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

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

As per the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, oversight, and inspections in the United Kingdom (UK). The MHRA grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in the UK in accordance with the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006.

MHRA-More states that MHRA regulates medicines, including vaccines, supplied in the UK, spanning the whole of a medicine’s lifecycle. MHRA decides whether medicines should be granted licenses (i.e., marketing authorizations) and whether licenses can be varied. These decisions are based on safety, quality, and effectiveness data submitted. Further, MHRA conducts several regulatory activities including the following:

• Inspecting facilities that manufacture and carry out safety tests on medicines to ensure they comply with Good Manufacturing Practice and Good Laboratory Practice standards
• Approving UK-based clinical trials and inspecting them to ensure they comply with Good Clinical Practice standards
• Carrying out vital research to support the development of new biological medicines and vaccines
• Developing reference materials for biological medicines to ensure their quality can be assessed in a standard way
• Monitoring the safety of the medicine while on the market, for example by actively assessing post-market safety reports
• Reclassifying existing medicines, if there is evidence to safely support doing so
• Regulating the importation of licensed medicines to the UK from European Union countries
• Carrying out inspections to ensure that medicines are developed, manufactured, distributed, and monitored to internationally recognized standards
• Helping set and enforce the legal advertising regulations for medicines in the UK
• Independent quality testing of batches of biological medicines before they go onto the market to make sure that it is consistent with batches previously shown to be safe and effective
• Regulating the supply of unlicensed medicines into the UK
• Carrying out enforcement activities to prevent the illegal supply of unlicensed medicines, to or within the UK

In addition, according to GBR-57, MHRA’s responsibilities are to:

• Ensure that medicines, medical devices, and blood components for transfusion meet applicable standards of safety, quality, and efficacy
• Ensure that the supply chain for medicines, medical devices, and blood components is safe and secure
• Promote international standardization and harmonization to assure the effectiveness and safety of biological medicines
• Help to educate the public and healthcare professionals about the risks and benefits of medicines, medical devices, and blood components
• Enable innovation and research and development that is beneficial to public health
• Collaborate with partners in the UK and internationally to enable the earliest access to safe medicines and medical devices and to protect public health

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the agency’s Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) focuses specifically on reviewing applications to conduct clinical trials of medicinal products. For a listing of MHRA services and information, see GBR-36.

G-ATMP states that MHRA is also the competent authority for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) and for UK manufacturers or importers of ATMPs. An ATMP is a medicinal product which is either a gene therapy medicinal product, a somatic cell therapy medicinal product, or a tissue engineered product.

Pursuant to the MMDAct, the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is authorized to make clinical trials regulations and amend or supplement the law relating to human medicines, taking into consideration the safety of human medicines, the availability of human medicines, and the likelihood of the UK being seen as a favorable place to carry out research relating to human medicines, conduct clinical trials, or manufacture or supply human medicines.

Other Considerations

As indicated in GBR-74, the UK has promulgated new regulations for running clinical trials (MHCTR2024). There is a 12-month implementation period before the amended regulations come fully into force in April 2026. During the transition, the Health Research Authority (HRA) and MHRA will support the transition by publishing new guidance, hosting training, and offering opportunities to shape transparency requirements. The MHCTR-Chgs summarizes the latest guidance developed on how to submit, manage, and conduct clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in compliance with the new regulation. When the new regulations do come into force, they will apply across all four nations of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). All clinical trials taking place in the UK will be required to comply with the updated regulations. (ClinRegs will monitor these resources and update the profile as appropriate.) See GBR-74 for more information.

Per GBR-44, the UK is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). GBR-45 indicates that the UK implemented the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113) in 2016. See GBR-80 for the current ICH guidelines that have been implemented by MHRA.

Please note: The UK is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (GBR-5), 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 GBR-48.

Contact Information

Per GBR-58, the following is the MHRA’s contact information:

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 4PU
United Kingdom

Main Phone: +44 020 3080 6000
General Email: info@mhra.gov.uk
Data Protection Email: DataProtection@mhra.gov.uk
Importing or Exporting Investigational Medical Products Email: for queries, complete the GMP contact form and email it to gmpinspectorate@mhra.gov.uk

Clinical Trials of Medicines:
Email: clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk
Phone: +44 020 3080 6456

See GBR-58 for additional MHRA contact information. Further, the G-CTAuth-GBR includes other email addresses for specific purposes related to submissions.

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 MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving applications for clinical trials using registered or unregistered investigational products (IPs). (Note: IPs are known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)). The G-CTApp specifies that the scope of the MHRA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases 1-4). Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, all new clinical trial applications must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process, which offers a single application route and parallel/coordinated review from MHRA and the ethics committee (EC) leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials.

Per the G-Biosimilars, MHRA also regulates the licensing of biosimilars (i.e., similar biological medicinal products).

Clinical Trial Review Process

Per GBR-72, under combined review for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), research teams make a single application using a new part (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78), which goes to both the MHRA and an EC at the same time. As indicated in the G-IRASCombRev, the application will be validated within three (3) days of being received with the validation status posted in the dashboard. During validation, the system will check whether all the required documents have been submitted, can be opened, and are readable. If an application is invalidated, an option will be available to resend the application. During the technical review, the reviewing organization can raise a ‘Request for Further Information’ (RFI) in which they request that the applicant provide additional information or clarification within 14 days. RFIs will be sent as a task to the user who initially submitted the application. To formally request an extension to respond to an RFI, the applicant should email the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk advising how much time is needed. A final decision will be issued 10 days after the response has been received. An RFI extension will affect overall review timelines. Should the assessors have further queries following the response to the RFI, these will be made as a request for clarification in the 'My Tasks' - 'My Personal Tasks' section of the applicant’s IRAS account. Applicants should submit documents via IRAS if needed for clarifications. See G-IRASCombRev for additional details on the review process, as well as how to withdraw an application.

GBR-72 states that the regulatory and ethics reviews are done in parallel and any requests for further information are raised jointly. A single response to these requests leads to a single decision from both reviews. The G-CTApp states that the initial combined review assessment will be completed within 30 days of application submission. Applications for healthy volunteer trials and sponsor-determined phase 1 trials in non-oncology participants may qualify for a shortened assessment time and the MHRA will work with the EC to expedite these applications. When applications need expert advice, the MHRA will seek advice from the Clinical Trials, Biologicals and Vaccines Expert Advisory Group (CTBV EAG) of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM). In addition, the CHM will then discuss the trial at their meeting, which will take place later in the same week as the CTBV EAG meeting. See the G-CTApp for examples of which trials require expert advice and for detailed requirements.

Per the G-CTApp, the MHRA also supports the conduct of trials with complex innovative designs such as umbrella, basket, platform, and master protocol plus submodules. These trial designs are characterized by the presence of prospective major adaptations, such as the addition of new IPs or introducing new trial populations. Before submitting a clinical trial application with a complex innovative design and/or an amendment requesting approval of major adaptations, sponsors are recommended to establish a dialogue with the MHRA and seek advice.

The G-CTApp states that under the combined review process, the MHRA will inform applicants of the outcome of the submission along with the EC’s review and decision. The outcomes could be one (1) of the following:

• Acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorization
• Acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorization subject to conditions
• Grounds for non-acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorization

As indicated in the G-CTApp, with respect to grounds for non-acceptance, applicants will have the opportunity to respond, usually within 14 days; however, this may be extended on request. A communication informing the applicant of the combined MHRA and EC decision will usually be sent within 60 days of receiving the original valid application. If an extension to the response date has been agreed to, then this will impact the final decision timeline. Notification of a decision relating to a gene therapy product, somatic cell therapy (including xenogenic cell therapy) product, tissue engineered product, or products containing genetically modified organisms will be sent within 90 days of receiving the original application, unless otherwise advised. Communications will be sent electronically via email from MHRA_CT_Ecomms@mhra.gov.uk. The MHRA will only send official correspondence to the named applicant email address. According to the MHCTR, if the sponsor or the designated representative does not receive a request for additional information from the MHRA within 30 days, the application is considered authorized. (See the Timeline of Review section for additional details.)

As stated in G-CTApp, GBR-125 continues to support the trial through amendments right up to the end of the trial.

Per GBR-9, the EC’s ethical opinion applies for the duration of the study, which was stated in the clinical trial application and protocol. An extension of the study period is not in itself a substantial amendment, except where it is related to other amendments that would be substantial, such as an increase in target recruitment, addition of new procedures or sub-studies, or extension of follow-up. Where the duration of the study is to be extended beyond the period specified in the application form, the EC should be notified.

As described in GBR-18, MHRA is authorized to inspect CTIMPs conducted by both commercial and non-commercial organizations. The MHRA Inspectors assess whether the organization sponsoring and/or conducting CTIMPs have systems in place to meet the requirements of the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-92, and the G-GMP-GDP. MHRA follows a risk-based approach to inspections. Once an inspection has been completed, a formal report outlining the findings will be sent to the inspected organization.

In addition to managing CTIMP applications, IRAS (GBR-78) also serves as the single system to apply for the permissions and approvals for health and social care/community care research in the UK. It generates the IRAS ID and uses filters to ensure that the data collected and collated is appropriate to the type of study, and consequently the permissions and approvals required. The system helps applicants meet the regulatory and governance requirements. As described in GBR-67, approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) is required for all National Health Service (NHS) project-based research led from England or Wales. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance. If a project is led from Northern Ireland or Scotland and involves NHS sites, then applications should be made through the appropriate NHS permission process for that lead nation. Studies with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland are supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems where each country accepts relevant centralized assurances from national coordinating functions to avoid duplication. For details on HRA’s assessment criteria and standards for approval, see GBR-29.

UK-wide Research

The UKwide-Rsrch specifies that the four (4) UK nations take a consistent approach to study-wide reviews with one (1) application for all relevant UK sites. Each UK nation will take assurances from the study-wide review conducted by the lead nation (the nation conducting the initial review). The following outlines key differences in approvals from UK nations:

• England and Wales – For any research taking place in England and/or Wales, the sponsor will receive an HRA and HCRW approval letter, which will detail any further requirements before beginning the research
• Northern Ireland – Each participating Northern Ireland Health and Social Care body will confirm their capacity and capability after the relevant study-wide reviews and participating site assessments and arrangements are complete
• Scotland – For any research taking place in Scotland, the sponsor will receive Research & Development permission after the relevant study-wide reviews and site assessments and arrangements are complete

Notification Scheme

Per the G-CTApp, MHRA’s notification scheme enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to processing clinical trial authorization for “initial” applications. The scheme only applies to clinical trial applications for Phase 4 and certain Phase 3 clinical trials deemed to be of lower risk. Interest in the notification scheme should be registered via the combined review process described above (GBR-125). MHRA acceptance of an application under the notification scheme will be confirmed within 14 calendar days from the application received effective date and authorization by the MHRA will be granted unless any criterion is not suitably met. If the MHRA determines the application does not meet the notification scheme criteria, an objection decision will be communicated within 14 calendar days from the application received effective date, and the application will continue under full clinical trial assessment with a decision communicated within the 30-day statutory timeframe.

As indicated in the G-CTApp, the notification scheme acceptance criteria are as follows:

Phase 4 trials must meet both of the following criteria:

• All IPs are licensed and used according to the relevant UK, United States of America (USA), or European Union (EU) marketing authorization (except for placebo)
• There are no ongoing safety concerns with the IP(s) that the sponsor is aware of, for example other trials on temporary halt/clinical hold, other trials with unresolved urgent safety measures or post-marketing regulatory restrictions

Phase 3 trials must meet at least one (1) of the following criteria:

• The trial is already approved in the USA or EU based on the same protocol and Investigator’s Brochure (IB) versions submitted to MHRA, and for EU approvals, the same version of the IP dossier. For trials approved in the USA only, the IP dossier submitted to the MHRA must document the same IP manufacturing process
• The MHRA has approved in the last two (2) years a previous Phase 3 clinical trial of the IP(s) at the same dose (or a higher dose), dosing frequency (or a higher frequency) and route of administration, and for the same indication (even if the trial was with a different sponsor) and utilizing the same manufacturing process
• IPs are licensed and used according to the relevant UK, USA, or EU marketing authorization (except for placebo)

In addition, the G-CTApp states that to be eligible for the scheme, a Phase 3 trial must not include any of the following:

• Complex, innovative trial design (e.g., basket, umbrella, and platform) that allows for prospective major adaptations such as the addition of indications or IPs via future amendments
• Includes pediatric participants
• Includes pregnant or breastfeeding participants
• IP is first in class
• IP is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP)

Alignment with the European Union

GBR-115 indicates that the UK is committed to being as aligned as possible with the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (GBR-21). The MMDAct grants authority for regulations to be made that correspond or are similar to GBR-21. For more information about GBR-21, see GBR-54.

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).

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and the G-CTApp, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for paying a fee to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to submit a clinical trial application for authorization. According to the G-MHRAPaymt, applicants will receive an invoice to make a payment for the outstanding amount after validation of the application. Applicants must pay invoices upon receipt or they will incur penalty fees. Non-payment may also result in suspension of any license or authorization, followed by legal proceedings for any unpaid amounts.

