National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)

As delineated in ResNo945 and ResNo705 (amending ResNo585), the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial oversight, approval, and inspection of drugs to be registered in Brazil. ANVISA grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ResNo945 and ResNo705 (amending ResNo585).

LawNo9.782 states ANVISA is an independent administrative agency linked to the Ministry of Health (MOH) that is responsible for regulating, controlling, and supervising products and services involving public health risks. LawNo9.782 and ResNo585 explain that the goods and products under the agency’s purview include medicines for human use and their active ingredients; immunobiologicals and their active substances, and blood and blood products, and; advanced therapy products and their active components, and other inputs, processes, and technologies.

As indicated in LawNo9.782 and ResNo585, ANVISA is headed by a Collegiate Board of Directors which is responsible for defining ANVISA’s strategic management plans, ensuring compliance with and enforcing regulatory acts relating to health surveillance, and proposing governmental policies and guidelines to the Minister in support of the agency’s objectives.

Additionally, as delineated in ResNo705 and ResNo800 (amending ResNo585), with respect to active pharmaceutical ingredients and medicines, the General Management of Medicines (Gerência-Geral de Medicamentos (GGMED)), which operates within ANVISA’s Collegiate Board, coordinates and supervises the organizational units responsible for regulation; manages the implementation of international cooperation activities; improves regulations; assesses quality, safety, and effectiveness; supervises registration/post-registration; and cooperates with inspection activities.

Per ResNo705 (amending ResNo585), the Coordination of Clinical Research on Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC)) is another administrative unit operating within the Collegiate Board. COPEC is responsible for overseeing clinical research on medicines and biological products conducted for registration and post-marketing surveillance purposes; evaluating petitions; carrying out Good Clinical Practice (GCP) inspections; assisting with international cooperation activities related to the regulation of clinical research on medicines involving human beings; and issuing regulations for granting or denying petitions subject to approval for the clinical research of medicines and biological products and decisions resulting from GCP inspections. See ResNo705 (amending ResNo585) for detailed information on GGMED, COPEC, and ANVISA’s organizational structure and administrative units.

Other Considerations

Per BRA-65, Brazil is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ResNo945 indicates that Brazil has formally adopted the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28) and its updates. (Please note that the ICH Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (BRA-121) was finalized on January 6, 2025).

Please note: Brazil is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (BRA-63), 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 BRA-81.

Contact Information

Per BRA-132, the following is ANVISA’s contact information:

ANVISA
Assessoria do Sistema Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária
Setor de Indústria e Abastecimento (SIA)
Trecho 5 – Guará
Brasília – DF
CEP: 71205-050

Phone: (61) 3462-4120 or (61) 3462-6921
E-mail: asnvs@anvisa.gov.br

ANVISA’s Electronic Contact Form (BRA-68) may be used to submit technical questions.

Phone: 0 800 642 9782 (for general inquiries) (BRA-135). Calls can be made to specific administrative offices posted on ANVISA’s Who’s Who website (BRA-39).

Per BRA-12, the GGMED contact information is as follows:

General Management of Medicines (GGMED)
Phone: (61) 3462-6724
Email: medicamento.assessoria@anvisa.gov.br

Per BRA-18, the COPEC contact information is as follows:

Coordination of Clinical Research in Medicines and Biological Products (COPEC)
Phone: (61) 3462-5599/5526
Email: pesquisaclinica@anvisa.gov.br

In Uganda, the National Drug Authority (NDA) and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), in collaboration with the Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), are involved in clinical trial oversight.

National Drug Authority

As per the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-TrialsGCP, the NDA is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approval and inspections in Uganda. The NDA grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in Uganda in accordance with the provisions of the NDPA-Act.

As stated in the NGHRP, the NDA regulates safety, quality, efficacy, handling, and use of drugs or drug related products and devices in research. According to UGA-29, the Clinical Trials Unit in the NDA’s Directorate of Product Safety is responsible for reviewing and approving clinical trial applications, conducting clinical trial site inspections for compliance with good clinical practices, and developing guidance documents.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

As delineated in the NDPA-CTReg, the NGHRP, and the G-CTConduct, in addition to obtaining the NDA’s permission to conduct research in Uganda, an applicant must obtain approval in the form of a research permit from the UNCST, or from an institution authorized by the UNCST.

As per UGA-30, the UNCST was established by the UNCST-Act as a semi-autonomous government agency under the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation. The mandate of the UNCST is to develop and implement policies and strategies for integrating science and technology into national development policies; to advise the government of Uganda on policy matters necessary for promoting science and technology; and coordinate and guide national research and development in Uganda.

As per the NGHRP, the UNCST registers and, in liaison with the Research Secretariat in the Office of the President of Uganda, clears all research intended to be carried out in the country.

The G-CTConduct and the G-UNCSTreg also state that applicants must register their research proposals, obtain approval, and be issued a research permit from the UNCST prior to initiating a study.

Uganda National Health Research Organisation

The UNHRO-Act authorizes the UNHRO to register and renew research protocols, and to implement and enforce an ethical code of conduct for health research in Uganda. The UNHRO, in collaboration with the UNCST, conducts a scientific and ethical review of all health research protocols for approval. According to the NGHRP, the UNHRO also collaborates with the UNCST to register all health research protocols centrally at the UNCST. No additional information regarding UNHRO’s role is available.

Other Considerations

Please note: Uganda is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (UGA-3), 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 UGA-21.

Contact Information

National Drug Authority

According to UGA-23 and UGA-10, the NDA’s contact information is as follows:

National Drug Authority
Head Office
Plot 93, Buganda Road, after St. Catherine Hospital
P.O. Box 23096
Kampala, Uganda

Reception Phone: +256 [0]417 788 100
Directorate of Product Safety Phone: +256 [0]417 788 124
Directorate of Inspectorate Services Phone: +256 [0]417 788 129
WhatsApp: +256 74002080
Innovation & Research Desk: [0]800 101 999 (Toll Free Line), 0791 415555 (WhatsApp)
Email: ndaug@nda.or.ug

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

As per the G-UNCSTreg and UGA-25, the UNCST’s contact information is as follows:

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology
Plot 6, Kimera Road, Ntinda
P.O. Box 6884
Kampala, Uganda
Phone: +256 414 705500
Fax: +256 414 234579
Email: info@uncst.go.ug

Uganda National Health Research Organisation

Per UGA-42, the UNHRO’s contact information is as follows:

Uganda National Health Research Organisation
Plot 2, Berkeley Lane, Entebbe
P.O. Box 465
Entebbe, Uganda

Tel/Fax: +256 414 321766
Email: unhrodesk4@gmail.com

Overview

As set forth in ResNo945 and ResNo705 (amending ResNo585), the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) is responsible for reviewing and approving clinical trial applications (Clinical Drug Development Dossiers (Dossiês de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCMs))) for drugs to be registered in Brazil. (Note: Applications are also known as petitions in Brazil). Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, clinical trials with drugs must have all or part of their clinical development in Brazil. ResNo945 also notes that the DDCM may be submitted at any stage of clinical drug development for one (1) or more phases of clinical trials. However, Phase IV post-marketing trials and non-interventional clinical research are not covered by this regulation, and should be initiated after obtaining the relevant ethical approvals in accordance with the specific standards of the National Research Ethics Authority.

Additionally, per LawNo14.874 and ResNo945, research involving human beings must be subject to prior ethical analysis by research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)). According to ResNo945, clinical trial applications can be submitted in parallel, however, a drug clinical trial may only be initiated after approval is obtained by both the EC (CEP) and ANVISA.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As described in ResNo705 (amending ResNo585), ANVISA’s Coordination of Clinical Research in Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC)) is responsible for conducting the review and approval of clinical trial applications (DDCMs). Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, ANVISA’s technical analysis of a primary DDCM petition will only occur after the filing of at least one (1) Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)). A DEEC is defined as a collection of documents submitted as part of the Investigational Drug Development Plan (PDME) in the DDCM. ResNo945 explains that the absence of the DEEC will result in the rejection of the DDCM without technical analysis, except in cases of clinical trials involving more than one (1) experimental drug, with a primary DEEC petition that has already been linked to one (1) of the DDCMs of these drugs. See the Timeline of Review section for ANVISA’s petition review timelines. See also BRA-40 for information on ANVISA drug registration requirements.

Pursuant to ResNo945, substantial modifications to the investigational product (IP) refer to changes that potentially have an impact on the quality or safety of the experimental drug, active comparator, or placebo. Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, substantial IP modifications and substantial protocol amendments must be linked as secondary petitions to the corresponding DDCM. Non-substantial IP modifications must always be submitted to ANVISA in the next petition for substantial IP modification, or as part of the drug development safety update (DSUR), whichever occurs first. ANVISA will issue a supplementary normative act regarding IP modifications considered to be substantial and non-substantial. See also the G-DDCMAmdmts for clarifying information on substantial and non-substantial protocol modifications. Refer to the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for IP modification submission process and documentation requirements.

Regarding substantial amendments to the clinical trial protocol, ResNo945 explains that an amendment should be considered substantial when it meets at least one (1) of the following criteria:

• Changes to the clinical trial protocol that interfere with the safety or physical or mental integrity of the participants, or
• A change that is likely to have an impact on the reliability or robustness of the data produced in the clinical trial

Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, substantial protocol amendments must also be linked as secondary petitions to the corresponding DEEC. ResNo945 further explains that non-substantial clinical trial protocol amendments must always be submitted to ANVISA in the next substantial amendment petition, or as part of the final clinical trial protocol monitoring report, in cases where there are no substantial amendments by the end of the clinical trial. ANVISA will issue a supplementary normative act to comply with these provisions. See the G-DDCMAmdmts for additional information on protocol amendments. Refer to the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for protocol amendment submission requirements and substantial protocol amendment documentation requirements.

Per BRA-134 and ResNo506, ANVISA also reviews requests for clinical trials using advanced therapy products, which are known as Clinical Development Dossiers for Advanced Therapies (Dossiês de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Produtos de Terapias Avançadas (DDCTA)). See ResNo506 for more information on ANVISA’s role in reviewing and approving clinical trial applications submitted for studies using advanced therapy products in Brazil (i.e., medicines for human use that are based on genes, tissues, or cells). Per ResNo945, in the case of clinical development involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or derivatives, an applicant must consult the responsible body, the National Technical Commission on Biosafety – CTNBio (Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança – CTNBio), in accordance with current legislation.

ResNo945 further delineates that the approval of DDCM, DEEC, and secondary petitions filed with ANVISA prior to the publication of ResNo945 that are still awaiting technical analysis, will be assessed in accordance with the rules and requirements in force at the time of submission. Sponsors may also request that ANVISA review these petitions according to the optimized analysis procedure requirements discussed below in this section.

Pursuant to ResNo945, the DDCM or any linked clinical trial or related secondary petitions may at, any time, be cancelled or suspended when ANVISA:

• Deems that the approval conditions have not been met, or if there are reports of safety, quality, or efficacy that significantly affect the trial participants or affect the reliability or robustness of the data obtained in the clinical trial
• Participants are being exposed to significant and unreasonable risks
• The sponsor violates the rules described in ResNo945 or fails to comply with the GCP principles and good manufacturing practice (GMP) requirements of the IP

In order to comply with these provisions, per ResNo945, ANVISA will notify the sponsor about the suspension or cancellation of DDCM or clinical trial and will open an administrative and/or investigative process, in accordance with current legislation, when applicable.

Inspection

In accordance with LawNo14.874, ANVISA is authorized to carry out good clinical practice (GCP) inspections of clinical research centers, sponsors, and contract research organizations (CROs) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil). ResNo945 further specifies that ANVISA may carry out GCP inspections of clinical trial centers, sponsors, CROs, laboratories, and other institutions involved in the development of the IP to verify the degree of adherence to current Brazilian legislation and compliance with GCP, in addition to ensuring the rights and duties that concern the scientific community and Brazil. In addition to specific GCP inspection standards issued by ANVISA, GCP inspections will follow the harmonized guidelines of the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28) and its updates which Brazil has formally adopted. (Please note that the ICH Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (BRA-121) was finalized on January 6, 2025). Refer to ResNo945 for more information on ANVISA’s GCP inspection requirements.

RegNo122 also provides guidance on ANVISA inspection procedures to ensure drug clinical trials are conducted in compliance with GCP. Per BRA-30, ANVISA’s COPEC requires all clinical trial inspections to be conducted in accordance with BRA-28. GuideNo35-2020 and GuideNo36-2020 further explain that GCP inspections of sponsors and CRO representatives and in clinical trial centers may be carried out before, during, or after a clinical trial has been conducted and will be classified as either a routine inspection or complaint/suspected irregularity, per RegNo122. In addition, per GuideNo35-2020 and GuideNo36-2020, the inspections will involve at least two (2) ANVISA inspectors, one (1) of whom will be the lead inspector and the focal point for communication with either the clinical trial center or the sponsor/CRO(s). The inspections for both entities will take place over a maximum period of five (5) working days unless the period is altered with due justification. See GuideNo35-2020 and GuideNo36-2020 for additional details.

Priority Submissions

In addition to the previously stated DDCM requirements, ResNo204 establishes a priority category to register, amend previously registered, or request prior approval for drug submissions. ResNo204 states that the priority submission may be submitted as a DDCM or a DEEC. A priority DDCM submission is required to meet one (1) or more of the following criteria: new drug trial in any phase to be carried out in Brazil, the drug is part of the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Immunization Program, or the product is determined to be of strategic public health interest and included under the MOH’s Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)) (BRA-53). A priority DEEC submission is required to comply with the following: the drug will be used for neglected, emerging, or reemerging diseases, health emergencies, or serious debilitating conditions for which there is no alternative; the trial will be conducted exclusively with the pediatric population; or the drug will be used in a Phase I trial only to be manufactured in Brazil. The sponsor should specify at the time of submission that the new or amended protocol is a priority category request. If not confirmed prior to the technical review phase, the request for approval may be denied. ANVISA is required to first issue a written opinion letter within 45 calendar days from the first business day following protocol submission, a final opinion in 120 days for new drug registration requests, and a final opinion 60 days for post-registration petitions. See the Timeline of Review section for detailed timeline information. Refer to ResNo204, ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo204), and BRA-14 for detailed information on priority submission requirements. See also BRA-82 for additional information on priority submissions.

New Drugs for Rare Diseases Submissions

ResNo205 sets forth specific approval procedures for clinical trials to be conducted to register new drugs to treat, diagnose, or prevent rare diseases. The applications may be submitted as an initial DDCM, a secondary petition linked to the original DDCM, or a DEEC either linked to the original DDCM or for a new process. The sponsor must delineate at the time of submitting a new drug submission (DDCM), an amended DDCM (secondary petition), or DEEC, whether the DDCM is pertaining to a rare disease drug. If not confirmed prior to the technical review phase, the request for approval may be denied.

In addition, per ResNo763, which modifies ResNo205, ANVISA has suspended the requirement for the sponsor to hold a pre-submission meeting to present a rare disease DDCM or amended DDCM. The pre-submission meeting is optional, and if the sponsor deems it necessary, then ANVISA will hold the meeting within 60 days following this request. Refer to ResNo205 and ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo205) for additional submission documentation requirements.

Optimized Analysis Procedure Reviews

As delineated in ResNo945 and ResNo741, ANVISA has adopted a technical evaluation mechanism known as the “optimized analysis procedure” which uses the technical analysis or supporting documentation issued by an Equivalent Foreign Regulatory Authority (Autoridade Regulatória Estrangeira Equivalente (AREE)) as a sole or complementary reference, for its decisions. AREEs have regulatory practices aligned with those of ANVISA and are therefore considered to be in a practice of regulatory trust (referred to as Reliance). ANVISA designates a specific list of approved AREEs for each type of authorization request (see below for the AREE lists based on request type).

ResNo741 provides general criteria for the admissibility of the AREE regulatory documentation, which includes reports, opinions, or technical/legal documents, used to issue an opinion. Among other requirements, in order for ANVISA to adopt the optimized analysis procedure, the health surveillance process covered in the AREE’s documentation must meet all the requirements, criteria, and specifications established by ANVISA for the corresponding health surveillance process. ResNo945 also explains that the documents required for the instruction of each type of petition or process submitted, may be partially or fully exempted from technical analysis using the optimized analysis procedure by Reliance. ANVISA will also issue a supplementary normative act to establish the criteria and documents that may be partially or fully exempted from technical analysis based on Reliance.

Drug & Biological Product Registration/Post-Registration

In accordance with ResNo741, ANVISA approved RegNo289, which establishes specific criteria and procedures for ANVISA’s application of the optimized analysis procedure in which one (1) or more AREE assessments are used to analyze registration and post-registration authorization requests for medicines, vaccines, biological products, and their active substances that are already approved in the reference country. ANVISA will issue a Letter of Adequacy of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Dossier (Carta de Adequação de Dossiê de Insumo Farmacêutico Ativo (CADIFA)) to certify the AREE has regulatory trust practices aligned with those of ANVISA and has ensured that products authorized for distribution have been adequately evaluated and meet recognized standards of quality, safety, and effectiveness.

Pursuant to RegNo289, ANVISA has designated the following foreign agencies as AREEs to review registration and post-registration authorization requests of medicines, vaccines, biological products and their active substances:

• European Medicines Agency (EMA)
• Health Canada
• European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM)
• Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic)
• Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), United Kingdom
• US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
• Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia

Refer to RegNo289 for detailed requirements on submitting a request for ANVISA authorization via the optimized analysis procedure. See ResNo741 for additional information on the optimized analysis procedure and AREE related requirements. See also the Manufacturing & Import section for AREE manufacturing and inspection criteria and procedures and Good Manufacturing Practices Certification via the optimized analysis procedure as delineated in RegNo292.

DDCMs, DEECs, Substantial IP Modifications & Substantial Protocol Amendments by Reliance

As per ResNo945, RegNo338, and BRA-122, the optimized analysis procedure based on Reliance is also applicable to primary DDCM and DEEC petitions, and secondary petitions for substantial modifications to the IP and substantial amendments to the clinical trial protocol. Pursuant to ResNo945, ANVISA will review the AREE documentation for compliance. Per ResNo945 and RegNo338, for the purposes of admissibility for analyzing primary and secondary petitions, the related documents must have been approved by at least one (1) of the AREEs recognized by ANVISA.

Per RegNo338, ANVISA has designated the following AREEs to review primary DDCM and DEEC petition requests, and secondary petition requests for substantial modifications to the IP and substantial amendments to the clinical trial protocol:

• EMA and its member countries
• Health Canada
• Swissmedic
• MHRA
• FDA
• Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), Japan

ANVISA must be given the sponsor’s consent to communicate directly with the AREE about the clinical development process under analysis. ANVISA will also review any commitment terms or conditional approval assumed with the AREE and the details about the respective pending issues and referrals, if applicable.

According to RegNo338 and RegNo345 (amending RegNo338) following its evaluation, ANVISA will issue one (1) of the responses listed below:

• If the criteria for applying the optimized analysis procedure by Reliance are met, the status of the secondary petition request will be updated to "Approved"
• If the secondary petition does not comply with the criteria for applying the optimized analysis procedure by Reliance, the status of the petition request will be updated to "Not Approved" and all documents linked to the petition will be subject to a full analysis, as described in ResNo945. In this case, an official letter will be sent to the company with the respective justification

ResNo945 and BRA-122 further state that the admissibility of the optimized analysis procedure by Reliance does not presuppose prioritization of petition analysis, however, per ResNo945, ANVISA may create specific queues for the allocation and analysis of these petitions. BRA-122 also indicates that petitions will be analyzed in accordance with the chronological order of submission (issue date of the file), regardless of whether they fit into the optimized procedure. However, petitions prioritized under the terms of ResNo204 and ResNo205 may also be included in the criteria for applying the optimized analysis procedure when requested by the applicant.

Additionally, per ResNo945 and BRA-122, ANVISA will be responsible for deciding whether to accept the request for analysis using the optimized procedure, including opting for the ordinary analysis of the petition, regardless of the decision issued by the AREE. Per ResNo945, ANVISA may carry out complementary monitoring actions, such as GCP audits or inspections to monitor DDCMs, DEECs, and secondary petitions approved by the optimized analysis procedure. Monitoring actions include the assessment of information regarding the safety profile, based on national and international alerts, and other duly justified actions, at ANVISA’s discretion, that may contribute to maintaining the approved conditions.

See the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for details.

DDCM & IP Substantial Modifications by Risk Assessment

As delineated in ResNo945, the optimized analysis procedure may also be applied based on the risk or complexity criteria of the clinical trial or IP. When requested by the sponsor, this type of technical analysis applies to DDCMs and substantial IP modifications. The required documents for each type of petition or process may be partially or fully exempted from technical analysis, through the optimized analysis procedure, according to the risk and complexity of the clinical trial. ANVISA categorizes clinical trial risk as low, moderate, or high. Refer to RegNo338 for more information on risk assessment criteria. ResNo945 further notes that in cases where the placebo, when used, is identical to the registered IP, differing from it only by the absence of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, and/or the active comparator is identical to the registered drug, ANVISA’s evaluation of the documents present in the IMPD or DPI may also be analyzed by the optimized procedure by risk assessment. Per RegNo338, ANVISA will provide a specific petition characterization form for the sponsor to complete for the proper identification of situations in which the optimized analysis procedure is supported by experience using the IP.

Overview

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

National Drug Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

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

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

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

National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)

As set forth in ResNo857, the sponsor is responsible for paying a Health Surveillance Inspection Fee (Taxa de Fiscalização de Vigilância Sanitária (TFVS)) to submit a clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)). As per ResNo857 and BRA-47, once the sponsor has completed the process of submitting a primary DDCM petition, ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56) generates a document known as the Union Collection Guide (Guia de Recolhimento da União (GRU)). According to ResNo857, ANVISA uses the GRU as its primary method to generate TFVS fees. In addition to ResNo857, see also BRA-51 for detailed information on the GRU, and BRA-69 for information on the TFVS fee. See also BRA-38 and BRA-47 for additional information on accessing BRA-56.

Per BRA-69, ANVISA determines the TFVS fee based on the company’s size and the subject code assigned to the application request. Per the TFVS fee table provided in ResNo857 and OrdNo45, the fees range from 983.85 Brazilian Reals to 19,677 Brazilian Reals to obtain clinical research approval. Per BRA-69, users can also obtain their petition fee prior to submission by searching ANVISA’s Consultation System webpage (BRA-44) using the “Subject Consultation” (Consulta de Assuntos) tool. BRA-44 provides the fee value based on the petition description subject code. See BRA-69 for further fees information. See also BRA-129 for additional instructions on searching BRA-44.

Payment Instructions

As described in ResNo857, the TFVS fee must be paid by the GRU; the Federal Revenue Collection Document (Documento de Arrecadação de Receitas Federais (DARF)) (BRA-111), which is a document used to pay taxes, fees, or contributions; PagTesouro (BRA-114); or other methods that may be established. BRA-43 also states that bank payments may be completed at any financial institution participating in the bank clearing system, via the Internet, self-service (ATM) terminals, or directly at the cashier’s window. Per ResNo857 and BRA-43, payment must be made within 30 days after the GRU has been issued.

Per BRA-115, for payments made using ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56), users can select payment through the PagTesouro online payment system (BRA-114). As per BRA-47, users choosing to pay via PagTesouro (BRA-114) may do so by credit card, or by Pix, which is an instant payment method where a QR Code is generated to complete the payment. Per BRA-47 and BRA-115, users may also choose the “Generate Boleto” option in the Solicita system (BRA-56) to generate the GRU payment slip that can be used to pay via conventional banking methods, with confirmation within two (2) business days. See BRA-47 for further guidance on how to complete the payment process via the Solicita system (BRA-56). See also BRA-115 for additional information on PagTesouro (BRA-114).

National Drug Authority

In accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the NDPA-FeesReg, applicants are responsible for paying certain non-refundable fees to the National Drug Authority (NDA) related to clinical trial applications. As set forth in the NDPA-FeesReg, the following fees apply for clinical trials involving human drugs and vaccines (except herbal drugs):

• Application to conduct a clinical trial for a registered drug – $5,000 USD
• Application to conduct a clinical trial for an unregistered drug – $8,000 USD
• Application to conduct an adaptive clinical trial – $10,000 USD
• Application to conduct a clinical trial for locally manufactured drugs – 10,000,000 Ugandan shillings
• Application for major amendment of clinical trial protocol – $700 USD
• Application for minor amendment of clinical trial protocol – $300 USD
• Notification of amendment to clinical trial protocol – $50 USD
• Application for major amendment of protocol for an adaptive clinical trial – $2,000 USD
• Annual renewal of clinical trial certificate – $500 USD
• Extension of period for a clinical trial – $1,000 USD
• Fast tracking applications – 200% of applicable fees

See the NDPA-FeesReg for NDA fees regarding the inspection of local and foreign manufacturing plants for good manufacturing practice (GMP). Additionally, see the NDPA-FeesReg and the NDPA-AmendFeesReg for drug importation fees.

Payment Instructions

The NDPA-FeesReg notes that the prescribed fee is payable at the same time that an application is made to the NDA. The NDA will not accept an application with respect to which the prescribed fee is not paid.

