minimized to maintain data quality. The system for routinely checking the data collection and entry throughout the course of the trial should be documented. Checks for validity and consistency of the database should be on separate items as well as on predetermined combinations of items in the CRFs. The SOP for data editing should ensure that any queries about data validation are brought to the attention of the investigators. Database lock should be done after completion of the validation and editing processes are documented.

Records Management

The G-TrialsGCP and the G-CTConduct state that the sponsor and the PI are responsible for archiving and ensuring the safety of all trial-related documentation. Per the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor must keep the records, documents, and information provided to the National Drug Authority (NDA) in the clinical trial application for unregistered investigational products (IPs) at the clinical trial site for 20 years following the trial's completion. Documentation for trials involving IPs to be registered should be kept for two (2) years after the registration of the IP. For an IP used in a clinical trial, the sponsor must, at the clinical trial site, maintain:

The Investigator's Brochure (IB) for the IP and a record of the changes made to the IB, if any, including the rationale for each change
A record of the adverse events (AEs) of the IP that occurred inside or outside Uganda, showing the indication for use and the dosage form of the IP at the time of the AE
A record of the participants with their identifications and contacts
A record of the shipment and receipt of the IP and where applicable, a record of the return of the IP or a record of the destruction of the IP, which must be in accordance with the prescribed process
A copy of the protocol and consent forms

The G-CTConduct further states that the holder of the clinical trial certificate should inform the NDA in writing prior to destroying the documents. Documents may be stored in electronic (soft and scanned) or hard copies.

In addition, the G-TrialsGCP requires that if the sponsor discontinues the clinical development of an IP, the sponsor should maintain all sponsor-specific essential documents for at least two (2) years after formal discontinuation. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s)/institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and should notify the investigator(s)/institution(s) in writing when the trial-related records are no longer needed.

According to the NGHRP, collaborating research partners must agree on appropriate data access and use rights before commencement of the study. Investigators must have in place mechanisms for maintaining the confidentiality of research participants and their communities. Furthermore, a collaborating research partner must not transfer data to a third party without the written consent of the other partner. Local investigators must have unrestricted access rights to data sets collected through a collaborative research project. Lastly, investigators must ensure that research records from which the data has been obtained are available at the research site for at least five (5) years after completion of the research project. Electronic records are acceptable.

11.2

4.8, 5.1, and 5.3-5.5

9.6

Part II (4) and Part III (19)

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 10, 2025

Responsible Parties

As per the NITA-U-PrivAct, the data controller determines the purposes for and the manner in which personal data is processed or is to be processed. The “data processor” processes personal data on behalf of the data controller. Data controllers and processors must be registered with the Personal Data Protection Office (PDPO) of the National Information Technology Authority - Uganda (NITA-U). See the NITA-U-PrivAct, the NITA-U-PrivReg, and the PDPO-Note for detailed registration requirements.

Data Protection

As per the NITA-U-PrivAct, a data controller or processor must:

Be accountable to the data subject for data collected, processed, held, or used
Collect and process data fairly and lawfully
Collect, process, use, or hold adequate, relevant, and not excessive or unnecessary personal data
Retain personal data for the period authorized by law or for which the data is required
Ensure quality of information collected, processed, used, or held
Ensure transparency and participation of the data subject in the collection, processing, use, and holding of the personal data
Observe security safeguards in respect of the data

The NITA-U-PrivReg indicates that every data collector, data processor, and data controller registered under the NITA-U-PrivReg must submit an annual report to the PDPO within 90 days after the end of every financial year. The report must contain a summary of all complaints received and the status of such complaints (including whether the complaint was resolved or is still pending), as well as all data breaches and the action taken to address such data breaches. See UGA-41 for a template of the annual report. See Part III of the NITA-U-PrivAct and NITA-U-PrivReg for detailed requirements on data processing, record retention, and processing of personal data outside Uganda.

Additionally, as per UGA-43, the PDPO launched a Data Protection and Privacy Compliance Toolkit to help organizations comply with NITA-U-PrivAct. The Toolkit is a comprehensive resource that includes practical tools, templates, and step-by-step guidance that organizations can use to assess their data protection practices, identify gaps, and take corrective actions. For more details and to access the toolkit, individuals should contact compliance@pdpo.go.ug.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

As delineated in the NITA-U-PrivAct, for the purposes of processing personal data, consent means any freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wish which, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the collection or processing of the data subject’s personal data.

According to the NITA-U-PrivAct, a data controller or data processor must obtain the consent of the data subject before collecting or processing personal data, and the data must be collected for a lawful, specific purpose. Unless otherwise provided under the NITA-U-PrivAct, a data subject has the right to object to the collection or processing of personal data at any time. See the NITA-U-PrivAct and NITA-U-PrivReg for detailed requirements on consent to data collection or processing, record retention, and processing of personal data outside Uganda.

The NITA-U-PrivAct and NITA-U-PrivReg further state that data subjects have a right to (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Request a data controller to give a description of the personal data held by the controller
Prevent processing of personal data
Appeal a decision to continue processing personal data
Request a data controller to correct or delete personal data about the data subject that is inaccurate, irrelevant, excessive, out of date, incomplete, misleading, or obtained unlawfully

See the NITA-U-PrivAct and NITA-U-PrivReg for more information on data subject rights.

