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 and one (1) office, including the Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (PDD) and the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD). Per CAN-18 and CAN-17, the PDD and the BRDD, respectively, regulate pharmaceutical drugs, and biological drugs and radiopharmaceuticals for human use. 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. 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.

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

Ministry of Health

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, DecreeMOH, and ASTTReg, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, registration, oversight, and inspections. The MOH grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in Vietnam.

As indicated in DecreeMOH, the MOH is a governmental agency whose mission is to oversee all aspects of public health care management and protection for the Vietnamese population. With regard to pharmaceuticals, the MOH’s activities include, but are not limited to, formulating and promulgating legal documents, regulations, and national standards; granting and withdrawing pharmaceutical practice certificates; and issuing certificates of eligibility, registration permits, medicine import/export permits, and certificates of good manufacturing practice (GMP).

The ClinDrugTrialGCP and ASTTReg specify that the MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is responsible for managing the clinical trial review process. As per the ClinTrialSup, the MOH’s ASTT is also responsible for registering contract research organizations (CROs) that support clinical studies and provide other research services. (See the ClinTrialSup for detailed information on clinical trial research support activities and the related registration forms.)

Pursuant to the DrugRgstrtn, an Advisory Council created by the MOH issues registration papers for drug and medicinal ingredient circulation. The Advisory Council consists of experts with appropriate professional qualifications and experience to ensure the ability to evaluate dossiers, critique experts' opinions and recommendations of the MOH’s Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV), and advise the Minister of Health on issues related to pharmaceutical legislation, quality, safety, and efficacy records of drugs and medicinal ingredients. See the Scope of Assessment section for more information on the Advisory Council’s role in drug clinical trial phase exemptions.

Please note: Vietnam is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (VNM-2), 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 VNM-6.

Contact Information

According to VNM-11, the contact information for the ASTT is as follows:

Ministry of Health
Administration of Science, Technology and Training
No. 138B Giang Vo
Ba Dinh District
Hanoi City, Vietnam

Phone: 04.33846688
Fax: 04.32373236
Email: cuck2dt@moh.gov.vn

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 populations(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 and CAN-23 indicate 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.

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. As delineated in the G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-23, 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. As specified in the G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-23, 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.

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.

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 ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, and ASTTReg, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) manages the clinical trial review process for registered and unregistered investigational products (IPs). The ASTT is responsible for reviewing all clinical study documents, and per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, the ECReg, and the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), is responsible for approving the research protocol. The ECReg further indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. (Note: institutional level ECs are known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.) For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

According to the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT reviews a clinical trial registration dossier submitted by the sponsor, as well as a study approval dossier submitted by the institution. Evidence of institutional EC approval from a CEBRGL is a required element of the study approval dossier, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

As per the ClinDrugTrial and PharmLaw-VNM, the scope of the MOH’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV) for the following:

• Drugs that contain a new active ingredient, or products with a new combination of marketed ingredients
• Newly developed biologics or biologics with a new combination of marketed ingredients
• Newly developed vaccines that are manufactured and used for the first time in Vietnam
• Drugs, biologics, and vaccines which have been legally marketed for a period of less than five (5) years in the country of origin (or a country of reference if provided for under international treaties to which Vietnam is a signatory)
• Drugs, biologics, and vaccines for which a clinical trial has been conducted, but have not met the MOH’s or internationally recognized good clinical practice (GCP) requirements

In addition, per the TradMedicine, the MOH also reviews and approves traditional medicines to be used in clinical trials (Phases I-IV) unless deemed exempt by the agency. The category of traditional medicine includes drugs developed from a provincial-level scientific research project or higher, drugs that were granted a certificate, or drugs used for treatment at health establishments at a provincial level or higher for 10 years or more and for 200 or more patients. The drugs must also have been approved by a Science and Technology Council or an EC specialized in traditional medicine as effective and safe to treat traditional medical diseases. Traditional medicines also include ancient methods.

For information on bioequivalence trials and testing, see the BioequivTrial and the BioTestReq.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Registration Dossier Review

According to the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT requires the sponsor to submit a clinical trial registration dossier. Upon receipt of the appropriate files, the ASTT will check the validity of the dossier. If the dossier is incomplete, the ASTT will provide a written notice and specific instructions for the sponsor to supplement the dossier. The sponsor is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier within a maximum of 60 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the submitted application is no longer valid. Following the review of a complete and valid dossier, the ASTT Director will either issue a written approval (see Form 13 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) or clearly state the reason for disapproval in writing.

See the Submission Process, Submission Content, and Timeline of Review sections for more information on registration dossiers.

Approval Dossier Review

Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, research institutions must submit dossiers requesting clinical drug trial approval to the ASTT. The ASTT checks the validity of the dossier, and if it is incomplete, the ASTT will provide a written notice and specific instructions for the institution to supplement the dossier. The institution is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier within a maximum of 60 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the research approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that following receipt of a complete and valid dossier, the MOH will organize a meeting of the NECBR. After receiving the NECBR’s evaluation report of the research protocol, the ASTT will synthesize and complete the dossier, then submit it to the Minister of Health for approval if the protocol meets the requirements. If the protocol is not approved or needs correction, the ASTT will notify the institution in writing and clearly state the reason. If the protocol needs to be modified, the institution is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier in up to 90 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the protocol approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

Procedures for the approval of research protocol amendments follow the same procedure described above for clinical drug trial approval. For more information, see the ClinDrugTrialGCP.

See Submission Process, Submission Content, and Timeline of Review sections for more information on the approval dossier.

Inspection

The BioequivTrial indicates that the ASTT may conduct inspections to ensure the rights and health of participants in the trial, ensure the quality and integrity of the research data, ensure that the responsibilities of stakeholders in the research are implemented in accordance with applicable regulations, and promptly detect violations of the research protocol. The MOH will determine the inspection scale and frequency based on the objective, purpose, design, complexity, blinding technique, scale, and end date of the research. The MOH must send an inspection notice to the sponsor and institution at least five (5) days before the inspection, and the inspection report must be completed and sent to the sponsor and institution within 20 days of the inspection.

Clinical Trial Exemptions

The DrugRgstrtn indicates that based on the opinion of the MOH’s Advisory Council, the Minister of Health may exempt certain new drugs, vaccines, and biological products from one (1) or more phases of a clinical trial (including clinical data exemption or reduction). Registration certificates may be issued with the clinical trial phase exemption in the following cases:

• Medicines that meet urgent needs for national defense and security, epidemic prevention and control, and overcoming the consequences of natural calamities and catastrophes in which other drugs are not yet available on the market
• The drug has been licensed for circulation by at least one (1) of the reference regulatory agencies specified in Article 2 of the DrugRgstrtn
• Medicines used to treat rare and fatal diseases
• Vaccines and biological products manufactured in Vietnam in the form of technology transfer in one (1), several, or all phases of the finished product manufacturing process, which have clinical data on the products prior to the technology transfer in compliance with the DrugRgstrtn

See the DrugRgstrtn and the PharmLaw-VNM for more information on drugs that are exempted from a trial or certain phases of a trial.

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

No information is currently available regarding fees required to submit a clinical trial application for authorization to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT).

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, the G-CanadaCTApps, and CAN-52, 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. As mentioned earlier, only CIHR-, NSERC-, and SSHRC-funded institutions are required to comply with this guidance as a condition of funding.

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 per the ECReg, the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), and PharmLaw-VNM, Vietnam requires institutional and national level ethics committee (EC) approval for clinical trials. According to the ECReg and VNM-12, institutional level EC approval is provided by a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL). PharmLaw-VNM states that national level EC approval is conducted by the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR).

Ethics Committee Composition

The ECReg details general EC requirements applicable to both the CEBRGLs and the NECBR, as well as specific requirements for each type of EC.

Per the ECReg, EC membership should include the following:

• Members with a professional degree in the health sector related to the common research areas assessed by the EC, including at least one (1) person independent from the organization that establishes the EC
• Clinical doctors
• Members with legal expertise or knowledge of ethical principles in biomedical research, with a university degree or higher
• Members with no expertise in the health sector
• Members under 40 years of age, members from 40 years old to under 50 years old, and members aged 50 or older
• Male and female members (neither gender may be less than 20% of the total membership)

The ECReg further indicates that EC members must have the necessary experience, knowledge, skills, and ability to perform their duties in order to validate the science and protect the interests of research participants. Members with expertise in the health sector must have at least five (5) years of experience working in the field of research assessed by the EC. All members must also have time to participate in and perform the duties of the EC, and keep confidential any information related to the research, opinions discussed during the meeting, commercial secrets of individuals and organizations participating in the study, and personal information about the research participant. Members must also receive training and certification from the MOH or MOH-accredited organizations in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the EC’s standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level

As explained in the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg, institutional ECs, known as CEBRGLs, should consist of at least five (5) members. The ECReg states that a CEBRGL consists of one (1) chair, one (1) to two (2) vice-chairs, a standing division, and specialized subcommittees (if necessary).

The CEBRGLReg further indicates that CEBRGLs may have at most 11 members. All members must be honest, objective, and have biomedical research ethics knowledge and expertise. The chair and vice-chair should be prestigious scientists.

The ECReg requires that the chair and vice-chairs have at least 15 years of experience working in the field of research evaluated by the EC, a good reputation, and the capacity to independently manage and run the EC. The chair and vice-chairs must also be fair and impartial, and not be pressured by the research institution, investigators, and other agencies, organizations, and individuals. An individual cannot be appointed as the chair of the EC for more than two (2) consecutive terms.

According to the ECReg, a CEBRGL should have no more than two (2) professional secretaries and no more than two (2) administrative secretaries. Professional and administrative secretaries must be honest, objective, and university educated. Furthermore, professional secretaries must have knowledge about scientific and technological management, scientific research, and ethics in biomedical research, while administrative secretaries must have administrative, clerical, and archival skills.

According to the CEBRGLReg, a secretariat based in the host institution’s Science Research Management Office should assist the CEBRGL with application processing and other administrative tasks.

See the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg for additional CEBRGL membership criteria.

National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research

The ECReg requires the NECBR to have at least nine (9) official members, including one (1) chair, three (3) vice-chairs, and other official members, including professional and administrative secretaries. The NECBR also includes data monitoring and other subcommittees as needed. The Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) and the MOH act as standing members of the office of the NECBR.

The ECReg requires that the chair and vice-chairs have at least 15 years of experience working in the field of research evaluated by the EC, a good reputation, and the capacity to independently manage and run the EC. The chair and vice-chairs must also be fair and impartial, and not be pressured by the research institution, investigators, and other agencies, organizations, and individuals. An individual cannot be appointed as the chair of the EC for more than two (2) consecutive terms.

According to the ECReg, the NECBR should have no more than three (3) professional secretaries, and two (2) administrative secretaries at most.

The ECReg states that professional and administrative secretaries must be honest, objective, and university-educated. Professional secretaries must have knowledge about scientific and technological management, scientific research, and ethics in biomedical research, while administrative secretaries must have administrative, clerical, and archival skills.

See the ECReg for additional NECBR membership criteria and VNM-1 for the list of 2023-2028 NECBR term members.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

According to the ECReg, both CEBRGLs and the NECBR have five (5) year terms. However, the CEBRGLReg indicates that CEBRGLs have three (3) to five (5) year terms, as specified in the EC’s establishment decision. The ECReg also stipulates that the EC must be established or reorganized at the end of the term. The EC for the next consecutive term must include at least 25% new members.

