Clinical research in China is regulated and overseen by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) (the Chinese name translates as “State Drug Administration”) and the National Health Commission (NHC).

National Medical Products Administration

As per the DRR, the NMPA-Org, the DAL, the RegImplemDAL, the RegImplemDAL-Amndt, the SC-Opinions-No44, the NMPA-No50-2018, and the NMPA-No230-2015, the NMPA is the regulatory authority responsible for national drug registration management, which includes regulation of clinical trials. Per the DRR, NMPA’s Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) is responsible for the evaluation of drug clinical trial applications, drug marketing authorization applications, supplementary applications, and overseas drug production registration applications. The NMPA grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in China in accordance with the provisions of the DAL, the VaccineLaw, the DRR, the SC-Opinions-No44, the NMPA-No50-2018, and the NMPA-No230-2015. The drug category in which an applicant chooses to register determines the clinical trial application review and approval or filing process.

Per the SC-IRP and the SAMR-Org, China established the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR). The SAMR is a full ministry agency reporting directly to the State Council of the People's Republic of China. Under the SAMR is the NMPA, which regulates clinical trials.

As delineated in the NMPA-Org and CHN-78, the NMPA implements China’s guidelines, policies, and decision-making for the supervision and administration of drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics. It is responsible for safety supervision; standards management; drug registration; quality management; risk management; pharmacist licensing; inspection systems; international cooperation; guiding provincial and municipal drug administration; and other tasks assigned by the State Council and Party Central Committee. The NMPA is charged with accelerating the examination and approval of innovative drugs, establishing a system of listing license holders, promoting electronic review and approval, and improving efficiencies.

Per CHN-77, the following NMPA departments are involved with clinical trial application and drug registration:

• Drug Registration Management Department – formulates, supervises, and implements drug standards (including clinical trial quality management), technical guidelines, and registration
• Drug Administration Department – formulates and supervises the implementation of pharmaceutical production quality management standards for drugs, Chinese medicines, biological products, and special drugs (e.g., radioactive and toxic), and formulates and implements a drug adverse reaction monitoring and alert system

Per the DRR, the NMPA-No50-2018, and CHN-81, the NMPA includes the National Institutes for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC) and the CDE, which are directly involved in the clinical trial application and drug registration approval process. Other relevant institutes and organizations include the National Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Food and Drug Inspection Center, the Medical Device Technology Evaluation Center, the Administration Service Center, the Information Center, the Licensed Pharmacist Certification Center, the News and Publicity Center, and the International Exchange Center.

Further, the DRR delineates the responsibilities of the drug regulatory departments of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government. With respect to clinical trials, they are responsible for organizing the daily supervision and investigation of institutions conducting drug clinical trials; participating in drug registration verification and inspection organized by the NMPA; and other matters entrusted by the NMPA.

The roles of the CDE and the NIFDC in the clinical trial application review and approval process are discussed further in the Scope of Assessment section.

National Health Commission

Per the NHC-HGRmgt, the State Council’s NHC is responsible for China’s management of human genetic resources (HGR). (Note that per SC-Order777 and NHC-HGRmgt, management of HGR was transferred from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to NHC, effective May 1, 2024). The NHC-HGRmgt states that the original application process and online platform (CHN-6) remain unchanged. As indicated in CHN-24, the NHC is responsible for formulating health policies and systems in China, including health services, hospitals, special populations, drugs, traditional Chinese medicines, and disease control and prevention. See CHN-24 for a comprehensive list of NHC responsibilities and functions. (Please note that the MgmtHumanGen was amended by SC-Order777 to reflect the transfer of HGR management from MOST to the NHC, but the Rules-MgmtHGR has not been amended yet to show the transfer.)

The MgmtHumanGen and the Rules-MgmtHGR stipulate that MOST’s (now the NHC’s) HGR responsibilities include employing experts in the fields of biotechnology, medicine, health, ethics, law, etc. to form an expert review committee to review and approve international cooperative research. The Rules-MgmtHGR indicates that MOST (now the NHC) should support the rational use of HGR to carry out scientific research, develop the biomedical industry, improve diagnosis and treatment techniques, strengthen management and oversight of HGR, improve approval services and efficiency, and advance the standardization of approvals and information disclosure. MOST (now the NHC) is responsible for national efforts such as the investigation, administrative licensing, supervision and inspection, and administrative punishments of HGR. Regarding administrative licensing, licenses must be obtained for the collection and preservation of Chinese HGR and for international collaborations in certain situations. As needed, MOST (now the NHC) entrusts relevant organizations to carry out formal reviews and technical reviews of application materials for administrative licensing of HGR, as well as efforts such as filing, prior reporting, supervision and inspection, and administrative punishments. The science and technology departments (committees and bureaus) of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the Science and Technology Bureau of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, are responsible for the management of the following HGR in their regions:

• Oversight and inspection and routine management of HGR
• Investigation and handling of illegal cases of HGR within the scope of their authority
• As entrusted by MOST (now the NHC), carry out other efforts such as administrative licensing of HGR in their region

See Rules-MgmtHGR-Interp for a policy interpretation of the Rules-MgmtHGR.

Per HGR-WorkUpdt, the NHC’s China Biotechnology Development Center was entrusted to implement technical work related to the management of HGR. As described in CHN-4, the functions of the Center are:

• Coordinate and supervise the implementation of the management of HGR
• Examine and approve international cooperation projects involving HGR
• Accept applications for the export of HGR, and handle exports and export certificates
• Register and manage important genetic lineages and genetic resources in specific regions
• Manage other work related to HGR

The Rules-MgmtHGR also state that applications must pass a security review organized by MOST (now the NHC) if the study’s provision or opening of HGR information to foreign entities may impact China’s public health, national security, or the social public interest. In addition, per the Bioscrty-Law, MOST (now the NHC) regulates biotechnology safety under the National Security Commission pursuant to a Coordination Mechanism for National Biosecurity (CMNB). The CMNB consists of the competent State Council departments for health, agriculture and rural affairs, science and technology, and foreign affairs, as well as relevant military agencies, to analyze national biosecurity issues, and organize, coordinate, and drive national biosecurity work. MOST (now the NHC) and the other agencies under CMNB establish safety monitoring/reporting requirements, an early warning system, and implementing regulations.

Regarding monitoring and protecting HGR, as delineated in MgmtHumanGen, NHC (formerly the MOST) is also authorized to strengthen the protection of HGR in China, which involves conducting surveys and implementing a declaration and registration system for important genetic families and human genetic resources in specific regions. MOST (now the NHC) will enforce the regulations and levy fines for illegal HGR activities which include:

• Collecting HGR from important genetic families and specific regions in China without approval, or collecting HGR of the types and quantities specified by MOST (now the NHC) through special regulation
• Preserving Chinese HGR without approval
• Conducting international cooperative scientific research using Chinese HGR without approval
• Failing to pass the security review that may affect China's public health, national security, and social public interest to foreign organizations, individuals, and institutions that they establish or actually control, and
• Failing to file with MOST (now the NHC) the type, quantity, and use of the HGR in China before an international cooperative clinical trial begins

Other Considerations

Per CHN-59, China is a regulatory member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). CHN-49 summarizes the ICH guiding principles and provides Chinese translations, when available.

Please note: China is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (CHN-30), 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 CHN-55.

Contact Information

National Medical Products Administration (NMPA)

Per CHN-31, the following is the NMPA’s contact information:

National Medical Products Administration
No. 1 Beiluyuan Zhanlan Road
Xicheng District
Beijing 100037
P.R. China

Per CDE-Reloctn, the following is CDE’s contact information:

National Medical Products Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation
Building 1-5
District 2, No. 22 Guangde Street
Beijing Economic and Technological Development Zone
Beijing, 100076
P.R. China

Phone number: 010-68585566

National Health Commission

Per HGR-WorkUpdt, HGR-AppGuide, and CHN-4, following is the contact information for NHC’s HGR consultation:

National Health Commission
China Biotechnology Development Center
Rooms 1022 and 1001, Building 4
No. 16 West Fourth Ring Middle Road
Haidian District
Beijing, 100036
P.R. China

Contact: Zhu Min
Phone number: 010-88225151 or 010-88225168
Information system support: 17610386080
Email: ycb@cncbd.org.cn

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority

As stated in the MRSA and ZAF-9, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) is the regulatory authority overseeing medicines and clinical research, as well as medical devices and radiation safety. As stated in the MRSA and GRMRSA, SAHPRA is responsible for clinical trial oversight, approval, and inspections in South Africa. The agency grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in South Africa in accordance with the provisions of the GRMRSA.

Per the MRSA and ZAF-39, the SAHPRA is an independent, state-owned entity established to oversee the regulation of medicines in South Africa. According to ZAF-39, this agency is responsible for:

• The regulation of health products intended for human and animal use
• The licensing of manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors of medicines and medical devices; radiation emitting devices; and radioactive nuclides
• The conduct of clinical trials in a manner that is compatible with national medicines policy

Per the MRSA, SAHPRA is a state-owned entity within the public administration but outside the public service. It acts through a Board appointed by South Africa’s Minister of the National Department of Health (NDOH). For details on the Board appointments, see ZAF-39 and ZAF-38.

As described in ZAF-39 and the SA-GCPs, SAHPRA is tasked with regulating (monitoring, evaluating, investigating, inspecting, and registering) all health products. This includes clinical trials, complementary medicines, medical devices, and in vitro diagnostics (IVDs). Its mission is to promote access to health products and protect human and animal health in South Africa through science-based regulatory decisions. Per ZAF-36, SAHPRA’s Clinical Trial Committee (CTC), within the Clinical Trial Unit, reviews clinical trial applications and bioequivalence studies for human participants and recommends approval of the conduct of clinical trials. SAHPRA also authorizes the importation of unregistered medicine for the purpose of conducting clinical trials. The SA-GCPs also states that SAHPRA is responsible for the following: ensuring efficient, effective, and ethical evaluation or assessment of health products that meet defined standards of quality, safety, efficacy, and performance; ensuring that the process of evaluating or assessing and registering health products is transparent, fair, objective, and concluded in a timely fashion; ensuring periodic re-evaluation and monitoring of health products; and conducting announced and unannounced inspections.

Other Considerations

Please note: South Africa is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (ZAF-8), 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 ZAF-34.

Contact Information

Per ZAF-35, SAHPRA’s postal address is:

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority
Private Bag X828
Pretoria
0001
South Africa

SAHPRA’s physical address is:

Building A
Loftus Park
402 Kirkness Street
Arcadia, Pretoria
South Africa

As provided in the G-CTA-Electronic and ZAF-36, the following are the SAHPRA Clinical Trial Unit emails:

New clinical trials application alert, responses to new clinical trial applications and related queries: ctcresponses@sahpra.org.za
Protocol amendments, responses to amendments and related queries: ctcamendments@sahpra.org.za
Additional investigators and sites, responses to additional and related queries: ctcinvestigators@sahpra.org.za
Bioequivalence (BE) studies, BE amendments, responses to BE studies and related queries: ctcbeprotocols@sahpra.org.za
Notifications and related queries: ctcnotifications@sahpra.org.za
Individual patient serious adverse events and related queries: ctcsaes@sahpra.org.za
Guidelines, forms, and related queries: ctcguidelines@sahpra.org.za

See ZAF-47 for clinical evaluation and management contacts.

Overview

National Medical Products Administration

In accordance with the DRR, the DAL, the NMPA-No50-2018, the SC-Opinions-No44, and the NMPA-No230-2015, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) is responsible for reviewing and approving clinical trial applications for drugs to be registered in China, as required. The DRR clarifies that the NMPA regulates clinical trials for drugs in development that are ultimately seeking market approvals in China. Per the DAL and the DRR, and as explained in CHN-7, CHN-18, and CHN-1, China adopted a drug marketing authorization holders (MAHs) system across China. All entities or drug research institutions holding drug marketing authorizations must take responsibility for drug safety, effectiveness, and quality controllability in the whole process of drug research and development, production, distribution, and use. Based on this system, the MAHs are also named as applicants or sponsors during clinical trials. The scope of the NMPA’s assessment includes Phase I through Phase IV clinical trials and bioequivalence studies. As stated in the DRR, clinical trials of drugs must be reviewed and approved by an ethics committee (EC). The DRR indicates that EC review may be submitted in parallel to NMPA’s review, but the study cannot be initiated until after review and approval by the EC. The DRR emphasizes a risk-based approach to drug registration and clinical trial approvals, following the principles of openness, fairness, and justice. This is guided by demonstrating clinical value, encouraging research and creation of new drugs, and promoting the development of generic drugs.

As delineated in the DRR, the SC-Opinions-No44, and the NMPA-No51-2016, the drug classification in which an applicant chooses to register determines the clinical trial application review and approval process. Per the DRR, the registration of drugs must be classified and managed in accordance with three (3) broad categories of Chinese medicines, chemical medicines, and biological products. The NMPA-No44-2020 and CHN-1 delineate the classifications within the chemical medicine category as follows:

• Class 1: Innovative drugs that have not been marketed in China or overseas (i.e., drugs that contain new compounds with clear structures and pharmacological effects, and have clinical values)
• Class 2: Modified new drugs that have not been marketed in China or overseas (i.e., drugs that have their structure, dosage form, formulation, process, route of administration, and indications optimized on the basis of known active ingredients and have significant clinical advantages)
• Class 3: Drugs manufactured by domestic applicants by imitating the original drugs that have been marketed overseas but not yet in China; such drugs must have the quality and efficacy consistent with the reference listed drug
• Class 4: Drugs manufactured by domestic applicants by imitating the original drugs that have been marketed in China; such drugs must have the quality and efficacy consistent with the reference formulations
• Class 5: Drugs that have been marketed overseas and are under application for being marketed in China

As per NMPA-No21-2021, the NMPA provides additional technical support to expedite the review and approval process of domestically unlisted drugs that have been listed overseas in the above Classes 3 and 5.

Per the DRR, the registration of biological products is classified according to innovative biological products, new medicines of improved biological products, and already listed biological products (including biological similar drugs). As delineated in the NMPA-No43-2020, biological products refer to preparations that use microorganisms, cells, animal or human-derived tissues, and bodily fluids as starting materials, and are made with biological technology for the prevention, treatment, and diagnosis of human diseases. In order to standardize the registration and management of biological products, biological products are divided into preventive biological products, therapeutic biological products, and in vitro diagnostic reagents managed by biological products. Preventive biological products refer to vaccine-like biological products used for human immunization to prevent and control the occurrence and prevalence of diseases, including immunization program vaccines and non-immunization program vaccines. Therapeutic biological products refer to biological products used in the treatment of human diseases, such as proteins, polypeptides and their derivatives prepared from engineered cells (such as bacteria, yeast, insect, plant, and mammalian cells) with different expression systems; cell therapy and gene therapy products; allergen products; microecological products; biologically active products extracted from human or animal tissues or bodily fluids or prepared by fermentation, etc. The following are descriptions of biological product classifications for both preventive and therapeutic uses:

• Class 1: Innovative vaccines that have not been marketed at home or abroad
• Class 2: Improved vaccines that improve the safety, effectiveness, and quality controllability of new products by improving the domestic or overseas marketed vaccine products, and have obvious advantages
• Class 3: Vaccines that have been marketed at home or abroad

Per the VaccineLaw, the NMPA must approve vaccine clinical trials. The NMPA-No32-2019 explains that the VaccineLaw strengthens the supervision and enforcement of vaccines and deepens the reform of the drug review and approval system. This includes strengthening the management of vaccine clinical trial institutions and investigating and punishing illegal activities related to applying for vaccine clinical trials (e.g., false data).

National Health Commission

Per the NHC-HGRmgt, the National Health Commission (NHC) is responsible for China’s management of human genetic resources (HGR). (Note that per SC-Order777 and NHC-HGRmgt, management of HGR was transferred from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to NHC, effective May 1, 2024. SC-Order777 amends the MgmtHumanGen to reflect the transfer of HGR management from MOST to NHC, but the Bioscrty-Law and the Rules-MgmtHGR have not been amended yet to show the transfer). Per the Bioscrty-Law and the MgmtHumanGen, MOST’s (now the NHC’s) scope of assessment is the collection, preservation, utilization, and external provision of HGR to ensure these activities:

• Do not endanger the public health, national security, and social public interests of China
• Are in accordance with ethics principles and reviews per relevant regulations
• Respect the privacy rights of HGR donors, obtain their prior informed consent, and protect their legitimate rights and interests, and
• Comply with the technical norms formulated by MOST (now the NHC)

See the Rules-MgmtHGR for the prescribed conditions when MOST (now the NHC) licenses must be obtained for the collection of Chinese HGR.

As delineated in the Rules-MgmtHGR, MOST (NHC) licenses must be obtained for the preservation of HGR, which involves storing HGR with legal sources under appropriate environmental conditions, ensuring their quality and safety, and using them for future scientific research, excluding temporary storage for teaching purposes. If the preservation also involves the collection of HGR, applicants only need to apply for an administrative license for the preservation of HGR, and do not need to separately apply for a collection license. Next, the Rules-MgmtHGR require administrative licenses for international scientific research cooperation that use and export HGR. If there is no export, only prior filing/notification with MOST (now the NHC) is required before initiating the international research cooperation.

Per the Rules-MgmtHGR, where multicenter clinical research is carried out, the sponsor or the primary site/unit (either the Chinese unit or a foreign party unit) may apply for administrative licensing or filing after the primary site/unit passes the ethics review. After the sponsor or primary site/unit obtains the administrative license or completes the filing, the medical and health institution(s) participating in the clinical research must submit the ethics review approval document of their site/unit, or the certification materials for the ethics review approval provided by the primary site/unit, along with the letter of commitment issued by the site/unit, to MOST (now the NHC). Following those submissions, the international cooperative clinical research can be carried out.

As delineated in the HGR-AppGuide, the scope of the administrative license for the collection of HGR applies to the following activities to be carried out within the territory of China:

• HGR collection activities for important genetic pedigrees – applies to blood-related groups with genetic diseases and/or with special hereditary physical or physiological characteristics, as well as the members of the group with genetic diseases and/or special hereditary physical or physiological characteristics involving three (3) generations or more.
• HGR collection activities in specific areas – applies to HGR from populations who have lived in isolation or special environments for a long time and have special physical characteristics or adaptive traits in physiological characteristics. Specific areas are not divided based on whether they are ethnic minority concentrated areas.
• HGR collection activities for large-scale population research with a population of more than 3,000 – includes but is not limited to cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, clinical studies, and constitutional studies.

Clinical Trial Review Process

National Medical Products Administration

As delineated in the DRR, the NMPA is the regulatory authority responsible for national drug registration management, which includes management of clinical trial applications. The NMPA’s Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) is responsible for evaluating drug clinical trial applications, drug marketing authorization applications, supplementary applications, and re-registration applications for drugs produced overseas. The DRR states that applicants may communicate with major technical institutions including the CDE at key stages, such as before submitting a drug clinical trial application.

Communications and Pre-Application Protocol Review

Per the NMPA-No50-2018, the NMPA-No48-2020, and the NMPA-No51-2023, with regard to chemical drugs and biological products, the applicant must first request a communication meeting with the CDE to determine the integrity of the clinical trial application data and the feasibility of conducting the clinical trial. The NMPA-No51-2023 reaffirms the required communications between the applicant and the CDE and review of the clinical trial protocol before submitting the clinical trial application. The CDE conducts a preliminary review of the information provided by the applicant according to relevant requirements. The review team reviews the science, completeness, operability, and risk controllability of the clinical trial protocol, focusing on the basis for the research, safety, and whether the risk management measures of the drug support the conduct of clinical trials. In addition to clearly responding to the specific questions raised by the applicant, the submitted clinical trial protocol is reviewed to ensure participant protection. For confirmatory, or critical clinical trials, CDE must also evaluate the suitability of the target population, the science of the dosage and cycle and the primary endpoint indicators, the acceptability of statistical assumptions, the rationality of sample size estimation, the operability of the risk management plan, and the benefit/risk assessment elements. CDE’s review team communicates its findings by holding a meeting (face-to-face or online) or by giving a written reply and must provide the applicant with the minutes of the communication meeting or the written reply. See NMPA-No51-2023 for additional details on the pre-application communications and protocol review.

Clinical Trial Application Review

Per the NMPA-No50-2018, the NMPA’s Drug Registration Management Department is responsible for conducting administrative reviews of clinical trial applications, and then forwarding the submissions to the CDE for technical review. (Deviations from this general process are described further below in this section.) The DRR states that after completing the pharmacology, toxicology, and other studies supporting the clinical trials of the drug, the applicant must submit relevant research materials in accordance with the application requirements (See Submission Process and Submission Content sections for details). If the application materials meet the screening requirements, NMPA’s pharmaceutical, medical, and other technical personnel review the clinical trial applications for drugs.

Per the DRR, when reviewing the application, the CDE will conduct an associated review of the chemical raw materials, auxiliary materials, and packaging materials and containers used in direct contact with the pharmaceutical preparations. The CDE makes a risk-based decision on whether to initiate an on-site inspection based on the registered varieties, processes, facilities, and previous acceptance verification. For innovative drugs, improved new drugs, and biological products, on-site verification of drug registration manufacturing and inspection of pre-market drug manufacturing quality management must be conducted. If manufacturing verification is required, the applicant and the drug regulatory department of the province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government where the applicant or manufacturer is located will be informed. The National Institutes for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC) (also referred to as the Procuratorate), or the drug inspection agency designated by the NMPA, will conduct the inspections and testing, as needed. The drug registration inspection of overseas-produced drugs must be implemented by the port drug inspection agency.

The NMPA-No51-2023 specifies that the CDE review team must evaluate the science, completeness, operability, and risk controllability of the clinical trial protocol in the application. If necessary, an expert consultation meeting may be held. For clinical trials that are approved after review, the technical review team’s conclusion and associated "Clinical Trial Approval Notice" must clearly state the indications, clinical trial protocol title, number, version number, version date, etc. The review team’s conclusion and notice may propose revisions or suggestions to the clinical trial protocol if necessary. For clinical trial protocols that require revisions, CDE will notify the applicant through a professional inquiry letter, clearly informing the applicant of the problems and revision opinions in the current protocol. The applicant must submit a revised clinical trial protocol within five (5) days, following the guidance in the Prcdrs-Changes. For clinical trial protocols that are deemed unfeasible, have participant safety risks, or other serious defects, and the applicant cannot revise and improve them within the time limit specified in the inquiry letter, the clinical trial application will not be approved. In the review team’s conclusion and the "Notice of Disapproval of Drug Clinical Trials", the applicant should be clearly informed of the reasons for the disapproval.

The NMPA-No51-2023 also states that before conducting subsequent phased drug exploratory clinical trials, a corresponding drug clinical trial protocol must be reviewed and approved by the EC. After completing exploratory clinical trials and before conducting confirmatory (or critical) clinical trials, an application for a communication meeting must be submitted to the CDE to evaluate the subsequent clinical trial protocol (if applicable).

With regard to vaccine clinical trials, the VaccineLaw indicates that the NMPA will review the clinical trial plan, the safety monitoring and evaluation system, the selection of participants, and whether there are effective measures according to the degree of risk to protect the legal rights of the participants. Vaccine clinical trials can only be carried out or organized by a tertiary medical institution that meets the conditions prescribed by the NMPA and the health and safety department of the State Council, or a disease prevention and control institution at or above the provincial level.

Per the DRR, the DAL, the NMPA-No50-2018, and CHN-14, a clinical trial application will be considered approved after 60 working days if the applicant does not receive a rejection or an inquiry for clarification from the NMPA. As specified in the DRR, drug clinical trials must be carried out within three (3) years after approval. If the drug clinical trial application is approved and no participant signs an informed consent form within three (3) years from the date of approval, the approval lapses. If it is still necessary to carry out the drug clinical trial, the applicant must re-apply. Upon approval/registration of the drug, the applicant receives a drug registration certificate, which is valid for five (5) years. An application for drug re-registration must be submitted six (6) months before the validity period expires.

The DRR states that to amend content in the original drug registration approval, the applicant must conduct sufficient research and verification on the change of the drug and fully evaluate the possible impact of the change on the drug. Data on the impact of safety, efficacy, and quality control must be submitted with the application for amendment. The NMPA-No51-2023 indicates that when changes to a clinical trial protocol are needed, the sponsor may first conduct a self-assessment of the changes in accordance with the relevant requirements of the DRR and the NMPA-No34-2022, and implement further work based on the results of the self-assessment. For substantial changes, the sponsor must submit materials in accordance with the relevant requirements of the NMPA-No34-2022. The CDE review team must review the supplementary application and notify the applicant of whether any/all of the proposed changes are approved. For changes that are not approved, CDE must clearly state the reasons. See NMPA-No51-2023 for definitions of substantial and non-substantial changes to a protocol. Also see Prcdrs-Changes for working procedures for other changes during the review of the clinical trial application.

Expedited Clinical Trial Review

The DRR authorizes regulatory pathways for priority review and approval (including for breakthrough therapeutic drugs), conditional approval, and special approval procedures. As per the SC-Opinions-No44, the NMPA-No230-2015, and the NMPA-No51-2016, a new drug classification system, priority review for innovative drugs and those deemed to have an urgent clinical need, and other changes help China to be more innovative and expedite reviews. With regard to priority review, per the NMPA-No230-2015 and the DRR, the NMPA may apply expedited review and approval procedures to applications for urgently needed drugs and vaccines that are intended to treat certain illnesses or patient populations (e.g., children or elderly people) that the State Council or the NMPA consider to be clinically in demand. The DRR expanded priority review to breakthrough therapeutic drugs, which are used to prevent and treat diseases with the following conditions: are seriously life threatening or seriously affect the quality of life, there are no effective prevention or treatment methods, and there is sufficient evidence to show that they have obvious clinical advantages. Applicants must apply to the CDE at the critical stage of the drug clinical trial. See CHN-69 for handling guidelines on priority review and approval.

The NMPA-No21-2024 describes NMPA’s pilot work plan for optimizing the review and approval of clinical trials for innovative drugs. This initiative aims to review and approve innovative drug clinical trial applications within 30 business days (a reduction from the 60 days as described above in the normal procedures). Pilot projects will be carried out in provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) that meet the conditions laid out in NMPA-No21-2024. The scope of the pilot project is clinical trial applications for Class 1 innovative drugs (excluding cell and gene therapy products, vaccine products, etc.). Applicants are not subject to regional restrictions and must have at least three (3) innovative drug clinical trial applications approved at home and abroad, have extensive experience in clinical trial implementation and pharmacovigilance management, and be able to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of clinical trial projects and develop an effective risk management plan before submitting a clinical trial application. In principle, the pilot institution must be a national medical center or national clinical medical research center in the pilot area and must have established a work system to provide clinical trial project establishment, ethics review, and contract review services before the applicant submits a new drug clinical trial application. See NMPA-No21-2024 for additional requirements on application submission and applicant and institutional eligibility. The applicant must initiate the clinical trial within 12 weeks after the approval of the clinical trial application. The pilot work will last for one (1) year and the experience of the pilot work will be summarized in July 2025. One (1) pilot project has been approved in Beijing and Shanghai as indicated in NMPA-No55-2024.

According to the NMPA-No82-2020, the NMPA establishes working procedures for the review of breakthrough therapy drugs, conditional approval of drug marketing priority review, and approval of drug marketing authorization. Sponsors can apply for expedited status for breakthrough therapeutic drugs in Phase I and II clinical trials—usually no later than before the commencement of Phase III clinical trials. Breakthrough drug procedures are designed to be used during clinical trials of drugs to prevent and treat patients with conditions that may be severely life-threatening or that may severely affect their quality of life. There are also no existing effective prevention and treatment methods nor is there sufficient evidence to show that the investigational drugs being tested have obvious clinical advantages compared with existing treatment methods. Also see CondtlAppl-Drugs for technical guidelines on the conditional approval of drugs for marketing.

Per the NMPA-No79-2018, the NMPA established a special review channel for urgently needed drugs that were already on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan since 2008. Applicants may apply for a drug listing and proceed to conduct the clinical trials while the CDE conducts a technical review of the application materials.

The DRR also authorizes the CDE to conditionally approve breakthrough therapeutic drugs for marketing during clinical trials and vaccines that are urgently needed for major public health emergencies and the benefits outweigh the risks. The applicant must communicate to the CDE on the conditions for marketing with conditional approval and the research work to be completed after marketing, and submit an application for drug marketing approval after communication and confirmation. For the conditionally approved drugs and vaccines, risk management measures must be implemented after the drug is marketed, and the drug clinical trial must be completed within the prescribed time limit. Finally, the DRR authorizes the NMPA to implement special approval procedures for drugs required for public health emergencies. The circumstances, procedures, time limits, and requirements for special approval, will be subject to the NMPA’s procedures for specific approval of drugs.

