Health Canada

As per the CanadaFDA, the CanadaFDR, and the G-CanadaCTApps, Health Canada (HC) is the competent authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, oversight, and inspections in Canada. The G-CanadaCTApps states that the HC grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in the country, and regulates the sale and importation of drugs for use in clinical trials in accordance with the CanadaFDR provisions.

As per CAN-29, HC is one (1) of five (5) federal agencies within Canada’s “Health Portfolio” overseen by the Minister of Health. As delineated in CAN-23, HC’s Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB) is the national authority that regulates, evaluates, and monitors therapeutic and diagnostic product safety, efficacy, and quality, and reviews the information submitted in the clinical trial application. Per CanadaFDA, if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the use of a therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present a risk of injury to health, the Minister may, by order, establish rules in respect of the importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labeling, storage, or testing of the therapeutic product for the purpose of preventing, managing, or controlling the risk of injury to health.

Per CAN-16, HPFB’s activities are carried out by nine (9) Directorates, including the Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (PDD) and the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD). Per CAN-18, PDD regulates pharmaceutical drugs for human use. Specifically, PPD:

• Reviews scientific information to assess the safety, efficacy, and quality of a prescription drug
• Assesses the potential benefits and risks of a prescription drug
• Reviews clinical trial applications for prescription drugs to ensure that the studies are well-designed and that participants will not be exposed to undue risk
• Monitors the evolving safety of drugs in development through the review of adverse reaction reports
• Makes non-marketed drugs available to health professionals for patients when conventional therapies have failed, are not suitable, or are not available
• Provides Canadians with science-based medical information they need to make informed choices

CAN-17 indicates that the BRDD regulates biological drugs, radiopharmaceuticals, and cells, tissues, and organs for human use, including clinical trials.

In addition, the G-CanadaCTApps indicates that the PDD’s Office of Clinical Trials (OCT) and the BRDD’s Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), among others, are directly involved with the clinical trial review and approval process for pharmaceutical, biological, and radiopharmaceutical drugs. CAN-18 states that the PDD Director General's Office oversees pharmaceutical clinical trials. Per the G-MDSA, the Therapeutic Products Classification Committee (TPCC) may be consulted when it is not clear whether a product should be classified as a drug or device. The committee makes recommendations on the classification of a product as either a drug, medical device, or combination product. When appropriate, other regulatory areas of HC may be asked to participate in the committee's discussion.

As per CAN-41, HC has established a regulatory innovation agenda, which aims to provide more regulatory flexibility to support innovative research and health product development. For more details, see CAN-41.

International Alignment

Per CAN-10, Canada is an official member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). CAN-50 indicates that HC adopted the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52). The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence. More generally, CAN-50 notes HC-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are inconsistent. Also see CAN-50 for details on all the ICH guidelines implemented by HC. For any questions or comments, contact HC’s ICH Coordinator via email at ich@hc-sc.gc.ca.

Contact Information

According to the G-MDSA and CAN-18, Health Canada PDD contact information is as follows (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Office of Clinical Trials
Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate
Health Canada
Holland Cross, Tower B
1600 Scott Street, 5th Floor
Address Locator: 3105A
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9

Phone (General Enquiries): 613-957-0368
Fax (General Enquiries): 613-952-7756
General Inquiries: oct.enquiries-requetes.bec@hc-sc.gc.ca
Pre-CTA Meeting Requests: oct.pre.cta-dec.bec@hc-sc.gc.ca (per G-MDSA)

Per G-MDSA, the following is the contact information for biologic clinical trials:

Office of Regulatory Affairs
Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate
Health Products and Food Branch
Health Canada
Tunney’s Pasture
100 Eglantine Driveway
Address Locator: 0601C
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9

Phone: 613-957-1722
E-mail: brdd.ora@hc-sc.gc.ca

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

As per the MHCTR, the “licensing authority” is responsible for clinical trial authorization. Pursuant to the MMDAct, the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is authorized to make clinical trials regulations and amend or supplement the law relating to human medicines, taking into consideration the safety of human medicines and the availability of human medicines. As indicated in GBR-71 and GBR-90, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is an executive agency, sponsored by the DHSC, and is responsible for regulating medicines and medical devices in the United Kingdom (UK) (i.e., it is the licensing authority).

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

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

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

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

For a listing of MHRA services and information, see GBR-36.

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

Changes to the UK Clinical Trials Regulations

As summarized in the CT-Hub and the MHCTR-Chgs, the amended MHCTR updates the UK framework for clinical trials involving investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), including changes relating to definitions and terminology, the approvals process, ethics committee review, simplified consent arrangements, pharmacovigilance, risk proportionality, and transparency requirements. The MHCTR-Chgs also provides an overview of the changes to policies and standards. The amended regulations apply across all four (4) nations of the UK. The CT-Transtn lays out the transitional provisions because some requirements depend on whether the application for trial approval was submitted before or on/after April 28, 2026, and certain amended requirements will also apply to older trials from that date. (Note: Transitional details are described in the relevant sections of this profile.)

International Alignment

Per GBR-44, the MHRA is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The MHCTR requires that all clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP), including the ICH GCP, as amended from time to time. The UK-ICHE6-Comply explains that this legal requirement applies to the ICH E6 GCP conditions and principles rather than the entirety of the guideline. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the MHRA has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—to support compliance with the ICH efficacy guidelines by clarifying how the ICH provisions should be read alongside applicable UK legal requirements and by directing users to relevant UK requirements. (Note: As these applicable requirements are addressed throughout the profile, the annotations are cited only where they provide additional UK-specific clarification, exceptions, or requirements.) See ICH-UKimp for all the current ICH guidelines that have been implemented by the MHRA.

In addition, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) except where it would be a contravention of the MHCTR. The Hlsnki-Align explains that reference to specific versions of GBR-81 have been removed as compliance is expected with the principles of GBR-81 rather than with a specific version.

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

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

Contact Information

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

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

Main Phone: +44 020 3080 6000
General Email: info@mhra.gov.uk
Clinical Trials of Medicines:
Email: clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk
Telephone: +44 020 3080 6456

Pharmacovigilance: vigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk and gpvpinspectors@mhra.gov.uk
Data Protection Email: DataProtection@mhra.gov.uk
Importing or Exporting Investigational Medical Products Email: for queries, complete the GMP contact form and email it to gmpinspectorate@mhra.gov.uk
Scotland-related regulatory matters: Scotland-support@mhra.gov.uk
Wales-related regulatory matters: Wales-support@mhra.gov.uk
Northern Ireland-related regulatory matters: NI-support@mhra.gov.uk

See GBR-58 for additional MHRA contact information.

For help with setting up and conducting research in the National Health Service (NHS) across multiple UK nations, the UKwide-Rsrch provides the following emails for queries:

• England: queries@hra.nhs.uk
• Northern Ireland: Research.Approvals@hscni.net
• Wales: healthandcareresearch@wales.nhs.uk
• Scotland: enquiries@nrs.org.uk

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDA, Health Canada (HC) reviews, evaluates, and approves applications for clinical trials using authorized therapeutic products. HC also approves the sale or importation of drugs for use in clinical trials. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information on importation.) As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, institutional ethics committee (EC) review is required for each clinical trial site and may occur in parallel with HC’s clinical trial application (CTA) review and approval. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100. See CAN-23 for background information on how HC reviews drugs in Canada.

Per the CanadaFDA, a “therapeutic product” is defined as a drug or device, or any combination of drugs and devices, but does not include natural health products; and “therapeutic product authorization” refers to a license that is approved for the import, sale, advertisement, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labeling, storage, or testing of a therapeutic product. As per the G-CanadaCTApps, a drug is defined as a pharmaceutical, biologic, gene therapy, blood product, vaccine, and radiopharmaceutical for human use that is to be tested in a clinical trial. HC’s scope of assessment includes clinical trials (Phases I - III) using:

• Drugs not authorized for sale in Canada in development and in comparative bioavailability studies
• Marketed drugs where the proposed use of the drug for one (1) of the following is different: indication(s) and clinical use; target patient population(s); route(s) of administration; or dosage regimen(s)

Clinical Trial Review Process

As set forth in the G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-23, HC’s Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB) coordinates the CTA approval process. The G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-23 state that prior to initiating the trial, the sponsor must file a CTA to the appropriate HPFB Directorate. CTAs involving pharmaceutical drugs should be sent to the Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (PDD), and CTAs involving biologics and/or radiopharmaceuticals should be sent to the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD).

The G-CanadaCTApps indicates that upon receipt of a CTA, the HPFB Directorate (PDD/BRDD) screens the application package for completeness. If deficiencies are found, the Directorate sends the sponsor a Request for Clarification or a Screening Rejection Letter. If the Directorate finds the application complete, an acknowledgement letter is issued to indicate the 30-day default review period commenced on the date of receipt. See CAN-23 for more information.

Per the G-CanadaCTApps, once a clinical trial is authorized, the sponsor is allowed to sell or import a drug for use in a trial, if a CTA has been filed with HC and has not received an objection within 30 days. If the clinical trial is authorized, a No Objection Letter (NOL) is issued. If the CTA is rejected, a Not Satisfactory Notice (NSN) is issued. During the review period, the Directorate may request additional information from the sponsor, who has two (2) calendar days to provide such information. Please see the G-CanadaCTApps for special requirements regarding reviews of comparative bioavailability studies and joint reviews of clinical trials covering a combination of devices, biologics, and pharmaceuticals. See the Submission Process section for detailed application submission requirements. See CAN-23 for more information.

Per the G-CanadaCTApps, soon after HC issues an NOL, it will publish the following information about the clinical trial in HC’s publicly accessible database:

• Protocol number
• Protocol title
• Drug name
• Medical condition
• Study population
• Authorization date
• Sponsor name
• HC control number
• Trial start and end dates, if known

The CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps also delineate that a clinical trial application-amendment (CTA-A) is required for proposed changes to a previously authorized study when the changes to clinical trial drug supplies affect the quality or safety of the drug, or when the changes to an authorized protocol alter the risk to clinical trial participants, or both. CTA-As must be authorized by HC prior to implementation of the changes. However, if the sponsor is required to immediately implement changes because the clinical trial or the use of the clinical trial drug endangers the health of participants or other persons, the sponsor may immediately make the amendment without prior review by HC. Sponsors must notify HC of this change, provide the relevant rationale in support of the immediate implementation, and file a CTA-A that clearly identifies the change and rationale for immediate implementation of the change within 15 days after the amendment implementation date. In addition, sponsors may make the following changes immediately if it notifies HC in writing within 15 days after the date of the change: a change to the chemistry and manufacturing information that does not affect the quality or safety of the drug; or a change to the protocol that does not alter the risk to the health of a participant.

As per the G-Dcntrl, HC requires information about decentralized elements in the clinical trial application to review whether these elements were designed to minimize risk to participants, support appropriate oversight and monitoring throughout the trial, and help achieve trial objectives. Additionally, sponsors must attest that the trial, including all decentralized elements, will be conducted according to good clinical practice (GCP). Depending on the decentralized elements and activities within the proposed trial known at the time of application, HC will review how participant visits and clinical trial activities will be conducted (e.g., in person, by telephone or telehealth platform, or through third parties or vendors). See G-Dcntrl for more details about clinical trials with decentralized elements.

As delineated in the CanadaFDA and the G-Inspections, HC is authorized to implement an inspection strategy and to ensure compliance with CanadaFDA. The G-Inspections states that HC’s Regulatory Operations and Enforcement Branch (ROEB) monitors compliance, which is assessed through inspections and other compliance and enforcement activities, such as compliance verifications. Compliance verifications of clinical trials may be initiated when there are reasonable grounds to believe that non-compliance may have occurred or is occurring and that enforcement measures may be necessary (e.g., complaints received regarding specific trials, reports of adverse drug reaction(s), or reports from other regulatory authorities). The Clinical Trial Compliance Program within ROEB is responsible for clinical trial site selection for inspections in collaboration with the PDD and the BRDD. A risk-based approach is applied in the site selection process to minimize the potential health risks inherent to clinical trials involving human participants. The selection of sites for inspection is based on a variety of criteria to select sites throughout all levels of the drug assessment and regulatory approvals process. For clinical trial sites with decentralized elements, G-Dcntrl states that the main location of the clinical trial site associated with the qualified investigator (QI) is the primary point of contact for an inspection. HC inspectors may request documentation from sponsors and QIs to demonstrate adequate coordination, oversight, and monitoring of delegated parties, as well as the measures in place to protect participant safety. See the Risk-Insp for a risk classification guide used by ROEB; this guide describes how inspectors classify risk-based observations and assign a rating, promotes consistency, and provides examples of inspection observations.

Per the CanadaFDR, HC will suspend the authorization to sell or import a drug for clinical trial purposes if it has reasonable grounds to believe that:

• The sponsor has contravened any relevant laws or regulations
• Any information submitted in respect of the drug or clinical trial is false or misleading
• The sponsor has failed to comply with GCP
• The sponsor has failed to provide information or samples as required by the regulation

See the CanadaFDR for additional details on HC’s suspension and cancellation responsibilities.

Expanded Access Clinical Trial

The Expd-CTs explains that in Canada, an expanded access clinical trial is a type of clinical trial that provides access to investigational products (IPs) that have the potential to treat people living with medical conditions who do not qualify for other clinical trials or are not able to participate in one. When appropriate, expanded access clinical trials can use more flexible protocols and a decentralized model to facilitate access for a larger, potentially more diverse population of participants, in more accessible settings. Since expanded access clinical trials are a type of clinical trial under the CanadaFDR, they require a CTA for review by HC. HC will review applications for the sponsor’s evidence from previous studies that the proposed use of the IP would not endanger the health and safety of participants. HC assesses all CTAs on a case-by-case basis. CTAs for expanded access clinical trials follow the same review processes and timelines as other clinical trials. HC scientists and physicians review expanded access CTAs to assess whether:

• The risks in using the drug in the trial are considered and would not endanger health and safety
• The best interests of those taking part in the trial have been considered, including that drugs are used in the right way for the participants being studied
• The goals of the trial can be met

Per the Expd-CTs, group-level access to a drug in Canada is available only through an expanded access clinical trial and not through the individual-patient Special Access Program. Therefore, sponsors wishing to include a Canadian arm in an international expanded access program for multiple patients must do so through an expanded access clinical trial.

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR and as described in GBR-71, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the licensing authority responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving applications for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs). Per the MHCTR and the CTApp-Appvl, a person must not start or conduct a clinical trial without prior MHRA authorization and a favorable ethics committee (EC) opinion. The CTApp-Appvl calls it a joint ‘clinical trial approval’. The MHCTR-Chgs states that a clinical trial application is submitted to the MHRA and the EC using the combined review part (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78). As explained in GBR-72, clinical trial applications must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process, which offers a single application route and parallel/coordinated review from the MHRA and the EC (and study-wide review, which is discussed below) leading to a single United Kingdom (UK) decision for clinical trials. See GBR-72 for additional updates and information on combined review.

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

See Schedule 14 of the MHCTR, and the CT-Transtn for background information on transitional arrangements from the ‘old rules clinical trial’ to the ‘new rules clinical trial’.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Per the MHCTR, the MHRA and the EC — collectively, “the authorities” — must confirm whether a request for approval is valid within seven (7) days beginning with the date of submission and must notify the sponsor. Once the request for approval is deemed valid, the MHRA must assess the request for authorization, and the EC must assess the application for an EC opinion. The MHCTR-Chgs indicates that the authorities will aim to notify sponsors of the outcome of the validation check within one (1) working day. As indicated in the CTApp-Appvl, the outcome of these checks will be communicated by email and through IRAS within seven (7) calendar days of submission. As soon as possible during this 7-day period, and no later than on the fifth calendar day, the MHRA may notify the applicant by email of any deficiencies identified during the validation checks and allow them to be addressed. If these deficiencies remain unresolved by the end of this 7-day period, the application will be invalidated, and the applicant will need to resubmit the application with the deficiencies corrected. The MHRA’s CTApp-Appvl and the Health Research Authority (HRA)’s MHCTR-Chgs provide operational guidance on the joint review and approval process laid out in the MHCTR.

The CT-Transtn provide that the “new rules” under MHCTR apply to the whole process of requesting approval for a clinical trial that is submitted on or after April 28, 2026. If an application to approve a clinical trial is submitted before April 28, 2026:

• The “old rules” apply to the whole process of requesting approval (even after April 28, 2026, if the MHRA and the EC have not issued a decision or opinion by then)
• If the MHRA issues a notice of grounds for non-acceptance after April 28, 2026, the old rules still apply following the applicant’s response to the grounds for non-acceptance
• The provision that a clinical trial approval will lapse two (2) years from the date on which the trial was approved if no participants have been recruited to take part does not apply

As part of its assessment, MHCTR states that the MHRA must consider the safety of the clinical trial and the safeguarding of clinical trial participants. The MHRA may consider whether the sponsor has failed to comply with clinical trial transparency requirements in relation to another clinical trial and, if so, whether the failure has been rectified (e.g., registering a previous clinical trial and/or publishing a summary of final results). Where the request for authorization contains a statement that the trial is a notifiable trial (i.e., eligible low-risk trials), the MHRA may, if it considers appropriate and without undertaking further assessment, rely on that statement to provide an automatic authorization of the clinical trial (more details below). The MHRA may consult a relevant committee and/or a specialist group or committee if it considers it appropriate (more details on this below). The authorities must not authorize a clinical trial involving products for gene therapy if the use of those products in that trial would result in modifications to any participant’s germ line genetic identity. Also see the CTApp-Appvl, and the MHCTR-Chgs for additional details.

After completing the initial review, MHCTR stipulates that the MHRA must provide its decision on the request for authorization, and the EC must give its opinion on the clinical trial. The authorities must notify the sponsor in writing of the joint outcome, which is one (1) of the following:

• Approve the request for approval
• Approve the request for approval, subject to conditions specified in the notice
• Not approve the request for approval, setting out the grounds for the decision and requesting the further information (RFI) required for the application to be reconsidered

Per the MHCTR, subject to applicable extensions and special circumstances, the authorities must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the joint notice is given within 30 days beginning with the date on which the authorities notified the sponsor that the request for approval was valid. Where approval is subject to conditions, the notice must specify whether the conditions relate to the MHRA’s decision, the EC opinion, or both. The clinical trial is treated as approved only if the conditions specified in the notice are satisfied. Following an RFI, the amended request for approval must be reviewed by the appropriate authority. The MHRA reviews the amended request where the RFI relates to the MHRA’s authorization decision; the EC reviews it where the RFI relates to the EC opinion; and both authorities review it where the request relates to both.

Next, the MHCTR states that applicants have 60 calendar days from the date on which the decision letter was issued to provide the requested information for the application to be reconsidered. The CTApp-Appvl indicates that the applicant’s submittal can be either a written response or an amended application for approval. The application is treated as rejected if this deadline is not met. However, extensions to this deadline can be requested by contacting the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk (or by contacting the EC directly, if the information requested relates only to its opinion), explaining why the extension is needed and proposing an alternative submission date. The MHCTR-Chgs explains that the applicant must wait for the full RFI (issued in GBR-125) before responding to any points received individually from the MHRA or EC. The full RFI will have the final consolidated feedback, including any queries or issues, from both the MHRA and EC. See G-IRASCombRev and IRAS-User for additional details on using GBR-125 during the review process.

Next, MHCTR provides that after reviewing the amended request, the appropriate authority must notify the sponsor in writing of the outcome, which is one (1) of the following:

• Approve the amended request
• Approve the amended request, subject to conditions specified in the notice
• Not approve the amended request, setting out the grounds for the decision

As per the MHCTR, subject to applicable extensions and special circumstances, the appropriate authority must take all reasonable steps to ensure that notice is given within 10 days beginning with the date of receipt of the amended request. The CTApp-Appvl further provides that for approvals with conditions, it is not necessary to inform the authorities that the conditions have been met before starting the trial, unless otherwise specified in the approval letter. In some cases, the MHRA and/or the EC may allow a condition of approval to be fulfilled at a specific timepoint after the trial begins. In these cases, the trial may begin before meeting the condition, but failure to meet the condition by the specified timepoint will mean that the approval is not valid and the trial must be stopped until the condition is discharged. A substantial modification can then be submitted requesting approval to restart the trial.

For the initial review, the MHCTR provides that the 30-day period is extended by 90 days where the MHRA or the EC consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee. For review of an amended request, the 10-day period is extended by 30 days where the MHRA or the EC consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee, or by 60 days where the investigational medicinal product (IP) is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) and such consultation occurs. If the clinical trial involves a medicinal product for xenogenic cell therapy, the usual time periods do not apply. See below and the Submission Process section for more details on consultations.

Per the MHCTR, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in an urgent situation where it would be beneficial to progress one (1) request or application while preparing the other), and if agreed in advance by the MHRA or the EC, a request for authorization and an application for an EC opinion may be made separately outside of combined review. Where an agreement has been reached, the MHRA or the EC must confirm which of the particulars and documents specified in Part A1 of Schedule 3 must accompany the request for authorization and the application for an EC opinion; and the arrangements for the payment of the fee.

The MHCTR-Chgs states that the sponsor can appeal an MHRA non-approval or an EC unfavorable opinion by contacting appeals@hra.nhs.uk within 28 calendar days of receiving the outcome. In their appeal, the sponsor must explain why they disagree with the outcome. See the CTApp-Appvl for additional details on the appeals process and requirements.

See GBR-82 for a flowchart summarizing the process of applying for clinical trial approval. In addition, see MHCTR-Chgs for more descriptions of the approval process to the MHCTR.

Per the MHCTR, if a clinical trial is to be conducted in another country as well as the UK, the MHRA may require the sponsor, and/or the owner or occupier of any premises in that country, to permit those premises to be inspected by or on behalf of the MHRA for the purpose of establishing whether the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP) are satisfied or adhered to in relation to that trial.

The MHCTR and the EndingCT state that a clinical trial approval will lapse two (2) years from the date on which the trial was approved if no participants have been recruited. The EndingCT indicates that the MHRA will monitor the status of the trial’s approval. If the approval lapses, the sponsor will be contacted via email to confirm this. The sponsor will then need to submit an end of trial notification. To enable the MHRA to monitor approval status, all sponsors will need to notify the MHRA and the EC of the date on which the first participant was recruited to a clinical trial through the modification of an important detail process. Sponsors can apply to the authorities for an extension of this period by emailing clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk, explaining both why the extension is needed and the length of the proposed extension. The authorities can grant an initial extension of up to 36 months beyond the lapse date and a further extension of up to 24 months, which must be requested (through the same process) before the previous extensions end. The MHRA and the EC will respond to extension requests via email within 30 calendar days or, if the trial is awaiting approval, at the same time as the outcome of the application for clinical trial approval is issued.

Per the MHCTR, the MHRA may, by notice, require that a clinical trial, or the conduct of a trial at a particular trial location, be suspended or terminated where it has objective grounds for considering that an applicable condition, restriction, or limitation is no longer satisfied, has information raising doubts about the safety or scientific validity of the trial, or where the trial has lapsed and the sponsor has not notified the MHRA that the trial has ended. The notice must specify whether it applies generally or to specific trial locations, whether it requires suspension or termination in whole or in part, and when it takes effect; for a suspension, whether it continues until further notice or for a specified period and any conditions for recommencement. The notice must be served to the sponsor or the investigator(s) at the relevant trial location(s). Additionally, the MHRA must inform the relevant EC and the sponsor (if the notice was not served to the sponsor). Unless the MHRA believes there is an imminent risk to the health or safety of any participants, the MHRA must inform the sponsor or investigator in writing of its intent to issue the notice at least one (1) week before issuance, and provide an opportunity for written representations within one (1) week as to whether the trial should be suspended or terminated. A person served with the notice of suspension or termination may, within 28 days or an extended period as allowed, give notice of a wish to make written or oral representations to the appropriate committee, and any referred suspension or termination remains in force unless revoked in accordance with Schedule 5.