As delineated in the G-MHRAFees, the MHRA levies the following clinical trial processing fees:

• 4,656 British Pounds – Applications with an Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) dossier (higher fee for phase 1, full and simplified IMP dossier)
• 343 British Pounds – Applications without an IMP dossier (lower fee for phase IV, cross referral, additional protocol)
• 343 British Pounds – Clinical trial variation/amendment
• No cost – Phase IV notification
• 343 British Pounds – Assessment of annual safety reports

Note per the G-MHRAFees, there is no annual clinical trials fee and no fee for Phase IV notifications. For a cross-referral or additional protocol submission, no new IMP dossier or investigators brochure data should be provided; however, copies of the relevant manufacturer’s authorization(s) and qualified person declaration (if applicable) should be provided since these are study specific.

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, there are fees for annual development safety update reports (DSURs) (which have replaced annual progress reports). For more information, contact DSURfees@mhra.gov.uk. See the G-CTAuth-GBR for additional details including the user manual.

The G-CTApp further indicates that no fees are required for applications submitted and authorized under the Notification Scheme.

Payment Instructions

According to the G-MHRAPaymt, the MHRA does not accept checks. Payments can be made electronically by bank transfer, credit card, or debit card. The relevant invoice and customer number should be quoted when making payments. Bank transfers should be sent to:

Account Name: MHRA
Account Number: 10004386
Sort code: 60-70-80
Swift code: NWBKGB2L
IBAN: GB68NWBK60708010004386
Bank: National Westminster Bank

Bank address:
National Westminster Bank RBS
London Corporate Service Centre, 2^nd Floor
280 Bishopsgate
London
EC2M 4RB
UK

As per G-MHRAPaymt, credit or debit card payments may be made securely online using GBR-26. Remittance advice notices can be sent to sales.invoices@mhra.gov.uk and should include the relevant invoice number on the remittance advice. MHRA cannot accept any documentation sent by postal mail service. Further information can be obtained by emailing sales.invoices@mhra.gov.uk. G-MHRAPaymt further provides that clinical trial application invoice disputes/queries should be emailed to ctdhelpline@mhra.gov.uk and cc: sales.invoices@mhra.gov.uk.

The G-CTApp indicates that invoices for clinical trial authorization applications and substantial amendment applications are sent directly to the applicant shortly after a valid submission has been established. The applicant’s cover letter should clearly highlight the purchase order (PO) number where available. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure timely payment of invoices for their submissions. Invoices must be settled on receipt of invoice. For additional information, applicants may contact the MHRA Finance Department at 020 3080 6533 or sales.invoices@mhra.gov.uk.

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the fees for annual DSURs will only be accepted by MHRA via its dedicated DSUR payments page (GBR-43) prior to submission of a DSUR. Receipts generated will be sent by email and must be included in the report submission as proof of payment in its original format as a standalone document, along with the cover letter and DSUR. Failure to provide evidence of payment will result in the submission being made invalid and sponsors should update their trial master file of this non-compliancy, with corrective and preventative actions to address it.

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 set forth in GAfREC, the United Kingdom (UK) has a centralized recognition process for ethics committees (ECs), known as research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK. ECs are part of an accountable and independent Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62).

As described in GBR-51 and GBR-62, the RES has a dual mission to protect the rights, safety, dignity, and well-being of research participants and to facilitate and promote ethical research that is of potential benefit to participants, science, and society. To achieve this, GBR-62 states that the RES works with the devolved administrations to conduct the following activities:

• Provide robust, proportionate, and responsive ethical review of research through ECs
• Provide ethical guidance to ECs
• Provide and deliver a managed structure to support ECs
• Deliver a quality assurance (QA) framework
• Deliver a training program
• Work with colleagues across the UK to maintain a UK-wide framework for ethical review
• Work with colleagues in the wider regulatory environment to streamline the processes for approving research
• Promote and support transparency in research

As stated in GAfREC, the RES encompasses England’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Northern Ireland’s Department of Health, the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Finance Directorate, the Welsh Government’s Department of Health and Social Care as well as the ECs that are collectively recognized or established by these authorizing bodies. The UK Health Departments have authorized the head office of the RES in England, within the Health Research Authority (HRA), to perform some UK-wide functions on behalf of the other head offices, including performing some of the functions of the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA), which is the statutory body that recognizes ECs for the review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs). (See Oversight of Ethics Committees section for more details on RES and UKECA functions.) In accordance with the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, ECs recognized to conduct reviews of clinical trials for CTIMPs are authorized by the UKECA. The UKwide-Rsrch reaffirms that GAfREC is the UK policy document governing the RES function and EC reviews in each country.

All recognized RES ECs are required to comply with the provisions delineated in GAfREC, the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and GBR-9. However, specific ECs within the RES are recognized, or otherwise designated, to review certain types of research proposals. A list of recognized ECs within the RES is available through GBR-111. Also see GBR-64 for EC definitions.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in the MHCTR and GAfREC, a RES-recognized EC, which includes those recognized by UKECA, may consist of up to 18 members. Collectively, members must encompass the qualifications and experience required to review and evaluate the scientific, medical, and ethical aspects of a proposed clinical trial. The ECs should include a diverse mixture of members in terms of age, disability, gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation. One third of the committee must also be lay members, and half of the lay members must be persons who are not and never have been health care professionals, clinical researchers, or managers of clinical research (also known as lay members). Additionally, GAfREC states that a quorate meeting must be attended by at least seven (7) members and include the chair, at least one (1) expert member, and one (1) lay member. GBR-9 mirrors this requirement, but adds that when investigational products are reviewed, a lay member must be present. See GBR-113 for additional recommendations for composition.

Per GBR-9, in order to accommodate the United States’ (US) quorum definition pursuant to regulations for the protection of human subjects in research (45 CFR 46) and the Common Rule (45 CFR 46 Subpart A), the RES also makes special arrangements to review UK-based research funded by US Federal Government departments and their agencies. In such cases, the quorum is a majority of the EC. See the ClinRegs United States page, Ethics Committee topic for more information on ethics review requirements in the US.

As indicated in GAfREC, committee member appointments are valid for up to five (5) years. Appointments may be renewed; however, members should not normally serve more than two (2) consecutive terms of five (5) years on the same EC, and members may resign at any time. Members must maintain confidentiality regarding all ethical review related matters and refuse any projects in which they have a conflict of interest. See the MHCTR and GAfREC for additional EC composition requirements.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

In addition to complying with composition requirements, GAfREC, GBR-113, and GBR-9 state that an EC must also adopt written standard operating procedures (SOPs). The SOPs should cover the entire review process from application submission to opinion and notification, amendments, and annual reporting.

Per GBR-9, applications that have been submitted via the CTIMP combined review service will be validated by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and EC staff do not need to undertake a formal validation check. ECs should check the application against the validation checklist and request any missing information or clarifications from the applicant, if required. All validated clinical trial applications for an ethical opinion should be reviewed at a full meeting of an EC. An EC should normally hold at least 10 scheduled full meetings in each year for the purpose of ethical review of applications. Additional meetings may be held where necessary to ensure that an ethical opinion on an application is given within the relevant time limit (or to discuss matters relating to the establishment or operating procedures of the EC or for training purposes). Meetings to review applications should normally be held at intervals of one (1) month unless there are holidays. The schedule of EC meetings for the financial year commencing on April 1^st should be agreed to by December 1^st in the previous financial year. The schedule should set out the dates and times of meetings, and the closing date for applications for each meeting. All members and deputy members of the EC should receive details of the schedule. The closing dates for full applications should normally be 14 calendar days prior to each EC meeting. In the case of applications for Phase 1 clinical trials in healthy volunteers, ECs may adopt a later closing date for applications not less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the meeting and may accept applications booked in advance of the closing date which are submitted up to seven (7) days before the date of the meeting.

According to GBR-9, the EC Chair is responsible for ensuring that the EC reaches clearly agreed to decisions on all matters. If the Chair is unavailable, then the meeting should normally be chaired by the vice-Chair or, if the vice Chair is also unavailable, by the alternate vice-Chair. The EC meeting should reach unanimous decisions by consensus wherever possible. Where a consensus is not achievable, a formal vote should be taken by a counting of hands. The decision of the EC should be determined by a simple majority of those members present and entitled to vote. A record should be kept of the number of votes, including abstentions, in the minutes. Where the vote is tied, the Chair may give a casting vote, but should first consider any other options to arrive at a more consensual decision. Where any member wishes to record a formal dissent from the decision of the committee, this should be recorded in the minutes but should not be included in the opinion letter. An agenda should be prepared for an EC meeting and EC staff must prepare minutes of the EC meetings. See GBR-9 for additional requirements on the agenda, meeting conduct/decisions, and minutes during full EC meetings.

As per GBR-9, documents for EC meetings should be made available as soon as possible after the agenda is finalized and applications have been validated, and in any case no later than 10 calendar days prior to the meeting (with the exception of expedited, proportionate review, and Phase 1 applications where there has been prior agreement). Under no circumstances should full applications be tabled at the meeting. Applications should be made available to members via the HRA Assessment and Review Portal (HARP) as soon as the application is validated, and an email sent to the EC members to inform them the application is now viewable.

GBR-9 requires ECs to retain all the documentation relating to a CTIMP on which it gives an opinion:

• Where the trial proceeds, for at least three (3) years from the conclusion or early termination of the trial
• Where the trial does not proceed (e.g., it is given an unfavorable opinion, or does not start following a favorable opinion), for at least three (3) years from the date of the opinion

In accordance with GBR-9, documentation should be retained on all invalid applications for at least one (1) year from the date of invalidation; and for three (3) years where the application is withdrawn by the EC, the chief investigator, or the sponsor after the EC review but before a final opinion is given. Signed final copies of the minutes of full EC meetings and sub-committee business should be retained electronically for at least 20 years. Electronic records of studies will be retained indefinitely.

For detailed EC procedures and information on other administrative processes, see GAfREC, GBR-113, and GBR-9.

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

According to GAfREC, the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and GBR-9, the primary scope of information assessed by ethics committees (ECs) within the United Kingdom (UK) Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. (Note: ECs are known as research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK). GAfREC specifies that ethical review is required for research proposals that involve investigational products (IPs), material consisting of human cells, and other situations that are described in GAfREC.

As per GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the MHCTR2006-No2, and GBR-113, ECs 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). In addition, per GBR-46, the ethical review process should evaluate how the study involves the public in research, especially at the design stage (e.g., the participant information sheets).

As indicated in GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-113, and GBR-9, ECs are responsible for ensuring an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants; confirming the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and methods; and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. See GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-9 for detailed ethics review guidelines.

GBR-112 indicates that certain ECs are flagged for special expertise including gene therapy or stem cell clinical trials; Phase 1 studies in healthy volunteers; Phase 1 studies in participants; research involving adults lacking capacity; research involving children; research involving prisoners or prisons; or fast-track ECs.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As described in GBR-9, GBR-66, and GBR-95, the type of EC responsible for approval (known as a “favorable opinion” in the UK) within the RES depends on the type of research being conducted. Per GAfREC and GBR-9, ECs are recognized or established by the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) to conduct reviews of clinical trials for IPs (known as clinical trials for investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in the UK). Per GAfREC, RES-recognized ECs established under Health Department policy within each of the four (4) UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) review research studies other than IP clinical trials. Also see GBR-64 for definitions of EC terminology and GBR-111 and GBR-112 to search for ECs within the RES.

As indicated in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GAfREC, IP applications require the favorable opinion of a UKECA-recognized EC, and approval by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) prior to the sponsor or the designated legal representative initiating the trial. The G-CTApp states that all new clinical trial applications must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process, wherein a single application route and coordinated review by MHRA and the EC leads to a single UK decision. New clinical trial applications for combined review are prepared and electronically submitted to the new combined review section of Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). Per GBR-78, IRAS does not change the requirements for review, including authorizations or signatures, of any regulatory authority or National Health Service (NHS) body. Therefore, it requires different authorizations depending on the type of study and the applicable review bodies. According to GBR-9, submissions of the electronic application must be made to IRAS on the same day that a booking is made to schedule an EC review through the NHS REC’s Online Booking Service (GBR-95).

According to the MHCTR, GAfREC, and GBR-9, for all studies, only one (1) EC review is needed for a project taking place in the UK, regardless of the number of sites. Furthermore, GBR-9 states that the Chief Investigator (CI) should be based in the UK and that the REC may agree exceptionally to an application being submitted by a CI based outside the UK, but should consider as part of the ethical review whether adequate arrangements are in place for supervision of the study in the UK. The ethical review includes an assessment of the suitability of each site or sites at which the research is to be conducted in the UK. The site assessment is not a separate ethical review, but forms part of the single ethical review of the research. Management permission is still required from the organization responsible for hosting the research before it commences at any site. In the case of international studies, an application must be made to an EC in the UK, whether or not the study has a favorable ethical opinion from a committee outside the UK, and whether or not it has started outside the UK.

