Therapeutic Goods Administration

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

As per AUS-28, the TGA is part of the Health Products Regulation Group (HPRG) within the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care. The TGA’s Pharmacovigilance Branch is responsible for evaluating and authorizing certain clinical trials for all types of therapeutic products. According to the G-TrialsSOP and AUS-32, the TGA also regulates the supply, import, export, manufacturing, and advertising of therapeutic goods. Per AUS-31, therapeutic goods include prescription medicines, vaccines, sunscreens, vitamins and minerals, medical devices, blood, and blood products.

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

Other Considerations

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

Contact Information

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

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

For general questions:

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

For clinical trial questions:

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

Ministry of Health

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, DecreeMOH, and ASTTReg, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, registration, oversight, and inspections. The MOH grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in Vietnam.

As indicated in DecreeMOH, the MOH is a governmental agency whose mission is to oversee all aspects of public health care management and protection for the Vietnamese population. With regard to pharmaceuticals, the MOH’s activities include, but are not limited to, formulating and promulgating legal documents, regulations, and national standards; granting and withdrawing pharmaceutical practice certificates; and issuing certificates of eligibility, registration permits, medicine import/export permits, and certificates of good manufacturing practice (GMP).

The ClinDrugTrialGCP and ASTTReg specify that the MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is responsible for managing the clinical trial review process. As per the ClinTrialSup, the MOH’s ASTT is also responsible for registering contract research organizations (CROs) that support clinical studies and provide other research services. (See the ClinTrialSup for detailed information on clinical trial research support activities and the related registration forms.)

Pursuant to the DrugRgstrtn, an Advisory Council created by the MOH issues registration papers for drug and medicinal ingredient circulation. The Advisory Council consists of experts with appropriate professional qualifications and experience to ensure the ability to evaluate dossiers, critique experts' opinions and recommendations of the MOH’s Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV), and advise the Minister of Health on issues related to pharmaceutical legislation, quality, safety, and efficacy records of drugs and medicinal ingredients. See the Scope of Assessment section for more information on the Advisory Council’s role in drug clinical trial phase exemptions.

Please note: Vietnam is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (VNM-2), which may have implications for studies of investigational products developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see VNM-6.

Contact Information

According to VNM-11, the contact information for the ASTT is as follows:

Ministry of Health
Administration of Science, Technology and Training
No. 138B Giang Vo
Ba Dinh District
Hanoi City, Vietnam

Phone: 04.33846688
Fax: 04.32373236
Email: cuck2dt@moh.gov.vn

Overview

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

CTN Scheme

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

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

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

CTA Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

Inspection

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

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

Overview

In accordance with the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, and ASTTReg, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) manages the clinical trial review process for registered and unregistered investigational products (IPs). The ASTT is responsible for reviewing all clinical study documents, and per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, the ECReg, and the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), is responsible for approving the research protocol. The ECReg further indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. (Note: institutional level ECs are known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.) For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

According to the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT reviews a clinical trial registration dossier submitted by the sponsor, as well as a study approval dossier submitted by the institution. Evidence of institutional EC approval from a CEBRGL is a required element of the study approval dossier, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

As per the ClinDrugTrial and PharmLaw-VNM, the scope of the MOH’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV) for the following:

• Drugs that contain a new active ingredient, or products with a new combination of marketed ingredients
• Newly developed biologics or biologics with a new combination of marketed ingredients
• Newly developed vaccines that are manufactured and used for the first time in Vietnam
• Drugs, biologics, and vaccines which have been legally marketed for a period of less than five (5) years in the country of origin (or a country of reference if provided for under international treaties to which Vietnam is a signatory)
• Drugs, biologics, and vaccines for which a clinical trial has been conducted, but have not met the MOH’s or internationally recognized good clinical practice (GCP) requirements

In addition, per the TradMedicine, the MOH also reviews and approves traditional medicines to be used in clinical trials (Phases I-IV) unless deemed exempt by the agency. The category of traditional medicine includes drugs developed from a provincial-level scientific research project or higher, drugs that were granted a certificate, or drugs used for treatment at health establishments at a provincial level or higher for 10 years or more and for 200 or more patients. The drugs must also have been approved by a Science and Technology Council or an EC specialized in traditional medicine as effective and safe to treat traditional medical diseases. Traditional medicines also include ancient methods.

For information on bioequivalence trials and testing, see the BioequivTrial and the BioTestReq.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Registration Dossier Review

According to the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT requires the sponsor to submit a clinical trial registration dossier. Upon receipt of the appropriate files, the ASTT will check the validity of the dossier. If the dossier is incomplete, the ASTT will provide a written notice and specific instructions for the sponsor to supplement the dossier. The sponsor is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier within a maximum of 60 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the submitted application is no longer valid. Following the review of a complete and valid dossier, the ASTT Director will either issue a written approval (see Form 13 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) or clearly state the reason for disapproval in writing.

See the Submission Process, Submission Content, and Timeline of Review sections for more information on registration dossiers.

Approval Dossier Review

Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, research institutions must submit dossiers requesting clinical drug trial approval to the ASTT. The ASTT checks the validity of the dossier, and if it is incomplete, the ASTT will provide a written notice and specific instructions for the institution to supplement the dossier. The institution is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier within a maximum of 60 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the research approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that following receipt of a complete and valid dossier, the MOH will organize a meeting of the NECBR. After receiving the NECBR’s evaluation report of the research protocol, the ASTT will synthesize and complete the dossier, then submit it to the Minister of Health for approval if the protocol meets the requirements. If the protocol is not approved or needs correction, the ASTT will notify the institution in writing and clearly state the reason. If the protocol needs to be modified, the institution is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier in up to 90 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the protocol approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

Procedures for the approval of research protocol amendments follow the same procedure described above for clinical drug trial approval. For more information, see the ClinDrugTrialGCP.

See Submission Process, Submission Content, and Timeline of Review sections for more information on the approval dossier.

Inspection

The BioequivTrial indicates that the ASTT may conduct inspections to ensure the rights and health of participants in the trial, ensure the quality and integrity of the research data, ensure that the responsibilities of stakeholders in the research are implemented in accordance with applicable regulations, and promptly detect violations of the research protocol. The MOH will determine the inspection scale and frequency based on the objective, purpose, design, complexity, blinding technique, scale, and end date of the research. The MOH must send an inspection notice to the sponsor and institution at least five (5) days before the inspection, and the inspection report must be completed and sent to the sponsor and institution within 20 days of the inspection.

Clinical Trial Exemptions

The DrugRgstrtn indicates that based on the opinion of the MOH’s Advisory Council, the Minister of Health may exempt certain new drugs, vaccines, and biological products from one (1) or more phases of a clinical trial (including clinical data exemption or reduction). Registration certificates may be issued with the clinical trial phase exemption in the following cases:

• Medicines that meet urgent needs for national defense and security, epidemic prevention and control, and overcoming the consequences of natural calamities and catastrophes in which other drugs are not yet available on the market
• The drug has been licensed for circulation by at least one (1) of the reference regulatory agencies specified in Article 2 of the DrugRgstrtn
• Medicines used to treat rare and fatal diseases
• Vaccines and biological products manufactured in Vietnam in the form of technology transfer in one (1), several, or all phases of the finished product manufacturing process, which have clinical data on the products prior to the technology transfer in compliance with the DrugRgstrtn

See the DrugRgstrtn and the PharmLaw-VNM for more information on drugs that are exempted from a trial or certain phases of a trial.

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

No information is currently available regarding fees required to submit a clinical trial application for authorization to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT).

Overview

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

As per the ECReg, the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), and PharmLaw-VNM, Vietnam requires institutional and national level ethics committee (EC) approval for clinical trials. According to the ECReg and VNM-12, institutional level EC approval is provided by a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL). PharmLaw-VNM states that national level EC approval is conducted by the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR).