To support compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91), the GCP-Inspct states that the MHRA:

• Requires organizations sponsoring clinical trials to notify them of serious breaches
• May conduct triggered inspections of organizations where serious breaches are suspected
• May conduct routine risk-based inspections of organizations that sponsor or conduct clinical trials
• May conduct inspections of clinical trials, and associated activities, submitted in support of a marketing authorization application

The G-GMP-GDP specifies that the MHRA follows a risk-based approach to inspections. Once an inspection has been completed, a formal report outlining the findings will be sent to the inspected organization.

Consultations for Expert Advice

Regarding consultations, the CT-Experts explains that the MHRA or the EC may consult a relevant committee or specialist group before issuing a clinical trial decision, including for certain scientifically complex or higher-risk trials. In deciding whether to seek expert advice, the authorities may consider factors such as the IP’s mode of action, the nature of the target, and the relevance of animal species and models; examples include novel compounds and certain first-in-human trials. See the CT-Experts for additional details and a process flowchart. (See Submission Process section for more details.)

Modifications to a CTIMP Approval

Per the MHCTR and the CTMod, a clinical trial approval may be modified by the trial’s sponsor, the MHRA, or the EC. Modifications to a clinical trial approval can be categorized into substantial modifications (Route A or Route B), modifications of an important detail, and minor modifications. Approval to make substantial modifications must be received from the MHRA and EC before implementation. The exception to this is for substantial modifications that relate to urgent safety measures. When considering implementing substantial modifications, sponsors should assess whether such modifications alter the original clinical trial approval to the extent that it should be considered a new clinical trial. If this is the case, a new application for clinical trial approval should be submitted. As described in the CTMod, the sponsor is responsible for using a risk-based approach to determine which of the following modification categories applies:

• Minor modifications: A sponsor may make a minor modification to a clinical trial approval at any time and without submitting a modification request or informing the MHRA and the EC at the point of implementation; the sponsor must keep records and provide them if requested.
• Modifications of an important detail: These do not significantly impact the safety or rights of the participants, but the authorities need to be aware of them for administrative or oversight purposes. Instructions for notifying the authorities about a modification of an important detail are provided on completion of the Modification Tool in GBR-125. See the CTMod for examples of modifications of an important detail.
• Route A substantial modification: This modification to a clinical trial approval is likely to have a substantial impact on the safety or rights of the participants or on the reliability or robustness of the data generated in the trial. If the sponsor proposes to make a substantial modification of this kind, the sponsor must submit a modification request to the authorities before implementation.
• Route B substantial modification: This modification poses no new significant safety concerns with any IP and the modification meets Condition A, B, or C. Condition A applies where the trial does not involve an IP used for the first time in humans and the modification has already been reviewed and approved by the clinical trials authority in the European Union (EU), an European Economic Area (EEA) State, or the United States, based on the same particulars and documents submitted in the UK, excluding UK-specific particulars. Condition B applies where the modification is limited to certain protocol changes. Condition C applies where the modification is limited to certain changes to the investigator’s brochure or summary of product characteristics. These modifications are eligible for automatic approval by the MHRA, with EC approval issued within 35 days of validation if needed.

Per GBR-83, the MHRA and the EC will manage submitted modifications in the Modification Tool of GBR-125. See GBR-106 for help using the Tool. For additional resources on clinical trial modifications, see the following:

• GBR-84: A decision tree for determining the correct category for a modification
• GBR-88: A flowchart for applying for approval of Route A substantial modifications
• GBR-85: Table of Route B substantial modifications
• GBR-134: Notification form for a substantial modification when the Modification Tool is not appropriate (for example for bulk modification (See CTMod, for more information on this))
• MHCTR-Chgs: Background on amendment/modification terminology updates, modification process overview, and examples
• GBR-98: Examples of modification types

With regard to transitional arrangements (i.e., old rules clinical trials vs. new rules clinical trials) relating to approval for modifications, CT-Transtn explains that the applicable regulations are determined by the date on which the application to approve the substantial modification was submitted. Therefore, if the sponsor submits an application to approve a substantial modification (or receives notice of a proposed modification by the MHRA or EC) prior to April 28, 2026, the old rules clinical trials apply to the whole process of requesting approval (even after April 28, 2026, if the authorities have not issued a decision by then). If an application to approve a substantial modification is submitted on or after April 28, 2026, the new rules (i.e., the MHCTR) apply to the approval process even if the clinical trial approval to be modified is for an old rules clinical trial.

Per the CTMod, to request approval for a Route A or Route B substantial modification, applicants must submit a single application, including all documentation, through IRAS (GBR-125) for trials approved through the combined review process. Applications undergo validation checks, with the outcome communicated within seven (7) calendar days. Any deficiencies must be resolved within that period or the application will be invalidated and must be resubmitted. A joint decision on a valid Route A application will be issued within 35 calendar days of validation. For an eligible Route B modification, automatic approval from the MHRA will be issued within 14 calendar days; however, the modification cannot be implemented until a combined decision approving it, or approving it with conditions, is received. If the MHRA or EC do not approve the applicant’s proposed substantial modification, the applicant will be given one (1) opportunity to provide further information and have the application reconsidered. The additional information needed will be specified in the notice stating that the application has not been approved, and it will be made clear whether the additional information requested relates to the MHRA’s decision, the EC’s opinion, or both.

Next, the CTMod states that applicants have 60 calendar days from the date on which the decision letter was issued to submit the RFI, either as a written response or an amended application for approval, in order for the application to be reconsidered. The application will be treated as rejected if this deadline is not met. Note that it is not currently possible to submit a response to an RFI about a substantial modification through IRAS (GBR-125). The response must be submitted to the MHRA through MHRA Submissions (GBR-13) and to the relevant EC via email. The MHRA cannot accept responses to RFIs that are submitted via email to an assessor or via the Clinical Trial Helpline unless this has been agreed to in advance. Extensions to the 60-day deadline can be requested by contacting the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk or by contacting the EC directly, and the applicant should explain why the extension is needed and propose an alternative submission date. A decision will be issued by email within 10 calendar days of the response being submitted, stating that the application is either approved, approved with conditions, or not approved. If the application is still not approved, the reasons will be outlined and the application will be treated as rejected.

As per MHCTR and the CTMod, either or both the MHRA or EC may require the sponsor to make modifications to a clinical trial to ensure the trial’s safety or scientific validity or to ensure adherence to the principles of GCP. Sponsors will receive a notification of the proposed modification, and the reasoning behind the proposal via email at least seven (7) calendar days before the modification is set to take effect. The sponsor may accept the proposal, or otherwise has seven (7) calendar days to submit representations against the proposal in writing to the relevant authority. The appropriate authority will issue a final decision on whether the modification must be implemented after considering the sponsor’s representations. The date on which the proposed modification is to take effect may be delayed so that the MHRA and/or the EC has sufficient time to consider these proposals. The CTMod states that where the appropriate authority makes a final decision to modify a clinical trial approval, the sponsor has 28 calendar days from the date on which the decision letter was issued to provide written notice to the authorities of their intention to appeal. This notice should be sent to appeals@hra.nhs.uk, after which the authorities will contact the applicant to discuss the appeals process.

Notifiable Trials

The MHCTR includes a notifiable trial pathway under which certain eligible low-risk trials may receive automatic authorization from the MHRA (but an EC review is still mandatory). A notifiable trial is a trial in which, as far as the sponsor is aware having made reasonable inquiries, there are no significant safety concerns with any IP; the trial meets Condition A, Condition B, or Condition C; and the trial does not involve participants who are under 18 years of age, pregnant, or breastfeeding, or an IP that is an advanced therapy medicinal product or is used for the first time in humans. Following are the requirements for each Condition:

• Condition A: The IP/s is/are authorized for use in the UK and is used either in accordance with that authorization or in a manner supported by established clinical practice
• Condition B: A trial relating to the IP/s has/have been approved in the UK within the preceding two (2) years of the request for approval, and in that approved trial, the IP was investigated at the same or higher dose, same or higher frequency, and same or longer duration; the same manufacturing process was used; and the product was administered by the same route of administration and investigated for the same indication
• Condition C: The trial has undergone assessment and been approved by the authority responsible for licensing clinical trials in the EU, an EEA State, or the United States

Per the MHCTR, where the request for approval contains a statement confirming that the trial is a notifiable trial, the MHRA may, if it considers appropriate and without undertaking further assessment, rely on that statement to provide an authorization of the clinical trial.

The CT-Ntfble states that notifiable trial applications undergo the same validation checks as non-notifiable trial applications. After validation, the MHRA assesses whether the application meets the eligibility criteria for automatic authorization. If the criteria are met, the MHRA will issue confirmation of automatic authorization within 14 calendar days of validation. Next, a combined decision is issued, following EC review, within 30 calendar days of validation. If the MHRA finds that the application does not meet the eligibility criteria, or otherwise decides that a full review is needed, it will notify the applicant, and the application will automatically proceed through the non-notifiable review pathway. The MHRA also reserves the right to undertake a full review before issuing a decision, even where the trial is otherwise eligible for notification. See the CT-Ntfble for more details and a process flowchart.

UK-wide Research

The UKwide-Rsrch indicates that the UK’s four (4) nations—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—work together and with a range of organizations to support and regulate different aspects of health research. Study-wide review is the process by which all research in the UK is reviewed and approved, bringing together the assessment of governance and legal compliance of research in healthcare. The UK nations take a consistent approach to study-wide reviews, so sponsors only need to submit one (1) application in GBR-125 (combined review section of IRAS) or GBR-78 (non-combined section of IRAS). GBR-78 explains that the system generates the IRAS ID and uses filters to ensure that the data collected and collated is appropriate to the type of study, and consequently the permissions and approvals required. The system helps applicants meet the regulatory and governance requirements. As described in GBR-67, approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) is required for all National Health Service (NHS) project-based research led from England or Wales. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance. If a project is led from Northern Ireland or Scotland and involves NHS sites, then applications should be made through the appropriate permission process for that lead nation. Studies with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland are supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems where each country accepts relevant centralized assurances from national coordinating functions to avoid duplication.

The UKwide-Rsrch specifies that each UK nation will take assurances from the study-wide review conducted by the lead nation (the nation conducting the initial review). The following outlines key differences in approvals from UK nations:

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

According to CAN-56, there are no fees to submit a clinical trial application in Canada.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

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

As indicated in the CTMod, the applicable fees for submission of an application to modify a clinical trial approval are in G-MHRAFees. If the MHRA determines that a Route B substantial modification does not meet the eligibility criteria, the applicant may withdraw the application before it undergoes Route A review and receive a refund of the application fee. If an applicant withdraws a substantial modification application before a decision or request for further information is issued, part of the application fee may be refunded depending on how much of the review has been completed. There are no fees for a modification of an important detail.

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

• 4,656 British Pounds – Applications with an Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) dossier (higher fee for phase 1, full and simplified IMP dossier)
• 343 British Pounds – Applications without an IMP dossier (lower fee for phase IV, cross referral, additional protocol)
• 343 British Pounds – Clinical trial variation/amendment
• 343 British Pounds – Assessment of annual safety reports (which are in the form of a development safety update report (DSUR) per the CT-Sfty)

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

Payment Instructions

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

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

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

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

Per the CT-Sfty, fees applicable to submission of a DSUR must be paid through the MHRA payment center on the dedicated DSUR payments page (GBR-43). Following payment, a receipt will be sent by email to the payee, which must be included in the submission in its original format as a standalone document that serves as proof of payment. Failure to provide this evidence of payment will result in the submission being invalidated.

Overview

As indicated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, Canada has a decentralized process for the ethical review of clinical trial applications, and requires the sponsor to obtain institutional ethics committee (EC) approval for each participating trial site. (Note: institutional ECs are referred to as Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada.) Canadian provinces may have varying requirements, and, therefore, the sponsor should consult with the applicable province(s) for more information.

Per CAN-35 and CAN-13, all proposed or ongoing research involving human participants carried out by, funded by, or otherwise under the auspices of Health Canada (HC) or the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) must obtain approval from a joint EC representing those two (2) agencies—as well as complying with the CanadaFDR and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. This joint EC is known as the HC-PHAC REB. Further, if an institution is conducting an HC- or PHAC-funded project, the HC-PHAC REB must review and approve the research even if it has been previously reviewed and approved by another EC. See CAN-35 for details on the HC-PHAC REB’s development, responsibilities, and composition. HC’s operational policy (CAN-13) outlines policies and procedures that the joint HC-PHAC REB must follow when reviewing clinical trials.

Institutional ECs are required to comply with the provisions delineated in the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, and CAN-52. Note that per CAN-50, HC-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100. In addition, institutional ECs are guided by the G-TCPS2. Jointly developed by Canada’s three (3) federal research agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the G-TCPS2 is a policy that sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs. However, only CIHR-, NSERC-, and SSHRC-funded institutions are required to comply with this guideline as a condition of funding. According to CAN-14, the CIHR, the NSERC, and the SSHRC created the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) to promote the ethical conduct of research involving human participants. The PRE develops, interprets, and implements the G-TCPS2.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, institutional ECs must have at least five (5) members representing a mixed gender composition, the majority of which are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, and must include:

• Two (2) members from a scientific discipline, with broad experience in the relevant research methods and areas, one (1) of whom is from a medical or dental discipline
• One (1) member knowledgeable in ethics
• One (1) member knowledgeable in relevant Canadian biomedical research laws
• One (1) member from a nonscientific discipline
• One (1) community representative

The G-TCPS2 mirrors these EC composition requirements, and also requires a Chair who is responsible for ensuring that the ethics review process conforms to the requirements of G-TCPS2. The Chair provides overall leadership for the EC and facilitates the review process based on institutional policies and procedures and the G-TCPS2. The Chair should monitor the EC’s decisions for consistency and ensure that these decisions are recorded accurately and communicated clearly to researchers in writing as soon as possible by the Chair or designate. Institutions must provide the necessary resources and adequate administrative support to enable the EC Chair to fulfill their responsibilities. As mentioned earlier, only CIHR-, NSERC-, and SSHRC-funded institutions are required to comply with this guidance as a condition of funding.

Also, see CAN-52 for additional guidance on EC composition, functions, and operations. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

According to G-TCPS2, institutions must have in place written procedures for the appointment, renewal, and removal of EC members, including Chairs. Further, institutions must have clear written policies describing the mandate of each EC. An institution may wish to use different models for the ethics review of research conducted under its auspices.

The G-TCPS2 states that an EC should have adequate expertise, experience, and training to understand the disciplines, methodologies, and approaches of the research that it considers for research ethics review. Institutions should ensure that all EC members receive appropriate education and training in ethics review of research involving humans, to enable them to fulfill their duties. This includes providing training opportunities for all members in core principles and understanding of the G-TCPS2, basic ethics standards, applicable institutional policies, and legal or regulatory requirements. It includes an understanding of the role and mandate of ECs and responsibilities of EC members. Training should be tailored to the types and complexities of the research that the EC reviews.

Per the G-TCPS2, when there is less than full attendance, decisions requiring full review should be made only when the members present have the specific expertise, relevant competence, and knowledge necessary to provide an adequate ethics review. Ad hoc advisors, observers, research ethics administration staff, and other attendees must not be counted toward quorum or permitted to vote; decisions made without quorum are not valid or binding. ECs must hold regular meetings and normally meet face to face to review research not assigned to delegated review. Where members are geographically dispersed or exceptional circumstances prevent attendance, participation by phone, videoconference, or other technology may be acceptable, provided quorum is maintained and the Chair ensures active participation. A schedule of EC meetings should be communicated to researchers, and ECs should establish a process for reaching decisions requiring full review, such as consensus or, where necessary, a vote.

G-TCPS2 indicates that proportionate review means the level of EC review is determined by the level of foreseeable risk to participants: the lower the risk, the lower the level of scrutiny through delegated review; the higher the risk, the higher the level of scrutiny through full-board review. Full EC review should be the default requirement for research involving humans. Where research is determined to involve minimal risk, an EC may authorize delegated review in accordance with its institutional policies and written procedures. Delegated reviewers may refer proposals to the full EC, and any proposed negative decision must be reviewed and endorsed by the full EC before it is communicated to the researcher. Delegated decisions must be well documented and formally reported to the full EC, which remains responsible for the ethics of all research involving humans within its jurisdiction. ECs must function impartially, provide researchers with a fair hearing, and provide reasoned and appropriately documented opinions and decisions. Approvals and refusals must be communicated in writing. Where members disagree, an effort should be made to reach consensus; if disagreement persists, the decision must be made in accordance with the EC’s agreed-upon and documented process. The EC makes the final determination regarding the nature and frequency of continuing research ethics review using a proportionate approach. At minimum, continuing review consists of an annual status report for multi-year projects and an end-of-study report for projects lasting less than one (1) year.

Regarding records, G-TCPS2 indicates that ECs must prepare and maintain comprehensive records, including all documentation related to the projects submitted to the EC for review, attendance at all EC meetings, and accurate minutes reflecting EC decisions. Where the EC denies ethics approval for a research proposal, the minutes must include the reasons for this decision. When deciding the retention period of their files, ECs should be guided by their institutional record-keeping policies and other relevant legal or regulatory requirements. Files, minutes, and other relevant documentation must be accessible to authorized representatives of the institution, researchers, sponsors, and funders when necessary to assist internal and external audits, or research monitoring, and to facilitate reconsideration or appeals. The minutes of EC meetings must clearly document the EC’s decisions, any dissents, and the reasons for them. EC decisions should be supported by clear references (e.g., date of decision, title of project), documentary basis for decision, the plan for continuing ethics review and timelines, reasons for decisions, and any conditions or limitations attached to the approval. Providing reasons for EC decisions is optional when ethics approval is granted. ECs should have written procedures for its management of record keeping and other submitted reports. EC must maintain reports and decisions on unanticipated issues or changes to approved research.

For examples of EC SOPs, see CAN-13 for the HC-PHAC REB operational policy.

Overview

Per MHCTR, research ethics committees (ECs) in the United Kingdom (UK) are established, recognized, and monitored by the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA). As explained in the REC-Policy, UKECA is responsible for recognizing ECs that can review clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in the UK and ensuring compliance with MHCTR. Per the REC-Policy and GBR-62, ECs are part of an accountable and independent Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62). The REC-Policy indicates that the Health Research Authority (HRA) and Devolved Administrations (i.e., Governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland responsible for health and social care services in their nations) work together to deliver the RES through the UKECA. For ECs that review CTIMPs, Appointing Authorities in each UK nation operate and work on behalf of UKECA to enable the discharge of its functions. Outside of CTIMP reviews, REC-Policy explains that ECs also review a broad range of proposed research in health and care settings in the UK, and certain functions may be carried out under nation-specific arrangements or bilateral agreements.

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

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

As stated in the REC-Policy, the RES encompasses England’s HRA under the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Northern Ireland’s Department of Health, the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Finance Directorate, and the Welsh Government’s Health, Social Care and Early Years Group. In addition to its functions as the Appointing Authority for the RES for England, by agreement and through consultation with the Devolved Administrations (i.e., Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the HRA performs national coordinating functions for the RES. Per GBR-90, HRA is “an arm’s length body” of England’s DHSC, which means the government has devolved some of its responsibilities to HRA.

GBR-9 establishes an EC allocation framework for CTIMP ethics review, under which CTIMP applications must be reviewed by an EC recognized by UKECA to review the appropriate type of CTIMP as well as flagged ECs (e.g., for gene therapy or research on children). See GBR-9 for more guidance and the EC allocation categories.

See GBR-111 for an overview of ECs and GBR-112 to search listings, contact information, and meeting dates for ECs.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in the MHCTR, an EC must be constituted of five (5) or more members, appointed by the Appointing Authority, who collectively have the qualifications and experience to review and evaluate the science, medical aspects, and ethics of the proposed trial; and include one (1) member appointed to be a chairperson. The REC-Policy additionally provides that each EC should comprise a range of people with individual expertise and experience, including registered health and social care professionals, research professionals, and members of the public who have experience using health and social care services and no professional knowledge. EC members are appointed to provide a broad range of perspectives on the committees, which scrutinize the rationale, aims, and objectives of the proposed research to reconcile this effectively with protecting the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of potential participants. They are appointed independently of their employing organization and are expected to reflect their own experience and ethical judgement on an individual basis, bringing sound judgement and personal experience, underpinned and supported by relevant training and RES standard operating procedures (SOPs) (GBR-9).

Per the REC-Policy, each EC will be established and membership maintained by the Appointing Authority to ensure that the EC collectively has the qualifications and experience to review the ethics of proposed research. Where an EC member has an interest in a research proposal or affiliation with a research organization where impartiality and independence cannot be maintained, the declaration of interest process is followed. Each EC must have a chair and a vice-chair and the option to appoint an alternate vice-chair, which are appointed by the relevant Appointing Authority. Chairs, vice chairs, and alternate vice chairs are appointed for a specified period not exceeding five (5) years, but can resign anytime. An acting chair’s appointment ceases when the chair, vice chair, and alternate vice chair of that EC becomes available again or when their term as a member expires, whichever is sooner. EC members are appointed for up to five (5) years, but can resign at any time. Members may stay on for another term of five (5) years, subject to agreement with the Appointing Authority. After this time, they will be required to join a different EC if their membership extends for longer than a 10-year period. The Appointing Authority may extend a member’s term while new members are appointed, to ensure continuity of service. Former members may be reappointed to the same EC no sooner than one (1) year after the end of their last term, or to another EC without interval.

See the REC-Policy and GBR-9 for additional details.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

Per the MHCTR, an EC must make standing orders and adopt SOPs for its proceedings and business. The meetings and proceedings of an EC and its sub-committees must be conducted in accordance with the standing orders made, and the SOPs adopted. All applications for an EC opinion must be considered by a full meeting of an EC. REC-Policy states that a volunteer agreement outlining the expectations of appointment for EC members is required and includes: duration of appointment, renewal policy, process for resignation, process to be followed if a member who is a registered professional becomes disqualified, and the policy relating to declaration of interests. Also see REC-Policy for additional guidance.

As delineated the MHCTR and GBR-9, the quorum for EC meetings is five (5) members. However, GBR-9 states that ECs should always aim to have seven (7) members at a meeting where possible. The EC meeting will include at least the following: a chairperson (this can be a chair, vice chair, or alternate vice chair); at least one (1) lay member; and at least one (1) member with a healthcare designation. The EC membership will collectively reflect the qualifications and experience to review the science, medical aspects, and ethics of the research applications. For applications relating to research with funding support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or one of its agencies, the quorum is a majority of the EC membership. Where the EC has an even number of members, a majority means 50% of the members plus one (1). A co-opted member should also be counted for the purpose of the quorum. An EC may co-opt additional members at any EC meeting only if they are a member of another EC within the RES or a member of Ministry of Defense Research Ethics Committee. A CTIMP review meeting may not co-opt more than two (2) members. Where a quorum is not present, the EC may not give an ethics opinion on any new application for ethics review.

REC-Policy states that members are expected to attend as many full meetings as possible, as well as participate in proportionate review and sub-committee meetings. Expenses incurred during an EC members’ duties are reimbursed, which may cover travel, subsistence, and care arrangements, but not loss of earnings. EC members are required to complete specific training modules to ensure that the approach to reviewing research is consistent across the RES and that members have the right information to support their reviews. EC members have a duty to maintain confidentiality regarding applications, meeting deliberations and any other information about research applications that they have access to. Each Appointing Authority provides indemnity cover for their EC members.