Per GBR-68, unless an application is being processed under the proportionate review service, the applicant should attend the EC meeting if possible. The EC will notify the sponsor of its initial/provisional decision, usually within 10 working days of the EC meeting. GBR-9 indicates that the EC should reach one (1) of the following decisions on any application reviewed at a full meeting or a proportionate review sub-committee meeting:

• A final opinion, which may be either favorable with standard conditions, favorable with additional conditions, or unfavorable
• Provisional opinion with request for further information, which means the EC may decide that a final opinion cannot be issued until further information or clarification has been received from the applicant

The MHCTR, GBR-9, and GBR-68 state that the EC must give its final opinion within 60 calendar days of receipt of a valid application. When an EC requires further information before confirming its opinion, it may give a provisional opinion and may make one (1) written request for further information, clarification, or changes to documentation. The time required for the EC to receive a complete response to its request does not count against the 60-day timeline. Certain studies, including gene therapy studies, will take 90 days, or 180 days if a specialist group or committee is consulted. For other exceptions, see GAfREC and the MHCTR. (See the Submission Process and Timeline of Review sections for detailed submission process requirements.)

Per GBR-116, the Health Research Authority (HRA), on behalf of the UK, offers a fast-track research ethics review. Fast-track ethics review is open to global clinical trials and Phase 1 trials, whether the sponsor is commercial or non-commercial. This includes:

• Any CTIMP led from the UK with at least one (1) other country participating
• Any CTIMP led from outside the UK which could be placed in any country and the UK is competing for participation (including any only taking place in the UK)
• Any Phase 1 or Phase 1/2 CTIMP in healthy volunteers or participants

Fast-track ethics review is not available for any CTIMP involving a gene therapy medicinal product, any CTIMP funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, and any other type of clinical trial or research study.

Per the CTIMP-Condtns and GBR-9, the EC’s favorable ethical opinion applies for the stated duration of the study, except where action is taken to suspend or terminate the opinion. The MHCTR, GAfREC, and IRAS (GBR-78) require the applicant to identify an expected end date for the study. A change to the definition of the end of the study is a substantial amendment. Extension of the study beyond the period specified in the application form is a non-substantial amendment. As stated in the CTIMP-Condtns, where the duration of the study is to be extended beyond the period specified in the application form, there is no need to notify or seek approval from the EC.

GBR-9 describes EC processes related to reviewing and approving clinical trial amendments and any related notifications. The sponsor of a CTIMP may make an amendment to a clinical trial authorization, other than a substantial amendment, at any time after the trial has started. It is not necessary to notify MHRA or the EC about unsubstantial amendments. If the amendment is substantial, the sponsor is required to submit a valid amendment to the MHRA and/or the REC that gave the favorable opinion of the trial. Where the sponsor requests an ethical opinion on a CTIMP, the EC should provide this in all cases within 35 calendar days of receiving a valid amendment. If the opinion is unfavorable, the sponsor may then modify the proposed amendment. A written notice of the modification should be sent to the EC at least 14 calendar days before it is due to be implemented. The EC may then give an unfavorable opinion on the modified amendment within 14 calendar days, otherwise it may be implemented. See GBR-9 and GBR-98 for guidance on what changes qualify as a substantial amendment, which requires notification to the EC and MHRA. GBR-9 states that while the EC is not responsible for proactive monitoring, it has a duty to keep the favorable ethical opinion under review in the light of any significant developments and may review the opinion at any time. If information raises concerns about the suitability of the site or investigator, the favorable opinion may be reviewed.

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.

As set forth in GAfREC, ethics committees (ECs) are not permitted to charge an application fee or seek any other financial contribution or donation for reviewing research proposals. Additionally, EC members receive no payment for contributing to the application review process at scheduled meetings or for attending these meetings.

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

As stated in GAfREC and GBR-9, the United Kingdom (UK)-wide Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) provides proportionate and responsive ethical review of research through its “recognized” ethics committees (ECs), known as research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK. Per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GAfREC, the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) is the statutory body that recognizes ECs for the review of clinical trials of investigational products (CTIMPs). The UK Health Departments have authorized England’s Health Research Authority (HRA) to perform some of the RES functions (more details below).

As indicated in GBR-9, the UKECA recognizes ECs for new CTIMPs:

• Phase 1 trial in healthy volunteers (including patients without the target disease or condition) – Any recognized EC
• Phase 1/2a trial in both healthy volunteers and patients with the target disease or condition – Any recognized National Health System (NHS) EC
• Phase 2a trials – Any recognized NHS EC
• Trial of medicinal products for gene therapy – Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC) and ECs which are recognized to review gene therapy trials
• Trial of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product – GTAC and ECs which are recognized to review gene therapy trials; all studies that have been submitted to the Expert Advisory Group (who provide advice on complex applications), must be reviewed by an EC which is flagged to review stem cell therapy studies
• All other CTIMPs in patients – Any recognized NHS EC

As stated in GAfREC, the HRA performs the following EC oversight activities on behalf of the UKECA:

• Develops and manages a national training program for ECs
• Develops, implements, and maintains standard operating procedures (SOPs) for ECs and provides advice and support to ECs on procedural issues
• Develops a quality assurance program, including accreditation of ECs, based on regular monitoring and audit of their operation and performance
• Provides guidance and advice to assist ECs in their work and encourage consistency of approach to common issues in research ethics
• Acts for UKECA to provide a national mechanism for operational advice and assistance to ECs recognized to review and approve clinical trials
• Acts for UKECA to handle appeals against the unfavorable opinions of ECs in respect of CTIMPs
• Acts for UKECA to transfer to a successor EC the functions of an EC that has ceased to operate or that has been varied, abolished, or had its recognition revoked
• Acts for UKECA to reallocate to ECs applications made to the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee which do not require its review

Further, per GAfREC, the following oversight functions are the responsibility of UKECA for the purposes of clinical trials:

• Establishes or recognizes ECs
• Establishes or recognizes ECs to act in relation to such descriptions or classes of research as it considers appropriate
• Abolishes or revokes the recognition of ECs that it has established or recognized
• Monitors the extent to which ECs adequately perform their functions, including through annual reports from ECs it has recognized
• Approves standing orders and SOPs for EC business and operations, as well as variations and revocations to these orders and procedures

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Per GAfREC, HRA, acting for UKECA, develops a quality assurance program to encourage a consistently high level of service to applicants, including accreditation of ECs, based on regular monitoring and audit of their operation and performance.

GBR-123 indicates that HRA implements a rolling accreditation program to audit UK ECs against standards as detailed in GAfREC and GBR-9. ECs are issued with an audit decision: full accreditation, accreditation with conditions (low-risk non-compliance identified requiring an action plan), or provisional accreditation (high- and low-risk issues requiring an action plan). Published bi-annually, HRA’s latest accreditation report is at GBR-124. In addition, quality control checks are undertaken, and results are shared with management teams. For example, operational managers observe EC meetings and provide a check against agreed-upon standards relating to meeting conduct and minute taking. Findings from the meeting observations are shared with the EC chair and staff and collated to identify common themes to inform improvements. For more information about quality assurance, contact quality.assurance@hra.nhs.uk.

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

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, and GBR-9, the United Kingdom (UK) requires the sponsor or the designated legal representative to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) prior to initiating the trial. Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, the UK’s combined review process offers a single application route and coordinated/parallel review from MHRA and the ethics committee (EC) leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials.

Note: G-CTApprovedCountries and the MHCTR-EUExit list the countries where a clinical trial sponsor or their legal representative may be established; these countries are initially European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) countries.

Combined Review Submission

Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, all new applications for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process using the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). For support and getting started, users should review GBR-72 and contact the combined review team at cwow@hra.nhs.uk. Step-by-step instructions are provided in G-IRASCombRev. As delineated in GBR-9, applications submitted via the combined review service are submitted jointly by the chief investigator and the sponsor. Per GBR-116, applicants seeking fast-track review of clinical trial applications must also apply via combined review on GBR-125. Per the G-CTApp, MHRA’s notification scheme enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to processing clinical trial authorization for “initial” applications. The scheme only applies to clinical trial applications for Phase 4 and certain Phase 3 clinical trials deemed to be of lower risk. Interest in the notification scheme should be registered via the combined review process (GBR-125). Per G-ATMP, all advanced therapy medicinal products must submit clinical trial applications using the same processes as all other medicines. See Scope of Review section for fast-track eligibility criteria.

Per GBR-122, for studies that were submitted before combined review, these applicants should continue to submit amendments and reports for these studies at IRAS via GBR-78’s log-in. HRA will update sponsors and applicants with full instructions and plenty of notice for any planned changes in the future, such as the migration of existing, ongoing studies. See GBR-122, for additional details on the migration of existing materials in IRAS. GBR-72 includes learning resources and a video on the combined review process.

G-IRASCombRev contains a step-by-step guide to combined review submission. The following is an overview of the steps:

• Finalize protocol and supporting documents
• New users create IRAS account and create a new project and allocate roles
• Complete project details, study information, and clinical trial dataset in IRAS and upload supporting documentation
• Send application to the sponsor to review and authorize
• Book an EC online and submit application

G-IRASCombRev indicates that when selecting an EC meeting that is not the first available meeting, the 60-day regulatory clock for both the EC and the MHRA will start on the cutoff date for the meeting that is chosen, which is 14 days before the meeting date. Once booked, the EC booking page will update to show the confirmed booking details. The applicant will then be able to scroll down the page to select the option to “submit to the regulators.” See G-IRASCombRev for detailed step-by-step instructions.

For overall help during the submission process, see the CTapp-Issues which identifies common issues with validation and assessment of clinical trial applications and how to avoid them.

Other regulatory information aside from new clinical trial applications are to be submitted pursuant to the G-MHRASubmiss. These submittals include substantial amendments for existing clinical trials, end-of-trial notifications, and developmental safety update reports (DSURs). The G-CTAuth-GBR also states that clinical trials not approved or yet transitioned over to the combined review process should continue to use the online MHRA Submissions portal (GBR-13). The steps for gaining access to GBR-13 are contained in the G-MHRASubmiss and GBR-11.

For overviews of submittals to MHRA, see GBR-18. Also see the Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for information on obtaining a trial identification number during trial registration.

The UKwide-Rsrch provides guidance and requirements for research in more than one (1) United Kingdom (UK) nation, and specifies that the four (4) nations of the UK take a consistent approach to study-wide reviews so that sponsors only need to submit one (1) application on GBR-125 in most circumstances. Each UK nation will take assurances from the site-wide review conducted by the lead nation (the nation conducting the initial review).

As described in GBR-78, other relevant approvals can be sought on the IRAS site. For example, applicants can request inclusion in the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Research Delivery Network (NIHR RDN) Portfolio, which comprises high-quality clinical research studies that receive support services from the RDN in England.

Per G-CTApp, MHRA supports the conduct of trials with complex innovative designs such as umbrella, basket, platform, and master protocol plus submodules. When submitting a clinical trial application for a trial with innovative designs that involve prospective major adaptations, the sponsor must justify the choice of a complex trial design, ensure that each adaptation as well as the entire trial are safe and scientifically sound, and describe how the integrity of trial results will be maintained throughout the conduct of the trial. See G-CTApp for example scenarios of when it is appropriate to propose major adaptations via submission of a substantial amendment request. Before submitting an application for authorization of a trial with a complex innovative design and/or an amendment requesting approval of major adaptations, sponsors are recommended to establish a dialogue with the MHRA and seek advice.

As delineated in the MHCTR, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided in English.

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

As specified in the G-CTApp, a clinical trial submission package to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should contain the following documents:

• Cover letter (when applicable, the subject line should state that the submission is for a Phase 1 trial and is eligible for a shortened assessment time, or if it is submitted as part of the notification scheme); this letter should clearly highlight the Purchase Order (PO) number to help the MHRA invoice and allocate payments promptly and efficiently
• Clinical trial application form in PDF and XML versions
• Protocol document
• Investigator’s brochure (IB)
• Investigational medical product dossier (IMPD) or a simplified IMPD
• Summary of scientific advice obtained from the MHRA or any other regulatory authority, if available
• Manufacturer’s authorization, including the importer’s authorization and Qualified Person declaration on good manufacturing practice for each manufacturing site if the product is manufactured outside the European Union (EU) (See G-ImportIMPs and the Manufacturing & Import section for more information)
• Copy of the United Kingdom (UK) or the European Medicines Agency’s decision on the pediatric investigation plan and the opinion of the pediatric committee, if applicable
• Content of the labelling of the investigational product (IP) (known as investigational medicinal product (IMP) in the UK) (or justification for its absence)

Ethics Committee Requirements

As per the MHCTR, the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), ECs require the chief investigator (CI) to submit the following documentation for ethics approval:

• Application for an EC opinion
• A summary of the trial, including justification, relevance, and methodology to be used
• Research hypothesis
• Statistical analysis and justification for the numbers of participants to be recruited
• Protocol
• IB
• Peer review process details
• Sponsor name and contact information
• Financial arrangements for the trial (e.g., funding sources, participant reimbursement, compensation provisions in the event of trial-related injury or death, and insurance or indemnity coverage for sponsor and investigator(s)) (See the Insurance & Compensation section for additional information)
• Terms of agreement between the sponsor and participating institution(s)
• Material to be used (including advertisements) to recruit potential research participants (See the Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for additional information on participant recruitment)
• Informed consent form and copies of materials to be provided to participants (See the Required Elements section for additional information)
• Participant treatment plans
• Benefit/risk assessment for participants
• Investigator(s) Curriculum Vitaes (CVs)
• Trial design and suitability of facilities

Further, to help with planning before seeking EC approval, GBR-18 provides a checklist for CIs.