For background on China’s reformation of the review and approval system to encourage innovation of drugs, see the SC-Opinions-No42. China’s regulatory pathways for expedited approvals and other reforms to the clinical trial submission and review process are described in the Submission Process and Submission Content sections. NMPA-No52-2018-Interp describes the requirements for clinical trial and drug registration applications using trial data generated entirely overseas, as well as data generated from simultaneous research occurring in China and abroad. CHN-11 also provides useful information on the NMPA’s overall clinical trial application review and approval process.

Overseas Data and Waiving Local Clinical Trials

The NMPA-No35-2017 and interpretations in NMPA-No52-2018-Interp describe requirements for clinical trial and drug registration applications to the NMPA using trial data generated entirely overseas, as well as data generated from simultaneous research occurring in China and abroad. With regard to the latter, researchers can conduct Phase I of multi-regional clinical trials (MRCT) of imported investigational new drugs and therapeutic biological products (excluding vaccines) simultaneously in China.

As per NMPA-No52-2018, clinical trial and drug registration applications for imported new drugs or therapeutic biological products using trial data generated entirely overseas do not need to be registered first in their own country in order to enter China. Overseas clinical trial data is acceptable for direct China registration provided that:

• The data is reliable, authenticated, and complies with the requirements of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37)
• The data can assess the efficacy and safety for the target indication
• There are no ethnic sensitivities to Chinese local populations influencing efficacy and safety
• The data meets China’s drug registration requirements

See the NMPA-No52-2018 for additional details on the review and approval of overseas clinical trial data. For overseas clinical trial data completed before the enactment of NMPA-No35-2017, the NMPA will consider exemption from conducting local clinical trials, with the condition that the applications meet all other Chinese drug regulatory requirements.

For a running list (in reverse chronological order) of NMPA guidance on drug regulatory requirements, please refer to CHN-60.

National Health Commission

The MgmtHumanGen and the Bioscrty-Law prohibit foreign entities or individuals from collecting or preserving Chinese HGR in China, or providing Chinese HGR for use abroad, except under prescribed conditions to carry out scientific research activities, which must be conducted through collaboration with Chinese scientific research institutions, higher education institutions, medical institutions, or enterprises. Per the MgmtHumanGen and the Rules-MgmtHGR, the foreign entity and the Chinese entity must jointly file an application for approval to MOST (now the NHC), and the research must pass an ethics review in the countries (regions) where the partners are located. The only exception to the approval requirement is international collaborations in clinical trials that do not involve the export of Chinese HGR materials such as organs, tissues, or cells comprising the human genome, genes, or other genetic substances. Such clinical trial collaborations, however, must be filed with MOST (now the NHC) on its online platform (CHN-6), which will generate a record number. See HGR-InfoSys for background on CHN-6. Per HGR-InfoSys, for help with the online platform, contact Zhu Min with the NHC’s China Biotechnology Development Center at 010-88225151 or 010-88225168; or the information system support at 17610386080.

Per the HGR-AppGuide, following administrative screening, the NHC will confirm receipt through CHN-6 and organize a technical review. NHC must conduct its review and issue a decision within 20 working days. If the application is approved, NHC notifies the applicant of the approval through CHN-6 and a letter. If there are missing materials, NHC gives the applicant a one-time opportunity to correct the application and resubmit. If the application exceeds the scope of the license, NHC informs the applicant that the application is not approved.

The Bioscrty-Law prohibits engaging in biotechnology research, development, and application activities that endanger public health, damage biological resources, or destroy ecosystems and biodiversity. Units engaged in biotechnology clinical trials must be responsible for the safety of their biotechnology research, development, and application; adopt biosafety risk prevention and control measures; and formulate biosafety training, follow-up inspections, regular reports, etc. China is implementing a classified management system for biotechnology research and development activities into three (3) categories: high-risk, medium-risk, and low-risk. The risk classification standards are to be formulated, adjusted, and announced by the competent State Council departments for science and technology (now the NHC), health, agriculture, and rural areas. High-risk and medium-risk biotechnology research and development activities must include risk assessments and risk prevention/control and emergency plans for biosafety incidents. The Rules-MgmtHGR also states that clinical trial applications must pass a security review organized by MOST (now the NHC) if the study’s provision or opening of HGR information to foreign entities may impact China’s public health, national security, or the social public interest.

For additional details, see the HGR-FAQs for frequently asked questions on HGR applications. Also see the Submission Process and Submission Content sections and the Specimens topic for additional information on HGR regulatory management.

Overview

In accordance with the GRMRSA, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) is responsible for reviewing and approving all clinical trial applications for an unregistered medicine, and for any new indication or dosage regimen of a registered medicine. The scope of the SAHPRA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV) and bioequivalence/bioavailability studies. Per ZAF-23, the review and approval of clinical trial applications by SAHPRA and a registered ethics committee (EC) may be conducted in parallel. However, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF recommends that scientific review be completed prior to ethics review, and in cases where scientific review capacity is not available, the EC approval should be delayed until SAHPRA scientific approval has been provided.

ZAF-36 states that the SAHPRA’s Clinical Trial Unit (CTU) provides the legal framework for the review of clinical trials and bioequivalence studies for human participants and recommends approval of the conduct of clinical trials. The unit also authorizes the importation of unregistered medicines for the purpose of conducting clinical trials. As per G-GenInfo, the CTU is responsible for the evaluation of clinical trial applications, clinical trial amendments, and adverse event reports arising from a clinical trial.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Per ZAF-36, the CTU of SAHPRA receives, processes, and evaluates clinical trial applications and any subsequent amendments for approval to conduct a study within South Africa. Researchers must submit a completed application and the prescribed fee on predetermined dates (ZAF-11). The proof of delivery, proof of payments, and cover page must be sent to SAHPRA via email.

As stated in ZAF-36, the CTU completes a preliminary screening of the application and sends an official letter to the applicant with the outcome and follow-up questions on a screening checklist. As indicated in ZAF-23, incomplete documentation or sub-standard submissions will be rejected. Additionally, applications submitted without clinical trial insurance will be rejected. Applicants will be allowed a maximum of two (2) rounds of queries to respond to, and if the responses are not satisfactory, the application will be rejected. Per ZAF-36, if an application is rejected, no response is required; the screening checklist should be used as guidance for resubmission during the next review cycle. Next, the CTU’s Clinical Trial Committee (CTC) (which includes an expert committee of specialists, as needed) reviews the proposed clinical trials pursuant to the schedule on SAHPRA’s website. (See ZAF-11 for 2025 dates). Per ZAF-1, clinical trial reviews will result in one (1) of the following outcomes:

• Category 1A: Approved; no items pending
• Category 1B: Approved; ethics approval pending
• Category 2A: Not approved; for approval by in-house evaluators, 1-2 or more items outstanding as deemed by the committee
• Category 2B: Not approved; for approval by the original evaluator and in-house if a need arises
• Category 3: Not approved; items outstanding to be discussed at the next CTC meeting
• Category 4: Not approved; for referral for specialist opinion
• Category 5: Not approved – technical/scientific deficiencies; applicant to resubmit for the next cycle
• Category 6: Rejected due to administrative and technical items outstanding; applicant to resubmit for the next cycle

If an applicant would like to request a meeting with the CTC, the request should be submitted through the SAHPRA Chief Executive Office pursuant to the procedures in the G-ConsultMtg.

Other Considerations

Per the G-Capacity, SAHPRA will also review clinical trial applications for evidence of plans to build capacity at each study site as well as enhancing research activities and skills of professionals from historically disadvantaged groups. See G-Capacity for detailed information on actions that will comply with this requirement.

In addition, see G-Clin for South Africa's use of a “reliance model” to register medicines based on clinical trial data from other regulatory authorities.

National Medical Products Administration

In accordance with the DRR, the applicant is required to pay a fee after the drug registration is approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA). As per the NMPA-No75-2020 and CHN-14, the NMPA charges the following drug registration fees to review and approve clinical trials as part of the drug registration process (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• New drugs made in China: 192,000 Yuan
• New drugs made outside China: 376,000 Yuan
• Generic drugs made in China: 318,000 Yuan
• Generic drugs made outside China: 502,000 Yuan
• One-time import of drugs: 2,000 Yuan

As specified in NMPA-No75-2020 and CHN-14, the fees are based on one (1) active pharmaceutical ingredient or one (1) preparation as one (1) variety. If another specification is added, the registration fee will be increased by 20% according to the corresponding category.

For further guidance on fees associated with submitting supplementary applications and registering renewals for imported drugs and more, please refer to NMPA-No75-2020.

Payment Instructions

NMPA-No37-2022 indicates that to register a drug, the applicant should submit the drug registration application to NMPA’s Government Service Portal (CHN-71). The relevant center will conduct an administrative review. Next, the non-tax income collection management system of the Ministry of Finance will send an electronic payment code to the applicant in the form of a text message. The applicant can pay through the counter payment, self-service terminal, online payment, self-service POS card, bank exchange, or transfer and payment. The applicant will receive confirmation of electronic payment via email within 10 working days. Electronic payment documents have the same legal effect as paper instruments.

National Health Commission

Per HGR-AppGuide, the National Health Commission (NHC) does not charge a fee for an application for a human genetic resources (HGR) license in China.

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority

Per the MRSA, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) is authorized to make regulations to collect fees for its various medicine regulatory functions. As delineated in the MRSA-Fees and ZAF-37, applicants are responsible for paying several non-refundable fees to submit a clinical trial application. MRSA-Fees delineates the following fees:

For a clinical trial application for the authorization of the use of unregistered medicines:

• Clinical trial application (safety and efficacy): South African Rand (R)32 400
• Clinical trial application (bioequivalence study): R30 400
• Clinical trial application (postgraduate study): R10 800
• Any other clinical trial application: R5 000

For amendments to clinical trials:

• Technical amendment applications: R7 000
• Administrative amendment applications: R4 100
• Any other application except for the purpose of performing a clinical trial: R350

For licenses:

• New manufacturing license: R25 200
• New import/export license to the holder of certificate of registration: R15 000
• Renewal of manufacturing license: R22 000
• Renewal of import license to the holder of the certificate of registration: R9 200
• Renewal of export license to the holder of the certificate of registration: R9 200
• Annual retention of all licenses: R4 200

For inspections to assess the quality, safety, and efficacy of medicines:

• Local and international manufacturing sites: R1 600 per hour
• Local and international clinical trial sites: R1 600 per hour

Payment Instructions

Per the G-SAHPRAFees, when making payments, applicants should follow these guidelines:

• Applicants should submit a cover page that identifies the services requested using the template provided in ZAF-37
• Payments should be referenced in accordance with the SAHPRA Fee Categorization Guideline (Annexure A of G-SAHPRAFees)
• If the applicable bank limits reference spacing, follow the sequence listed in Annexure A as far as the limitation allows; spacing and dashes (/) may be omitted
• Fee payments may be transferred directly into the bank account of SAHPRA via an electronic or manual deposit process
• No check payments will be accepted
• For administrative control purposes, applicants should make one (1) payment per service
• Payment should only be made once the application and required dossiers are ready for submission
• Payments do not have to be made upon request of an application number; however, the applications and required dossiers should be submitted within a reasonable time upon receipt of an application number or as specified in the relevant application guidelines
• As soon as the fee payment has been made, the proof of payment and cover page should be attached and sent via email to SAHPRA Finance at pop@sahpra.org.za, and the relevant unit(s) processing the application should be copied on the email.
• If the proof of payment has not been submitted, or no details to identify the payment reference as per the G-SAHPRAFees have been provided, and any further attempts to clear these payments fail after 12 months, any liability for SAHPRA to refund these payments will be forfeited
• If a payment has been received without an application, the applicant will be notified to submit the required application within 14 working days, failing which, the amount will be forfeited
• Requests for refunds should be submitted in line with Annex B in the G-SAHPRAFees
• Payment and pro forma invoice queries and requests can be directed to finance@sahpra.org.za or 012 501 0323
• See the G-SAHPRAFees for details on special requests for extensions to the deadline

Per the G-SAHPRAFees, the bank and account details are as follows:

Account name: South African Health Products Regulatory Authority
Special Name: The Medicines Control Council
Account type: Cheque/Current Account
Account number: 40-5939-2080
Bank: ABSA
Bank Branch Code: 632005
Bank physical address: 240 Vermeulen Street, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa
Swift Code: ABSAZAJJ

Fee payment questions can be directed to finance@sahpra.org.za or 012 501 0470.

Overview

As per the Measures-Ethics, the RegEthics, the EC-Guide, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the DRR, and the DAL, an ethics committee (EC) must approve a clinical trial application prior to a sponsor initiating a clinical trial. Per the NMPA-NHC-No101-2019, each institution that conducts biomedical research is required to have an EC that is responsible for reviewing the scientific and ethical rationality of drug clinical trial programs, reviewing and supervising the qualifications of drug clinical trial researchers, supervising the development of drug clinical trials, and ensuring the ethics review process is independent, objective, and fair. Per the Measures-Ethics, institutions conducting life sciences and medical research involving people must establish ECs to carry out ethics reviews of such research. When the institution does not establish an EC, or the EC is unable to meet the needs of the review, the institution may entrust another institutional EC or a regional EC and implement extended supervision through follow-up reviews.

As described in the EC-Guide, China’s ethics review landscape comprises ethics expert committees and institutional ECs. Ethics expert committees are divided into the National Medical Ethics Expert Committee and provincial medical ethics expert committees. They are mainly responsible for guidance, consultation, and training, and generally do not undertake specific ethics review tasks. Institutional ECs are established by medical and health institutions in accordance with relevant requirements, and are mainly responsible for ethics review, training, and consultation in their institutions. Per the Measures-Ethics, provincial-level health departments establish and manage regional ECs. The EC-Guide states that the regional ECs and institutional ECs have the same status and are subject to the same requirements. ECs at different levels and in different institutions should strictly perform their respective duties, carry out effective communication and collaboration, adhere to the independence, impartiality, and objectivity of ethics review, and ensure that all medical research complies with ethical standards and requirements to fully protect the safety and rights of research participants. Following are brief overviews of each type of EC:

• The National Medical Ethics Expert Committee formulates standards for the construction of institutional ECs and ethics review guidelines, including review content, review procedures, additional protection for special groups, and review time limits; publishes ethics review requirements for high-risk activities in scientific and technological ethics; and formulates standard requirements for ethics review application materials.
• The provincial medical ethics expert committees promote the implementation of the above-mentioned ethics review standards and operating guidelines within the administrative region, promotes the construction and operation of the institutional ECs in the region, and standardizes the work of ethics review. The provincial medical ethics expert committees can make supplementary adjustments to the above-mentioned ethics review standards and operating guidelines in light of the cultural customs of the region.
• The institutional EC establishes and improves the ethics review work system and operating procedures in accordance with the guidance of the national and the provincial medical ethics expert committees, improves the conflict of interest management and quality control mechanisms, and ensures that the ethics review process is independent, objective, and fair. ECs at different levels and in different institutions should strictly perform their respective duties, which includes conducting and ensuring ethics reviews that protect the safety and rights of research participants.

Note that per the Measures-Ethics-Interp, the main framework and provisions of the Measures-Ethics and the RegEthics are generally consistent and both regulations should be followed. Some provisions in the newer Measures-Ethics have been refined and improved in combination with the requirements of new laws and regulations and the actual conditions of colleges, universities, and research institutes. The RegEthics will be reviewed and revised to closely align with the Measures-Ethics. (ClinRegs will monitor and update the China profile, as needed.)

Ethics Committee Composition

Pursuant to the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the EC composition must meet health authority requirements, and include members of various categories with different gender compositions. The EC members must be trained in ethics review and be able to review ethical and scientific issues related to clinical trials.

Per the Measures-Ethics, the EC-Guide, and the RegEthics, ECs should have at least seven (7) members. The EC-Guide and the RegEthics state that the ECs should be composed of multidisciplinary specialists in biomedicine, management, ethics, law, sociology, statistics, and other areas that collectively represent the qualifications and experience to provide a fair scientific and ethics review. The RegEthics states that in areas where minority ethnic groups reside, the institution should consider including members of those groups on the EC. The EC-Guide indicates that there should be one (1) member who does not belong to the institution and has no close relationship with the project researchers (the same member can meet both requirements). As delineated in the Measures-Ethics, EC members must be selected from experts in the fields of life sciences, medicine, bioethics, law, and people from outside the institution, and there must be members of different sexes. Ethnic minority members must be considered in ethnic minority areas. EC members must have the corresponding ethics review capabilities, and regularly receive training on ethical knowledge of life sciences and medical research and knowledge of relevant laws and regulations.

The Measures-Ethics, the EC-Guide, and the RegEthics provide that the EC can hire an independent consultant if necessary. The Measures-Ethics and the RegEthics state that the independent consultant advises on specific project issues under review and does not participate in the voting. The EC-Guide further indicates that there should be clear institutional regulations on the qualifications, hiring procedures, and job responsibilities of independent consultants, and the hiring process of independent consultants should be recorded and filed.

The EC-Guide and the RegEthics provide that the EC composition should include a chairperson and vice chairpersons, who are elected by committee members. The number of vice chairpersons is not specified in the guidelines. When the chairperson is absent, the deputy chair performs the chairperson’s duties. ECs should not accept any research project applications that do not comply with national laws and regulations. In addition, the EC should refuse to review any projects in which they have a conflict of interest. See the EC-Guide for additional guidance on managing ECs.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As per the Measures-Ethics, the RegEthics, the EC-Guide, and the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, each institution must have written SOPs, including a process to be followed for conducting reviews. To ensure the independence, objectivity, and impartiality of the ethics review process, the Measures-Ethics stipulates that the SOPs must include conflict of interest management and quality control mechanisms. Further, the EC must formulate an ethics review system in emergency situations (e.g., epidemic outbreaks) and clarify the time limit for review.

Per the Measures-Ethics, scientific research managers and other relevant personnel must conduct bioethics education and training. The EC-Guide specifies that all committee members should undergo basic professional training in scientific research ethics before starting their EC service at a provincial or above-level scientific research course and receive an ethics training certificate. Participation in continuing education should be on a continuous basis to ensure improvement.

As delineated in the Measures-Ethics, the term of office for members of ECs that review life sciences and medical research involving people must not exceed one (1) year, and they may be re-elected. The EC must have one (1) chairman and several vice chairmen, who must be elected by EC members through consultation and then appointed by the institution. EC members, independent consultants, and their staff must sign confidentiality agreements on sensitive information learned during ethics review work. The EC must accept the supervision of the institution's management. The EC may decide to approve, disapprove, approve after revision, re-examine after revision, continue research, suspend, or terminate the research under review, and must explain its reasons. The decision must be approved by more than one-half of all members of the EC. Members must vote after full discussion of the ethical issues involved in the study, and opinions inconsistent with the review decision must be recorded in detail.

The RegEthics states that EC members should agree to disclose their names, occupations, and affiliations, and to sign the reviews, confidentiality agreements, and a conflict of interest declaration. Each EC member term is five (5) years, after which they can be reappointed. Each institution that establishes an EC should also provide financial compensation to its committee members. EC review and approval decisions must take place during formal meetings. The majority of the total EC membership should be present to conduct reviews.

In addition, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 requires the EC to establish and implement the following written documents:

• Provisions on the composition, establishment, and filing of the EC
• The meeting schedule, meeting notice, and meeting review process sequence
• The initial review and follow-up review procedures of the EC
• A rapid review and approval procedure for minor amendments to the experimental protocol agreed to by the EC
• Procedures for promptly notifying researchers of review opinions
• Procedures for appealing ethics review opinions

The RegEthics and the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 state that written records of all meetings and resolutions should be preserved for five (5) years following the completion of a clinical trial.

Overview

As stipulated in the NHA, ethics committees (ECs) in South Africa are governed by the National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC), which is a statutory body established under the NHA. NHREC determines guidelines for the functioning of ECs and registers and audits ECs, among other functions. Further, according to the NHA and ZAF-52, NHREC gives direction on ethical issues relating to health and develops guidelines for the conduct of research involving humans and animals. As delineated in the NHA, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, and the SA-GCPs, all ECs are required to register with the NHREC in order to undertake the ethical review of a clinical study.

The NHA and the G-EthicsHR-ZAF require that every institution, health agency, and health establishment at which research is conducted establish an EC or have access to an independent EC that is registered with the NHREC. Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, researchers without affiliation to an institution or organization with an EC should approach a registered EC to request it to review their health research protocols.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in the SA-GCPs and the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, an EC must consist of members who collectively encompass the qualifications and experience required to review and evaluate the scientific, medical, and ethical aspects of all proposed research studies. Further, per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, ECs should be independent, multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral, and pluralistic. In general terms, membership should include the following:

• As many disciplines, sectors, and professions as possible, appropriate to the remit of the specific EC
• Members from diverse age groups and academic or professional ranks
• Ethnically and culturally diverse members and an appropriate mix of genders
• Lay persons
• Researchers who do not conduct human participant research or animal use research

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that subject to institutional requirements, a chairperson could be appointed or elected at the first meeting of a newly constituted EC. Alternatively, the chairperson could be appointed by the institutional leadership for a period of three (3) to five (5) years, renewable once, if so specified in the terms of reference. The chairperson must have experience in research methodology and research ethics, should have at least two (2) years’ experience as an EC member and should have leadership experience. If the chairperson is an external appointee, the institution must provide the chairperson with the necessary support and authority to perform the role. The chairperson should be assisted by at least one (1) deputy chairperson, who is elected by the EC members and assists the chairperson and serves as the role of chairperson when necessary.

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the composition of ECs should promote optimal human participant welfare, research integrity (including data robustness and scientific validity), defendable significance of proposed research questions (including translatability of scientific findings into practice, where applicable), as well as legal, professional, and regulatory compliance. All EC members should have documented proof (i.e., evidence) of research ethics training, refreshed at least once. EC membership should consist of:

• A minimum of nine (9) members with a quorum being a simple majority; where the number of members is more than 15, the quorum may be 33%
• At least one (1) layperson
• At least one (1) member with knowledge of, and current experience in, the professional care, counselling, or health-related treatment of people, (e.g., a social worker, nurse, psychologist, or medical practitioner)
• At least one (1) member with professional training and experience in qualitative research methodologies
• Members with professional training and experience in quantitative research methodologies
• A member with expertise in biostatistics
• A member with expertise in research ethics
• At least one (1) member who is legally qualified and has extensive knowledge of family law, health law, and research ethics

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, when appointing EC members, institutions should be mindful of the need for ECs to develop institutional memory among the membership as well as to ensure succession planning. Members of ECs should be appointed formally for periods of three (3) to five (5) years, renewable once, after which the member should step down for at least one (1) term. Appointments should overlap so that no more than half the committee membership is new at any one appointment time. ECs should have standard operating procedures (SOP) that specify meeting attendance expectations, possible sanctions if attendance is poor, expectations for promptness of reviews, preparation for meetings, agenda, minutes, etc. ECs must define the review timelines in their SOPs. The appointment letter should describe the essential expectations of membership. ECs should provide induction training for new members that includes discussion of the role of EC members, the code of conduct, expectations of integrity, and confidentiality. Each EC should also have terms of reference that include the delegated and inherent authority as well as the scope of the EC's authority, its responsibilities, its relationship to non-affiliated researchers, its accountability responsibilities, and the mechanisms for reporting and remuneration, if any, for members. See the G-EthicsHR-ZAF for a sample terms of reference.

In addition, per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, EC members are expected to familiarize themselves with the institutional documentation, as well as the national and relevant international research ethics guidelines, and should have documented proof of such familiarity, e.g., an assessment of training certificate, not a mere attendance certificate. See the G-EthicsHR-ZAF for additional training requirements. The SA-GCPs stipulate that EC members who review clinical trial proposals should have research ethics training and good clinical practice training, evidenced by certificates issued in the last three (3) years.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that it is important for ECs to have clear SOPs that clarify the expectations about EC members’ review responsibilities. For EC meetings, the quorum should be a simple majority, and where the number of members is more than 15, the quorum may be 33%.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, institutions must have a Code of Conduct for EC members, which details the conduct and integrity expectations of members, including regular and punctual attendance at meetings, diligent performance of responsibilities, maintenance of confidentiality, and management of potential conflicts of interest. The induction process for new members should require that they sign the Code of Conduct to indicate they know and understand the expectations. (See A2.6 Code of Conduct for REC members sample.) Institutions must also ensure there is a formal appointment letter for EC members that sets out the term of office and the assurance that members are indemnified from personal liability against claims that may arise in the course of ordinary business of the EC.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, ECs should correspond primarily with the principal investigator (PI) or a delegated signatory, and not with the sponsor unless dictated by specific circumstances. EC members should disclose information that may lead to potential, actual, and perceptions of conflict of interest. EC members should not review or make decisions about research protocols in which they are involved personally (including as supervisor of a student) or financially. When such a protocol is to be discussed, the member concerned must declare the potential conflict and offer to recuse themselves from the meeting for that time. Should the member be permitted to remain for the discussion at the discretion of the chairperson (e.g., to facilitate clarifications), the member must leave the meeting for the duration of the final decision-making discussion concerning the application in question. EC members and ad hoc reviewers must not use the ethics review process to impose personal biases, professional jealousy, or territorial protection conduct about an applicant's protocol, including about research methods or the topic. If applicants pay fees for the ethics review service, this must not negatively affect the rigor of reviews, the integrity of the process, or the capacity to monitor the research that the EC approves. The EC should be alert to whether an advocate for special interest groups of participants proposed for specific research would add value to the review process for informed responsible decision-making in the context. The EC should be alert to the potential for poor consent processes in the absence of appropriately translated materials and the availability of interpreters.

Regarding archiving and record keeping, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that ECs should keep written records of all research protocols received for review, including information sheets, consent forms, and relevant correspondence, in the form in which they were approved. Electronic records are acceptable, provided the signatures, especially on the finally approved documentation, are properly documented and included in the record. EC records must provide a reliable and authoritative record of the business of the EC that will stand up to scrutiny in the event of queries, conflict, and audit. The record should include at least the following:

• Name of PI
• Protocol identification number
• Title of the project
• Date of approval or rejection
• Duration of approval period (maximum 12 months, renewable)
• Conditions of approval, if applicable
• Whether approval was expedited
• Copy of the signed final protocol or protocol approved
• Whether and how consultation occurred
• Records of adverse events
• Records of amendments
• Reports of adverse and serious adverse events and action taken
• Other relevant information such as complaints from participants

Per the SA-GCPs, the EC should retain all relevant records for a period of at least three (3) years or as per institutional requirement, whichever period is longer, after completion of the trial and make them available upon request from the applicable regulatory authority.

Overview

According to the EC-Guide, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, and the NMPA-No11-2017, the primary scope of information assessed by the ethics committee (EC) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki (CHN-84). Per the Measures-Ethics and the RegEthics, ethics reviews and relevant personnel must comply with the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and Chinese laws and regulations. The Measures-Ethics indicates that life science and medical research involving humans must respect research participants and follow the principles of beneficence, non-harm, and fairness, and protect privacy and personal information. Per the RegEthics and the EC-Guide, the EC must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable (See the Vulnerable Populations section for additional information about these populations). In addition, the EC is responsible for ensuring a competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol; 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 safeguards.

Per Measures-Ethics, life science and medical research involving humans is defined as research activities using biological samples and information data (including health records and behaviors) of research participants, specifically including the following:

• Activities that use methods such as physics, chemistry, biology, and traditional Chinese medicine to conduct research on human reproduction, growth, development, aging, etc.
• Activities that use methods such as physics, chemistry, biology, traditional Chinese medicine, psychology, and other methods to conduct research on human physiology, psychological behavior, pathological phenomena, disease etiology and pathogenesis, as well as disease prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation
• Activities using new technologies or products to conduct experimental research on the human body
• Activities that use methods such as epidemiology, sociology, and psychology to collect, record, use, report, or store biological samples, information data, and other scientific research materials (including health records, behaviors, etc.) related to life sciences and medical issues

The GeneEdit-Ethics states that human genome editing research should have important scientific and social value, and should be limited to medical interventions for treatment or prevention. Non-medical genomic changes to research participants are prohibited. Researchers and institutions should follow the GeneEdit-Ethics for principles and ethical behavior to guide human genome editing research.

Note that per the Measures-Ethics-Interp, the main framework and provisions of the Measures-Ethics and the RegEthics are generally consistent and both regulations should be followed. Some provisions in the newer Measures-Ethics have been refined and improved in combination with the requirements of new laws and regulations and the actual conditions of colleges, universities, and research institutes. The RegEthics will be reviewed and revised to closely align with the Measures-Ethics. (ClinRegs will monitor and update the China profile, as needed.)

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As per the RegEthics, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the DRR, the DAL, and the SC-Opinions-No42, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and the EC must approve a clinical trial application prior to a sponsor initiating a clinical trial. As stated in the DRR, clinical trials of drugs must be reviewed and approved by an EC. The DRR indicates that the EC review may be submitted in parallel to the NMPA’s review, but the study cannot be initiated until after review and approval by the EC. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the RegEthics also state that the EC must review and approve any protocol amendments prior to those changes being implemented.