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

National Drug Authority: TIN 1000054563
Bank: Stanbic Bank Uganda
Account numbers: 9030008068851 (US Dollars) and 9030005759829 (Ugandan shillings)
Swift code: SBICUGKXXXX
Sort Code: 040147
Acceptable forms of payment: cash in the bank, real time gross settlement (RTGS), electronic funds transfer (EFT), telegraphic transfer (TT), or check

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

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

Payment Instructions

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

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

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

Overview

New National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings

LawNo14.874 introduces the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings (Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos). The system consists of the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Research Ethics Authority and the research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)), which must be accredited by the National Research Ethics Authority. In this framework, the ECs (CEPs) are solely responsible for the ethical review of clinical trial protocols involving human participants. During the transition to the new system, the current National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) system will continue to be implemented and described in this profile. The ClinRegs team will provide additional information on the implementation of LawNo14.874 as it becomes available. See also BRA-117 for additional information.

CEP/CONEP System

As per ResNo466, ResNo446, and OSNo001, CONEP is the central body responsible for coordinating the network of institutional ECs (CEPs), and for registering and accrediting the ECs (CEPs). CONEP is a collegiate advisory body directly linked to the National Health Council (Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS)), a permanent body within the MOH’s Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)) (BRA-53).

Both the ECs (CEPs) and CONEP are responsible for evaluating the ethical aspects of all research involving human beings and for approving the research protocols when applicable, as explained in ResNo466, ResNo446, OSNo001, and ResNo706. ResNo466 further notes that institutions conducting research involving human participants may establish one (1) or more ECs (CEPs) according to their institution’s requirements. For those institutions lacking an EC (CEP), or in the case of an investigator without an institutional affiliation, CONEP is required to suggest an EC (CEP) to conduct the protocol review. Together, the ECs (CEPs) and CONEP represent the ethical review system in Brazil, known as the CEP/CONEP System, as described in ResNo466, OSNo001, G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, and ResNo706. See also BRA-50 and BRA-49 for useful information on CONEP and the CNS.

Ethics Committee Composition

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As per OSNo001 and ResNo446, CONEP is an independent and multidisciplinary organization consisting of 30 appointed members and five (5) alternate members. Per ResNo446, CONEP also has an Executive Secretary appointed by the MOH’s Secretariat for Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs and an Assistant Secretary appointed by the CNS to coordinate CONEP’s work and to manage the technical and operational work to be carried out by the Executive Secretary. See ResNo466, OSNo001, and ResNo446 for detailed information on CONEP composition and responsibilities. See also BRA-50 for useful information on CONEP.

Research Ethics Committees (CEPs)

National Research Ethics Authority

LawNo14.874 specifies that the EC (CEP) should be composed of a collegiate, interdisciplinary team in the medical, scientific, and non-scientific areas, to ensure that the members have the necessary qualifications and experience to analyze all aspects inherent to the research, including medical, scientific, ethical aspects and those related to good clinical practice (GCP). The EC (CEP) is also required to have in its composition one (1) Research Participant Representative (Representante de Participante de Pesquisa (RPP)).

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As per OMREC, the EC (CEP) is required to be composed of a minimum of seven (7) members having proven expertise in research. ResNo706, in turn, states the EC (CEP) must be composed of at least nine (9) members with at least two (2) RPPs. Additionally, OSNo001, OMREC, and ResNo706 indicate that the EC (CEP) should be multidisciplinary, represent a balanced gender and age composition, and consist of members embodying community interests and concerns.

OMREC and ResNo706 further state that not more than half of its members should belong to the same professional category. Additionally, per ResNo706, at least half of the members must demonstrate experience in research. Also, any changes to the infrastructure, composition of members or administrative employees must be communicated to CONEP. When there is a change in EC (CEP) member composition, at least one third of the members of the previous composition must be maintained. Changes in EC (CEP) coordination must also be communicated and approved by CONEP. See ResNo706 for additional information. Additional criteria for EC (CEP) membership is also available in Section 2 of OMREC.

ResNo647 also establishes standards and mandatory requirements for all ECs (CEPs) in Brazil to include RPPs who represent the interests of research participants. RPPs must be at least 18 years old; have a history of participation in a social and/or community movement in which the participation is not limited to health areas and can cover all segments of social movement activity; and must be able to express the viewpoints and interests of individuals and/or groups of research participants in order to represent the collective interests of different audiences in the CEP/CONEP System. See ResNo647 for detailed information on RPPs. See also BRA-29 for additional information.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

National Research Ethics Authority

As per LawNo14.874, the ECs (CEPs) must adopt operational procedures and are responsible for the following:

• Operating regularly
• Ensuring adequate infrastructure to carry out its activities
• Maintaining a publicly available list of its members with their respective professional qualifications
• Preparing a document describing the operational procedures adopted
• Keeping written records of its activities and meetings

As described in LawNo14.874, the deliberation on the ethical adequacy of the research will take place in a previously scheduled meeting, which must have a minimum quorum, as defined in the EC’s (CEP's) internal regulations. Only active EC (CEP) members are permitted to issue opinions and deliberate on the ethical adequacy of submitted research. EC (CEP) members may invite external experts and representatives of vulnerable groups to give their opinion on specific issues related to research projects, but they will not have the right to vote. Once duly accredited or certified, ECs (CEPs) have complete autonomy to issue their opinions, in compliance with GCP.

In addition, LawNo14.874 explains that depending on the degree of risk involved in the research, the role of the research ethics review body will be exercised by one (1) of the following:

• An EC (CEP) accredited or certified by the National Research Ethics Authority, in the case of low or moderate risk research
• An EC (CEP) accredited by the National Research Ethics Authority, in the case of high-risk research

Also, per LawNo14.874, in the case of research involving a special group, to be established by regulation, the EC (CEP) must ensure, whenever possible, during the protocol discussion, the participation of one (1) representative of the special group as an ad-hoc member; and one (1) consultant familiar with the language, customs, and traditions of the specific community, when the research involves that community. EC (CEP) members may also invite external experts and representatives of vulnerable groups to issue an opinion on specific issues related to the research projects, but these individuals should not have the right to vote. Once duly accredited or certified, ECs (CEPs) have complete autonomy to issue their opinions, in compliance with GCP. The EC (CEP) will also keep all project related documents on file for a period of five (5) years after the end of the research, with digital archiving permitted. As stated in LawNo14.874, the institution hosting the EC (CEP) will promote and support the training of its committee members, with an emphasis on ethical and methodological aspects related to the rights of research participants. The EC’s (CEP)’s activities are subject to inspection and monitoring by the National Research Ethics Authority. Failure by the EC (CEP) to comply with the provisions of LawNo14.874 will result in its de-accreditation by the National Research Ethics Authority, in accordance with regulations.

See LawNo14.874 for additional EC (CEP) terms of reference and review procedure requirements.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As set forth in OMREC, each EC (CEP) must have written standard operating procedures (SOPs), including a process for conducting reviews. The SOPs should include information on EC (CEP) composition, meeting schedules, frequency of reviews, requirements for initial and ongoing evaluation of the research study, and requirements for notifying the investigator and the institution of results related to the study’s initial and ongoing evaluation. ResNo706 further specifies the EC (CEP) is responsible for the following:

• Maintaining adequate composition
• Choosing, for coordination, an EC (CEP) member that does not present a potential conflict of interest, by vote of the absolute majority (50% plus one) of the total number of full members
• Issuing opinions and sending CONEP reports on its activities within regulatory deadlines
• Maintaining confidentiality of all information regarding research protocols and the content of EC (CEP) meetings
• Preparing the internal regulations
• Analyzing research protocols of the proposing institutions, located only in the same Federative Unit as the EC (CEP) registration
• Ensuring periodic training of its members, through a permanent training plan on ethics in research involving human beings, including content targeted and accessible to RPPs
• Promoting educational activities in the area of research ethics involving human beings, with its members and the community in general
• Maintaining regular and effective communication with CONEP
• Receiving complaints and investigating ethical infractions, especially those that involve risks to research participants, communicating the facts to the competent bodies for investigation and, when appropriate, to the public prosecutor's office

ResNo706 further notes that an EC (CEP) is responsible for receiving and considering, from an ethical point of view, the research protocols indicated by CONEP. However, the committee may also refuse the ethical assessment of research protocols indicated by CONEP, upon justification. Per OMREC and ResNo706, the majority of committee members must be involved in the review and approval process, and the necessary quorum must be obtained to approve or deny permission to conduct a study as specified in each EC’s (CEP’s) SOPs. As per ResNo706, the term of office of EC (CEP) members is valid for four (4) years, with the possibility of reappointment, at the discretion of the CEP. At the end of the term of office, an EC (CEP) member may remain in this role up to 90 days, until a replacement or reappointment takes place.

See OMREC for detailed EC (CEP) procedures and information on other administrative processes. See CLNo1-2022 for instructions on submitting administrative documents via email to CONEP to speed up EC (CEP) accreditation and renewal processes and maintain regular functioning of ECs (CEPs), and CLNo25 for guidance on conducting virtual CEP/CONEP system meetings.

Overview

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

New National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings

LawNo14.874 introduces the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings (Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos). The system consists of the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Research Ethics Authority and the research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)), which must be accredited by the National Research Ethics Authority. In this framework, the ECs (CEPs) are solely responsible for the ethical review of clinical trial protocols involving human participants. During the transition to the new system, the current National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) system will continue to be implemented and described in this profile. The ClinRegs team will provide additional information on the implementation of LawNo14.874 as it becomes available.) See also BRA-117 for additional information.

National Research Ethics Authority

According to LawNo14.874, the primary scope of information reviewed by ECs (CEPs) relates to protecting the dignity, safety, and well-being of research participants throughout the conduct of a clinical trial. The ECs (CEPs) are responsible for acting independently and autonomously before and during the trial through their analysis, review, and ethical approval of research protocols and their amendments, as well as through their evaluation of the methods and materials used to obtain and document the free and informed consent of research participants.

As part of their ethical review and analysis, LawNo14.874 indicates that the ECs (CEPs) are also responsible for requesting the provision of additional information to research participants when deemed essential to protect their rights, safety, and well-being; ensuring the research project and other documents adequately address relevant ethical issues and satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, including those related to good clinical practice (GCP); and, ensuring adequate means are provided for obtaining consent from the research participant or the legal representative, among others. The ECs (CEPs) must also pay special attention to protecting the welfare of participants deemed to be vulnerable (See the Vulnerable Populations and Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates sections for additional information about these populations).

As part of the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings, per LawNo14.874, the ECs (CEPs) are guided by the following principles:

• Protection of the dignity, safety, and well-being of the research participant
• Encouragement of technical and scientific development
• Independence, transparency, and publicity
• Equality in the application of criteria and procedures for analyzing research projects, according to the risk-benefit relationship inferred from their protocols
• Efficiency and agility in the analysis and issuing of opinions
• Multidisciplinary focus
• Social control, with the participation of research participant representative(s)
• Respect for GCP

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

ResNo466, ResNo251, and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs state that the primary scope of information assessed by ECs (CEPs) and CONEP, jointly known as the CEP/CONEP System, relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial.

Per ResNo466, ResNo251, and OSNo001, the CEP/CONEP System members must pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations). ResNo304 further establishes specific ethical requirements for research studies involving indigenous populations. Detailed information on documentation and consent requirements for studies involving indigenous populations is available in the Documentation Requirements, Vulnerable Populations, and Consent for Specimen sections.

The CEP/CONEP System members are also responsible for ensuring an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol as stated in ResNo466 and OSNo001. It must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved, evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants; confirming the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and methods; and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. Refer to ResNo466 and OSNo001 for detailed ethical review guidelines that govern the CEP/CONEP System.

CONEP-Designated Protocol Reviews

Per ResNo580, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Secretary of Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs refers protocols to CONEP that are determined to be of strategic public health interest for the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)) (BRA-53). ResNo580 recognizes strategic research protocols as those studies that may contribute to public health, justice, reduction of social inequalities and technological dependencies, and those that address public health emergencies. Refer to the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for additional information on CONEP’s review requirements for this type of protocol. A working group was also created to support the MOH’s assessment of research involving human beings when carried out in the SUS sphere, per OrdNo552. The interagency working group includes National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)), CONEP, and the National Health Council (Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS)), and is coordinated by an MOH representative.

In addition to conducting public health and international project reviews, per ResNo466, ResNo446, and ResNo340, CONEP is required to review certain studies involving human genetics, human reproduction, invasive therapeutic procedures, indigenous populations, genetically modified organisms, embryonic stem cells, and the establishment and operation of biobanks for research. Refer to ResNo466, ResNo446, and ResNo340 for specific details on CONEP protocol review requirements. See also CLNo172 for additional guidance on classifying protocol thematic areas that require CONEP review (e.g., protocols on the constitution and operation of biobanks for research purposes); CLNo34 for guidance on processing biobank development protocols electronically, and; CLNo041 for CONEP specimens consent instructions. See also ResNo506 for information on the role of CEP/CONEP System members in reviewing protocols submitted for clinical trials with advanced therapy products in Brazil (i.e., medicines for human use based on genes, tissues, or cells).

CONEP Review Pathways

ResNo674 provides review criteria and corresponding timelines to classify research and the processing of research protocols involving human beings in the CEP/CONEP System based upon study type and level of intervention in the human body. The regulation divides research into two (2) groups: 1) studies seeking to describe or understand phenomena that has happened or happen in the research participant’s daily life; and 2) studies that aim to verify the effect of an investigational product (IP) or technique used in research, deliberately applied to the participant, prospectively monitored, and which may or may not involve a control group. The studies are further characterized according to procedure and whether it involves intervention in the human body and if it is invasive.

Classification by study design and procedure is as follows: Type A – observational research; Type B – observational research with human body intervention; and Type C – investigational research designed to verify the effect of an IP (including a medicine, drug, biological product, or health device) or an investigational technique used in research, deliberately applied to the participant, prospectively monitored, with or without a control. Type C studies are further divided into two (2) subtypes: C1 studies, in which the object of investigation is not an IP in the health area, and C2 studies, in which the object of investigation is an IP in the health area.

EC analysis varies according to the type of research and modulation factors (i.e., consent process, confidentiality, and/or research methods), and requires the reviewer to verify the documentation the investigator submits in Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34). Per BRA-93, Plataforma Brasil is a national and unified database of human subjects research records that represents the entire CEP/CONEP System. The platform is also used to track research applications from submission to final approval by the EC (CEP), and when necessary, by CONEP. See BRA-33 for the most current Plataforma Brazil CEP and investigator manuals.

There are four (4) ways of processing protocols in the CEP/CONEP System: express, simplified, collegiate, and special collegiate; the modulation factors per Annex II of ResNo674 provides additional characteristics to further modify the protocol processing method to be used. See ResNo674 and BRA-4 for additional information on the CEP/CONEP System’s protocol research classification and processing procedures. (Note: Per BRA-9, the protocol classification and processing system has not yet been implemented in BRA-34. The ClinRegs team will continue to monitor Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) for any developments.)

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

National Research Ethics Authority

As delineated in ResNo945, ANVISA and the EC (CEP) must approve a clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) before a trial is permitted to commence. Research involving human beings must be subject to prior ethical analysis by ECs (CEPs) according to National Research Ethics Authority legislation and regulations. Clinical trial applications can be submitted in parallel, however, a drug clinical trial may only be initiated after approval is obtained by both the EC (CEP) and ANVISA.

In addition, as indicated in ResNo945, the EC (CEP) must review and approve any protocol amendments prior to those changes being implemented. There is no stated expiration date for an EC (CEP) approval in ResNo945.

As stated in LawNo14.874, the EC (CEP) research ethics analysis process will be instructed with the information and documents established in specific regulations. All documents requested by the EC (CEP) must be provided for in an act of the MOH, in a regulation, or in the rules of the EC (CEP) itself and be relevant to the matter analyzed.

Per LawNo14.874, the EC (CEP) will issue an opinion following acceptance or denial of the all the submitted research documents. Before issuing the opinion, the EC (CEP) may request additional information or documents from the investigator or research sponsor, or request that adjustments be made to the research documentation. The EC’s (CEP’s) review will be suspended during this time, and the investigator will be given time to meet the EC’s (CEP’s) demands. However, the EC (CEP) study analysis process may be canceled in case of non-compliance with the deadline. At the discretion of the EC (CEP), the investigator may participate in the collegiate meeting to provide clarifications about the research, but the investigator is prohibited from attending the meeting while the final decision is being made. Upon completion of its review, the EC (CEP) opinion will be one (1) of the following: approval of the research; non-approval of the research; or, suspension, when approved research that is already in progress needs to be interrupted for safety reasons. The decision contained in the EC’s (CEP's) opinion may be initially appealed to the EC (CEP) that issued the opinion and, subsequently, the opinion may be appealed one (1) final time to the National Research Ethics Authority. All those involved in conducting, monitoring, evaluating, or approving the research who have direct access to its records, to verify compliance with the procedures and applicable legislation and the validity or integrity of the data, must ensure the preservation of the confidentiality of the data and the anonymity of the research participant, in accordance with current legislation.

After the start of the research, per LawNo14.874, if there is a need for a change that interferes with the risk-benefit relationship or the approved documentation, the coordinating investigator will submit, in writing, an amendment to the research project, duly justified, for analysis and opinion by the EC (CEP) that analyzed the research. The amendment may only be implemented after approval by the EC (CEP), in accordance with this law, except when the safety of the research participant depends on its immediate implementation. The provisions for the initial research project review are also applicable to amendments to the research project.

LawNo14.874 also notes that the ethical analysis of research involving more than one (1) research center in the country will be carried out by a single EC (CEP), preferably the one linked to the research coordinating center, which will issue the opinion and notify the ECs (CEPs) of the other participating centers of its decision. Additionally, research of strategic interest to the MOH’s Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)) (BRA-53) and relevant to responding to public health emergencies will be given priority in ethical analysis and will be subject to special analysis procedures, including deadlines. See the Timeline of Review section for detailed timeline information.

In addition, research conducted with human beings that does not comply with the provisions of LawNo14.874 constitutes an ethical infraction and subjects the offender to disciplinary sanctions provided for in the legislation of the professional council to which the sponsor or the CRO is affiliated, without prejudice to applicable civil and criminal sanctions. For the purposes of applying the disciplinary sanctions, the EC (CEP) or the National Research Ethics Authority will notify the competent professional councils of the ethical infraction committed. Failure to comply with the provisions of LawNo14.874, and failure to comply with the GCP standards per ResNo945, constitutes a health infraction and subjects the offender to the penalties provided for in LawNo6.437, and in specific health regulations, without prejudice to applicable civil and criminal sanctions.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As per ResNo466 and OSNo001, ANVISA and the EC (CEP) (and CONEP, if applicable) must approve a clinical trial application before a trial is permitted to commence. Per OSNo001, the EC (CEP) must also review and approve any protocol amendments prior to those changes being implemented. If applicable, CONEP may also review protocol amendments. (See CLNo038 for the criteria CONEP uses to process protocol amendments.) ResNo466 and OSNo001 specify that the development and submission of research, as well as the implementation and disclosure of EC (CEP) and CONEP opinions, must occur via BRA-34. CLNo24 and CLNo24-Note for CONEP’s general guidelines for investigators and ECs (CEPs) on conducting clinical trials.

Additionally, CLNo040 specifies that if investigational brochure (IB) updates result in modifications to the detailed protocol and/or the informed consent form (ICF), then a protocol amendment must be submitted. In this case, the EC (CEP) will analyze the IB together with the other documents pertaining to the amendment, and, if necessary, the required amendments and/or clarifications will be requested.

Per CLNo29, in the case of an appeal, only the investigator responsible for the protocol, which had a substantiated opinion of non-approval, may submit a request to the CEP/CONEP System via Platforma Brasil (BRA-34). The appeal must be filed within 30 calendar days, counting from the first day following the issuance of the substantiated opinion of non-approval. Appeals submitted to the EC (CEP) will be reviewed and a substantiated opinion analyzing the appeal will be issued within 30 calendar days following receipt. If the EC (CEP) considers the requirements and justifications presented in the appeal to be appropriate in order to continue the ethical analysis, the appeal will be approved, or pending approval, if the protocol requires adjustments prior to approval. However, if the appeal is not approved by the EC (CEP), the investigator may appeal to CONEP. CONEP, in turn, has a deadline of up to 45 days after receiving the appeal to issue a substantiated opinion of approved, pending, or not approved, when evaluating the appeal in relation to the substantiated opinion issued by the EC (CEP). If CONEP does not approve the appeal, the investigator, upon receiving the non-approval opinion from CONEP, may file an appeal directly to CONEP itself. From an analysis of the resources submitted to the EC (CEP) and/or CONEP, CONEP may issue an “Approve with Recommendation” opinion to the EC (CEP), when applicable. If CONEP does not approve the appeal, the processing of the appeal is terminated, the research protocol is archived, and no other appeal requests will be permitted. There is no stated expiration date for an EC (CEP) approval in ResNo466 or OSNo001. See the Timeline of Review section for detailed timeline information.

Foreign Research

As delineated in ResNo292, ResNo446, and ResNo466, applications with coordination and/or sponsorship originating outside of Brazil require additional EC review by CONEP. Per ResNo446, an exception to the required CONEP review applies to studies that have been fully carried out abroad and have been approved by an EC or equivalent body in the country of origin. ResNo580 also amends the ResNo466 requirements related to co-sponsored research projects and those involved with shipping human biological materials. This regulation states that when the MOH’s Secretariat of Science, Technology and Strategic Health Inputs issues an official agreement for a specific research project, the EC (CEP) for the proposing institution may conduct its review without the need for additional review by CONEP.

ResNo292 also explains that the scope of research from abroad or with foreign participation includes: collaboration between public or private foreign individuals or legal entities; sending and/or receiving biological materials from humans; sending and/or receiving data and information collected to aggregate research results; and international multicenter studies. For protocols within this thematic area, per ResNo292, special attention should be given to insuring the EC or equivalent institution within the originating country has issued an approval. If not, the Brazilian EC (CEP) and CONEP must approve the protocol. Refer to ResNo292 and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs for additional guidance on research studies submitted from abroad.

Multicenter Research

Per ResNo346, for multicenter research protocols, the coordinating center’s EC (CEP) should initially review the protocol and forward it to CONEP for review. Per OSNo001, the principal investigator is also required to submit a list of the participating institutions and associated protocols, the coordinating center, and the EC (CEP) designated to monitor the study’s progress as part of the research protocol package sent to the EC (CEP) for review. ResNo346 further notes that CONEP will only evaluate the first protocol submitted and then send its final opinion to the original EC (CEP) and the other participating institutions. ResNo674 similarly explains that the initial analysis of the research protocol using the research classification procedure will occur at the EC (CEP) of the coordinating center or the accredited EC (CEP), when applicable, and will be subsequently forwarded for analysis by the EC (CEP) of the other co-participating centers and/or institutions, after approval.

See ResNo346 for additional multicenter protocol processing information.

Exemption from Review

Pursuant to Article 26 of ResNo674, CLNo12 provides further guidance on research that is exempt from ethical assessment by the CEP/CONEP system. Research that is exempt includes protocols that fall exclusively into the following categories: public opinion surveys with unidentifiable participants; research that uses publicly accessible information; research that uses public domain information; census research carried out by government agencies; research carried out exclusively with information or data already available in aggregate form, without the possibility of individual identification; research carried out exclusively with scientific texts to review the scientific literature; research that aims at the theoretical deepening of situations that emerge spontaneously and contingently in professional practice, as long as it does not reveal data that can identify the individuals; activity carried out with the sole purpose of education, teaching, extension or training, without the purpose of scientific research, of undergraduate students, technical course, or professionals in specialization; market research; scientific research carried out with cells, tissues, organs, and organisms of nonhuman origin, including their biological products, provided there is no interaction with research participants or imply the collection or use of human biological material to obtain them; and, activity whose purpose is to describe or analyze the productive or administrative process exclusively for organizational development purposes.

Overview

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

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Research Ethics Authority

No information is currently available regarding research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) fees.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

According to ResNo466, OMREC, and ResNo706, the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) does not permit ECs (CEPs), to charge a fee to review clinical trial protocols. OMREC further explains that financing to support ethical reviews should come from a specific scientific committee budget designated within each institution.

No applicable requirements.

Overview

New National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings

LawNo14.874 introduces the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings (Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos). The system consists of the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Research Ethics Authority and the research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)), which must be accredited by the National Research Ethics Authority. In this framework, the ECs (CEPs) are solely responsible for the ethical review of clinical trial protocols involving human participants. During the transition to the new system, the current National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) system will continue to be implemented and described in this profile. The ClinRegs team will provide additional information on the implementation of LawNo14.874 as it becomes available. See also BRA-117 for additional information.

National Research Ethics Authority

Per LawNo14.874, the National Research Ethics Authority, an interdisciplinary and independent collegiate body that is part of the MOH, is responsible for the following:

• Issuing regulatory standards on ethics research
• Evaluating the effectiveness of the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings
• Accrediting and certifying the ECs (CEPs) so that they are able to perform the function of ethical analysis in research, according to the degree of risk involved
• Monitoring, supporting, and supervising the ECs (CEPs) in relation to the analysis of research protocols and compliance with the pertinent standards
• Promoting and supporting the training of EC (CEP) members, with special emphasis on ethical and methodological aspects
• Acting as an appeals court for decisions made by ECs (CEPs)

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As per ResNo466, OSNo001, and ResNo446, CONEP is the central statutory body responsible for the registration, audit, and accreditation of ECs (CEPs). CONEP was created by the MOH to provide ethical oversight of clinical research and to safeguard the rights and welfare of human participants involved in clinical studies. CONEP reports to the CNS, the advisory body to the MOH.