As stated in the ECReg, EC activities are non-profit. The EC must fully apply the ethical principles prescribed in the ECReg and relevant legal documents, and comply with ethical guidelines of international organizations. The ethical guidelines used by the EC should be clearly stated and disseminated to investigators. In addition, ECs function on the principles of collectivity, democracy, and independence when evaluating research proposals and making decisions. If necessary, ECs may invite an independent consultant to provide a professional opinion to the EC. ECs should also facilitate the coordination of and/or reference the evaluation results of other domestic or foreign ECs.

According to the ECReg, the EC’s decision for a research proposal should be based on the consensus of the EC members and must be recorded in the EC’s meeting minutes. In case it is difficult to reach a consensus, the EC’s chair has the right to decide to immediately commence voting, or request that the principal investigator supplement the research dossier for the EC to consider and vote on during the next EC meeting. Research is approved only when there is no more than one (1) disapproval vote out of the total number of valid votes.

In addition, the ECReg states that ECs must conduct periodic assessments of ongoing studies within a time period that is consistent with the level of risk for study participants, but at least once a year on or before the date the EC approved the research protocol. The conclusion of the periodic assessment results should state that the EC’s previous decisions are still valid, or have been changed, suspended, or revoked.

The ECReg requires that EC members be trained prior to appointment and provided with updated and supplementary training in the ethical and scientific aspects of biomedical research. The head of the organization that establishes the EC is responsible for assigning a unit to manage scientific research activities to develop and deploy training plans for EC members. The updated and supplementary training must be conducted at least once every two (2) years. For more information on training requirements for EC members, see the ECReg.

As set forth in CEBRGLReg, the CEBRGLs should operate within written SOPs to conduct their reviews. The chair oversees the meetings, makes conclusions, and reports this information to the institutional head. Voting members must have no conflict of interest with the research. The CEBRGL members must review research documentation and prepare comments for the secretary prior to the meeting. Most CEBRGLs do not meet regularly but instead meet upon request for review and on the availability of the majority of its members. The CEBRGLs should also refer to the NECBR’s SOPs to develop their own SOPs. See CEBRGLReg for detailed CEBRGL review procedures.

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 the ECReg, the CEBRGLReg, the ClinDrugTrialGCP, and the PharmLaw-VNM, the primary scope of information assessed by ethics committees (ECs) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. The ECs involved in clinical trial approval in Vietnam include institutional level ECs, called Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs), and the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR).

As per the ECReg, the CEBRGLReg, and the PharmLaw-VNM, ECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable or those with limited or no legal capacity. The ECReg further indicates that when considering research related to vulnerable groups, representatives of the research participants or experts with knowledge and experience working with the groups must participate in the EC meeting. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; and Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates sections for additional information about these populations.)

The ECReg and the CEBRGLReg also state that CEBRGLs and the NECBR are responsible for ensuring independent, timely, and competent reviews 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 the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg for detailed ethical review guidelines.

The ECReg indicates that when ECs conduct research record evaluations, ongoing research supervision, and research results evaluations, they should evaluate the following:

• Research design and conduct
• Potential risks and benefits
• Selection of research populations and participant selection and protection
• Financial benefits and financial costs related to research participants
• Protecting the research participants’ privacy and confidentiality
• The process of providing information and obtaining participants’ written consent to participate in research
• Impact of research on the participants’ community
• Researcher capacity and research goal

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is responsible for reviewing the clinical trial registration and study approval dossiers for completeness. Evidence of institutional EC approval from a CEBRGL is a required element of the study approval dossier, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, the ASTT’s review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

The ECReg indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

The ECReg indicates that ECs may assess a research dossier or application under an expedited process if:

• The research involves minimal risk
• The research documents have been previously reviewed by an EC
• The research documents have been reviewed and approved by an EC of the same level
• It is a periodic report on implementation of research that has already been approved
• It is an application for amendment and supplementation of a research protocol that has already been approved
• It is reporting adverse events occurring in research that has already been approved
• It is reporting violations of an approved research protocol

According to the ECReg, research dossiers are reviewed under the EC’s full process if they do not qualify for expedited review as stipulated above, or if the evaluator requests that the dossier be examined according to the full process. The EC’s decision under the full review process is legally valid when at least five (5) members (including at least one (1) member with appropriate expertise in the health sector, one (1) member with no expertise in the health sector, and one (1) independent member), including members of both sexes, are present at the EC’s meeting and vote in the decision. The meeting must also have been convened by the EC’s chair or vice-chair (if authorized), and record meeting minutes. The EC's expedited review process decision is legally valid when at least two (2) members of the EC have reviewed and evaluated the dossier. See the Timeline of Review section for more information on the expedited and full review processes.

According to the ECReg, the EC must send a written notification of its evaluation to the leading research institution and principal investigator (PI), and publish the evaluation results on a bulletin board or on the website of the EC or the organization that established the EC. The EC may approve, conditionally approve, or decide not to approve a research dossier, and the written notifications must be issued accordingly.

Per the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), for administrative changes to the clinical trial protocol, the research institution must report in writing to the ECs at all levels and the ASTT. Changes that do not affect the health and interests of trial participants, or the research designs, processes, and procedures, must be approved by the CEBRGL and the NECBR. The application and evaluation process are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the ECReg. Changes affecting the health and interests of trial participants, or the research designs, processes, and procedures, must be approved by competent regulatory agencies. The application for approval of changes and procedures must comply with the ClinDrugTrialGCP. See the ECReg and the ClinDrugTrialGCP for more information.

For internal NECBR forms and documents, see VNM-3.

According to the BioequivTrial, ECs may also conduct periodic or unscheduled inspections. The sponsor and EC should determine the scale and frequency of the inspections based on the objectives and design of the research. The purpose of the inspection should be to evaluate trial conduct and PI/study team compliance with the protocol, standard operating procedures (SOPs), good clinical practices (GCPs), and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor or the EC must send an inspection notice to the institution and PI at least five (5) days before the inspection, and the inspection report must be completed and sent to the institution and PI within 20 days of the inspection.

The ECReg indicates that ECs must conduct periodic reviews of ongoing studies within a time period that is consistent with the level of risk for study participants, but at least once a year on or before the date the EC approved the research protocol. The conclusion of the periodic review results should state that the EC’s previous decisions are still valid, or have been changed, suspended, or revoked. Circumstances for unscheduled reviews include:

• Modification of the protocol that has the potential to affect the rights, safety, and/or interests of the research participants or investigators
• A serious adverse event related to the research or the research product
• Discovery of new facts or information that could affect a potential benefit or risk of harm related to the study
• A request to suspend all or a portion of the study by the sponsor or regulatory agency

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 stated in the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) should indicate the fee structure (if any) required to assess a proposed study. Fee requirements should be included in the written instructions provided to investigators for submitting research dossiers for evaluation. The head of the organization that establishes the EC is responsible for allocating sufficient resources for the EC to perform its duties effectively.

According to VNM-12, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) and institutional level ECs (known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs)) charge a fee to review clinical trial documentation. The current NECBR and CEBRGL fees are $1,000-$2,000 USD.

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

Overview

According to the ECReg, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is responsible for registering the institutional level ethics committees (ECs), known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

The ECReg indicates that the ASTT is responsible for maintaining a list of ECs on the ASTT website. The ASTT must update the list within 15 days from the date of receiving a notice of establishment from the EC. ECs are periodically inspected by the ASTT to ensure that they comply with the requirements specified in the ECReg. If the EC is found to be noncompliant, the ASTT will withdraw the EC’s name from the updated list on the website. The ASTT may suspend, or propose suspension to a competent authority, of an EC’s operation in case it is found that the EC violates the provisions of the ECReg, affecting the protection of rights, safety, and health of research participants.

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." Per CAN-44, applicants must submit CTAs electronically in either eCTD format or non-eCTD format. 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) by completing the FDA Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG) (CAN-51) registration for an account (CAN-47).
• 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-25 and the FDA User Guide (CAN-47).

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-CESG, the G-eCTD, CAN-47, 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. (Note: As per ElecSubms, G-CESG is 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.)

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. 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.

Overview

In accordance with the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, and ASTTReg, Vietnam requires the applicant to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Ministry of Health (MOH). The Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is the department within the MOH that manages the clinical trial review process. As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), must also approve the research protocol.

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, evidence of institutional EC approval from a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) is a required element of the study approval dossier submitted to the ASTT, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

Regulatory Submission

According to VNM-12, the registration dossier and the study approval dossier should be submitted to the MOH’s ASTT at the address found in VNM-11:

Ministry of Health
Administration of Science, Technology and Training
No. 138B Giang Vo
Ba Dinh District
Hanoi City, Vietnam

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the sponsor must submit, directly or via post, one (1) copy of the clinical trial registration dossier signed by the sponsor’s representative(s) to the ASTT. Separately, research institution(s) must submit one (1) copy of the study approval dossier, signed by the principal investigator (PI) and the head of the testing facility, directly or via post to the ASTT. See Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP for the registration form and the forms that comprise the study approval dossier. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP also refers to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor” throughout the document.)

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided in Vietnamese or English. If the document is not available in Vietnamese or English, a notarized translation of the document must be provided in Vietnamese or English. The ClinDrugTrialGCP also indicates that the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) summary (also referred to as the research product profile in Vietnam) submitted to the MOH with the registration application should be in Vietnamese or in English with a supplementary summary in Vietnamese. See the Submission Content section for detailed information on documentation to be submitted.

Ethics Review Submission

As per VNM-12, the application for NECBR approval should also be submitted at the address found in VNM-11:

Ministry of Health
Administration of Science, Technology and Training
No. 138B Giang Vo
Ba Dinh District
Hanoi City, Vietnam

VNM-12 indicates that for NECBR review, the applicant must submit four (4) copies of the relevant documents directly or via post to the ASTT. Except for the IB, the Certificate of Analysis, and the good manufacturing practices (GMP) certificate, which may be in English, all relevant documents must be submitted in Vietnamese.

According to the ECReg, ECs issue their own guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. See the Submission Content section for the minimum requirements of the EC evaluation guidelines.

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 per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the following documentation must be submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) for clinical trial registration dossiers:

• Clinical trial registration application form signed by a representative of the sponsor (See Form No. 6 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
• Summary of the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) (also referred to as the research product profile in Vietnam) including general information about the clinical reagent (name, ingredients, indications, physical properties, chemistry, preparation, and other relevant information), pre-clinical research materials, and clinical trial study documents from previous phases

For clinical trial study approval dossiers, the ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that the following documentation must be submitted to the MOH’s ASTT:

• Clinical trial approval application form signed by the principal investigator (PI) and the head of the research institution (See Form No. 7 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
• Full IB, including proof of compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) for research institutions or proof of compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) (also referred to as good medicine production standards in Vietnam) for drug manufacturers, and proof of compliance with quality testing requirements from national inspection agencies or ex-warehousing certificates for vaccine or biological batches (Refer to the Quality Requirements section for detailed IB requirements)
• A copy of the written approval for clinical trial registration from the MOH’s ASTT
• For phase IV clinical trials, a certified or notarized copy of the written request for phase IV clinical drug testing from the respective regulatory authorities
• A certified or notarized copy of the research institution’s certificate of eligibility for pharmaceutical business
• Certification of participation by all study sites for multicenter research studies in Vietnam
• A certified or notarized copy of the approval from the People’s Provincial Committee (for community-based studies)
• Contract/agreement between the sponsor and the host institution; and contract/agreement between sponsor and the contract research organization (CRO), if applicable
• Explanation of study protocol (See Form No. 8 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
• Case report form (CRF)
• PI’s Curriculum Vitae (CV) and a copy of the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) certificate issued by the MOH or an institution recognized by the MOH
• Informed Consent Form (ICF) (See Form No. 9 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) (See also the Required Elements section for additional information)
• Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) evaluation report
• Investigational product (IP) labeling

See the ClinDrugTrialGCP for detailed requirements.