Children

According to the NITA-U-PrivAct, personal data relating to children must not be collected or processed unless it is carried out with the prior consent of the parent/legal guardian; is necessary to comply with the law; or is for research or statistical purposes. The NITA-U-PrivReg further requires that every data collector, data processor, and data controller establish a system to determine the age of participants whose personal data is to be collected, processed, or stored, and where the data relates to a child, describe the manner of obtaining consent of a parent/legal guardian, where necessary.

Part I (2), Part II (3), Part III, Part VI, and Part V

Parts III, VI, and VIII

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 10, 2025

Obtaining Consent

In all Ugandan clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP.

As per the NGHRP, the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-TrialsGCP, the informed consent form (ICF) and the participant information leaflet are viewed as essential documents that must be reviewed and approved by an accredited institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) and provided to the National Drug Authority (NDA) with the clinical trial application. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the ICF.)

The G-TrialsGCP states that before informed consent may be obtained, the principal investigator (PI), or a person designated by the PI, should provide the participant or legal representative/guardian ample time and opportunity to inquire about details of the trial and to decide whether or not to participate in the trial. All questions about the trial should be answered to the satisfaction of the participant or legal representative/guardian.

As stated in the NGHRP, an investigator must seek informed consent only after ascertaining that the prospective research participant has adequate understanding of the relevant facts and of the consequences of participation. For certain types of research, the EC may require the investigator to administer a comprehension test (or test of understanding) to ensure that prospective research participants have acquired adequate understanding of the relevant facts and of the consequences of participation.

Per the G-TrialsGCP, if a participant is unable to read or if the legal representative/guardian is unable to read, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. The written ICF and any other written information to be provided to participants should be read and explained to the participant or legal representative/guardian. According to the NGHRP, verbal consent may be obtained in studies that present no more than minimal risk or in studies where for justifiable reasons written consent may not be feasible. ECs reserve the right to determine when verbal informed consent may be appropriate and acceptable.

Additionally, as stated in the G-TrialsGCP, the language used in the oral and written information about the trial, including the written ICF, should be as non-technical as practical and should be understandable to the participant or legal representative/guardian and the impartial witness, where applicable. Neither the PI, nor the trial staff, should coerce or unduly influence a participant to participate or to continue to participate in a trial. None of the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive any legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator, the institution, the sponsor, or their agents from liability for negligence and/or malpractice.

See the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP for detailed requirements for obtaining consent.

Re-Consent

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the written ICF and any other written information to be provided to participants should be revised whenever important new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s consent. Any revised written ICF and written information should receive the EC's approval/favorable opinion in advance of use. The participant or legal representative/guardian should 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 NGHRP specifies that re-consent from participants must be obtained if there are changes in the conditions or procedures of the research or if new information becomes available that could affect the participant’s willingness to continue in the research.

Language Requirements

As per the NGHRP and the G-CTConduct, the ICF should be written in English and in a vernacular language that the participant is able to understand. The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that for multicenter trials, the informed consent procedure must be tailored to local conditions, and ICFs must be translated into the local language and submitted to the EC for approval.

Documenting Consent

The G-TrialsGCP and the NGHRP state that prior to participation in the trial, the written ICF should be signed and personally dated by the participant or legal representative/guardian, and by the person who conducted the informed consent discussion.

The G-TrialsGCP delineates that the impartial witness for participants unable to read should sign and personally date the ICF, after the participant or legal representative/guardian has orally consented to the participation in the trial. If capable of doing so, the participant or legal representative/guardian should sign and personally date the ICF. By signing the ICF, the impartial witness attests that the information in the ICF and any other written information was accurately explained to, and apparently understood by, the participant or legal representative/guardian, and that informed consent was freely given.

According to the NGHRP, a thumbprint on the ICF is also acceptable in lieu of a signature. Where the use of signed consent forms is not feasible, alternative viable methods should be employed.

The G-TrialsGCP and the NGHRP indicate that a copy of the signed ICF must be offered to the participant or legal representative/guardian prior to participation in the trial. The G-TrialsGCP further specifies that during the course of the trial, the participant or legal representative/guardian should receive a copy of the signed and dated consent form updates and a copy of any amendments to the written information provided to the participant.

