Clinical research in Kenya is regulated and overseen by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) and the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI).

Pharmacy and Poisons Board

As per the PPA, the CTRules, and the G-KenyaCT, Kenya’s PPB is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, oversight, and inspections. As described in KEN-21, the PPB and its Expert Committee on Clinical Trials (ECCT) evaluate all matters relating to clinical trials and grant permission for clinical trials to be conducted in Kenya. See KEN-20, KEN-21, and KEN-16 for more information about PPB.

Per the PPA and the CTRules, the PPB is authorized to undertake various mandated duties regarding regulation of medicines including (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Advise the government in all matters relating to the safety, packaging, labelling, distribution, and disposal of medicines
• 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
• Maintain a register of all authorized medicinal substances
• Publish, at least once every three (3) months, lists of authorized or registered medicinal substances and lists of products with marketing authorizations
• Regulate narcotic, psychotropic substances, and precursor chemical substances
• Consider applications for approval and alterations of dossiers intended for use in marketing authorization of medical products and health technologies
• Inspect and license all manufacturing premises, importing and exporting agents, wholesalers, distributors, pharmacies (including those in hospitals and clinics), and other retail outlets
• Prescribe a system for sampling, analysis, and other testing procedures of finished medicinal products released into the market to ensure compliance with the labeled specifications
• Conduct post-marketing surveillance of safety and quality of medical products
• Monitor the market for the presence of illegal or counterfeit medicinal substances
• Regulate the promotion, advertising, and marketing of medicinal substances in accordance with approved product information
• Approve the use of any unregistered medicinal substance for purposes of clinical trials, compassionate use, and emergency use authorization during public health emergencies
• Approve and regulate clinical trials on health products
• Disseminate information on medical products to health professionals and to the public to promote their rational use
• Collaborate with other national, regional, and international institutions on medicinal substances regulation
• Advise the Cabinet Secretary on matters relating to control, authorization, and registration of medicinal substances
• Implement any other function relating to the regulation of medicinal substances

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

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

As delineated in the STI-Act and G-ECBiomedRes, in addition to obtaining the PPB’s permission to conduct research in Kenya, the principal investigator or the head of a research institution must obtain a favorable opinion from an ethics committee accredited by NACOSTI and a NACOSTI research license prior to initiating a study. 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. According to Part II of the STI-Act, NACOSTI has specific research coordination and oversight functions, and it liaises with the National Innovation Agency and the National Research Fund to ensure funding and implementation of prioritized research programs. In addition per the STI-Act and KEN-39, NACOSTI is mandated to register and accredit research institutions in Kenya. The objective of registration and accreditation is to uphold the standard of research in the country and secure public confidence in the national research system. See KEN-32 for more information about NACOSTI’s mandate and functions.

Contact Information

Pharmacy and Poisons Board

According to the G-KenyaCT and KEN-22, the PPB contact information is as follows:

Pharmacy and Poisons Board
P.O. Box 27663 - 00506
Lenana Road Opp. DOD
Nairobi, Kenya

Telephone: (+254) 709 770 100 or (+254) 709 770 xxx (where xxx represents the extension of the officer or office)
Email: info@ppb.go.ke or info@pharmacyboardkenya.org
For Clinical Trials Inquiries: cta@pharmacyboardkenya.org

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

According to KEN-29, the NACOSTI contact information is as follows:

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation
off Waiyaki, Upper Kabete
P. O. Box 30623
00100 Nairobi, Kenya

Phone (landline): (+254) 020 4007000, (+254) 020 8001077
Phone (mobile): 0713 788 787 / 0735 404 245

Email: customercare@nacosti.go.ke or info@nacosti.go.ke

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

An overview of the FDA structure is available in USA-33. Several centers are responsible for pharmaceutical and biological product regulation, including the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Additionally, per USA-88, the Office of Clinical Policy (OCLiP) develops good clinical practice and human subject protection policies, regulation, and guidance.

See USA-47 for a list of FDA clinical trials related guidance documents.

Office for Human Research Protections and Common Rule Agencies

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

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

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

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

See USA-54 for additional information regarding compliance with the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule.

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

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

Other Considerations

Per USA-16, the US is a founding regulatory member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The US has adopted several ICH guidance documents, including the E11(R1) Addendum: Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population (US-ICH-E11), E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multiregional Clinical Trials (US-ICH-E17), and E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1) (US-ICH-GCPs), which are cited throughout this profile.

Contact Information

Food & Drug Administration

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

Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Telephone (general inquiries): (888) 463-6332

CDER Telephone (drug information): (301) 796-3400
CDER Email: druginfo@fda.hhs.gov

CBER Telephone: (800) 835-4709 or (240) 402-8010
CBER Email (manufacturers assistance): Industry.Biologics@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (imports): CBERimportinquiry@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (exports): CBERExportCert@fda.hhs.gov

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

Department of Health & Human Services

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

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

Overview

In accordance with the 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.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A drug is involved as defined in the FDCAct

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

• The clinical investigation is not otherwise exempt from 21CFR312

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expedited Processes

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

However, per the FDCAct, FDARA, and USA-45, the FDA has the authority to assess and collect user fees from companies that produce certain human drug and biological products as part of the New Drug Application (NDA). Per USA-43, the NDA is the vehicle through which drug sponsors formally propose that the FDA approve a new pharmaceutical for sale and marketing in the United States. The data gathered during the animal studies and human clinical trials of an investigational new drug become part of the NDA.

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.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

According to 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.

Overview

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

Expedited Review

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

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

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

Continuing Review and Re-approval

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

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

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

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

Exemptions under the Revised Common Rule

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

Per USA-54, for secondary research that does not qualify for an exemption under the RevComRule, the applicant must either apply for a waiver of the informed consent requirement from the EC, obtain study-specific informed consent, or obtain broad consent.

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

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

See the G-IRBFAQs, the G-OHRP-IRBApprvl, and USA-54 for frequently asked questions regarding EC procedures, approval with conditions, example research, expedited review, limited review, and continuing review.

Other Considerations

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

Cooperative Research Studies

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Overview

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

Per USA-54, institutions do not need to change an existing FWA because of the RevComRule. See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

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

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

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

Overview

In accordance with the 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.

Overview

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

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

Regulatory Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the G-eCTDspecs and USA-7, eCTD submissions sized 10 GB and under for most applications must be submitted via the FDA Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG) (USA-44). However, the G-eCTDspecs adds that the FDA also recommends the use of USA-44 for submissions greater than 10 GB when possible. See USA-8 for information on how to create an account.

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

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

According to USA-41 and USA-94, paper submissions of INDs should be sent to CDER or CBER at the following locations, as appropriate:

Drugs (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Therapeutic Biological Product (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research-Regulated Products:

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

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

Based on information provided in 21CFR312, for paper IND submissions, the sponsor must submit an original and two (2) copies, including the original submission and all amendments and reports.

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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.