Ethics Committee Requirements

The ECReg indicates that both the institutional level ethics committees (ECs) (CEBRGLs) and the national EC (National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR)) issue guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. The guidelines include information on the following:

• Name and address of the secretary, employee, or member of the EC receiving the application file, or address of the website (if any)
• List of all written material in record
• Specifications of the documents
• Language of the document in the record
• Number of copies to be submitted
• Application deadline compared to evaluation date
• Recording and notification processes for invalid documents
• Estimated time for post-assessment decision announcement
• The timeframe that should be followed if the EC requires the applicant to provide additional information or documents
• Evaluation fee of research records (if any)
• Procedures for requesting EC approval of an amendment of the outline or related documents
• Specification of materials for selection, information, and consent to participate in the study

According to ECReg, the documents that ECs must review when evaluating a research proposal include:

• Signed and dated application, including signatures of co-applicant and representative of the relevant organization
• Research protocol (with version number and date), with documents and appendices (if any)
• A summary of the study in simple and understandable language
• Description of ethical considerations relevant to the study (may be included in the protocol); measures that will be taken to protect participant privacy and data confidentiality; protective care for participants; compensation to be provided to participants; and insurance package for participants (if applicable) (See the Required Elements and Participant Rights sections for detailed information)
• IB
• Study data collection forms (with version numbers and dates)
• Forms, documents, and advertisements used in the participant selection process
• ICF (with version number and date) for participants that are 18 years or older and have full civil capacity to give consent
• ICF (with version number and date) for participants and their parents and/or legal guardian(s), if the participant is 16 years old to under 18 years old
• ICF (with version number and date) for parents and/or legal guardian(s), if the participant is under 16 years old
• Assent form (with version number and date) for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including children from 12 years old to under 16 years old, a person with inadequate civil act capacity, or a patient in a limited cognitive condition
• Description of participant selection and ICF collection processes
• Procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and managing adverse events (AEs) (See the Safety Reporting section for additional AE/serious adverse event information)
• All previous decisions of other ECs or regulatory authorities regarding the proposed study (including decisions and reasons for objecting or proposing amendments to the previous protocol)
• Documents demonstrating that the research institution has agreed to allow the study after the regulatory authority’s approval (if the study is conducted outside the organization that established the EC)
• Investigators' commitment to agree to comply with the ethical guidelines
• The PI’s current scientific background and qualifications related to the relevant research

See the ECReg for additional information on documentation requirements for research protocol re-evaluation or amendments, as well as for evaluation applications for periodic reports, AE reports, protocol violation reports, and research result reports.

Clinical Protocol

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH requires the following elements to be included in a protocol submission:

• Title
• Protocol code
• Duration
• Management level (state/ministry/institution/province)
• PI/co-investigator(s) names and contact information
• Funding
• Phase requested
• Institution to conduct research
• Sponsor and contact information
• Situation of domestic and foreign research
• Objectives
• Methodology (including trial design, random selection method, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each research technique)
• Participant selection/withdrawal
• Participant treatment
• AE reporting requirements (See the Safety Reporting section for additional information)
• Laboratory test methods
• Ethical considerations
• Inspection and monitoring
• Post study medical care
• Study team training
• International cooperation
• Implementation progress
• Format of the expected results
• Activities of coordinating organizations

See Appendix III in the ClinDrugTrialGCP for a copy of the full form.

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 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.

Overview

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, evidence of institutional ethics committee (EC) approval from a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) is a required element of the study approval dossier submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT), so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR)’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

Regulatory Authority Approval

Registration Dossier Review

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT initially checks the validity of the sponsor-submitted registration dossier (which includes the registration application form and Investigator’s Brochure (IB) summary) within five (5) working days from the date of receipt of the application. If any issues are identified, the ASTT will issue a written notice to the sponsor, who must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 60 days of receipt. Past this time limit, the submitted application is no longer valid. The ASTT Director will issue a written decision within five (5) working days of receiving a complete and valid dossier.

Approval Dossier Review

The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that research institutions must submit dossiers requesting clinical drug trial approval to the ASTT. The ASTT checks the validity of the study approval dossier within five (5) working days from the date of receipt of the application. If any issues are identified, the ASTT will issue a written notice to the institution, which must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 60 days of receipt. Past this time limit, the research approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that within 25 days of receiving a complete and valid study approval dossier, the MOH will organize a meeting of the NECBR. Within five (5) working days after receiving the NECBR’s evaluation report, the ASTT gathers all materials related to the dossier and submits it to the Minister of Health for approval.

If the research protocol is not approved or needs to be corrected, the ASTT must notify the institution and state the reason, as per the ClinDrugTrialGCP. The institution must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 90 days from the date of the notice. Past this time limit, the protocol approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning. Within five (5) working days after receiving the completed research protocol in accordance with the written notice, the ASTT gathers all materials related to the dossier and submits it to the Minister of Health for approval.

Ethics Committee Approval

The ECReg indicates that ECs issue their own guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. The guidelines include information regarding the application deadline in relation to the evaluation date, the expected timeframe for notification of a decision, and the timeframe to follow if the EC requires applicants to submit additional information or documents. See the Submission Content section for detailed information on minimum requirements for the EC guidelines.

According to VNM-12, the review and approval process for CEBRGLs takes 30 days. Meetings are scheduled upon request and are based on the availability of the majority of its members.

The ECReg indicates that under both the expedited and full review processes, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a complete and valid dossier, the EC must organize an examination of the dossier and notify the applicant of the EC’s decision. While both processes may take up to 30 days, the expedited review is streamlined with fewer reviewers.

According to the ECReg, within five (5) working days from the date that the research dossier evaluation results are available, the EC must send a written notification to the leading research institution and principal investigator, and publish the evaluation results on a bulletin board or on the website of the EC or the organization that established the EC.

See Scope of Review section for details on the EC’s role in the clinical trial approval process.

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

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the PharmLaw-VNM, and the ASTTReg, a clinical trial can only commence in Vietnam after authorization from the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been received. The MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) manages the clinical trial review process. The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that the ASTT is responsible for reviewing the clinical trial registration and study approval dossiers. The MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), is responsible for approving the research protocol. Once the ASTT has completed its review and the NECBR has reviewed and approved the research protocol, the Minister of Health must give final approval to the entire study approval dossier. The ECReg further indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. (Note: institutional level ECs are known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.) For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

As per the ExprtImprtMeds, an import license must be obtained for the shipment of an investigational product (IP) to be used in the trial from the MOH’s Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV). See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information.

Clinical Trial Agreement

As per the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is required to enter an agreement with the participating principal investigator (PI)/host institution(s) before the trial begins to demonstrate the financial agreement between the parties. The PharmLaw-VNM also states that the sponsor is required to sign a clinical trial contract with the investigator(s).

Clinical Trial Registration

According to VNM-12, the ASTT encourages the sponsor and the PI to register their study with the United States National Institutes of Health’s ClinicalTrials.gov (VNM-13).

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

As delineated in the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) and the AERprtingD62, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Vietnam’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event (or Adverse Experience) (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence (including any signs, symptoms, illnesses, or test results) in a participant to whom a medicinal product has been administered, including occurrences which are not necessarily caused by or related to that product
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that may lead to death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in disability or permanent incapacity, creates a congenital anomaly/birth defect, or requires appropriate medical intervention to prevent the aforementioned situations or medically important event
• Unexpected AE – AEs in which the essence, severity, specificity, or consequences are different or have not been recorded or considered in the study protocol or relevant study documents

Also, according to VNM-12, the Ministry of Health (MOH) uses the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (VNM-5) to define its safety reporting terminology.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As per the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for detecting and settling SAEs and updating AE/SAE information to ensure the timeliness of reporting and the safety of the research participants. The PI is required to report to the sponsor, the institutional ethics committee (EC), also known as a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL), the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), the MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT), and the National Centre for Drug Information and Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring (National DI and ADR Centre).

The ECReg further states that the NECBR is responsible for assessing the PI's recording, reporting, and handling of AEs occurring during the study.

The BioequivTrial indicates that depending on the type of AE/SAE, the PI must comply with the following reporting requirements:

• Fatal or life-threatening SAEs in Vietnam: A report, in accordance with Form 4 in the Appendix of the BioequivTrial, must be submitted to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National DI and ADR Centre within seven (7) working days from the date of receiving information about the SAE. Updates on the SAE must be provided in additional reports until the participant recovers or stabilizes.
• SAEs that are not fatal or life-threatening in Vietnam: A report, in accordance with Form 4 in the Appendix of the BioequivTrial, must be submitted to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National DI and ADR Centre within 15 working days from the date of receiving information about the SAE.
• Non-serious AEs occurring in Vietnam: The AEs must be recorded and summarized in a periodical report, and reported in the full results of the trial research results to the NECBR and the ASTT.

The BioequivTrial indicates that in the event of fatal or life-threatening AEs/SAEs, the PI and the host institution are required to suspend the trial immediately, provide care and treatment to the participant(s), overcome and resolve the consequences, and document the events. According to the AERprtingD62, the PI must also document any deaths. The BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 further indicate that the PI and the host institution must report these events to the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR.

For AEs that cause harm to the participant’s health, the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 indicate that the PI is responsible for treating and following up on the participant’s health until the person is stable.

According to the BioequivTrial, the PI should provide periodic updates regarding AEs/SAEs to the sponsor, the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR. If the extent and frequency of AEs/SAEs exceeds the allowable limit, investigators may propose to the sponsor, EC, and competent regulatory authority that the clinical trial be suspended.

The BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 indicate that all the following must be reported:

• SAEs occurring at study sites in Vietnam
• SAEs occurring at study sites outside of Vietnam in a multicenter Vietnamese study that lead to cessation/suspension of the study or a change in the protocol
• All other AEs occurring in clinical drug trials at study sites in Vietnam

Sponsor Responsibilities

Per the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62, the sponsor must coordinate with the PI to report AEs/SAEs occurring at study sites in Vietnam to the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR. The sponsor must collect AE/SAE data.

For SAEs occurring at study sites outside of Vietnam in a multicenter Vietnamese study, the BioequivTrial states that the sponsor must report to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR within 10 working days from the date of a decision to stop/suspend the study, withdraw participants from the study, or change the research protocol.

In addition, the AERprtingD62 requires that the sponsor report findings from clinical studies, epidemiology studies, in vitro studies, and other information that may lead to an important risk of the investigational product.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Per the BioequivTrial, SAEs in Vietnam should be reported using a Reporting Form for SAEs in Clinical Trials (Appendix, Form 4).

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

The BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) indicates that investigators are responsible for providing periodic and unscheduled reports.

