Central Drugs Standard Control Organization

As set forth in the 2019-CTRules and the Hdbk-ClinTrial, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial oversight, approval, and inspections in India. In accordance with the provisions of the 2019-CTRules, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) heads CDSCO, and is responsible for granting permission for clinical trials to be conducted and for regulating the sale and importation of drugs for use in clinical trials. (Note: The DCGI is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.)

According to IND-59, CDSCO functions under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), which is part of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW). Per IND-59 and IND-47, as the Central Drug Authority, CDSCO is responsible for approving new drugs, conducting clinical trials, establishing drug standards, overseeing the quality of imported drugs, providing expert advice, and coordinating the state licensing authorities who regulate the manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs.

Per the DCA-DCR, the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) and the Drug Consultative Committee (DCC) advise the DCGI. IND-16 states that the DTAB, a statutory board, is composed of technical experts who advise the central and state governments on technical drug matters and on making rules. The DCC, a statutory committee, consists of central and state drug control officials who advise the central and state governments and the DTAB to ensure drug control measures are enforced throughout India.

Further, as indicated in the Hdbk-ClinTrial, Subject Expert Committees (SECs) comprise experts representing the relevant therapeutic areas that are responsible for reviewing the submitted clinical trial applications, investigators’ brochures, and study protocols. The 2019-CTRules and Order13Jan20 further note that the DCGI may, when required, constitute one (1) or more of these expert committees or group of experts with specialization in relevant fields to evaluate scientific and technical drug-related issues. In accordance with the 2019-CTRules and with the approval of the MOHFW, Order13Jan20 establishes the terms of reference that CDSCO will use to constitute the SECs from the groups/panels of approximately 550 medical experts with specialization in relevant fields, including the existing members of the SECs from various government medical colleges and institutions. Additionally, per Notice31Jan24, CDSCO’s SEC Division is responsible for conducting meetings to evaluate IND proposal submissions. Refer to Scope of Assessment section for additional

Please note: India is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (IND-29), 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 IND-45.

Contact Information

According to IND-58 and IND-70, CDSCO contact information is as follows:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization
Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS)
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Government of India
FDA Bhavan, ITO, Kotla Road
New Delhi 110002
India
Phone: +91-11-23216367 (CDSCO)/23236975
Fax: +91-11-23236973
E-mail: dci@nic.in

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

In accordance with the 2019-CTRules and the Hdbk-ClinTrial, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), who heads the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), is responsible for reviewing and approving clinical trial applications for all new drugs, investigational new drugs (INDs), and imported drugs to be registered in India. Additionally, per the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and IND-31, the DCGI and a DCGI-registered ethics committee (EC) must approve a clinical trial application prior to the sponsor (also known as applicant) initiating the trial, except in the case of non-regulatory academic/research clinical trials that only require EC approval. Refer to the Scope of Review section for detailed information on non-regulatory academic/research clinical requirements. (Note: The DCGI is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.)

As per the 2019-CTRules and the Hdbk-ClinTrial, the scope of the DCGI assessment includes a review of applications for IND and new drug clinical trials, global clinical trials (GCTs), and post marketing studies (Phases I-IV). Per Notice18Feb20, which clarifies information provided in IND-31, the 2019-CTRules are only applicable to new drugs and investigational new drugs. (Note: the Hdbk-ClinTrial has not yet been updated to fully align with the 2019-CTRules.)

The 2019-CTRules defines a “new drug” as:

• A drug, including active pharmaceutical ingredients or phytopharmaceutical drugs, that has not been used in the country to any significant extent
• A drug that has already been approved by the DCGI and is now proposed to be marketed with modified or new claims
• A fixed dose combination of two (2) or more drugs, individually approved for earlier specific claims, and which are now proposed to be combined for the first time in a fixed ratio, or, if the ratio of ingredients in an already marketed combination is proposed to be changed
• A modified or sustained release form of a drug, or novel drug delivery system of any drug approved by the DCGI
• A vaccine, recombinant Deoxyribonucleic Acid (r-DNA)-derived product, living modified organism, monoclonal antibody, cell, or stem cell derived product, gene therapeutic product, or xenografts intended to be used as a drug

Per the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, the above listed drugs, excluding the modified/sustained drug forms and biological drug products, will be deemed new for four (4) years from the date of first approval. The modified/sustained drug forms and biological products including vaccines should always be viewed as new drugs. See also IND-6 for additional information on the revised definition of “new drug” under the 2019-CTRules.

The 2019-CTRules defines an IND as a new chemical or biological entity or a product having therapeutic indication but that has never been tested on human beings, and as also noted in IND-31, has not been approved as a drug for marketing in any country.

In addition, according to IND-31, the DCGI review and approval process may be conducted in parallel with the institutional or independent EC review for each clinical trial site. However, per the 2019-CTRules and the Hdbk-ClinTrial, CDSCO must confirm that the EC approvals for each participating site have been obtained per the protocol prior to approving the initiation of the study. (See the Scope of Review section for more information.)

Clinical Trial Review Process

As set forth in the 2019-CTRules and the Hdbk-ClinTrial, the DCGI is responsible for reviewing and approving clinical drug applications. The evaluation timeline is dependent upon whether the investigational drugs under review are developed outside India, or discovered, researched, and manufactured in India. (Refer to the Timeline of Review section for detailed CDSCO timeline information.)

Per the Hdbk-ClinTrial, upon receipt of an application (via Form CT-04 which is found in the 2019-CTRules), a CDSCO official is responsible for conducting the initial administrative review. If the application is deemed complete, the official forwards the application along with a summary of the evaluation and a statement referring the proposal to a Subject Expert Committee (SEC) for further technical review. If the proposal is not accepted by the SEC, the sponsor may request additional consideration of the proposal by the Technical Committee. Otherwise, only the SEC’s recommendations are required for the DCGI (CDSCO) to issue a final decision to the Technical or Apex Committee. Additionally, per Notice31Jan24, CDSCO’s SEC Division is responsible for conducting meetings to evaluate IND proposal submissions. See the Submission Process section for CDSCO submission requirements.

Per the Hdbk-ClinTrial, SECs are usually comprised of six (6) experts representing various therapeutic areas, including pharmacologists/clinical pharmacologists, and medical specialists. However, Order13Jan20, issued in accordance with the 2019-CTRules, indicates that SECs will be comprised of eight (8) medical experts, specifically one (1) pharmacologist and seven (7) medical specialists. Per the Hdbk-ClinTrial, SECs are responsible for advising CDSCO with in-depth evaluations of non-clinical data (including pharmacological and toxicological data) and clinical trial data (Phases I-IV) provided by the sponsors for approval. The 2019-CTRules further notes that the DCGI may, when required, constitute one (1) or more of these expert committees or group of experts with specialization in relevant fields to evaluate scientific and technical drug-related issues.

Additionally, per Order13Jan20, SECs will evaluate and advise the DCGI on proposals in various categories for the approval of new drug and clinical trial applications. These include the following: new drug substances of chemical and biological origin including vaccines and r-DNA derived products; subsequent approval of new drug and biological products including vaccines and r-DNA derived products already approved in the country; global clinical trials; fixed dose combinations of two (2) or more drugs to be introduced for the first time in the country; causality analysis, drug safety, or any other technical matter requiring expert advice in the opinion of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) or the DCGI. See Order13Jan20 for the complete terms of reference required to constitute SECs.

Once an SEC has completed its review, the Hdbk-ClinTrial indicates that the committee sends its comments via email to CDSCO. CDSCO will then compile any written SEC comments requiring sponsor clarification or modification and sends this feedback to the sponsor. The sponsor must submit a written reply to CDSCO, which is also sent to the SEC for review.

Following receipt of the sponsor’s response, the DCGI (CDSCO) will issue a final decision by official communication (permission, rejection, or resubmission) to the Technical or Apex Committee. In the case of a sponsor’s request for reconsideration, CDSCO will review the resubmitted application and send it to the SEC again, or, to the Technical Committee per the sponsor’s request. Following the SEC’s review, the DCGI (CDSCO) will send a final decision to the Technical or Apex Committee. If CDSCO rejects the reconsideration request, the agency will send a letter to the sponsor to communicate this decision. Refer to the Hdbk-ClinTrial for additional timeline information.

Per the 2022-CTRules-3rdAmdt, which amends the 2019-CTRules, upon obtaining approval from the DCGI, the sponsor must notify CDSCO via Form CT-06A (see 2022-CTRules-3rdAmdt) prior to initiating the clinical trial. The DCGI will then record the information provided on this form and it will become part of the official record known as the approval of the DCGI. The DCGI grants permission to initiate a clinical trial via either Form CT-06 (see 2019-CTRules) or as an automatic approval via Form CT-4A (see 2019-CTRules). 2022-CTRules-3rdAmdt further states that when the DCGI approves a clinical trial of a new drug already approved outside India per the 2019-CTRules, the sponsor must also notify CDSCO via Form CT-06A, and this record will become part of the official record known as the guaranteed approval of the DCGI.

Per the 2019-CTRules, the DCGI’s permission to initiate a clinical trial granted via either Form CT-06 or as an automatic approval via Form CT-4A will remain valid for two (2) years from the date of its issue, unless extended by the DCGI as noted in the 2019-CTRules and IND-31.

In addition, per the 2019-CTRules, an investigator should not implement any deviations from or changes to the protocol without the sponsor’s agreement and after obtaining the EC’s prior review and documented approval or favorable opinion of the amendment. All protocol amendments should be submitted to the DCGI in writing along with the EC approval letter. Similarly, the G-ICMR indicates that the EC must review and approve any protocol amendments, major deviations, or violations prior to those changes being implemented.

The 2019-CTRules explains that the exception to this requirement is when it is necessary to eliminate an immediate hazard to the trial participant or when the changes involved are only logistical or administrative in nature. In this case, the EC as well as the DCGI must be notified immediately of all such exceptions. The DCGI should be notified of administrative or logistical changes or minor amendments in the protocol within 30 days.

The Hdbk-ClinTrial and the 2019-CTRules also note that application reviews should be based on the following evaluation parameters:

• Assessment of risk versus benefit to the patients
• Innovation vis-à-vis existing therapeutic option
• Unmet medical need in the country
• Safety/dosage/investigational tests (e.g., pharmacogenetic tests)
• Any additional information or study(ies) needed before marketing approval for inclusion in package insert/ summary product characteristic (SmPC) post marketing

See IND-46 for additional information on conducting clinical trials in India. For specific guidelines regarding gene therapy and stem cell therapy clinical trials, see the G-GeneThrpy and the G-StemCellRes.

(See the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for detailed submission requirements.)

Waiving Local Clinical Trials

As delineated in the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, the DCGI, with the approval of the Central Government, may waive the requirement to conduct a local trial for a new drug already approved outside India. Order7Aug24, in accordance with Rule 101 in the 2019-CTRules, further specifies that the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the European Union are the countries for which the DCGI may waive a local clinical trial for applications requesting permission to conduct a clinical trial and for applications requesting permission to import or manufacture new drugs in the following new drug categories:

• Orphan drugs for rare diseases
• Gene and cellular therapy products
• New drugs used in pandemic situations
• New drugs used for special defense purpose
• New drugs having significant therapeutic advance over the current standard care

The 2019-CTRules explains that for applications to request permission to import or manufacture a new drug, a local clinical trial may be waived if the following conditions are met:

• The new drug is approved and marketed in the countries specified by the DCGI in Order7Aug24, and no major unexpected serious adverse events have been reported, or
• The DCGI has already granted permission to conduct a Global Clinical Trial with the new drug that is currently ongoing in India and this new drug has also been approved for marketing in one (1) of the countries to be specified by the DCGI in Order7Aug24, and
• There is no probability or evidence, on the basis of existing knowledge, of any difference in the metabolism of the new drug by the Indian population, or any factor that may affect the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety and efficacy of the new drug, and
• The applicant has committed in writing to conducting a Phase IV clinical trial to establish the new drug’s safety and efficacy per the DCGI-approved formulation

For countries that do not meet the waiver eligibility requirements, the 2019-CTRules states that these applications must be approved by the DCGI within 90 working days from the date of application receipt. Refer to the Manufacturing & Import section for detailed information on import requirements for new drugs already approved outside of India. See also IND-6 for additional information on local clinical trial waivers to import or manufacture new drugs under the 2019-CTRules.

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.

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization

As per the 2019-CTRules, IND-43, and IND-42, a sponsor (also known as applicant) is responsible for a paying a fee to the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), to submit a clinical trial application. (Note: The DCGI is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.)

The 2019-CTRules and IND-43 specify that Form CT-04 should be accompanied by one (1) of the following officially mandated fees:

• 3,00,000 Rupees for Phase I (human) clinical trials
• 2,00,000 Rupees for Phase II (exploratory) clinical trials
• 2,00,000 Rupees for Phase III (confirmatory) clinical trials
• 2,00,000 Rupees for Phase IV clinical trials
• 50,000 Rupees for reconsideration of application for permission to conduct clinical trial

According to the 2019-CTRules, the sponsor must also submit a fee of 5,000 Rupees per product with an application for permission to manufacture or import the investigational product (IP) to be used in a clinical trial.

In addition, the 2019-CTRules states that no fee is required to be paid along with the clinical trial application if a trial is being conducted by an institution or an organization wholly or partially funded or owned by the Central Government of India or one of India’s state government institute(s).

See also IND-31 for additional information on CDSCO fee requirements.

In addition, IND-24 indicates that for applications submitted to the National Single Window System (NSWS) portal (IND-3), users should pay any required fees directly to CDSCO or any other ministry/department/state responsible for processing the application via the NSWS portal (IND-3). At this time, however, per IND-14, only a few CDSCO steps and processes (e.g., medical device related registration, manufacturing/import applications and drug manufacturing/import applications) have been moved to the NSWS portal (IND-3).