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

The FDCAct, as amended by the FDORA, requires sponsors to submit diversity action plans for certain clinical trials, such as a clinical investigation of a new drug that is a phase 3 study. See the FDORA for more details. (Note: The FDA’s guidance on diversity action plans is currently in draft. The ClinRegs team will continue to monitor this requirement and incorporate any updates as appropriate).

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

As per 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the EC should obtain the following documents and must ensure the listed requirements are met prior to approving the study (Note: The regulations provide overlapping and unique elements so each of the items listed below will not necessarily be in each source):

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

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.

Overview

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

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

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

Ethics Committee Approval

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

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).

Overview

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

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

See the G-CTDiversity for FDA recommendations to sponsors on increasing enrollment of underrepresented populations in their clinical trials.

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

42CFR11 expands the legal requirements for submitting clinical trial registration information and results for investigational products that are approved, licensed, or cleared by the FDA.

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the 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).

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, 42CFR11, and USA-38, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of safety reporting requirements in the United States (US):

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, and USA-38, the sponsor must report any suspected adverse reaction or adverse reaction that is both serious and unexpected. An adverse event is only required to be reported as a suspected adverse reaction if there is evidence to suggest a causal relationship between the drug and the adverse event.

The sponsor is required to notify the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and all participating investigators in a written safety report of potential serious risks, from clinical trials or any other source, as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting. Additionally, the sponsor must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days following receipt of the information. The sponsor is required to submit a follow-up safety report to provide additional information obtained pertaining to a previously submitted safety report. This report should be submitted without delay, as soon as the information is available, but no later than 15 calendar days after the sponsor initially receives the information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See 42CFR11 for detailed adverse event reporting requirements.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

See USA-49 for more information and 42CFR11 for more detailed requirements. See NIHTrialInfo for specific information on dissemination of NIH-funded clinical trial data.

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.

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

In addition, 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCPs state that a sponsor may transfer responsibility for any or all obligations to a contract research organization (CRO).

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

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

Overview

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

Overview

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

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

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

In addition, prior to the start of the study, the sponsor must provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and the investigator’s brochure.

See G-InvstgtrResp for more information on investigator responsibilities.

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

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

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

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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

Insurance

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.

Insurance

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

Compensation

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

Injury or Death

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

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

Trial Participation

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Per the US-ICH-GCPs, 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

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

Per the G-ICH-E19, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)’s E19 guidance, A Selective Approach to Safety Data Collection in Specific Late-Stage Pre-Approval or Post-Approval Clinical Trials. The document describes circumstances in which it may be appropriate to reduce the collection of safety data in late-stage pre-approval and post-approval clinical trials, e.g., long-term outcome trials, when appropriate and with agreement from regulatory authorities. See the G-ICH-E19 for more information.

Furthermore, the FDA’s G-CTEmrgncy provides general considerations to assist sponsors, institutional ethics committees (ECs) (institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States (US)), and clinical investigators in assuring the safety of trial participants, maintaining compliance with good clinical practice (GCP), and minimizing risks to trial integrity during disasters and public health emergencies that may lead to a major disruption of clinical trial conduct and operations. See the G-CTEmrgncy for more information.

See the G-eHealthRecords for the FDA’s guidance related to the use of electronic health records in clinical research.

Additionally, the G-CovariatesCT provides the FDA’s recommendations for the use of covariates in the analysis of randomized, parallel group clinical trials that are applicable to both superiority trials and noninferiority trials. See the G-CovariatesCT for more information.

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

Additionally, see USA-47 for a list of FDA clinical trials related guidance documents.

See USA-6 for information on the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s data management and sharing policy, the NIHDataMngmnt, which applies to all research that is funded or conducted in whole or in part by the NIH, and results in the generation of scientific data.

Monitoring Requirements

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

The FDA’s G-RiskMntrng states that for each clinical trial, the sponsor should develop a monitoring plan that describes the monitoring methods, responsibilities, and requirements for the trial. The monitoring plan should include a brief description of the study, its objectives, and the critical data and study procedures, with particular attention to data and procedures that are unusual in relation to clinical routine. The monitoring plan should also require training of study site staff. Additionally, the plan should communicate the specific risks to be addressed by monitoring and should provide those involved in monitoring with adequate information to effectively carry out their duties. The FDA also encourages greater use of centralized monitoring practices, where appropriate, with correspondingly less emphasis on on-site monitoring. Centralized monitoring techniques should be used to the extent appropriate and feasible to:

• Supplement or reduce the frequency and extent of on-site monitoring with monitoring activities that can be done as well or better remotely or with monitoring activities that can be accomplished using centralized processes only. Examples include monitoring data quality through routine review of submitted data, as well as completing administrative and regulatory tasks.
• Target on-site monitoring by identifying higher risk clinical sites (e.g., sites with data anomalies or a higher frequency of errors, protocol violations, or dropouts relative to other sites).

For more FDA guidance on a risk-based approach to monitoring and monitoring plans, see the G-RiskMntrng and the G-RiskMntrngQA.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

As delineated in 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCPs, if the sponsor determines the study presents an unreasonable and significant risk to the participants, the sponsor must discontinue the study as soon as possible, and no later than five (5) working days after making the determination. The sponsor must also notify the FDA, all ECs, and all investigators who have participated in the study about the termination. Additionally, the sponsor must ensure the disposition of all remaining drugs and provide the FDA with a full report on the sponsor’s actions.

According to the US-ICH-GCPs, 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.

The G-InfrmdCnsnt, which is the FDA’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50, further states that if a study is terminated, participants should be provided with as much information as possible regarding the reason for the termination. Such a discussion provides an opportunity to address questions that participants may have about an investigational product (IP) that was administered to them (e.g., immediate safety concerns, ability to participate in another clinical trial, and appropriate waiting period to do so) and what long-term follow-up may be available or necessary.

21CFR312 indicates that if the FDA terminates an investigational new drug application (IND) based on deficiencies in the IND or in the conduct of an investigation under an IND, the sponsor must end all clinical investigations conducted under the IND and recall or otherwise provide for the disposition of all unused supplies of the drug. See 21CFR312 for more information on FDA termination.

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.

Electronic Data Processing System

Per the US-ICH-GCPs, when using electronic trial data handling processing systems, the sponsor must ensure and document that the electronic data processing system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance. To validate such systems, the sponsor should use a risk assessment approach that takes into consideration the system’s intended use and potential to affect human subject protection and reliability of trial results. In addition, the sponsor must maintain standard 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. Refer to the US-ICH-GCPs for additional information.

Records Management

As set forth in 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor must retain all sponsor-specific essential documents pertaining to the trial for at least two (2) years after a marketing application (known as a new drug application (NDA)) is approved for the drug; or if a NDA is not approved, until two (2) years after shipment and delivery of the drug for investigational use is discontinued and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has been notified. The sponsor should also inform the investigator(s)/institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and when the trial-related records are no longer needed. Additionally, per 21CFR312, the sponsor must upon request from the FDA, permit an officer or employee to access, copy, and verify any records and reports relating to the clinical investigation. Upon written request by the FDA, the sponsor must also submit the records or reports (or copies of them) to the agency.