Waiver of Consent

According to the NGHRP, an EC may waive some or all of the requirements for the investigator to obtain informed consent and/or a signed/thumb-printed consent form for some or all of the research participants of a particular study if the EC determines that:

The research project carries no more than minimal risk (risk that is no more than the risks encountered in normal daily life in a stable society)
The research project could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration (whenever appropriate the research participants will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation)
Deception needs to be applied to achieve the objectives of the study
The only record linking the research participant and the research project would be the ICF and the risk to the research participant would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality
The research participant is involved in an emergency situation and informed consent cannot be reasonably obtained from the individual or the representative

4.5, 4.7-4.8, 5.1-5.2, and 5.4-5.5

3.7 and 4.25

4.6 and 4.7

Part II (4) and Part III (15)

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 10, 2025

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

The study involves research and an explanation of its nature and purpose
The procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
The expected duration of the trial
The trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment (where appropriate)
The participant's responsibilities
Those aspects of the trial that are experimental
Any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant (when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant), and whether the project involves more than minimal risk
Any benefits to the participant or to others that may be reasonably expected from the research; if no benefit is expected, the participant should also be made aware of this
The disclosure of specific appropriate alternative procedures or therapies available to the participant
The requirement to preserve the confidentiality of the participant
Allowed access by the sponsor, National Drug Authority (NDA), Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), relevant institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda), and/or other regulatory authority including international regulatory authorities (pending that they have received permission to do so from UNCST) to participant records
The policy on compensation and/or medical treatment(s) available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury within the framework of clinical trials insurance and where further information may be obtained
Where applicable, a statement of how the researcher will provide medical services to the participant
The nature, form, and extent of compensation for participation (e.g., reimbursement for transport, time, and meals)
The identity of a sponsor and any potential conflict of interests
A brief description of sponsors of the research project and the organizational affiliation of the researchers
A contact name and number of the principal investigator and/or site investigator
Names and contact details of individual(s) who should be contacted at any time in case of questions about the research project, as well as the participants’ rights and welfare. The individual(s) should be able to communicate in a language understandable by the participant or should be able to promptly secure the services of an interpreter to assist in responding to the participant’s questions
Participation is voluntary, the participant can withdraw from the study at any time, and withdrawal or refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled
A statement that participants will get feedback on findings and progress of the study, and that any new information that affects the study or data that has clinical relevance to participants (including incidental findings) will be made available to research participants and/or their health care providers
The participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified in a timely manner if significant new findings develop during the study which may affect the participant's willingness to continue
A witness may represent vulnerable populations during the informed consent process, if applicable
The study has been approved by an accredited Ugandan-based EC
A statement that a particular treatment or procedure may involve risks to the participant (or to the embryo or fetus, if the participant is or may become pregnant), which are currently unforeseeable
The foreseeable circumstances and/or reasons under which participation in the trial may be terminated, whether or not the participant consents to such termination
Additional costs/expenses to the participant that may result from participation in the study
The consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the research and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant
The approximate number of participants in the research study
If the research involves collecting biological or genetic materials, participants must be provided with an explanation on how specimens will be managed at the end of the study. If samples will be stored for future use, separate consent should be obtained
Whether, when, and how any of the products or interventions proven by the study to be safe and effective will be made available to participants at the end of the study, and if the participants will be expected to pay for them

Compensation Disclosure

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor must ensure that information on incentives offered to participants is included in the informed consent documents. If the study is multicenter, information on the incentives given at all the different trial sites must be provided. If the participating sites are multinational, then the differences in the incentives across the sites must also be explained.

5.1-5.4

3.7 and 4.12

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 10, 2025

Overview

The G-TrialsGCP states that in obtaining and documenting informed consent, the principal investigator (PI) or delegate should comply with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki (UGA-27), the NGHRP, and the G-TrialsGCP. Additionally, in accordance with the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP, a participant’s rights must be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

See the Required Elements; Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

The Right to Information

According to the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

The NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP indicate that all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. It is the responsibility of the investigator(s) to safeguard the confidentiality of research data to protect the identity and records of research participants.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

As per the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP, the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the investigator(s) and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) to address trial-related inquiries in the event of any injury and/or to appeal against a violation of the participants’ rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The NGHRP states that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare must take precedence over the objectives of the research.

1.1, 1.3-1.4, 2.2-2.3, and 5.1-5.4

3.7

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 10, 2025

The NGHRP allows the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) to waive some or all of the informed consent requirements in instances of emergency situations where consent cannot be reasonably obtained from the participant or legal representative/guardian.

The G-TrialsGCP further 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 that are described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval by the EC, to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of the participant and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible and provide consent to continue or other consent as appropriate, should this be requested.

5.5 and 8.1

3.7

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 10, 2025

Overview

According to the NGHRP, additional safeguards must be included in a study to protect vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations are characterized as research participants who are incapable of protecting their own interests due to insufficient power, intelligence, education, resources, strength, or other requisite attributes. These participants are also considered to be vulnerable due to their limited capacity or freedom to provide or decline consent. Vulnerable populations include children/minors, prisoners, the homeless, substance abusers, mentally and physically handicapped, armed forces, terminally ill, and pregnant women. Characteristics that constitute vulnerability in such populations include one (1) or more of the following:

Limited economic empowerment
Conflict and post-conflict situations
Inadequate protection of human rights
Discrimination on the basis of health status
Limited availability of health care and treatment options
Communities in acute disaster and disease epidemics

As per the G-TrialsGCP, vulnerable participants also include individuals whose willingness to volunteer in a clinical trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response from senior members of a hierarchy in case of refusal to participate. 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.