Payment Instructions

As described in the 2019-CTRules and IND-43, payment must be made electronically via the Bank of Baroda, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001, any other Bank of Baroda branch, or any other bank approved by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) via the State Bank of India’s SBIePay payment gateway, which is accessed from the SUGAM portal (IND-59). The payment should be credited to: Head of Account, 0210-Medical and Public Health, 04-Public Health, 104-Fees and Fines per the 2019-CTRules, also known as the head of Fees & Fines, according to IND-42.

According to IND-43 and IND-42, once the user validates the payment information in the SUGAM portal (IND-59), the payment request is redirected to the SBIePay payment gateway. When the payment is submitted, the bank payment gateway will confirm that the payment was successful, and the user will be redirected to the online payment status page in the SUGAM portal (IND-59) to view the e-Challan (payment receipt).

IND-43 and IND-42 also specify that the online payment will take two (2) to three (3) days to be credited to the National Portal of India’s Payment & Account Office. Therefore, users are requested to initiate online payments at least three (3) days prior to submitting an application to CDSCO. Refer to IND-43 and IND-42 for detailed fee requirements and online payment instructions via the SUGAM portal (IND-59).

(Note: Although the fees listed in IND-43 are correct, the SUGAM portal (IND-59) and associated documentation as well as CDSCO’s Pre-Screening Checklist (IND-32) have not yet been aligned with the 2019-CTRules in terms of referencing the new application form (CT-04). However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the CDSCO website for new developments and will post the most current sources as they become available.)

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 delineated in the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, India has a decentralized process for the ethical review of clinical trial applications, and requires ethics committee (EC) approval for each trial site. Because there is no national EC in the country, ECs are based at either institutions/organizations, or function independently, and must meet the requirements set forth in the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR. Prior to initiating and throughout the duration of a trial, every trial site must be overseen by an EC registered with the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). (Note: The DCGI is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.)

Ethics Committees for Biomedical and Health Research

Per the 2019-CTRules, CDSCO requires institutions that intend to conduct biomedical and health research to have an EC that reviews and oversees this type of research study. In addition, CDSCO has also established a separate registration and monitoring system for ECs that review biomedical and health research. See the Scope of Review section for additional information on biomedical and research study requirements.

Ethics Committee Composition

Pursuant to the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, an institutional/independent EC should be multidisciplinary and multi-sectorial, representing a mixed gender and age composition. ECs that review clinical trial applications and those that review biomedical and health research share the same composition criteria including affiliations, qualifications, member specific roles and responsibilities, as well as terms of reference and review procedures.

The 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR state that an EC should appoint from among its members a chairperson (from outside the institution) and a member secretary (generally from inside the institution). The other members should represent a balance of affiliated and non-affiliated medical/non-medical and scientific/non-scientific persons, including the lay public. Per the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, preferably 50% of the members should not be affiliated with the institution.

As per the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, the composition should include the following:

• Chairperson from outside the institute (Vice Chairperson (optional))
• One (1) to two (2) basic medical scientists (preferably one (1) pharmacologist)
• One (1) to two (2) clinicians from various institutions
• Legal expert(s) or retired judge
• One (1) social scientist/representative of non-governmental voluntary agency
• One (1) philosopher/ethicist/theologian
• One (1) lay person from the community
• Member secretary (Alternative Member secretary optional)
• One (1) member whose primary area of interest/specialization is non-scientific
• At least one (1) member independent of the institution/trial site

Additionally, per the 2019-CTRules, EC members are required to:

• Be familiar with key clinical regulatory requirements as delineated in the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR that reference both the Declaration of Helsinki (IND-63) and the most recently updated International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (IND-41)
• Have post-graduate qualifications and experience in their fields if representing basic medical scientists/clinicians
• Represent the specific patient group as much as possible based on the research area requirement

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As delineated in the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, EC members should be made aware of their roles and responsibilities. The terms of reference should also include a statement on terms of appointment including duration and conditions; policy for removal/replacement; resignation procedure; meeting frequency; payment of processing fee to EC for review; honorariums to members and invited experts; maintenance of EC documentation and communication records, etc. Each committee should specify these terms in its own standard operating procedures (SOPs) that should be made available to each member.

In addition, per the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, members should have no conflict of interest, and should voluntarily withdraw from the EC while making a decision on an application if a proposal evokes a conflict of interest. The G-ICMR indicates the term of membership is generally two (2) to three (3) years, and may be extended.

In terms of training, the G-ICMR also specifies each member must:

• Provide a recent signed Curriculum Vitae (CV) and training certificates on human research protection and good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines, if applicable
• Either be trained in human research protection and/or GCP at the time of induction into the EC, or undergo training and submit training certificates within six (6) months of appointment (or as per institutional policy)
• Be willing to undergo training or update their skills/knowledge during their tenure as an EC member

Further, if required, the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, state subject experts could also be invited to offer their views, which must be recorded; however, the experts would not have any voting rights. Only members independent of the trial and the trial sponsor (also known as applicant) should vote/provide opinions in study related matters. In addition, all records must be safely maintained after the completion or termination of the study for at least five (5) years from the date of the trial’s completion or termination (both hard and soft copies).

The G-ICMR specifies that all EC members should review all proposals. Members should be given at least one (1) week to review the proposal and related documents, except in the case of expedited reviews. The Member Secretary should screen the proposals for their completeness and categorize them into three (3) types according to risk level: exemption from review, expedited review, or full committee review. An investigator cannot decide that a protocol falls in the exempted category without an EC review. Per the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, a minimum of five (5) members is required for the quorum.

For detailed EC procedures and information on other administrative processes, see the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and IND-5. See also IND-27 and IND-28 for the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)’s research conduct policies.

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

The primary scope of information assessed by ethics committees (ECs) relates to maintaining and protecting the rights, safety, and well-being of all research participants, especially those in vulnerable populations, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, the G-Children, the Declaration of Helsinki (IND-63), and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (IND-41). (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations).

The 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR also state that ECs must ensure an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the research protocols. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants, and they must verify the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. Per the G-Children, ECs providing opinions on studies involving children should also include members with pediatric expertise. The expert(s) may be permanent EC members or invited as subject experts to provide advice and be consulted on an ad-hoc basis.

See also the G-AI-BiomedRes for EC review guidelines for biomedical and health research proposals involving artificial intelligence-based tools and technologies.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As per the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and IND-31, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), and a DCGI-registered EC must approve a clinical trial application prior to the sponsor (also known as applicant) initiating the trial, except in the case of non-regulatory academic clinical trials that only require EC approval. (Note: The DCGI is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.) According to IND-31, the DCGI review and approval process may be conducted in parallel with the EC review for each clinical trial site. However, per the 2019-CTRules and the Hdbk-ClinTrial, CDSCO must confirm the EC approvals for each participating site have been obtained per the protocol prior to approving the initiation of the study. (Note: the Hdbk-ClinTrial has not yet been updated to fully align with the 2019-CTRules.)

The 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, and IND-31 specify that an EC must grant a separate approval for each trial site to be used, and the DCGI must be informed of each approval. A trial may only be initiated at each respective site after obtaining an EC approval for that site. The 2019-CTRules and IND-31 further state that if a site does not have an EC, it may obtain approval from another site’s EC provided that it is located within the same city or within a radius of 50 kilometers of the trial site. The DCGI should be notified of the EC’s approval within 15 working days of the approval being granted per the 2019-CTRules. Per the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, the EC of each site should notify the DCGI of its approval and provide a copy within 15 working days of making this decision. Refer to IND-36 for the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)’s EC clinical trials application form.

During a clinical trial, per the 2019-CTRules, an investigator should not implement any deviations from or changes to the trial protocol without agreement by the sponsor and after obtaining the EC’s prior review and documented approval or favorable opinion of the amendment. All protocol amendments should be submitted to the DCGI in writing along with the EC’s approval letter.

The 2019-CTRules further states that the exception to this requirement is when it is necessary to eliminate an immediate hazard to the trial participant or when the changes involved are only logistical or administrative in nature. In this case, the EC as well as the DCGI must be notified immediately of all such exceptions. The DCGI should also be notified of administrative or logistical changes or minor amendments in the protocol within 30 days.

As delineated in the 2019-CTRules, ECs also have a continuing responsibility to monitor approved clinical trials and biomedical and health research studies to ensure ethical compliance throughout the study duration.

For all studies, the G-ICMR indicates that ECs must review and approve any protocol amendments, major deviations, or violations at regular intervals.

There is no stated expiration date for an EC approval in the 2019-CTRules or the G-ICMR. However, per the 2019-CTRules, in the event that an EC revokes its approval of a clinical protocol, it must record its reasons for doing so and immediately communicate this decision to the investigator as well as to the DCGI.

Per the 2019-CTRules, the EC must also maintain data, record, registers and other documents related to the functioning and review the clinical trial for a period of five (5) years after completion of the study. For detailed EC review procedures and information on other administrative processes, see the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, IND-5, and IND-27. See also IND-36 for the EC clinical trial application form, and IND-52 for other commonly used EC review forms.

The G-ICMR further states that research during humanitarian emergencies and disasters can be reviewed by an EC through an expedited review and scheduled/unscheduled full committee meetings, and this may be decided by the member secretary on a case-by-case basis depending on the urgency and need. If an expedited review is done, full ethical review should follow as soon as possible. The EC should also closely monitor the conduct and outcome of research. See Section 12.5 of the G-ICMR for additional information on EC review requirements during humanitarian emergencies.

For specific guidelines regarding gene therapy and stem cell therapy clinical trials, see G-GeneThrpy and G-StemCellRes.

Academic Clinical Trials

As defined by the 2019-CTRules, an academic clinical trial is a clinical trial of a drug already approved for a certain claim and initiated by any investigator, academic or research institution for a new indication or new route of administration, or, new dose or new dosage form, where the results of such a trial are intended to be used only for academic or research purposes and not for seeking DCGI approval or regulatory authority approval in any country for marketing or commercial purpose.

The 2019-CTRules and IND-31 specify that an academic clinical trial does not require DCGI approval as long as the following conditions are met:

• The trial is approved by the EC, and
• The data generated is not intended for submission to the DCGI

In addition, per the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, the EC should inform the DCGI about the academic trials it has approved and cases where there could be an overlap between the clinical trial for academic and regulatory purposes. If the DCGI does not comment to the EC within 30 days from receiving EC notification, it should be presumed that DCGI permission is not required. See also IND-6 for additional information on academic trial approval requirements.

IND-25 further explains that a drug import license is not required for EC-approved academic trials that will be using a permitted drug formulation with a new indication, a new route of administration, a new dose, or a new dosage form. See the Manufacturing & Import section for detailed information.

Biomedical and Health Research

According to the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, biomedical and health research is defined as studies that include basic research, applied and operational research, or clinical research designed primarily to increase scientific knowledge about diseases and conditions (physical or socio-behavioral); their detection and cause; and evolving strategies for health promotion, prevention, or the amelioration of disease and rehabilitation.

As discussed in Notice15Sept19 and Chapter IV of the 2019-CTRules, any institution or organization that intends to conduct biomedical and health research involving human participants is required to have an EC to review and oversee the conduct of such research before the study is initiated and throughout its duration. See also IND-28 for ICMR’s biomedical and health research conduct policies, and IND-6 for additional information on the regulation of biomedical and health research under the 2019-CTRules.

The EC must also be registered with the designated authority within the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW)’s Department of Health Research (DHR). Refer to the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for detailed registration requirements.

Multicenter Research

As delineated in the G-ICMR, in a multicenter research study, all of the participating study sites are required to obtain approval from their respective ECs. Each EC may conduct a separate review, or the ECs may decide to designate a main EC, with the others choosing to accept its decision. The study sites also typically follow a common protocol to avoid duplication of effort, wastage of time, and issues arising with communication between committees.

Per the G-ICMR, in the event that sites choose to have separate EC reviews, the following requirements must be met:

• The participating site ECs/Secretariats should establish communication with one another
• If any EC does not grant approval for a study at a site, the reasons must be shared with other ECs and should be considered
• The EC can suggest site-specific protocols and informed consent modifications as per local needs

A separate review may be requested for studies with a higher degree of risk, clinical trials, or intervention studies where conduct may vary depending on the site, or, for any other reason that requires closer review and attention. See the G-ICMR for additional participating site requirements when a primary EC is selected for common EC review.

Per the G-ICMR, when the multicenter research study designates one (1) main EC, the nominated EC members that represent the participating sites may attend the meeting of the elected EC. The designated EC should also be in India and be registered with the relevant authority (either the DCGI or the DHR depending on the type of study). In addition, the decision to conduct a common review is only applicable for ECs in India. In the case of international collaboration for research and approval by a foreign institution, the local participating study sites would be required to obtain approval from a local EC. Refer to the G-ICMR for detailed information on multicenter studies that use the common review practice and involve international collaborations.

The G-ICMR further notes that the local site requirements (e.g., informed consent, research implementation and its monitoring) may be performed by the local EC, which would require good communication and coordination between the researchers and the EC secretariats representing the participating sites.

See the G-MultictrResRev for additional guidelines on streamlining the ethics review process for multicenter biomedical and health research studies conducted by the ICMR or its network of institutions.

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.

As indicated in the G-ICMR, ethics committees (ECs) may charge a reasonable fee to cover the expenses related to optimal functioning to conduct reviews. EC members may also be given reasonable compensation for their time attending EC meetings, and every institution should allocate adequate funds to ensure the smooth functioning of the EC.

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

In accordance with the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, all ethics committees (ECs) that review drug clinical trials are required to register with the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), prior to reviewing and approving a clinical trial protocol. (Note: The DCGI is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.) As delineated in Notice15Sept19 and Chapter IV of the 2019-CTRules, all ECs that review biomedical and health research studies are required to register with the designated authority within the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW)’s Department of Health Research (DHR). According to IND-50, the DHR’s Office for Ethics Committee Registration has been designated as the entity responsible for coordinating and monitoring registrations for ECs overseeing biomedical and health research in India. This office will receive applications for registration of ECs and will review and make decisions on EC registrations/re-registrations.