As delineated in ResNo466, OSNo001, and ResNo446, CONEP’s core responsibilities center on:

• Examining the ethical aspects of research involving human participants
• Analyzing and monitoring research protocols and issuing opinions on applications with coordination or sponsorship originating outside Brazil, unless the co-sponsor is the Brazilian Government and applications are related to specialized thematic areas (i.e., human genetics, human reproduction, vaccines, and human biological materials)
• Preparing and updating relevant ethical standards
• Registering, auditing, accrediting, and training ECs (CEPs)
• Monitoring EC (CEP) processes
• Promoting and participating in educational EC (CEP) activities

See also the Scope of Review section for detailed EC (CEP) and CONEP review requirements associated with protocols originating outside of Brazil.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

National Research Ethics Authority

As stated in LawNo14.874, the National Research Ethics Authority is responsible for accrediting and certifying the research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)) so that they are able to perform ethical research reviews according to the degree of risk involved.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As per ResNo466, SP006REC, OSNo001, ResNo446, and ResNo706, all ECs (CEPs) must be registered and accredited by CONEP. CONEP’s Executive Secretariat who performs a documentation review to ensure compliance with the requirements delineated in ResNo446 carries out accreditation. ResNo706 further states that CEP registration and accreditation may only be requested by health, teaching, or research institutions headquartered in Brazil, without potential conflict of interest, and in good standing with competent bodies. The granting of EC (CEP) registration and accreditation is prohibited to research centers maintained or linked to Representative Clinical Research Representative Organizations (Organização Representativa de Pesquisa Clínica (ORPCs)) and professional category associations.

CNSResNo506 states that accreditation is valid for three (3) years. ResNo706, in turn, indicates that the term of validity of EC (CEP) accreditation is four (4) years.

ResNo706 specifies that registration and accreditation of the EC (CEP), as well as its renewal, will be carried out upon submission of the following documents:

• Application sent by the supporting institution, signed by its legal representative, containing the description of this institution and the commitment to ensure the minimum operating conditions of the EC (CEP)
• Proof of the minimum operating requirements of the supporting institution, in accordance with specific standards
• Request form, according to the model provided by CONEP
• Letters of appointment of Research Participant Representatives (RPPs), in accordance with the specific resolution
• Act of designation of the EC (CEP)
• EC (CEP) internal regulations

Additionally, per ResNo706, to begin activities, the EC (CEP) must, within 90 days after the announcement of registration and accreditation approval, prove the adequate training of its members. The approval of registration and accreditation of the EC (CEP) that does not begin its activities will be revoked within 120 days after approval of its registration. The renewal of the EC (CEP) accreditation must be initiated 90 days before the expiration date of its validity and be completed before it expires. An extension of the deadline for renewal may be requested once for a maximum period of 90 days when justified.

CNSResNo506, by comparison, states that to apply for accreditation, as well as renewal, an EC (CEP) is required to submit the following documentation along with a proposal for accreditation:

• Formal application justifying the EC (CEP)'s accreditation request
• Current EC (CEP) internal regulations
• Description of the EC (CEP)’s current functioning and infrastructure
• Proposal of the minimum number of high-risk protocols of other institutions that the EC (CEP) undertakes to evaluate on an individual basis, after obtaining the accreditation certificate
• Report of EC (CEP) activities for the three (3) years prior to the publication date of the public call

See CNSResNo506 for additional documentation requirements.

As noted in CNSResNo506 and SP006REC, the renewal application must be submitted within the window of 60 days before to 60 days after the accreditation’s expiration date. Once the deadline has elapsed, and no renewal has been requested, the accreditation certificate will be canceled automatically. Additionally, per CNSResNo506, the accreditation certificate may be canceled, at any time, at the request of the EC (CEP), upon presentation in writing, without prejudice to the loss of its registration. In the absence of compliance with current CNS norms, CONEP will cancel the accreditation certificate, consubstantiating its decision in opinion. In case of cancellation of the accreditation by CONEP, the EC (CEP) may appeal. During the review period, the accredited CEP will maintain the rights conferred by the accreditation certificate. SP006REC also notes that if communication with CONEP during the pending renewal process is interrupted by the EC (CEP) for more than 60 days, the EC (CEP) registration will be automatically cancelled and the EC (CEP) will be notified by official letter.

See SP006REC, CNSResNo506, and ResNo706 for additional details on CONEP’s accreditation process. See CLNo1-2022 for instructions on submitting administrative documents via email to CONEP to speed up EC (CEP) accreditation and renewal processes and maintain regular functioning of ECs (CEPs).

High-Risk Research Protocols

In addition to being accredited by CONEP per the earlier stated requirements, CNSResNo506 explains that ECs (CEPs) may also be certified for their role in the ethical analysis of high-risk research protocols. As per ResNo674, the CNS has published protocol risk classification and processing guidelines to be used in the CEP/CONEP System to provide criteria to assess the risk level of research protocols.

Per CNSResNo506, until ResNo674 becomes operational, CONEP has determined that protocols falling within the special thematic areas of human genetics, human reproduction, indigenous populations, genetically modified organisms, and the establishment and operation of biobanks must be considered high risk. Refer to ResNo466, ResNo446, and ResNo340 for a complete listing of the special thematic areas. See also CLNo172 for additional guidance on classifying protocol thematic areas that require CONEP review (e.g., including protocols on the constitution and operation of biobanks for research purposes); CLNo34 for guidance on processing biobank development protocols electronically; and CLNo26 for information on submitting research protocols with human bodies and/or anatomical parts.

CNSResNo506 further states that at the time of obtaining accreditation, the EC (CEP) should submit a statement signed by the EC coordinator that commits the EC (CEP) to evaluating high-risk protocols at least equal to the protocol submitted to CONEP. This process also supports CONEP’s plan to decentralize the CEP/CONEP System and delegate more high-risk protocol reviews to certified ECs (CEPs). If the number of high-risk protocols exceeds the EC’s (CEP’s) operational capacity to review, then CONEP will evaluate the outstanding protocols. BRA-2 also provides helpful information on this process.

Additionally, ResNo674 notes CONEP will be solely responsible for the registration of biobank development protocols, and the research classification and modulation factors used to further characterize the protocols in BRA-34 will not be applicable. (Note: Per BRA-9, the protocol classification and processing system has not yet been implemented in BRA-34. The ClinRegs team will continue to monitor Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) for any developments.)

Suspension and Cancellation of Accreditation

As indicated in ResNo706, an EC (CEP) or the supporting institution may request suspension of the EC’s (CEP’s) accreditation for a maximum period of 90 days, upon reasoned justification, and the suspension may be extended once, for an additional 90-day period.

Per ResNo706, the suspension of EC (CEP) accreditation consists of the temporary interruption of the receipt of new research protocols for ethical assessment. The suspended EC (CEP) must maintain monitoring of the protocols under its responsibility, whether approved or in progress, while the suspension remains. New protocols, submitted for consideration by the suspended EC (CEP), will be directed to another EC (CEP), as indicated by CONEP. CONEP’s decision to suspend the EC (CEP)'s accreditation may be appealed to CONEP within 30 days. An extension of the deadline for appeal may be requested, once, for a maximum period of 30 days, upon justification.

ResNo706 further explains that the cancellation of EC (CEP) accreditation consists of revoking the registration and removing the EC (CEP) in the CEP/CONEP System. If cancelled, CONEP will transfer the protocols to another EC (CEP) for due monitoring. Cancellation, at the request of the supporting institution, will be assessed by means of a request addressed to the CONEP Coordination, containing the reasons for the request. The cancellation decision may be appealed to CONEP within 30 days. An extension of the deadline for appeal may be requested once, for a maximum period of 30 days, upon justification. In case of cancellation, requests for new registration by the supporting institution within a period of 12 months are prohibited. See ResNo706 for detailed information on EC (CEP) accreditation suspensions and cancellations.

Overview

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

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

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

Overview

As stated in ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, the sponsor, the designated contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil), or the sponsor-investigator must apply to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) to obtain approval for a clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) for a drug that will have all or part of its development in Brazil for registration purposes. (Note: Applications are also known as petitions in Brazil).

According to LawNo14.874 and ResNo945, research involving human beings must be subject to prior ethical analysis by research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)). ResNo945 explains that clinical trial applications can be submitted in parallel, however, a drug clinical trial may only be initiated after approval is obtained by both the EC (CEP) and ANVISA.

According to National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) regulations and guidelines as delineated in ResNo466 and OSNo001, the principal investigator (PI) must obtain approval from the EC (CEP). Applications with coordination or sponsorship originating outside of Brazil require additional EC (CEP) review by CONEP unless the co-sponsor is the Brazilian Government.

Note: Regulatory requirements for both the National Research Ethics Authority and CONEP will be included in the profile until the CONEP system has fully transitioned to the new national system enacted by LawNo14.874.

Regulatory Submission

Primary Petitions

As per ResNo945, the primary DDCM petition may be submitted to ANVISA at any stage of clinical drug development for one (1) or more clinical trial phases. ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual further note that the DDCM must also be filed with at least one (1) Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) for analysis. A DEEC is defined as a collection of documents submitted as part of the Investigational Drug Development Plan (PDME) in the DDCM. DEECs must be filed in the form of individual processes for each clinical trial and linked to the respective DDCM. Per the G-DDCMManual, DEECs must be submitted as primary petitions and, therefore, will have a case number, with specific subjects for each clinical trial that is to be carried out in Brazil and that have not yet been submitted to ANVISA. Also, only DEECs from clinical trials to be carried out in Brazil should be submitted. ResNo945 further indicates that the sponsor, CRO, or sponsor-investigator may link new DEECs to the submitted DDCM at any time following the initial submission.

ResNo945 provides the following additional DDCM submission requirements:

• The person responsible for submitting the DDCM to ANVISA must be the same for all subsequent petition submissions related to it
• Submissions by the CRO may only be made when the sponsor does not have a head office or branch in Brazil
• A DDCM submission by a sponsor-investigator must be done through the primary sponsor, and
• In cases where a sponsoring investigator wishes to conduct a clinical trial with a drug that already has an approved DDCM, the sponsoring investigator, with the initial DDCM owner’s permission, may use the information previously sent, without having to resubmit all the documentation. When an authorization from the initial DDCM owner is not provided, the sponsoring investigator must submit to ANVISA all the required information through updated and indexed literature that supports the proposed development rationale

In addition, per ResNo903, when a sponsor or CRO transfers responsibility for submitting a DDCM petition and the linked specific clinical trial processes for an IP to ANVISA, the succeeding company must update the related clinical trial registration data via a petition for global transfer of responsibility for the clinical trial. See ResNo903 for additional information. See also the Submission Content section for specific documentation requirements, and the Insurance & Compensation and Manufacturing & Import sections for additional requirements related to global transfer of responsibility for the clinical trial.

See ResNo506 for more information on ANVISA’s role in reviewing and approving clinical trial applications submitted for studies using advanced therapy products (i.e., medicines for human use that are based on genes, tissues, or cells).

Secondary Petitions

As explained in the G-DDCMManual, secondary petitions must be linked to the respective specific processes. When a secondary petition is related to a DDCM, it must be filed together with the Petition Consent Form (BRA-21). Some examples of DDCM petitions include: Substantial Modification to the Investigational Product (BRA-127); Investigational Drug Development Safety Update Report (DSUR); Cancellation of DDCM on Request; Global Transfer of Responsibility for DDCM; Temporary Suspension of DDCM; Reactivation of Suspended DDCM; Investigational Drug Development Plan (PDME) Update Notification; and Investigator’s Brochure (IB) Update Notification.

Similarly, per the G-DDCMManual, secondary petitions related to DEECs must be linked to the respective clinical trial processes. Some examples of DEEC petitions include: Alteration of the Clinical Trial Submission Form (FAEC) (BRA-22); substantial amendment to clinical protocol; Annual Report on Clinical Trial Protocol Monitoring; Cancellation of Clinical Trial Protocol on Request; Global Transfer of Responsibility for Clinical Trial Protocol; Temporary Suspension of Clinical Trial Protocol; and Reactivation of Suspended Clinical Trial Protocol.

A stated in ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, for substantial protocol modifications of the investigational product (IP), the sponsor must submit to ANVISA a secondary petition linked to the corresponding DDCM. ResNo945 also indicates that non-substantial IP modifications must always be submitted to ANVISA in the next petition for substantial IP modification, or as part of the drug development safety update report (DSUR), whichever occurs first. The G-DDCMAmdmts further notes that these modifications may be made at any time after initial DDCM submission, including before ANVISA issues its final decision. See the G-DDCMAmdmts for detailed submission instructions for DDCM modifications. See also BRA-127 for the Substantial Modification of the Investigational Product form. Refer to the Submission Content section for substantial IP modification documentation requirements.

As per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, petitions for substantial amendments to clinical trial protocols must also be filed as a secondary petition linked to the corresponding DEEC. ResNo945 further explains that non-substantial clinical trial protocol amendments must always be submitted to ANVISA in the next substantial amendment petition, or as part of the final clinical trial protocol monitoring report, in cases where there are no substantial amendments by the end of the clinical trial. See the G-DDCMAmdmts for detailed submission instructions for protocol modifications. See also BRA-125 for the Substantial Amendment to Clinical Trial Protocol form. Refer to the Submission Content section for DEEC petition content requirements and substantial protocol amendment documentation requirements.

ResNo204 and BRA-14 further note that DEECs may be submitted as priority requests to ANVISA to register, amend previously registered, or request prior consent for drug submissions. However, as described in the G-DDCMManual, in cases where the DDCM or DEEC has been prioritized, under the terms of ResNo204, ResNo205, and ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo205), prioritization does not automatically extend to secondary petitions. The company must request the prioritization of analysis at the time of petitioning each secondary petition, if applicable. For detailed information on priority petition requirements, see the Scope of Assessment and Timeline of Review sections.

See ResNo742, ResNo931 and ResNo942 (amending ResNo742), BRA-6, and BRA-7 for requirements associated with submitting DEECs linked to DDCMs for comparative bioavailability/bioequivalence studies and comparative pharmacokinetic studies with biosimilar products.

In addition, for the purposes of regulatory submission, the G-SUSARs indicates that Drug Development Safety Reports (DSURs) must be submitted as secondary electronic petitions linked to the DDCM process. The subject of petition 10825 – CLINICAL TRIALS – Safety Update Report of the Development of the Investigational Drug should be used.

As delineated in ResNo945, RegNo338, the G-DDCMManual, and BRA-122, the sponsor may also submit a request for technical analysis by the optimized procedure based on regulatory trust practices (Reliance) or by risk or complexity criteria of the clinical trial or the IP at any time, by means of a secondary petition, before ANVISA begins its technical evaluation of the corresponding DDCM petition. Per ResNo945 and RegNo338, for the purposes of admissibility for analyzing primary and secondary petitions, the related documents must have been approved by at least one (1) of the Equivalent Foreign Regulatory Authorities (Autoridades Reguladoras Estrangeiras Equivalentes (AREEs)) recognized by ANVISA. The AREE approved documents must also be the same versions as those presented to ANVISA.

The G-DDCMManual further explains that the optimization procedure concerns the documentation that may be exempted from technical analysis when the criteria for each of the specific situations are met. However, all documents required for the instruction of each type of petition or process must be submitted.

In accordance with ResNo945 and RegNo338, the G-DDCMManual and BRA-122 indicate that the applicant must file a secondary petition to request the optimized analysis procedure by Reliance using one (1) of the subject codes listed below:

• 12102 – Clinical Trials – Optimized analysis procedure for DEEC
• 12103 – Clinical Trials – Optimized analysis procedure for Substantial Amendment to the Clinical Protocol
• 12104 – Clinical Trials – Optimized analysis procedure for Approval in the Process of the DDCM
• 11634 – Clinical Trials – Optimized Analysis Procedure for Substantial Modification to IP

BRA-122 also explains that only a single subject code (12102) is used to submit a request to ANVISA to apply the optimized analysis procedure by Reliance for the DEEC. Additionally, per the G-DDCMManual and BRA-122, the petitioning system does not allow a secondary petition to be linked to another secondary petition. Since requests for the application of the optimized analysis procedure must be made through secondary petitions, and petitions for substantial IP modifications and clinical protocol amendments are also secondary petitions, requests referring to these petitions must be linked to the DDCM and DEEC by subject codes 11634 and 12103, respectively. Therefore, in the case of a DDCM petition and linked DEECs, for both petitions to be analyzed according to the optimized procedure, a company must make the request in parallel and individually for each of the petitions (codes 12102 and 12104), including for each related secondary petition, if applicable. Refer to the G-DDCMManual and BRA-122 for additional information. See also the Scope of Assessment section for detailed optimized analysis procedure requirements by Reliance or based on risk assessment of the clinical trial or IP.

For requests to ANVISA to apply the optimized analysis procedure based on risk assessment using IP experience, the G-DDCMManual indicates that there is no specific subject code. Therefore, a company may request the application of the optimized analysis procedure by either one (1) of these options:

• In the Clinical Trial Submission Form (FAEC) (BRA-22), marking the option "(X) to the question, “We request the application of the optimized analysis procedure, pursuant to Article 8 of IN No. 338/2024", or answering "yes" to the question "Request for the application of the optimized analysis procedure (based on the risk assessment supported by the experience of using the investigational product).”
• In the Petition Form for Substantial Modification of the Investigational Product (BRA-127), answering "yes" to the question "Request for the application of the optimized analysis procedure (based on the risk assessment supported by the experience of using the IP), pursuant to Article 8 of IN No. 338/2024".

Electronic Filing

Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, the original DDCM and all related processes and petitions (e.g., secondary petitions and DEEC(s)) should be submitted electronically. ResNo947 also notes that documents to be filed with ANVISA must be submitted exclusively electronically via the agency’s electronic petitioning systems for filing documents, except in specified cases. BRA-38 specifies electronic petitioning is carried out via the Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56). See BRA-47 and BRA-38 for instructions on how to login to the Solicita System.

The G-DDCMManual, and BRA-58 explain that when the DDCM has been submitted, the sponsor is then required to electronically file all the documents corresponding to the initial DDCM petition’s subject code checklist. As described in BRA-75, the sponsor must electronically attach all the documents required in the related DDCM checklist (accessed online via BRA-56) that corresponds to one (1) of the following related subject codes: 10748, 10749, 10750, 10751, 10752, 10753, 10754, and 10755. ResNo945 also specifies that the documentation presented must allow for textual searches, copying, and contain bookmarks and hyperlinks that facilitate navigation. Refer to BRA-47 and BRA-59 for instructions for submitting the DDCM checklist documents via BRA-56. Additionally, per the G-DDCMManual, for DEEC petition electronic submissions, one (1) file needs to be attached for each item contained on the corresponding checklist. DEECs can be submitted to ANVISA using one (1) of the following subject codes: 10482, 10479, 10476, 10773, 10483, 10478, 10477, 10774. See the G-DDCMManual and BRA-47 for additional DEEC petition submission instructions. See also ResNo947 for details on ANVISA’S electronic filing requirements.

As per ResNo857, BRA-47, and BRA-43, once the sponsor has completed the process of submitting a DDCM request, ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56) generates a document known as the Union Collection Guide (Guia de Recolhimento da União (GRU)). The GRU is the primary method used to generate the Health Surveillance Inspection Fee (Taxa de Fiscalização de Vigilância Sanitária (TFVS)) fees. ResNo857 explains that petitions subject to TFVS will only be eligible for filing after confirmation of full corresponding payment. Once the full TFVS payment is confirmed, the electronic petitions will be automatically filed. (See the Regulatory Fees section for detailed information on the payment process.)

ResNo857 further states that if a petition is filed without due payment of the TFVS fee, the request and the documentation will be returned to the sponsor. BRA-43 specifies that ANVISA will accept the following documents as proof of payment from the sponsor:

• Presentation of the original GRU receipt collected electronically, which must be accompanied by the original electronic banking network payment receipt
• Presentation of the original GRU receipt collected from the banking network, which must contain the original receipt stamp for authentication
• The transaction number issued by ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56)

BRA-59 explains that once the fee is paid, a reference (transaction) number is generated that will be required for the subsequent submission of the associated checklist documents. The processing of this request can take up to two (2) days, which is the time given to the banking network to clear the payment. Refer to BRA-59 for additional instructions. See also BRA-47 for step-by-step instructions on how to submit the initial DDCM petition and TFVS fee, and BRA-21 for the DDCM Petition Consent Form. See BRA-38 for additional information on accessing ANVISA’s electronic petitioning request systems.

As indicated in the G-DDCMManual, ANVISA recommends that the DDCM and associated documents (especially the clinical protocol, the PDME, and the investigator’s brochure) be submitted in Portuguese. If a translated version of the submission is not provided, ANVISA’s technical area reviewer may issue a requirement for the sponsor to provide a free translation of the submitted documentation. ResNo947 also states that documents filed with ANVISA must be presented in Portuguese, however, documents submitted in English and Spanish will also be accepted, and a request for translation of the documents may be submitted. When translation is necessary, in the absence of a specific rule requiring translation in the sworn version, a free translation may be accepted.

See also BRA-19 and BRA-90 for guidance on scheduling pre-submission meetings with ANVISA’s Coordination of Clinical Research in Medicines and Biological Products (Coordenação de Pesquisa Clínica em Medicamentos e Produtos Biológicos (COPEC)) to discuss the clinical development of a drug (e.g., DDCM, secondary petition, or DEEC), or a meeting to discuss a clinical trial application previously submitted to ANVISA. BRA-90 also provides the items required for scheduling each type of meeting and the corresponding request form to be submitted.

In addition, per ResNo763, which modifies ResNo205, ANVISA has suspended the requirement for the sponsor to hold a pre-submission meeting to present a rare disease DDCM or amended DDCM. The pre-submission meeting is optional, if the sponsor deems necessary, and ANVISA should hold the meeting within 60 days following this request. Refer to ResNo205 and ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo205) for additional submission documentation requirements.

Ethics Review Submission

National Research Ethics Authority

According to LawNo14.874, the investigator is responsible for submitting a research project to the EC (CEP) for approval. The submission should include the research documentation, including any amendments.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

Per ResNo466 and OSNo001, the PI must obtain approval from the EC (CEP). The PI is responsible for submitting the EC (CEP) application online via Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34). If applicable, the PI must also submit the application to CONEP for additional review and approval via BRA-34. Applications with coordination or sponsorship originating outside of Brazil require additional EC (CEP) review by CONEP, unless the co-sponsor is the Brazilian Government. See BRA-33 for the most current Plataforma Brazil EC (CEP) and investigator manuals. Please refer to Scope of Review and Oversight of Ethics Committee sections for detailed information on CONEP responsibilities and other studies requiring CONEP approval. See also CLNo183 for instructions on linking investigator/institutions to the responsible EC (CEP) in submissions; CLNo062 for guidance on submitting documentation required for CONEP analysis; and CLNo046 for instructions on submitting requests for inclusion/exclusion of research center(s).

Per OSNo001, the investigator is required to submit the research protocol in Portuguese to the CEP/CONEP System via BRA-34, and when applicable, accompanied by the originals in the foreign language.

In addition, per OSNo001, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the PI is required to submit a list of the participating institutions and the associated protocols as part of the research protocol package sent to the EC (CEP) for review.

Overview

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

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

Regulatory Submission

National Drug Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

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

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

Clinical Drug Development Dossier (DDCM)

As delineated in ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, the following documentation must be submitted to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) to file a clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossier de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) via the Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56) (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• DDCM Petition Consent Form (BRA-21)
• Declaration of commitment to distribute to clinical trial centers and use investigational products (IPs) only after authorization from the corresponding DDCM and Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)), when import is authorized prior to publication of the approval/rejection in the Official Gazette of the Union (Diário Oficial da União (DOU))
• Investigational Drug Development Plan (PDME)
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB)
• Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier (IMPD) (including information on active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), investigational drug, and placebo and modified comparator drug)
• DEEC (see detailed requirements listed below)
• Declarations on compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP), Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)
• GCP Certificate or equivalent document for the completed or ongoing clinical trials must be attached to the DDCM, if applicable
• Declaration of commitment to distribute and use IPs only after authorization from DDCM and corresponding initial and subsequent DEEC(s). This document should only be attached to the DDCM if the sponsor is interested in receiving the Import Document (DI) prior to the DDCM's analysis and approval. If the company has attached this to the DDCM, the DI will be issued for early importation both for the initial DEECs submitted together with the DDCM, and for the clinical trials submitted after the approval of the DDCM.