The NGHRP states that where appropriate, there should be a provision for involvement of a community in the research process right from inception to post research period. Additionally, the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) must carefully consider and approve the mode of consent for participants from vulnerable populations. In order to protect vulnerable communities, ECs must ensure that selection of the particular community is justified by the research goals, and the research is relevant to the needs and priorities of the community in which it is to be conducted.

Per the NGHRP, for all vulnerable populations and individuals:

Research can only be conducted in the population and with individuals if the objectives of the research cannot be addressed using non-vulnerable populations and individuals
Risk of participating in research is justified by anticipated benefits
The intervention or procedure presents experiences that are commensurate with those inherent in their actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situations
The intervention or procedure is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the population or individual’s disorder or condition that is of vital importance for the understanding or amelioration of that disorder or condition
ECs may co-opt a person knowledgeable about and has experience working with the vulnerable group and individuals

The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that special protections for vulnerable populations can include:

Allowing no more than minimal risks for procedures that offer no potential individual/direct benefits for participants
Supplementing the participant’s agreement by the permission of family members, legal guardians, or other appropriate representatives
Requiring that the research be carried out only when it is targeting conditions that affect these populations
Safeguards can be designed to promote voluntary decision-making, limit the potential for confidentiality breaches, and otherwise work to protect the interests of those at increased risk of harm
Appointment of advocates to the EC when such proposals for clinical trials on institutionalized individuals are under review

See the Children/Minors and Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates sections for additional information about these vulnerable populations. See the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP for more examples of and details on vulnerable populations.

Persons in Hierarchical Relationships

As per the G-TrialsGCP, there is a possibility of diminished voluntariness of consent from potential participants who are in a subordinate relationship. Their agreement to volunteer may be unduly influenced, whether justified or not, by the expectation of preferential treatment if they agree to participate in the study or by fear of disapproval or retaliation if they refuse. Examples include medical and nursing students; subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel; workers in settings where research studies are conducted; and members of the armed forces or police.

4.7 and 8.0

1.1 and 2.3

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 10, 2025

The NGHRP and the G-CTChldrnWmn define a child as a person below the age of 18.

According to the G-CTChldrnWmn, data supporting the conduct of a clinical trial involving children should demonstrate that the benefit to the population outweighs the risk. For interventions or procedures that have no potential individual benefits for children:

The risks must be minimized and no more than minimal;
The purpose of the research must be to obtain knowledge relevant to the particular health needs of the population;
The social value of the research for the children is compelling, and the research cannot be conducted in any other population; and
Any research-related risk is the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research

While consent from the child’s parent or guardian is required in most cases, the NGHRP does allow for mature and emancipated minors, as described below, to provide consent. As per the NGHRP, mature minors are defined as individuals 14-17 years of age who have drug or alcohol dependency or a sexually transmitted infection. Emancipated minors are defined as individuals below the age of majority (18 years) who are pregnant, married, have a child, or are self-sufficient. Mature and emancipated minors are permitted to independently provide informed consent to participate in research if the following conditions exist:

The institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) approves the research study as acceptable to the parents/legal guardians based on evidence from the community
The protocol provides clear justification for targeting mature and emancipated minors as participants, and for not involving parents/legal guardians in the consent process

Assent Requirements

The NGHRP requires a child’s affirmative agreement to participate in research when the child is eight (8) years of age and older. A child's assent is obtained after the parent’s/legal guardian’s consent is obtained. The child’s assent or dissent takes precedence over the parent’s/legal guardian’s consent.

The G-CTChldrnWmn further indicates that for pediatric studies, adequate provisions should be made for soliciting the assent of the children and permission of their parents/legal guardians. Investigators should provide an understandable age-specific informed assent and information sheet for children.

3 and 4.1

5.6, 5.8, and Glossary

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 10, 2025

The G-CTChldrnWmn states that data supporting the conduct of a clinical trial involving pregnant/lactating women should demonstrate that the benefit to the population outweighs the risk. For interventions or procedures that have no potential individual benefits for pregnant/lactating women:

The risks must be minimized and no more than minimal;
The purpose of the research must be to obtain knowledge relevant to the particular health needs of the population;
The social value of the research for the pregnant/lactating women is compelling, and the research cannot be conducted in any other population; and
Any research-related risk is the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research

According to the G-CTChldrnWmn, legally valid consent should be obtained from the participant or spouse as appropriate and in line with the NGHRP. As per the NGHRP, any Ugandan clinical studies involving pregnant women and fetuses require additional safeguards to ensure that the research conforms to appropriate ethical standards and upholds societal values. Informed consent should be obtained from both the mother and father of the embryos and fetuses. However, the father's consent is not required if: (i) the purpose of the study is primarily to meet the mother's health needs; (ii) the father's identity and/or whereabouts are unknown; (iii) the father is not reasonably available; or (iv) the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest and (v) the father is incompetent to give consent.

The G-CTChldrnWmn further indicates that for clinical trials involving pregnant women that have the potential for harm to the fetus, the participant should be informed about the potential risks, and research should be conducted only after assessing that the benefits (to the mother or fetus, as appropriate) outweigh the risk involved, and with informed consent of the participants.