GBR-9 specifies that ECs should normally hold at least 10 scheduled full meetings each year for ethics review of applications, at 1-month intervals, with schedules staggered to ensure valid applications can be reviewed within the relevant time limit. The annual schedule should be agreed to by December 1 for the financial year beginning April 1 and should include meeting dates, times, and application closing dates. Closing dates for full applications should normally be 14 calendar days before the EC meeting, with later closing dates permitted for Phase 1 healthy volunteer trials in certain circumstances. A standard agenda should be prepared for each EC meeting and should include quoracy, declarations of interest, previous minutes, previous matters to discuss, applications for ethics review, lead reviewers, and the EC Report. Agendas may also include general ethics issues, EC establishment or membership matters, procedures, training issues, quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA) reports, and workload or decision-making data. ECs should review around 3–4 new applications per meeting on average. The EC Report should notify members in writing of business undertaken outside EC meetings, including delegated decisions or actions, sub-committee decisions, conclusions or early termination of research, minor modifications, and final study reports. ECs are strongly recommended to appoint one (1) or more lead reviewers for each full application, and a lead reviewer must be appointed for each application reviewed by a proportionate review sub-committee. Documents for meetings should be made available as soon as possible after the agenda is finalized and applications are validated, and in any case no later than 10 calendar days before the meeting, except for expedited, proportionate review, and Phase 1 applications where agreed.

In accordance with GBR-9, the chief investigator (CI) or delegated representative should be invited to attend the meeting, and the sponsor’s representative and other research team members may attend alongside the CI. Attendance is intended to allow the EC to request further information, clarification, or reassurance directly, but it is not compulsory and the application should not be prejudiced if the CI is unable or unwilling to attend. The CI should not make a formal presentation at the meeting. EC members who cannot attend may submit written comments which should be recorded in the minutes. An EC may seek referee advice on aspects of an application relevant to forming an ethics opinion where the issue lies beyond members’ expertise or where the EC is unable to agree. Referees may provide written advice before or after the meeting or may attend the meeting to discuss the application, but they are not voting members and should not question the CI or take part in EC business beyond the application for which advice is sought. The application clock does not stop while referee advice is sought, only once a written request for further information is made to the CI. EC meetings should be held in private so members can discuss applications freely, and members are required to keep EC business confidential. EC members should delete any saved electronic copies of documents after a final ethics opinion has been issued. Internal and external observers may attend meetings subject to applicable requirements, including confidentiality arrangements for external observers, but observers should take no part in EC deliberations or ethics decisions. The Chair is responsible for the conduct of business and for ensuring that the EC reaches clearly agreed decisions. The meeting should reach unanimous decisions by consensus wherever possible; where consensus is not achievable, a formal vote should be taken by show of hands, with the decision determined by a simple majority of members present and entitled to vote. Where the vote is tied, the Chair may give a casting vote but should first consider other options to reach a more consensual decision.

Next, GBR-9 provides that EC meeting minutes should be prepared by the relevant staff and should contain an accurate record of what was discussed during the meeting. For each study, the minutes should record:

• The members, co-opted members, referees, and observers present for the review
• Any material interests declared and the EC’s decision on the member’s participation
• Any written comments submitted by members or deputy members
• The substance of any referee advice
• The EC’s decision on the application
• A summary of the main ethics issues considered
• For a favorable opinion, any conditions to be met before the study starts or any additional non-binding advice
• For an unfavorable opinion, the predominant reasons for the decision, clearly distinguished from other comments or advice
• For a provisional opinion, the further information requested and the arrangements for considering the information and issuing the final opinion
• The outcome of any vote taken
• Any formal dissent by a named member, with reasons
• Whether the application was reviewed voluntarily rather than as a requirement of policy or legislation

GBR-9 further indicates that minutes should be presented as the outcome of collective discussion, written in the third person, and should not attribute statements to individual members or include verbatim comments. A draft version should be provided to the Chair, and in England and Wales the Approvals Specialist, within two (2) working days of the meeting, and checked within three (3) working days. Draft minutes should be uploaded to the HRA Assessment and Review Portal (HARP) (GBR-139), with a watermark “management in confidence”; once ratified, the final signed minutes must be uploaded to HARP, and the draft version should be deleted. Signed final copies of the minutes of full EC meetings and sub-committee business, where relevant, should be retained electronically for at least 20 years and then transferred to the place of deposit, as per the records management policy in the relevant UK nation. See GBR-9 for a list of other EC documents that should be retained and their associated retention dates.

Overview

According to the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, and the G-TCPS2, the primary scope of information assessed by institutional ethics committees (ECs) (called Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of human research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. ECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed vulnerable.

See the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which CAN-50 indicates that Health Canada (HC) has adopted, for additional EC responsibilities and requirements. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As per the CanadaFDR, HC must approve a clinical trial application (CTA) and an institutional EC(s) must give ethical clearance prior to a sponsor initiating a clinical trial. In addition, as delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, institutional EC review for each clinical trial site may occur in parallel with HC’s CTA review and approval. Once HC completes its review, the department issues a No Objection Letter (NOL) if the CTA is approved. However, per the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, CAN-6, and CAN-30, HC will not authorize the sponsor to begin the clinical trial until an institutional EC approval for each participating trial site is submitted. The sponsor should use the Clinical Trial Site Information Form (CAN-6) to submit the required information. The CanadaFDR also states that the EC must review and approve any protocol amendments prior to those changes being implemented.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, requires EC review and approval of research involving living human participants and human biological materials. Further, ECs must have procedures in place to receive and respond to reports of new information, including, but not limited to, safety data, unanticipated issues, and newly discovered risks.

See TCPS2-InterpReview for the Panel on Research Ethics (PRE)’s interpretations of the G-TCPS2, including on the EC’s review of secondary use of non-identifiable information, delegated review of minimal risk studies, and ongoing review.

The G-TCPS2 lays out options, procedures, and considerations for the ethics review of multi-jurisdictional research either entirely within Canada, or in Canada and other countries. An institutional EC may approve alternative review models for research with multiple ECs and/or institutions but remains responsible for the ethics and conduct of research in its jurisdiction or under its auspices regardless of where the research is conducted. The SingleECRev provides guidance on the G-TCPS2’s single EC review model for multi-jurisdictional minimal risk, which seeks to streamline the research ethics review process where additional ethics reviews are not expected to add greater participant protections. In line with a proportionate approach to research ethics review, if research is of minimal risk and spans multiple jurisdictions, institutions that have approved the use of the single EC review model authorize the review of the research by one (1) EC. See the G-TCPS2 for more information about the various review models for multi-jurisdictional research.

Per CAN-8, an attestation must be completed by the EC that reviewed and approved the clinical trial. The completed attestation must be retained by the clinical trial sponsor for a period of 15 years. The attestation should not be submitted to HC unless requested. (See the Submission Process section for detailed submission requirements.)

G-Dcntrl indicates that for clinical trials with decentralized elements a single EC can approve activities at a clinical trial site as well as decentralized trial elements. However, sponsors and qualified investigators may need to obtain their own additional provincial or institutional approvals or permissions, or meet community-specific requirements, to use institutional resources or gain access to specific locations or populations, such as Indigenous communities.

The G-TCPS2 directs the researcher to submit an annual report to enable the EC to evaluate the continued ethical acceptability of the research. Per the G-CanadaCTApps, if an EC terminates or suspends any prior approval or favorable opinion, it must document its views in writing, clearly identifying the trial, the documents reviewed, and the date for the termination or suspension.

Overview

The REC-Policy states that the role of the ethics committee (EC) is to help ensure that proposed research conforms to recognized ethical standards, which includes respecting the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of the people who will take part. In addition, per GBR-46, the ethical review process should evaluate how the study involves the public in research, especially at the design stage (e.g., the participant information sheets).

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

In accordance with the MHCTR, the EC is responsible for giving an opinion on applications for clinical trials using investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs). As explained in the REC-Policy, ECs recognized by the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) can review CTIMPs. Per the MHCTR and the CTApp-Appvl, a person must not start or conduct a clinical trial without a favorable EC opinion and prior Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) authorization. The CTApp-Appvl calls it a joint ‘clinical trial approval’. The MHCTR-Chgs states that a clinical trial application is submitted to and managed by the EC and MHRA using the combined review part (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78). As explained in GBR-72, the combined review process offers a single application route and parallel/coordinated review from the EC and MHRA leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials. See GBR-72 for additional updates and information on combined review.

Per the MHCTR, the EC and the MHRA — collectively, “the authorities” — must confirm whether a request for approval is valid within seven (7) days beginning with the date of submission and must notify the sponsor. Once the request for approval is deemed valid, the EC must assess the application for an EC opinion and the MHRA must assess the request for authorization. The MHCTR-Chgs indicates that the authorities will aim to notify sponsors of the outcome of the validation check within one (1) working day. As indicated in the CTApp-Appvl, the outcome of these checks will be communicated by email and through IRAS (GBR-78) within seven (7) calendar days of submission. As soon as possible during this 7-day period, and no later than on the fifth calendar day, the MHRA may notify the applicant by email of any deficiencies identified during the validation checks and allow them to be addressed. If these deficiencies remain unresolved by the end of this 7-day period, the application will be invalidated, and the applicant will need to resubmit the application with the deficiencies corrected. The MHRA’s CTApp-Appvl and the Health Research Authority (HRA)’s MHCTR-Chgs provide operational guidance on the joint review and approval process laid out in the MHCTR.

As part of its review, MHCTR and the REC-Policy require the EC to consider whether the anticipated benefits to participants and other individuals or groups affected by the medical condition under investigation outweigh the anticipated risks and inconveniences. In doing so, the EC must take into account the risks to participants’ health posed by the condition under investigation and the nature of the intervention compared to normal clinical care. The EC must also consider the measures used to seek and obtain informed consent and to protect and promote the interests of participants and the general public, including by promoting transparency in research. The EC may also consider and give an opinion on any other issue relating to the clinical trial if the sponsor has asked the EC to consider the issue and, in the EC’s opinion, the issue is relevant to the other matters the EC must consider. Before giving its opinion, the EC may obtain expert advice on any field relating to the clinical trial. The MHCTR-Chgs, explains that the EC conducts its initial review of the application at a full meeting of the EC.

After completing the initial review, MHCTR stipulates that the EC must give its opinion on the clinical trial, and the MHRA must provide its decision on the request for authorization. The authorities must notify the sponsor in writing of the joint outcome, which is one (1) of the following:

• Approve the request for approval
• Approve the request for approval, subject to conditions specified in the notice
• Not approve the request for approval, setting out the grounds for the decision and requesting the further information (RFI) required for the application to be reconsidered

Per the MHCTR, subject to applicable extensions and special circumstances, the authorities must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the joint notice is given within 30 days beginning with the date on which the authorities notified the sponsor that the request for approval was valid. Where approval is subject to conditions, the notice must specify whether the conditions relate to the EC opinion, the MHRA’s decision, or both. The clinical trial is treated as approved only if the conditions specified in the notice are satisfied. Following an RFI, the amended request for approval must be reviewed by the appropriate authority. The EC reviews the amended request where the RFI relates to the EC opinion, and the MHRA reviews it where the RFI relates to the MHRA’s authorization decision; both authorities review it where the request relates to both.

The MHCTR states that applicants will have 60 calendar days from the date on which the decision letter was issued to provide the requested information for the application to be reconsidered. The CTApp-Appvl indicates that the applicant’s submittal can be either a written response or an amended application for approval. The application will be treated as rejected if this deadline is not met. However, extensions to this deadline can be requested by contacting the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk (or contacting the EC directly, if the information requested relates only to its opinion), explaining why the extension is needed and proposing an alternative submission date. The MHCTR-Chgs explains that the applicant must wait for the full RFI (issued in GBR-125) before responding to any points received individually from the EC or the MHRA. The full RFI will have the final consolidated feedback, including any queries or issues, from both the MHRA and EC. See G-IRASCombRev and IRAS-User for additional details on using GBR-125 during the review process.

The MHCTR specifies that after reviewing the amended request, the appropriate authority must notify the sponsor in writing of the outcome, which is one (1) of the following:

• Approve the amended request
• Approve the amended request, subject to conditions specified in the notice
• Not approve the amended request, setting out the grounds for the decision

As per the MHCTR, subject to applicable extensions and special circumstances, the appropriate authority must take all reasonable steps to ensure that notice is given within 10 days beginning with the date of receipt of the amended request. The CTApp-Appvl further provides that for approvals with conditions, it is not necessary to inform the authorities that the conditions have been met before starting the trial, unless otherwise specified in the approval letter. In some cases, the EC and/or the MHRA may allow a condition of approval to be fulfilled at a specific timepoint after the trial begins. In these cases, the trial may begin before meeting the condition, but failure to meet the condition by the specified timepoint will mean that the approval is not valid and the trial must be stopped until the condition is discharged. A substantial modification can then be submitted requesting approval to restart the trial.

For the initial review, the MHCTR specifies that the 30-day period is extended by 90 days where the EC or the MHRA consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee. For review of an amended request, the 10-day period is extended by 30 days where the EC or the MHRA consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee, or by 60 days where the investigational medicinal product (IP) is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) and such consultation occurs. If the clinical trial involves a medicinal product for xenogenic cell therapy, the usual time periods do not apply. See the Regulatory Authority and Submission Process sections for more details on consultations.

Per the MHCTR, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in an urgent situation where it would be beneficial to proceed with one (1) request or application while preparing the other), and if agreed in advance by the EC or the MHRA, an application for an EC opinion and a request for authorization may be made separately outside of combined review. Where an agreement has been reached, the MHRA or the EC must confirm which of the particulars and documents specified in Part A1 of Schedule 3 must accompany the request for authorization and the application for an EC opinion; and the arrangements for the payment of the fee.

The MHCTR-Chgs states that the sponsor can appeal an MHRA non-approval or an EC unfavorable opinion by contacting appeals@hra.nhs.uk within 28 calendar days of receiving the outcome. In their appeal, the sponsor must explain why they disagree with the outcome. See the CTApp-Appvl for additional details on the appeals process and requirements. Also see GBR-9 for standard operating procedures for ECs giving an ethics opinion.

Per GBR-9, the EC’s favorable ethics opinion for a specific research study applies for the duration of the study, except where action is taken to suspend or terminate the opinion. Where the duration of the study is to be extended beyond the period specified in the application form, the EC should be notified. For additional information on the duration of the EC opinion, see the CTIMP-Condtns.

Per the UKannot-E6R3, there is no legal requirement in the UK for the EC to undertake periodic reviews of a clinical trial once approved. However, the EC will review documentation relating to an ongoing trial under specific circumstances, such as in the event of an urgent safety measure or serious breach, or as part of its review of an application to make a substantial modification. GBR-9 indicates that the EC should continue to assess whether its favorable ethics opinion remains appropriate if significant developments arise during the research, but it is not responsible for proactive monitoring of the study. Rather the sponsor is responsible for EC notification of urgent safety measures; pharmacovigilance and safety reporting; and EC notification of the conclusion or early termination of the trial. The EC may request that the CI and representatives of the sponsor attend a meeting of the EC or sub-committee at any time to discuss any ethical or safety concerns about the research. For additional information on the EC’s right to review an opinion, see the CTIMP-Condtns. In addition, GBR-9 lays out circumstances when the EC should notify the MHRA of CTIMP compliance issues.

See GBR-68 for an overview of the EC review process.

(Because the MHRA and EC review processes are integrated under the UK’s joint/combined review framework, this section does not repeat the identical process information for modifications, notifiable trials, ending a clinical trial, and lapses where no participants are recruited. Refer to the Scope of Assessment section for those joint EC/MHRA review requirements.)

Fast Track Ethics Review

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

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

Fast-track ethics review is not available for any CTIMP involving a gene therapy medicinal product, any CTIMP funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and any other type of clinical trial or research study. Also see GBR-9 for more information on the fast-track ethics review.

Institutional ethics committees (ECs) may independently decide whether to charge fees to conduct protocol reviews. For example, an institutional EC may require industry sponsors or other for-profit organizations to pay a fee. See specific examples of institutional fee requirements in CAN-3 and CAN-1.

As set forth REC-Policy, ethics committees (ECs) may not charge an application fee or seek any other financial contribution or donation to consider a research proposal for which their review is required. Members receive no payment for contributing to the review of applications at scheduled meetings or for attending such meetings. EC members are volunteers and are not paid for their role as part of the Research Ethics Service.

There are no applicable regulations or guidance regarding the registration, auditing, and accreditation of institutional ethics committees (ECs).

Overview

Per MHCTR, research ethics committees (ECs) in the United Kingdom (UK) are established, recognized, and monitored by the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA). As explained in the REC-Policy, the UKECA is responsible for recognizing ECs that can review clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in the UK and ensuring compliance with MHCTR.

As stated in REC-Policy, for ECs that review CTIMPs, Appointing Authorities in each UK nation operate and work on behalf of the UKECA to enable the discharge of its functions. Appointing Authorities are responsible for setting up ECs, appointing members, and overseeing delivery of the Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) for the ECs within their remit. Their functions include establishing ECs to act for the whole or part of their geographical area, establishing ECs to review particular descriptions or classes of research, appointing EC members and chairs, approving EC standard operating procedures (SOPs), and monitoring the extent to which their ECs adequately perform their functions. Where an EC will review CTIMPs, the Appointing Authority must seek UKECA recognition of the EC. The UKECA may also adjust the extent to which an EC is authorized to act and/or abolish or revoke recognition of an EC.

Per the REC-Policy, in addition to its functions as England’s Appointing Authority for the RES, by agreement and through consultation with the Devolved Administrations (i.e., Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the Health Research Authority (HRA) performs national coordinating functions for the RES. Following are some of the HRA’s functions relating to management of GBR-62 outside of England in consultation with the UKECA:

• Develops and manages a national training program for EC members and EC operational lead staff and provides resources to support this training
• Develops, implements, and maintains SOPs (see GBR-9) for ECs and provides advice and support to ECs on procedural issues
• Develops a quality assurance program, including accreditation of ECs
• Provides and supports information systems for all nations
• Provides guidance and advice to assist ECs in their work and encourages consistency of approach to common issues in research ethics
• Provides advice on the practical implications of implementing legislation, policy, and guidance across the UK
• Acts for the UKECA to provide a national mechanism for operational advice and assistance to ECs recognized for the purposes of clinical trials regulations and to receive, on the UKECA’s behalf, the EC’s annual report
• Acts for the UKECA to handle appeals against the unfavorable opinions of ECs in respect of clinical trials of investigational products
• Acts for the UKECA to transfer an EC’s functions to a successor EC if the original EC has ceased to operate, has been varied or abolished, or had its recognition revoked

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, Canada requires the sponsor to obtain clinical trial authorization from Health Canada (HC) prior to initiating the trial. The sponsor must file a clinical trial application (CTA) to the appropriate Directorate within HC’s Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB). In addition, as delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, the sponsor may submit a CTA for clinical trial authorization to the HC in parallel with its submission to an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) for a favorable ethical opinion. However, per the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, CAN-6, and CAN-30, HC will not authorize the sponsor to begin the clinical trial until an institutional EC approval (provided in the required Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) form (CAN-6)) for each participating trial site is submitted. See CAN-30 for instructions on filling out and submitting CAN-6.

CAN-19 provides a full list of HC’s forms for drug-related applications and submissions. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

Regulatory Submission

Per the G-CanadaCTApps, CTAs (CAN-4) should be sent directly to the appropriate HPFB Directorate for review—the Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (PDD) for pharmaceutical drugs or the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD) for biological drugs and radiopharmaceuticals.

The G-MDSA and the G-CanadaCTApps indicate that sponsors may request a pre-submission/application meeting with the appropriate directorate within HC if they have any questions or concerns prior to filing a CTA. Additional details on requesting a meeting and meeting procedures are available in the aforementioned guidance documents. According to CAN-4, the submission can be in French or English. For CTAs that use pharmacometric approaches, sponsors should consider the policy statements in G-Pharmacometrics. Pharmacometrics is the science of using quantitative analysis and modelling and simulation approaches to inform and enhance drug development and regulatory review. In addition, see the G-CTACell for guidance on preparing CTAs for use of cell therapy products in humans.

Per the CanadaFDR, an application by a sponsor for authorization to sell or import a drug for the purposes of a clinical trial must be submitted to HC, signed and dated by the sponsor’s senior medical or scientific officer in Canada and senior executive officer. The sponsor’s clinical trial attestation must be submitted with the application (CAN-4). For guidance on completing CAN-4, see the G-DrugApp.

Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) Electronic Submission

As indicated in the G-eCTD, clinical trial applications in electronic common technical document (eCTD) format are recommended, not mandatory. However, once a sponsor files a regulatory activity in eCTD format, all additional information and subsequent regulatory activities for the same dossier must be filed in eCTD format. CAN-36 explains that prior to filing the first regulatory transaction for a dossier in eCTD format, the sponsor must request a dossier ID using the online dossier ID request. Per the ElecSubms, CAN-20 is the request form for biological clinical trial dossiers and CAN-21 is for pharmaceutical clinical trial dossiers. A request for a dossier ID should be sent a maximum of eight (8) weeks prior to submitting the CTA. In addition, applicants should review the Rules-eCTD for validation rules before submission. (Note: As per ElecSubms, G-eCTD and CAN-36 are only available upon request at no-reply.ereview.non-reponse@hc-sc.gc.ca. Please ensure the text 'Request for eCTD Guidance Document' is in the subject line of the email.)

Per the G-eCTD and CAN-28, all regulatory transactions in eCTD format must be sent via the Common Electronic Submissions Gateway (CESG) (CAN-25), except for those exceeding 10 gigabytes (GB) in size. The CESG allows users to submit secure regulatory transactions electronically to HC, including CTAs. The G-eCTD and CAN-36 describe how to file CTAs and other clinical trial regulatory transactions (e.g., CTA amendments, responses to requests for information, and other in-scope activities) in eCTD format to CESG. The G-eCTD clarifies that prior to using the CESG for sending transactions, sponsors must register as a trading partner. To access and use CESG, CAN-34 instructs sponsors to follow these steps:

• Register as a trading partner with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) at the FDA Electronic Submissions Gateway Next Generation (ESG NextGen) (CAN-51) to be able to send a regulatory transaction (Note: CAN-54 indicates that the new version of the platform, ESG NextGen, continues to support HC submissions.)
• Send regulatory transactions to HC by selecting “HC” as the center on the FDA ESG system; CTAs intended for HC will be automatically redirected.

For detailed information on how to become a trading partner and send regulatory transactions, refer to CAN-54, CAN-51, and CAN-25.

As indicated in the G-eCTD, the following media formats are acceptable for eCTD transactions greater than 10 GB: Universal Serial Bus (USB) 2.0 or 3.0 drive; or portable external hard drive with USB 2.0 or 3.0 interfaces. (Contact HC at hc.ereview.sc@canada.ca for other media formats that may be acceptable at the time of filing.) A paper copy of the cover letter must accompany the media (unless otherwise indicated), and a pre-paid envelope must be provided if the media is to be returned. The complete regulatory transaction must be provided on a single drive, and the label on the drive should contain the following information:

• Stakeholder Name
• Brand Name
• Dossier ID, which is based on the protocol number
• Sequence (regulatory transaction) number

Media must be mailed to HC at the address below:

Health Canada
Finance Building
101 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway
Address Locator: 0201A1
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K9

See the G-eCTD, CAN-54, CAN-34, CAN-36, CAN-25, and CAN-28 for details on registering as a trading partner for CESG transactions, how to use CESG, and submitting CTAs in eCTD format.

Non-eCTD Electronic Submission

For non-eCTD electronic submissions, G-Non-eCTD indicates that the CTA (CAN-4) must be provided in PDF format. Other files submitted should be in PDF format, unless otherwise specified in G-Non-eCTD. PDF documents should be generated from electronic source documents and not from scanned materials, except where access to an electronic source document is unavailable or where a signature is required. Documents that are more than 10 pages should be bookmarked. Sections, subsections, tables, figures, and appendices should be bookmarked, with no more than four (4) levels of bookmarks. Hyperlinks within the same PDF document are acceptable, but hyperlinks between different documents must not be used. Stakeholders are responsible for ensuring that hyperlinks function, and links must also include references to the applicable section or page. Documents that legally require signatures may be signed electronically, or the signature page may be printed, signed, scanned, and saved as a PDF. If only one (1) page of a multi-page document contains a signature, the scanned page should be included in the same location in the PDF. Each document should have only one (1) PDF file. The cover letter does not require a signature but should include the printed name, phone number, and email address of the contact person.