Additionally, per ResNo903, when a sponsor or contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil) transfers responsibility for submitting a DDCM and the linked specific clinical trial processes for an IP to ANVISA, the succeeding company must update the related clinical trial registration data via a petition for global transfer of responsibility for the clinical trial. The petition must be accompanied by the following documents:

• Petition Consent Form duly completed and signed (BRA-21)
• Declaration of the corporate or commercial transaction carried out (see Declaration form in Annex I of ResNo903)

Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (DEEC)

Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, the DEEC petition submission should include the following:

• Clinical Trial Submission Form (FAEC) (BRA-22)
• Clinical trial protocol containing the minimum information described in the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline E6(R2) (BRA-28) and its updates (Please note that the ICH Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (BRA-121) was finalized on January 6, 2025)
• Statistical analysis plan (PAE), at least in draft version, in the case of phase 3 clinical trials and adaptive clinical trials
• Opinion of any country/region's scientific advisory board, if any, on the clinical trial
• Pediatric investigation plan of any country/region, if any
• Sample investigational drug label
• Proof of registration of the clinical trial, in the same version of the clinical protocol submitted to ANVISA, in the registration database of the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (BRA-52) or any other registry recognized by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (Note: The Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC) (BRA-45) is a primary registry in the ICTRP network.); and, if proof of registration is not available at the time of DEEC submission, it must be submitted together with the notification of commencement of the clinical trial.)

Substantial IP Modifications

Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, for substantial modifications of the IP, the sponsor must submit to ANVISA a secondary petition linked to the corresponding DDCM. ResNo945 states that the petition for substantial IP modification must contain a copy of the previously approved IMPD or Investigational Product Dossier (DPI), containing the proposed modifications highlighted (track-changes format) and a table comparing the current situation with the proposed changes, the justifications for each change, and the assessment of the impacts of the modifications on clinical development. ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual also indicate that if there is a GMP certificate or equivalent document for the IP, it must be attached to the petition for substantial IP modification. In addition, the Petition Form for Substantial Modification to the Product under investigation (BRA-127) and other information in accordance with each proposed modification must be attached to the petition. See the G-DDCMAmdmts for detailed submission instructions.

ResNo945 also indicates that non-substantial IP modifications must always be submitted to ANVISA in the next petition for substantial IP modification, or as part of the drug development safety update report (DSUR), whichever occurs first.

Substantial Protocol Amendments

As per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, petitions for substantial amendments to clinical trial protocols must also be filed electronically as a secondary petition linked to the corresponding DEEC. ResNo945 further indicates that the petition must contain a copy of the previously approved clinical protocol with the proposed modifications highlighted (track-changes format) and a table comparing the current situation with the proposed changes, the justifications for each change and the assessment of the impacts on clinical development. In addition, clean and track changes versions of the updated Clinical Trial Submission Form (FAEC) (BRA-22) must be attached to the petition, along with the new clean version of the clinical protocol. See the G-DDCMAmdmts for detailed submission instructions for protocol amendments. See also BRA-125 for the Substantial Amendment to Clinical Trial Protocol form.

ResNo945 further explains that non-substantial clinical trial protocol amendments must always be submitted to ANVISA in the next substantial amendment petition, or as part of the final clinical trial protocol monitoring report, in cases where there are no substantial amendments by the end of the clinical trial.

See ResNo903 for additional information. See also the Submission Process, Insurance & Compensation, and Manufacturing & Import sections for additional requirements related to global transfer of responsibility for the clinical trial.

Optimized Analysis Procedure (Reliance) Submissions

Pursuant to ResNo945, to comply with the documentation requirements for the optimized analysis procedure by Reliance, the sponsor must present official proof issued by an Equivalent Foreign Regulatory Authority (Autoridade Regulatória Estrangeira Equivalente (AREE)) regarding the clinical protocol approval or clinical protocol amendment, or, official proof of the DDCM or substantial IP modification of the IMPD or Investigational Product Dossier (DPI). In the absence of this official document, a declaration signed by the sponsor's legal and technical representatives must be presented with due justification and additional information, if applicable.

Per RegNo338, ANVISA will provide a specific petition characterization form for the sponsor to complete for the proper identification of situations in which the optimized analysis procedure is supported by experience using the IP. Among the documents required for the instruction of each type of petition, the optimized analysis procedure based on risk assessment may be applied to the documents listed below:

• IB, when dealing with the risk categories defined in the low-risk clinical trial categories for medicine used as registered in Brazil or by an AREE, without substantial modifications; and fixed-dose combinations with registered active pharmaceutical ingredients already used concomitantly in medical practice, for the same indication, target population, and dosage regimen (without clinically significant pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic interaction)
• IMPD or DPI, when dealing with low-risk clinical trial categories and moderate risk clinical trial categories for new therapeutic indication, and/or target population, and/or dosage regimen

RegNo338 further indicates that ANVISA will review the following documents based on the optimized analysis procedure by Reliance:

• IB, except in the case of complex clinical trials, prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines and biosimilar products
• API and IMPD or DPI
• Clinical trial protocol, except in the case of complex clinical trials, prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines and biosimilar products

See also BRA-124 for the Form for Declaration of Compliance with the Requirements for the Admissibility of the Optimized Analysis Procedure by Regulatory Trust (Reliance) to be completed by the sponsor’s legal representative or technical manager.

See also BRA-42 for additional information on ANVISA protocol filing requirements.

Ethics Committee Requirements

National Research Ethics Authority

According to LawNo14.874, investigators are responsible for submitting research documentation, including any amendments, for research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) approval.

No other information is currently available regarding EC (CEP)/National Research Ethics Authority submission documentation requirements.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As per OMREC and OSNo001, the CONEP requires sponsors to submit the following documentation online via BRA-34 (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Cover Sheet for Research Involving Human Beings (completed by investigator in Plataforma Brasil)
• Clinical research protocol (in Portuguese)
• Background, justification, and registration in the country of origin for drug and device health products
• Description of materials, methods, rationale, expected results, and bibliography
• Critical risk and benefit analysis
• Duration
• Responsibilities of investigator, institution, and sponsor
• Criteria for project suspension or termination
• Location of implementation of various project steps
• Necessary infrastructure and agreement of the institution
• Statement of Commitment from the principal investigator (PI)
• Informed consent form (ICF) (See Informed Consent topic for additional information)
• Detailed research financial budget and investigator remuneration
• Ownership of information
• Characteristics of the participant population, and justification for the use of vulnerable groups
• Number of participants locally and globally (multicenter)
• Description of methods that affect research participants
• Sources of material and details of the specific collection
• Recruitment plans, inclusion and exclusion criteria
• PI/investigator(s) Curriculum Vitaes (CVs)
• Research project schedule
• Foreign Research or Foreign Cooperation documentation (commitments and advantages for research participants and the country; identification of the national investigator and co-responsible institution; EC approval document in the country of origin or justification; response to the need for personnel training in Brazil; and lists of participating centers abroad and in Brazil)
• Research with new drug, vaccine, and diagnostic test document requirements (current clinical trial phase and demonstration of compliance with previous clinical trial phases; drug substance registration in the country of origin and status of research; IB; clinical information from previous trial phases; justification for using placebo or wash out period; access to the drug, if its superiority is proven; investigator’s statement of commitment; justification for inclusion of healthy participants; forms of recruitment)

See OMREC and OSNo001 for detailed CEP/National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) System submission requirements. See also BRA-33 for the most current Plataforma Brazil CEP and investigator manuals.

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in OMREC and OSNo001, the clinical protocol should include the following elements:

• Protocol summary
• Sponsor or authorized representative name and contact information
• PI CV and contact information
• PI statement of responsibility
• IP description (See Investigational Products topic for detailed coverage of this subject)
• Form, dosage, route, method, and frequency of administration; and treatment period
• Summary of potential risks and known benefits to research participants
• Trial objectives and purpose
• Trial design, random selection method, and blinding level
• Participant selection/withdrawal
• Participant treatment
• Safety evaluation
• Adverse event reporting requirements (See Safety Reporting section for additional information)
• Statistics and methods to track trial data
• Sponsor specifications for direct access to source data/documents
• Quality control/quality assurance procedures and practices
• Ethical considerations
• Data management and record maintenance
• Financing and insurance details
• Publication policy

For complete protocol requirements, refer to OMREC and OSNo001.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

National Drug Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

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

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

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

See UGA-20 for detailed application requirements.

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

Overview

As stated in ResNo945, clinical trial applications can be submitted in parallel, however, a drug clinical trial may only be initiated after approval is obtained by both the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) and the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)).

Regulatory Authority Approval

As set forth in LawNo14.874, ANVISA’s analysis of the primary petitions for clinical trials with human beings (Clinical Drug Development Dossiers (Dossiês de Desenvolvimento de Medicamentos Clínicos (DDCMs))) must be completed within 90 business days. If no response is provided after regular receipt of the primary DDCM petition, clinical development may be initiated, provided that it contains the relevant ethical approvals. ResNo945 further specifies that upon receipt of the primary DDCM and the Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) petitions, ANVISA has 90 business days, counting from the date of issuance of the DEEC document, to evaluate the application. If the agency fails to issue a response within 90 days of receipt, the DDCM and respective DEEC will be released after the deadline, and clinical development can begin after the relevant ethical approvals have been obtained. The 90-day deadline also applies to primary petitions for new DEECs subsequently linked to the DDCM, and to secondary petitions for substantial modifications to the investigational product (IP) and substantial amendments to the clinical protocol. See Scope of Assessment section for detailed DDCM and DEEC submission requirements.

Additionally, per ResNo945, ANVISA’s analysis of the DDCM will only occur after the filing of at least one (1) DEEC, which must be carried out within 15 business days from the DDCM’s issue date. The absence of the DEEC, after the 15-day deadline, will result in the rejection of the DDCM without technical analysis, except in cases of clinical trials involving more than one (1) investigational product (IP), whose DEEC has already been linked to one of the DDCMs of these drugs.

LawNo14.874 and ResNo945 further explain that ANVISA may request, one (1) time only, by means of a technical requirement, additional clarifications and documents during the analysis of primary DDCM and DEEC petitions and secondary petitions for substantial IP modification or substantial clinical protocol amendment. ANVISA’s technical requirement will result in the suspension of the analysis deadlines, and its interruption is prohibited. ResNo945 also notes that the deadline for the sponsor’s compliance with this technical requirement is 30 business days, counting from the date of confirmation of receipt by ANVISA.

In addition, per BRA-122, petitions submitted to request an ANVISA evaluation using the optimized analysis procedure based on regulatory trust practices (Reliance) that have not been analyzed within ANVISA’s 90-day deadline, will be released due to the expiration of the term in accordance with ResNo945 and LawNo14.874. The petitions will have their status updated to “Added to process”. See BRA-122 for additional information. See the Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for detailed criteria and procedures to submit optimized analysis procedure petitions.

See also BRA-60 for details on the median analysis timelines for ANVISA to complete its technical review of prioritized and ordinary petitions.

Priority Submissions

As delineated in ResNo204, ANVISA is required to issue a final decision on applications for registration and post-registration of drugs classified as a priority within 120 days for new drug registration requests and in 60 days for post-registration petitions. The deadlines will be counted from the date of submission, and any requests for clarification or additional technical requirements will result in suspending the counting of deadlines until the requests have been met. See also BRA-40 for additional information on ANVISA drug registration requirements.

In addition, per ResNo204, ANVISA must first issue a written opinion letter within 45 calendar days from the first working day following protocol submission for priority petitions in the following categories:

• Prior consent petitions in the clinical development dossier process
• Prior consent petitions in the drug research process
• Secondary petitions referring to the prioritized primary process

Refer to ResNo204 and ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo204) for detailed information on DEEC submissions.

In addition, as set forth in ResNo205, for a clinical trial with medicines for rare diseases to be conducted in Brazil, ANVISA must evaluate a DDCM, DEEC, or substantial modification due to inclusion of a clinical trial protocol within 30 days after submission, and will issue a notification requesting additional information or a statement of conclusion. ANVISA will evaluate secondary petitions referring to a DDCM, DEEC, or substantial modification due to inclusion of a clinical trial protocol according to the same timeline. Refer to ResNo205 for detailed submission requirements and deadlines.

See also ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo205) and BRA-14 for additional information on priority petitions. See the Scope of Assessment section for further information on priority submissions.

Ethics Committee Approval

New National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings

LawNo14.874 introduces the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings (Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos). The system consists of the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Research Ethics Authority and the ECs (CEPs), which must be accredited by the National Research Ethics Authority. In this framework, the ECs (CEPs) are solely responsible for the ethical review of clinical trial protocols involving human participants. During the transition to the new system, the current National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) system will continue to be implemented and described in this profile. The ClinRegs team will provide additional information on the implementation of LawNo14.874 as it becomes available. See also BRA-117 for additional information.

National Research Ethics Authority

As set forth in LawNo14.874, the EC (CEP) must conduct a research ethics review and issue an opinion within 30 business days from the date of acceptance of all research documents. The EC (CEP) must accept or deny these documents within 10 business days from the date of submission. Additionally, before issuing the opinion, the EC (CEP) may request additional information or documents from the investigator or research sponsor or make adjustments to the research documentation, for up to 20 business days. The investigator will have 10 working days, extendable for an additional 10 working days upon justification, to meet the demands requested by the EC (CEP), and the study analysis process may be canceled in case of non-compliance with the deadline.

LawNo14.874 further explains that the decision contained in the EC (CEP)’s opinion may be appealed, in the first instance, within 30 business days, to the EC (CEP) itself that issued the opinion, and in the second and final instance, within 30 business days, to the National Research Ethics Authority. The appeals provided will be decided by the National Research Ethics Authority within 30 business days. See the Scope of Review section for details on the EC (CEP) review processes. See also BRA-117 for additional information.

Additionally, per LawNo14.874, the EC (CEP) opinion regarding research of strategic interest to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)) (BRA-53) and relevant to responding to public health emergencies will be issued within a period of 15 business days from the date of receipt of the research documents.

National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)

As delineated in OSNo001 and BRA-91, the institutional EC (CEP) is required to issue an initial report in 30 days from the date the principal investigator (PI) submits an application for review. The CEP’s review of the protocol documentation for completeness should be accomplished within 10 days following submission. Per BRA-91, the review period must be counted from the date the project entered “Ethical Assessment” (i.e., after going through the validation of documents which takes around 10 days and when the Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Assessment (Certificado de Apresentação de Apreciação Ética) (CAAE)) is issued). In addition, per BRA-91, if the project needs to be reviewed by CONEP, the deadline is 15 days for document validation, and 45 days for ethical assessment. If these deadlines have expired, BRA-91 further suggests that the investigator responsible for the research project, contact the CEP to request explanations and, in parallel, send a notification to CONEP (conep.cep@saude.gov.br) requesting a case investigation. Additionally, per CLNo040, if an amended project needs to go through CONEP’s appraisal, the deadline for document validation is 15 days and for ethical review, 45 days.

Per CLNo10, in the event that EC (CEP) activities are temporarily suspended due to a strike or institutional recess, the EC (CEP) must notify CONEP of measures to be adopted to ensure the continuity of protocol processing for ethical assessment according to the deadlines delineated above per OSNo001, specifically, 10 days for document checking for completeness and 30 days to release the opinion.

Per CLNo29, in the case of an appeal, only the investigator responsible for the protocol, which had a substantiated opinion of non-approval, may submit a request to the CEP/CONEP System via Platforma Brasil (BRA-34). The appeal must be filed within 30 calendar days, counting from the first day following the issuance of the substantiated opinion of non-approval. Appeals submitted to the EC (CEP) will be reviewed and a substantiated opinion analyzing the appeal will be issued within 30 calendar days following receipt. If the EC (CEP) considers the requirements and justifications presented in the appeal to be appropriate in order to continue the ethical analysis, the appeal will be approved, or pending approval, if the protocol requires adjustments prior to approval. However, if the appeal is not approved by the EC (CEP), the investigator may appeal to CONEP. CONEP, in turn, has a deadline of up to 45 days after receiving the appeal to issue a substantiated opinion of approved, pending, or not approved, when evaluating the appeal in relation to the substantiated opinion issued by the EC (CEP). If CONEP does not approve the appeal, the investigator, upon receiving the non-approval opinion from CONEP, may file an appeal directly to CONEP itself. From an analysis of the resources submitted to the EC (CEP) and/or CONEP, CONEP may issue an “Approve with Recommendation” opinion to the EC (CEP), when applicable. If CONEP does not approve the appeal, the processing of the appeal is terminated, the research protocol is archived, and no other appeal requests will be permitted.

See the Submission Process section for CEP/CONEP System submission requirements.

Overview

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

National Drug Authority

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

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

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

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

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

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

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

Ethics Committee Approval

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

Overview

New National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings

LawNo14.874 introduces the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings (Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos). The system consists of the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Research Ethics Authority and the research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)), which must be accredited by the National Research Ethics Authority. In this framework, the ECs (CEPs) are solely responsible for the ethical review of clinical trial protocols involving human participants. During the transition to the new system, the current National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) system will continue to be implemented and described in this profile. The ClinRegs team will provide additional information on the implementation of LawNo14.874 as it becomes available. See also BRA-117 for additional information.

In accordance with ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor, the designated contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil), or the sponsor-investigator receives clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossiê de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) approval from the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)). According to LawNo14.874, ResNo945, ResNo466, and OSNo001, research involving human beings is also subject to prior ethical analysis by research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)). ResNo945 states that a drug clinical trial may only be initiated after approval is obtained by both the EC (CEP) and ANVISA.

Also, according to ResNo466 and OSNo001, applications with coordination or sponsorship originating outside Brazil require an additional review and approval by CONEP, unless the co-sponsor is the Brazilian Government. See the Scope of Review and Oversight of Ethics Committees sections for detailed information on National Research Ethics Authority and CONEP responsibilities and other studies requiring CONEP approval. No waiting period is required following the sponsor’s receipt of these approvals.

In addition, per ResNo945 and G-DDCMManual, the sponsor or the designated CRO is required to obtain an import license from ANVISA for the shipment of the investigational product (IP) to be used in the trial. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information).

Per BRA-65, Brazil is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ResNo945 indicates that Brazil has formally adopted the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28) and its updates. (Please note that the ICH Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (BRA-121) was finalized on January 6, 2025.) ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual also specify that clinical trials should be conducted in compliance with BRA-28 and its updates.

LawNo14.874 and ResNo466 also state that the ethical analysis of research involving human beings should comply with good clinical practice (GCP) and ethical and scientific principles. Further, per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) or equivalent standards, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Principles on GLP (BRA-15). Refer to BRA-15 for additional information on GLP requirements.

ResNo945 further states that the forms indicating the start and end date of the clinical trial in Brazil must be filed as a secondary petition to the corresponding Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) process, within 30 business days after each start and end date. (See Clinical Trial Start Date Form in Brazil (BRA-25)).

Clinical Trial Agreement

As per LawNo14.874, the sponsor is responsible for establishing the contract between the parties involved in the research. Prior to initiating the trial, as described in BRA-28, the sponsor must sign an agreement between all involved parties, including between the investigators, the institution, the EC (CEP), and the CRO, to ensure full compliance with the regulatory requirements. In addition, the sponsor should obtain the investigator’s/institution's agreement:

• To conduct the trial in compliance with GCP, with the applicable regulatory requirement(s), and with the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and given approval/favorable opinion by the EC (CEP)
• 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. In addition, per ResNo945, any trial-related functions that are transferred to a CRO must also be specified in writing in a document signed by the sponsor and CRO. In the case of delegating responsibilities and activities, a written document must also be signed between the parties.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, the sponsor must register the clinical trial in a registry listed on the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (BRA-52) or any other registry recognized by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). According to BRA-52, the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC)) (BRA-45) is a primary registry in the ICTRP network. See also BRA-45 and BRA-46 for further information about ReBEC. If proof of registration is not available at the time of the DEEC submission, it must be submitted together with the Start of Clinical Trial Notification Form in Brazil (BRA-25).

In addition, per BRA-32, ANVISA has developed a clinical trials search tool to obtain detailed information about scientific/academic research or clinical trials authorized by the agency to support the registration of medicines since 2015. The Clinical Trials (Ensaios Clínicos) tool may be accessed via ANVISA’s Consultation System webpage (BRA-44), which provides public information about the status of each clinical trial, the trial location, and the investigators responsible for conducting the trial. See BRA-32 and BRA-129 for additional instructions on searching BRA-44.

Overview

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with LawNo14.874, the ResNo945, the G-SUSARs, the AESafetyManual, and CLNo13, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Brazil’s safety reporting requirements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Adverse Event/Experience (AE) – Any adverse medical occurrence in a research participant to whom a drug product was administered, and which does not necessarily bear a causal relationship to the treatment
• Adverse Drug Reaction or Adverse Reaction (ADR) – A harmful and unintentional response attributed to a drug and which occurs at doses normally used for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of disease, or for the modification of physiological function
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) – Any adverse medical occurrence with an investigational product (IP) that at any dose results in death, risk of death, persistent or significant disability, congenital anomaly/birth defect and situations that require or extend patient hospitalization
• Suspected Serious, Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction (SUSAR) – An adverse reaction that is simultaneously serious and unexpected, with the reasonable possibility of a causal relationship between the investigational drug and active comparator. One whose nature or severity is inconsistent with the IP (i.e., the investigator’s brochure (IB), Safety Information Summary (SIR) or package insert)

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As set forth in LawNo14.874, the investigator should promptly communicate to the sponsor, the health authority, the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa) (CEP)), and the National Research Ethics Authority all serious or unexpected AEs. ResNo945, the G-SUSARs, and the AESafetyManual specify that the investigator must inform the sponsor within 24 hours of all SAEs from the date of knowledge of the event. ResNo945 further explains that investigators must monitor and report to the sponsor, in accordance with the good clinical practice (GCP) and the study protocol, the occurrence of all AEs, including those that come to their attention after the end of the clinical trial. The investigators must also provide any requested information and express their opinion regarding the causality between the AE and the IP. Per the G-SUSARs, upon becoming aware of an AE, the investigator should classify it for causality, severity, intensity, and expected/unexpectedness as per Annex 1 in the G-SUSARs. Further, if the investigator becomes aware of an AE after the completion or termination of the clinical trial, and there is suspicion of a possible causal relationship with the IP, the sponsor should be informed as soon as possible.

As explained in the G-SUSARs, the investigator is also responsible for adopting immediate safety measures to protect the clinical trial participant against any imminent risk, and for communicating to the sponsor the occurrence of all AEs. The participant affected by an AE should receive appropriate care and safety measures until resolution or stabilization of their clinical condition, as described in the clinical protocol. The AESafetyManual further states the investigator(s) should treat all participants who incur AEs/ADRs and assist them until the situation is resolved. In the event of a participant’s death, the investigator must provide the sponsor and the EC (CEP) with any additional requested information (e.g., autopsy reports and terminal medical reports).

LawNo14.874 further specifies that the confidentiality of technical research information must be lifted when necessary for the analysis of SAEs. In the event of an SAE, the participant, their legal representatives, or their successors may disclose details relating to the former's participation in the research. Also, per the G-SUSARs, in the event of a possible SUSAR, the investigator should only break the concealment of treatment assignment for safety reasons, if the breaking of blinding is relevant to the safety of the trial participant, when immediate action needs to be taken.

Sponsor Responsibilities

In accordance with LawNo14.874, the sponsor is responsible for:

• Promptly notifying the investigator, the institution, the competent ethical review entities, and ANVISA, about discoveries that may adversely affect the safety of the research participant, compromise the conduct of the research or affect the approval granted by the EC (CEP)
• In the case of clinical trials, issuing reports on serious or unexpected ADRs to the IPs, notifying the institutions and investigators involved and ANVISA
• Promptly notifying ANVISA of all serious or unexpected AEs whose causality is possible, probable, or defined in relation to the IP

ResNo945 and the G-SUSARs also state that the sponsor is required to report SUSARs to ANVISA and is permitted to delegate the reporting responsibility to the contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil). In the case of sponsor-reported SUSARs, where the investigator’s interpretation differs from that of the sponsor, both reports should be submitted with their respective justifications. Per ResNo945, SUSAR notifications to ANVISA must be made independently of the submission of the investigator’s brochure (IB), amendments, reports, or early termination of the clinical trial. The G-SUSARs further notes that, as a joint action to submit SUSAR notifications, the sponsor must also inform the investigators involved in the clinical trial about the SUSARs and adopt the necessary measures to update the safety documents, such as the IB, drug package insert (in the case of a registered drug), and other related documents. While the IB is not updated, it is necessary to notify additional occurrences (follow-ups) of SUSARs to ANVISA. (See Quality Requirements section for detailed IB requirements)

ResNo945 and the G-SUSARs also state that if there is a possibility that an event may be a SUSAR, the sponsor must break the blinding for notification to ANVISA, and the break must only be in relation to the designation of the participant who was affected by the SUSAR. Where possible, the blinding should be preserved to those responsible for the analysis and interpretation of study results and those responsible for continuing the clinical trial, such as study managers, monitors, and investigators. Therefore, these professionals must continue to receive SUSARs blindly.

As per ResNo945, when an event is related to the disease and represents a primary efficacy outcome of a clinical trial, the protocol must clearly define the event in question and will not be subject to notification. If the event described is characterized as a SUSAR, it must be reported, as it may require a possible change in the safety profile. Medication errors, pregnancy, or uses not foreseen in the protocol, including misuse and abuse of the product under investigation, are subject to the same reporting obligations as ADRs. In the case of pregnancy, the investigator and the sponsor must accompany the mother and child. The G-SUSARs also states any pregnancy that occurs in a participant during a clinical trial should be followed until its outcome, and the baby should be followed for the necessary period. See the Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates section for additional information on this population.

