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

This profile covers the role of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)’s Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in reviewing and authorizing investigational new drug applications (INDs) to conduct clinical trials using investigational drug or biological products in humans in accordance with the FDCAct, 21CFR50, and 21CFR312. Regulatory requirements for federally funded or sponsored human subjects research, known as the Common Rule (Pre2018-ComRule and RevComRule), which the HHS and its Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) implements in subpart A of 45CFR46, are also examined. Lastly, additional HHS requirements included in subparts B through E of 45CFR46 are described in this profile, where applicable, using the acronym 45CFR46-B-E. (Please note: ClinRegs does not provide information on state-level requirements pertaining to clinical trials.)

Food & Drug Administration

As per the FDCAct, 21CFR50, and 21CFR312, the FDA is the regulatory authority that regulates clinical investigations of medical products in the United States (US). According to USA-92, the FDA is responsible for protecting public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices.

An overview of the FDA structure is available in USA-33. Several centers are responsible for pharmaceutical and biological product regulation, including the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Additionally, per USA-88, the Office of Clinical Policy (OCLP) develops clinical research policies, regulation, and guidance in collaboration with the FDA’s medical product centers.

Office for Human Research Protections and Common Rule Agencies

Per USA-93, the OHRP provides leadership in the protection of the rights, welfare, and well-being of human research subjects for studies conducted or supported by the HHS. The OHRP helps ensure this by providing clarification and guidance, developing educational programs and materials, maintaining regulatory oversight, and providing advice on ethical and regulatory issues in biomedical and social-behavioral research.

USA-65 states that the Common Rule (Pre2018-ComRule and RevComRule) outlines the basic provisions for institutional ethics committees (ECs) (referred to as institutional review boards (IRBs) in the US), informed consent, and Assurances of Compliance. See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on US departments and agencies that follow the Common Rule, which are referred to as Common Rule departments/agencies throughout the profile.

The RevComRule applies to all human subjects research that is federally funded or sponsored by a Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-65), and: 1) was initially approved by an EC on or after January 21, 2019; 2) had EC review waived on or after January 21, 2019; or 3) was determined to be exempt on or after January 21, 2019. (Per USA-55 and USA-74, the RevComRule is also known as the “2018 Requirements.”) For 2018 Requirements decision charts consistent with the RevComRule, including how to determine if research is exempt, see USA-74. For more information about the RevComRule, see USA-66.

Per the RevComRule, the Pre2018-ComRule requirements apply to research funded by a Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-65) that, prior to January 21, 2019, was either approved by an EC, had EC review waived, or was determined to be exempt from the Pre2018-ComRule. Institutions conducting research approved prior to January 21, 2019 may choose to transition to the RevComRule requirements. The institution or EC must document and date the institution's determination to transition a study on the date the determination to transition was made. The research must comply with the RevComRule beginning on that date. For pre-2018 Requirements decision charts consistent with the Pre2018-ComRule, including how to determine if research is exempt, see USA-74.

USA-65 indicates that the FDA, despite being a part of the HHS, is not a Common Rule agency. Rather, the FDA is governed by its own regulations, including the FDCAct and 21CFR50. However, the FDA is required to harmonize with the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule whenever permitted by law.

If a study is funded or sponsored by HHS, and involves an FDA-regulated product, then both sets of regulations will apply. See G-RevComRule-FDA for additional information.

Other Considerations

Per USA-16, the US is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The US has implemented E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1) (US-ICH-GCP), among other ICH guidance. See USA-19 for the implementation status of all ICH guidelines. Additionally, see USA-22 and USA-47 for links to ICH guidance documents implemented by the FDA.

Contact Information

Food & Drug Administration

As per USA-81, USA-91, and USA-90, the contact information for the FDA is as follows:

Main FDA Telephone (general inquiries): (888) 463-6332

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
CBER Telephone: (800) 835-4709 or (240) 402-8010
CBER Email (manufacturers assistance): Industry.Biologics@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (imports): CBERimportinquiry@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (exports): CBERExportCert@fda.hhs.gov

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
Division of Drug Information
10001 New Hampshire Avenue
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor
Silver Spring, MD 20993
CDER Telephone (drug information): (301) 796-3400
CDER Email: druginfo@fda.hhs.gov

Office for Human Research Protections

Per USA-82, the contact information for the OHRP is as follows:

Office for Human Research Protections
1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (866) 447-4777 or (240) 453-6900
Email (general inquiries): OHRP@hhs.gov

Department of Health & Human Services

According to USA-83, the contact information for the HHS is as follows:

US Department of Health & Human Services
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Call Center: (877) 696-6775

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 FDCAct, 21CFR50, and 21CFR312, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has authority over clinical investigations for drug and biological products regulated by the agency. 21CFR312 specifies that the scope of the FDA’s assessment for investigational new drug applications (INDs) includes all clinical trials (Phases 1-4). Based on 21CFR56 and 21CFR312, institutional ethics committee (EC) review of the proposed clinical investigation may be conducted in parallel with the FDA review of the IND. However, EC approval must be obtained prior to the sponsor being permitted to initiate the clinical trial. (Note: Institutional ECs are referred to as institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States (US)).

As delineated in 21CFR312 and USA-42, sponsors are required to submit an IND to the FDA to obtain an agency exemption to ship investigational drug(s) across state lines to conduct drug or biologic clinical trial(s). An IND specifically exempts an investigational drug or biologic from FDA premarketing approval requirements that would otherwise be applicable. 21CFR312 states that “‘IND’ is synonymous with ‘Notice of Claimed Investigational Exemption for a New Drug.’"

According to USA-42, the FDA categorizes INDs as either commercial or non-commercial (research) and classifies them into the following types:

• Investigator INDs - Submitted by physicians who both initiate and conduct the investigation, and who are directly responsible for administering or dispensing the investigational drug.

• Emergency Use INDs - Enable the FDA to authorize experimental drugs in an emergency situation where normal IND submission timelines cannot be met. Also used for patients who do not meet the criteria of an existing study protocol, or if an approved study protocol does not exist.

• Treatment INDs - Submitted for experimental drugs showing potential to address serious or immediately life-threatening conditions while the final clinical work is conducted and the FDA review takes place.

Per the G-PharmeCTD, non-commercial products refer to products not intended to be distributed commercially and include the above listed IND types.

As indicated in the G-IND-Determination, in general, human research studies must be conducted under an IND if all of the following research conditions apply:

• A drug is involved as defined in the FDCAct

• A clinical investigation is being conducted as defined in 21CFR312

• The clinical investigation is not otherwise exempt from 21CFR312

The G-IND-Determination states that biological products may also be considered drugs within the meaning of the FDCAct.

Further, per 21CFR312 and the G-IND-Determination, whether an IND is required to conduct an investigation of a marketed drug primarily depends on the intent of the investigation and the degree of risk associated with the use of the drug in the investigation. See 21CFR312 and the G-IND-Determination for detailed exemption conditions for marketed drugs.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As delineated in 21CFR312, the FDA's primary objectives in reviewing an IND are to ensure human participant safety and rights in all phases of the investigation. Phase 1 submission reviews focus on assessing investigation safety, and Phase 2 and 3 submission reviews also include an assessment of the investigation’s scientific quality and ability to yield data capable of meeting marketing approval statutory requirements. An IND may be submitted for one (1) or more phases of an investigation.

As per USA-41 and USA-94, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) receive IND submissions for drugs, therapeutic biological products, and other biologicals. Per the FDCAct and 21CFR312, an IND automatically goes into effect 30 calendar days from receipt, unless the FDA notifies the sponsor that the IND is subject to a clinical hold, or the FDA has notified the sponsor earlier that the trial may begin. A clinical hold is an order the FDA issues to delay or suspend a clinical investigation. If the FDA determines there may be grounds for imposing a clinical hold, an attempt will be made to discuss and resolve any issues with the sponsor prior to issuing the clinical hold order. See 21CFR312, the G-InvstgtrHold, and the G-HoldResp for more information on clinical holds.

According to USA-41, with respect to sponsor-investigators, once the FDA receives the IND, an IND number will be assigned and the application will be forwarded to the appropriate reviewing division. A letter will be sent to the sponsor-investigator providing notification of the assigned IND number, date of receipt of the original application, address where future submissions to the IND should be sent, and the name and telephone number of the FDA person to whom questions about the application should be directed.

As indicated in 21CFR312, the FDA may at any time during the course of the investigation communicate with the sponsor orally or in writing about deficiencies in the IND or about the FDA's need for more data or information. Furthermore, at the sponsor's request, the FDA will provide advice on specific matters relating to an IND.

21CFR312 indicates that once an IND is in effect, a sponsor must submit a protocol amendment if intending to conduct a study that is not covered by a protocol already contained in the IND, there is any change to the protocol that significantly affects the safety of subjects, or a new investigator is added to carry out a previously submitted protocol. A sponsor must submit a protocol amendment for a new protocol or a change in protocol before its implementation, while protocol amendments to add a new investigator or to provide additional information about investigators may be grouped and submitted at 30-day intervals. See 21CFR312 for more information on protocol amendments.

As per 21CFR312, if no subjects are entered into a clinical study two (2) years or more under an IND, or if all investigations under an IND remain on clinical hold for one (1) year or more, the IND may be placed by the FDA on inactive status. An IND that remains on inactive status for five (5) years or more may be terminated. See 21CFR312 for more information on inactive status.

21CFR312 indicates that the FDA may propose to terminate an IND based on deficiencies in the IND or in the conduct of an investigation under an IND. If the FDA proposes to terminate an IND, the agency will notify the sponsor in writing, and invite correction or explanation within a period of 30 days. If at any time the FDA concludes that continuation of the investigation presents an immediate and substantial danger to the health of individuals, the FDA will immediately, by written notice to the sponsor, terminate the IND. See 21CFR312 for more information on FDA termination.

As stated in 21CFR312, the FDA will accept, as support for an IND, a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND. The study must have been conducted in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP), and the FDA must be able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the agency deems it necessary. Although the FDA will not accept as support for an IND a study that does not meet those conditions, the FDA will still examine data from such a study. See 21CFR312 and the G-FrgnCT for more details on submitting data from a foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND as support for an IND.

For more information on CDER and CBER internal policies and procedures for accepting and reviewing applications, see USA-96 and USA-95, respectively.

Per the G-FDAInspct, the FDA developed a Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) Program to help ensure the protection of the rights, safety, and welfare of human research subjects involved in FDA-regulated clinical trials, to verify the accuracy and reliability of clinical trial data submitted to the FDA in support of research or marketing applications, and to assess compliance with statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials. Among other activities, the FDA BIMO Program involves site visits to clinical investigators, sponsors, monitors, contract research organizations, ECs, nonclinical (animal) laboratories, and bioequivalence analytical laboratories. The FDA conducts both announced and unannounced inspections of clinical investigator sites. See the G-FDAInspct and USA-20 for more information on FDA inspections and the BIMO Program.

Expedited Processes

USA-84 further indicates that the FDA has several approaches to making drugs available as rapidly as possible:

• Breakthrough Therapy – expedites the development and review of drugs which may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapy
• Accelerated Approval – allow drugs for serious conditions that fill an unmet medical need to be approved based on a surrogate endpoint
• Priority Review – a process by which the FDA’s goal is to take action on an application within six (6) months
• Fast Track – facilitates the development and expedites the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need

See USA-84 and USA-85 for more information on each process. Additionally, see the FDCAct, as amended by the FDORA, for changes to the accelerated approval process.

