Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority

As per the LMHRA-Act, the LibCTReg, and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, oversight, and inspections. According to the LMHRA-Act, the LMHRA operates as an autonomous government agency that reports to the President of the Republic of Liberia. In addition to its role in authorizing clinical trials, the LMHRA-Act indicates that the LMHRA’s responsibilities also include drug and health care product registration, inspections, import/export control, licensing, quality control, advertising and promotion, and pharmacovigilance and post-marketing surveillance.

Per LBR-30, the Clinical Trials Unit within LMHRA’s Pharmacovigilance & Clinical Trials Department is responsible for coordinating all aspects of clinical trials in Liberia including:

• Receiving and assessing all clinical trial applications submitted to the LMHRA
• Conducting good clinical practice (GCP) inspections of trial sites and GCP training for inspectors and the study team to ensure compliance that is in line with LMHRA regulatory requirements and international best practices
• Reviewing all reports from clinical trial sites and advising management on appropriate regulatory actions
• Investigating the conduct of clinical trials
• Suspending or stopping clinical trials (depending on the magnitude of the offense)
• Serving as secretariat for the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) on clinical trials
• Reviewing importation permits for investigational products (IPs) that are required for the conduct of clinical trials
• Conducting pre-submission meetings to discuss issues related to application processes
• Reviewing all reports (safety reports, quarterly reports, Serious Adverse Events (SAE) reports and final or close-out reports) from clinical trial studies conducted

Per the LibCTReg, the LMHRA can establish advisory committees for the review of clinical trial applications and for post-approval safety and compliance issues, if needed, and especially in the event of new/emerging technologies. According to LBR-29, the LMHRA has established a SAC to provide technical support to review clinical trial applications.

Other Considerations

Please note: Liberia is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (LBR-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 LBR-17.

Contact Information

Per LBR-19, the LMHRA contact information is as follows:

Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA)
2nd & 3rd Floors Clay Building
Sekou Toure Avenue
Mamba Point
Monrovia, Liberia
Phone: (+231) 777-140-555 or (+231) 888-140-555
Email: info@lmhra.gov.lr

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority

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

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

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

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

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

Other Considerations

Per ZAF-29, SAHPRA is an official member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH).

Please note: South Africa is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (ZAF-8), which may have implications for studies of investigational products developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see ZAF-34.

Contact Information

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

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

SAHPRA’s physical address is:

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

Telephone: (012) 501 0300
Email: enquiries@sahpra.org.za

As per ZAF-47 and ZAF-36, the following are the SAHPRA Clinical Trials Unit emails:

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

See EsclatProc for SAHPRA’s core business escalation procedures when contacting the relevant Clinical Trials Unit.

Overview

In accordance with the LMHRA-Act, the LibCTReg, and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) is responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving applications for clinical trials using registered or unregistered investigational products (IPs). According to the G-LibClinTrial, proposed clinical trials of registered medicines may include changes to indications, new methods of administration, or new combinations, etc. The G-LibClinTrial specifies that the scope of the LMHRA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV). In addition, per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) and LMHRA reviews may be conducted in parallel. However, the G-LibClinTrial and the G-NREB specify that the LMHRA will only issue final approval once NREB (ethics committee (EC)) approval is obtained.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As indicated in LBR-30, the LMHRA’s Clinical Trials Unit within the Pharmacovigilance & Clinical Trials Department is responsible for coordinating all clinical trial activities. According to LBR-29, the LMHRA has established a Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to review clinical trial applications.

Per the G-LibClinTrial, the LMHRA will only process an application upon receipt of a completed application and the prescribed fees. Upon receipt, the LMHRA screens the clinical trial application package for completeness and must inform the applicant in writing about the validity of the application or the formal grounds for non-acceptance of the application. After validating the application package is complete, the LMHRA conducts a scientific assessment of the application.