As per ResNo945, the sponsor should ensure all relevant information pertaining to SUSARs (referred to as fatal or life-threatening SAEs/SADRs by the AESafetyManual) occurring in Brazil is documented and electronically reported to ANIVSA within a maximum of seven (7) calendar days after first knowledge. ResNo945 indicates that additional information on the monitoring of SUSAR events should be included in the assessment within eight (8) calendar days from the notification date. Additionally, per ResNo945 and the AESafetyManual, the sponsor must notify ANVISA of any other SUSARs which are not fatal or life-threatening, within 15 calendar days from the date of first knowledge. Per the G-SUSARs, for clinical studies that are already in progress and have been previously approved, the notifications must be adequate to the requirements set forth in ResNo945.

Per the AESafetyManual, AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs do not need to be reported to ANVISA under the above timelines when they occur outside of Brazil or are defined in the protocol as a primary or secondary outcome. Additionally, SAEs/SADRs that are categorized as Unlikely, Conditional/Unclassified, or Unassessable/Unclassifiable do not need to be reported under the above timelines. The sponsor should classify all AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs according to the World Health Organization’s Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC)’s standardized causality assessment system (BRA-31). The recommended criterion to categorize each event is as follows: Certain, Probable/Likely, Possible, Unlikely, Conditional/Unclassified, and Unassessable/Unclassifiable.

In addition, per ResNo945 and the G-SUSARs, the sponsor must systematically collect, monitor, and evaluate all AEs, including non-serious AEs, that occur throughout clinical development and be responsible for the safety of clinical trial participants. ResNo945 explains that safety information originating from other countries where clinical development is taking place must be communicated to the ANVISA if it implies a change in the benefit-risk profile of the experimental drug, including safety actions taken by other agencies. The sponsor must also inform the investigators involved in the clinical trial about SUSARs and adopt procedures for updating the IB, in addition to reassessing the risks and benefits for the participants.

Further, per the ResNo945 and the G-SUSARs, the sponsor must establish a monitoring plan to manage AEs that occur following a trial’s completion/termination. ResNo945 further explains that the plan should justify the proposed period, which takes into account the IP(s), the participants, and the clinical trial. Throughout the clinical development of the IP, the sponsor and the investigator must adopt immediate safety measures to protect the trial participants in the event of a SAE/SADR. The trial participant suffering from an AE must receive care and appropriate safety measures must be taken until their clinical condition is resolved or stabilized, as described in the clinical protocol. The G-SUSARs also notes that information about the late AEs can become part of the IP safety profile. See ResNo945 and the G-SUSARs for additional safety monitoring requirements.

Per BRA-73, Brazil has also implemented the ICH Guideline E2B (R3) on Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) - Data Elements and Message Specification - Implementation Guide (BRA-88).

See ResNo506 for detailed information on AE and SAE safety reporting requirements involving investigational advanced therapy products.

Ethics Committee Responsibilities

CLNo13 establishes specific CEP/National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) System processing requirements for SAEs occurring in Brazil and outside the country. As delineated in CLNo13, only SAEs should be reported to the CEP/CONEP System; it is optional for the investigator or sponsor to report an AE. SAE ethical analysis is the exclusive responsibility of CEPs, and CONEP prefers not to be involved in the review, except when at the CEP’s discretion, it is deemed necessary.

Per CLNo13, CEPs must present SAE notifications about a participant’s SAE index (initial SAE) and subsequent events in a single document, in tabular format, and submit it online to the CEP/CONEP System via Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) using the “notification” function. This document must also be updated with each occurrence of a subsequent SAE. The document must contain the study identification research title and Certificate of Presentation of Ethical Appreciation (Certificado de Apresentação de Apreciação Ética) (CAAE)) number, name of the research center, name of the responsible investigator, coded identification of the participant and description of the index and subsequent events. Per BRA-91, the CAAE is the number generated by Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) to identify the research project when it is received by CEP for ethical review.

CLNo13 explains that each SAE must be characterized according to the following:

• Date of SAE occurrence
• Participant number or code
• SAE number or code
• SAE classification (index or subsequent)
• Breakdown of the occurrence (e.g., febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, etc.)
• SAE type (death, life threatening, need for hospitalization, prolonged hospitalization, significant damage, permanent damage, congenital anomaly, at the investigator’s discretion, others)
• Participant status on the date of the last update (in progress, recovered without sequelae, recovered with sequelae, and death)
• Description of research participant withdrawal(s)

Additionally, in the case of multicenter studies, the investigator at the coordinating center must prepare the consolidated report (partial and final reports) containing information on SAEs from all of the participating research centers and submit it to the CEP to which it is linked via Plataforma Brasil (BRA-34) using the “notification” functionality. CLNo13 also explains that for SAEs occurring outside the country, it is the responsibility of the coordinating research center investigator to prepare the consolidated SAEs report. If the CEP is linked to the coordinating center, CONEP will also evaluate the SAEs if the protocol is included in item IX.4 of ResNo466.

Refer to CLNo008 for detailed instructions and the CONEP form to report SAEs to the CEP/CONEP System for review, and CLNo13 for information on processing AEs for Brazil and abroad.

Other Safety Reports

As described in ResNo945, the G-SUSARs, and the AESafetyManual, Drug Development Safety Reports (DSURs) must be sent annually to ANVISA, until the end of the clinical development of the IP in Brazil. The DSURs must be filed within a maximum of 60 calendar days of the yearly anniversary of the date that ANVISA approves the clinical trial application (DDCM), or the date determined in the international development. ResNo945 and the G-SUSARs also note that the DSURs must be prepared in accordance with the format described in the current version of the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Development Safety Update Report (E2F) (BRA-72). The SAE/AE data collected by the sponsor that occur throughout clinical development must be submitted to the Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (IDMC or Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB)), if established, and the results of this assessment must be forwarded to ANVISA in the DSUR, in English, and at any time, upon request by ANVISA. See also the Site/Investigator Selection section for additional DSMB requirements.

Further, per the G-SUSARs, the sponsor must submit a single document containing data pertinent to all dosage forms and concentrations, all indications, and study participant populations associated with the IP. If this is not possible, a justification must be provided in the introductory section of the DSUR report. For concomitantly administered medicinal products, the sponsor may refer a single DSUR encompassing the IP and the other concomitantly administered therapies; or file separate reports for each IP product. For fixed-dose combinations, the sponsor must request a single DSUR covering all IPs. All safety-related modifications to the DDCM that are considered insubstantial must be also submitted to ANVISA as part of the DSUR.

For investigational advanced therapy products, SAEs must be reported through the Online Adverse Event Notification Form for Advanced Therapy Products (BRA-101).

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per BRA-83, VigiMed (BRA-83) is ANVISA’s online system for citizens, health professionals, drug registration holders, and study sponsors to report suspected SAEs related to drugs and vaccines. In accordance with ResNo945, BRA-37 indicates that upon registration with BRA-83, companies (sponsors) must submit SUSARs exclusively via BRA-83. In addition, ResNo945 states that SUSAR notifications should be submitted individually and contain all the information requested in the fields present in the electronic notification system and as provided in the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (BRA-66) and its updates.

Per BRA-37, sponsors of clinical trials that have not yet been registered with VigiMed should complete VigiMed’s Registration/Change of Registration form (BRA-131) and send it to this email address: vigimed.pesquisa@anvisa.gov.br. See also BRA-130 for the VigiMed Company User Manual, and BRA-85 for VigiMed Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As per ResNo945 and the G-CTReptsManual, the sponsor must file a progress report, known as an annual clinical trial protocol monitoring report, to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) in the form of a secondary petition electronically attached to the respective protocol to which it is linked. The G-DDCMManual also specifies that the annual clinical trial monitoring report should be linked to the Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)).

ResNo945 states that the report should be filed within 60 calendar days of the start date of the clinical trial in Brazil. The annual report should contain the following information for each clinical trial protocol, in tabulated form, exclusively from Brazilian centers:

• Clinical trial title and protocol code
• Recruitment status and breakdown of the number of participants recruited by center in Brazil and worldwide
• Number/description of deviations and protocol violations by center
• Number of centers in Brazil and worldwide and their respective status, and
• Number of serious adverse events (SAEs) per participant and per center in Brazil, including the description of SAEs related to the investigational drug or comparator, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), Suspected Serious and Unexpected Adverse Reactions (SUSARs), and whether or not the blinding was broken

Per ResNo945, the annual clinical trial monitoring reports should contain all information through the end of the clinical trial in Brazil. Afterwards, only the final clinical trial report needs to be submitted. Additionally, the annual report may be waived in the year in which the final report is filed.

As stated in LawNo14.874, the investigator is responsible for submitting partial reports with information on the progress of the research, annually and whenever requested, to the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) that analyzed the study.

Final Report

ResNo945 and the G-CTReptsManual state that the sponsor should submit a final report to ANVISA in the form of a secondary petition electronically attached to the respective protocol to which it is linked. The final report must be filed within 12 months of the clinical trial end date. ResNo945 also specifies that the report should be submitted after completing the activities of a clinical trial in all participating countries, for whatever reason. The final report should contain, at a minimum, the following:

• Clinical trial title and protocol code
• Final recruitment status and breakdown of the number of participants recruited by center in Brazil and worldwide
• Final number of centers in Brazil and worldwide
• Final number of SAEs per participant and per center in Brazil, including the description of SAEs related to the investigational drug or comparator, ADRs, SUSARs, and whether or not the blinding was broken
• Reason for termination of the study and rationale for premature termination of development in Brazil or worldwide, when applicable

Per G-CTReptsManual, the annual and final reports for each clinical protocol may also be submitted using the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) format (BRA-27).

Other Reporting Requirements

As stated in ResNo945 and the G-CTReptsManual, in addition to submitting a final report, the sponsor is also responsible for submitting clinical trial start and end date forms for trials conducted in Brazil. The forms with the trial start and end dates must be filed as a secondary petition to the corresponding trial dossier within 30 calendar days after each start and end date. Per ResNo945, the secondary petition should be submitted to ANVISA corresponding to the Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) process. See Submission Process section for secondary petition submission requirements. See BRA-56 to access ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System website that allows users to submit these forms electronically, and BRA-25 and BRA-24 for links to the notification forms. See also BRA-38 for additional information on accessing ANVISA’s electronic petitioning request systems.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per LawNo14.874 and ResNo945, a sponsor is defined as a natural or legal person, under public or private law, that supports research through financing, infrastructure, human resources, or institutional support. ResNo466 defines a sponsor as an individual, company, institution, or organization that supports research through the initiation, management, or financing of a clinical trial.

LawNo14.874 further explains that a sponsor may authorize a contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil) to perform one (1) or more trial-related tasks and functions. ResNo945 specifies that a CRO is any company regularly installed in Brazil contracted by the sponsor or by the sponsor-investigator, which partially or totally assumes, together with the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)), the sponsor's responsibilities. Any trial-related functions that are transferred to a CRO must also be specified in writing in a document signed by the sponsor and CRO. Per LawNo14.874 and ResNo945, although the sponsor may transfer their trial-related functions, the sponsor still has definitive responsibility for the quality and integrity of the clinical trial data.

ResNo945 also defines a sponsor-investigator as the natural person responsible for conducting and coordinating clinical trials, alone or in a group. The sponsor-investigator uses their own financial and material resources from national or international research funding entities or by private entities and other non-profit entities, while maintaining immediate and independent control over the study. When a clinical trial is developed by a sponsor-investigator, the institution with which the individual is linked is the primary sponsor. The primary sponsor may delegate responsibilities to the investigator, who will be responsible for conducting the clinical trial at the institution, and the sponsor-investigator will serve as the secondary sponsor. In the case of delegating responsibilities and activities, a written document must be signed between the parties.

In addition, per ResNo903, when a sponsor or CRO transfers responsibility to another company for submitting a clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossiê de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) and for submitting the linked specific clinical trial processes for an investigational product (IP) to ANVISA, the succeeding company must update the related clinical trial registration data via a petition for global transfer of responsibility for the clinical trial. See ResNo903 for additional information. See BRA-96 for more information on the global transfer of responsibility clinical trial request process. See also the Submission Content section for specific documentation requirements, and the Submission Process, Insurance & Compensation, and Manufacturing & Import sections for additional requirements related to global transfer of responsibility for the clinical trial.

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

As set forth LawNo14.874 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for a clinical trial. The sponsor must also ensure that the investigator(s) are qualified by education, training, and experience to assume responsibility for the proper conduct of the trial. BRA-28 also notes that the investigator(s) should provide evidence of all the qualifications specified by the applicable regulatory requirements through up-to-date curriculum vitae(s) (CVs) and/or other relevant documentation requested by the sponsor, the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)), and/or the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)).

As delineated in BRA-28, 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. Additionally, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. See the Submission Content section for additional information on clinical trial application requirements. See also CLNo046 for the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) guidance on submitting requests for inclusion/exclusion of research center(s).

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

As specified in the ResNo945, the sponsor may transfer any or all of the sponsor’s study related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil). However, the sponsor is ultimately responsible for the study data’s quality and integrity. Any study related duties, functions, or responsibilities transferred to and assumed by a local representative or CRO must be specified in writing. However, as per ResNo945, a CRO can only submit a clinical trial application on the sponsor’s behalf when the sponsor has no headquarters or branch in Brazil.

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

LawNo14.874 states that, whenever possible, an independent data monitoring committee (Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB)) should be established to periodically evaluate the progress of the research, safety data, and critical points of efficacy and recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or interrupt a research study. In addition, ResNo945 indicates that it is desirable that an Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (IDMC) (DSMB) be established by the sponsor to evaluate, at defined intervals or as needed in an emergency, the progress of the clinical trial, the safety data and the critical efficacy endpoints, and recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, interrupt, or suspend a trial. The G-SUSARs also suggests that a DSMB be established, regardless of the clinical phase. The decision on the need to set up a DSMB must consider several factors including:

• Clinical and scientific relevance to the clinical trial
• Potential acceptable benefits and risks for the protection of participants
• Type of population
• Trial design, including objective(s) and outcome(s)
• Relevance of the committee to the integrity of the research

See also G-DSMB-BRA for DSMB operational guidelines.

Multicenter Studies

BRA-28 indicates that for multicenter trials, the sponsor should ensure that:

• All investigators conduct the trial in strict compliance with the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and, if required, by ANVISA, and given approval/favorable opinion by the EC (CEP)
• The case report forms (CRFs) are designed to capture the required data at all multicenter trial sites. For investigators collecting additional data, supplemental CRFs should also be provided that are designed to capture the additional data
• 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, complying with a uniform set of standards for the assessment of clinical and laboratory findings, and completing the CRFs
• Communication between investigators is facilitated

Per BRA-28, the sponsor must also organize a coordinating committee or select coordinating investigators.

Overview

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

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

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

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

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

• The case report forms (CRFs) are designed to capture the required data at all multicenter trial sites
• Investigator responsibilities are documented prior to the start of the trial
• All investigators are given instructions on following the protocol, complying with a uniform set of standards to assess clinical and laboratory findings, and completing the CRFs
• Communication between investigators at the various sites is facilitated

Insurance

As set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, the sponsor is responsible for providing insurance or should indemnify the investigator/institution against claims arising from the trial, except for claims that arise from malpractice and/or negligence.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the LawNo14.874 and ResNo945, the sponsor is responsible for providing compensation and health assistance to research participants who have suffered as a result of their participation in the research. ResNo945 further specifies that the sponsor is responsible for all expenses related to procedures and examinations, especially those related to diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and hospitalization of the clinical trial participant, and should take other actions necessary to resolve adverse events related to the clinical trial.

Additionally, per ResNo466, the investigator, the sponsor, and the institutions and/or organizations involved in the different phases of the research must provide immediate assistance, as well as be responsible for providing full assistance to research participants with regard to complications and damages arising from the research. Research participants should also be ensured that the conditions for monitoring, treatment, comprehensive assistance and guidance, including in-screening research, will be in place as long as necessary. LawNo14.874 also notes that the institutions and organizations involved in the research will be jointly responsible for its conduct and will provide full assistance to the participants with regard to complications and damages arising from the research.

Trial Participation

LawNo14.874 delineates that remuneration of the participant, or the granting of any type of advantage for their participation in research, is prohibited. However, the following do not constitute remuneration or advantage for the research participant:

• Reimbursement of transportation, food expenses, or prior material provision
• Other types of compensation required, depending on the research project

Also, as specified in ResNo466, compensation to participants is only provided for transportation costs and meals for the participants or legal representative/guardian during the trial.

See BRA-29 for additional information on participant compensation rights.

Post-Trial Access

Pursuant to LawNo14.874, before the start of the clinical trial, the sponsor and the investigator must submit a post-study access plan to the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)), presenting and justifying the need or otherwise to provide free access to the investigational product (IP) after the trial’s completion. If there is a need to supply post-trial access to the IP, a post-study supply program must be prepared, in accordance with the regulations. In order to guarantee the receipt of the IP after the end of the clinical trial, the post-study supply program must ensure the continuity of the participant's safety monitoring. The program should only be initiated after regulatory approval, the request for which must be submitted in a timely manner so that the research participant can transition to the post-study period without prejudice to the continuity of treatment.

Additionally, per LawNo14.874, at the end of the clinical trial, the investigator, after hearing from the sponsor and the research participant, must carry out an assessment on an individual basis to determine the need to continue the IP for each participant. The free provision of the IP after the trial must be implemented whenever it is considered the best therapy or treatment for the participant’s clinical condition and presents a more favorable risk-benefit ratio in comparison with other available treatments. The assessment of the need for continued supply of the IP after the clinical trial must be carried out in accordance with the following criteria:

• The severity of the disease and its threat to the participant's continued life
• The availability of satisfactory therapeutic alternatives for the participant’s treatment, considering their location
• If the experimental drug addresses an unmet clinical need
• If the evidence of benefit to the participant outweighs the evidence of risk with the use of the experimental drug

Per LawNo14.874, the free supply of the IP within the scope of the post-study supply program may be interrupted, upon submission of justification to the EC (CEP), for assessment, only in any of the following situations:

• The research participant chooses to stop participating, or the participant cannot freely and validly express their consent
• A cure has been identified for the disease or health problem targeted by the clinical trial, or a satisfactory therapeutic alternative has been introduced, a fact duly documented by the investigator
• The lack of benefit from the participant’s continued use of the IP, considering the risk-benefit relationship outside the trial context or the emergence of new evidence of risks related to the IP’s safety profile, a fact duly documented by the investigator
• The occurrence of an adverse reaction that, at the investigator’s discretion, makes it impossible to continue using the IP, even in the face of potential benefits
• The impossibility of obtaining or manufacturing the IP for technical or safety reasons, duly justified, and provided that the sponsor provides an equivalent or superior therapeutic alternative available on the market
• A lapse of five (5) years, counted from the commercial availability of the experimental drug in the country
• The availability of the IP in the public health network

LawNo14.874 further notes that in the case of reactions arising from the study itself, the sponsor must ensure appropriate and necessary health care or measures for the research participant.

In addition, per ResNo466, at the end of the study, the sponsor much ensure free and indefinite access to the best prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods that have proven to be effective. Access must also be guaranteed to participants between the time they stop their participation in the trial and the end of the study.

Further, ResNo563 states that for protocols involving research participants diagnosed with ultra-rare diseases, the sponsor must ensure free access to the best prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods that have proven to be effective at the end of the study, for a period of five (5) years after obtaining ANVISA registration. ResNo311, which amends ResNo38, also indicates that the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil) should guarantee access to the post-study drug supply program for research participants enrolled in a clinical study in accordance with the Resolutions of the National Health Council (Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS)). The free supply of medicines should also be made available to participants when the study is terminated early. The sponsor is required to complete the Sponsor’s Responsibility and Commitment Statement Form for Expanded Access, Compassionate Use, or Post-Study Medicine Supply Programs (see BRA-126 for form).

In addition, per ResNo903, the global transfer of sponsor or CRO responsibility for clinical trials is also applicable to expanded access programs, compassionate use programs, and post-study drug supply. See ResNo903 for additional information. See also the Submission Content section for specific documentation requirements, and the Submission Process, Insurance & Compensation, and Manufacturing & Import sections for additional requirements related to global transfer of responsibility for the clinical trial.

Insurance

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

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

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

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

Compensation

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

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

Injury or Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Participation

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

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

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

Post-Trial Access

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As set forth in LawNo14.874 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil adopted per ResNo945, the sponsor is responsible for the implementation and maintenance of quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems, based on standard operating procedures (SOPs), in order to ensure that research is conducted and data is generated, documented, and reported in compliance with the protocol, good clinical practices (GCP), and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor is responsible for QC during each stage of data processing, with a view to ensuring its reliability and correct processing; and for maintaining the quality and integrity of research data, even if some or all functions have been transferred to a contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil). Per BRA-28, the CRO should also implement a QA/QC plan.

As delineated in BRA-28, the sponsor should implement a system to manage quality throughout all stages of the trial process, focusing on trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results. The quality management system should use a risk-based approach that includes:

• During protocol development, identifying risks to critical trial processes and data
• Identifying risks to critical trial processes and data
• Evaluating the identified risks against existing risk controls
• Deciding which risks to reduce and/or which risks to accept
• Documenting quality management activities and communicating to those involved in or affected by these activities
• Periodically reviewing risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented quality management activities are effective and relevant
• Describing in the clinical study report, the quality management approach implemented in the trial and summarizing important deviations from the predefined quality tolerance limits and remedial actions taken

In addition, BRA-28 states that 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. See the Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for additional information on sponsor agreements with investigator(s), institution(s), and any other parties.

ResNo945 also notes that in the case of a clinical trial initiated by the investigator, the institution to which the investigator is linked will be the primary sponsor. While the primary sponsor cannot delegate the quality assurance, auditing, and monitoring activities of clinical trials to the sponsor-investigator, the primary sponsor may delegate these responsibilities to a CRO. The primary sponsor must present its own or outsourced structure with quality assurance and monitoring.

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, BRA-28 notes that the sponsor or the CRO should ensure the trial is adequately monitored and determine the appropriate extent and nature of monitoring, based on considerations such as the objective, purpose, design, complexity, blinding, size, and endpoints of the trial. Monitors, which are appointed by the sponsor, should be appropriately trained, and have the scientific and/or clinical knowledge needed to monitor the trial adequately. A monitor’s qualifications should be documented.

BRA-28 also explains that if or when the sponsor performs audits as part of implementing QA, the following should be considered:

• The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, GCP, and other applicable regulatory requirements
• The sponsor should appoint auditors to review the clinical trial who are independent of the clinical trial/data collection system(s)
• The sponsor should ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and the auditor’s qualifications should be documented
• Auditing procedures that ensure the auditing of clinical trials/systems is conducted in accordance with the sponsor’s written SOPs
• The auditor’s observations and findings should be documented

LawNo14.874 also notes that the investigator is responsible for providing, when requested, direct access to research records and documents for the monitor, the auditor, other representatives of the sponsor, the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)), the National Research Ethics Authority, and the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)); allowing the sponsor to monitor and audit the research; and allowing ANVISA, the National Research Ethics Authority, and the EC (CEP) to conduct inspections.

BRA-28 does not provide a specific timeframe for the audit process. Regulatory authorities may seek access to an audit report on a case-by-case basis when evidence of serious GCP noncompliance exists, or in the course of legal proceedings. Additionally, noncompliance with the protocol, SOPs, GCP, and/or applicable regulatory requirement(s) by an investigator/institution or member(s) of the sponsor’s staff should lead to prompt action by the sponsor to secure compliance. If the monitoring and/or auditing identify serious and/or persistent noncompliance on the part of an investigator/institution, the sponsor should terminate the investigator’s/ institution’s participation in the trial. When an investigator’s/institution’s participation is terminated because of noncompliance, the sponsor should notify the regulatory authorities promptly. Refer to BRA-28 for detailed audit requirements.

Additionally, in the event of a routine inspection by ANVISA, RegNo122 states that the agency will notify the institution at least 15 calendar days in advance of the visit. Both the sponsor and/or the CRO are responsible for preparing for the inspection. ANVISA must also notify the principal investigator (PI) of the scheduled visit to the center to be inspected, when applicable, by means of a GCP Inspection Notification Letter. For more detailed information on ANVISA’s inspection process, refer to RegNo122. See also Scope of Assessment section for detailed ANVISA inspection requirements.

ANVISA has also published GuideNo35-2020 and GuideNo36-2020 to provide guidance on the procedures for conducting GCP inspections in clinical trial centers, and provide guidance for sponsors and CROs respectively for clinical trials involving medicines and biological products. Both guides describe ANVISA’s compliance with the GCP inspection requirements set forth in RegNo122 with the goal of guiding those involved in the inspection procedures to ensure a unified standard and the safety of all involved parties.