(See the Required Elements section for general informed consent form requirements.)

3 and 4.1

5.7

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 10, 2025

The G-TrialsGCP states that residents of prisons are often considered vulnerable because in a confined setting, they have few options and are denied certain freedoms that non-institutionalized persons enjoy. Some individuals with this characteristic may also have diminished capacity to consent, and therefore require the additional protections for participants who lack decisional capacity.

Institutional ethics committees (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda) must review the need for special protection of the rights and welfare of these vulnerable populations and include protections when necessary.

2.3

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 10, 2025

The G-TrialsGCP states that residents of mental institutions are often considered vulnerable because in a confined setting, they have few options and are denied certain freedoms that non-institutionalized persons enjoy. Some individuals with this characteristic may also have diminished capacity to consent, and therefore require the additional protections for participants who lack decisional capacity.

Institutional ethics committees (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda) must review the need for special protection of the rights and welfare of these vulnerable populations and include protections when necessary.

2.3

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 10, 2025

As delineated in the NGHRP, the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the G-GMPAnnexes, and the G-TrialsGCP, an investigational product (IP) (also referred to as an investigational medicinal product (IMP) in Uganda) is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or a placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. Per the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the G-GMPAnnexes, and the G-TrialsGCP, an IP includes a product with registration when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a way different from the approved form; when used for an unapproved indication; or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

Glossary

1.1

Annex 13 (Glossary to Annex 13)

2.0

Part I (2)

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 10, 2025

Manufacturing

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-TrialsGCP, the National Drug Authority (NDA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Uganda. The NDA will only approve the manufacture of an IP after approval of the clinical trial application. The NDPA-CTReg indicates that if the IP is to be manufactured in Uganda, the holder of the clinical trial certificate must apply to the NDA for a manufacturing license.

Uganda follows the G-GMPMedicinal, the G-GMP-APIs, and the G-GMPAnnexes for good manufacturing practice (GMP), which were adopted from Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) guidance. Per the G-GMPMedicinal, the holder of the NDA’s 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 G-GMPAnnexes further states that for manufacturers to be able to apply and comply with GMP for IPs, cooperation between manufacturers and sponsors of clinical trials is required. This cooperation should be described in a technical agreement between the sponsor and manufacturer.

The G-GMP-APIs indicates that when manufacturing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for use in clinical trials, process and test procedures should be flexible to provide for changes as knowledge of the process increases and clinical testing of a drug product progresses from pre-clinical stages through clinical stages. Once drug development reaches the stage where the API is produced for use in IPs, manufacturers should ensure that APIs are manufactured in suitable facilities using appropriate production and control procedures to ensure the quality of the API. Additionally, the manufacture of APIs for use in clinical trials should be documented in laboratory notebooks, batch records, or by other appropriate means.

See the G-GMPMedicinal, the G-GMP-APIs, and the G-GMPAnnexes for more detailed manufacturing requirements.

Import

The NDA is responsible for authorizing the import of IPs. The NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct state that prior to IP import or manufacture, the sponsor or principal investigator (PI) must be granted a clinical trial certificate by the NDA. According to the NDPA-CTReg, the holder of the clinical trial certificate must then apply for a permit to import the IP approved for the trial.

According to the G-VerImprtExprt, an application for an import verification certificate under extraordinary circumstances (which include clinical trials approved by the NDA) must be submitted electronically through the National Drug Authority Management Information System (NDAMIS) (UGA-34) by a person duly authorized to import drugs into Uganda (an import license holder). The G-VerImprtExprt includes clinical trials approved by the NDA in its definition of “extraordinary circumstances.” The application should be accompanied by:

A clinical trial certificate for drugs for use in clinical trials
A copy of the proforma invoice from the supplier
A donation certificate, if applicable
Authorization for drugs to be used in a medical camp, if applicable
Evidence of current GMP compliance of the manufacturer. The manufacturer should have GMP certification issued by the NDA, or the national medicines regulatory authorities of the following countries/regions: the United States of America (USA), the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, or prequalified by the World Health Organization
Documented evidence/justification describing the emergency or extraordinary circumstance
A filled application form for the authorization for importation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and precursors, if applicable
Evidence of registration of the drug(s) in the country of origin or emergency use approval of the drug by the competent authority in the country of origin, by a supranational body and any other regulatory authority if not registered

As stated in the G-VerImprtExprt, the application is screened for completion and correctness, then the applicant is billed the prescribed fees (see the NDPA-FeesReg for more information). The NDA will issue a verification certificate upon receipt of a successful application. The verification certificate is valid for 12 months from the date of issue.

See the G-VerImprtExprt for detailed import permit application submission requirements and review procedures. Additionally, see the Submission Process, Submission Content, and Regulatory Fees sections for detailed clinical trial application requirements.

Please note: Uganda is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (UGA-3), which may have implications for studies of IPs developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see UGA-21.