In addition, the US-ICH-GCPs 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.

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.

Responsible Parties

As stated in USA-86, the HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information (PHI) may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes (Per USA-87, the Privacy Rule is located at 45CFR160 and Subparts A and E of 45CFR164; see USA-87 for more information). The Privacy Rule builds upon protections, described in Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) (the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA) (21CFR50 and 21CFR56) regulations, that help ensure the privacy of participants and the confidentiality of information. (Please note: ClinRegs does not provide information on state level personal data protection requirements.)

Per the Privacy Rule, a covered entity means: a health plan; a health care clearinghouse; or a health care provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by the Privacy Rule.

Data Protection

According to the FDA’s G-CertCnfdntlty, a Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC) is intended to help protect the privacy of human subject research participants from whom identifiable, sensitive information is being collected or used in furtherance of the research. CoCs must be issued for federally funded human subject research that collects or uses identifiable, sensitive information (mandatory CoCs). For non-federally funded research, issuance of CoCs is not required but may be issued at the discretion of the FDA (discretionary CoCs). If an institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States) determines that data collected in a clinical trial are sufficiently sensitive to warrant requesting a CoC, then the EC may request that a CoC be obtained in order to secure EC approval. Any disagreement between an EC, sponsor, and/or investigators regarding the need to request a CoC for a study should be resolved by communications among the parties. See the G-CertCnfdntlty for more information on CoCs.

NIH Privacy Requirements

The NIHPrvcy indicates that the HHS’ National Institutes of Health (NIH) follows the PrvcyAct, which includes procedures for: 1) protecting records that can be retrieved by personal identifiers such as a name, social security number, or other identifying number or symbol, and 2) persons to access their identifiable records and to request correction(s) of these records. See the NIHPrvcy and the PrvcyAct for more information.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per USA-86, the Privacy Rule defines the means by which individuals will be informed of uses and disclosures of their medical information for research purposes, and their rights to access information about themselves held by covered entities. Researchers may obtain, create, use, and/or disclose individually identifiable health information in the course of conducting research. Under the Privacy Rule, covered entities are permitted to use and disclose PHI for research with individual authorization, or without individual authorization under limited circumstances. To use or disclose PHI without authorization by the research participant, a covered entity must obtain one (1) of the following:

• Documented EC or privacy board approval
• Representations from the researcher that the use or disclosure of the PHI is solely to prepare a research protocol (or for similar purposes preparatory to research), the researcher will not remove any PHI from the covered entity, and PHI for which access is sought is necessary for the research purpose
• Research on protected health information of decedents
• Limited data sets with a data use agreement
• Research use/disclosure with individual authorization
• Accounting for research disclosures

See USA-86 for more information on these circumstances.

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.

Obtaining Consent

In all United States (US) clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in 21CFR50 for Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulated clinical trials, and the Pre2018-ComRule or the RevComRule for federally funded or sponsored clinical trials. (See USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on agency-specific compliance.) Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-funded or sponsored clinical trials must also comply with 45CFR46-B-E. The FDA has also adopted the US-ICH-GCPs as guidance.

As per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) and provided to the FDA with the investigational new drug application (IND).

Per the G-RevComRule-FDA, the informed consent requirements of the RevComRule are not inconsistent with FDA regulations. Therefore, there may not be a need for sponsors or investigators to develop, and have ECs review, two (2) separate ICFs for research that must comply with both the RevComRule and FDA regulations. (See the Required Elements section for ICF content details.) Per the RevComRule, which took effect January 21, 2019, for each clinical trial conducted or supported by a federal department or agency, one (1) EC-approved ICF used to enroll subjects must be posted by the awardee or the federal department or agency component conducting the trial on a publicly available federal website that will be established as a repository for such ICFs. According to USA-12, two (2) federal websites have been identified to meet this requirement: ClinicalTrials.gov (USA-78) and a docket folder on Regulations.gov (USA-79). According to the RevComRule, if the federal department or agency supporting or conducting the clinical trial determines that certain information should not be made publicly available on a federal website (e.g., confidential, commercial information), such federal department or agency may permit or require redactions to the information posted. The ICF must be posted on the federal website after the clinical trial is closed to recruitment and no later than 60 days after the last study visit by any subject, as required by the protocol.

According to 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the investigator must provide detailed research study information to the participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s). ICF content should be briefly and clearly presented orally and in writing, in a manner that is easy to understand and commensurate with the comprehension level of the research participants, and without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s) should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

As indicated in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study should contain any language that causes the participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s) to waive or appear to waive legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator, sponsor, institution or its agents from liability for negligence.

Additionally, per the RevComRule, participants must be provided with the information that a “reasonable person” would want to have in order to make an informed decision and an opportunity to discuss that information. Furthermore, the RevComRule requires that the informed consent, except for broad consent, must begin with a concise and focused presentation of the key information and organized to facilitate comprehension. Broad consent may be obtained in lieu of a full informed consent only with respect to the storage, maintenance, and secondary research uses of private identifiable information and identifiable biospecimens. See USA-54 and USA-60 for additional information regarding informed consent and broad consent requirements.

In addition, per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, the ICF may be presented as either a full length written ICF or as a short form stating the consent requirements have been presented orally. The full length written ICF may be presented orally but must then be provided to the participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s) to read before it is signed.

See the FDA’s G-ElectronicIC for recommendations on the use of electronic systems and processes that may employ multiple electronic media to obtain informed consent for both HHS-regulated human subject research and FDA-regulated clinical investigations of medical products.

See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for the FDA’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50. Also, see USA-54 and USA-60 for additional information regarding informed consent.

Re-Consent

According to 21CFR50, the US-ICH-GCPs, and the G-IRBFAQs, the EC should determine the need to re-consent enrolled participants in the event of an ICF modification due to protocol changes or new information which may, in turn, affect the willingness of already enrolled participants to continue in the study. The communication of this information should be documented.

The G-IRBFAQs indicates that the FDA does not require re-consenting of participants who have completed their active participation in the study, or of participants who are still actively participating when the change will not affect their participation. One such case is when the change will be implemented only for subsequently enrolled participants.

Language Requirements

21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs state that any information provided must be in a language understandable to the participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s).

As delineated in the FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt, when non-English speaking participants are enrolled in a study, ECs and investigators must ensure that the information provided to prospective participants and/or their legal representative(s) or guardian(s) is in a language that is understandable to them. The EC must review and approve all consent documents that are to be used by investigators to document the informed consent. When translation and interpretation are needed for written and oral information to be presented to participants, the FDA recommends that the EC review and approve reasonable procedures for ensuring that the translations will be prepared by a qualified individual or entity, and that interpretation assistance is available. The FDA also recommends that whenever non-English speaking participants are enrolled in a study, appropriate interpreter services be made available throughout the course of the study.