According to the ECReg, progress reports submitted to ethics committees (EC) for evaluation must contain the following:

• Summary of research protocol
• Complete research protocol, including previously approved revisions, if applicable
• Reports on research progress
• Reports on the number of participants who were selected for the study, completed the study, and withdrew from the study
• Detailed report on adverse events (AEs) and issues causing risks to participants, if applicable
• Summary of relevant information, especially safety information
• Current informed consent form (ICF)
• Independent inspection report of investigator and sponsor
• Notice of principal investigator (PI) or sponsor regarding early suspension/termination or completion of the study, if applicable

Final Report

The BioequivTrial and the ClinDrugTrialGCP indicate that the PI, the sponsor, and the host institution are responsible for submitting a final report to the Ministry of Health (MOH) when a study is completed. The final report, which must include an analysis of the data and information on AEs/serious adverse events (SAEs), must be submitted in accordance with Form No. 12 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP. The BioequivTrial further states that the clinical trial results must be made public within three (3) years from the date of issuance of the competent authorities' decision approving the results, and should comply with applicable copyright regulations.

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 ECReg and the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is defined as an individual, entity, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

In addition, per the PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor may select a qualified contract research organization (CRO) (also known as a research support organization in Vietnam) to run the clinical trial. The ClinTrialSup defines a CRO as an organization with the legal status to operate in the field of clinical trial research support and that is staffed with appropriately qualified personnel.

According to the ClinTrialSup, CROs may perform clinical research support activities such as implementing sponsors’ clinical research responsibilities, carrying out administrative support activities, and conducting clinical research monitoring. The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that a cooperative contract should exist between the sponsor and a CRO, if applicable. According to the PharmLaw-VNM, a sponsor and the CRO may be domestic or foreign.

In addition, as per the ClinTrialSup, CROs are also responsible for registering their organizations with the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT). Before implementing any activities in support of a clinical trial, a CRO must submit a registration dossier and the applicable forms for approval. The CRO is also required to report annually on its clinical research activities to the MOH’s ASTT. (See the ClinTrialSup for detailed information on clinical trial research support activities and the related registration forms.)

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 BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) and PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s), the principal investigator (PI), the consultant experts, and the research institutions, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities.

As stated in the BioequivTrial, all investigators must possess appropriate qualifications, training, and experience. All investigators involved in the trial must obtain completion certificates for a good clinical practice (GCP) course and a safety reporting course, each to be updated every three (3) years, from the Ministry of Health (MOH) or an authorized training facility.

See the BioequivTrial for information on PI and investigator rights and responsibilities.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available on foreign sponsor requirements.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

According to VNM-12, there are no requirements for establishing a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). However, the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) may recommend the establishment of a DSMB.

Multicenter Studies

The BioequivTrial states that for multicenter studies, in addition to analyzing general research results, it is necessary to conduct a separate analysis of key safety and efficacy variables on Asian or Vietnamese research populations using drugs for which racial factors are considered to have an effect on efficiency and safety. Furthermore, per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial study approval dossier must include documentation certifying the participation of research institutions in multicenter studies in Vietnam.

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

According to VNM-12, there is no specific Vietnamese guidance that addresses indemnity agreements between the sponsor and the contract research organization (CRO), investigator(s), or institution(s). However, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) lists an insurance contract as an essential document to be obtained by the principal investigator (PI), institution, and sponsor before conducting a clinical trial. The purpose of the insurance contract is to ensure that research participants will be compensated in the event of a trial-related injury.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor is responsible for providing compensation to research participants in the event of trial-related injuries. The BioequivTrial also states investigators are responsible for compensating participants when an adverse event that seriously impacts the participant’s health was caused by the investigator’s violation of the research protocol.

Trial Participation

According to the BioequivTrial, payment and compensation, if any, to clinical trial participants must be clearly indicated in the research protocol. Per the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) must consider the amount and method of payment to ensure that there is no coercion or influence on the voluntariness of participants. Payments should be made according to each visit.

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.

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 BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is responsible for assigning a monitor to assist in maintaining a quality assurance (QA) system with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) that ensure trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol. In addition, the quality management system applied in clinical trials must meet International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001-equivalent standards or higher.

Per the BioequivTrial, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for ensuring the accuracy, truthfulness, confidentiality, integrity, and verifiability of the research data. Correction of data must be in accordance with applicable regulations: without deleting the original data, the assigned researcher must name, sign for confirmation, and specify the date of correction. The lead investigator must submit an encrypted list of trial participants to the regulatory agency after the clinical trial ends. The retention and submission of the list of participants after decryption must be kept secret.

The trials should be conducted in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) principles and standards outlined in the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial Appendix, which are based on the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (VNM-5) and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products (Please refer to Annex 3 of The Use of Essential Drugs: Sixth Report of the WHO Expert Committee for these guidelines (VNM-10)).

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the BioequivTrial states that the sponsor should assign a monitor to inspect the trial. The sponsor should appoint individuals who are independent from the trial and are qualified by training and experience to conduct inspections, in accordance with the ClinTrialSup. The ClinDrugTrialGCP further indicates that SOPs, the monitoring/inspection plan, and procedures must also be submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT).

For information on ASTT and ethics committee (EC) monitoring responsibilities, see the Scope of Assessment and Scope of Review sections.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

According to the BioequivTrial, the sponsor may terminate a trial early if the sponsor learns of any serious protocol violations that seriously affect the health of trial participants, or, the accuracy and truthfulness of the data during an inspection. The sponsor should send notices to the Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL), the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), and the relevant authority, in addition to notifying the institution and PI.

Electronic Data Processing System

Per the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, when using electronic trial data handling processing systems, the sponsor must ensure and document that the electronic data processing system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance. To validate such systems, the sponsor should use a risk assessment approach that takes into consideration the system’s intended use and potential to affect human subject protection and reliability of trial results. In addition, the sponsor must maintain standard operation procedures (SOPs) that cover system setup, installation, and use. The SOPs should describe system validation and functionality testing, data collection and handling, system maintenance, system security measures, change control, data backup, recovery, contingency planning, and decommissioning. With respect to the use of these computerized systems, the responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties should be clear, and the users should receive relevant training. Note per CAN-50, HC-implemented ICH guidelines take precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent. Refer to CAN-52 for additional information.

The G-FDR-0100 provides that if electronic records are generated during a clinical trial, then the electronic system must be validated to confirm that the system’s specifications meet the goals and requirements for the clinical trial. This evidence of validation should be kept for the required record retention period and available for inspection by Health Canada (HC) inspectors. See the G-FDR-0100 for additional details.

Records Management

As set forth in the CanadaFDR and the CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must record, handle, and store all trial-related information to allow complete and accurate reporting, interpretation, and verification. The CanadaFDR requires the sponsor to maintain all trial-related records for a period of 15 years. Per the G-FDR-0100, sponsors may also be required to maintain records under provincial law, institutional policies, and contractual agreements with investigators, ethics committees (ECs), or others. Where it is not possible to comply with both sets of requirements, the CanadaFDR would govern and the records must be maintained for 15 years.

Pursuant to CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must submit requested records to HC within 48 hours if safety concerns arise. Additionally, to facilitate inspection of a site, the sponsor must submit information to HC within seven (7) days of a request. Per CAN-8, an attestation must be completed by the 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.

In addition, CAN-52 states that the sponsor and investigator/institution should maintain a record of the location(s) of their respective essential documents including source documents. The storage system used during the trial and for archiving (irrespective of the type of media used) should allow for document identification, version history, search, and retrieval. The sponsor should ensure that the investigator has control of and continuous access to the data reported to the sponsor. The investigator/institution should have control of all essential documents and records generated by the investigator/institution before, during, and after the trial.

Electronic Data Processing System

According to the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor should use appropriate data handling programs and have adequate standard operating procedures (SOPs) for these systems. In addition, per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the research institution’s general documentation must include a brief description of any electronic document system in its technical and professional standards, if applicable.

Records Management

As per the BioequivTrial, all information on clinical trials must be recorded, handled, managed, and kept in accordance with applicable regulations in order to accurately report, interpret, monitor, and check the accuracy and reliability of clinical trial information and data. Research institution facilities for storing clinical trial records and documents must ensure confidentiality; restricted access; fire and explosion prevention and control; and avoidance of adverse effects of light, temperature, humidity, and penetration of insects and other animals. In addition, research dossiers and documents should be archived and preserved according to the contract between the sponsor and the institution. For research and development of new products, documentation needs to be kept for at least 10 years.

Responsible Parties

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

Data Protection

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

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

Responsible Parties

Per Decree13, the personal data controller is an organization or individual that decides the purposes and means of processing personal data. The personal data processor is an organization or individual that performs data processing on behalf of the data controller, through a contract or agreement with the data controller. An organization or individual that both decides the purposes and means for, and directly processes, personal data is referred to as a personal data controller and processor.

Decree13 states that the personal data controller must:

• Implement organizational and technical measures, as well as appropriate safety and security measures, to prove that data processing activities have been carried out in accordance with Decree13, reviewing and updating these measures as necessary
• Record and store a system log of personal data processing
• Notify the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) of violations of regulations on protection of personal data as prescribed in Decree13
• Select a personal data processor in accordance with a clear mandate and work only with a personal data processor that has appropriate safeguards in place
• Ensure the rights of data subjects as prescribed in Decree13

Additionally, Decree13 indicates that the personal data processor must:

• Only receive personal data after having a contract or agreement on data processing with the personal data controller, and process personal data in accordance with the contract or agreement
• Fully implement measures to protect personal data specified in Decree13 and other relevant legal documents
• Delete and/or return all personal data to the personal data controller after finishing data processing

According to Decree13, both the personal data controller and processor are also responsible to the data subject for damages caused by the processing of personal data. In addition, they must cooperate with the MPS and competent state agencies in protecting personal data by providing information for investigation and handling of violations of Decree13.

Per VNM-8, the MPS is responsible for protecting the rights of data subjects against violations of Decree13, and for maintaining the National Information Portal on Personal Data Protection (VNM-7). See VNM-7 for additional personal data protection resources.

Data Protection

Per Decree13, organizations and individuals involved in personal data processing must apply personal data protection measures to prevent unauthorized collection of personal data from translation systems and equipment. It is illegal to set up software systems, enact technical measures, or organize activities of collecting, transferring, buying, and selling personal data without the consent of data subjects.

According to Decree13, personal data protection measures must be applied from the beginning and throughout the processing of personal data, including management, technical, investigational, and procedural measures. Network security for the data processing system, as well as the means and equipment, must be checked before processing data, irrecoverably deleting data, or destroying devices containing personal data.

Decree13 states that in the case of sensitive personal data, a department with the function of protecting personal data must be designated, personnel in charge of personal data protection must be appointed, and information about the department and individual in charge of personal data protection must be exchanged with the agency specializing in personal data protection (e.g., MPS). Additionally, data subjects must be notified that their sensitive personal data is being processed.

