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. Per CAN-31, HC assesses clinical trial protocols to evaluate participant protection and safety; reviews drug quality; assures institutional ethics committee review; verifies principal investigator qualifications; and monitors and reviews adverse drug reactions. 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, labelling, 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. If a product does not readily meet one (1) of the statutory definitions, other regulatory areas of HC are asked to participate in the committee's discussion.

As per CAN-41, Health Canada 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.

Other Considerations

Per CAN-10, Canada is an official member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Per CAN-50, HC-implemented ICH guidelines take precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent. Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52). 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-DrugApp and CAN-18, Health Canada PDD contact information is as follows:

Office of Clinical Trials
Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate
Health Products and Food Branch
Address Locator: 3105A
Health Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9

Phone (General Enquiries): 613-957-0368
Fax (General Enquiries): 613-952-7756
Office of Clinical Trials Inquiries: oct.enquiries-requetes.bec@hc-sc.gc.ca

Per CAN-17, the following is the contact information for biologic clinical trials:

Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate
Health Products and Food Branch
Health Canada
Building 6, Address Locator: 0601B
100 Eglantine Driveway
Tunney’s Pasture
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9

Phone: 613-863-8405
General Enquiries E-mail: brdd.dgo.enquiries@hc-sc.gc.ca

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections and Common Rule Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

Contact Information

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

Department of Health & Human Services

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

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

Overview

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 and CAN-19 for background information on HC’s scope of assessment.

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 delineated in the Canada-FDA and the G-Inspections, HC is authorized to implement an inspection strategy and to ensure compliance with Canada-FDA. 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.

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 good clinical practices
• 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.

Overview

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK-wide Research

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

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

Notification Scheme

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

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

Phase 4 trials must meet both of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

Alignment with the European Union

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A drug is involved as defined in the FDCAct

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

• The clinical investigation is not otherwise exempt from 21CFR312

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expedited Processes

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

According to CAN-33, there are no fees to submit a clinical trial application in Canada.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Payment Instructions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

Overview

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(R2) (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 his or her 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 ECs.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

According to CAN-52, institutional ECs must establish written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to cover the entire review process. The SOPs should include EC composition, meeting schedules, notifications, frequency of reviews, protocol deviations, reporting to the EC, and recordkeeping. Further, ECs should make decisions at announced meetings where a quorum is present. Only those members who participate in the EC review and discussion should vote, provide their opinion, or advise. For detailed EC procedures and information on other administrative processes, see CAN-52. For examples of EC SOPs, see CAN-13 for the HC-PHAC REB operational policy.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

According to the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, the G-TCPS2, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), 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 Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations.) Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

CAN-52, which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, also states that ECs must ensure an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants, and they must verify the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. See CAN-52 for detailed ethical review guidelines.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As per the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, 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. For HC’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100.

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.)

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, in the event that 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

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

As per GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the MHCTR2006-No2, and GBR-113, ECs must pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations). In addition, per GBR-46, the ethical review process should evaluate how the study involves the public in research, especially at the design stage (e.g., the participant information sheets).

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

Expedited Review

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

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

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

Continuing Review and Re-approval

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

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

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

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

Exemptions under the Revised Common Rule

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

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

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

Cooperative Research Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

Overview

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

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

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

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

Overview

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. The HCNotice-CTSIForm indicates that the CTSI form improves efficiencies and supports the submission of CTAs using the electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) format. 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 outer label should be clearly identified with "Clinical Trial Application." According to the G-MDSA, HC does not accept paper copies of CTAs, CTA amendments, and CTA notifications.

The G-MDSA and the G-CanadaCTApps indicate that sponsors may request a pre-submission/application meeting with the appropriate Directorate within the HPFB 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.

eCTD Electronic Submission

As indicated in the G-eCTD, clinical trial applications in 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 US 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 HC requires both PDF and MS-Word formats for the CTA (CAN-4). The PDF documents must be generated from electronic sources (not scanned material), except when access to an electronic source document is unavailable or where a signature is required. It is important that PDF files be properly bookmarked and hyperlinked. Documents that legally require signatures may be signed with an electronic signature, or the signature page can be printed, signed, scanned, and saved as a PDF file. The cover letter does not require a signature, but should include a printed name, phone number, and email address. All regulatory submissions should be validated prior to transmitting to HC. For validation rules, see the Rules-Non-eCTD. 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
• Dossier ID (if known)

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, 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.

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
Ground Floor, Health Canada Building 6
100 Eglantine Driveway
Address Locator: 0601C
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0K9
General Enquiries E-mail: brdd.ora@hc-sc.gc.ca

Per the HCNotice-CTSIForm, questions related to pharmaceutical CTSI forms should be sent to: oct.enquiries-requetes.bec@hc-sc.gc.ca and questions related to biologic CTSI forms should be sent to 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 MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, and GBR-9, the United Kingdom (UK) requires the sponsor or the designated legal representative to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) prior to initiating the trial. Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, the UK’s combined review process offers a single application route and coordinated/parallel review from MHRA and the ethics committee (EC) leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials.