Clinical Protocol

Per GBR-9, the protocol describes the objectives, design, methodology, statistical considerations and organization of a clinical trial. According to GBR-113, the clinical protocol should contain the following elements:

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

For complete protocol requirements, refer to GBR-113.

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 G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, all new applications for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process. Combined review offers a single application route and coordinated/parallel review from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the ethics committee (EC) leading to a single United Kingdom (UK) decision for clinical trials.

Combined Review

Per the G-CTApp and GBR-72, the initial combined review assessment will be completed within 30 days of being submitted. As indicated in the G-IRASCombRev, the application will be validated within three (3) days of being received. During the technical review, if there are requests for further information, applicants have 14 days to respond. To formally request an extension to respond to a request for information (RFI), the applicant should email the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk advising how much time beyond the usual 14 days is needed. A final decision will be issued 10 days after the response has been received. An RFI extension will affect overall review timelines. Per GBR-68, the EC will notify the sponsor of its initial/provisional decision, usually within 10 working days of the EC meeting. The G-CTApp indicates that applications for healthy volunteer trials and sponsor-determined phase 1 trials in non-oncology participants may qualify for a shortened assessment time and MHRA will work with the EC to expedite these applications. The MHRA and the EC will inform applicants of the outcome of a submission. If there are grounds for non-acceptance of the application, the applicant will have the opportunity to respond, usually within 14 days, though this may be extended on request. The MHCTR, GBR-9, and GBR-68 state that the EC must give its final opinion within 60 calendar days of receipt of a valid application. When an EC requires further information before confirming its opinion, it may give a provisional opinion, and the time required for the EC to receive a complete response to its request does not count against the 60-day timeline. Certain studies, including gene therapy studies, will take 90 days, or 180 days if a specialist group or committee is consulted.

The G-CTApp states that the MHRA uses automated electronic communication. To ensure receipt of MHRA correspondence, applicants should add MHRA_CT_Ecomms@mhra.gov.uk to their safe sender email list. MHRA will only send official correspondence to the named applicant email address. According to the MHCTR, if the sponsor or the designated representative does not receive a request for additional information from the MHRA within 30 days, the clinical trial application is treated as authorized.

Regarding the new notification scheme, the G-CTApp states that this pathway enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to processing clinical trial authorization for “initial” applications for Phase 4 and certain Phase 3 clinical trials deemed to be of lower risk. Applications submitted under this scheme will be processed by the MHRA within 14 calendar days from the application received effective date, provided the sponsor can demonstrate the trial meets the inclusion criteria. Authorization by the MHRA will be granted unless any criterion is not suitably met. If the MHRA determines the application does not meet the criteria, an objection decision will be communicated within 14 calendar days from the application received effective date, and the application will continue under the full authorization assessment with a decision communicated within the 30-day statutory timeframe.

In addition, as stated in the G-CTApp, certain first-in-human (Phase 1) trials of investigational products with higher risk or greater elements of uncertainty require the MHRA to seek advice from the Clinical Trials, Biologicals, and Vaccines Expert Advisory Group (CTBV EAG) of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) before approval for the trial can be given. See the G-CTApp for detailed 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.

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

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GAfREC, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor or the designated representative receives authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the chief investigator (CI) receives an approval from a recognized ethics committee (EC). In addition, GBR-9 clarifies that a favorable EC opinion does not imply that research activity at sites can begin. Confirmation of management permission or approval from relevant care organization(s) to proceed with the research also needs to be in place. In addition, if the EC issued a favorable opinion with additional conditions, the clinical trial cannot start until these conditions are met. GBR-18 indicates that once all the relevant approvals are in place, all documentation has been finalized, and all participating sites have the information they need, the trial can begin. This process is often achieved by holding a start-up meeting at each site so that the CI ensures all technical aspects of a trial and protocol requirements are fully understood by relevant site staff. Trial-specific training (protocol and procedures) and review of trial conduct (e.g., safety reporting) is often undertaken at this stage. For clinical trials of an investigational product (IP), this communication should also include pharmacy staff, if applicable, so that they can confirm all requirements are in place before dispensing IPs to participants.

Per GBR-9, research should normally commence within 12 months of the date on which a favorable ethics opinion is given by an EC. A study is generally considered to have commenced when any of the procedures set out in the protocol are initiated. If the study does not commence within 12 months, the Chief Investigator (CI) should give the EC a written explanation for the delay. A further explanation should be given again after 24 months. If a study is abandoned prior to commencement, the CI or sponsor of a CTIMP should notify the EC and the MHRA by letter giving reasons. It is not necessary to submit the form for declaring the conclusion or early termination of the study. If a study is abandoned and it is later proposed to start it afresh, a new application should be made.

See GBR-40 for information about DigiTrials, which supports clinical trials in England to provide safe, authorized access to patient data to help set up trials. DigiTrials includes recruitment and feasibility services to identify whether there are enough suitable participants, as well as participant communication and outcomes services.

Per the MHCTR and GBR-18, specific documentation, including MHRA licensing, must be in place before an IP can be released for a clinical trial.

As stated in the MHCTR, clinical trials should be conducted in compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and laboratory practices for IPs must comply with the UK-GLPs. Per the CTIMP-Condtns, MHRA assumes that the trial will commence within 12 months of the date of the favorable ethical opinion. The EC must be notified of the trial start date with evidence of the authorization. Further, the trial should not commence at any site until management permission has been obtained from the organization responsible for the care of the participants at the site. If the trial does not commence within 12 months of the favorable opinion being issued, the sponsor should send the EC a written explanation for the delay. A further written explanation should be sent after 24 months if the research has still not commenced. If the trial does not commence within 24 months of the favorable opinion being issued, the EC may recommend to the MHRA that the clinical trial authorization should be suspended or terminated. See CTIMP-Condtns for additional information on standard conditions for clinical trials.

Per GBR-78, the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) helps users meet regulatory and governance requirements from relevant review bodies in the UK. As described in GBR-67, approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) is required for all National Health Service (NHS) project-based research led from England or Wales. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance. Projects led from Northern Ireland or Scotland and involve NHS sites are handled through the appropriate permission process for that lead nation. Studies with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland are supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems where each country accepts relevant centralized assurances from national coordinating functions to avoid duplication. See GBR-78 for more information.

Clinical Trial Agreement

According to GBR-107 and GBR-70, contracts and agreements should be in place prior to the initiation of a trial. GBR-107 provides model templates that apply UK-wide (unless otherwise indicated) and should be used unmodified to avoid delays, including:

• Commercial Model Clinical Trial Agreements and Clinical Research Organization (CRO) Model Clinical Trial Agreement
• Commercial Model Clinical Trial Agreements for Investigational Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products
• Commercial Primary Care Model Clinical Trial
• Model Clinical Investigation Agreement and CRO Model Clinical Investigation Agreement
• Model Non-Commercial Agreement
• UK template Hub and Spoke Agreements for use between lead trial sites (where a principal investigator is based) and other trial sites and designed as subcontracts, passing down rights and responsibilities from the lead site to the other sites
• Model agreements for Participant Identification Centers which identify potential research participants
• Model Confidentiality Disclosure Agreements for use during the early set-up of commercial contract research in NHS organizations
• Model Commercial Chief Investigator Agreement

The UKwide-Rsrch reiterates that national model contracts are available and, as such, contracting expectations and arrangements across the four (4) UK nations are broadly similar. For all four (4) nations:

• In commercially sponsored research, it is mandatory to use the unmodified contract templates appropriate to the study type
• In non-commercially sponsored research, it is expected that the unmodified contract appropriate to the study type is used; use of bespoke or modified agreements, where an appropriate template exists, is likely to result in significant delay and costly review; any modifications must be highlighted in the application

The UKwide-Rsrch also highlights national differences relating to the way contractual agreements are reviewed and agreed. In England and Wales, sponsors must obtain a waiver from HRA and HCRW to use a modified or bespoke agreement (an agreement that differs from a published UK-wide model agreement template). This waiver allows NHS sites to freely negotiate all the contractual terms of the agreement; in Wales, this negotiation is carried out with a central team. In Northern Ireland, to modify the UK-wide model agreement template, a waiver is needed from the Health and Social Care R&D Approvals Service, which allows sites to freely negotiate all the contractual terms of the agreement. In Scotland, sponsors can expect to carry out a single contract negotiation for all Scottish sites, which will be negotiated with a nominated lead site or central team. If the study is single center, it will be negotiated at the relevant site.

Additional details and templates are available in GBR-107 and GBR-70.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per the GBR-102 and the G-CTApp, the sponsor or investigator is required to register the clinical trial in a publicly accessible database as a condition of a favorable ethical opinion. Registration should occur before the first participant is recruited and no later than six (6) weeks after recruitment of the first participant. To help researchers meet the UK’s transparency requirements, GBR-102 indicates that the HRA will automatically register approved clinical trials with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (GBR-47) to ensure that information is publicly available. ISRCTN is the UK’s preferred clinical trials registry. HRA’s commitment to register clinical trials on behalf of sponsors and researchers is in line with the “Make It Public” research transparency strategy (see GBR-55). If a trial approved through combined review is registered, or will be registered, on ClinicalTrials.gov (GBR-49), a request to not automatically register with ISRCTN can be submitted in the combined review portion of IRAS (GBR-125). In this case, the study will be published on the HRA research summaries webpage.

Per GBR-18, each clinical trial must have a unique trial number. Clinical trials with sites in the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA), or Northern Ireland should also apply for a European number. Per GBR-87, all new clinical trials with sites in Europe should register on the EU’s Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) (GBR-39). GBR-39 specifies that all ongoing trials after January 30, 2025 should have been submitted to GBR-39. For more information, see the EudraCT transition fact sheet (GBR-16). CTIMP-Condtns indicates that for clinical trials involving sites in both the UK and the EU, a record in EU’s GBR-39 does not satisfy the public registry condition because the UK component of the trial will not be visible in CTIS (GBR-39). Failure to register is a breach of the clinical trial conditions unless a deferral has been agreed to.

Per GBR-102, HRA also recognizes any registry covered by the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), such as ClinicalTrials.gov (GBR-49).

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

According to GBR-1 and GBR-64, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event or Adverse Experience (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, including occurrences which are not necessarily caused by or related to that product
• Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – Any untoward and unintended response in a participant to an investigational medicinal product which is related to any dose administered to that participant
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE), Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR), or Unexpected SADR – Any AE, ADR, or unexpected ADR that results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or a congenital anomaly/birth defect
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – An adverse reaction where the nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information
• Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) – A suspected serious adverse reaction, which is also “unexpected,” meaning that its nature and severity are not consistent with the information about the medicinal product in question

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advises that the guidance on reference safety information (RSI) contained in GBR-30 (developed by the Clinical Trials Facilitation Group of the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA)) remains applicable. For clinical trials that are being conducted in the UK, an RSI cannot be used for expectedness until the RSI has been approved by the MHRA. Additional SUSARs that occur before the new RSI is approved should be reported in the usual expedited manner. If sponsors wish to harmonize the implementation date of an RSI in a trial that includes European Union (EU) and UK sites, then they can use the date when approval is granted in all member states and the UK. In the interest of efficiency and harmonization for multinational trials, the MHRA recommends that amendments including changes to the RSI are submitted to the UK and EU at the same time. The RSI in place at the time the SUSAR occurred should be used to assess expectedness for follow-up reports.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Per GBR-99, a sponsor or investigator may take appropriate urgent safety measures (USMs) to protect research participants against any immediate hazard to their health or safety, without prior authorization from a regulatory body. The G-IRASCombRev, GBR-9, and GBR-99 state that for trials which have been submitted via the combined review service, one USM notification is made via the combined review part of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125) and received by the MHRA. No additional notification is required directly to the EC. GBR-32 states that SUSARs and safety reports for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) that were approved by combined review should be submitted to the MHRA only. If the safety report requires action, the MHRA will instruct the study team to submit a substantial amendment. Any other SUSARs or annual safety report submitted UK wide will be acknowledged by email by the EC. The submitted cover report for the SUSAR or annual safety report will not be signed and returned, and the email will act as the formal acknowledgement.

In addition, the G-CTAuth-GBR states that the sponsor should call the MHRA’s Clinical Trials Unit at 020 3080 6456 to discuss the USM issue with a safety scientist, ideally within 24 hours of measures being taken, but no later than three (3) days. If key details are not available during the initial call, then the sponsor should inform the MHRA no later than three (3) days from the date the measures are taken by email to clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk. Written notification in the form of a substantial amendment is also required. The substantial amendment covering the changes made as part of the USM is anticipated within approximately two (2) weeks of notification to the MHRA. Any potential reason for delay of substantial amendment submission should be discussed and agreed upon with the MHRA at the time of initial notification or through a follow-up call. Submission of the substantial amendment must not be delayed by additional changes outside of those taken and required as an urgent safety measure. Unrelated and unacceptable changes may result in rejection. For more details on how submissions should be made using MHRA Submissions, see G-CTAuth-GBR.