During the clinical trial scientific assessment process, the LibCTReg and G-LibClinTrial also explain that relevant clinical trial decisions, reports, or information from other national regulatory authorities or regional and international bodies can be recognized or used by the LMHRA. The LibCTReg further specifies that the scope/extent of utilization of relevant clinical trial decisions, reports, or information from other national regulatory authorities or regional and international bodies will be at the sole discretion of the LMHRA. In such instances, business and company secrets must remain confidential.

The LibCTReg also states that the LMHRA must inform the NREB if it is in possession of information about other clinical trials that is relevant to the board's assessment of the trial for which it is to issue an expert opinion; this applies especially to information on aborted or otherwise prematurely discontinued investigations. In such instances, business and company secrets must remain confidential. Also, the LMHRA must ensure that the list of approved and rejected clinical trial applications, the summary of evaluation reports, and the status of approved clinical trials are publicly available and periodically updated.

Per G-LibClinTrial, all applications must be evaluated with the same set of criteria based on up-to-date scientific knowledge and ethics standards, regardless of the applicant. The LMHRA may also request additional documents or changes through a query letter. Once a query has been raised and issued to the applicant, the process stops when the LMHRA receives a written response to the query. If the LMHRA requires changes to the application, the applicant must modify the application within an established timeline, or it will be rejected.

As indicated in the G-LibClinTrial, the LMHRA must issue a clinical trial certificate, including the LMHRA clinical trial number, to the applicant upon application approval. The clinical trial certificate may contain conditions required by the LMHRA with respect to the conduct or reporting of the trial. If the application is rejected, the applicant can submit a written appeal to the LMHRA’s Managing Director. Moreover, the information provided in a clinical trial application must not be disclosed by the LMHRA to a third party except with the applicant’s written consent or in accordance with the directive of the LMHRA Board of Directors.

Per the G-LibClinTrial, under certain circumstances, the LMHRA may accept an expedited application and review process for clinical trials (e.g., epidemics or other urgent public health interests requiring fast use of new medicines or health products and/or fast gathering of health product information). The LibCTReg also notes that in the case of emergency situations, the LMHRA may also apply an expedited review process and make exemptions to the documentation requirements for the submission of clinical trial applications. Refer to 2.3 of the G-LibClinTrial for additional information on how to submit an expedited clinical trial application package.

As delineated in the LibCTReg, any amendments to approved clinical trial documentation, trial arrangements, and the IPs referenced in the application must be classified and processed in accordance with the LMHRA guidelines. The G-LibClinTrial explains that depending on the nature of the change, trial amendments are regarded as substantial or non-substantial/minor amendments. Amendments to a clinical trial are regarded as “substantial” when they are likely to have significant impact on the safety or physical or mental integrity of the trial participants and/or the scientific value of the trial. Any substantial amendments to the clinical trial protocol, clinical trial arrangements, or the IP—or a related product deemed to be an amendment—must be approved by the LMHRA and the NREB before such amendments are carried out. Written NREB approval is also required before the LMHRA can reach a decision on an amendment. The LMHRA should respond within 20 calendar days upon receipt of the NREB’s written decision, and may accept or reject the amendment, or recommend a revision of the sponsor’s classification.

Per the G-LibClinTrial, non-substantial/minor amendments, by comparison, can be implemented immediately by the sponsor and should always be documented and notified to the LMHRA and the NREB as soon as possible. See the G-LibClinTrial for additional amendment requirements. See the Submission Process section for amendment submission requirements.

Per the LibCTReg, the LMHRA’s written approval of a clinical trial with IPs involving human participants is based on the conclusion that the anticipated therapeutic and public benefits justify the risk and may be continued only if compliance with this requirement is permanently monitored. An LMHRA authorization may only be refused if:

• The documents submitted are incomplete up to the expiration of an appropriate deadline given to the applicant for their supplementation
• The documents submitted, especially the data on the IP(s) and the trial protocol including the investigator's brochure (IB), do not comply with the current state of scientific knowledge, and especially, the clinical trial is unsuitable for providing proof of IP(s) safety or efficacy
• In the case of trials involving human participants, the documentation requirements (see Section 1 (d) of LibCTReg), particularly insurance coverage for trial participants, are not fulfilled
• The LMHRA is in possession of findings which indicate that the testing facility is not suitable to conduct the clinical trial
• The LMHRA is of the opinion that the number of clinical trial participants to be recruited in the trial is not scientifically justified, or
• The requirements provided for in the general conditions and special preconditions for conducting a clinical trial (see Part II (Section 2) of LibCTReg) are no longer fulfilled

The LibCTReg indicates that, in a clinical trial involving an IP that consists of, contains, or is a combination of genetically modified organisms, unjustifiable harmful effects on the health of third persons and the environment are not to be expected when the trial is conducted according to the state of scientific knowledge and in relation to the trial’s purpose.

(See the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for detailed submission requirements and the Timeline of Review section for additional LMHRA timeline information.)

The LibCTReg further explains that the LMHRA must suspend a clinical trial authorization for a limited period of time if at least one (1) of the following conditions is true:

• It becomes known that one (1) of the grounds for refusal previously indicated existed at the time the trial authorization was issued (see also Part II (Section 6 (1) of LibCTReg)
• The conditions surrounding the clinical trial do not correspond to the information contained in the authorization application
• The facts presented give reason to doubt the safety or the scientific basis of the clinical trial

Per the LibCTReg, the LMHRA must withdraw a clinical trial authorization when scientific justification for resuming the trial is not provided to address the reasons previously indicated for suspension. The LMHRA must also immediately inform the NREB through a written communication stating the grounds for its action. Before the LMHRA issues a decision, the applicant must be allowed a deadline of 10 working days to submit a statement, unless the LMHRA orders the immediate interruption of the clinical trial. The lodging of an objection and an action to rescind the withdrawal or the order to suspend the authorization should not have a suspensive effect. If the authorization to conduct a clinical trial is withdrawn or suspended, the clinical trial may not be continued. Also, if the LMHRA, in the context of its activities, becomes aware of facts which justify the assumption that one (1) or more of the investigators or the sponsor or the sponsor’s representative no longer fulfills their obligations with regard to the proper conduct of the clinical trial, the LMHRA must immediately inform this individual(s) and must order remedial measures to be taken by the individual(s).

Pursuant to Part VIII of the LMHRA-Act, the LibCTReg states that any person(s), institution(s), corporate entity(ies), their designees, or legal representatives who violates the clinical trial authorization procedures, the serious adverse event notification requirements, and/or the suspension/withdrawal provisions delineated in the LibCTReg will be liable to pay administrative fines. See the LibCTReg for details.

Inspection

As stated in the LibCTReg, the LMHRA should inspect a clinical trial site to ensure that the general public is adequately protected against the adverse event risks related to a clinical trial with IP(s); and, to confirm that the PI and the sponsor, including the sponsor’s representatives, are strictly adhering to the specific and general conditions to which the trial was authorized. The G-LibClinTrial also indicates that the LMHRA may inspect clinical trial sites and/or the sponsor's/contract research organization (CRO)’s premises and/or the manufacturer’s premises to ensure that the clinical trials comply with good clinical practice (GCP) provisions before, during, or after the trial is conducted.

Per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, NREB representatives may accompany the LMHRA during clinical trial site inspections, or, per the LibCTReg, they may choose to do the inspections independently. The G-LibClinTrial also notes that the LMHRA may include other relevant regulatory authorities in the inspection. The PI and/or the sponsor/CRO and/or the manufacturer must be notified in writing of the inspection unless the LMHRA has reasonable cause to believe that the approved protocol is being violated. In this case, an unannounced inspection may be conducted. Following these inspections, the LMHRA must prepare an inspection report, and the report will be made available to the PI and/or sponsor while safeguarding the confidential aspects. The report may also be made available to the NREB and other regulatory authorities upon their request. Additionally, the LibCTReg specifies that the LMHRA, based on its findings, may also request additional information, suspend or stop a trial, or withdraw authorization to conduct a clinical trial, if the agency is of the opinion that the participant safety may be jeopardized, the scientific reasons for conducting the trial have changed, or the integrity of the data is compromised.