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

Combined Review Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

Regulatory Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drugs (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Therapeutic Biological Product (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research-Regulated Products:

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

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

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As set forth in the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, and CAN-31, 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
• 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

Refer to the CanadaFDR, 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. However, the following requirements comply with the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, and are basically consistent across all Canadian ECs:

• Clinical protocol
• ICFs and participant information
• Participant recruitment procedures
• IB
• Safety information
• Participant payments and compensation
• Investigator(s) current curriculum vitaes (CVs)
• Additional required institutional EC documentation

See section 3.1.2 of CAN-52 for additional submission content requirements.

The G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, requires clinical trial researchers to include a plan for monitoring safety, efficacy/effectiveness (where feasible), and validity in their proposal for EC review. See the G-TCPS2 for additional details on the plan’s required contents.

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

As delineated in CAN-52, the clinical protocol should include the following elements:

• General information
• Background information
• Trial objectives and purpose
• Trial design
• Participation selection/withdrawal
• Participant treatment
• Efficacy assessment
• Safety assessment
• Statistics
• Direct access to source data/documents
• Quality control/quality assurance procedures
• Ethical considerations
• Data handling and record keeping
• Financing and insurance
• Publication policy
• Supplements

For complete protocol requirements, see section 6 of CAN-52.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

For complete protocol requirements, refer to GBR-113.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

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

Overview

As 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, dialogue with the sponsor, and/or circumstances of the review, including pausing the clock during the scientific review. According to the G-CanadaCTApps and the G-MDSA, if HC authorizes the CTA, then it issues a No Objection Letter (NOL). If HC rejects the CTA, it sends a Not Satisfactory Notice (NSN). HC will issue an NSN if it identifies significant deficiencies, or, if a timely response to requested information has not been provided. The sponsor may resubmit the information and material at a future time, and it will be processed as a new CTA.

Ethics Committee Approval

The EC review and approval process timeline varies by institution. However, according to the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, the institutional EC should review a proposed clinical trial within a reasonable time. 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.

Governance

CAN-35 states that PHAC researchers must obtain departmental approval of research involving humans before submitting their application to the joint HC-PHAC EC. For further information and to obtain the necessary form, contact the Office of the Chief Science Officer at email ocso.ethics-ethique.bcsc@phac-aspc.gc.ca.

Overview

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

Combined Review

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

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

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

Ethics Committee Approval

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

Overview

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)) 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 the trial, as delineated in the G-FDR-0100 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, the sponsor must sign an agreement between all involved parties, including ECs, Qualified Investigators (QIs), contract research organizations, and others, to ensure full compliance with the regulatory requirements. Further, the sponsor should obtain the investigator’s/institution's agreement:

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

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

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.

See CAN-6, CAN-8, and CAN-19 for additional clinical trial forms.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per the G-CanadaCTApps, sponsors should register their clinical trials on one (1) of two (2) publicly accessible registries accepting international clinical trial information and recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO), ClinicalTrials.gov (CAN-45), and the International Standardized Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (CAN-46). According to HCNotice-CTRegDisc, clinical trial registration is not a mandatory requirement at this time. However, per the G-TCPS2, which sets the ethical benchmark for all Canadian institutional ECs, clinical trials must be registered before recruitment of the first trial participant in a publicly accessible registry that is acceptable to the WHO or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). In addition, following registration, researchers are responsible for ensuring that the registry is updated in a timely manner with: new information; safety and, where feasible, efficacy reports; reasons for stopping a trial early; and the location of findings.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the CanadaFDR and G-CanadaCTApps, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), 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 subject 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.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

Per CAN-52, which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, all SAEs should be reported immediately to the sponsor except for those SAEs that the protocol or other document (e.g., Investigator's Brochure) identifies as not needing immediate reporting. The immediate reports should be followed promptly by detailed, written reports. The immediate and follow-up reports should identify participants by unique code numbers assigned to the trial subjects rather than by their names, personal identification numbers, and/or addresses. The investigator should also comply with the applicable regulatory requirement(s) related to the reporting of unexpected serious ADRs to the regulatory authority(ies) and the EC. AEs and/or laboratory abnormalities identified in the protocol as critical to safety evaluations should be reported to the sponsor according to the reporting requirements and within the time periods specified by the sponsor in the protocol. For reported deaths, the investigator should supply the sponsor and the EC with any additional requested information (e.g., autopsy reports and terminal medical reports).

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, and CAN-22, 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. Further detail and clarifications on AE/ADR reporting criteria can be found in CAN-22. As specified in the G-CanadaCTApps, when evaluating whether an AE is serious and unexpected, the Qualified Investigator’s (QI) and sponsor’s determination of causality is important. Only serious and unexpected ADRs found to have a reasonable suspected causal relationship to 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 and CAN-22, 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 Submission Gateway (CESG). 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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

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

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

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

Other Safety Reports

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

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

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See 42CFR11 for detailed adverse event reporting requirements.