Decree13 states that if a violation of Decree13 has been detected, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must notify the MPS’s Department of Cybersecurity and Prevention within 72 hours after the violation occurs using Form No. 03 (see Appendix of Decree13 or VNM-9). If the notification is submitted after 72 hours, the reason for the late notice must be attached. Additionally, the personal data processor must notify the personal data controller of the violation as quickly as possible. See Decree13 and VNM-9 for more information on notification requirements for violations of personal data protection regulations.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Decree13 delineates that a data subject’s consent is only valid when the data subject voluntarily and clearly knows the type of personal data to be processed; the purpose of processing personal data; that organizations and individuals are allowed to process the personal data; and the rights and obligations of data subjects. The data subject’s consent must be expressed clearly, specifically in writing, by voice, by ticking the consent box, in the syntax of consent via text message, by selecting consent technical settings, or through another action that demonstrates consent. When there are multiple purposes for the data collection, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must list the purposes for the data subject to agree to one (1) or more of the stated purposes, and consent must be given for each purpose. The data subject’s consent must be expressed in a format that can be printed or reproduced in writing, including in electronic or verifiable formats. Silence or non-response of the data subject is not considered as consent, and the data subject may give partial or conditional consent. The data subject’s consent is valid until the data subject decides otherwise or when the competent state agency requests in writing.

Per Decree13, data subjects also have a right to: be aware of data processing activities; access their data; delete data; restrict data processing; provision of data; object to data processing; complain, denounce, and initiate lawsuits; claim damages; and self-defense. For the processing of sensitive personal data, the data subject must be informed that the data to be processed is sensitive personal data.

Decree13 states that in certain cases, the data subject’s consent is not required for the processing of personal data. This includes urgent cases where it is necessary to immediately process relevant personal data to protect the life and health of the data subject or others, and in the event of a state of emergency on national defense, security, social order and safety, major disasters, or dangerous epidemics.

See Decree13 for more details on obtaining consent from data subjects; the rights of data subjects; and situations where consent is not required for the processing of personal data.

Withdrawal of Consent

According to Decree13, withdrawal of consent must be in a format that can be printed or reproduced in writing, including in electronic or verifiable format. Upon receiving a request from a data subject to withdraw consent, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must notify the data subject of possible consequences and damages that may occur when consent is withdrawn. The personal data controller, personal data processor, personal data controller and processor, and any third parties must stop, and request any relevant organizations and individuals to stop, processing the data of the data subject that has withdrawn consent. Withdrawal of consent does not affect the legality of the data processing that was agreed to prior to the withdrawal.

Children

Per Decree13, children’s personal data must be processed in accordance with the principle of protecting the rights and ensuring the best interests of the children. The processing of children’s personal data must have the consent of the child if the child is seven (7) years of age or older, as well as the consent of the parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The personal data controller, personal data processor, personal data controller and processor, and any third parties must verify the age of the children before processing the children's personal data. The relevant parties must stop processing the children’s personal data and/or irreversibly delete or destroy the children’s personal data in the following cases:

• The data was processed for improper purposes, or the purpose of processing personal data with the consent of the data subject has been fulfilled, unless otherwise provided for by law
• The child’s parent(s) or legal guardian(s) withdraws consent for the processing of the child’s personal data, unless otherwise provided for by law
• At the request of a competent authority when there are sufficient grounds to prove that the processing of personal data affects the children’s legitimate rights and interests, unless otherwise provided for by law

Obtaining Consent

In all Canadian clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the CanadaFDR, the G-TCPS2, CAN-35, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (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 the CanadaFDR, the G-TCPS2, and CAN-52, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as a Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) and provided to HC with the clinical trial application (CTA). (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

The G-TCPS2 and CAN-52 state that the qualified investigator (QI) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. As delineated in the G-TCPS2, CAN-35, and CAN-52, the ICF content should be in plain language (i.e., non-technical and easy to understand) and provided in a format that facilitates understanding. For example, written documentation may be supplemented with audio and/or visual aids. The participant and legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. CAN-35 notes that the person obtaining consent may also need to explain the consent form verbally to ensure that the participant fully understands the information. See CAN-35 for informed consent and assent templates and sample forms.

Re-Consent

According to CAN-52, any change in the ICF that is relevant to the participant’s consent should be approved by the institutional EC prior to implementing any changes. The participant or legal representative/guardian should also be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participation in the trial. The communication of this information should be documented.

Per the G-TCPS2, consent must be maintained throughout the research project. Researchers have a continuous duty to provide participants with all information relevant to their ongoing consent to participate in the research. Consent begins with the initial contact (e.g., recruitment) and carries through to the end of participation in the study. Throughout the clinical trial, researchers have a continuous responsibility to provide participants and ECs with all information relevant to participants’ ongoing consent to participate in the research. The researcher also must notify participants of any changes to the research project that may affect them. These changes may have ethical implications, may be relevant to their decision to continue in the study, or may be unique to the particular circumstances of individual participants. Specifically, researchers must disclose changes to the risks or potential benefits of the research. Change in participant capacity is an important element of ongoing consent. Rather than an age-based approach to consent, researchers should use an approach based on decision-making capacity in compliance with any laws governing research participation. This includes those whose decision-making capacity is in the process of development, those whose decision-making capacity is diminishing or fluctuating, and those whose decision-making capacity remains only partially developed. Mechanisms should be in place from the outset to identify and address any changes that could affect consent. Further, within the limits of consent provided by the participant, researchers should disclose to the participant any material incidental findings discovered in the course of research. Incidental findings are considered to be material incidental findings if they are reasonably determined to have significant welfare implications for the participant or prospective participant. Where material incidental findings are foreseeable, researchers should inform participants during the initial consent process. In addition, researchers should develop a management plan for review by the EC. For more information on how to address material incidental findings, see G-ConsentMatIncFindings.

Language Requirements

CAN-35 further specifies that consent forms should be provided in the language that participants are most comfortable with. The G-TCPS2 and CAN-52 require the ICF to be presented in plain language that the participant is able to understand. Per CAN-35, ICFs should be translated where it is relevant to particular communities. If there is a language barrier, the G-TCPS2 indicates that the qualified investigator should select an intermediary who has the necessary language skills to ensure effective communication. Further, per CAN-35, the level of language used should be appropriate to the age and comprehension/reading level of the participant population, generally at approximately a grade 6-8 reading level.

Documenting Consent

As per the G-TCPS2, CAN-52, and CAN-35, the participant or legal representative/guardian, as well as the qualified investigator, must sign and date the ICF. CAN-52 and the G-FDR-0100 state that the QI should retain the signed ICF. CAN-35 indicates that information letters and ICFs must be presented on institutional/department letterhead.

According to CAN-52, where the participant is illiterate and/or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. The witness should sign and date the ICF after the following steps have occurred:

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

Before participating in the study, the participant or legal representative/guardian should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF.

As per the G-TCPS2 and CAN-52, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or appear to waive the participant’s legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or their representative(s) from their liabilities for any negligence.

Per CAN-35, in some situations, written consent is not be feasible or desirable, for example due to logistical issues or because of the preferences of the participants. In addition, some individuals may perceive written consent as an attempt to legalize the consent process, thereby creating mistrust. It is also important to recognize that in some cultures written consent is not consistent with community traditions. In these cases, it may be more appropriate to use a handshake, a verbal agreement, or oral consent. Article 10.2 of the G-TCPS2 further indicates that researchers can use a range of procedures to seek and document consent, including oral consent documented in field notes, and other forms of recording (e.g., a consent log, audio or video recordings, or other electronic means). Evidence of consent may also be documented via completed questionnaires (in person, by mail, or by email or other electronic means). ECs should consider the power relationship that might exist between researchers and participants, and whether a waiver of the requirement for signed written consent may affect the welfare of the participants. If researchers plan to obtain non-written consent, they must explain their strategy to the EC.

Waiver of Consent

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

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

Obtaining Consent

In all Vietnamese clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), and the PharmLaw-VNM. As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial, and the ECReg, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be sent to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) as part of the clinical trial study approval dossier, for which the Minister must issue final approval.

The ECReg indicates that a research proposal involving humans, including the ICF, must undergo ethical and scientific review by the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) and an institutional level ethics committee (EC) (known as a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs)).

The BioequivTrial states that the principal investigator (PI) or the clinical testing facility is responsible for obtaining written consent from trial participants before carrying out any study procedures.

As per the ECReg, the ICF should be provided in easy-to-understand language, suitable for potential research participants to support their ability to give fully informed consent. For participants with limited education, the ICF should be provided and explained verbally. According to the BioequivTrial and the ECReg, the information should also be presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The ClinDrugTrialGCP further states that the participant or legal representative/guardian should also be given the opportunity to ask questions about the research, and given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

Re-Consent

No information is currently available on re-consent.

Language Requirements

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided in Vietnamese or English. If the document is not available in Vietnamese or English, a notarized translation of the document must be provided in Vietnamese or English.

VNM-12 indicates that the ICF content should be presented in Vietnamese and English for global clinical studies, but for studies with domestic sponsors, only Vietnamese is required. The English copy serves as a reference to the NECBR. The study information sheet should be in Vietnamese.

Documenting Consent

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial, the ECReg, and the PharmLaw-VNM, the participant or the legal representative/guardian must sign and date the ICF. No information is provided in these sources concerning copies to be issued to the participant or legal representative/guardian.

Waiver of Consent

The ECReg indicates an EC may waive the requirement for written voluntary consent from research participants if the study requires absolute confidentiality. The EC’s decision to waive the voluntary written consent requirement must consider the benefits and risks of the study to the participants, as well as measures to protect the rights and safety of the participants.

Based on the G-TCPS2, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), and CAN-35, the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions in plain language, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The study involves research and an explanation of its purpose and duration
• The trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
• The procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
• The participant’s responsibilities
• Those aspects of the trial that are experimental
• Any reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant and, when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
• Any reasonably expected benefits; if no benefit is expected, the participant should be made aware of this
• The disclosure of specific alternative procedure(s) or therapies available to the participant, and their important potential benefits and risks
• Compensation and/or treatment available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury
• The anticipated prorated payment, if any, to the participant for participating in the trial
• Any expenses the participant needs to pay to participate in the trial
• That participation is voluntary, and that the participant can refuse to participate or withdraw from the trial, at any time, without penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• Information concerning the possibility of commercialization of research findings, and the presence of any real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest on the part of the researchers, their institutions, or the research sponsors
• Confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, and permission given to monitors, the auditors, the ethics committee (EC), and Health Canada (HC) to access the participant’s medical records to verify the procedures and/or data, without violating the confidentiality of the participant, insofar as the applicable laws and regulations permit, and that, by signing a written ICF, the participant or legal representative/guardian is authorizing such access
• That records identifying the participant will not be made publicly available, insofar as the applicable laws and/or regulations permit; if the results of the trial are published, the participant’s identity will remain confidential
• The participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified in a timely manner if information becomes available that may affect the participant’s willingness to continue
• The qualified investigator’s contact information for further information regarding the trial and the rights of participants, and whom to contact in the event of a trial-related injury
• The identity and contact information of a qualified designated representative who can explain scientific or scholarly aspects of the research to participants
• Information on stopping rules, foreseeable circumstances, and/or reasons under which the participant’s involvement in the trial may be terminated
• The approximate number of participants in the trial

Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented CAN-52.

Per CAN-35, if blood is taken, indicate total volume (e.g., teaspoons and milliliter equivalent) and note the possibility of bruising or swelling while giving blood, or other possible discomforts at the site where blood is drawn. Further, state that there may be minimal chance of infection and that discomforts experienced will be brief and transient.

CAN-35 also indicates that participants should not be told if an EC has approved the study, since this may appear to offer a guarantee of safety. Further, no clause or language should be used to excuse or appear to excuse investigators or other persons or institutions involved from liability for their negligence or other faults. Sample consent forms can be found in CAN-35.