Per the Rules-MgmtHGR, the collection, preservation, use, and external provision of China’s human genetic resources (HGR) must comply with ethical principles and pass the ethics review of ECs that have been registered with the relevant management departments. Further, applications for administrative licenses for international scientific research cooperation on HGR must pass an ethics review in the respective countries (regions) where both parties are located. Where the foreign party is truly unable to provide the ethics review certification materials of the country (region) where it is located, it may submit the proof that the foreign party unit recognizes the ethics review opinions of the Chinese unit.

The Measures-Ethics, the EC-Guide, and the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 provide that the EC’s scope of review must include the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Whether the institutions and researchers are competent; the qualifications and experience of the investigator meet clinical research requirements
• Whether the research plan meets the required scientific and ethical principles, has scientific and social value, does not violate the provisions of laws and regulations, and does not harm the public interest
• The degree of risk compared to the expected study benefit
• The informed consent process and whether the relevant information provided is complete and easy to understand, and whether the method for obtaining consent was appropriate
• Whether confidentiality measures have been taken to protect the participants’ privacy, personal information, and data
• Whether the guidelines for the selection and exclusion of participants are appropriate and fair
• Whether the participants are clearly informed of their rights in the research, including the right to equal treatment and that they can withdraw from the research at any time without reason and not be treated unfairly because of this
• Whether the participant received reasonable compensation for participating in the research, and in case of damage or death, whether the treatment and compensation measures are appropriate; participants must not be charged research-related fees for participating in the research
• Whether there is a designated contact for handling and obtaining informed consent and answering questions related to participant safety
• Whether appropriate measures are taken to minimize participant risks
• Potential conflicts of interest
• When conducting non-therapeutic clinical trials, if the participants’ informed consent is implemented by their guardians instead, whether the trial protocol gives full consideration to the corresponding ethical issues, laws, and regulations
• Whether the corresponding ethical issues, laws, and regulations are fully considered in the trial plan if the trial protocol clearly states that the participants or their guardians cannot sign an informed consent form (ICF) before the trial in an emergency
• Whether participants are forced or induced to participate in clinical trials due to improper influence, including whether the ICF has content that waives legal rights or exempts researchers, institutions, or sponsors from being responsible
• Whether the method, content, and timing of the release of research results are reasonable

Per the Measures-Ethics and the EC-Guide, the EC will make one (1) of the following decisions (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Approval: The EC unconditionally approves an initial review of the research protocol and will conduct follow-up reviews. The research can start immediately after approval.
• Approval after modification: The EC conditionally approves a research protocol if the research leader accepts the EC’s proposed amendments.
• Review after modification: If the EC needs more substantive information about the research project under review, it will decide to suspend the deliberation until the committee receives new information.
• Approve continuation of research.
• Not approved: The EC votes against a research proposal. The reasons for disapproval must be communicated to the research leader, who is given an opportunity to defend the research.
• Suspension or termination of research: The EC suspends or terminates a research project.

The Measures-Ethics specifies that the EC must conduct the review and issue its opinion within 30 days of acceptance of the materials.

The Measures-Ethics states that before the implementation of research approved by the EC, researchers, ECs, and institutions must truthfully, completely, and accurately upload information to the registration platform (CHN-53), including research, ethics review opinions, and institutional review opinions in accordance with the requirements of the national medical research registration and filing information system, and promptly update the information according to the progress of the research. Researchers, ECs, and institutions are encouraged to upload information in real time during the study management process.

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 specifies that the EC must pay attention to and clearly require investigators to report in a timely manner the following: deviations or modifications to the trial protocol to eliminate emergency hazards to participants; changes that increase the risk to participants or significantly affect the implementation of clinical trials; all suspicious and unexpected serious adverse reactions; and new information that may adversely affect the safety of participants or the implementation of clinical trials. The EC has the right to suspend or terminate clinical trials, as needed. Finally, the EC must accept and properly handle requests from participants. Per the EC-Guide, if there are accidental injuries or violations during the research project, the EC has the right to request the suspension or termination of an approved research project. Further, the EC reviews amendments to the protocol and informed consent form, and reviews serious adverse events and violations of the protocol. The Measures-Ethics states that when a serious adverse event is reported, the EC must conduct a timely review to determine whether the measures taken by researchers to protect the personal safety and health rights and interests of research participants are adequate, reassess the risk-benefit ratio of the research, and issue review opinions.

As delineated in the NMPA-No34-2022, protocol changes that result in updating the investigator’s brochure, ICF, or other relevant documents should be reported to the EC by the sponsor. The Measures-Ethics indicates that if approved research requires revision of the research plan, informed consent, recruitment materials, or other materials provided to research participants, the researcher must submit the revised documents to the EC for review. Further, the EC must conduct follow-up reviews at least annually in accordance with relevant reports submitted by the investigators. The follow-up review must include the following considerations:

• Whether the research is conducted in accordance with the approved research plan and reported in a timely manner
• Whether the research content was changed without authorization during the research process
• Whether changes or new information increase the risk to research participants or significantly affect the implementation of the research
• Whether it is necessary to suspend or terminate the research early
• Other content that needs to be reviewed

Per the EC-Guide, the EC has the right to request regular follow-up reviews of approved research projects based on the possibility and degree of research risks. The RegEthics provides that the EC must designate members to conduct follow-up examinations of approved research projects. The number of members for follow-up review must not be less than two (2), and the review is required to be reported to the EC. Further, the EC may apply to the provincial medical ethics expert committees to provide advice on the ethics review of research that involves a relatively high-risk or special population.

Expedited Review

As delineated in the Measures-Ethics, the EC may conduct expedited review of research in the following circumstances:

• Research whose risk is not greater than the minimum risk
• Research in which the approved research protocol is slightly modified and does not affect the risk-benefit ratio of the research
• Follow-up review of approved research
• Research conducted by multiple institutions, when the EC of the participating institution confirms the ethics review opinion issued by the lead institution, etc.

Where the situation is urgent, an ethics review must be promptly carried out. In the case of emergencies such as outbreaks, ethics reviews and review opinions are generally carried out within 72 hours, but the requirements and quality of ethics reviews must not be reduced. For expedited review, the EC chairman designates two (2) or more members to conduct the ethics review and issue review opinions. The review opinions must be reported at the EC meeting. If it is discovered during this review that there is a change in the risk-benefit ratio of the research, there is a disagreement among the review members, or the review members propose that a meeting review is required, etc., then a full review procedure must be held.

During an outbreak of an epidemic, the EC-Guide advises ECs to adhere to the highest scientific and ethical standards for independent review of the research project to ensure balancing of quality and timeliness. The materials provided by the researcher can be simplified according to the situation. The EC should pay special attention to the informed consent process as participants may be improperly exploited due to their obvious vulnerability, especially when it involves high-risk and risk-uncertain research. It should be ensured that participants choose to participate voluntarily and independently after being fully informed and fully understanding the possible risks of research. Research participants or the legal representative/guardian must be allowed to withdraw from research unconditionally at any stage. See the EC-Guide for additional guidance on the EC review when there is a major epidemic risk.

Multicenter Studies

Per the Measures-Ethics, research carried out in multiple institutions may establish collaborative mechanisms for ethics review, ensuring that all institutions follow the principles of consistency and timeliness. Both the lead institution and the participating institution must organize an ethics review. The EC of the participating institution must conduct a follow-up review of the research in which the institution participates. Where establishments cooperate with enterprises and other institutions to carry out life science and medical research involving humans, the institutions must fully understand the overall situation of the research, clarify the scope of use and handling methods of biological samples and information data through agreements subject to ethics review and follow-up review, and supervise their proper disposal after the research is completed.

Per the EC-Guide, the review of international cooperative research projects requires ethics review by the lead unit. For cooperative research projects conducted in China, the trial protocols should be submitted to the EC for a single-review process and should be consistent, though the EC will accept that informed consent may vary slightly in different institutions. The RegEthics also provides that multicenter research may establish a collaborative review mechanism to ensure that the research institutions of each project follow the principles of consistency and timeliness. The lead agency EC is responsible for project review and confirmation of the ethics review results of participating institutions. ECs of the participating institutions must conduct an ethics review of the research in which the institution participates in a timely manner and provide feedback to the lead agency for review.

Exemption from Ethics Review

The Measures-Ethics states that ethics review may be exempted where human information data or biological samples are used to carry out life science and medical research involving humans if the research does not cause harm to the human body or does not involve sensitive personal information or commercial interests. This is to reduce unnecessary burdens on scientific research personnel and promote the development of life science and medical research involving people. The exemption may apply in the following circumstances:

• Using lawfully obtained public data or conducting research through data generated by observing and not interfering with public conduct
• Using anonymized information and data to carry out research
• Using existing human biological samples to carry out research, and the source of the biological samples complies with relevant laws and regulations and ethical principles; the relevant content and purpose of the research are within the scope of the informed consent; and the research does not involve the use of human germ cells, embryos, reproductive cloning, chimerism, and heritable gene manipulation
• Carrying out research using human-derived cell lines or cell lines derived from biobanks, where the relevant content and purpose of the research are within the scope authorized by the provider, and do not involve activities such as human embryonic and reproductive cloning, chimerism, and heritable gene manipulation

Overview

Per the SA-GCPs, clinical trials should be conducted in accordance with all ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (ZAF-44) and consistent with good clinical practice and other applicable regulatory requirements. In accordance with the NHA, the SA-GCPs, and the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, ethics committees (ECs) must evaluate the ethical and scientific rigor of all research studies to be conducted in the country. An EC’s primary responsibilities are to (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Review protocols to ensure that research involving human participants has scientific merit and will promote health, and prevent or cure disability and disease; in addition, ensure the research has social merit in light of South Africa’s research priorities or is otherwise justified
• Ensure clinical trials are governed by the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, distributive justice (equity), and respect for persons (dignity and autonomy)
• Uphold the key norms for ethical research with human participants including relevance and value; scientific integrity; stakeholder engagement; fair selection of participants; informed consent; ongoing respect for enrolled participants; and researcher competence and expertise
• Grant approval for research where the protocols meet the ethical standards of the institution, agency, or establishment
• Determine whether and why randomization is relevant, and how this is addressed
• Evaluate the appropriateness of the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the recruitment process in the South African context
• Ensure the feasibility of obtaining meaningful results with the lowest possible risk of harm for participants and whether the risk of harm is appropriately weighed against anticipated benefits for participants or the class of persons from which they are drawn; high risk of harm may be justifiable where the anticipated benefit is of high importance to increase relevant knowledge and appropriate mitigating measures are in place to minimize harm to participants; and attention must be given to harms and benefits beyond the life of the trial itself, especially in respect to early phase studies and (pharmacovigilance) surveillance for chronic and life-threatening conditions
• Protect the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable (See the Informed Consent topic for additional information about these populations).

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the SA-GCPs, and the NHAParticipants, the principal investigator (PI) or the sponsor must submit a clinical trial application to both the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) and a registered EC for review and approval before a study may commence. Per ZAF-23, the review and approval of clinical trial applications by SAHPRA and a registered EC may be conducted in parallel. However, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF recommends that scientific review be completed prior to ethics review and, in cases where scientific review capacity is not available, the EC approval should be delayed until SAHPRA scientific approval has been provided. Further, where site permissions are required, e.g., from Provincial Health Research Committees (PHRCs) or superintendents, to conduct research in health care facilities, ECs must delay granting full approval until these permissions are received. This is to prevent research from beginning before the facility knows it will happen.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF indicates that after the deliberative review process, the EC should approve, require amendment to, or reject a research protocol. In considering a research protocol, the EC may seek assistance from experts who have no conflicts of interest. EC decisions should be recorded in writing and appropriately documented in the minutes. A decision to approve should include the conditions (e.g., the duration of the approval, the reporting requirements, etc.). Reasons for a decision to require an amendment or to reject a research protocol should be recorded and provide sufficient feedback to the applicant. Outright rejection should be avoided if a researcher can be advised to improve the protocol. Researchers should be encouraged to address the concerns and improve their protocols. In addition, feedback should include the expected return date to minimize delays to finalize the approval process. The maximum time for a return date should not exceed six (6) months. Should the applicant exceed the stipulated return date without communication to the EC, the application should be removed from the agenda, and a new application must be submitted. ECs should require researchers to report immediately if a project is terminated or suspended before the anticipated date of completion. ECs should require researchers to report immediately anything that might warrant reconsideration of ethical approval of the protocol, including but not limited to:

• Serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants
• Proposed changes in the protocol
• Unforeseen events that might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, to prevent unnecessary duplication of work, ECs may, at their own discretion, recognize the review and approval of a research protocol granted by another registered South African EC. Reciprocal recognition means that two (2) or more registered ECs decide to recognize each other’s review. This arrangement may involve formal agreements between the ECs explaining how the workload and responsibilities are shared and the basis on which recognition occurs. Alternatively, the committee may decide to use reciprocity recognition on a case-by-case basis. ECs that recognize reciprocal review agree on the nature of the documents to be filed at each office. The expectation is that ECs should communicate with each other, through their chairpersons, and agree on a way forward regarding review of a multi-site protocol when it is desirable to avoid duplication of effort. The possibility of reciprocal recognition of reviews should occur in a collaborative, harmonious manner, bearing in mind that each EC retains the responsibility of protecting the safety, rights, and interests of participants enrolled in the studies it has approved. For more details on reciprocal review, see the G-EthicsHR-ZAF.

The SA-GCPs requires the EC’s approval of the following before the clinical trial may begin: protocol and any amendments; case report form, if applicable; informed consent form(s); any other written information to be provided to the participants; advertisement for participant recruitment (if used); participant compensation; and any other documents given approval/favorable opinion.

The SA-GCPs mandate that the sponsor receive confirmation of EC review from the investigator(s) or institution(s). The sponsor must receive the following information prior to the trial’s commencement:

• The name and address of the relevant EC registered with National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC), with its documented approval
• If EC approval is conditional on required modifications, a copy of the modification(s) made and the date the final approval was granted by the EC
• Documentation and dates of any EC re-approvals/re-evaluations

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF and ZAF-20, if there is an amendment to the protocol, the sponsor must notify the EC and get its approval. This approval should be sent to the SAHPRA using the Application for Protocol Amendment to an Approved Trial (ZAF-20).

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, ECs have the right to monitor the research it approves. The frequency and type of monitoring should reflect the degree and extent of risk of harm to participants. Monitoring types include passive and active measures. Active monitoring requires a site visit. Passive monitoring is generally paper, using reports and other information. A site visit is expected for investigation of adverse events, serious adverse events for high-risk research, as well as other occurrences that prompt concerns for ECs. The EC should ensure that appropriate feedback is given to the PI, with an opportunity to address any identified gaps within a negotiated timeline. ECs may recommend and adopt any additional appropriate mechanism for monitoring, including random inspection of research sites, welfare monitoring sheets, data and signed consent forms, and records of interviews. ECs should ensure information and consent materials indicate that such monitoring may take place. Further, ECs should request regular, at least annual, reports from PIs. See the G-EthicsHR-ZAF for more details including the report requirements.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that where circumstances indicate that a project is non-compliant with the approved protocol and the interests of participants are at risk of harm, the EC may withdraw approval, after due process has been followed. A clear process should be followed that permits swift but proper investigation and decision-making to ensure protection of participants. The investigation should include interaction with the researchers and other interested parties to ensure a fair and transparent process. If the decision is to withdraw approval, the EC should inform the PI and other interested parties, including the institutional authorities, and recommend suspension (temporary stoppage) or termination (permanent stoppage) of the project. It should also recommend remedial action where appropriate. In the case of suspension, the PI must comply with the recommendations and any special conditions imposed by the EC.

Expedited Review

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, expedited review applies, in principle, only to research that poses no more than minimal risk of harm. Generally, expedited review means that no fewer than two (2) EC members review the protocol and that deliberation in the full committee meeting is foregone, unless the reviewers believe there are issues that the EC should discuss. The nature of research that may be expedited should be described in the procedures. The outcomes of the expedited review process must be reported to the full committee, at least by being noted on the agenda, so that the record is complete.

Rapid Review

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, rapid review process permits rapid but thorough processing of ethics review applications in circumstances that require accelerated preparation for a research study or project, for example when there is a national or localized emergency. The EC should carefully assess the nature of the research to determine the appropriate review process, bearing in mind that not all research during a major incident is necessarily urgent. Careful ethical reflection is essential, notwithstanding any perceived urgency. All the usual ethical norms and standards must be considered. The EC should have a review standard operating procedure (SOP) that allows a combination of rapid but thorough review and reciprocal recognition of review (see above) by other registered ECs. The SOP might stipulate that a small group of reviewers (3-5 persons) with appropriate expertise reviews the protocol. The deliberations and outcome of the process must be documented in minutes and reported to the full EC at its next meeting.

Joint Review

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF allows joint reviews wherein two (2) or more ECs review a multi-site research protocol together. The sites may be within South Africa or may include sites elsewhere on the African continent. A joint review is not the same as a reciprocally recognized review (described above). A joint review entails members of the ECs concerned communicating virtually or face-to-face to discuss their respective reviews and queries and come to conclusions. The joint review process permits efficiency of reviews, facilitation of capacity building, development of trust, and avoids unnecessary repetition of administrative work. When deliberations are completed and a decision to approve has been reached, each EC uses its own approval SOPs and processes. Joint review does not exempt any of the ECs involved from their responsibilities, including monitoring and looking after the interests of participants at their sites. The PIs concerned are responsible for informing their institutional EC of the fact of multi-site research, as well as the names of the other ECs with jurisdiction over other research sites. This information enables the chairs of the ECs to arrange a joint meeting of the ECs involved to review, deliberate on, and approve the protocol concerned simultaneously. Joint reviews involving South African and other African ECs can be used in a similar manner to facilitate the ethics review and approval processes. A memorandum of understanding is recommended between the ECs involved that outlines the process, the expectations, and the responsibilities.

Foreign Research Collaboration

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF indicates that where international research (multi-country studies) is conducted exclusively online or the online platform is used to recruit study participants, and the PI neither lives or works in South Africa, an exemption from ethics review and approval is possible. This is on the proviso that the PI can demonstrate to a local registered EC that permission has been obtained from the website owners and that a notice of research intent is posted on the relevant website. In addition, the PI must comply with the privacy policies and terms of website use, and with personal data protection requirements in the POPIA. (See the Personal Data Protection section for more information).

Artificial Intelligence

Per G-EthicsHR-ZAF, ECs must consider the following ethical considerations when reviewing protocols that involve the use of artificial intelligence (AI):

• Transparency in the context of AI necessitates openness and clarity at every phase of the research
• Researchers should explain how interpretable these models are, how this interpretation is communicated to a user, and to what extent interpretation is possible
• Responsibility and accountability—Researchers should have a sufficient understanding of the AI model/technology and take responsibility for its use. Information on technical engineering perspectives should be made available for the ECs conducting the review. The ethical and responsible use and deployment of AI tools remain the responsibility of the PI to ensure the protection of research participants’ data
• Equity and fairness—AI tools must be designed and implemented equitably and without unfair discrimination against any individual or group. Special attention should be given to vulnerable and historically underrepresented populations. Researchers should actively involve diverse participant groups in the design and testing phases to ensure fairness and representation. Additionally, algorithms should be assessed regularly for bias, and any discovered discrepancies should be promptly addressed and rectified
• Benefit sharing, with particular attention to the needs and contributions of low-income communities, should be considered. Evidence of fostering equitable and collective sharing of the benefits and burdens of research must be presented to the EC
• Safety risks and well as vulnerabilities to attack (security risks) should be addressed, prevented, and eliminated throughout the lifecycle of an AI system
• Researchers must prioritize safety in the implementation of AI-enabled systems, with thorough assessments of the risk of harm and strategies for mitigation

See the G-EthicsHR-ZAF for detailed guidance on the above AI considerations.

No applicable requirements.

As indicated in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, ethics committees (ECs) may independently decide whether to charge fees for a protocol review for external researchers. Researchers without affiliation to an institution or organization with an EC should approach a registered EC to request it to review their health research protocols. If the EC is willing to review external applications, a fee for service may be levied.

Overview

Per the NMPA-NHC-No101-2019, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) oversees and supervises the registration and filing of clinical trial institutions. Drug clinical trials must be conducted in registered clinical trial institutions that meet the applicable requirements, which include having an ethics committee (EC).

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

The RegEthics states that all biomedical research institutions in China should establish their own ECs. Per SC-Opinions-No42, the NMPA adopted a registration system for institutions with qualifying conditions to be entrusted to conduct clinical trials and operate ECs. An institution is entrusted to conduct clinical trials if it has an EC and the main investigators of clinical trials have senior professional titles and have participated in more than three (3) clinical trials, among other conditions. To apply for qualification, institutions must submit an application via the online filing system (CHN-82) and fulfill the requirements pursuant to the NMPA-NHC-No101-2019. Per the Measures-Ethics, institutions must register the EC within three (3) months of its establishment and upload the information to CHN-82. Medical and healthcare institutions must register with the appropriate oversight authority. Other institutions must register with the competent department at a higher level according to their administrative affiliation. The EC must submit the previous year's work report to the appropriate institutional department before March 31^st of each year, including:

• A list of personnel and resumes of committee members' work
• The EC charter
• Work systems or relevant work procedures
• Other relevant materials required by the appropriate department

When the above information changes, the institution must promptly update the information to the appropriate institutional department.

As delineated in the RegEthics and interpreted in CHN-41, the National Health Commission (NHC) is responsible for managing ECs nationwide, organizing the inspection and management of the national ethics review of biomedical research involving human beings, establishing the National Medical Ethics Expert Committee, and for developing policies relating to ethics review. The National Medical Ethics Expert Committee conducts research on major ethical issues in research involving humans and provides policy advice and guides the provincial ECs. Per CHN-3, China established a National Science and Technology Ethics Committee to strengthen the ethics governance system. Further, the SC-EthicalGov establishes principles and guides the committee in its responsibility to develop and coordinate the ethics governance system.

The EC-Guide describes the inspection and oversight mechanisms among the ECs in China. The National Medical Ethics Expert Committee formulates an inspection and evaluation indicator system for institutional ECs, including review quality, review efficiency, committee member capabilities, conflict of interest management, etc., to guide provincial medical ethics expert committees in carrying out ethics inspections within the region. The National Medical Ethics Expert Committee also inspects, evaluates, and supervises the work of provincial medical ethics expert committees. The provincial medical ethics expert committees are responsible for conducting regular inspections and evaluations of the ethics review work of medical institutions and regional ECs within the administrative area at the same level, making recommendations on how to manage non-standard ethics review work, and may establish an information disclosure mechanism based on actual conditions. Institutional ECs should check and evaluate the indicator system, continuously improve their operations, and actively cooperate in completing various inspections and evaluations. Regular self-evaluation is encouraged to improve work quality and review efficiency.

As delineated in the RegEthics, the provincial, autonomous regional, and municipal health authorities also have ECs set up under their own administration. The provincial medical ethics expert committees assists in promoting the institutionalization and standardization of the ethics review work of human biomedical research in its administrative region, and guides, inspects, and evaluates the work of the institutional ECs in the administrative region. It also performs training and consulting work. The local health administrative department at or above the county level supervises and manages the ethics review work of biomedical research involving people in its administrative region. Per the Measures-Ethics, provincial-level health departments, in conjunction with relevant departments, must formulate measures for the establishment and management of regional ECs. The regional EC must file with the provincial health department and upload information in CHN-82.

For additional information about oversight of ECs, including inspections, see the RegEthics.

Overview

As stipulated in the NHA, ethics committees (ECs) in South Africa are governed by the National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC), which is a statutory body established under the NHA. NHREC determines guidelines for the functioning of ECs and registers and audits ECs, among other functions. The NHREC was created by the Minister of Health to provide ethical oversight of clinical research and to safeguard the rights and welfare of human participants involved in clinical studies. According to ZAF-52, NHREC gives direction on ethical issues relating to health and develops guidelines for the conduct of research involving humans and animals. Further, NHREC upholds the principle that research involving human participants is based on a moral commitment to advancing human welfare, knowledge, and understanding, and to exploring cultural dynamics, especially in large-scale trials conducted in developing countries. Of fundamental importance is the duty to conduct scientifically sound research while acting in the participant’s best interests and respecting and protecting the participant’s autonomy.

As delineated in the NHA, the SA-GCPs, and the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the NHREC’s core responsibilities center on promoting, ensuring, and monitoring compliance by ECs. According to the G-EthicsHR-ZAF and ZAF-52, the functions of the NHREC include:

• Determine guidelines for the functioning of ECs
• Register and audit ECs
• Set norms and standards for conducting research on humans and animals including clinical trials
• Adjudicate complaints about the functioning of ECs
• Refer to the relevant statutory health professional council matters involving the violation or potential violation of an ethical or professional rule by a health care provider
• Institute such disciplinary action as prescribed
• Advise the national department and provincial departments on any ethical issues concerning research

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

As delineated in the NHA, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, and the SA-GCPs, all ECs are required to register with the NHREC in order to undertake the ethical review of a clinical study. Registration information is available on the NHREC webpage (ZAF-12), and a list of ECs currently registered with NHREC is available at ZAF-13. The application to register an EC is at ZAF-53. ZAF-54 states that the EC registration is recorded and publicly listed by the NHREC.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the criteria for the NHREC registration assessment and the eligibility audit for ECs are based on the G-EthicsHR-ZAF and other internationally recognized guidelines. Members of the NHREC undertake the assessment and auditing to ensure that ECs comply with capacity and operational requirements. After the first pre-registration audit, guidance and recommendations for improvement are provided with specific timelines for improvements. Before the registration is completed and a registration number is issued, NHREC conducts a follow-up audit to ensure that required revisions have been completed. Voluntary deregistration can occur when an EC is no longer active and closes. A critical part of the ongoing quality assurance review process is the EC annual report form (ZAF-54).

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that the NHREC conducts a comprehensive quality assurance assessment and administrative audit of ECs on a five (5)-year cycle to check compliance with the various administrative and record-keeping standards. When an EC persistently fails to comply with expected standards, the NHREC must enforce the standards, e.g., to suspend operations until compliance is achieved or, in extreme cases, to revoke registration of the committee. If an EC is suspended, the NHREC informs the EC of the suspended registration status and outlines the steps to be taken to rectify matters so that a registered status may be reinstated. Capacity evaluation and enhancement for ECs is also an important function of the NHREC. During the period of suspension, the EC concerned may not review new protocols for health research and may not permit another registered EC to review on their behalf. Instead, they should refer applicants to another registered EC. An assessment of the implications for harm to participants will determine whether ongoing monitoring of approved studies is acceptable to the NHREC. Failure by the EC to respond to the required measures to reverse the status of suspended registration can lead to registration being revoked. In this case, a new application for registration is required.

Overview

As per the DRR, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in China pursuant to the drug registration process, in accordance with the DAL, the VaccineLaw, and other laws and regulations. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the DRR, the DAL, and the SC-Opinions-No44 require the sponsor to obtain NMPA and ethics committee (EC) approvals of a clinical trial application. As stated in the DRR, EC review may be submitted in parallel to the NMPA’s review, but the study cannot be initiated until after review and approval by the EC.

Per the NHC-HGRmgt, the National Health Commission (NHC) is responsible for China’s management of human genetic resources (HGR). (Note that per SC-Order777 and NHC-HGRmgt, management of HGR was transferred from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to NHC, effective May 1, 2024). The NHC-HGRmgt states that the original application process and platform (CHN-6) remain unchanged. Per the Rules-MgmtHGR, the collection, preservation, use, and external provision of China’s HGR must comply with ethical principles and pass the ethics review of ECs that have been registered with the relevant management departments. Further, with applications for administrative licenses for international scientific research cooperation, the HGR project must pass an ethics review in the respective countries (regions). As part of the application filing for international cooperative clinical trials, NMPA approvals, notices, and/or filing registration must be obtained in advance, along with the EC approvals. Therefore, EC and MOST (now the NHC) review cannot occur in parallel. (Please note that SC-Order777 amends the MgmtHumanGen to reflect the transfer of HGR management from MOST to the NHC, but the Rules-MgmtHGR has not yet been amended to show the transfer.)

Regulatory Submission

National Medical Products Administration

The NMPA-No50-2018 establishes the broad submission procedures for clinical trials, which are detailed below through implementing regulations and guidance. The DRR states that a Chinese legal entity must submit the drug registration application. Clinical trial applications are also considered drug registration applications. Overseas drug manufacturers without legal representation in China must apply for drug registration through Chinese legal persons to handle relevant drug registration matters.