Other Considerations

The G-RWDRWE-Reg, issued as part of the FDA’s Real-World Evidence (RWE) Program (see USA-17), discusses the applicability of the 21CFR312 IND regulations to various clinical study designs that utilize real-world data (RWD). See the G-RWDRWE-Reg for more information.

For information on the appropriate use of adaptive designs for clinical trials and additional information to provide the FDA to support its review, see G-AdaptiveTrials. Additionally, see the G-ExplrtryIND for FDA guidance regarding exploratory studies in humans.

For research involving cellular and gene therapy, see the guidance documents at USA-80.

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).

Food & Drug Administration

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) does not levy a fee to review investigational new drug submissions.

However, per the FDCAct, the FDARA, and USA-45, the FDA has the authority to collect user fees from persons that submit certain human drug applications for review or that are named in approved applications as the sponsor of certain prescription drug products. See USA-45 for more information.

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)). 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.

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 indicated in 21CFR50, 21CFR56, and 21CFR312, the United States (US) has a decentralized process for the ethics review of clinical investigations. The sponsor must obtain institutional level ethics committee (EC) approval for each study. (Note: Institutional ECs are referred to as institutional review boards (IRBs) in the US.)

As set forth in 21CFR50, 21CFR56, and 21CFR312, all clinical investigations for drug and biological products regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) require institutional EC approval.

The Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule also require that human subjects research receive institutional EC approval. However, note that these regulations’ definition of “human subject” does not include the use of non-identifiable biospecimens. Therefore, the use of non-identifiable biospecimens in research does not, on its own, mandate the application of the Pre2018-ComRule to such research. However, the RevComRule does require federal departments or agencies implementing the policy to work with data experts to reexamine the meaning of “identifiable private information” and “identifiable specimen” within one (1) year of the effective date and at least every four (4) years thereafter. In particular, these agencies will collaboratively assess whether there are analytic technologies or techniques that could be used to generate identifiable private information or identifiable specimens.

(See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

Per the RevComRule, for non-exempt research (or exempt research that requires limited EC review) reviewed by an EC not operated by the institution doing the research, the institution and the EC must document the institution's reliance on the EC for research oversight and the responsibilities that each entity will undertake to ensure compliance with the RevComRule. Compliance can be achieved in a variety of ways, such as a written agreement between the institution and a specific EC, through the research protocol, or by implementing an institution-wide policy directive that allocates responsibilities between the institution and all ECs not operated by the institution. Such documentation must be part of the EC’s records. The G-HHS-Inst-Engagemt can help an institution to determine if a research study can be classified as non-exempt.

Ethics Committee Composition

As stated in 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, an EC must be composed of at least five (5) members with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate research proposal review. The EC must be sufficiently qualified through member experience, expertise, and diversity, in terms of race, gender, cultural backgrounds, and sensitivity to issues such as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding human participants’ rights and welfare. EC members must possess the professional competence to review research activities and be able to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research based on institutional commitments and regulations, applicable laws, and standards. In addition, if an EC regularly reviews research involving vulnerable populations, the committee must consider including one (1) or more individuals knowledgeable about and experienced in working with those participants. See the Vulnerable Populations section for details on vulnerable populations.

At a minimum, each EC must also include the following members:

• One (1) primarily focused on scientific issues
• One (1) focused on nonscientific issues
• One (1) unaffiliated with the institution, and not part of the immediate family of a person affiliated with the institution

No EC member may participate in the initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide EC requested information.

Additionally, 21CFR56 indicates that efforts must be made to ensure that no EC consists entirely of men or entirely of women, including the institution’s consideration of qualified persons of both sexes, so long as no selection is made to the EC on the basis of gender. No EC may consist entirely of members of one (1) profession.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As delineated in 21CFR56, ECs must follow written procedures for the following:

• Conducting initial and continuing reviews, and reporting findings and actions
• Determining which projects require review more often than annually, and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigator that no material changes have occurred since the previous EC review
• Ensuring that changes in approved research are not initiated without EC review and approval except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to participants
• Ensuring prompt reporting to the EC, institution, and FDA of changes in research activity; unanticipated problems involving risks to participants or others; any instance of serious or continuing noncompliance with these regulations or EC requirements or determinations; or EC approval suspension/termination

Per the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, ECs must establish and follow written procedures for the following:

• Conducting initial and continuing reviews, and reporting findings and actions to the investigator and the institution
• Determining which projects require review more often than annually, and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigator that no material changes have occurred since the previous EC review
• Ensuring prompt reporting to the EC of proposed changes in research and ensuring that investigators conduct the research in accordance with the terms of the EC approval until any proposed changes have received EC review and approval, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to participants
• Ensuring prompt reporting to the EC, the institution, the FDA, and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)’ Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) of any unanticipated problems involving risks to participants or others; any instance of serious or continuing noncompliance with these regulations or EC requirements or determinations; or EC approval suspension/termination.

21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule further require that an institution, or where appropriate an EC, prepare and maintain adequate documentation of EC activities, including copies of all research proposals reviewed. The applicable records must be retained for at least three (3) years after completion of the research. For more details on the EC records included in this requirement, see the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and 21CFR56.

See G-IRBProcs for detailed FDA guidance on EC written procedures to enhance human participant protection and reduce regulatory burden. The guidance includes a Written Procedures Checklist that incorporates regulatory requirements as well as recommendations on operational details to support the requirements.

Per 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, proposed research must be reviewed during convened meetings at which a majority of the EC members are present, including at least one (1) member whose primary concerns are nonscientific, except when an expedited review procedure is used. Research is only considered approved if it receives the majority approval of attending members.

Refer to the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, 21CFR56, the G-IRBProcs, and the G-IRBFAQs for detailed EC procedural requirements.

In addition, per the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the G-HHS-Inst-Engagemt, any institution engaged in non-exempt human subjects research conducted or supported by a Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-18 and USA-65) must also submit a written assurance of compliance to OHRP. According to USA-59, the Federalwide Assurance (FWA) is the only type of assurance of compliance accepted and approved by OHRP for HHS-funded research. See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

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)). The ECs (CEPs) 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

21CFR56, 21CFR312, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP state that the primary scope of information assessed by the institutional ethics committee (EC) (referred to as an institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. As delineated in 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, the EC must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses, & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations). The EC is also responsible for ensuring a competent review of the research protocol, evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants, and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality safeguards.

See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

In accordance with 21CFR56 and 21CFR312, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) must review an investigational new drug application (IND) and an EC must review and approve the proposed study prior to a sponsor initiating a clinical trial. The institutional EC review of the clinical investigation may be conducted in parallel with the FDA review of the IND. However, EC approval must be obtained prior to the sponsor being permitted to initiate the clinical trial. According to 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, the EC may approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove the research.

Refer to the G-RevComRule-FDA for information on the impact of the RevComRule on studies conducted or supported by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that must also comply with FDA regulations.

21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule indicate that changes in approved research may not be initiated without EC review and approval except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to participants.

Per 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the G-IRBContRev, an EC has the authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the EC’s requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to participants. Any suspension or termination of approval will include a statement of the reasons for the EC’s action and will be reported promptly to the investigator, appropriate institutional officials, and the department or agency head (e.g., the FDA). See the G-IRBContRev for additional information and FDA recommendations on suspension or termination of EC approval.

See the G-IRBResp for FDA guidance for ECs on reviewing the adequacy of investigators and research sites, and determining if an IND or investigational device exemption is required. The FDA’s G-SubRecruit also provides guidance for ECs on reviewing participant recruitment methods.

Expedited Review

21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule indicate that the FDA and HHS maintain a list of research categories that may be reviewed by an EC through an expedited review procedure (see the G-IRBExpdtdRev for the list). An EC may use the expedited review procedure to review the following:

• Some or all of the research appearing on the list and found by the reviewer(s) to involve no more than minimal risk
• Minor changes in previously approved research during the period (of one (1) year or less) for which approval is authorized
• Under the RevComRule, research for which limited EC review is a condition of exemption

21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule specify that under an expedited review procedure, the review may be carried out by the EC chairperson or by one (1) or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among the EC’s members. In reviewing the research, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the EC except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. A research activity may be disapproved only after review in accordance with the EC’s non-expedited review procedure.

Continuing Review and Re-approval

21CFR56 and the G-IRBContRev state that any clinical investigation must not be initiated unless the reviewed and approved study remains subject to continuing review at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, but not less than once a year. The G-IRBContRev notes that when continuing review of the research does not occur prior to the end of the approval period specified by the EC, EC approval expires automatically. A lapse in EC approval of research occurs whenever an investigator has failed to provide continuing review information to the EC, or the EC has not conducted continuing review and re-approved the research by the expiration date of the EC approval. In such circumstances, all research activities involving human participants must stop. Enrollment of new participants cannot occur after the expiration of EC approval.

In addition, per the G-IRBContRev, research that qualified for expedited review at the time of initial review will generally continue to qualify for expedited continuing review. For additional information and FDA recommendations regarding continuing review, see the G-IRBContRev.

The Pre2018-ComRule similarly indicates that the EC must conduct reviews at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, but not less than once per year. However, the RevComRule provides the following exceptions to the continuing review requirement, unless an EC determines otherwise:

• Research eligible for expedited review
• Research reviewed by the EC in accordance with the limited EC review described in Section 46.104 of the RevComRule
• Research that has progressed to the point that it involves data analysis and/or accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that are part of clinical care

Exemptions under the Revised Common Rule

Per the RevComRule, certain categories of research are exempt from EC review, and some “exempt” activities require limited EC review or broad consent. Users should refer to Section 46.104 of the RevComRule for detailed information on research categories specifically exempt from EC review, or exempt activities requiring limited EC review or broad consent.

Further, the RevComRule modifies what constitutes research to specifically exclude the following types of research:

• Scholarly and journalistic activities
• Public health surveillance activities authorized by a public health authority to assess onsets of disease outbreaks or conditions of public health importance
• Collection and analysis of information, biospecimens, or records by or for a criminal justice agency for criminal investigative activities
• Authorized operational activities in support of intelligence, homeland security, defense, or other national security missions

USA-32 notes that the regulations do not specify who at an institution may determine that research is exempt, and that institutions should implement exemption policies that most effectively address the local setting and programs of research. The HHS retains final authority as to whether a particular human subjects research study conducted or supported by HHS is exempt.

See the G-IRBFAQs, the G-OHRP-IRBApprvl, and USA-32 for frequently asked questions regarding EC procedures, approval with conditions, example research, expedited review, limited review, continuing review, and exempt research.

Other Considerations

Per the FDA’s G-IRBReview, an EC may review studies that are not performed on-site. When an institution has a local EC, the written procedures of that EC or of the institution should define the scope of studies subject to review by that EC. A non-local EC may not become the EC of record for studies within that defined scope unless the local EC or the administration of the institution agree. Any agreement to allow review by a non-local EC should be in writing. For more information, see G-IRBReview.

As stated in the G-IRBWaiver, sponsors and sponsor-investigators may request a waiver of EC requirements for drug and biological product studies regulated by the FDA. The most common circumstance for which the FDA receives a waiver request is when a sponsor wishes to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. In this case, typically sponsors utilize an independent ethics committee (IEC) that operates in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP). See the G-IRBWaiver for more information.

Additionally, see the G-IRBTransfer for FDA guidance on the regulatory responsibilities of ECs, clinical investigators, and sponsors when oversight of a previously approved, ongoing clinical investigation under the FDA’s jurisdiction is transferred from one (1) EC to another EC.