As explained in G-Non-eCTD, all regulatory transactions should be validated before being transmitted to HC. For the applicable requirements, including validation rules, see the Rules-Non-eCTD. Initial CTAs and CTA-As should be submitted on electronic media, accompanied by a paper copy of the cover letter, and sent directly to the Office of Clinical Trials within PDD for pharmaceuticals or the Office of Regulatory Affairs within BRDD for biologics and radiopharmaceuticals. The ElecSubms contains a zip file of the folder structure for clinical trial non-eCTD submissions. (Note: As per ElecSubms, G-Non-eCTD is only available upon request at no-reply.ereview.non-reponse@hc-sc.gc.ca. Please ensure the text 'non eCTD Guidance Document' is in the subject line of the email.)

Per the G-Non-eCTD, CTA submissions to the appropriate Directorate within HC’s HPFB must be in one (1) of these accepted media formats:

• Compact Disc-Recordable (CD-R) conforming to the Joliet specification
• USB 2.0 or 3.0 drive
• Digital Versatile Disc (DVD-RAM and DVD+R/-R) in Universal Disk Format (UDF) standard

All media should be labelled and contain the following information:

• Stakeholder Name
• Brand Name

Subsequent to burning the CD/DVD or transferring data to a drive, applicants should ensure that all files can be opened, files are not corrupted, and that "Thumb.db" files are removed.

As per the G-Non-eCTD, G-MDSA, CAN-18, and CAN-17, non-eCTD CTAs involving pharmaceutical drugs should be sent to PDD, and CTAs involving biologics and/or radiopharmaceuticals should be sent to BRDD at the addresses listed below (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Office of Clinical Trials
Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate
Health Canada
5th Floor, Holland Cross, Tower B
1600 Scott Street
Address Locator: 3105A
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9
General Inquiries E-mail: oct.enquiries-requetes.bec@hc-sc.gc.ca

Office of Regulatory Affairs
Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate
Health Products and Food Branch
Ground Floor, Health Canada Building 6
100 Eglantine Driveway
Tunney’s Pasture
Address Locator: 0601C
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9

Telephone: 613-957-1722
E-mail: brdd.ora@hc-sc.gc.ca

Per the G-Non-eCTD, if an applicant submits a non-eCTD CTA via email, they should meet the following requirements:

• The maximum email size accepted by the corporate mail server is 20 megabytes. If the clinical trial submission is larger than 20 megabytes, the submission may be split and sent as separate emails (e.g., an email for Module 1, and another email for Module 2/3). The subject line of the emails should clearly link to each other (e.g., "Email 1 of 2" in the relevant subject line)
• A duplicate copy must not be provided by mail
• The submission should be organized in folders and the body of the email should only contain the zipped regulatory submission
• Zipped files and documents contained in the email should not be password protected

The G-Non-eCTD provides additional information on emailing other clinical trial submissions, including responses to a clarification request, responses to a no objection letter, notifications, and development safety update reports.

Ethics Review Submission

As indicated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, all research involving human participants in Canada must be reviewed by an institutional ethics committee (EC). (Note: institutional ECs are referred to as Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada.) Because the submission process at individual institutional ECs will vary, applicants should review and follow their institution’s specific requirements. Further, Canadian provinces may have varying requirements, and, therefore, the sponsor should consult with the applicable province(s) for more information. CAN-35 delineates submission requirements to the joint HC-Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)’s EC. This joint EC reviews all research involving human subjects that is carried out by HC or PHAC researchers on the premises or in collaboration with external researchers.

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR, the sponsor must request Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) authorization and apply for an ethics committee (EC) opinion to conduct a clinical trial by submitting a single application dossier, referred to as “request for approval.” GBR-72 explains that in this combined review framework, the regulatory and ethics reviews are done in parallel and any requests for further information (RFIs) are raised jointly. A single response to these requests leads to a single decision from both reviews. See CTApp-Appvl and the MHCTR-Chgs for operational guidance.

Per the MHCTR, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in an urgent situation where it would be beneficial to progress one (1) request or application while preparing the other), and if agreed in advance by the MHRA or the EC, a request for authorization and an application for an EC opinion may be made separately outside of combined review.

See the Scope of Review section for details on the transitional arrangements for applying for clinical trial approval or modifications.

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

Combined Review Submission

In accordance with the MHCTR, the combined request for approval application (i.e., the request for authorization and the application for EC opinion) must be submitted via the online portal and include any required notifiable trial statement, required documentation, and applicable fee. Per the CTApp-Appvl, the MHCTR-Chgs, and GBR-72, the combined request for approval for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) are submitted through the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). The G-ATMP states that all advanced therapy medicinal products must submit clinical trial applications using the same processes as all other medicines. As described in GBR-78, IRAS is a single system for applying for the permissions and approvals for health and social care/community care research in the United Kingdom (UK). The system generates the IRAS ID, which has been adopted by stakeholders across the UK as the common study identifier, and enables the applicant to enter required information once. The filters collect and collate the data appropriate to the type of study, and consequently the permissions and approvals required. Further, IRAS helps the applicant submit information needed for other relevant review bodies (e.g., the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, the Confidentiality Advisory Group, or the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC)).

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

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

IRAS-User indicates that the sponsor/sponsor delegate and chief investigator (CI) “authorize” an application in the system; the application cannot be submitted until the CI has accepted the project, and the sponsor or sponsor delegate has reviewed the completed dataset and confirmed the submission. Once the sponsor or sponsor delegate has confirmed the submission, the applicant must complete the EC booking. The task 'Complete REC booking' is assigned to the individual who sent the request to the sponsor or sponsor delegate for review. To book using the online booking service (GBR-95), applicants should select 'Create booking' on the EC booking page. The EC booking page also provides instructions on what to do if the booking was made directly with the EC, via telephone (or email). When the EC booking page shows the confirmed booking details, the applicant can select “Submit to the regulators” to submit the application.

Per IRAS-User, fast-track EC review is also available for global clinical trials and Phase 1 trials. The Phs1CTs provides that applicants undertaking Phase 1 clinical trials may reserve an EC meeting slot before submission, and most ECs recognized to review Phase 1 healthy volunteer trials accept applications submitted up to seven (7) days before the meeting date. To make a request for 7-day submission for an application, applicants should contact their preferred EC which is flagged to review Phase 1 clinical trials. Per GBR-116, applicants seeking fast-track ethics review of clinical trial applications must also apply via combined review on GBR-125.

GBR-9 reiterates that an application for ethics review via the combined review service is submitted jointly by the CI and the sponsor. Only one (1) application for ethics review should be submitted for any research protocol to be conducted in the UK; however, for research projects with separate protocols governing one (1) or more sub-studies in addition to the main study, a full application should be submitted for each protocol. The MHCTR delineates that the CTIMP application must be made to one (1) EC only, regardless of the number of trial locations at which the trial is to be conducted. The application must be made to a UKECA-recognized EC for the entire UK and in relation to a description or class of clinical trial into which the proposed trial falls. However, an exception is when an application must be made to an EC constituted by regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (AIA2000) when a clinical trial is conducted at one (1) or more trial locations in Scotland; the trial involves adults unable by virtue of physical or mental incapacity to give informed consent; and the CI is professionally based at a hospital, health center, surgery, or other establishment or facility in Scotland.

As detailed in GBR-9, when the application is ready to submit, the applicant should book an agenda slot at the next meeting of an appropriate EC. For full meetings, the applicant may decline the first available slot in the UK if they have a preference for a particular EC (for example, it has reviewed an earlier phase of the trial). Once the booking has been accepted, the application form and supporting documentation must be submitted the same day the booking is made. An email confirmation of the booking will be sent to the applicant and the EC to which the application has been allocated. If the applicant is not ready to submit the application including all required authorizations and supporting documentation on the same day, the booking should not be completed. Applications received up to 16:00 hours are considered to be received that working day. Applications received after 16:00 are considered to have been received the following working day.

In accordance with the MHCTR, the CT-Ntfble explains that applications for approval of a notifiable trial must be submitted through the same combined review process as applications for non-notifiable clinical trials. See Scope of Assessment section for details on criteria, eligibility, and other requirements for notifiable clinical trials; and refer to the CT-Ntfble for additional guidance and a process flowchart.

Regarding the exceptional circumstances in which a CTIMP application may be submitted outside of combined review, the MHCTR requires this approach to be agreed in advance by the MHRA or the EC. Per the CTApp-Appvl, applicants must obtain written approval/agreement in advance by contacting the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk. Once this approach has been agreed to, the process for submitting separate applications to the MHRA and the EC will be communicated to the applicant.

The CTapp-Issues offers guidance on common issues identified during clinical trial applications to help applicants avoid requests for further information or grounds for non-acceptance. See the CTApp-Appvl, the MHCTR-Chgs, the G-IRASCombRev, the IRAS-User, and GBR-72 for additional guidance on submitting via GBR-125.

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

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

See IRAS-User and G-IRASCombRev for detailed help on submitting CTIMP applications.

As indicated in the MHRA-advice, applicants can seek scientific advice from the MHRA at any stage of a product’s development or regulatory lifecycle. The MHRA encourages applicants to seek advice on clinical trial topics, including first-in-human studies and design of pivotal clinical trials. See MHRA-advice for details on how to request advice.

Consultation

Per the CT-Experts, prior to submitting an application for clinical trial approval, the applicant should use the criteria in CT-Experts to assess whether their trial may need to be reviewed by a specialist group or relevant committee. If unsure, applicants should contact the MHRA for advice by emailing clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk with a summary of the nature of the compound, its target and mechanism of action, and the relevance of the animal models. If the applicant believes that expert review is required, they should email the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk at least 28 calendar days before submitting the application, stating their intention to submit an application for clinical trial approval that may require review by the Clinical Trials Biologicals and Vaccines Expert Advisory Group (CTBVEAG) of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) and specifying their preferred CTBVEAG meeting date. The MHRA will confirm by email that the review has been scheduled. Note that where expert advice from any specialist group or relevant committee other than CTBVEAG is required, the MHRA will discuss this with the applicant. The application should be submitted to IRAS (GBR-125) (using the same process as for trials not identified as requiring expert advice) at least four (4) weeks in advance of the CTBVEAG meeting at which the trial will be discussed. See the CT-Experts for additional details and a process flowchart.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As set forth in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, Health Canada (HC) requires the sponsor to apply for clinical trial authorization by submitting a clinical trial application (CTA) to HC. As specified in the G-CanadaCTApps and the G-QCM-PharmCTAs, the CTA should be organized into three (3) modules in Common Technical Document (CTD) format:

• Module 1 - Administrative and clinical information about the proposed trial
• Module 2 - Quality (Chemistry and Manufacturing) summaries about the drug product(s) to be used in the proposed trial
• Module 3 - Additional supporting quality information

Per the CanadaFDR, the clinical trial application form (CAN-4) and the following information and documents must be submitted:

• Protocol
• Summary of potential risks/benefits
• Clinical trial attestation that includes drug information (chemistry, names, classifications, dosage, therapeutic purpose, human-sourced excipient, drug identification number or notice of compliance, manufacturing information); sponsor’s contact information; if the drug is to be imported, contact information for the sponsor’s representative in Canada who is responsible for the sale of the drug; and contact information for the qualified investigator at each site, if known at the time of submittal
• Contact information for each institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) that approved the protocol, if known at the time of submitting the application (provided in the required Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) form (CAN-6))
• Contact information of any institutional EC that previously refused to approve the protocol, its reasons, and refusal date
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB)
• Informed consent form (ICF)
• Information about use of a human-sourced excipient
• Chemistry and manufacturing information
• Proposed date for trial commencement at each site, if known

Per the Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, for multi-site trials operating within a streamlined multi-site ethics review process, sponsors sometimes identify the same EC for all clinical trial sites. When providing information on a new site through CAN-6, sponsors only need to include the contact information for an EC once, as long as:

• The same EC has previously been identified as having approved other sites in that trial
• The EC's contact information has already been provided to HC in the context of the clinical trial, and continues to be up to date

Accordingly, as indicated in the Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, the form's section on EC approval may only contain the name of the approving board and the date of its approval.

Refer to the CanadaFDR, the G-FDR-0100, the G-CanadaCTApps, the G-DrugApp, the G-QltyBioCTs, and the G-QCM-PharmCTAs for detailed submission information.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Each institutional EC has its own application form and clearance requirements, which can differ significantly regarding the number of copies to be supplied and application format requirements.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, requires clinical trial researchers to submit their research proposals for EC review and approval of their ethical acceptability prior to the start of recruitment of participants, data collection, access to data or collection of human biological materials. Researchers must submit sufficient details to enable the EC to make an informed review of the ethical acceptability of the research. In addition, they should include a plan for monitoring safety, efficacy/effectiveness (where feasible), and validity in their proposal for EC review. This plan must describe:

• How participant safety will be monitored and what actions will be taken in the event of a threat to participant safety
• How intervention efficacy will be monitored (where feasible) and what actions will be taken if efficacy is found to be greater than expected
• The criteria by which participants may be removed from a study for safety reasons
• The study-wide stopping rules (if any) by which studies may be stopped or amended due to evidence of inferior safety, superior efficacy or futility
• The reporting procedure that will be followed to ensure any information relevant to participant welfare or consent is reported clearly and in a timely fashion to the EC

See CAN-35 for submission requirements to the joint HC-Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)'s REB. This joint EC reviews all research involving human subjects that is carried out by HC or PHAC researchers, on the premises, or in collaboration with external researchers.

Clinical Protocol

The CanadaFDR requires submission of a clinical trial protocol. Per G-FDR-0100, a protocol should describe the objectives, design, methodology, statistical considerations and organization of a clinical trial, and it should be consistent with the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52). The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence. CAN-50 indicates that HC adopted CAN-52.

Combined Submission Requirements

As required by the MHCTR, the request for approval (application) in the single application dossier to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the ethics committee (EC) must include the following material:

• A completed application
• A statement or cover letter drawing attention to any features which are particular to the clinical trial, if required
• The protocol for the proposed trial describing the objective, design, methodology, statistical considerations, purpose, and organization of the clinical trial
• The investigator’s brochure (IB) or equivalent document
• Documentation relating to compliance with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice, where applicable
• A dossier providing information on the quality of any investigational medicinal product (IP), the manufacture and control of the IP, and data from non-clinical studies and from clinical use of the IP
• A copy of the scientific advice of the licensing authority, or of any third country, with regard to the clinical trial
• A description of the content of the labelling
• All information given to the participants, or their legal representatives, before their decision to participate or abstain from participation in the clinical trial
• Proof of insurance, a guarantee, or any other similar arrangement, where applicable
• Responses to areas for discussion raised by the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), where applicable

See the CTApp-Appvl for additional detailed requirements and guidance for each item listed above. In addition, the DocMgt-Apps lists the document types for combined review applications, identifies which are mandatory, and shows which review body each document is sent to upon submission.

Per the MHCTR, where separate applications are permitted in exceptional circumstances, the MHRA or EC must confirm with the applicant which documents must accompany each submission.

In accordance with the MHCTR, the CT-Ntfble indicates that applications for approval of a notifiable trial must include the same documents as applications for non-notifiable clinical trials. In addition, the applicant must also submit the confirmation of notifiable trial criteria form (GBR-135). The cover letter must include a statement that the application is for approval of a notifiable clinical trial.

Per the MHCTR, a request for modification must include the following material:

• The identifying details of the trial, including the title of the trial and any number allocated to the trial by the authorities
• A description of the proposed modification
• A statement of the reasons for proposing that modification, and if more than one (1) modification, a statement for each modification
• A copy of the proposed changes to the clinical trial protocol or any other particulars or documents accompanying the request for approval
• Summaries of any data submitted in support of the proposed modification or modifications, and any change to the summary assessment of the potential risks and benefits of using the product in the proposed trial

Clinical Protocol

Per the CTApp-Appvl, the clinical trial protocol describes the objectives, design, methodology, statistical considerations, and organization of a clinical trial and should include (where applicable):

• A descriptive title, a sponsor-created identification number, the version number, and the date of the last update
• Discussion of the trial’s relevance, design, anticipated risks and benefits, and participant recruitment and informed consent procedures (setting out any particular considerations with respect to inclusion of participants unable to provide informed consent or belonging to other special populations); for a multi-part trial where the submission does not include full details to enable the conduct of all the trial parts, outline any adaptive elements and plans for future substantial modifications
• Justification for the use of placebos, standard of care arms, or real-world data comparators
• An unambiguous definition of the end of the trial; this should usually be the date of the last visit of the last participant, and a justification should be given for any exceptions (e.g., for trials involving human tissue, analysis of samples should be undertaken as part of the data collection before the end of trial is declared)
• A description of any additional care for trial participants once their participation has ended
• A description of any sub-studies conducted at any trial locations
• A discussion of safety events and recording and reporting procedures
• Procedures for unblinding of the IP in the case of an adverse reaction
• A synopsis of the protocol
• A signature from the sponsor and the chief investigator (for single-location trials) or overall coordinating investigator (for multi-center trials) (electronic signatures are acceptable)

For more detailed guidance on the content and format of the protocol, see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) which the UK is implementing.

Overview

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, the review and approval of a clinical trial application (CTA) by Health Canada (HC) and an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) may be conducted in parallel. However, per the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, CAN-6, and CAN-30, HC will not authorize the sponsor to begin the clinical trial until an institutional EC approval (provided in the required Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) form) for each participating trial site is submitted. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

Regulatory Authority Approval

According to the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, an authorized clinical trial is one that has been filed with HC and has not received an objection within 30 days. All CTAs are subject to the 30-day default period from the date of receipt of the completed application at the appropriate Directorate within HC’s Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB). While the Directorates can establish shorter administrative targets of seven (7) days for the review of bioequivalence trials, the 30-day default system remains the regulatory requirement. Applications to conduct Phase I clinical trials using somatic cell therapies, xenografts, gene therapies, prophylactic vaccines, or reproductive and genetic technologies are not included in the seven-day target system. Please see the G-CanadaCTApps for special requirements regarding reviews of comparative bioavailability studies and joint reviews of clinical trials covering a combination of devices, biologics, and pharmaceuticals.

As specified in the G-CanadaCTApps and the G-MDSA, during the review period, the Directorate may request additional information from the sponsor, who has two (2) calendar days to provide such information. The G-MDSA clarifies that, where warranted, HC can adjust the timelines to be longer or shorter based on the complexity of the request, communications with the sponsor, and/or circumstances of the review, including pausing the clock during the scientific review. The G-CanadaCTApps also states that HC will issue a Not Satisfactory Notice (NSN) if a timely response to requested information has not been provided. The G-MDSA indicates that the review of the submission will stop on the date the NSN is sent.

Ethics Committee Approval

The EC review and approval process timeline varies by institution. The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, recommends a proportionate approach to ethics review—the lower the level of risk, the lower the level of scrutiny (delegated review); the higher the level of risk, the higher the level of scrutiny (full board review). In either case, pursuant to the G-TCPS2, the institutional EC should make its decisions in an efficient and timely manner.

See CAN-35 for ethics review timelines with the joint HC-Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)'s EC. This joint EC reviews all research involving human subjects that is carried out by HC or PHAC researchers, on the premises, or in collaboration with external researchers.

Overview

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

Combined Review

Per the MHCTR, the MHRA and the EC must confirm whether a CTIMP request for approval is valid within seven (7) days beginning with the date of submission and must notify the sponsor. The MHCTR-Chgs indicates that the authorities will aim to notify sponsors of the outcome of the validation check within one (1) working day. As indicated in the CTApp-Appvl, the outcome of these checks will be communicated within seven (7) calendar days of submission. As soon as possible during this 7-day period, and no later than on the fifth calendar day, the MHRA may notify the applicant by email of any deficiencies identified during the validation checks and allow them to be addressed. If these deficiencies remain unresolved by the end of this 7-day period, the application will be invalidated and the applicant will need to resubmit the application with the deficiencies corrected.

Once the request for approval is deemed valid, the MHCTR states that the authorities must take all reasonable steps to issue the joint outcome within 30 days from the date the sponsor is notified that the request is valid. The joint outcome may approve the request, approve it subject to conditions, or not approve it and request further information for reconsideration. If further information is requested, applicants will have 60 calendar days from the date of the decision letter to submit a written response or amended application; otherwise, the application will be treated as rejected. Extensions to this 60-day deadline may be requested.

As per the MHCTR, after the applicant submits the amended request, the appropriate authority — the MHRA, the EC, or both, depending on the nature of the request for information — must take all reasonable steps to notify the sponsor of the outcome within 10 days beginning with the date of receipt of the amended request. The amended request may be approved, approved subject to conditions, or not approved.

For the initial review, MHCTR provides that the 30-day period is extended by 90 days where the MHRA or the EC consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee. For review of an amended request, the 10-day period is extended by 30 days where the MHRA or the EC consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee, or by 60 days where the investigational medicinal product (IP) is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) and such consultation occurs. If the clinical trial involves a medicinal product for xenogenic cell therapy, the usual time periods do not apply.

The MHCTR-Chgs states that the sponsor can appeal an MHRA non-approval or an EC unfavorable opinion by contacting appeals@hra.nhs.uk within 28 calendar days of receiving the outcome. In their appeal, the sponsor must explain why they disagree with the outcome.

See GBR-82 for a flowchart summarizing the timelines and the process of applying for clinical trial approval.

Governance

Per the UKwide-Rsrch, centralized, study-wide review (for a study involving sites across one (1) or more UK nations) coordinates the assessment of governance and legal compliance for healthcare research. GBR-72 indicates that study-wide review is usually issued at the same time as the MHRA and EC decision but may come later if there are still issues to discuss with the applicant. GBR-18 further explains that, during the trial approvals phase, local research and development site review occurs in parallel with the MHRA and EC submissions so that organizations can assess and confirm their capacity and capability to deliver the study at the sites. See Site/Investigator Selection section, GBR-63, and GBR-106 for more information on the UK Local Information Pack (LIP) to support study setup and delivery.

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor receives authorization from both Health Canada (HC) and an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada). No waiting period is required following the applicant’s receipt of these approvals. CAN-30 specifies that for purposes of the Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) Form (CAN-6), the trial commencement date is the date when the clinical trial site is ready to enroll participants. The commencement date is a date after which the sponsor has both the HC authorization from the appropriate Directorate (date on the No Objection Letter (NOL) or the date of the Notice of Authorization) and approval from the relevant EC. Further, the commencement date would be the date when the sponsor implements the protocol, which includes the screening period that occurs prior to the check-in date. See the Scope of Review section for detailed institutional EC requirements, and the Submission Content section for additional HC approval information. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

In addition, per the G-CanadaCTApps, if a sponsor (Canadian or foreign) wants to import a drug into Canada to conduct a clinical trial, a copy of HC’s clinical trial authorization (i.e., the NOL) must be included with the drug shipment. According to the G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-32, if a sponsor plans to import investigational drugs directly to each trial site, then the sponsor must also authorize the importer (i.e., the clinical trial site) when submitting the clinical trial application using Appendix I of HC’s Drug Submission Application Form (CAN-4). See the Manufacturing & Import section for detailed import requirements.

Clinical Trial Agreement

Prior to initiating trial activities, as delineated in the G-FDR-0100, agreements made by the sponsor with the qualified investigator, institution, service providers, and any other parties (e.g., independent data monitoring committee or adjudication committee) involved with the clinical trial should be documented. The sponsor is also responsible for obtaining agreements from all involved parties to permit monitoring and auditing by sponsors, inspections by regulatory authorities (domestic and foreign) and review by ECs, including providing direct access to source records and facilities, including those of service providers. Any of the sponsor's trial-related activities that are transferred to and assumed by a service provider should be documented in an agreement. The sponsor's trial-related activities that are not specifically transferred to and assumed by a service provider are retained by the sponsor.