See ResNo926 for information on ANVISA’s inspection requirements for research centers to obtain a Certification of Good Practices to conduct bioavailability/bioequivalence drug studies.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Pursuant to LawNo14.874, the sponsor is responsible for promptly communicating to the investigators involved, the executing institution, and ANVISA regarding the reasons for the suspension or premature termination of the research, where applicable. ResNo945 further explains that, at any time, the sponsor may suspend or cancel a (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossiê de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) or approved clinical trial, provided that the appropriate justifications are submitted, as well as a plan for monitoring the participants, if the clinical trial has been initiated. Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMAmdmts, once a DDCM has been cancelled, no clinical trials related to it may be continued in the country. If a DDCM or clinical trial is canceled for safety reasons, the sponsor must describe the reasons for the cancellation and present the measures to minimize/mitigate risk to the clinical trial participants in compliance with the requirements detailed in the AESafetyManual. Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, suspensions and cancellations must be filed with ANVISA, in the form of a secondary petition attached to the corresponding DDCM. ResNo945 and the G-DDCMAmdmts also note that the petition must be submitted within 15 business days following the decision to suspend or cancel a DDCM or clinical trial.

In addition, ResNo945 and the G-DDCMAmdmts state that in cases where the sponsor temporarily suspends the DDCM or clinical trial, as an immediate safety measure, the sponsor must notify ANVISA within seven (7) calendar days from the date of suspension. ResNo945 also notes that the reasons, scope, interruption of treatment, and suspension of participant recruitment must be clearly explained in the temporary suspension notification. The request for reactivation of a suspended clinical trial protocol or DDCM must be accompanied by the appropriate justifications, and the sponsor must await authorization from ANVISA to restart the clinical trial. As per the G-DDCMAmdmts, the temporary suspension can be reactivated with the submission of a secondary petition to ANVISA. Refer to the Submission Content section for instructions on submitting a secondary petition to suspend or cancel a DDCM or clinical trial.

Per ResNo945, the sponsor may, at any time, request that ANVISA discontinue its analysis of the DDCM, Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) and secondary petitions. The withdrawal request must be accompanied by the appropriate justifications and applies only to petitions in which ANVISA’s decision has not yet been published in the Official Gazette of the Union (Diário Oficial da União (DOU)). Temporary suspension, cancellation, reactivation, and withdrawal of DDCM, DEEC, and secondary petitions may only be implemented after ANVISA has issued a statement, which must be issued within 30 business days, by means of publication of its decision in the DOU. However, in the case of temporary DDCM or clinical trial suspension as a safety measure, ANVISA’s implementation must be immediate, and the analysis carried out within 10 calendar days.

BRA-28 also explains that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should promptly inform the investigators/institutions, and the regulatory authority(ies) of the termination or suspension and the reason(s) for the termination or suspension. The EC (CEP) should be informed promptly and provided the reason(s) for the termination or suspension by the sponsor or by the investigator/institution, as specified by the applicable regulatory requirement(s). Additionally, if the investigator terminates or suspends a trial without the sponsor’s prior agreement, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should promptly inform the sponsor and the EC, and should provide the sponsor and the EC a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

Electronic Data Processing System

As set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor must ensure that the system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance. To validate such systems, the sponsor should use a risk assessment approach that takes into consideration the system’s intended use and potential to affect human participant protection and reliability of trial results. In addition, the sponsor must maintain standard operation procedures (SOPs) that cover system setup, installation, and use. The SOPs should describe system validation and functionality testing, data collection and handling, system maintenance, system security measures, change control, data backup, recovery, contingency planning, and decommissioning. The responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties should be clear, and the system users should be provided with training. Refer to BRA-28 for additional information.

Records Management

As delineated in ResNo945, the sponsor must be responsible for storing clinical trial data for a period of five (5) years after the last approval of a registration request for registration in Brazil. ResNo945 and BRA-28 also state that the sponsor should retain clinical trial data in physical or digital format for at least two (2) years in case of the following instances: the investigational product’s clinical development is discontinued, completion of the registration application is not achieved, or a marketing application receives the last approval. Per BRA-28, the sponsor should also inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

Additionally, per LawNo14.874, investigators are responsible for storing under their custody, in physical or digital media, essential research data and documents for a period of five (5) years after a project’s formal end or discontinuation, and for a period of 10 years in the case of advanced therapy products.

Electronic Data Processing System

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

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

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

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

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

Records Management

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

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

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

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

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

Responsible Parties

For the purposes of data protection requirements, the LGPD delineates that the sponsor acts as the “controller” who is responsible for decisions regarding the processing of personal or sensitive personal research data. Within this context, the controller (sponsor) may carry out studies as a research body, guaranteeing, whenever possible, the anonymization of personal data.

Per CD-ANPD-No18, which regulates the performance of the person responsible for processing data, the person in charge is appointed by the controller and operator to act as a communication channel between the controller, data subjects, and the National Data Protection Authority (Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANPD)). The person in charge may be a natural person, member of the organizational structure of the processing agent or external to it, or a legal entity, and must be able to communicate with the holders and with the ANPD, clearly, precisely, and in Portuguese. Additionally, the exercise of activity of the person in charge does not presuppose registration with any entity or any specific certification or professional training. See CD-ANPD-No18 for details on the activities and duties of the person in charge and how conflicts of interest are handled. Refer to G-CD-ANPD-No18 for additional guidance and good practices for data processing agents. See also BRA-116 and BRA-119 for additional information.

Data Protection

As set forth in C-AmndtNo115, the protection of personal data is a guaranteed fundamental right in Brazil. The LGPD further delineates data protection principles (e.g., purpose, adequacy, necessity, free access, data quality, transparency, security, prevention, non-discrimination, and accountability) with which the controller must comply. The protection and anonymity of the personal data of research participants is also regulated by LawNo14.874, and applied subsidiarily to the LGPD.

Per the LGPD, the data quality principle is fulfilled when the controller can guarantee to the data subjects that their personal data is processed with accuracy, clarity, and relevance, and is updated as required to meet the compliance requirements for the stated purpose. The controller must keep a record of the personal data processing operations carried out, especially when the processing operation is for an official purpose. The controller must also provide instructions to the operator, the person responsible for processing the personal data on the controller’s behalf, to check compliance with the specified instructions and rules. Additionally, the controller is required to protect the confidentiality of the personal data holder and their background. The holder is defined as the person whose personal data are being processed.

The LGPD also provides a definition for sensitive personal data or information that encompasses health related considerations. Sensitive personal data refers to personal data about racial or ethnic origin; religious belief; political opinion; union membership or organization of a religious, philosophical, or political nature; data relating to health or sexual life; and genetic or biometric data, when linked to a natural person.

Pursuant to the LGPD, the controller may implement a privacy governance program that, at a minimum:

• Demonstrates the controller’s commitment to adopt internal processes and policies that ensure comprehensive compliance with the rules and good practices regarding the protection of personal data
• Is applicable to the entire set of personal data that are under its control, regardless of the way it was collected
• Be adapted to the structure, scale, and volume of its operations, as well as to the sensitivity of the processed data
• Establish adequate policies and safeguards based on a systematic assessment of impacts and risks to privacy
• Has the objective of establishing a relationship of trust with the holder through transparent action and that ensures participation mechanisms exist for the holder
• Is integrated into its general governance structure and establishes and applies internal and external supervisory mechanisms
• Counts on incident response and remediation plans
• Is constantly updated based on information obtained from continuous monitoring and periodic evaluations

See the LGPD and BRA-76 for detailed information on data protection requirements in Brazil.

As per OrdNo1.184, the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) has established a personal data protection policy to comply with the provisions in Article 23 of the LGPD, which define personal data processing requirements for legal entities governed by public law. OrdNo1.184 specifically delineates internal guidelines for ANVISA for the protection of personal data, and for compliance with legislation, standards, guidelines, and other acts related to privacy, personal data protection, transparency, access to public information, and the protection of freedoms and fundamental rights of individuals. The guidelines are applicable to employees, collaborators, outsourced workers, interns, suppliers, service providers, and everyone who carries out activities that involve, directly or indirectly, the processing of personal data held by ANVISA. See OrdNo1.184 for details, and BRA-77 for additional background information.

Additionally, per ResNo738, which aims to standardize the use of databases for the purpose of scientific research involving human beings, database information is protected to preserve the dignity and fundamental rights of research participants, especially as it relates to their informational self-determination, freedom, privacy, honor, and image. Researchers, sponsors, and institutions involved in the creation and use of databases must act with integrity and responsibility when processing data, and are responsible for:

• Respecting the rights of participants
• Guaranteeing the confidentiality of information
• Preserving the freedom, privacy, intimacy, honor, and image of participants, especially when there is identifying or sensitive data
• Applying information security measures
• Keeping the database in a safe place, where access is restricted, controlled, and traceable
• Adopting measures to reduce the risk of damage, tampering, or loss of data
• Respecting the principles of research integrity

ResNo738 further explains that research protocols, which involve the creation of a database or the use of existing databases, must be processed in accordance with the type of research and the modulation factors established in ResNo674. The research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP))/National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)), jointly known as the CEP/CONEP System, is responsible for this review process. (See Scope of Review section for detailed information on research classification and protocol review pathways.) Personal data processing may be carried out to execute studies by a research body that guarantees, whenever possible the anonymization and security of personal data. Unless the participant or legal representative/guardian provides a signed consent that is approved by the CEP/CONEP system, personal identifying data must also be removed when the data is deposited, partially or completely, in national or international banks, with public or restricted access. Refer to ResNo738 for additional details on the management and use of database information for research purposes.

In the event of a security incident, per CD-ANPD-No15, the controller must communicate to the ANPD and the data holder the occurrence of a security incident that could cause significant risk or damage to the holders in compliance with Article 48 of the LGPD. CD-ANPD-No15, which defines a security incident as any confirmed adverse event, related to the violation of the confidentiality, integrity, availability, and authenticity properties of personal data security, and involves at least one (1) of the following criteria:

• Sensitive personal data
• Data on children, adolescents, or elderly people
• Financial data
• Authentication data in systems
• Data protected by legal, judicial, or professional secrecy
• Large-scale data

Per CD-ANPD-No15, the controller must communicate the incident to the ANPD and to the personal data holder within three (3) working days from the date of first awareness. The controller must also keep a record of the security incident for a minimum of five (5) years, counting from the date of registration, unless additional obligations are established that require a longer period of record maintenance. See CD-ANPD-No15 for detailed reporting requirements. See also BRA-61 and BRA-62 for additional background information.

In addition, per CD-ANPD-No19, establishes the procedures and rules applicable to international data transfer operations for countries or international organizations that provide a level of personal data protection adequate to that provided for in the LGPD, upon recognition of adequacy by the ANPD; or, when the controller verifies compliance with the principles, rights of the holder, and the data protection regime in the form of specific contractual clauses for a given transfer; standard contractual clauses; or global corporate standards as provided for in the LGPD and CD-ANPD-No19. Refer to Chapter V of the LGPD, CD-ANPD-No19, and BRA-118 for detailed international data transfer requirements.

CD-ANPD-No19 further explains that if the international data transfer involves sensitive personal data, the parties will apply additional safeguards, including specific security measures proportionate to the risks of the processing activity, the specific nature of the data and the interests, rights, and guarantees to be protected. Also, if the international data transfer involves the sensitive personal data of children and adolescents, the parties will apply additional safeguards, including measures to ensure that the processing is carried out in their best interests, in accordance with national legislation and international law. The parties must adopt security measures and provide information on measures taken which consider the nature of the information processed, the specific characteristics and purpose of the processing, the current state of technology, and the risks to the rights of the holders, especially in the case of sensitive personal data and of children and adolescents. The measures may include, among others, the governance and supervision of internal processes, and technical and administrative security measures, including measures to ensure the security of the operations carried out, such as the collection, transmission, and storage of data.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per LGPD, the processing of personal data can only be carried out in the following cases:

• By providing consent by the holder
• For the fulfillment of a legal or regulatory obligation by the controller
• By the public administration, for the treatment and shared use of data necessary for the implementation of public policies provided for in laws and regulations or supported by contracts, agreements, or similar instruments per Chapter IV (LGPD)
• To carry out studies by a research body, guaranteeing, whenever possible, the anonymization of personal data
• When necessary for the execution of a contract or preliminary procedures related to a contract to which the holder is a party, at the request of the data subject
• For the regular exercise of rights in judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceedings

The LGPD further specifies that the processing of sensitive personal data may only be carried out when the holder or the holder’s legal guardian consents, in a specific and obvious way, for the purpose of processing sensitive personal data. The consent must be provided in writing or by another means that demonstrates the holder’s intention. If the consent is provided in writing, it must be included in a separate clause of the other contractual clauses. The sponsor bears the burden of proving that the consent was obtained in accordance with the provisions of this law. The processing of personal data is prohibited by the absence of consent. The consent must refer to specific purposes; generic authorizations for the processing of personal data will be voided. The consent can be revoked at any time by express statement of the holder, by a free and facilitated procedure. If the information is changed, the sponsor must inform the holder and specifically highlight the content of the amendments. In cases where the holder’s consent is required, the holder can revoke consent if opposed to the changes.

Further, per the LGPD, the processing of sensitive personal data may occur without the holder’s consent in those cases where it is indispensable for:

• Compliance with legal or regulatory obligations by the controller
• Shared processing of data necessary for the execution, by the public administration, of public policies provided for in laws or regulations
• Carrying out studies by a research body, guaranteeing, whenever possible, the anonymization of sensitive personal data
• Regular exercise of rights, including in contract and in judicial, administrative, and arbitration proceedings
• Protection of the life or physical safety of the holder or third party
• Guardianship of health, exclusively, in a procedure performed by health professionals, health services, or health authority
• Guarantee of fraud prevention and security of the holder, in the processes of identification and registration authentication in electronic systems, safeguarding the rights mentioned in Article 9 of this law, and, except in the event that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the holder prevail that require the protection of personal data

Data holders also have the right to be informed about the collection and use of their personal data. The data holder is entitled to obtain from the sponsor access to their treated data at any time and upon request. Treatment is defined as any operation performed with personal data. See Chapter III of the LGPD for additional information on the rights of data holders.

See CLNo1-2021 for CONEP guidelines for investigators and CEPs related to contact with research participants (e.g., obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality) and/or data collection at any phase of a research study in a virtual environment. See also CLNo039 for CONEP guidance on accessing and using a participant’s medical records for research purposes while ensuring compliance with privacy and confidentiality standards. The guideline also states that all participants should be treated with dignity, respect for their autonomy, and ensure protection for vulnerable populations. See also BRA-29 for additional resources on participant rights to data privacy. Refer to the G-PDP-Acad for recommendations and good practices to support the processing of personal data for academic purposes and for performing studies and research in compliance with the LGPD.

In addition, as indicated in ResNo738, participants in research databases are the owners of their data and must be guaranteed fundamental rights to access their stored information at any time. Participants may request corrections or updates to their database information that they believe to have been entered incorrectly. They may request the partial or total removal of their information, with the cancellation valid from the date they first communicated their concern. Participants also have the right to request compensation if there is damage resulting from the misuse or breach of security or confidentiality of their stored data.

ResNo738 further explains in research that proposes the creation of a database, the informed consent form (ICF) (also known as the Free and Informed Consent Form (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido (TCLE)) in Brazil) must contain the following:

• Research justification and objectives, risks and benefits of data storage including information about the future use of data, when applicable
• Description of the procedures adopted to guarantee the secrecy and confidentiality of information, ensuring the preservation of the intimacy, honor, and image of the participants
• Description of strategies for controlling access to data and information
• Information about the future use of data and information for research, in a specific and highlighted way, when there is this intention, presenting alternatives that indicate the need or not for new consent
• Justification for sharing bank data and information, in a specific and prominent way, when there is this intention, presenting alternatives that indicate the participant's authorization or not
• Information on the irreversible anonymization of data, when any, with explanations of the consequences of such a procedure
• Information about the right to request correction, partial withdrawal, or complete removal of the participant’s data and information

Consent for Processing Personal Data of Children/Adolescents

Per the LGPD, the processing of personal data of children and adolescents must be carried out in their best interest with specific and highlighted consent given by at least one (1) of the parents or the legal guardian. However, the sponsors are permitted to collect personal data from children without the consent of a parent or legal guardian when collection is necessary to contact the parent or legal guardian, used only once and without storage, or for their protection, and in no case may be passed on to a third party without the consent of at least one (1) parent or the legal guardian.

The sponsor must make all reasonable efforts to verify that the consent was given by the individual responsible for the child, considering the available technologies. Additionally, information on the processing of the personal data of children and adolescents must be provided in a simple, clear, and accessible manner, considering the physical-motor, perceptual, sensory, intellectual, and mental characteristics of the user, using audiovisual resources when appropriate, in order to provide the necessary information to the parents or legal guardian, and that is appropriate to the child’s level of understanding.

To facilitate the processing of personal data of children and adolescents, the ANPD-No1 states that processing may be based on the legal hypotheses delineated in Article 7 (personal data) or in Article 11 (sensitive personal data) of the LGPD, provided that the best interest of the children and adolescents prevails, as evaluated in the specific case.

Responsible Parties

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

Data Protection

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

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

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

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

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

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

Children

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

Obtaining Consent

In all Brazilian clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in LawNo14.874 and ResNo466. Per LawNo14.874 and OMREC, the informed consent form (ICF) is known as the Free and Informed Consent Form (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido (TCLE)) in Brazil.

As per LawNo14.874, the ResNo466, and OMREC, the ICF is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)). CLNo51 further clarifies that the ICF should be written as an invitation rather than as a statement as this may reduce the participant’s autonomy. Refer to CLNo51 for detailed information. See the Required Elements section for details on contents to be included in the form.

LawNo14.874, OMREC, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, state that the investigator, or their designated representative, must fully inform the participant or the legal representative/guardian of the relevant aspects of the research, including the EC’s (CEP)’s approval. As delineated in LawNo14.874, ResNo466, OMREC, the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, and BRA-28, the ICF content should be presented in clear and objective language that is easy to understand to ensure the participant or the legal representative(s)/guardian(s) completely understands the research. Per BRA-28, neither the investigator nor the research staff should coerce or improperly influence a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. Further, per LawNo14.874 and BRA-28, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive their legal rights, or, per BRA-28, that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or their representatives from their liabilities for any negligence. Per LawNo14.874, the research participant or their legal representative/guardian may withdraw their consent at any time, regardless of justification, without any burden or loss being incurred. ResNo466 further notes that the investigator must bear in mind that the prospective participant’s ability to understand the information required to give consent depends on their maturity, ethics, intelligence, education, and cultural beliefs. Per LawNo14.874, the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, and BRA-28, the information should be in both written and oral form. Also, per the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs and BRA-28, the participant and the legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. See BRA-29 for additional information on informed consent.

Re-Consent

According to LawNo14.874 and BRA-28, the ICF must be updated and submitted for EC (CEP) consideration whenever new relevant information arises that could alter the research participant’s decision regarding their participation. CLNo17 also notes that the EC (CEP) should approve any change in the ICF due to a protocol modification or an alteration in treatment modality, procedures, or site visits before such changes are implemented. Per BRA-28 and CLNo51, the investigator must ensure that the participant or legal representative/guardian sign the revised ICF and any other updated information. CLNo17 further notes that changes made to the ICF through separate documents are not considered acceptable. The update requires the investigator to generate a single and complete version of the new document, free of addenda and/or other documents associated with it. The investigator or their delegated representative should also emphasize the changes contained in the updated ICF. The clarifications delineated in CLNo17 also apply to assent forms.

Language Requirements

As earlier stated, LawNo14.874, ResNo466, the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, and BRA-28 require the ICF to be presented orally and in writing at a level that the participant is able to understand. The G-ClinProtocols-FAQs further notes that the ICF must be adequately adapted and be fully revised in Portuguese to ensure that the document is properly translated.

Documenting Consent

LawNo14.874, BRA-28, and OMREC state that the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the investigator(s) must sign and date the ICF. In addition, LawNo14.874 and BRA-28 explain that if the participant or legal representative/guardian is illiterate, an impartial witness should be present throughout the informed consent process. At this time, the participant or legal representative/guardian will give verbal, and, if possible, written consent, and the witness should sign and date the form, certifying that the written information was explained accurately and understood.

Before participating in the study, per OMREC, the participant should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF, and any other written information provided during the informed consent process. ResNo466 and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs specify that two (2) original copies of the ICF should be prepared with all pages initialed and signed by the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the investigator(s) or person(s) overseeing the consent process.

Waiver of Consent

No information is available on consent waivers for research participants. See the Consent for Specimen section for information on waivers pertaining to a participant’s stored genetic materials.

Obtaining Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Consent

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the written ICF and any other written information to be provided to participants should be revised whenever important new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s consent. Any revised written ICF and written information should receive the EC's approval/favorable opinion in advance of use. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participation in the trial. The communication of this information should be documented.

The NGHRP specifies that re-consent from participants must be obtained if there are changes in the conditions or procedures of the research or if new information becomes available that could affect the participant’s willingness to continue in the research.

Language Requirements

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

Documenting Consent

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

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

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

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

Waiver of Consent

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

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

Based on ResNo466, OMREC, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The study purpose and duration of the trial
• The trial procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
• The participant’s responsibilities
• Experimental aspects of the study
• The approximate number of participants in the study
• Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
• Any expected benefits to the participant; if no benefit is expected, the participant should be informed of this point
• Treatments available to participants, how they are administered, and the probability of receiving every treatment
• Compensation and/or treatment available for the participant in the case of trial-related injury
• The disclosure of specific appropriate alternative procedures or therapies available to the participant, and their potential benefits and risks
• The probability for random assignment to each treatment
• Any expenses the participant needs to pay to participate in the trial
• Anticipated prorated payment, if any, to the participant for participating in the trial
• Confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, and permission is given to monitors, auditors, the ethics committee(s), and the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) to access the participant’s medical records to verify the procedures or trial data without violating the participant’s confidentiality, insofar as the applicable laws and regulations permit
• That participation is voluntary, and that the participant can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits, including medical treatment, to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• Contact information for the sponsor and investigator in the event of participant problems or trial-related injuries
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent
• The consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the research, and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant
• That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified in a timely manner if significant new findings develop during the course of the study which may affect the participant’s willingness to continue

See the Vulnerable Populations and Consent for Specimen sections for further information.

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

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

Compensation Disclosure

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

Overview

In accordance with LawNo14.874 and ResNo466, Brazil’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights and dignity of research participants. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. (See the Required Elements; Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.)

See CLNo1-2021 for National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) guidelines for investigators and research ethics committees (ECs) (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEPs)) related to contact with research participants (e.g., obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality) and/or data collection at any phase of a research study in a virtual environment. See also CLNo039 for CONEP guidance on accessing and using a participant’s medical records for research purposes while ensuring compliance with privacy and confidentiality standards. The guideline also states that all participants should be treated with dignity, respect for their autonomy, and ensure protection for vulnerable populations. See also BRA-29 for additional information on participant rights during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in the LawNo14.874, ResNo466, OMREC, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, the participant or legal representative/guardian, should be informed that participation is voluntary, that they may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As delineated in the ResNo466, OMREC, and BRA-28, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the ResNo466, OMREC, and BRA-28, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. LawNo14.874 also states that the research must respect the participant’s privacy and the rules of confidentiality of their data, thereby ensuring the preservation of the confidentiality of their identity.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

BRA-28 and OMREC explain that the research participant or legal representative/guardian, should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries and/or to appeal against a violation of their rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

LawNo14.874 and ResNo466 clearly state that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

Overview

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

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

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

The Right to Information

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

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

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

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

The Right to Safety and Welfare

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

As delineated in LawNo14.874, the inclusion of a participant in research in an emergency situation and without their prior consent will follow the provisions of the approved protocol. The research participant or the legal representative/guardian must be notified at the first possible opportunity and the decision regarding their continued participation in the research must be collected.

In addition, according to the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, 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, enrolment of the participant should require measures described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval/favorable opinion by the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)), to protect the participant’s rights, safety, and well-being and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible. Consent to continue and other consent as appropriate, should be requested. OMREC and ResNo251 similarly state that the EC (CEP) is responsible for approving the conditions or limits in which the informed consent should be approved in an emergency situation, and the investigator should inform the research participant in a timely manner about participation in the study.

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

The G-TrialsGCP further states that in emergency situations, when prior consent of the participant is not possible, the consent of the legal representative/guardian, if present, should be requested. When prior consent of the participant is not possible and the legal representative/guardian is not available, enrollment of the participant should require measures that are described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval by the EC, to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of the participant and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible and provide consent to continue or other consent as appropriate, should this be requested.

Overview

As set forth in LawNo14.874, in all Brazilian clinical trials, research participants from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. Vulnerability is defined as a condition in which a person or group of people has reduced capacity to make decisions and to oppose resistance in the research situation as a result of individual, psychological, economic, cultural, social, or political factors. ResNo466 also defines vulnerability as the state of individuals or groups who, for any reason or motive, have their capacity for self-determination reduced or impeded, or are in any way prevented from resisting, especially with regard to free and informed consent.

According to the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, vulnerable participants are characterized as those who may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of the benefits associated with their involvement in a clinical trial, or of a retaliatory response from senior members of a hierarchy in case of refusal to participate. These participants may include those who are members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, dental, chemistry, pharmacy, biology, and nursing students, subordinate personnel in a hospital or laboratory, employees of the pharmaceutical industry, members of the armed forces, and individuals who are arrested or imprisoned. Some other vulnerable participants may include those with incurable diseases, people in convalescent homes, the unemployed or indigent, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minorities, homeless people, seasonal workers, refugees, minors, and those who cannot give their consent.