Cooperative Research Studies

In the event of multicenter clinical studies, also known as cooperative research studies, taking place at US institutions that are subject to the RevComRule, the institutions must rely on a single EC to review that study for the portion of the study conducted in the US. The reviewing EC will be identified by the Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-18 and USA-65) supporting or conducting the research or proposed by the lead institution subject to the acceptance of the department/agency. The exceptions to this requirement include: when multicenter review is required by law (including tribal law) or for research where any federal department or agency supporting or conducting the research determines that the use of a single EC is not appropriate.

Designed to complement the RevComRule, per the NIHNotice16-094 and the NIHNotice17-076, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a final policy requiring all institute-funded multicenter clinical trials conducted in the US to be overseen by a single EC, unless prohibited by any federal, tribal, or state law, regulation, or policy.

For more information on multicenter research, see the FDA’s G-CentralIRB and G-CoopRes. For more information on how new sites added to ongoing cooperative research can follow the same version of the Common Rule, see the HHS’ Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)’s G-ComRuleCnsstncy.

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.

Many institutional ethics committees (ECs) (referred to as institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States (US)) charge fees to review research proposals submitted by industry-sponsored research or other for-profit entities. However, this varies widely by institution. Neither the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) nor the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulate institutional EC review fees. Because each EC has its own requirements, individual ECs should be contacted to confirm their specific fees.

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)). The ECs (CEPs) 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 delineated in 21CFR56 and 45CFR46-B-E, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the HHS’ Food & Drug Administration (FDA) have mandatory registration programs for institutional ethics committee (ECs), referred to as institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States (US). A single electronic registration system (USA-28) for both agencies is maintained by HHS’ Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

In accordance with the G-IRBReg-FAQs and USA-61, EC registration with the HHS OHRP system (USA-28) is not a form of accreditation or certification by either the FDA that the EC is in full compliance with 21CFR56, or by the HHS that the EC is in full compliance with 45CFR46-B-E. Neither EC competence nor expertise is assessed during the registration review process by either agency.

Food & Drug Administration

According to 21CFR56 and the G-IRBReg-FAQs, the FDA requires each EC in the US, that either reviews clinical investigations regulated by the agency under the FDCAct or reviews investigations intended to support research or marketing permits for agency-regulated products, to register electronically in the HHS OHRP system (USA-28). Only individuals authorized to act on the EC’s behalf are permitted to submit registration information. Non-US ECs may register voluntarily. The G-IRBReg-FAQs also indicates that while registration of non-US ECs is voluntary, the information the FDA receives from them is very helpful.

As stated in 21CFR56 and the G-IRBReg-FAQs, any EC not already registered in the HHS OHRP system (USA-28) must submit an initial registration prior to reviewing a clinical investigation in support of an investigational new drug application (IND). The HHS OHRP system (USA-28) provides instructions to assist users, depending on whether the EC is subject to regulation by only the OHRP, only the FDA, or both the OHRP and the FDA.

21CFR56 and the G-IRBReg-FAQs indicate that FDA EC registration must be renewed every three (3) years. EC registration becomes effective after review and acceptance by the HHS.

See 21CFR56 and the G-IRBReg-FAQs for detailed EC registration submission requirements. See the G-IRBInspect for FDA inspection procedures of ECs.

Office for Human Research Protections

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and RevComRule, institutions engaging in research conducted or supported by a Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-18 and USA-65) must obtain an approved assurance that it will comply with the Pre2018-ComRule or RevComRule requirements and certify to the department/agency heads that the research has been reviewed and approved by an EC provided for in the assurance.

Per USA-59, a Federalwide Assurance (FWA) of compliance is a document submitted by an institution (not an EC) engaged in non-exempt human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS that commits the institution to complying with Pre2018-ComRule or RevComRule requirements. FWAs also are approved by the OHRP for federalwide use, which means that other federal departments and agencies that have adopted the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Pre2018-ComRule or RevComRule) may rely on the FWA for the research that they conduct or support. Institutions engaging in research conducted or supported by non-HHS federal departments or agencies should consult with the sponsoring department or agency for guidance regarding whether the FWA is appropriate for the research in question.

See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

As stated in 45CFR46-B-E and USA-61, all ECs that review human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS and are to be designated under an OHRP FWA must register electronically with the HHS OHRP system (USA-28). EC registration becomes effective for three (3) years when reviewed and approved by OHRP. Per 45CFR46-B-E, an individual authorized to act on behalf of the institution operating the EC must submit the registration information.

Per USA-59, an institution must either register its own EC (an “internal” EC) or designate an already registered EC operated by another organization (“external” EC) after establishing a written agreement with that other organization. Additionally, each FWA must designate at least one (1) EC registered with the OHRP. The FWA is the only type of assurance of compliance accepted and approved by the OHRP.

See 45CFR46-B-E, USA-58, and USA-61 for detailed registration requirements and instructions.

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

As delineated in 21CFR312, USA-42, and USA-52, the United States (US) requires the sponsor to submit an investigational new drug application (IND) for the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)'s review and authorization to obtain an exemption to ship investigational drug or biological products across state lines and to administer these investigational products in humans. Per 21CFR312 and the G-IND-Determination, whether an IND is required to conduct an investigation of a drug to be marketed (this includes biological products under the FDCAct) primarily depends on the intent of the investigation, and the degree of risk associated with the use of the drug in the investigation. See the Scope of Assessment section for more information.

In addition, per 21CFR56 and 21CFR312, institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) review of the clinical investigation may be conducted in parallel with the FDA review of the IND. However, EC approval must be obtained prior to the sponsor being permitted to initiate the clinical trial.

Regulatory Submission

According to 21CFR312, meetings between a sponsor and the FDA may be useful in resolving questions and issues raised during the course of a clinical investigation. The FDA encourages such meetings to the extent that they aid in the evaluation of the drug and in the solution of scientific problems concerning the drug, to the degree the FDA's resources permit. See 21CFR312 for more information on meetings with the FDA.

A sponsor who is conducting a clinical trial to support a future marketing application may ask to meet with the FDA for a special protocol assessment (SPA) to help ensure the clinical trial can support the application. For more information, see G-SPA.

Additionally, the G-FDAComm describes the FDA’s philosophy regarding timely interactive communication with IND sponsors, the scope of appropriate interactions between review teams and sponsors, the types of advice appropriate for sponsors to seek from the FDA in pursuing their drug development programs, and general expectations for the timing of FDA response to sponsor inquiries. See the G-FDAComm for more information.

According to the G-PharmeCTD, which implements FDCAct requirements, and as described in USA-34 and USA-53, commercial IND submissions must be submitted in the Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) format. Noncommercial INDs are exempt from this eCTD format submission requirement. “Noncommercial products” refer to products not intended to be distributed commercially, including investigator-sponsored INDs and expanded access INDs (e.g., emergency use and treatment INDs). However, the G-AltrntElecSubs indicates that sponsors and applicants who receive an exemption or a waiver from filing in eCTD format should still provide those exempted or waived submissions electronically, in an alternate format.

The G-AltrntElecSubs and USA-35 indicate that for both eCTD and alternate electronic formats, submissions should include only FDA fillable forms and electronic signatures. Scanned images of FDA fillable forms should not be submitted. In addition, before making an electronic submission, a pre-assigned application number should be obtained by contacting the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). See USA-35 for more information on requesting an application number.

For more information and detailed requirements on eCTD submissions, see the G-PharmeCTD, the G-eCTDTech, USA-35, and USA-36. Additionally, the G-CBER-ElecINDs provides instructions on how to submit an IND using an electronic folder structure on a CD-ROM.

According to the G-eCTDspecs, eCTD submissions sized 10 GB and under for most applications must be submitted via the Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG), and the FDA also recommends the use of the ESG for submissions greater than 10 GB when possible. However, USA-44 notes that the ESG has been retired and the Electronic Submissions Gateway Next Generation (ESG NextGen) should be utilized for all electronic submissions to the FDA. See USA-37 for ESG NextGen submission user guides.

As indicated in the G-eCTDspecs, physical media greater than 10 GB should be submitted using a USB drive. For specific instructions on how to submit physical media, email CDER at esub@fda.hhs.gov or CBER at esubprep@fda.hhs.gov. See the G-eCTDspecs for additional physical media information.

The IND must be submitted in English. As indicated in 21CFR312, the sponsor must submit an accurate and complete English translation of each part of the IND that is not in English. The sponsor must also submit a copy of each original literature publication for which an English translation is submitted.

Based on information provided in 21CFR312, for paper IND submissions, the sponsor must submit an original and two (2) copies, including the original submission and all amendments and reports. According to USA-41 and USA-94, paper submissions of INDs should be sent to CDER or CBER at the following locations, as appropriate:

Drugs (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
Central Document Room
5901-B Ammendale Rd.
Beltsville, MD 20705-1266

Therapeutic Biological Product (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
Therapeutic Biological Products Document Room
5901-B Ammendale Rd.
Beltsville, MD 20705-1266

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research-Regulated Products:

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
Document Control Center
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
WO71, G112
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002

(Note: Per USA-94, CBER also accepts electronic media via mail, but electronic or email submission is preferred.)

For more information on CDER and CBER internal policies and procedures for accepting and reviewing applications, see USA-96 and USA-95, respectively.

Ethics Review Submission

Each EC maintains its own procedures and processes for review. Consequently, there is no stated regulatory requirement for clinical trial submission processes.

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 21CFR312, an investigational new drug application (IND) to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) must include the following documents, in the order provided below:

• Cover sheet (Form FDA 1571 (USA-76)) (including, but not limited to: sponsor contact information, investigational product (IP) name, application date, phase(s) of clinical investigation to be conducted, and commitment that the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) will conduct initial and continuing review and approval of each study proposed in the investigation)
• Table of contents
• Introductory statement and general investigational plan
• Investigator’s brochure (IB)
• Protocols
• Chemistry, manufacturing, and control data
• Pharmacology and toxicology data
• Previous human experience with the IP
• Additional information (e.g., drug dependence and abuse potential, radioactive drugs, pediatric studies)
• Relevant information (e.g., foreign language materials and number of copies - see Submission Process section for details)

For detailed application requirements, see 21CFR312. In addition, see USA-40 for other IND forms and instructions.

Furthermore, for information on the appropriate use of adaptive designs for clinical trials and additional information to provide to the FDA to support its review, see G-AdaptiveTrials.

The G-RWDRWE-Doc states that to facilitate the FDA’s internal tracking of submissions that include real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE), sponsors and applicants are encouraged to identify in their submission cover letters certain uses of RWD/RWE. For more information, see the G-RWDRWE-Doc.

According to the G-PedStudyPlans, a sponsor who is planning to submit to the FDA a marketing application (or supplement to an application) for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration is required to submit an initial pediatric study plan (iPSP), if required by the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). An exception to this is if the drug is for an indication granted an orphan designation. For additional details and recommendations to sponsors regarding the submission of an iPSP, see the G-PedStudyPlans.

See 21CFR312 and the G-IPCharge for additional submission requirements if a sponsor is seeking FDA authorization to charge for the use of its own IP in a clinical trial.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Each EC has its own application form and clearance requirements, which can differ significantly regarding application content requirements. However, the requirements listed below comply with 21CFR56 as well as the US-ICH-GCP and are basically consistent across all US ECs.