The applicant should prepare materials and apply for a communication meeting with the NMPA’s Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) in accordance with the requirements of the NMPA-No48-2020, which includes requirements for different categories of meetings involving applications for new drugs. The NMPA-No48-2020 includes the application form (Appendix 1) and communication meeting materials (Appendix 2). The meeting’s purpose is to determine the integrity of the clinical trial application data and the sponsor’s ability to ensure the participant’s safety. If existing or supplemental data can support the clinical trial, then the applicant can submit a clinical trial application after the meeting or after supplementing the data. The NMPA-No51-2023 reaffirms the required pre-trial meeting and states that the applicant must submit a communication application to the CDE before 1) applying for the first clinical trial of a new drug and 2) before completing the exploratory clinical trial and conducting the confirmatory (or critical) clinical trial. The NMPA-No23-2023 provides guidance on common issues and general requirements for the Phase III pre-clinical trial meeting with the CDE in regards to innovative drugs.

Per the NMPA-No50-2018, the applicant may directly submit a clinical trial application without requesting a communication meeting with the CDE in the following cases: they clearly understand the technical guidance; have sufficient experience in drug clinical trials; can ensure the quality of data in the application; or the application is for a multicentered international clinical trial being conducted in parallel that has permission to conduct the clinical trials in countries or regions with an established and functional regulatory and monitoring infrastructure. In addition, the NMPA-No48-2020 stipulates that the application for conditional approval and/or the application for priority review and approval procedures must be communicated and confirmed with the CDE before submittal. (See below for procedures on priority review and approval.)

CHN-14 states that Chinese legal entities must submit application materials to the NMPA/CDE for a formal process review (including checking the electronic materials as described below). NMPA will process clinical trial applications within five (5) working days if the study falls within the scope of its authority; the application materials are complete and comply with the prescribed format; and if all required supplementary materials are submitted. If accepted, the CDE then organizes and conducts its review of the clinical trial application on behalf of the NMPA. As required in the ElectronicApps-Rqts and the NMPA-No110-2022, all documents for drug registration applications (including clinical trial applications, letters of commitment, declarations, and supplemental material) must be submitted electronically on CD-ROM to the CDE, in accordance with the current regulations, technical requirements for electronic CD-ROMs of application materials, and electronic file structure of drug registration applications. The ElectronicApps-Rqts clarifies that the CDE no longer accepts paper documents for administrative licensing by mail, except for applications that were accepted before January 1, 2023 and must continue to submit supplementary material in paper format. The applicant or registered agent is required to electronically sign the electronic declaration materials; the application and electronic seal can be found in the CDE’s Applicant Window (CHN-58). For details on the cover requirements for CD-ROM cases and the cover of the file bag, refer to Annex 1 in ElectronicApps-Rqts.

As indicated in CDE-Reloctn, the applicant should fill in and submit the relevant information in the "Online Appointment for Submission of Materials" module under the "Online Appointment" item in the "Applicant's Window" column of CDE’s Applicant Window (CHN-58). To mail CDs and other application materials in electronic format, applicants should use the following mailing address:

Business Management Office of the Center for Drug Evaluation
State Drug Administration
Room 102, Building 2
District 2, No. 22 Guangde Street
Beijing Economic and Technological Development Zone
Beijing, 100076
P.R. China

Per the ElectronicApps-Rqts, after receiving the disc submitted by the applicant, the CDE will determine if the disc can be read normally, passes the electronic signature verification, and has no computer viruses. If the disc does not pass these reviews, the CDE will notify the applicant and request resubmittal; the original disc will be disposed of in accordance with the CDE’s destruction procedures. If accepted, the CDE will push the electronic documents to the "Drug Business Application System" and "Drug eCTD Registration System" and the applicant is notified by SMS.

The ElectronicApps-Rqts provides additional requirements on the arrangement of discs:

• Submit one (1) complete set of electronic application materials on CD-ROM (including clinical trial database, if applicable) for review
• Submit one (1) complete set of electronic declaration materials on CD-ROM (including clinical trial database, if applicable) for verification at the same time.
• For clinical trial database data, the relevant materials must be prepared in a separate set of CD-ROMs.

Additionally, the ElectronicApps-Rqts states that within five (5) working days after the acceptance of the drug registration application, the applicant must upload a Microsoft Word file of the application materials (e.g., pharmacy, non-clinical, and clinical reviews) through the CDE’s Applicant Window (CHN-58). The documents related to pharmaceutical materials (active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), pharmaceutical excipients, and pharmaceutical packaging materials) should be uploaded as PDF files. Further, per the DRR, supplementary materials (e.g., clinical trial research materials, consultations, and data submittals) are handled via the CDE’s Applicant’s Window (CHN-58).

Note that per CHN-14, all application materials must be in Chinese with the original language attached, and materials in other languages can be attached as reference. Chinese translations should be consistent with the original text.

The NMPA-No44-2020, the NMPA-No43-2020, and the NMPA-No10-2018 require applicants to apply the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s M4: Common Technical Document for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (CTD) (CHN-38) to the registration applications for drugs, therapeutic biological products, and vaccines. See the NMPA-No16-2018 for guidance on Phase I clinical trial applications. To standardize the submission of drug clinical trial data, meet the newly revised drug registration application data requirements, and improve the efficiency of drug review, the NMPA-No16-2020 provides guidance on the content and format of clinical trial data. The guidance is based on the data submission requirements of international regulatory agencies, including the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC).

For administrative support, applicants can request a meeting and/or consult the NMPA’s Government Service Portal (CHN-71).

Bioequivalent Studies

Per the NMPA-No230-2015, for generic drugs, a bioequivalence study will only need to be filed with the NMPA. The applicant should submit record filing materials to the NMPA 30 days before submitting the bioequivalence studies. For the generic drug filing, the applicant must obtain EC approval and sign a clinical study agreement with the clinical site prior to filing the bioequivalent study. See CHN-70 for handling guidelines for bioequivalent drugs.

Priority and Special Procedures

In addition, the DRR authorizes regulatory pathways for priority review and approval (including for breakthrough therapeutic drugs), conditional approval and special approval procedures. Per CHN-69, after the registration application is transferred to the CDE, applicants can apply for accelerated review directly to the CDE at CHN-58. CHN-69 contains the application and additional procedures for submitting applications for priority review and approval. As per the SC-Opinions-No44, the NMPA-No230-2015, and the NMPA-No51-2016, a new drug classification system, priority review for innovative drugs and those deemed to have an urgent clinical need, and other changes help China to be more innovative and expedite reviews. As delineated in the NMPA-No23-2018, for drugs listed overseas and that treat seriously life-threatening conditions, if there is no ethnic difference in the study, they can submit the clinical trial data obtained overseas and directly apply for the drug listing registration.

Protocol Changes

As delineated in the NMPA-No34-2022, when there is a protocol change during a clinical trial, the sponsor should follow these submission guidelines:

• For substantial changes that may significantly increase the risk to participant safety, the sponsor must submit a clinical trial application as per the instructions above
• For substantial changes that do not significantly increase participant safety risk, but may significantly affect the scientific validity and the reliability of the data, the sponsor should submit a communication meeting application to the CDE (see above)
• Non-substantive changes can be implemented after being approved by the EC and filed with the NMPA
• After the protocol is changed, the sponsor must update the drug clinical trial registration (See the Initiation, Agreements & Registration section) and submit the relevant updates in progress reports

National Health Commission

Per the MgmtHumanGen and the Rules-MgmtHGR, the foreign entity and the Chinese entity must jointly file an application for approval to MOST (now the NHC) and pass an ethics review in the partners’ countries. The only exception to the MOST (now the NHC) approval requirement is international collaboration in clinical trials that do not involve the export of Chinese HGR materials such as organs, tissues, or cells comprising the human genome, genes, or other genetic substances—these must be filed with MOST (NHC), which will generate a record number (see below for steps) and pass an ethics review in the partners’ countries.

As stated in the HGR-AppGuide, the HGR license application must be submitted to NHC via the Human Genetic Resources Service System (CHN-6), including application information and supporting materials. After verification, the system posts updates for the applicant.

See HGR-InfoSys for background on the online platform and contact information. For help with the online platform, contact Zhu Min, NHC’s China Biotechnology Development Center, at 010-88225151 or 010-88225168; or the information system support at 17610386080.

Ethics Review Submission

Each institutional and regional EC has its own required submission procedures.

Overview

As delineated in the SA-GCPs, the sponsor and the investigator must obtain approval from the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) and a registered ethics committee (EC) to begin a clinical trial in South Africa. Per ZAF-23, the review and approval of clinical trial applications by SAHPRA and an accredited EC may be conducted in parallel. As indicated in ZAF-20, the same process applies to the review and approval of an amendment to the protocol. However, note that the G-EthicsHR-ZAF recommends that scientific review be completed prior to ethics review and, in cases where scientific review capacity is not available, the EC approval should be delayed until SAHPRA scientific approval has been provided.

Regulatory Submission

Per ZAF-36, researchers must submit a completed application (ZAF-23) and the prescribed fee to SAHPRA on predetermined dates (ZAF-11) and obtain proof of delivery. The proof of delivery, proof of payments, and cover page must be sent to SAHPRA via email. The G-CTA-Electronic delineates the electronic submission and communication process in SAHPRA’s Clinical Trial Unit (CTU). For new clinical trial applications (excluding bioequivalence studies), upon submission at SAHPRA Reception, applicants are requested to alert the CTU via e-mail at ctcresponses@sahpra.org.za and include a copy of the proof of delivery, proof of payment, and proof of insurance. In the subject of the e-mail, the applicant should provide the application type, protocol number, SAHPRA predetermined cycle (see ZAF-11), and email number in case of multiple emails (e.g., “email 1 of 5”). Note that the submission email must include organized zipped folders for various sections of the clinical trial application. Individual site documents for each staff member must be uploaded into one (1) document and labelled with the staff name and arranged in folders according to the site which they belong to.

Per G-CTA-Electronic, to respond to SAHPRA’s screening checklist or to CTU’s expert committee review, the applicant must submit all responses by e-mail to ctcresponses@sahpra.org.za and include labelled attachments to the required documents. In the subject of the email, the applicant should provide the type of application, protocol number, and SAHPRA database tracking number. Responses to the CTU’s expert committee recommendations can be in MSWord or PDF formats. All other accompanying documents should be in PDF format v1.4, 1.5, 1.6, or 1.7 and legible with the Acrobat Reader search plugin or any other freeware viewer. PDF files should be saved as “Optimized” to reduce the size and allow faster opening when viewed online. The use of additional software to navigate and work with the files is not acceptable. If PDF files are not produced from an electronic source document but from scanned paper, readability and file size should be balanced; the following is recommended: resolution 300 dpi (photographs up to 600 dpi), avoid grayscale or color where possible, use only lossless compression techniques. The file must be searchable (OCR scanned). In addition, the maximum size of documents allowed per e-mail is 5 MB. As per arrangement with CTU, in case of a big file of documents and documents that need to be couriered, the waybill should indicate the type of application, protocol number, and SAHPRA database tracking number.

As delineated in the G-CTA-Electronic, for bioequivalence studies, the application and accompanying documents should be emailed to ctcbeprotocols@sahpra.org.za. The clinical trial application form should be in MS Word format and all other accompanying documents in PDF, as described above. As per arrangement with CTU, in case of a big file of documents and documents need to be couriered, the waybill should indicate the type of application, protocol number, and SAHPRA database tracking number. The email subject should include the application type, protocol number, and SAHPRA database tracking number. See the G-CTA-Electronic for specific examples of labeling the emails.

Per the G-CTAPHEmerg, during a public health emergency, applicants should use the modified clinical trial application form in G-CTAPHEmerg. This form recognizes the constraints on the availability of information posed by the emergency. SAHPRA may accept clinical trial applications with reduced information together with a commitment to update and complete the required information as soon as possible. However, all documents submitted must be organized with zipped folders according to the checklist in G-CTAPHEmerg and correctly labelled to ensure easy validation by SAHPRA (See the Submission Content and Emergencies sections for more details).

The G-CTA-Electronic provides instructions on submitting protocol amendments during the conduct of clinical trials, for additional investigators and sites during the conduct of clinical trials, bioequivalence studies, notifications and notification studies, and individual serious adverse events. The applicant must submit to SAHPRA the application for amendment to an approved trial (ZAF-20), as well as notify and get EC approval. (Also see Site/Investigator Selection and Safety Reporting sections for information about these submittal processes.)

The G-CTA-Electronic and ZAF-23 state that the clinical trial application must be sent to SAHPRA in a submission email (per directions above). However, ZAF-1 provides the following address for delivery of clinical trial applications to SAHPRA Reception:

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority
SAHPRA Reception – 2nd floor
Loftus Park, Building A
402 Kirkness St, Arcadia
Pretoria, 0007
South Africa

Per ZAF-1, upon receipt of the clinical trial application at SAHPRA Reception, an acknowledgement of receipt in the form of a stamp and signature will be issued. The waybill from a courier company does not suffice as proof of delivery. SAHPRA’s CTU requires a document, referred to as the ‘stamp page,’ which includes the SAHPRA trial reference number, protocol number, and study title. This document will then be date-stamped and signed by SAHPRA’s Administrative Department and returned as proof.

As per the GRMRSA, all applications and supporting data submitted to the SAHPRA should be presented in English. Original documents that are not in English must be accompanied by an English translation.

Ethics Review Submission

Each EC has its own required submission procedures, which can differ significantly regarding the number of copies to be supplied and application format requirements. Refer to each EC’s website for specific submission procedures.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

National Medical Products Administration

As delineated in the NMPA-No51-2023, the applicant must submit the following materials to the National Medical Products Administration’s (NMPA) Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) to have a communication meeting prior to submitting a clinical trial application for an exploratory clinical trial:

• The overall clinical development plan
• A complete first clinical trial protocol
• A risk management plan
• A subsequent clinical trial protocol, if applicable
• Non-clinical research review
• Pharmaceutical research review, etc.
• A clear statement of the issues to be communicated

Next, the NMPA-No51-2023 states that prior to completing the exploratory clinical trial, the applicant must submit the following to CDE for another meeting to discuss conducting the confirmatory (or critical) clinical trial and the subsequent clinical trial protocol:

• A preliminary analysis of the results of the early clinical trials that have been conducted
• A scientific, reasonable, complete, and feasible confirmatory (or critical) clinical trial protocol based on the existing clinical trial data
• A risk management plan
• A review of non-clinical studies
• A review of pharmaceutical studies, etc.

Per the DRR, after completing the pharmacology, toxicology, and other studies supporting the clinical trials of the drug, the applicant must submit relevant research materials to the NMPA. When applying for drug registration, the applicant must provide true, sufficient, and reliable data, materials, and samples to prove the safety, effectiveness, and quality controllability of the drug. In cases where overseas research materials and data are used to support drug registration, its source, research institution, or laboratory conditions, quality system requirements, and other management conditions should conform to prevailing international principles and applicable Chinese drug registration management requirements. CHN-14, CHN-70, and CHN-69 contain application materials and handling guidelines covering domestic drug and biological product clinical trial applications; imported drug and biological product clinical trial applications; priority review application procedures; and bioequivalence filing procedures. In general, the applications require information about the drug (e.g., names, formulation and ingredients, indications, and packaging), patents, the applicant, and the institution(s). In addition, the applications require a declaration attesting that the application and associated materials comply with the DAL, the DRR, and other applicable laws and regulations. The application and submitted data and samples must be true and legal, and they should not infringe on the rights and interests of others. The content of the electronic file submitted must be the same as the printed file. If any data is found to be false, the applicant bears the legal consequences caused by it.

The NMPA-No51-2023 requires the applicant to submit the following materials with the clinical trial application, in accordance with the NMPA-No44-2020 and the NMPA-No43-2020:

• A complete clinical research and development protocol
• A complete plan for the proposed clinical trial
• A risk management plan
• A framework for the subsequent clinical trial plan (if applicable)

The NMPA-No16-2018 provides guidance on technical information to be included in the application dossier for Phase I clinical trials:

• Introductory description and overall research plan
• Researcher’s manual (Investigator’s Brochure (IB))
• Clinical trial plan
• Pharmacy research information
• Pharmacology and toxicology information
• Description of previous clinical use experience
• Overseas research material

Per the SC-Opinions-No42, the NMPA-No10-2018, and CHN-14, that applicants should apply the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s M4: Common Technical Document for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (CTD) (CHN-38) to the registration applications for drugs, therapeutic biological products, and vaccines.

See CHN-20 for additional analyses and overview of the China clinical trial application submission content.

National Health Commission

Per the NHC-HGRmgt, the National Health Commission (NHC) is responsible for China’s management of human genetic resources (HGR). (Note that per SC-Order777 and NHC-HGRmgt, management of HGR was transferred from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to NHC, effective May 1, 2024. Please note that SC-Order777 amends the MgmtHumanGen to reflect the transfer of HGR management from MOST to the NHC)). The NHC-HGRmgt states that the original application process and platform (CHN-6) remain unchanged.

The MgmtHumanGen requires that applications for a license to collect or preserve HGR meet the following conditions:

• Applicants prove legal person status
• The purpose of collection and/or preservation is clear and legal
• The collection and/or plan is reasonable
• In the case of preservation, the premises where the HGR will be deposited is legal
• Proof of passing ethics review
• Having a department and management system responsible for the management of collecting and/or preserving the HGR
• Having premises, facilities, equipment, and personnel suitable for collection and/or preservation activities

As delineated in the MgmtHumanGen, the application for international collaborative scientific research using China’s HGR must demonstrate:

• The research is not harmful to the public health, national security, or social public interests of China
• The two (2) parties to the cooperation are a Chinese entity and a foreign entity with legal person status and have the basis and ability to carry out relevant work
• The purpose and content of the cooperative research are clear and legal, and the duration is reasonable
• The cooperative research plan is reasonable
• The HGR to be used are of legal origin, and their types and quantities are consistent with the research content
• The research passed an ethics review of the respective countries (regions) of the cooperation parties
• The ownership of the research results is clear, and there is a reasonable and clear profit distribution plan

Information on the submission content for the HGR export license is summarized in the Specimen Import & Export section.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Each ethics committee (EC) has its own application form and clearance requirements that can differ significantly regarding the number of copies to be supplied and application format requirements.

The following list was compiled from the Measures-Ethics and the RegEthics to exemplify the common elements shared by the various application forms (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Application for Human Research Ethics Review (See CHN-27 for a sample institutional application)
• Application Protocol for Results of Research or Related Technologies
• Protocol
• Sample ICF (See Children/Minors section for additional information)
• Case Report Form
• Principal investigator(s) CV(s)
• NMPA approval letter
• Certificate of Analysis for the drug issued by the National Institutes for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC) or corresponding provincial, autonomous region, or municipal institutes
• IB
• Any additional feedback from other ECs participating on the protocol
• Statement of planned tasks
• Letter of intention for cooperation
• Letter of commitment on the reliability of research materials
• Scientific opinions
• Statement of no conflict of interest
• Proof of the source of biological samples and information data
• Site list
• Site profile(s)
• Product literature
• Insurance policy (if any)
• Materials provided to participants
• Information on the lead research investigator; the legal qualification certificate of the institution; and the source of research funding
• Recruitment advertisements and their release forms
• An explanation of the form of publication of research results
• Other relevant materials that the EC believes need to be submitted

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), the clinical protocol should include the following elements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• General information
• Background information
• Trial topic, purpose(s), and objective(s)
• Sponsor name and address
• Trial site location
• Principal investigator(s) name(s), qualification(s), and address(es)
• Trial design, random selection method, and blinding level
• Inclusion criteria; participant treatment, inclusion, exclusion, and release procedures; and method of grouping participants
• Form, dosage, route, method, and frequency of administration; treatment period; usage order of concomitant medicines; and packaging and labeling description
• Investigational product registration, usage record, delivery, handling and storage conditions (See Investigational Products topic for detailed coverage of this subject)
• Efficacy assessment
• Safety assessment
• Statistics
• Direct access to source data/documents
• Quality control/quality assurance
• Ethics
• Data handling/recordkeeping
• Financing/insurance
• Clinical observations, on-site visits, and measures to ensure the participant’s compliance with trial procedures
• Rules regarding clinical trial termination and completion
• Adverse event recording requirements, and serious adverse event reporting methods (See Safety Reporting section for additional information)
• Proposed trial schedule and completion date
• Publication policy

For complete protocol requirements, please refer to Chapter 6 of the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and Section 6 of CHN-37.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As per ZAF-23, the following documentation must be submitted to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA):

• The clinical trial application form (ZAF-23)
• Two (2) cover letters (one (1) signed in PDF and one (1) in MS-Word format)
• Two (2) completed copies of the clinical trial application (one (1) signed in PDF and one (1) in MS-Word format) (ZAF-23 and ZAF-20 (for amendments))
• Checklist
• Protocol
• Patient information leaflets (PILs) and informed consent forms (ICFs); include standardized SAHPRA contact details (Annex 1 of ZAF-23)
• Copy(ies) of recruitment advertisement(s) (if applicable) and questionnaires
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB)/SAHPRA and other regulatory authorities’ approved professional information (Package insert(s))
• Summary of previous trials with the investigational product(s) (IP(s)), if applicable
• Certificate of analysis of the product
• Signed investigator(s) Curriculum Vitae(s) (CV) in SAHPRA format (Annex 2 of ZAF-23)
• Signed declaration(s) by all investigator(s) (Annex 3 of ZAF-23)
• Signed joint financial declaration by sponsor and principal investigator (PI) or national PI (Annex 4 of ZAF-23)
• Signed declaration by applicant and national PI
• Signed declaration by national PI (See page 4 and Annex 3 (ZAF-23)
• Signed declaration by sub-investigators (Annex 5 of ZAF-23)
• CV(s) and signed declaration by regional monitor(s) (Annexes 2 and 6 of ZAF-23)
• Proof of application to register the trial on the South African National Clinical Trials Register (SANCTR) (ZAF-48)
• Active insurance certificate for clinical trial
• Proof of sponsor indemnity for investigators and trial site(s) (Annex 7 of ZAF-23)
• Active Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Certificates
• Workload forms for investigators (Annex 8 of ZAF-23)
• Proof of registration with professional statutory bodies
• Proof of professional indemnity (malpractice insurance) of trialist(s)
• Ethics committee (EC) approval letter or copy of letter submitted to EC
• Study budget
• Electronic copies of key peer reviewed publications following International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations to support the application (if applicable)
• Proof of payment (bank validated)
• Certificate of good manufacturing practice (GMP) for manufacture of the IP(s) (including placebo and comparator)
• Evidence of accreditation/certifications of the designated laboratories
• Data Safety Monitoring Board charter and composition (where applicable)

See ZAF-36 for additional information on submissions. For phase IV trials of approved products, the applicant must notify SAHPRA following the instructions provided in ZAF-17.

ZAF-20 delineates the contents and requirements for submitting an application for protocol amendment to an approved clinical trial.

Per the G-CTAPHEmerg, SAHPRA states that during a public health emergency, new and experimental treatments may become necessary and clinical trials are essential to provide the evidence to develop appropriate policies for patient treatments. Under these circumstances, there may be limited information available. However, applications need to contain a certain minimum of information to enable a meaningful evaluation and regulatory decisions. To address this, SAHPRA provides an information grading system in the G-CTAPHEmerg wherein required information is labelled. Applicants must attempt to provide the information listed below and justify when this is not available. The required information is graded as follows:

• Essential – Application will not be considered without this
• Important – Necessary information that must be provided later and must be justified if not available
• Not essential – May be omitted from this preliminary application

All incomplete information must be explained, justified, and provided to SAHPRA as a complete application (ZAF-23), when available. This means that repeat evaluations of an application may be necessary.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, each EC has its own application form and clearance requirements that can differ, but ECs must ensure that the submission content includes the following:

• A description of the essential ethical elements: an explanation of the proposed research in plain language, information about potential participants (age range, vulnerabilities, etc.), and ethical implications of the research
• Indication of whether it is a sub-study or parent study; each sub-study must be reviewed
• Adequate consideration of participants’ welfare, rights, beliefs, perceptions, customs, and cultural heritage
• All documents and other material to be used to inform potential participants, such as information sheets, consent forms, questionnaires, advertisements, videos, dramatizations, and letters
• A description of the readability level to ensure that plain language is adapted to the anticipated literacy levels in the participant documentation
• Evidence of community engagement and plans for ongoing consultation, as appropriate
• Plans to implement benefit sharing, as appropriate to the context
• Monitoring schedules, the responsible persons, and their contact numbers
• Disclosure of any researcher conflicts of interest, financial interests, or information that may result in perceptions of conflict of interest
• A data management plan (See the Personal Data Protection section for more details)

See ZAF-22, ZAF-45, and ZAF-49 for example EC applications, which share some or all of following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Cover letter
• Completed EC-specific application form
• Protocol
• Protocol synopsis
• PIL(s) and ICF(s) and process for obtaining informed consent
• Separate assent form required for minors under the age of 18 (See Children/Minors section for additional information)
• IB and package insert(s) (if applicable)
• SAHPRA approval letter or letter of application and notification
• Approval letter from institution’s scientific committee (if applicable)
• Copy of completed clinical trial application signed by all participating investigators
• All questionnaires and diaries to be used in the study
• Advertisement(s) (if applicable)
• Trial site information (address, telephone numbers, PI names, etc.)
• Trial payment schedule and budget schedule per site/draft financial contract and additional funding details
• Proof of submission fees payment
• Current investigator(s) CVs
• GCP training certificates for PIs and subinvestigators
• Information on registration with SANCTR (ZAF-48)
• Declaration of trialists (PI and sub-investigators) in SAHPRA format
• Insurance certificate

Further, per the MTA-Human, all the providers and recipients of human biological material for use in research or clinical trials under the auspices of ECs must use the “Material Transfer Agreement of Human Biological Materials” in MTA-Human. The agreement must be signed by the research institution’s authorized representative and the EC. (For additional details, see Specimens topic.)

Clinical Protocol

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, it is strongly recommended that a report on the scientific review should accompany the protocol in the EC application. If a separate scientific review capacity is not available, the EC must ensure that the science is satisfactorily explained in the protocol. As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the SA-GCPs, and ZAF-23 the clinical protocol should contain the following information (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• General information
• Background information
• Study rationale and motivation
• Trial objectives, purpose, and endpoints (with justifications)
• Scientific design and methodology
• IP information
• Participant eligibility, selection, and withdrawal; inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Selection of study population and sampling
• Community and stakeholder engagement
• Recruitment and enrollment
• Risk/benefit analysis
• Reimbursements and inducements for participants
• Informed consent
• Participant treatment
• Participants’ interests in privacy and confidentiality
• Efficacy assessment
• Safety assessment
• Statistics
• Direct access to source data/documents
• Research procedures and quality control/quality assurance
• Data and safety monitoring plan
• Data handling/recordkeeping
• Statistical measures
• Financing/insurance
• How data records (written, audio or visual) are to be secured, the length of time for which they will be retained, and who will be responsible for storage and/or final disposal
• An explanation on why particular identifying information is required for the study that purports to collect data anonymously
• Measures in place to assess whether notifiable activities might occur amongst participants, e.g., abuse of minors or notifiable diseases

Per the SA-GCPs, the protocol must also provide details on ethical and administrative issues, including how the following matters are addressed:

• Compliance of multi-center/national trials with all South African regulatory requirements
• The trial design must be customized appropriately for the local setting to ensure that local realities are considered and appropriately integrated into the design
• For multi-national trials, whether a reasonable proportion of significant project team members, including scientists and health care professionals, are South African researchers, including those from previously disadvantaged backgrounds
• If South Africa is selected as a clinical trial site but the country of origin or other high-income countries are not, an explanation and reason for this with a clear ethical justification

For detailed information on protocol elements, please refer to ZAF-23 and the SA-GCPs.

Overview

As stated in the DRR, ethics committee (EC) review may be submitted parallel to the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) review, but the study cannot be initiated until after review and approval by the EC.

Per the NHC-HGRmgt, the National Health Commission (NHC) is responsible for China’s management of human genetic resources (HGR). (Note that per SC-Order777 and NHC-HGRmgt, management of HGR was transferred from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to NHC, effective May 1, 2024). The Bioscrty-Law, the MgmtHumanGen, and the Rules-MgmtHGR, delineate that MOST (now the NHC) is responsible for China's management of HGR, which includes reviewing and approving research. Per the Rules-MgmtHGR, the collection, preservation, use, and external provision of China’s HGR must comply with ethical principles and pass the ethics review of ECs that have been registered with the relevant management departments. As part of the application filing for international cooperative clinical trials, NMPA approvals, notices, and/or filing registration must be obtained in advance. In addition, EC approvals must be submitted with the filing, so therefore cannot occur in parallel. (Please note that SC-Order777 amends the MgmtHumanGen to reflect the transfer of HGR management from MOST to the NHC, but the Bioscrty-Law and the Rules-MgmtHGR have not been amended to show the transfer.)

Regulatory Authority Approval

National Medical Products Administration

Per the DRR, upon application submittal, the NMPA will complete the administrative examination for completeness within five (5) days of receiving the application, and issue a notice of acceptance. If the application does not meet the technical requirements for review, the NMPA will notify the applicant, who must submit the additional information within five (5) days of the notice. According to CHN-14, the NMPA will process clinical trial applications within five (5) working days if the study falls within the scope of its authority; the application materials are complete and comply with the legally-prescribed format; and the applicant submits all supplementary application materials in accordance with the NMPA’s requirements. Per the DRR, the NMPA-No50-2018, and CHN-14, a clinical trial application will be considered approved after 60 working days if the applicant does not receive a rejection or an inquiry for clarification from the NMPA. These procedures do not apply in every situation and additional reforms are provided below.