In accordance with the G-CanadaCTApps, prior to initiating a clinical trial, the sponsor must ensure that a Qualified Investigator Undertaking (QIU) form (CAN-37 or similar documentation that meets the CanadaFDR requirements) has been completed and is kept on file by the sponsor. Per the CanadaFDR, the form certifies that the QI will conduct the clinical trial in accordance with good clinical practice and will immediately inform trial participants and the institutional EC of trial discontinuance and the reason for this discontinuance. If there is a change in the QI at a site, a new CTSI Form must be submitted to HC, and a new QIU form must be maintained by the sponsor.

G-Dcntrl indicates that sponsors and QIs are responsible for ensuring that all agreements supporting decentralized trial activities clearly define roles, responsibilities, and oversight expectations. Trial-related activities delegated to service providers should be documented in written agreements that establish how tasks will be performed, supervised, and documented; investigational products and data will be managed; and compliance with regulations and good clinical practice will be maintained.

See CAN-6, CAN-8, and CAN-19 for additional clinical trial forms. Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per the CT-Rgstrn, sponsors should register their clinical trial before it has opened for enrollment in Canada but no later than 21 calendar days after the date of enrollment of the first participant. HC considers the registration date as the date when the clinical trial registration materials are first submitted to a registry. For a multi-national clinical trial with one (1) or more Canadian sites, sponsors should add the Canadian site(s) to their existing registry record. Ideally, this should be done before opening for enrollment, but no later than 21 calendar days after the date of enrollment of the first participant at the Canadian site(s). Sponsors should register their clinical trial with an international clinical trial registry that complies with World Health Organization (WHO) international standards, including the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (CAN-60). Two (2) widely used registries that are publicly accessible and part of the WHO network are ClinicalTrials.gov (CAN-45), and the International Standardized Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (CAN-46). Sponsors should include the protocol code/number in their registry record.

Also see HC’s Clinical Trial Search Portal (CAN-59), which is a search tool to find information about Canadian clinical trials. It is not a registry, but some of the information is collected directly from international registries.

Overview

Per the MHCTR, the REC-Policy, and the CTApp-Appvl, a person must not start or conduct a clinical trial of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) without prior Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) authorization and a favorable ethics committee (EC) opinion. In addition per GBR-9, some health and social care research projects require regulatory approvals under a range of legislation applicable to the United Kingdom (UK) as a whole or to particular countries. It is the responsibility of the sponsor to ensure where necessary that a research study has appropriate regulatory approval. GBR-18 states that contracts and agreements should be in place before the start of a trial and should be subject to periodic review to ensure they remain up to date and relevant.

The MHCTR and the UKannot-E6R3 state that all CTIMPs must be conducted in accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) conditions and principles, as amended from time to time. The UK-ICHE6-Comply explains that this legal requirement applies to the ICH GCP conditions and principles rather than the entirety of the guideline. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91). Per the UKannot-E6R3, unlike the stated scope of GBR-91, the UK GCP requirement applies to all UK CTIMPs, whether or not the trial is intended to support a marketing authorization application.

Per the CTIMP-Condtns, if a CTIMP does not recruit within 24 months of the date of the favorable ethical opinion, the approvals are deemed to have lapsed but can be extended upon request. In addition, the trial should not commence at any location until management permission has been obtained from the organization responsible for the care of the participants at the location. For information related to participant recruitment and communication during clinical trial setup, see DigiTrials (GBR-40).

See GBR-55 for an overview of research transparency requirements.

Clinical Trial Agreement

According to GBR-107 and GBR-18, contracts and agreements should be in place prior to the initiation of a trial. GBR-107 provides model templates that apply UK-wide (unless otherwise indicated) and should be used unmodified to avoid delays, including:

• Model Clinical Trial Agreement (mCTA) and Clinical Research Organization mCTA (CRO-mCTA)
• Commercial mCTA for Investigational Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP-mCTA and CRO-ATMP-mCTA)
• Commercial Primary Care mCTA
• Model Clinical Investigation Agreement (mCIA) and CRO-mCIA
• Model Non-Interventional Study Agreement (mNISA) and CRO mNISA (CRO-mNISA)
• Model non-commercial agreement (mNCA)
• UK template Hub and Spoke Agreements
• Model agreements for Participant Identification Centres (mC-PICA and mNC-PICA)
• Model Material Transfer Agreement
• Model Confidentiality Disclosure Agreements (mCDA and mMCDA)
• Model Commercial Chief Investigator Agreement (mCCIA) and clinical research organization mCCIA (CRO-mCCIA)
• Model Non-commercial Research Grant Collaboration Agreement
• Other model agreements

The UKwide-Rsrch states that contracting expectations and arrangements across the four (4) UK nations are broadly similar. For all four (4) nations:

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

The UKwide-Rsrch also highlights national differences relating to the way contractual agreements are reviewed and agreed to. Additional details and templates are available in GBR-107.

Clinical Trial Registration

As delineated in the MHCTR and the CTApp-Appvl, the sponsor must register a clinical trial in a public registry by the earliest of the following: the date the first participant is recruited or 90 days after the clinical trial is approved. MHCTR-Chgs explains that this registration requirement applies to CTIMP applications submitted from April 28, 2026; for trials submitted before that date, the requirement depends on whether the trial ended before April 28, 2026, whether it was already registered, and whether the first participant has already been recruited. (See CT-Transtn for additional details on transitional arrangements.) Per the MHCTR and the MHCTR-Chgs, the sponsor may request a deferral or waiver of the registration requirement, including at the time of the request for approval or before the registration deadline. Where appropriate, the MHRA may defer registration for up to 30 months after the trial concludes, including to protect commercially confidential information, or waive the requirement in exceptional circumstances, such as national defense or security reasons. Phase I clinical trials may be eligible for an automatic deferral of up to 30 months from the conclusion of the trial, provided that the required minimum information is registered in a public registry before the aforementioned clinical trial registration deadline.

Per the MHCTR-Chgs, the public registry must be a primary or partner registry of, or data provider to, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (GBR-93), which allows public access to UK trial information. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (GBR-47) and ClinicalTrials.gov (GBR-49) satisfy the public registry requirement, although sponsors should generally register with ISRCTN unless there is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirement to register with GBR-49. Registration with the European Union’s Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) (GBR-39) or previous registration with EudraCT does not satisfy the MHCTR registration requirement because these systems do not facilitate public access to information about trials taking place in the UK.

Further, per the MHCTR-Chgs, if a clinical trial application is submitted in the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125), the system will share basic trial information with GBR-47 to support registration, but this does not mean that the trial is registered; GBR-47 will contact the sponsor for additional details to complete registration. If the sponsor intends to register with GBR-49 instead, this may be indicated in the IRAS application. Sponsors must also confirm the date the first UK participant was recruited by using the Modification Tool in IRAS to submit a modification of an important detail confirming that first recruitment has occurred.

As indicated in the Phs1CTs, if a sponsor submits a Phase 1 CTIMP application only involving healthy volunteers, it will automatically be deferred for all transparency requirements until 30 months after the end of the trial. However, the sponsor must still publish a minimal record on a publicly accessible registry, which can be done with ISRCTN.

See GBR-102, GBR-18, and CTIMP-Condtns for additional information on clinical trial registration.

Governance

Study-wide Review

The UKwide-Rsrch indicates that the UK’s four (4) nations—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—work together and with a range of organizations to support and regulate different aspects of health research. Study-wide review is the process by which all research in the UK is reviewed and approved, bringing together the assessment of governance and legal compliance of research in healthcare. The UK nations take a consistent approach to study-wide reviews, so sponsors only need to submit one (1) application in the combined review section of IRAS (GBR-125). As described in GBR-67, Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval applies to all project-based research taking place in the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance with the EC opinion. Projects led from Northern Ireland or Scotland that involve NHS research sites should follow the appropriate permission process for that lead nation. Studies with research sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland are supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems, where each country accepts relevant centralized assurances from national coordinating functions to avoid duplication. Also see the Stdy-wide for information on study-wide governance criteria.

The UKwide-Rsrch specifies that each UK nation will take assurances from the study-wide review conducted by the lead nation (the nation conducting the initial review). The following outlines key differences in approvals from UK nations:

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

Research & Development Review

As explained in GBR-18, CTIMPs within the NHS need permission from the local NHS R&D office. The review process varies across the UK, depending on the lead NHS R&D office, typically where the Chief Investigator is based. In England and Wales, HRA and HCRW provide an integrated governance and legal compliance review through the combined review process, submitted via GBR-125 alongside ethics and MHRA applications. Each NHS organization then assesses their capacity and capability before confirming participation. In Scotland, the NHS Research Scotland Permissions Coordinating Centre has a national system that provides a single point for the governance and legal compliance review. The combined review process covers MHRA and ethics approvals. Each NHS Board completes a local capacity and capability assessment before confirming participation. In Northern Ireland, the HSC R&D Approvals Service coordinates governance reviews in secondary care studies. Each HSC Trust completes a local capacity and capability assessment before confirming participation.

Per GBR-106, the UK Local Information Pack is the UK-wide mechanism for setting up participating NHS/HSC organizations. It is used for all studies with participating NHS/HSC organizations. See Site/Investigator Selection section, GBR-63, and GBR-106 for more information on the UK Local Information Pack to support study setup and delivery.

GBR-18 indicates that researchers without contractual arrangements with NHS organizations, but whose research involves direct patient contact or access to NHS premises, may need an Honorary Research Contract (HRC) or Letter of Access (LoA). HRA will determine if an HRC or LoA is required during the governance review. Where a study does not involve the NHS (i.e., patients, their data, tissues, or NHS resources), NHS permission is not required. Investigators should follow their own organization’s governance processes.

GBR-9 states that ECs do not undertake location-specific assessments. A standard condition of a favorable EC opinion is obtaining applicable organization-level capacity, capability, or management approvals before any research project activity begins at an investigator location within the NHS or Northern Ireland Health and Social Care. For non-NHS locations, it is expected that sponsors have arrangements in place to ensure selection of suitable locations and investigators. For CTIMPs, these arrangements need to be submitted to the EC for review with the initial application, and significant changes to these arrangements treated as a substantial modification.

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the CanadaFDR and G-CanadaCTApps, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Canada’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event (AE) – Any adverse occurrence in the health of a clinical trial participant who is administered a drug that may or may not be caused by the administration of the drug, and includes an adverse drug reaction.
• Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – Any noxious and unintended response to a drug that is caused by the administration of any dose of the drug.
• Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) or Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or causes a congenital anomaly/birth defect.
• Serious, Unexpected ADR – A serious ADR that is not identified in nature, severity, or frequency in the risk information set out in the investigator’s brochure or on the label of the drug.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ethics committees (ECs), requires researchers to promptly report new information revealed during the conduct of the trial that might affect the welfare or consent of participants to the EC, to a publicly accessible registry, and to other appropriate regulatory or advisory bodies. In addition, when new information is relevant to participants’ welfare, researchers must promptly inform all participants to whom the information applies (including former participants). Researchers must work with their ECs to determine which participants must be informed, and how the information should be conveyed.

For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100. Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

Per the G-FDR-0100, the collection, assessment, and reporting of AEs is a critical component of the conduct of any clinical trial. The assessment of the site AEs should be done by the qualified investigator (QI) or the delegated sub-investigator(s) for seriousness, expectedness, and causality determination, when they become aware. All SAEs should be reported immediately (after the QI reasonably becomes aware of the event) to the sponsor. The QI should also include an assessment of causality. In accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, the protocol may identify SAEs not requiring immediate reporting; for example, deaths or other events that are endpoints. Subsequent information should be submitted as a follow-up report, as necessary.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, the sponsor is required to expedite reports of ADRs to HC that meet these three (3) criteria: serious, unexpected, and having a suspected causal relationship. ADR reports that are expected or unexpected, but not serious, should not be reported to HC, but rather monitored and tracked by the sponsor. As specified in the G-CanadaCTApps, when evaluating whether an AE is serious and unexpected, the QI’s and sponsor’s determination of causality is important. Only serious and unexpected ADRs found to have a reasonable suspected causal relationship with the drug should be reported by the sponsor to HC.

Per the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, during a clinical trial, the sponsor is required to inform HC of any serious, unexpected ADR that has occurred inside or outside Canada. An ADR report must be filed in the following specified timelines:

• When the ADR is neither fatal nor life-threatening, within 15 days after becoming aware of the information
• When it is fatal or life-threatening, immediately when possible and, in any event, within seven (7) days after becoming aware of the information
• Within eight (8) days after having informed HC of the ADR, submit a report that includes an assessment of the importance and implication of any findings

Other Safety Reports

The G-DSUR delineates that the development safety update report (DSUR) and the DSUR Checklist (CAN-38) should be provided when requested by HC. A DSUR may be submitted voluntarily to HC when important new safety information on a drug needs to be conveyed by a clinical trial sponsor. In these cases, a rationale/justification for the filing of the DSUR should be included in the cover letter. For additional details, see the G-DSUR.

The G-DSUR-CanUK describes the region-specific requirements for DSURs submitted to the regulatory authorities of Canada and the United Kingdom. This guidance applies to both marketed and non-marketed drugs that are used in clinical trials and applies to DSURs prepared by the manufacturer and/or marketing authorization holder of the investigational drug.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per the G-CanadaCTApps, all serious and unexpected ADRs should be reported individually to HC. According to CAN-48 (which Canada adopted pursuant to CAN-50), at a minimum, the report should include an identifiable patient, the name of a suspect medicinal product, an identifiable reporting source, and an event or outcome that can be identified as serious and unexpected and for which, in clinical investigation cases, there is a reasonable suspected causal relationship. The G-CanadaCTApps requires the sponsor to complete the expedited reporting form (CAN-5) and the CIOMS Form I (CAN-7) and fax them to the appropriate HC Directorate: BRDD Fax: 613-957-0364; PDD Fax: 613-941-2121.

Additionally, the G-DSUR indicates that HC recommends that DSURs in electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) format be submitted via the Common Electronic Submissions Gateway (CESG) (CAN-25). For information on eCTD format, refer to the ElecSubms. For technical questions on eCTD filings, contact ereview@hc-sc.gc.ca as instructed in the G-DSUR.

Safety Reporting Definitions

Per the MHCTR and the CT-Sfty, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of the United Kingdom (UK)’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse event (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant to whom a medicinal product has been administered, including occurrences which are not necessarily caused by or related to that product
• Adverse reaction – Any untoward and unintended response in a participant to an investigational medicinal product (IP) which is related to any dose administered to that participant
• Serious adverse event (SAE), serious adverse reaction (SAR), or unexpected serious adverse reaction (SUSAR) – Any AE, adverse reaction, or unexpected adverse reaction, respectively, that (a) results in death, (b) is life-threatening, (c) requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, (d) results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or (e) consists of a congenital anomaly or birth defect
• Unexpected adverse reaction – An adverse reaction the nature and severity of which is not consistent with the information about the medicinal product in question set out in (a) the case of a product with a marketing authorization, the summary of product characteristics, or equivalent document, for that product, and (b) in the case of any other IP, in the investigator’s brochure (IB) relating to the trial in question

See the CT-Sfty and GBR-30 for guidance on reference safety information, including its role in expectedness assessments for SUSARs and annual safety reporting.

See the CT-Transtn for transitional arrangements for pharmacovigilance. See GBR-18 and GBR-9 for additional summaries of safety reporting.

The MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP), including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. In addition, see CT-Sfty for additional ICH guidance that are relevant to safety reporting, including the Development Safety Update Report (E2F) (GBR-61).

Safety Reporting Requirements

Urgent Safety Measure

Per the MHCTR and the CT-Sfty, an urgent safety measure (USM) is an action that the sponsor and investigator may take to protect the participants of a trial against any immediate hazard to their health or safety. As stated in the CT-Sfty, once trial participants have been recruited, appropriate USMs may be taken at any time to protect the participants from any immediate hazard to their health or safety. USMs may be implemented without first notifying the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and ethics committee (EC). No later than three (3) days after the measures are taken (but ideally within 24 hours), the sponsor must contact the MHRA through an initial telephone conversation or email. Failure to notify the MHRA of the implementation of an USM for safety reasons may be considered a serious breach.

Per the MHCTR and the CT-Sfty, following the initial telephone conversation or email with the MHRA, the sponsor must provide a written notice to the MHRA and the relevant EC, describing the events requiring action to be taken, and the measures taken in response to those events, including any additional actions requested by the MHRA. The written notification must be done within seven (7) calendar days from the date the measures are taken, or as soon as possible during any period where a disease is pandemic and is a serious or potentially serious risk to human health. The CT-Sfty states that the MHRA will review the written notification and may request additional information. Once the MHRA has sufficient information, it will decide whether the measure taken is a USM and communicate the outcome to the sponsor by email (and through Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125), if this route of submission was used). If the MHRA agrees that the measure is a USM, the sponsor should submit a substantial modification that covers the USM (with no additional changes) within two (2) weeks of the date on which the MHRA was first informed (via telephone) of the USM. If the MHRA does not agree that the measure is a USM, it will confirm with the sponsor whether any further actions are needed. See the CT-Sfty for process flowcharts and GBR-18 and GBR-9 for an overview of USMs.

Investigator Responsibilities

Per MHCTR, and the CT-Sfty, the investigator’s responsibilities include reporting of SAEs to the sponsor and reporting of certain non-serious AEs and/or laboratory abnormalities to the sponsor. The CT-Sfty indicates that an investigator must report any SAE that occurs to a participant at a trial site immediately to the sponsor, and no later than 24 hours following knowledge of the SAE. The MHCTR clarifies that the immediate report may be made orally or in writing, but the investigator must follow it with a detailed written report. These immediate reporting requirements do not apply to SAEs specified in the protocol or IB as not requiring immediate reporting. AEs other than immediately reportable SAEs that are identified in the protocol as critical to safety evaluations must be reported to the sponsor in accordance with the reporting requirements specified in the protocol. Reports must identify each participant by the number assigned to that participant in accordance with the protocol. Where the reported event consists of, or results in, the death of a participant, the investigator must provide any additional information requested by the sponsor or EC (if the death has been reported to that EC).

After the immediate report, the CT-Sfty states that the investigator must send a detailed, written follow-up report to allow the sponsor to determine whether the SAE requires a reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the clinical trial, if the relevant information was not already available and provided in the initial report. In cases where an initial/immediate report is not required, the investigator should report within the appropriate timeframe, taking account of the specificities of the trial and of the SAE, as well as possible guidance in the protocol or the IB. The investigator does not need to actively monitor participants for AEs once the trial has ended, unless provided otherwise in the protocol. SAEs considered related to the IP occurring to a participant after the treatment of that participant has ended should be reported to the sponsor if the investigator becomes aware of them. Clinically significant abnormal laboratory findings are considered AEs; however, abnormal laboratory findings may not be considered as AEs if there is no change compared to baseline values. Certain abnormal laboratory parameters should also be specified in the protocol as requiring reporting within the same timeframes as SAEs, depending on the IP safety profile. These must be clearly stated in the protocol and made clear to the concerned laboratory to ensure that these alert values are reported immediately to the investigator for onward reporting to the sponsor.

See GBR-18 for an overview including a safety reporting flowchart.

Sponsor Responsibilities

Per the MHCTR, the sponsor must keep detailed records of all SAEs and SARs, including SUSARs, that occur during a UK clinical trial. The sponsor must evaluate these events and reactions with a view to minimizing and preventing risks presented by use of the IP and must take appropriate measures as soon as reasonably practicable to investigate the risks and implement actions for minimizing and preventing them. In addition, the sponsor must keep detailed records of all AEs relating to a clinical trial that are reported by the investigators. The MHRA may require the sponsor, by written notice, to send those records, or copies of those records. The sponsor must ensure that all relevant information about a SUSAR that occurs during a UK clinical trial and is fatal or life-threatening is reported to the MHRA as soon as possible, and no later than seven (7) days after the sponsor is first aware of the reaction. The sponsor must send any additional relevant information to the MHRA within eight (8) days of that report. SUSARs that are not fatal or life-threatening must be reported as soon as possible, and no later than 15 days after the sponsor is first aware of the reaction. These SUSAR reporting timelines do not apply where the protocol specifies that certain SUSARs do not require immediate reporting; in those cases, the SUSARs must be reported to the MHRA in accordance with the protocol.

As specified in the CT-Sfty, there is no mandatory requirement for the sponsor to inform the EC or investigators of SUSARs. However, to comply with the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91), notification of safety information to investigators (which includes SUSARs) may be appropriate. The sponsor may wish to notify investigators of an occurrence through a letter to the investigator or an updated IB. Where urgent action is required because of a SUSAR, the sponsor should also consider whether a USM is required. See the CT-Sfty for additional guidance on sponsor’s causality, seriousness, and expectedness analyses. The UKannot-E6R3 clarifies, with respect to GBR-91, that individual SUSARs are not required to be reported to investigators or the EC under UK law and must instead be reported to the MHRA.

Under the MHCTR, if a clinical trial is being conducted at a trial site in another country in addition to UK sites, the sponsor must ensure that all SUSARs occurring at the non-UK site are reported to the MHRA as soon as possible. Fatal or life-threatening reactions must be reported within seven (7) days beginning with the day after the sponsor is first aware of the reaction, and all other SUSARs must be reported within 15 days beginning with the day after the sponsor is first aware of the reaction.

Per MHCTR, within 60 days beginning with the day after the reporting year ends, the sponsor must provide the MHRA with a report on the safety of the participants of those trials for each IP tested in a clinical trial. The annual safety report must include records and evaluations of SARs and SAEs that occurred during the reporting year, including SUSARs; the record of measures taken to investigate, minimize, and prevent risks; a description of how safety concerns in the clinical trial have been assessed and managed; and a description of the overall safety profile of each IP, along with a summary description of the sponsor’s processes to monitor the overall safety profile. The MHRA may request that the sponsor provide a list of SARs and SAEs, including SUSARs, that occurred at any time during the reporting year where necessary to investigate specific safety issues. The sponsor must provide the requested list within 30 days of receiving the request, or within any shorter period specified by the MHRA. The CT-Sfty states that the annual safety report should be submitted in the form of a Development Safety Update Report (DSUR). This includes clinical trials approved via automatic authorization under the notifiable trials pathway, as well as DSURs covering a combination of notified and non-notified trials. A single DSUR may cover multiple trials as it relates to a single IP and not a specific trial. See CT-Sfty for details on the required contents of the DSUR.

See the CT-Sfty and GBR-18 for additional guidance on safety reporting.

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Transitional Arrangements

Per GBR-99, for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), the submission of some of the reports may differ depending on whether the study was submitted through combined review or not. From April 28, 2026, the safety reporting requirements for CTIMPs change in line with the amended MHCTR. The new requirements apply to all CTIMPs whether they were submitted before or from this date. For example, SUSARs and annual safety reports for CTIMPs are only to be reported to the MHRA (not the EC). If any ethical issues are identified by the MHRA when they receive these reports, they will liaise with the EC directly. See CT-Transtn for additional details on transitional arrangements.

Urgent Safety Measures

As stated in the CT-Sfty, USMs must be reported to the MHRA through an initial telephone conversation or email no later than three (3) days after the measures are taken (but ideally within 24 hours). The sponsor should contact the MHRA through the Clinical Trial Helpline (020 3080 6456) to discuss the USM. If the sponsor is unable to report the USM by telephone, they should email clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk with contact details, the trial’s ID, a description of the USM, and an explanation as to why it was not reported via phone. The MHRA will then contact the sponsor with further actions. The follow-up written report should be submitted to the MHRA and the EC no later than seven (7) days from the date the measures are taken via IRAS (GBR-125). Guidance on submitting an USM through IRAS can be found in the G-IRASCombRev, GBR-9, and GBR-99. If the clinical trials affected were approved through separate applications to the MHRA and the EC, email the report to clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk.