See also IND-69 for an application submission checklist to re-register ECs. Refer to IND-49 for a list of registered ECs, and IND-48 for a list of re-registered ECs.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Registration Provisions for Clinical Trial Ethics Committees

As specified in the 2019-CTRules and Notice1Aug18, ECs that intend to review clinical trial research protocols must submit Form CT-01 via the SUGAM portal (IND-59) to register with the DCGI. The DCGI, in turn, will review the application within 45 working days from the date of receipt and, if satisfied with the information provided, grant the EC's registration request via Form CT-02. Per 2022-CTRules-3rdAmdt, provided that no communication has been received from the DCGI within the stated period of 45 working days, the EC registration will be deemed granted by the DCGI, and such registration will be regarded as legally valid for all purposes and the applicant will be authorized to initiate a clinical trial in accordance with these rules. 2022-CTRules-3rdAmdt further states that once the EC has obtained provisional approval from the DCGI per the 2019-CTRules, the committee must also notify CDSCO via Form CT-02A, which will become part of the official record known as the guaranteed registration of the DCGI.

Per the 2019-CTRules and IND-53, the EC registration will remain valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of issue, unless suspended or cancelled sooner. The EC may apply for registration renewal via the IND-59 using Form CT-01 and should include all additional required documentation 90 days prior to the registration’s expiration date. The registration will remain in force until the DCGI passes a new registration order as long as the application is received within the specified 90-day deadline. Following the DCGI’s review of the application and inspection report, if any, and provided that there are no changes to the documentation included in the original application, the EC’s request for registration renewal will be granted within 45 working days from the date of application receipt. See also IND-42 and IND-43 for detailed fee requirements and online payment instructions via IND-59.

The 2019-CTRules also states that if the EC fails to comply with any of the registration conditions, the DCGI may, after giving the EC an opportunity to show cause as to why such an order should not be passed, prepare an order in writing to suspend or cancel the EC registration for such period as deemed necessary. The suspended or cancelled EC can appeal to the DCGI within the period specified in the show cause notice, and, after consideration, the DCGI may respond by taking one (1) or more of the following actions:

• Withdraw the notice
• Issue a warning to the EC describing the deficiency or defect observed during an inspection
• Reject the results of the clinical trial
• Suspend for a specified period or cancel the registration, or
• Debar its members to oversee any future trial for a specified period

The aggrieved EC may file an appeal to the Government of India (Central Government) within 60 working days. The Central Government may subsequently pass an order in response to the appeal within 60 working days from the date of the appeal filing.

The EC must also allow CDSCO officials to enter the committee premises to inspect any records, data, documents, or other materials related to a clinical trial. The EC must provide adequate replies to any queries raised by the inspecting authority in relation to the conduct of the trial as noted in the 2019-CTRules.

Registration Provisions for Biomedical and Health Research Ethics Committees

As explained in Notice15Sept19 and IND-51, ECs planning to review biomedical and health research studies are initially required to register on the DHR’s National Ethics Committee Registry for Biomedical and Health Research (NECRBHR) website (IND-51). The NECRBHR facilitates the receipt and processing of application submissions and assists the DHR’s Office of Ethics Committee Registration. An authorized signatory/responsible person must complete the EC Applicant Registration Form (IND-38) and submit it online on the NECRBHR website (IND-51). Once the NECRBHR verifies the application and approves the account registration, the applicant will receive an email with login instructions to apply electronically via the DHR’s NAITIK portal (IND-54). See IND-66 for a checklist of NECRBHR registration requirements.

Per the 2019-CTRules, the EC must submit an application to the NECRBHR using Form CT-01 along with the required information and documentation specified in Table 1 of the Third Schedule of the 2019-CTRules. Upon receipt of the application, the DHR’s Office of Ethics Committee Registration (designated authority) must grant provisional registration to the EC for a period of two (2) years. Final registration will be granted to the EC on Form CT-03 when the DHR has completed its review of the application and the associated documentation. The final registration will remain valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of its issue, unless suspended or cancelled sooner.

The EC may also apply to request registration renewal using Form CT-01 along with the specified documentation at least 90 days prior to the final registration’s expiration date. The final registration will remain in force until the DHR completes its review of the renewal application provided that the following conditions are met:

• The DHR does not require the EC to provide a new set of documents
• There have been no changes in the submitted documents since the final registration was granted, and
• The EC submits a certificate to the DHR validating that the documents have not changed

Following a review of the registration renewal application and further inquiry to confirm there have been no documentation changes, the DHR will renew the EC’s registration on Form CT-03 within 45 working days from the date of application receipt. The renewed registration will remain valid for five (5) years from the date of its issue, unless suspended or cancelled sooner.

The 2019-CTRules further states that if the EC fails to comply with any of the registration conditions, the DHR may, after giving the EC an opportunity to show cause as to why such an order should not be passed, prepare an order in writing to suspend or cancel the EC registration for such period as deemed appropriate. The suspended or cancelled EC can appeal to the DHR, and after consideration, the DHR may respond by taking one (1) or more of the following actions:

• Issue a warning to the EC describing the deficiency or defect observed, which may adversely affect the rights or well-being of the study participants
• Suspend the EC for a specified period or cancel the registration, or
• Debar its members from overseeing any future biomedical health research for a specified period

The aggrieved EC may file an appeal to the Government of India (Central Government) within 45 working days. In response to the appeal, as deemed necessary, and after giving the EC an opportunity to be heard, the Central Government may subsequently pass an order considered appropriate to the case.

(Note: The registration provisions for biomedical and health research ECs in Notice15Sept19 and IND-51 have not yet been aligned with the 2019-CTRules in terms of explaining the application submission process. The 2019-CTRules does not specify that the application submission process is electronic as is stated in Notice15Sept19 and IND-51. Further, only Notice15Sept19 and IND-51 specify that the DHR’s Office of Ethics Committee Registration is the designated authority. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the CDSCO website for new developments and will post the most current sources as they become available.)

Additional Provisions for Clinical Trial and Biomedical and Health Research Ethics Committees

In addition to requiring all ECs to register with the relevant regulatory authority (the DCGI or the DHR), the G-ICMR specifies that ECs should be encouraged to seek recognition, certification, and accreditation from established national and international bodies (e.g., the SIDCER-FERCAP Foundation, the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP), CDSCO, and the Quality Council of India through National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH), etc.). Although voluntary, the G-ICMR states that these certifications and accreditations should be continually updated to help with quality assurance and quality improvement and ensure that ECs comply with best practices to protect research participants.

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

In accordance with the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, the G-ICMR, and IND-31, the sponsor (also known as the applicant) is required to submit a clinical trial application to the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), to obtain authorization to conduct a clinical trial in India. (Note: The DCGI is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.) The investigator must also obtain ethics committee (EC) approval from a DCGI-registered EC prior to initiating a study. According to IND-31, the DCGI review and approval process may be conducted in parallel with the EC review for each clinical trial site. However, per the 2019-CTRules and the Hdbk-ClinTrial, CDSCO must confirm the EC approvals for each participating site have been obtained per the protocol prior to approving the initiation of the study. (Note: the Hdbk-ClinTrial has not yet been updated to fully align with the 2019-CTRules.)

For specific guidelines regarding gene therapy and stem cell therapy clinical trial submissions, see G-GeneThrpy and G-StemCellRes.

Regulatory Submission

SUGAM Pre-Submission Registration

As explained in IND-42, CDSCO created the SUGAM portal (IND-59) to be used by applicants to apply for no objection certificates (NOCs), licenses, registration certificates, permissions, and approvals. Once submitted, applicants can track their applications, respond to queries, and download CDSCO issued permissions. According to IND-20, importers, Indian agents, foreign enterprises that hold an Indian subsidiary, and corporate users can register on the SUGAM portal (IND-59).

Per IND-42, users are required to complete a registration form requesting access to the SUGAM portal (IND-59) along with uploading the required identification (ID) documentation. IND-42 specifies that the authorized signatory/responsible person in an organization should complete the registration form. After registration is approved, the user is required to submit hard copies of identification (ID), proof of undertaking, and address to the CDSCO office. Registration will be approved by CDSCO only after evaluation of the submitted documents. IND-20 further notes that the email ID provided in the registration form should be an official email ID as all correspondence with CDSCO via the SUGAM portal (IND-59) will be completed using this registered email ID. Additionally, IND-20, the user will receive login credentials on the registered email ID after completion of the verification process from the CDSCO office. For detailed registration instructions, see IND-42 and IND-20.

NSWS Portal Pre-Submission Registration

Per Notice1Jan24, CDSCO launched the National Single Window System (NSWS) portal (IND-3) that will eventually serve as a one-stop shop for all approvals, licenses, registrations, and clearances. IND-24 further explains NSWS portal (IND-3) is a digital platform that is designed to integrate the services provided by various ministries, departments, and states thereby enabling users to identify and apply for regulatory approvals and registrations per their business requirements in a single location. According to IND-14, once the implementation process is completed, various regulatory documents including approvals, applications, and records will be accessible via the NSWS portal (IND-3). At this time, however, per Notice1Jan24 and Notice16Jan24, only a few CDSCO steps and processes (e.g., medical device related registration, manufacturing/import applications, and drug manufacturing/import applications) have been moved to the NSWS portal (IND-3). Per IND-24, while the NSWS portal (IND-3) does not charge a fee for registration, users are required to pay any fees required by CDSCO or any other ministry/department/state to process applications submitted for approval via the NSWS portal (IND-3).

IND-24 indicates that to access the NSWS portal (IND-3) services, users are required to sign up by registering with an email address and mobile phone, and then creating a business profile. As explained in IND-61, to complete the business profile, users are required to have a tax identification number known as a Permanent Account Number (PAN)). According to IND-33, a PAN is issued by the Income Tax Department within the Indian Ministry of Finance. Both domestic and foreign users can apply for a PAN using the appropriate application form.

Per IND-62 and IND-64, the user’s PAN will need to be verified using Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) for the created business profile. The steps involved in this process include adding authorized signatory information, registering the DSC, and verifying the PAN details against the registered DSC. IND-62 and IND-64 also note that users will need to have emBridge software installed on their computers to serve as a connecting link between the NSWS portal (IND-3) and DSC. Please refer to IND-62 and IND-64 for detailed instructions on completing this registration process which is required to apply for approval and registrations. See also IND-4 for a complete list of NSWS portal (IND-3) user guides.

Submissions

As indicated in the Notice15Jan18, all clinical trial application submissions must be submitted electronically via CDSCO’s SUGAM portal (IND-59). Refer to IND-42 for instructions on uploading forms and related documentation via the SUGAM portal (IND-59).

Per IND-7, CDSCO has introduced a new protocol for the submission of regulatory affairs related documents to facilitate the transition from hard copy to soft copy document submission. As explained in Notice12Oct23 and IND-7, effective immediately, CDSCO’s Clinical Research Unit (CRU) Division is requesting that stakeholders submit bulky dossiers, documents, query replies, and similar materials in soft copy format. The soft copies should be submitted in PDF format and ideally less 20 MB on a CD or pen drive to the CRU Division or submitted via email to cru.division@cdsco.nic.in. The files will then be forwarded to the appropriate Division along with the stakeholder’s cover letter.

The DCA-DCR delineates that English should be used for specific documents included in the clinical trial application submission. For the informed consent form and patient information sheet, English and/or the vernacular language of the participant(s) should be used. English should also be used for the package inserts.

In addition, per Notice31Jan24, CDSCO’s Subject Expert Committee (SEC) Division is responsible for conducting meetings to evaluate investigational new drug (IND) proposals. Applicants are requested to submit a copy of their proposal presentation only to the appropriate SEC division via the SUGAM portal (IND-59) after receiving an invitation letter from CDSCO, and well in advance of the scheduled meeting.

Ethics Review Submission

As indicated in the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, the G-ICMR, and IND-31, India requires all clinical trials of drugs involving human participants to be reviewed by a DCGI-registered EC. Because the submission process at individual institutional ECs will vary, applicants should review and follow their institution’s specific requirements. The G-ICMR also specifies that investigators should submit research proposals as soft or hard copies to the EC Secretariat for review in the prescribed format and required documents as per EC standard operating procedures (SOPs).

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

As per the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, IND-32, and IND-35, documentation must be submitted to the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), as part of the approval process for investigational new drugs (INDs) will depend upon the type of application, phase of the study, stage in drug development process, and/or objective of the study. Information that may be required is included in the lists below (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Form CT-04 (the clinical trial application form including sponsor (also known as applicant) name; sponsor nature/constitution and contact information; clinical trials site contact information and details; contact information for person responsible for compensation payment, if any; correspondence address; new drug/investigational new drug name(s) and details (i.e., therapeutic class, dosage form, composition, and indications); clinical trial phase; protocol number with date; and ethics committee (EC) and investigator names)
• Treasury Challan receipt demonstrating payment of corresponding fee or transaction ID
• Chemical and pharmaceutical information
• Animal pharmacology data
• Animal toxicology data
• Human clinical pharmacology data
• Active ingredient information (for INDs and global clinical trials (GCTs))
• Formulation data (for INDs and GCTs)
• Therapeutic class (for INDs and GCTs)
• Regulatory status in India and in other countries
• Proposed study status in other participating countries and any approvals, withdrawals, discontinuation of approval, etc. (for GCTs)
• Affidavit stating study has not been discontinued in any country (for GCTs)
• Prescribing information
• Testing protocol(s) for quality control testing
• Clinical study protocol
• Dosage form
• Justification and schematic diagram/flow chart proposed study and design (for INDs and GCTs)
• Number of patients globally (for GCTs) and number of patients to be enrolled from India (for INDs and GCTs)
• Details of all sites selected and assessment for suitability of sites and investigators (with contact details)
• EC registration status of the selected sites
• Relevance of study, investigational drug, or any specific study aspects to the health care needs of India
• Innovation vis-à-vis existing therapeutic options
• Unmet medical need in the country (as applicable)
• Any India-specific safety/dosage concerns/investigational tests to be done
• Clinical study reports should be submitted per the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Common Technical Document (CTD) (IND-68)
• Protocol safety measures per toxicological studies; early clinical studies, approved product insert for marketed product, and published literature
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB)
• Investigational Medicinal Products Dossier (IMPD) (for (GCTs))
• Affidavit stating the IB information is correct and based on facts (for GCTs)
• Source of bulk drugs (for INDs)
• Treasury Challan with Application for Grant of License to Import New Drug or Investigational New Drug for Clinical Trial or Bioavailability or Bioequivalence Study or for Examination, Test and Analysis (CT-16) (IND-11) (for GCTs)
• Sponsor authorization letter (for GCTs)
• Details of biological specimens to be exported and the online application for export no objection certificate (NOC) for biological samples on the SUGAM portal (IND-59) (for GCTs) (See IND-1 for the application form to request a NOC to export biological samples) (Refer to the Specimens topic for more information on specimen import/export)
• Case Report Form (CRF)
• Informed consent form (ICF) and patient information sheet (See Required Elements section for additional information)
• Investigator(s) undertaking
• EC approvals (if available)
• Clinical study report(s)
• Investigator list in India and site address

See the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, IND-32, and IND-35 for detailed DCGI application submission requirements. See also IND-22 for details on the IND-59 approval process for GCTs and IND-31 for clinical trial FAQs. (Note: The Hdbk-ClinTrial has not yet been updated to fully align with the 2019-CTRules.)