The DRR indicates that the following is not included in the above time limits:

• Time taken by the applicant for supplementary information, rectification after verification, and verification of production processes, quality standards, and instructions as required
• Delays in the time of verification, inspection, and expert consultation meetings
• If the review and approval procedure is suspended, the time occupied during the period of suspension of the review and approval procedure
• Time taken by the initiation of overseas verification

The application review by the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) and inspections and testing by National Institutes for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC) can affect the timeline beyond 60 days, as needed. The CDE conducts technical reviews and the NIFDC tests drug samples. The NMPA-No51-2023 specifies that if necessary, an expert consultation meeting may be held. For clinical trials that are approved after review, the technical review team’s conclusion and associated "Clinical Trial Approval Notice" must clearly state the indications, clinical trial protocol title, number, version number, version date, etc. The review team’s conclusion and notice may propose revisions or suggestions to the clinical trial protocol if necessary. For clinical trial protocols that require revisions, CDE will notify the applicant through a professional inquiry letter, clearly informing the applicant of the problems and revision opinions in the current protocol. The applicant must submit a revised clinical trial protocol within five (5) days, following the guidance in the Prcdrs-Changes.

According to the NMPA-No82-2020, the NMPA timelines for review and decisions for expedited applications are as follows: The CDE will review the application for breakthrough drug procedures submitted by the applicant and, if necessary, organize an expert advisory committee for demonstration. The CDE must report the review results to the applicant within 45 days after receiving the application. If it is necessary to extend the review time limit, the extended time limit must not exceed one-half of the original review time limit. The CDE must publicize the specific information and reasons for the types of drugs to be included in the breakthrough therapy program, including the name of the drug, the applicant, the proposed indication (or functional indication), the application date, and the reason for the proposed inclusion. If there is no objection within five (5) days of the public announcement, it will be included in the breakthrough treatment drug program; if an objection is raised against the publicly announced product, a written opinion must be submitted to the CDE within five (5) days; the CDE must organize another review and make a decision within 15 days and notify all relevant parties.

Per the NMPA-No79-2018, for applications to conduct clinical trials with drugs treating rare diseases with urgently needed drugs already on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan in the past decade, the CDE completes the technical review within three (3) months after acceptance; for other overseas new drugs, the technical review is completed within six (6) months after acceptance.

The NMPA-No21-2024 describes NMPA’s pilot work plan for optimizing the review and approval of clinical trials for innovative drugs. This initiative aims to review and approve innovative drug clinical trial applications within 30 business days (a reduction from the 60 days as described above in the normal procedures). The applicant must initiate the clinical trial within 12 weeks after the approval of the clinical trial application. The pilot work will last for one (1) year and the experience of the pilot work will be summarized in July 2025. For application and eligibility details see NMPA-No21-2024 and Scope of Assessment section.

For additional details on other expedited review pathways, see the Scope of Assessment section.

National Health Commission

Per the HGR-AppGuide, for HGR license applications, the NHC will pre-screen the electronic application to ensure it is complete. If the application does not pass, then the applicant will have one (1) opportunity to correct the submission. Per Rules-MgmtHGR, MOST (now the NHC) must make an administrative licensing decision on HGR license applications within 20 working days of acceptance. HGR-AppGuide reiterates the 20 working-day deadline by NHC, the agency currently authorized to approve HGC licenses. The Rules-MgmtHGR states that where an administrative licensing decision cannot be made within 20 working days, it may be extended by 10 working days with the approval of MOST (now the NHC), and the reason for the extension must be notified to the applicant. If it is necessary to conduct hearings, inspections, testing, quarantine, appraisals, and technical reviews, this additional time required must not be counted within the time limit, and the applicant must be notified in writing of the required time.

Ethics Committee Approval

In accordance with the Measures-Ethics, the EC must carry out an ethics review and issue its opinion within 30 days of acceptance. In urgent situations, an ethics review must be promptly carried out. In the case of emergencies such as outbreaks, ethics reviews and review opinions are generally carried out within 72 hours, and the requirements and quality of ethics reviews must not be reduced. Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), the institutional EC should review a proposed clinical trial within a reasonable time. The EC’s recommendations should be issued in writing and should indicate an approval; an approval after necessary modifications have been made; a disapproval; or a decision to terminate or suspend an already approved trial.

Overview

Based on ZAF-23 and the SA-GCPs, the review and approval of clinical trial applications by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) and an accredited ethics committee (EC) may be conducted in parallel. The applicant must notify each regulatory body of the other’s approval once it has been received. However, note that the G-EthicsHR-ZAF recommends that scientific review be completed prior to ethics review and, in cases where scientific review capacity is not available, the EC approval should be delayed until SAHPRA scientific approval has been provided. Also, where site permissions are required, e.g., from Provincial Health Research Committees (PHRCs) or superintendents, to conduct research in health care facilities, ECs must delay granting full approval until these permissions are received to prevent research from beginning before the facility knows it will happen.

Regulatory Authority Approval

In general, per ZAF-36, SAHPRA’s Clinical Trial Unit (CTU) aims to process new applications and issue a screening checklist within three (3) weeks of receipt. After that, the expert Clinical Trials Committee (CTC) recommendations will be sent within 10 weeks of the submission due date. There are cases where this turnaround time might be prolonged, such as an unfamiliar investigational product which may be referred to external reviewers or other SAHPRA committees for input.

Per ZAF-1, during the preliminary screening, the CTU screens the application and sends an official letter to the applicant with the outcome and follow-up questions on a screening checklist. The applicant receives the screening checklist within 15 working days after application submission. The applicant must respond within seven (7) working days after receipt of the screening review.

Next, the CTC reviews the proposed clinical trials. ZAF-11 provides the dates of the 2025 CTC meetings and the SAHPRA submission due dates. It is advisable to submit clinical trial applications before these due dates. Once the reviewer approves the application, the CTC presents the committee’s/reviewer’s recommendations to the SAHPRA. ZAF-1 states that applicants receive a response within 10 working days from the CTC meeting, and they must send an answer within seven (7) working days after receipt of comments. If an applicant would like to request a meeting with the CTC, the request should be submitted through the SAHPRA Chief Executive Office pursuant to the procedures in the G-ConsultMtg.

Ethics Committee Approval

Review timelines vary per each EC’s procedures. The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that ECs must define the review timelines in their standard operating procedures.

Overview

Per the DRR, clinical trials must be conducted in institutions conducting drug clinical trials that comply with relevant regulations, and abide by the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, including written approval from the ethics committee (EC) to the researcher before clinical trial implementation. Further, clinical trials of vaccines must be implemented or organized by China’s designated three-level medical institutions or disease prevention and control institutions at or above the provincial level that meet the prescribed conditions.

Per the NHC-HGRmgt, the National Health Commission (NHC) is responsible for China’s management of human genetic resources (HGR). (Note that per SC-Order777 and NHC-HGRmgt, management of HGR was transferred from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to NHC, effective May 1, 2024). The Bioscrty-Law, the MgmtHumanGen, and the Rules-MgmtHGR delineate that MOST (now the NHC) is responsible for China's management of HGR, which includes reviewing and approving research before initiation. Per the Rules-MgmtHGR, clinical trials involving the collection, preservation, use, and export of China’s HGR must be approved by ECs in the relevant institutions. Further, applications for administrative licenses for international cooperation clinical trials (without exports) using HGR must pass an ethics review in the partner countries and be filed with MOST (now the NHC) before initiating the study. The Rules-MgmtHGR also state that clinical trial applications must pass a security review organized by MOST (now the NHC) if the study’s provision or opening of HGR information to foreign entities may impact China’s public health, national security, or the social public interest.

Clinical Trial Agreement

As delineated in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), the sponsor must sign an agreement or contract with the participating institution(s). The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 also states that before the trial begins, the sponsor and the investigator must sign a written agreement regarding the trial protocol, monitoring, auditing, and standard operating procedures, as well as each party’s responsibilities during the trial.

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the agreement must include the following elements:

• Compliance with this specification and relevant clinical trial laws and regulations during the implementation of clinical trials
• Implementation of the trial protocol agreed to by the sponsor and investigator, and approved by the EC
• Compliance with data recording and reporting procedures
• Consent to supervision and inspection
• Retention period of necessary documents related to clinical trials
• The agreement on publishing articles and intellectual property rights

Clinical Trial Registration

Per the DRR, the sponsor must register the drug clinical trial plan and other information on the drug clinical trial registration and information disclosure platform before launching the drug clinical trial. The NMPA-No9-2020 requires the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA)'s Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) to establish and maintain this registry (CHN-53). Before starting a clinical trial, the clinical trial information must be registered in any of these situations:

• The clinical trial has been approved by the NMPA
• The clinical trial of a chemical drug bioequivalence test was recorded and the record number obtained
• Phase IV clinical trials and post-marketing studies were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the drug registration certificate or NMPA notice
• Other situations required for registration according to the NMPA

Also see the handling guideline for clinical trial registration (CHN-13) for more information and frequently asked questions.

Governance

Pursuant to the NHC-ClinProjMgmt, medical institutions must develop internal rules and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for administering clinical studies; centralize financial management of clinical study projects; and maintain a project-based approval system and supervision throughout the study process. In addition to having an EC, medical institutions must also establish a Clinical Study Administration Committee and a subordinate body, and a Clinical Study Administration Division to handle daily project administration. For detailed requirements, see the NHC-ClinProjMgmt.

Overview

In accordance with the GRMRSA, the SA-GCPs, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, and the NHAParticipants, a clinical trial can only commence in South Africa once an applicant receives approval from the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) and from a registered ethics committee (EC). There is no waiting period required following the applicant’s receipt of these approvals. Note that the G-EthicsHR-ZAF recommends that scientific review be completed prior to ethics review and, in cases where scientific review capacity is not available, the EC approval should be delayed until SAHPRA scientific approval has been provided. Also, where site permissions are required, e.g., from Provincial Health Research Committees (PHRCs) or superintendents, to conduct research in health care facilities, ECs must delay granting full approval until these permissions are received to prevent research from beginning before the facility knows it will happen.

The trial must be conducted in compliance with the SA-GCPs, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, and the GRMRSA. Also, per the SA-GCPs, all clinical trials must be conducted in a laboratory complying with Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). See ZAF-2 for the World Health Organization (WHO)’s handbook on GLPs.

Per the SA-GPPs, pharmacists must be involved in clinical trials, including for example, assisting in the development of protocols, overseeing medicine supplies, monitoring administration protocols, and maintaining registries. According to the SA-GCPs, the sponsor must also define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the investigator prior to initiating the study.

Clinical Trial Agreement

According to the SA-GCPs, all parties involved in the conduct of a trial should be familiar with guidance in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (ZAF-27) and other international guidelines. All clinical trials should be conducted in accordance with all ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (ZAF-44). Before the trial begins, a sponsor must prepare a written agreement. The agreement must be signed by the sponsor and the PI, and any other parties involved (e.g., institutions and contract research organizations) with the trial to confirm the contract terms. Both the sponsor and the PI must commit to providing safety information between each other. The sponsor should also obtain the investigator's agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with the SA-GCPs, the SAHPRA requirements, ZAF-27, and the EC approved protocol
• Comply with data recording/reporting procedures
• Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• Retain the trial-related essential documents until the sponsor informs the investigator(s) and institution(s) that these documents are no longer needed

In addition, per the SA-GCPs, the financial aspects of the trial should be documented in the agreement. A declaration must be signed by the sponsor and PI stating that sufficient funds are available to complete the study. The sponsor is also responsible for securing agreements to ensure direct access to all trial-related sites, source data/documents, and reports for the purpose of monitoring and auditing by the sponsor, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities.

Clinical Trial Registration

According to the SA-GCPs, NHAParticipants, and ZAF-32, the PI or the sponsor must enter the trial information in the South African National Clinical Trials Register (SANCTR) (ZAF-48). The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that solely the sponsor must register all South Africa-based trials on SANCTR, and if the trial has no commercial sponsor, the PI must register the trial. According to the SA-GCPs, the National Department of Health (NDOH) then issues a unique SANCTR National Register Number. ZAF-32 has instructions for registering either online or via email.

ZAF-48 states that SANCTR fulfills the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) publication mandates and has a formal partnership with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (ZAF-50), which is recognized by the WHO.

Governance

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF explains that research, especially that using state or provincial facilities and resources, should link to health care system priorities, and findings should be integrated into policy planning and management of health programs. PHRCs were established to liaise with researchers to ensure that the greatest health needs of each province are being addressed. As such, they perform a gate-keeping role by managing access to health facilities. While they accept ethics approval granted by a registered EC, they need to consider applications to use their facilities to manage potential interference with or interruption of services. It is thus important that PIs respect this role of the PHRCs. Some provinces have also registered provincial ECs, and these committees are important in areas of the country where other ECs are not active.

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of China’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event (AE) – All adverse medical events that occur after participants receive the experimental drugs. They can be manifested as symptoms and signs, diseases, or abnormal laboratory tests, but they may not be causally related to the experimental drugs
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or causes a congenital anomaly/birth defect after the participant receives the experimental drug during a clinical trial
• Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – Any adverse or undesired reactions that may be related to the experimental drugs that occur during clinical trials. There is at least a reasonable possibility of the causal relationship between the experimental drug and the adverse event (i.e., the correlation cannot be ruled out)
• Suspicious and Unexpected Serious Adverse Reactions (SUSAR) – Suspicious and unexpected serious clinical manifestations that exceed the existing information, such as the Investigator's Brochure (IB) of the trial drug, the instructions of the marketed drug, or the summary of product characteristics

In addition, the G-SftyRptStds includes “Serious Adverse Drug Reactions” (SADRs) as well as other important medical events, which require medical judgement to determine if measures are needed to prevent the occurrence of one (1) of the preceding.

See the NMPA-No31-2024 for NMPA’s guidance on evaluating the correlation between AEs and drugs used in clinical trials.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the investigator should immediately report all SAEs in writing to the sponsor, and then provide a detailed and written follow-up report in a timely manner. However, this does not include SAEs that do not need to be reported immediately per the trial protocol or other documents (such as the investigator’s brochure). SAE reports and follow-up reports should indicate the participant’s identification code in the clinical trial, not the participant’s real name, citizenship number, and residential address. AEs and abnormal laboratory values that are important for the safety evaluation specified in the test plan must be reported to the sponsor in accordance with the requirements and time limit of the test plan. For reports involving deaths, the investigator should provide the sponsor and the ethics committee (EC) with other required information, such as autopsy reports and final medical reports.

The Measures-Ethics state that for research that has been approved for implementation, researchers must immediately report SAEs that occur during the research process to the EC. The EC must conduct a timely review to determine whether the measures taken by researchers to protect the personal safety and health rights and interests of research participants are adequate, reassess the risk-benefit ratio of the research, and issue review opinions.

Sponsor Responsibilities

Per the DRR, the sponsor must regularly submit a safety update report to the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA)'s Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) via the Applicant’s Window (CHN-58). The safety update report during the research and development period should be submitted once a year, and within two (2) months after the full year following approval of the drug clinical trial. The CDE may require the sponsor to adjust the reporting cycle based on the review situation. Additional guidance on the safety update report is provided in the NMPA-No7-2020 and the NMPA-No65-2021. For international multicenter clinical trials, NMPA-No2-2015 states that sponsors should unify the collection and evaluation methods of AEs, use a unified glossary to code AEs, and establish a unified safety database for the collection and evaluation of SAEs. AE or SAE reports should comply with the relevant national and regional requirements.

The DRR requires the sponsor to report SUSARs and other potentially serious safety risks to the CDE in a timely manner in accordance with relevant requirements. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the G-SftyRptStds specify that the sponsor is responsible for the safety assessment of the drugs during the trial period. The G-SftyRptStds and the NMPA-No65-2021 state that during the clinical trial, the sponsor judges whether SUSARs are related to the drug. When the sponsor and the investigator cannot agree on the causal relationship between the AE and the drug, the experimental drug should not be ruled out and it must be reported. Also see NMPA-No102-2019 for guidelines on classifying AEs in clinical trials of investigational vaccines.

The NMPA-No16-2023 and the NMPA-No5-2020 state that a sound pharmacovigilance system should be established to monitor safety risks during drug clinical trials, which should include comprehensive drug data collection and risk monitoring, identification, assessment, and control. In addition, safety problems and risks should be discovered in a timely manner, and necessary risk management measures should be taken proactively, such as adjusting clinical trial plans, and suspending or terminating clinical trials, etc. The NMPA-No5-2020 provides guidance on evaluating and managing safety issues and requires sponsors to actively cooperate with clinical trial institutions and other relevant parties to strictly implement the main responsibility of safety risk management.

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 requires the sponsor to promptly notify the investigator, the clinical trial institution, and the drug regulatory authority of issues discovered in the clinical trial that may affect the safety of participants, the implementation of the clinical trial, and the consent of the ECs. Further, the sponsor must promptly report SUSARs to all participating investigators, clinical trial institutions, and ECs; sponsors must also report SUSARs to drug regulatory and health authorities. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 states that after receiving safety information from the sponsor, the investigator should sign the documentation and consider whether to treat the participant and make corresponding adjustments to the protocol.

The NMPA-No65-2021 and the G-SftyRptStds specify reporting timelines for unexpected death or serious life-threatening adverse reactions. The sponsor must submit the report as soon as possible after first learned, but not more than seven (7) days; and detailed follow-up information should be submitted within the next eight (8) days. For SUSARs, the report should be submitted as soon as possible after the first notification, but not more than 15 days. In addition to individual SUSAR reports, other potentially serious safety risk information should be reported to the CDE as soon as possible, and medical treatments should be decided upon for each situation. Generally, information that significantly affects the evaluation of the drug’s risks and benefits, changes in drug usage, or information that affects the overall drug development process, falls into this category. Domestic and foreign safety reports should be reported in Chinese. Further, the DAL states that if there is a safety problem or risk during the clinical trial, the sponsor must adjust the clinical trial plan, suspend or terminate the clinical trial, and report the issue to the NMPA.

See NMPA-No60-2021 for guidance on writing safety reference information in the investigator’s manual.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per the NMPA-No50-2018, the NMPA-No10-2018, and the G-SftyRptStds, investigators must comply with the rapid reporting requirements in the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s E2A Guideline, Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (CHN-39), and ICH E2B(R3), Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports (CHN-40). As indicated in the G-SftyRptStds, all SUSARs from clinical trials should be reported in compliance with E2A and E2B(R3). To comply with these requirements, the project’s electronic safety database must meet the E2B(R3)’s XML format and be submitted to the CDE in Chinese (CHN-58). Potentially serious security risks can be sent as a “Quick Report” through e-mail to: lcqjywjj@cde.org.cn. See NMPA-No17-2023 for frequently asked questions and answers related to rapid safety reporting. Additional questions pertaining to rapid reporting can be sent to ywjjxtwt@cde.org.cn.

According to the NMPA-No230-2015, in clinical trials of new drugs, which now only require a one-time approval, after the completion of Phase I and Phase II trials, the applicant should submit all test results and demonstrate that no safety problems were found before beginning the next phase of the trial. Furthermore, NMPA-No230-2015 states that the applicant must submit all adverse event data on time.

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with the SA-GCPs and the G-SafetyRpt, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of South Africa’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event/Experience (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that may present during treatment with a medicine, but which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment
• Adverse Drug Reaction or Adverse Reaction (ADR) – A noxious and unintended response to a medicine in humans or animals, including lack of efficacy, and which occurs at any dosage and can also result from overdose, misuse, or abuse of a medicine
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life-threatening, requires patient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly or birth defect
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction – One in which the nature, specificity, severity, and outcome is inconsistent with the applicable product information (i.e., with the approved package inserts for registered medicines, the investigator’s brochure, or other product information for unregistered medicines being used)

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF defines SAE as an unforeseen harmful event related to the study (e.g., injury/death due to an experimental intervention), thereby negatively affecting the research participants and requiring an intervention.

Per the G-EmergencyProc, all clinical trial sites must have an emergency standard operating procedure that should be available for inspection by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). In addition, each clinical trial site should have adequately trained investigators to manage medical emergencies. Further, there must be an emergency 24-hour contact number for trial participants who experience an unexpected AE.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As specified in the SA-GCPs, the principal investigator (PI) must inform the sponsor immediately, or within the time specified in the protocol, of any serious and/or unexpected AEs occurring during the study. The initial reporting form and any relevant follow-up information should be sent to the sponsor. The G-SafetyRpt directs the investigator to report AEs to the sponsor in a manner defined in the protocol. Per the SA-GCPs, AEs and/or laboratory abnormalities identified in the protocol as critical to safety evaluations must be reported to the sponsor in accordance with the reporting requirement and within the time periods specified in the protocol. In the case of participant deaths, the PI must supply the sponsor, the ethics committee (EC), and SAHPRA with any additional information, as requested. The initial and follow-up reports must identify the affected participants by the participant identification code.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, researchers are expected to provide appropriate information to the EC to facilitate monitoring, including alerts. If an EC conducts a site visit, the evaluation should include inspecting documentation of AEs and SAEs. In addition, ECs should request regular, at least annual, reports from PIs on matters including a list of all AEs in the past 12 months.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in the GRMRSA, the sponsor is required to report all expected or unexpected SAEs/SADRs on an expedited basis to all concerned parties, including the investigator(s) and institution(s), the SAHPRA, and the ECs. Pursuant to the G-SafetyRpt, the sponsor is required to submit the following safety reports to SAHPRA:

• Reports of SUSARs occurring in the clinical trial using the SAHPRA SAE form (ZAF-19), CIOMS form (ZAF-15), or Annex B of G-SafetyRpt
• Reports of all SUSARs and trends occurring with the investigational product (IP) in South Africa
• Six-month progress report
• Annual Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs) that include information gathered from all clinical experience with the IP, whether in South Africa or elsewhere
• Final Progress Report
• Final Study Report

The SA-GCPs states that the sponsor is responsible for performing an ongoing safety evaluation of the IP and must promptly provide written notification to the investigator and SAHPRA of findings that may adversely affect the safety of participants or the conduct of the trial, and/or change the EC's approval to continue the trial. The commitment to provide safety information must be included in the clinical trial agreement signed between the sponsor and the investigator.

The G-SafetyRpt delineates the following reporting timeframes:

• The sponsor should initially report all fatal or life-threatening SAEs in local reports within seven (7) calendar days after first knowledge, using CIOMS format (ZAF-15)/SAHPRA SAE form (ZAF-19). The follow-up report should be submitted within an additional eight (8) calendar days.
• All fatal or life-threatening SAEs in foreign reports should initially be reported within 30 calendar days after first knowledge by the sponsor. The follow-up report should be submitted within an additional six (6) months as part of the progress report. If the SAEs result in premature study closure, the reporting times are shorter—seven (7) days for the initial report and within an additional eight (8) days for the follow-up report. These reports should be in a line listing format. Note that these reporting requirements also cover foreign reports of “special concern,” which is a significant safety issue defined for each clinical trial that requires urgent attention from the regulatory authority. An adverse reaction of special concern from a foreign jurisdiction should be based on the decision of its regulatory authority. A safety issue leading to international regulatory action is considered to be significant at all times and hence reportable.
• Local reports of other serious events (unexpected, not fatal or life threatening) within 15 calendar days of the event and every six (6) months in the CIOMS format (ZAF-15)/SAHPRA SAE form (ZAF-19)
• A line listing of all local reports—serious (unexpected and expected) AEs—and any other issues of special concern outside South Africa should be submitted every six (6) months (using the progress report form in ZAF-18).
• An initial detailed report of new information impacting the risk-benefit profile of the IP or conduct of trial should be submitted within three (3) calendar days; a follow-up report should be submitted within an additional six (6) months.
• An initial detailed report of other major safety concerns (e.g., changes in nature, severity, or frequency of risk factors) should be submitted within 15 days of knowledge of the concern; a follow-up report should be submitted within an additional six (6) months.
• DSURs should be submitted within one (1) year from approval of the study and annually thereafter.

In addition, SAHPRA reserves the right to impose additional reporting timelines on an individual protocol basis, and it may require expedited reporting of AEs of special interest, whether serious or not.

See the G-SafetyRpt for details on the contents of the reports and other safety report requirements.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Per the G-SafetyRpt and ZAF-19, the SAHPRA’s Safety Reporting During Clinical Trials Form (ZAF-19) should be used to complete SAE/ADR reports—for both initial and follow-up safety reports. The G-SafetyRpt indicates that adverse drug reactions occurring during post-marketing studies (Phase 4 and observational studies) should be reported to the Vigilance Unit of SAHPRA, and adverse drug reactions occurring during the use of concomitant and/or comparator medicine in a clinical trial should be reported to the Clinical Trial Unit of SAHPRA. Reportable safety information must be sent to:

• ctcsaes@sahpra.org.za for clinical trials (per ZAF-47, ctcsaes@sahpra.org.za should be used for individual patient SAEs and related queries)
• adr@sahpra.org.za or e2b@sahpra.org.za for post-marketing studies
• section21@sahpra.org.za for reporting of SAEs for medicines used under Section 21

As per ZAF-47, the following is the contact information for pharmacovigilance-related submissions:

• ADR reports in an e2b in an xml format: e2b@sahpra.org.za
• All other ADR reports: adr@sahpra.org.za
• Pharmacovigilance related queries: pvqueries@sahpra.org.za
• Documentation relating to identified safety concerns, responses to recommendations, and Risk Management Plans (RMPs): pvsubmissions@sahpra.org.za

G-CTA-Electronic details the requirements for electronic submission of individual SAEs. All SAEs should be submitted to ctcsaes@sahpra.org.za with a cover letter detailing:

• The title of the study
• The SAHPRA reference number
• Protocol number
• Name of site
• Patient study ID
• Cause of SAE
• Causality and SAE reporting form
• Other applicable information

The email subject line should include the following information: SAE, protocol number, and SAHPRA database tracking number.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37) require the investigator to submit an annual report on the clinical trial to the ethics committee (EC). In addition, the investigator must provide a progress report in accordance with requirements established by the EC. When there is a situation that significantly affects the implementation of clinical trials or increases the risks to participants, the investigator should report it in writing to the sponsor, the EC, and the clinical trial institution as soon as possible. The Measures-Ethics reiterates that the researcher must submit progress reports. The NMPA-No2-2015 requires sponsors and researchers to submit the progress of international multicenter clinical trials to the EC, including but not limited to enrollment, important decisions of the independent data supervision committee (if applicable), and safety information in their own countries and other countries/regions, so as to facilitate the EC’s understanding of the overall situation of the trial, conduct follow-up reviews, and protect the safety and rights of participants.

According to the NMPA-No230-2015, in clinical trials of new drugs, which now only require a one-time approval, after the completion of Phase I and Phase II trials, the applicant should submit all test results and demonstrate that no safety problems were found before beginning the next phase of the trial. Furthermore, NMPA-No230-2015 states that the applicant must submit an annual report on time.

CHN-37 states that 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. In addition, the investigator should submit written summaries of the trial status to the institutional EC annually, or more frequently, if requested by the institutional EC. Per the Measures-Ethics researchers must promptly submit reports on suspension, termination, and completion to the EC.

Final Report

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, after the clinical trial is completed, the investigator must report to the clinical trial institution. The investigator must provide the EC with a summary of the clinical trial results and provide the sponsor with the clinical trial related reports required by the drug regulatory authority. Per the DRR, the sponsor must register clinical trial results on the Applicant’s Window (CHN-58).

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

In accordance with the GRMRSA, the person authorized by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) to conduct a clinical trial (i.e., the sponsor) must submit progress reports to the SAHPRA every six (6) months from the application approval date. The SA-GCPs requires the investigator to submit written progress reports to the ethics committee (EC) annually and to the SAHPRA every six (6) months. ECs and the SAHPRA may request reports more frequently. The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that ECs should request regular, at least annual, reports from principal investigators (PIs) on matters including: progress; current enrolment status; whether participant follow-up is still active or completed; record maintenance and security; evidence of compliance with the approved protocol and any conditions of approval; negative reports from monitors or good clinical practice (GCP) inspectors; all adverse events in the past 12 months; and all amendments made in the past 12 months.