USA-63 also states that when an oral presentation of the ICF is provided, the witness present should be fluent in both English and the participant’s language, and the translator may serve as the witness. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt and USA-63 for detailed information.

Documenting Consent

As set forth in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s) must sign and date an EC-approved written ICF. A written copy of the form must be given to the participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s). In addition, the RevComRule explicitly allows electronic signatures for consent documentation.

Per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, if the consent information is only presented orally using the short form, the participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s) must sign the form, the witness must sign both the short form and a copy of the summary once consent has been provided, and the person obtaining the consent must sign a copy of the summary. A copy of both the summary and the short form must be given to the participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s). The FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt further states that participants who cannot write can instead indicate their consent by "making their mark" on the consent document. In these situations, a note should be included in participant case histories indicating the reason for the lack of a signature and date as required in 21CFR50. The date consent was obtained should be recorded in this note.

According to the US-ICH-GCPs, where the participant is illiterate and/or the legal representative(s) and/or guardian(s) 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 the legal representative(s)/guardian(s)
• The participant or the legal representative(s)/guardian(s), has orally consented to the participant’s involvement in the trial, and has signed and dated the ICF, if capable of doing so

Per the US-ICH-GCPs, before participating in the study, the participant or the legal representative(s)/guardian(s) should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF.

Waiver of Consent

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, the EC may waive the requirement to obtain a signed ICF if it finds any of the following:

• The ICF would risk a breach of confidentiality by linking the participant to the study
• The research presents minimal risk and involves no procedures for which written consent is required outside of the study

The RevComRule also adds that the EC may waive the requirements to obtain a signed ICF if the participants are part of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing the form is not the norm, the research presents minimal risk, and there is an alternative approach to document informed consent.

The Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule further indicate that in cases where the documentation requirement is waived, the EC may require the investigator to provide the participant or the legal representative(s)/guardian(s) with a written statement regarding the research.

In addition, 21CFR50, the RevComRule, and the Pre2018-ComRule state that for an EC to approve a general waiver or alteration of consent, the EC must find that:

• The research involves no more than minimal risk
• The research could not practicably be carried out without the requested waiver or alteration
• The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the participants
• Whenever appropriate, the participant or the legal representative(s)/guardian(s) will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation

21CFR50 and the RevComRule also state that for an EC to approve the general waiver or alteration of consent, the EC must find that if the research involves using identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, the research could not practicably be carried out without using such information or biospecimens in an identifiable format.

In the G-MinRiskWaiver, the FDA informs sponsors, investigators, and ECs that it does not intend to object to an EC waiving or altering informed consent requirements for certain minimal-risk, clinical investigations.

Furthermore, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the G-MinRiskWaiver specify that although voluntary informed consent is always a requirement for every trial, the EC may approve a waiver or alteration of consent if the study involves a public benefit and service program conducted by or subject to the approval of state or local officials and could not be carried out without the waiver or alteration.

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

Based on 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the informed consent form (ICF) must include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: The regulations provide overlapping and unique elements so each of the items listed below will not necessarily be in each source):

• The study purpose, procedures, and expected duration of the trial
• Identification of any experimental procedures
• Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo or fetus
• Any expected benefits to the participant
• Disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures that might be advantageous to the participant
• Confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained and the possibility that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) may inspect the records
• Compensation and/or treatment available for the participant in the case of trial-related injury
• Contact information for relevant individuals to contact in the event of a trial-related injury
• That participation is voluntary, that refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled, and that the participant can withdraw from the trial at any time without penalty or loss of otherwise entitled benefits
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator may remove the participant without consent
• Any expenses the participant needs to pay to participate in the trial
• The consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the study, and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant
• Any significant new findings developed during the study that may affect a participant’s willingness to continue participation
• Approximate number of participants in the study

As per 21CFR50, for FDA-regulated research, the following statement must be included on the informed consent documents: “A description of this clinical trial will be available on https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, as required by U.S. Law. This Web site will not include information that can identify you. At most, the Web site will include a summary of the results. You can search this Web site at any time.”

In the G-InfrmdCnsnt, the FDA also recommends the consent document advise participants that data collected on them up until the point of their withdrawal from a study will remain part of the study database and may not be removed. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

The RevComRule also requires the following statements to be included in the ICF:

• Whether research results will be disclosed to participants
• Whether or not the participant’s information or biospecimens will be used or distributed for future research
• That participant’s biospecimens (even if identifiers are removed) may be used for commercial profit and if the participant will share in this profit
• Whether biospecimens research may include whole genome sequencing

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

Compensation Disclosure

The FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt further states that if no compensation in the event of injury is available, the consent process should include a statement informing the participant. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for an example statement.

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.)

Overview

In accordance with 21CFR50, 21CFR312, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the United States’ (US) ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, a potential participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s) must 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 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, a potential research participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s), 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 Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, participants should be given a statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying them will be maintained. Per the US-ICH-GCPs, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. It is the responsibility of the investigator(s) to safeguard the confidentiality of research data to protect the identity and records of research participants.

The RevComRule does allow the use of identifiable private information or biospecimens in instances where the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) determines the research could not practicably be carried out without the information. Furthermore, it removes the requirement for the investigator to seek a waiver of informed consent to obtain information or biospecimens to screen, recruit, or determine eligibility of prospective participants. See USA-54 for additional information on identifiable private information or biospecimens, USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

The G-InfrmdCnsnt, which is the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50, delineates how data should be handled when an enrolled participant decides to withdraw from a trial. Data collected on participants up to the time of withdrawal from clinical investigations of drugs conducted under an investigational new drug application (IND) must remain in the study database to maintain the scientific validity of the research. The FDA recommends that participants be advised in the consent document that the data collected on them up until the point of their withdrawal will remain part of the study database and may not be removed. If a participant withdraws from the interventional portion of the clinical investigation but agrees to continued follow-up not addressed in the original consent document, the investigator must obtain the participant’s informed consent for this limited participation using an EC-approved consent document. If a participant withdraws from the interventional portion of a clinical investigation and does not consent to continued follow-up of associated clinical outcome information, the investigator must not access the participant’s medical record or other confidential records that would require additional consent from the participant. However, such records may be accessed consistent with the original consent process, without additional consent, to obtain information collected prior to the participant’s withdrawal from the study. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional information.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs state that the research participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s), should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries and/or to appeal against a violation of the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The US-ICH-GCPs clearly states 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.

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.

21CFR50, 21CFR56, the US-ICH-GCPs, and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when the procedure is complicated by life-threatening medical emergencies, public health emergencies, or military operations.

Medical Emergencies

As per the US-ICH-GCPs, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) has not been obtained from the research participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s), or if an effective treatment is lacking but the investigational product (IP) 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 institutional ethics committee (EC) (referred to as an institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) must approve the protocol in advance. The participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s) should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

Emergency Use Situation

21CFR56 describes emergency use as the use of a test article, such as an IP, on a human participant in a life-threatening situation in which no standard acceptable treatment is available, and in which there is not sufficient time to obtain EC approval.