As per 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the EC should obtain the following documents and must ensure the listed requirements are met prior to approving the study (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Clinical protocol
• Informed consent forms (ICFs) and participant information (the RevComRule also requires information regarding whether informed consent was appropriately sought and documented, or waived)
• Participant recruitment procedures
• IB
• Safety information
• Participant payments and compensation
• Investigator(s) current curriculum vitaes (CVs)
• Additional required EC documentation
• Risks to participants are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits
• Participant selection is equitable
• Adequate provisions are made to protect participant privacy and maintain confidentiality of data, where appropriate; the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) will issue guidance to assist ECs in assessing what provisions are adequate to protect participant privacy and maintain the confidentiality of data

Per the RevComRule, where limited EC review applies, the EC does not need to make the determinations outlined above. Rather, limited EC review includes determinations that broad consent will be/was obtained properly, that adequate protections are in place for safeguarding the privacy and confidentiality of participants, and (for secondary studies) that individual research results will not be returned to participants. See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

See 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and section 3 of the US-ICH-GCP for additional EC submission requirements.

Clinical Protocol

According to the US-ICH-GCP, the clinical protocol should contain the following elements:

• General information
• Background information
• Trial objectives and purpose
• Trial design
• Participant selection/withdrawal
• Participant treatment
• Efficacy assessment
• Safety assessment
• Statistics
• Direct access to source data/documents
• Quality control/quality assurance
• Ethics
• Data handling/recordkeeping
• Financing/insurance
• Publication policy
• For complete protocol requirements, see section 6 of the US-ICH-GCP.

Per the NIHNotice17-064, and provided in USA-29 and USA-27, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the FDA developed a clinical trial protocol template with instructional and example text for NIH-funded investigators to use when writing protocols for phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that require IND applications.

Additionally, the G-DecentralCT provides FDA recommendations for clinical trials with decentralized elements. According to the G-DecentralCT, the protocol should include specific instructions for limiting variability in the data collected. The protocol should specify which visits will be conducted at traditional clinical trial sites, which visits will be conducted remotely, and which visits can be left to participants’ choice. See the G-DecentralCT for additional guidance.

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. 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

As delineated in 21CFR56 and 21CFR312, institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) review of the clinical investigation may be conducted in parallel with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)'s review of the investigational new drug application (IND). However, EC approval must be obtained prior to the sponsor being permitted to initiate the clinical trial.

Regulatory Authority Approval

Per the FDCAct and 21CFR312, initial INDs submitted to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) automatically go into effect in 30 calendar days, unless the FDA notifies the sponsor that the IND is subject to a clinical hold, or the FDA has notified the sponsor earlier that the trial may begin. As indicated in 21CFR312, the FDA will provide the sponsor with a written explanation of the basis for the hold as soon as possible, and no more than 30 days after the imposition of the clinical hold. See 21CFR312 for more information on clinical hold timelines. For more information on CDER and CBER internal policies and procedures for reviewing applications, see USA-96 and USA-95, respectively.

According to USA-41 and USA-42, clinical studies must not be initiated until 30 days after the FDA receives the IND, unless the FDA provides earlier notification that studies may begin.

Ethics Committee Approval

Each EC maintains its own procedures and processes for review. Consequently, there is no stated regulatory requirement for a standard timeline of review and approval of the clinical trial. However, according to the US-ICH-GCP, the institutional EC should review a proposed clinical trial within a reasonable time.

Overview

New National Ethics System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings

LawNo14.874 introduces the National System of Ethics in Research with Human Beings. 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)). The ECs (CEPs) 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 21CFR312, USA-41, and USA-42, a clinical trial can only commence after the investigational new drug application (IND) is reviewed by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), which will provide a written determination within 30 days of receiving the IND. No waiting period is required following the 30-day FDA review period, unless the agency imposes a clinical hold on the IND or sends an earlier notification that studies may begin. Per 21CFR312 and 21CFR56, ethics approval from an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) is also required before a clinical trial can commence.

As per 21CFR312, once an IND has been submitted and following the 30-day review period, the sponsor is permitted to import an investigational product (IP). (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information).

Clinical Trial Agreement

Prior to the trial’s commencement, as addressed in the 21CFR312 and the G-1572FAQs, the sponsor must obtain from the investigator(s) a signed Statement of Investigator, Form FDA 1572 (USA-77). This form serves as the investigator’s agreement to provide certain information to the sponsor and to ensure compliance with the FDA’s clinical investigation regulations. Refer to the 21CFR312, the G-1572FAQs, and USA-40 for further information.

The US-ICH-GCP indicates that the sponsor must obtain the investigator’s/institution’s agreement:

• To conduct the trial in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP), with the applicable regulatory requirement(s), and with the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and given approval/favorable opinion by the EC;
• To comply with procedures for data recording/reporting;
• To permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection; and
• 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 must sign the protocol, or an alternative document, to confirm this agreement.

Clinical Trial Registration

The FDAMA, the FDAAA, and 42CFR11 require the responsible party, either the sponsor or the principal investigator (PI) designated by the sponsor, to register electronically with the ClinicalTrials.gov databank (USA-78). Per the FDAAA and 42CFR11, the sponsor/PI must register no later than 21 calendar days after the first human participant is enrolled in a trial.

42CFR11 expands the legal requirements for submitting clinical trial registration information and results for investigational products that are approved, licensed, or cleared by the FDA. See the G-3674Cert for additional FDA guidance on certifying compliance with applicable requirements, including the requirement to register applicable clinical trials.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued NIHTrialInfo to complement 42CFR11 requirements. This policy requires all NIH-funded awardees and investigators conducting clinical trials, funded in whole or in part by the NIH, regardless of study phase, type of intervention, or whether they are subject to the regulation, to ensure that they register and submit trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov (USA-78).

See 42CFR11, the NIHTrialInfo, and USA-49 for detailed information on ClinicalTrials.gov (USA-78). See also the FDA’s G-DataBankPnlty for clarification on the types of civil money penalties that may be issued for failing to register a clinical trial.

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Safety Reports

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, the US-ICH-E2A, 42CFR11, and USA-38, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of safety reporting requirements in the United States (US) (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Adverse Event – Any untoward medical occurrence associated with the use of a drug in humans, whether or not considered drug related
• Suspected Adverse Reaction – Any adverse event where there is a reasonable possibility that the drug caused the adverse event
• Adverse Reaction – Any adverse event caused by a drug. Adverse reactions are a subset of all suspected adverse reactions where there is reason to conclude that the drug caused the event
• Serious Adverse Event/Serious Suspected Adverse Reaction – An adverse event/suspected adverse reaction that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, causes persistent or significant disability/incapacity, results in a congenital anomaly/birth defect, or leads to a substantial disruption of the participant’s ability to conduct normal life functions
• Unexpected Adverse Event/Unexpected Suspected Adverse Reaction – An adverse event/suspected adverse reaction that is not listed in the investigator’s brochure (IB), or is not listed at the specificity or severity that has been observed; or if an IB is not required or available, is not consistent with the risk information described in the general investigational plan or elsewhere in the application
• Life-threatening Adverse Event/Life-threatening Suspected Adverse Reaction – An adverse event/suspected adverse reaction is considered “life-threatening” if its occurrence places the participant at immediate risk of death. It does not include an adverse event/suspected adverse reaction that, had it occurred in a more severe form, might have caused death

According to the G-HHS-AEReqs, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)’s 45CFR46 regulations (the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and 45CFR46-B-E) do not define the terms “adverse event” or “unanticipated problems.” However, the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule do contain requirements relevant to reviewing and reporting these incidents. See the G-HHS-AEReqs, the G-IRBRpting, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule for further information.

See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As delineated in 21CFR312 and the G-IND-Safety, the investigator must comply with the following reporting requirements:

• Serious adverse events, whether or not considered drug related, must be reported immediately to the sponsor
• Study endpoints that are serious adverse events must be reported in accordance with the protocol unless there is evidence suggesting a causal relationship between the drug and the event. In that case, the investigator must immediately report the event to the sponsor
• Non-serious adverse events must be recorded and reported to the sponsor according to the protocol specified timetable
• Report promptly to the ethics committee (EC) all unanticipated problems involving risk to human participants or others where adverse events should be considered unanticipated problems

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, and USA-38, the sponsor must report any suspected adverse reaction or adverse reaction that is both serious and unexpected. An adverse event is only required to be reported as a suspected adverse reaction if there is evidence to suggest a causal relationship between the drug and the adverse event. The sponsor is required to notify the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and all participating investigators in a written safety report of potential serious risks, from clinical trials or any other source, as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting. Additionally, the sponsor must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days following receipt of the information. The sponsor is required to submit a follow-up safety report to provide additional information obtained pertaining to a previously submitted safety report. This report should be submitted without delay, as soon as the information is available, but no later than 15 calendar days after the sponsor initially receives the information.

Per 21CFR312 and the G-IND-Safety, the sponsor must also report the following:

• Any findings from epidemiological studies, pooled analyses of multiple studies, or clinical studies (other than those reported in the safety report), whether or not conducted under an investigational new drug application (IND), and whether or not conducted by the sponsor, that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug
• Any findings from animal or in vitro testing, whether or not conducted by the sponsor, that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug
• Any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or IB

In each safety report, the sponsor must identify all safety reports previously submitted to the FDA concerning a similar suspected adverse reaction and must analyze the significance of the suspected adverse reaction in light of previous, similar reports, or any other relevant information. Refer to 21CFR312 and the G-IND-Safety for more details on these safety reporting requirements.

Per the G-IND-Safety, sponsors should have a predefined safety monitoring plan that includes processes and procedures for the review of safety information, including the frequency of review. The FDA’s G-DecentralCT further indicates that to protect the safety and welfare of trial participants in a decentralized clinical trial, sponsors should implement a safety monitoring plan that takes the decentralized nature of the clinical trial into account and ensures that adverse events and medication errors are appropriately collected and adequately addressed. As in any clinical trial, the safety monitoring plan should describe how participants are expected to respond to and report adverse events, including where to seek medical assistance locally when necessary, and where to receive follow-up care. See the G-DecentralCT for more information.

As part of the clinical trial results information submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov (USA-78), 42CFR11 requires the responsible party, either the sponsor or the principal investigator (PI) designated by the sponsor, to submit three (3) tables of adverse event information. The tables should consist of the following summarized data:

• All serious adverse events
• All adverse events, other than serious adverse events, that exceed a frequency of five (5) percent in any arm of the trial
• All-cause mortalities

Per 42CFR11 and USA-70, this information must be submitted no later than one (1) year after the primary completion date of the clinical trial. Submission of trial results may be delayed as long as two (2) years if the sponsor or PI submits a certification to ClinicalTrials.gov (USA-78) that either: 1) the FDA has not yet approved, licensed, or cleared for marketing the investigational product (IP) being studied; or 2) the manufacturer is the sponsor and has sought or will seek approval within one (1) year.

See 42CFR11 for detailed adverse event reporting requirements.

See the G-SESftyRprtng for the FDA’s guidance to help small businesses understand and comply with safety reporting regulations for human drug and biological products that are being investigated under an IND, and for drugs that are the subjects of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies that are exempt from the IND requirements.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, and USA-38, the sponsor must submit each safety report in a narrative format on Form FDA 3500A (USA-75), or in an electronic format that the FDA can process, review, and archive, and be accompanied by Form FDA 1571 (USA-76) (cover sheet).