Pursuant to LawNo14.874, the inclusion of participants in vulnerable research situations, even if circumstantially, is subject to the following conditions being met:

• An informed consent form (ICF) signed by a legal representative, or one judicially appointed
• The research is essential for the population represented by the participant in a vulnerable situation, and it is not possible to obtain data of comparable validity through the participation of adults capable of giving their consent or through the use of other research methods
• The research participant should be provided with information, when possible and to the extent of their ability to understand, respecting their decision to participate, expressed through an ICF, whenever they are able to evaluate and decide on the information received
• The responsible investigator and the legal representative/guardian of the incapacitated person will co-sign a communication to the Public Prosecutor's Office, informing the schedule for the incapacitated person's participation in the research

LawNo14.874, ResNo466, and BRA-28, specify that the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) must pay special attention to protecting participants who are from vulnerable populations. LawNo14.874 also notes that EC (CEP) members may invite external experts and representatives of vulnerable groups to give their opinion on specific issues related to research projects, but these individuals will not have the right to vote. Additionally, per ResNo466, vulnerable individuals or groups should not be included when the desired information can be obtained through participants with full autonomy, unless the research can benefit the health of the vulnerable population represented.

See CLNo1-2021 for National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) guidelines for investigators and ECs (CEPs) related to contact with research participants (e.g., obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality) and/or data collection at any phase of a research study in a virtual environment. See also CLNo039 for CONEP guidance on accessing and using a participant’s medical records for research purposes while ensuring compliance with privacy and confidentiality standards. The guideline also states that all participants should be treated with dignity, respect for their autonomy, and ensure protection for vulnerable populations.

Indigenous Peoples

LawNo14.874 requires that the Public Prosecutor's Office be notified, as applicable, of the participation of a member of an indigenous group in research.

As delineated in ResNo304, special attention should be paid when conducting a study involving indigenous peoples in Brazil. Studies involving this population should comply with ethical requirements while also considering the unique qualities of each community. The benefits and advantages resulting from conducting a study with indigenous peoples must also meet the needs of individuals or groups targeted by the study or of related societies, and/or the country as a whole. Investigators should take into account the need to promote and maintain the well-being of participants while protecting and preserving their biological, cultural, individual, and collective health while also contributing to the development of the participants’ knowledge and abilities. Refer to ResNo304 for detailed information on research and protection requirements when conducting a study with this population.

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

Overview

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

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

As per the G-TrialsGCP, vulnerable participants also include individuals whose willingness to volunteer in a clinical trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response from senior members of a hierarchy in case of refusal to participate. Examples are members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students, subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel, employees of the pharmaceutical industry, members of the armed forces, and persons kept in detention.

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

Per the NGHRP, for all vulnerable populations and individuals:

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

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

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

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

Persons in Hierarchical Relationships

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

LawNo8.069 (also known as the Statute of Children and Adolescents) states that a child is a person up to 12 years of age, and a teenager is one between 12 and 18 years of age.

As per ResNo466 and OMREC, when the research participant is a child, the child’s parent/legal guardian must sign the informed consent form. However, per OMREC, all pediatric participants should be informed to the fullest extent possible about the study in language and terms that they are easily able to understand. The child’s opinion must be considered, even though the child may not be deemed competent to give consent. ResNo466 further notes that in cases where clarification is necessary for research with child and adolescent participants, investigators must provide a clear justification for their choice, specified in the protocol and approved by the EC (CEP), and by the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)), when applicable. In these cases, the stages of clarification and free and informed consent must be followed, through the legal representatives/guardians of those invited to participate in the research, to preserve their right to information to the extent of their capacity.

In addition, per CLNo11, the CONEP has established guidelines related to the process of obtaining consent from research participants under 18 years of age. The process of consent to participate is essential and should be addressed to those who exercise parental responsibility or guardianship, without prejudice to listening to the participant under 18 years of age. In addition, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, states that when a clinical trial includes minors who can only be enrolled with the consent of the participant’s parent/legal guardian, the participant should be informed about the trial to the extent compatible with the participant’s understanding and, if capable, the participant should sign and personally date the written informed consent.

Per BRA-73, Brazil has also implemented the ICH Harmonised Guideline Addendum to ICH E11: Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population E11 (R1) (BRA-74).

Assent Requirements

ResNo466 indicates that an assent form should be used to obtain informed consent from minors or those legally incapable of giving their own consent. The form should be prepared in a language that is accessible to minors or those legally incapable of giving their own consent. After the form is explained and the research study is clarified, the child participants should provide their consent to participate in the study, without the influence of their parent or legal guardian.

CLNo11 further specifies that investigators must ensure the assent is made in the form of an invitation without any degree of pressure or coercion, and written in simple, easy-to-understand language to ensure adequate comprehension of the research. The assent process must consider the understanding capacity of the participant under 18 years of age. Pursuant to LawNo8.069 which upholds the principle that the full protection of children and adolescents is the duty of everyone including public authorities and society in general, CLNo11 delineates that seven (7) years is the minimum age for the obligation to obtain the term or registration of consent. The guideline also recommends an assessment of each research participant’s needs, capabilities, and emotional maturity for the presentation of different terms or records of assent according to the age group (from childhood and adolescence), complexity of the research, and for analysis by the CEP/CONEP system. See CLNo11 for additional details.

See the Personal Data Protection section for requirements on processing personal data of children and adolescents.

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

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

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

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

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

Assent Requirements

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

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

As delineated in LawNo14.874 and ResNo466, research with pregnant women will be preceded by similar research with women outside the gestational period, except when the pregnancy or the unborn child is the fundamental object of the research. Additionally, per LawNo14.874, this research will only be permitted when the foreseeable risk to the health of the pregnant woman or the unborn child is minimal.

ResNo466 also specifies that any Brazilian clinical studies involving women of childbearing age or who are pregnant, require additional safeguards to ensure that the participants are fully aware of the risks and that the research assesses the risks and benefits as well as any potential impact on fertility, pregnancy, the embryo or fetus, labor, lactation, and the newborn. Further, the investigator(s) should also ensure that female participants have the right to participate in the research without the use of compulsory contraceptives, if they have expressly indicated that they are free from the risk of pregnancy and sexual practices, or they are sexually active in a non-reproductive way.

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

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

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

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

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

According to the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, prisoners are included as an example of a vulnerable population that may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response from senior members of a hierarchy in case of refusal to participate.

ResNo466 also states that freedom of consent must be guaranteed to those research participants, including prisoners, who are fully competent but are exposed to specific constraints or have restricted autonomy. These participants must have the freedom to decide whether to participate without any fear of reprisal.

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

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

According to ResNo466, the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) must approve the participation of research participants who are mentally or physically incapable of giving consent, and sufficient justification must be provided for involving this population in a study. In cases where clarification is necessary to obtain adequate consent from participants with mental disorders or diminished decision-making capacity, investigators must provide a clear justification for their choice, specified in the protocol and approved by the EC (CEP), and by the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)), when applicable. In these cases, the stages of clarification and free and informed consent must be followed, through the legal representatives/guardians of those invited to participate in the research, to preserve their right to information to the extent their capacity.

In addition, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, states that when a clinical trial includes participants who can only be enrolled in the trial with the consent of the legal representative/guardian (e.g., patients with severe dementia), the participant should be informed about the trial to the extent compatible with the participant’s understanding and, if capable, the participant should sign and personally date the written informed consent.

Per CLNo11, CONEP has also established guidelines related to the essential process of obtaining consent from research participants with a "lack of autonomy", permanent or temporary, to consent.

CLNo11 further states researchers must ensure assent is obtained in the form of an invitation without any pressure or coercion, and written in simple, easy-to-understand language to ensure adequate comprehension of the research. See CLNo11 for additional information.

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

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

As per LawNo14.874, ResNo945, the G-BiolProdManual, and the G-SynthDrugProdManual, an investigational product (IP) is defined as an experimental drug, placebo, active comparator, or any other product to be used in a clinical trial. (Note: Experimental drugs are a subset of IPs, however, the sources and the profile use the two (2) terms interchangeably.)

In addition, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, states that an IP is a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial, including a product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a way different from the approved form, or when used for an unapproved indication, or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

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

Manufacturing

As stated in LawNo14.874 and ResNo945, the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Brazil. ANVISA approves the manufacture of an IP as part of its review and approval of the clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossiê de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM)).

ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual explain that the sponsor must provide ANVISA with a declaration that the IP and the placebo used in completed or ongoing clinical trials were manufactured in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP), as delineated in ResNo658, and that the IP and the placebo to be used in clinical trials in Brazil will also be manufactured in accordance with GMP. If there is a GMP Certificate or equivalent document for the IP, it must be attached to the DDCM or to the petition for substantial modification to the IP, if applicable. Per ResNo945, ANVISA may carry out GMP inspections of the IP produced in order to verify the information and data presented in the DDCM and determine whether the IP is sufficiently safe to be administered to the clinical trial participants. See RegNo136, which provides complementary GMP for IPs to be followed in addition to ResNo658. See the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for DDCM and substantial IP modification submission requirements.

In addition, per BRA-55, ANVISA is a member of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S). Per BRA-100, as a PIC/S member, ANVISA meets internationally harmonized good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspection standards and quality systems of inspectorates in the field of medicinal products for human or veterinary use. Refer to BRA-55 for additional information.

Per BRA-73, Brazil has also implemented the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (Q7) (BRA-112).

Import

Per LawNo14.874, ResNo945, and the G-DDCMManual, ANVISA is responsible for authorizing the import of IPs. As explained in ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, for each DDCM submitted, a single Import Document (DI) will be issued, mentioning all of the clinical trials to be conducted in Brazil. The DI is a document to be used in IP import or export requests, when necessary. The DI lists the IPs to be imported for use in each clinical trial linked to the DDCM. ANVISA will issue the DI within 30 business days from the date of filing of the DEEC petition for the import of IPs necessary for carrying out clinical development, which may be before the approval or rejection of the DDCM and the respective DEEC petitions are published in the Official Gazette of the Union (Diário Oficial da União (DOU)). The import of products before publication in the DOU is at the discretion and responsibility of the sponsor. The G-DDCMManual also notes that the early issuance of the DI applies to the DDCM and DEECs submitted together with the DDCM. Therefore, this measure does not apply to cases in which DEECs are submitted after the approval of the DDCM.

Additionally, as described in ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, if a company is interested in importing IP(s) prior to DDCM approval, the sponsor must attach a declaration of commitment along with the DDCM documentation stating that the IP will only be distributed to research centers after the DDCM and DEEC are approved and ANVISA’s authorization is published in the DOU. In the event ANVISA rejects the DDCM, the corresponding DEEC, and prior import of the IP(s) authorization, the sponsor must submit a petition to amend the DDCM process informing ANVISA of the destination or destruction of the IP(s). This document must be submitted to ANVISA within a maximum period of 60 business days from the publication of the DDCM rejection and respective DEEC, and must contain information on the destination given to the IPs including their respective quantities compatible with what was previously imported. ResNo945 further states that changing the import purpose of goods and products is prohibited without ANVISA’s authorization. Any change to the IP information contained in the DI may only be made upon request to ANVISA’s clinical research technical area. Furthermore, the use of any IP imported by means of a DI prior to the approval of the DDCM and DEEC petition published in the DOU, constitutes a health violation and subjects the offender to the penalties provided for in LawNo6.437, and in specific health regulations, without prejudice to applicable civil and criminal sanctions.

BRA-95 also provides instructions to sponsors or the legal representatives in Brazil on completing the expiration date (or shelf life) information for imported IPs in the Clinical Trial Submission Form (FAEC) (BRA-22). The expiration date (shelf life) is frequently updated, and is therefore often linked to inconsistencies and requests for clarification of requirements by those responsible for importing drugs and products for clinical trials. See BRA-95 for detailed information on stability requirements and instructions on completing BRA-22. Additionally, the updated BRA-22 requires sponsors to complete information on the clinical trial’s type of risk category according to RegNo338. RegNo338 provides criteria for requesting ANVISA review of DDCM, DEEC, or substantial IP modification petitions using the optimized analysis procedure by regulatory trust practices (Reliance) or by risk and complexity of the clinical trial. See RegNo338 for detailed risk category criteria. See also Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for ANVISA’s optimized analysis procedure requirements.

Pursuant to ResNo945, imported IPs under investigation for exclusive use in clinical trials are subject to the registration of licenses, permits, certificates, and other documents specified on the Integrated Foreign Trade System (SISCOMEX)’s Single Foreign Trade Portal (BRA-80); are subject to ANVISA inspection; and must comply with ResNo208 (amending ResNo81). ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo613 (amending ResNo172) delineate the procedures associated with importing IPs for clinical research purposes following ANVISA’s approval of a DDCM. ResNo172 specifies that the import of goods and products intended for research involving human beings that have been approved by ANVISA will be analyzed within 48 hours after arriving in Brazil and after compliance with relevant legal requirements. Additionally, imports intended for clinical trials whose objective is to register or alter product registration will be analyzed within five (5) days after protocol approval and compliance with legal requirements. Refer to ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo613 (amending ResNo172) for detailed import procedures.

As described in ResNo74 and BRA-108, the import petition must be submitted electronically. Per the G-LPCOImprtPetition, the first step in initiating ANVISA’s import protocol process is applying for an import license (Licença de Importação (LI)) via BRA-80. As indicated in BRA-108, the electronic petition must include the documentation specified in ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and other relevant legislation. ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) explains that the following documentation must be included with the petition:

• Copy of the Special Communication (Comunicação Especial CE)), Specific Special Communication (Comunicado Especial Específico (CEE)), and Document for Importation of Product(s) under Investigation from DDCM
• Knowledge of cargo on board
• Commercial invoice
• In cases of imports carried out by those other than the DDCM holder, document of delegation of import responsibilities

BRA-108 also indicates that in the case of documents already in electronic form, they should be attached as individual files for each LI request in BRA-80. The documents must be attached, preferably, in the order indicated in the checklist of the procedure specified in ResNo208 (amending ResNo81). Refer to BRA-108 for detailed documentation presentation requirements. See also ResNo208 and ResNo81 for detailed import documentation requirements.

Per the G-LPCOImprtPetition, once the LI is registered, the user also must make a request in the Licenses, Permissions, Certificates and Other Documents (Licença, Permissão, Certificado e Outros Documentos (LPCO)) module in SISCOMEX (BRA-80). The G-LPCOImprtPetition explains how the LPCO registration will eventually be integrated with the LI registration, however, at this time, it is necessary for the user to link the LI with the LPCO in order to initiate the import petition protocol in ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56). Refer to the G-LPCOImprtPetition for detailed instructions on registering the LI and the LPCO in BRA-80. See also BRA-106 for additional information on using BRA-80 and obtaining an LI, and See also BRA-109, for additional background on linking imported medicinal products and controlled substances to BRA-80.

As described in BRA-47 and the G-LPCOImprtPetition, users are required to complete the company registration process prior to submitting an import petition via ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56). BRA-47 provides step-by-step instructions on company registration along with the information provided in BRA-105. BRA-107 also provides additional information on registering a company with the National Register of Legal Entities (Cadastro Nacional da Pessoa Jurídica (CNPJ)).

Per ResNo945, imported IPs that are subject to special control as referenced in OrdNo344 (Lists A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C3, D1, E, and F), must comply with ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo659. OrdNo344 defines the substances included in these lists as follows: "A1" and "A2" (permitted narcotics), "A3”, "B1", and "B2" (permitted psychotropics), "C3" (immunosuppressants), "D1" (permitted precursors), "E" (plants that can originate narcotic and/or psychotropic substances), and "F" (substances for prohibited use in Brazil). As indicated in BRA-57, ANVISA has also adopted a protocol for requests for authorization to import medicines and substances subject to special control. See BRA-57 for details. Additionally, the G-ImprtMeds provides information on ANVISA’s Import Authorization Office for Medication (PAFME)) submission requirements for imported IPs subject to special control (e.g., medicines, including advanced therapy products and human cells and tissues for therapeutic purposes). According to the G-ImprtMeds, although these IPs are subject to PAFME approval, imported IPs intended exclusively for clinical trials as well as those being used for expanded access, compassionate use, and post-study IP programs are exempt from ANVISA’s operating authorization (AE) requirements, provided that the company holds an ANVISA import authorization required for the exemption request and for carrying out one of these activities. See the G-ImprtMeds for details.

LawNo10.742 (amending LawNo6.360) also notes that new drugs, intended exclusively for experimental use and under medical supervision, may be imported with the express authorization of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and are exempted from registration. This exemption will only be valid for up to three (3) years. Following this period, the product must be registered or be subject to a penalty of seizure to be determined by the MOH.

Advanced Therapy Products

Per ResNo506, advanced therapy products refer to medicines for human use that are based on genes, tissues, or cells. As delineated in LawNo14.874, for clinical trial purposes, the export and import of experimental advanced therapy products must be authorized by ANVISA and by regulatory bodies, under specific regulations. Per G-LPCOImprtPetition, applicants may initiate an import petition via ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56) to request an import license for advanced therapy products. The process involves obtaining an LI via the steps discussed earlier in this section followed by making a request through the LPCO module of BRA-80, and linking the LI to the LPCO registration. The user will then be able to initiate an import petition. See G-LPCOImprtPetition for additional information on registering an LI and LPCO for advanced therapy products via BRA-80, and then initiating an import petition via BRA-56. Refer to ResNo506 for information on ANVISA’s role in reviewing and approving clinical trial applications submitted for studies using advanced therapy products.

Per ResNo172, ANVISA will analyze and release imported goods and products intended for use in human subjects research within 48 hours after arrival in Brazil, provided that the legal requirements are met and that the purpose of the research is not to register or change the product registration. Also specified in ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo613 (amending ResNo172), is the requirement that the investigator and institution submit the imported products through one (1) of the following methods: BRA-80 or Express Shipping. As indicated earlier in this section, the import petition must be submitted electronically and should comply with the documentation submission requirements discussed above and include the information provided in ResNo74 and BRA-108. While each import option has different documentation requirements, they all require the submission of an electronic petition for import, a commercial invoice, a signed statement of responsibility (see ResNo81 (Chapter XXVII) and ResNo172 (Annex I)), research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) approval, and where applicable, National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) approval. See ResNo172 and ResNo81 for additional information on the required items based on the import method used. See BRA-38 for additional information on accessing ANVISA’s electronic petitioning request systems.

Note: Brazil is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (BRA-63), 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 BRA-81.

Manufacturing

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

Uganda follows the G-GMPMedicinal, the G-GMP-APIs, and the G-GMPAnnexes for good manufacturing practice (GMP), which were adopted from Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) guidance. Per the G-GMPMedicinal, the holder of the NDA’s manufacturing authorization must manufacture IPs to ensure that they are fit for their intended use; comply with the requirements of the clinical trial authorization; and do not place participants at risk due to inadequate safety, quality, or efficacy. The G-GMPAnnexes further states that for manufacturers to be able to apply and comply with GMP for IPs, cooperation between manufacturers and sponsors of clinical trials is required. This cooperation should be described in a technical agreement between the sponsor and manufacturer.

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

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

Import

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigator's Brochure

In accordance with ResNo945, the G-DDCMManual, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, the sponsor is responsible for providing investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB). The IB must provide coverage for the following areas (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties
• Pharmaceutical aspects
• Pharmacokinetics and metabolism
• Toxicological effects in any animal species tested under a single dose study, a repeated dose study, or a special study
• Results of clinical pharmacokinetic studies
• Information regarding safety, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, adverse events data, and dose responses obtained from prior clinical trials in humans
• For phase 1 clinical trials involving the use of a drug for the first time in humans (First-in-human, FIH), attach reports of toxicity and detailed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies, as a complement to the IB as soon as they are available
• Reference Safety Information

Additionally, per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, the sponsor must submit an updated IB to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) in cases where clinical trials aim to support a new therapeutic indication, an expansion of use to a new population, a new dosage regimen, new associations, or any post-registration change that requires clinical data. The updated IB should be submitted with the changes highlighted (track-changes format), or a specific IB, by means of a secondary petition to the clinical trial application (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossiê de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) using the subject code of “10821 - ENSAIOS CLÍNICOS - Notificação de Atualização de Brochura do Investigador” (10821 - CLINICAL TRIALS - Notification of Update of Investigator's Brochure), per the G-DDCMManual. BRA-28 also notes that the sponsor should update the IB as significant new information becomes available. See ResNo945, the G-DDCMManual, and BRA-28 for detailed IB requirements.

Quality Management

Pursuant to ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, the sponsor is responsible for submitting an Investigational Drug Development Plan (PDME) to ANVISA as part of the DDCM. The PDME should contain the following:

• Active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) or active substance name, including IP category (e.g., synthetic, biological, specific, dynamized, medicinal gas, phytotherapeutic or radiopharmaceutical), therapeutic class, pharmaceutical form, concentration and route of administration
• Mechanism of action and indications to be studied
• General objectives and planned duration of clinical development
• A list, in tabular form, of the countries where clinical development has been submitted, including details of the regulatory and ethical approval status, and respective clarifications or justifications in cases of approval under reservation, disapproval, interruption, or cancellation of clinical development in any of the countries where it was submitted
• Scientific advisory opinion of any foreign regulatory authority, if any, on the clinical development
• In cases of linking new Specific Clinical Trial Dossiers (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEECs)) to the DDCM, and exclusion of protocols cited in the PDME in which the corresponding DEECs were not submitted, the updated version of the PDME must be submitted, by means of a secondary petition to DDCM petition

Refer to the G-DDCMManual and the G-BiolProdManual for detailed PDME submission requirements. See BRA-128 for the Investigational Drug Development Plan (PDME) form.

ResNo945 also specifies that an Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier (IMPD) or Investigational Product Dossier (DPI) must be submitted to ANVISA as part of the clinical trial application (primary DDCM petition). The IMPD or DPI should include the following information on the IP:

• Description of the pharmaceutical form and composition
• Pharmacotechnical development
• Manufacturing process and in-process controls
• Quality control of excipients
• Quality control of the IP
• Standards/reference materials or chemicals
• Packaging material
• Results of stability studies
• Documentation relating to the control of transmissibility of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE), in accordance with current health regulations or justifications for the exemption of this document

Per ResNo945, the sponsor should also include in the IMPD or DPI the manufacturing and process controls, quality control, and stability study results for the API or active substance; and the manufacturing process and analytical controls, packaging material, and stability study results of the placebo and modified comparator drug. See ResNo945 for additional information. In the event the IP is already registered in Brazil, the IMPD will be waived. However, in cases where there is a substantial change in the quality of the IP in relation to the registered drug, all documentation and information supporting the change(s) must be presented in the DDCM. ANIVSA requires the IMPD or DPI information to be presented following a logical structure that facilitates technical analysis, with the recommended format being Module 3 of the Common Technical Document (CTD) (BRA-133). Per ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, ANVISA will also issue a supplementary normative act regarding the quality requirements of the IP, API, or active substance.

In addition to the initial PDME and IMPD submissions, the sponsor must submit to ANVISA any substantial IP modifications which may potentially have an impact on the quality or safety of the IP, active comparator, or placebo, as delineated in ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual. These submissions must be linked as a secondary petition to the corresponding DDCM. Further, the optimized analysis procedure based on regulatory trust practices (Reliance) is also applicable to secondary petitions for substantial IP modifications. See BRA-127 for the Petition Form for Substantial Modification to the Product under investigation. For detailed information on substantial IP modifications, see the Scope of Assessment, Submission Process, and Submission Content sections.

Per BRA-28, the sponsor must also ensure that the products are manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) as laid down in ResNo658. ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual indicate that if there is a GMP certificate or equivalent document for the IP, it must be attached to the DDCM or to the petition for substantial IP modification, if applicable. BRA-28 also states that if significant formulation changes are made in the IP(s) or comparator product(s) during the course of clinical development, the results of any additional studies of the formulated product(s) (e.g., stability, dissolution rate, bioavailability) needed to assess whether these changes would significantly alter the pharmacokinetic profile of the product should be available prior to the use of the new formulation in clinical trials and submitted to ANVISA for review and authorization.

See also the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for DDCM submission instructions and documentation requirements. See also RegNo136, which provides complementary GMP for IPs to be followed in addition to ResNo658.

In addition, per ResNo205, the DDCM submitted to ANVISA to conduct a clinical trial using IPs for rare diseases should also be accompanied by a request for GMP certification. See ResNo205 and ResNo811 (which partially amends ResNo205) for detailed submission information.

International GMP Compliance

Per BRA-55, ANVISA is a member of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S). Per BRA-100, as a PIC/S member, ANVISA meets internationally harmonized GMP inspection standards and quality systems of inspectorates in the field of medicinal products for human or veterinary use. Refer to BRA-55 for additional information.