21CFR50 and the G-EmrgncyUse indicate that even in an emergency use situation, obtaining participant consent is required unless the investigator and a physician not participating in the trial certify in writing the following:

• The participant is confronted by a life-threatening situation
• Informed consent cannot be obtained due to an inability to communicate with the participant
• Time is insufficient to obtain consent from the participant’s legal representative(s) and/or guardian(s)
• No alternative methods of approved or generally recognized therapy are available

Per 21CFR50 and the G-EmrgncyUse, if immediate use of the IP is, in the investigator's opinion, required to preserve the participant’s life and time is not sufficient to obtain an independent physician’s determination prior to using the IP, the investigator’s determinations should be carried out. However, within five (5) working days following the use of the IP, the investigator’s decision must be reviewed and evaluated in writing by a physician not participating in the investigation. According to 21CFR50, 21CFR56, and the G-EmrgncyUse, the investigator must also notify the EC within five (5) working days.

21CFR56, the G-EmrgncyUse, and the G-IRBFAQs further state that following emergency use of the IP, EC review and approval is required for any subsequent use of the IP.

Emergency Research

The G-ICEmrgncyReqs defines emergency research as a planned clinical investigation that requires prior written Food & Drug Administration (FDA) authorization to proceed, and involves participant(s) who are in a life-threatening situation for which available treatments or in vitro diagnostic tests are unproven or unsatisfactory.

21CFR50 and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs delineate that for emergency research, the EC may approve the investigation without requiring the consent of all the participants if the EC (with the concurrence of a licensed physician who is an EC member or EC consultant, and not otherwise participating in the investigation) finds and documents the following:

• The participants are in a life-threatening situation, available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory, and the collection of valid scientific evidence is necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness of particular interventions
• Obtaining informed consent is not feasible because: (i) the participants will not be able to give their informed consent as a result of their medical condition; (ii) the intervention under investigation must be administered before consent from the participants’ legal representative(s) and/or guardian(s) is feasible; and (iii) there is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation
• Participation in the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the participants
• The clinical investigation could not practicably be carried out without the waiver
• The proposed investigational plan defines the length of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator has committed to attempting to contact a legal representative and/or guardian for each participant within that window of time and, if feasible, to asking them for consent within that window rather than proceeding without consent
• The EC has reviewed and approved informed consent procedures and an informed consent document consistent with 21CFR50
• Additional protections of the rights and welfare of the participants will be provided

See 21CFR50 and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs for more details.

USA-60 notes that in certain emergency circumstances, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretarial waiver of informed consent under 46.101(i) of the RevComRule may be applicable. The HHS waiver applies to research that may be carried out in human participants who need emergency therapy and for whom, because of the participants’ medical condition and the unavailability of the participants’ legal representative(s) and/or guardian(s), no legally effective informed consent can be obtained. Furthermore, if the research is regulated by the FDA, the HHS waiver permits the research to be conducted under a comparable provision. See the G-HHS-Emrgncy for additional guidance, USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the RevComRule applies to research.

Military Operations

21CFR50 and 10USC55 indicate that in the case of IP administration to a member of the armed forces in connection with participation in a particular military operation, the requirement for the member’s prior consent may be waived only by the US President. The US President may grant the waiver only after determining, in writing, that obtaining consent is not feasible; is contrary to the best interests of the military personnel; or is not in the interests of national security. See 21CFR50 and 10USC55 for detailed requirements.

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.

Overview

As per 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, in all United States (US) clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. Institutional ethics committees (ECs) (institutional review boards (IRBs) in the US) must pay special attention to protecting such participants. (See USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

21CFR56 and the US-ICH-GCPs require special considerations for vulnerable populations and characterize them as those whose willingness to volunteer in a trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response for refusing to participate. Examples of these participants include members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students; subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel; pharmaceutical industry employees; members of the armed forces; and persons kept in detention. Per 21CFR56 and US-ICH-GCPs, other vulnerable subjects include children, pregnant women, physically or mentally disabled persons, patients with incurable diseases, persons in nursing homes, economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent.

The Pre2018-ComRule describes children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped persons, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons as vulnerable populations. The RevComRule describes children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons as vulnerable populations.

For more guidance documents related to vulnerable populations, see USA-64.

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

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).

As set forth in 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, children are defined as persons who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures involved in the research, under the applicable law of the jurisdiction in which the study will be conducted. USA-25 further states that the age of majority in most states is 18 and therefore for legal purposes, children are those individuals who have not reached the age of 18. See USA-25 for a table delineating the legal age of majority by state in the United States (US).

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, children require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. (See USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

As delineated in the US-ICH-GCPs, when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from a legal representative(s) or guardian(s). All pediatric participants should be fully informed about the trial and its risks and benefits in a language and in terms that they are easily able to understand. If capable, the participant should sign and date the written informed consent.

For all clinical trials that do not involve greater than minimal risk, 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E state that a study may only be conducted if adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their legal representative(s) or guardian(s).

For all clinical trials that involve greater than minimal risk but present the prospect of direct benefit to the child, 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E indicate that a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The risk is justified by the anticipated benefit to the child
• The anticipated benefit is greater than or equal to the available alternative approaches
• Adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their legal representative(s) or guardians

For all clinical trials involving children/minors that involve greater than minimal risk and do not present the prospect of direct benefit to the child, but will likely result in increased knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition, 21CFR50 and the 45CFR46-B-E state that a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The risk is slightly greater than minimal
• The trial presents experiences that are similar to those associated with the child’s actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situation
• Adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their legal representative(s) or guardian(s)

For all clinical trials that present a reasonable opportunity to further understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children/minors but is not otherwise approvable per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) finds that the investigation presents a reasonable opportunity to further the understanding, prevention, or alleviation of a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children, and,
• The Commissioner of Food and Drugs consults with an expert panel and has an opportunity for public review and comment to determine that the investigation satisfies the conditions of one (1) of the other earlier described research types, or the following conditions are met: the investigation will be conducted in accordance with sound ethical principles and adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of children and the permission of their legal representative(s) or guardian(s)

Per the RevComRule, certain exemptions may apply to observational research involving children. See the RevComRule for details.