Refer to the 2019-CTRules and IND-31 to obtain detailed submission requirements for applications to conduct a clinical trial using an already approved new drug with a new indication, a new dosage form/new route of administration, a modified release dosage form, or a new drug with an additional strength.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Each institutional EC has its own application form and clearance requirements, which can differ significantly regarding the number of copies to be supplied and application format requirements. However, per the G-ICMR, the requirements listed below are basically consistent and shared by all of the Indian ECs:

• Cover letter to the Member Secretary
• Type of review requested
• Application form for initial review (IND-39)
• Informed consent document (in English and the local language(s)) including translation and back translation certificates, if applicable
• Case record form/questionnaire
• Recruitment procedures (e.g., advertisement, notices) if applicable
• Patient instruction card, diary, etc., if applicable
• IB (as applicable for drugs, biological, or device trials)
• Details of funding agency/sponsor and fund allocation, if applicable
• Investigators’ Curriculum Vitaes (CVs)
• Conflict of interest statement, if applicable
• Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training certificate for investigators (preferably within last five (5) years)
• Any other research ethics/other training evidence, if applicable as per EC standard operating procedures (SOPs)
• List of ongoing research studies undertaken by the principal investigator, if applicable
• Investigator’s undertaking statement with all participating investigator signatures
• Regulatory permissions (as applicable)
• Relevant administrative approvals (such as Health Ministry’s Screening Committee (HMSC) approval for international trials)
• Institutional Committee for Stem Cell Research (IC-SCR) Registration (IND-72), if applicable
• Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in case of studies involving collaboration with other institutions, if applicable
• Clinical trial agreement between the sponsors, investigator, and the head of the institution(s), if applicable
• Clinical trial registration documentation (preferable)
• Insurance policy (it is preferable to have the policy as well as the insurance certificate) for study participants indicating conditions of coverage, date of commencement and date of expiry of coverage of risk (if applicable)
• Indemnity policy, clearly indicating the conditions of coverage, commencement date, and expiry date of risk coverage (if applicable)
• Any additional document(s), as required by EC (such as other EC clearances for multicentric studies)
• Protocol

Furthermore, the ICMR has prepared a generic application for initial review (IND-39) that may be used by the EC. The form is also included in the bulleted list above.

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, and the G-ICMR, the clinical study protocol should include the following elements:

• Title page
• Table of contents
• Brief summary (See G-ICMR)
• Study rationale
• Study objective
• Study design and methodology
• Study population
• Justification of inclusion/exclusion of vulnerable populations (See G-ICMR)
• Participant eligibility and recruitment procedures
• Study assessments
• Study conduct stating the types of activities that would be included (e.g., medical history, type of physical examination, etc.)
• Study treatment
• Ethical consideration
• Study monitoring and supervision
• Investigational product management (See Investigational Products topic for detailed coverage of this subject)
• Data analysis
• Undertaking by the Investigator statement
• Appendices

The G-ICMR also mentions the following requirements:

• Study duration
• Justification for placebo, benefit-risk assessment, plans to withdraw; if standard therapies are to be withheld, justification for the same
• Informed consent procedure and sample of the patient/participant information sheet and informed consent forms including audiovisual recording, if applicable, and informed consent for stored samples
• Plan to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of the study participants
• Adverse events/adverse drug reactions
• For research involving more than minimal risk, an account of management of risk or injury
• Proposed compensation, reimbursement of incidental expenses and management of research related injury/illness during and after research period
• Provision of ancillary care for unrelated illness during the duration of research
• Account of storage and maintenance of all data collected during the trial
• Plans for publication of results while maintaining confidentiality of participants’ personal information/identity

For detailed information on these elements, see the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, and the G-ICMR.

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

Based on the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, the G-ICMR, and IND-31, the review and approval of a clinical trial application by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), is dependent upon obtaining ethics committee (EC) approval from a DCGI-registered EC prior to initiating a study. (Note: The DCGI is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.) According to IND-31, the DCGI review and approval process may be conducted at the same time as the EC review for each clinical trial site, except in the case of non-regulatory academic clinical trials that only require EC approval. However, per the 2019-CTRules and the Hdbk-ClinTrial, CDSCO must confirm the EC approvals for each participating site have been obtained per the protocol prior to approving the initiation of the study. (Note: the Hdbk-ClinTrial has not yet been updated to fully align with the 2019-CTRules.)

Regulatory Authority Approval

As specified in the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, upon receipt of a clinical trial application , the DCGI has 90 calendar days to evaluate the application for a new drug or an investigational new drug; 90 calendar days to evaluate a new drug already approved outside India; and 30 days to evaluate a drug discovered, researched, and manufactured in India. Per the Hdbk-ClinTrial, upon receipt of an application, a CDSCO official conducts the initial administrative review. If the application is deemed complete, within four (4) weeks following receipt, the official forwards the application along with a summary of their evaluation and a statement referring the proposal to a Subject Expert Committee (SEC) for further technical review.

The 2019-CTRules further notes that the DCGI may, when required, constitute one (1) or more of these expert committees or group of experts with the specialization in relevant fields to evaluate scientific and technical drug-related issues. The committee/group may submit its recommendations within 60 days from the date of the request. See the Scope of Assessment section for more information on SEC composition and review processes.

Once the SEC has completed its review, the Hdbk-ClinTrial indicates that the committee sends its comments via email to CDSCO. CDSCO will then compile any written SEC comments requiring sponsor (also known as applicant) clarification or modification and send this feedback to the sponsor within one (1) week of receipt. The applicant must submit a written reply to CDSCO within four (4) weeks of receiving the comments, which will, in turn, be sent to the SEC for review.

Following receipt of the sponsor’s response, the DCGI (CDSCO) will issue a final decision by official communication (permission, rejection, or resubmission) to the Technical or Apex Committee within 15 days. In the case of a sponsor’s request for reconsideration, CDSCO will review the resubmitted application and send it to the SEC again or to the Technical Committee per the sponsor’s request. Following the SEC’s review, the DCGI (CDSCO) will send a final decision to the Technical or Apex Committee within 15 days. If CDSCO rejects the reconsideration request, the agency will send a letter to the sponsor to communicate this decision. Refer to the Hdbk-ClinTrial for additional timeline information.

See also IND-22 for details on the SUGAM portal (IND-59) approval process for global clinical trials, and IND-46 for additional information on conducting clinical trials in India.

Per the 2022-CTRules-3rdAmdt, which amends the 2019-CTRules, provided that no communication has been received from the DCGI within the stated period of 90 working days, permission to conduct all new drug or investigational new drug clinical trials as well as clinical trials for new drugs already approved outside India will be deemed granted by the DCGI. This permission will be regarded as legally valid for all purposes and the applicant will be authorized to initiate a clinical trial in accordance with these rules. Similarly, per the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, if the DCGI does not respond within 30 days to applications for drugs developed in India, the sponsor may conclude that permission to conduct the trial has been granted. Refer to the Scope of Assessment section for information on obtaining a waiver for an already approved drug. See also the Manufacturing & Import section for detailed information on import requirements for new drugs already approved outside of India.

For specific guidelines regarding gene therapy and stem cell therapy clinical trials, see the G-GeneThrpy and the G-StemCellRes.

(See also the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for detailed submission requirements.)

Ethics Committee Approval

As per IND-9, the EC review and approval process, which occurs at the same time as the DCGI review and approval, generally takes from four (4) to six (6) weeks. Many study sites also have scientific review committees (SRCs) review the scientific justification of the study. Once the SRC approves the study, it is submitted to the EC for its review and approval.

The G-ICMR indicates that EC members should be given enough time (at least one (1) week) to review the proposal and related documents, except in the case of expedited review. While all EC members should review all submitted proposals, each EC may adopt different procedures for protocol review per their standard operating procedures.

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

As set forth in the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, the G-ICMR, and IND-31, a clinical trial can only commence in India after the sponsor (also known as applicant) receives permission from the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and approval from the respective ethics committees (ECs). The DCGI is head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations. According to the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, non-regulatory clinical trials intended for academic/research purposes only require institutional EC approval. (See the Scope of Review section for additional details). There is no waiting period required following the sponsor’s receipt of these approvals. (Note: the Hdbk-ClinTrial has not yet been updated to fully align with the 2019-CTRules.)

The 2022-CTRules-3rdAmdt, which amends the 2019-CTRules, further indicates that once the sponsor obtains approval from the DCGI for a new drug, an investigational new drug, or a new drug already approved outside India, the sponsor must notify CDSCO via Form CT-06A prior to initiating the clinical trial. The DCGI will then record the information provided on the form and it will become part of the official record known as the automatic approval of the DCGI.

In addition, per the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, the sponsor is required to obtain approval from the DCGI to manufacture or import investigational products (IPs) and to obtain an import license for the shipment of IPs to be used in the trial. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information.)

As explained in the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, the EC should notify the DCGI about the academic trials it has approved and about cases where there could be an overlap between a clinical trial for academic and regulatory purposes. If the DCGI does not provide comments to the EC within 30 days from receiving EC notification, then it should be presumed that DCGI permission is not required.

For specific guidelines regarding gene therapy and stem cell therapy clinical trials, see G-GeneThrpy and G-StemCellRes.

Clinical Trial Agreement

According to the 2019-CTRules, the sponsor must have an agreement with the investigator, which is to be provided to the EC. Furthermore, the investigator must sign an undertaking to conduct the trial in accordance with the protocol, good clinical practice guidelines, and all applicable requirements, among other things. For more details, see Table 4 (Third Schedule) in the 2019-CTRules.

Clinical Trial Registration

Per the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and IND-31, it is mandatory for all sponsors to register their clinical trials, including academic trials, with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)’s Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) (IND-57) before initiating a study. Refer to the Scope of Review and Submission Process sections for further information on academic trials.

According to IND-56, registrants are advised to factor in a minimum of 10 to 15 working days for trial review, verification, and validation and the submission must indicate “Not Yet Recruiting” for the trial’s status. A REF number is issued to those registrants who have successfully submitted a trial to IND-57.

In addition, per IND-10, the ICMR has agreed to adopt the United Nation’s recommendations to register and publicly disclose results from all funded or supported clinical trials. The ICMR, along with other participating healthcare bodies, plans to develop and implement policies that require all trials they fund, co-fund, sponsor, or support to be registered in a publicly available registry. All study results will also be released within specified timeframes on the registry or through scientific journal publications.

See the 2019-CTRules, the Hdbk-ClinTrial, IND-32, and IND-35 for detailed DCGI application submission requirements.

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 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and IND-42, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of India’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence (including a symptom/disease or an abnormal laboratory finding) during treatment with a pharmaceutical product in a patient or a human participant not necessarily related to the treatment
• Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – a noxious and unintended response at doses normally used or tested in humans (in cases of approved pharmaceutical products); a noxious and unintended response at any dose(s) (in cases of new unregistered pharmaceutical products); an untoward medical occurrence seemingly caused by overdosing, abuse/dependence and interactions with other medicinal products (in clinical trials)
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) – an AE or ADR that is associated with death, in-patient hospitalization (in case the study was being conducted on outpatients), prolongation of hospitalization (in case the study was being conducted on in-patients), persistent or significant disability or incapacity, a congenital anomaly or birth defect, or is otherwise life threatening. Per IND-42, Important Medical Events may be considered SAEs when they may jeopardize the patient or subject and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one (1) of the outcomes listed in this definition
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction – an ADR, the nature or severity of which is not described in the informed consent/information sheet or the applicable product information, such as an investigator’s brochure (IB) for the unapproved investigational product (IP) or package insert/summary of product characteristics for an approved product (G-ICMR)

Safety Reporting Requirements

Per the 2019-CTRules, the sponsor (also known as applicant) and the investigator must forward any SAE/SADR report, after due analysis, within 14 days of the occurrence to the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), the ethics committee (EC) Chairman, and the head of the institution where the trial is being conducted. (Note: The DCGI is head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.)

In the event of an SAE/SADR resulting in death, per the 2019-CTRules, the sponsor or the representative and the investigator must forward the SAE/SADR reports to the DCGI within 14 days of knowledge of this occurrence. The 2019-CTRules and IND-42 also indicate that the EC is also required to forward its report along with its opinion on financial compensation, if any, to be paid by the sponsor or the representative, to the DCGI within 30 days of the incident.

See Table 5 of the 2019-CTRules for details on the data elements required for reporting SAEs/SADRs that occur during a clinical trial.

See the Insurance & Compensation section for additional information on sponsor compensation requirements.

Investigator Responsibilities

As indicated in the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and IND-42, the investigator must report all SAEs/SADRs to the DCGI, the sponsor or the representative, and the EC, within 24 hours of occurrence. Per the 2019-CTRules, in the event that the investigator fails to report any SAE/SADR within the stipulated period, the investigator is then required to provide reasons for the delay to the DCGI along with the SAE/SADR report for the DCGI’s approval.