Terms and Definitions, 11.0, and 14.0

4.15

Annex 13 (Introduction)

Introduction and Chapters 1 and 4

19

10.0-10.2

Part II (10) and Schedule 1 (Form 30)

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 10, 2025

Investigator's Brochure

In accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor is responsible for updating the Investigator’s Brochure (IB), which is a compilation of the clinical and non-clinical data on the investigational product(s) (IPs). The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that the IB should be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary in compliance with a sponsor's written procedures. Relevant new information may be so important that it should be communicated to the investigator(s), and possibly to the institutional ethics committee(s) (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda) and/or regulatory authorities, before it is included in a revised IB.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor is generally responsible for ensuring that an up-to-date IB is made available to the investigator(s), and the investigators are responsible for providing the up-to-date IB to the responsible ECs and the National Drug Authority (NDA). In the case of an investigator sponsored trial, the sponsor-investigator should determine whether a brochure is available from the commercial manufacturer. If the IP is provided by the sponsor-investigator, then the sponsor-investigator should provide the necessary information to the trial personnel. In cases where preparation of a formal IB is impractical, the sponsor-investigator should provide, as a substitute, an expanded background information section in the trial protocol that contains the minimum current information described in this guideline.

The G-TrialsGCP, the NDPA-CTReg, and UGA-4 require the IB to provide coverage for 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; regulatory and post-marketing experiences)
Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)

See Section 7.3 of the G-TrialsGCP for detailed content descriptions, and UGA-4 or Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg for the format of the IB.

Quality Management

Uganda follows the G-GMPMedicinal, the G-GMP-APIs, and the G-GMPAnnexes for good manufacturing practice (GMP), which were adopted from Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) guidance. Per the G-GMPMedicinal, 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. The forementioned documents must be used for periodic GMP inspection of all manufacturers of medicinal products within and outside Uganda whose products are registered or subjected to registration in the country. Manufacturers that are GMP compliant will be issued GMP compliance certificates.

According to the G-CTConduct and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor must ensure that the IP(s) is manufactured in accordance with GMP. The G-CTConduct further indicates that evidence of manufacture under GMP standards must be submitted with the clinical trial application to the NDA. In cases where the principal investigator (PI) is not the manufacturer and where confidentiality considerations prevent disclosure of certain information to the PI, any relevant IP/application information may be submitted to the NDA through the PI in a sealed envelope marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” Alternatively, the information may be sent to the Clinical Trials Unit with the necessary password protection at clinicaltrials@nda.or.ug.

The G-TrialsGCP states that if significant formulation changes are made in the investigational or comparator product(s) during the course of clinical development, the results of any additional studies of the formulated product(s) (e.g., stability, dissolution rate, bioavailability) needed to assess whether these changes would significantly alter the pharmacokinetic profile of the product should be available prior to the use of the new formulation in clinical trials and submitted to the NDA for review and authorization.

According to the G-GMPAnnexes, the manufacturer should establish and maintain a quality control system placed under the authority of a person who has the requisite qualifications and is independent of production. Quality control of the IP, including that of the comparator product, should be performed in accordance with the information submitted in the application for the clinical trial. See the G-GMPMedicinal and the G-GMPAnnexes for more information on quality control requirements.

Additionally, the G-GMPAnnexes indicates that a pharmaceutical quality system which is designed, set up, and verified by the manufacturer should be described in written procedures, taking into account the guidance in the G-GMPMedicinal that is applicable to IPs. The product specifications and manufacturing instructions may be changed during development, but full control and traceability of the changes should be documented and maintained. The selection, qualification, approval, and maintenance of suppliers of starting materials, together with their purchase and acceptance, should be documented as part of the pharmaceutical quality system to ensure the integrity of the supply chain and protect against falsified products. The product specification file should be continually updated as development of the product proceeds, ensuring appropriate traceability to the previous versions. It should include, or refer to, at least the following documents:

Specifications and analytical methods for starting materials, packaging materials, intermediate product, bulk product, and finished product
Manufacturing methods
In-process testing and methods
Approved label copy
Relevant clinical trial authorizations and amendments thereof, clinical trial protocol, and randomisation codes, as appropriate
Relevant technical agreements with contract givers and acceptors, as appropriate
Stability plan and reports
Details of plans and arrangements for reference and retention samples
Storage and transport conditions
Details of the supply chain including manufacturing, packaging, labeling, and testing sites for the IPs

For more information on pharmaceutical quality system requirements, see the G-GMPMedicinal and the G-GMPAnnexes.

4.15 and 7.0-7.3

Annex 13 (2 and 7)

Introduction and Chapters 1 and 4

4.6, 10.2, and 10.5

Part I (2), Part III (16 and 19), and Schedule 2 (Format for Investigator’s Brochure)

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 10, 2025

Labeling for investigational products (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in Uganda) must comply with the requirements set forth in the G-GMPAnnexes, the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the NGHRP, and the G-TrialsGCP. As specified in the G-GMPAnnexes, the labeling operation should be performed at an authorized manufacturing site.

As per the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor is responsible for ensuring the proper labeling of the IPs. The IPs and comparator products must be labeled in conformity with the clinical protocol.