Overview

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

As stated in ZAF-36, the CTU completes a preliminary screening of the application and sends an official letter to the applicant with the outcome and follow-up questions on a screening checklist. As indicated in ZAF-23, incomplete documentation or sub-standard submissions will be rejected. Additionally, applications submitted without clinical trial insurance will be rejected. Applicants will be allowed a maximum of two (2) rounds of queries to respond to, and if the responses are not satisfactory, the application will be rejected. Per ZAF-36, if an application is rejected, no response is required; the screening checklist should be used as guidance for resubmission during the next review cycle. Next, the CTU’s Clinical Trial Committee (CTC) (which includes an expert committee of specialists, as needed) reviews the proposed clinical trials pursuant to the schedule on SAHPRA’s website. (See CTCDates for 2026 dates). Per ZAF-1, clinical trial reviews will result in one (1) of the following outcomes:

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority

The LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial require proof of payment of the clinical trial application fee in the application dossier. Per LibCTReg, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) charges a non-refundable fee to submit a clinical trial application for authorization. As delineated below, authorization fees vary depending on the phase and institution conducting the study:

• Industry Funded (Phase I): $25,000 USD
• Industry Funded (Phase II): $20,000 USD
• Industry Funded (Phase III): $15,000 USD
• Clinical Research Organization (CRO) Funded Phase I: $10,000 USD
• CRO Funded Phase II: $8,000 USD
• CRO Funded Phase III: $6,000 USD
• Investigator/Local Phases III & IV: $2,500 USD
• Academic Research Trial (Individual): $2,000 USD
• Amendment (Substantial) to Clinical Trial Protocol: $1,000 USD
• Administrative Charges: $500 USD
• Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) Fees: $1,500 USD
• Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Inspections: $1,000 USD

Payment Instructions

No information is currently available regarding payment instructions.

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority

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

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

• Clinical trial application (safety and efficacy): South African Rand (R)33 700
• Clinical trial application (bioequivalence study): R31 700
• Clinical trial application (postgraduate study) with pharmaceutical company involvement: R11 200
• Phase 4 clinical trial application and any other clinical trial application, including university-involved postgraduate qualification and/or pre-consultation of clinical trials: R5 100

For amendments to clinical trials:

• Technical amendment applications: R7 200
• Administrative amendment applications: R4 200
• Any other application except for the purpose of performing a clinical trial: R400

For licenses:

• New manufacturing license: R26 200
• New import/export license to the holder of certificate of registration: R15 600
• Renewal of manufacturing license: R22 900
• Renewal of import license to the holder of the certificate of registration: R9 600
• Renewal of export license to the holder of the certificate of registration: R9 600
• Annual retention of all licenses: R4 400

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

• Manufacturing sites: R1 660 per hour per inspector, plus reimbursement for travel time
• Desktop inspection, including good practice compliance status after license amendments: R2 200 per day per inspector

Payment Instructions

Per the G-SAHPRAFees, SAHPRA has initiated a process to phase in an electronic application system through various Application Portals that will create unique reference numbers for the application and relevant payment. When making payments, applicants should follow these guidelines:

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

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

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

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

Overview

Per the G-ACRE-IRB and the G-NREB, all research involving human participants should be reviewed by an ethics committee (EC). According to the NatResHlthPlcy, Liberia has two (2) ethics committees (ECs): the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) (formerly known as the University of Liberia-Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (UL-PIRE-IRB)). (Note: The UL-PIRE Africa webpage has not yet been updated to reflect the transition to ACRE IRB.)