Investigator Responsibilities

As specified in the MHCTR, GBR-1, and GBR-30, the investigator is responsible for reporting all SAEs/SADRs immediately to the sponsor. The report may be made orally or in writing and followed by a detailed report no later than 24 hours after the event. When the reported event results in a participant’s death, the investigator must provide the sponsor with any requested information. According to the MHCTR, in cases where reporting is not immediately required according to the protocol or the Investigator’s Brochure (IB), the investigator should report an SAE/SADR within the appropriate timeframe based on the trial requirements, the seriousness of the SAE/SADR, and protocol or IB guidelines. Per GBR-1, the investigator and the sponsor share responsibility for the assessment and evaluation of adverse events with regard to seriousness, causality, and expectedness.

See GBR-18 for a safety reporting flowchart that gives an overview of the investigator’s expedited safety reporting requirements to the sponsor for a clinical trial in the UK.

Sponsor Responsibilities

According to the MHCTR, the G-CTAuth-GBR, and the MHCTR-EUExit, the sponsor is required to record and report all relevant information about fatal or life-threatening SUSARs as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days to the MHRA, to the institution in which the trial is being conducted, and to the EC. Any additional relevant information should be sent within eight (8) days of the initial report. The sponsor must also report any non-fatal or non-life threatening SUSARs no later than 15 calendar days following first awareness of the event. Per GBR-1, the investigator and the sponsor share responsibility for the assessment and evaluation of adverse events with regard to seriousness, causality, and expectedness. Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, sponsors must report all UK-relevant SUSARs to the MHRA. The agency’s definition of ‘UK-relevant’ includes:

• SUSARs originating in the UK for a trial
• SUSARs originating outside the UK for a trial
• If the sponsor is serving as a sponsor of another ongoing trial outside the UK involving the same medicinal product
• SUSARs involving the same medicinal product if the sponsor of the trial outside the UK is either part of the same mother company or develops the medicinal product jointly, on the basis of a formal agreement, with the UK sponsor

Per GBR-18, sponsors should develop formal, written processes for the management of adverse events and safety reports, including the handling of both expedited reports and annual safety reporting.

Other Safety Reports

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, sponsors must submit Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs) to the MHRA. The DSUR should consider all new available safety information received during the reporting period. The DSUR should include information in the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Development Safety Update Report (E2F) (GBR-61) and also the following:

• Proof of payment to MHRA to submit the DSUR
• A cover letter listing all relevant clinical trial numbers of trials covered by the DSUR (including all the IRAS IDs and the EudraCT and CTIS numbers (GBR-87 and GBR-39)), an email address for correspondence, and the payment reference number in the format: ‘DSUR-[5 digit MHRA company number]-[IMP name]-[Payment date DD/MM/YYYY]
• An analysis of the participant’s safety in the concerned clinical trial(s) with an appraisal of its ongoing risk/benefit
• A listing of all suspected serious adverse reactions (including all SUSARs) that occurred in the trial(s), including all SUSARs from third countries
• An aggregate summary tabulation of SUSARs that occurred in the concerned trial(s)
• Region-specific information on how to increase transparency

As stated in the G-CTAuth-GBR, at the end of the DSUR reporting period, the sponsor may assess the new safety information that has been generated and submit any proposed safety changes to the IB as a substantial amendment. This amendment must be supported by the DSUR and approved before the RSI is changed.

The MHRA and Health Canada jointly released DSUR-UK_Canada to strengthen participant safety in clinical trials by improving the quality of DSURs. To increase the transparency of the data included in DSURs, the MHRA and Health Canada are requiring that the region-specific section of the DSUR explain how safety data were reviewed during the reporting period. Specifically, the region-specific section of the DSUR should include a summary description of the processes used by the sponsor to review the worldwide safety data of the investigational product (IP) (e.g., regular analyses of accumulating data, in-house safety review meetings, proposal of specific pharmacovigilance activities, or substantial modifications of the protocol). In addition, the region-specific section must describe how each safety signal (i.e., an event with an unknown causal relationship to the IP) identified during the reporting period was evaluated, as well as how a decision was made regarding the signal itself.

See the G-CTAuth-GBR, the MHCTR, GBR-1, GBR-18, GBR-30, and GBR-99 for detailed reporting requirements for the investigator and sponsor.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, SUSARs during clinical trials should be reported to the MHRA in one (1) of the following ways:

• Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) Submissions (GBR-126) (which replaces the EudraVigilance website (EVWEB)) – The ICSR Submissions route is used to submit single reports. (Note that per GBR-127, MHRA also decommissioned the eSUSAR reporting platform.)
• MHRA Gateway (which replaces the EudraVigilance Gateway) – To gain access to the MHRA Gateway, which is used to submit bulk reports, users must first register via MHRA Submissions (GBR-13). The steps for gaining access to MHRA Submissions are contained within the G-MHRASubmiss and GBR-11.

Regarding submission of the DSUR to MHRA, the G-CTAuth-GBR, states that a fee must be paid online (GBR-43) prior to submission of the DSUR. Per the G-IRASCombRev, once paid, the DSUR should be submitted via the combined review section of the IRAS (GBR-125). See the Regulatory Fees section for more information on DSUR fees.

See the Regulatory Fees section for information on fees for annual safety reporting and DSURs. See the G-CTAuth-GBR and GBR-99 for more details on submittal and delivery requirements.

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

In accordance with the G-CTAuth-GBR, GBR-32 and GBR-65, it is no longer a requirement to submit annual progress reports to the ethics committee (EC) for all studies receiving a final EC opinion in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Alternatively, the G-CTAuth-GBR indicates that annual safety reports (Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs)) must be submitted, completing relevant sections of the report that are applicable to the trial. (See Safety Reporting section for information on DSURs). However, note that GBR-65 states that depending on the type of approval, a progress report may be requested to track progress.

See the Regulatory Fees section for information on fees for annual progress reports.

Final Report

As per the MHCTR and the G-CTAuth-GBR, the sponsor must notify the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the EC in writing that a clinical trial has ended within 90 days of the conclusion of the trial. As indicated in GBR-128, all project-based research (not research tissue banks or research databases) that has been reviewed by an EC needs to submit a final report within 12 months of the end of the study. The final report should be completed and submitted in the combined review part of Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). When completing the final report form, IRAS guides the user with instructions next to each question.

The G-CTAuth-GBR further specifies that a declaration of the end of a clinical trial should be sent to the MHRA within 90 days of the global end of the trial and within 15 days of the global premature end of the trial. The submission must include an end of trial form (GBR-133) and a cover letter. Note that only the global end-of-trial notification is required to be submitted. However, a facility may inform the MHRA of the local (UK) end of trial via the end-of-trial notification form, but these local notifications will not be officially acknowledged and the MHRA Submissions automatic email confirmation should be considered as evidence of submission. If a local end of trial is submitted, the MHRA would still expect to receive relevant safety updates and substantial amendments for the ongoing trial until the global end of trial notification is received. An exemption to this requirement must be requested via a substantial amendment for approval. The amendment must clearly state to what documents the proposal relates and provide a robust rationale for the request. All safety documentation must be submitted unless there are no other trials ongoing with the same product in the UK. Any trial activities (such as follow-ups, visits) must be completed before the submission of the global end-of-trial declaration form. It is not possible to submit amendments to the trial or the DSUR once the global end-of-trial declaration form has been received by the MHRA. If the end-of-trial declaration has been received within a reporting period, or within 60 days following the data lock point, the corresponding DSUR will not be required.

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the timeframe for publishing the summary of results is within one (1) year of the end of trial. Sponsors should publish summary results within this timeframe in the public register(s) where they registered the clinical trial. While it is not required to submit this clinical trial summary report to the MHRA, sponsors must send a short confirmation email to CT.Submission@mhra.gov.uk once the results-related information has been uploaded to the public register and provide the relevant link.

As per GBR-9, for all project-based research that have received a favorable ethics opinion from an EC, a final report on the research should be submitted to the UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) within one (1) year of the trial’s conclusion. In the case of early termination, the provision of a final report is at the discretion of the sponsor. All final reports will be acknowledged within 30 days. The EC should be notified of receipt of the report, and the EC can ask to see a copy of the final report on request. In addition, GBR-20 clarifies that the form in GBR-20 should be used for this submittal, which includes submitting a lay summary of results. This is a UK-wide final report for all project-based research studies that have been reviewed by an EC within the RES (GBR-62). The information contained in this final report helps the RES to monitor whether the research was conducted in accordance with the EC’s favorable opinion and applicable transparency requirements. Per the GBR-120, sponsors should include a plain language summary of their findings in the final report, which will be published on HRA’s website alongside the study research summaries. See GBR-120 for guidance on writing a good plain language summary for a general audience.

Per the G-PIPs, UK marketing authorization holders who sponsor a study that involves the use of the authorized medicinal product in the pediatric population, must submit to the MHRA results of the study within six (6) months after the trial ended. Additional requirements and submittal details are in the G-PIPs and the G-PIPsProcess.

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 per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, GBR-103, GBR-9, GBR-2, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization who takes ultimate responsibility for the initiation, management, and financing (or arranging the financing) of a trial. The sponsor must ensure that the trial design meets appropriate standards and arrange for the trial to be properly conducted and reported. In addition, per GBR-101, the sponsor is the individual, organization, or partnership that takes on overall responsibility for proportionate, effective arrangements being in place to set up, run, and report a research project.

In accordance with GBR-113, the United Kingdom (UK) also permits a sponsor to transfer any or all of its trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO) and/or institutional site(s). However, the ultimate responsibility for the trial data’s quality and integrity always resides with the sponsor. Any trial-related responsibilities transferred to a CRO should be specified in a written agreement. The CRO should implement quality assurance and quality control. Per the G-CTApp, G-SubtlAmndmt, and the GBR-103, the clinical trial sponsor or legal representative needs to be established in the UK or a country on an approved country list which initially includes the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) countries per G-CTApprovedCountries. A change in sponsor or legal representative for a UK trial is a substantial amendment requiring submission to both the MHRA and the ethics committee. GBR-103 specifies that the legal representative:

• May be an individual person or a representative of a corporate entity
• Does not have to be a legally qualified person
• Should be willing to act as the agent of the sponsor in the event of any legal proceedings instituted (e.g., for service of legal documents)
• Should be established at an address in the UK or a country on the approved country list
• Does not assume any of the legal liabilities of the sponsor(s) for the trial by virtue of the role of legal representative and does not therefore require insurance or indemnity to meet such liabilities; but may, in some cases, enter into specific contractual arrangements to undertake some or all of the statutory duties of the sponsor in relation to the trial, in which case the legal representative would also be regarded as a co-sponsor and would then require insurance or indemnity cover

The MHCTR also permits two (2) or more parties to take responsibility for the sponsor’s functions. When this applies, the MHCTR requires one (1) of the parties to submit the clinical trial application for authorization to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and to specify who is responsible for carrying out the following functions:

• Communications relating to substantial amendments, modified amendments, and trial conclusion
• Communications relating to urgent safety measures
• Pharmacovigilance reporting

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 set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities. The MHCTR2006 indicates that the sponsor must also ensure that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Additionally, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. GBR-9 states that the chief investigator (CI) should be based in the United Kingdom (UK). In rare cases when this is not required, adequate arrangements must be in place for supervision of the study in the UK. Further, it is possible to accept a co-CI (joint lead applicants) as this can help less experienced researchers develop new skills. The details of the arrangement should be outlined in the application. Correspondence will only be sent to the lead applicant, therefore the individual named as the CI in the application form is responsible for passing on any information and sharing correspondence with their team.

As delineated in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-113, 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. Per GBR-113, if a multicenter trial is going to be conducted, the sponsor must organize a coordinating committee or select coordinating investigators. Per GBR-18, for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) conducted at National Health Service (NHS) sites, the addition of a new site and/or addition or change of a principal investigator (PI) is no longer considered a substantial amendment. No changes have been made to the classification of amendments relating to new sites/change of PI at non-NHS sites. If a site is added in a nation not previously involved in a study, this should be indicated in the combined review section (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) for CTIMPs, and made clear in a cover letter when submitting the amendment to the lead nation.

UK Local Information Pack

Per GBR-63 and GBR-106, the Health Research Authority’s (HRA) UK Local Information Pack (LIP) provides a consistent set of documents to support study setup and delivery across NHS/Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland (HSC) organizations in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. While the core contents are standardized, country-specific processes govern how the LIP is distributed and used.

• England and Wales: the sponsor should send the LIP directly to the site's R&D office, delivery team, and local network (if applicable, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Research Delivery Network (NIHR RDN) Portfolio)
• Scotland: the NHS Research Scotland Permissions Coordinating Centre distributes the LIP to R&D offices and relevant portfolio managers, while sponsors provide it to research teams using a Scotland-specific email template.
• Northern Ireland: the sponsor may send the LIP to participating sites after receiving instruction from the HSC R&D Approvals Service.