Per the GRMRSA, the SA-GCPs, and G-SafetyRpt, the six-month report (ZAF-18) must include the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• SAHPRA database tracking number
• Study title
• Protocol number
• Details of the sponsor
• Progress to date or the outcome in case of completed research
• Whether participant follow up is still active or has been completed
• List of all active trial sites, addresses, and PIs
• Trial information, including date of approval of study, treatment hold (if applicable), and expected date of completion
• Number of participants per site and current enrollment status
• Sponsor comment on progress to date
• Summary of Data Safety Monitoring Board or Safety Committee recommendations and relevant safety data
• Serious adverse events and suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions for all participants per site in South Africa, including identification of previous safety reports submitted to the SAHPRA concerning a similar suspected adverse reaction and an analysis of their connection
• Any safety issues of special concern outside of South Africa
• Line listing of all critical and major protocol violations/noncompliance and resolutions/actions taken at a site or conditions of approval
• PI comment on other major safety concerns
• Signature of the PI
• Signature of the sponsor

Note that the SA-GCPs directs the investigator to promptly provide written reports to the sponsor/applicant, the EC, and where applicable, the institution on changes that significantly affect trial conduct and/or increase the risk of participant harm.

Final Report

The sponsor is required to submit a final progress report to the SAHPRA 30 days following the trial’s completion as stated in the GRMRSA and the G-SafetyRpt. Further, per G-SafetyRpt, a final study report should be submitted within 180 days of clinical trial completion or termination.

In addition, per the SA-GCPs, upon the trial’s end, the investigator must inform the institution (if applicable), the EC, and the SAHPRA and provide them with a summary of the trial outcome and other required reports.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states PIs or research leaders must disseminate research results or findings, whether positive or negative, in a timely, accessible, responsible, and competent manner. This includes reporting back to participant communities where appropriate.

The SA-GCPs specifies that the sponsor must ensure that trial results and outcomes are reported to the investigators, the SAHPRA, and the National Department of Health (NDOH) via the South African National Clinical Trials Register (SANCTR) (ZAF-48) within one (1) year of the study’s completion. The sponsor and the PI are responsible for appropriate dissemination of the trial findings.

As per the DRR, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), a sponsor is defined as a company, institution, or organization that initiates a clinical trial, and is responsible for managing, financing, and monitoring the trial. The DRR further specifies that the enterprise or institution applicant must be able to bear corresponding legal responsibilities. Per the DRR, applicants who are approved to carry out clinical trials of drugs are referred to as “sponsors” of clinical trials. If the sponsor changes, the changed sponsor must bear the relevant responsibilities and obligations of the drug clinical trial.

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37, a sponsor can authorize a contract research organization (CRO) to carry out certain work and obligations regarding the clinical trial. The sponsor can entrust part or all of the work and tasks of its clinical trial to the CRO, but the sponsor is still the ultimate person responsible for the quality and reliability of the clinical trial data and should supervise the various tasks undertaken by the CRO. The CRO must implement quality assurance and quality control measures. Any work entrusted by the sponsor to the CRO must be documented in a signed agreement. The sponsor is still responsible for work and tasks that are not clearly entrusted to the CRO. The requirements for sponsors in this specification apply to CROs that undertake the work and tasks related to sponsors.

A sponsor may be domestic or foreign; however, per the DRR and CHN-11, a Chinese legal entity must submit the clinical trial application.

Per the DAL, the sponsor is also referred to as the “holder” of the drug registration certificate, which is an entity that has obtained a drug registration certificate and includes institutions that are responsible for clinical trials. The legal representative and principal person holding the drug registration certificate is fully responsible for the quality of the drug used in a clinical trial. When the holder of the certificate is an overseas entity, their designated legal person in China must fulfill the same obligations as the holder of the drug registration certificate and bear joint and several liability with the holder of the drug registration certificate.

Definition of Foreign Entities in Regard to Collecting or Preserving Human Genetic Resources

For purposes of obtaining a human genetic resources (HGR) license, the HGR-AppGuide defines foreign entities as institutions established or actually controlled by overseas organizations or individuals including the following:

• A foreign organization or individual that holds or indirectly holds more than 50% of the shares, equity, voting rights, property shares, or other similar interests of an institution
• A foreign organization or individual that holds or indirectly holds less than 50% of the shares, equity, voting rights, property shares, or other similar rights and interests of the institution, but the voting rights or other rights and interests they enjoy are sufficient to control or exert significant influence on the decision-making, management, and other behaviors of the institution
• Foreign organizations or individuals, through investment relationships, agreements, or other arrangements, are able to control or exert significant influence on the decision-making, management, and other behaviors of the institution
• Other circumstances prescribed by laws, administrative regulations, and rules.

The HGR-AppGuide indicates that domestically-invested actual controlling institutions located in Hong Kong and Macao are regarded as Chinese units.

As defined in the SA-GCPs, a sponsor is the person or organization responsible for the initiation, management, or financing of a clinical trial. A sponsor can be a pharmaceutical company, the principal investigator (PI), a funding body, or an individual or organization designated by the funding body or academic institution. An applicant can be an individual, company, institution, or organization that acts on behalf of the sponsor to initiate and manage the trial as its local representative. In the case of an international sponsor, a local applicant designated by the sponsor is responsible for initiation and management of the trial in the local context.

Per the SA-GCPs, a sponsor may transfer any or all trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO). However, the sponsor is always ultimately responsible for the study data quality and integrity. Further, per the G-Monitor, the sponsor is solely responsible for adequate oversight of clinical trial conduct, including the justification for and selection of monitoring methods. Any trial-related responsibilities transferred to and assumed by a CRO should be specified in writing. The sponsor retains those responsibilities not specifically transferred to and assumed by a CRO.

Overview

Per the DRR, drug clinical trials must be conducted in institutions conducting drug clinical trials that comply with relevant regulations and abide by the clinical trial quality management standards. As set forth in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and 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. Prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an investigator’s brochure (IB). Additionally, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. Furthermore, the sponsor must sign an agreement or contract with the participating institution(s). The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 indicates that for clinical trials involving multiple institutions, the sponsor must be responsible for selecting the team leader unit. (See the Submission Content section for additional information on clinical trial application requirements). See the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 for additional details on investigator and clinical trial institution requirements.

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 states that investigators and clinical trial institutions must possess the appropriate qualifications, training, and experience to assume responsibility for the trial. Further, they must be familiar with the trial protocol, IB, and related materials and information provided by the sponsor. They must be familiar with and abide by clinical trial regulations and laws and keep an authorization form for the division of responsibilities signed by the investigator. Researchers and clinical trial institutions must accept the supervision and inspection organized by the sponsor as well as by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA). In addition, with the sponsor’s consent, investigators and clinical trial institutions can authorize qualified individuals or units to undertake clinical trial-related responsibilities and functions.

With regard to institutions, the DRR further delineates that drug clinical trials must be conducted in institutions that have the corresponding required conditions and are registered. For example, vaccine clinical trials must be implemented or organized by China’s designated three-level medical institutions or disease prevention and control institutions at or above the provincial level that meet the required conditions.

Institutional Registration

Per the SC-Opinions-No42 and the NMPA-NHC-No101-2019, the NMPA adopted a registration system for institutions with qualifying conditions to be entrusted to conduct clinical trials and operate ethics committees (ECs). This reform eases institutional burdens by removing the pre-approval accreditation requirements. Among other conditions, the NMPA-NHC-No101-2019 specifies that an institution is entrusted to conduct clinical trials if the main investigators of clinical trials have senior professional titles and have participated in more than three (3) clinical trials. The main investigator must supervise the implementation of drug clinical trials and the performance of each researcher in the performance of their work duties and take measures to implement the quality management of drug clinical trials to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data. Institutions conducting drug clinical trials must submit a work summary report of clinical trials in the previous year before January 31 of each year. NMPA-No1-2024 provides guidance and templates to institutions conducting drug clinical trials on filling out this annual work summary report. NMPA-NHC-No101-2019 indicates that the NMPA is establishing a record management information platform for the registration and operation management of institutions conducting drug clinical trials, as well as the supervision and inspection by drug regulatory agencies.

For additional details on the registration conditions, operations management, supervision, and inspection of institutions, see the NMPA-NHC-No101-2019. Also see CHN-12 for additional details on registering institutions to carry out clinical trials in China.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

The DRR requires foreign applicants/sponsors to designate Chinese legal entities to handle relevant drug registration matters.

Per the NHC-HGRmgt, the National Health Commission (NHC) is responsible for China’s management of human genetic resources (HGR). (Note that per SC-Order777 and NHC-HGRmgt, management of HGR was transferred from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to NHC, effective May 1, 2024).

Per the Rules-MgmtHGR, when data or information on human genetic resources (HGR) is provided or made available for use by foreign organizations, individuals, and institutions, the Chinese entity must notify MOST (now the NHC) in advance and may be required to pass a security review. The notification must report on the following:

• The purpose and use of providing or opening up the use of China’s HGR information to foreign entities
• The HGR data and backup copy of the information
• The basic circumstances of the foreign entities receiving the HGR information
• Risk assessments for the protection of Chinese HGR to foreign entities

This notification is not required during international scientific research that is licensed/recorded, where the Chinese unit provides the foreign party with information on HGR generated by the cooperation, and if the international cooperation agreement has stipulated that it will be used by the two (2) partners.

Note, that the Rules-MgmtHGR adopts a broad definition of “foreign units” that includes foreign organizations and institutions, as well as entities established or under “actual control” by foreign entities or individuals. See the Rules-MgmtHGR and Rules-MgmtHGR-Interp for specific guidelines for determining actual control.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, CHN-37, and the NMPA-No65-2021 recommend establishing a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) 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 EC-Guide indicates that any DSMB reports should be submitted to the EC during follow-up reviews, if applicable.

As delineated in G-SftyRptStds and the NMPA-No65-2021, the sponsor should appoint fulltime staff to monitor clinical trial safety information and manage serious adverse event reporting. Relevant standard operating procedures should be established, and all relevant personnel should be trained. The sponsor is also responsible to ensure staff understand the latest security information, conduct timely risk assessments, provide relevant information to inform participants and interested parties, and quickly report unexpected serious adverse reactions. Annex 3 to NMPA-No50-2018 requires that application materials for Phase I clinical trials focus on participant safety and describe the establishment of a drug safety committee and a pharmacovigilance system based on the clinical trial protocol.

NMPA-No2-2015 states that in large-scale international multicenter drug clinical trials, the establishment of independent data monitoring committees and endpoint determination committees for key indicators is usually considered. For critical clinical trials with relatively large sample sizes and relatively long research times, especially those driven by clinical events, it is necessary to establish an independent data supervision committee and establish clear working mechanisms and procedures. NMPA recommends that for studies in which Chinese patients account for more than 2%, Chinese experts be included in the global core independent data monitoring board. For situations where human factors may affect the determination of research results, such as international multicenter drug clinical trials where imaging evaluation results are the key evaluation endpoints, it is necessary to establish a unified endpoint judgment committee for the main research indicators to uniformly conduct independent evaluation and judgment of the main research indicators.

Multicenter Studies

Per NMPA-No2-2015, for international multicenter drug clinical trials, sponsors should ensure that investigators have the qualifications and ability to undertake the clinical trial. Sponsors should provide unified training for researchers, including training on clinical trial protocols, standard operating procedures, test record forms, computer use, etc. The training should clearly explain and translate various definitions; unify diagnosis, efficacy, and safety evaluation indicators; and ensure the consistency of researchers' understanding of clinical trial protocols and evaluation of relevant indicators.

In accordance with the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37, to carry out multicenter clinical trials, the sponsor must ensure that all centers participating in the clinical trial comply with the trial protocol. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 specifies additional sponsor requirements:

• Provide the same test plan to each center; each center must comply with the same unified evaluation standards for clinical and laboratory data and instructions for filling out the case report form (CRF)
• Ensure each center uses the same CRF to record the test data obtained in clinical trials
• Indicate in the trial protocol if the investigator needs to increase the collection of experimental data, and provide the investigator with an additional CRF
• Develop a written document clarifying the responsibilities of the investigators in each center before the start of the clinical trial
• Ensure communication among researchers in each center

The NMPA-No35-2017 delineates that researchers can conduct Phase I of multi-regional clinical trials (MRCT) of imported investigational new drugs and therapeutic biological products (excluding vaccines) simultaneously in China. Upon completion of a MRCT in China, the marketing application of the imported drug can be submitted immediately and should comply with the DRR. See Submission Content section.

Overview

As set forth in the SA-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for using qualified individuals (e.g., biostatisticians, clinical pharmacologists, and physicians), as appropriate, throughout all stages of the trial process. Sponsors should select investigator(s) who are qualified by training and experience and have adequate resources to conduct the proposed clinical trial.

Per the SA-GCPs, all parties involved in the conduct of a trial should be familiar with the guidance in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (ZAF-27) and other international guidelines.

Capacity Building & Training

As described in the G-Monitor, the sponsor should consider previous experience with the investigator or site, workload of the investigator, and resource availability at the study site during investigator and site selection. Per the G-Capacity, clinical trial applications should include evidence and activity plans to build capacity at each study site as well as enhancing research activities and skills of professionals from historically disadvantaged groups. Mandatory training in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) forms a part of capacity building. To support transformation and capacity building, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) states that the sponsor must have a policy on “Capacity Building and Transformation in Clinical Research in SA” in place, and preferentially select sites that are compliant. See G-Capacity, for detailed information on actions that will comply with this requirement.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that researchers must be suitably qualified and technically competent (trained and supervised, in the case of student researchers) to carry out the proposed research. The principal investigator (PI) has primary responsibility to ensure the safety and wellbeing of participants, the scientific integrity of the protocol, research data management, and responsible implementation of that protocol. Competence is demonstrated mainly by academic qualifications, credentials, and scientific and technical competence, as evidenced in previous publications or testimonials. Competence includes research competence, which is assessed in terms of education, knowledge, certification, and experience. In addition, researchers must produce evidence of appropriate research ethics training within the previous three (3) years.

The SA-GCPs prescribes mandatory GCP training with evidence of current (i.e., within three (3) years) GCP training and general research ethics training. To meet the required GCP training, the GCP-Trning indicates that virtual methods are acceptable (Zoom, Teams, etc.) for both basic and refresher training. Virtual training must be done properly, which includes monitoring interactive and active engagement of participants, and using a full-time facilitator (qualified to conduct training) available for the entire duration including questions and answers. To ensure inclusivity and fairness, consideration should be given to those who are unable to attend virtual training, especially in remote areas where internet accessibility remains a challenge. A hybrid model could be considered in this case. The duration of basic GCP training should be in alignment with the prescribed outcomes or unit standards (approximately two (2) days). The training content should be accredited by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA).

Management of Investigators

According to the SA-GCPs, the sponsor must also define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the investigator prior to initiating the study.

In addition, per ZAF-21, to add or change investigators and/or additional sites to an approved clinical trial, the sponsor must submit a signed application to SAHPRA. See ZAF-21 for details.

Per the G-CTInvestigators, SAHPRA will recognize and approve categories of investigators for trial leadership. The PI must be a South Africa-based scientist, who has sole or joint responsibility for the design, conduct, and delegation of trial responsibilities, analysis, and reporting. The PI is accountable to the sponsor and regulatory authorities. The PI can designate and supervise sub-principal investigator(s) (Sub-PI) of which at least one (1) must be a clinician and registered with the appropriate statutory entity to provide clinical oversight within their scope of practice. Further, the SAHPRA recognizes a category of co-principal investigator (co-PI), which allows for a team consisting of two (2) co-PIs to lead a study at a site. At least one (1) of the co-PIs must be a clinician registered with the appropriate statutory body and qualified to provide clinical oversight within their scope of practice. For multi-center studies, there must be a national PI appointed, who may or may not be a site PI. The national PI must have appropriate experience and expertise in that field and must be responsible for the application to the SAHPRA to conduct the study. The national PI must meet all other requirements to be a PI and sign a declaration accepting the responsibility as national PI and sign off on the clinical trial application. For more information on PI requirements, roles, and responsibilities, see the G-CTInvestigators.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

As required in the SA-GCPs, if South Africa is selected as a clinical trial site but the country of origin or other high-income countries are not, the sponsor must explain the reason(s) why and provide a clear ethical justification. Further, multi-national trials should ensure that a reasonable proportion of project team members are South African researchers, including scientists and health care professionals and those from previously disadvantaged backgrounds.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, all international collaborative health research conducted in South Africa must undergo ethics review and approval by a South African registered EC and comply with the SA-GCPs. In addition, if international collaborators are affiliated with a foreign research institution or university, they must provide evidence of ethics review and approval from their home institution. International researchers are expected to demonstrate sensitivity to and understanding of the local socio-economic and political conditions of the research context, as these may indicate vulnerabilities of potential participants. It is advisable to create appropriate memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and agreements to establish the expectations, roles, and contributions of the various parties, as well as the limitations of the collaborative relationship. An agreement should exist between the host research institution and the collaborating institution(s) regarding all aspects of the research, including management of the research itself; research data management that includes the fate of the data and samples after completion of the study; financial arrangements; approach to research output publications; infrastructure development; allocation of intellectual property rights; and dispute resolution mechanisms. Selection of study participants is expected to be based on distributive justice and fairness. Risk/benefit assessments must be properly conducted to ensure that foreseeable risks of harm are mitigated and that anticipated benefits of participation are distributed fairly.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

Per the SA-GCPs, the sponsor may establish an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) to assess the progress of a clinical trial, including safety data and critical efficacy endpoints at intervals, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial. The DSMB must have written standard operating procedures and must maintain written records of all its meetings.

Multicenter Studies

Per the SA-GCPs, if the trial is a multicenter and/or multi-country trial, any differences in trial designs between the South African and other sites must be clearly documented and explained in the trial protocol and/or related documents. In addition, international research groups must comply with South African regulatory requirements, and researchers must adapt the trial design and informed consent procedures to take into account local conditions and characteristics.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that for international multi-site research, at least one (1) PI or co-PI must be physically in South Africa.

Insurance

As set forth in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the sponsor is responsible for providing the investigator and clinical trial institution with legal and economic insurance or a guarantee related to the clinical trial, which must be compatible with the nature and degree of risk of the clinical trial. This insurance should not include damage caused by the investigator and the clinical trial institution itself. The International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37) guides sponsors on providing insurance. See CHN-11 for an analysis of clinical trial insurance in China.

Per NMPA-No2-2015, for insurance provided by overseas insurance companies in international multicenter clinical trials, the sponsor should ensure that participants in China can effectively and fully claim compensation, and give priority to protecting the rights and interests of participants.

Compensation

Injury or Death

Per the Measures-Ethics, when research participants suffer research-related damages, they must receive timely and free treatment, and they must be compensated in accordance with laws and regulations and the agreement of both parties. In accordance with the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the EC-Guide, the sponsor must take appropriate measures to ensure that the participants and researchers can be compensated. The sponsor must bear the costs of diagnosis and treatment for the damage or death of the participant related to the clinical trial, as well as the corresponding compensation. Further, the sponsor must provide free trial drugs to participants and pay for medical testing related to clinical trials.

In addition, CHN-37 provides guidance to sponsors on providing compensation to research participants in the event of trial-related injuries or death. The sponsor must explain to participants the compensation and/or treatment available to them in the event of trial-related injuries.

Trial Participation

Per Measures-Ethics, research participants must not be charged research-related fees, and appropriate compensation must be given to the research participants for reasonable expenses incurred in the course of the research process.

Insurance

As set forth in the G-Insurance and the SA-GCPs, all clinical trial sponsors and investigators must obtain adequate insurance and indemnity to cover any liability claims during the conduct of a clinical trial, in accordance with the responsibilities described in the SA-GCPs. As delineated in the SA-GCPs and G-Insurance, a sponsor must follow the principles set forth in the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s (ABPI) guidelines (ZAF-26 and ZAF-25) to comply with South Africa’s clinical trial insurance requirements. Per the SA-GCPs, research participants should not bear any financial cost to rectify harms that occur as a result of trial participation. The insurer pays the medical costs of necessary treatment to restore the previous position of the participant, if possible, when bodily or other injury is attributable to trial participation. Only bodily injuries of an enduring and disabling character (including exacerbation of an existing condition) and/or death are covered by the insurance. Temporary pain or discomfort or less serious or curable complaints are generally not regarded as trial-related, bodily injury. In the case of an in-utero injury due to the mother’s participation, payment for medical expenses proceeds as though the unborn child is a research participant. For additional details on limitations on liability, dispute resolution, weighting of risk factors, and insurance settlements, see the SA-GCPs. In addition, see the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, which reaffirms these requirements and provides legal analysis of insurance and legal claims.

Per the G-Insurance, the application to conduct a clinical trial must include evidence of comprehensive no fault insurance for serious injury and harm and/or death. In addition, the sponsor must provide indemnification for all investigators and trial sites involved in their clinical studies on compliance with the protocol requirements. In cases where the investigators/site staff were negligent and/or did not comply with the protocol requirements, personal malpractice insurance would apply.

As delineated in the G-Insurance and ZAF-23, an insurance certificate and indemnity must be included in the clinical trial application submitted to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). Per the G-Insurance, the sponsor must include details of the insurance, including the following:

• Name and local address of the insurance company, including contact name and telephone number
• Title and protocol number of the clinical trial
• Date of commencement and termination of coverage
• Liability limit – per occurrence and total per occurrence and total for the study. Note that the limit should be adequate enough to cover extended stay in an intensive care unit or hospital
• Date of issuance of the insurance policy and expiry thereof
• Original or electronic signature of the insurer
• Special conditions if any. It is unacceptable to have special conditions which may invalidate or abate the clinical trial cover
• Any additional coverage
• Declaration of compliance with the SA-GCPs and ABPI guidelines on the certificate and in the patient information leaflet
• Where the insurance is not provided by a local company, a local insurance vendor must be identified with full details
• Insurance policy number
• The amount insured

Compensation

Injury or Death

As set forth in the G-Insurance, all clinical trial sponsors and investigators must have adequate insurance to cover any liability claims during the conduct of a clinical trial, in accordance with the responsibilities as described in the SA-GCPs. As delineated in the SA-GCPs and G-Insurance, a sponsor must follow the principles set forth in the ABPI guidelines (ZAF-26 and ZAF-25) to comply with South Africa’s participant compensation and treatment requirements for trial-related injuries. The guidelines state that the sponsor should furnish written assurance to the investigator that the sponsor will agree to pay compensation to participants and/or their legal heirs in the event of trial-related injuries or death. The investigator, in turn, communicates this information to the relevant ethics committee (EC).

The SA-GCPs, the G-Insurance, and ZAF-26 provide several compensation principles to guide sponsors in fulfilling their obligations (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Compensation should be paid when it can be demonstrated that a causal relationship exists between a participant’s injury and their participation in a trial
• Compensation should be paid when the injury results in permanent injury or disability to the participant
• When there is an adverse reaction to a medicinal product under trial, and injury is caused by a procedure adopted to deal with that adverse reaction
• The sponsor/applicant is under strict liability with respect to injuries caused by the investigational product (IP), and research participants should not bear any financial cost to rectify harms that occur as a result of trial participation
• The insurer should pay the medical costs of necessary treatment to restore the previous position of the participant, if possible
• In the case of an in-utero injury due to the mother’s participation, payment for medical expenses proceeds as though the unborn child is a research participant
• In principle, only bodily injuries of an enduring and disabling character (including exacerbation of an existing condition) and/or death are covered by the insurance; temporary pain or discomfort or less serious or curable complaints are generally not regarded as trial-related, bodily injury
• Where there is an adverse reaction to an IP and the injury is caused by a procedure adopted to deal with that adverse reaction, compensation should be paid for such injury as if it were caused directly by the IP
• Payment for medical expenses is made without acknowledgement of any legal liability and is thus to be understood to be an ex-gratia payment
• The provision of insurance cover and payment of medical expenses does not mean that an injured participant may not pursue legal action against the sponsor for loss or harm not covered by the insurance; however, an argument that pain and suffering, loss of income, and other possible claims should be paid for by the sponsor’s insurer is not sound in South African law and will not succeed
• The likelihood of an adverse reaction, or the fact that the participant has freely consented (whether in writing or otherwise) to participate in the trial should not exclude the participant from being eligible for compensation

According to the SA-GCPs and ZAF-26, the amount of compensation to be paid to the participant should be appropriate to the nature, severity, and persistence of the injury. The compensation should also be generally consistent with the amount of damages commonly awarded for similar injuries. The amount paid in compensation should be abated, or in certain circumstances excluded, in light of the following factors (which will depend on the risk level the participant can reasonably be expected to accept):

• The seriousness of the disease being treated
• The degree of probability that adverse reactions will occur and any warning given
• The risks and benefits of the established treatments relative to those known or suspected of the trial medicines

ZAF-26 provides that in any case where the sponsor agrees to pay the participant, but the two (2) parties differ on what is the appropriate level of compensation, it is recommended that the sponsor agree to seek, at the sponsor’s own cost, the opinion of a mutually acceptable independent expert. This opinion should then be made available to the participant(s), and the expert’s opinion should be given substantial weight by the sponsor in reaching a decision on the payment amount.

Additionally, any participant claims pursuant to ZAF-26 should be made to the sponsor, preferably via the investigator. The participant should include details on the nature and background of the claim, which the sponsor should review expeditiously. The review process may be delayed if the participant requests an authority to examine any medical records relevant to the claim.

Trial Participation

As specified in the G-TIECompensation and the SA-GCPs, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for providing compensation to research participants. The SA-GCPs state that before the clinical phase of the trial commences, the EC must approve the documentation on participant compensation. Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the SA-GCPs, and the G-TIECompensation, compensation should be based on time, inconvenience, and expenses (TIE). In addition, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF and the SA-GCPs also address researcher requirements to budget for participant travel and other expenses. (See the G-EthicsHR-ZAF for detailed information).

The G-TIECompensation guides sponsors of approved clinical trials and proposes a model for minimum compensation that can be paid. It is not intended as an exclusive approach and the SAHPRA reserves the right to request any additional information. In addition, G-TIECompensation is not applicable to Phase I clinical trials, which pose a higher risk for participants and should be compensated on a different scale.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF explains that inducements (also known as incentives) may be offered in justified circumstances (e.g., where recruitment is anticipated to be difficult) to encourage participation and to express appreciation by offering gifts over and above reimbursement of expenses and compensation for time and inconvenience. Inducements are not necessarily cash but may take other forms like data or airtime vouchers, food vouchers, etc. Importantly, an inducement should not unfairly influence an informed choice about whether to participate or undermine a potential participant’s ability to assess the risk of harm. This is especially important for Phase I and First in Humans clinical trials where the circumstances may involve healthy people being offered significant payments over and above those outlined in the TIE method. All inducements should be clearly explained and justified to the EC. If there are community members on the EC, their input may be constructive regarding appropriate inducements.

Post-Trial Access

The G-PostCTAccess guides sponsors on when to consider post-trial or continued access (PTA/CA) to the IP following the trial’s conclusion. Only those participants who derive benefit from the IP will be considered (this excludes participants on standard of care, placebo, and registered medicines). Where appropriate and available, the possibility of PTA/CA should be disclosed to and discussed with potential participants during the initial informed consent process or via a separate consent process. Where appropriate and/or available, details of potential PTA/CA should be included in the clinical trial application form, informed consent form, and patient information leaflet. Additional considerations include the following:

• PTA/CA is not applicable for Phase I and II studies. However, PTA/CA may be necessary for particular diseases (e.g., cancer or rare diseases).
• PTA/CA should be considered for Phase III studies when there is no registered and marketed standard of care in South Africa, provided that data from interim or final analyses shows that access is clinically justifiable.
• PTA/CA is not applicable to Phase IV studies
• A minimum of four (4) years after completion of the study is recommended as the acceptable time period to provide PTA/CA to the participants, unless there are compelling reasons for determining otherwise.
• During the PTA/CA period, the sponsor must ensure monitoring and oversight of participants using the IP.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Per the DRR, the management of drugs used in clinical trials must comply with the clinical trial quality management regulations specified in NMPA-GCP-No57-2020. As stated in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the NMPA-No65-2021, the sponsor must establish quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) systems for the clinical trial. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37) specify that the quality management system for clinical trials should cover the entire process of clinical trials, including the design, implementation, recording, evaluation, result reports, and filing of clinical trials. NMPA-No65-2021 reiterates that sponsors must establish a quality management and pharmacovigilance system for investigational products (IPs). This system must collect safety information, monitor risk, identify and control safety problems in a timely manner, proactively take necessary risk control measures, and evaluate the effectiveness of risk control measures to protect participant safety.

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, quality management includes effective trial plan design, data collection methods and procedures, and information collection necessary for decision-making in clinical trials. The QA and QC methods for clinical trials should be consistent with the inherent risks of clinical trials and the importance of the information collected. Sponsors should ensure the operability of all aspects of clinical trials and avoid over-complication of trial procedures and data collection. The trial protocol, case report form (CRF), and other related documents should be clear, concise, and consistent. During an inspection by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), both the research and management teams should send personnel to participate.