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

Based on the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable:

• Description of research with an explanation of its purpose and objectives
• Expected duration of study
• Research methods to be followed
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria for research participants
• Identification of investigator(s) who will be responsible for assessing confidential medical information to select study participants
• Number of participants involved in the study
• Description of any foreseeable risks to the participant
• Any expected benefits to the participant and/or the community, and any study-related payment to the participant
• Alternative procedures or treatment that may be available to the participant
• The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained
• Selection of those parties who will be able to access, inspect, supervise and monitor the participant’s records
• Compensation and/or medical treatment available in the event of a trial-related injury
• Person(s) to contact for further information regarding the trial and the rights of trial participants and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
• Statement that participation is voluntary and the participant may withdraw at any time for any reason

See Form No. 9 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP for a copy of the ICF.

Compensation Disclosure

Per the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) must ensure that information relating to payment for study participants, including the method, amount, and payment schedule, is included in the ICF and other documents given to participants.

Overview

In accordance with the CanadaFDR, the G-TCPS2, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), Canada’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The G-TCPS2 and CAN-52, which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, state that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (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.

The informed consent template in CAN-35 provides that if a participant has any questions about their rights, they should contact:

Health Canada-PHAC Research Ethics Board Secretariat
70 Colombine Driveway, Room 941C, PL: 0909C
Brooke Claxton Building, Tunney's Pasture
Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9
Telephone: 613-941-5199
Fax: 613-941-9093
reb-cer@hc-sc.gc.ca

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the G-TCPS2 and CAN-52, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that they may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

Per CAN-35, participants should be assured that their participation is completely voluntary, they are under no obligation to participate, and they are free to withdraw at any time without consequence. It should be made clear that their decision to withdraw will not influence their relationship with the researcher in any way. The researcher should explain what will happen to participant samples or data if they choose to withdraw. If applicable, clearly state the point in the study at which removal of samples or data becomes difficult or impossible.

The Right to Information

As per the G-TCPS2 and CAN-52, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation or treatment in the case of injury, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to the G-TCPS2 and CAN-52, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right.

Per CAN-35, the ICF should explain what information will be collected about participants and for what purpose, including the type of information that will be collected (e.g., will it be coded or de-identified?) and how it will be stored. Further, the ICF should state who will have access to the collected information and describe the efforts that will be made to prevent the risk of participant re-identification. Limits to confidentiality and additional requirements for projects led by HC or the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) are provided in CAN-35.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The G-TCPS2 and CAN-52 state that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the individual responsible for addressing trial-related inquiries and/or the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

CAN-52, which upholds the Declaration of Helsinki, clearly state that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of their health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

See the Required Elements and Vulnerable Populations sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.

Overview

In accordance with the ClinDrugTrialGCP, Vietnam’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, the participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary and that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time for any reason without being held liable.

Additionally, the PharmLaw-VNM states that participants have the responsibility to comply with investigators’ instructions according to approved clinical trial documents.

The Right to Information

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, and any compensation or treatment in the case of injury.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

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

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for a person to contact regarding trial-related inquiries.

Furthermore, the PharmLaw-VNM states that the participant has the right to file a complaint or lawsuit against any illegal acts committed by the sponsor or investigator.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

As set forth in the ECReg, the risks to the research participant must take precedence over any anticipated benefits to the participant and the interests of society.

See the Required Elements and Vulnerable Populations sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.

The G-TCPS2 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when the procedure is complicated by medical emergencies. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent. As per CAN-52, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) has not been obtained from the research participant or legal representative/guardian, or, if an effective treatment is lacking but the investigational product could address the participant’s emergency needs, the clinical trial may be conducted. However, the method used on the participant must be explained clearly in the trial protocol, and the ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) must approve the protocol in advance. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

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

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

The ECReg indicates an ethics committee (EC) may waive the requirement for written voluntary consent from research participants for research in emergency situations where the participant or the legal representative/guardian cannot voluntarily agree to participate in the study. The EC’s decision to waive the voluntary written consent requirement must consider the benefits and risks of the study to the participants, as well as measures to protect the rights and safety of the participants.

Overview

As per the G-TCPS2, in all Canadian clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52) characterizes vulnerable populations as those who may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response from not participating. Examples are members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students; subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel; employees of the pharmaceutical industry; members of the armed forces; and persons kept in detention. Other vulnerable subjects include patients with incurable diseases, persons in nursing homes, unemployed or impoverished persons, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent.

CAN-52, which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, specifies that ethics committees (ECs) (known as Research Ethics Boards in Canada) must pay special attention to protecting participants who are from vulnerable populations. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

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

Overview

As per the ECReg and VNM-4, in all Vietnamese clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections by the ethics committee and the investigator(s) to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. VNM-4 characterizes vulnerable populations as those incapable of giving consent, which may include children, pregnant women, people with mental disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, people who are illiterate, prisoners, detainees, sex workers, and other special populations.

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

Per CAN-35, because the G-TCPS2 does not specify an age of consent for children, the decision on whether to seek consent from children is based on whether they have the capacity to understand the research and the risks and benefits of their participation. Youth who have not reached the age of majority (either 18 or 19 depending on the province or territory) may still be old enough to provide their own consent. For children who are not sufficiently mature to provide consent but are able to understand the nature of study participation, researchers must obtain the child’s assent in addition to the consent of an authorized third party. The decision of a child not to assent must be respected regardless of whether third-party consent was obtained.

CAN-35 provides the following criteria for determining whether participants can provide their own consent, or whether an authorized third party should be involved:

• The risk level associated with the research project
• The legal requirements for age of consent in that jurisdiction
• The characteristics of the research participant (e.g., maturity level)
• In certain cases, the topic of the research itself

CAN-35 states that it is generally accepted that youth can consent to minimal risk studies at 16 years of age, and that assent should be sought from children beginning at approximately seven (7) years of age. However, it is ultimately up to the researcher to determine whether to obtain assent or consent from children, and to provide the rationale for this decision to the ethics committee (EC) (known as a Research Ethics Board in Canada). Researchers should also consider that within a single research project, some minors may be capable of consenting while others may not. See CAN-35 for additional details regarding obtaining consent from minors.

As per the G-TCPS2 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), when the research participant is a child, the informed consent form (ICF) must be signed by the child’s parent/legal guardian. All pediatric participants, however, should be informed to the extent compatible with the child’s understanding, and if capable, the pediatric participant should sign and personally date the ICF. Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented CAN-52. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

As stated in G-TCPS2, children should only participate in clinical studies when the research objective cannot be achieved with adult participants only. When considering the inclusion of children in research, the investigators and ECs must consider a child’s stage of physical, physiological, psychological, and social development to ensure adequate protections for the child’s welfare.

Assent Requirements

Per G-TCPS2 and TCPS2-InterpCnsnt, where a child has some ability to understand the significance of the research, the researcher must ascertain the wishes of that individual with respect to participation. Children—whose decision-making capacity is in the process of development—may be capable of verbally or physically assenting to, or dissenting from, participation in research. While their assent would not be sufficient to permit them to participate in the absence of consent by the child’s parent/legal guardian, their expression of dissent must be respected.

Further, according to CAN-12, which offers best practices and guidance to researchers and ECs in pediatric research and complements the G-TCPS2, provincial laws in Canada vary as to when a child is presumed to be legally competent to provide informed consent. Some provinces use age while others use a competence-based evaluation.

As per CAN-12, if the pediatric participant has the capacity for assent, then affirmative assent is required to participate in a study according to the participant’s level of development and capacities. When the child develops the legal capacity to provide informed consent or attains the legal age of majority (which depends on the province), researchers should obtain an informed consent. Regarding dissent, CAN-12 states that the researchers must respect the dissent of a child who is capable of understanding.

CAN-35 provides sample assent forms and templates. For more detail and guidance about best practices for research involving pediatric participants, see CAN-12.

According to ChildLaw, a child is someone under 16 years of age.

As set forth in the PharmLaw-VNM, when the participant is a minor, informed consent must be obtained from the legal representative/guardian.

Per the ECReg, signed informed consent forms (ICFs) are required for:

• The parent/legal guardian, if the participant is under 16 years old
• The participant and the parent/legal guardian, if the participant is 16 years old to under 18 years old
• Participants that are 18 years or older and have full civil capacity to give consent

Assent Requirements

The ECReg further specifies that a signed assent form is required for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including children from 12 years old to under 16 years old. The assent form should contain information similar to an ICF, but be simpler, shorter, and easier to understand. For participants from seven (7) years old to under 12 years old, the assent form content should be provided and explained verbally.

As per the G-TCPS2, studies involving women of childbearing age, or who are pregnant, require additional safeguards to ensure that the research assesses the risks to the women and the fetuses. The following guidance applies to research involving materials related to human reproduction:

• Research using materials related to human reproduction in the context of an anticipated or ongoing pregnancy must not be undertaken if the information can reasonably be obtained by alternative methods
• Materials related to human reproduction for research use must not be obtained through commercial transaction, including exchange for services

Per the G-TCPS2, research on in vitro embryos already created and intended for implantation to achieve pregnancy is acceptable if:

• The research is intended to benefit the embryo
• Research interventions will not compromise the care of the woman, or the subsequent fetus
• Researchers closely monitor the safety and comfort of the woman and the safety of the embryo
• Consent was provided by the gamete donors

According to the G-TCPS2, research involving embryos that have been created for reproductive or other purposes permitted by law, but are no longer required for these purposes, may be ethically acceptable if:

• The ova and sperm from which they are formed were obtained in accordance with the G-TCPS2
• Consent was provided by the gamete donors
• Embryos exposed to manipulations not directed specifically to their ongoing normal development will not be transferred for continuing pregnancy
• Research involving embryos will take place only during the first 14 days after their formation by combination of the gametes, excluding any time during which embryonic development has been suspended

Per the G-TCPS2, research involving a fetus or fetal tissue:

• Requires the consent of the woman
• Must not compromise the woman’s ability to make decisions regarding continuation of her pregnancy

In accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, informed consent requirements for conducting clinical trials with pregnant or nursing women or fetuses follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section. Specifically, the informed consent form should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

The PharmLaw-VNM states that for studies involving women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, the rationale for participant selection and appropriate protection measures for these participants must be clearly stated in the study approval dossier.

According to the G-TCPS2 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), which Canada has implemented per CAN-50, prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. A research study involving prisoners should ensure that these prospective participants are informed and are given the opportunity to make their own decisions without any interference from a higher authority. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

No information is currently available.

According to the G-TCPS2 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), the ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board in Canada) must approve the participation of research participants who are mentally or physically incapable of giving consent. Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented CAN-52.

Per CAN-35, adults with diminished decision-making capacity include:

• Individuals whose decision-making capacity remains only partially developed, such as those living with permanent cognitive impairment, and
• Individuals who once were capable of making an autonomous decision regarding consent but whose decision-making capacity is diminishing or fluctuating (e.g., due to cognitive impairment resulting from an injury or disease).

Per CAN-35, as is the case for any vulnerable population, care must be taken to ensure that adults with diminished decision-making capacity are not inappropriately included in research because of their situation, and neither should they be excluded from participating in research that may benefit them.