In addition, per the G-ICMR, the investigator must submit a report to the DCGI explaining how the SAE/SADR was related to the research within 14 days. According to the 2019-CTRules, the investigator must also promptly report to the EC all changes in the clinical trial activities and all unanticipated problems involving risks to human research participants or others.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per Notice25Feb21, the investigator, the sponsor or the representative, and the EC must report all SAEs electronically via the SUGAM portal (IND-59). However, follow-up reports pertaining to SAE reports submitted prior to March 14, 2021, will continue to be accepted in paper form. Refer to IND-59 for the SUGAM user manual and video tutorials. See also IND-42 for instructions on how to submit SAE reports (referred to as Due Analysis Reports) via IND-59.

The G-ICMR further states that the investigator may report SAEs/SADRs to the EC through email or fax communication (including on non-working days). Refer to IND-37 for the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)'s EC Serious Adverse Event Reporting Format (Clinical Trials).

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

As described in the 2019-CTRules and IND-31, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), who heads the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), requires the sponsor (also known as applicant) to submit a six (6)-month status report for each clinical trial electronically via the CDSCO’s SUGAM portal (IND-59). The report should clarify whether the trial is ongoing, completed, or terminated. In the case of termination, detailed reasons for such termination must be communicated to the DCGI within 30 working days of the termination. In addition, per the 2019-CTRules, an ethics committee (EC) may periodically request study progress reports from the investigators.

As delineated in the 2019-CTRules, sponsors are also required to submit an annual status report for the clinical trial to the DCGI.

The 2019-CTRules further specifies that in cases where trials have been prematurely discontinued for any reason, including a lack of commercial interest in pursuing the new drug application (NDA), the sponsor should submit a summary report within three (3) months. The summary report should provide a brief description of the study, the number of participants exposed to the drug, dose/duration of exposure, details of adverse drug reactions, if any, and the reason for the study’s discontinuation or non-pursuit of the NDA.

See IND-35 for a Checklist of Notification for Annual Status Report documentation requirements to be included in a global clinical trial application.

Final Report

The final report should comply with the format and content guidelines listed in the 2019-CTRules as follows:

• Title page
• Study synopsis (1 to 2 pages)
• List of abbreviations and definitions
• Table of contents
• EC approval letter(s)
• Study team introduction
• Study objective
• Investigational plan
• Trial participants
• Efficacy evaluation
• Safety evaluation
• Discussion and overall conclusion
• List of references
• Appendices

See the 2019-CTRules for more detailed information on preparing the final report.

See IND-35 for a checklist of documentation requirements to be included in a global clinical trial application pertaining to end of clinical trial notification.

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 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, a sponsor (also known as applicant) is defined as an individual, a company, or an institution that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, or financing of a clinical study. The G-ICMR further states that an investigator who independently initiates and takes full responsibility for a trial automatically assumes the role of a sponsor. The 2019-CTRules also indicates that the sponsor may appoint a contract research organization (CRO).

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

As stated in the 2019-CTRules, all investigators must possess appropriate qualifications, training, and experience, and should conduct the trials in compliance with Good Clinical Practices (GCPs) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs). (See GCLP for the G-ICMR for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP), IND-31 for additional laboratory requirement information, and IND-76 for international GCLP guidelines. Investigators should also have access to investigational and treatment facilities as relevant to the protocol.

Per the 2019-CTRules, prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s)/institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor (also known as applicant) should provide the involved parties with the protocol and an up-to-date investigator’s brochure and allow them sufficient time to review this documentation. The sponsor must also define and allocate all study-related duties and responsibilities to the respective identified person(s) and organization(s) prior to initiating the study.

In addition, per Notice2Dec19, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) is preparing a comprehensive database of clinical trial sites and investigators involved in the conduct of global clinical trials in different therapeutic categories by collecting information from various sources. The first phase includes an Excel spreadsheet of sites and investigators involved in global clinical trials (IND-26).

See also IND-28 for the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)’s research conduct policies.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available on foreign sponsor responsibilities.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

While there are no general requirements for establishing a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), the G-Children recommends that a DSMB be strongly considered for research involving children in emergency situations.

Multicenter Studies

As delineated in the G-ICMR, in the case of multicenter research studies, all of the participating study sites are required to obtain approval from their respective ethics committees (ECs), which includes the option of each site choosing to accept the review/approval of a primary EC. The study sites also typically follow a common protocol to avoid duplication of effort, wastage of time, and communication issues. See the G-ICMR for additional participating site requirements when a primary EC is selected for common EC review. Also, see the Scope of Review section for additional details.

Further, per the G-ICMR, if a multicenter trial is going to be conducted, the sponsor may organize a coordinating committee or select coordinating investigators. The sponsor must also conduct training for investigators in ethics, GCPs, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and study protocols.

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

The G-ICMR specifies that the sponsor (also known as applicant) should provide insurance coverage or a provision in the budget for possible compensation for trial-related injuries. The G-ICMR also states that it is preferable to have the insurance certificate and the policy for study participants. Further, the policy should explain the conditions of coverage, date of commencement, and expiration date for risk coverage (if applicable). In addition, institutional mechanisms must be established to allow for insurance coverage of trial-related or unrelated illnesses (ancillary care).

The 2019-CTRules states that the ethics committee (EC) also requires a copy of the insurance policy or details regarding compensation for participation and for serious adverse events (SAEs) occurring during the study as part of its submission review process.

With regard to indemnity coverage, the G-ICMR states that an indemnity policy must be included in the documentation for EC review. The policy should clearly indicate the conditions of coverage, date of commencement, and coverage expiration date, if applicable.

Compensation

Injury or Death

In accordance with the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, the sponsor is responsible for providing compensation to research participants and/or their legal heir(s) in the event of trial-related injuries, permanent disability, or death. Per the G-ICMR, in the event the investigator/institution becomes the sponsor in a clinical trial, it is the host institution’s responsibility to provide compensation for research-related injury or harm as determined by the ethics committee (EC).

The 2019-CTRules further notes that the sponsor is responsible for compensating the research participant and/or the legal heir(s) if the trial-related injury, death, or permanent disability to a participant is specifically related to any of the following reasons:

• Adverse effects of an investigational product (IP)
• Any trial procedures involved in the study
• A violation of the approved protocol, scientific misconduct, or negligence by the sponsor, the representative, or the investigator
• Failure of the IP to provide the intended therapeutic effect where, the standard care, though available, was not provided to the participant per the protocol
• Not providing the required standard care, though available to the participant per the protocol in the placebo-controlled trial
• Adverse effects due to concomitant medication excluding standard care, necessitated as part of the approved protocol
• Adverse effect on the child in-utero due to a parent’s participation in a trial
• Any clinical trial procedures involved in the study leading to a serious adverse event (SAE/serious adverse drug reaction (SADR)

Per the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, the sponsor must also ensure that participants who suffer any trial-related injuries be provided with free medical treatment for such injuries as long as required per the opinion of the investigator (and the EC per the G-ICMR), or until such time it is established that the injury is not related to the clinical trial, whichever is earlier. Per the 2019-CTRules, if the sponsor or the representative fails to provide medical management, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), after a hearing, must issue a written order to suspend or cancel the study or restrict the sponsor, including the representative, from conducting any further clinical trials or taking any other action for such period deemed appropriate for this case. (Note: The DCGI is head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.)

In the case of a trial-related injury, the 2019-CTRules and IND-31 state that the sponsor is required to provide complete medical management and compensation to the participant within 30 days of receiving an order from the DCGI. In the event of permanent injury or death, the sponsor is required to provide compensation to the participant or to the legal representative/guardian within 30 days of receiving the DCGI’s order. According to IND-31, compensation and medical management requirements are also applicable in the case of injury or death occurring during an academic trial.

The 2019-CTRules explains that in the case of an SAE resulting in death, the DCGI must constitute an independent expert committee to review the incident and make its recommendations to the DCGI for the cause of death and to provide a quantum of compensation. The sponsor or the representative and the investigator must forward their reports, after due analysis, to the DCGI and the head of the institution where the trial was conducted within 14 days of the occurrence. The EC must forward its report along with its opinion on financial compensation, if any, to be paid by the sponsor or the representative within 30 days of receiving the investigator’s report. The DCGI, in turn, must forward the sponsor, investigator, and EC reports to the expert committee chairperson. Following its review, the expert committee must make its recommendations to the DCGI as to the cause of the SAE resulting in death and the quantum of compensation within 60 days from receiving the DCGI’s submission. The DCGI must then consider the expert committee’s recommendations and issue an order within 90 days to the sponsor or the representative specifying the quantum of compensation required to be paid within 30 days of receiving the order.

In the case of an SAE/SADR resulting in permanent disability or any injury other than death, the 2019-CTRules indicates that the sponsor or the representative and the investigator must forward their reports, after due analysis, to the DCGI, the EC chairperson, and the head of the institution where the trial has been conducted within 14 days of the occurrence. The EC, after due analysis, must forward its report along with its opinion on financial compensation, if any, to the DCGI within 30 days of the event occurrence. The DCGI, in turn, must determine the cause of the injury and issue an order, with the option to constitute an independent expert committee, within 60 days of receipt of the report. The DCGI must issue an order within 90 days of receiving the report indicating the quantum of compensation to be paid by the sponsor or the representative within 30 days of receipt of this order.

In the case of an injury not being permanent in nature, per the 2019-CTRules, compensation should be commensurate with the participant’s loss of wages.

Per the 2019-CTRules, in the event that a sponsor or the representative fails to provide compensation to a research participant for trial-related injuries, or to the legal heir(s) in case of death, the DCGI must, after giving an opportunity to show cause why such an order should not be passed by a written order, suspend or cancel the clinical trial, or restrict the sponsor or the representative from conducting any further clinical trials in India or taking any other action deemed fit given the circumstances.

See the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR for detailed information on terms of compensation payment.

Trial Participation

The G-ICMR explains that participants may also be compensated for their time and other expenses (e.g., loss of wages, food supplies, and travel). The EC should approve all payments, reimbursement, and medical services provided. Per the G-ICMR, participants should not be required to pay for any expenses incurred beyond routine clinical care and which are research related including patient work-ups, or interventions associated with treatment. If there are provisions, participants may receive additional medical services at no further cost.

Post-Trial Access

The 2019-CTRules and IND-31 explain that the investigator may recommend the sponsor provide post-trial access to the investigational product (IP) free of cost to the participant for such period as deemed necessary by the investigator and the EC. The sponsor must obtain DCGI approval to initiate this plan. The investigator’s recommendation will be based on the following conditions:

• If the trial is being conducted for an indication for which no alternative therapy is available, and the IP has been determined to be beneficial
• The participant or the legal representative/guardian has consented in writing to use the post-trial IP, and has certified and declared in writing, along with the investigator, that the sponsor must have no liability for post-trial use of the IP

See also IND-6 for additional information on post-trial access to IPs under the 2019-CTRules.

Additionally, per the G-ICMR, the benefits accruing from research should be made accessible to individuals, communities and populations whenever relevant. The EC should consider the need for an a priori agreement between the researchers and sponsors regarding the following:

• Efforts should be made to communicate the findings of the research study to the individuals/communities wherever relevant
• The research team should make plans wherever applicable for post-research access and sharing of academic or intervention benefits with the participants, including those in the control group
• Post-research access arrangements or other care must be described in the study protocol so that the EC may consider such arrangements during its review

G-ICMR further states that if an investigational drug is to be given to a participant post-trial, appropriate regulatory approvals should be in place. In studies with restricted scope, such as student projects, post study benefit to the participants may not be feasible, but conscious efforts should be made by the institution to take steps to continue to support and give better care to the participants.

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

In accordance with the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, the sponsor (also known as applicant) is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol, Good Clinical Practices (GCPs), and all applicable laws and regulations.

Monitoring Requirements

As per the 2019-CTRules, the sponsor must permit clinical trial site inspections by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI)-authorized officers. The officers may enter the premises and clinical trial site with or without prior notice to inspect, search, or seize any record, statistical result, document, investigational drug, and other related material. The sponsor must also reply to inquiries raised by the inspecting authority in relation to the conduct of the trial. (Note: The DCGI is head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.)

In addition, as part of its QA system, the 2019-CTRules notes that investigator(s) may provide periodic study progress reports (PSUR), or regulatory officials or sponsor-designated authorized representatives may provide monitoring and internal audit reports to the ethics committee (EC) to support its recurring clinical trial reviews. An audit certificate may be issued, if available.

Furthermore, the 2019-CTRules requires the investigator to sign an undertaking indicating agreement to maintain adequate and accurate records and to make those records available for audit or inspection by the sponsor, the EC, the Central Licensing Authority, or their authorized representatives, in accordance with regulatory provisions and GCP guidelines. The investigator must agree to fully cooperate with any study-related audit conducted by regulatory officials or authorized representatives of the sponsor.

See IND-35 for a checklist of PSUR documentation requirements to be included in a global clinical trial application, and IND-34 for the DCGI’s GCP Inspection Checklist.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

As delineated in the 2019-CTRules, when the sponsor fails to comply with any provisions of the DCA-DCR and the 2019-CTRules, the DCGI may, after giving an opportunity to show cause and after affording an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing, implement one (1) or more of the following actions:

• Issue a warning in writing describing the deficiency or defect observed during inspection or otherwise which may affect adversely the right or well-being of a trial participant or the validity of clinical trial conducted
• Reject the results of the clinical trial
• Suspend for such period as considered appropriate or cancel the permission granted in Form CT-06 or in Form CT-4A
• Debar the investigator or the sponsor, including the representatives, from conducting any clinical trial in the future for such period as considered appropriate by the DCGI

The sponsor or the representative may appeal the DCGI’s decision within 60 working days of receipt of the order.

Further, per the 2019-CTRules, in case of studies prematurely discontinued for any reason, including lack of commercial interest in pursuing the new drug application, the sponsor should submit a summary report within three (3) months. The summary report should provide a brief description of the study, the number of patients exposed to the drug, dose and duration of exposure, details of adverse drug reactions, if any, and the reason for discontinuation of the study or non-pursuit of the new drug application.