Sponsors should also be aware of additional requirements, such as translating patient-facing materials into Welsh for sites in Wales. For templates, detailed instructions, and contact information by country, refer to GBR-106 and GBR-63.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

GBR-103 provides that if a sponsor(s) is not established in the UK or on an approved country list (which initially includes European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) countries), it is a statutory requirement to appoint a legal representative based in the UK or a country on the approved country list for the purposes of the trial. Per the G-CTApprovedCountries, the UK published a list of countries where a sponsor of a clinical trial, or their legal representative, may be established; currently listed countries are those in the EU and EEA. The G-SubtlAmndmt delineates that a change in sponsor or legal representative for a UK trial is a substantial amendment requiring submission to both the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the ethics committee (EC), pursuant to the guidelines in the G-CTAuth-GBR. Where the sponsor is from the rest of the world, and the legal representative is established in the UK, and there are sites in the EU/EEA, the sponsor will need to assign an EU/EEA legal representative for these sites via a substantial amendment to the relevant EU/EEA competent authorities. No amendment submission to the MHRA is required where the sponsor or legal representative for an ongoing trial is established in the EU/EEA as the UK will continue to accept this approval. Further, no amendment will need to be submitted in the UK if the sponsor retains the UK legal representative for the UK study. Similarly, no amendment will need to be submitted in the UK if a sponsor remains in the UK and a legal representative is added to cover EU/EEA sites.

Additional foreign sponsor requirements are listed in Section 5.2 of GBR-113.

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

Per GBR-18, the chief investigator should ensure that arrangements are made for a data safety and monitoring board (known as a data monitoring committee (DMC) in the UK). GBR-113 recommends establishing a DMC to assess the progress of a clinical trial, including the safety data and the critical efficacy endpoints at intervals, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial.

Multicenter Studies

Per GBR-18, for multicenter trials, the careful selection and evaluation of investigator sites is critical for the successful completion of a trial within budget, timelines, and to ensure the generation of high-quality data. When undertaking site selection, the preparation of ‘reserve’ investigator sites (so that the trial may be extended to these sites if recruitment issues arise) should be considered as part of proactive trial planning. Factors that should influence investigator site selection include:

• Interest in the research question
• Experience and qualifications of the investigator
• Sufficient staff to conduct the study and their experience and qualifications
• Availability of a suitable patient population
• Adequate time to conduct and oversee the trial
• Adequate facilities
• Previous track record with similar trials
• Geographic location
• Contractual and budgetary negotiations and arrangements

Per GBR-18, for multicenter trials, the CI must ensure that each PI is provided with all relevant, version-controlled documents before commencing recruitment. Further, it is good practice to ensure the PI signs a protocol signature page to confirm receipt and their agreement to comply with the current version of the protocol. The trial master file should be held at the coordinating site and copies of relevant documents should be kept at each participating site in an investigator site file.

Further, as delineated in GBR-113, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the sponsor must ensure that:

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

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 MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, it is a legal requirement for an insurance and indemnity provision to be made to cover the liability of the investigator and sponsor for trial-related injuries. The MHCTR does not ascribe responsibility to the sponsor or the designated representative to obtain insurance and indemnity. However, GBR-2, GBR-103, GBR-101, and GBR-18 state that the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for ensuring adequate insurance and indemnity arrangements are in place to cover the sponsor’s and the investigator’s potential liability, and for providing a copy of this coverage in the clinical trial application submission.

In addition, according to GBR-2, the sponsor or the designated representative must ensure that the research covered by the National Health Service (NHS)’s indemnity policy is in place for each publicly funded participating study site. See GBR-33 for detailed information on the NHS indemnity responsibilities for clinical negligence involving investigators and participants. GBR-33, specifically addresses the sponsor’s or the designated representative’s requirement to insure or indemnify the investigator participating in industry-sponsored Phase 1 clinical trials.

The International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113) also guides sponsors on providing insurance.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the MHCTR, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for providing compensation to research participants and/or their legal heirs in the event of Phase 1 trial-related injuries or death. According to GBR-33, the sponsor must have agreed with the research participant to provide compensation for injury whenever a causal relationship with participation is demonstrated. This undertaking can be provided directly by the sponsor through the consent process, or through authorizing the contract research organization (CRO) or investigator on behalf of the sponsor. In addition, the sponsor should follow these practices:

• If the health or wellbeing of the participant deteriorates significantly as a result of taking part in the study, the sponsor will compensate the volunteer, irrespective of the ability of the participant to prove fault on the part of the sponsor or anyone else connected with the study.
• The amount of compensation should be calculated by reference to the amount of damages that would commonly have been awarded for similar injuries by an English court had liability been proven. The amount of compensation may be reduced if the volunteer is partly responsible for the injury or if the volunteer is separately compensated under any other insurance policy.
• The sponsor and participant agree to refer any dispute about whether compensation is payable or the amount of such compensation to an arbitrator with power to consult a barrister of 10 years’ standing on any issue of law, including the amount of damages to be paid.
• Participants should be given a copy of the relevant Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) guidelines and should be invited to seek clarification of any aspect of the undertaking that is not clear to them.
• Participants may make a claim through the investigator, and the sponsor should aim to respond sympathetically and promptly.

GBR-113 also provides guidance for sponsors on providing compensation to research participants in the event of trial-related injuries or death. The sponsor must explain to participants the compensation and/or treatment available to them in the event of trial-related injuries.

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

As stated in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-92, the sponsor is responsible for maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113). The sponsor is required to obtain agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. The sponsor must also obtain the investigator(s) and the institution(s) agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with GBR-113 and the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and approved by the ethics committee (EC)
• Comply with data recording and reporting procedures
• Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• Retain essential documents until the sponsor informs them that they are no longer needed

MHCTR2006 requires the sponsor to notify the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of serious breaches of good clinical practice (GCP) or the trial protocol. A serious breach is defined as one that is likely to affect to a significant degree: the safety or physical or mental integrity of the trial participants; or the scientific value of the trial. Per G-MHRA-SeriousBreaches, the sponsor or delegated party should notify the MHRA GCP Inspectorate within seven (7) days of becoming aware of a serious breach. Further, the sponsor should investigate and take action simultaneously after the MHRA notification. Notifications should primarily be sent to the following email address: GCP.SeriousBreaches@mhra.gov.uk.

Per the G-RiskAssmt, MHRA recommends that a risk assessment is undertaken for all clinical trials. Phase 1 trials are required to have a documented risk assessment process and to produce a risk assessment for all proposed trials. The risk assessment should be done as early as possible to help the sponsor identify whether the sponsor wishes to proceed with sponsorship and the potential category of investigational product (IP) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMP) in the United Kingdom (UK)) for eventual marketing authorization. An early risk assessment will also identify the study management requirements, which can assist in the planning and resourcing aspects of the trial (e.g., identification of trial monitoring requirements so that these can be budgeted for in any funding application). There is no requirement to submit risk assessments to the MHRA or the ethics committee (EC). However, any safety monitoring produced because of the risk assessment must be described in the protocol. Finally, information contained in the risk assessment may prove useful in completing the application form for approvals, particularly for the EC application. See the G-RiskAssmt for details on how to conduct the risk assessment.

See GBR-10 for best practices in improving clinical trial setup to reduce timelines and increase citizens’ access to research. The GBR-71 provides resources on developing and implementing people-centered research. Also see GBR-34 for investigator training and guidance on implementing people-centered research.

Monitoring Requirements

Per GBR-18, the sponsor must develop an audit plan to assess and assure the reliability and integrity of the clinical trial systems against all relevant written standards. The following activities and checks could include the following:

• Interview staff to assess whether they are appropriately trained; understand their role(s); and are working to all relevant standards, the protocol, and SOPs.
• Tour the facility to assess if there are adequate resources and if the equipment is fit for its intended use.
• Review documents to evaluate whether data reported is verifiable from source data and that written records confirm that the trial was conducted appropriately.

Auditors must be independent of the trial team and appropriately trained for their role. Their findings and observations must be documented in a formal audit report. Any deficiencies identified during an audit must be followed up with appropriate corrective and preventive actions wherever possible.

Per GBR-18, the MHRA may conduct inspections to ensure the clinical trial is being conducted in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) as prescribed in GBR-92 and GBR-113. The MHRA takes a risk-based approach to inspections depending on the type of trials and risk rating. Once an inspection has been completed, a formal report outlining the findings will be sent to the inspected organization. A response to this report (describing any corrective and preventive actions) must be produced. See GBR-92 for pre-inspection checklists and other resources. Per G-RiskAssmt, GCP Inspectors will review risk assessments. The risk assessment should provide the rationale behind trial management/monitoring and GCP activities applied, or not, to the trial.

Finally, the sponsor’s audits and inspections should be conducted in compliance with GBR-113, which calls for a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. The extent and nature of monitoring is flexible and permits varied approaches that improve effectiveness and efficiency. The sponsor may choose on-site monitoring, a combination of on-site and centralized monitoring, or where justified, centralized monitoring. The sponsor should document the rationale for the chosen monitoring strategy (e.g., in the monitoring plan). The G-Ovrsight provides additional guidance to assist sponsors and those conducting trials on implementing adequate oversight and monitoring processes for clinical trials.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

The G-CTAuth-GBR states that the MHRA has the authority to suspend or terminate a trial. In addition, the sponsor can contact the MHRA to put a trial on temporary halt or terminate a trial. If a sponsor suspends a trial temporarily, the MHRA must be notified. Sponsors of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) must use the combined review part of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125) to submit this notification as a substantial amendment. Per GBR-122, for studies that were submitted before combined review, these applicants should continue to submit this notification at IRAS via GBR-78. The G-CTAuth-GBR indicates the notification should be made as a substantial amendment using the amendment tool, clearly explaining what has been stopped and the reasons for the suspension. To restart a trial that has been temporarily suspended, you must make the request as a substantial amendment using the notification of amendment form, providing evidence that it is safe to restart the trial.

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR and GBR-18, to terminate a CTIMP, the sponsor must notify (as a substantial amendment) the MHRA and the EC via the combined review part of IRAS (GBR-125). For studies that were submitted before combined review, the submission should be made at GBR-78, using the end-of-trial form (GBR-133). GBR-128 specifies that for CTIMPs, the declaration of end of trial must be sent to the MHRA within 15 days of the global premature end of trial. Before declaring an end of the study, sponsors should review the plans that were approved by the EC for use of tissue and data collected in the course of the study, providing information to participants, and dissemination of results. If changes need to be made to these agreed upon arrangements, the sponsor should consider whether an amendment is required before submitting the end of study notification. GBR-65 also states that if research is terminated early or is temporarily suspended, then all relevant review bodies should be notified within 15 days.

According to GBR-113, if it is discovered that noncompliance significantly affects or has the potential to significantly affect participant protection or reliability of trial results, the sponsor should perform a root cause analysis and implement appropriate corrective and preventive actions. Further, the sponsor should also inform the EC promptly and provide the reason(s) for 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

To safeguard personal data within electronic health record (EHR) systems, G-EHRAccess provides guidance on updating these systems to ensure access by sponsors and their representatives (e.g., monitors and investigators) is limited to only the records of clinical trial participants and that this access is auditable. See G-EHRAccess for details on system security, remote access, document sharing, consent, and other considerations.

According to GBR-113, when using electronic trial data handling processing systems, the sponsor must ensure and document that the electronic data processing 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 operating 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. With respect to the use of these computerized systems, the responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties should be clear, and the users should receive relevant training.

Records Management

As set forth in GBR-113, sponsor-specific essential documents should 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 investigational product’s clinical development. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

However, per the MHCTR2006, the sponsor and the Chief Investigator must ensure that the documents contained in the trial master file are retained for at least five (5) years following the trial’s completion. The documents must be readily available to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) upon request and be complete and legible. The sponsor should ensure that trial participant medical files are also retained for at least five (5) years after the trial’s conclusion.

In addition, GBR-113 states that the sponsor and investigator/institution should maintain a record of the location(s) of their respective essential documents including source documents. The storage system used during the trial and for archiving (irrespective of the type of media used) should allow for document identification, version history, search, and retrieval. The sponsor should ensure that the investigator has control of and continuous access to the data reported to the sponsor. The investigator/institution should have control of all essential documents and records generated by the investigator/institution before, during, and after the trial.

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

For purposes of data protection requirements, the UK-GDPR the UK-DPAct, and the G-GDPR delineate the following responsible parties (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Controller – the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data
• Processor – a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller
• Recipient – a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or another body, to which the personal data are disclosed, whether a third party or not; however, public authorities which may receive personal data in the framework of a particular inquiry in accordance with domestic law must not be regarded as recipients
• Third party – a natural or legal person, public authority, agency, or body other than the data subject, controller, processor and persons who, under the direct authority of the controller or processor, are authorized to process personal data

Per the UK-GDPR and the UK-DPAct, the data protection legislation requires public authorities or bodies to appoint a data protection officer (DPO); a DPO may be required for non-public entities if they carry out certain types of processing activities. The DPO assists the sponsor with monitoring internal compliance, informs and advises on data protection obligations, provides advice regarding Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), and is a point of contact for participants and the supervisory authority. See G-GDPR for guidance related to DPIAs.