Per LBR-38, the NREB has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the ACRE IRB in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

As explained in the G-NREB, the NREB is an advisory institution that reports to the Ministry of Health (MoH), and its members are appointed by the Minister of Health. The G-NREB states that the board ensures all research related protocols within and outside of Liberia are in compliance with internationally recognized ethical standards (including the Belmont Report (LBR-11), the Declaration of Helsinki (LBR-27), the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8), and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS’) International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans (LBR-2)), as well as Liberia’s applicable regulations and guidelines. In addition, per the G-NREB and LBR-12, the NREB is responsible for reviewing research proposals involving human participants to assess their compliance with ethical principles, regulatory requirements, and international guidelines, and for approving research protocols that meet ethical standards and providing recommendations for addressing any ethical concerns.

Per the NatResHlthPlcy, the G-NREB, and LBR-12, the NREB is also responsible for the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Ensuring that researchers obtain informed consent from participants and that participants’ rights, privacy, and confidentiality are protected
• Evaluating the potential risks and benefits of research projects and ensuring that the risks are justified and minimized
• Developing and disseminating policies, guidelines, and standards for ethical conduct in research
• Providing guidance and support to researchers, research institutions, and ECs on ethical issues related to research involving human participants
• Fostering awareness and understanding of ethical principles and regulatory requirements among stakeholders in the research community
• Conducting training programs, workshops, and seminars to educate researchers, EC members, and other stakeholders on ethical principles and best practices in research ethics
• Building the capacity of research institutions and ECs to effectively review and oversee research involving human participants
• Promoting a culture of ethical conduct and responsible research practices within the research community
• Monitoring compliance with approved research protocols and ethical standards throughout the duration of research projects
• Conducting periodic reviews or audits of research activities to ensure adherence to ethical principles and regulatory requirements
• Investigating and addressing any allegations of research misconduct or breaches of ethical standards
• Establishing guidelines for the ethical review of health research protocols for use by other review boards
• Providing advice on ethical research issues to the MoH and related government ministries and agencies
• Engaging with the public, policymakers, and other stakeholders to raise awareness of ethical issues in research and to foster dialogue on ethical considerations
• Advocating for the protection of research participants’ rights and the promotion of ethical conduct in research at the national and international levels
• Collaborating with relevant government agencies, institutions, and organizations to advance the ethical governance of research
• Establishing and maintaining a repository of all protocols reviewed in the country along with completed research/study reports

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

As stated in the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB is mandated by the Board of Directors of the ACRE Africa Center, and is tasked with ensuring quality and consistency in its review of social, behavioral, clinical, and biomedical research protocols that comply with LBR-2 and the national ethical guidelines for research on human participants. However, as noted above, per LBR-28, the ACRE IRB does not review and approve clinical trial protocols. Some members of the ACRE IRB also serve on the NREB and provide expertise in the review of clinical trial protocols.

Ethics Committee Composition

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

According to the G-NREB, the NREB is composed of 21 members who jointly represent a diverse community with a range of expertise. The G-NREB notes that the majority of the board members are clinicians, scientists, and national subject matter experts. Per LBR-18, the NREB board typically consists of experts in various fields related to research ethics, such as medicine, public health, social sciences, ethics, law, and community representatives. Board members may include researchers, ethicists, healthcare professionals, legal experts, and representatives from government agencies and civil society organizations. LBR-38 further specifies that the NREB membership includes, but is not limited to, a sociologist, an infectious disease scientist, a biologist, a lawyer, a pharmacist, an epidemiologist, a statistician, a bioethicist, a mental health specialist, a health system strengthening specialist, a religious elder, community elders, surgeons, clinicians, and public health specialists.

In addition, per LBR-18, although the NREB organization structure may vary based on its specific mandate, size, and operational requirements, the board typically consists of a chairperson/executive director, a secretariat or administrative staff, ethics review committees/panels, and advisory groups that may provide specialized expertise or support for specific activities or initiatives.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

As specified in the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB members (full, regular, and ad-hoc) must be recommended by the ACRE IRB Chair and appointed by the ACRE Board of Directors. The IRB Executive Committee should consist of the Coordinator, the Chair, and two (2) members of the IRB recommended by the Chair in consultation with the Coordinator. The IRB Secretariat, which will handle administrative functions, should also include the Coordinator, IT Officer, and Finance Officer.