The 2019-CTRules also indicates that in case of termination of any clinical trial the detailed reasons for such termination must be communicated to the DCGI within 30 working days of such termination.

See IND-35 for a checklist of premature study termination documentation requirements to be included in a global clinical trial application.

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

No information is currently available on electronic data processing systems.

Records Management

Per the 2019-CTRules, the sponsor (known as applicant) must keep a record of new drugs manufactured and persons to whom the drugs have been supplied for clinical trial or bioavailability and bioequivalence study or for examination, testing, and analysis. In addition, the 2019-CTRules indicates that the licensed sponsor must maintain records of any imported new drug or substance that indicates the quantity of drug imported, used, and disposed of in any manner including related documentation.

See the Scope of Review section for information on ethics committee management of clinical trial related records.

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 the purposes of data protection regulation in India, the ITAct, the ITActAmend, and the IT-SPDIRules delineate responsibilities of the “body corporate.” The body corporate as defined by the ITAct, the ITActAmend, and the IT-SPDIRules refers to any company including a firm, sole proprietorship, or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities. The IT-SPDIRules further explains that the body corporate or any person on its behalf is the entity responsible for collecting, receiving, possessing, storing, dealing with, or handling personal information, including sensitive personal data and information. (Note: In ClinRegs, the “body corporate” is referred to as “sponsor,” but the requirements may apply to other parties as well).

Data Protection

Data protection in India is currently regulated by the ITAct, the ITActAmend, and the IT-SPDIRules. Per the IT-SPDIRules, the sponsor (or the “body corporate”) must provide a privacy policy for the handling of or dealing with this personal information including sensitive personal data or information. The IT-SPDIRules defines sensitive personal data or information as information relating to password(s); financial information; physical, physiological, and mental health condition(s); sexual orientation; medical records and history; and biometric information. The sponsor must ensure that this policy is available for view by the information providers under a lawful contract. The policy must be published on the sponsor’s or its representative’s website and provide the following:

• Clear and easily accessible statements of its practices and policies
• The type of personal information including sensitive personal data or information collected
• The purpose of collection and usage of such information
• Disclosure of information including sensitive personal data or information
• Reasonable security practices and procedures

Please refer to the IT-SPDIRules for detailed requirements on implementing security practices and procedures and collecting, disclosing, and transferring sensitive personal data or information.

See also IND-65 for more detailed information on India’s data protection requirements.

Pursuant to the G-LabValidTest, laboratory validation testing is used to ensure that laboratory test data and results are accurate, consistent, and precise, and may include tests that are conducted using residual, archived, unlinked, and anonymous biological samples such as blood, urine, tissue, cells, saliva, DNA, etc. The G-LabValidTest indicates that if the biological samples are linked to different types of personal identifiers (name, address, etc.) or with health-related data (chronic illnesses, prior hospital stays), and other types of potentially sensitive data (travel history, family history), there is a risk for breach of confidentiality and such samples are not recommended for laboratory validation testing without ethics committee (EC) approval. The investigator undertaking laboratory validation testing must also keep the EC informed regarding use of leftover, archived, or anonymous samples. The laboratories involved in the validation of tests/methods, may be exempted from ethical approval when using leftover archived and anonymized samples.

See also the G-AI-BiomedRes for data privacy and confidentiality guidelines in biomedical and health research involving artificial intelligence-based tools and technologies.

Additionally, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 was enacted on August 11, 2023, with an effective date to be determined by the Indian Government. The ClinRegs team will update the Personal Data Protection section when more information becomes available.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

As set forth in the IT-SPDIRules, the body corporate or its representative must obtain consent in writing through letter, fax, or email from the provider of the sensitive personal data or information regarding the purpose of usage before collection of such information. The IT-SPDIRules further states that while collecting information directly from the information provider, reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the information provider receives details regarding the following:

• The fact that the information is being collected
• The purpose for which the information is being collected
• The intended recipients of the information; and
• The name and address of the agency that is collecting the information, and the agency that will retain the information

Per the IT-SPDIRules, the body corporate or its representative, must provide an option to the information provider to withhold the requested data or information prior to the collection of information including sensitive personal data or information. The information provider must, at any time, also have the option to withdraw consent given earlier to the sponsor or the sponsor’s representative. This withdrawal of consent must be sent in writing.

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 Indian clinical trials, a freely given, written informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant to comply with the requirements set forth in the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and the G-Children.

As per the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, prior to beginning a clinical trial, the investigator is required to obtain ethics committee (EC) approval for the informed consent form (ICF) and the patient information sheet. This documentation must also be supplied to the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), prior to the trial’s initiation. The ICF and patient information sheet are ultimately integrated into one (1) document referred to as the ICF. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.) (Note: The DCGI is head of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and is commonly referred to as the Central Licensing Authority in the Indian regulations.)

The 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and the G-Children specify that investigator(s) should provide detailed study information to the research participant or the legal representative/guardian. The ICF content should be briefly and clearly presented orally, and in writing, and in a manner that is easy to understand, commensurate with the comprehension level of the participants, and without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the trial. Per the G-ICMR, the ICF language should not only be scientifically accurate and simple, but should also be sensitive to the participant’s social and cultural background. In addition, the participant or the legal representative/guardian, should be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. The consent should also be given voluntarily and not be obtained under duress or coercion of any sort or by offering any inducements.

The G-ICMR also states that, in the case of differently abled participants, such as those with physical, neurological, or mental disabilities, appropriate methods should be used to enhance the participants’ understanding (e.g., Braille for the visually impaired).

As delineated in the 2019-CTRules, investigator(s) must obtain an audio-video (AV) recording of the informed consent process for vulnerable participants in clinical trials for a new chemical or molecular entity, including the procedure of providing information to the participant and their understanding of the consent. This AV recording should be retained in the investigator’s files. In cases where clinical trials are conducted on anti-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and anti-leprosy drugs, the investigator(s) must only obtain an audio recording of the informed consent process. The investigator(s) is also required to retain the audio recording for their records.

For specific guidelines regarding gene therapy and stem cell therapy clinical trials, see G-GeneThrpy and G-StemCellRes.

Re-Consent

According to the G-ICMR and the G-Children, investigator(s) are required to renew the informed consent of each participant if there are any changes in the ICF related to the study conditions or research procedures, or if new information becomes available during the trial.

Per the G-ICMR and the G-Children, re-consent is applicable in cases in which a participant regains consciousness from an unconscious state and/or recovers mental capacity to understand the research study. If such an event is expected, then procedures to address this circumstance should be explained clearly in the ICF.

The G-ICMR and the G-Children explain that re-consent is required in the following situations:

• New information pertaining to the study becomes available that has implications for the participant(s) or that changes the benefit and risk ratio
• A research participant who is unconscious regains consciousness or suffered loss of mental competence and regains the ability to understand the research implications
• A child becomes an adult during the study, or the parent/legal guardian have changed
• Research requires a long-term follow up or an extension
• There is a change in treatment modality, procedures, site visits, data collection methods, or tenure of participation which may impact a participant’s decision to continue in the research
• There is possibility of identity disclosure through data presentation or photographs (this should be camouflaged adequately) in an upcoming publication
• Future research may be carried out on stored biological samples if not anonymized

The partner/spouse may also be required to give additional re-consent in some of the above cases.

Language Requirements

As stated in the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, the ICF should be written in English and/or in a vernacular language that the participant is able to understand.

Documenting Consent

The G-ICMR and the G-Children specify that the participant or the participant’s legal representative/guardian must sign and date the ICF. If the participant is incapable of giving an informed consent, the legal representative/guardian should sign and date the ICF. Where the participant or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of and countersigned by an impartial witness.

Per the G-ICMR, if the participant or the legal representative/guardian cannot sign, a thumb impression must be obtained. In addition, the investigator(s) who administers the consent should also sign and date the ICF. As stated in the G-ICMR and the G-Children, when written consent as a signature or thumb impression is not possible, verbal consent may be taken with the EC’s approval, in the presence of an impartial witness who should sign and date the consent document, or through an AV recording. Per the G-ICMR, the ICF may also be administered and documented electronically, as long as the EC approves the process first.

As described in the G-ICMR, the following special situations may also arise in administering consent:

• The gatekeeper’s (a group’s head/leader or the culturally appropriate authorities), may provide permission on the group’s behalf in writing or audio/video recording and be witnessed
• Community consent is required for certain populations in order for participants to be permitted to participate in the research

According to the G-ICMR and the G-Children, a copy of the signed ICF and the patient information sheet should be given to the participant or the legal representative/guardian. Per the G-Children, the investigator should also keep a signed copy of the ICF.

Waiver of Consent

As specified in the G-ICMR and the G-Children, the investigator(s) can apply to the EC for a waiver of consent if the research involves less than minimal risk to participants and the waiver will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the participants. In addition, per the G-ICMR, the EC may grant a waiver of consent in the following situations:

• Research cannot practically be carried out without the waiver and the waiver is scientifically justified
• Retrospective studies, where the participants are de-identified or cannot be contacted
• Research on anonymized biological samples/data
• Certain types of public health studies/surveillance programs/program evaluation studies
• Research on data available in the public domain, or
• Research during humanitarian emergencies and disasters, when the participant may not be in a position to give consent. An attempt should be made to obtain the participant’s consent as soon as possible

Refer to the Children/Minors section for information on waivers involving children.

See the G-ICMR, IND-5, and IND-27 for additional information on informed consent requirements.

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.

Per the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and the G-Children, 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
• The expected duration of the participant’s participation
• Any benefits reasonably expected from the research to the participant or others; if no benefit is expected, the participant should be made aware of this
• The disclosure of specific appropriate alternative procedures or therapies available to the participant
• The mechanism by which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained and who will have access to the participant’s medical records
• An explanation about whom to contact for trial-related queries, participant rights, and in the event of any injury
• The policy on compensation and/or medical treatment(s) available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury, disability, or death
• Participation is voluntary, the participant can withdraw from the study at any time, and refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• Any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant resulting from participation
• Approximate number of participants enrolled in the study

Additional requirements listed in the G-ICMR and the G-Children include:

• Foreseeable extent of information on possible current and future uses of the biological material and of the data to be generated from the research (e.g., storage period of sample/data; probability of material being used for secondary purposes; whether material is to be shared with others; participant’s right to prevent use of their biological sample(s) at any time during or after the study; risk of discovery of biologically sensitive information and provisions to safeguard confidentiality)
• Publication, if any, including photographs and pedigree charts
• Payment/reimbursement for participation and incidental expenses depending on the type of study
• Insurance coverage, if any, for research-related or other adverse events
• If there is a possibility that the research could lead to any stigmatizing condition (e.g., HIV and genetic disorders, provision for pre-test and post-test counseling)
• Post-research plan/benefit sharing for biological material research and/or if data leads to commercialization

Additional requirements listed in the 2019-CTRules include:

• The procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
• The investigational product (IP) may fail to achieve the intended therapeutic effect
• In the case of a placebo-controlled trial, the placebo administered to the participant(s) must not have any therapeutic effect
• The anticipated prorated payment, if any, to the participant for participating in the trial
• The participant’s responsibilities in participating in the trial
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent
• The consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the research, and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant
• The participant or the legal representative/guardian will be notified in a timely manner if significant new findings develop during the study which may affect the participant’s willingness to continue
• The particular treatment or procedure may involve risks to the participant (or to the embryo or fetus, if the participant is or may become pregnant), which are currently unforeseeable
• Additional costs to the participant that may result from participating in the study
• Any other pertinent information
• Clinical trial treatment schedule(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment

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

For specific guidelines regarding gene therapy and stem cell therapy clinical trials, see G-GeneThrpy and G-StemCellRes.

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 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, India’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The G-ICMR upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (IND-63). The 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and the G-Children state that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and the G-Children, the participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As per the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and the G-Children, 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 or treatment in the case of injury, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As described in the 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and the G-Children, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. The 2019-CTRules 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 2019-CTRules, the G-ICMR, and the G-Children state that the research participant or the legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the investigator(s) and the ethics committee (EC) to address trial-related inquiries and/or to appeal against a violation of the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

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

See the G-ICMR and IND-27 for additional information on informed consent requirements. Refer to the Required Elements and Vulnerable Populations sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.

See also the G-AI-BiomedRes for guidelines on safeguarding participants rights in biomedical and health research involving artificial intelligence-based tools and technologies.

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.

Children in Emergency Situations

Per the G-Children, research involving children in emergency situations should only be carried out when it is scientifically justified and cannot be conducted outside this setting. The ethics committee(s) (EC) should review and approve these studies as well as the proposed timeframe in which formal consent will be obtained. If consent cannot be obtained in an emergency, deferred consent is suggested. Deferred consent involves giving minimum information verbally, followed by full details and formal consent later. If the parent/legal guardian is unavailable or unable to give consent, another individual, such as the participant’s doctor or a person nominated by the healthcare provider, can give consent. However, the doctor or a person nominated by the healthcare provider may not be involved in the research. It is recommended that a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) be strongly considered for these types of studies. See the Children/Minors section for additional pediatric informed consent requirements.

Moreover, per the G-Children, if a child’s parent/legal guardian refuses to give consent once their child is stabilized, the child should not be included in the research, and no further research related procedures/data collection should be done. Additionally, the previously collected data obtained prior to the consent process should not be used without the parent's/legal guardian's permission.

Humanitarian Emergencies

As explained in the G-ICMR, during a humanitarian emergency or disaster, close attention should be paid to the effect of the emergency on perceptions of ethical questions, altered or increased vulnerabilities, provider-patient and researcher-participant relationships, and issues related to integrity of studies and ethical review processes. Obtaining valid informed consent in humanitarian emergencies is a challenge as the decisional capacity of the participants would be so low that they may not be able to differentiate between reliefs offered and research components. This should be very clearly distinguished during the informed consent process. Additional safeguards are required for participants due to their vulnerability, for example, counseling, psychological help, medical advice, and process of stakeholder consultation.

In addition, the G-ICMR indicates that the potential research participants might be under duress and traumatized. Researchers should be sensitive to this situation and are obligated to ensure that the informed consent process is conducted in a respectful manner. Researchers should strive to identify and address barriers to voluntary informed consent and not resort to inducements for research participation. The different roles of researchers, caregivers and volunteer workers must always be clarified, and potential conflict of interest declared. If research involves vulnerable individuals (such as minors), then the legal representative/guardian should give consent. Additional protections might be required in special cases, for example, children with untraceable or deceased relatives. In these situations, consent should be obtained from an individual who is not part of the research team who should be designated by the institution/agency conducting research.

For seeking a waiver of consent, the researchers should give the rationale justifying the waiver. The EC should approve such a waiver after careful discussion on the issue. Refer to the Documentation Requirements section for additional information on waivers of consent. When consent of the participant or the legal representative/guardian is not possible due to the situation, informed consent must be administered to the participant or the legal representative/guardian at a later stage, when the situation allows. However, this should be done only with the prior approval of the EC. See IND-5 for additional information on consent requirements during medical emergencies.

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 set forth in the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, in all 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 G-ICMR further describes vulnerable groups and individuals as those who may have an increased likelihood of incurring additional harm, as they may be relatively (or absolutely) incapable of protecting their own interests. According to the G-ICMR, vulnerable populations are characterized as individuals/communities with hierarchical relationships (e.g., prisoners, armed forces personnel, or staff and students at medical, nursing, or pharmacy academic institutions); economically and socially disadvantaged individuals (e.g., persons who are unemployed, abandoned, orphans, have language barriers, or cultural differences); persons below the poverty line; ethnic, religious, or sexual minority groups; tribal and marginalized communities; terminally ill patients or those suffering from stigmatizing or rare diseases; patients in emergency situations; institutionalized persons; homeless persons, nomads, or refugees; minors; women in special situations (e.g., pregnant or lactating women, those with poor decision-making powers, or poor access to healthcare); those with mental illness and cognitively impaired, differently abled, or mentally or physically disabled; or others incapable of personally giving consent.

See the G-ICMR for detailed safeguards that must be complied with when trials involving vulnerable populations are conducted. The G-ICMR also describes research principles that must be upheld during these trials and upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (IND-63). See also the G-AI-BiomedRes for guidelines on safeguarding participants rights in biomedical and health research involving artificial intelligence-based tools and technologies, especially those participants from underrepresented and vulnerable populations.

See the Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these vulnerable populations. See also IND-5 for additional information on consent requirements for vulnerable populations.

For specific guidelines regarding gene therapy and stem cell therapy clinical trials, see the G-GeneThrpy and the G-StemCellRes.

Terminally Ill Patients

Per the G-ICMR, terminally ill patients or patients seeking new treatments are vulnerable as they are ready to give consent for any intervention that could help them. The EC should carefully review protocols and recruitment procedures for these studies and comply with the following requirements:

• Additional monitoring should be done to detect any adverse event as soon as possible
• A benefit-risk assessment should be performed that considers the potential participant’s perception of benefits and risks
• Post-trial access to the medication

Indigenous Peoples

The G-ICMR states that research on tribal populations should only be conducted if it is of a specific therapeutic, diagnostic, and preventative nature with appropriate benefits to the tribal population. A competent administrative authority’s approval, such as the tribal welfare commissioner or the district collector, should be obtained prior to an investigator entering the area. Whenever possible, it is desirable to seek the help of government functionaries/local bodies or registered, non-governmental organizations who work closely with the tribal groups and have their confidence. The tribal leader, or other culturally appropriate authority may serve as the gatekeeper from whom permission to enter and interact should be obtained. A participant’s consent should be taken along as well as consulting with community elders and individuals who know the local language/dialect of the tribal population, and in the presence of appropriate witnesses. Additional precautions should be taken to avoid including children, pregnant women, and elderly people belonging to particularly vulnerable tribal groups. Benefit sharing with the tribal group should also be ensured for any research done using tribal knowledge that may have the potential for commercialization.

Elderly Persons

Permission to conduct clinical trials in geriatric patients must comply with the requirements listed in the Required Elements section. According to 2019-CTRules, geriatric patients should be included in Phase II and Phase III clinical trials at the sponsor’s (also known as the applicant’s) recommendation, in the following circumstances:

• The disease intended to be treated is typically a disease of aging
• The population to be treated is known to include substantial numbers of geriatric patients
• There is specific reason to expect that conditions common in the elderly are likely to be encountered
• The new drug is likely to alter the geriatric patient’s response (with regard to safety or efficacy) compared with that of the non-geriatric patient

Persons in Dependent Groups

As indicated in the G-ICMR, while reviewing protocols involving participants who are engaged in subordinate or dependent relationships, the ethics committee (EC) must ensure the following:

• Participant enrollment is specifically relevant to the research questions and is not merely a matter of convenience
• Extra efforts are required to ensure the autonomy of these individuals is respected, and that they are able to freely decide to participate or deny consent and/or later withdraw from the study without fear of any negative repercussions on their care
• Mechanisms to avoid coercion due to being part of an institution or hierarchy should be described in the protocol

Sexual Minorities and Sex Workers

Per the G-ICMR, sexual minorities and sex workers require additional protections as they are more vulnerable to privacy, confidentiality, stigma, discrimination, and exploitation issues during a research study. Research proposals should ensure the dignity of these participants is protected and that they have access to quality healthcare. Investigators should consult the community, if possible, prior to the proposal being finalized. It is also advised that a representative of the sexual minority group/lesbian/gay/bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community attend the EC meeting as a special invitee/member.

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 the G-ICMR, children are individuals who have not obtained the legal age of consent, which is 18.

As stated in the G-ICMR, the 2019-CTRules, and the G-Children, in the case of pediatric clinical trials, participants are legally unable to provide written informed consent, and are dependent on their parents/legal guardians to assume responsibility for their participation in a research study.

However, as specified in the 2019-CTRules, all pediatric participants should be informed to the extent compatible with the child’s understanding, and if capable, the pediatric participant should sign and personally date the informed consent form (ICF). In these studies, the following requirements should be complied with:

• Written informed consent should be obtained from the parent/legal guardian; however, all pediatric participants should be informed to the fullest extent possible about the study in a language and in terms that they are able to understand
• Where appropriate, pediatric participants should additionally provide their assent to enroll in the study, and mature minors and adolescents should personally sign and date a separately designed written assent form
• Although a participant’s wish to withdraw from a study must be respected, there may be circumstances in therapeutic studies for serious or life-threatening diseases in which, in the investigator’s and parent’s/legal guardian’s opinion, a pediatric patient’s welfare would be jeopardized by failing to participate in the study. In this situation, continued parental/legal guardian consent should be sufficient to allow participation in the study

The 2019-CTRules further specifies requirements for pediatric studies involving new drugs. These studies must take into account the following issues:

• The timing of new drug pediatric studies will depend on the medicinal product, the type of disease being treated, safety considerations, and the efficacy and safety of available treatments
• If the new drug is for diseases predominantly or exclusively affecting pediatric patients, clinical trial data should be generated in the pediatric population except for initial safety and tolerability data, which will usually be obtained in adults, unless such initial safety studies in adults would yield little useful information or expose them to inappropriate risk
• If the new drug is intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases, occurring in both adults and pediatric patients, for which there are currently no or limited therapeutic options, the pediatric population should be included in the clinical trials early, following assessment of initial safety data and reasonable evidence of potential benefit; in circumstances where this is not possible, lack of data should be justified in detail
• If the new drug has a potential for use in pediatric patients, pediatric studies should be conducted
• Pediatric studies should include clinical trials, relative bioequivalence comparisons between pediatric and adult formulations, and pharmacokinetic studies for dose selection across the age ranges of pediatric patients in whom the drug is likely to be used
• If the new drug is a major therapeutic advance for the pediatric population, studies should begin early in the drug development, and this data should be submitted with the new drug application

The reviewing ethics committee (EC) should also include members who are knowledgeable about pediatric, ethical, clinical, and psychosocial issues.

Refer to the 2019-CTRules for detailed pediatric study requirements.

Per the G-ICMR, the EC should also perform a benefit-risk assessment to determine whether there is a need to implement additional safeguards/protections to conduct a study involving children. The EC should consider the circumstances of the children to be enrolled in the study including their age, health status, and other factors and potential benefits to other children with the same disease or condition, or to society as a whole. In addition, the G-Children should be consulted for detailed EC assessment criteria to be used to evaluate research studies involving children.

As per the G-Children, following EC approval of the protocol, the informed consent requirement for children may be waived in the following circumstances:

• When it is impractical to conduct research since confidentiality of personally identifiable information has to be maintained throughout the study (e.g., a study on the disease/burden of HIV/AIDS)
• Research is carried out on publicly available information, documents, records, works, performances, reviews, quality assurance studies, archival materials or third-party interviews, etc.
• Research on anonymized biological samples, leftover samples after clinical investigation/research, cell lines, or cell free derivatives (e.g., viral isolates, DNA or RNA from recognized institutions or qualified investigators, samples or data from repositories or registries, etc.) provided permission for future research on these samples has been taken in the previous ICF
• In emergency situations when no surrogate consent can be taken
• Retrospective studies, where the participants are de-identified or cannot be contacted

Assent Requirements

As delineated in the G-ICMR, the 2019-CTRules, and the G-Children, if the pediatric participant has the capacity for assent, the participant’s affirmative assent is required to participate in a study according to their developmental level and decision-making capacity. Per the 2019-CTRules, mature minors and adolescents should personally sign and date a separately designed written assent form. According to the G-ICMR, mature minors are those from age seven (7) up to age 18.

The G-Children also explains that in addition to the children’s developmental level and capability of understanding, the assent process and form should also take into account their age, maturity, reading level, independence, autonomy as well as cultural and social factors. For children between ages seven (7) and 11, oral assent must be obtained in the presence of their parent/legal guardian. For children between ages 12 and 18, written assent must be obtained.

A child’s dissent or refusal to participate must always be respected, and the child must be informed in an understandable manner that assent may be withdrawn at any time during the study. The EC may also issue a waiver of assent in the following circumstances:

• If the research has the potential to directly benefit the child, and this benefit is only available through this study
• If the research involves children with intellectual and other developmental disabilities, they may not have the developmental level and intellectual capability to give assent

For details and guidance on preparing and using an assent form, see the G-Children.

The SA-GCPs and G-EthicsHR-ZAF stipulate that minors are younger than 18 years old and are regarded as vulnerable persons due to their lack of legal capacity. The G-GPHlthCare-IC states that a person over the age of 18 years is an adult and is legally competent to decide on all forms of treatment and medical procedures. However, a minor who is 12 years of age and older is legally competent to consent to a proposed investigation if the minor is of sufficient maturity and is able to understand the benefits, risks, social, and other implications of the research. A minor's refusal to participate in research must be respected.

Per the SA-GCPs, documented permission from the parent/legal guardian must be obtained in advance prior to approaching the minor to request participation. According to the NHA, the SA-GCPs, the G-GPHlthCare, and the G-GPHlthCare-IC, consent for minors to participate in research must be obtained from:

• The parent/legal guardian in all but exceptional circumstances (such as emergencies)
• The minor/child who is competent to make the decision
• Any organization or person required by law (defined in the NHA)
• Where the minor/child is not competent, assent from the minor/child and consent from the parent/legal guardian

According to the NHA, where research or experimentation is to be conducted on a minor for therapeutic purposes, the study may only be conducted when:

• It is in the best interests of the minor
• It is carried out in such manner and on such conditions as may be prescribed
• The consent of the minor’s parent/legal guardian is provided

Where research or experimentation is to be conducted on a minor for non-therapeutic purposes, the NHA, the NHAParticipants, the SA-GCPs, and the G-MinisterConsent state that a study may only be conducted when:

• It is carried out in such manner and on such conditions as may be prescribed
• The consent of the Minister of Health is provided, or, where appropriate, consent from a delegated authority
• The consent of the minor’s parent/legal guardian is provided
• The consent of the minor is provided when the minor is capable of understanding

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF further indicates that the following are minimum conditions for an ethics committee (EC) to approve research with minors:

• Their participation is scientifically essential to the research and investigate a problem of relevance to minors, and the protocol should provide sufficient information to justify why minors should be included as participants
• Minors should only participate in research where such research poses acceptable risks of harm
• Research involving minors must be reviewed appropriately, including pediatric or child research specialists as reviewers
• Registered ECs’ deliberations are properly documented in minutes and recorded and include EC members with appropriate minor research experience
• Minors should participate in research only when the required written permissions from the parent/legal guardian have been obtained
• When a parent/legal guardian gives permission for their minor to choose whether to participate in research, this permission is given based on a detailed description of all diagnostic and therapeutic interventions that will affect the minor in the study
• The informed consent documentation must explain whether results of tests will be made known to minor participants and their parents
• The minor’s interest in confidentiality must be respected
• The minor’s privacy interests are considered
• Research involving minors must respect their evolving capacity to give consent
• Researchers must familiarize themselves with the legal obligations to report minor abuse and neglect

See the NHAParticipants and G-EthicsHR-ZAF for detailed application requirements.

In addition, per the G-MinisterConsent, the Minister of Health may not give consent if any of the following circumstances apply:

• The study objective(s) can also be achieved if conducted on an adult
• The research is unlikely to significantly improve scientific understanding of the minor’s condition, disease, or disorder to such an extent that it will result in significant benefit to the minor(s)
• The reasons for the consent to the research by the parent/legal guardian and, if applicable, the minor, are contrary to public policy
• The research poses a significant risk to the health of the minor
• The risk to the health or well-being of the minor is not significantly outweighed by the potential benefit

For more information on ministerial consent for non-therapeutic health research with minors, see the operational guidelines at the G-MinisterConsent.

Assent Requirements

The SA-GCPs requires the EC to ensure that adequate steps outlined in the clinical protocol are used to obtain a minor’s assent when, in the EC’s judgment, the minor is capable of providing such assent. When the EC determines that assent is required, it must also indicate whether and how such assent should be documented. A minor’s assent should not be assumed simply because of failure to object during the informed consent process. It is necessary for the minor and the parent/legal guardian to be in agreement on participation. The minor’s refusal to participate is final.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the parent/legal guardian does not choose for the minor who has factual capacity to choose, rather, the parent/guardian gives permission for the minor to choose (i.e., to assent to participation). Where a minor is very young (less than seven (7) years old) or is factually incapable of exercising a choice, then the parent/legal guardian chooses whether the minor should participate. When ECs review protocols that involve minors, it is critical to consider whether the required written permissions have been obtained, including assent from the minor in writing preferably (i.e., agreement to participate) if they choose to participate.

See the Personal Data Protection section for requirements on processing personal data of minors.

As per the 2019-CTRules and the G-ICMR, clinical studies involving pregnant or nursing women and fetuses require additional safeguards to ensure that the research assesses the risks to the women and the fetuses. The following conditions are required for research to be conducted involving pregnant or nursing women or fetuses.

Per the 2019-CTRules:

• Pregnant or nursing women should be included in clinical trials only when the drug is intended for use by pregnant or nursing women, fetuses, or nursing infants, and where the data generated from women who are not pregnant or nursing is unsuitable

Per the G-ICMR:

• For studies related to pregnancy termination, only pregnant women who undergo Medical Termination of Pregnancy as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 can be included
• The research should carry no more than minimal risk to the fetus or nursing infant and the research objective is to obtain new knowledge about the fetus, pregnancy, and lactation
• Clinical trials involving pregnant or nursing women would be justified to ensure that these women are not deprived arbitrarily of the opportunity to benefit from investigations, drugs, vaccines, or other agents that promise therapeutic or preventive benefits
• Research related to prenatal diagnostic techniques in pregnant women should be limited to detecting fetal abnormalities or genetic disorders as per the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994, amended in 2003, and not used to determine the sex of the fetus
• Researchers must provide the ethics committee (EC) with proper justification for including pregnant and nursing women in trials designed to address the health needs of such women or their fetuses or nursing infants
• If women of reproductive age are to be recruited, they should be informed of the potential risk to the fetus if they become pregnant, be asked to use an effective contraceptive method, and be told about the options available in case of failure of contraception
• A woman who becomes pregnant must not automatically be removed from the study when there is no evidence showing potential harm to the fetus. The matter should be carefully reviewed, and she must be offered the option to withdraw or continue
• If the female sexual partner of a male participant gets pregnant during the research study, the EC should review the protocol and informed consent form (ICF) to determine if a plan exists to document this event, and both the pregnant partner and fetus must also be followed for the outcome and reported in the study results
• Pregnant women have the right to participate in clinical research relevant to their healthcare needs (e.g., gestational diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and HIV)
• Benefit-risk assessment must be done at all stages for both the mother and the fetus
• Research involving pregnant women and fetuses must only take place when the objective is to obtain new knowledge directly relevant to the fetus, the pregnancy, or lactation
• Women should not be encouraged to discontinue nursing for the sake of participation in research except in those studies where breastfeeding is harmful to the infant
• Appropriate studies on animals and non-pregnant individuals should have been completed, if applicable
• Researchers should not participate in decision-making regarding any termination of a pregnancy
• No procedural changes, which will cause greater than minimal risk to the woman or fetus, will be introduced into the procedure for terminating the pregnancy solely in the interest of the trial
• When research is planned on sensitive topics (e.g., domestic violence, genetic disorders, and/or rape) confidentiality should be strictly maintained and privacy protected

Fetuses and Neonates

As described in the G-Children, study protocols involving neonates should take into consideration that this group is the most vulnerable within the pediatric population in terms of the risk of long-term effects of interventions, including developmental effects. ECs reviewing such proposed protocols should have an advisory member with expertise in neonatal research/care. ECs should scrutinize all proposed research for potential risks and weigh them against the possible benefits and ensure a competent person(s) conducts a proper scientific review of the protocol. In addition, when possible, older children should be studied before conducting studies in younger children and infants.

The consent of one (1) parent is also required for neonate studies where research exposes them to no or minimal risk, or in studies that offer the prospect of direct benefit to the participant. However, for studies that do not offer the prospect of direct benefit or are high-risk, consent from both parents is required. Exceptions to this requirement include the following:

• Only one (1) parent has legal responsibility for the care and custody of the child
• One (1) parent is deceased, unknown, incompetent, or not available. In such cases, it is the duty of the investigators to provide adequate justification.

A parent who is a minor should not provide consent. If both parents are minors, then enrollment of such a baby should be avoided as much as possible. Investigator(s) should provide adequate justification to the EC to enroll such neonates for research. A legally acceptable representative should provide an informed consent in such situations.

As per the NHA and the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, any research studies involving pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, or fetuses, require additional safeguards to ensure the research conforms to appropriate ethical standards and upholds societal values. The ethics committee (EC) must provide particular attention to these participants due to the potential for additional health concerns that may arise during pregnancy, and the need to avoid unnecessary risk to the fetus.

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that any proposed exclusion of women participants must be justifiable in light of research priorities as well as the specific research question under consideration. Systematic class exclusion must be guarded against to avoid unfair participant selection. Additional health concerns arise during pregnancy, including the need to avoid unnecessary risk to the embryo, fetus, or infant; however, automatic exclusion of pregnant women should be avoided to prevent data inequities for pregnant and nursing women. Researchers and ECs should exercise extra caution when women participants are or may become pregnant. Exclusion of women from research may be justifiable to protect the health of the embryo, fetus, or infant and if exclusion is scientifically supportable. The informed consent documents must explain carefully and fully what the effects of the research activities on the embryo, fetus, or infant might be. Usually, research involving pregnant women should be undertaken when:

• The purpose of the proposed research is to meet the health needs of the mother of the embryos, fetuses, or infants
• Appropriate studies on animals and nonpregnant women have been completed
• The risk of harm to the embryo, fetus, or infant is minimal, when procedures or interventions have no potential individual benefit for the women or embryo, fetus, or infant
• The risk of harm is outweighed by the prospect of potential individual benefit, when procedures or interventions have potential individual benefit for the women or embryo, fetus, or infant
• In all cases, inclusion poses the least risk of harm possible for achieving the objectives of the research

The SA-GCPs stipulates that pregnant women, women planning to become pregnant, or breastfeeding women are usually excluded from human clinical trials where a new chemical entity (NCE) or medicines with no information on safety in pregnancy/lactation are investigated for treatment of a particular disease/condition or disorder. However, when safety and other relevant information is available, pregnant or breastfeeding women should be included in clinical trials to ensure that appropriate knowledge about NCEs for this group is developed.

As noted in the G-ICMR, prisoners are included in the description of vulnerable populations due to their diminished autonomy caused by dependency or being under a hierarchical system.

The G-ICMR specifies that during the review process, the ethics committee (EC) must ensure compliance with the following:

• Enrolling participants is specifically pertinent to the research questions and is not merely a matter of convenience
• Extra efforts are made to respect the autonomy of these individuals because they are in a hierarchical position and may not be in a position to disagree to participate for fear of authority
• It is possible for the participant to deny consent and/or later withdraw from the study without any negative repercussions on their care
• Mechanisms to avoid coercion due to being part of an institution or hierarchy should be described in the protocol

According to the NHA, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, and the NHAParticipants, a prisoner may not, even with consent, participate in any scientific experimentation, research study, or clinical trial except under limited conditions. Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, prisoners are considered a vulnerable class of persons because of the potential effect of incarceration on the voluntariness of the decision to participate in research. Neither coercion nor undue influence is acceptable in the informed consent process. Researchers should pay attention to whether their intended participants are prisoners who are awaiting trial or are convicted as different ethical issues arise for each group. The recruitment strategy design must pay careful attention to how coercion and undue influence will be avoided. Similarly, persons administering questionnaires or conducting interviews must be conscious of environmental factors that may influence voluntariness. The ethics committee (EC) should include, at least on an ad-hoc basis, a member with experience and knowledge of working with prisoners when deliberating on the protocol.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, research should be conducted on prisoners only if:

• Their participation is indispensable to the research
• The research cannot be conducted with non-prisoners
• The research concerns a problem of relevance to prisoners
• Sound informed consent processes can be ensured
• Engagement with relevant role players about the proposed research has occurred

Generally, it is unlikely that independent consent by minor prisoners will be justifiable.

The G-ICMR states that, in the case of differently abled participants, such as those with physical, neurological, or mental disabilities, appropriate methods should be used to enhance the participants’ understanding. The G-ICMR also states that the presence of a mental disorder is not synonymous with incapacity of understanding or inability to provide informed consent. However, ethics committees (ECs) have special responsibilities when research is conducted on participants who are suffering from mental illness and/or cognitive impairment. ECs should exercise caution and require researchers to justify exceptions and their need to depart from the guidelines governing research. ECs should ensure that these exceptions are as minimal as possible and are clearly spelled out in the informed consent form. The G-ICMR also upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (IND-63).

As set forth in the MHA2017, every person, including a person with mental illness, must be deemed to have the capacity to make decisions regarding mental healthcare or treatment providing the person has the ability to engage in the following:

• Understand the information that is relevant to make a decision on treatment, admission, or personal assistance
• Appreciate any reasonably foreseeable consequence of a decision or lack of decision on the treatment, admission, or personal assistance, or
• Communicate the decision by means of speech, expression, gesture, or any other means

Per MHA2017, information must be provided to a person with mental illness using simple and understandable language, sign language, visual aids, or any other means to enable the person to understand the information. In the case in which a person makes a decision regarding one’s mental healthcare or treatment that is perceived by others as inappropriate or wrong, that by itself, must not be interpreted as the person not having the capacity to make such a decision, as long as the person has the capacity to meet the above stated requirements.

MHA2017 further delineates that every person with mental illness who is not a minor must have the right to appoint a nominated representative. The nomination must be made in writing on plain paper with the person’s signature or thumb impression. The person appointed as nominated representative must not be a minor, be competent to discharge the duties or perform the assigned functions under the MHA2017, and give consent in writing to the mental health professional to discharge the person’s duties and perform the assigned functions. A person who has appointed an individual as the nominated representative may revoke or alter the appointment at any time. The appointment of a nominated representative, or the inability of a person with mental illness to appoint a nominated representative, must not be construed as the lack of capacity of the person to make decisions about mental healthcare or treatment. All persons with mental illness must have the capacity to make mental healthcare or treatment decisions but may require varying levels of support from their nominated representative to make decisions. When fulfilling responsibilities, the nominated representative must have the right to give or withhold consent for research under circumstances.

Pursuant to MHA2017, professionals conducting research must obtain free and informed consent from all persons with mental illness for participation in any research that involves interviewing the person, or any research that involves psychological, physical, chemical, or medicinal interventions. In the case of research involving psychological, physical, chemical, or medicinal interventions to be conducted on a person who is unable to give free and informed consent, but does not resist participation in such research, permission to conduct such research must be obtained from the appropriate State Authority. The State Authority may allow the research to proceed based on informed consent being obtained from the person’s nominated representative if the State Authority is satisfied that the following criteria are met:

• The proposed research cannot be performed on persons who are capable of giving free and informed consent
• The proposed research is necessary to promote the mental health of the population represented by the person
• The purpose of the proposed research is to obtain knowledge relevant to the particular mental health needs of persons with mental illness
• A full disclosure of the interests of the persons and organizations conducting the proposed research is made and there is no conflict of interest involved, and,
• The proposed research follows all the national and international guidelines and regulations concerning the conduct of such research, and ethical approval has been obtained from the institutional EC where such research is to be conducted

A research-based study of the case notes of a person who is unable to give informed consent will be permitted so long as the anonymity of the person is secured. In addition, the person with mental illness or the nominated representative who gives informed consent for participation in any research under MHA2017 may withdraw consent at any time during the research period.

According to the NHA, the SA-GCPs, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the G-GPHlthCare, and the NHAParticipants, sufficient justification must be provided for any research or treatment involving a participant who has a mental or intellectual impairment or substance abuse related disorder, and the research must be relevant to the mental disability or substance abuse disorder.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, research involving adults with incapacity should be approved only if:

• The research, including observational research, is not contrary to the best interest of the individual
• The risk of harm assessment shows that the research, including observational research, places the incapacitated adult at no more than minimal risk
• The research involves greater than minimal risk but provides the prospect of direct benefit for the incapacitated adult; the degree of risk must be justified by the potential benefit
• The research, including observational research, involves greater than minimal risk, with no prospect of direct benefit for the incapacitated adult, but has a high probability of providing generalizable knowledge (i.e., the risk should be justified by the risk-knowledge ratio)
• Greater than minimal risk must represent no more than a minor increase over minimal risk
• Where appropriate, the person assents to participation (Note that the incapacitated person’s refusal or resistance to participate, as indicated by words or behavior, takes precedence over permission by a proxy)

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, proxy decision-makers for incapacitated adults are not permitted in South African law unless the proxy is a court appointed curator or holds a statutory mandate to make health care decisions for the now incapacitated person pursuant to the NHA. Incapacity may not be assumed but requires independent and objective assessment by appropriately trained persons. If the research participant regains capacity to make decisions, they must be informed that they have been enrolled in a research study. If they object to having been enrolled in the research study, this counts as a refusal to participate, and their data must be withdrawn. If the participant does not object, personal consent may be desirable depending on the length and complexity of the study.

As delineated in the 2019-CTRules, an investigational product (IP) is defined as the pharmaceutical formulation of an active ingredient or a placebo (including the comparator product) being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial.

The 2019-CTRules further defines an investigational new drug as a new chemical or biological entity or a product having a therapeutic indication, but which has never been tested before on human participants.

As delineated in the SA-GCPs and the PIC-S-GMP-Guide (which South Africa adopted pursuant to the SA-GMPs), an investigational product is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes:

• A product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form
• When used for an unapproved indication
• When used to gain further information about an approved use