Ethics Committee Composition

The ECReg details general EC requirements applicable to both the CEBRGLs and the NECBR, as well as specific requirements for each type of EC.

Per the ECReg, EC membership should include the following:

• Members with a professional degree in the health sector related to the common research areas assessed by the EC, including at least one (1) person independent from the organization that establishes the EC
• Clinical doctors
• Members with legal expertise or knowledge of ethical principles in biomedical research, with a university degree or higher
• Members with no expertise in the health sector
• Members under 40 years of age, members from 40 years old to under 50 years old, and members aged 50 or older
• Male and female members (neither gender may be less than 20% of the total membership)

The ECReg further indicates that EC members must have the necessary experience, knowledge, skills, and ability to perform their duties in order to validate the science and protect the interests of research participants. Members with expertise in the health sector must have at least five (5) years of experience working in the field of research assessed by the EC. All members must also have time to participate in and perform the duties of the EC, and keep confidential any information related to the research, opinions discussed during the meeting, commercial secrets of individuals and organizations participating in the study, and personal information about the research participant. Members must also receive training and certification from the MOH or MOH-accredited organizations in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the EC’s standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level

As explained in the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg, institutional ECs, known as CEBRGLs, should consist of at least five (5) members. The ECReg states that a CEBRGL consists of one (1) chair, one (1) to two (2) vice-chairs, a standing division, and specialized subcommittees (if necessary).

The CEBRGLReg further indicates that CEBRGLs may have at most 11 members. All members must be honest, objective, and have biomedical research ethics knowledge and expertise. The chair and vice-chair should be prestigious scientists.

The ECReg requires that the chair and vice-chairs have at least 15 years of experience working in the field of research evaluated by the EC, a good reputation, and the capacity to independently manage and run the EC. The chair and vice-chairs must also be fair and impartial, and not be pressured by the research institution, investigators, and other agencies, organizations, and individuals. An individual cannot be appointed as the chair of the EC for more than two (2) consecutive terms.

According to the ECReg, a CEBRGL should have no more than two (2) professional secretaries and no more than two (2) administrative secretaries. Professional and administrative secretaries must be honest, objective, and university educated. Furthermore, professional secretaries must have knowledge about scientific and technological management, scientific research, and ethics in biomedical research, while administrative secretaries must have administrative, clerical, and archival skills.

According to the CEBRGLReg, a secretariat based in the host institution’s Science Research Management Office should assist the CEBRGL with application processing and other administrative tasks.

See the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg for additional CEBRGL membership criteria.

National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research

The ECReg requires the NECBR to have at least nine (9) official members, including one (1) chair, three (3) vice-chairs, and other official members, including professional and administrative secretaries. The NECBR also includes data monitoring and other subcommittees as needed. The Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) and the MOH act as standing members of the office of the NECBR.

The ECReg requires that the chair and vice-chairs have at least 15 years of experience working in the field of research evaluated by the EC, a good reputation, and the capacity to independently manage and run the EC. The chair and vice-chairs must also be fair and impartial, and not be pressured by the research institution, investigators, and other agencies, organizations, and individuals. An individual cannot be appointed as the chair of the EC for more than two (2) consecutive terms.

According to the ECReg, the NECBR should have no more than three (3) professional secretaries, and two (2) administrative secretaries at most.

The ECReg states that professional and administrative secretaries must be honest, objective, and university-educated. Professional secretaries must have knowledge about scientific and technological management, scientific research, and ethics in biomedical research, while administrative secretaries must have administrative, clerical, and archival skills.

See the ECReg for additional NECBR membership criteria and VNM-1 for the list of 2023-2028 NECBR term members.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

According to the ECReg, both CEBRGLs and the NECBR have five (5) year terms. However, the CEBRGLReg indicates that CEBRGLs have three (3) to five (5) year terms, as specified in the EC’s establishment decision. The ECReg also stipulates that the EC must be established or reorganized at the end of the term. The EC for the next consecutive term must include at least 25% new members.

As stated in the ECReg, EC activities are non-profit. The EC must fully apply the ethical principles prescribed in the ECReg and relevant legal documents, and comply with ethical guidelines of international organizations. The ethical guidelines used by the EC should be clearly stated and disseminated to investigators. In addition, ECs function on the principles of collectivity, democracy, and independence when evaluating research proposals and making decisions. If necessary, ECs may invite an independent consultant to provide a professional opinion to the EC. ECs should also facilitate the coordination of and/or reference the evaluation results of other domestic or foreign ECs.

According to the ECReg, the EC’s decision for a research proposal should be based on the consensus of the EC members and must be recorded in the EC’s meeting minutes. In case it is difficult to reach a consensus, the EC’s chair has the right to decide to immediately commence voting, or request that the principal investigator supplement the research dossier for the EC to consider and vote on during the next EC meeting. Research is approved only when there is no more than one (1) disapproval vote out of the total number of valid votes.

In addition, the ECReg states that ECs must conduct periodic assessments of ongoing studies within a time period that is consistent with the level of risk for study participants, but at least once a year on or before the date the EC approved the research protocol. The conclusion of the periodic assessment results should state that the EC’s previous decisions are still valid, or have been changed, suspended, or revoked.

The ECReg requires that EC members be trained prior to appointment and provided with updated and supplementary training in the ethical and scientific aspects of biomedical research. The head of the organization that establishes the EC is responsible for assigning a unit to manage scientific research activities to develop and deploy training plans for EC members. The updated and supplementary training must be conducted at least once every two (2) years. For more information on training requirements for EC members, see the ECReg.

As set forth in CEBRGLReg, the CEBRGLs should operate within written SOPs to conduct their reviews. The chair oversees the meetings, makes conclusions, and reports this information to the institutional head. Voting members must have no conflict of interest with the research. The CEBRGL members must review research documentation and prepare comments for the secretary prior to the meeting. Most CEBRGLs do not meet regularly but instead meet upon request for review and on the availability of the majority of its members. The CEBRGLs should also refer to the NECBR’s SOPs to develop their own SOPs. See CEBRGLReg for detailed CEBRGL review procedures.

Overview

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Ethics Approval and the National Mutual Acceptance Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exemption from Ethics Review

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

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

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

Overview

According to the ECReg, the CEBRGLReg, the ClinDrugTrialGCP, and the PharmLaw-VNM, the primary scope of information assessed by ethics committees (ECs) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. The ECs involved in clinical trial approval in Vietnam include institutional level ECs, called Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs), and the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR).

As per the ECReg, the CEBRGLReg, and the PharmLaw-VNM, ECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable or those with limited or no legal capacity. The ECReg further indicates that when considering research related to vulnerable groups, representatives of the research participants or experts with knowledge and experience working with the groups must participate in the EC meeting. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; and Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates sections for additional information about these populations.)

The ECReg and the CEBRGLReg also state that CEBRGLs and the NECBR are responsible for ensuring independent, timely, and competent reviews of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants; confirming the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and methods; and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. See the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg for detailed ethical review guidelines.

The ECReg indicates that when ECs conduct research record evaluations, ongoing research supervision, and research results evaluations, they should evaluate the following:

• Research design and conduct
• Potential risks and benefits
• Selection of research populations and participant selection and protection
• Financial benefits and financial costs related to research participants
• Protecting the research participants’ privacy and confidentiality
• The process of providing information and obtaining participants’ written consent to participate in research
• Impact of research on the participants’ community
• Researcher capacity and research goal

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is responsible for reviewing the clinical trial registration and study approval dossiers for completeness. Evidence of institutional EC approval from a CEBRGL is a required element of the study approval dossier, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, the ASTT’s review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

The ECReg indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

The ECReg indicates that ECs may assess a research dossier or application under an expedited process if:

• The research involves minimal risk
• The research documents have been previously reviewed by an EC
• The research documents have been reviewed and approved by an EC of the same level
• It is a periodic report on implementation of research that has already been approved
• It is an application for amendment and supplementation of a research protocol that has already been approved
• It is reporting adverse events occurring in research that has already been approved
• It is reporting violations of an approved research protocol

According to the ECReg, research dossiers are reviewed under the EC’s full process if they do not qualify for expedited review as stipulated above, or if the evaluator requests that the dossier be examined according to the full process. The EC’s decision under the full review process is legally valid when at least five (5) members (including at least one (1) member with appropriate expertise in the health sector, one (1) member with no expertise in the health sector, and one (1) independent member), including members of both sexes, are present at the EC’s meeting and vote in the decision. The meeting must also have been convened by the EC’s chair or vice-chair (if authorized), and record meeting minutes. The EC's expedited review process decision is legally valid when at least two (2) members of the EC have reviewed and evaluated the dossier. See the Timeline of Review section for more information on the expedited and full review processes.

According to the ECReg, the EC must send a written notification of its evaluation to the leading research institution and principal investigator (PI), and publish the evaluation results on a bulletin board or on the website of the EC or the organization that established the EC. The EC may approve, conditionally approve, or decide not to approve a research dossier, and the written notifications must be issued accordingly.

Per the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), for administrative changes to the clinical trial protocol, the research institution must report in writing to the ECs at all levels and the ASTT. Changes that do not affect the health and interests of trial participants, or the research designs, processes, and procedures, must be approved by the CEBRGL and the NECBR. The application and evaluation process are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the ECReg. Changes affecting the health and interests of trial participants, or the research designs, processes, and procedures, must be approved by competent regulatory agencies. The application for approval of changes and procedures must comply with the ClinDrugTrialGCP. See the ECReg and the ClinDrugTrialGCP for more information.

For internal NECBR forms and documents, see VNM-3.

According to the BioequivTrial, ECs may also conduct periodic or unscheduled inspections. The sponsor and EC should determine the scale and frequency of the inspections based on the objectives and design of the research. The purpose of the inspection should be to evaluate trial conduct and PI/study team compliance with the protocol, standard operating procedures (SOPs), good clinical practices (GCPs), and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor or the EC must send an inspection notice to the institution and PI at least five (5) days before the inspection, and the inspection report must be completed and sent to the institution and PI within 20 days of the inspection.

The ECReg indicates that ECs must conduct periodic reviews of ongoing studies within a time period that is consistent with the level of risk for study participants, but at least once a year on or before the date the EC approved the research protocol. The conclusion of the periodic review results should state that the EC’s previous decisions are still valid, or have been changed, suspended, or revoked. Circumstances for unscheduled reviews include:

• Modification of the protocol that has the potential to affect the rights, safety, and/or interests of the research participants or investigators
• A serious adverse event related to the research or the research product
• Discovery of new facts or information that could affect a potential benefit or risk of harm related to the study
• A request to suspend all or a portion of the study by the sponsor or regulatory agency

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

As stated in the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) should indicate the fee structure (if any) required to assess a proposed study. Fee requirements should be included in the written instructions provided to investigators for submitting research dossiers for evaluation. The head of the organization that establishes the EC is responsible for allocating sufficient resources for the EC to perform its duties effectively.

According to VNM-12, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) and institutional level ECs (known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs)) charge a fee to review clinical trial documentation. The current NECBR and CEBRGL fees are $1,000-$2,000 USD.

Overview

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

Research Governance

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

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

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

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

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

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

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

National Certification Scheme

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

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

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

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

Overview

According to the ECReg, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is responsible for registering the institutional level ethics committees (ECs), known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

The ECReg indicates that the ASTT is responsible for maintaining a list of ECs on the ASTT website. The ASTT must update the list within 15 days from the date of receiving a notice of establishment from the EC. ECs are periodically inspected by the ASTT to ensure that they comply with the requirements specified in the ECReg. If the EC is found to be noncompliant, the ASTT will withdraw the EC’s name from the updated list on the website. The ASTT may suspend, or propose suspension to a competent authority, of an EC’s operation in case it is found that the EC violates the provisions of the ECReg, affecting the protection of rights, safety, and health of research participants.

Overview

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

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

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

Regulatory Submission

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

CTN Scheme

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

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

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

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

CTA Scheme

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

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

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

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

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

Research Governance

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

Overview

In accordance with the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, and ASTTReg, Vietnam requires the applicant to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Ministry of Health (MOH). The Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is the department within the MOH that manages the clinical trial review process. As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), must also approve the research protocol.

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, evidence of institutional EC approval from a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) is a required element of the study approval dossier submitted to the ASTT, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

Regulatory Submission

According to VNM-12, the registration dossier and the study approval dossier should be submitted to the MOH’s ASTT at the address found in VNM-11:

Ministry of Health
Administration of Science, Technology and Training
No. 138B Giang Vo
Ba Dinh District
Hanoi City, Vietnam

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the sponsor must submit, directly or via post, one (1) copy of the clinical trial registration dossier signed by the sponsor’s representative(s) to the ASTT. Separately, research institution(s) must submit one (1) copy of the study approval dossier, signed by the principal investigator (PI) and the head of the testing facility, directly or via post to the ASTT. See Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP for the registration form and the forms that comprise the study approval dossier. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP also refers to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor” throughout the document.)

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided in Vietnamese or English. If the document is not available in Vietnamese or English, a notarized translation of the document must be provided in Vietnamese or English. The ClinDrugTrialGCP also indicates that the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) summary (also referred to as the research product profile in Vietnam) submitted to the MOH with the registration application should be in Vietnamese or in English with a supplementary summary in Vietnamese. See the Submission Content section for detailed information on documentation to be submitted.

Ethics Review Submission

As per VNM-12, the application for NECBR approval should also be submitted at the address found in VNM-11:

Ministry of Health
Administration of Science, Technology and Training
No. 138B Giang Vo
Ba Dinh District
Hanoi City, Vietnam

VNM-12 indicates that for NECBR review, the applicant must submit four (4) copies of the relevant documents directly or via post to the ASTT. Except for the IB, the Certificate of Analysis, and the good manufacturing practices (GMP) certificate, which may be in English, all relevant documents must be submitted in Vietnamese.

According to the ECReg, ECs issue their own guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. See the Submission Content section for the minimum requirements of the EC evaluation guidelines.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) Scheme

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

• Sponsor name and address
• Sponsor declaration
• Notification fee (See Regulatory Fees section)
• Organization-nominated contact’s name, phone number, and email
• An optional alternative contact, which may be chosen from the contacts for the agent or sponsor organization submitting the CTN. An Australian contact number is required to be listed with either the primary sponsor contact or the alternate sponsor contact
• Protocol number
• Expected trial start and completion dates
• Potential use of restricted goods
• Study title and description, which must be a minimum of 250 characters (spaces included) and up to a maximum of 2,500 characters
• “This Trial” check boxes indicating whether the trial involves the use of a medicine, a medical device, and/or a biological. For a medicine or biological, additional information must be provided, such as dosage form, route of administration, indication, and the good manufacturing practice (GMP) license/clearance number of a relevant exemption
• Trial type
• Whether the trial is a first in human trial
• Whether the trial, in part or as a whole, has been halted/stopped/withdrawn or rejected in another country due to safety concerns
• Total number of trial participants
• Therapeutic area
• Investigational product (IP) details
• Whether it is a multi-center trial
• Whether the trial is being conducted in other countries
• Preceding trial details
• Trial site details

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

Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) Scheme

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Governance

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the following documentation must be submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) for clinical trial registration dossiers:

• Clinical trial registration application form signed by a representative of the sponsor (See Form No. 6 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
• Summary of the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) (also referred to as the research product profile in Vietnam) including general information about the clinical reagent (name, ingredients, indications, physical properties, chemistry, preparation, and other relevant information), pre-clinical research materials, and clinical trial study documents from previous phases

For clinical trial study approval dossiers, the ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that the following documentation must be submitted to the MOH’s ASTT:

• Clinical trial approval application form signed by the principal investigator (PI) and the head of the research institution (See Form No. 7 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
• Full IB, including proof of compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) for research institutions or proof of compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) (also referred to as good medicine production standards in Vietnam) for drug manufacturers, and proof of compliance with quality testing requirements from national inspection agencies or ex-warehousing certificates for vaccine or biological batches (Refer to the Quality Requirements section for detailed IB requirements)
• A copy of the written approval for clinical trial registration from the MOH’s ASTT
• For phase IV clinical trials, a certified or notarized copy of the written request for phase IV clinical drug testing from the respective regulatory authorities
• A certified or notarized copy of the research institution’s certificate of eligibility for pharmaceutical business
• Certification of participation by all study sites for multicenter research studies in Vietnam
• A certified or notarized copy of the approval from the People’s Provincial Committee (for community-based studies)
• Contract/agreement between the sponsor and the host institution; and contract/agreement between sponsor and the contract research organization (CRO), if applicable
• Explanation of study protocol (See Form No. 8 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
• Case report form (CRF)
• PI’s Curriculum Vitae (CV) and a copy of the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) certificate issued by the MOH or an institution recognized by the MOH
• Informed Consent Form (ICF) (See Form No. 9 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) (See also the Required Elements section for additional information)
• Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) evaluation report
• Investigational product (IP) labeling

See the ClinDrugTrialGCP for detailed requirements.

Ethics Committee Requirements

The ECReg indicates that both the institutional level ethics committees (ECs) (CEBRGLs) and the national EC (National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR)) issue guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. The guidelines include information on the following:

• Name and address of the secretary, employee, or member of the EC receiving the application file, or address of the website (if any)
• List of all written material in record
• Specifications of the documents
• Language of the document in the record
• Number of copies to be submitted
• Application deadline compared to evaluation date
• Recording and notification processes for invalid documents
• Estimated time for post-assessment decision announcement
• The timeframe that should be followed if the EC requires the applicant to provide additional information or documents
• Evaluation fee of research records (if any)
• Procedures for requesting EC approval of an amendment of the outline or related documents
• Specification of materials for selection, information, and consent to participate in the study

According to ECReg, the documents that ECs must review when evaluating a research proposal include:

• Signed and dated application, including signatures of co-applicant and representative of the relevant organization
• Research protocol (with version number and date), with documents and appendices (if any)
• A summary of the study in simple and understandable language
• Description of ethical considerations relevant to the study (may be included in the protocol); measures that will be taken to protect participant privacy and data confidentiality; protective care for participants; compensation to be provided to participants; and insurance package for participants (if applicable) (See the Required Elements and Participant Rights sections for detailed information)
• IB
• Study data collection forms (with version numbers and dates)
• Forms, documents, and advertisements used in the participant selection process
• ICF (with version number and date) for participants that are 18 years or older and have full civil capacity to give consent
• ICF (with version number and date) for participants and their parents and/or legal guardian(s), if the participant is 16 years old to under 18 years old
• ICF (with version number and date) for parents and/or legal guardian(s), if the participant is under 16 years old
• Assent form (with version number and date) for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including children from 12 years old to under 16 years old, a person with inadequate civil act capacity, or a patient in a limited cognitive condition
• Description of participant selection and ICF collection processes
• Procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and managing adverse events (AEs) (See the Safety Reporting section for additional AE/serious adverse event information)
• All previous decisions of other ECs or regulatory authorities regarding the proposed study (including decisions and reasons for objecting or proposing amendments to the previous protocol)
• Documents demonstrating that the research institution has agreed to allow the study after the regulatory authority’s approval (if the study is conducted outside the organization that established the EC)
• Investigators' commitment to agree to comply with the ethical guidelines
• The PI’s current scientific background and qualifications related to the relevant research

See the ECReg for additional information on documentation requirements for research protocol re-evaluation or amendments, as well as for evaluation applications for periodic reports, AE reports, protocol violation reports, and research result reports.

Clinical Protocol

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH requires the following elements to be included in a protocol submission:

• Title
• Protocol code
• Duration
• Management level (state/ministry/institution/province)
• PI/co-investigator(s) names and contact information
• Funding
• Phase requested
• Institution to conduct research
• Sponsor and contact information
• Situation of domestic and foreign research
• Objectives
• Methodology (including trial design, random selection method, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each research technique)
• Participant selection/withdrawal
• Participant treatment
• AE reporting requirements (See the Safety Reporting section for additional information)
• Laboratory test methods
• Ethical considerations
• Inspection and monitoring
• Post study medical care
• Study team training
• International cooperation
• Implementation progress
• Format of the expected results
• Activities of coordinating organizations

See Appendix III in the ClinDrugTrialGCP for a copy of the full form.

Overview

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

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

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

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

Ethics Committee Approval

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

Research Governance

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, evidence of institutional ethics committee (EC) approval from a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) is a required element of the study approval dossier submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT), so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR)’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

Regulatory Authority Approval

Registration Dossier Review

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT initially checks the validity of the sponsor-submitted registration dossier (which includes the registration application form and Investigator’s Brochure (IB) summary) within five (5) working days from the date of receipt of the application. If any issues are identified, the ASTT will issue a written notice to the sponsor, who must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 60 days of receipt. Past this time limit, the submitted application is no longer valid. The ASTT Director will issue a written decision within five (5) working days of receiving a complete and valid dossier.

Approval Dossier Review

The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that research institutions must submit dossiers requesting clinical drug trial approval to the ASTT. The ASTT checks the validity of the study approval dossier within five (5) working days from the date of receipt of the application. If any issues are identified, the ASTT will issue a written notice to the institution, which must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 60 days of receipt. Past this time limit, the research approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that within 25 days of receiving a complete and valid study approval dossier, the MOH will organize a meeting of the NECBR. Within five (5) working days after receiving the NECBR’s evaluation report, the ASTT gathers all materials related to the dossier and submits it to the Minister of Health for approval.

If the research protocol is not approved or needs to be corrected, the ASTT must notify the institution and state the reason, as per the ClinDrugTrialGCP. The institution must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 90 days from the date of the notice. Past this time limit, the protocol approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning. Within five (5) working days after receiving the completed research protocol in accordance with the written notice, the ASTT gathers all materials related to the dossier and submits it to the Minister of Health for approval.

Ethics Committee Approval

The ECReg indicates that ECs issue their own guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. The guidelines include information regarding the application deadline in relation to the evaluation date, the expected timeframe for notification of a decision, and the timeframe to follow if the EC requires applicants to submit additional information or documents. See the Submission Content section for detailed information on minimum requirements for the EC guidelines.

According to VNM-12, the review and approval process for CEBRGLs takes 30 days. Meetings are scheduled upon request and are based on the availability of the majority of its members.

The ECReg indicates that under both the expedited and full review processes, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a complete and valid dossier, the EC must organize an examination of the dossier and notify the applicant of the EC’s decision. While both processes may take up to 30 days, the expedited review is streamlined with fewer reviewers.

According to the ECReg, within five (5) working days from the date that the research dossier evaluation results are available, the EC must send a written notification to the leading research institution and principal investigator, and publish the evaluation results on a bulletin board or on the website of the EC or the organization that established the EC.

See Scope of Review section for details on the EC’s role in the clinical trial approval process.

Overview

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

Research Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

Overview

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the PharmLaw-VNM, and the ASTTReg, a clinical trial can only commence in Vietnam after authorization from the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been received. The MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) manages the clinical trial review process. The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that the ASTT is responsible for reviewing the clinical trial registration and study approval dossiers. The MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), is responsible for approving the research protocol. Once the ASTT has completed its review and the NECBR has reviewed and approved the research protocol, the Minister of Health must give final approval to the entire study approval dossier. The ECReg further indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. (Note: institutional level ECs are known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.) For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

As per the ExprtImprtMeds, an import license must be obtained for the shipment of an investigational product (IP) to be used in the trial from the MOH’s Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV). See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information.

Clinical Trial Agreement

As per the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is required to enter an agreement with the participating principal investigator (PI)/host institution(s) before the trial begins to demonstrate the financial agreement between the parties. The PharmLaw-VNM also states that the sponsor is required to sign a clinical trial contract with the investigator(s).

Clinical Trial Registration

According to VNM-12, the ASTT encourages the sponsor and the PI to register their study with the United States National Institutes of Health’s ClinicalTrials.gov (VNM-13).

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Safety Reports

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

As delineated in the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) and the AERprtingD62, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Vietnam’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event (or Adverse Experience) (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence (including any signs, symptoms, illnesses, or test results) in a participant to whom a medicinal product has been administered, including occurrences which are not necessarily caused by or related to that product
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that may lead to death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in disability or permanent incapacity, creates a congenital anomaly/birth defect, or requires appropriate medical intervention to prevent the aforementioned situations or medically important event
• Unexpected AE – AEs in which the essence, severity, specificity, or consequences are different or have not been recorded or considered in the study protocol or relevant study documents

Also, according to VNM-12, the Ministry of Health (MOH) uses the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (VNM-5) to define its safety reporting terminology.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As per the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for detecting and settling SAEs and updating AE/SAE information to ensure the timeliness of reporting and the safety of the research participants. The PI is required to report to the sponsor, the institutional ethics committee (EC), also known as a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL), the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), the MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT), and the National Centre for Drug Information and Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring (National DI and ADR Centre).

The ECReg further states that the NECBR is responsible for assessing the PI's recording, reporting, and handling of AEs occurring during the study.

The BioequivTrial indicates that depending on the type of AE/SAE, the PI must comply with the following reporting requirements:

• Fatal or life-threatening SAEs in Vietnam: A report, in accordance with Form 4 in the Appendix of the BioequivTrial, must be submitted to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National DI and ADR Centre within seven (7) working days from the date of receiving information about the SAE. Updates on the SAE must be provided in additional reports until the participant recovers or stabilizes.
• SAEs that are not fatal or life-threatening in Vietnam: A report, in accordance with Form 4 in the Appendix of the BioequivTrial, must be submitted to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National DI and ADR Centre within 15 working days from the date of receiving information about the SAE.
• Non-serious AEs occurring in Vietnam: The AEs must be recorded and summarized in a periodical report, and reported in the full results of the trial research results to the NECBR and the ASTT.

The BioequivTrial indicates that in the event of fatal or life-threatening AEs/SAEs, the PI and the host institution are required to suspend the trial immediately, provide care and treatment to the participant(s), overcome and resolve the consequences, and document the events. According to the AERprtingD62, the PI must also document any deaths. The BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 further indicate that the PI and the host institution must report these events to the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR.

For AEs that cause harm to the participant’s health, the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 indicate that the PI is responsible for treating and following up on the participant’s health until the person is stable.

According to the BioequivTrial, the PI should provide periodic updates regarding AEs/SAEs to the sponsor, the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR. If the extent and frequency of AEs/SAEs exceeds the allowable limit, investigators may propose to the sponsor, EC, and competent regulatory authority that the clinical trial be suspended.

The BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 indicate that all the following must be reported:

• SAEs occurring at study sites in Vietnam
• SAEs occurring at study sites outside of Vietnam in a multicenter Vietnamese study that lead to cessation/suspension of the study or a change in the protocol
• All other AEs occurring in clinical drug trials at study sites in Vietnam

Sponsor Responsibilities

Per the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62, the sponsor must coordinate with the PI to report AEs/SAEs occurring at study sites in Vietnam to the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR. The sponsor must collect AE/SAE data.

For SAEs occurring at study sites outside of Vietnam in a multicenter Vietnamese study, the BioequivTrial states that the sponsor must report to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR within 10 working days from the date of a decision to stop/suspend the study, withdraw participants from the study, or change the research protocol.

In addition, the AERprtingD62 requires that the sponsor report findings from clinical studies, epidemiology studies, in vitro studies, and other information that may lead to an important risk of the investigational product.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Per the BioequivTrial, SAEs in Vietnam should be reported using a Reporting Form for SAEs in Clinical Trials (Appendix, Form 4).

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

The BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) indicates that investigators are responsible for providing periodic and unscheduled reports.

According to the ECReg, progress reports submitted to ethics committees (EC) for evaluation must contain the following:

• Summary of research protocol
• Complete research protocol, including previously approved revisions, if applicable
• Reports on research progress
• Reports on the number of participants who were selected for the study, completed the study, and withdrew from the study
• Detailed report on adverse events (AEs) and issues causing risks to participants, if applicable
• Summary of relevant information, especially safety information
• Current informed consent form (ICF)
• Independent inspection report of investigator and sponsor
• Notice of principal investigator (PI) or sponsor regarding early suspension/termination or completion of the study, if applicable

Final Report

The BioequivTrial and the ClinDrugTrialGCP indicate that the PI, the sponsor, and the host institution are responsible for submitting a final report to the Ministry of Health (MOH) when a study is completed. The final report, which must include an analysis of the data and information on AEs/serious adverse events (SAEs), must be submitted in accordance with Form No. 12 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP. The BioequivTrial further states that the clinical trial results must be made public within three (3) years from the date of issuance of the competent authorities' decision approving the results, and should comply with applicable copyright regulations.

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

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

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

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

As per the ECReg and the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is defined as an individual, entity, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

In addition, per the PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor may select a qualified contract research organization (CRO) (also known as a research support organization in Vietnam) to run the clinical trial. The ClinTrialSup defines a CRO as an organization with the legal status to operate in the field of clinical trial research support and that is staffed with appropriately qualified personnel.

According to the ClinTrialSup, CROs may perform clinical research support activities such as implementing sponsors’ clinical research responsibilities, carrying out administrative support activities, and conducting clinical research monitoring. The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that a cooperative contract should exist between the sponsor and a CRO, if applicable. According to the PharmLaw-VNM, a sponsor and the CRO may be domestic or foreign.

In addition, as per the ClinTrialSup, CROs are also responsible for registering their organizations with the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT). Before implementing any activities in support of a clinical trial, a CRO must submit a registration dossier and the applicable forms for approval. The CRO is also required to report annually on its clinical research activities to the MOH’s ASTT. (See the ClinTrialSup for detailed information on clinical trial research support activities and the related registration forms.)

Overview

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

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

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

Research Governance

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

Data Safety Monitoring Boards

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

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

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

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

Overview

As set forth in the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) and PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s), the principal investigator (PI), the consultant experts, and the research institutions, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities.

As stated in the BioequivTrial, all investigators must possess appropriate qualifications, training, and experience. All investigators involved in the trial must obtain completion certificates for a good clinical practice (GCP) course and a safety reporting course, each to be updated every three (3) years, from the Ministry of Health (MOH) or an authorized training facility.

See the BioequivTrial for information on PI and investigator rights and responsibilities.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available on foreign sponsor requirements.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

According to VNM-12, there are no requirements for establishing a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). However, the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) may recommend the establishment of a DSMB.

Multicenter Studies

The BioequivTrial states that for multicenter studies, in addition to analyzing general research results, it is necessary to conduct a separate analysis of key safety and efficacy variables on Asian or Vietnamese research populations using drugs for which racial factors are considered to have an effect on efficiency and safety. Furthermore, per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial study approval dossier must include documentation certifying the participation of research institutions in multicenter studies in Vietnam.

Insurance

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

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-Trial Access

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

Insurance

According to VNM-12, there is no specific Vietnamese guidance that addresses indemnity agreements between the sponsor and the contract research organization (CRO), investigator(s), or institution(s). However, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) lists an insurance contract as an essential document to be obtained by the principal investigator (PI), institution, and sponsor before conducting a clinical trial. The purpose of the insurance contract is to ensure that research participants will be compensated in the event of a trial-related injury.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor is responsible for providing compensation to research participants in the event of trial-related injuries. The BioequivTrial also states investigators are responsible for compensating participants when an adverse event that seriously impacts the participant’s health was caused by the investigator’s violation of the research protocol.

Trial Participation

According to the BioequivTrial, payment and compensation, if any, to clinical trial participants must be clearly indicated in the research protocol. Per the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) must consider the amount and method of payment to ensure that there is no coercion or influence on the voluntariness of participants. Payments should be made according to each visit.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsible Research Conduct

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is responsible for assigning a monitor to assist in maintaining a quality assurance (QA) system with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) that ensure trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol. In addition, the quality management system applied in clinical trials must meet International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001-equivalent standards or higher.

Per the BioequivTrial, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for ensuring the accuracy, truthfulness, confidentiality, integrity, and verifiability of the research data. Correction of data must be in accordance with applicable regulations: without deleting the original data, the assigned researcher must name, sign for confirmation, and specify the date of correction. The lead investigator must submit an encrypted list of trial participants to the regulatory agency after the clinical trial ends. The retention and submission of the list of participants after decryption must be kept secret.

The trials should be conducted in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) principles and standards outlined in the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial Appendix, which are based on the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (VNM-5) and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products (Please refer to Annex 3 of The Use of Essential Drugs: Sixth Report of the WHO Expert Committee for these guidelines (VNM-10)).

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the BioequivTrial states that the sponsor should assign a monitor to inspect the trial. The sponsor should appoint individuals who are independent from the trial and are qualified by training and experience to conduct inspections, in accordance with the ClinTrialSup. The ClinDrugTrialGCP further indicates that SOPs, the monitoring/inspection plan, and procedures must also be submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT).

For information on ASTT and ethics committee (EC) monitoring responsibilities, see the Scope of Assessment and Scope of Review sections.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

According to the BioequivTrial, the sponsor may terminate a trial early if the sponsor learns of any serious protocol violations that seriously affect the health of trial participants, or, the accuracy and truthfulness of the data during an inspection. The sponsor should send notices to the Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL), the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), and the relevant authority, in addition to notifying the institution and PI.

Electronic Data Processing System

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

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

Records Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Management Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electronic Data Processing System

According to the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor should use appropriate data handling programs and have adequate standard operating procedures (SOPs) for these systems. In addition, per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the research institution’s general documentation must include a brief description of any electronic document system in its technical and professional standards, if applicable.

Records Management

As per the BioequivTrial, all information on clinical trials must be recorded, handled, managed, and kept in accordance with applicable regulations in order to accurately report, interpret, monitor, and check the accuracy and reliability of clinical trial information and data. Research institution facilities for storing clinical trial records and documents must ensure confidentiality; restricted access; fire and explosion prevention and control; and avoidance of adverse effects of light, temperature, humidity, and penetration of insects and other animals. In addition, research dossiers and documents should be archived and preserved according to the contract between the sponsor and the institution. For research and development of new products, documentation needs to be kept for at least 10 years.

Responsible Parties

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

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

Data Protection

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

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

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

Responsible Parties

Per Decree13, the personal data controller is an organization or individual that decides the purposes and means of processing personal data. The personal data processor is an organization or individual that performs data processing on behalf of the data controller, through a contract or agreement with the data controller. An organization or individual that both decides the purposes and means for, and directly processes, personal data is referred to as a personal data controller and processor.

Decree13 states that the personal data controller must:

• Implement organizational and technical measures, as well as appropriate safety and security measures, to prove that data processing activities have been carried out in accordance with Decree13, reviewing and updating these measures as necessary
• Record and store a system log of personal data processing
• Notify the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) of violations of regulations on protection of personal data as prescribed in Decree13
• Select a personal data processor in accordance with a clear mandate and work only with a personal data processor that has appropriate safeguards in place
• Ensure the rights of data subjects as prescribed in Decree13

Additionally, Decree13 indicates that the personal data processor must:

• Only receive personal data after having a contract or agreement on data processing with the personal data controller, and process personal data in accordance with the contract or agreement
• Fully implement measures to protect personal data specified in Decree13 and other relevant legal documents
• Delete and/or return all personal data to the personal data controller after finishing data processing

According to Decree13, both the personal data controller and processor are also responsible to the data subject for damages caused by the processing of personal data. In addition, they must cooperate with the MPS and competent state agencies in protecting personal data by providing information for investigation and handling of violations of Decree13.

Per VNM-8, the MPS is responsible for protecting the rights of data subjects against violations of Decree13, and for maintaining the National Information Portal on Personal Data Protection (VNM-7). See VNM-7 for additional personal data protection resources.

Data Protection

Per Decree13, organizations and individuals involved in personal data processing must apply personal data protection measures to prevent unauthorized collection of personal data from translation systems and equipment. It is illegal to set up software systems, enact technical measures, or organize activities of collecting, transferring, buying, and selling personal data without the consent of data subjects.

According to Decree13, personal data protection measures must be applied from the beginning and throughout the processing of personal data, including management, technical, investigational, and procedural measures. Network security for the data processing system, as well as the means and equipment, must be checked before processing data, irrecoverably deleting data, or destroying devices containing personal data.

Decree13 states that in the case of sensitive personal data, a department with the function of protecting personal data must be designated, personnel in charge of personal data protection must be appointed, and information about the department and individual in charge of personal data protection must be exchanged with the agency specializing in personal data protection (e.g., MPS). Additionally, data subjects must be notified that their sensitive personal data is being processed.

Decree13 states that if a violation of Decree13 has been detected, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must notify the MPS’s Department of Cybersecurity and Prevention within 72 hours after the violation occurs using Form No. 03 (see Appendix of Decree13 or VNM-9). If the notification is submitted after 72 hours, the reason for the late notice must be attached. Additionally, the personal data processor must notify the personal data controller of the violation as quickly as possible. See Decree13 and VNM-9 for more information on notification requirements for violations of personal data protection regulations.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Decree13 delineates that a data subject’s consent is only valid when the data subject voluntarily and clearly knows the type of personal data to be processed; the purpose of processing personal data; that organizations and individuals are allowed to process the personal data; and the rights and obligations of data subjects. The data subject’s consent must be expressed clearly, specifically in writing, by voice, by ticking the consent box, in the syntax of consent via text message, by selecting consent technical settings, or through another action that demonstrates consent. When there are multiple purposes for the data collection, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must list the purposes for the data subject to agree to one (1) or more of the stated purposes, and consent must be given for each purpose. The data subject’s consent must be expressed in a format that can be printed or reproduced in writing, including in electronic or verifiable formats. Silence or non-response of the data subject is not considered as consent, and the data subject may give partial or conditional consent. The data subject’s consent is valid until the data subject decides otherwise or when the competent state agency requests in writing.

Per Decree13, data subjects also have a right to: be aware of data processing activities; access their data; delete data; restrict data processing; provision of data; object to data processing; complain, denounce, and initiate lawsuits; claim damages; and self-defense. For the processing of sensitive personal data, the data subject must be informed that the data to be processed is sensitive personal data.

Decree13 states that in certain cases, the data subject’s consent is not required for the processing of personal data. This includes urgent cases where it is necessary to immediately process relevant personal data to protect the life and health of the data subject or others, and in the event of a state of emergency on national defense, security, social order and safety, major disasters, or dangerous epidemics.

See Decree13 for more details on obtaining consent from data subjects; the rights of data subjects; and situations where consent is not required for the processing of personal data.

Withdrawal of Consent

According to Decree13, withdrawal of consent must be in a format that can be printed or reproduced in writing, including in electronic or verifiable format. Upon receiving a request from a data subject to withdraw consent, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must notify the data subject of possible consequences and damages that may occur when consent is withdrawn. The personal data controller, personal data processor, personal data controller and processor, and any third parties must stop, and request any relevant organizations and individuals to stop, processing the data of the data subject that has withdrawn consent. Withdrawal of consent does not affect the legality of the data processing that was agreed to prior to the withdrawal.

Children

Per Decree13, children’s personal data must be processed in accordance with the principle of protecting the rights and ensuring the best interests of the children. The processing of children’s personal data must have the consent of the child if the child is seven (7) years of age or older, as well as the consent of the parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The personal data controller, personal data processor, personal data controller and processor, and any third parties must verify the age of the children before processing the children's personal data. The relevant parties must stop processing the children’s personal data and/or irreversibly delete or destroy the children’s personal data in the following cases:

• The data was processed for improper purposes, or the purpose of processing personal data with the consent of the data subject has been fulfilled, unless otherwise provided for by law
• The child’s parent(s) or legal guardian(s) withdraws consent for the processing of the child’s personal data, unless otherwise provided for by law
• At the request of a competent authority when there are sufficient grounds to prove that the processing of personal data affects the children’s legitimate rights and interests, unless otherwise provided for by law

Obtaining Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The G-NatlStmt indicates that consent may be:

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

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

Re-Consent

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

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

Language Requirements

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

Documenting Consent

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

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

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

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

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

Waiver of Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obtaining Consent

In all Vietnamese clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), and the PharmLaw-VNM. As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial, and the ECReg, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be sent to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) as part of the clinical trial study approval dossier, for which the Minister must issue final approval.

The ECReg indicates that a research proposal involving humans, including the ICF, must undergo ethical and scientific review by the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) and an institutional level ethics committee (EC) (known as a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs)).

The BioequivTrial states that the principal investigator (PI) or the clinical testing facility is responsible for obtaining written consent from trial participants before carrying out any study procedures.

As per the ECReg, the ICF should be provided in easy-to-understand language, suitable for potential research participants to support their ability to give fully informed consent. For participants with limited education, the ICF should be provided and explained verbally. According to the BioequivTrial and the ECReg, the information should also be presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The ClinDrugTrialGCP further states that the participant or legal representative/guardian should also be given the opportunity to ask questions about the research, and given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

Re-Consent

No information is currently available on re-consent.

Language Requirements

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided in Vietnamese or English. If the document is not available in Vietnamese or English, a notarized translation of the document must be provided in Vietnamese or English.

VNM-12 indicates that the ICF content should be presented in Vietnamese and English for global clinical studies, but for studies with domestic sponsors, only Vietnamese is required. The English copy serves as a reference to the NECBR. The study information sheet should be in Vietnamese.

Documenting Consent

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial, the ECReg, and the PharmLaw-VNM, the participant or the legal representative/guardian must sign and date the ICF. No information is provided in these sources concerning copies to be issued to the participant or legal representative/guardian.

Waiver of Consent

The ECReg indicates an EC may waive the requirement for written voluntary consent from research participants if the study requires absolute confidentiality. The EC’s decision to waive the voluntary written consent requirement must consider the benefits and risks of the study to the participants, as well as measures to protect the rights and safety of the participants.

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

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

Based on the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable:

• Description of research with an explanation of its purpose and objectives
• Expected duration of study
• Research methods to be followed
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria for research participants
• Identification of investigator(s) who will be responsible for assessing confidential medical information to select study participants
• Number of participants involved in the study
• Description of any foreseeable risks to the participant
• Any expected benefits to the participant and/or the community, and any study-related payment to the participant
• Alternative procedures or treatment that may be available to the participant
• The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained
• Selection of those parties who will be able to access, inspect, supervise and monitor the participant’s records
• Compensation and/or medical treatment available in the event of a trial-related injury
• 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
• Statement that participation is voluntary and the participant may withdraw at any time for any reason

See Form No. 9 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP for a copy of the ICF.

Compensation Disclosure

Per the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) must ensure that information relating to payment for study participants, including the method, amount, and payment schedule, is included in the ICF and other documents given to participants.

Overview

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

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

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

The Right to Information

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

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

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

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

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

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

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

The Right to Safety and Welfare

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

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

Overview

In accordance with the ClinDrugTrialGCP, Vietnam’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, the participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary and that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time for any reason without being held liable.

Additionally, the PharmLaw-VNM states that participants have the responsibility to comply with investigators’ instructions according to approved clinical trial documents.

The Right to Information

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, 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, and any compensation or treatment in the case of injury.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for a person to contact regarding trial-related inquiries.

Furthermore, the PharmLaw-VNM states that the participant has the right to file a complaint or lawsuit against any illegal acts committed by the sponsor or investigator.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

As set forth in the ECReg, the risks to the research participant must take precedence over any anticipated benefits to the participant and the interests of society.

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

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

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

The ECReg indicates an ethics committee (EC) may waive the requirement for written voluntary consent from research participants for research in emergency situations where the participant or the legal representative/guardian cannot voluntarily agree to participate in the study. The EC’s decision to waive the voluntary written consent requirement must consider the benefits and risks of the study to the participants, as well as measures to protect the rights and safety of the participants.

Overview

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

People Highly Dependent on Medical Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

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

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

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

People in Dependent Groups

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

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

People Who May Be Involved in Illegal Activities

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

People in Other Countries

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

Overview

As per the ECReg and VNM-4, in all Vietnamese clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections by the ethics committee and the investigator(s) to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. VNM-4 characterizes vulnerable populations as those incapable of giving consent, which may include children, pregnant women, people with mental disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, people who are illiterate, prisoners, detainees, sex workers, and other special populations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assent Requirements

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

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

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.

According to ChildLaw, a child is someone under 16 years of age.

As set forth in the PharmLaw-VNM, when the participant is a minor, informed consent must be obtained from the legal representative/guardian.

Per the ECReg, signed informed consent forms (ICFs) are required for:

• The parent/legal guardian, if the participant is under 16 years old
• The participant and the parent/legal guardian, if the participant is 16 years old to under 18 years old
• Participants that are 18 years or older and have full civil capacity to give consent

Assent Requirements

The ECReg further specifies that a signed assent form is required for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including children from 12 years old to under 16 years old. The assent form should contain information similar to an ICF, but be simpler, shorter, and easier to understand. For participants from seven (7) years old to under 12 years old, the assent form content should be provided and explained verbally.

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.

The PharmLaw-VNM states that for studies involving women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, the rationale for participant selection and appropriate protection measures for these participants must be clearly stated in the study approval dossier.

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

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

No information is currently available.

Cognitive Impairment, Intellectual Disability, or Mental Illness

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

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

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

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

Research Involving Unconscious Persons

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

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

The ECReg states that a signed assent form is required for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including people with inadequate civil act capacity or in a limited cognitive condition. The assent form should contain information similar to an informed consent form (ICF), but be simpler, shorter, and easier to understand.

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

The ClinDrugTrial defines an investigational product (IP) as a pharmaceutical product, biomedical product, vaccine, traditional medicine, or herbal medicine that contains a new active ingredient or substance, or a product with a new combination of already marketed pharmaceutical substances.

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.

Manufacturing

As set forth in the PharmLaw-VNM, Decree54, and the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) has overall responsibility for authorizing the manufacture of all drug products. According to VNM-4, once the ASTT reviews and the Minister of Health approves the study approval dossier, the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) coordinates with the ASTT to review and approve the investigational product (IP) for manufacture or import.

In addition, the ClinDrugTrialGCP states that IPs which are under review for phase IV clinical trials require a certified or notarized copy of the written request for phase IV clinical drug testing from the respective regulatory authorities.

Import

As delineated in the ExprtImprtMeds, the MOH’s DAV is responsible for authorizing the import and export of drugs in Vietnam. According to ExprtImprtMeds, IPs for use in clinical trials are categorized as finished drugs without registration numbers. Once the MOH approves the study approval dossier, an import permit application must be submitted to the MOH’s DAV for approval of the IP. The import permit is valid for one (1) year.

The PharmLaw-VNM further indicates that a drug/medicinal ingredient that does not have a certificate of free sale must be licensed for import with a quantity not exceeding that which is written on the import license when it is to be used in a clinical trial, a bioequivalence study, a bioavailability assessment, or as a sample for registration, testing, scientific research, or display at a fair or exhibition.

The ExprtImprtMeds and Decree54 require the following documents to be included in an import permit dossier (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Import order form (three (3) copies)
• Copy of study protocol approved by the MOH
• A Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product (CPP) (may be substituted with a Free Sale Certificate (FSC) or Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificate)
• The importer’s document bearing the importer’s seal, specifying the purposes and quantity of imported drugs and commitment to use the drugs for its intended purposes
• Quality standards and testing methods
• Drug label(s) and instruction manual(s) with importer seal (See the Labeling section for detailed labeling requirements)
• Preclinical and clinical records for drug(s) containing new pharmaceutical substances, or drug(s) with new combinations of circulating pharmaceutical substances, and an information sheet on placebo’s composition, if applicable

According to the ExprtImprtMeds, dossiers and documents attached to the order form must be prepared on size A4 paper and bound into a solid set. The records must be arranged in the order of the table of contents, with separation between the sections. The separators must be numbered for easy reference and must be affixed for certification by the importing enterprise on the first page of each section of the entire dossier and must have a cover page clearly stating: the name of the importer, order number, date of order, and type of order. The application for foreign drug import must be written in Vietnamese or English. If the application is written in English, the information in the package insert must be written in Vietnamese, except for the following information that may be written in other languages with Latin origin:

• Brand name, generic name, or international generic name of the drug
• International generic or scientific name of ingredient or ingredient quantity of the drug in case it cannot be translated into Vietnamese
• Name and address of the foreign enterprise that manufactures or franchises the drug

The MOH’s DAV will review and approve the import permit application within 15 working days from the date of receipt. According to VNM-12, however, the DAV review and approval process may take two (2) to eight (8) weeks if the DAV requires further clarification on the application. See the ExprtImprtMeds for applicable forms.

Please note: Vietnam is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (VNM-2), 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 VNM-6.

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.

Investigator's Brochure

According to the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) is considered an essential document to submit before a clinical trial may be conducted. Vietnam requires the sponsor to submit a summary of the IB to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) in the clinical trial registration dossier. Research institutions are required to submit the full IB to the ASTT in the study approval dossier. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial, the IB contains information and data about preclinical research and clinical trials on the investigational product(s) (IPs). The IB also demonstrates that clinical information related to the IP has been provided to the principal investigator (PI).

As specified in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the IB must provide coverage of the following areas:

• Information about the IP, including the ingredients, production processes, and quality standards
• For pharmaco-chemical drugs, pharmaceutical drugs, traditional medicines: proof of compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) for research institutions or proof of compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) (also referred to as good medicine production standards in Vietnam) for drug manufacturers
• For vaccines: proof of compliance with quality testing requirements from national inspection agencies or ex-warehousing certificates for vaccine or biological batches
• Preclinical research documents for the IP: research reports on pharmacological effects, toxicity, safety, recommendations on dosage, route of administration, and usage
• Clinical research papers from the previous phases (if clinical trials are recommended in the next phase and the IP is not subject to exemption from previous phases)

Quality Management

The ClinDrugTrialGCP specifies that the IPs must be manufactured in a GMP-certified facility. The research institutions must also include a copy of the GMP certificate in the study approval dossier that is submitted to the ASTT.

(See the Product Management section for additional information on IP supply, storage, and handling requirements).

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.

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Vietnam must comply with the requirements set forth in PharmLaw-VNM. Per VNM-12, the requirements in Articles 7 and 8 of the MedLabel should also be applied to IP labeling.

According to the MedLabel, the outer packaging label of the drug must show the following:

• Drug name
• Dosage form
• Ingredients, content, and volume or concentration of pharmaceutical ingredients and medicinal materials in the drug formula
• Packaging specifications
• Indications, usage, and contraindications of the drug
• Circulation registration number or import license number (if any)
• Production batch number, date of manufacture, expiry date of the drug, quality standards, and drug storage conditions
• Signs to note and recommendations when using the drug
• Name and address of the drug manufacturing facility
• Name and address of the import facility (for imported drugs)
• Origin of the drug

Additionally, as stated in the MedLabel, the intermediate packaging label of the drug must contain at least the following information:

• Drug name
• Production batch number
• Expiry date

As set forth in PharmLaw-VNM, the IP must also be clearly labeled with the wording: “Products used for clinical trials. Use for other purposes is prohibited.” While there is no specified language requirement for IP labeling in the regulatory resources, according to VNM-12, this wording should be in Vietnamese. A sample IP with the label in the smallest packed unit must also be included in the study approval dossier.

(See the Product Management section for additional information on IP supply, storage, and handling requirements).

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.

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

The BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) indicates that at the end of a clinical trial, the principal investigator (PI) must inventory the investigational product (IP). The sponsor is responsible for storing the IP and for working with the host institution to withdraw and destroy the unused or remaining products, in accordance with applicable regulations.

Record Requirements

As stated in the BioequivTrial, the sponsor and the PI are responsible for filing the following essential documents before the trial begins and during the conduct of the trial:

• Sample(s) labels attached to IP container(s) (only the sponsor is required to file this information)
• Instructions for handling IPs and trial-related materials (if not included in protocol or Investigator’s Brochure (IB))
• Shipping records for IP- and trial-related materials

In addition, the sponsor and the PI are responsible for maintaining records of handling instructions and shipping records for IPs and trial-related materials.

• 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-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.

• The research for which their biospecimens will be used and, where extended or unspecified consent is sought, and sufficient information is provided to meet the general requirements of consent
• How their biospecimens will be stored, used, and disposed of, including any processes to be adopted that respect their personal or cultural sensitivities
• The extent to which their biospecimens will be reasonably identifiable, and how their privacy and confidentiality will be protected
• Whether the biospecimen research is likely to provide information that may be important to their health or to the health of their blood relatives or their community; and, if such information is likely to be revealed, whether they have the choice to receive this information, whether they have the choice for it to be provided to their relatives or their community, and how these will be managed
• Whether their biospecimens and associated data may be distributed to other researchers, including those outside Australia
• Their right to withdraw consent for the continued use of their biospecimens or associated data in research, and any limitations that may be relevant to their withdrawal of consent
• Any relevant financial or personal interests that those engaged in the collection, processing, storage and distribution, and use of their biospecimens may have
• Any potential for commercial application of any outcomes of the research and how this will be managed and to whom the benefits, if any, will be distributed

No information is currently available.