The G-TCPS2 indicates that for research involving individuals who lack the capacity, either permanently or temporarily, to decide for themselves whether to participate, the EC must ensure that, at a minimum, the following conditions are met:

• The researcher involves participants who lack the capacity to decide on their own behalf to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process
• The researcher seeks and maintains consent from the participant’s legal representative/guardian in accordance with the best interests of the persons concerned
• The legal representative/guardian is not the researcher or any other member of the research team
• The researcher demonstrates that the research is being carried out for the participant’s direct benefit, or for the benefit of other persons in the same category; if the research does not have the potential for direct benefit to the participant but only for the benefit of the other persons in the same category, the researcher shall demonstrate that the research will expose the participant to only a minimal risk and minimal burden, and demonstrate how the participant’s welfare will be protected throughout the participation in research
• When authorization for participation was granted by a legal representative/guardian, and a participant acquires or regains decision-making capacity during the course of the research, the researcher must promptly seek the participant’s consent as a condition of continuing participation

Per CAN-35 and the G-TCPS2, the participant’s legal representative/guardian can provide consent for adults who lack the capacity to decide on their own behalf in accordance with the best interests of the persons concerned. In such cases, participants should still be involved to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process, and their assent to participate must be obtained if they are capable of expressing their wishes in a meaningful way (whether verbally or physically). Importantly, when authorization for participation was granted by the participant’s legal representative/guardian and a participant acquires or regains decision-making capacity during the course of the research, the researcher must promptly seek the participant’s consent as a condition of continuing participation.

Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (HC)-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent.

The ECReg states that a signed assent form is required for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including people with inadequate civil act capacity or in a limited cognitive condition. The assent form should contain information similar to an informed consent form (ICF), but be simpler, shorter, and easier to understand.

As delineated in the CanadaFDR, the G-GMP-Annex13, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), an investigational product is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial, including a product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a way different from the approved form. Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented CAN-52. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (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.

The ClinDrugTrial defines an investigational product (IP) as a pharmaceutical product, biomedical product, vaccine, traditional medicine, or herbal medicine that contains a new active ingredient or substance, or a product with a new combination of already marketed pharmaceutical substances.

Manufacturing

As specified in the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52), Health Canada (HC) authorizes the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Canada. HC approves the manufacture of IPs as part of the clinical trial application (CTA) approval. Per CAN-50, Canada has implemented CAN-52. Note that per CAN-50, HC-implemented ICH guidance takes precedence over other HC guidance when they are not consistent. The G-QCM-PharmCTAs provides guidance and templates to assist sponsors in completing the quality portion of the CTA, which in turn, enables HC to assess IP characteristics adequately. The G-GMP-Annex13 requires the sponsor to ensure that IPs for clinical trials are manufactured and imported in accordance with its provisions and with CanadaFDR requirements. Per the G-CanadaCTApps, sponsors must file amendments or notifications to a previously authorized CTA when manufacturing changes are proposed that may affect the quality or safety of the clinical trial drug or biologic supplies.

Import

Per the CanadaFDR and the G-FDR-0100, HC authorizes the sponsor to import an IP. A sponsor who is not based in Canada must have a Canadian representative who is responsible for the import of the IP and demonstrates compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements. This representative should be the sponsor’s senior medical or scientific officer residing in Canada and is responsible for providing an attestation with respect to the CTA at the time of filing. Per the G-CanadaCTApps, the G-DrugApp, and CAN-4, if clinical trial drugs are to be imported into Canada, the authorization template (Appendix 1) in CAN-4 should be completed and submitted for each importer in Canada. The G-DrugApp states that Canadian importer(s) must be located within Canada. As additional importers are identified, additional copies of the authorization template in CAN-4 should be provided to HC. The G-FDR-0100, provides additional guidance on requirements if a sponsor plans to send the clinical trial IP(s) directly to each trial site:

• Each party, including individual Canadian clinical trial sites, importing drugs directly (i.e., receiving drug shipment directly from outside of Canada) is identified on Appendix 1 of the Drug Submission Application Form (HC/SC 3011 form) (CAN-4) for Phase I-III trials (submitted with the application if known at the time or prior to importation at the site). Appendix 1 may be replicated as many times as necessary to capture all importing parties.
• Clinical Trial Site Information (CTSI) forms (CAN-6) for each Canadian site conducting the clinical trial are submitted to HC for Phase I-III trials, prior to the start of the study.
• Systems are in place, when appropriate, to monitor the transportation and storage conditions from the foreign source to the various clinical trial sites across Canada.
• There is documented accountability of the imported drugs used in clinical trials and distributed to various clinical trial sites located in Canada, including the disposition of drugs returned from the clinical trial sites.
• A written agreement is in place between the sponsor and the qualified investigator describing their specific responsibilities, and this agreement is available at the clinical trial site.
• There is evidence that the drugs used in clinical trials conducted in Canada meet Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements (e.g., certificates of manufacture, certificates of analysis, and/or evidence of approved lot release by a qualified individual).

The G-CanadaCTApps, the G-HlthProdImprtExptReqs, the G-FDR-0100, and CAN-32 state that if a sponsor wants to import a drug into Canada for a clinical trial, a copy of HC’s authorization (i.e., the No Objection Letter (NOL)) issued by either the Pharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (PDD) or the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD) must be included for the applicable trial with the shipment. A copy of this authorization must be provided at the port of entry. The G-HlthProdImprtExptReqs states that drugs without a Drug Identification Number may be imported where authorized for a Canadian clinical trial and a NOL was issued. The G-FDR-0100 further states that if 30 days have passed and the NOL was not issued, specific requests to import IPs should be directed to the Health Product Border Compliance Program at the following email account: hc.hpbcp-pcpsf.sc@canada.ca. Note that a sponsor does not have to submit a CTA for authorization to import an IP used in a Phase IV clinical trial.

Per CanadaFDR, the sponsor can make the following changes to the authorized use or importation of drugs if the sponsor 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
• A change to the protocol that does not alter the risk to the health of a clinical trial subject

Other changes must follow the amendment requirements delineated in the CanadaFDR. See the G-FDR-0100 for additional HC interpretations of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR.

Manufacturing

As set forth in the PharmLaw-VNM, Decree54, and the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) has overall responsibility for authorizing the manufacture of all drug products. According to VNM-4, once the ASTT reviews and the Minister of Health approves the study approval dossier, the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) coordinates with the ASTT to review and approve the investigational product (IP) for manufacture or import.

In addition, the ClinDrugTrialGCP states that IPs which are under review for phase IV clinical trials require a certified or notarized copy of the written request for phase IV clinical drug testing from the respective regulatory authorities.

Import

As delineated in the ExprtImprtMeds, the MOH’s DAV is responsible for authorizing the import and export of drugs in Vietnam. According to ExprtImprtMeds, IPs for use in clinical trials are categorized as finished drugs without registration numbers. Once the MOH approves the study approval dossier, an import permit application must be submitted to the MOH’s DAV for approval of the IP. The import permit is valid for one (1) year.

The PharmLaw-VNM further indicates that a drug/medicinal ingredient that does not have a certificate of free sale must be licensed for import with a quantity not exceeding that which is written on the import license when it is to be used in a clinical trial, a bioequivalence study, a bioavailability assessment, or as a sample for registration, testing, scientific research, or display at a fair or exhibition.

The ExprtImprtMeds and Decree54 require the following documents to be included in an import permit dossier (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Import order form (three (3) copies)
• Copy of study protocol approved by the MOH
• A Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product (CPP) (may be substituted with a Free Sale Certificate (FSC) or Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificate)
• The importer’s document bearing the importer’s seal, specifying the purposes and quantity of imported drugs and commitment to use the drugs for its intended purposes
• Quality standards and testing methods
• Drug label(s) and instruction manual(s) with importer seal (See the Labeling section for detailed labeling requirements)
• Preclinical and clinical records for drug(s) containing new pharmaceutical substances, or drug(s) with new combinations of circulating pharmaceutical substances, and an information sheet on placebo’s composition, if applicable

According to the ExprtImprtMeds, dossiers and documents attached to the order form must be prepared on size A4 paper and bound into a solid set. The records must be arranged in the order of the table of contents, with separation between the sections. The separators must be numbered for easy reference and must be affixed for certification by the importing enterprise on the first page of each section of the entire dossier and must have a cover page clearly stating: the name of the importer, order number, date of order, and type of order. The application for foreign drug import must be written in Vietnamese or English. If the application is written in English, the information in the package insert must be written in Vietnamese, except for the following information that may be written in other languages with Latin origin:

• Brand name, generic name, or international generic name of the drug
• International generic or scientific name of ingredient or ingredient quantity of the drug in case it cannot be translated into Vietnamese
• Name and address of the foreign enterprise that manufactures or franchises the drug

The MOH’s DAV will review and approve the import permit application within 15 working days from the date of receipt. According to VNM-12, however, the DAV review and approval process may take two (2) to eight (8) weeks if the DAV requires further clarification on the application. See the ExprtImprtMeds for applicable forms.

Please note: Vietnam is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (VNM-2), which may have implications for studies of IPs developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see VNM-6.

Investigator’s Brochure

In accordance 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, the sponsor is responsible for providing the investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB). The CanadaFDR and CAN-52 specify that the IB must contain all of the relevant information on the investigational product(s) (IPs), including significant physical, chemical, pharmaceutical, pharmacological, toxicological, pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and clinical information. The sponsor must ensure that an up-to-date IB is made available to the investigator(s), and the investigator(s) must provide an up-to-date IB to the ethics committee. Note that per CAN-50, Health Canada (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.

The CanadaFDR and CAN-52 require the IB to provide coverage of the following areas:

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

See Section 7.3 of CAN-52 for detailed content guidelines.

In accordance with the G-CanadaCTApps and CAN-22, the sponsor must submit annually to HC an updated IB, which serves as the annual report, including all safety information and global status. Revisions that are more frequent may be appropriate depending on the stage of development and the generation of relevant new information.

Quality Management

Pursuant to CAN-52, the sponsor must maintain a Certificate of Analysis to document the identity, purity, and strength of the IP(s) to be used in the clinical trial. As specified in CAN-52, G-GMP-CAN, and G-GMP-Annex13, the sponsor must ensure that the products are manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). The G-GMP-CAN requires a quality management system, incorporating GMP, to ensure that IPs are of the quality required for their intended use. Per the G-GMP-Annex13, the manufacturer’s quality system should be described in written procedures and available to the sponsor, taking into account GMP principles and guidelines.

Investigator's Brochure

According to the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) is considered an essential document to submit before a clinical trial may be conducted. Vietnam requires the sponsor to submit a summary of the IB to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) in the clinical trial registration dossier. Research institutions are required to submit the full IB to the ASTT in the study approval dossier. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial, the IB contains information and data about preclinical research and clinical trials on the investigational product(s) (IPs). The IB also demonstrates that clinical information related to the IP has been provided to the principal investigator (PI).

As specified in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the IB must provide coverage of the following areas:

• Information about the IP, including the ingredients, production processes, and quality standards
• For pharmaco-chemical drugs, pharmaceutical drugs, traditional medicines: proof of compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) for research institutions or proof of compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) (also referred to as good medicine production standards in Vietnam) for drug manufacturers
• For vaccines: proof of compliance with quality testing requirements from national inspection agencies or ex-warehousing certificates for vaccine or biological batches
• Preclinical research documents for the IP: research reports on pharmacological effects, toxicity, safety, recommendations on dosage, route of administration, and usage
• Clinical research papers from the previous phases (if clinical trials are recommended in the next phase and the IP is not subject to exemption from previous phases)

Quality Management

The ClinDrugTrialGCP specifies that the IPs must be manufactured in a GMP-certified facility. The research institutions must also include a copy of the GMP certificate in the study approval dossier that is submitted to the ASTT.