According to the NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct, the IP must be labelled as specified in UGA-7 or Form 37 of the NDPA-CTReg. The NDPA-CTReg, the G-GMPAnnexes, and UGA-7 require the following labeling information to be included on both the outer packaging and the immediate container (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

The name, address, and telephone number of the sponsor or manufacturer; the G-GMPAnnexes specifies the investigator or contract research organization could also be the main contact for IP information, clinical trial, and emergency unblinding
The name/identifier and strength/potency, and in the case of blinded trials, all product labeling should indicate “placebo/comparator or [name/identifier] + [strength/potency]”
The pharmaceutical dosage form, route of administration, and quantity of dosage units
The batch and/or code number to identify the contents and packaging operation
A trial reference code allowing identification of the trial, site, investigator, and sponsor, if not given elsewhere
The trial participant identification number or treatment number and, where relevant, the visit number
The investigator’s name (if not already provided on the label)
The storage conditions
Pack sizes (unit or volume)
The instructions for use
The period of use (use-by date, expiration date, manufacturing date, or re-test date), in month/year format
“For clinical trial use only” or similar wording
“Keep out of reach of children” except when the IP is for use in trials where it is not taken home by participants

The G-GMPAnnexes further states that where products are blinded, systems should be in place to ensure that the blind is achieved and maintained while allowing for identification of “blinded” products, when necessary, including batch numbers of the products before the blinding operation. Rapid identification of the product should also be possible in an emergency. Where the manufacturer has been delegated the responsibility for generation of randomization codes, the manufacturer should ensure that unblinding information is available to the appropriate responsible investigator site personnel before the IPs are supplied. The expiry date assigned to all products for use in the trial should be the expiry of the shortest dated product so that the blinding is maintained.

For additional detailed labeling information and exceptions, see the G-GMPAnnexes.

The G-TrialsGCP requires that in blinded trials, the coding system for IPs should include a mechanism that permits rapid identification of the products in case of a medical emergency, but does not permit undetectable breaks of the blinding. The G-CTConduct further indicates that a sample of the label for imported products must be included with the clinical trial application to the National Drug Authority (NDA).

7.2

4.15

Annex 13 (6.4 and 6.6)

4.6, 10.3, and Appendix I

Part III (18) and Schedule 1 (Form 37)

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 10, 2025

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As delineated in the G-TrialsGCP and the G-CTConduct, the sponsor must ensure timely delivery of the investigational product(s) (IP(s)) to the principal investigator (PI)/investigator(s). Additionally, the sponsor must maintain sufficient quantities of the IP(s) used in the trial to reconfirm specifications, should this become necessary. The G-TrialsGCP further states that the sponsor should not supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the IP(s) until the sponsor obtains National Drug Authority (NDA) and institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) approvals. However, according to the NDPA-CTReg, the PI is responsible and accountable for the IP.

Furthermore, per the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should ensure that written procedures include instructions that the investigator/institution should follow for the handling and storage of IP(s) for the trial and documentation thereof. The procedures should address adequate and safe receipt, handling, storage, dispensing, retrieval of unused product from participants, and return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor (or alternative disposition if authorized by the sponsor and in compliance with the NDA approved protocol and/or where available, applicable regulatory requirement(s)).

As delineated in the G-GMPAnnexes, IPs are normally packed individually for each participant included in the clinical trial. The number of units to be packaged should be specified prior to the start of the packaging operations, including units necessary for carrying out quality control and for any retention samples to be kept. Sufficient reconciliations should take place to ensure that the correct quantity of each product required has been accounted for at each stage of processing. Procedures should describe the specification, generation, testing, security, distribution, handling, and retention of any randomization code used for packaging IPs, as well as code-break mechanism. Appropriate records should be maintained.

Per the G-GMPAnnexes, packaging must ensure that the IP remains in good condition during transport and storage at intermediate destinations. Any opening or tampering of the outer packaging during transport should be readily discernible. Where the manufacturer is delegated by the sponsor to perform the regulatory release of the IP, the arrangements should be defined in an agreement between the sponsor and the manufacturer. Relevant clinical trial authorization and amendment information should be available for reference in the product specification file, and the manufacturer should ensure the necessary clinical trial authorizations are in place prior to shipping the product for use in the trial.

Per the G-TrialsGCP and the G-CTConduct, the sponsor must also maintain a system for retrieving IP(s), as well as for the disposal of unused IP(s). The G-GMPAnnexes further delineates that returned IPs should be clearly identified and stored in an appropriately controlled, dedicated area. 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 arrangement between sponsor and manufacturer regarding IP destruction 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.

See the G-GMPAnnexes, the G-TrialsGCP, and the G-CTConduct for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements.

Record Requirements

As per the G-CTConduct and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor must maintain records that document shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction of the IP(s). The sponsor must also maintain a system for documenting the retrieval of IP(s) and the disposal of unused IP(s), as well as records of batch sample analyses and characteristics.

Per the G-GMPAnnexes, there must be sufficient documentation to demonstrate that appropriate segregation has been maintained during any IP packaging operations. To facilitate a recall of the IP, a detailed inventory of the shipments made by the manufacturer should be maintained. Inventory records of returned IPs should be kept. Additionally, records of destruction operations should be retained, including a dated certificate of destruction or a receipt for destruction to the sponsor. These documents should clearly identify or allow traceability to the batches and/or participant numbers involved, and the actual quantities destroyed.