For additional Food & Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on clinical research in children, see US-ICH-E11 and USA-60. Additionally, see the G-InfrmdCnsnt for FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

Assent Requirements

Per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, when determining whether children/minors are capable of providing assent, the EC must consider their age, maturity, and psychological state. Assent from a child/minor is not necessary for proceeding with the clinical trial if the following applies:

• The capability of some or all of the children/minors is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted
• The trial presents a potential direct benefit that is important to the health or well-being of the children/minors and is only available through the investigation

Further, the EC may waive assent, even if the children/minors are capable of providing assent, if it finds and documents the following:

• Trial involves no more than minimal risk
• The waiver will not negatively affect the rights and welfare of the children/minors
• The trial could not be implemented without the waiver
• The children/minors will be given additional information after participation, whenever appropriate

When legal representative or guardian permission is necessary, the EC must determine whether the permission of one (1) legal representative or guardian is sufficient, or if permission from both is required. If the EC determines assent is required, it must also determine whether and how assent must be documented. 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E do specify, however, that the consent of both legal representative(s) or guardian(s) is required in the following cases:

• When there is greater than minimal risk to the child with no direct benefit to the child, but the study will likely result in increased knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition
• Research that presents an opportunity to understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children/minors, but is not otherwise approvable

Exceptions to the two (2) legal representatives’ and/or guardians’ consent requirement are when one (1) legal representative or guardian is deceased, unknown, incompetent, or not reasonably available, or, when only one (1) legal representative or guardian has legal responsibility for the care and custody of the child.

The G-InfrmdCnsnt indicates that when obtaining legal representative or guardian permission, in the event that the legal representative(s) or guardian(s) of a child does not understand English, the permission must be obtained and documented in a language that is understandable to the legal representative(s) or guardian(s). The child who will be participating in the research should not be used as an interpreter for the legal representative(s) or guardian(s), even if the child is fluent in English and may be able to assent. Further, legal representative or guardian permission and child assent should be viewed as an ongoing process throughout the duration of a clinical investigation. If and when a child who was enrolled in a clinical investigation with legal representative or guardian permission reaches the legal age of consent, that participant no longer meets the definition of a child under 21CFR50, and the investigator should obtain the participant’s informed consent prior to performing any further research interventions and/or procedures involving that participant. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

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

As per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, for studies involving women of childbearing age or who are pregnant, a statement should be provided in the informed consent form (ICF) indicating that the treatment or procedure may involve risks to the participant, embryo, or fetus, which are currently unforeseeable. According to the US-ICH-GCPs, the ICF should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule, pregnant women require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. Furthermore, according to the RevComRule, all of the available exemptions of the RevComRule for observational research may be applied to research involving pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates. See the RevComRule for details. (See USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

All Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-sponsored or -funded research involving pregnant women, human fetuses, neonates of uncertain viability, or nonviable neonates must comply with Subpart B of 45CFR46-B-E.

Pregnant Women and Fetuses

As per 45CFR46-B-E, pregnant women and fetuses may participate in research if all of the following criteria are met:

• Preclinical and clinical studies have been conducted and provide data for assessing potential risks, where scientifically appropriate
• Risk to the fetus is caused solely by procedures that provide potential direct benefit to the woman or fetus. If there is no potential direct benefit, then the risk to the fetus cannot be greater than minimal, and the intent of the study is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise
• Least possible risk involved for achieving the research objectives
• Consent is obtained from the woman for studies that provide potential direct benefit to the pregnant woman and/or fetus, and studies with minimal risk to the fetus conducted to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise
• Consent is obtained from the pregnant woman and the father if the study provides potential direct benefit solely to the fetus. Paternal consent is not required if the father is unavailable, incompetent, temporarily incapacitated, or the pregnancy was a result of incest or rape
• All individuals providing consent are fully informed about the foreseeable impact on the fetus or neonate
• No inducements will be offered to terminate a pregnancy
• Participants will not be involved in determining the timing, method, or procedures for terminating a pregnancy
• Participants will not be involved in determining the viability of a neonate

Neonates

45CFR46-B-E states that neonates may not be involved in research unless all of the following criteria are met:

• Preclinical and clinical studies have been conducted and provide data for assessing potential risks, where scientifically appropriate
• All individuals providing consent are fully informed about the foreseeable impact on the neonate

Neonates of uncertain viability may not be involved in research unless the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) determines the following additional conditions are met:

• Research provides the potential for increasing the probability of survival to the point of viability, and involves the least possible risk
• The purpose is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise and there is no added risk resulting from the research
• Informed consent is obtained from either parent, or if neither parent is able to provide consent, then consent is obtained from the neonate’s legal representative and/or guardian. Paternal consent is not required if pregnancy was a result of incest or rape.

Nonviable neonates may not be involved in research unless the following additional conditions are met:

• Vital functions will not be maintained artificially
• Research will not terminate the heartbeat or respiration
• The purpose is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise, and there is no added risk resulting from the research
• Consent is obtained from both parents. If neither parent is able to provide consent, informed consent of one (1) parent will suffice. Paternal consent is not required if pregnancy was a result of incest or rape. Consent of a legal representative or guardian of either or both parents will not suffice.

Viable neonates may only be included in research to the extent permitted by and in accordance with the RevComRule and subparts B and D of 45CFR46-B-E.

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.

21CFR56, 45CFR46-B-E, and the US-ICH-GCPs include prisoners in their description of vulnerable populations. As set forth in 45CFR46-B-E, a prisoner is defined as any individual involuntarily confined or detained in a penal institution. Prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, prisoners require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. As delineated in the RevComRule, none of its observational research exemptions may be applied to research involving prisoners, except for research aimed at involving a broader subject population that only incidentally includes prisoners. (See USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

45CFR46-B-E states that prisoners may participate in biomedical or behavioral research conducted or supported by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) only if the following criteria are met:

• The institution conducting the research has certified to the HHS Secretary that the research has been approved by the institutional ethics committees (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)); research involves minimal risk; and studies focus on the possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration and criminal behavior, prisons as institutional structures, or prisoners as incarcerated persons
• Research should focus on conditions specifically affecting prisoners as a class, or practices that have the intent and likelihood of improving the health or well-being of participants only after the HHS Secretary has consulted the appropriate experts, and a Federal Register notice is published indicating intent to approve such research

See USA-62 for more HHS information on prisoner research.

As per 45CFR46-B-E, ECs have additional approval responsibilities when reviewing research studies involving prisoners. An EC must only approve these studies if it determines that:

• The research under review represents one (1) of the permissible categories of research delineated in Subpart C
• The prisoner’s judgement will not be impaired by any possible advantages accruing to the prisoner through participation in the research, when compared to the general living conditions, medical care, quality of food, amenities, and opportunity for earnings in the prison
• Research risks are commensurate with those that would be accepted by non-prisoner volunteers
• Procedures for participant selection within the prison are fair to all prisoners and immune from arbitrary intervention by prison authorities or prisoners
• Information is presented in a language understandable to the prisoner population
• Adequate assurance exists that parole boards will not take into account a prisoner's participation in the research in making decisions regarding parole, and each prisoner is clearly informed in advance that participation in the research will have no effect on parole
• As needed, adequate provisions have been made for follow-up examination or care of participants, taking into account the varying lengths of individual prisoners' sentences, and for informing participants of this fact

See Subpart C of 45CFR46-B-E for additional EC requirements related to prisoner research.