As per the G-IND-Safety and USA-38, the submission must be identified as follows:

• “IND safety report” for 15-day reports
• “7-day IND safety report” for unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction reports
• “Follow-up IND safety report” for follow-up information

The report must be submitted to the appropriate review division (i.e., Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)). Per USA-38, the FDA recommends that sponsors submit safety reports electronically. Other means of rapid communication to the respective review division’s Regulatory Project Manager (e.g., telephone, facsimile transmission, email) may also be used. Per USA-90, fatality reports to CBER should be sent to fatalities2@fda.hhs.gov.

Additionally, 21CFR312 and the G-IND-Safety indicate that the FDA will accept foreign suspected adverse reaction reports on CIOMS Form I (See USA-13 and USA-3) instead of Form FDA 3500A (USA-75). See USA-38 and USA-48 for additional information.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

Other Reporting Requirements

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As per the US-ICH-GCP, the investigator should promptly provide written reports to the sponsor and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) on any changes significantly affecting the conduct of the trial, and/or increasing the risk to participants.

As specified in 21CFR312, the investigator must furnish all reports to the sponsor who is responsible for collecting and evaluating the results obtained. In addition, per 21CFR56 and the US-ICH-GCP, the investigator should submit written summaries of the trial status to the institutional EC annually, or more frequently, if requested by the institutional EC.

21CFR312 states that the sponsor must submit a brief annual progress report on the investigation to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) within 60 days of the anniversary date that the investigational new drug went into effect. The report must contain the following information for each study:

• Title, purpose, and description of patient population, and current status
• Summary of the participants screened (e.g., failed screenings; participants enrolled, withdrawn, or lost to follow-up; and other challenges)
• Summary information - including information obtained during the previous year’s clinical and nonclinical investigations
• Description of the general investigational plan for the coming year
• Updated investigator’s brochure, if revised
• Description of any significant Phase 1 protocol modifications not previously reported in a protocol amendment
• Brief summary of significant foreign marketing developments with the drug
• A log of any outstanding business for which the sponsor requests a reply, comment, or meeting

As indicated in 42CFR11, trial updates must be submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov (USA-78) according to the following guidelines:

• Not less than once every 12 months for updated general trial registration information
• Not later than 30 calendar days for any changes in overall recruitment status
• Not later than 30 calendar days after the trial reaches its actual primary completion date, the date the final participant was examined or received an intervention for the purposes of final collection data for the primary outcome

Final Report

As indicated in 21CFR312, an investigator must provide the sponsor with an adequate report shortly after completion of the investigator’s participation in the investigation. There is no specific timeframe stipulated for when the report should be completed.

The US-ICH-GCP also states that upon the trial’s completion, the investigator should inform the institution and the investigator/institution should provide the EC with a summary of the trial’s outcome, and supply the FDA with any additional report(s) required of the investigator/institution.

Additionally, per 42CFR11 and USA-70, the sponsor or the principal investigator (PI) designated by the sponsor must submit results for applicable investigational product (IP) clinical trials to USA-78 no later than one (1) year following the study’s completion date. Submission of trial results may be delayed as long as two (2) years if the sponsor or PI submits a certification to USA-78 that indicates either: 1) the FDA has not yet approved, licensed, or cleared the IP being studied for marketing; or 2) the manufacturer is the sponsor and has sought or will seek approval within one (1) year. The results information must include data on the following:

• Participant flow
• Demographic and baseline characteristics
• Outcomes and statistical analysis
• Adverse events
• The protocol and statistical analysis plan
• Administrative information

See USA-49 for more information and 42CFR11 for more detailed requirements. See NIHTrialInfo for specific information on dissemination of NIH-funded clinical trial data. See the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)’s E3 Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (US-ICH-E3 and the US-ICH-E3-QA) for additional guidance on report structure.

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 21CFR312, 21CFR50, and the US-ICH-GCP, a sponsor is defined as a person who takes responsibility for and initiates a clinical investigation. The sponsor may be an individual or pharmaceutical company, governmental agency, academic institution, private organization, or other organization. The sponsor does not actually conduct the investigation unless the sponsor is a sponsor-investigator. 21CFR312, 21CFR50, and the US-ICH-GCP define a sponsor-investigator as an individual who both initiates and conducts an investigation, and under whose immediate direction the investigational product is administered or dispensed.

In addition, 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP state that a sponsor may transfer responsibility for any or all obligations to a contract research organization (CRO). Any trial-related responsibilities transferred to and assumed by a CRO should be specified in writing, and those obligations not covered by the written description will be deemed not to have been transferred. Further, a CRO that assumes any sponsor obligations must comply with the specific regulations delineated in 21CFR312 and will be subject to the same regulatory action as the sponsor for failure to comply with any obligation assumed under these regulations. However, per the US-ICH-GCP, although a sponsor may transfer all trial-related duties and functions to a CRO, the sponsor is ultimately responsible for the study data’s quality and integrity.

As indicated in 21CFR312, a sponsor may be either domestic or foreign.

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 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP, the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial and for ensuring that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Prior to permitting an investigator(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor must obtain the following:

• Signed investigator’s statement (Form FDA 1572 (USA-77))
• Curriculum vitae
• Clinical protocol
• Financial disclosure information

As addressed in the G-1572FAQs, Form FDA 1572 (USA-77) serves as the investigator’s agreement to provide certain information to the sponsor and to assure compliance with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)'s clinical investigation regulations. Refer to the G-1572FAQs and USA-40 for further information.

In addition, 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP indicate that prior to the start of the study, the sponsor must provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and the investigator’s brochure.

See G-InvstgtrResp for more information on investigator responsibilities.

As per the G-InvstgtrAdmin, the FDA may disqualify a clinical investigator from receiving investigational drugs (including biologics) if the FDA determines that the investigator has repeatedly or deliberately violated the agency’s regulations, or submitted false information to the sponsor or FDA in any required report. See the G-InvstgtrAdmin for more details.

The G-DecentralCT provides FDA recommendations for clinical trials with decentralized elements. The G-DecentralCT notes that because decentralized clinical trials may involve many contracted services, sponsors should ensure proper coordination of decentralized elements (e.g., use of remote trial personnel for at-home visits, use of local health care providers (HCPs), direct shipping of the investigational product to participants, etc.). Such contracted services may be performed by networks of local HCPs (e.g., local clinic networks, pharmacy chains). Sponsors should ensure these networks of local HCPs are qualified to perform the contracted activities. Sponsors should also keep a record of these networks and other contracted service providers, including their roles and assigned activities. See the G-DecentralCT for additional guidance.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

As per 21CFR50 and the G-DMCs, Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs), (also known as Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs)), are not required by FDA regulations, except in the case of research conducted in emergency settings in which fulfilling the informed consent requirement is unfeasible. In this case, as stated in 21CFR50, the FDA requires the establishment of an independent data monitoring committee to exercise oversight of the clinical investigation. See the G-DMCs for FDA recommendations on DSMB/DMC establishment.

Additionally, the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule indicate that for all human subjects research funded and/or sponsored by a Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-18 and USA-65), the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) must ensure that, when appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provisions for monitoring the data collected during the study to ensure participant safety. Moreover, per the NIHDataSftyMntrng and USA-72, all National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trials require a Data and Safety Monitoring Plan and monitoring should be commensurate with risk. DSMBs are also required for multi-site clinical trials with interventions that involve potential participant risk. See the NIHDataSftyMntrng and USA-72 for detailed Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)/NIH requirements.

Although not specified as a sponsor requirement, the US-ICH-GCP states that a DSMB may be established 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

The RevComRule delineates that for all human subjects research funded and/or sponsored by a Common Rule department/agency, institutions that are located in the US and engaged in multicenter research/cooperative research studies must use a single EC to review the research. See the Scope of Review section, the RevComRule, the G-CentralIRB, and G-CoopRes for additional information.

The US-ICH-GCP indicates that in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the sponsor must ensure that:

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

See US-ICH-E17 for additional FDA guidance related to multi-regional clinical trials.

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
• 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

The United States (US) regulations do not require insurance.

Compensation

The G-IRBFAQs state that institutional policy, not Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, determines whether compensation and medical treatment(s) will be offered and the conditions that might be placed on participant eligibility for compensation or treatment(s).

Injury or Death

According to the US-ICH-GCP, the sponsor's policies and procedures should address the costs of treatment of trial subjects in the event of trial-related injuries in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s).

As specified in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and US-ICH-GCP, for research involving more than minimal risk, participants must be informed as to whether any compensation or medical treatments are available in the event of trial-related injuries. See the Required Elements section for additional information.

Trial Participation

As per the FDA’s G-SbjctPayment, compensation for participation is considered a recruitment incentive and not a benefit, and is often offered when the participant’s health benefits are remote or non-existent. Payment amounts and schedules should be presented to the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) at the time of the initial review. The EC should ensure the payment amount and the proposed method and timing of disbursement are not coercive or present undue influence and are also included in the informed consent document. Payment to participants who withdraw may be made at the time that they would have completed the study. While the entire payment should not be contingent upon completion of the entire study, a small payment provided as an incentive for completion is acceptable to the FDA. Further, the FDA does not consider reimbursement for travel expenses to and from the clinical trial site and associated costs such as airfare, parking, and lodging to raise issues regarding undue influence.

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

Per the US-ICH-GCP, 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, identify processes and data that are critical to ensure participant protection and the reliability of trial results
• Identify risks to critical trial processes and data
• Evaluate the identified risks against existing risk controls
• Decide which risks to reduce and/or which risks to accept
• Document quality management activities and communicate to those involved in or affected by these activities
• Periodically review risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented quality management activities are effective and relevant
• In the clinical study report, describe the quality management approach implemented in the trial and summarize important deviations from the predefined quality tolerance limits and remedial actions taken

As stated in the US-ICH-GCP, the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol, the US-ICH-GCP, and the applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor is responsible for obtaining agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. A written agreement must be signed by both the sponsor and the investigator or any other parties involved with the clinical trial, verifying that all parties agree to the trial protocol, the monitoring and auditing practices, the SOPs, and their respective duties.

Per the US-ICH-E19, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)’s E19 guidance, A Selective Approach to Safety Data Collection in Specific Late-Stage Pre-Approval or Post-Approval Clinical Trials. The document describes circumstances in which it may be appropriate to reduce the collection of safety data in late-stage pre-approval and post-approval clinical trials, e.g., long-term outcome trials, when appropriate and with agreement from regulatory authorities. See the US-ICH-E19 for more information.

Furthermore, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s G-CTEmrgncy provides general considerations to assist sponsors, institutional ethics committees (ECs) (institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States (US)), and clinical investigators in assuring the safety of trial participants, maintaining compliance with good clinical practice (GCP), and minimizing risks to trial integrity during disasters and public health emergencies that may lead to a major disruption of clinical trial conduct and operations. See the G-CTEmrgncy for more information.

The G-DecentralCT provides FDA recommendations for clinical trials with decentralized elements. The G-DecentralCT states that to account for multiple sources of data collection in a decentralized clinical trial, the sponsor should include at least the following in a data management plan or other trial-related documents: data origin and data flow from all sources to the sponsor (e.g., a diagram that depicts the flow of data from creation to final storage); methods and technologies used for remote data acquisition from trial participants, trial personnel, and contracted service providers (e.g., local clinical laboratory facilities and local health care providers who perform trial-related activities); and a list identifying service providers for data collection, handling, and management.

The G-DecentralCT further indicates that to protect the safety and welfare of trial participants in a decentralized clinical trial, sponsors should implement a safety monitoring plan that takes the decentralized nature of the clinical trial into account and ensures that adverse events and medication errors are appropriately collected and adequately addressed. When applicable, the safety monitoring plan should describe the type of information that will be collected by a digital health technology, how that information will be used and monitored, and what action trial participants or personnel should take in response to abnormal findings or electronic alerts. See the G-DecentralCT for additional information.