SUSARs

Per the CT-Sfty, SUSARs should be reported to the MHRA in one (1) of the following ways using the format in the ICH E2B(R3) Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) Specification and Related Files (GBR-94):

• ICSR Submissions (GBR-126) – The ICSR submissions route is used to submit single reports
• MHRA Gateway – To gain access to the MHRA Gateway, which is used to submit bulk reports, users must first register via MHRA Submissions (GBR-13). The steps for gaining access to MHRA Submissions are contained within the G-MHRASubmiss and GBR-11

The CT-Sfty further explains that following submission of a SUSAR, the sponsor should expect to receive acknowledgement of the submission within 48 hours. If an acknowledgement is not received, then the sponsor should contact the E2B support team (E2B.support@mhra.gov.uk) to determine next steps, including whether resubmission is required. See the CT-Sfty for SUSAR submission content.

Annual Safety Report

For the annual safety report, CT-Sfty states that the fee for the MHRA to review a DSUR must be paid online (GBR-43) at the point of submission, not in advance. If at least one (1) of the clinical trials covered by the DSUR was approved through the combined review process, the report should be submitted through the combined review section of the IRAS (GBR-125). If all the clinical trials covered by the DSUR were approved through separate applications to the MHRA and the EC, the report should be submitted through MHRA Submissions (GBR-13). As explained in GBR-96, following payment, the emailed receipt must be included with the DSUR submission in its original format as a standalone document serving as proof of payment; failure to provide this evidence will result in the submission being invalidated. The payment reference number must follow the required format: “DSUR-[5 digit MHRA company number]-[Investigational Medicinal Product name]-[Payment date DD/MM/YYYY]”. The company number should be the first five (5) digits of either the product license number or the clinical trial application number from a trial the organization has previously submitted. The format must be adhered to so the MHRA can match the payment to the DSUR submission and allocate monies correctly. The reference number must not be duplicated for future DSUR submissions. Submissions reflecting a fee waiver will be considered valid. DSUR submissions that do not provide proof of payment indicate a failure to submit annual safety reports. Fee-related inquiries should be sent to DSURfees@mhra.gov.uk.

Per the CT-Sfty, ICH DSUR (E2F) (GBR-61) is relevant to the report format.

The CT-Sfty states that after submission, the DSUR undergoes validation checks. The person that submitted the DSUR will receive acknowledgement of their submission by email. If the submission is invalidated, the person that submitted the DSUR will be informed by email and will need to resubmit the DSUR with the deficiencies corrected. Valid DSURs are reviewed and requests for additional information may be made by email (and through IRAS (GBR-125), if this route of submission was used), with a timeline for response set by the MHRA. Once the MHRA has sufficient information, the person that submitted the DSUR will be informed by email (and through IRAS (GBR-125), if this route of submission was used) that the DSUR has been accepted.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

Pursuant to the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, investigators and sponsors share responsibility for submitting interim and annual reports on the status of a clinical trial. The investigator is required to provide annual progress reports to the institutional ethics committee (EC) and submit interim progress reports to the EC and Health Canada (HC) if there are any significant changes affecting the trial or risk to participants. The sponsor is required to submit annual reports (in the form of an updated Investigator’s Brochure (IB)) to HC. Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

According to the G-TCPS2, investigators must report new information that may affect the welfare or consent of participants to the institutional EC, HC, and other appropriate regulatory or advisory entities. When new information is relevant to participants’ welfare, researchers must promptly inform all participants to whom the information applies (including former participants). Researchers should work with their ECs to determine which participants must be informed, and how the information should be conveyed. New information may comprise a range of issues, including, but not limited to:

• Changes to the research design
• Evidence of any new risks
• Unanticipated issues that have possible health or safety consequences for participants
• New information that decisively proves the benefits of one (1) intervention over another
• New research findings, including relevant non-trial findings
• Unanticipated problems
• Closure of trials at other sites for reasons that may be relevant to the welfare or consent of participants in the ongoing trial

Final Report

While the CanadaFDR does not require submission of a final study report to HC, the CT-Rgstrn states that HC’s policy for reporting summary results aligns with international initiatives, including the Declaration of Helsinki (CAN-58). Sponsors should submit the summary results of their clinical trial within 12 months following primary study completion, which is the final study visit for collection of data on the primary outcome for the last participant in a global study, whether the clinical trial concluded according to the pre-specified protocol or stopped early. For clinical trials with more than one (1) primary outcome measure with different completion dates, the primary study completion is the date when data collection is completed for all primary outcome measures. In cases where submission of summary results within one (1) year of primary study completion will jeopardize the scientific integrity of the clinical trial, summary results may be submitted within one (1) year of study completion, which is the final study visit for collection of data on any remaining secondary outcome measures and adverse event information for the last participant in the global study, whether the clinical trial concluded according to the pre-specified protocol or stopped early. If a sponsor intends to apply for market authorization for the product studied or a new condition of use, the sponsor may defer submitting summary results until 30 calendar days after HC renders a decision on the application or the sponsor cancels or withdraws it, or up to 36 months following primary study completion, whichever is earlier. HC does not support deferral for products or new conditions of use that the sponsor does not intend to market or for which product development has stopped. Sponsors should submit the summary results of their clinical trial to the same registry where their trial is registered. (See Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for information on clinical trial registration.)

Per the G-CanadaCTApps, the sponsor should notify the HC Directorate when a clinical trial is completed or a clinical trial site is closed. A study is considered to be completed after the last participant globally completes the "end of study" visit as defined in the protocol. The "end of study visit" is the final visit for study-related tests and procedures, including the capture of any final potential study-related adverse events, and usually occurs after the participant has completed/discontinued study drug administration. The "end of study visit" is normally an in-person visit, but for some studies it can also be carried out over the telephone. There may be certain scenarios (e.g., gene therapies, drugs with very long half-lives) where a study may be ongoing well beyond the period of study treatment, i.e., where long-term safety monitoring and reporting would be required. The reporting requirements with regard to such long-term follow-up of safety are normally specified in the study protocol and agreed to between the sponsor and HC prior to the authorization of the clinical trial in Canada.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

In accordance with GBR-18 and GBR-65, it is not a requirement to submit annual progress reports to the ethics committee (EC) for all studies receiving a final EC opinion in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. However, the MHCTR and CT-Sfty indicate that an annual safety report must be submitted to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the form of a Development Safety Update Report (DSUR). See the Safety Reporting section for more details on this annual report.

As a best practice, GBR-18 points out that sponsors should ensure that arrangements are in place for reporting trial progress to stakeholders throughout the life of the study. These stakeholders commonly include Trial Steering Committees, Data Monitoring Committees, funders, sponsors, and governance bodies at each participating site. For research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), regular progress reports are required in line with funding agreements.

Final Report

As per the MHCTR and the EndingCT, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day after the conclusion of the clinical trial, the sponsor must:

• Publish a summary of the results of the clinical trial in the same public registry or registries (if more than one (1)) as the trial was registered in
• Offer to all relevant persons a summary of the results written in a manner that is understandable to laypersons

The MHCTR and the EndingCT state that at any point before the 12-month deadline, sponsors may apply for a deferral or waiver to one (1) or both requirements, explaining why this is needed. Phase I clinical trials may be eligible for an automatic deferral of up to 30 months from the conclusion of the trial, which may be further extended on request.

As indicated in GBR-128, all project-based research (not research tissue banks or research databases) that has been reviewed by an EC needs to submit a final report within 12 months of the end of the study. The final report should be completed and submitted in the combined review part of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125).

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

Other Reporting Requirements

Per the MHCTR-Chgs, the sponsor must publish a summary of the trial results in all registries the trial is registered in. It is not acceptable for a sponsor to publish the summary of results in another location (for example the sponsor's website) and insert a link to that in the registry.

The MHCTR and the EndingCT specify that within 90 days of the conclusion of a clinical trial, the sponsor must notify the MHRA and the relevant EC in writing that the trial has ended. If a trial is terminated prior to the date or event specified in the protocol, the sponsor must notify the MHRA and the relevant EC in writing of the termination of the trial within 15 days of the date of termination. According to the EndingCT, if the clinical trial that has ended was approved through the combined review process, the end of trial declaration form should be submitted through Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). Guidance on using IRAS to submit an end of trial declaration form can be found in G-IRASCombRev and IRAS-User. If the clinical trial was approved through separate applications to the MHRA and the EC, the end of trial declaration form should be submitted to the MHRA via MHRA Submissions (GBR-13) and to the EC via email. The steps for gaining access to MHRA Submissions are contained within the G-MHRASubmiss and GBR-11. After submission, an acknowledgement will be issued by email (and through IRAS for combined review trials). No acknowledgement will be issued if the submission was related to the local end of trial. Details of where the results have been published should be provided to the MHRA and the EC within 12 months of trial completion (except for some pediatric trials involving the use of authorized medicinal products).

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

As per the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, a sponsor is defined as an individual, corporate body, institution, or organization that conducts a clinical trial. In accordance with the G-FDR-0100, a sponsor may transfer any or all of the sponsor's trial-related activities to a service provider in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. However, the ultimate responsibility for the sponsor's trial-related activities, including protection of participants' rights, safety, and well-being and reliability of the trial data, resides with the sponsor.

According to the CanadaFDR and G-CanadaCTApps, a sponsor may be domestic or foreign. A foreign sponsor is required to have a senior medical or scientific officer who is residing in Canada who will represent the sponsor, and sign and date the application and the clinical trial attestation form.

For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

As per the MHCTR, a sponsor of a clinical trial is the person who takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and financing (or arranging the financing) of that trial. If two (2) or more persons take responsibility for these matters, they may either take joint responsibility for carrying out the functions of the sponsor or allocate responsibility for carrying out the sponsor’s functions. Where two (2) or more persons take joint responsibility, any reference to the sponsor in the regulations is construed as a reference to those persons. If responsibility is allocated instead, one (1) person must be responsible for carrying out the sponsor’s functions related to the clinical trial approval process and for making the request for authorization to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and an ethics committee (EC) opinion. The request for approval must specify who is responsible for carrying out the sponsor’s functions related to the approval process, good clinical practice (GCP) and conduct of the clinical trial, and pharmacovigilance. After the clinical trial has been approved, a different person may be specified as responsible for carrying out the sponsor’s functions by making a modification of an important detail to the terms of the clinical trial approval.

As delineated in the MHCTR, a sponsor must be established in the United Kingdom (UK) or in a country included in a list published by the MHRA, or have a legal representative who is so established. The MHRA’s list is published at G-CTApprovedCountries and initially includes European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) countries.

Further per the MHCTR, a sponsor may delegate any or all of its functions to any person, but such delegation does not affect the responsibility of the sponsor. The functions of the sponsor include the development and maintenance of trial-specific computerized systems, and the selection and oversight of a laboratory in relation to the analysis or evaluation of human samples collected as part of the clinical trial.

GBR-101 provides that the sponsor is the individual, organization, or partnership that takes on overall responsibility for proportionate, effective arrangements being in place to set up, run, and report a research project. All health and social care research has a sponsor. The sponsor is normally expected to be the employer of the chief investigator in the case of non-commercial research or the funder in the case of commercial research. The sponsor has overall responsibility for the research, including:

• Identifying and addressing poorly designed or planned research and poor-quality research proposals, protocols or applications and ensuring that research proposals and protocols take into account systematic reviews of relevant existing research evidence and other relevant research in progress; make appropriate use of patient, service user, and public involvement; and are scientifically sound, safe, ethical, legal, and feasible and remain so for the duration of the research, taking account of developments while the research is ongoing
• Satisfying itself that the investigators, research team, and research sites are suitable
• Ensuring that roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the research and any delegation by the sponsor of its tasks are agreed and documented
• Ensuring adequate provision is made for insurance or indemnity to cover liabilities which may arise in relation to the design, management, and conduct of the research project
• Ensuring appropriate arrangements are made for making information about the research publicly available before it starts (unless a waiver or deferral is agreed by or on behalf of the EC); agreeing appropriate arrangements for making data and tissue accessible, with adequate consent and privacy safeguards, in a timely manner after it has finished; and ensuring arrangements for information about the findings of the research to be made available, including, where appropriate, to participants
• Ensuring that, where expected or required, the research has approval from an EC and any other relevant approval bodies before it begins
• Verifying that regulatory and practical arrangements are in place, before permitting the research to begin in a safe and timely manner
• Putting and keeping in place arrangements for adequate finance and management of the research project, including its competent risk management and data management
• Ensuring that effective procedures and arrangements are kept in place and adhered to for reporting (e.g., safety reports) and for monitoring the research, including its conduct and the ongoing suitability of the approved proposal or protocol in light of adverse events or other developments

Per GBR-103, sponsors of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) have particular legal duties. The sponsor of a CTIMP is responsible for ensuring that a clinical trial complies with the MHCTR and GCP. Regarding GCP compliance, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of GCP, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others.

GBR-103 states that where it is necessary to appoint a legal representative based in the UK or a country on the MHRA’s list, the details of the legal representative should be entered into Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). The legal representative:

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

As explained in GBR-103, in all cases, evidence should be provided with the CTIMP application that the legal representative is willing to take on the role of legal representative and is established at an address in the UK or a country on the approved country list. For example, a copy of correspondence between the sponsor and legal representative on appropriate headed paper could be supplied, or a copy of a contract. Where the legal representative is also a co-sponsor, this should be separately recorded on the application form and details given of the allocation of sponsorship responsibilities.

See GBR-103, GBR-9, GBR-18, and GBR-2 for additional guidance on sponsors.

Overview

Per the CanadaFDR and the G-FDR-0100, every sponsor must ensure that a clinical trial is conducted in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP) and must also ensure that:

• At each clinical trial site, there is no more than one (1) qualified investigator (QI)
• At each clinical trial site, medical care and medical decisions, in respect of the clinical trial, are under the supervision of the QI
• Each individual involved in the conduct of the clinical trial is qualified by education, training, and experience to perform the tasks

The G-FDR-0100 explains that the sponsor’s selection and oversight of QIs and service providers are fundamental features of the oversight process. As stated in Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, a "qualified investigator" may be:

• A physician or dentist who is authorized under CanadaFDR to act as a qualified investigator
• An individual who has the education, training, and experience required to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements, despite not meeting the regulatory requirement to be a physician or dentist in CanadaFDR

Mdrn-CTFrmwrk further specifies that in clinical trials where the investigator is not a physician or dentist, medical decisions with respect to the trial that are outside the licensed scope of practice of the investigator must be made by a qualified physician or dentist on the clinical trial team who is:

• Licensed to practice in the province or territory where the site is located
• Responsible for medical oversight and participant care, including medical decisions with respect to the trial

In accordance with the G-CanadaCTApps, prior to initiating a clinical trial, the sponsor must ensure that a Qualified Investigator Undertaking (QIU) form (CAN-37) (or similar documentation that meets the CanadaFDR requirements) has been completed and kept on file by the sponsor; it should be retained by the sponsor for 15 years. Per the CanadaFDR, the form certifies that the QI will conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCP, and, if the trial is discontinued, will immediately inform trial participants and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada) of the discontinuance, and the reason for it. (See the Submission Content section for additional information on clinical trial application requirements). For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

Per G-Dcntrl, for clinical trials with decentralized elements, sponsors and QIs should assess whether decentralized locations have sufficient funding, time, equipment, and staff to support trial conduct that complies with GCP. Considerations include local care and institutional practices, provincial or territorial requirements, training needs, and coordination and communication across locations. The main location and remote locations supervised by one (1) QI constitute a single clinical trial site. The main location must be identified on the Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) form (CAN-6) and receive EC approval before trial initiation.

For additional guidance on investigator selection, qualifications, and training, see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Per CAN-11, the Canadian Clinical Trials Asset Map (CCTAM) (CAN-26) is a pan-Canadian research inventory of investigators, clinical research sites, and other resources across the country. Sponsors can use CCTAM to identify potential sites and investigators, which may expedite study feasibility and start-up timelines. To view the CCTAM, the user must register and create an account.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

According to the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, a sponsor may be domestic or foreign. A foreign sponsor is required to have a senior medical or scientific officer residing in Canada to represent the sponsor, and sign and date the application and the clinical trial attestation form.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

The G-TCPS2 provides the following considerations to help researchers and ECs determine whether a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) (known as an Independent Data-Monitoring Committee in Canada) is needed:

• The magnitude of foreseeable research-attributable harms to participants
• Whether the circumstances of the participants make them vulnerable in the context of research
• The feasibility of interim data analysis
• The complexity of the study
• Conflicts of interest

Also see CAN-52 for ICH guidance on DSMBs.

Multicenter Studies

The CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, require the sponsor to complete and retain the Research Ethics Board (REB) Attestation (CAN-8) and Qualified Investigator Undertaking (QIU) (CAN-37) forms at each trial site, while submitting in electronic format CAN-6 to the appropriate HC Directorate for each trial site.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, provides that in multi-site clinical trials, a lead principal investigator (PI) is a designated PI who is responsible for the ethical conduct of the study for all sites. The lead PI is responsible for communicating any changes to the study, new information, and/or unanticipated events to the EC, to the sponsor, and to local site PIs.

Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented the ICH Guidance E17: Multi-Regional Clinical Trials (CAN-40), which describes general principles for the planning and design of multi-regional clinical trials with the aim of increasing the acceptability of these trials in global regulatory submissions. HC recognizes that the scope and subject matter of current HC guidance may not be entirely consistent with ICH guidance. In such circumstances, HC-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence.

Overview

Per the MHCTR, the investigator for a clinical trial must be a health care professional who is appropriately trained to undertake that role in a clinical trial. Health care professional means a doctor, dentist, registered nurse, pharmacist, optometrist, relevant Health and Care Professions Council registrant, registered osteopath, registered chiropractor, anaesthesia associate or physician associate, or registered midwife. The investigator is responsible for the conduct of the trial at its trial location(s). The CT-Roles states that the appointment of an investigator is the responsibility of a sponsor, and this person must be qualified by education and experience, having the scientific background and experience in participant care required for the clinical trial. Organizations conducting clinical trials should consider what training and support is required for investigators. Consideration should be given to participation in suitable training and provision of mentoring support, for example. The type and level of training for an investigator should facilitate knowledge and understanding of the relevant regulations and guidance, and expectations associated with the role, while being proportionate to the type of trial being conducted. Sponsors should also note that a qualified doctor (or, where appropriate, a qualified dentist) who is an investigator for the trial should have the overall responsibility for trial-related medical care and decisions on behalf of participants.

GBR-18 lists examples of factors that should influence investigator/site selection:

• Interest in the research question
• Experience and qualifications of the investigator
• Sufficient staff to conduct the study and their experience and qualifications
• Availability of suitable patient population, including anticipated rate of patient recruitment (determined through feasibility assessments) and conflicting studies
• Adequate time to conduct and oversee the trial
• Adequate facilities such as the availability of any specialized diagnostic, therapeutic equipment required by the protocol, adequate space and storage conditions (including archive), and available resources in support departments
• Previous track record with similar trials
• Geographic location
• Contractual and budgetary negotiations and arrangements

Regarding investigator training, CT-Roles explains that both the Health Research Authority (HRA) and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advocate a proportionate approach to the application of good clinical practice (GCP) to the conduct of clinical trials and the appropriate training of staff involved. Training needs may range from detailed knowledge to just awareness of GCP principles and the MHCTR, and training can be tailored accordingly. For certain trials it may be necessary for staff involved in trial activities to be aware of other regulatory requirements outside those of GCP. For example, healthcare professionals retaining tissue samples should be aware of relevant human tissue and blood safety legislation and regulations. Per the CT-Roles, It is expected that organizations involved in the conduct of clinical trials have considered staff training needs in regard to the MHCTR and GBR-91 (and GBR-104 where relevant).

Regarding GCP compliance, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of GCP, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others.

GBR-106 provides a site-selected email template, which should be used as the formal notification from the commercial sponsor (or delegated agent) confirming that the organization has been selected to participate as a site in a commercial-contract clinical trial or clinical investigation. Also see GBR-18 additional resources to support investigator and site selection.

The UKannot-E6R3 states that unlike in the GBR-91, there is no regulatory requirement for an investigator to inform the authorities that they are withdrawing from a trial. However, depending on the circumstances of the investigator’s withdrawal, the sponsor may need to temporarily halt the trial or report a serious breach to the MHRA in accordance with the MHCTR. In addition, if the investigator that has withdrawn from the trial is the chief investigator (CI), then the sponsor will need to submit a substantial modification to the authorities with the details of the new CI.

As described in GBR-18, for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), adding a new trial location not listed with the original application is considered a modification of an important detail. In addition, if a trial location is added in a UK nation that was not previously involved in the project, the sponsor should ensure that:

• The change is correctly categorized using the Modification Tool and submitted through the combined review process of Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125)
• The appropriate nation-specific study set-up processes are followed for the new trial location(s)

UK Local Information Pack

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

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

For templates, detailed instructions, and contact information by country, refer to UKwide-Rsrch, GBR-106, and GBR-63.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

GBR-103 provides that if a sponsor(s) is not established in the UK or on an approved country list, it is a statutory requirement to appoint a legal representative based in the UK or a country on the approved country list for the purposes of the trial. See the G-CTApprovedCountries for a list of countries where a sponsor of a clinical trial, or their legal representative, may be established; currently listed countries are those in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA).

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

Per GBR-18, the CI should plan oversight structures as appropriate including a data safety and monitoring board (known as a data monitoring committee (DMC) in the UK).

Multicenter Studies

Per the G-Ovrsight, for multi-country trials, global documentation for the trial is acceptable, but it may be necessary to include specific procedures to mitigate any country-specific risks that were identified from the risk assessment – for example, differences in clinical practice or local regulations. It may be necessary to include some site-specific actions such as additional monitoring checks at the CI’s site (for example, if the sponsor has delegated numerous functions) or the site may be responsible for undertaking a specific trial activity or where a site-specific risk may have been identified.

As described in GBR-18, for CTIMPs, change of a principal investigator (PI) (other than a CI) in a multicenter trial is considered a modification of an important detail.

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

Insurance

The CanadaFDR does not require the sponsor to provide insurance coverage to investigators, institutions, or trial participants. However, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, guides sponsors on providing insurance. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Compensation

Injury or Death

The Canadian regulations do not require compensation for trial participants in the event of trial-related injuries or death. However, the G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ethics committees (ECs) (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada), provides that, during informed consent, participants should be given information about any payments, including compensation for injury.

Trial Participation

The Canadian regulations do not require compensation for trial participation. However, as per the G-TCPS2, the informed consent form (ICF) should contain a statement with a description of the anticipated prorated payment to the participant(s) that is reasonably expected for participation in the trial. Any compensation or incentive to participants must not be so excessive that it may unfairly influence participants or cause them to overlook important facts and risks.

Also see CAN-52, which guides sponsors on providing compensation.

Insurance

As set forth in the MHCTR, all clinical trials must make provisions for insurance or indemnity to cover all liabilities of the investigator and sponsor. Proof of insurance, a guarantee, or any other similar arrangement, must accompany a request for approval, a modification request, and a notification of the conclusion of a trial; or an explanation of why the proof is not being provided. Per GBR-103, if a sponsor of a clinical trial of an investigative medicinal product (CTIMP) is a commercial body, a copy of an insurance or indemnity certificate should normally be included with the ethics committee (EC) application as evidence of the cover in place for the potential liability of the sponsor. This may be a certificate for a trial-specific policy or a block policy covering a number of trials conducted by the sponsor. If the certificate is not yet available, the EC will require as a condition of its favorable opinion that a copy of the certificate is provided prior to the start of the trial. See UKannot-E6R3, GBR-2, GBR-9, GBR-103, GBR-101, and GBR-18 for additional guidance.

The MHCTR requires that clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the principles of good clinical practice (GCP) set out in the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the United Kingdom (UK) is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others.