The ACRE IRB must be comprised of 12 members with the qualifications and experience, individually and collectively, to review and evaluate the scientific, medical, and ethical aspects of research protocol submissions. The ACRE IRB membership must include the following from diverse backgrounds to undertake an impartial and adequate review of research proposals:

• Scientists (including, but not limited to, professionals in natural science, social science, and behavioral science)
• Non-scientists (health practitioners, legal experts representing the community, and civil society)

In addition, the ACRE IRB must ensure social inclusivity and gender sensitivity in its membership and in the recruitment of ad-hoc reviewers. The board must include adequate representation across age, gender, community, etc., to safeguard the interests and welfare of all segments of society. ACRE IRB members must be drawn from both public and private institutions within the country.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

Pursuant to the G-NREB, the NREB follows standard operating procedures (SOPs) as well as applicable ethical guidelines and regulations to ensure compliance with research ethics principles and to uphold societal interests. The NREB may seek subject matter expert opinions regarding specific research protocols and/or ethical issues, provided that the experts have no conflict of interest, including participation in the research, financial interest in the outcome, and/or involvement in competing research, among other reasons.

NREB members should meet bi-monthly for regular meetings and adhere to the board’s threshold requirement to review a minimum of three (3) complete applications at each meeting. When applicable, the NREB director may also convene ad-hoc meetings. All complete applications submitted by the deadline must be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled meeting, if the minimum applications threshold is met. Members are encouraged to attend all meetings and the quorum required for voting is two-thirds of the NREB membership. Members who cannot attend a meeting due to unforeseen reasons must inform the NREB director two (2) weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. If unable to attend, members must also advise the NREB director regarding their views or concerns on specific agenda items one (1) week prior to a scheduled meeting. Meeting agendas and research protocols should be distributed to members no later than three (3) weeks before a regular meeting. Refer to the G-NREB and LBR-12 for detailed committee requirements.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

As delineated in the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB Chair must be the head and chief spokesperson of the board and must conduct meetings in accordance with the policies, regulations, and timetable approved by the board. ACRE IRB members must be appointed initially for a term of three (3) years, which must be renewable and is subject to the ACRE IRB Board of Directors’ decision. To maintain continuity in ACRE IRB operations, at least one-third of the membership must be retained at any given time. The outgoing Chair must be an ex-officio member of the incoming ACRE IRB. ACRE IRB members and consultant reviewers must be provided with all relevant SOPs by the Secretariat to guide in the review process of all submitted protocols. ACRE IRB members are required to review, discuss, and consider protocols submitted to the board for evaluation to safeguard the rights, safety, and well-being of study participants; review progress reports and monitor ongoing research studies appropriately; evaluate final reports and outcomes; maintain absolute confidentiality in all document deliberations at board meetings; state conflicts of interest, where applicable; and participate during deliberations. Members with a conflict of interest will recuse themselves from the review of submissions with which they have a conflict, except to answer specific questions posed by the board. Additionally, per LBR-28, ACRE IRB reviews are conducted virtually via the Zoom platform.

G-ACRE-IRB further provides that the ACRE IRB must convene a meeting every month or when deemed necessary. The Chair, or a delegated board member, must call the meeting to order, provided there is a quorum. If there is no quorum, the meeting must be rescheduled. A quorum must be greater than 50% of the voting board members at any given event. A quorum must consist of regular and/or alternate board members (persons formally selected by the board to substitute for regular members who are unavailable), and it must include at least one (1) member whose primary background is science related, and one (1) member whose primary background is not science related. Special/independent consultants cannot be used to establish a quorum. Members who are recused from the review of a protocol cannot be used to establish a quorum. A simple majority vote of ACRE IRB members in attendance is required for a protocol to be approved. The ACRE IRB Chair may also invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of issues that require expertise beyond, or in addition to, that available on the board. These individuals will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement before they review a protocol or attend a board protocol discussion, however, they are not permitted to vote. The consultant will provide the Chair with a written report to be shared with all reviewers summarizing relevant information.