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

In accordance with 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, an institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) must approve the participation of research participants who are mentally incapable of giving consent. According to the G-InfrmdCnsnt, which is the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50, impaired consent capacity may involve partial impairment, impairment that fluctuates over time, or complete impairment. Consent capacity can be affected by a wide range of disorders and conditions, such as dementia, stroke, traumatic brain injury, intellectual and developmental disabilities, serious mental illness, intoxication, and delirium.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, this population requires additional safeguards to be included in any research study to protect the rights and welfare of participants likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence. (See USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

USA-60 further indicates that while Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) regulations do not provide specific procedures, it is expected that for research involving adult participants with mental illnesses or cognitive impairments, the EC and investigator(s) must be knowledgeable about the condition and any level of impairment that is likely to be present in the participant population.

As stated in the FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt, ECs and investigators should carefully consider whether the inclusion in research of individuals who lack consent capacity is ethically appropriate and scientifically necessary. Considerations that may help address these challenges and provide additional safeguards include:

• Assessing consent capacity of prospective participants, for example, through use of an independent, qualified professional

• Establishing a waiting period in the decision-making process to allow additional time for decision-making

• Using methods to enhance consent capacity, for example through (1) simplification and/or repetition of information, (2) involvement of a participant advocate or trusted family member/friend to assist when sharing information about the clinical investigation, and (3) refraining from discussions during periods of heightened impairment, when possible

• Assessing a participant’s understanding after information about the clinical investigation has been imparted, for example, through use of a questionnaire

• Re-assessing consent capacity after initiation of the clinical investigation for participants with progressive disorders whose cognition may decline

• Involving a legally authorized representative and/or guardian either initially or later in the clinical investigation if consent capacity diminishes

• Assessing whether prospective participants who cannot provide legally effective consent on their own behalf may nonetheless be able to provide some form of oral agreement at the outset of the study and, as appropriate, throughout the course of the research (e.g., for participants with progressive disorders), and how such oral agreement would be documented

• Emphasizing the voluntary nature of the decision to participate and the right to withdraw at any time

• Determining whether the EC or a third party should observe the consent process

See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional information and FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

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.

As delineated in 21CFR312, an investigational new drug is defined as a new drug or biological drug that is used in a clinical investigation. This includes a biological product that is used in vitro for diagnostic purposes. The terms ‘investigational drug’ and ‘investigational new drug’ are deemed to be synonymous for the purposes of this part.

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

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.

Manufacturing

According to 21CFR312 and USA-42, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) (also known as investigational new drugs in the United States (US)).

Per 21CFR312, sponsors that use an IP not already subject to a manufacturer’s investigational new drug application (IND) or marketing application are required to provide all of the technical chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information outlined in the application content and format requirements section of 21CFR312, unless such information may be referenced from applicable scientific literature. Sponsors using an IP already subject to a manufacturer’s application should follow the same general application format but may, if authorized by the manufacturer, refer to the manufacturer’s application to provide the technical (CMC) information supporting the proposed clinical investigation.

Moreover, as stated in 21CFR312, a sponsor may ship an IP to the investigators named in the IND under the following conditions:

• Thirty (30) days after the FDA receives the IND, or
• FDA provides earlier authorization to ship the IP

The sponsor is responsible for complying with the principles of good manufacturing practice (GMP) as specified in 21CFR210, the G-CGMP-Phase1, and the G-INDPrep. The US-ICH-GCPs also states that the sponsor must ensure that the products are manufactured in accordance with GMPs.

Import

As set forth in 21CFR312, the FDA is also responsible for authorizing the import and export of IPs. An IP may be imported into the US if it is subject to an IND that is in effect for it and complies with one (1) of the following requirements:

• The IP consignee is the IND sponsor, or
• The consignee is a qualified investigator named in the IND, or
• The consignee is the domestic agent of a foreign sponsor, is responsible for the control and distribution of the IP, and the IND identifies the consignee and describes what, if any, actions the consignee will take with respect to the IP

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).

Investigator's Brochure

In accordance with 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for providing investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB). The IB must contain all of the relevant information on the investigational new drug(s)/investigational product(s) (IPs) obtained through the earlier research phases. The sponsor must also update the IB as significant new information becomes available.

As specified in 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCPs, the IB must provide coverage of the following areas (Note: The regulations provide overlapping and unique elements so each of the items listed below will not necessarily be in each source):

• A brief description of the drug substance and the formulation, including the structural formula, if known
• A summary of the pharmacological and toxicological effects of the drug in animals and, to the extent known, in humans
• A summary of the pharmacokinetics and biological disposition of the drug in animals and, if known, in humans
• A summary of information relating to safety and effectiveness in humans obtained from prior clinical studies
• A description of possible risks and side effects to be anticipated on the basis of prior experience with the drug under investigation or with related drugs, and of precautions or special monitoring to be done as part of the investigational use of the drug
• Summary of data and guidance for the investigator

See 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCPs for detailed IB content guidelines.

For investigational new drug applications (INDs) that include clinical data provided from studies conducted outside of the United States (US), 21CFR312 states that the sponsor or applicant must submit a description of the actions taken to ensure that the research conformed to good clinical practices (GCPs). See Section 312.120 of 21CFR312 for detailed requirements.

Quality Management

According to USA-39, submitting a copy of the Certificate of Analysis (CoA) of the clinical batch is suggested, but not required by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

The US-ICH-GCPs state that the sponsor must maintain a CoA to document the identity, purity, and strength of the IP(s) to be used in the clinical trial.

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.

Investigational new drug/investigational product (IP) labeling in the United States (US) must comply with the requirements set forth in Section 312.6 of 21CFR312, which include the following:

• The immediate package of an IP intended for human use must bear a label with the following statement: “Caution: New Drug-Limited by Federal (or US) law to investigational use”
• The label or labeling of an IP must not bear any false or misleading statements and must not represent that the IP is safe or effective for the purposes for which it is being investigated

The appropriate Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Center Director may grant an exception or alternative to the requirements above for specific lots, batches, or other units of a human drug or biological product that is or will be included in the Strategic National Stockpile.

In addition, the US-ICH-GCPs states that the IP must be coded and labeled in a manner that protects the blinding, if applicable.

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.

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As defined in the US-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor must supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the investigational new drug(s)/investigational product(s) (IP(s)), including the comparator(s) and placebo, if applicable. The IPs must also be suitably packaged in a manner that will prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage.

Per 21CFR312, the US-ICH-GCPs, the G-CGMP-Phase1, and the G-INDPrep, the sponsor must ensure the following (Note: The regulations provide overlapping and unique elements so each of the items listed below will not necessarily be in each source):

• IP product quality and stability over the period of use
• IP manufactured according to any applicable good manufacturing practices (GMPs)
• Proper coding, packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)
• Acceptable storage temperatures, conditions, and times for the IP
• Timely delivery of the IP(s)

Refer to the US-ICH-GCPs, the G-CGMP-Phase1, and the G-INDPrep for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements.