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

According to GBR-33, before the start of a Phase I study, the sponsor must have agreed with the research participant to provide compensation for injury whenever a causal relationship with participation is demonstrated. This undertaking can be provided directly by the sponsor through the consent process, or through authorizing the contract research organization (CRO) or investigator on behalf of the sponsor. In addition, the sponsor should follow these practices:

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

Trial Participation

Per Compstn, where payment is proposed for trial participation, the payment should be proportionate to the burden imposed by the research. Such burdens may often be significant without involving excessive risk (e.g., number of hospital visits, tissue samples taken, lifestyle restrictions, diaries, questionnaires, use of technology such as electronic patient reported outcomes, interaction with apps, etc.). Where the risk and burdens of the research are considered by an EC to be justified by the potential benefits, then it will normally be acceptable for competent adults to participate in the research study without being paid (including reimbursement of expenses). Where it is considered ethically acceptable for individuals to take part in a study for no payment, it would also be acceptable to pay individuals for participation in that study proportionate to the level of burdens and/or risk. Financial or other incentives, of themselves, are not considered coercive nor do they present an undue inducement to a potential participant where the risks and burdens involved are those that a competent, adult participant might reasonably accept for no payment. Regarding payment to participants who use drugs to take part in research, where payment is deemed to be acceptable for taking part in research, it is acceptable for that payment to be made in cash or vouchers.

As delineated in the MHCTR, incentives and financial inducements must not be given to a minor or a legal representative/guardian, except provision for compensation in the event of injury or loss. Similarly, incentives and financial inducements must not be given to a participant who is an incapacitated adult or their legal representative, except provision for compensation in the event of injury or loss.

Post-Trial Access

As explained in the Hlsnki-Align, the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) requires arrangements for post-trial access to beneficial interventions, whereas the MHCTR does not impose this as a statutory obligation. In practice, GBR-81 and the MHCTR are aligned regarding expectations. Sponsors should aim to comply with both, but where strict adherence to GBR-81 would undermine UK statutory safeguards or operational feasibility, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) expects sponsors to prioritize compliance with UK law while documenting the rationale for deviations.

The UKannot-E6R3 clarifies, with respect to GBR-91, that there is no specific regulatory requirement for the sponsor to provide the investigator with information about the treatment taken by participants for blinded trials. However, clinical trials should be designed and conducted in ways that ensure the rights, safety, and well-being of participants, which includes the post-trial transition back to standard of care, and to support this, it may be necessary to know which treatment the participant received. The sponsor should act in accordance with the approved clinical trial protocol.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the CanadaFDR, the sponsor must ensure that a clinical trial is conducted in accordance with good clinical practice and must ensure, among other things, that the trial is scientifically sound and clearly described in a protocol; the trial and use of the drug comply with the protocol and the CanadaFDR; and systems and procedures that assure the quality of every aspect of the trial are implemented. Regarding quality, the G-FDR-0100 explains that the sponsor is responsible for the establishment of a quality management system consisting of documented procedures (standard operating procedures (SOPs), protocol procedures, etc.) to assure the quality of every aspect of a clinical trial. The range and extent of oversight measures should fit the purpose and be tailored to the complexity of and risks associated with the trial. Quality management includes the design and implementation of efficient clinical trial protocols, including tools and procedures for trial conduct (including data collection and management), to ensure the protection of participants' rights, safety, and well-being, and the reliability of trial results. The sponsor should adopt a proportionate and risk-based approach to quality management, which involves incorporating quality into the design of the clinical trial (i.e., quality by design) and identifying those factors that are likely to have a meaningful impact on participants' rights, safety, and well-being, and the reliability of the results. The sponsor should describe the quality management approach in the clinical trial report.

In addition, G-FDR-0100 states that risks to critical-to-quality factors should be managed proactively and adjusted when new or unanticipated issues arise once the trial has begun. Risk review is a key component to risk-based quality management systems, and Health Canada (HC) expects that sponsors will be able to demonstrate that risk control measures are periodically reviewed and remain effective and relevant, considering emerging knowledge and experience throughout the trial.

Per G-Dcntrl, for trials with decentralized elements, sponsors and qualified investigators (QIs) should collaborate with trial sites and service providers to implement a quality management system covering decentralized activities and supporting compliance with HC regulations and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. Processes should identify, evaluate, control, communicate, and review risks affecting participant safety or the reliability of results, including risks arising from decentralized elements. Additional training, continuing quality checks, and competency assessments may be needed beyond SOPs. See G-Dcntrl for additional details.

Further, CAN-50, Canada implements the ICH Guidance E8(R1): General Considerations for Clinical Studies (CAN-49), which provides guidance on conduct during the clinical trial. Other relevant ICH guidance adopted per CAN-50 are the guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials (CAN-53) and the addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis (CAN-39). The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Monitoring Requirements

As indicated in the G-FDR-0100, the sponsor should determine the appropriate extent and nature of monitoring based on identified risks. Factors to consider include the objective, purpose, design, complexity, blinding, number of trial participants, investigational product, current knowledge of the safety profile, and endpoints of the trial. Monitoring may include site monitoring (performed onsite and/or remotely) and centralized monitoring. The frequency of monitoring activities should also be determined based on identified risks. Monitoring activities and their frequency should be modified as appropriate using knowledge gained. Centralized monitoring processes provide additional monitoring capabilities that can complement and reduce the extent and/or frequency of site monitoring or be used on its own. Use of centralized data analytics can help identify systemic or site-specific issues, including protocol noncompliance and potential unreliable data. In addition to monitoring, a sponsor should perform audits in a manner that is proportionate to the risk associated with the conduct of the trial. See CAN-52 for additional guidance on sponsor responsibilities involving monitoring and auditing.

Further, per the G-FDR-0100, it is critical to include processes that will be followed to address situations of non-compliance, as well as to identify events that would require either a review or revision of the monitoring plan. HC expects these components to be clearly documented in risk-based monitoring plans. The sponsor should describe the requirements of monitoring reports (including their content and frequency) in the standard procedures. Reports of site and/or centralized monitoring should be provided to the sponsor in a timely manner for review and follow up. When needed, the report should describe findings requiring escalation for action and resolution. The sponsor should decide on the appropriate action to be taken, and these decisions and the resolution of the actions involved, where needed, should be recorded. For additional information on monitoring reports, refer to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s Guidance for Industry: A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring of Clinical Investigations Questions and Answers.

Next, per the G-FDR-0100, if it is discovered that noncompliance significantly affects or has the potential to significantly affect human participant protection or reliability of trial results, the sponsor should perform a root cause analysis, implement appropriate corrective and preventive actions, and confirm their adequacy, unless otherwise justified. Where the sponsor identifies issues that are likely to significantly impact the rights, safety, or well-being of the trial participant(s) or the reliability of trial results (i.e., serious noncompliance), the sponsor should notify the HC and the institutional ethics committee (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada).

Per the HCNotice-ICH-E19, HC adopted and implemented ICH guidance on selective safety data collection in specific late stage pre-approval or post-approval clinical trials (CAN-15). Selective safety data collection refers to the recording of certain data by investigators in case report forms. It does not affect the monitoring and clinical care of individual trial participants or documentation of their adverse events in medical records. See the HCNotice-ICH-E19 and the CAN-15 for more information.

Per G-Inspections, regulated parties (sponsors, qualified investigators, contract research organizations, and any other party involved in the conduct of clinical trials) have mandatory responsibilities under the CanadaFDA and can be inspected. Foreign entities that conduct regulated activities in Canada, or in relation to a product imported in Canada, are also subject to Canadian law. During an inspection or a compliance verification, a regulated party is required to provide all reasonable assistance and information necessary for the HC inspector to perform their duties, including providing evidence that its facility, equipment, and practices and procedures meet the applicable requirements. As indicated in G-Dcntrl, sponsors should oversee decentralized elements in clinical trials across all locations, including remote locations, with monitoring directed toward potential safety concerns, data quality, and reliable results. See the Risk-Insp for HC’s risk classification guide for observations related to inspections of clinical trials of human drugs.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

The CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps state that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should inform HC no later than 15 days after the termination or suspension. In addition, the sponsor should provide HC with the reason(s) for the termination or suspension and its impact on the proposed or ongoing clinical trials related to the drug in Canada by the sponsor. The sponsor should also promptly notify the qualified investigators of the termination or suspension and advise them in writing of any potential risks to the participants’ health. Further, the G-CanadaCTApps states that the sponsor’s notification to HC should include confirmation that the sale or importation of the drug to the discontinued sites has been stopped and that reasonable measures to ensure the return of all unused quantities of the drug will be taken. This notification must also be submitted for premature discontinuation of a clinical trial or clinical trial site outside Canada where there are ongoing trials with the drug in Canada. See G-FDR-0100 for additional information and interpretation of discontinuation, suspension, and cancellation. CAN-52 also provides guidance on premature termination or suspension.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the MHCTR, a person must not conduct a clinical trial or perform the functions of the sponsor of a clinical trial unless it is in accordance with the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP). The GCP conditions and principles include those in the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the United Kingdom (UK) is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—to support compliance with the ICH efficacy guidelines by clarifying how the ICH provisions should be read alongside applicable UK legal requirements and by directing users to relevant UK requirements. Regarding GCP, the CT-Transtn states that from April 28, 2026, the new GCP rules under MHCTR apply to all clinical trials, whether the application was submitted before or after April 28, 2026. The only exception relates to retention of the trial master file for trials where the application was submitted before April 28, 2026.

Per the MHCTR, the sponsor of a clinical trial must put and keep in place arrangements for the purpose of ensuring that the conditions and principles of GCP are satisfied or adhered to. This includes developing and maintaining trial-specific computerized systems, selecting and overseeing a laboratory for human samples, and analyzing and evaluating human samples collected as part of the clinical trial. Further, the sponsor must ensure that the investigational medicinal products (IPs) used in the trial are made available to the participants free of charge.

The Qlty-Risk provides an explanation of the interconnected quality concepts embedded within GBR-91, such as quality by design, risk-based quality management, and risk proportionality, and outlines the practical implications for trial conduct, oversight, and compliance. In addition, the Qlty-Risk should be read in conjunction with GBR-104, which establishes the overarching scientific and quality principles for clinical study design and conduct, including the application of quality by design approaches. See the Qlty-Risk and GBR-18 for additional details on implementing proportionate, risk-based systems for clinical trials.

The MHCTR and the SrsBreachNotif state that the sponsor of a clinical trial must notify the MHRA in writing of any serious breach of the conditions and principles of GCP in connection with that trial or the protocol within seven (7) days of becoming aware of that breach. A serious breach is a breach which is likely to affect to a significant degree the safety or physical or mental integrity of the trial participants or the scientific value of the trial.

To make the MHRA notification, the SrsBreachNotif emphasizes that the serious breach notification should be carried out by the sponsor or a person legally authorized by the sponsor to perform this function (for example, a legal representative or service provider), if delegated by the sponsor. The sponsor retains legal responsibility even if the function is delegated. To ensure participant safety, reporting should not be delayed by debates about reporting responsibility. If the sponsor does not report a breach to the MHRA but the investigator or institution believes a serious breach has occurred, due diligence is necessary. Investigators or institutions should consider whether to continue with the trial and/or report the breach directly to the MHRA. If the sponsor obtains clear and unequivocal evidence that a serious breach has occurred, the default position should be for the sponsor to notify the MHRA first, within seven (7) days, and investigate and take action simultaneously or after notification. In this case, the sponsor should not wait to obtain all the details of the breach prior to notification. In other cases, some degree of investigation and assessment may be required by the sponsor prior to notification, to confirm that a serious breach has occurred. It is expected that this investigation is expedited to meet the timeline as closely as possible. If in doubt about whether and when to notify, contact the MHRA GCP Team via GCP.SeriousBreaches@mhra.gov.uk. Organizations should also consider if there are any other relevant MHRA units that should be notified.

Per the SrsBreachNotif, GBR-9, and CTIMP-Condtns, the EC must also be notified of a serious breach within seven (7) days. The SrsBreachNotif instructs that organizations should use the MHRA form (GBR-108) to ensure all required information is submitted, and the form should be sent as an MS Word document. Wherever possible, the MHRA will provide an acknowledgement of receipt for notifications. It is recommended that the organization also informs the relevant chief investigator and/or principal investigators (as applicable) of the breach to facilitate the implementation of corrective and preventative actions.

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

See GBR-10 for best practices in improving clinical trial setup to reduce timelines and increase citizens’ access to research. In addition, see GBR-34 for resources and training on developing and implementing people-centered research.

Monitoring Requirements

Per GBR-18, sponsors should define a monitoring strategy that focuses on critical data and processes, ensuring timely identification of issues that may affect participant safety or data integrity. Proportionate approaches are supported through resources listed at GBR-18. Sponsors should ensure there are clear processes for the identification and escalation of issues, identified through monitoring, as well as implementing and documenting corrective and preventive actions. Further, the sponsor of a clinical trial is responsible for establishing and maintaining robust quality systems, including designing and implementing a formal audit plan. The following activities and checks could include the following:

• Interview staff to assess whether they are appropriately trained; understand their role(s); and are working to all relevant standards, the protocol, and standard operating procedures (SOPs)
• Tour the facility to assess if there are adequate resources and if the equipment is fit for its intended use
• Review documents to evaluate whether data reported is verifiable from source data and that written records confirm that the trial was conducted appropriately
• System audits, which look at the performance of specific functions, such as the systems and processes used for data management

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

Per GBR-18, the MHRA may conduct inspections to ensure the clinical trial is being conducted in compliance with GCP as described in GCP-Inspct and GBR-91. The MHRA takes a risk-based approach to inspections depending on the type of trials and risk rating. Once an inspection has been completed, a formal report outlining the findings will be sent to the inspected organization. A response to this report (describing any corrective and preventive actions) must be produced. See GCP-Inspct for pre-inspection documentation and other resources. Also see Inspct-Resp for information on formulating responses to GCP inspection findings. Per G-RiskAssmt, GCP inspectors will also review risk assessments. The G-Ovrsight provides additional guidance to assist sponsors and those conducting trials on implementing adequate oversight and monitoring processes for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs).

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Per the MHCTR and the EndingCT, the sponsor must provide written notice to the MHRA that a clinical trial has ended (and this notice should also be provided to the EC). Where a clinical trial is terminated early, this notice must be provided within 15 days.

MHCTR states that the MHRA may require a trial, or the conduct of the trial at a particular trial location, be suspended or terminated if it has objective grounds for considering that any condition, restriction, or limitation which applies to the conduct of the trial is no longer satisfied; has information raising doubts about the safety or scientific validity of the trial; or the trial has lapsed and the sponsor has not notified the MHRA that the trial has ended. The notice will specify whether it applies to the trial generally or to one (1) or more trial locations; whether it requires suspension or termination of the trial in whole or in part; any period of suspension and any conditions to be satisfied before the trial, or the conduct of the trial at a particular location, may be recommenced; and whether suspension or termination takes effect immediately on receipt of the notice or on a specified date. Except where it appears to the MHRA that there is an imminent risk to the health or safety of any of the participants of the clinical trial, the MHRA must give the sponsor or investigator at least one (1) week’s written notice that it is minded to issue a notice suspending or terminating the trial, in whole or in part, or the conduct of the trial at a particular location, and the reasons why. The sponsor or investigator may, within one (1) week of the date of the notice, furnish the MHRA with written representations as to whether the trial, or the conduct of the trial at a particular location, should be so suspended or terminated. A person on whom a suspension or termination notice has been served may, within 28 days, or such extended period as the MHRA may allow, give notice of their wish to make written or oral representations to the appropriate committee.

Per the EndingCT, if the clinical trial that has ended was approved through the combined review process, the end-of-trial declaration form (GBR-133) should be submitted through the combined review part of IRAS (GBR-125). If approved through separate applications to the MHRA and the EC, it should be submitted to the MHRA via MHRA Submissions (GBR-13) and to the EC via email. For trials terminated prior to the date or event specified in the protocol:

• The end of trial declaration will be reviewed by the MHRA and requests for additional information may be raised
• Once MHRA has sufficient information, the sponsor will be informed that the end of trial declaration has been accepted
• Details of where the results have been published should be provided to MHRA and the EC within 12 months of trial completion (except for some pediatric trials involving the use of authorized medicinal products)

Also see GBR-91, which the MHRA has implemented in ICH-UKimp, for additional guidance on sponsor responsibilities involving premature termination or suspension of a trial. In addition, the MHCTR advises that the investigator and sponsor must have regard to all relevant guidance with respect to conducting a clinical trial.

Also see GBR-18 and GBR-128 for more information and resources.

Electronic Data Processing System

The G-FDR-0100 states that systems and processes that aid in data capture, management, and analyses, as well as those that help ensure the quality of the information generated from the clinical trial, should fit the purpose of the trial, capture the data required by the protocol, and be implemented in a way that is proportionate to the risks to participants and the importance of acquired data. Quality should be addressed in the design or adaptation of electronic systems for clinical trial purposes to ensure the integrity of relevant trial data. Any electronic system used to capture, process, manage, and/or archive clinical trial information should be adequately validated, and evidence of validation should be retained and readily available for inspection by Health Canada (HC) inspectors. The approach for validation should be based on a risk assessment that considers the intended use of the system; the purpose and importance of the data/record that are collected/generated, maintained, and retained in the system; and the potential of the system to affect the well-being, rights, and safety of trial participants and reliability of trial results. The responsibilities of the sponsor, qualified investigator (QI), and other parties with respect to the use of these computerized systems should be clear, and the users should be provided with training in their use. The sponsor should periodically review the risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented systems remain effective and relevant, considering experience and emerging knowledge.

Per the G-FDR-0100, any modifications or additions made to the electronic system (for example software upgrades or migration of data) can impact its intended functions by altering the quality of validated applications and the system itself. This may affect the integrity of electronic information and the reliability of the system. Therefore, adequate documented assessment and approval of changes to hardware or software during the clinical trial are required. The impact of such a change should be evaluated and documented, and partial validation of some components of the electronic system may be required.

G-Dcntrl states that computerized systems and digital health technologies used in decentralized activities should be suitable for their intended use and validated through a risk-based approach consistent with the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. Sponsors should address data transfer integrity, security, interoperability, audit trails, and cybersecurity, with documented procedures and training supporting system development, maintenance, and use. See G-Dcntrl for additional details.

For additional information on computerized system validation and electronic records, see CAN-52. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Records Management

As set forth in the CanadaFDR and the CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must record, handle, and store all trial-related information to allow complete and accurate reporting, interpretation, and verification. The CanadaFDR requires the sponsor to maintain all trial-related records for a period of 15 years. Per the G-FDR-0100, the electronic system should allow for the retrieval of records and the generation of complete and accurate paper copies of the electronic source data. The system should provide audit trails for the entire 15-year record retention period. Records created, maintained, and processed by outsourced systems are subject to the same requirements as the data/records generated by company-owned systems.

Pursuant to CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must submit requested records to HC within 48 hours if safety concerns arise. Additionally, to facilitate inspection of a site, the sponsor must submit information to HC within seven (7) days of a request. Per CAN-8, an attestation must be completed by the institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada) that reviewed and approved the clinical trial. The completed attestation must be retained by the clinical trial sponsor for a period of 15 years. The attestation should not be submitted to HC unless requested.

G-Dcntrl states that records of agreements and contracts (paper or electronic) must be available or accessible from the main location of the clinical trial site. Per the Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, the sponsor is responsible for obtaining and retaining records for all EC approvals that may be required for participating sites, in accordance with applicable local requirements. The sponsor must retain records of all approvals for verification during clinical trial inspections. To meet this requirement, the sponsor must maintain complete and accurate records demonstrating EC approval for research undertaken at a clinical trial site.

Also see CAN-52 for additional guidance.

Electronic Data Processing System

The MHCTR states that the sponsor’s functions include the development and maintenance of trial-specific computerized systems, which supports compliance with good clinical practice (GCP), including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the United Kingdom (UK) is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. Per GBR-18, the trial-specific computerized system must be fit for its intended use and appropriately validated, ensuring that electronic data meets GCP and regulatory requirements. See GBR-18 for additional resources.

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

Records Management

Per MHCTR and the CTRecords, the sponsor must keep a trial master file (TMF) for a clinical trial and ensure that the TMF is readily available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or any person appointed by the sponsor to audit the arrangements for the trial. The TMF must always contain the essential documents relating to that clinical trial. The sponsor must ensure that any alteration to a document contained in the TMF is traceable. The sponsor and the chief investigator (CI) must ensure that the documents contained, or which have been contained, in the TMF (including documents contained in electronic form) are retained for at least the period of 25 years beginning with the day after the conclusion of the trial and that during that period are readily available to the MHRA upon request and complete and legible. If, at the date of the expiration of the 25 years, the data generated by the trial is being used to support an application for a UK marketing authorization, the sponsor must ensure the documents are retained for a period of at least two (2) years beginning with the day after the UK marketing authorization is granted. Further, the sponsor and CI must ensure that the medical files of trial participants are retained for a period of at least 25 years beginning with the day after conclusion of the trial, or such period as is required by any other enactment, if longer. The sponsor must appoint individuals to be responsible for archiving the documents in the TMF and restrict access to those appointed individuals. See CTRecords and GBR-91 for guidance on what is an essential document.

Per the UKannot-E6R3, in relation to GBR-91, transfer of ownership of essential records must be documented by the sponsor but does not have to be reported to the UK authorities. If the transfer of ownership is related to a change in sponsor, this must be reported to the authorities as a modification of an important detail.

Regarding transitional arrangements, CTRecords specifies that for trials submitted before April 28, 2026, the old rules (pre-2025-amendments) continue to apply for TMF documents. This means the sponsor and CI must keep the TMF documents for at least five (5) years after the trial ends and ensure they remain complete, legible, and readily available to the MHRA upon request. If the trial data is being used to support a UK marketing authorization application when the 5-year period ends, the sponsor must keep the essential records for at least two (2) years after the UK marketing authorization is granted. The sponsor and CI must keep trial participants’ medical files for at least 25 years after the trial ends, or longer if another law requires it. For all trials involving an authorized product, other trial documentation must be kept for as long as the product remains authorized. The final clinical study report must be kept for five (5) years after the product is no longer authorized.

CTRecords states that documents must not be destroyed before the end of the retention period. If documents have been damaged or destroyed accidentally then an assessment should be conducted to determine the extent and impact of the lost or damaged documents. If the assessment is found to impact the ability to present the documents for inspection, then a serious breach notification should be considered.

Per GBR-18, the sponsor should maintain documented procedures for computerized trial-specific systems, including system validation, user training, access and permissions management, security and integrity controls, change control and system updates, back up, disaster recovery and incident management, and ongoing technical support and maintenance. See GBR-18 for additional resources.

Responsible Parties

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ethics committees (ECs), states that where researchers seek to collect, use, share, and access different types of information or data about participants, they should determine whether the information or data proposed in research may reasonably be expected to identify an individual. Researchers and ECs must consider whether information is identifiable or non-identifiable. Researchers, ECs, and institutions share the responsibility for protecting participant confidentiality.

Data Protection

Per CAN-42, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada provides advice and information for individuals about protecting personal information, and enforces the two (2) federal privacy laws that set out the rules for how federal government institutions and certain businesses must handle personal information, including health data. The PrivAct covers the personal information-handling practices of federal government departments and agencies in Canada, and the PIPEDA regulates private businesses’ data protection practices. In addition, some provinces and territories have laws that deal specifically with the protection of personal health information. See CAN-43 for a list of provincial and territorial privacy laws and webpages.