Data Protection

Per the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, the G-GDPR, and GBR-89, the controller must comply with the following principles of the data protection legislation:

• Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency
• Purpose limitation
• Data minimization
• Accuracy
• Storage limitation
• Integrity and confidentiality (security)
• Accountability

As stated in the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, the G-GDPR, and GBR-89, it must be shown that each data processing activity has a lawful basis under UK legislation, in addition to the common law basis. For health and social care research, the lawful basis is determined by the data controller’s organization type:

• For universities, National Health Service (NHS) organizations, Research Council institutes, or other public authority, the processing of personal data for research should be a “task in the public interest.”
• For commercial companies and charitable research organizations, the processing of personal data for research should be undertaken within “legitimate interests.”

As explained in the DUAA-Org, the DUAA amends, but does not replace, the UK-GDPR and the UK-DPAct. (See DUAA-Sum for a summary of clarifications on changes to data protection law from the DUAA amendments.)

As described in the G-GDPR, with regard to transparency, the sponsor should understand whether personal data is collected indirectly from a third party or directly, as these determine the actions to take to comply with data protection requirements. In most cases, the sponsor will need to provide transparency information about the legal basis and other details of processing personal data. See the table in G-GDPR, which sets out the specific transparency requirements for personal data. Per GBR-53, to help ensure research participants have all the information they need to make an informed decision about the use of their data, sponsors are expected to use the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) template at GBR-53, which includes information on:

• When you should use this GDPR wording
• If you decide to use your own bespoke GDPR wording
• If you want to update the GDPR wording in your open studies
• Instructions for use
• The GDPR transparency wording for all sponsors
• Communicating GDPR information to children and young people

See the DUAA, the DUAA-Org, See DUAA-Sum for additional clarifications on data protection, including safeguards and restrictions when using automated decision-making. In addition, GBR-100 contains additional templates to help sponsors comply with the UK-GDPR.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per the UK-GDPR, UK-DPAct, and G-GDPR, consent to participate in research is not the same as consent as the legal basis for processing personal data under the data protection legislation. Per the G-GDPR, for the purposes of the UK-GDPR, the legal basis for processing data for health and social care research should not be consent. This means that requirements in the UK-GDPR relating to consent do not apply to health and care research. Per the G-GDPR, even though consent is not the legal basis for processing personal data for research, the common law duty of confidentiality still applies, so consent is still needed for people outside the care team to access and use confidential information for research.

As delineated in the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, the G-GDPR, and GBR-89, participants have the right to be informed about the collection and use of their personal data. This is a key transparency requirement under the data protection legislation. The UK-GDPR specifies what data individuals have the right to be informed about (i.e., privacy information). In addition, as delineated in the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, the G-GDPR, and GBR-89, the participant has certain data rights, which are limited by a range of exemptions. These exemptions must be balanced with what is fair to participants. As indicated in the G-GDPR, exemptions to data subject rights are not automatic, but must be considered on a study-by-study basis. It is important, therefore, to take into account the relevance of data rights to a particular study in the Participant Information Sheet (PIS) when offering or limiting the rights available to research participants. If data rights have been previously offered or limited to participants that are not appropriate under UK-GDPR, then the PIS may need to be revised as a non-substantial amendment.

As indicated in the G-GDPR and GBR-100, the HRA has developed a series of templates with transparency language to help organizations comply with the data protection legislation. The requirements vary depending on the point of collection of personal data (directly or indirectly) and the timing of the study. Also see GBR-129 for guidance from the UK Information Commissioner’s Office.

Per GBR-100, children must be provided with the same information as adults regarding what will be done with their personal data, even if consent is sought from the parent/legal guardian. The UK-GDPR states that information provided to individuals should be in a concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.

The UKwide-Rsrch describes the following differences among the UK nations regarding accessing identifiable data without consent, including for potential participants:

• England and Wales – If the project involves access to identifiable patient data relating to people living or receiving care and treatment in England and Wales without consent, the sponsor may need to apply to the HRA via the Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) (GBR-38). The CAG provides advice to the HRA on the use of confidential patient information for research uses. See GBR-41 for details and resources on the CAG.
• Northern Ireland – There is currently no legal basis for those outside of the direct care team to process identifiable data without consent. The Health and Social Care Privacy Advisory Committee can provide advice on any options available in Northern Ireland. The Health and Social Care Honest Broker Service does not provide identifiable data for consented studies or trials but may be able to offer advice on options to access anonymized data to support research
• Scotland – If a project is multi-center, a sponsor will need to obtain permissions through the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care. For single center studies, applicants should contact the Caldicott Guardian at the research site to discuss the requirements for accessing the data

UK-US Data Bridge

As explained in GBR-22, under the “UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework” (GBR-23), businesses in the UK can transfer personal data to certified U.S. organizations without further safeguards as defined in the GBR-23. US organizations that have been certified can opt in to receive data from the UK through the UK-US data bridge. Per GBR-19, before transferring personal data, UK organizations must verify that the receiving US organization is certified pursuant to GBR-23. Sensitive personal data must be appropriately identified as sensitive when transferred under the UK-US data bridge to ensure it receives appropriate protections under the framework. Under the UK extension, sensitive personal information includes genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, and data concerning sexual orientation. See GBR-22, GBR-23, and GBR-19 for additional information about the UK Extension to the Data Privacy Framework.

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 United Kingdom (UK) clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113). As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-9, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an ethics committee (EC) recognized by the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) (henceforth referred to as a “recognized EC”) and operating according to standard operating procedures (GBR-9) issued by England’s Health Research Authority (HRA).) Refer to GBR-18 and GBR-69 for more on informed consent in the UK.

The MHCTR and G-ConsentPIS, state that the investigator(s) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The MHCTR and G-ConsentPIS also specify that the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the ICF, should be easy to understand and presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant and the legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. Per G-ConsentPIS, a signature on a consent form does not in itself make consent valid. A person’s agreement with each statement contained in the consent form can be indicated by initialing or ticking boxes, or by providing the answers ‘yes’ or ‘no’ after each statement. The form itself is then signed by the parties involved in the consent conversation. The Participant Information Sheet (PIS) supports the consent process to help ensure participants have been adequately informed. In addition, the PIS forms part of the transparency information that must be provided to participants under the data protection legislation for the use and processing of personal data. (See the Personal Data Protection section for more information on data protection requirements.) Testing the PIS with an appropriate group of people (patient groups or other members of the public) is strongly encouraged to ensure the language used is appropriate, the PIS format aids understanding, and the PIS covers risks and benefits that are relevant to potential participants. EC approval is not needed to test the PIS in this manner. For more guidance on the PIS, see the PrtInfoQty-Stds, the PrtInfo-DesignPrin, and GBR-14, which include FAQs, information principles, and standards.

Per GBR-31, the HRA guides researchers and ECs in taking a proportionate approach to seeking consent. A proportionate approach adopts procedures commensurate with the balance of risk and benefits so that potential participants are not overwhelmed by unnecessarily lengthy, complex, and inaccessible information sheets. Participants should be provided with succinct, relevant, truthful information in a user-friendly manner that promotes their autonomy. Specifically, the methods and procedures used to seek informed consent and the level of information provided should be proportionate to:

• The nature and the complexity of the research
• The risks, burdens, and potential benefits (to the participants and/or society)
• The ethical issues at stake

Per GBR-113, none of the oral and written information concerning the clinical 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.

Re-Consent

According to GBR-113, the EC should approve any change in the ICF due to a protocol modification before such changes are implemented. The participant or legal representative/guardian will also be required to re-sign the revised ICF and receive a copy of any amended documentation.

Per GBR-18, during a clinical trial, researchers should periodically reaffirm the willingness of participants to continue. If significant new information becomes available, participants should be reconsented using revised (and re-approved) consent documents so that their continued consent is confirmed.

Language Requirements

As stated in the MHCTR, applications to the EC and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and any accompanying material, such as the ICF content, should be presented in English.

Documenting Consent

The MHCTR states that the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the investigator(s) must sign and date the ICF. Where the participant is illiterate, or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of and countersigned by an impartial witness. As provided in G-ConsentPIS, consent for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products must be in writing. Electronic methods for documenting consent, including the use of electronic signatures, are also considered to be in writing. A physical or electronic copy of the signed consent form will still need to be provided to the participant. To record consent electronically, electronic signatures will be needed. Because there are different forms and classifications of electronic signatures, the researcher should determine what is appropriate for the particular study. GBR-6 sets out the legal and ethical requirements for seeking and documenting consent using electronic methods (also known as eConsent in the UK), as well as expectations regarding the use of electronic signatures. eConsent enables potential research participants to be provided with the information they need to make a decision via a tablet, smartphone, or digital multimedia. It also enables their informed consent to be documented using electronic signatures. This approach can supplement the traditional paper-based approach or, where appropriate, replace it.

Waiver of Consent

No information is currently available.

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 MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), 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, procedures, and duration
• Study title and the study Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) ID are clearly displayed
• Approximate number of participants involved in the trial
• The participant’s responsibilities in participating in the trial
• Trial treatment schedule and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
• Experimental aspects of the study
• Any foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
• Any benefits or prorated payment to the participant or to others that may reasonably be expected from the research; if no benefit is expected, the participant should also be made aware of this
• A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or treatments, and their potential benefits and risks
• Compensation and/or medical treatment available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury
• Any additional costs to the participant that may result from participation in the research
• That participation is voluntary, the participant may withdraw at any time, and refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits, or reduction in the level of care to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, and the possibility of record access by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the ethics committees (ECs), the auditor(s), and the monitor(s)
• That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified if significant new findings developed during the study may affect the participant's willingness to continue
• Individuals to contact for further information regarding the trial, the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent
• Additional invasive tests or samples required for study purposes only
• Consent to use of audio/videotaping, with possible use of verbatim quotation or use of photographs
• Transfer of data/samples to countries outside of the European Economic Area (EEA) with less data protection
• Agreement to receive individual feedback from testing

ICF examples and templates are provided in the G-ConsentPIS.

For more information about informed consent required elements, see GBR-18, GBR-113, GBR-100, GBR-31, and GBR-69.

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

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-ConsentPIS, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The MHCTR states that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in the MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-113, 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 MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-113, 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.

Also see GBR-117 for an interactive web-based communications toolkit to help researchers and participants keep in touch after participation in a research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the MHCTR and GBR-113, the arrangements to protect participants’ privacy should be provided in the application to the ethics committee, and the ICF should inform potential participants of any potential risk to their confidentiality.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The MHCTR and GBR-113 state 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.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-113 state that a research participant’s rights, safety, and well-being must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

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 MHCTR, the MHCTR2006-No2, the MHCTR-BSQ, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113) make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when a clinical trial of an investigational product (IP) is complicated by medical emergencies. As delineated in the G-ConsentPIS and GBR-18, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) cannot be obtained from the research participant, the consent of the legal representative/guardian should be obtained. If the prior consent of the participant or legal representative/guardian cannot be obtained, the participant’s enrollment should follow measures specified in the protocol, and the ethics committee (EC) must provide documented approval in order to protect the participant’s rights, safety, and well-being. The participant or legal representative/guardian should provide consent as soon as possible.

The MHCTR-BSQ amends the MHCTR and creates an exception for minors participating in a trial where urgent treatment is required and prior consent cannot be obtained. This situation also requires the EC to issue its approval beforehand.

The MHCTR2006-No2 amends the MHCTR and creates an exception to the general rule in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales that incapacitated adults cannot be included in a clinical trial under medical emergencies. If the treatment to be provided is a matter of urgency and obtaining prior consent is not possible, incapacitated adult participants may be included in the trial once EC approval has been obtained. In Scotland, the provisions of Section 51 of the AIA2000 govern the inclusion of adults lacking capacity in research.

The G-ConsentPIS states that the United Kingdom allows adults not able to consent for themselves to be recruited into clinical trials without prior consent in emergency situations if the following conditions exist:

• Treatment needs to be given urgently
• It is also necessary to take urgent action to administer the drug (IP) for the purposes of the trial
• It is not reasonably practicable to obtain consent from a legal representative
• The procedure is approved by an EC
• Consent is sought from a legal representative as soon as possible

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

As per the MHCTR and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), in all United Kingdom (UK) clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process.

Per GBR-131, vulnerability may be defined in different ways and may arise as a result of being in an abusive relationship, vulnerability due to age, potential marginalization, disability, and due to disadvantageous power relationships within personal and professional roles. Participants may not be conventionally vulnerable but may be in a dependent relationship that means they can feel coerced or pressured into taking part.