The sponsor must conduct quality management based on risk. The key links and data that protect the rights and safety of participants and ensure the reliability of clinical trial results must be clearly defined when the sponsor formulates the trial plan. Risk should be considered from two (2) levels: 1) system level, such as facilities and equipment, standard operating procedures (SOPs), computerized systems, personnel, and suppliers; and 2) clinical trial level, such as trial drugs, trial design, data collection and recording, and the informed consent process. The risk assessment should consider the possibility of errors under existing risk control; the impact of the errors on the protection of participants’ rights and safety; and the extent to which the errors have been monitored. Control measures to reduce risks should be embodied in the design and implementation of the test plan, the monitoring plan, the contract with parties, SOPs, and various trainings. During clinical trials, quality management should be recorded and communicated with relevant parties in a timely manner to promote continuous improvement of risk assessment and quality. The sponsor must regularly evaluate the risk control measures based on new knowledge and experience during the clinical trial period to ensure the effectiveness and applicability of the current quality management. In addition, the sponsor’s quality management system must meet the following requirements:

• The sponsor is responsible for formulating, implementing, and updating the SOPs related to clinical trial QA and QC systems
• The entire process of clinical trials and laboratory testing must be carried out in strict accordance with the quality management SOPs, and each stage of data processing has QC to ensure that all data are reliable and the data processing process is correct
• The sponsor must sign a contract with all relevant parties, including investigators and clinical trial institutions, to clarify the responsibilities of each party
• The contract signed by the sponsor and the relevant parties must indicate that the sponsor and the NMPA can access the clinical trial site to consult the source data, source documents, and reports

To standardize the submission of drug clinical trial data, meet the drug registration application data requirements, and improve the efficiency of drug review, the NMPA-No16-2020 provides guidance on the content and format of clinical trial data. The guidance is based on the data submission requirements of international regulatory agencies, including the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC). In addition, the NMPA-No74-2020 has details on the management of records and data that must be provided to the NMPA during clinical trials in China. It indicates that data refers to the information generated during drug development, production, operation, and use, including text, values, symbols, images, audio, pictures, maps, barcodes, etc.

Per the NMPA-No2-2015, for international multicenter clinical trials when the main efficacy and important safety evaluation indicators are laboratory evaluation indicators, it is recommended to establish a central laboratory for unified testing. The laboratory should have the corresponding clinical laboratory qualifications. Where a regional central laboratory is established, the quality control consistency verification between laboratories must be carried out regularly to ensure the consistency and reliability of experimental results.

The NMPA-No48-2018 presents quality management guidelines for Phase III clinical trials using innovative drugs. The guide addresses information the sponsor should provide to the NMPA related to the active pharmaceutical ingredient and its production, considering participants’ safety, drug characteristics, dosage form and route of administration, development stage, target population, and severity of the disease.

Finally, the NMPA has issued the following quality management and technical guidelines for conduct during clinical trials. See each of these documents, for additional details:

• NMPA-No29-2024 – guidelines for pharmaceutical research and changes to biological products during clinical trials
• Risk-Prcdr – procedures for safety information assessment and risk management during clinical trials
• DctrlzCTs-Rare – technical guidelines for decentralized clinical trials using rare disease drugs
• GeneCTs-Rare – technical guidelines for clinical trials of gene therapy products for rare diseases
• PatientCtr-Risk, PatientCtr-Imp, and PatientCtr-Design – technical guidelines for patient-centered drug clinical trials, including design and risk assessment
• NMPA-No15-2023 – technical guidelines for clinical trials of chemical compound drugs
• NMPA-No34-2022 – guidelines for protocol changes during drug clinical trials
• NMPA-No32-2022 – guidelines for clinical trials of topically administered local effective drugs
• NMPA-No31-2022 – guidelines for conduct of research with in vivo gene therapy products
• NMPA-No30-2022 – guidelines for conduct of research involving immune cell therapy products
• NMPA-No29-2022 – guidelines for conduct of research with in vitro gene modification
• NMPA-No27-2022 – guidelines for conduct of research involving specific human immunoglobulins
• NMPA-No22-2021 – a research and development model to guide researchers in managing pharmaceutical changes of innovative drugs
• NMPA-No17-2022 – guidelines for clinical pharmacological research of biosimiliars
• NMPA-No4-2022 – guidelines for research of human bioavailability of bioequivalence of innovative drugs
• NMPA-No71-2021 – guidelines for research of drugs for rare diseases
• NMPA-No68-2021 – guiding principles for writing the clinical risk management plan
• NMPA-No66-2021 – guiding principles for multiplicity issues during drug clinical trials, which refers to multiple testing problems that can lead to errors and inappropriate interpretation of trial results
• NMPA-No63-2021 – guidelines for drug clinical trial data management and statistical analysis plan
• NMPA-No62-2021 – guidelines for the application of patient-reported outcomes in drug clinical development
• NMPA-No59-2021 – guidelines for analyzing the effectiveness of clinical studies of drugs
• NMPA-No50-2021 – guidelines for long-term follow-up for clinical research of gene therapy products
• NMPA-No6-2021 – guidelines for sponsors in adopting and implementing an adaptive design to improve the success and quality of the research results
• Chngs-MktChem – technical guidelines for pharmaceutical change research of listed chemicals
• Chngs-MktChemBio – technical guidelines for clinical changes in marketed chemicals and biological products
• NMPA-No21-2021 – technical requirements of pharmaceutical research and evaluation of overseas listed and domestic unlisted chemicals
• NMPA-No54-2020 – technical guidelines for clinical trials of improved chemical drugs
• Chngs-MktBio – technical guidelines for pharmaceutical change research of marketed biological products

Per the VaccineLaw, during the research and development phase for vaccines, the sponsor must establish a biosafety management system that strictly controls biosafety risks, strengthens biosafety management of pathogenic microorganisms (e.g., bacterial strains), protects the health of operators and the public, and safeguards against bacterial toxicity. The use of pathogenic microorganisms, such as strains, is legal and legitimate. The strains and cell strains used during research and development must have clear histories, biological characteristics, and generations. Detailed documentation and archives must be established to ensure that the source is legal, clear, and traceable; if the source is unknown, then it cannot be used.

As delineated in MgmtHumanGen, for international cooperative projects using human genetic resources (HGR), the sponsor must ensure the participation of the Chinese partner. During the study period, the Chinese partner and its researchers must fully participate in the research. All records and data information in the research process, and all backup documentation, must be accessible to the Chinese partner. Both the foreign and Chinese parties have the right to use the information developed with the HGR.

Monitoring Requirements

As per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the purpose of monitoring is to ensure the rights and interests of participants in clinical trials, to ensure that the data in trial records and reports are accurate and complete, and to ensure that trials comply with the agreed protocol and relevant regulations. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37 require the sponsor to establish a systematic, prioritized, risk-based method to monitor clinical trials. NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 directs the sponsor to formulate audit procedures and an inspection plan with a special emphasis on protecting the rights and interests of participants, ensuring the authenticity of data, and managing risks in clinical trials. On-site supervision and centralized supervision should be conducted based on the combination of risks of clinical trials. The audit procedures must establish objectives, methods, frequency, and format content of audit reports. All problems observed and discovered by the auditors during the inspection process must be recorded in writing. The sponsor may conduct special inspections in addition to routine inspections. The sponsor selects a person independent of the clinical trial to serve as an inspector. Inspectors must have received corresponding training and inspection experience and be able to effectively perform inspection duties.

As indicated in NMPA-No2-2015, for international multicenter clinical trials, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) entrusted by the sponsor must conduct supervision of each clinical trial center, the monitoring report must be archived, and the sponsor must periodically review the monitoring work. The sponsor or the CRO must formulate an audit plan and have a unified audit report template and audit result reporting system.

Further, NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 states that researchers and clinical trial institutions must agree to supervision and inspection organized by the sponsor and the NMPA. The sponsor must provide an inspection report or certificate when requested by the NMPA. In accordance with the DRR and CHN-8, NMPA’s Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) will make a risk-based decision on whether to conduct an inspection of a clinical trial, based on the level of drug innovation and the past verification history of the clinical trial site. See NMPA-No56-2023 for NMPA’s management measures that standardize the supervision and inspection of institutions conducting drug clinical trials. In addition, NMPA-No22-2022 indicates that sponsors have the main responsibility for pharmacovigilance inspections during the conduct of a clinical trial. See NMPA-No22-2022 for key considerations during routine and causal inspections, evaluation criteria, risk factors, inspection methods, and other inspection implementation guidance.

The NMPA-No28-2020 further clarifies the link between on-site inspection of drug registration and the pre-market good manufacturing practice (GMP) compliance inspection. Based on the innovation and risk characteristics of an IP, the pre-market GMP compliance inspection will be conducted by the appropriate level regulatory authority (i.e., the CDE, province, autonomous region, or municipality). See the NMPA-No28-2020 for detailed inspection requirements.

Also, see the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37 for additional guidance on audits and inspections. See NMPA-No11-2022 for guiding principles on use of risk-based statistical evaluation methods for centralized monitoring of drug clinical trials.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 mandates that researchers, clinical trial institutions, and sponsors abide by the trial protocol, SOPs, and relevant laws and regulations. If non-compliance is found, the sponsor must take immediate measures to correct them and ensure the clinical trials are in compliance. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37 state that when an important compliance problem is discovered that may have a significant impact on the safety and rights of participants or the reliability of clinical trial data, the sponsor must conduct a root cause analysis in a timely manner and take appropriate corrective and preventive measures.

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 specifies that if the trial protocol is violated or there is a serious quality problem, the sponsor must hold the relevant personnel accountable and send a written report to the NMPA at CHN-58. When it is found that the investigator or clinical trial institution has serious non-compliance problems, the sponsor must terminate the investigator or clinical trial institution from continuing to participate in the clinical trial. The sponsor should also send a written report to the NMPA. At the same time, sponsors and researchers should take corresponding emergency safety measures to protect the safety and rights of participants. A sponsor who terminates or suspends clinical trials early must immediately notify the investigator, clinical trial institutions, and the NMPA, and explain the reasons.

Further, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 states that when a clinical trial is completed or terminated early, the sponsor must submit a clinical trial report to the NMPA. The clinical trial summary report must comprehensively, completely, and accurately reflect the clinical trial results. The safety and effectiveness data of the clinical trial summary report must be consistent with the clinical trial source data. The Measures-Ethics indicates that for research that has been approved for implementation, researchers must promptly submit reports on suspension and termination to the EC.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Per the SA-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for implementing a quality management system to manage quality throughout the design, conduct, recording, evaluation, reporting, and archiving of clinical trials. This quality management system should adopt a risk-based approach for risk identification, evaluation, control, communication, and reporting. The sponsor should focus on trial activities that promote human participant protection and reliability of trial results, which include using qualified individuals, designating qualified medical personnel to respond to trial-related medical questions, and ensuring all aspects of the trial are operationally feasible and avoiding unnecessary complexity, procedures, and data collection. With respect to quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC), the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining QA and QC systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, documented (recorded), and reported in compliance with the protocol, good clinical practice, and the applicable regulatory requirement(s).

Per the G-Monitor, the responsibility for adequate oversight of the conduct of a clinical trial, including the justification for and selection of monitoring methods, remains that of the sponsor solely.

Per the SA-GCPs, all parties involved in the conduct of a trial should be familiar with guidance in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (ZAF-27) and other international guidelines. Additionally, the investigator must agree to conduct the trial in compliance with the SA-GCPs, ZAF-27, South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) requirements, and the ethics committee (EC) approved protocol. In the event of an interpretation conflict between the SA-GCPs and an international guideline, the SA-GCPs take precedence.

Monitoring Requirements

In accordance with the SA-GCPs, the sponsor must conduct an independent audit to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, procedures, good clinical practice, and the applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor must appoint individuals who are independent of the clinical trials to conduct the audits and ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience to conduct audits properly. The sponsor's audit plan and procedures for a trial audit must be guided by the number of participants in the trial, the type and complexity of the trial, the level of risks to the trial participants, and any identified problem(s). Observations and findings of the auditors must be documented. The sponsor is responsible for obtaining agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, and reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities.

In addition, per the G-Monitor, the sponsor’s monitoring plan should include planned audits to ensure that monitoring activities are in accordance with the monitoring plan, applicable regulations, guidance, and the sponsor’s plans and policies.

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, researchers are expected to provide appropriate information to the EC to facilitate monitoring, including alerts and investigator brochures.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Per the SA-GCPs, if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended for any reason, the investigator must promptly inform the trial participants and ensure appropriate therapy and follow-up for them. If the investigator, sponsor, institution, SAHPRA, or the EC terminate or suspend a trial, the investigator must promptly inform the other parties with a detailed written explanation for the termination or suspension. The sponsor is also responsible for ensuring that the South African National Clinical Trials Register (SANCTR) (ZAF-48) is updated as well.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF reiterates that if a project is terminated or suspended before the anticipated date of completion, then the researchers must report this immediately to the EC.

Electronic Data Processing System

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the sponsor must meet the following requirements in electronic data processing during clinical trials:

• Select qualified personnel to supervise data processing, data verification, statistical analysis, and the writing of trial summary reports
• Use an electronic data management system that passes reliable system verification and meets the pre-set technical performance to ensure the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of the test data, and to ensure that the system is always valid for verification during the entire test process
• Have complete standard operating procedures (SOPs) that cover the setup, installation, and use of electronic data management; the SOPs must describe the verification, functional testing, data collection and processing, system maintenance, system safety, testing, change control, data backup, recovery, and system emergency plans
• Ensure the SOPs cover the responsibilities and training of sponsors, researchers, and clinical trial institutions when using computerized systems
• Prescribe in advance the method of data modification
• Ensure that the data conversion process is consistent with the original data and visibility is maintained during the process
• Ensure the security of the electronic data management system, and that unauthorized personnel cannot access it; keep a list of persons authorized to modify data; electronic data is backed up in time; clinical trials designed by blind methods are always blinded, including data entry and processing

In accordance with NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, when the information system of a clinical trial institution has the conditions for establishing a clinical trial electronic medical record, the researcher should use it first, and the corresponding computerized system should have complete authority management and audit trails, which can be traced to the creator or modifier of the record. Researchers must supervise the data collection. They must ensure that all clinical trial data are obtained from clinical trial source documents and trial records, and are accurate, complete, readable, and timely. The source data should be attributable, legible, original, accurate, complete, consistent, and durable. The modification of the source data must be explained and transparent. Relevant medical records should be included in the outpatient or inpatient medical record system. During the processing of clinical trial information, care must be taken to avoid illegal or unauthorized access, disclosure, dissemination, modification, damage, or loss of information. The record, processing, and preservation of clinical trial data must ensure the confidentiality of records and participant information. In the contract with the investigator and the clinical trial institution, the sponsor should clarify the retention time, cost, and handling of the documents.

Per the NMPA-No2-2015, international multicenter clinical trials must adopt a unified data processing center for data query, verification, storage, and analysis.

The NMPA-No74-2020 has additional guidance and requirements for the sponsor’s electronic system.

In addition, as per the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor must ensure that the electronic data processing system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance. Per CHN-37, the sponsor should base their approach to validate such systems on a risk assessment that takes into consideration the intended use and the potential of the system to affect participant protection and reliability of trial results. In addition, the sponsor should maintain SOPs for the systems that cover system setup, installation, and use. The responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties should be clear, and the system users should be provided with training. Refer to CHN-37 for additional information.

Records Management

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37, the sponsor must retain the clinical trial data related to the sponsor and participating parties in the clinical trial. The transfer of data ownership must comply with the requirements of relevant laws and regulations. The sponsor must send written notification to the investigator and clinical trial institution about the requirements for preserving clinical trial records and when the trial-related records are no longer needed. At the beginning of a clinical trial, the investigator, clinical trial institution, and sponsor must establish archive management of the necessary documents. At the end of the clinical trial, an inspector must review and confirm the necessary documents of the investigator, clinical trial institution, and sponsor, and these documents must be properly kept in their respective clinical trial archives. Clinical trial documents must be retained for at least five (5) years after the trial drug is approved for marketing or after the termination of the clinical trial.

In addition, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 emphasizes that clinical trial essential documents are important to the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA)'s inspection of the clinical trial. Sponsors, investigators, and clinical trial institutions must confirm that they have appropriate storage conditions for preserving the essential documents. SOPs for document management should be formulated. The source data or its certified copy must be kept complete and readable during the retention period. In addition, the sponsor must ensure that the investigator can always consult and enter data in the case report form (CRF) reported to the sponsor during the trial. The data should not be controlled by the sponsor alone. The photocopies used as source documents should meet the requirements for certified copies. The NMPA-No37-2020 details the essential documents required for clinical trials to prove compliance with the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020. The NMPA-No74-2020 contains additional requirements on record management during a clinical trial.

Electronic Data Processing System

Per the SA-GCPs, the sponsor must ensure that the electronic data processing system conforms to the specific documented requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance, and that standard operating procedures for using these systems are maintained. In addition, the sponsor must:

• Ensure that the systems are designed to document data changes without deleting previously entered data (i.e., maintain an audit trail)
• Maintain a security system that prevents unauthorized access to the data
• Maintain a register of persons authorized to make data changes
• Maintain adequate data backup
• Ensure that blinding, if any, is maintained during data entry and processing
• Ensure the integrity and confidentiality of data, including any that describe the context, content, and structure of the data – especially when making changes to computerized systems
• If data are transformed during processing, it must be possible to compare the original data and observations with the processed data
• Use an unambiguous participant identification code that allows identification of all data reported for each participant
• Report any transfer of ownership of the data to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA)

See the G-EthicsHR-ZAF for detailed ethical, legal, and security considerations for database storage and access.

Per the G-Monitor, when developing a study’s monitoring plan, the sponsor should consider how it uses electronic data capture (EDC) systems. EDC systems that are capable of assessing quality metrics in real time will help identify high-risk sites that need more intensive monitoring.

Records Management

As set forth in the SA-GCPs, the sponsor should inform the investigator(s) in writing of the need for record retention, and should notify these parties in writing when the trial related records are no longer needed. The sponsor, or other data owners, must retain all the sponsor-specific essential documents pertaining to the trial for not less than 10 years or until at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of clinical development of the investigational product (IP).

Responsible Parties

For requirements on personal data protection, the PIPL delineates that personal information processors are organizations or individuals who independently determine the purpose and method of processing personal information during personal information processing activities.

Data Protection

Per the PIPL, the personal information processor must ensure the safety of the personal information processed, including following principles of openness and transparency, disclosing personal information processing rules, and clearly indicating the purpose, method, and scope of processing. The PIPL applies to the processing of personal information in China for people located within the country. In addition, the PIPL and the DataSec-Regs apply to data processing activities conducted outside of China involving personal information of people located in China under the following circumstances: (1) where the processing is for the purposes of providing products or services to individuals located in China, (2) where the processing is for analyzing and evaluating the behavior of individuals located in China, or (3) other circumstances stipulated by laws and regulations.

Per the PIPL, the processing of personal information should have a clear and reasonable purpose and should be directly related to the purpose of processing with the least impact on personal rights and interests. The personal information processor must follow the principles of lawfulness, fairness, necessity, and good faith when processing personal information, and must not process personal information through misleading, fraudulent, coercive, and other methods. The collection of personal information must be limited to the minimum scope for the purpose of processing, and personal information must not be collected excessively, while following the principles of openness and transparency. The personal information processor must disclose processing rules and clearly indicate the purpose, method, and scope of processing. When handling personal information, the data quality must be guaranteed, and any inaccuracy and incompleteness of personal information must not adversely affect personal rights and interests. For additional data protection details see the DataSec-Regs, which supplements the PIPL.

The PIPL states that for sensitive personal information, which includes medical health information, the personal information processor must adopt additional protective measures, including informing participants of the necessity of processing sensitive personal information and the impact on personal rights and interests. Unless otherwise provided by laws and administrative regulations, the retention period of personal information must be the shortest time necessary to achieve the processing purpose. Also see the Id-SPI for guidance on identifying sensitive personal information.

Further, the DataSec-Regs states that where a network data processor provides or entrusts other network data processors to process personal information and important data, they must agree to the following:

• The recipient of network data must fulfill its obligation to protect network data security and process personal information and important data in accordance with the agreed purpose, method, scope, etc.
• If two (2) or more network data processors jointly decide on the purpose and method of processing personal information and important data, they must agree upon their respective rights and obligations.

Per the PIPL and the DataSec-Regs, to send personal information outside of China, the personal information processor must meet one (1) of the following conditions (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Pass the security assessment organized by the national cybersecurity and information department (See below in Data Security)
• Conduct personal information protection certification by professional institutions in accordance with the requirements of the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC)
• Enter into a contract with the overseas recipient in accordance with the standard contract formulated by the CAC stipulating the rights and obligations of both parties
• Other conditions stipulated by laws, administrative regulations, or national cyberspace administration departments
• Where China’s international treaties and agreements permit providing personal information to foreign recipients
• It is necessary to provide personal information overseas to conclude or perform a contract to which the individual is a part
• To implement cross-border human resources management in accordance with labor rules and regulations formulated in accordance with the law and collective contracts signed in accordance with the law, and providing employees' personal information overseas is necessary
• It is necessary to provide personal information overseas to perform legal duties or obligations
• In an emergency, it is necessary to provide personal information overseas in order to protect the life, health, or property safety of a natural person

The PIPL states that the personal information processor must inform the participant of the name of the foreign recipient, contact information, processing purpose, processing method, and types of personal information. In addition, per the PIPL and the DataSec-Regs, the foreign personal information processor must appoint a representative located in China to be responsible for matters related to personal information protection and report the representative’s contact information to the data protection regulators—the CAC.

The DataScrty requires the personal information processor to manage its data processing activities to ensure data security, promote data development and utilization, protect the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and organizations, and safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests. CAC-No11-2022 standardizes requirements for exporting “important data” and personal information to protect the rights and interests of personal information, preserve national security and the societal public interest, and promote the cross-border security and free flow of data. Important data is defined as data that, once tampered with, destroyed, leaked, or illegally obtained or used, might endanger national security, economic operations, social stability, public health, or safety in China. Also see the DataSec-Regs for additional requirements on doing risk assessments and handling and reporting on important data. Personal information processors must conduct security assessments of personal data collected and generated in China before exporting it to overseas data processors. Data export security assessments focus on assessing risks that data export activities may bring to national security, the public interest, or the lawful rights and interests of individuals or organizations. The DataTrsfr-Regs delineates exemptions from the requirements to conduct security assessments, for example in an emergency where it is necessary to provide personal information overseas in order to protect the life, health, or property safety of a natural person. If DataTrsfr-Regs conflicts with CAC-No11-2022, the DataTrsfr-Regs supersede.

When applicable, the DataScrty states that the assessment report must be submitted to CAC through the provincial-level department where the personal information processor is located, and include the following materials:

• Declaration form
• Self-assessment report on data export risks
• Data agreements between the data processor and the overseas recipient

The CAC-No11-2022 states that data export activities that have already been conducted before the implementation of CAC-No11-2022 are noncompliant and must be rectified within six (6) months of the effective date of CAC-No11-2022 (i.e., by March 1, 2023). See the CAC-No11-2022 for additional details on conducting the data export security assessment, the provincial inspections, appeal procedures, and CAC’s review actions and timeline.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per the PIPL, personal consent must be made voluntarily and with the participants’ full knowledge of the processing purpose, processing methods, and types of personal information processed. In an emergency, if it is not possible to obtain consent in a timely manner to protect the life, health, property, and safety of participants, the personal information processor must promptly notify the individual after the emergency is eliminated. (Note: consent to data processing is not the same as informed consent to the research described in the Informed Consent topic.) As indicated in the DataSec-Regs, individual consent is defined as specific and unambiguous consent given by an individual for specific processing of their personal information.

The DataSec-Regs supplements the PIPL, adding detailed protection requirements when personal information processing is based on individual consent:

• The collection of personal information must not be collected beyond the scope, and personal consent must not be obtained through misleading information, fraud, coercion, etc.
• When processing sensitive personal information such as biometrics, religious beliefs, specific identities, and medical health the individual's separate consent must be obtained
• When processing the personal information of a minor under the age of 14, the consent of the minor’s parent/legal guardian must be obtained
• Personal information must not be processed beyond the purpose, method, type, or retention period of the personal information that the individual has consented to
• Processors must not frequently seek consent after an individual has clearly expressed their disagreement with the processing of their personal information
• If the purpose, method, or type of personal information processing changes, the individual’s consent must be obtained again
• If laws and administrative regulations provide that written consent must be obtained for the processing of sensitive personal information, such provisions must apply

Responsible Parties

For the purposes of data protection requirements, the POPIA provides that the “responsible party” is a public or private body or any other person that, alone or in conjunction with others, determines the purpose of and means for processing personal information.

Data Protection

Per the POPIA, participants have the right to privacy, which includes a right to protection against the unlawful collection, retention, dissemination, and use of personal information by public and private bodies. This right to privacy is subject to justifiable limitations that are aimed at protecting other rights and interests (e.g., the right of access to information). Additional information on the rights of data subjects is provided in the POPIA.

The POPIA states that the responsible party must protect the constitutional right to privacy by safeguarding personal information when it is processed. The law provides conditions under which personal information may be gathered and processed.

• Accountability – The responsible party must ensure that the conditions and all the measures in the POPIA are complied with at the time the purpose and means of processing is determined
• Processing limitation – Personal information may only be processed in a fair and lawful manner and only with the consent of the data subject
• Purpose specification – Personal information may only be processed for specific, explicitly defined, and legitimate reasons
• Further processing limitation – Personal information may not be processed for a secondary purpose unless that processing is compatible with the original purpose
• Information quality – The responsible party must take reasonable steps to ensure that the personal information collected is complete, accurate, not misleading, and updated where necessary
• Openness – The data subject whose information you are collecting must be aware that you are collecting such personal information and for what purpose the information will be used
• Security safeguards – Personal information must be kept secure against the risk of loss, unlawful access, interference, modification, unauthorized destruction and disclosure
• Data subject participation – Data subjects may request whether their personal information is held, as well as the correction and/or deletion of any personal information held about them

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF reaffirms that data protection measures should be aligned with the requirements of the POPIA, including the conditions for cross-border transfer and sharing of health data. To ensure data processing is lawful, fair, and transparent, researchers should submit a data management plan to the ethics committee (EC), which covers how data will be collected, stored, accessed, shared, and disposed of or retained. The data management plan should indicate how it complies with the POPIA, how data security will be maintained and the processes for possible data breaches. If data-sharing options include the use of open-access databases, the selected databases must meet the minimum legal, ethical, and security requirements. See the G-EthicsHR-ZAF for additional guidance and analysis. Also see the Specimen Import & Export section for details on sharing human biological material (HBM) and HBM data.

The POPIA establishes a duty requiring a public or private body to register its Information Officer with the Information Regulator (South Africa). Per the POPIA, the Information Officer is responsible for compliance with lawful processing of information and working with and responding to requests by the Regulator. Per the POPIA-Regs, the Information Officer has further responsibilities to:

• Develop, implement, monitor, and maintain a compliance framework
• Conduct a personal information impact assessment to ensure compliance with the conditions for the lawful processing of personal information
• Develop, monitor, and maintain a manual; and make it available upon request by any person, provide copies of the manual to any person upon request and payment of a fee to be determined by the Information Regulator from time to time
• Develop internal measures and systems to process requests for information or access
• Conduct internal awareness sessions on protection of personal information requirements
• Provide reasonable assistance free of charge to the data subject in objecting to processing of personal information (using Form 1 in the POPIA-Regs) and/or correcting or revising a record of personal information (using Form 2 in the POPIA-Regs)

The POPIA provides that records of personal information for research may be retained longer than is necessary for achieving the purpose for which the information was collected or processed if the responsible party has established appropriate safeguards against the records being used for any other purposes.

For additional guidance on processing personal data, including guidance on “special personal information” (e.g., health history) and personal information of children, see the Information Regulator website.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per the POPIA and the POPIA-Regs, personal information may only be processed if the data subject or legal representative/guardian consents to the processing. The responsible party bears the burden of proof for the consent. The data subject or legal representative/guardian may withdraw consent at any time if the lawfulness of the processing of personal information will not be affected.

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, consent to processing of personal information in terms of the POPIA requires a voluntary, specific, and informed expression of will, separate from the consent to participate in research. Special attention should be given to ensuring that computers and electronically stored data are protected from unauthorized access, inadvertent or accidental dissemination in the form of a ‘data dump’, etc. In general terms, a participant should know what personal information is being collected; why it is being collected; what will happen to it; how long it will be retained; whether it will identify the participant; whether it will be shared with others and why; whether it will be shared with third parties inside South Africa and why; and whether it will be sent outside South Africa and why. The participant should agree to these terms. Note that when processing some types of personal information, consent alone is insufficient as stipulated in the POPIA. Necessity must be evident too with special personal information, such as information about a person’s race or ethnic origin, a person’s health or sex life, a person’s inherited characteristics (genetic makeup), biometric information, or children’s personal information.