Furthermore, in accordance with ResNo741, RegNo292 establishes specific criteria and procedures for defining Equivalent Foreign Regulatory Authorities (Autoridades Reguladoras Estrangeiras Equivalentes (AREEs)) for the purposes of the health inspection and Certification of Good Manufacturing Practices (Certificação de Boas Práticas de Fabricação (CBPF)) of APIs, cannabis products for medicinal purposes, medicines, and biological products. To comply with health inspection and CBPF criteria, AREEs must be regulatory authorities or international entities that are members of the PIC/S and the ICH (See Annex in RegNo292 for list of approved AREEs). See RegNo292 for detailed information on AREEs for the purposes of health inspections and GMP certificates. Also, see BRA-64 for additional information. ResNo945 also notes that the manufacturing process of the API and the IP approved by an AREE must comply with the guidelines and principles described in the current ICH guides, where applicable, according to the clinical development phase. See the Scope of Assessment section for additional information on AREE requirements.

Investigator's Brochure

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

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

The G-TrialsGCP, the NDPA-CTReg, and UGA-4 require the IB to provide coverage for the following areas:

• Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties and formulation parameters
• Non-clinical studies (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, and metabolism profiles)
• Effects of IP in humans (pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and pharmacodynamics; safety and efficacy; regulatory and post-marketing experiences)
• Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)

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

Quality Management

Uganda follows the G-GMPMedicinal, the G-GMP-APIs, and the G-GMPAnnexes for good manufacturing practice (GMP), which were adopted from Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) guidance. Per the G-GMPMedicinal, GMP ensures that products are consistently produced and controlled to the quality standards appropriate to their intended use and as required by the clinical trial authorization. The forementioned documents must be used for periodic GMP inspection of all manufacturers of medicinal products within and outside Uganda whose products are registered or subjected to registration in the country. Manufacturers that are GMP compliant will be issued GMP compliance certificates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Brazil must comply with the requirements set forth in ResNo945, the G-DDCMManual, RegNo136, the G-BiolProdManual, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945. As described in the RegNo136 and the G-BiolProdManual, the following labeling information must be included on the primary package label (or any intermediate packaging), and the outer packaging (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Name, address, and telephone number of sponsor, contract research organization (CRO) (clinical research representative organization (CRPO) in Brazil), or investigator (the main contact for information about the product, clinical trial and emergencies)
• Presentation, pharmaceutical form, route of administration, quantity of dosage units, and the drug name/identifier and concentration/potency in the case of open studies
• Batch and/or product identification code
• Clinical trial reference code
• Clinical trial participant identification code, and where relevant, the visit number
• Investigator name, if not included in earlier contact information
• Instructions for use (reference may be made to an explanatory pamphlet or other document that guides the trial participants or person administering the IP
• Storage conditions
• Period of use (use limit date, expiration date or retest date, as applicable), considering, at least, in the month/year format, and in a way that avoids any ambiguity
• Warning phrases in capital letters such as: “For clinical trial use only” or “EXCLUSIVE USE IN CLINICAL TRIALS”
• “KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN”, except when the IP is for use in trials in which the product is not taken home by clinical trial participants

RegNo136 further explains that the labeling information must appear on the primary and secondary packaging, unless the IP is packaged as follows:

• Provided inside a primary package, together with the secondary package, and the secondary package contains the labeling data, or
• The primary packaging is a blister or small units, such as ampoules, on which the labeling information cannot be displayed, and requires the outer packaging to be provided with a label containing this information

Additionally, as described in RegNo136, when the primary IP packaging is always combined with the secondary packaging, the secondary packaging should contain the following:

• Name of the sponsor, CRO, or investigator
• Presentation, route of administration (may be excluded for oral solid dosage forms), dosage, and in the case of open trials, the name/identifier of the IP and strength/potency
• Batch and/or code number to identify the contents and packaging operation
• A trial reference code allowing identification of the trial, site, investigator, and sponsor if not given elsewhere
• The trial participant identification number/treatment number and where relevant, the visit number

As delineated in RegNo136, if the primary container takes the form of blister packs or small units, such as ampoules, and cannot be displayed, the outer packaging should be provided bearing a label with this information. However, the primary container should bear the following information:

• Name of the sponsor, CRO, or investigator
• Route of administration (may be excluded for oral solid dosage forms), dosage, and, in the case of open trials, name/identifier and concentration/potency
• Batch and/or code number for identifying the content and packaging operation
• Clinical trial reference code for study, site, investigator, and sponsor identification, if not provided elsewhere
• Trial participant identification number/treatment number and where relevant, the visit number

In addition, per RegNo136, the labeling information must be in the language of the country where the clinical trial takes place, however, other languages ​​may be included. By comparison, the G-BiolProdManual indicates that all of the text labeling must be written in Portuguese. RegNo136 and the G-BiolProdManual further note that symbols, pictograms, and warnings may also be included on both the primary and outer packaging. Also, the primary contact’s address and telephone number for IP or clinical trial information, and for emergency unblinding, need not appear on the label when the trial participant has been provided with a leaflet or card containing this information and has been instructed to keep this contact in their possession at all times. ResNo945 further states that the sponsor must ensure the IP, modified active comparator drug, or placebo be coded and labeled in a manner that protects blinding, if applicable, and characterizes them as products under clinical investigation. According to BRA-28, the sponsor should also ensure that the IP(s) (including active comparator(s) and placebo, if applicable) is characterized as appropriate to the stage of development of the product(s), is manufactured in accordance with any applicable good manufacturing practice (GMP), and is coded and labelled in a manner that protects the blinding, if applicable. The IP(s) coding system should include a mechanism that permits rapid IP(s) identification in case of a medical emergency but does not permit undetectable breaks of the blinding.

As explained in RegNo136 and the G-BiolProdManual, additional information, warnings, or handling instructions may also be displayed. The additional label must indicate the new expiration date and repeat the batch number. The additional label may be superimposed over the old expiration date but may not be superimposed over the original batch number for quality control reasons. This operation may only be carried out at a duly authorized manufacturing site. If duly justified, the operation may be carried out in a location authorized by the sponsor, a pharmacist, or other authorized health professional. This operation may also be carried out at the research site under the supervision of the clinical trial center pharmacist, or another health professional, in accordance with national regulations, or when this is not possible, by the clinical trial monitor(s), who must be adequately trained. Furthermore, this operation must be carried out in accordance with GMP principles, standard and specific operating procedures, and under contract, if applicable, and must be verified by a second person. Additional labeling must be adequately documented in the test documentation and batch records.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As delineated in LawNo14.874, medicines should be packaged, stored, and disposed of in accordance with the applicable regulations. As specified in ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual, the investigational products (IPs) must be stored in a protected area, under the sponsor’s control, and may only be distributed to the locations where they will be used following the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA))’s approval of the clinical trial applications (Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossiê de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM))) and Specific Clinical Trial Dossier (Dossiê Específico de Ensaio Clínico (DEEC)) petitions published in the Official Gazette of the Union (Diário Oficial da União (DOU)). If a company is interested in importing IP(s) prior to DDCM approval, along with the DDCM documentation, the sponsor must submit a declaration of commitment to distribute to clinical trial centers and use IPs only after authorization from the corresponding DDCM and DEEC, when import is authorized prior to publication of the approval/rejection in the DOU. The sponsor is also responsible for acquiring a sufficient quantity of the IP and other supplies to be used in the clinical trial, and may only distribute them to the institutions informed in the approved Clinical Trial Submission Form (FAEC) (BRA-22) and authorized by the research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)).

Additionally, per ResNo945, the sponsor is responsible for the final disposal of medicines and products that were not used in the clinical trial. ResNo945 and the G-DDCMManual further state that in the event ANVISA rejects the DDCM and corresponding DEEC, and the IP(s) were imported prior to approval, the sponsor must submit a petition to amend the DDCM process with a document informing ANVISA of the destination or destruction of the IP(s). This document must be submitted to ANVISA within a maximum period of 60 business days from the publication of the DDCM rejection and respective DEEC, and must contain information on the destination given to the IPs including their respective quantities compatible with what was previously imported.

The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (BRA-28), which Brazil has adopted per ResNo945, also states that the sponsor is responsible for supplying the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the IP(s). The sponsor should not supply an investigator/institution with the IP(s) until the sponsor obtains all required documentation (e.g., approval/favorable opinion from EC (CEP) and ANVISA). The sponsor should also ensure that written procedures include instructions that the investigator/institution should follow for the handling and storage of IP(s) for the trial and documentation thereof. The procedures should address adequate and safe receipt, handling, storage, dispensing, and retrieval of unused product from participants, and return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor (or alternative disposition if authorized by the sponsor and in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s)).

BRA-28 further explains that the sponsor should:

• Ensure timely delivery of the IP(s) to the investigator(s)
• Take steps to ensure IP stability over the period of use
• Maintain sufficient quantities of the IP(s) to reconfirm specifications, if needed, and maintain records of batch sample analyses and characteristics. To the extent stability permits, samples should be retained either until the analyses of the trial data are complete or as required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), whichever represents the longer retention period
• Determine acceptable storage temperatures, storage conditions (e.g., protection from light), storage times, reconstitution fluids and procedures, and devices for product infusion, if any. The sponsor should inform all involved parties (e.g., monitors, investigators, pharmacists, storage managers) of these determinations
• Ensure IP is packaged to prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage
• Ensure the IP is manufactured according to any applicable good manufacturing practice (GMP) (see ResNo658 and RegNo136, which provides complementary GMP for IPs to be followed in addition to ResNo658)
• Ensure proper coding, packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)

Refer to BRA-28 for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements.

Record Requirements

Per BRA-28, the sponsor should comply with the following records requirements:

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

According to BRA-28, the sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and should notify the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing when the trial-related records are no longer needed. Sponsor-specific essential documents should also be retained until at least two (2) years after the last approval of a marketing application, until there are no pending or contemplated marketing applications, or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of the IP’s clinical development.

In addition, per BRA-28, the investigator/institution and/or a pharmacist, or other appropriate individual who is designated by the investigator/institution, should also maintain records of the IP's delivery to the trial site, the inventory at the site, the use by each participant, and the return to the sponsor or alternative disposition of unused product(s). These records should include dates, quantities, batch/serial numbers, expiration dates (if applicable), and the unique code numbers assigned to the IP(s) and trial participants. Investigators should maintain records that document adequately that the participants were provided the doses specified by the protocol and reconcile all IP(s) received from the sponsor.

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

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

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

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

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

Per the G-TrialsGCP and the G-CTConduct, the sponsor must also maintain a system for retrieving IP(s), as well as for the disposal of unused IP(s). The G-GMPAnnexes further delineates that returned IPs should be clearly identified and stored in an appropriately controlled, dedicated area. The manufacturer or sponsor’s representative should destroy IPs only with prior written authorization by the sponsor. The arrangements for destruction of IPs must be described in the protocol. Any arrangement between sponsor and manufacturer regarding IP destruction should be defined in their technical agreement. Destruction of unused IPs should be carried out only after reconciliation of delivered, used, and recovered products and after investigation and satisfactory explanation of any discrepancies upon which the reconciliation has been accepted.

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

Record Requirements

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

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

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

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

As per OrdNo2201, ResNo504, ResNo441, and the G-BiolMatTransprt, a specimen is defined as any human biological material such as organs, tissues, cells, body fluids, excreta, and other fluids of human origin obtained from a single participant at a particular time. ResNo836 adds that these biological samples are intended to be used for laboratory or quality control tests.

Additionally, per ResNo504, human biological material is classified as Category A or B infectious biological material, or Category Risk Minimum. Category A includes materials where exposure can cause permanent disability or fatal disease to humans and animals. Category B includes those materials not listed in Category A such as samples suspected or known to contain infectious agents causing diseases in humans. Category Risk Minimum or “exempt human specimens” include biological materials from healthy individuals. Human biological materials must also be classified according to the World Health Organization (WHO)’s risk classification diagram available in the WHO’s Guidance on Regulations for the Transport of Infectious Substances (BRA-54).

The G-BiolMatTransprt also states that these materials are not considered hazardous if they are unlikely to cause disease in humans or animals. However, they are considered infectious substances, therefore dangerous materials, if through exposure to them, these substances can spread diseases.

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

Import/Export

As set forth in ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo172, the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)) is responsible for authorizing the import of human biological materials for clinical research purposes. ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo613 (amending ResNo172) state that the import license will be carried out through the Integrated Foreign Trade System (SISCOMEX)’s Single Foreign Trade Portal (BRA-80) and express shipping. The following documentation is required to be submitted by the investigator and institution:

• Declaration from the importer with information on the Notice number (Special Notice (Comunicado Especial (CE)), Specific Special Notice (Comunicado Especial Específico (CEE)), Document for Import of Product(s) under investigation in the Clinical Drug Development Dossier (Dossiê de Desenvolvimento Clínico de Medicamento (DDCM)), or Dossier of Medical Device Clinical Investigation (DICD) issued by ANVISA
• Bill of lading cargo
• Commercial invoice
• Research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) approval, and where applicable, National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) approval

See ResNo208 (amending ResNo81) and ResNo613 (amending ResNo172) for additional import documentation requirements. See the Manufacturing & Import section for details on how to submit an electronic import petition via ANVISA’s Solicita Electronic Petition Request System (BRA-56).

ResNo172 further states that ANVISA will analyze and release human biological samples intended for use in clinical research within 48 hours after arrival in Brazil, provided that the legal requirements are met. Refer to ResNo81 and ResNo172 for additional required items depending on the import method used.

Other requirements described in ResNo81 and ResNo172 include, but are not limited to, compliance with packaging, transportation, and storage standards provided by manufacturer or supplier; a mandate that the investigator or institution provide a final destination for the materials in accordance with the legal provisions of environmental control; and in ResNo172, a prohibition on imports with accompanied and unaccompanied baggage.

As explained in ResNo504 and the G-BiolMatTransprt, the procedures for the import and export of human biological material should be determined by the biological material type and the mode of transport. Regardless of the mode of transport or material type, transport operations are required to be recorded and standardized through regularly updated written instructions. All documents and records of activities relating to human biological material transport equipment should be readily available to the health authorities, upon request. The biological material must be packed in a form that will preserve its integrity and stability and must be validated and approved by the supervisory technician. Per ResNo504, human biological material labeling should conform to the material type, risk classification, and specific requirements of the biological materials to be transported. The label for imported materials must be legible, understandable, and in English and Portuguese.

In addition to complying with ResNo504 and the G-BiolMatTransprt, human biological material transport should be conducted in accordance with legislation from applicable regulatory bodies including the Ministry of Transport (Ministério dos Transportes), the Ministry of Ports and Airports (Ministério dos Portos e Aeroportos), the National Land Transportation Agency (Agência Nacional de Transportes Terrestres (ANTT)), the National Civil Aviation Agency (Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (Anac)), and the National Waterway Transport Agency (Agência Nacional de Transportes Aquaviários (ANTAQ)). Refer to the G-BiolMatTransprt for detailed import and export transport requirements.

Refer to ResNo504 and the G-BiolMatTransprt for detailed instructions on shipping biological materials within these categories. See also ResNo836 for detailed transport requirements relating to human cells and advanced therapy products, and BRA-97 for preparing reports on biobanking for research purposes.

Material Transfer Agreement

As set forth in LawNo14.874, human biological material and its associated information may be formally transferred to investigators, in accordance with the provisions of LawNo14.874 and other current regulations, through the execution of a Biological Material Transfer Agreement (Termo de Transferência de Material Biológico (TTMB)) and the presentation of proof of approval of the research project by the relevant ethical and regulatory bodies. OrdNo2201 defines a TTMB as a document duly approved by a research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) and CONEP (CEP/CONEP system) when requested by an investigator in a research project submission. The investigator uses the TTMB to receive stored human biological material with its associated information, and assumes responsibility for its safekeeping and use, for guaranteeing respect for the person and confidentiality, and for providing the biobank with the information obtained in their research.

LawNo14.874 further explains that the samples and components of the human biological material and associated information that have been transferred may not be passed on to third parties by the initial recipient institution, except when a new TTMB is signed between the original sending institution and the new recipient institution. The transfer of human biological material from the sending institution to the recipient must follow current health regulations, without prejudice to specific regulations for each type of biological material and the method of transport. The sending and storage of human biological material to a research center located outside the country is the responsibility of the sponsor and is subject to the following conditions:

• Compliance with national and international health legislation on the shipment and storage of biological material
• Guarantee of access and use of biological material and its data, for scientific purposes, to researchers and national institutions
• Compliance with national legislation, especially with regard to the prohibition of patenting and commercialization of biological material

OrdNo2201 also states that the transfer of stored human biological material is formalized through a specific term of transfer of responsibility between the legal representatives of the institutions involved. LawNo14.874 specifies that human biological material and its associated information used exclusively for a specific research purpose and stored in either a biorepository or a biobank, may be formally transferred to another biorepository or biobank in accordance with current regulations. In addition, OrdNo2201 specifies the sharing of stored human biological material and associated information between biobanks of partner institutions must follow the current regulations for the transportation, processing, and the use of human biological material applicable to the specimen. Additionally, the transfer of human biological material stored in a biobank to the biobank of another institution, depends on the approval of the ECs (CEPs) of the institutions involved.

Import/Export

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

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

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

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

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

Material Transfer Agreement

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

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

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

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

In accordance with OrdNo2201, ResNo441, ResNo466, and ResNo340, prior to collecting, storing, or using a research participant’s human biological material, consent must be obtained from the participant or legal representative/guardian in writing. Per OrdNo2201, ResNo340, OMREC, and CLNo041, the informed consent form (ICF) is also known as the Free and Informed Consent Form (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido (TCLE)) in Brazil. LawNo14.874 also states that biological material and research data will be used exclusively for the purpose provided for in the respective project, except when, in the TCLE, express authorization is granted for them to be used in future research, for exclusively scientific purposes, provided that the provisions of this LawNo14.874 and the applicable regulations are observed.

As delineated in OrdNo2201, ResNo441, and ResNo340, investigator(s) must also obtain research ethics committee (EC) (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP)) approval, and where applicable, National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)) approval of a new research project involving human biological materials. Per ResNo340, if it is not possible to obtain the participant’s consent, a formal justification shall be presented to the EC (CEP) for evaluation.

LawNo14.874 indicates that the research participant has the following rights which must be included in the TCLE:

• To be duly informed and enlightened, in a clear and objective manner, whenever deemed pertinent, about the object and the potential benefits and risks inherent in the disposal of their biological material
• To have their health and physical and mental integrity protected during the biological material collection procedures
• To withdraw consent for the storage and use of stored human biological material at any time, in writing and signed, without charge or loss, having the right to return the samples
• To have access, at any time, without charge or prejudice, to information on the purposes of storage, including the names of the technical and institutional managers, the potential risks and benefits, the guarantees of conservation quality and the integrity of their biological material
• To have access, at any time, without charge or prejudice, to information associated with their biological material and be informed and guided by researchers responsible for findings when the implications of this information could cause harm to their health, including genetic counseling when applicable
• To have the privacy and confidentiality of their personal information guaranteed
• To be promptly informed about the dissolution of the repository in which their biological material is stored
• To be promptly informed about the transfer, loss, alteration, or disposal of their biological material
• To designate legal representatives who may consent to the use and disposal of their biological material, and to have access to such materials and their associated information in the event of death or incapacitating condition
• To be informed, at the time of signing the TCLE, about the possibility of providing or not providing consent for possible future uses of their data and biological material in research
• To be informed, at the time of signing the TCLE, about the possibility of authorizing or not sending their data and biological material to a research center located outside the country

LawNo14.874 also notes that consent for the disposal of human biological material and its data, in life or post mortem, must be formalized by means of a TCLE, and occur in a free, altruistic, and informed manner, in accordance with the LGPD.

In addition, per ResNo441 and ResNo340, investigators should explain the possibility of using the participant’s stored genetic materials in a new research project in the ICF. In this case, the participant will be contacted for further authorization or their waiver. If it is impossible to obtain either one (1) of these documents, this fact shall be justified to the EC (CEP). The investigator(s) is also required to explain to the participant that the material will only be used upon approval of a new project by the EC (CEP) and when necessary, CONEP. OrdNo2201 further states that when it is not possible to contact the research participant, the EC (CEP) must authorize use of the biological material stored in a biobank.

As described in ResNo340, the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, and CLNo041, the ICF for genetic research projects must communicate the following information to the participant:

• A clear explanation of the exams and tests that will be performed to identify genes, and clarification of the genetic materials to be studied and their possible correlation with the participant’s health
• A guarantee of secrecy, privacy, and when necessary, anonymity
• The provision of free genetic advice, planning, and clinical surveillance by responsible people
• The type and degree of access to results by the participant, with the option to acknowledge this information or not
• In the case of genetic material storage, the ICF should explain the possibility of the materials being used in a new research project and that the participant will be contacted for further authorization
• Measures to be taken to protect participant data, exam, and test results, including limiting clinical report access to the involved investigators
• Measures to be taken to protect the participant from any collective discrimination and/or stigmatization
• The need for a separate ICF to be completed by each family member in the case of a family investigation. An explicit statement of the need for new consent for each study, or an explicit waiver of consent for each new study

CLNo041 further notes that for human genetics research, CONEP requires investigator(s) to be able to describe the genes studied in a grouped manner according to functionality or effect (e.g., genes related to the onset of cancer, inflammation, cell death, or response to treatment). In the case of studies involving large-scale genetic studies (e.g., complete genome or exoma sequencing), the ICF shall contain an explanation of the procedure to be performed in a language the participant can understand.

See also BRA-29 for additional information on participant rights to their genetic data.

Biobanks

As delineated in LawNo14.874, human biological material stored in a biobank or biorepository belongs to the research participant, provided that its custody is under institutional responsibility. The management of stored human biological material will be the responsibility of the institution to which it is linked, in the case of storage in a biobank; or the investigator coordinating the research, in the case of storage in a biorepository. At the end of the validity of the research project, the human biological material may remain stored, if in compliance with current and relevant legislation and ethical and regulatory standards; be transferred to another biorepository or biobank; or, be discarded.

ResNo441 and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, in turn, state that the ICF for the collection, deposit, storage, and use of human biological materials in biobanks must include the following:

• A reference to the data types that may be obtained from the participant’s stored biological material for future research
• An express guarantee of the participant’s right to access the biological material information including who to contact, knowledge of the results obtained and implications of findings when the biological material is used, and the provision of genetic counseling, when applicable
• An explicit statement of the participant’s wishes regarding the cession of rights to the stored material to successors, or others appointed by him, in case of death or disabling condition
• A statement informing the participant that the biological information provided, collected, and obtained from the current research may be used in future research
• A reference to the participant’s authorization to dispose of the remainder of the material and the situations in which it is possible

As delineated in OrdNo2201 and ResNo441, the participant or legal representative/guardian may withdraw consent at any time for care and use of biological material stored in a biorepository or biobank without any negative consequences. The G-ClinProtocols-FAQs further indicates that the participant or legal representative/guardian may also withdraw consent specifically for genetic data stored in a storage bank without any negative impact. The withdrawal is valid from the date that the decision is communicated. The withdrawal must also be formalized in a document signed by the participant or legal representative/guardian. In addition, the transfer of human biological material to be stored at a biorepository or a biobank, or another institution, must be communicated to the participant. If it is not possible to communicate with the participant or legal representative/guardian, a justification must be submitted to the CEP/CONEP System, per ResNo441. See also CLNo172 for additional guidance on classifying protocol thematic areas that require CONEP review (e.g., including protocols on the constitution and operation of biobanks for research purposes); CLNo34 for guidance on processing biobank development protocols electronically; and CLNo26 for information on submitting research protocols with human bodies and/or anatomical parts, and; CLNo23 for instructions on standardizing consent and electronic assent for research participants and biobanks.

Please refer to OrdNo2201, ResNo441, and the G-ClinProtocols-FAQs, for detailed requirements and issues associated with storing human biological materials in a biorepository or a biobank. See also ResNo836 for informed consent requirements pertaining to human cell collection and other procedures conducted by cell processing centers.

(See the Required Elements and Participant Rights sections for additional information on informed consent).

In accordance with the NGHRP, investigators must comply with several informed consent requirements for the acquisition, storage, and future use of human biological samples from research participants in Uganda.

For any research involving the collection of human biological or genetic materials, the investigator must provide an explanation to the research participant in the informed consent form (ICF) regarding how the specimens will be managed at the end of the study.

For samples to be stored for future use, the investigator is also required to obtain a separate informed consent from the participant. This process includes the use of a separate ICF that states the following:

• The purpose of the sample storage
• The quantities of samples to be stored
• The location of the stored samples
• Measures the investigator will take to protect participant confidentiality
• The policies that will govern the use of the samples in future research
• The potential risks and benefits of storing samples for future research
• Any other information deemed necessary by the investigators, the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda), and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST)

As per the NGHRP, the investigator must also give the research participant the right to choose whether the samples should or should not be stored for future studies. A Ugandan scientist must be included as co-investigator in all future studies using the human materials collected from Uganda. Participants must not be penalized for their refusal to store the samples and reserve the right to withdraw their samples from storage if the samples are linked. Any future research study on such samples is subject to review by an EC. Where identifiable samples have been collected, for example, as part of routine surveillance, emergency procedures, laboratory quality control, notifiable diseases, routine counseling and testing, etc., without the prior intention of conducting research on the samples, the samples’ sources must be traced to provide consent for use of the samples in research.