See the G-eHealthRecords for the FDA’s guidance related to the use of electronic health records in clinical research, and see the G-RemoteData for recommendations on the use of digital health technologies for remote data acquisition from participants in clinical investigations that evaluate medical products. Furthermore, see the G-ESourceData for FDA guidance regarding the capture, review, and retention of electronic source data, particularly for use in filling the predefined fields in an electronic case report form.

Additionally, the G-CovariatesCT provides the FDA’s recommendations for the use of covariates in the analysis of randomized, parallel group clinical trials that are applicable to both superiority trials and noninferiority trials. See the G-CovariatesCT for more information.

The G-RWDRWE-Reg, issued as part of the FDA’s Real-World Evidence (RWE) Program (see USA-17), discusses the applicability of the 21CFR312 investigational new drug application (IND) regulations to various clinical study designs that utilize real-world data (RWD). See the G-RWDRWE-Reg for more information.

See the FDA’s G-EnrchStrat for enrichment strategies that can be used in clinical investigations intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of drug and biological products, and the G-DataCollect for recommendations on the use of a standardized approach for collecting and reporting race and ethnicity data in submissions for clinical trials.

Additionally, see USA-47 for a list of FDA clinical trials related guidance documents.

See USA-6 for information on the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s data management and sharing policy, the NIHDataMngmnt, which applies to all research that is funded or conducted in whole or in part by the NIH, and results in the generation of scientific data.

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the US-ICH-GCP notes that the sponsor should ensure the trial is monitored and audited. The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, the US-ICH-GCP, and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor should appoint auditors to review the clinical trial. The sponsor should ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and the auditor’s qualifications should be documented. The sponsor must also ensure that the audit is conducted in accordance with the sponsor’s own SOPs and the auditor observations are documented. The sponsor should develop a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. The extent and nature of monitoring is flexible and permits varied approaches that improve effectiveness and efficiency. The sponsor may choose 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 FDA’s G-RiskMntrng states that for each clinical trial, the sponsor should develop a monitoring plan that describes the monitoring methods, responsibilities, and requirements for the trial. The monitoring plan should include a brief description of the study, its objectives, and the critical data and study procedures, with particular attention to data and procedures that are unusual in relation to clinical routine. The monitoring plan should also require training of study site staff. Additionally, the plan should communicate the specific risks to be addressed by monitoring and should provide those involved in monitoring with adequate information to effectively carry out their duties. The FDA also encourages greater use of centralized monitoring practices, where appropriate, with correspondingly less emphasis on on-site monitoring. Centralized monitoring techniques should be used to the extent appropriate and feasible to:

• Supplement or reduce the frequency and extent of on-site monitoring with monitoring activities that can be done as well or better remotely, or with monitoring activities that can be accomplished using centralized processes only. Examples include monitoring data quality through routine review of submitted data, as well as completing administrative and regulatory tasks.
• Target on-site monitoring by identifying higher risk clinical sites (e.g., sites with data anomalies or a higher frequency of errors, protocol violations, or dropouts relative to other sites).

For more FDA guidance on a risk-based approach to monitoring and monitoring plans, see the G-RiskMntrng and the G-RiskMntrngQA.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

As delineated in 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP, if the sponsor determines the study presents an unreasonable and significant risk to the participants, the sponsor must discontinue the study as soon as possible, and no later than five (5) working days after making the determination. The sponsor must also notify the FDA, all ECs, and all investigators who have participated in the study about the termination. Additionally, the sponsor must ensure the disposition of all remaining drugs and provide the FDA with a full report on the sponsor’s actions.

According to the US-ICH-GCP, 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 EC should also be informed promptly and provided the reason(s) for the termination or suspension by the sponsor.

The G-InfrmdCnsnt, which is the FDA’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50, further states that if a study is terminated, participants should be provided with as much information as possible regarding the reason for the termination. Such a discussion provides an opportunity to address questions that participants may have about an investigational product (IP) that was administered to them (e.g., immediate safety concerns, ability to participate in another clinical trial, and appropriate waiting period to do so) and what long-term follow up may be available or necessary.

21CFR312 indicates that if the FDA terminates an IND based on deficiencies in the IND or in the conduct of an investigation under an IND, the sponsor must end all clinical investigations conducted under the IND and recall or otherwise provide for the disposition of all unused supplies of the drug. See 21CFR312 for more information on FDA termination.

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

Per the US-ICH-GCP, 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 subject 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. Refer to the US-ICH-GCP for additional information.

As per the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s G-DecentralCT, electronic systems can be used to perform multiple functions to manage decentralized clinical trial (DCT) operations. Training should be provided to all parties (e.g., trial personnel, local health care providers, and trial participants) who are using electronic systems to support the conduct of DCTs. Electronic systems that are used to produce and process trial records required by the FDCAct and FDA regulations are subject to 21CFR11. These systems must ensure data reliability, security, privacy, and confidentiality.

See 21CFR11 and the G-Part11 for general FDA regulations and guidance on electronic records and systems. Additionally, see the G-ElecSyst for guidance specific to clinical investigations.

Records Management

As set forth in 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP, the sponsor must retain all sponsor-specific essential documents pertaining to the trial for at least two (2) years after a marketing application (known as a new drug application (NDA)) is approved for the drug; or if a NDA is not approved, until two (2) years after shipment and delivery of the drug for investigational use is discontinued and the FDA has been notified. The sponsor should also inform the investigator(s)/institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and when the trial-related records are no longer needed. Additionally, per 21CFR312, the sponsor must upon request from the FDA, permit an officer or employee to access, copy, and verify any records and reports relating to the clinical investigation. Upon written request by the FDA, the sponsor must also submit the records or reports (or copies of them) to the agency.

In addition, the US-ICH-GCP 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

As stated in USA-86, the HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information (PHI) may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes (Per USA-87, the Privacy Rule is located at 45CFR160 and Subparts A and E of 45CFR164; see USA-87 for more information). The Privacy Rule builds upon protections, described in Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) (the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA) (21CFR50 and 21CFR56) regulations, that help ensure the privacy of participants and the confidentiality of information. (Please note: ClinRegs does not provide information on state-level personal data protection requirements.)

Per the Privacy Rule, a covered entity means: a health plan; a healthcare clearinghouse; or a healthcare provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by the Privacy Rule.

Data Protection

According to the FDA’s G-CertCnfdntlty, a Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC) is intended to help protect the privacy of human subject research participants from whom identifiable, sensitive information is being collected or used in furtherance of the research. CoCs must be issued for federally funded human subject research that collects or uses identifiable, sensitive information (mandatory CoCs). For non-federally funded research, issuance of CoCs is not required but may be issued at the discretion of the FDA (discretionary CoCs). If an institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) determines that data collected in a clinical trial are sufficiently sensitive to warrant requesting a CoC, then the EC may request that a CoC be obtained in order to secure EC approval. Any disagreement between an EC, sponsor, and/or investigators regarding the need to request a CoC for a study should be resolved by communications among the parties. See the G-CertCnfdntlty for more information on CoCs.

28CFR202 prohibits certain data transactions that involve giving a country of concern or covered person access to: 1) bulk US sensitive personal data that involves bulk human ‘omic data; or 2) to human biospecimens from which bulk human ‘omic data could be derived. Human ‘omic data includes human genomic data, human epigenomic data, human proteomic data, and human transcriptomic data. However, 28CFR202 notes that there is an exemption for data transactions involving regulatory approval data, which refers to sensitive personal data that is de-identified or pseudonymized and that is required to be submitted to a regulatory entity, or is required by a regulatory entity to be submitted to a covered person, to obtain or maintain authorization or approval to research or market a drug, biological product, device, or combination product. Data transactions that are necessary to obtain or maintain regulatory authorization or approval to research or market a drug, biological product, device, or combination product may also be exempt. See 28CFR202 for more information on countries of concern, exempt transactions, and reporting requirements.

NIH Privacy Requirements

The NIHPrvcy indicates that the HHS’ National Institutes of Health (NIH) follows the PrvcyAct, which includes procedures for: 1) protecting records that can be retrieved by personal identifiers such as a name, social security number, or other identifying number or symbol, and 2) persons to access their identifiable records and to request correction(s) of these records. See the NIHPrvcy and the PrvcyAct for more information.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per USA-86, the Privacy Rule defines the means by which individuals will be informed of uses and disclosures of their medical information for research purposes, and their rights to access information about themselves held by covered entities. Researchers may obtain, create, use, and/or disclose individually identifiable health information in the course of conducting research. Under the Privacy Rule, covered entities are permitted to use and disclose PHI for research with individual authorization, or without individual authorization under limited circumstances. To use or disclose PHI without authorization by the research participant, a covered entity must obtain one (1) of the following:

• Documented EC or privacy board approval
• Representations from the researcher that the use or disclosure of the PHI is solely to prepare a research protocol (or for similar purposes preparatory to research), the researcher will not remove any PHI from the covered entity, and PHI for which access is sought is necessary for the research purpose
• Research on protected health information of decedents
• Limited data sets with a data use agreement
• Research use/disclosure with individual authorization
• Accounting for research disclosures

See USA-86 for more information on these circumstances.

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 States (US) clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in 21CFR50 for Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulated clinical trials, and the Pre2018-ComRule or the RevComRule for federally funded or sponsored clinical trials. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on agency-specific compliance.) Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-funded or sponsored clinical trials must also comply with 45CFR46-B-E. The FDA has also adopted the US-ICH-GCP as guidance.

As per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) and provided to the FDA with the investigational new drug application (IND).

Per the G-RevComRule-FDA, the informed consent requirements of the RevComRule are not inconsistent with FDA regulations. Therefore, there may not be a need for sponsors or investigators to develop, and have ECs review, two (2) separate ICFs for research that must comply with both the RevComRule and FDA regulations. (See the Required Elements section for ICF content details.) Per the RevComRule, which took effect January 21, 2019, for each clinical trial conducted or supported by a federal department or agency, one (1) EC-approved ICF used to enroll subjects must be posted by the awardee or the federal department or agency component conducting the trial on a publicly available federal website that will be established as a repository for such ICFs. According to USA-12, two (2) federal websites have been identified to meet this requirement: ClinicalTrials.gov (USA-78) and a docket folder on Regulations.gov (USA-79). According to the RevComRule, if the federal department or agency supporting or conducting the clinical trial determines that certain information should not be made publicly available on a federal website (e.g., confidential, commercial information), such federal department or agency may permit or require redactions to the information posted. The ICF must be posted on the federal website after the clinical trial is closed to recruitment and no later than 60 days after the last study visit by any subject, as required by the protocol.

According to 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the investigator must provide detailed research study information to the participant or the legal representative/guardian. ICF content should be briefly and clearly presented orally and in writing, in a manner that is easy to understand and commensurate with the comprehension level of the research participants, and without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant or the legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

As indicated in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study should contain any language that causes the participant or the legal representative/guardian to waive or appear to waive legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator, sponsor, institution or its agents from liability for negligence.

Additionally, per the RevComRule, participants must be provided with the information that a “reasonable person” would want to have in order to make an informed decision and an opportunity to discuss that information. Furthermore, the RevComRule requires that the informed consent, except for broad consent, must begin with a concise and focused presentation of the key information and organized to facilitate comprehension. Broad consent may be obtained in lieu of informed consent only with respect to the storage, maintenance, and secondary research uses of private identifiable information and identifiable biospecimens.