The G-CTConduct indicates that the pharmacist of record must maintain instructions for the handling of IP(s) and trial related materials, if not indicated in the protocol or Investigator’s Brochure (IB). The pharmacist must also maintain shipping records for the IP(s) and trial related material, as well as for receipt date(s) of product delivery and quantity.

According to the G-GMPAnnexes, product specification file documents must be retained for at least five (5) years, and the sponsor should retain the clinical trial master file for at least 25 years after the end of the trial, unless otherwise specified in relevant national laws. If the sponsor and the manufacturer are not the same entity, the sponsor must make appropriate arrangements with the manufacturer to fulfil the clinical trial master file retention requirement. 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. Per the G-GMPMedicinal and the G-GMPAnnexes, batch documentation/manufacturing records must be retained by the manufacturer for at least five (5) years after the completion or formal discontinuation of the last clinical trial in which the batch was used.

4.14-4.16

Annex 13 (5, 6.5, 8, and 11)

Chapter 4

10.5

Part III (16-17 and 19)

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 10, 2025

In Uganda, a specimen is also referred to as human material. As delineated in the NGHRP, human biological materials consist of any substance obtained from a human research participant. This material includes, but is not limited to: blood, urine, stool, saliva, hair, nail clippings, skin, microorganisms, and other associated bio-products.

10.0

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 10, 2025

Import/Export

The G-CTConduct states that applications for import and/or export of biological materials, if applicable, must be included in the clinical trial application to the National Drug Authority (NDA).

Additionally, the NGHRP delineates that all exchanges and transfers, including importation and exportation of human materials for research purposes, require Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) clearance, except for the exchange of human materials between organizations within Uganda. In order to justify transfer of human materials abroad, investigators, sponsors, and collaborators should demonstrate that in-country capacity to perform certain types of investigations/testing does not exist or is inadequate. Per the G-UNCSTreg, where it is proven that no capacity for a given investigation exists in Uganda, or where exchange of research material is needed for quality assurance purposes or other justifiable reasons, research materials may be transferred to, exported to, or exchanged with more advanced facilities abroad.

Per the NGHRP and the G-UNCSTreg, the following are the necessary steps for the exchange or transfer of human materials for research purposes abroad or from abroad:

The research project that involves the exchange or transfer of human material must first be registered by the UNCST
The applicant must be a legal resident of Uganda and be affiliated with a locally registered and recognized organization in Uganda
A request for exchange or transfer of human material must be made in writing to the Executive Secretary of the UNCST
A Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) and any other document related to the exchange or transfer of human material must accompany the request for the exchange or transfer of the material

According to the NGHRP, the UNCST is required to provide feedback within 14 calendar days from the submission date. However, the G-UNCSTreg states that the UNCST must provide feedback within 10 working days from the submission date. The feedback may be an approval or clearance, a rejection or disapproval, or comments to improve the quality of the application. Once the UNCST approval is obtained, the investigator can proceed to facilitate the transfer, export, or exchange of the research specimen.

Material Transfer Agreement

As set forth in the NGHRP and the G-UNCSTreg, the UNCST application for permission to transfer, export, or exchange samples for research purposes from one (1) organization to another, within the country and abroad, must be accompanied by an MTA between the provider organization and the recipient organization. Per the NGHRP, the MTA should include the following details:

A list of the parties and their addresses; the MTA is signed only by authorized party representatives and the effective date of the MTA must be indicated
A detailed description of the materials to be exchanged
The purpose for transfer or export of the human biological substance
A list of authorized users of the materials
The location where the material is to be transferred
Period of use and disposal plans for the material
Clear arrangements for benefit sharing of any accruing or anticipated future benefit at the point of termination
The provider organization should state whether the recipient organization is permitted to own any of the derivatives or products discovered through the use of the material
Directions for handling product commercial rights
Publication requirements/restrictions, including citation requirements if information about the material is published
The governing law(s) of the provider’s and recipient’s countries
Recipient organization’s responsibilities for the proper handling and use of the material
Recipient and provider agreement on liability for any misuse of the material
Description of specific restrictions for the recipient organization
A statement indicating what technologies would be transferred to the provider organization or country, if applicable
A warranty stating that the material is being provided “as is”
A clause stating that the MTA may be amended at any time by written mutual consent of the parties

See Section 10.4 of the NGHRP for detailed MTA requirements. Per the UNCST-RevTemp, data ownership and associated intellectual property rights in both the Data Sharing Agreements and MTAs must be discussed and agreed upon by collaborating partners at the inception of a research study within the context of the investigator's institutional regulations/provisions. Templates of Data Sharing Agreements and MTAs, as applicable, must be presented as part of the research protocol to be reviewed by the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda).

See the G-Biobank for more information on the collection, receipt, storage, processing, and dissemination of biological specimens by biobanks in Uganda.

10.0

15.0

4.6 and Appendices I and II

Consent for Specimen