Per the G-TCPS2, in the research context, the most simplified method to protect participants is through the collection and use of anonymous or anonymized data. When anonymized data is not possible or desirable, a next best alternative is to use de-identified data, which is provided to the researcher in de-identified form and the existing key code is accessible only to a custodian or trusted third party who is independent of the researcher. Where it is not feasible to use anonymous or anonymized data for research, the ethical duty of confidentiality and the use of appropriate measures to safeguard information become paramount. Researchers should consult their ECs if they are uncertain about whether information proposed for use in research is identifiable (e.g., when proposing to link anonymized or coded data sets).

G-Dcntrl states that for decentralized data collection through wearables, digital platforms, or remote monitoring, sponsors should consider where data is stored, who may access it, and how to prevent unauthorized sharing or reuse.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Both PIPEDA and the PrivAct require consent for the use of personal data, including health data, except under prescribed conditions, such as for research or during emergencies. Also see CAN-43 for provincial and territorial privacy laws.

The G-TCPS2 states that to seek broad consent for the storage and future unspecified use of data, researchers must provide prospective participants, or authorized third parties, with applicable information as set out in the informed consent requirements. See the Informed Consent topic, as well as the following details:

• The type, identifiability, and amount of data being collected and stored for re-use, and for what potential purpose
• The voluntariness of the participant’s consent, including any limitations on the feasibility of withdrawal
• A general description of the nature and types of future research that may be conducted, including whether the research might be conducted outside of Canada (if known)
• The risks and potential benefits of data storage and use in future unspecified research, including areas of uncertainty where risks cannot be estimated
• Access to a general description of the repository and its governance
• A statement regarding participants’ preference to being contacted for additional future research
• Whether the data could be shared with researchers who are not subject to the G-TCPS2
• Whether the research will (if known) or might include whole genome sequencing or similar technologies that may pose a substantial risk of re-identification of the participant or identification of material incidental findings (when appropriate)
• Whether linkage of data gathered in the research with other data about participants – either contained in public or personal records – is anticipated
• Separate options for consenting to participate in a specific research project and for consenting to the storage of data for future unspecified research

See Brd-Cnst for additional clarifications on broad consent for the storage and future unspecified use of data.

Per G-Dcntrl, when using digital tools for decentralized activities, there may be concerns about data storage, access, and reuse or sharing without consent. Sponsors and qualified investigators can work collaboratively with participants to ensure informed consent is maintained.

Responsible Parties

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

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

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

Data Protection

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

• Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency
• Purpose limitation (See the DUAA for clarifications on purpose limitation and further processing)
• Data minimization
• Accuracy
• Storage limitation
• Integrity and confidentiality (security)
• Accountability

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

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

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

• When the GDPR wording should be used
• If individual bespoke GDPR wording is used
• If the GDPR wording in open studies is updated
• Instructions for use
• The GDPR transparency wording for all sponsors
• Definitions
• Communicating GDPR information to children and young people

For international transfers of personal information, per the UK-GDPR, a controller or processor may transfer personal data to a third country or international organization only where the transfer is covered by adequacy regulations, is subject to appropriate safeguards, or relies on a derogation for a specific situation, and otherwise complies with the UK-GDPR and any applicable transfer restrictions. The GBR-138 contains guidance, templates, and other resources that are suitable for all types of organizations, and covers areas such as adequacy regulations, appropriate safeguards, completing a transfer risk assessment, using an exception, and receiving personal information from the European Economic Area.

As explained in the DUAA-Org, the DUAA amends, but does not replace, the UK-GDPR and the UK-DPAct. The DUAA-Sum contains a summary of clarifications on changes to data protection law from the DUAA amendments. DUAA-Cmmct brings many of the provisions of the DUAA into force, including those related to the definition of research, consent to processing for purposes of scientific research, and transfers of personal data to third countries. See GBR-136 and DUAA-Org for more details on the DUAA and what it means for organizations and research. See DUAA-Sum for additional clarifications on data protection, including safeguards and restrictions when using automated decision-making. In addition, GBR-100 contains additional templates to help sponsors comply with the UK-GDPR.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

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

For variations among the UK countries regarding accessing identifiable data without consent, see information on the Confidentiality Advisory Group at the UKwide-Rsrch, CAG-Applcts, and GBR-38.

UK-US Data Bridge

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

Obtaining Consent

In all Canadian clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the CanadaFDR and the G-TCPS2. Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence. For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

As per the CanadaFDR and the G-TCPS2, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) and provided to HC with the clinical trial application (CTA). (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

The G-TCPS2 states that the qualified investigator (QI) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The ICF content should be in plain language (i.e., non-technical and easy to understand) and provided in a format that facilitates understanding. For example, written documentation may be supplemented with audio and/or visual aids. The participant and legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

As stated in Mdrn-CTFrmwrk, HC is moving from “written” to “documented” informed consent to allow new approaches for obtaining consent (e.g., remote or electronic platforms, electronic signatures, and documentation of consent where it is provided orally). Informed consent requirements will be considered met by HC where processes:

• Are appropriately documented
• Comply with good clinical practice and CAN-52 principles
• Ensure that consent is informed and given in accordance with the applicable laws governing consent

Per G-Dcntrl, sponsors must inform participants of the potential risks and anticipated benefits of any decentralized elements in a clinical trial. In designing and implementing consent processes across locations, sponsors should consider whether the approach may introduce additional cognitive or emotional demands for participants. Reasonable steps should be taken to minimize unnecessary burden while supporting informed and voluntary decision-making. Virtual meeting platforms and electronic signatures may make the informed consent process more efficient for those who live in remote areas. However, participants may face additional challenges in providing informed consent remotely. Sponsors and QIs should be careful not to create a disadvantage for those who face barriers such as reliable private internet access, digital literacy, or comfort with virtual tools, or prefer not to use virtual platforms. Trial-related documentation should support any proposed delegation of duties related to the informed consent process to trial personnel or other third party, any proposed virtual meeting to obtain informed consent, and the proposed medium of the documented record of participants providing their consent (for example, written, video, audio). The following should also be considered:

• Providing different methods of informed consent to those who request them, including in-person consent meetings and physical copies of the ICF
• Using virtual meeting platforms that include both audio and video features so that QIs (or delegated persons) and participants can take part in the informed consent process and discussion in real time, and interact virtually with a real person

Further, the G-FDR-0100 indicates that a clinical trial participant cannot be involved in any aspect of a clinical trial until they have gone through the informed consent process, with a trial staff member (doctor, study nurse, clinical trial coordinator, etc.) and signed the document indicating that they understand the information and have agreed to participate in the trial. Neither the QI, nor the QI site staff, should coerce or unduly influence a participant to participate or to continue their participation in a trial. A qualified physician should be available to answer any medical questions that the participant may have regarding their participation in the trial. Information should be as clear and concise as possible, use simple language, and avoid unnecessary volume and complexity. See CAN-52 for additional information.

For guidance from Canadian researchers on the core elements for obtaining consent to ensure transparency and improve participants’ understanding of their involvement in research studies, see CAN-57.

Re-Consent

Per the G-TCPS2, consent must be maintained throughout the research project. Researchers have a continuous duty to provide participants with all information relevant to their ongoing consent to participate in the research. Consent begins with the initial contact (e.g., recruitment) and carries through to the end of participation in the study. Throughout the clinical trial, researchers have a continuous responsibility to provide participants and ECs with all information relevant to participants’ ongoing consent to participate in the research. The researcher must also notify participants of any changes to the research project that may affect them. These changes may have ethical implications, may be relevant to their decision to continue in the study, or may be unique to the particular circumstances of individual participants. Specifically, researchers must disclose changes to the risks or potential benefits of the research.

The G-TCPS2 indicates that rather than an age-based approach to consent, researchers should use an approach based on decision-making capacity in compliance with any laws governing research participation. This includes those whose decision-making capacity is in the process of development, those whose decision-making capacity is diminishing or fluctuating, and those whose decision-making capacity remains only partially developed. Mechanisms should be in place from the outset to identify and address any changes that could affect consent. A change in participant capacity is an important element of ongoing consent.

Further, the G-TCPS2 states that within the limits of consent provided by the participant, researchers should disclose to the participant any material incidental findings discovered in the course of research. Incidental findings are considered to be material incidental findings if they are reasonably determined to have significant welfare implications for the participant or prospective participant. Where material incidental findings are foreseeable, researchers should inform participants during the initial consent process. In addition, researchers should develop a management plan for review by the EC. For more information on how to address material incidental findings, see G-ConsentMatIncFindings.

See CAN-52 for additional information.

Language Requirements

Per the G-FDR-0100, the ICF must be made available for each participant in either official language (French or English) or other language as appropriate. The G-TCPS2 requires the ICF to be presented in plain language that the participant is able to understand. If there is a language barrier, the QI should select an intermediary who has the necessary language skills to ensure effective communication.

Documenting Consent

As per the G-TCPS2, the participant or legal representative/guardian, as well as the QI, must sign and date the ICF. The G-FDR-0100 states that the QI should retain the signed ICF.

The G-TCPS2 further indicates that researchers can use a range of procedures to seek and document consent, including oral consent documented in field notes, and other forms of recording (e.g., a consent log, audio or video recordings, or other electronic means). Evidence of consent may also be documented via completed questionnaires (in person, by mail, by email, or other electronic means). ECs should consider the power relationship that might exist between researchers and participants, and whether a waiver of the requirement for signed written consent may affect the welfare of the participants. If researchers plan to obtain non-written consent, they must explain their strategy to the EC.

See CAN-52 for additional information.

Waiver of Consent

As explained in the G-TCPS2, there are research situations that call for alterations of consent. The EC may approve research that involves an alteration to the consent requirements if the EC is satisfied, and documents that all of the following apply:

• The research involves no more than minimal risk to the participants
• The change to consent requirements is unlikely to adversely affect the welfare of participants
• It is impossible or impracticable to carry out the research and to address the research question properly, given the research design, if the prior consent of participants is required
• In the case of a proposed alteration, the exact nature and extent of any proposed alteration is defined
• There is a plan to brief participants and offer the option of refusing consent and/or withdrawing data and/or human biological materials

Obtaining Consent

In all United Kingdom (UK) clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the MHCTR, which states that a person gives informed consent to take part in a clinical trial only if the decision is given freely after that person is informed of the nature, significance, implications, and risks of the trial.

Further, the MHCTR requires the following conditions to obtain consent from an adult able to consent or who has given consent prior to the onset of incapacity:

• The participant has had an interview with the investigator, or another member of the investigating team, in which there was an opportunity to understand the objectives, risks, and inconveniences of the trial and the conditions under which it is to be conducted
• The participant has been informed of the right to withdraw from the trial at any time
• The participant has given informed consent to take part in the trial
• The participant may, without being subject to any resulting detriment, withdraw from the clinical trial at any time by revoking informed consent
• The participant has been provided with a contact point where more information about the trial may be obtained

Regarding ethics committee (EC) review, the MHCTR stipulates that where the EC receives a valid request for approval, it must consider the measures used to seek and obtain informed consent for participation in the trial.

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

The MHCTR and MHCTR-Chgs further provide that the protocol may make provisions for simplified arrangements for obtaining and evidencing consent if the following conditions are met:

• The investigational medicinal product (IP) is authorized for use in the UK and is used in accordance with that authorization
• The IP is given to the participant during that participant’s routine health care
• The participant receives no additional medication and undergoes no additional intervention or diagnostic procedure, solely for the purposes of the clinical trial

As explained in the MHCTR-Chgs, if a sponsor is planning to use simplified arrangements, these will need to be detailed in the protocol including the reason for obtaining consent using simplified arrangements, the information to be provided to the participant, the means of providing that information, and the means by which consent shall be evidenced. These arrangements may include proportionate approaches to the information provided, the way consent discussions are undertaken, and how consent is evidenced, provided that consent remains informed, freely given, explicit, and prospectively obtained. Any such arrangements must be clearly described in the protocol and approved by an EC. See the MHCTR-Chgs for additional information.

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

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

For more guidance on obtaining consent, see GBR-69, GBR-18, and GBR-9.

Regarding consent in good clinical practice (GCP), the MHCTR requires that all clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of GCP, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—which discuss consent requirements.

In addition, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) except where it would be a contravention of the MHCTR.

Re-Consent

Per GBR-18, during a clinical trial if new information arises during a study that may affect participants' willingness to continue, they should be re-consented using updated, EC-approved documents.

Language Requirements

As stated in the MHCTR, applications to the EC and the MHRA and any accompanying material, such as the informed consent material, should be presented in English.

Documenting Consent

The MHCTR states that consent must be evidenced in writing, dated, and signed, or otherwise marked, by that person so as to indicate consent, or if the person is unable to sign or to mark a document, is communicated (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means) in the presence of at least one (1) witness and recorded in writing. As provided in the G-ConsentPIS, consent for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) must be in writing. Electronic methods for documenting consent, including the use of electronic signatures, are also considered to be in writing. A physical or electronic copy of the signed consent form will still need to be provided to the participant. To record consent electronically, electronic signatures will be needed. Because there are different forms and classifications of electronic signatures, the researcher should determine what is appropriate for the particular study. GBR-6 sets out the legal and ethical requirements for seeking and documenting consent using electronic methods (also known as eConsent in the UK), as well as expectations regarding the use of electronic signatures. eConsent enables potential research participants to be provided with the information they need to make a decision via a tablet, smartphone, or digital multimedia. It also enables their informed consent to be documented using electronic signatures. This approach can supplement the traditional paper-based approach or, where appropriate, replace it.

Waiver of Consent

The MHCTR-Chgs states that consent must not be waived or presumed.

Based on the CanadaFDR and the G-TCPS2, the informed consent form (ICF) should generally include the following statements or descriptions in plain language, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Information that the individual is being invited to participate in a research project
• The study involves research and an explanation of its purpose and duration
• The identity of the researcher and the funder/sponsor
• The procedures to be followed
• The participant’s responsibilities
• Any reasonably foreseeable risks or anticipated benefits to the participant and in general
• Information about any payments, including incentives for participants, reimbursement for participation-related expenses, and compensation for injury
• An assurance that prospective participants are under no obligation to participate and are free to withdraw at any time without prejudice to pre-existing entitlements
• An assurance that prospective participants will be given, in a timely manner throughout the course of the research project, information that is relevant to their decision to continue or withdraw from participation
• An assurance that prospective participants will be given information on their right to request the withdrawal of data or human biological materials, including any limitations on the feasibility of that withdrawal
• Information concerning the possibility of commercialization of research findings, and the presence of any real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest on the part of the researchers, their institutions, or the research sponsors
• The measures to be undertaken for dissemination of research results and whether participants will be identified directly or indirectly
• The identity and contact information of a qualified designated representative who can explain scientific or scholarly aspects of the research to participants
• The identity and contact information of the appropriate individual(s) outside the research team whom participants may contact regarding possible ethical issues in the research
• An indication of what information will be collected about participants and for what purposes
• An indication of who will have access to information collected about the identity of participants
• A description of how confidentiality will be protected
• A description of the anticipated uses of data
• Information indicating who may have a duty to disclose information collected, and to whom such disclosures could be made
• A statement to the effect that, by consenting, participants have not waived any rights to legal recourse in the event of research-related harm
• Information on stopping rules and when researchers may remove participants from trial
• All other aspects of the clinical trial that are necessary for a person to make the decision to participate in the clinical trial

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

As required in the MHCTR, informed consent is only valid if the person’s decision is given freely after being informed of the nature, significance, implications, and risks of the trial. The G-ConsentPIS specifies that the participant information sheet (PIS) should include the following:

• Title – Head the document “Patient information sheet,” “Participant information sheet,” or “Information about the research;” use a consistent study title across documents, understandable to the intended audience, and explaining the study in simple English
• Invitation – Make clear that potential participants are being invited to consider taking part and that participation is entirely voluntary; briefly explain how they were identified and why they were selected
• Summary of the research – Provide a short, clear summary explaining why the research is being done, what research question is being addressed, why it is relevant/important, what is being studied or tested, what participants will have to do, who is eligible, where the study will take place, and how long it will last
• Purpose and background – Explain the purpose of and background to the research, giving enough context for participants to understand why the study is being conducted
• What taking part involves – Describe what will happen to participants during and after the research study, including what they will have to do and what taking part will mean for them
• Research vs standard care – For studies involving therapeutic interventions, clearly explain which elements are research and which constitute standard care
• Alternatives to participation – Explain alternatives to taking part, especially in therapeutic trials involving patients
• Possible benefits – Describe the potential benefits participants might expect from taking part, where applicable
• Possible disadvantages, risks, inconveniences, or restrictions – Explain the potential risks, disadvantages, inconveniences, or restrictions participants might expect
• Treatment that may be withheld
• Participant responsibilities
• Results and study arm information – Explain when and how participants will find out the results of the study, and when/how it is planned to reveal which arm of the study they have been on, where applicable
• What if something goes wrong? – Explain what will happen if something goes wrong during the study
• Withdrawal from the study – Explain what will happen if the participant does not want to carry on with the study
• Confidentiality – Explain whether and how the participant’s information will be kept confidential
• Use and publication of results – Explain what will happen to the results of the study
• Organization and funding – State who is organizing and funding the study
• Patient and public involvement – Explain how patients and the public have been involved in the study
• Review/approval – State who has reviewed and approved the study
• Further information and contact details
• Version control of the information sheet
• Consent process – Explain the consent process, including how consent will be sought and documented

Next, G-ConsentPIS indicates that a consent form should be used to record the consent process and the participant’s agreement to take part in the study. The form should be on headed paper or equivalent, including where consent is recorded electronically, and include the following information:

• Study identifiers – Study title and IRAS ID; a study identification number may also be included
• Site/participant identifiers
• Multiple consent forms – Clear labels if using more than one (1) consent form, for example for different types of participants or different UK nations
• Content of form – Information should be appropriate for the type of study and the participants involved
• PIS acknowledgement – A statement confirming that the participant has read the PIS, including its date and version number, and has had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions, and receive satisfactory answers
• Voluntary participation and withdrawal – A statement that participation is voluntary and that the participant is free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason, and without medical care or legal rights being affected
• Access to medical notes/data – A statement that relevant sections of medical notes and study data may be looked at by individuals from the company or regulatory authorities, and that the participant gives permission for access to those records
• Future research/data sharing – Where appropriate, a statement that information collected about the participant will be used to support other research in the future and may be shared anonymously with other researchers
• General practitioner notification – Where appropriate, include a statement that the participant agrees to their General Practitioner being informed of their participation
• Agreement to participate – Include a clear statement that the participant agrees to take part in the study
• Specific agreement for each item – Provide a box after each item for participants to initial, tick, or answer “yes” or “no” to indicate specific agreement with each statement
• Legal representatives – If consent forms are used by legal representatives, ensure the language addresses them appropriately and makes clear that they are being asked to give consent on behalf of, or advice with respect to, a child/young person or adult lacking capacity
• Itemizing specific elements – For some studies, consider itemizing specific elements of consent so participants can clearly indicate agreement to particular parts of the study

See the G-ConsentPIS for examples and templates on various scenarios. For more information about informed consent required elements, see Cnst-Proprt, GBR-18, GBR-100, and GBR-69.

Regarding consent in good clinical practice (GCP), the MHCTR requires that all clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of GCP, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—which discuss consent requirements.

In addition, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) except where it would be a contravention of the MHCTR.

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDR and the G-TCPS2, Canada’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The G-TCPS2 states that a participant’s rights must be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the G-TCPS2, 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 per the G-TCPS2, 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 or treatment in the case of injury, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to the G-TCPS2, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The G-TCPS2 states that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the individual responsible for addressing trial-related inquiries and/or the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The G-FDR-0100 upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (CAN-58), which states that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of their health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

Overview

Per the REC-Policy, the ethics committee (EC) helps to ensure that proposed research conforms to recognized ethical standards, which includes respecting the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of the people who will take part. The MHCTR requires that all clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP), including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), which address the rights laid out in this section. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—which discuss consent requirements.

In addition, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) except where it would be a contravention of the MHCTR.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

The Right to Information

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

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the UKannot-E6R3 and the UKannot-E8, confidentiality of information that could identify participants should be protected in accordance with the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, and the G-GDPR.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The MHCTR states that the research participant should be provided with contact information to obtain further information about the trial.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The MHCTR requires the EC to ensure there are measures to protect and promote the interests of participants and the general public.

G-FDR-0100 states that in emergency situations, when prior consent of the participant is not possible, the consent of the participant's legal representative/guardian (as defined by provincial requirements), if present, should be requested. When prior consent of the participant is not possible, and the participant's legal representative/guardian is not available, enrollment of the participant should require measures described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval by the ethics committee (EC) (known as a research ethics board in Canada), to protect the participant's rights, safety, and well-being, and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The participant or the participant's legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent should be requested as appropriate.

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. The G-FDR-0100 explains the relationship between the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, including additional guidance where needed or where CAN-52 does not apply. At all times, where the CanadaFDR exceeds the guidance set out in CAN-52, the CanadaFDR takes precedence.

Per G-TCPS2, research involving medical emergencies must be conducted only if it addresses the emergency needs of the individuals involved, and then only in accordance with criteria established in advance of such research by the EC. The EC may allow research that involves medical emergencies to be carried out without the consent of participants, or legal representatives/guardians, if all of the following apply:

• A serious threat to the prospective participant requires immediate intervention
• Either no standard efficacious care exists, or the research offers a realistic possibility of direct benefit to the participant in comparison with standard care
• Either the risk is not greater than that involved in standard efficacious care, or it is clearly justified by the prospect of direct benefits to the participant
• The prospective participant is unconscious or lacks capacity to understand the risks, methods, and purposes of the research project
• Authorization from the legal representative/guardian cannot be secured in sufficient time, despite diligent and documented efforts to do so
• No relevant prior directive by the participant is known to exist

The G-TCPS2 states that consent will not apply to public health activities undertaken by federal, provincial, and territorial public health officials operating under statutory powers during publicly declared health emergencies. The Ethcs-Emrgcy is an educational resource that provides ethical considerations, including for consent, to help institutions, ECs, and researchers protect participants and uphold public trust in the ethics review and conduct of research during publicly declared emergencies. It includes examples of practical applications from various publicly declared emergency contexts.

The MHCTR states that for minors or incapacitated adults who need urgent treatment, the usual informed consent requirements may not apply if urgent trial-related action is needed and it is not reasonably practicable to obtain consent first. Any such action must follow a procedure approved by the ethics committee (EC) when it gave its favorable opinion. As stated in the G-ConsentPIS and the Rsrch-Emrgcy, emergency research is when treatment needs to be given urgently, and it is necessary to take urgent action for the purposes of the study. In some emergency situations, potential participants may lack capacity to give consent themselves, and obtaining consent from a legal representative is not reasonably practicable. The United Kingdom (UK) allows adults and children not able to consent for themselves to be recruited into clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) without prior consent in emergency situations if the following conditions exist:

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

The Rsrch-Emrgcy provides that adults may regain their capacity to give consent and should then be involved in the ongoing consent process. In most cases, it is appropriate to ask them to give their own consent when and if they are able. If investigators intend to ask participants who regain capacity for their ongoing consent, they should inform the legal representative/guardian of this at the outset of asking. In addition, an appropriate Participant Information Sheet and consent form should be prepared for the participants themselves.

Per the PubHlth-Emrgcy, in a public health emergency, fast-track approval is an option during exceptional circumstances (e.g., bird flu and Ebola). Fast-track ethics review is subject to the same scrutiny as other studies. Before an application can be made, the first step is to request fast-track approval by emailing Hra.approval@hra.nhs.uk with a summary of the study. See the Scope of Review section for more details.

The MHCTR requires that all clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP), including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), which address the rights laid out in this section. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—which discuss consent requirements.

See the G-ConsentPIS for additional UK-nation specific guidance and GBR-18 for additional resources.

Overview

Per the G-FDR-0100, the responsibility of an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a research ethics board in Canada) is to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of all human participants. An EC should pay special attention to trials that may include vulnerable human participants (elderly, children, mentally ill, prisoners, etc.). The G-TCPS2 states that in all Canadian clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process.