Record Requirements

According to 21CFR312, the sponsor must maintain adequate records showing the receipt, shipment, or other disposition of the IP. These records are required to include, as appropriate, the name of the investigator to whom the drug is shipped, and the date, quantity, and batch or code mark of each such shipment. The sponsor is also required to maintain records showing financial interest paid to investigators. See 21CFR312 for more details.

As per 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCPs, the sponsor and the investigator(s) must retain the clinical investigation records and reports for two (2) years after a marketing application (known as a New Drug Application (NDA)) is approved for the IP; or, if an NDA is not approved, until two (2) years after shipment and delivery of the IP is discontinued for investigational use and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has been so notified.

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.

A specimen, referred to as patient specimen in 49CFR173, is defined as human or animal material collected directly from humans or animals and transported for research, diagnosis, investigational activities, or disease treatment or prevention. Patient specimen includes excreta, secreta, blood and its components, tissue and tissue swabs, body parts, and specimens in transport media (e.g., transwabs, culture media, and blood culture bottles).

In addition, 42CFR73 defines specimen as samples of material from humans, animals, plants, or the environment or isolates or cultures from such samples for diagnosis, verification, or proficiency testing.

The RevComRule defines an identifiable biospecimen as one for which the identity of the participant is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the biospecimen. (See USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the RevComRule applies to research.)

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.

Per USA-2, the NIH also requires researchers to use an agreement (e.g., Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) or contract) to transfer materials among academic, nonprofit, and/or industrial organizations. See USA-2 for detailed MTA requirements and Appendix 4 for a sample MTA.

Detailed information is currently unavailable regarding Kenya’s Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB)’s requirements for obtaining informed consent from participants prior to collecting, storing, or using their biological sample(s). However, the G-KenyaCT states that for research involving children, the sponsor or the representative or the principal investigator should provide examples of patient information leaflets and informed consent forms (ICF) to the ethics committee (EC) for any proposed archiving of biological specimens for later research, or for genetics research.

The G-ECBiomedRes requires that participants are made aware of the use of personal data through informed consent, including secondary data and biological material in biobanks. The secondary use of data requires approval by an accredited EC. The investigator must obtain consent from the participants for the new study. For situations where this is not practicable, the relevant accredited EC can approve a waiver of individual consent following confirmation that the participants had previously consented to storage of the biological samples/data, and that this data is delinked from personal identifiers. In cases where the sample is stored in a foreign institution, the collaborating EC should also conduct its own deliberation. Researchers sending samples abroad must ensure that consent for transfer of materials was obtained during collection of the samples and that the collaborating EC gave approval.

See KEN-4 for Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)'s sample ICF that includes guidance on specimens. As another example, see KEN-17 for the Kenyatta National Hospital-University of Nairobi (KNH-UoN) Ethics and Research Committee’s form and guidance on genetic research and biobanking.

See the Required Elements and Participant Rights sections for additional information on informed consent.

As delineated in the G-IC-IVDs, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) only provides informed consent guidance with respect to its regulations governing the informed consent requirement when human specimens are used for FDA-regulated in vitro diagnostic device investigations.

Informed consent requirements guiding Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-conducted or -supported research on human research participants is regulated by the Pre2018-ComRule and 45CFR46-B-E.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the G-SpecimensResrch, the HHS views research involving human subject specimens as research involving human participants and subject to informed consent requirements, if the specimens obtained may be classified as identifiable private information. Identifiable private information or identifiable specimens are those that can be linked to specific individuals by the investigator(s) either directly or indirectly through coding systems. The RevComRule further defines an identifiable biospecimen as one for which the identity of the participant is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator. See the Pre2018-ComRule, RevComRule, the G-SpecimensResrch, USA-2, USA-9, and USA-1 for additional information. See also the G-SpecimensResrch for exemptions to this definition.

Additionally, as defined by the HHS’ National Institutes of Health (NIH) in USA-72, research with specimens, cells, cell lines, or data involves human subjects when:

• The specimens, cells, or data must be or must have been obtained from individuals who are alive, and must be or must have been obtained by an investigator conducting research; and
• The investigator either must be obtaining or must have obtained specimens, cells, or data through interaction or intervention with living individuals, or must be obtaining or have obtained individually identifiable private information.

See USA-72 for detailed frequently asked questions (FAQs) on this topic.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and USA-2, prior to collecting, storing, or using a research participant’s biological specimen(s), consent must be obtained from the participant and/or a legal representative(s). See USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

The RevComRule requires the informed consent form to provide one (1) of the following statements about any research that involves the collection of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens:

• A statement that identifiers might be removed from the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens and that, after such removal, the information or biospecimens could be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without additional informed consent from the subject or the legally authorized representative, if this might be a possibility
• A statement that the subject's information or biospecimens collected as part of the research, even if identifiers are removed, will not be used or distributed for future research studies
• A statement that the subject's biospecimens (even if identifiers are removed) may be used for commercial profit and whether the subject will or will not share in this commercial profit
• Whether the research will (if known) or might include whole genome sequencing (i.e., sequencing of a human germline or somatic specimen with the intent to generate the genome or exome sequence of that specimen)

Furthermore, the RevComRule delineates the requirements of broad consent—an alternative consent process—for the storage, maintenance, and secondary research use of private information or identifiable biospecimens. Broad consent requires that the following information be provided to the participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s):

• Certain basic elements from the normal consent process related to risks, benefits, confidentiality, voluntary statement, commercial profit, contact information, and whole genome sequencing elements
• Types of research that may be conducted
• A description of the information or biospecimens that might be used in future research, whether sharing might occur; and the types of institutions or researchers that might conduct research
• A description of the length of time that the information or biospecimens may be stored, maintained, and used
• A statement that participants will or will not be informed of the details of any specific research studies that might be subsequently conducted
• A statement that research results either will or will not be disclosed to participants
• An explanation of whom to contact for answers to questions about the subject's rights and about storage and use of the subject's identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related harm.

The RevComRule does allow the use of identifiable information or biospecimens in instances where the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) determines the research could not practicably be carried out without the information in that form. Furthermore, it removes the requirement for the investigator to seek a waiver of informed consent to obtain information or biospecimens to screen, recruit, or determine eligibility of prospective participants. See USA-54 for more information on broad consent and informed consent waivers.

The HHS’ G-StoredData-Tissues and USA-2 recommend that the following be included in informed consent documents for biospecimen collection:

• A clear description of the operation of the biospecimen resource including details such as whether identifiable information will be maintained by the biospecimen resource and/or whether research results will be linked to the biospecimen
• Conditions under which samples and data will be released to recipient investigators
• Procedures for protecting the privacy of human research participants and confidentiality of data
• Specific descriptions of the nature and purpose of the research
• Information about the consequences of DNA typing if human genetic research is anticipated

(See the Required Elements and Participant Rights sections for additional information on informed consent).