As stated in GBR-131, researchers must assess potential vulnerability within the context of the research, in terms of potential consequences from their participation (immediate and long-term) or lack of positive impact where this is immediately needed or expected. Further, researchers should make the participants aware of the limits to confidentiality and decide whether verbal or written consent will be more appropriate and protective of the participants’ interests. In addition, researchers should consider the following:

• Participants’ vulnerability
• Potential negative consequences or lack of personal benefits from their involvement in research where these are expected
• Providing appropriate information to elicit freely-given informed consent for participation as well as information regarding data deposit and data re-use (where deposit is possible)
• Limits to confidentiality and occasions where this may occur
• Legal requirements of working with the specific population
• Incentives and compensation for participation

In addition, GBR-131 states that when working with participants who are considered vulnerable, researchers may find themselves in a position of increased responsibilities or expectations. Researchers should endeavor to assess the likelihood of additional ethics issues and develop strategies and a framework of clear responsibilities they can refer to should such issues arise. They should also use their research ethics committee as a resource for advice and guidance. Researchers should be able to justify the approach they take in dealing with unforeseen ethics issues and maintain the integrity of the research.

As per GBR-131, in cases where research involves potentially vulnerable groups, every effort should be made to secure freely given informed consent that participants have actively provided. Every effort should be made to ensure that they have the time and opportunity to access support in their decision-making, for example by discussing their choice with a trusted adult or relative. Passive assent, including group assent (with consent given by a gatekeeper) should be avoided wherever possible, and every effort should be made to develop methods of seeking consent that are appropriate to the groups studied, using expert advice, support, and training, where necessary. Vulnerability should be considered on a case-by-case basis; many groups or individuals not traditionally considered as vulnerable could be exposed to issues from participating in research that make them vulnerable. See GBR-131 for additional resources and case studies.

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

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.

According to the MHCTR and GBR-4, a minor in the United Kingdom (UK) is an individual under 16 years of age.

As set forth in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-ConsentPIS, GBR-4, GBR-9, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from a parent/legal guardian. As per GBR-4, the researcher needs only to obtain consent from one (1) person with parental responsibility. GBR-130 further indicates that the parent/legal guardian must not be connected with the conduct of the trial, is suitable to act by virtue of their relationship with the child/young person, and is available and willing to do so. A legal representative should only ever be approached if someone with parental responsibility cannot be contacted prior to the proposed inclusion of the child/young person due to the urgent nature of the treatment provided as part of the trial. In this situation, a professional legal representative (e.g., a doctor) can be responsible for the medical treatment of the child/young person if they are independent of the study, or a person nominated by the healthcare provider.

Additionally, GBR-130 states that researchers must ensure that the parent/legal guardian:

• Understand that they are being asked to give consent on behalf of the child/young person
• Understand the objectives, risks, and inconveniences of the trial and the conditions under which it is to be conducted
• Have been informed of the right to withdraw the child/young person from the trial at any time
• Have a contact point where further information about the trial can be obtained

The MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-4, state that a study may only be conducted on minors if several conditions are fulfilled including:

• An ethics committee (EC), following consultation with pediatric experts, has endorsed the protocol
• The parent/guardian has had an interview with the investigator(s) to understand the trial objectives and risks, been provided with a point of contact for further information, and been informed of the right to withdraw the minor from the trial at any time
• No incentives or financial inducements are given to the minor or the parent/guardian except in the event of trial-related injury or loss
• The trial relates directly to a condition from which the minor suffers, or is of such a nature that it can only be carried out on minors
• The participant(s) will derive some direct benefit from their participation in the trial
• The trial is necessary to validate data obtained in other trials involving persons able to give informed consent, or by other research methods
• The trial has been designed to minimize pain, discomfort, fear, and any other foreseeable risk in relation to the disease and the minor’s stage of development

GBR-4 provides additional best practices:

• Children and their parents (or those with parental responsibility) should be involved in the decision-making process around consent to take part in research, regardless of whether the child or young person is legally competent to give consent. This includes involving children or young people who are not considered competent to give consent.
• Assent should be sought from a child who is not considered competent as long as this is practicable and the child is not too young.
• In some situations, a young person who is competent may object to the involvement of their parents and their confidentiality should be respected.
• Before giving consent, children and young people should be provided with age-appropriate information that enables them to understand participation in research. Information may be provided using a layered or staged approach so that it is more easily understood.
• Children and young people should be given the opportunity to ask questions and to get support in their decision-making, such as talking to a trusted adult.
• Good records should be kept of any discussions about consent and of the final decision.
• Inducements and coercion must be avoided.
• Seeking consent is a process and it is good practice to engage regularly with the child and family over the course of research to confirm they are willing to continue. In studies in which children who are not competent will become competent during the study period, then consent from young people should be sought as soon as possible after competency is reached. A decision about how this will be managed should be made at the start of the study and included in the protocol.

See the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-4, and GBR-9 for detailed requirements. The G-ConsentPIS provides style guidance and suggestions for presenting age-appropriate information in the participant information sheet.

Assent Requirements

As indicated in GBR-4, whenever practical and appropriate, a child's assent should be sought before including them in research. Even when a child or young person is competent, it is still normally good practice to involve the family in the decision-making process; however, if the young person objects, researchers should respect their privacy.

As per GBR-4, for clinical trials of investigational products (IPs), it is usually inappropriate to ask very young children (e.g., under five (5) years old) to sign an assent form; however, their views should be considered. Researchers must make an informed judgment to determine when seeking assent is appropriate; the age of a child can only be taken as a guide. The child's developmental stage, knowledge of illness, and experience of health care should also be considered. Although there is a danger that children can be asked to exercise greater autonomy than normal, this must be balanced with the potential loss of trust associated with denying their assent. Such judgment needs a framework of considerations for analysis, a record of observations, and discussions and a documented decision. In circumstances where seeking assent at the outset is not appropriate, the researcher could provide the child with information as and when required.

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-ConsentPIS states that researchers must give a clear warning to potential participants when there is a risk of harm to an unborn child and/or risk when breastfeeding. The Participant Information Sheet (PIS) should provide specific advice to potential participants about the risks of becoming pregnant, of fathering a child, or of breastfeeding while taking part in the research including the need for pregnancy testing, contraceptive requirements, and how to report a pregnancy during the study. The PIS should also provide information about what will happen if a participant becomes pregnant, including whether and how the researcher will monitor the pregnancy. This would include access to the mother's and/or child's notes, and any possible follow up of the child including post-natal examinations. For men, researchers must provide clear warnings and advice if the research treatment could damage sperm and consequently pose a risk to possible pregnancies. Specific advice for pregnant partners may be needed, including information on any compensation arrangements.

Further, the G-ConsentPIS finds that the risk of harm caused during pregnancy is most likely when recruiting young people to a clinical trial for an investigational medicinal product (CTIMP). In this case, there should be consent from someone over the age of 16, and the following should be done:

• Discuss the risk of pregnancy, pregnancy testing, and the use of appropriate contraception with their parents (or their legal guardian) during the consent process and with young potential participants as part of the assent process
• Consider local social beliefs
• Involve pediatricians and the ethics committee in preliminary discussions if this is a concern
• Consult young people when designing consent and writing information
• Respect the young person's autonomy but encourage involvement of the parents
• Be aware that in CTIMPs, it is the parents of children under 16 who legally provide consent, and this will include consent to pregnancy testing and discussion of contraception
• Information needs to go beyond "We will do a pregnancy test…" to include what will happen in broad terms

In accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), informed consent requirements for conducting clinical trials with pregnant or nursing women or fetuses follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section. Specifically, the informed consent form should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant.

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.

Per the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. A research study involving prisoners should ensure that these prospective participants are informed and are given the opportunity to make their own decisions without any interference from a higher authority. The ethics committee (EC) must also ensure that the study will be independently monitored to assure the dignity and rights of the prisoners involved in the research. GBR-9 indicates that research involving prisoners or conducted within the prison services of the United Kingdom are normally reviewed by a flagged EC in England and Wales if conducted in England and Wales, and any EC in Scotland or Northern Ireland if being conducted in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Per the UKwide-Rsrch, a prisoner or young offender is defined as any inmate of the prison systems of England and Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. It does not include patients detained under the MHAct at special hospitals or other psychiatric secure units, or juvenile offenders detained in local authority secure accommodation or secure training centers. Health research involving prisoners or young offenders should relate directly to their health care and be of such a nature that it could only be conducted in this population. See the UKwide-Rsrch for details on differences between the four (4) United Kingdom nations with regard to research on prisoners.

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.

As per the MHCTR and GBR-9, a recognized ethics committee (EC) within the Health Research Authority (HRA), must approve the participation of adult research participants who are incapable by reason of physical and mental capacity to give consent, and must obtain advice from professionals with expertise in handling this population.

The MHCTR and the G-ConsentPIS, specify that when a study involves adult participants with mental incapacities, informed consent should be obtained from the legal representative/guardian. This consent should only be provided once the legal representative/guardian has had an interview with the investigator(s) to understand the trial objectives and risks, been provided with a point of contact for further information, and been informed of the right to withdraw the participant from the trial at any time. The G-ConsentPIS provides additional country-specific information on legal representative requirements.

As delineated in the MHCTR, a clinical trial of an investigational product may involve participants with mental incapacities under the following conditions:

• The participant has received information according to the participant’s capacity of understanding regarding the trial, its risks, and its benefits
• No incentives or financial inducements are given to the participant or legal representative/guardian except in the event of trial-related injury or loss
• The trial relates directly to a condition from which the participant suffers, or is of such a nature that it can only be carried out on participants with mental incapacities
• The participant(s) will derive some direct benefit from their participation in the trial, or produce no risk at all
• The trial is necessary to validate data obtained in other trials involving persons able to give informed consent, or by other research methods
• The trial has been designed to minimize pain, discomfort, fear, and any other foreseeable risk in relation to the disease and the participant’s stage of development

See the MHCTR, G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-3 for detailed requirements.

As per LawNo14.874, ResNo945, the G-BioIProdManual, 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 MHCTR, the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and GBR-9, an investigational product (IP), referred to as an investigational medicinal product (IMP) in the United Kingdom (UK), is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active substance or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes a product with a marketing authorization when it is used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form; when used for an unapproved indication; or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

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.

According to the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, and the G-GMP-GDP, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)) to be used in a trial. A Manufacturer’s Authorization for Investigational Medicinal Products (MIA(IMP)) must be obtained by the person responsible for the manufacture of any IP to be used in the trial. The sponsor or the designated representative must include a copy of the MIA(IMP) in the clinical trial application submission to the MHRA. The applicant must complete the form listed in GBR-28 to obtain an MIA(IMP) from the MHRA. The MHCTR defines “manufacturing authorization” to include importing and assembly authorizations, as applicable. The G-CTApp states that if an IP is manufactured outside the European Union (EU), the clinical trial application should include an MIA(IMP), importer authorization, and qualified person (QP) declaration on good manufacturing practice (GMP) for each site. The MHRA will approve the manufacture or import of an IP after the clinical trial application has been approved.

Per G-ATMP, a manufacturer’s license from MHRA is needed to manufacture unlicensed advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) in the UK. See G-ATMP for guidance on the two (2) ATMP manufacturer license pathways: the hospital exemption or the “specials” scheme.

As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-GMP-GDP, and GBR-15, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the MIA(IMP) holder must also comply with the GMP guidelines and provide an IMP Certificate of Analysis. In addition, the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006 specify that the holder of an MIA(IMP) must always have the services of at least one (1) QP at their disposal. The QP must satisfy the qualification and experience requirements delineated in the aforementioned sources. The QP’s primary legal responsibility is to certify batches of IPs prior to use in a clinical trial, or prior to release for sale and placement in the market. See Part 6 and Schedule 6 of the MHCTR for detailed applicant requirements.

In accordance with the G-ImportIMPs, IPs that have been QP-certified in countries on the list of approved countries (initially, EU and European Economic Area (EEA) countries per G-CTApprovedCountries) do not need to be re-certified when importing to the UK. However, the sponsor must require the MIA(IMP) holder to put in place an assurance system to check these IMPs have been certified by a QP in a listed country before release to the trial. A sponsor may perform verification of QP certification in a listed country themselves if they are the holder of a UK MIA(IMP). Alternatively, they may outsource this verification to a third party who holds a UK MIA(IMP). IPs coming to Great Britain from Northern Ireland do not require this additional oversight. Further, QP-certified IPs supplied from the EU/EEA for use at Northern Ireland clinical trial sites and then onward supplied to Great Britain also do not require the additional oversight. IPs coming directly to the UK from third-party countries that are not on the list of approved countries will continue to require import and QP certification in the UK by the MIA(IMP) holder as per the existing requirements. See the G-ImportIMPsAuth, for additional details on the authorizations and procedures.

The G-IPsNIreland delineates that the supply and use of IPs in Northern Ireland must follow EU laws as per the Northern Ireland Protocol. For policy papers and details on the Northern Ireland Protocol, see GBR-119.

Per the G-SubtlAmndmt, for any change to IP manufacturing, importation, or certification relevant to the supply of IPs in an ongoing UK trial, a substantial amendment must be submitted to the MHRA. However, if the sponsor chooses to retain an existing UK release site for the ongoing UK trial but includes an additional EU/EEA site for trials in the EU/EEA only, then no substantial amendment to the MHRA will be required.

Please note: The UK is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (GBR-5), which may have implications for studies of IPs developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see GBR-48.

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