(See the Product Management section for additional information on IP supply, storage, and handling requirements).

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Canada must comply with the requirements set forth in the CanadaFDR, the G-CanadaCTApps, the G-GMP-Annex13, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CAN-52). The CanadaFDR and the G-CanadaCTApps state that for an IP to be used in a clinical trial, it must be properly labeled in both official languages: English and French. The CanadaFDR requires that IPs be packaged and labelled under the supervision of personnel who have had satisfactory technical, academic, and other training. The packager and/or labeler must have written procedures and ensure that the IP is packaged, labelled, and tested in compliance with those procedures. For Health Canada (HC)’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CanadaFDR, see the G-FDR-0100. Per CAN-50, Canada has CAN-52.

As delineated in the CanadaFDR and the G-GMP-Annex13, the following information must be included on the IP label:

• A statement indicating that the drug is an investigational drug to be used only by a qualified investigator
• Name, number, or identifying mark
• Expiration date
• Recommended storage conditions
• Lot number
• Sponsor’s name and address
• Protocol code or identification
• Radiopharmaceutical information, if applicable

With regard to the expiration date, the G-GMP-Annex13 further states that if it becomes necessary to change the expiration date, an additional label should be affixed to the IP. This additional label should state the new expiration date and repeat the batch number. It may be superimposed on the previous expiration date, but for quality control reasons, not on the original batch number. This operation should be performed at an appropriately authorized manufacturing site. However, when justified, it may be performed at the investigational site by or under the supervision of the clinical trial site pharmacist, or other health care professional in accordance with national regulations and with the sponsor’s requirements. Where this is not possible, it may be performed by the clinical trial monitor(s) who should be appropriately trained. The operation should be performed in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) principles, specific and standard operating procedures and under contract, if applicable, and should be checked by a second person. This additional labelling should be properly documented in both the trial documentation and in the packaging records.

In addition, CAN-52 state that the IP must be coded and labeled in a manner that protects the blinding, if applicable.

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Vietnam must comply with the requirements set forth in PharmLaw-VNM. Per VNM-12, the requirements in Articles 7 and 8 of the MedLabel should also be applied to IP labeling.

According to the MedLabel, the outer packaging label of the drug must show the following:

• Drug name
• Dosage form
• Ingredients, content, and volume or concentration of pharmaceutical ingredients and medicinal materials in the drug formula
• Packaging specifications
• Indications, usage, and contraindications of the drug
• Circulation registration number or import license number (if any)
• Production batch number, date of manufacture, expiry date of the drug, quality standards, and drug storage conditions
• Signs to note and recommendations when using the drug
• Name and address of the drug manufacturing facility
• Name and address of the import facility (for imported drugs)
• Origin of the drug

Additionally, as stated in the MedLabel, the intermediate packaging label of the drug must contain at least the following information:

• Drug name
• Production batch number
• Expiry date

As set forth in PharmLaw-VNM, the IP must also be clearly labeled with the wording: “Products used for clinical trials. Use for other purposes is prohibited.” While there is no specified language requirement for IP labeling in the regulatory resources, according to VNM-12, this wording should be in Vietnamese. A sample IP with the label in the smallest packed unit must also be included in the study approval dossier.

(See the Product Management section for additional information on IP supply, storage, and handling requirements).

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

Per CanadaFDR, drugs must be manufactured, handled, and stored in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP). As defined 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 must supply the investigator(s) with the investigational products (IP(s)), including the comparator and placebo, if applicable. The sponsor should not supply the IP(s) until approvals from Health Canada (HC) and the institutional ethics committee (EC) are obtained. CAN-52 specifies that the sponsor must ensure the following:

• Timely delivery of the IP(s)
• Records maintained for IP document shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction
• Written procedures including instructions for IP handling and storage, adequate and safe receipt of the IP(s), dispensing of the IP(s), retrieval of unused IP(s), return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor, and disposal of unused IP(s) by the sponsor
• IP product quality and stability over the period of use
• IP manufactured according to any application of GMP
• Proper coding, packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)
• Acceptable IP handling and storage conditions and shelf-life

For IP packaging, the G-GMP-Annex13 provides the following guidance:

• The risk of product mix up must be minimized by using appropriate procedures, specialized equipment, and relevant staff training.
• To prevent errors, particularly when IPs are blinded, use heightened precautions, such as label reconciliation, line clearance, and in-process control checks by appropriately trained staff.
• The packaging must ensure that the IP remains in good condition during transport and storage at intermediate destinations; any opening or tampering of the outer packaging during transport should be readily discernible.

The G-Storage provides principles and interpretations on the environmental control of clinical trial drugs during storage and transportation, including packaging. See G-Storage for information regarding compliance with the CanadaFDA and the CanadaFDR, as it relates to packaging clinical trial drugs for human use, such as the role of environmental controls, quality risk management, and special considerations for active pharmaceutical ingredients. In addition, CAN-52 state that the IP must be packaged in a manner that will prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage. Refer to CAN-52 for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements.

Record Requirements

As set forth in the CanadaFDR, the G-FDR-0100, and the CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must record, handle, and store all trial-related information to allow complete and accurate reporting, interpretation, and verification. The CanadaFDR states that the sponsor should maintain all trial-related records for a period of 15 years. Pursuant to CanadaFDR1024, the sponsor must submit requested records to HC within 48 hours if safety concerns arise. Additionally, to facilitate inspection of a site, the sponsor must submit information to HC within seven (7) days of a request.

The G-Storage provides that when contracted parties, such as warehouses or commercial carriers, store or transport drugs, there should be a written agreement that outlines all relevant conditions.

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

The BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) indicates that at the end of a clinical trial, the principal investigator (PI) must inventory the investigational product (IP). The sponsor is responsible for storing the IP and for working with the host institution to withdraw and destroy the unused or remaining products, in accordance with applicable regulations.

Record Requirements

As stated in the BioequivTrial, the sponsor and the PI are responsible for filing the following essential documents before the trial begins and during the conduct of the trial:

• Sample(s) labels attached to IP container(s) (only the sponsor is required to file this information)
• Instructions for handling IPs and trial-related materials (if not included in protocol or Investigator’s Brochure (IB))
• Shipping records for IP- and trial-related materials

In addition, the sponsor and the PI are responsible for maintaining records of handling instructions and shipping records for IPs and trial-related materials.

In Canada, a specimen is referred to as “human biological material” or “biological material.” According to the G-TCPS2, human biological materials include tissues, organs, blood, plasma, skin, serum, DNA, RNA, proteins, cells, hair, nail clippings, urine, saliva, and other body fluids. The term also comprises materials related to human reproduction, including embryos, fetuses, fetal tissues, and human reproductive materials. The G-TCPS2 breaks down human biological material further into the following categories: anonymized, anonymous, coded, and identified human biological materials. Refer to the G-TCPS2 for more detailed information on these categories.

In addition, CAN-2 defines biological material as pathogenic and non-pathogenic microorganisms, proteins, and nucleic acids, as well as any biological matter that may contain microorganisms, proteins, nucleic acids, or parts thereof. Examples include, but are not limited to, bacteria, viruses, fungi, prions, toxins, genetically modified organisms, nucleic acids, tissue samples, diagnostic specimens, live vaccines, and isolates of a pathogen (e.g., pure culture, suspension, purified spores).

Import/Export

According to the G-HlthProdImprtExptReqs, Health Canada (HC) does not have jurisdiction over human biological materials to be imported for testing or research purposes. The G-HlthProdImprtExptReqs further states that all blood samples as well as cultures, diagnostic specimens, or research tissue are considered to be potential carriers of human or animal pathogens, and are regulated by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Per CAN-24, CAN-2, and CAN-9, the PHAC’s Centre for Biosecurity oversees the licensing process under the authority of the HPTA and the HPTR. The HPTA states that a license must be issued by the Minister that authorizes the import or export of human pathogens or toxins.

As specified in the HPTA, the HPTR, and CAN-2, individuals planning to conduct controlled activities (including producing, possessing, handling, using, storing, providing access to, transferring, disposing of, releasing, abandoning, or importing/exporting) with a human pathogen or toxin, whether imported or domestically acquired, must obtain a license. Per CAN-2, because all human biological materials are potential carriers of human pathogens, the PHAC has categorized these materials by risk group based on risk to the individual/animal and risk to the community. Risk Group 1 consists of microorganisms, nucleic acids, or proteins that are unable or unlikely to cause human or animal disease so they are generally not considered to be pathogens, and are therefore exempt from the HPTA and the HPTR licensing requirements. Risk groups 2 through 4 are considered to be pathogens or toxins with moderate to high individual risk and low to high community risk, and are subject to the HPTA and the HPTR licensing requirements. See CAN-2 and CAN-9 for detailed information and instructions on how to obtain a license for activities associated with Risk Groups 2 through 4.

In accordance with the G-TCPS2, prior to collecting, storing, or using a research participant’s biological specimen(s), consent from the participant and/or the legal representative(s) and review/approval from the institutional ethics committee (EC) (known as Research Ethics Board (REB) in Canada) must be obtained. Specifically, consent is required from the following:

• The participant who will be donating biological materials, or an authorized third party on behalf of a participant who lacks capacity, taking into account any research directive that applies to the participant, or
• A deceased participant through a donation decision made prior to death, or by an authorized third party

In addition, the G-TCPS2 states that in order to seek participant consent to use the participant’s biological materials in research, the investigator(s) must provide the prospective participant or authorized third party with the following information:

• The type and amount of biological materials to be taken
• The manner in which biological materials will be taken, and the safety and invasiveness of the procedures
• The intended uses of the biological materials, including any commercial use
• The measures employed to protect the privacy of and minimize risks to participants
• The length of time the biological materials will be kept, how they will be preserved, location of storage (e.g., in Canada or outside Canada), and process for disposal, if applicable
• Any anticipated linkage of biological materials with information about the participant
• The plan for handling results and findings, including clinically relevant information and incidental findings
• The participant’s right to request the withdrawal of data or human biological materials, including any limitations on the feasibility of that withdrawal

Per CAN-35, if there is a possibility of secondary future use of biological materials, researchers should consider describing this possibility in the consent form and obtaining permission from participants to retain their data or biological materials for future use. If consent for future use is not obtained initially then researchers may be required to obtain re-consent from individuals in the future. Researchers should be as specific as possible when describing the potential future uses. For example, if future uses include possible genetic or genomic studies, this must be stated. The EC may not approve future uses that are too open-ended or too dissimilar from the initial use. It is generally preferable to give participants the opportunity to opt out of future use. If this option is not provided, researchers should be prepared to explain their decision to the EC. When seeking consent, researchers may wish to give participants different options for how their samples or data can be used, to accommodate differences in comfort levels among participants. In rare cases, it may be possible to use identifiable information for secondary use without the consent of the participants who provided that information. While the possibility of an exception may exist, the EC generally expects that researchers will make every reasonable effort to seek the consent of participants. Thus, the best practice is for researchers to always obtain consent for future use at the time of initial recruitment if there is any possibility of secondary use of data or biological materials. Also see the G-TCPS2 and the TCPS2-InterpCnsnt for additional details on confidentiality, future use of information, broad consent for the storage of data and human biological materials for future unspecified research, biobanks, and stem cell consent.

No information is currently available.