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

Pursuant to the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, CAN-22, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), 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. 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.

As per CAN-52, which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, the investigator should promptly provide written reports to the sponsor and the institutional EC on any changes significantly affecting the conduct of the trial, and/or increasing the risk to participants.

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

Pursuant to CAN-52, the investigator should submit written summaries of the trial status to the institutional EC annually, or more frequently, if requested.

Final Report

Upon completion of the trial, as delineated in CAN-52, the investigator is required to submit a final report to the institutional EC summarizing the trial’s outcome. The CanadaFDR does not require submission of a final study report to HC.

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

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

As per the CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps, a sponsor is defined as an individual, corporate body, institution, or organization that conducts a clinical trial. The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, expands on this definition to include individuals, companies, institutions, or organizations that take responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial.

In accordance with CAN-52, Canada also permits a sponsor to transfer any or all of its trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO) and/or institutional site(s). However, the ultimate responsibility for the trial data’s quality and integrity always resides with the sponsor. Any trial-related responsibilities transferred to a CRO should be specified in a written agreement. The CRO should implement quality assurance and quality control. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

As set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, the sponsor should select the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities. The sponsor must also ensure that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Furthermore, the sponsor must sign an agreement or contract with the participating institution(s). Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

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 qualified investigator will conduct the clinical trial in accordance with good clinical practice, and will immediately inform trial participants and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada) of trial discontinuance, and the reason for this discontinuance. (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 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

Although not specified as a sponsor requirement, CAN-52 states that a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) (known as an Independent Data-Monitoring Committee in Canada) may be established to assess the progress of a clinical trial, including the safety data and the critical efficacy endpoints at intervals, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial.

The G-TCPS2 provides the following considerations to help researchers and ECs determine whether a DSMB 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

Multicenter Studies

Per CAN-52, if a multicenter trial will be conducted, the sponsor must organize a coordinating committee or select coordinating investigators. In addition, the sponsor must ensure that:

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

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 the Clinical Trial Site Information Form (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

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

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

UK Local Information Pack

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

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

See G-InvstgtrResp for more information on investigator responsibilities.

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

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

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

Although not specified as a sponsor requirement, the US-ICH-GCP states that a DSMB may be established to assess the progress of a clinical trial, including the safety data and the critical efficacy endpoints at intervals, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial.

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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

Insurance

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(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, guides sponsors on providing insurance. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

Compensation

Injury or Death

The Canadian regulations do not require compensation for trial participants in the event of trial-related injuries or death. However, CAN-52 indicates that the sponsor must explain to participants the compensation and/or treatment available to them in the event of trial-related injuries.

Trial Participation

The Canadian regulations do not require compensation for trial participation. However, as per the G-TCPS2 and CAN-52, 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. CAN-35 further states that the ICF should describe any compensation, incentives, or reimbursements to be paid or given to participants and how participant withdrawal will affect the offered compensation (e.g., prorated remuneration). If no compensation will be provided, this should be stated.

Insurance

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

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

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

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

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

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

Insurance

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

Compensation

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

Injury or Death

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

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

Trial Participation

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Per the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, the sponsor should implement a system to manage quality throughout all stages of the trial process, focusing on trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results. Per 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. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

As indicated in CAN-52, the quality management system should use a risk-based approach that includes:

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

As stated in the CanadaFDR and CAN-52, the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol, CAN-52, and the applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor is responsible for obtaining agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. A written agreement must be signed by both the sponsor and the investigator or any other parties involved with the clinical trial, verifying that both parties agree to the trial protocol, the monitoring and auditing practices, the SOPs, and their respective duties.

Per CAN-50, HC adopted and implements the ICH guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials (CAN-53), as well as the ICH addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis (CAN-39), which presents a framework for defining an appropriate estimand for a clinical trial and conducting sensitivity analyses.

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, CAN-52 notes that the sponsor should ensure the trial is monitored and audited. The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, CAN-52, and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor should appoint auditors to review the clinical trial. The sponsor should ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and the auditors’ qualifications should be documented. The sponsor must also ensure that the audit is conducted in accordance with their own SOPs and the auditor observations are documented. The sponsor should develop a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. The extent and nature of monitoring is flexible and permits varied approaches that improve effectiveness and efficiency. The sponsor may choose on-site monitoring, a combination of on-site and centralized monitoring, or, where justified, centralized monitoring. The sponsor should document the rationale for the chosen monitoring strategy (e.g., in the monitoring plan).

Per the HCNotice-ICH-E19, HC adopted and implements 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.

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.

According to CAN-52, if it is discovered that noncompliance significantly affects or has the potential to significantly affect participant protection or reliability of trial results, the sponsor should perform a root cause analysis and implement appropriate corrective and preventive actions. Further, the ethics committee (EC) should also be informed promptly and provided the reason(s) for the termination or suspension by the sponsor.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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