Consent for Processing Personal Data of Minors

Per the POPIA, there is a general prohibition on the processing of personal information of a minor. However, a responsible party may process personal information concerning a minor if the processing meets one (1) of the following conditions:

• It is carried out with the prior consent of a competent person
• It is necessary for the establishment, exercise, or defense of a right or obligation in law
• It is necessary to comply with an obligation of international public law
• It is for historical, statistical, or research purposes to the extent that the purpose serves a public interest and the processing is necessary for the purpose concerned; or it appears to be impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort to ask for consent and the processing does not adversely affect the individual privacy of the child to a disproportionate extent
• It is of personal information which has deliberately been made public by the minor with the consent of a competent person

As required in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, when personal information about a minor (under 18 years) is to be processed, permission of a parent/legal guardian is required before data collection, even when permission is not required for the specific activity that gives rise to the information (e.g., donating blood). A minor aged 16 years or more may donate blood without parent/legal guardian permission, but the POPIA requires parent/legal guardian permission to process the information.

Obtaining Consent

In all Chinese clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the Measures-Ethics, the RegEthics, and the EC-Guide. In addition, China is implementing the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37) as a guidance document. As per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the DAL, the EC-Guide, and CHN-37, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an ethics committee (EC) and provided to the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) with the clinical trial application. Per the MgmtHumanGen, the ICF must also be provided to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) (now National Health Commission (NHC)) as part of its application procedures for human genetic resource (HGR) licenses. In addition, per the VaccineLaw, in carrying out a vaccine clinical trial, the investigator is required to obtain a signed ICF from the participant or legal representative/guardian. (Note that per SC-Order777 and NHC-HGRmgt, management of HGR was transferred from MOST to NHC, effective May 1, 2024).

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the Measures-Ethics, and CHN-37 state that the investigator, or a person designated by the investigator, must provide detailed research study information to the participant or the legal representative/guardian. As delineated in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the Measures-Ethics, and the EC-Guide, the ICF content should be briefly and clearly presented orally or, in a written language, that is easy to understand, and commensurate with the comprehension level of the research participants. The participant and the legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. The Measures-Ethics indicates that ICFs must contain sufficient, complete, and accurate information, and be expressed in language, text, video images, and so forth that research participants can understand. Researchers must explain each item to the research participants in accordance with the content of the ICF.

As per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, CHN-37, and the EC-Guide, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or the legal representative/guardian to waive or appear to waive their legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or their representatives from their liabilities for any negligence. The investigator should give the participant sufficient time to understand the ICF content, and the participant should make a decision whether or not to agree to participate in the study and sign the form. In psychological research, because informed consent may affect the participant’s response to the question, thereby affecting the accuracy of the research results, the investigator can fully inform the participant and obtain informed consent following the project study’s completion.

Per DctrlzCTs-Rare, for decentralized clinical trials of rare diseases, electronic informed consent may be used. When electronic informed consent is used, the informed consent process needs to be recorded, archived, and traceable. For rare disease participants with limited mobility, researchers can use remote informed consent to more quickly and easily obtain consent and ensure that all participants have the latest version in a timely manner. To use electronic informed consent in these scenarios, researchers must conduct evaluation and verification in advance and provide the participants with instructions and training. Before adopting electronic informed consent, the participants should be fully informed of the scope of data collection, access rights, etc. generated during the electronic informed consent process. During the informed consent process, researchers should ensure data security and the privacy of the participants (including their legal representative/guardian) are protected.

Per the MgmtHumanGen, to collect Chinese HGR for a clinical trial, the participant must agree to participate in the clinical trial in writing. Information provided to the participant must be comprehensive, complete, true, accurate, and must not conceal information nor be misleading or deceiving.

For specific consent requirements for human genome editing research, see the Consent for Specimen section.

Re-Consent

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37 require investigators to use the latest version of the ICF approved by the EC and, if necessary, participants in the clinical trial process should sign an updated ICF again. If new information may affect the participant’s continued participation in the trial, the investigator must promptly notify the participant and the legal representative/guardian and make corresponding records. Per the RegEthics and the Measures-Ethics, the investigator should obtain re-consent under the following circumstances (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The research plan, scope, and content have changed
• Research using previously collected samples that were used for diagnosis and treatment and were labeled with personal identifiable labels
• Research using human biological samples or related clinical disease history data with subject-identifiable labels from existing biological sample repositories/databases
• The risks related to the research are increased or substantially increased
• The level of civil capacity of research participants has been raised
• Other changes occur during the research

Language Requirements

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the Measures-Ethics, the RegEthics, and the EC-Guide require the ICF to be presented in oral or written form in a language that the participant is able to understand.

Documenting Consent

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the Measures-Ethics, CHN-37, and the EC-Guide, the participant and the legal representative/guardian, and researchers who perform informed consent, should sign and date the ICF. Per the Measures-Ethics, when the research participants do not have the ability to express their consent in writing, the researcher must obtain their oral informed consent and have audio and video recordings and other process records and supporting materials.

Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, CHN-37, and the EC-Guide, if the ICF is not signed by the participant, the relationship should be marked on the form. If the participant and the legal representative/guardian lack the ability to read, an impartial witness must witness the entire informed consent process. 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 the legal representative/guardian
• The participant and the legal representative/guardian, have orally consented to the participant’s involvement in the trial, and has signed and dated the ICF, if capable of doing so

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

Waiver of Consent

The EC-Guide and the RegEthics state that the EC may grant a waiver of informed consent when the following conditions are met (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The risk that the subject may suffer does not exceed the minimum.
• The exemption from obtaining the informed consent of the subject does not have a negative impact on the participant’s rights and interests.
• The use of human bodily materials or data that can identify the information for research has made it impossible to find the participant, and the research project does not involve personal privacy and commercial interests.
• The biological sample donor has signed an ICF agreeing that the donated sample and related information can be used for all medical research.
• The exemption requires informed consent and does not mean that it is exempt from the review of the EC.

Obtaining Consent

In all South African clinical trials, a freely given, written informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the principles set forth in the NHA, the Declaration of Helsinki (ZAF-44), the SA-GCPs, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (ZAF-27).

As per the SA-GCPs and the G-GPHlthCare, the informed consent form (ICF) and patient information sheet(s) are essential documents that must be reviewed and approved by a registered ethics committee (EC) based in South Africa and provided to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) with the clinical trial application. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.) The principal investigator (PI), or a person designated by the PI, should provide research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. When drafting and presenting the ICF, special consideration must be taken with regard to the participant’s culture, traditional values, intelligence, and education. The informed consent document should be non-technical and understandable to the participant and in a participant’s preferred written language. The ICF content should be briefly and clearly presented, without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial.

The SA-GCPs directs that none of the oral or written information concerning the study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or appear to waive their legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or the representatives from the sponsor’s liabilities for any negligence.

G-EthicsHR-ZAF explains that an important element of enabling an informed choice is the nature and quality of information made available to the potential participant, such as reading the information sheet and/or dialoguing with the participants, allowing for verbal consent, which is then recorded and transcribed or documented manually in the researchers’ notes. The process should permit sufficient time for consultation between the recruitment step and the time of deciding whether to participate. No person should be required to make an immediate decision. ECs should assess the proposed process for informed consent as well as the information that potential participants will be given and the measures to facilitate understanding. Considerations for assessment include whether:

• The informed consent setting is sufficiently private and appropriate to minimize the possibility of undue influence
• The person conducting the informed consent process is appropriately trained, independent, and bias-free
• The text is in plain language and appropriate to the participants’ level of understanding with translations, as needed

Re-Consent

The G-GPHlthCare-IC states that the participant must be informed of any relevant new findings over the course of the study, and be given the choice to continue to participate or withdraw from the study. Per the SA-GCPs, written informed consent documentation and other participant-related information should be revised when new information that may be relevant to a participant’s consent or willingness to continue to participate in the trial becomes available. Any revisions must be submitted for ethics review and approval before implementation. Communication of the new information to participants must be documented.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the informed consent should be a trust-based process and relationship between the researcher and the participants, groups, and communities that extends over time. Consent must be negotiated and renegotiated as the research continues and develops.

Language Requirements

According to the SA-GCPs, the ICF should be provided in a participant’s preferred written language. The G-GPHlthCare states that the researchers should provide information to the participants in a language that the participant understands and in a manner that takes into account the participant’s level of literacy, understanding, values, and personal belief systems.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that informed consent material must be translated into the language(s) best suited for the population and context of the study. If appropriate, the consent documents can be translated. However, merely translating documents is insufficient to ensure that consent is informed because illiteracy is prevalent in some contexts, language dialects vary substantially across regions, some words and terminology are not easily translated, translated written materials may not be helpful to some participants, and/or professional translators are not content experts so mistranslation may occur. Therefore, it may be more useful to train a research assistant/interpreter who can explain information about the study verbally to potential participants in their language of choice and answer any questions they may have about the study.

Regarding the plain language text, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF indicates that the text should be appropriate to the participants’ level of understanding, which means:

• Translated into the language(s) best suited for the population and context of the study
• Has content, language(s), and procedures that are simplified and modified to accommodate any written or verbal language differences or impairments with which the participant may present
• Free of jargon and unexplained acronyms
• Clear and explains technical terminology

Documenting Consent

As stated in the SA-GCPs and the G-GPHlthCare, the ICF should be signed by the participant and the PI, or the person designated by the PI. If the participant is incapable of giving an informed consent, the legal representative/guardian should sign the ICF. The original signed ICF and patient information sheet(s) should be retained by the investigator and a copy should be given to the participant. The SA-GCPs requires an additional copy of the signed ICF and a source document identifying the study and recording the participation dates should be placed in the participant’s medical records. According to the NHA, the SA-GCPs, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the G-GPHlthCare, and the G-GPHlthCare-IC, in all cases, written informed consent must be obtained. Where the participant is illiterate and/or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of and countersigned by a literate witness. The participant or legal representative/guardian, the PI or person designated by the PI, and if applicable, a literate witness must personally sign the ICF. Further, the SA-GCPs states that the participant should indicate willingness to participate by making a mark (either a cross or a fingerprint). The witness signs to affirm that the participant willingly consented to participate. The witness dates the mark and signature.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF indicates that there may be circumstances where alternative forms of obtaining consent are allowed when it is not possible to have written consent. If it is ethically justifiable for the specific circumstances, then verbal consent may be approved. Usually, if verbal consent is permitted, a witness attests that the person did consent to participation after indicating understanding of the information provided. In addition, sometimes the nature of the research requires electronic data collection, or the potential participants may have an impairment that prevents a personal face-to-face consent process with written consent. Alternatives to face-to-face personal consent may not occur without sound justification approved by a registered EC. The justification for an alternate format of consent process must be evidenced by clear descriptions of why an alternative is justified in the circumstances and how the interests of the potential participant are properly protected.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, where electronic consent is proposed, the research protocol must describe in detail the method and process for obtaining consent. Electronic signatures are a functional equivalent of a paper-based signature with the same legal authority if it meets legal requirements including:

• A typed name at the end of an email
• A scanned image of a handwritten signature embedded into a document
• A digital signature

Further, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that in regards to telephonic (verbal) and electronic informed consent, EC reviewers of research protocols must insist on a proper decisive description of how informed consent will be regarded as authentic. The following electronic methods of obtaining informed consent are recommended:

• Telephonic recruitment for research that poses more than minimal risk of harm should be limited to screening for eligibility, followed by face-to-face informed consent, or virtual informed consent via an electronic platform
• Telephonic research surveys are possible for minimal risk studies, and verbal agreement to participate serves as informed consent
• For research that poses more than minimal risk of harm, different electronic platforms could be used for different purposes: a technology (e.g., email) to screen and obtain informed consent and another system to collect data

Waiver of Consent

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, any decision by the EC to grant a waiver of participant or legal representative/guardian consent must be documented and must include the justification for the decision. A waiver of consent to conduct the research can be justified on two (2) grounds: if the waiver will not infringe upon any right of a participant, and obtaining consent is impracticable; or if the rights infringement is minimal and is outweighed by the expected social value of the research, and obtaining consent is impracticable. Any decision by the EC to grant a waiver of participant or legal representative/guardian consent must be documented and must include the justification for the decision. A waiver of consent is not automatic and requires a researcher to apply to the EC for approval to use someone's personal information or personal health information without obtaining consent from the individual. The application must explain why a waiver is requested and how one of the justification criteria above applies. The EC must assess the level of risk of harm associated with a waiver, which refers to the risk of harm flowing from researchers accessing identifiable private information and not to risk of harm concerning the whole research project. An alteration of requirements for informed consent (as opposed to a full waiver) is possible, e.g., when existence of a signed consent form might pose a risk of harm (breach of confidentiality) to the participant in studies involving illegal behavior. The alteration may take the form of permitting unsigned informed consent documentation.

Based on the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the Measures-Ethics, the EC-Guide, the RegEthics, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The study purpose, procedures, and duration of the trial
• Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant
• Any expected benefits to the participant; if no benefit is expected, the participant should be informed of this point
• The participant’s responsibilities
• The approximate number of participants involved in the trial
• Those aspects of the trial that are experimental
• Treatment available to the participant as well as important potential risks and benefits associated with this treatment
• The alternative procedure(s) or course(s) of treatment that may be available to the participant, and their important potential benefits and risks
• The nature, form, and extent of compensation for participation
• Any expenses the participant needs to pay to participate in the trial
• The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, and a statement that, when necessary, the sponsor, the ethics committee (EC), the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), and drug authorities in the provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities may be required to review participant data
• The scope and method of use of research data and research participants' personal data, and whether sharing and secondary use are carried out
• Any treatment and corresponding compensation the participant can expect to receive in the event of a trial-related injury
• The participant’s rights, including that participation is voluntary, and that the participant can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits, including medical treatment, to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• Precautions and protective measures for the participant before, during, and after the research
• The foreseeable circumstances and/or reasons under which the participant's participation in the trial may be terminated
• Contact information for the sponsor and investigator in the event of participant problems or injuries related to the trial
• Basic information about the researcher and qualification of research institution
• That records identifying the participant will be kept confidential and, to the extent permitted by the applicable laws and/or regulations, will not be made publicly available. If the results of the trial are published, the participant’s identity will remain confidential
• Whether the results of the study will be provided to the research participants
• That the participant or the legally acceptable representative will be informed in a timely manner if information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participation in the trial
• When appropriate, the EC may require the following additional information: whether the research may put the participant at risk but the risk is not currently foreseeable; researchers can terminate a participant’s participation in the study without their consent; new major discoveries during the research will be provided to the participant; and whether there is a potential conflict of interest
• If applicable, how biological samples will be handled

Per the MgmtHumanGen, to collect Chinese human genetic resources (HGR) for a clinical trial, the investigator must provide advance information to the participant on the purpose of collection, the possible health impact, the protection measures of personal privacy, their participation is voluntary, and they have the right to withdraw unconditionally at any time.

Based on the informed consent essential elements in the SA-GCPs, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the G-GPHlthCare, G-PostCTAccess, and the NHAParticipants, the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The study involves research and an explanation of its nature and purpose, including that it conforms to the protocol
• The procedures to be followed and their purpose and nature
• Why the potential participant has been approached, their responsibilities, and the research-related activities and procedures that the participant is being asked to consent to
• Who the researchers are, the nature of their expertise, and their responsibilities
• The aspects of the clinical trial that are experimental
• Any foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant; information should include the probability and magnitude of the foreseeable risks of harm
• The measures to be taken to minimize risk of harm
• Any benefits to the participant or to others that may reasonably be expected from the research both during and after the research; if no benefit is expected, the participant should also be made aware of this
• A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or treatments, and their potential benefits and risks
• The probability for random assignment to each treatment
• Participation is voluntary, the participant may withdraw at any time without explanation or prejudice, and refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits, or reduction in the level of care to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• Compensation and/or medical treatment available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury
• The planned incentives, if any, to attract the participant and the planned reimbursements, if any, for time, inconvenience, and expenses
• The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, the possibility of record access by the sponsor, the ethics committee (EC), or the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA)
• How the personal information of participants, including confidentiality of data collected during the research, will be protected
• Who will have access to participants' information, biological samples and associated data, including whether samples will be shared with other researchers
• That participants may request that corrections to their information be made or that their information or samples be deleted or destroyed; in cases where withdrawal of samples and information is not possible, the potential limitations and consequences of not withdrawing samples and data from research should be explained
• Instances where a legal obligation to disclose information may arise
• Statement that participants may contact the EC at the contact details provided if they have questions or complaints about their rights and welfare
• The sponsor’s identity
• Potential conflicts of interest of the principal investigator (PI)
• The consequences of a participant's decision to withdraw from the study
• Information about approval from a registered EC and SAHPRA
• Information about the EC monitoring the clinical trial
• The approximate number of participants in the research study, locally and globally
• The expected duration of participation
• Whether feedback about the study will be provided and, if so, how it will be provided
• Whether biological samples will be used for commercial benefit
• Where relevant, whether incidental findings will be shared with participants
• An explanation of whom to contact in the event of research-related injury
• A statement that participants may contact the researcher at the contact details provided if they have questions about the research project
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent
• The research may be terminated early in particular circumstances
• The participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified if significant new findings developed during the study which may affect the participant's willingness to continue
• Information on post-trial or continued access (PTA/CA)
• Whether data and/or samples can be used after the person’s death, especially if it is possible that the person may die during the study
• Description of a measure to probe understanding and comprehension of the information is planned (e.g., a teach-back method), and how it proposes to do so especially for very vulnerable potential participants.

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

Overview

In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (CHN-84), principles set forth in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), China’s ethics standards safeguard the rights of research participants. Participants also have the right to receive the nationally available standard of health care, and the right to report any trial-related injuries or issues to the investigator(s) and the ethics committee (EC). The RegEthics states that the EC must protect the legitimate rights and interests of the participants, safeguarding their dignity, and promoting the development of biomedical research norms. As indicated in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the EC-Guide, and the RegEthics, a participant’s rights must be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. (See the Required Elements; Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.) See CHN-26 for an analysis of clinical trial participants’ rights in China.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the Measures-Ethics, the EC-Guide, the RegEthics, and CHN-37, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As delineated in the Measures-Ethics, the EC-Guide, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, the RegEthics, and CHN-37, a potential research participant or the legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study. (See the Required Elements section for more detailed information regarding participant rights.)

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the Measures-Ethics, the EC-Guide, the RegEthics, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, and CHN-37, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 also states that it is the responsibility of the investigator(s) to safeguard the confidentiality of research data to protect the identity and records of research participants.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The Measures-Ethics, the EC-Guide, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, and CHN-37 state that the research participant or the legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the investigator(s) and the EC to address trial-related inquiries and/or to appeal against a violation of the participant’s rights. (See the Required Elements section for more detailed information regarding participant rights.)

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37 state that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

Overview

South Africa’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research study participants. In accordance with the principles held forth in the Declaration of Helsinki (ZAF-44), the SA-GCPs, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the G-GPHlthCare, the G-GPHlthCare-IC, the NHAParticipants, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (ZAF-27), a participant’s rights must be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. Below are the basic rights for participants in clinical research studies. (See the Required Elements and Vulnerable Populations sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.)

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

According to the NHA and the NHAParticipants, everyone has the right to participate in any decision affecting their health or treatment, including research. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

According to the G-GPHlthCare-IC, a potential research study participant has the right to be fully informed on the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, the sponsor and investigator(s), any potential benefits or risks, study procedures, any compensation for participation, injury and/or treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study. (See the Required Elements section for a more detailed list.)

Per POAIA, a participant may seek access to their clinical trial records, pursuant to their constitutional right of access to any information held by the State or by another person.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

Per the G-GPHlthCare-IC, participants have the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement identifying this right. It is the responsibility of the investigator to safeguard the confidentiality of research data to protect the identity and records of research participants.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

Per the G-GPHlthCare-IC, the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the investigator(s), and the ethics committee to address clinical trial-related queries, in the event of any injury and/or to appeal against a violation of the participant’s rights. It is also required that the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) address and contact information be provided. (See the Required Elements section for more detailed information regarding participant rights.)

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The SA-GCPs and ZAF-44 clearly state that research participants have the right to safety and well-being, which must take precedence over the interest of science and society. The NHA and the NHAParticipants safeguard the rights of all South Africans including vulnerable populations.

The EC-Guide states that during an emergency, clinical studies on human participants must not be conducted without prior review and approval by the ethics committee (EC). Per the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) has not been obtained from the research participant or the legal representative/guardian, or if an effective treatment is lacking, but the investigational product could save the participant’s life, recover health, or alleviate pain, the clinical trial may be conducted. However, the method used on the participant must be explained clearly in the trial protocol as well as the relevant trial documentation, and the EC must approve the protocol in advance. The participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

During an outbreak of an epidemic, the EC-Guide advises ECs to adhere to the highest scientific and ethical standards for independent review of the research project to ensure balancing of quality and timeliness. The materials provided by the researcher can be simplified according to the situation. The EC should pay special attention to the informed consent process as participants may be improperly exploited due to their obvious vulnerability, especially when it involves high-risk and risk-uncertain research. It should be ensured that participants choose to participate voluntarily and independently after being fully informed and fully understanding the possible risks of research. Research participants or the legal representative/guardian must be allowed to withdraw from research unconditionally at any stage.

See the EC-Guide for additional guidance on the EC review when there is a major epidemic risk.

The NHA and the G-EthicsHR-ZAF make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when the procedure is complicated by medical emergencies. As per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, there are emergency situations that merit use of deferred consent (also called delayed consent). Usually, the circumstances entail a temporary loss of decision-making capacity and a reasonably held prognosis that the person will regain the capacity within a predictable period (e.g., an unconscious patient in the Emergency Unit who is predicted to regain consciousness within hours). Deferred consent should be used only where the likelihood of obtaining personal informed consent after the research has begun is likely. The ethics committee (EC) may approve use of deferred consent if the following conditions are met:

• The proposed research is based on valid scientific hypotheses that support a reasonable possibility of more benefit than that offered by standard care
• The individual has a temporary loss of decision-making capacity
• There is a reasonably held prognosis that they will regain the capacity within a predictable period
• Participation is not contrary to the medical interests of the patient
• When the individual regains capacity to make decisions, they must be informed that they have been enrolled in a research study (i.e., deferred consent must be obtained); if they object to having been enrolled in the study, this counts as a refusal to participate, and they should be asked whether their data already collected must be withdrawn

If death of the participant occurs before deferred consent can be obtained, it should not be assumed that continued use of the data and/or samples is ethical. The deceased’s wishes or those of their proxy or mandate holder should be ascertained.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, during disease outbreaks, potential participants must be assisted to understand the research proposed and the implications of enrollment, despite the situational duress and anxiety. The notion that informed consent is a process does not change because the research is being conducted in pandemic circumstances. Research during a public health emergency must adhere to standard research ethics principles including informed consent.

Per the G-CTAPHEmerg, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) states that during a public health emergency, informed consent and the patient information sheet(s) remain essential documents that must be reviewed and approved by an EC and provided to the SAHPRA with the clinical trial application.

Overview

As per the EC-Guide, the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), in all Chinese 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 EC-Guide and the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 define vulnerable persons as those who are relatively (or absolutely) incapable of safeguarding their interests, and consequently, are usually incapable of giving consent or refusing to give consent due to the restriction on their capacities or freedoms. These populations include people with low socioeconomic status and low education levels. The EC-Guide also defines vulnerability to include the following areas: economic, institutional fragility, cognitive, social, medical treatment, and compliance. The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and CHN-37 also include 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 persons in nursing homes, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent.

The NMPA-GCP-No57-2020, which upholds the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (CHN-84) and the RegEthics, both require special attention to be provided to those participants who cannot give or refuse to give consent for themselves, and for those who will not benefit personally from the research. As per RegEthics, this population includes children, pregnant women, mentally impaired persons, and people with mental disorders. Also, the Measures-Ethics requires special protection for research participants involving specific groups, such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, persons with intellectual and mental disabilities. In addition, special attention should be paid to studies involving fertilized eggs, embryos, fetuses, or those that may be affected by assisted reproductive technologies.

Note: The EC-Guide clarifies that special protections for vulnerable populations must not mean that they are excluded during the recruitment process. Vulnerable people should also benefit from research and be encouraged to participate in clinical research.

For additional information, see the Children/Minors and Mentally Impaired sections. In addition, see CHN-26 for an analysis of clinical trial participants’ rights in China.

Overview

The NHA, the SA-GCPs, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the G-GPHlthCare, and the NHAParticipants require special considerations for vulnerable populations, and characterize them by limited education, limited economic resources, inadequate protection of human rights, discrimination due to health status, limited ability to provide informed consent, limited availability of health care and treatment options, or an inadequate understanding of scientific research. Vulnerable populations include children/minors, mentally and physically disabled, pregnant women, substance abusers, prisoners, armed forces, the homeless, the elderly, members of a group with a hierarchical structure, patients with incurable diseases, persons in nursing homes, unemployed or impoverished persons, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, nomads, refugees, and other vulnerable groups such as persons in dependent relationships. (Note: Each of the items listed above will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements).

The SA-GCPs state that ethics committees (ECs) must pay special attention to protecting participants from vulnerable populations. The ECs may impose additional measures such as imposing additional protective measures for the informed consent process or requiring increased monitoring and interim reporting on the participants’ welfare. As per the NHAParticipants, research with vulnerable participants must comply with the following requirements:

• Involve vulnerable persons only when non-vulnerable persons are not appropriate for inclusion
• Not systematically avoid inclusion of vulnerable participants because it is unfairly discriminatory, and would prevent this population from benefiting from relevant research
• Be responsive to health needs and priorities of vulnerable persons, and
• Provide special attention in the ethical review to ensure research-related risks are assessed and minimized, and appropriate consent procedures are followed

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, where factors usually associated with vulnerability are integral to the research, the protocol should demonstrate how vulnerability will be managed. In cases where the researcher is known to the community and speaks the local language and/or is accepted as part of that community, this may be seen as a positive element for the research context. Special care should be exercised before undertaking research involving participants in such communities, and ECs should ensure that:

• Persons in these communities are not being involved in the research merely because they are expediently accessible, while the research is feasible to undertake in a less vulnerable community
• Research is relevant to the needs and priorities of the targeted community
• Research participants know they will take part in research and that the research will be carried out only with appropriate consent

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

Persons in Dependent Relationships or Hierarchical Situations

As indicated in the SA-GCPs and the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, participants whose proposed involvement in research arises from dependent or hierarchical relationships need additional attention, and particular attention should be given to ensuring that their consent is both adequately informed and voluntary. In addition, per the NHAParticipants, research is appropriate when research-related risks of harm are minimized. These types of relationships include, but are not limited to, those who are in junior or subordinate positions in hierarchically structured groups, such as prisoners and prison authorities, older persons and their caregivers, and patients and healthcare professionals.

Persons Highly Dependent on Medical Care

Per G-EthicsHR-ZAF, individuals who are highly dependent on medical care deserve special attention when considering research participation. The gravity of their medical condition may require invasive measures that carry increased risk of harm. The quality of informed consent may be compromised by the effect the medical condition has on the participant’s decision-making or communication abilities. A patient may be reluctant to refuse consent for fear that this may compromise their medical treatment. Adequate provision must be made for informing patients and their relatives about the research to ensure that stress and other emotional factors do not impair their understanding. Their dependency on caregivers should not unfairly affect research participation decisions.

Persons with Physical Disabilities

As described in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, recruitment strategies for research participation should be sensitive to the possibility that persons with visual, hearing, or mobility impairments may wish to volunteer, and, therefore, should ensure that there are no unintended barriers to such participation (e.g., the absence of ramps or a lift for wheelchair-bound potential participants). Research involving participants with physical disabilities should anticipate possible barriers and include measures to minimize them.

Elderly Persons

As per the G-GPHlthCare, research involving elderly persons requires consent to be provided by the participant’s legal representative/guardian on that person's behalf. Because of their vulnerability, the elderly should not be included in research unless the research is necessary to promote the health of this population and unless this research cannot instead be performed on legally competent persons.

Research Involving Collectivities

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, a collectivity is a term used to distinguish some distinct groups from informal communities, commercial, or social groups. Collectivities are persons who participate in research in groups distinguished by common beliefs, values, social structures, and other features that identify them as a separate group; customary collective decision-making according to tradition and beliefs; the custom that leaders express a collective view; and members of the collectivity being aware of common activities and common interests. Research involves a collectivity when property or information private to the group as a whole is studied or used; permission of people occupying positions of authority is required; and participation of members acknowledged as representatives is involved. Among other requirements, research involving collectivities should include measures to ensure an informed consent process for individual participants.

As per MPL, minors refer to citizens who are under the age of 18.

In accordance with the NMPA-GCP-No57-2020 and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (CHN-37), when the research participant is a child, the informed consent form (ICF) must be signed by the child’s parent/legal guardian. If the child can decide whether to participate, the ICF should also be approved by the child. The age of consent for children and minors is not defined in the currently available regulatory resources. See CHN-26 for an analysis of clinical trial participants’ rights in China.

Per NMPA-No11-2017, clinical trials may be conducted on children depending on existing knowledge of and extrapolation by research results in adults. Drugs that are intended for use in children should be evaluated in the appropriate age group for children and start in the high-age group followed by the low-age group. The EC-Guide stipulates the following conditions when children can participate in research: