Clinical Research Regulation For Kenya and United Kingdom

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

In accordance with the PPA, the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, and KEN-21, Kenya’s Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB), together with its Expert Committee on Clinical Trials (ECCT), is responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving applications for clinical trials using registered or unregistered investigational products (IPs). The G-KenyaCT specifies that the scope of the PPB’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV). As delineated in the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, and KEN-21, the PPB review and approval process may not be conducted in parallel with the ethics committee (EC) review. Rather, EC approval must be obtained prior to applying for PPB approval. As delineated in the STI-Act and G-ECBiomedRes, the principal investigator or the head of a research institution must obtain a favorable opinion from an EC accredited by the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) and a NACOSTI research license prior to initiating a study.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Pharmacy and Poisons Board

Per the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the PPB, through the ECCT, communicates the decision to approve, request additional information, or reject the application to the sponsor or the representative in writing within 30 working days of receiving a valid application. The G-KenyaCT indicates that in the case of rejection, the applicant may appeal and provide additional information to satisfy PPB requirements. In specific cases, the PPB may decide to refer the matter to external experts for recommendation.

As specified in the G-KenyaCT, each ECCT member, prior to reviewing the application, will declare any conflict of interest in the study and should have no financial or personal interests, which could affect their impartiality. During the protocol review, the reviewers must use the standard criteria (including available clinical and non-clinical data etc.) defined by the PPB. Confidentiality must be maintained during the review. Per the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the PPB/ECCT’s review must consider:

The reliability and robustness of the data generated in the clinical trial, taking into account statistical approaches, design of the clinical trial, and methodology, including sample size and randomization, comparator, and endpoints
Compliance with the requirements concerning the manufacturing and import of IPs and auxiliary medicinal products
Compliance with the labelling requirements
The completeness and adequateness of the investigator's brochure

Regarding protocol amendments, the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT stipulate that any new information affecting the conduct/management of the trial, safety of the participants, and manufacture of the IP necessitating changes to the protocol, consent form, and trial sites require immediate submission of the amended documents to PPB for review and approval. Arrangements must be in place to take appropriate urgent safety measures to protect participants against any immediate hazard where new events relating to the conduct of the trial, or the development of the IP are likely to affect the safety of the participants. A copy of a favorable opinion letter from the EC on record must be submitted with the request for approval of a proposed amendment to the PPB. PPB approval must be obtained for all substantial amendments. Minor amendments or administrative changes may be implemented after getting the EC’s approval, but a record of these amendments must be kept for possible inspection by the PPB. See Submission Process and Submission Content sections for additional details on amendment submissions. Also, see the G-KenyaCT for examples of substantial amendments.

In addition, per the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor or the representative is required to request approval annually from the PPB at least six (6) weeks prior to the expiration of the previous approval.

Per the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the PPB may withdraw the authorization to conduct a clinical trial if it finds that the safety of the participants in the trial is compromised or that the scientific reasons for conducting the trial have changed. Additionally, per the CTRules, the PPB may revoke the approval if it determines that the IP has expired or is not usable.

As delineated in the G-KenyaCT, the PPB may inspect clinical trial sites to ensure that the generally accepted principles of good clinical practice (GCP) are met. The objectives of the inspection are to:

Ensure that participants are not subjected to undue risks and that their rights, safety, and wellbeing are protected
Validate the quality of the data generated
Investigate complaints
Verify the accuracy and reliability of clinical trial data submitted to the PPB in support of research or marketing applications
Assess compliance with PPB guidelines and regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials
Provide real-time assessment of ongoing trials

Per CRO-Inspect, the PPB is responsible for inspecting clinical trial and bioequivalence study sites that generate data for registration of medicines. The PPB requires that these sponsor and contract research organization sites comply with applicable good practices, including GCP, good laboratory practice (GLP), and good documentation practices. Based on risk assessments, the PPB will determine compliance with generally accepted good practice through inspections and, where appropriate, document reviews. In addition, see Cert-Emrgcy for information about GCP and good manufacturing practice certifications during emergencies.

Special Circumstances and Public Health Emergencies

The CTRules delineates that the PPB may, in special circumstances, authorize the conduct of a clinical trial under fast-track procedures or non-routine procedures. PPB may recognize and use clinical trial decisions, reports, or information from other competent authorities authorizing fast-track clinical trials. The special circumstances may include:

A public health emergency
The rapid spread of an epidemic disease
Any other circumstance as may be determined by the PPB

The G-KenyaCT outlines PPB’s scope of assessment of a clinical trial application during a public health emergency. The PPB will conduct an expedited review and liaise with relevant stakeholders (including relevant ECs and other oversight bodies) to facilitate a holistic review of an application in a fast-track manner. The following prioritization criteria must be applied in the selection of applications for expedited review:

Epidemiology of the emergency
Morbidity and mortality associated with the emergency and/or condition under study
Supporting scientific data/information available for the IP at the time of submission
Feasibility of the implementation of the trial design within the context of the emergency
Benefit impact of the intervention and/or trial design

In addition, PPB’s assessment will consider the following:

The research does not compromise the response to an outbreak or appropriate care
Studies are designed to yield scientifically valid results under the challenging and often rapidly evolving conditions of disasters and disease outbreak
The research is responsive to the health needs or priorities of the disaster victims and affected communities and cannot be conducted outside a disaster situation
The participants are selected fairly and adequate justification is given when particular populations are targeted or excluded, for example, health workers
The potential burdens and benefits of research participation and the possible benefits of the research are equitably distributed
The risks and potential individual benefits of experimental interventions are assessed realistically, especially when they are in the early phases of development
Communities are actively engaged in study planning to ensure cultural sensitivity, while recognizing and addressing the associated practical challenges
The individual informed consent of participants is obtained from individuals capable of giving informed consent
Research results are disseminated, data are shared, and any effective interventions developed or knowledge generated are made available to the affected communities

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

STI-Act stipulates that NACOSTI issues research licenses if it finds that the conduct of the research is beneficial to the country and will not adversely affect any aspect of the nature, environment, or security of the country. The license issued will have NACOSTI’s seal and will indicate the commencement and expiration of the research. In addition, NACOSTI maintains a register of all persons granted a license, which is available for public inspection during normal working hours free of charge.

KEN-31 states that if a research license application does not meet the conditions required under the STI-Act, NACOSTI must reject the application and communicate the reasons to the applicant. Any person may appeal NACOSTI’s decision to the Cabinet Secretary within 30 days of being notified of the decision. For approved research, NACOSTI may conduct an evaluation to assess compliance with the conditions of the license. If the research project has not been completed within the stipulated period, the researcher may apply for renewal of the license and pay the requisite fee. The researcher is expected to apply for renewal by attaching a progress report instead of a proposal. KEN-31 indicates that the duration of the research license is one (1) year.

Forward and 1

Glossary of Terms, Introduction, 1.1, 1.7-1.25, 1.189, 1.492-1.506, 1.519-1.534, 1.557-1.574, and Annex 7

3A, 3B, and 25A

Part IV

Part II (Sections 4 and 5), Part IV (Sections 11 and 18), and Part V (Sections 19 and 23)

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

Regarding licensing of biosimilars (i.e., generic biotech medicines), see the G-Biosimilars for details on the UK’s recent regulatory changes to ease or remove clinical trial requirements for the MHRA’s review and approval of biosimilars.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Per GBR-72, under combined review, research teams make a single application using a new part (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78), which goes to both the MHRA and an EC at the same time. The regulatory and ethics reviews are done in parallel and any requests for further information are raised jointly. A single response to these requests leads to a single decision from both reviews. The G-CTApp states that the initial combined review assessment will be completed within 30 days of application submission. Applications for healthy volunteer trials and sponsor-determined phase 1 trials in non-oncology participants may qualify for a shortened assessment time and the MHRA will work with the EC to expedite these applications. When applications need expert advice, the MHRA will seek advice from the Clinical Trials, Biologicals and Vaccines Expert Advisory Group (CTBV EAG) of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM). In addition, the CHM will then discuss the trial at their meeting, which will take place later in the same week as the CTBV EAG meeting. See the G-CTApp for examples of which trials require expert advice and for detailed requirements. The MHRA also supports the conduct of trials with complex innovative designs such as umbrella, basket, platform, and master protocol plus submodules. These trial designs are characterized by the presence of prospective major adaptations, such as the addition of new IPs or introducing new trial populations. Before submitting a clinical trial application with a complex innovative design and/or an amendment requesting approval of major adaptations, sponsors are recommended to establish a dialogue with the MHRA and seek advice.

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

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

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

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

IRAS (GBR-78) is a single system for applying for the permissions and approvals for health and social care/community care research in the UK. It generates the IRAS ID and uses filters to ensure that the data collected and collated is appropriate to the type of study, and consequently the permissions and approvals required. The system helps applicants meet the regulatory and governance requirements. As described in GBR-67, approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) is required for all National Health Service (NHS) project-based research led from England or Wales. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance. For any new studies led from Scotland or Northern Ireland but have English and/or Welsh NHS sites, the national research and development coordinating function of the lead nation will share information with the HRA and HCRW assessment teams, who can issue HRA and HCRW approval for English and Welsh sites and thereby retain existing compatibility arrangements. Studies led from England or Wales with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland will be supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems, by which each country accepts the centralized assurances, as far as they apply, from national coordinating functions without unnecessary duplication. For details on HRA’s assessment criteria and standards for approval, see GBR-29.

UK-wide Research

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

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

Notification Scheme

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

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

Phase 4 trials must meet both of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit Background

Per the G-MHRASubmiss, Brexit, the EUCouncil-Brexit, the WithdrlAgrmt, and the G-AfterTransition, the UK withdrew from the EU on January 31, 2020. The MHRA updated and published clinical trials guidance that became effective on January 1, 2021. G-AfterTransition summarizes the guidance to sponsors and researchers. Furthermore, the G-MHRASubmiss describes how to make certain regulatory submissions to the MHRA (substantial amendments, end-of-trial notifications, and developmental safety update reports (DSURs)). Per the MHCTR-EUExit and as explained in GBR-115, the new guidance went into force via the MHCTR-EUExit (also known as the “Exit Regulations”). The Exit Regulations also update existing UK legislation by, for example, replacing references to EU databases with newly established UK databases. The G-IPsNIreland delineates that the supply and use of IPs in Northern Ireland must follow EU laws as per the Northern Ireland Protocol. For policy papers and details on the Northern Ireland Protocol, see GBR-119. For broader information and a comprehensive Brexit “checker” of new rules in the UK, see GBR-60.

To help ensure the continuity of supply of IPs for clinical trials the BrexitLtr-IPs indicates that the UK will unilaterally recognize certain EU regulatory processes for a time-limited period. This recognition is known as “standstill.”

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

6

10.9

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

When a clinical trial authorization (CTA) is needed, Trial Sponsor and legal Representative, Registration of your clinical trial, Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products, Documents to send with your application, Assessment of your submission, New notification scheme, Requesting approval of trials with complex innovative designs, and Applications that need expert advice

Part 4 (Article 126)

Part 2 (Chapter 1)

Introduction and Article 1

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (2), Part 2 (5, 6, and 7), Part 3 (12, 14, 15, 17, and 18), and Schedule 2

Approvals for project-based research in the National Health Service (NHS) and Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care (HSC) Service

Regulatory Fees

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Pharmacy and Poisons Board

Per the PPA and the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor or the representative is responsible for paying a fee to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) to submit a clinical trial application for authorization. The PPB currently requires a non-refundable application fee of $1,000 USD, or the equivalent in Kenya Shillings at the prevailing bank rates.

Payment Instructions

As stated in Annex 2 of the G-KenyaCT, payment is to be made by a bank check payable to the “Pharmacy and Poisons Board” and presented to the PPB’s accounts office upon submitting the application.

Payment can also be made by electronic fund transfer (EFT) to the PPB Bank account, if required. The sponsor or the representative is responsible for all bank charges associated with the EFT. Details of the EFT payment should be obtained from the PPB prior to initiating such a transaction.

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

As delineated in KEN-31, the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) charges a fee that varies depending on the applicant’s status as Kenyan or non-Kenyan, and standing as a researcher (i.e., student, public/private institution, private company). The fees are non-refundable and also apply to research license renewals. Details on additional requirements are provided in the Submission Content section.

Student, Undergraduate/Diploma: East African Community (EAC) Countries – 100 Kenya Shillings; Kenyan Citizens – 100 Kenya Shillings; Rest of Africa – 200 Kenya Shillings; Non-Africans - $150 USD
Research (Masters): EAC Countries – 1,000 Kenya Shillings; Kenyan Citizens – 1,000 Kenya Shillings; Rest of Africa – 2,000 Kenya Shillings; Non-Africans - $350 USD
Research (PhD): EAC Countries – 2,000 Kenya Shillings; Kenyan Citizens – 2,000 Kenya Shillings; Rest of Africa – 4,000 Kenya Shillings; Non-Africans - $400 USD
Post-Doctoral: EAC Countries – 5,000 Kenya Shillings; Kenyan Citizens – 5,000 Kenya Shillings; Rest of Africa – 10,000 Kenya Shillings; Non-Africans - $500 USD
Public Institutions: Kenyan Citizens – 10,000 Kenya Shillings
Private Institutions, Commercial/Market Research, Companies: Kenyan Citizens – 20,000 Kenya Shillings

See KEN-31 for information on service charges.

Payment Instructions

Per KEN-31, NACOSTI has migrated payment services for research licensing to the eCitizen platform (KEN-12). East African citizens have the following payment options on KEN-12 with a Kenya Shillings account: mobile money via Mpesa Express or Paybill Number 222222; or these other available payments via KEN-12:

Airtel Money
Kenya Commercial Bank
Co-operative Bank
Pesaflow Direct
National Bank
RTGS

KEN-31 indicates that non-Kenyans should use the US Dollar account on KEN-12 with these payment options:

Kenya Commercial Bank (USD)
Co-operative Bank (USD)
NBK (USD)
Equity Cash
Debit/credit/prepaid card

1.7-1.12 and Annex 2

3A and 25A

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

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

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

3,366 British Pounds – Applications with an Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) dossier (higher fee for phase 1, full and simplified IMP dossier)
248 British Pounds – Applications without an IMP dossier (lower fee for phase IV, cross referral, additional protocol)
248 British Pounds – Clinical trial variation/amendment
No cost – Phase 4 notification
248 British Pounds – Assessment of annual safety reports

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

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the fees for the annual safety reports are applicable to annual progress reports and Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs). From June 1, 2024, MHRA will only accept online payment of this fee via MHRA’s payments service (GBR-26) prior to submission of an annual safety report. Receipts generated will be sent by email and must be included in the report submission as proof of payment. Failure to provide evidence of payment will result in the submission being made invalid.

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

Payment Instructions

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

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

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

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

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

Fees

Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs)

8. Clinical trials - application fees

11, 13, and Explanatory Note

Part 3 (17)

Ethics Committee

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

As per the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and KEN-30, Kenya requires an independent review of research through a National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI)-accredited ethics committee (EC) in one (1) of the local institutions charged with the responsibility of conducting research in human participants. KEN-25 provides a list of the accredited institutional ECs.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in the G-ECAccred, institutional ECs should consist of at least seven (7) members, or an odd number above seven (7). The G-ECBiomedRes states that these members should be multidisciplinary and multisectoral in composition, collectively encompass relevant scientific expertise, balanced age and gender distribution, and include laypersons representing community interests and concerns. Per the G-ECAccred, the composition should meet the following requirements:

At least one (1) member with knowledge and understanding of Kenyan law
At least one-third of the members must be female, and one-third must be male
At least one (1) member who is unaffiliated with the institution
At least two (2) members must have research expertise and experience, one (1) of whom must be in the health field
At least one (1) member must be a lay member
For ECs reviewing clinical research, at least two (2) members must be clinicians, one (1) of whom is currently in active practice or clinical research
Reflect the regional and ethnic diversity of the people of Kenya

The chairperson must also have some basic training and/or experience in bioethics and leadership. All EC appointments are the responsibility of the institution’s administrative head. See the G-ECAccred and the G-ECBiomedRes for detailed institutional EC requirements.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

Per G-ECBiomedRes, ECs need to have independence from political, institutional, professional, and market influences. As delineated in the G-ECAccred, the G-ECBiomedRes, and the STI-Regs, institutional ECs must operate within written standard operating procedures (SOPs) which delineate the EC’s process for conducting reviews. Per the G-ECAccred, SOPs should include but are not limited to information on EC scope, responsibility, and objectives, institutions served, committee functions, terms and conditions of member appointment, business procedures including meeting schedules and types of reviews, documentation, recordkeeping, and archiving procedures, quorum requirements, communication procedures, and complaint process and dispute resolution procedures. Per the G-ECAccred and the STI-Regs, these documents must be provided to NACOSTI.

Per the G-ECAccred, the quorum for NACOSTI-accredited EC meetings must be:

At least 50 percent of the membership must form the quorum
A lay person must be present in all meetings
For ECs reviewing clinical research, at least two (2) members must be clinicians, one (1) of whom is currently in active practice or clinical research.

The G-ECBiomedRes also defines quorum requirements:

The minimum number of members required to compose a quorum (e.g., more than half the members)
The professional qualifications requirements (e.g., physician, lawyer, statistician, paramedical, or layperson) and the distribution of those requirements over the quorum; no quorum should consist entirely of members of one (1) profession or one (1) gender; a quorum should include at least one (1) member whose primary area of expertise is in a non-scientific area, and at least one (1) member who is independent of the institution/research site

Per G-ECBiomedRes, EC member terms of appointment should be established that include the duration of an appointment, the policy for the renewal of an appointment, the disqualification procedure, the resignation procedure, and the replacement procedure. A statement of the conditions of appointment should be drawn up that includes the following:

A member should be willing to publicize their full name, profession, and affiliation
All reimbursement for work and expenses, if any, within or related to an EC should be recorded and made available to the public upon request
A member should sign a confidentiality agreement regarding meeting deliberations, applications, information on research participants, and related matters

Regarding training, EC members should have initial and continued education regarding the ethics and science of biomedical research. The conditions of appointment should indicate the availability and requirements of introductory training, as well as on-going continuing education. This education may be linked to cooperative arrangements with other ECs in the area, country, and region.

For detailed institutional EC requirements and information on other administrative processes, see the G-ECAccred and the G-ECBiomedRes. See KEN-17 and KEN-26 for examples of accredited EC submission and review guidelines.

Review Process, Submission Forms, Electronic Submission, SERU Applicant SOPs, and Contact Us

Definition of Terms, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and Annexes I-III

1 and 7.1

1.188-1.212 and 1.492-1.496

The Science, Technology and Innovation (Registration and Accreditation of Research Institutions) Regulations, 2014 (Third Schedule); and The Science, Technology and Innovation (Relevance and Quality Assurance in Research) Regulations, 2014 (Part II)

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-6, Glossary, Annex A, Annex C, Annex E, and Annex F

Part 2, Part 3 (11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18), and Schedule 2

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Introduction (Purpose and Scope, and Implementation), Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1, 2, 3, and 15

Foreword, Introduction, 1.24, 1.27, 2.6, 3, and 5.11

Search Research Ethics Committee

Definitions of Authorised REC and Recognized REC

Research Ethics Committee (REC) Scope

Scope of Review

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

According to G-ECBiomedRes, the primary scope of information assessed by the institutional ethics committees (ECs) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. The G-ECAccred further states that the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) accredits ECs in order to uphold the standard of ethics review in the country; develop public confidence and trust in the national research system; facilitate equitable access to research and human health records in health facilities; and facilitate coordination and collaboration among ECs. See the G-ECAccred and the G-ECBiomedRes for detailed ethical review guidelines.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As per the G-KenyaCT and KEN-21, the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB)’s review and approval of a clinical trial application is dependent upon obtaining approval by an accredited institutional EC. Consequently, the PPB and EC reviews may not be conducted in parallel.

As set forth in the G-ECBiomedRes, ECs must be constituted to ensure an independent and competent review and evaluation of all ethical aspects of clinical trials. ECs must review research involving human participants to ensure they meet these ethical principles:

Respect for persons, including respect of autonomy, protection of vulnerable groups, and protection of privacy and confidentiality
Beneficence
Justice, which in research means equitable distribution of the benefits and the burdens

For additional details on the principles and benchmarks for ethical review, see G-ECBiomedRes.

Per the G-ECBiomedRes, expedited review may be permitted for protocols involving no more than minimal risk to research participants.

The G-ECBiomedRes indicates that all ECs should carry out regular monitoring of approved protocols involving human participants. In case of any adverse events, the EC should report this immediately to Kenya’s National Bioethics Committee (NBC).

Per the G-ECBiomedRes, with collaborative research projects, the collaborating investigators, institutions, and countries must function as equal partners with safeguards to avoid exploitation of local researchers and participants. An external sponsoring agency should submit the research protocol to their country’s EC, as well as the Kenyan EC where the research is to be conducted. Further, this research must be responsive to the health needs of Kenya and reasonably accessible to the community in which the research was conducted. Consideration should be given to the sponsoring agency agreeing to maintain health services and faculties established for the purposes of the study in Kenya after the research has been completed. Such collaborative research must have a local/Kenyan co-principal investigator.

1.0-1.2

3.0, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 6.0, and 7.1

Glossary of Terms and 1.188- 1.212 and 1.492-1.496

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

As per GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the MHCTR2006-No2, and GBR-113, ECs must pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations).

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per GBR-9, the EC’s favorable ethical opinion applies for the stated duration of the study, except where action is taken to suspend or terminate the opinion. The MHCTR, GAfREC, and IRAS (GBR-78) require the applicant to identify an expected end date for the study. A change to the definition of the end of the study is a substantial amendment. Extension of the study beyond the period specified in the application form is a non-substantial amendment.

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

Introduction (Purpose and Scope), Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10.9

Foreword, 1.27, 2, and 3

Search Research Ethics Committee

2.3, 3, 4.3, and 5.4

Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products

Amendment of the Clinical Trials Regulations; Amendment of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (2 and 3), Part 3 (11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18), Schedule 2, and Schedule 3 (Part 1)

Ethics Committee Fees

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

As per the G-KenyaCT, G-ECBiomedRes, and KEN-30, Kenya requires an independent review of research through a National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI)-accredited ethics committee (EC) in one (1) of the local institutions charged with the responsibility of conducting research in human participants. The EC fee to review a clinical trial application will vary depending on the institution. See KEN-25 and KEN-38 for lists of NACOSTI-accredited institutional ECs. For an example of institutional fee requirements charged by the Scientific and Ethics Review Unit (SERU) at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), see KEN-27.

Where do I get a letter of ethical approval before applying for a research license?

1, 4.1, and 7.1

Glossary of Terms

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

4.3

Oversight of Ethics Committees

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

As set forth in the STI-Act and KEN-32, the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) is the central body responsible for the oversight, promotion, and coordination of research. NACOSTI’s role is to regulate and ensure quality in the science, technology, and innovation sector, and to advise the Kenyan government on related matters. As per the G-ECAccred, NACOSTI has delegated the task of reviewing research proposals for ethical clearance to accredited institutional ethics committees (ECs) to ensure that research conducted in the country observes high research ethics standards.

Per the G-ECBiomedRes, Kenya's National Bioethics Committee (NBC) advises NACOSTI on research ethics. In addition, NBC offers dispute resolution if an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of an EC. Finally, the NBC must terminate research at any stage if it is found to be harmful to the participants.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

As per the STI-Regs and the G-ECAccred, NACOSTI is responsible for accrediting institutional ECs. Per the G-ECAccred, the application requirements for accreditation are:

A completed application form (KEN-10 or Annex III of the G-ECAccred)
Copy of the standard operating procedures (SOPs)
Copies of abridged curriculum vitaes (CVs) (no more than four (4) pages) for each member of the proposed EC (including the training attended)
Profile of the organization/institution detailing the areas of competence (no more than four (4) pages)

Upon creating an account in NACOSTI’s Kenya National Research Information System (KENRIS) (KEN-23), users can perform the following functions:

Researchers: Apply for researcher registration, register and track applications, and maintain research profile
Research Institutions: Apply for new research institution registration, maintain/update data, and submit annual reports
Institutional ECs: Apply for accreditation, preview and track accreditation proposals, submit annual reports, and maintain/update data

Per the G-ECAccred, NACOSTI issues a certificate of accreditation to accredited institutional ECs, which is valid for three (3) years from the date of NACOSTI’s notification. All accredited ECs must submit annual reports to NACOSTI by July 31st for review and monitoring. Applications for renewal of accreditation should be made six (6) months before expiry of the accreditation period. Failure to renew accreditation or failure to maintain the appropriate standards for continuity of accreditation will mean that the accredited status of the EC will lapse at the end of the current accreditation period. Accreditation must be terminated if the accredited committee fails to maintain the required standards. For re-accreditation review purposes, ECs must provide the SOPs under which they will operate. The SOPs are not required as part of the annual reporting process, unless they have been amended, but are required to be stated/included for the re-accreditation review process (every three (3) years). See the G-ECAccred for additional details on the accreditation process.

See the Site/Investigator Selection section for more information on the sponsor and site’s registration and application requirements.

1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and Annex III

4.1 and 7.1

Part II

The Science, Technology and Innovation (Relevance and Quality Assurance in Research) Regulations, 2014 (Part II)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

As indicated in the MHCTR and GBR-9, the UKECA recognizes two (2) types of ECs for new CTIMPs:

Type 1: Reviews Phase 1 clinical trials of investigational products (IPs) taking place at any site in the UK, where the sponsor has no knowledge of any evidence that the product has effects likely to be beneficial to the participants of the trial, and the participants are healthy and not suffering from the disease or condition to which the trial relates.
Type 3: Reviews clinical trials of IPs taking place at any site in the UK, including first-in-person studies involving people with the target disease or condition to which the trial relates.

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

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

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

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

Introduction (Purpose and Scope), Implementation, Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1, 2, and 3

Accreditation Scheme for Research Ethics Committees and Quality Control

1.3, 2.1, 2.3, 3.3, 5.4, Glossary, Annex C, Annex D, Annex E, and Annex F

Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 2, Part 3 (12), and Schedule 2

Submission Process

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

In accordance with the PPA, the STI-Act, the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, KEN-21, and KEN-16, Kenya requires the sponsor or the representative to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB)’s Expert Committee on Clinical Trials (ECCT) and an independent ethics review through a National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI)-accredited ethics committee (EC) in a local institution. In addition, the STI-Act and KEN-31 specify that applicants must obtain a research license from NACOSTI prior to initiating a study. The G-KenyaCT also states that the PPB review and approval process may not be conducted in parallel with the EC review. EC approval must be obtained prior to applying for PPB approval.

Regulatory Submission

Pharmacy and Poisons Board

As described in the G-KenyaCT and KEN-16, the sponsor or the representative is expected to submit the clinical trial application electronically via the PPB online system (KEN-16). The clinical trial application form is available in KEN-16. Per the G-KenyaCT, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the sponsor should only file one (1) application to the PPB. According to KEN-34, all application documents should be signed, dated, and version referenced, if applicable, and should be in English. See Annex 7 of the G-KenyaCT to view a flowchart of the submission and approval process.

Per the G-KenyaCT, upon receipt of a clinical trial application, the PPB’s Clinical Trial Division of the Product Safety Department screens the application package for completeness. When an application for a clinical trial is accepted, an acknowledgement of receipt will be issued with a reference number for each application. This PPB/ECCT reference number must be quoted in all correspondence concerning the application in the future. This will be communicated through email to the applicant or through KEN-16.

Per the G-KenyaCT, sponsors (applicants) can request pre-submission meetings with the PPB to discuss pertinent issues prior to making a formal submissions. The request must be made via KEN-16 or in an official letter and include the following information:

Background information on the disease to be treated
Background information on the product
Quality development
Non-clinical development
Clinical development
Regulatory status
Rationale for seeking advice
Proposed questions and applicant’s positions

In addition, per the G-KenyaCT, the letter must be addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the PPB and sent to admin@pharmacyboardkenya.org and copied to cta@pharmacyboardkenya.org. The request for a meeting should propose two (2) different dates for the meeting at least three (3) weeks away.

Per G-KenyaCT, any new information that affects the conduct/management of the trial; safety of the participants; and manufacture of the product necessitating changes to the protocol, consent form, and trial sites, etc. will require immediate submission of the amended documents to the PPB for review and approval. Minor amendments or administrative changes may be implemented after getting the EC’s approval, but a record of these amendments must be kept for possible inspection by the PPB.

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

Per KEN-31, an application for a NACOSTI research license should be submitted online via the Research Information Management System (RIMS) (KEN-24).

Ethics Review Submission

Each institutional EC has its own required submission procedures, which can differ significantly regarding the application format and number of copies. See KEN-17 for an example of a NACOSTI-accredited EC’s guidelines.

1.0 and 4.1

Glossary of Terms, Introduction, 1.1-1.29, 1.182-1.185, 1.492-1.496, and Annexes 1-7

25A

Parts II, IV, V, and X and Fourth Schedule

Part II (Section 4)

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, and GBR-9, the United Kingdom (UK) requires the sponsor or the designated legal representative to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) prior to initiating the trial. Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, the UK’s combined review process offers a single application route and coordinated/parallel review from MHRA and the ethics committee (EC) leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials.

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

Combined Review Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology (Glossary) and Sections 1.1-1.2 and 14

Combined Review - What will happen to ongoing CTIMP studies submitted in the standard system?

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval, CTA Submission, and Ethics Submission

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

Apply to conduct a clinical trial for an advanced therapy medicinal product

2

Trial Sponsor and legal Representative, Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products, Documents to send with your application, New notification scheme, and Requesting approval of trials with complex innovative designs

Amending your trial protocol or other documentation

2

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (3) and Part 3 (12, 14, 17, and 18)

Approvals for project based research in the National Health Service (NHS) and Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care (HSC) Service

Submission Content

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Regulatory Authority Requirements

Pharmacy and Poisons Board

As per the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, and KEN-34, the following documentation must be submitted (signed, dated, and version referenced) to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Cover letter
Study protocol
Proof of study registration in the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (KEN-19)
Patient information leaflet and informed consent form (ICF)
Investigators brochure (IB) and package inserts
Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier (IMPD), including stability data for the investigational product (IP)
Adequate data and information on previous studies and phases to support the current study
Good manufacturing practice (GMP) certificate of the IP from the site of manufacture issued by a competent health authority in the manufacturer’s jurisdiction of origin
Certificate of analysis of the IP
Pictorial sample of the IPs, including the labeling text
Signed investigator(s) curriculum vitae(s) (CV(s)), including that of the study pharmacist (the CV should include the current workload of the principal investigator (PI))
Evidence of contractual agreement between the relevant parties
Evidence of recent good clinical practice (GCP) training of the core study staff
Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) information, including the charter, composition, and meeting schedule
Detailed study budget
Financial declaration by the sponsor and PI (KEN-2 and Annex 5 of the G-KenyaCT)
No conflict of interest declaration by the sponsor and PI
Signed declarations by the sponsor, PI, and the monitor that the study will be carried out according to the protocol and applicable laws, regulations, and GCP requirements (KEN-1 and Annex 4 of the G-KenyaCT)
Indemnity cover for PI, investigators, and study pharmacist
Clinical trials insurance cover for the study participants
Copy of favorable opinion letter from local ethics committee (EC)
Copy of current practice licenses for the investigators and study pharmacist
Copy of approval letter(s) from collaborating institutions or other regulatory authorities, if applicable
For multicenter/multi-site studies, an addendum for each of the proposed sites including, among other things, the sites’ capacity to carry out the study (e.g., personnel, equipment, laboratory)
A signed statement by the applicant indicating that all information contained in, or referenced by, the application is complete and accurate, and is not false or misleading (Annex 4 of the G-KenyaCT)
Payment of fees
Statistical analysis plan
A signed checklist (KEN-34 and Annex 2 of the G-KenyaCT)

Per the G-KenyaCT, a request for approval of an amendment must include a summary of the proposed amendments; the reason for the amendment; the impact of the amendment on the original study objectives; the impact of the amendments on the study endpoints and data generated; and the impact of the proposed amendments on the safety and wellbeing of study participants.

KEN-35 describes the submission content for requesting annual approval from the PPB.

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

Per the STI-Regs and KEN-31, non-Kenyan applicants must be affiliated with a Kenyan institution. Per KEN-31, applicants must apply online through National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI)’s Research Information Management System (RIMS) website (KEN-24) and upload the following:

Passport size color photo in JPG or PNG format
Scanned ID/passport in PDF format
Introductory letter from relevant institution signed by an authorized officer
Affiliation letter from relevant local institution for foreigners signed by an authorized officer and valid for one (1) year
Grant letter from the funding agency to support the amount indicated to fund the research
PPB clinical trial approval
Prior Informed Consent (PIC), Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT), or Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) where applicable, for applications to conduct research on genetic resources and derivatives
Approved research proposal in PDF format
Certificate of ethical clearance of the research (see list of accredited ECs in KEN-25)
Evidence of payment as the last page of the uploaded proposal

Per KEN-31, the following conditions apply to the research license:

The research license is valid for the proposed research, site, and specified period
Both the research license and any rights thereunder are non-transferable
NACOSTI may monitor and evaluate the research
The licensee must inform the relevant County Director of Education, County Commissioner, and County Governor before research commencement
Excavation, filming, and collection of specimens are subject to further permissions from relevant government agencies
The research license does not give authority to transfer research materials
The licensee shall submit one (1) hard copy and upload a soft copy of their final report within one (1) year of completion of the research
NACOSTI reserves the right to modify the conditions of the research license including its cancellation without prior notice

KEN-31 states that if the research is not completed within the stipulated period, the applicant may apply for renewal of the research license and pay the requisite fee. A progress report should be submitted with the request for renewal instead of a proposal. The progress report must indicate the objectives and activities that have been accomplished, as well as the research work that has yet to be undertaken. KEN-31 further indicates that submissions requesting renewal should be made at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the approval period.

Ethics Committee Requirements

EC requirements vary depending on the specific EC. See KEN-17 and KEN-26 for examples of accredited EC submission and review guidelines.

As set forth in the G-ECBiomedRes, a foreign sponsoring agency must also submit its research protocol for ethics review according to its own country’s standards. This research must be responsive to the health needs of Kenya and reasonably accessible to the community in which the research was conducted.

Clinical Protocol

Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14). The CTRules the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and KEN-14 outline the key elements of a research protocol in Kenya (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

A project title that adequately captures the essence of the study
The names, addresses, signatures, and updated abridged curriculum vitae of the investigators
Evidence that the PI has prior training in GCP
Contact information for the EC and collaborating institutions
A summary of the project
Introduction, background, and literature review, including nonclinical data
Study objectives, rationale, questions, and hypothesis/es
Study site, design, and methodology
Ethical considerations
Role of investigators
Schedule
References
Budget
Publication policy
Consent explanation - elements of consent explanations
ICF with signature provisions for participants and the PIs
Risks and benefits
Mode of assessment of the safety and efficacy of the IP
Mode of collecting, analyzing, and reporting the statistics of the clinical trial
Source data documents of the clinical trial
Quality control and quality assurance
Confidentiality
Recruitment, selection, treatment, and withdrawal of participants
Compensation and post-trial access program
Undue inducement and coercion
Voluntariness
Alternative treatment(s) if available
Storage of specimens
MTA, where applicable
Data management and statistical analysis

In addition, per the G-KenyaCT, the protocol should have a clear description of study stoppage rules indicating reasons, who makes the decision, and how the decision will be communicated to the PPB and the EC.

6

Guidelines for Proposal Development

Submission Forms

1.0, 4.2, and 6.0

1.48, 1.63, 1.89-1.130, 1.495, 1.533, and Annexes 1-2 and 4-5

The Science, Technology and Innovation (Research Licensing) Regulations, 2014 (Part II)

Part II (Section 4) and Part IV (Section 9)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

For complete protocol requirements, refer to GBR-113.

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

3.1 and 6

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval

Documents to send with your application

Part 3 (12, 14, 15, 17, and 18) and Schedule 3 (Parts 1 and 2)

Timeline of Review

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

Based on the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB)'s review and approval of an application to conduct a clinical trial is dependent upon obtaining ethics approval from a National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI)-accredited ethics committee (EC). Therefore, the PPB and EC reviews may not be conducted in parallel. In addition, the STI-Act and KEN-31 specify that all applicants must obtain a research license from NACOSTI prior to initiating a study.

Regulatory Authority Approval

Pharmacy and Poisons Board

Per the G-KenyaCT, sponsors (or applicants) can request pre-submission meetings to discuss pertinent issues prior to making a formal submission. The request must be made via the PPB online system (KEN-16) or in an official letter addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the PPB and sent to admin@pharmacyboardkenya.org and copied to cta@pharmacyboardkenya.org. The request for a meeting should propose two (2) different dates for the meeting with the proposed dates being at least three (3) weeks away. (See Submission Process section for details on the content of request.)

Per the G-KenyaCT, upon receipt of a clinical trial application, the PPB’s Clinical Trial Division of the Product Safety Department screens the application package for completeness, which takes five (5) days. If accepted, an automatic system-generated reference number will be issued for each application. If additional information is needed, the sponsor will have 10 days to respond. The PPB aims to respond to applications within 30 working days. The sponsor or the representative must reference the PPB/Expert Committee on Clinical Trials (ECCT) number in all future application-related correspondence. The application is then evaluated by the ECCT and PPB staff according to their respective standard operating procedures. The PPB/ECCT’s decision to approve, request additional information, or reject the application is communicated to the sponsor or the representative in writing within 30 days of receiving a valid application. If additional information is requested, the sponsor has 90 days to respond after which the PPB has 15 days to issue a final decision. In certain cases, the PPB may refer the application to external experts for their recommendation.

Per the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor or the representative is also required to request approval annually from the PPB at least six (6) weeks prior to the expiration of the previous approval. Refer to the Checklist for Submitting a Request for Annual Approval (KEN-35) for relevant documentation requirements.

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

Per KEN-5 and KEN-31, the timeline for NACOSTI’s license application process is 30 days.

KEN-31 states that if a research license application does not meet the conditions required under the STI-Act, NACOSTI must reject the application and communicate the reasons to the applicant. Any person may appeal NACOSTI’s decision to the Cabinet Secretary within 30 days of being notified of the decision.

Ethics Committee Approval

The EC review and approval process timeline will vary by institution.

1.13-1.29, 1.182-1.185, and Annex 7

Part II (Section 4)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

Combined Review

Per the G-CTApp and GBR-72, the initial combined review assessment will be completed within 30 days of being submitted. The G-CTApp indicates that applications for healthy volunteer trials and sponsor-determined phase 1 trials in non-oncology participants may qualify for a shortened assessment time and MHRA will work with the EC to expedite these applications. The MHRA and the EC will inform applicants of the outcome of a submission. If there are grounds for non-acceptance of the application, the applicant will have the opportunity to respond, usually within 14 days, though this may be extended on request. Communication informing the applicant of the MHRA and EC decisions following receipt of the responses will usually be sent within 60 days of receiving the original valid application. If an extension to the response date has been agreed to, then this will impact the final decision timeline. Notification of the decision relating to a gene therapy, somatic cell therapy (including xenogenic cell therapy) product, tissue engineered product, or products containing genetically modified organisms will be sent within 90 days of receiving the original application unless otherwise advised.

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

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

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

Initial Process Review and Timelines

Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products, New notification scheme, Assessment of your submission, and Applications that need expert advice

Initiation, Agreements & Registration

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

In accordance with the PPA, the STI-Act, the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, KEN-21, and KEN-16, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor or the representative receives authorization from Kenya’s Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB), and ethics committee (EC) approval from an institutional EC that has been accredited by the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) prior to initiating a study. ECs are accredited pursuant to the requirements delineated in the G-ECAccred. The G-KenyaCT specifies that the PPB review and approval process may not be conducted in parallel with the EC review. In addition, the STI-Act and KEN-31 state that all applicants must obtain a research license from NACOSTI prior to initiating a study. No waiting period is required following the applicant’s receipt of these approvals. Regarding notifications, KEN-31 requires the licensee to inform the relevant County Director of Education, County Commissioner, and County Governor before commencement of the research. Further, the licensee must disclose to NACOSTI, the institutional ECs, and the relevant national agencies any findings that are of national strategic importance.

As per the PPA and the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor or the representative is required to obtain an import license for the shipment of an investigational product to be used in the trial. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information).

As stated in the G-KenyaCT, Kenyan clinical trials should be conducted in compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14).

Clinical Trial Agreement

Prior to initiating the trial, the G-KenyaCT requires that the sponsor agree with investigator(s) on the definition, establishment, and assignment of responsibilities specified in the protocol. These responsibilities include conduct of the trial in compliance with KEN-14 and the approved protocol; data management; unblinding of treatment codes; statistical considerations; and preparation of the final clinical report. The sponsor, in a written document, may agree to transfer all related activities of the clinical trial to designated research institutions. However, all responsibility for the trial lies with the sponsor. Prior to the initiation of the clinical trial, the agreement between the sponsor and investigators should be in writing as part of the protocol submitted for PPB approval or in a separate agreement. The sponsor and investigators must sign and date the protocol of the trial to confirm the agreement.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per the G-KenyaCT, all clinical trials taking place in Kenya must be registered in the PPB’s Online Clinical Trials Registry System (KEN-16). The principal investigator is required to log in and set up an account to register a study.

In addition, as required by KEN-34, all clinical trials taking place in Kenya must be registered in the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (KEN-19).

1.25, 4, and 5.5

Introduction

1.0, 4.1, and 5.1

Introduction, 1.1, 1.48, 1.63-1.88, 1.346-1.354, and 1.542-1.555

Part III (25A) and Part IV (44)

Parts II, IV, V, and X, and Fourth Schedule

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

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

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

Per GBR-78, all project-based research must also have governance and legal compliance approvals from the appropriate lead United Kingdom (UK) Health Department. The Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78) facilitates this process. As described in GBR-67, approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) is required for all National Health Service (NHS) project-based research led from England or Wales. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance. For any new studies that are led from Scotland or Northern Ireland but have English and/or Welsh NHS sites, the national research and development coordinating function of the lead nation will share information with the HRA and HCRW assessment teams, who can issue HRA and HCRW approval for English and Welsh sites and thereby retain existing compatibility arrangements. Studies led from England or Wales with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland will be supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems, by which each country accepts the centralized assurances, as far as they apply, from national coordinating functions without unnecessary duplication. For more information on HRA’s assessment criteria and standards for approval, see GBR-29.

Clinical Trial Agreement

According to GBR-107 and GBR-70, contracts and agreements should be in place prior to the initiation of a trial. GBR-107 provides model templates for industry-sponsored clinical trials with the NHS/Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) participants in hospitals throughout the UK Health Services, which encompasses England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Applicants are advised to use the templates without modification. Any proposed modifications will not be accepted unless first agreed to by the UK Contracting Leads. Proposing modifications to the templates is likely to result in significant delay.

GBR-107 also provides the model non-commercial agreement (mNCA) template to meet the requirements of non-commercial sponsors and the NHS/DHSC bodies undertaking the research. This agreement has been developed as a single, UK-wide agreement template, meaning that it can be used irrespective of where the sponsor and research site are established. It is designed to be used without modification or negotiation. The mNCA has been developed for a range of interventional research scenarios, including clinical trials, medical device studies, research using participant data, and research using human tissue. The terms and conditions are suitable for all such scenarios and only the completion of highlighted sections, including the schedules of the agreement, will differ depending on the study involved.

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

As per the GBR-102 and the G-CTApp, the sponsor or investigator is required to register the clinical trial in a publicly accessible database as a condition of a favorable ethical opinion. Registration should occur before the first participant is recruited and no later than six (6) weeks after recruitment of the first participant. To help researchers meet the UK’s transparency requirements, GBR-102 indicates that the HRA will automatically register approved clinical trials with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (GBR-47) to ensure that information is publicly available. ISRCTN is the UK’s preferred clinical trials registry. HRA’s commitment to register clinical trials on behalf of sponsors and researchers is in line with the “Make It Public” research transparency strategy (see GBR-55).

Per GBR-18, each clinical trial must have a unique trial number. Clinical trials with sites in the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA), or Northern Ireland should also apply for a European number. Per GBR-87, as of January 31, 2023, all new clinical trials with sites in Europe should register on the new Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) (GBR-39). GBR-39 specifies that by January 31, 2025, any ongoing trials must be transitioned from EudraCT (GBR-87) to GBR-39. For more information, see the EudraCT transition fact sheet (GBR-16). CTIMP-Condtns indicates that for clinical trials involving sites in both the UK and the EU, a record in EU’s GBR-39 does not satisfy the public registry condition because the UK component of the trial will not be visible in CTIS (GBR-39). Failure to register is a breach of the clinical trial conditions unless a deferral has been agreed to.

Per GBR-102, HRA also recognizes any registry covered by the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), such as clinicaltrials.gov (GBR-49). For any submissions prior to December 31, 2021, the applicant should have registered their clinical trial on an established international register.

6

Terminology (Glossary) and Sections 1, 3, and 14

1.17, 5.1.2, and 8.2.6

About NHS DigiTrials and NHS DigiTrials - our services

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval, CTA Submission, Final Trial Management Documentation, Trial Registration, and Trial Begins

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

2-3

3.2

Registration of your clinical trial, Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products, Documents to send with your application, and Assessment of your submission

7

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 3 (12, 13, and 18)

Contracting Arrangements

Safety Reporting

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Kenya’s safety reporting requirements:

Adverse Event (or Adverse Experience) (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant in a clinical investigation study or intervention product, and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the treatment
Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – All noxious and unintended responses to a clinical trial study or interventional product related to any dose or all unintended noxious responses to a registered medicinal product which occurs at doses normally used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of diseases or for modification of physiological function
Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect
Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) – A serious adverse reaction that is not identified in practice, severity, or frequency by the referenced safety information

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

Per G-KenyaCT, the investigator must ensure that all SAEs are reported promptly to Kenya’s Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) within the mandated timelines, as described below. Proper protection procedures or treatments should be administered to trial participants with SAEs.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As indicated in the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor should report to the PPB and all relevant institutions, all SAEs and SUSARs occurring during the course of the trial. The G-KenyaCT specifies that the sponsor should expedite reporting all SAEs to the PPB and the ethics committee (EC), and the sponsor and investigators should immediately undertake appropriate and necessary measures and treatment to protect the trial participants. The CTRules delineates that where a sponsor conducts a clinical trial on the same health product or active pharmaceutical substance in another country, the sponsor must submit a report of any SUSAR or SAE that occurs in the other clinical trial to the PPB. Per the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, a sponsor must submit an initial report of an fatal or life-threatening SUSAR or SAE as soon as it occurs but, in any case, not later than seven (7) days after the occurrence of the event. The G-KenyaCT indicates that if the initial report is incomplete, the sponsor must submit a completed report based on the initial information within an additional eight (8) days. As required in the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, a report of the occurrence of a SUSAR or SAE must specify whether the SUSAR or SAE is related to the clinical trial.

As indicated in the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, other important considerations and timelines include the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

The sponsor must notify all the investigators involved in ongoing clinical trials of the investigational product (IP) of all SAEs and SUSARs within 15 calendar days
Any IP-related SAE must receive immediate medical attention and be reported to the PPB
The SAE report form must be completed (including lab results) and submitted to enable causality assessment
All fatal cases must be accompanied by a formal autopsy report, and a verbal autopsy report should be submitted in those exceptional cases where a formal autopsy is not possible
Any frequent IP related AE/ADR must receive immediate medical attention and be reported to the PPB within seven (7) days
The sponsor must submit a report on a SUSAR that is not fatal or life-threatening within 15 days after the occurrence of the event
The principal investigator (PI) is required to submit follow-up information as soon as it becomes available
All additional information should be clearly marked as updated and must include the Protocol Number and Participant Number
Foreign regulatory decisions that affect the safety or use of the product under study must be reported to the PPB within seven (7) days through a detailed report
Literature reports that have implications for the safety of the IP must be submitted within 15 days with a detailed report and a copy of the publication
New information or notification of change in nature, severity, or frequency of risk factors for the product under study or conduct of trial must be submitted within 15 days

Other Safety Reports

The G-ECBiomedRes indicate that ECs should monitor research, and will report to the National Bioethics Committee upon notification of an AE.

The CTRules and the G-KenyaCT state that the sponsor must also submit a safety report to the PPB once a year throughout the clinical trial, or upon request. The purpose of the annual safety report is to briefly describe all new safety information relevant to one (1) or more clinical trial(s), and to assess the safety conditions of the participants enrolled in these trial(s). The safety report must include a log of SAE and SUSAR events. The SAE and SUSAR log should include the following:

Patient Identification
Age
Date of recruitment into the study
Type of SAE or SUSAR
SAE or SUSAR start and end dates
Reason for reporting the event as an SAE or SUSAR
Relation to IP
SAE or SUSAR outcome

Note that the PPB may require more frequent reporting of the safety reports depending on the nature of the clinical trial being implemented. When this is the case, the PPB must communicate the required frequency to the PI and sponsor in writing.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per the G-KenyaCT and KEN-16, all SAEs and SUSARs must be reported to the PPB via the Pharmacovigilance Electronic Reporting System (PvERS) (KEN-6).

4.1 and 5.1

Glossary of Terms, 1.59, 1.63-1.88, and 1.318-1.339

Part I (2) and Part IV (12)

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Per GBR-99, a sponsor or investigator may take appropriate urgent safety measures (USMs) to protect research participants against any immediate hazard to their health or safety, without prior authorization from a regulatory body. The main ethics committee (EC), and the MHRA for clinical trials for investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), must be notified immediately (no later than three (3) days) in the form of a substantial amendment that such measures have been taken and the reasons why. GBR-9 states that for trials which have been submitted via the combined review service, one USM notification is made via the combined review part of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125) and received by the MHRA. No additional notification is required directly to the EC. GBR-32 reaffirms this stating that SUSARs and safety reports for CTIMPs that were approved by combined review should be submitted to the MHRA only. If the safety report requires action, the MHRA will instruct the study team to submit a substantial amendment. Any other SUSARs or annual safety report submitted UK wide will be acknowledged by email by the EC. The submitted cover report for the SUSAR or annual safety report will not be signed and returned, and the email will act as the formal acknowledgement.

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

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

Other Safety Reports

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, sponsors must submit Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs) to the MHRA. The DSUR should consider all new available safety information received during the reporting period. The DSUR should include:

A cover letter listing all relevant clinical trial numbers of trials covered by the DSUR and an email address for correspondence (Note: per GBR-18, every clinical trial with a European site must include a European number. GBR-87 indicates that as of January 31, 2023, all new clinical trials with sites in Europe should use the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) (GBR-39)
An analysis of the participant’s safety in the concerned clinical trial(s) with an appraisal of its ongoing risk/benefit
A listing of all suspected serious adverse reactions (including all SUSARs) that occurred in the trial(s)
An aggregate summary tabulation of SUSARs that occurred in the concerned trial(s)

As stated in the G-CTAuth-GBR, at the end of the DSUR reporting period, the sponsor may assess the new safety information that has been generated and submit any proposed safety changes to the IB as a substantial amendment. This amendment must be supported by the DSUR and approved before the RSI is changed. A shortened DSUR is available for approved trials under MHRA’s notification scheme that are not part of a multi-study development program. Phase 4 national (UK only) trials of licensed products, which commanded a low fee from the MHRA, and where all participants have completed treatment and are only in the follow-up stage will also be suitable for submission of a short format DSUR. As an alternative to producing a full DSUR for these trials, the Health Research Authority Annual Progress Report (GBR-27) may be used.

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

4 and 5

10

Changes to SUSARs and annual safety reports

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval, Trial Registration, Safety Reporting, and Urgent Safety Measures

SUSAR

Reference Safety Information – updated guidance, Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reactions (SUSARs), Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs), and Urgent Safety Measures

14

Part 5

Progress Reporting

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As stated in the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor and/or the principal investigator (PI) is required to send progress reports to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) on an annual basis, or as may be required, from the date of the trial’s initiation. The progress report should contain the following:

Current status of the study
Summary of the participants screened (e.g., failed screenings, participants enrolled, withdrawn, or lost to follow-up, and other challenges)
Summary of protocol deviations and violations
Updated investigational product Investigator’s Brochure
Drug Safety Update Report
Copy of the latest Data Safety Management Board report
Copy of favorable opinion from the ethics committee (EC) on record
Copy of annual practice license for the investigators and pharmacists
Suspected, Unexpected, Serious Adverse Event (SUSAR) and Serious Adverse Event (SAE) Log

For multisite trials, per the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor or the representative must submit a summarized report for all of the sites and include the information listed above.

Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14). As per KEN-14, the investigator should promptly provide written reports to the sponsor and the institutional EC on any changes significantly affecting the conduct of the trial, and/or increasing the risk to participants.

According to the G-KenyaCT, for annual renewal of the study, the sponsor or the representative must submit a copy of the progress report including the documents listed above. The request must also be accompanied by copies of annual practice licenses for the investigators and pharmacists, and a copy of valid insurance coverage for the participants. All documents must be submitted using the PPB’s Online Clinical Trials Registry System (KEN-16). The sponsor or the representative must receive an acknowledgement of this submission before proceeding with the study. These documents must be submitted to the PPB at least six (6) weeks prior to the expiration of the previous approval.

Pursuant to KEN-14, the investigator should submit written summaries of the trial status to the institutional EC annually, or more frequently, if requested.

Final Report

Per the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor must notify the PPB of the end of a clinical trial taking place at a Kenyan site within 15 days. After the trial has been conducted and closed, the applicant must submit an executive summary report of the study within 30 days. This should be followed by a clinical study report within 180 days of the study closure unless otherwise justified. The report must comply with the International Council for Harmonisation's ICH E3 format (KEN-13). The report must include a short but comprehensive summary of the trial’s essential findings and methodology and should also contain a layman’s summary. Additionally, the sponsor must inform the PPB of any results that will be publicly released at least 14 days before release. In addition, upon completion of the trial, as delineated in KEN-14, the investigator is required to submit a final report to the institutional EC summarizing the trial’s outcome.

For multi-site research, the G-ECBiomedRes requires all parties to decide on procedures for drafting a common final report and publication at the onset of the research. Individual sites or institutions must not publish any data until the appropriate authorities accept the combined report.

KEN-31 further indicates that the research license applicant must submit one (1) hard copy and upload a soft copy of the final research report to the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) within one (1) year of the research’s completion.

4.10 and 4.13

5.1

1.48, 1.63, 1.497-1.506, 1.515-1.518, and 1.533-1.536

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As indicated in the G-CTAuth-GBR and GBR-9, the investigator and the sponsor share responsibility for submitting progress reports to the ethics committee (EC), as required, on the status of a clinical trial and for submitting a final study report upon the trial’s completion. These requirements comply with the progress and final reporting requirements delineated in the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113).

In accordance with GBR-32 and GBR-65, it is no longer a requirement to submit annual progress reports to the EC. However, GBR-65 states that depending on the type of approval, a progress report may be requested to track progress.

In addition, GBR-65 states that if the study was reviewed by an EC in Scotland or Northern Ireland, an annual progress report should be submitted 12 months after the date on which the favorable ethics opinion was given, except in the following instances:

If the study is expected to run for less than two (2) years in duration
If the study received a proportionate review
If the study received a favorable ethics opinion from an EC in England or Wales

Furthermore, GBR-65, states that if a study was given a favorable ethics opinion by an EC in Scotland or Northern Ireland, there are separate forms for submitting progress reports, depending on the type of research. The form for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (GBR-27) should be completed in typescript and authorized by the Chief Investigator (CI) or the sponsor/sponsor representative. An electronic copy should be emailed to the EC within 30 days of the end of the reporting period.

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

Final Report

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

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

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

As per GBR-9, the investigator is also required to submit a summary of the final study report to the main EC within one (1) year of the trial’s conclusion. GBR-20 clarifies that the form in GBR-20 should be used for this submittal, which includes submitting a lay summary of results. This is a UK-wide final report for all project-based research studies that have been reviewed by an EC within the UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (GBR-62). The information contained in this final report helps the Research Ethics Service to monitor whether the research was conducted in accordance with the EC’s favorable opinion and applicable transparency requirements. Per the GBR-120, sponsors should include a plain language summary of their findings in the final report, which will be published on HRA’s website alongside the study research summaries. See GBR-120 for guidance on writing a good plain language summary for a general audience.

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

Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1 and 14

4.10 and 4.13

Final report on the research

End of Trial

Legal Background and Scope

Part 3 (Section 27)

Definition of Sponsor

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

As per the G-KenyaCT, a sponsor is defined as an individual, a company, an institution, or an organization who takes legal responsibility for the initiation, management, and financing of a trial. According to the G-KenyaCT, a sponsor, in a written document, may agree to transfer all related activities of the clinical trial to designated research institutions. However, all responsibility for the trial lies with the sponsor. The G-ECBiomedRes indicates that sponsors may be foreign, but must comply with certain conditions including affiliating themselves to institutions recognized in Kenya.

Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14). In accordance with KEN-14, Kenya permits a sponsor to transfer any or all of its trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO) and/or institutional site(s). However, the ultimate responsibility for the trial data’s quality and integrity always resides with the sponsor. Any trial-related responsibilities transferred to a CRO should be specified in a written agreement. The CRO should implement quality assurance and quality control.

5.1 and 5.2

4.1 and 6.0

Glossary of Terms, 1.48, 1.63, and 1.68

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Principles

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

5.1 and 5.2

Responsibilities (9.10)

Changes to the trial sponsor/legal representative

2

Trial Sponsor and legal Representative

Amendment of Regulation 3 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (3)

Site/Investigator Selection

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

The G-KenyaCT, which requires sponsors to follow the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), states that the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial and for ensuring that the investigator(s) are qualified by education, training, and experience.

Per the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, investigators must also meet the following requirements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Provide evidence of their qualifications and experience through an up-to-date curriculum vitae (CV)
Have a current practice license from the relevant regulatory authority
Be familiar with the characteristics and appropriate use of the investigational product (IP) as described in the protocol, current investigator’s brochure (IB), in the product information, and in other information sources
Have a clear understanding and willingness to obey the ethical, good clinical practice (GCP) and legal requirements in the conduct of the trial
Permit monitoring and auditing of the trial and inspection by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) or appointed representatives
Keep a list of appropriately qualified persons to whom the investigator has delegated significant trial-related duties
The principal investigator (PI) must be an appropriately qualified and competent person having practical experience within the relevant professional area and who is responsible for the conduct of the clinical trial at a clinical site
The PI must have a degree in medicine, pharmacy, pharmacology, toxicology, biochemistry, dentistry, or a related discipline from a university recognized in Kenya
The PI must have a valid practice license from the relevant regulatory authority
The PI must have a valid professional indemnity cover
The PI must be a citizen of Kenya or a permanent resident in Kenya
A PI must have had previous experience as a co-investigator in at least two (2) trials in the relevant professional area
Have adequate time and resources to carry out the study (See Annex 6 of the G-KenyaCT for the PPB’s recommended format to document the investigator’s workload)

Further, the G-KenyaCT states that sponsors must ensure that investigators have had formal training in GCPs with proof that a GCP course was attended within the last two (2) years. If training has not been completed, it is the responsibility of the sponsor to organize this training prior to initiating the study. The investigators will need to provide evidence of having obtained this training. As delineated in KEN-14, prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an IB. Furthermore, the sponsor must sign an agreement or contract with the participating institution(s). Additionally, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. (See the Submission Content section for additional information on clinical trial application requirements.)

Institutional Registration

The STI-Act and the STI-Regs require research institutions to register with the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) and obtain a Certificate of Registration. For detailed guidance on the vetting and approval process, see the STI-Regs and the G-InstitutionRegistration.

Upon creating an account in NACOSTI’s Kenya National Research Information System (KENRIS) (KEN-23), research institutions can apply for new research institution registration, maintain/update data, and submit annual reports. The application for registration of research institutions is also provided in KEN-11, and the reporting tool for registered research institutions is provided in KEN-36.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

The G-ECBiomedRes requires that with collaborative research projects, the collaborating investigators, institutions, and countries must function as equal partners with safeguards to avoid exploitation of local researchers and participants. An external sponsoring agency should submit the research protocol to their country’s EC, as well as the Kenyan EC where the research is to be conducted. Further, this research must be responsive to the health needs of Kenya and reasonably accessible to the community in which the research was conducted. Consideration should be given to the sponsoring agency agreeing to maintain health services and faculties established for the purposes of the study in Kenya after the research has been completed. Such collaborative research must have a local/Kenyan co-principal investigator.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

The G-KenyaCT indicates that the PPB recommends establishing a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) to monitor trials in the following types of studies:

Where the endpoint is such that a highly favorable or unfavorable result, or even a finding of futility at an interim analysis, might ethically require the trial to be terminated early
When there are safety concerns due to the use of a particularly invasive treatment
Where there is prior information suggesting the possibility of serious toxicity with the study treatment
Where the participants involved represent a vulnerable population (e.g., children, pregnant women, elderly, terminally ill, or mentally incapacitated)
When the participants represent a population at higher risk of death or other serious outcomes
When the study is large, of long duration, and multi-center

KEN-14 states that a DSMB may be established to assess the progress of a clinical trial, including the safety data and the critical efficacy endpoints at intervals, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial.

Per the G-KenyaCT, the DSMB must provide the following documentation to the PPB:

DSMB composition
Copy of DSMB charter
DSMB reports to be submitted to the PPB within two (2) weeks of its deliberations and in the request for annual approval

For multicenter trials, the G-ECBiomedRes requires that centralized data management and analysis should be planned as per G-WHO-DSMB.

Multicenter Studies

Per the G-KenyaCT, for multicenter studies in Kenya, the coordinating investigator should be a Kenyan resident and should assume full responsibility for the trial.

The G-ECBiomedRes requires that multicenter trials conducted simultaneously by several investigators at different sites follow the same protocol. Ideally, these trials should be initiated at the same time at all sites. The sponsor must provide the protocol to the investigators, who will accept the protocol in writing. If approved by the EC of the local host institution, the protocol may be modified to suit the local conditions. Meetings should be organized at the initial and intermediate stages of the trial to ensure uniform procedures at all sites. All sites and parties should also agree on procedures for publication of a final report. Research staff should receive training at every trial site on the uniform procedures. In addition, research staff at all sites should implement standard methods for recruitment and evaluation/monitoring of laboratory procedures and conduct of trial. There must be monitoring to ensure the sites are following the protocol, which must include measures to terminate the participation of some sites, if necessary. Finally, centralized data management and analysis should be planned as per G-WHO-DSMB.

Additional multicenter guidance is delineated in KEN-14:

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

1.25, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.23

4.1, 5.1, and 6

Glossary of Terms, 1.30-1.88, 1.340-1.345, and Annex 6

Part V

Science, Technology and Innovation (Registration and Accreditation of Research Institutions) Regulations, 2014 (Part II, First Schedule, and Second Schedule)

Part III (7)

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

As set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities. The MHCTR2006 indicates that the sponsor must also ensure that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Additionally, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. GBR-9 states that the chief investigator (CI) should be based in the United Kingdom (UK). In rare cases when this is not required, adequate arrangements must be in place for supervision of the study in the UK.

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

UK Local Information Pack

GBR-113 recommends establishing a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) to assess the progress of a clinical trial, including the safety data and the critical efficacy endpoints at intervals, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial.

Per GBR-63, researchers working with NHS/Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland (HSC) organizations across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales should use the UK Local Information Pack (LIP), which provides one (1) consistent package to support study setup and delivery across the UK.

The UKwide-Rsrch explains the LIP ensures that consistent information is given to all UK research sites and indicates that there are national differences in the LIP. In England and Wales, the LIP should include the Initial Assessment Letter, which may be shared with sites. Additionally, the sponsor should send the LIP directly to the site’s Research and Development (R&D) department, delivery team, and local clinical research network (if a National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Portfolio) using the England and Wales non-commercial email template or commercial email template, as appropriate. For Welsh sites, it is expected that the sponsor has a process to translate patient-facing documents into the Welsh language if requested by sites or participants. In Northern Ireland, the sponsor may send the LIP to each participating site’s R&D department and delivery team once the application has been validated and once instructed to do so by the Health and Social Care R&D Approvals Service. The LIP should be shared using the Northern Ireland non-commercial email template or commercial email template, as appropriate. In Scotland, the NHS Research Scotland Permissions Coordinating Centre makes the LIP available to participating R&D departments and the appropriate Network or Portfolio Manager. The sponsor is responsible for making the information available to the research teams using the Scotland email template, which covers both non-commercial and commercial studies.

For help with LIP packages, email templates and other requirements, see GBR-106.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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

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

1.1

5.23, 5.5, 5.6, 6, and 7

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval, Addition of New Sites & Investigators, Final Trial Management Documentation, Feasibility & Investigator Selection, Final Protocol, and Trial Master File

Preparing and Submitting Application (Site-specific information)

Changes to the trial sponsor/legal representative

2

Amending your trial protocol or other documentation

Insertion of Regulation 3A of the Principal Regulations, Insertion of Regulation 29A of the Principal Regulations, and Part 2 (Principles based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive)

Part 1 (3) and Part 3 (15)

Providing the UK Local Information Pack

Insurance & Compensation

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Insurance

As set forth in the G-KenyaCT and the G-ECBiomedRes, the sponsor must provide insurance cover for the study participants and ensure that the clinical trial institution, contract research organization (CRO), and researchers have sufficient insurance cover for the clinical trial. Per the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor’s policies and procedures should address the treatment costs for trial participants in the event of trial-related injuries, and the sponsor should submit this information as part of the clinical trial application (see KEN-34). In addition, a no-fault insurance cover must be obtained for all controlled human infection studies. The International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14) guides sponsors on providing insurance. Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in KEN-14.

For all sponsor-initiated studies, insurance coverage must be provided by an insurer registered by Kenya’s Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA), and a valid insurance certificate must be issued by the IRA prior to the trial’s initiation and cover the duration of the study. The insurance certificate must be submitted as evidence to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB). The certificate must be properly executed by an insurance company under a valid insurance policy which makes explicit reference to the proposed study. In addition, the policy must grant coverage for any participant injury that is causally linked to trial activities. The policy must also cover the investigator(s)’ and the sponsor(s)’ liability in the trial, without excluding any damage which may be attributed to negligence. Moreover, self-insurance of the participants by other entities, such as the National Health Insurance Fund, will not be sufficient.

Further, per the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor must ensure that the investigators and CROs have professional indemnity insurance coverage for the period of the trial. The host institution must also have in place sufficient insurance to meet the potential liability of its investigators, those acting on behalf of the investigators, and its research members.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the G-KenyaCT and the G-ECBiomedRes, the sponsor is responsible for providing compensation to research participants and/or their legal heirs in the event of trial-related injuries or death. Per the G-ECBiomedRes, participants are entitled to such financial or other assistance as would compensate them equitably for any temporary or permanent impairment or disability. In the case of adverse events, there should be proper assessment, evaluation, and compensation. The G-ECBiomedRes also indicates that when investigational vaccines contain active or live-attenuated micro-organisms, should participants in the control group contract the disease for which a vaccine is being tested, free treatment must be provided.

In addition, the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14) provides guidance for sponsors on providing compensation to research participants in the event of trial-related injuries or death. The sponsor must explain to participants the compensation and/or treatment available to them in the event of trial-related injuries.

Trial Participation

The G-ECBiomedRes defines compensation to include offers to participants, monetary or otherwise, to offset the time and inconvenience for participating in research.

Post-Trial Access

Per the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor must put in place measures to ensure that the study participants have access to successful investigational products for their disease condition before the products have received a marketing authorization in Kenya, especially for the Phase III clinical trials. The G-ECBiomedRes indicates that when investigational vaccines contain active or live-attenuated micro-organisms, post-trial access to the vaccine should be available to the control group.

4.8 and 5.8

Definitions, 3.2, 4.2, and 5.3

1.48, 1.63-1.130, 1.173-1.181, and 1.437-1.490

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Insurance

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

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

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

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

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

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

3, 4, and 6

Introduction and Basic Principles

5.8

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval (Trial Planning Phase) and Final Trial Management Documentation

Responsibilities

Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 3 (15), Part 4 (8), and Schedule 1 (Part 1 (1) and (16))

Risk & Quality Management

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor is responsible for maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol, the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), the STI-Regs, and other applicable regulatory requirements. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. In addition, per the STI-Regs, all persons and research institutions (i.e., sponsors) undertaking research in Kenya must ensure the highest standards and quality of research for the realization of institutional mandates and national priorities.

In addition to complying with KEN-14, the G-KenyaCT indicates QA processes should be developed to ensure:

Regular and continuous monitoring of the study and the implementation of monitoring reports’ recommendations
Submission of the study monitoring plan to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) during the initial submission of the application
The clinical trials research site must have valid registrations and approvals
Patient safety and confidentiality are not compromised
Analysis or evaluation of samples is performed in accordance with the protocol and good clinical practice (GCP) principles and, where applicable, the contract/agreement, the work instruction, and associated methods
Adherence to the laboratories’ policies and SOPs
Trial data is recorded and reported accurately, legibly, completely, and in a timely manner
Trial data is archived
Preparation of a work instruction detailing the procedures that will be used to conduct the analysis or evaluation prior to the initiation of sample analysis or evaluation, as necessary
Be built or adapted for the purpose
Have automated equipment for routine hematology, biochemistry, and serology tests
Have procedures for analyzer calibration and quality control
Regular maintenance of all the equipment, including point-of-care equipment
Have a procedure for transporting samples safely and quickly from clinical areas to the laboratory
Have written procedures for all assays, and to validate the assays
Reagents and consumables are used within their expiry dates based on a stock control procedure
Records are kept, including source documents and final reports
Have a procedure for authorizing and releasing results
Have a procedure for ‘flagging’ and notifying medical staff of abnormal results
Have a laboratory information management system, and validate and back up the system
Protective clothing and safety equipment are provided for staff
Have a central alarm system for all fridges and freezers
Have an internal audit program

Per KEN-14, the sponsor should implement a system to manage quality throughout all stages of the trial process, focusing on trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results. The quality management system should use a risk-based approach that includes:

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

Per the G-KenyaCT protocol violations and protocol deviations must be reported to the PPB within seven (7) days of the principal investigator (PI) becoming aware of them. The details to be reported must include:

Date of the deviation/violation
Study participant(s) affected
Name of the treating physician
Detailed description of the deviation/violation
Indication whether the study participants were adversely affected by the deviation/violation
Explanation of why the deviation/violation occurred
Measures taken to address the deviation/violation
Measures taken to preclude future recurrence of the deviation/violation

In addition, see G-KenyaCT for information about medical care of trial participants during and following the clinical trial. Also see the Bft-Risk for a standardized approach for evaluating and reporting the balance between the benefits and risks of health products, which includes investigational products (IPs) undergoing clinical trial application.

The CT-Emrgcy provides guidance to sponsors, PIs, and institutions on the conduct of clinical trials during public health emergencies to maximize the safety of research participants, minimize risks to participants and the community, and ensure the integrity of the clinical trials. See CT-Emrgcy for details on a range of issues, including contingency planning, communications with participants, changes to studies, protocol deviations, reporting, and supply of IPs during a public health emergency.

Controlled Human Infection Studies

The G-KenyaCT also provides detailed information on controlled human infection studies (CHIS) requirements to ensure investigator/study personnel compliance with GCP and other QA/QC requirements, including the following:

The well characterized strain of an infectious agent should be administered at a controlled dose and by a specific route to carefully selected adult volunteers
The studies require safe and accurate microbiology, good clinical facilities, careful recruitment, and monitoring
Participants must be monitored for evidence of carriage or infection under medical supervision to anticipate or manage symptoms of disease and adverse events
The value of the information to be gained should clearly justify the risks and the study must have a risk mitigation plan
The investigators should be adequately qualified, trained, and experienced in the conduct of CHIS as well as treating patients with the infectious disease being investigated

For the complete list of requirements, see the G-KenyaCT.

The G-ECBiomedRes provides additional considerations when investigational vaccines contain active or live-attenuated micro-organisms:

The participant to be vaccinated should be given adequate information about the adverse effects.
Should participants in the control group contract the disease for which a vaccine is being tested, free treatment must be provided.
Because the risks associated with vaccines produced by recombinant DNA techniques are not completely known, PPB guidelines must be strictly followed.
Post-trial access to the vaccine should be available to the control group

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the G-KenyaCT requires the sponsor to develop an internal audit program. The G-KenyaCT defines an audit as a systematic examination, carried out independently of those directly involved in the trial, to determine whether the conduct of a trial complies with the agreed study protocol and whether data reported are consistent with those on record at the site. Further, the sponsor is required to obtain agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities An investigator must, upon request from any properly authorized officer or employee of PPB, at reasonable times, permit such officer or employee to have access to, and copy and verify any records or reports made by the investigator.

Per KEN-14, the sponsor should develop a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. The extent and nature of monitoring is flexible and permits varied approaches that improve effectiveness and efficiency. The sponsor may choose onsite monitoring, a combination of onsite and centralized monitoring, or, where justified, centralized monitoring. The sponsor should document the rationale for the chosen monitoring strategy (e.g., in the monitoring plan).

KEN-31 indicate that the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) may conduct an evaluation, or cause an evaluation to be conducted, of a research study to assess and evaluate compliance with the conditions of the applicable research license.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

The G-KenyaCT states that if a trial is terminated by the PI or the sponsor, the PI or the sponsor must inform the PPB not later than 15 days following the termination date. The co-investigators must also be informed as soon as possible and should be advised in writing of potential risks to the research participants, and they must ensure that patients continue to receive medical care. The PPB must be provided with reason(s) for the termination and its impact on the proposed or ongoing trials with respect to the IP, including issues relating to IP accountability and disposal as well as record(s) maintenance. In addition, the PPB may withdraw the authorization to conduct a clinical trial if it finds that the safety of the participants is compromised or that the scientific reasons for conducting the trial have changed.

According to KEN-14, if it is discovered that noncompliance significantly affects or has the potential to significantly affect participant protection or reliability of trial results, the sponsor should perform a root cause analysis and implement appropriate corrective and preventive actions. Further, the EC should also be informed promptly and provided the reason(s) for the termination or suspension by the sponsor.

5.0-5.2, 5.5, 5.18-5.19, 5.21, and 6.10

4.2 and 5.3

1.42A, 1.63-1.88, 1.125, 1.437-1.491, 1.497-1.506, 1.525, and 1.533-1.536

The Science, Technology and Innovation (Registration and Accreditation of Research Institutions) Regulations, 2014 (Part III); and The Science, Technology and Innovation (Relevance and Quality Assurance in Research) Regulations, 2014 (Parts I-III)

Part III (8)

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

MHCTR2006 requires the sponsor to notify the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of serious breaches of good clinical practice (GCP) or the trial protocol. A serious breach is defined as one that is likely to affect to a significant degree: the safety or physical or mental integrity of the trial participants; or the scientific value of the trial. Per G-MHRA-SeriousBreaches, the sponsor or delegated party should notify the MHRA GCP Inspectorate within seven (7) days of becoming aware of a serious breach. Further, the sponsor should investigate and take action simultaneously after the MHRA notification. Notifications should primarily be sent to the following email address: GCP.SeriousBreaches@mhra.gov.uk.

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

See GBR-10 for best practices in improving clinical trial setup to reduce timelines and increase citizens’ access to research. Also see GBR-34 for investigator training and guidance on implementing people-centered research.

Monitoring Requirements

Per GBR-18, the sponsor must develop an audit plan to assess and assure the reliability and integrity of the clinical trial systems against all relevant written standards. The following activities and checks could include the following:

Interview staff to assess whether they are appropriately trained; understand their role(s); and are working to all relevant standards, the protocol, and SOPs.
Tour the facility to assess if there are adequate resources and if the equipment is fit for its intended use.
Review documents to evaluate whether data reported is verifiable from source data and that written records confirm that the trial was conducted appropriately.

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

Per GBR-18, the MHRA may conduct inspections to ensure the clinical trial is being conducted in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) as prescribed in GBR-92 and GBR-113. The MHRA takes a risk-based approach to inspections depending on the type of trials and risk rating. Once an inspection has been completed, a formal report outlining the findings will be sent to the inspected organization. A response to this report (describing any corrective and preventive actions) must be produced. See GBR-92 for pre-inspection checklists and other resources. Per G-RiskAssmt, GCP Inspectors will review risk assessments. The risk assessment should provide the rationale behind trial management/monitoring and GCP activities applied, or not, to the trial.

Finally, the sponsor’s audits and inspections should be conducted in compliance with GBR-113, which calls for a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. The extent and nature of monitoring is flexible and permits varied approaches that improve effectiveness and efficiency. The sponsor may choose on-site monitoring, a combination of on-site and centralized monitoring, or where justified, centralized monitoring. The sponsor should document the rationale for the chosen monitoring strategy (e.g., in the monitoring plan). The G-Ovrsight provides additional guidance to assist sponsors and those conducting trials on implementing adequate oversight and monitoring processes for clinical trials.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

The G-CTAuth-GBR states that the MHRA has the authority to suspend or terminate a trial. In addition, the sponsor can contact the MHRA to put a trial on temporary halt or terminate a trial. If a sponsor suspends a trial temporarily, the MHRA must be notified. Sponsors of clinical trials of investigational products (CTIMPs) must use the combined review part of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125) to submit this notification as a substantial amendment. Per GBR-122, for studies that were submitted before combined review, these applicants should continue to submit this notification at IRAS via GBR-78. The G-CTAuth-GBR indicates the notification should be made as a substantial amendment using the amendment tool, clearly explaining what has been stopped and the reasons for the suspension. To restart a trial that has been temporarily suspended, you must make the request as a substantial amendment using the notification of amendment form, providing evidence that it is safe to restart the trial.

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR and GBR-18, to terminate a CTIMP, the sponsor must notify (as a substantial amendment) the MHRA and the EC via the combined review part of IRAS (GBR-125). For studies that were submitted before combined review, the submission should be made at GBR-78, using the end-of-trial form (GBR-133). GBR-128 specifies that for CTIMPs, the declaration of end of trial must be sent to the MHRA within 15 days of the global premature end of trial. Before declaring an end of the study, sponsors should review the plans that were approved by the EC for use of tissue and data collected in the course of the study, providing information to participants, and dissemination of results. If changes need to be made to these agreed upon arrangements, the sponsor should consider whether an amendment is required before submitting the end of study notification. GBR-65 also states that if research is terminated early or is temporarily suspended, then all relevant review bodies should be notified within 15 days.

According to GBR-113, if it is discovered that noncompliance significantly affects or has the potential to significantly affect participant protection or reliability of trial results, the sponsor should perform a root cause analysis and implement appropriate corrective and preventive actions. Further, the sponsor should also inform the EC promptly and provide the reason(s) for the termination or suspension.

5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.18, 5.19, 5.21, and 6.10

Ongoing Management & Monitoring, MHRA Inspection, Audit, Temporary Halt, Early Termination, and End of Trial Declaration

Early termination or temporary halt of research

Suspend or Terminate a Trial and End of Trial

Amendment of Regulation 31 of the Principal Regulations and Part 2 (Principles Based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive)

Part 3 (15), Part 4 (28), Part 6 (36 and 38), and Schedule 7 (Parts 2 and 3)

Data & Records Management

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Electronic Data Processing System

Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14). As per KEN-14, when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor must ensure that the electronic data processing system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance. Per KEN-14, the sponsor should base their approach to validate such systems on a risk assessment that takes into consideration the intended use and the potential of the system to affect participant protection and reliability of trial results. In addition, the sponsor should maintain standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the systems that cover setup, installation, and use. The responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties should be clear, and the system users should be provided with training. Refer to KEN-14 for additional information.

Records Management

According to the G-KenyaCT, it is the responsibility of the investigator and the sponsor to archive safely all trial-related documentation. All Kenyan trial site-related documentation must be archived within the country and not exported. Additionally, the sponsor/applicant must inform the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB)’s Expert Committee on Clinical Trials (ECCT) in writing prior to destroying any trial documents. The notification must include the protocol number, start and end date, and the license number.

The G-KenyaCT states that study documents must be archived for a minimum of 10 years from the end of the study. Also, records must be made available to the PPB within three (3) days if there is a concern regarding the use of a clinical trial drug and/or a risk to the health of the clinical trial participant. In any other case, records must be provided within seven (7) days of request.

Per the STI-Regs, sponsors should store research findings and information regarding research systems in a designated location with clear labels of the subject area. Research findings must be documented in bound books or documents with the research title, author, year, and other relevant information clearly printed on the cover page. A report of research work by staff and the research institution must be submitted to the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) within two (2) months after publication or compilation of the research report.

In addition, KEN-14 states that the sponsor and investigator/institution should maintain a record of the location(s) of their respective essential documents including source documents. The storage system used during the trial and for archiving (irrespective of the type of media used) should allow for document identification, version history, search, and retrieval. The sponsor should ensure that the investigator has control of and continuous access to the data reported to the sponsor. The investigator/institution should have control of all essential documents and records generated by the investigator/institution before, during, and after the trial.

1.65, 5.5, and 8

Glossary of Terms, 1.48, 1.63, and 1.537-1.541

The Science, Technology and Innovation (Registration and Accreditation of Research Institutions) Regulations, 2014 (Part IV)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Electronic Data Processing System

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

According to GBR-113, when using electronic trial data handling processing systems, the sponsor must ensure and document that the electronic data processing system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance. To validate such systems, the sponsor should use a risk assessment approach that takes into consideration the system’s intended use and potential to affect human participant protection and reliability of trial results. In addition, the sponsor must maintain standard operating procedures (SOPs) that cover system setup, installation, and use. The SOPs should describe system validation and functionality testing, data collection and handling, system maintenance, system security measures, change control, data backup, recovery, contingency planning, and decommissioning. With respect to the use of these computerized systems, the responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties should be clear, and the users should receive relevant training.

Records Management

As set forth in GBR-113, sponsor-specific essential documents should be retained until at least two (2) years after the last approval of a marketing application, until there are no pending or contemplated marketing applications, or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of the investigational product’s clinical development. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

However, per the MHCTR2006, the sponsor and the Chief Investigator must ensure that the documents contained in the trial master file are retained for at least five (5) years following the trial’s completion. The documents must be readily available to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) upon request and be complete and legible. The sponsor should ensure that trial participant medical files are also retained for at least five (5) years after the trial’s conclusion.

In addition, GBR-113 states that the sponsor and investigator/institution should maintain a record of the location(s) of their respective essential documents including source documents. The storage system used during the trial and for archiving (irrespective of the type of media used) should allow for document identification, version history, search, and retrieval. The sponsor should ensure that the investigator has control of and continuous access to the data reported to the sponsor. The investigator/institution should have control of all essential documents and records generated by the investigator/institution before, during, and after the trial.

1.65, 5.18, and 8

Part 2 (Principles Based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive)

Personal Data Protection

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Responsible Parties

For the purposes of data protection requirements, DPA delineates that the sponsor acts as the “data controller” in relation to research data. This is because the sponsor determines the purpose and means of processing personal data. The "data processor" processes personal data on behalf of the data controller. Data controllers and processors must be registered with the Kenya Data Commissioner. Per the DataProtect, an application for registration of a data controller or data processor must be on Form DPR1 (found in the First Schedule of DataProtect) with supporting materials and the required registration fees as specified in the Second Schedule. See the DataProtect for additional details on registration requirements.

Data Protection

Per the DPA, the data controller (sponsor) must ensure that personal data is:

Processed in accordance with the right to privacy of the data subject
Processed lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner in relation to any data subject
Collected for explicit, specified, and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner incompatible with those purposes
Adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which it is processed
Collected only where a valid explanation is provided whenever information relating to family or private affairs is required
Accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date, with every reasonable step being taken to ensure that any inaccurate personal data is erased or rectified without delay
Kept in a form that identifies the data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which it was collected
Not transferred outside Kenya, unless there is proof of adequate data protection safeguards or consent from the data subject

The DataProtect, which implements the DPA, requires data controllers and data processors to develop, publish, and regularly update a policy on their personal data handling practices. The policy should include the nature of personal data collected and held, how a data subject may access their personal data, complaints handling mechanisms, the lawful purpose for processing personal data, and requirements for when personal data is to be transferred outside Kenya. Regarding cross-border transfers of data, a data controller or data processor who is a transferring entity must (before transferring personal data out of Kenya) ascertain that the transfer is necessary. This necessity decision should be based on considerations such as data protection safeguards, an adequacy decision made by the Data Commissioner, and if there is consent of the data subject.

Per the DataProtect, data controllers and/or data processors must retain personal data processed for a lawful purpose and only as long as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose for which the personal data is processed. A data controller or data processor must establish a personal data retention schedule with appropriate time limits and periodic reviews. When the retention period has ended, the personal data must be erased, anonymized, or pseudonymized.

See DataProtect for additional details on data protection, including data subject rights, data protection design and principles, notification of breaches, impact assessments, and exemptions.

See Parts IV-VII of the DPA for detailed requirements on data processing, sensitive personal data, exemptions, and transfer of personal data outside of Kenya. The G-ECBiomedRes requires compliance with the DPA.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per the DPA, the data controller (sponsor) or data processor must bear the burden of proof for establishing a data subject’s consent to the processing of their personal data for a specified purpose. For the purposes of processing personal data, consent means any manifestation of express, unequivocal, free, specific, and informed indication of the data subject’s wishes by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifying agreement to the processing of personal data relating to the data subject. Unless otherwise provided under the DPA, a data subject has the right to withdraw consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent must not affect the lawfulness of processing based on prior consent before its withdrawal.

The DataProtect requires data controllers and data processors to ensure that a data subject has the capacity to consent and voluntarily gives consent. In seeking consent (prior to the processing), the data subject should be informed of:

The identity of the data controller or data processor
The purpose of each of the processing operations for which consent is sought
The type of personal data that is collected and used
Information about the use of the personal data for automated decision-making, where relevant
The possible risks of data transfers due to absence of an adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards
Whether the personal data processed will be shared with third parties
The right to withdraw consent
The implications of providing, withholding, or withdrawing consent

Per the DataProtect, this information may be presented to the data subject through a written notice, oral statement, audio or video message. The data controller or a data processor must ensure that the data subject has the capacity to voluntarily give consent that is specific to the purpose of processing.

Children

The DPA indicates that in cases where the data subject is a minor, a person who has parental authority or a guardian may exercise personal data protection rights conferred on the subject. With regard to data processing, the DPA requires that every data controller (sponsor) or data processor must not process personal data relating to a child unless consent is given by the child's parent or guardian and the processing is in a manner that protects and advances the rights and best interests of the child. A data controller or data processor must incorporate appropriate mechanisms for age verification and consent to process personal data of a child, including available technology, volume of personal data processed, proportion of such personal data likely to be that of a child, possibility of harm to a child arising out of processing of personal data, and other factors as may be specified by the Kenya Data Commissioner.

Mentally Impaired

The DPA indicates that in cases where the data subject has a mental or other disability, a person duly authorized to act as the participant’s guardian or administrator may exercise personal data protection rights conferred on the subject.

4.2.5

Part I (2), Part III (18) and (25), and Parts IV-VII

No. 263 (Parts I-X) and No. 265 (5, First Schedule, and Second Schedule)

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Responsible Parties

For purposes of data protection requirements, the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, and the G-GDPR delineate that the sponsor acts as the “controller” in relation to research data. This is because the sponsor determines what data is collected for the research study through the protocol, case report form, and/or structured data fields in a database. GBR-7 provides guidance on key data protection requirements to consider in the post-Brexit environment. Among other things, it describes how data can continue to flow to and from the United Kingdom (UK), as well as controller responsibilities.

Data Protection

Per the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, the G-GDPR, and GBR-89, the sponsor (known as the “controller” in data protection legislation) must comply with the following principles of the data protection legislation:

Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency
Purpose limitation
Data minimization
Accuracy
Storage limitation
Integrity and confidentiality (security)
Accountability

The sponsor must show that each data processing activity has a lawful basis under this legislation, in addition to the common law basis. For health and social care research, the lawful basis is determined by the data controller’s organization type:

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

As described in the G-GDPR, with regard to transparency, the sponsor should understand whether personal data is collected indirectly from a third party or directly, as these determine the actions to take to comply with data protection requirements. In most cases, the sponsor will need to provide transparency information about the legal basis and other details of processing personal data. See the table in G-GDPR, which sets out the specific transparency requirements for personal data. In addition, GBR-100 contains a series of templates by the Health Research Authority (HRA) with suggested transparency language. Further, the sponsor should take measures to ensure data is processed securely, giving consideration to security, storage, and pseudonymization/anonymization when possible. For details on complying with security and storage requirements, see GBR-100.

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

For more information on data protection requirements following the UK’s transition out of the European Union (EU), see GBR-7.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

The UKwide-Rsrch describes the following differences among the UK nations regarding accessing identifiable data without consent, including for potential participants:

England and Wales – If the project involves access to identifiable patient data relating to people living or receiving care and treatment in England and Wales without consent, the sponsor may need to apply to the HRA via the Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) (GBR-38). The CAG provides advice to the HRA on the use of confidential patient information for research uses. See GBR-41 for details and resources on the CAG.
Northern Ireland – There is currently no legal basis for those outside of the direct care team to process identifiable data without consent. The Health and Social Care Privacy Advisory Committee can provide advice on any options available in Northern Ireland. The Health and Social Care Honest Broker Service does not provide identifiable data for consented studies or trials but may be able to offer advice on options to access anonymized data to support research
Scotland – If a project is multi-center, a sponsor will need to obtain permissions through the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care. For single center studies, applicants should contact the Caldicott Guardian at the research site to discuss the requirements for accessing the data

UK-US Data Bridge

As explained in GBR-22, under the “UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework” (GBR-23), businesses in the UK can transfer personal data to certified U.S. organizations without further safeguards as defined in the GBR-23. US organizations that have been certified can opt in to receive data from the UK through the UK-US data bridge. Per GBR-19, before transferring personal data, UK organizations must verify that the receiving US organization is certified pursuant to GBR-23. Sensitive personal data must be appropriately identified as sensitive when transferred under the UK-US data bridge to ensure it receives appropriate protections under the framework. Under the UK extension, sensitive personal information includes genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, and data concerning sexual orientation. See GBR-22, GBR-23, and GBR-19 for additional information about the UK Extension to the Data Privacy Framework.

Principles, Lawful Basis for Processing, Individual Rights, Accountability and Governance

Part 1, Part 2 (Chapter 2), and Schedules 2-4

Will identifiable, confidential patient data be accessed outside the care team without prior consent at any stage of the project (including identification of potential participants)?

Documentation Requirements

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Obtaining Consent

In all Kenyan clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14). (Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in KEN-14.) The informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by a National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI)-accredited institutional ethics committee (EC). The ICF must be provided to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) with the clinical trial application. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

The CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, and the G-ECBiomedRes state that the investigator, or the designated representative, must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. Per G-ECBiomedRes, all individual consent must be written and, in no case, should collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual informed consent. The G-KenyaCT and the G-ECBiomedRes also specify that the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the ICF, should be easy to understand and presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. None of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive the legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or the representatives from their liabilities for any negligence. The participant or legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

Re-Consent

According to the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, and KEN-14, any change in the ICF due to a protocol modification should be approved by the EC before such changes are implemented. The participant or legal representative/guardian will also be required to re-sign the revised ICF and receive a copy of any amended documentation.

Language Requirements

As stated in the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the ICF content should be presented in either English or Kiswahili, and the local spoken language of the area, where applicable. Copies of the English ICF should be submitted to the PPB and to the EC.

Documenting Consent

The CTRules and the G-KenyaCT state that the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the person who conducted the informed consent discussion should sign and personally date the ICF. 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 an impartial witness. Before participating in the study, the participant should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF, and any other written information provided during the informed consent process. The participant or legal representative/guardian should also receive a copy of any updates to the signed and dated ICF.

According to KEN-14, where the participant is illiterate and/or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. The witness should sign and date the ICF after the following steps have occurred:

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

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

Waiver of Consent

No information is available.

2, 4.4, 4.8, 8.2, and 8.3

Definitions, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.13

1.48, 1.63, and 1.188-1.212

Part IV (11)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Obtaining Consent

In all United Kingdom (UK) clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113). As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-9, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an ethics committee (EC) recognized by the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) (henceforth referred to as a “recognized EC”) and operating according to standard operating procedures (GBR-9) issued by England’s Health Research Authority (HRA).) Refer to GBR-18 and GBR-69 for more on informed consent in the UK.

The MHCTR and G-ConsentPIS, state that the investigator(s) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The MHCTR and G-ConsentPIS also specify that the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the ICF, should be easy to understand and presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant and the legal representative/guardian, should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. Per G-ConsentPIS, the Participant Information Sheet (PIS) supports the consent process to help ensure participants have been adequately informed. In addition, the PIS forms part of the transparency information that must be provided to participants under the data protection legislation for the use and processing of personal data. (See the Personal Data Protection section for more information on data protection requirements.) For more guidance on the PIS, see the PrtInfoQty-Stds, the PrtInfo-DesignPrin, and GBR-14, which include FAQs, information principles, and standards.

Per GBR-31, the HRA guides researchers and ECs in taking a proportionate approach to seeking consent. A proportionate approach adopts procedures commensurate with the balance of risk and benefits so that potential participants are not overwhelmed by unnecessarily lengthy, complex, and inaccessible information sheets. Participants should be provided with succinct, relevant, truthful information in a user-friendly manner that promotes their autonomy. Specifically, the methods and procedures used to seek informed consent and the level of information provided should be proportionate to:

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

Per GBR-113, none of the oral and written information concerning the clinical trial, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive any legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator, the institution, the sponsor, or their agents from liability for negligence.

Re-Consent

According to GBR-113, the EC should approve any change in the ICF due to a protocol modification before such changes are implemented. The participant or legal representative/guardian will also be required to re-sign the revised ICF and receive a copy of any amended documentation.

Per GBR-18, during a clinical trial, researchers should periodically reaffirm the willingness of participants to continue. If significant new information becomes available, participants should be reconsented using revised (and re-approved) consent documents so that their continued consent is confirmed.

Language Requirements

As stated in the MHCTR, applications to the EC and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and any accompanying material, such as the ICF content, should be presented in English.

Documenting Consent

The MHCTR states that the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the investigator(s) must sign and date the ICF. Where the participant is illiterate, or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of and countersigned by an impartial witness. As provided in G-ConsentPIS, consent can be documented electronically or in writing. A physical or electronic copy of the signed consent form will still need to be provided to the participant. To record consent electronically, electronic signatures will be needed. Because there are different forms and classifications of electronic signatures, the researcher should determine what is appropriate for the particular study. GBR-6 sets out the legal and ethical requirements for seeking and documenting consent using electronic methods (also known as eConsent in the UK), as well as expectations regarding the use of electronic signatures. eConsent enables potential research participants to be provided with the information they need to make a decision via a tablet, smartphone, or digital multimedia. It also enables their informed consent to be documented using electronic signatures. This approach can supplement the traditional paper-based approach or, where appropriate, replace it.

Waiver of Consent

No information is currently available.

1 and 2

2, 4.4, 4.8, 8.2, and 8.3

Informed Consent

Principles of consent - General principals and Role of Participant Information Sheets; Content - Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form; and Examples and Templates

Amendment of Regulation 3 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 15 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Schedule 3 to the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Principles Based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive and Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (3), Part 3 (12, 15, 17, and 18), Schedule 1 (Part 1 (3) and Part 2), and Schedule 3 (Parts 1 and 3)

Required Elements

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Based on the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), 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):

Title of the project and that the study involves research and an explanation of its nature and purpose
The expected duration of the participant’s participation
The participant’s responsibilities in participating in the trial
Experimental aspects of the study
Approximate number of participants involved in the trial
Trial treatment schedule and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
Principal investigator(s), institution, and ethics committee (EC) contact information, the person(s) to contact for further information regarding the trial and the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
Any foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
Any expected benefits or prorated payment to the participant; if no benefit is expected, the participant should also be made aware of this
Alternative procedures or treatment that may be available to the participant, including a statement on disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment that might be advantageous to participants when the research involves non-validated procedures, devices, or therapies
Compensation and/or medical treatment available to the participant or the family or dependents in the event of a trial-related injury
Any additional costs to the participant that may result from participation in the research
The extent to which confidentiality records identifying the participant will be maintained, and if the results of the trial are published, the participant’s identity will remain confidential
That the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) will be granted direct access to the participant’s original medical records to verify clinical trial procedures and/or data without violating the participant’s confidentiality
The details on storage and exportation of biological samples, if applicable
The details on storage and ownership of personal data
Information about unblinding, if applicable
The extent of the investigator’s responsibility, if any, to provide medical services to the participant
That therapy will be provided free of charge for specified types of research-related injury, including the investigators’ responsibilities in this regard
That participation is voluntary, the participant may withdraw at any time, 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
That the participant will be informed about the dissemination of findings and about any publication of the participant’s medical information, including photographs and pedigree charts
Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent
That the participant or 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
Consent to incomplete disclosure, for example, if it is necessary to inform participants that some information is being withheld deliberately and the reasons for that decision; an offer to disclose the purpose at the conclusion of the study can be made

Note that per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in KEN-14.

In addition, the CTRules delineates that if the potential participant is a child, the ICF must also contain these elements:

The pathophysiology of the disease or subject of the clinical trial
The methods of diagnosis
The currently available treatment or prevention strategy in the pediatric population
The incidence and prevalence of the disease or subject of the clinical trial in the overall population and in the pediatric population
The evidence and assumptions on key differences between the disease or subject of the clinical trial in the overall population and the pediatric population

4.4 and 4.8

Definitions, 4.1, and 4.2

1.48, 1.63, and 1.188-1.212

Part IV (10 and 11)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Based on the MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

The study purpose, procedures, and duration
Study title and the study Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) ID are clearly displayed
Approximate number of participants involved in the trial
The participant’s responsibilities in participating in the trial
Trial treatment schedule and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
Experimental aspects of the study
Any foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
Any benefits or prorated payment to the participant or to others that may reasonably be expected from 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
Compensation and/or medical treatment available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury
Any additional costs to the participant that may result from participation in the research
That participation is voluntary, the participant may withdraw at any time, 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
The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, and the possibility of record access by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the ethics committees (ECs), the auditor(s), and the monitor(s)
That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified if significant new findings developed during the study may affect the participant's willingness to continue
Individuals to contact for further information regarding the trial, the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent

ICF examples and templates are provided in the G-ConsentPIS.

For more information about informed consent required elements, see GBR-18, GBR-113, GBR-100, GBR-31, and GBR-69.

1 and 2

4.4 and 4.8

Informed Consent

Principles of consent - General principles and Role of Participant Information Sheets; Content - Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form

Part 1 (3), Part 3 (12 and 15), and Schedule 3 (Parts 1 and 3)

Participant Rights

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (KEN-33) principles upheld in the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), Kenya’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process. Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in KEN-14.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and KEN-14, a participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As delineated in the CTRules, the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and KEN-14, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The DPA further indicates that data subjects have a right to:

Be informed of how their personal data is to be used
Access their personal data in custody of the data controller (sponsor) or data processor
Object to the processing of all or part of their personal data
Correct false or misleading data
Delete false or misleading data about them

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and KEN-14, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The G-KenyaCT, KEN-14, and the G-ECBiomedRes state that the participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries. Further, the G-ECBiomedRes requires that the ethics committee contact information also be provided.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The G-ECBiomedRes and KEN-14 state that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society. KEN-14 upholds the Declaration of Helsinki (KEN-33). (See the Required Elements and Vulnerable Populations sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.)

3.1 and 4.8

3.1, 4.1, and 4.2

1.48, 1.63, and 1.188-1.212

Part IV (26) and Part V (46-47)

Part IV (11 and 17)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-ConsentPIS, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The MHCTR states 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 set forth in the MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-113, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that they may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As delineated in the MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-113, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the MHCTR and GBR-113, the arrangements to protect participants’ privacy should be provided in the application to the ethics committee, and the ICF should inform potential participants of any potential risk to their confidentiality.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The MHCTR and GBR-113 state that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-113 state that a research participant’s rights, safety, and well-being must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

4.8

Principles and Content

Amendment of Regulation 3 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Principles Based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive and Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (3 and 15), Schedule 1 (Parts 1, 2, and 5)

Emergencies

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

The G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when the procedure is complicated by emergencies. Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with KEN-14. As delineated in the G-KenyaCT and the G-ECBiomedRes, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) cannot be obtained from the research participant, the consent of the legal representative/guardian should be obtained. If the prior consent of the participant or legal representative/guardian cannot be obtained, the participant’s enrollment should follow measures specified in the protocol, and/or elsewhere, to ensure compliance with ethics committee (EC) and the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) requirements. The G-ECBiomedRes requires that the principle of clinical equipoise be applied, which essentially means the participant is not any worse off by enrolling.

During a public health emergency, the G-KenyaCT stipulates that the informed consent of participants must be obtained in individuals capable of giving informed consent. The CT-Emrgcy includes safeguards to protect clinical trial participants during a public health emergency, including the recommendation to reconsent if there are amendments as a result of the emergency.

Per KEN-14, in an emergency, if the signed ICF has not been obtained from the participant or legal representative/guardian, or if an effective treatment is lacking but the investigational product could address the participant’s emergency needs, the clinical trial may be conducted. However, the method used on the participant must be explained clearly in the trial protocol, and the EC must approve the protocol in advance. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

4.8

4.1 and 4.2

Participants

1.48, 1.63, 1.188-1.212, and 1.557-1.574

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

The MHCTR, the MHCTR2006-No2, the MHCTR-BSQ, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113) make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when a clinical trial of an investigational product (IP) is complicated by medical emergencies. As delineated in the G-ConsentPIS and GBR-18, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) cannot be obtained from the research participant, the consent of the legal representative/guardian should be obtained. If the prior consent of the participant or legal representative/guardian cannot be obtained, the participant’s enrollment should follow measures specified in the protocol, and the ethics committee (EC) must provide documented approval in order to protect the participant’s rights, safety, and well-being. The participant or legal representative/guardian should provide consent as soon as possible.

The MHCTR-BSQ amends the MHCTR and creates an exception for minors participating in a trial where urgent treatment is required and prior consent cannot be obtained. This situation also requires the EC to issue its approval beforehand.

The MHCTR2006-No2 amends the MHCTR and creates an exception to the general rule in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales that incapacitated adults cannot be included in a clinical trial under medical emergencies. If the treatment to be provided is a matter of urgency and obtaining prior consent is not possible, incapacitated adult participants may be included in the trial once EC approval has been obtained. In Scotland, the provisions of Section 51 of the AIA2000 govern the inclusion of adults lacking capacity in research.

The G-ConsentPIS states that the United Kingdom allows adults not able to consent for themselves to be recruited into clinical trials without prior consent in emergency situations if the following conditions exist:

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

4.8.15

Informed Consent

Principles of Consent - Emergency Research

Section 51

4 and Explanatory Note

2 and Explanatory Note

Schedule 1 (Parts 4 and 5)

Vulnerable Populations

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Overview

As per the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), in all Kenyan clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. Vulnerable populations include those participants with diminished autonomy whose decision to participate in a clinical trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation of benefits associated with participation or by coercion. This may include, but is not limited to, children/minors, pregnant women, neonates, fetuses, medical students, members of the uniformed forces, prisoners, orphans, homeless populations, unemployed, internally displaced persons, economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, marginalized social groups, individuals with terminal illnesses, and the mentally challenged. KEN-14 also includes members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students, subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel, employees of the pharmaceutical industry, members of the armed forces, and persons kept in detention. Other vulnerable subjects include persons in nursing homes, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent. Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in KEN-14.

Elderly Persons

The G-ECBiomedRes defines an elderly/senior citizen as a person who has attained the age of 65 years. Their physical or mental state may affect their ability to make voluntary decisions regarding their participation in research projects. Such research involving elderly/senior citizens must comply with the following requirements:

Strict adherence to ethical principles
The risk-benefit ratio must be favorable to the research participant
The participants must be protected from gross violation of human rights

Persons in Dependent Groups

Per the G-ECBiomedRes, research involving data collection by superiors on their subordinates involves relationships such as employer-employee, teacher-students, supervisor-staff, sponsor-dependent, and parent-children. This relationship impairs independent consent by the participants leading to complacency. Therefore, research involving the superior/subordinate relationships must fulfill the following requirements:

The superior must strictly follow ethical principles to avoid undue pressure
Subordinates must be protected from gross violation of human rights
The trial design must be based on a need-to-know principle and improve the conditions of the participants

Persons in Low-Resource Communities

The G-ECBiomedRes provides the following requirements related to conducting research on participants in low-resource settings:

Persons in such settings should not be involved in research that could be carried out reasonably well in developed communities
The research should be responsive to the health needs and priorities of the community in which it is to be implemented
Undue inducement to participate in the research must be avoided at all costs

Armed Forces

The G-ECBiomedRes stipulates that research involving the members of the armed forces may be vulnerable because of the conditions of their service, which may affect their ability to make voluntary decisions regarding their participation in research. Such research must be conducted to ensure that:

Participants are protected from gross violations of human rights
There is strict adherence to ethical principles
There is at least one (1) member of the ethics committee approving such research who is an enlisted and authoritative member of the armed forces

Terminally Ill

Per the G-ECBiomedRes, research involving participants who are terminally ill with an incurable medical condition are vulnerable. Their state may affect their ability to make voluntary decisions regarding their participation in research. Such research can only be conducted when:

The objectives of the project(s) cannot be achieved using another non-vulnerable group
There is strict adherence to ethical principles
The risk-benefit ratio should be favorable to the research participant

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

1.61, 3.1, and 4.8

4.2

Glossary of Terms, 1.48, and 1.63

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

As per the MHCTR and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), in all United Kingdom (UK) clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process.

Per GBR-131, vulnerability may be defined in different ways and may arise as a result of being in an abusive relationship, vulnerability due to age, potential marginalization, disability, and due to disadvantageous power relationships within personal and professional roles. Participants may not be conventionally vulnerable but may be in a dependent relationship that means they can feel coerced or pressured into taking part.

As stated in GBR-131, researchers must assess potential vulnerability within the context of the research, in terms of potential consequences from their participation (immediate and long-term) or lack of positive impact where this is immediately needed or expected. Further, researchers should make the participants aware of the limits to confidentiality and decide whether verbal or written consent will be more appropriate and protective of the participants’ interests. In addition, researchers should consider the following:

Participants’ vulnerability
Potential negative consequences or lack of personal benefits from their involvement in research where these are expected
Providing appropriate information to elicit freely-given informed consent for participation as well as information regarding data deposit and data re-use (where deposit is possible)
Limits to confidentiality and occasions where this may occur
Legal requirements of working with the specific population
Incentives and compensation for participation

In addition, GBR-131 states that when working with participants who are considered vulnerable, researchers may find themselves in a position of increased responsibilities or expectations. Researchers should endeavor to assess the likelihood of additional ethics issues and develop strategies and a framework of clear responsibilities they can refer to should such issues arise. They should also use their research ethics committee as a resource for advice and guidance. Researchers should be able to justify the approach they take in dealing with unforeseen ethics issues and maintain the integrity of the research.

As per GBR-131, in cases where research involves potentially vulnerable groups, every effort should be made to secure freely given informed consent that participants have actively provided. Every effort should be made to ensure that they have the time and opportunity to access support in their decision-making, for example by discussing their choice with a trusted adult or relative. Passive assent, including group assent (with consent given by a gatekeeper) should be avoided wherever possible, and every effort should be made to develop methods of seeking consent that are appropriate to the groups studied, using expert advice, support, and training, where necessary. Vulnerability should be considered on a case-by-case basis; many groups or individuals not traditionally considered as vulnerable could be exposed to issues from participating in research that make them vulnerable. See GBR-131 for additional resources and case studies.

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

1.61, 3.1, and 4.8

Schedule 1 (Parts 1, 4, and 5)

Children/Minors

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

According to the G-KenyaCT, a minor is someone under 18 years of age. As set forth in the G-KenyaCT, the G-ECBiomedRes, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from the parent/guardian. Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in KEN-14. The informed consent forms, assent forms, and the patient information sheets should be in a language that the parent/guardian clearly understand. All pediatric participants should be fully informed about the trial and its risks and benefits in a language and terms that they are easily able to understand.

Per the G-KenyaCT, a minor should take part in the informed consent procedure in a way tailored to their age and mental maturity. If capable, the participant should sign and personally date the written informed consent. In addition, consent given by pediatric participants should not be considered valid without prior approval by the ethics committee (EC).

The CTRules, the G-ECBiomedRes, and the G-KenyaCT state that a study may only be conducted on minors if several conditions are fulfilled including (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Pediatric participants will not be involved in research that might be equally carried out in adults
The purpose of the research is to generate knowledge relevant to the health needs of children
The parent/guardian must provide proxy consent and ensure assent has been obtained to the extent of the child’s capabilities. However, if the minor refuses to participate after proxy consent is given, the minor’s refusal must be respected unless there is no other medical alternative from which the minor could benefit
The risk presented by interventions not intended to benefit the minor is low and commensurate with the importance of the knowledge to be gained
Interventions that are intended to provide therapeutic benefit are likely to be at least as advantageous to the individual child as any available alternative
No incentives or financial inducements are given to the participant or parent/guardian except to provide compensation for expenses and loss of earnings directly related to the participation in the trial

Additionally, per the G-KenyaCT, the trial should also address the following considerations:

Provide useful answers to the study population
The medicine satisfies a need for the population being studied
Children are adequately monitored and protected
If there is no direct benefit to the child, or there is no more than minimal risk to the participant(s)
Trial results will be published
End-of-trial treatment provisions will be made

Assent Requirements

As delineated in the G-KenyaCT, before undertaking research involving children, the investigator must ensure that the agreement (assent) of each child has been obtained to the extent of the child’s capabilities, and a child’s refusal to participate or continue in the research must be respected. Assent is defined as a child’s affirmative agreement to participate in research, where the child is below the age of the majority but old enough to understand the proposed research in general, its expected risks and possible benefits, and the activities expected of them as participants. The G-ECBiomedRes provides that in children above seven (7) years and below 18 years where the parent(s)/guardian(s) gives proxy consent, assent must be obtained from the child.

For an example of an accredited EC’s assent requirements, see the Kenyatta National Hospital-University of Nairobi (KNH-UoN) Ethics and Research Committee’s sample minor assent form (KEN-17).

4.8

Parental Consent for Children and Sample Minor Assent Form

4.2

Glossary of Terms, 1.48, 1.63, and 1.131-1.172

Part IV (10)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

According to the MHCTR and GBR-4, a minor in the United Kingdom (UK) is an individual under 16 years of age.

As set forth in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-ConsentPIS, GBR-4, GBR-9, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from a parent/legal guardian. As per GBR-4, the researcher needs only to obtain consent from one (1) person with parental responsibility. GBR-130 further indicates that the parent/legal guardian must not be connected with the conduct of the trial, is suitable to act by virtue of their relationship with the child/young person, and is available and willing to do so. A legal representative should only ever be approached if someone with parental responsibility cannot be contacted prior to the proposed inclusion of the child/young person due to the urgent nature of the treatment provided as part of the trial. In this situation, a professional legal representative (e.g., a doctor) can be responsible for the medical treatment of the child/young person if they are independent of the study, or a person nominated by the healthcare provider.

Additionally, GBR-130 states that researchers must ensure that the parent/legal guardian:

Understand that they are being asked to give consent on behalf of the child/young person
Understand the objectives, risks, and inconveniences of the trial and the conditions under which it is to be conducted
Have been informed of the right to withdraw the child/young person from the trial at any time
Have a contact point where further information about the trial can be obtained

The MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-4, state that a study may only be conducted on minors if several conditions are fulfilled including:

An ethics committee (EC), following consultation with pediatric experts, has endorsed the protocol
The parent/guardian has had an interview with the investigator(s) to understand the trial objectives and risks, been provided with a point of contact for further information, and been informed of the right to withdraw the minor from the trial at any time
No incentives or financial inducements are given to the minor or the parent/guardian except in the event of trial-related injury or loss
The trial relates directly to a condition from which the minor suffers, or is of such a nature that it can only be carried out on minors
The participant(s) will derive some direct benefit from their participation in the trial
The trial is necessary to validate data obtained in other trials involving persons able to give informed consent, or by other research methods
The trial has been designed to minimize pain, discomfort, fear, and any other foreseeable risk in relation to the disease and the minor’s stage of development

GBR-4 provides additional best practices:

Children and their parents (or those with parental responsibility) should be involved in the decision-making process around consent to take part in research, regardless of whether the child or young person is legally competent to give consent. This includes involving children or young people who are not considered competent to give consent.
Assent should be sought from a child who is not considered competent as long as this is practicable and the child is not too young.
In some situations, a young person who is competent may object to the involvement of their parents and their confidentiality should be respected.
Before giving consent, children and young people should be provided with age-appropriate information that enables them to understand participation in research. Information may be provided using a layered or staged approach so that it is more easily understood.
Children and young people should be given the opportunity to ask questions and to get support in their decision-making, such as talking to a trusted adult.
Good records should be kept of any discussions about consent and of the final decision.
Inducements and coercion must be avoided.
Seeking consent is a process and it is good practice to engage regularly with the child and family over the course of research to confirm they are willing to continue. In studies in which children who are not competent will become competent during the study period, then consent from young people should be sought as soon as possible after competency is reached. A decision about how this will be managed should be made at the start of the study and included in the protocol.

See the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-4, and GBR-9 for detailed requirements. The G-ConsentPIS provides style guidance and suggestions for presenting age-appropriate information in the participant information sheet.

Assent Requirements

As indicated in GBR-4, whenever practical and appropriate, a child's assent should be sought before including them in research. Even when a child or young person is competent, it is still normally good practice to involve the family in the decision-making process; however, if the young person objects, researchers should respect their privacy.

As per GBR-4, for clinical trials of investigational products (IPs), it is usually inappropriate to ask very young children (e.g., under five (5) years old) to sign an assent form; however, their views should be considered. Researchers must make an informed judgment to determine when seeking assent is appropriate; the age of a child can only be taken as a guide. The child's developmental stage, knowledge of illness and experience of health care should also be considered. Although there is a danger that children can be asked to exercise greater autonomy than normal, this must be balanced with the potential loss of trust associated with denying their assent. Such judgment needs a framework of considerations for analysis, a record of observations, and discussions and a documented decision. In circumstances where seeking assent at the outset is not appropriate, the researcher could provide the child with information as and when required.

Guidance (Consent)

2.51-2.58

4.8.12

Clinical Trial of an Investigational Medicinal Product (Consent for under 16)

Style and Examples & Templates

Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 15 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (2) and Schedule 1 (Part 4)

Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14). In accordance with KEN-14, informed consent requirements for conducting clinical trials with pregnant or nursing women or fetuses follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section. Specifically, the informed consent form should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant.

As per the G-ECBiomedRes, research involving pregnant, lactating, and breastfeeding women may pose compromised long-term outcomes for the child. In addition, potential parent(s) can make decisions on behalf of the fetus(es), embryo(s), and zygote(s).

For fetal, embryo, and zygote(s) cases, research should be limited as follows:

Cases that present no harm or offer assistance to the life system of the participants
No procedures should be permitted that are likely to harm them
A fetus ex-utero and alive, embryo, and zygote must not be involved in research unless it is intended to enhance the life of that fetus, embryo, and zygote or unless the research involves no risk to them

Additionally, the following guidelines must be followed for research involving pregnant, lactating, and breastfeeding women:

The research carries no more than minimal risk to the fetuses or nursing infants
Pregnant or nursing women should generally not be clinical trial participants except where such trials are designed to protect or advance the health of the pregnant/nursing women or fetuses/nursing infants, and for which women who are not pregnant or nursing would not be suitable participants
The justification for such research should be that participants must not be arbitrarily deprived of the opportunity to benefit from investigational drugs, vaccines, or other agents that promise therapeutic or preventive benefits

4.8

4.2

1.48 and 1.63

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

The G-ConsentPIS states that researchers must give a clear warning to potential participants when there is a risk of harm to an unborn child and/or risk when breastfeeding. The Participant Information Sheet (PIS) should provide specific advice to potential participants about the risks of becoming pregnant, of fathering a child, or of breastfeeding while taking part in the research including the need for pregnancy testing, contraceptive requirements, and how to report a pregnancy during the study. The PIS should also provide information about what will happen if a participant becomes pregnant, including whether and how the researcher will monitor the pregnancy. This would include access to the mother's and/or child's notes, and any possible follow up of the child including post-natal examinations. For men, researchers must provide clear warnings and advice if the research treatment could damage sperm and consequently pose a risk to possible pregnancies. Specific advice for pregnant partners may be needed, including information on any compensation arrangements.

Further, the G-ConsentPIS finds that the risk of harm caused during pregnancy is most likely when recruiting young people to a clinical trial for an investigational medicinal product (CTIMP). In this case, there should be consent from someone over the age of 16, and the following should be done:

Discuss the risk of pregnancy, pregnancy testing, and the use of appropriate contraception with their parents (or their legal guardian) during the consent process and with young potential participants as part of the assent process
Consider local social beliefs
Involve pediatricians and the ethics committee in preliminary discussions if this is a concern
Consult young people when designing consent and writing information
Respect the young person's autonomy but encourage involvement of the parents
Be aware that in CTIMPs, it is the parents of children under 16 who legally provide consent, and this will include consent to pregnancy testing and discussion of contraception
Information needs to go beyond "We will do a pregnancy test…" to include what will happen in broad terms

In accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), informed consent requirements for conducting clinical trials with pregnant or nursing women or fetuses follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section. Specifically, the informed consent form should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant.

As set forth in GBR-35, any research studies involving women capable of becoming pregnant and breastfeeding women require additional safeguards to ensure the research conforms to appropriate ethical standards and upholds societal values. According to GBR-35, the following conditions are required for research to be conducted with this population:

Reproductive toxicology studies have been completed and the results support conducting a trial, or there is a good reason not to conduct the reproductive toxicology studies and/or the risk of pregnancy is minimized (e.g., because she agrees to adhere to a highly effective method of contraception); Women using a hormonal contraceptive, such as “the pill,” should use an alternative method of contraception until the possibility of an interaction with the investigational product has been excluded
The female participant is not pregnant according to her menstrual history and a pregnancy test, and is not at risk of becoming pregnant during, and for a specified interval, after the trial
The female participant is warned about the potential risks to the developing child should she become pregnant, and she is tested for pregnancy during the trial, as appropriate
The female is tested for pregnancy before dosing starts and possibly during the trial, as appropriate

Content - Participant Information Sheet

Prisoners

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Per the G-ECBiomedRes and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in KEN-14. A research study involving prisoners should ensure that these prospective participants are informed and given the opportunity to make their own decisions without any interference or reprisals from a higher authority. The ethics committee must also ensure that the study will be independently monitored to assure the dignity and rights of the prisoners involved in the research.

1.61

4.2

1.48 and 1.63

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Per the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. A research study involving prisoners should ensure that these prospective participants are informed and are given the opportunity to make their own decisions without any interference from a higher authority. The ethics committee must also ensure that the study will be independently monitored to assure the dignity and rights of the prisoners involved in the research.

Per the UKwide-Rsrch, a prisoner or young offender is defined as any inmate of the prison systems of England and Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. It does not include patients detained under the MHAct at special hospitals or other psychiatric secure units, or juvenile offenders detained in local authority secure accommodation or secure training centers. Health research involving prisoners or young offenders should relate directly to their health care and be of such a nature that it could only be conducted in this population. See the UKwide-Rsrch for details on differences between the four (4) United Kingdom nations with regard to research on prisoners.

1.61

Do you plan to include any participants who are prisoners, young offenders or on probation?

Mentally Impaired

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

As per the G-ECBiomedRes and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), an ethics committee (EC) within the relevant institution must approve the participation of adult research participants who are incapable by reason of physical and mental capacity to give consent. Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in KEN-14.

In addition, as delineated in the G-ECBiomedRes, a research study may involve participants with mental incapacities or behavioral disorders under the following conditions:

Such research could not be carried out equally well with individuals who are in possession of their full mental faculties
The knowledge gained would be relevant to the health needs of persons with mental or behavioral disorders
The participant’s consent has been obtained to the extent of the participant’s capabilities, and a prospective participant’s refusal to participate is always respected
In the case of incompetent individuals, informed consent shall be obtained from a legal guardian or other duly authorized person
The degree of risk attached to the intervention not intended to benefit the individual participant is low and commensurate with the importance of knowledge to be gained
Interventions that are intended to provide therapeutic benefit are likely to be at least as advantageous to the individual participant as any alternative

1.61 and 3.1

4.2

1.48 and 1.63

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

As per the MHCTR and GBR-9, a recognized ethics committee (EC) within the Health Research Authority (HRA), must approve the participation of adult research participants who are incapable by reason of physical and mental capacity to give consent, and must obtain advice from professionals with expertise in handling this population.

The MHCTR and the G-ConsentPIS, specify that when a study involves adult participants with mental incapacities, informed consent should be obtained from the legal representative/guardian. This consent should only be provided once the legal representative/guardian has had an interview with the investigator(s) to understand the trial objectives and risks, been provided with a point of contact for further information, and been informed of the right to withdraw the participant from the trial at any time. The G-ConsentPIS provides additional country-specific information on legal representative requirements.

As delineated in the MHCTR, a clinical trial of an investigational product may involve participants with mental incapacities under the following conditions:

The participant has received information according to the participant’s capacity of understanding regarding the trial, its risks, and its benefits
No incentives or financial inducements are given to the participant or legal representative/guardian except in the event of trial-related injury or loss
The trial relates directly to a condition from which the participant suffers, or is of such a nature that it can only be carried out on participants with mental incapacities
The participant(s) will derive some direct benefit from their participation in the trial, or produce no risk at all
The trial is necessary to validate data obtained in other trials involving persons able to give informed consent, or by other research methods
The trial has been designed to minimize pain, discomfort, fear, and any other foreseeable risk in relation to the disease and the participant’s stage of development

See the MHCTR, G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-3 for detailed requirements.

2.51-2.58

Principles of Consent - Adults Who Are Not Able to Consent for Themselves

Part 1 (15), Schedule 1 (Parts 1 and 5)

Definition of Investigational Product

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

The G-KenyaCT defines an investigational product (IP) as any pharmaceutical product, including a new product or existing product for a new indication, in the form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial, including a product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a way different from the approved form, or when used for an unapproved indication, or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

Glossary of Terms, 1.48, and 1.63

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

As delineated in the MHCTR, the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and GBR-9, an investigational product (IP), referred to as an investigational medicinal product (IMP) in the United Kingdom (UK), is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active substance or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes a product with a marketing authorization when it is used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form; when used for an unapproved indication; or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

1.3

Part 1 (2)

Manufacturing & Import

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Manufacturing

According to the PPA and the G-KenyaCT, the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of all drug products, including investigational products (IPs) in Kenya. Per the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, an IP must be manufactured in accordance with the requirements of good manufacturing practice (GMP). The CTRules requires a sponsor to immediately notify the PPB in writing when a pharmaceutical or chemical alteration may affect the quality, safety, or efficacy of the IP product during an ongoing clinical trial. The G-KenyaCT states that the sponsor must submit the IP dossier directly to the PPB or may submit it through the principal investigator. The IP dossier must be prepared as per the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), which is required per G-KenyaCT. The manufacture of IPs may be subject to GMP inspection by the PPB in the same way as in the case of marketed drug products. See the G-KenyaCT for detailed chemistry and manufacturing information to be provided to the PPB if the IP has not been registered with the PPB.

KEN-14 also requires IPs to be manufactured, handled, and stored in accordance with applicable GMPs and used in accordance with the approved protocol.

Per the PPA, the PPB is authorized to regulate the manufacturing of medicine, including:

Ensure that all medicinal products manufactured in, imported into, or exported from the country conform to prescribed standards of quality, safety, and efficacy
Ensure that the personnel, premises, and practices employed in the manufacture, storage, marketing, distribution, and sale of medicinal substances comply with the defined codes of practice and other prescribed requirements
Grant or revoke licenses for the manufacture, importation, exportation, distribution, and sale of medicinal substances
Inspect and license all manufacturing premises, importing and exporting agents, wholesalers, distributors, pharmacies (including those in hospitals and clinics), and other retail outlets

See the KenyaGMP, for PPB’s compilation of recommended World Health Organization GMP guidelines to help comply with GMP requirements and prepare for an inspection, including for manufacture of IPs.

Import

Per the PPA and the ImpExp, the PPB is authorized to regulate the import and export of health products and technologies, including IPs. As per the ImpExp and the G-KenyaCT, to obtain an import permit for a clinical trial, the sponsor or investigator must submit an application online to the Kenya Trade Network Agency’s Kenya TradeNet Single Window System (KEN-28). The following documents must be submitted (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

The proforma invoice or invoice
The ethics committee favorable opinion letter
The Expert Committee on Clinical Trials approval letter from the PPB
Registration of the institution where the research is being undertaken

The G-KenyaCT states that the sponsor must submit to the PPB a copy of the endorsed clinical trial import permit and/or evidence of delivery to the approved investigator(s)/trial center(s) on importation and supply of each consignment of the product. The product must only be supplied to the investigator(s) at the trial site(s) named in the clinical trial import license application for the purpose and use as stated in the said application. Prior PPB notification and approval is required for changes in the investigator, trial site, or protocol. The sponsor must inform PPB of any change in information, or any information received that casts doubt on the continued validity of the data, which was submitted with, or in connection with the application for the import permit. The sponsor must also inform the PPB of any decision to discontinue the trial to which the permit relates and state the reason for the decision. See KEN-8 for additional details on the procedures for obtaining an import license.

Per the CTRules, the import of an IP must comply with the applicable regulatory requirements to ensure integrity and accountability of the products. The PPB may revoke or suspend an import permit if the IP was manufactured in conditions not consistent with GMP; if the clinical trial was discontinued; or if the sponsor provided false information.

Please note: Kenya is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (KEN-3), which may have implications for studies of IPs developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see KEN-15.

2.12 and 5.13

Glossary of Terms, 2.0, 5.1.7, and 6.0-6.3

Legal Framework, 1.24-1.26, 1.48, 1.63, 1.215-1.240, 1.346-1.354, and 1.542-1.551

Part 1 (3B), Part IIIA (35A and 35B), and Part IV (44)

Part IV (14)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

According to the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, and the G-GMP-GDP, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)) to be used in a trial. A Manufacturer’s Authorization for Investigational Medicinal Products (MIA(IMP)) must be obtained by the person responsible for the manufacture of any IP to be used in the trial. The sponsor or the designated representative must include a copy of the MIA(IMP) in the clinical trial application submission to the MHRA. The applicant must complete the form listed in GBR-28 to obtain an MIA(IMP) from the MHRA. The MHCTR defines “manufacturing authorization” to include importing and assembly authorizations, as applicable. The G-CTApp states that if an IP is manufactured outside the European Union (EU), the clinical trial application should include an MIA(IMP), importer authorization, and qualified person (QP) declaration on good manufacturing practice (GMP) for each site. The MHRA will approve the manufacture or import of an IP after the clinical trial application has been approved.

Per G-ATMP, a manufacturer’s license from MHRA is needed to manufacture unlicensed advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) in the UK. See G-ATMP for guidance on the two (2) ATMP manufacturer license pathways: the hospital exemption or the “specials” scheme.

As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-GMP-GDP, and GBR-15, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the MIA(IMP) holder must also comply with the GMP guidelines and provide an IMP Certificate of Analysis. In addition, the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006 specify that the holder of an MIA(IMP) must always have the services of at least one (1) QP at their disposal. The QP must satisfy the qualification and experience requirements delineated in the aforementioned sources. The QP’s primary legal responsibility is to certify batches of IPs prior to use in a clinical trial, or prior to release for sale and placement in the market. See Part 6 and Schedule 6 of the MHCTR for detailed applicant requirements.

In accordance with the G-ImportIMPs, IPs that have been QP-certified in countries on the list of approved countries (initially, EU and European Economic Area (EEA) countries per G-CTApprovedCountries) do not need to be re-certified when importing to the UK. However, the sponsor must require the MIA(IMP) holder to put in place an assurance system to check these IMPs have been certified by a QP in a listed country before release to the trial. A sponsor may perform verification of QP certification in a listed country themselves if they are the holder of a UK MIA(IMP). Alternatively, they may outsource this verification to a third party who holds a UK MIA(IMP). IPs coming to Great Britain from Northern Ireland do not require this additional oversight. IPs coming directly to the UK from third-party countries that are not on the list of approved countries will continue to require import and QP certification in the UK by the MIA(IMP) holder as per the existing requirements. See the G-ImportIMPsAuth, for additional details on the authorizations and procedures. For additional details on what is new from Brexit, see the Scope of Assessment section.

The G-IPsNIreland delineates that the supply and use of IPs in Northern Ireland must follow EU laws as per the Northern Ireland Protocol. For policy papers and details on the Northern Ireland Protocol, see GBR-119.

Per the G-SubtlAmndmt, for any change to IP manufacturing, importation, or certification relevant to the supply of IPs in an ongoing UK trial, a substantial amendment must be submitted to the MHRA. However, if the sponsor chooses to retain an existing UK release site for the ongoing UK trial but includes an additional EU/EEA site for trials in the EU/EEA only, then no substantial amendment to the MHRA will be required.

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

Application for New Manufacturer’s Authorization for Investigational Medicinal Products MIA (IMP) (Human Use)

Annex 2

Manufacture of unlicensed ATMPs in the UK

Documents to send with your application

Overview

Amendment of Regulation 13 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 42 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 44 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Principles based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive, Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive and Amendment of Schedule 6 to the Principal Regulations)

Part 1 (2), Part 3 (13), Part 6, Schedule 1 (Part 2), Schedule 3 (Part 2), Schedule 6, and Schedule 7

Quality Requirements

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Investigator’s Brochure

In accordance with the CTRules and the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor must provide an up-to-date investigator’s brochure (IB). An updated IB and Drug Safety Update Report (DSUR) must be submitted whenever available but at least once year as a notification to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) or when there are substantial changes to the previous version.

Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14). As specified in the G-KenyaCT and KEN-14, the IB must provide coverage of the following areas:

Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties
The pharmacological aspects including its metabolites in all animal species tested
The pharmacokinetics and metabolism including its biological transformation in all animal species tested
Toxicological effects in any animal species tested under a single dose study, a repeated dose study, or a special study
Results of clinical pharmacokinetic studies
Information regarding safety, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and dose responses that were obtained from previous clinical trials in humans

The G-KenyaCT indicates that the sponsor must also follow the guidance contained in KEN-14.

Quality Management

In accordance with the G-KenyaCT, a good manufacturing practice (GMP) certificate must be provided by a competent authority from the country of manufacture to the PPB in the clinical trial application. At a minimum, the GMP certificate should include the competent authority’s name and contact details, address of the manufacturing site, date of inspection, and validity period. Certificates of Analysis (CoAs) must also be provided to the PPB for all investigational products (IPs) and comparator products. Per KEN-14, the sponsor must maintain a CoA to document the identity, purity, and strength of the IP(s) to be used in the clinical trial.

See the G-KenyaCT for detailed chemistry and manufacturing information to be provided to the PPB if the IP has not been registered with the PPB. In addition, see Cert-Emrgcy for information about good clinical practice (GCP) and GMP certifications during emergencies.

(See Product Management section for additional information on sponsor requirements).

7

Glossary of Terms, 1.13-1.29, 1.48, 1.63-1.88, 1.213-1.240, 1.340-1.354, and 1.542-1.551

Part III (8)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Investigator’s Brochure

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-92, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for providing investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB), which must contain all of the relevant information on the investigational product(s) (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)) obtained through the earlier research phases, including preclinical, toxicological, safety, efficacy, and adverse events data. The sponsor or the designated representative should also update the IB as significant new information becomes available.

As specified in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the IB must provide coverage of the following areas:

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

See Section 7 of GBR-113 for detailed content guidelines.

Quality Management

Per GBR-113, the sponsor must maintain a Certificate of Analysis to document the identity, purity, and strength of the IP(s) to be used in the clinical trial.

5.12 and 7

Overview

Insertion of Regulation 3A of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 13 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 15 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 42 of the Principal Regulations, Amendment of Regulation 44 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 Principles based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive

Part 1 (2), Part 3 (13), Part 6, Schedule 6, and Schedule 7

Labeling

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Per the G-KenyaCT, investigational products (IPs) used in Kenyan clinical trials must be properly labelled. A final copy/version of the labelling must be submitted to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) for approval and should contain the following minimum information:

Statement indicating that the product is for “clinical trial purpose only”
Recommended storage conditions
Protocol code or identification
Name, address, and telephone number of the sponsor, contract research organization, or investigator (the main contact for information on the product, clinical trial, and emergency unblinding)
Pharmaceutical dosage form, route of administration, quantity of dosage units, and in the case of open trials, the name/identifier and strength/potency
The batch and/or code number to identify the contents and packaging operation
A trial reference code allowing identification of the trial, site, investigator, and sponsor, if not given elsewhere
The trial participant identification number/treatment number and, where relevant, the visit number
The name of the investigator (if not included above)
Directions for use (reference may be made to a leaflet or other explanatory document intended for the trial participant or person administering the product)
Period of use (use-by date, expiry date, or re-test date as applicable), in month/year format and in a manner that avoids any ambiguity
The complete physical address of the manufacturing site

As indicated in the G-KenyaCT, it is recommended that an IP is not re-labeled wherever possible. It is, however, accepted that in certain cases it is necessary to re-label and the PPB will review applications for the extension of expiration dates based on sufficient evidence being provided by the applicant that an extended expiration date is warranted. A written justification and evidence should be provided to the PPB. Any re-labelling of remaining IPs from previously manufactured batches must be performed in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) principles and is limited to an extension of the expiration date where sufficient evidence is available to support such extension. Any request for re-labelling should be accompanied by a certificate of analysis of the product from a PPB-recognized laboratory or World Health Organization (WHO) prequalified laboratories (KEN-18). After approval, the re-labelling must be carried out under the supervision of a pharmaceutical inspector on the ground. In case of use-date extension, an additional label should be affixed to the IP to indicate the new use date and repeat the batch number. It may be superposed on the old use date, but not on the original batch number. PPB will not approve re-labelling of a product if the proposed additional label obscures the original labelling. At all times, the original label should be visible. This operation may be performed onsite by the clinical trial monitor(s) or the clinical trial site pharmacist, in accordance with specific and standard operating procedures. The operation should be checked by a second person. Documented evidence of this additional labelling should be available in the trial documentation and in the batch records. KEN-34 indicates that all documents submitted to the PPB in a clinical trial application should be in English, including a pictorial sample of the IP with the labeling text.

The International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14), which the G-KenyaCT requires following, states that the IP must be coded and labeled in a manner that protects the blinding, if applicable. The IPs must also be suitably packaged in a manner that will prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage.

5.13

1.48, 1.63, 1.307-1.317

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Labeling for investigational products (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)) must comply with the requirements set forth in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-15, the EU Good Manufacturing Practice Directive (GBR-12), and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113). Per GBR-12, labeling for IPs must ensure protection of the participant and traceability, to enable identification of the product and trial, and to facilitate proper use of the IP. As specified in GBR-15, for an IP to be used in a clinical trial, it must be properly labeled in the official language of the country where the trial is being conducted.

As set forth in GBR-15, the following labeling information must be included on the primary package label (or any intermediate packaging), and the outer packaging:

Name, address, and telephone number of the sponsor, contract research organization (CRO), or investigator
Pharmaceutical dosage form, route of administration, quantity of dosage units, and in the case of open trials, the name/identifier and strength/concentration
Batch and/or code number to identify the contents and packaging operation
Trial reference code allowing identification of the trial, site, investigator, and sponsor (if not given elsewhere)
Trial participant identification number/treatment number and where relevant, the visit number
Investigator name (if not already included above)
Instructions for use (reference may be made to a leaflet or other explanatory document intended for the trial participant or person administering the product)
“For clinical trial use only” or similar wording indicating the IP is clinical trial material
Storage conditions
Expiration date (use by date, expiration date, or re-test date as applicable), in month/year format and in a manner that avoids any ambiguity
“Keep Out of Reach of Children” except when the product is not going to be taken home by participants

As per the MHCTR, a sample of the labeling is required as part of the clinical trial application submission. (See the Submission Content section for detailed clinical trial application submission requirements). Furthermore, according to GBR-15, the IP must also be suitably packaged in a manner that will prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage.

Article 15

Annex 1-3 - Investigational Medicinal Products - Packaging, Labelling, and Table 1

5.13

Amendment of Regulation 46 of the Principal Regulations

Part 1 (2) and Part 7, and Schedule 3, Part 2 (12)

Product Management

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

Per the PPA, the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) is responsible for the regulation of investigational products (IPs), including all matters relating to the safety, packaging, and distribution of medicines. The PPB must ensure that all medicinal products manufactured in, imported into, or exported from the country conform to prescribed standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. Further, the PPB must ensure that the personnel, premises, and practices employed in the manufacture and storage of IPs complies with prescribed requirements.

Per the G-KenyaCT, research must be conducted in accordance with requirements set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (KEN-14). As defined in the G-KenyaCT and KEN-14, the sponsor must ensure the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Timely delivery of IPs to the investigator(s)
Records that document shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction of the IPs are maintained
A system for retrieving IPs and documenting that this retrieval is maintained
A system for the disposition of unused IPs is maintained
Steps taken to ensure that the IPs are stable over the period of use
Sufficient quantities of the IPs used in the trials are maintained

To the extent stability permits, samples should be retained either until the analyses of the trial data are complete or as required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), whichever represents the longer retention period.

As defined in the G-KenyaCT and KEN-14, the sponsor must also supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the IPs, including the comparator(s) and placebo, if applicable. The sponsor or the representative should not supply either party with the IP(s) until approval from the PPB and a favorable opinion letter from the local and national ethics committees (ECs) are obtained. In addition, the G-KenyaCT requires the following supply, storage, and handling processes:

Analysis or evaluation of samples is performed in accordance with the protocol and, where applicable, the contract/agreement, the work instruction, and associated methods
Adherence to the laboratories, policies, and standard operating procedures (SOPs)
Prior to the initiation of sample analysis or evaluation, it is often necessary to prepare a work instruction detailing the procedures, which will be used to conduct the analysis or evaluation
Have automated equipment for routine hematology, biochemistry, and serology tests
Have procedures for analyzer calibration and quality control
Regularly maintain all the equipment, including point-of-care equipment
Have a procedure for transporting samples safely and quickly from clinical areas to the laboratory
Have written procedures for all assays, and validate the assays
Have a stock control procedure to make sure that reagents and consumables are used within their expiry dates
Keep records, including source documents and final reports
Have a laboratory information management system, and validate and backup the system
Provide protective clothing and safety equipment for staff
Have a central alarm system for all fridges and freezers
Have an internal audit program

The G-KenyaCT also states that the sponsor must submit to the PPB a copy of the endorsed Clinical Trial Import License and/or evidence of delivery to the approved investigator(s)/institution(s) upon importing and supplying each product consignment. In addition, the IP must only be supplied to the investigator(s)/institution(s) named in the application for the Clinical Trial Import License/Clinical Trial Exemption for the purpose and use specified. The sponsor must inform the PPB in the event of any information changes including:

Information the sponsor receives that casts doubt on the continued validity of the submitted data
Information associated with the Clinical Trial Import License

See the G-KenyaCT for additional information on principal investigator requirements relating to the Clinical Trial Import License.

Record Requirements

As per the G-KenyaCT, the sponsor is required to maintain records that document IP(s) shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction. The sponsor must also maintain a system for retrieving IPs and documenting this retrieval, and maintain a system for the disposition of unused IPs.

According to the G-KenyaCT, IP manufacturers or importers must also retain samples for each batch of bulk product, and the packaging components used for each finished batch, for at least two (2) years following the trial. The sponsor should maintain sufficient samples from each batch and keep a record of their analyses and characteristics for reference so that, if necessary, an independent laboratory could reconfirm the same data.

5.5, 5.12-5.14, and 7

Glossary of Terms, 1.13-1.29, 1.48, 1.63-1.88, 1.213-1.214, 1.307-1.317, 1.355-1.372. 1.491, 1.507-1.511, and 1.542-1.551

3B

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As defined in the MHCTR and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the sponsor must supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the investigational product(s) (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)), including the comparator(s) and placebo, if applicable. The sponsor should not supply either party with the IP(s) until obtaining Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approval and a favorable opinion from a recognized ethics committee (EC).

Per the MHCTR and GBR-113, the sponsor must ensure the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

IP product quality and stability over the period of use
IP manufactured according to good manufacturing practice guidance (G-GMP-GDP and GBR-15)
Proper coding, packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)
IP use record including information on the quantity, loading, shipment, receipt, dispensing, handling, reclamation, and destruction of the unused IP
Acceptable storage temperatures, conditions, and times for the IP
Written procedures including instructions for handling and storage of the IP, adequate and safe receipt, dispensing, retrieval of unused IP(s), and return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor
Timely delivery of the IP(s)
Establishment of management and filing systems for the IPs
Sufficient quantities of the IP for the trial

As delineated in GBR-15, IPs should remain under the control of the sponsor until after completion of a two-step procedure: certification by the Qualified Person (QP) and release by the sponsor for use in a clinical trial. Both steps should be recorded and retained in the relevant trial files held by or on behalf of the sponsor. Shipping of IPs should be conducted according to instructions given by or on behalf of the sponsor in the shipping order. De-coding arrangements should be available to the appropriate responsible personnel before IPs are shipped to the investigator site. A detailed inventory of the shipments made by the manufacturer or importer should be maintained and include the addressees’ identification.

Refer to the MHCTR and GBR-113 for detailed, sponsor-related IP requirements.

To help ensure the continuity of supply of medicines for clinical trials from January 1, 2021, the BrexitLtr-IPs indicates that the UK will unilaterally recognize certain European Union (EU) regulatory processes for a time-limited period. This recognition is known as “standstill.”

Record Requirements

As per GBR-113, the sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and should notify the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing when the trial-related pharmacy records are no longer needed. Additionally, the sponsor must ensure sufficient quantities of the IP(s) used in the trial to reconfirm specifications, should this become necessary, and should maintain records of batch sample analyses and characteristics.

As set forth in GBR-113, sponsor-specific essential documents should be retained until at least two (2) years after the last approval of a marketing application, until there are no pending or contemplated marketing applications, or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of the IP’s clinical development. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

However, per the MHCTR2006, the sponsor and the chief investigator must ensure that the documents contained in the trial master file are retained for at least five (5) years following the trial’s completion. The documents must be readily available to the MHRA upon request and be complete and legible. The sponsor should ensure that trial participant medical files are also retained for at least five (5) years after the trial’s conclusion.

Annex 13 – Investigational Medicinal Products – Packaging, Labelling

5.12-5.15, 5.5, and 7

Insertion of Regulation 3A of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 15 of the Principal Regulations; and Amendment of Regulation 31 of the Principal Regulations

Part 3 (13 and 15), Part 4 (28), Part 6 (36 and 38), and Schedule 7 (Parts 2 and 3)

Definition of Specimen

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Specimens are not defined in the Kenyan regulations. However, per KEN-26, the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) identifies biological samples and specimens as including, but not limited to, blood samples, saliva, breast milk samples, mosquito parts samples, biological cultures, tissue and tissue samples, hair samples, human stool, and environmental samples used in human health research.

Submission Forms (Shipping)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

The term “specimen” is not referenced within the United Kingdom (UK). However, the following terms are used relating to specimens:

Relevant material: As per the UK-HTA, Code-E, GBR-73, and GBR-76, “relevant material” or “human tissue” is any material from a human body, other than gametes, that consists of, or includes, cells. This also includes blood (except where held for transplantation). Hair and nails from living persons are specifically excluded from this definition, as are gametes and embryos outside the body.
Bodily material: UK-HTA and GBR-64 defines “bodily material” as material from a human body that consists of, or includes, human cells. Unlike relevant material, this includes gametes, embryos outside the human body, and hair and nails from the body.
Tissue: GBR-64 defines “tissue” as any human material (e.g., blood, biopsies, urine) and includes relevant and bodily material.

Bodily Material and Tissues

Definition of Relevant Material

Glossary

Part 3 (45 and 53)

Specimen Import & Export

Last content review/update: July 2, 2024

Import/Export

Per the G-ECBiomedRes, biological material must not be imported nor exported without proper justification and authorization, which includes a signed material transfer agreement (MTA) approved by the relevant institutions and deposited with the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). For exports, a Kenyan investigator must be included in the team that is conducting the research in the recipient country. All biological samples and data collected during research belong to the local participating institutions and country.

In addition, KEN-37 has indicated that Kenya’s Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) will approve of an export for overseas research if the following requirements are met:

PPB initial approval letter or annual approval letter
Ethics committee (EC) approval letter
MTA
Study protocol with a summary justification for the participants' sample exportation
Informed consent form that highlights the areas where study participants are informed about the exportation of their samples

The G-KenyaCT states that in the case of transfer of materials during research involving children, the sponsor or the representative or the principal investigator should provide to the EC an MTA including, but not limited to, the following information:

Identification of the provider and recipient
Definition of the trial and how the material will and will not be used
Maintenance of confidentiality of background of supporting data or information, if any
Indemnification and insurance

In addition, KEN-26 provides an example of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)'s procedures for handling requests to ship biological samples or specimens. KEN-17 also provides an example of an MTA form from the Kenyatta National Hospital-University of Nairobi (KNH-UoN) Ethics and Research Committee.

KNH-UoN ERC Material Transfer Request Form

Submission Forms

4.1 and 4.2

Glossary of Terms and 1.172

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Import/Export

As specified in the UK-HTA, the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) has jurisdiction regarding the import and export of specimens (known as “relevant materials” or “human tissue” in the United Kingdom (UK)) and complies with the Code of Practice on import and export set forth in Code-E. According to the UK-HTA, Code-E, GBR-56, GBR-73, and GBR-52, the import and export of relevant material/human tissue is not in itself a licensable activity under the UK-HTA. However, once the material is imported, storage of this material may be licensable unless it is for a specific research project with ethical approval from an ethics committee (EC). GBR-73 explains that it is preferable for imported human tissue to be stored in a licensed establishment where possible, and if so, there is no requirement for EC approval to undertake research. However, if the premises where the human tissue will be held are not covered by a HTA license, each research project using the human tissue will require EC approval.

If relevant material/human tissue is being imported or exported for an application, the HTRegs specify that this must be carried out under the authority of a license or third-party agreement with an establishment licensed by the HTA to store material for human application. See G-Tissues-Brexit for guidance on Brexit-related regulatory changes that apply to the movement of human tissues and cells between Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and Europe. Establishments importing or exporting human tissues and cells intended for human application may require an HTA license covering these activities. For additional help, clinical trial staff should contact the HTA at enquiries@hta.gov.uk. For more information about Brexit, see the Scope of Assessment section.

Code-E requires imported and exported material to be procured, used, handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with the donor’s consent. In addition, due regard should be given to safety considerations, and with the dignity and respect accorded to human bodies, body parts, and tissue as delineated in Code-E. Any individual or organization wishing to import human bodies, body parts, and tissue into England, Wales, or Northern Ireland must comply with the guidelines set forth in Code-E. For exports, donors should be provided with adequate information upon providing consent, that their samples may be transported as exported samples for use abroad. It is the responsibility of the recipient country to ensure that, prior to export, the material is handled appropriately and that the required country standards have been met.

In addition, the G-QualityBlood lists the quality and safety standards when importing or exporting blood into or from the EU/European Economic Area (EEA). The UK maintains the existing quality and safety standards for the collection, testing, processing, storage, and distribution of human blood and blood components. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should be consulted before importing or exporting blood or blood components. See the G-QualityBlood for relevant EU quality and safety directives.

Human Tissues, Cells, and Blood as Starting Material

Per G-ATMP, if tissues and cells are being used as starting materials in a medicinal product, the donation, procurement, and testing of the cells are covered by the HTRegs under the authority of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) for the use of gametes and embryos, which may be used in the derivation (development) of cells in the manufacture of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), and under HTA for the licensing and inspection for all other tissues and cells. Once the starting materials have been made available, medicines legislation applies to and is regulated by the MHRA.

Per G-ATMP, the HTA and the MHRA have agreed that the collection of blood as a starting material for an ATMP can be carried out under either a tissues and cells license or a blood establishment license.

Other Considerations

As set forth in the UK-HTA, the HTRegs, and GBR-9, the HTA also regulates the storage and use of specimens from the living, and the removal, storage, use, and licensing of relevant materials/human tissue from the deceased for specified health-related purposes in the UK. The UK-HTA refers to specified purposes as “scheduled purposes.” Per GBR-9, the HTA and the Health Research Authority (HRA) have agreed to collaborative arrangements in a Memorandum of Understanding.

Note that per GBR-9 and GBR-105, an HTA license is not needed for the storage of specimens for certain research projects that have been approved by an ethics committee (EC). The HTA and the UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) have agreed that an EC can give generic ethical approval for a research tissue bank’s arrangements for collection, storage, and release of specimens, provided the specimens in the bank are stored on HTA-licensed premises. This approval can extend to specific projects receiving non-identifiable tissue from the bank. The specimens do not then need to be stored on HTA-licensed premises, nor do they need project-specific ethical approval. However, a license is required for specimens stored for which there is no ethical approval (e.g., in large biobanks).

Per the UK-HTA, the G-QAHumTissue, and Code-E, the scope of the UK-HTA provisions specifically cover England, Northern Ireland, and Wales. The UK-HTA licensing requirements do not apply in Scotland, with the exception of those provisions relating to the use of DNA. Scotland complies with the Scotland-AnatAct and the Scotland-HTA for the removal, retention, use, licensing, and import of human organs, tissue, and tissue samples specifically removed post mortem, and subsequently used for research. Per GBR-52, the Scotland-HTA does not regulate the use of tissue from the living for research.

Section 12 and Annex H

1 and 3

Import and Export of Tissue

Human tissues and cells in ATMPs and Blood and blood components in medicinal products

Introduction to the Human Tissue Authority Codes of Practice, Licensing – Import and Export, Licensing – HTA Licensing Standards, and Annex A

Glossary/Definitions, Import and Export

Part 5 (53 (6))

Section 3 - Licenses and Section 7 - Licenses - general provisions

Part 2 (13, 14, 16, 26, and 41)

Part 1 (6), and Part 2 (7), and Part 3

Consent for Specimen