In addition, per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, the ICF may be presented as either a full length written ICF or as a short form stating the consent requirements have been presented orally. The full length written ICF may be presented orally but must then be provided to the participant or a legal representative/guardian to read before it is signed.

As per the FDA’s G-DecentralCT, obtaining informed consent remotely may be considered as part of a decentralized clinical trial. EC oversight is required to ensure the process is adequate and appropriate. See the G-DecentralCT for more information.

See the FDA’s G-ElectronicIC for recommendations on the use of electronic systems and processes that may employ multiple electronic media to obtain informed consent for both HHS-regulated human subject research and FDA-regulated clinical investigations of medical products.

See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for the FDA’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50. Also, see USA-60 for additional information regarding informed consent.

Additionally, see the FDA’s G-SEInfrmdCnsnt for guidance intended to help small businesses better understand the informed consent requirements set forth in 21CFR50.

Re-Consent

According to 21CFR50, the US-ICH-GCP, and the G-IRBFAQs, the EC should determine the need to re-consent enrolled participants in the event of an ICF modification due to protocol changes or new information which may, in turn, affect the willingness of already enrolled participants to continue in the study. The communication of this information should be documented.

The G-IRBFAQs indicates that the FDA does not require re-consenting of participants who have completed their active participation in the study, or of participants who are still actively participating when the change will not affect their participation. One such case is when the change will be implemented only for subsequently enrolled participants.

Language Requirements

21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP state that any information provided must be in a language understandable to the participant or the legal representative/guardian.

As delineated in the FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt, when non-English speaking participants are enrolled in a study, ECs and investigators must ensure that the information provided to prospective participants or their legal representative/guardian is in a language that is understandable to them. The EC must review and approve all consent documents that are to be used by investigators to document the informed consent. When translation and interpretation are needed for written and oral information to be presented to participants, the FDA recommends that the EC review and approve reasonable procedures for ensuring that the translations will be prepared by a qualified individual or entity, and that interpretation assistance is available. The FDA also recommends that whenever non-English speaking participants are enrolled in a study, appropriate interpreter services be made available throughout the course of the study.

USA-63 also states that when an oral presentation of the ICF is provided, the witness present should be fluent in both English and the participant’s language, and the translator may serve as the witness. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt and USA-63 for detailed information.

Documenting Consent

As set forth in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the participant or a legal representative/guardian must sign and date an EC-approved written ICF. A written copy of the form must be given to the participant or a legal representative/guardian. In addition, the RevComRule explicitly allows electronic signatures for consent documentation.

Per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, if the consent information is only presented orally using the short form, the participant or the legal representative/guardian must sign the form, the witness must sign both the short form and a copy of the summary once consent has been provided, and the person obtaining the consent must sign a copy of the summary. A copy of both the summary and the short form must be given to the participant or the legal representative/guardian.

The FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt further states that participants who cannot write can instead indicate their consent by "making their mark" on the consent document. In these situations, a note should be included in participant case histories indicating the reason for the lack of a signature and date as required in 21CFR50. The date consent was obtained should be recorded in this note. See 21CFR11 and the G-Part11 for general FDA regulations and guidance on electronic signatures. Additionally, see the G-ElecSyst for guidance specific to clinical investigations.

According to the US-ICH-GCP, where the participant is illiterate or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. The witness should sign and date the ICF after the following steps have occurred:

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

Per the US-ICH-GCP, before participating in the study, the participant or the legal representative/guardian should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF.

Waiver of Consent

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, the EC may waive the requirement to obtain a signed ICF if it finds any of the following:

• The ICF would risk a breach of confidentiality by linking the participant to the study
• The research presents minimal risk and involves no procedures for which written consent is required outside of the study

The RevComRule also adds that the EC may waive the requirements to obtain a signed ICF if the participants are part of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing the form is not the norm, the research presents minimal risk, and there is an alternative approach to document informed consent.

The Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule further indicate that in cases where the documentation requirement is waived, the EC may require the investigator to provide the participant or the legal representative/guardian with a written statement regarding the research.

In addition, 21CFR50, the RevComRule, and the Pre2018-ComRule state that for an EC to approve a general waiver or alteration of consent, the EC must find that:

• The research involves no more than minimal risk
• The research could not practicably be carried out without the requested waiver or alteration
• The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the participants
• Whenever appropriate, the participant or the legal representative/guardian will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation

21CFR50 and the RevComRule also state that for an EC to approve the general waiver or alteration of consent, the EC must find that if the research involves using identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, the research could not practicably be carried out without using such information or biospecimens in an identifiable format.

Furthermore, the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule specify that although voluntary informed consent is always a requirement for every trial, the EC may approve a waiver or alteration of consent if the study involves a public benefit and service program conducted by or subject to the approval of state or local officials and could not be carried out without the waiver or alteration.

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 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the informed consent form (ICF) must 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 expected duration of the trial
• Identification of any experimental procedures
• Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo or fetus
• Any expected benefits to the participant
• Disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures that might be advantageous to the participant
• Confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained and the possibility that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) may inspect the records
• Compensation and/or treatment available for the participant in the case of trial-related injury
• Contact information for relevant individuals to contact in the event of a trial-related injury
• That participation is voluntary, that refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled, and that the participant can withdraw from the trial at any time without penalty or loss of otherwise entitled benefits
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator may remove the participant without consent
• Any expenses the participant needs to pay to participate in the trial
• The consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the study, and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant
• Any significant new findings developed during the study that may affect a participant’s willingness to continue participation
• Approximate number of participants in the study

As per 21CFR50, for FDA-regulated research, the following statement must be included on the informed consent documents: “A description of this clinical trial will be available on https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, as required by U.S. Law. This Web site will not include information that can identify you. At most, the Web site will include a summary of the results. You can search this Web site at any time.”

In the G-InfrmdCnsnt, the FDA also recommends the consent document advise participants that data collected on them up until the point of their withdrawal from a study will remain part of the study database and may not be removed. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

Additionally, the G-DecentralCT provides FDA recommendations for clinical trials with decentralized elements. The G-DecentralCT indicates that, as applicable, the informed consent process in a decentralized clinical trial should inform trial participants: whether local healthcare providers will be used in the conduct of the trial; which trial activities will take place at their homes; and who will have access to their protected health information.

The RevComRule also requires the following statements to be included in the ICF:

• Whether research results will be disclosed to participants
• Whether or not the participant’s information or biospecimens will be used or distributed for future research
• That participant’s biospecimens (even if identifiers are removed) may be used for commercial profit and if the participant will share in this profit
• Whether biospecimens research may include whole genome sequencing

See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

Compensation Disclosure

The FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt further states that if no compensation in the event of injury is available, the consent process should include a statement informing the participant. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for an example statement.

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 21CFR50, 21CFR312, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the United States’ (US) ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, a potential participant or legal representative/guardian must be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As delineated in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, 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 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, participants should be given a statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying them will be maintained. Per the US-ICH-GCP, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. It is the responsibility of the investigator(s) to safeguard the confidentiality of research data to protect the identity and records of research participants.

The RevComRule does allow the use of identifiable private information or biospecimens in instances where the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) determines the research could not practicably be carried out without the information. Furthermore, it removes the requirement for the investigator to seek a waiver of informed consent to obtain information or biospecimens to screen, recruit, or determine eligibility of prospective participants. See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and see the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

The G-InfrmdCnsnt, which is the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50, delineates how data should be handled when an enrolled participant decides to withdraw from a trial. Data collected on participants up to the time of withdrawal from clinical investigations of drugs conducted under an investigational new drug application (IND) must remain in the study database to maintain the scientific validity of the research. The FDA recommends that participants be advised in the consent document that the data collected on them up until the point of their withdrawal will remain part of the study database and may not be removed. If a participant withdraws from the interventional portion of the clinical investigation but agrees to continued follow-up not addressed in the original consent document, the investigator must obtain the participant’s informed consent for this limited participation using an EC-approved consent document. If a participant withdraws from the interventional portion of a clinical investigation and does not consent to continued follow-up of associated clinical outcome information, the investigator must not access the participant’s medical record or other confidential records that would require additional consent from the participant. However, such records may be accessed consistent with the original consent process, without additional consent, to obtain information collected prior to the participant’s withdrawal from the study. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt and the G-DataReten for additional information.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP 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 and/or to appeal against a violation of the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The US-ICH-GCP clearly states that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

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.

21CFR50, 21CFR56, the US-ICH-GCP, and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when the procedure is complicated by life-threatening medical emergencies, public health emergencies, or military operations.

Medical Emergencies

The US-ICH-GCP states that in emergency situations, when prior consent of the research participant is not possible, the consent of the legal representative/guardian, if present, should be requested. When prior consent of the participant is not possible and the legal representative/guardian is not available, enrollment of the participant should require measures described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval/favorable opinion by the institutional ethics committee (EC) (referred to as an institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)). The participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

Emergency Use Situation

21CFR56 describes emergency use as the use of a test article, such as an investigational product (IP), on a human participant in a life-threatening situation in which no standard acceptable treatment is available, and in which there is not sufficient time to obtain EC approval.

21CFR50 and the G-EmrgncyUse indicate that even in an emergency use situation, obtaining participant consent is required unless the investigator and a physician not participating in the trial certify in writing the following:

• The participant is confronted by a life-threatening situation
• Informed consent cannot be obtained due to an inability to communicate with the participant
• Time is insufficient to obtain consent from the participant’s legal representative/guardian
• No alternative methods of approved or generally recognized therapy are available

Per 21CFR50 and the G-EmrgncyUse, if immediate use of the IP is, in the investigator's opinion, required to preserve the participant’s life and time is not sufficient to obtain an independent physician’s determination prior to using the IP, the investigator’s determinations should be carried out. However, within five (5) working days following the use of the IP, the investigator’s decision must be reviewed and evaluated in writing by a physician not participating in the investigation. According to 21CFR50, 21CFR56, and the G-EmrgncyUse, the investigator must also notify the EC within five (5) working days.

21CFR56, the G-EmrgncyUse, and the G-IRBFAQs further state that following emergency use of the IP, EC review and approval is required for any subsequent use of the IP.

Emergency Research

The G-ICEmrgncyReqs defines emergency research as a planned clinical investigation that requires prior written Food & Drug Administration (FDA) authorization to proceed, and involves participant(s) who are in a life-threatening situation for which available treatments or in vitro diagnostic tests are unproven or unsatisfactory.

21CFR50 and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs delineate that for emergency research, the EC may approve the investigation without requiring the consent of all the participants if the EC (with the concurrence of a licensed physician who is an EC member or EC consultant, and not otherwise participating in the investigation) finds and documents the following:

• The participants are in a life-threatening situation, available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory, and the collection of valid scientific evidence is necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness of particular interventions
• Obtaining informed consent is not feasible because: (i) the participants will not be able to give their informed consent as a result of their medical condition; (ii) the intervention under investigation must be administered before consent from the participants’ legal representative/guardian is feasible; and (iii) there is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation
• Participation in the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the participants
• The clinical investigation could not practicably be carried out without the waiver
• The proposed investigational plan defines the length of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator has committed to attempting to contact a legal representative/guardian for each participant within that window of time and, if feasible, to asking them for consent within that window rather than proceeding without consent
• The EC has reviewed and approved informed consent procedures and an informed consent document consistent with 21CFR50
• Additional protections of the rights and welfare of the participants will be provided

See 21CFR50 and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs for more details.

USA-60 notes that in certain emergency circumstances, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretarial waiver of informed consent under 46.101(i) of the RevComRule may be applicable. The HHS waiver applies to research that may be carried out in human participants who need emergency therapy and for whom, because of the participants’ medical condition and the unavailability of the participants’ legal representative/guardian, no legally effective informed consent can be obtained. Furthermore, if the research is regulated by the FDA, the HHS waiver permits the research to be conducted under a comparable provision. See the G-HHS-Emrgncy for additional guidance, USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the RevComRule applies to research.

Military Operations

21CFR50 and 10USC55 indicate that in the case of IP administration to a member of the armed forces in connection with participation in a particular military operation, the requirement for the member’s prior consent may be waived only by the US President. The US President may grant the waiver only after determining, in writing, that obtaining consent is not feasible; is contrary to the best interests of the military personnel; or is not in the interests of national security. See 21CFR50 and 10USC55 for detailed requirements.

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

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 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, in all United States (US) clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. Institutional ethics committees (ECs) (institutional review boards (IRBs) in the US) must pay special attention to protecting such participants. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

The US-ICH-GCP requires special considerations for vulnerable populations and characterize them as those whose willingness to volunteer in a trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response for refusing to participate. Examples of these participants include members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students; subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel; pharmaceutical industry employees; members of the armed forces; and persons kept in detention. Other vulnerable subjects include patients with incurable diseases, persons in nursing homes, unemployed or impoverished persons, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent. Per 21CFR56, vulnerable populations may include children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped, or mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.

The Pre2018-ComRule describes children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped persons, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons as vulnerable populations. The RevComRule describes children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons as vulnerable populations.

For more guidance documents related to vulnerable populations, see USA-64.

See the Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses, & Neonates; Prisoners; 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.

As set forth in 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, children are defined as persons who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures involved in the research, under the applicable law of the jurisdiction in which the study will be conducted. USA-25 further states that the age of majority in most states is 18 and therefore for legal purposes, children are those individuals who have not reached the age of 18. See USA-25 for a table delineating the legal age of majority by state in the United States (US).

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, children require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

As delineated in the US-ICH-GCP, when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from a parent/legal guardian. All pediatric participants should be fully informed about the trial and its risks and benefits in a language and in terms that they are easily able to understand. If capable, the participant should sign and date the written informed consent.

For all clinical trials that do not involve greater than minimal risk, 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E state that a study may only be conducted if adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their parent/legal guardian.

For all clinical trials that involve greater than minimal risk but present the prospect of direct benefit to the child, 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E indicate that a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The risk is justified by the anticipated benefit to the child
• The anticipated benefit is greater than or equal to the available alternative approaches
• Adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their parent/legal guardian

For all clinical trials involving children/minors that involve greater than minimal risk and do not present the prospect of direct benefit to the child, but will likely result in increased knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition, 21CFR50 and the 45CFR46-B-E state that a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The risk is slightly greater than minimal
• The trial presents experiences that are similar to those associated with the child’s actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situation
• Adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their parent/legal guardian

For all clinical trials that present a reasonable opportunity to further understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children/minors but is not otherwise approvable per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) finds that the investigation presents a reasonable opportunity to further the understanding, prevention, or alleviation of a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children, and,
• The Commissioner of Food and Drugs consults with an expert panel and has an opportunity for public review and comment to determine that the investigation satisfies the conditions of one (1) of the other earlier described research types, or the following conditions are met: the investigation will be conducted in accordance with sound ethical principles and adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of children and the permission of their parent/legal guardian

Per the RevComRule, certain exemptions may apply to observational research involving children. See the RevComRule for details.

For additional Food & Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on clinical research in children, see US-ICH-E11, the G-ChldrnSfgrd, and USA-60. Additionally, see the G-InfrmdCnsnt for FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

Assent Requirements

Per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, when determining whether children/minors are capable of providing assent, the EC must consider their age, maturity, and psychological state. Assent from a child/minor is not necessary for proceeding with the clinical trial if the following applies:

• The capability of some or all of the children/minors is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted
• The trial presents a potential direct benefit that is important to the health or well-being of the children/minors and is only available through the investigation

Further, the EC may waive assent, even if the children/minors are capable of providing assent, if it finds and documents the following:

• Trial involves no more than minimal risk
• The waiver will not negatively affect the rights and welfare of the children/minors
• The trial could not be implemented without the waiver
• The children/minors will be given additional information after participation, whenever appropriate

When parent/legal guardian permission is necessary, the EC must determine whether the permission of one (1) parent/legal guardian is sufficient, or if permission from both is required. If the EC determines assent is required, it must also determine whether and how assent must be documented. 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E do specify, however, that the consent of both parents/legal guardians is required in the following cases:

• When there is greater than minimal risk to the child with no direct benefit to the child, but the study will likely result in increased knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition
• Research that presents an opportunity to understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children/minors, but is not otherwise approvable

Exceptions to the consent requirement involving both parents/legal guardians include when one (1) parent/legal guardian is deceased, unknown, incompetent, or not reasonably available, or, when only one (1) parent/legal guardian has legal responsibility for the care and custody of the child.

The G-InfrmdCnsnt indicates that when obtaining parent/legal guardian permission, in the event that the parent/legal guardian of a child does not understand English, the permission must be obtained and documented in a language that is understandable to the parent/legal guardian. The child who will be participating in the research should not be used as an interpreter for the parent/legal guardian, even if the child is fluent in English and may be able to assent. Further, parent/legal guardian permission and child assent should be viewed as an ongoing process throughout the duration of a clinical investigation. If and when a child who was enrolled in a clinical investigation with parent/legal guardian permission reaches the legal age of consent, that participant no longer meets the definition of a child under 21CFR50, and the investigator should obtain the participant’s informed consent prior to performing any further research interventions and/or procedures involving that participant. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

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.

As per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, for studies involving women of childbearing age or who are pregnant, a statement should be provided in the informed consent form (ICF) indicating that the treatment or procedure may involve risks to the participant, embryo, or fetus, which are currently unforeseeable. According to the US-ICH-GCP, the ICF should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule, pregnant women require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. Furthermore, according to the RevComRule, all of the available exemptions of the RevComRule for observational research may be applied to research involving pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates. See the RevComRule for details. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

All Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-sponsored or -funded research involving pregnant women, human fetuses, neonates of uncertain viability, or nonviable neonates must comply with subpart B of 45CFR46-B-E.

Pregnant Women and Fetuses

As per 45CFR46-B-E, pregnant women and fetuses may participate in research if all of the following criteria are met:

• Preclinical and clinical studies have been conducted and provide data for assessing potential risks, where scientifically appropriate
• Risk to the fetus is caused solely by procedures that provide potential direct benefit to the woman or fetus. If there is no potential direct benefit, then the risk to the fetus cannot be greater than minimal, and the intent of the study is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise
• Least possible risk involved for achieving the research objectives
• Consent is obtained from the woman for studies that provide potential direct benefit to the pregnant woman and/or fetus, and studies with minimal risk to the fetus conducted to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise
• Consent is obtained from the pregnant woman and the father if the study provides potential direct benefit solely to the fetus. Paternal consent is not required if the father is unavailable, incompetent, temporarily incapacitated, or the pregnancy was a result of incest or rape
• All individuals providing consent are fully informed about the foreseeable impact on the fetus or neonate
• No inducements will be offered to terminate a pregnancy
• Participants will not be involved in determining the timing, method, or procedures for terminating a pregnancy
• Participants will not be involved in determining the viability of a neonate

Neonates

45CFR46-B-E states that neonates may not be involved in research unless all of the following criteria are met:

• Preclinical and clinical studies have been conducted and provide data for assessing potential risks, where scientifically appropriate
• All individuals providing consent are fully informed about the foreseeable impact on the neonate

Neonates of uncertain viability may not be involved in research unless the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) determines the following additional conditions are met:

• Research provides the potential for increasing the probability of survival to the point of viability, and involves the least possible risk
• The purpose is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise and there is no added risk resulting from the research
• Informed consent is obtained from either parent, or if neither parent is able to provide consent, then consent is obtained from the neonate’s legal representative/guardian. Paternal consent is not required if pregnancy was a result of incest or rape.

Nonviable neonates may not be involved in research unless the following additional conditions are met:

• Vital functions will not be maintained artificially
• Research will not terminate the heartbeat or respiration
• The purpose is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise, and there is no added risk resulting from the research
• Consent is obtained from both parents. If neither parent is able to provide consent, then informed consent of one (1) parent will suffice. Paternal consent is not required if pregnancy was a result of incest or rape. Consent of a legal representative or guardian of either or both parents will not suffice.

Viable neonates may only be included in research to the extent permitted by and in accordance with the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, as applicable, and subpart D of 45CFR46-B-E.

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.

21CFR56, 45CFR46-B-E, and the US-ICH-GCP include prisoners in their description of vulnerable populations. As set forth in 45CFR46-B-E, a prisoner is defined as any individual involuntarily confined or detained in a penal institution. Prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, prisoners require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. As delineated in the RevComRule, none of its observational research exemptions may be applied to research involving prisoners, except for research aimed at involving a broader subject population that only incidentally includes prisoners. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

45CFR46-B-E states that prisoners may participate in nonexempt biomedical or behavioral research conducted or supported by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) only if the following criteria are met:

• The institution conducting the research has certified to the HHS Secretary that the research has been approved by the institutional ethics committees (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)); research involves minimal risk; and studies focus on the possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration and criminal behavior, prisons as institutional structures, or prisoners as incarcerated persons
• Research should focus on conditions specifically affecting prisoners as a class, or practices that have the intent and likelihood of improving the health or well-being of participants only after the HHS Secretary has consulted the appropriate experts, and a Federal Register notice is published indicating intent to approve such research

See USA-62 for more HHS information on prisoner research.

As per 45CFR46-B-E, ECs have additional approval responsibilities when reviewing research studies involving prisoners. An EC must only approve these studies if it determines that:

• The research under review represents one (1) of the permissible categories of research delineated in Subpart C
• The prisoner’s judgement will not be impaired by any possible advantages accruing to the prisoner through participation in the research, when compared to the general living conditions, medical care, quality of food, amenities, and opportunity for earnings in the prison
• Research risks are commensurate with those that would be accepted by non-prisoner volunteers
• Procedures for participant selection within the prison are fair to all prisoners and immune from arbitrary intervention by prison authorities or prisoners
• Information is presented in a language understandable to the prisoner population
• Adequate assurance exists that parole boards will not take into account a prisoner's participation in the research in making decisions regarding parole, and each prisoner is clearly informed in advance that participation in the research will have no effect on parole
• As needed, adequate provisions have been made for follow-up examination or care of participants, taking into account the varying lengths of individual prisoners' sentences, and for informing participants of this fact

See Subpart C of 45CFR46-B-E for additional EC requirements related to prisoner research.

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.

In accordance with 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, an institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) must approve the participation of research participants who are mentally incapable of giving consent. According to the G-InfrmdCnsnt, which is the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50, impaired consent capacity may involve partial impairment, impairment that fluctuates over time, or complete impairment. Consent capacity can be affected by a wide range of disorders and conditions, such as dementia, stroke, traumatic brain injury, intellectual and developmental disabilities, serious mental illness, intoxication, and delirium.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, this population requires additional safeguards to be included in any research study to protect the rights and welfare of participants likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)