Additionally, G-ACRE-IRB indicates that during IRB meetings, all deliberations must be recorded either electronically or written manually. The Secretary should also prepare meeting minutes, which include a summary of each protocol that has been considered for approval. The IRB Chair should confirm the accuracy and completeness of the minutes by signing and archiving them, together with the meeting’s agenda and other relevant attachments. Refer to G-ACRE-IRB for detailed information on ACRE IRB administrative processes.

Overview

As stipulated in the NHA and ZAF-52, ethics committees (ECs) in South Africa are governed by the National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC), which is a statutory body established under the NHA. NHREC determines guidelines for the functioning of ECs and registers and audits ECs, among other functions. Further, NHREC gives direction on ethical issues relating to health and develops guidelines for the conduct of research involving humans and animals.

As delineated in the NHA, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, and the SA-GCP, all ECs are required to register with the NHREC in order to undertake the ethical review of a clinical study.

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

The G-EthicsHR-ZAF states that it is important for ECs to have clear SOPs that clarify the expectations about EC members’ review responsibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

According to G-NREB and G-ACRE-IRB, the primary scope of information assessed by ethics committees (ECs) in Liberia relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a study. The NatResHlthPlcy states that Liberia has two (2) ECs: the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) (formerly the University of Liberia-Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (UL-PIRE-IRB)). However, per LBR-38, the NREB has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols. Per LBR-28, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB.

The G-NREB and the G-ACRE-IRB also state that the ECs are responsible for ensuring independent, timely, and competent reviews of all ethical aspects of the clinical research protocol. The ECs must also act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants, and they must verify the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

The G-ACRE-IRB is tasked with ensuring quality and consistency in the ACRE IRB’s review of social, behavioral, clinical, and biomedical research protocols that comply with the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS’) International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans (LBR-2) and the national ethical guidelines for research on human participants. (Note: While the G-ACRE-IRB includes references clinical trials, per LBR-28, due to a MOU between the NREB and the ACRE IRB in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB.) See the G-ACRE-IRB for the ACRE IRB’s research review processes and guidelines regarding initial review, protocol amendments, and oversight.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) and the NREB must approve a clinical trial application prior to the sponsor or the representative initiating the clinical trial. Per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the NREB and LMHRA reviews may be conducted in parallel. However, the G-LibClinTrial and the G-NREB specify that the LMHRA will only issue final approval once NREB ethical approval is obtained. In addition, per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, any substantial amendment to the approved clinical trial research protocol must be approved by the LMHRA and the NREB before such amendments are carried out.

Additionally, per the LibCTReg, the LMHRA must inform the NREB if it has information about other clinical trials that is relevant to the board's assessment of the clinical trial on which it is to issue an expert opinion; this applies especially to information on aborted or otherwise prematurely discontinued investigations. In such instances, business and company secrets must remain confidential.

As per the G-NREB, a protocol will be reviewed if the number of submitted protocols meets the board’s threshold requirement to review a minimum of three (3) complete applications at each meeting.

As delineated in the LibCTReg, the NREB provides its opinion on a clinical trial application in accordance with its written standard operating procedures (SOPs). According to LBR-20, upon receipt of a research proposal, the NREB conducts a preliminary screening to ensure that all required documents and information are included and that the proposal meets the applicable submission requirements. Incomplete or insufficient proposals may be returned to researchers with instructions for revisions or additional information. Following a preliminary screening, an ethics review committee/panel composed of experts in relevant fields, such as medicine, public health, ethics, law, and community representatives is then assigned by the NREB. Committee members review the proposals independently or collectively, depending on the complexity of the research and the availability of resources. The ethics review committee/panel thoroughly evaluates each research proposal based on established ethical review criteria.

Per LBR-31, the NREB follows established ethical review criteria to evaluate research proposals to help ensure that research studies adhere to ethical principles and protect the rights, welfare, and dignity of research participants. The ethical criteria delineated in LBR-31 include informed consent, beneficence, justice, privacy and confidentiality, respect for participants’ rights and dignity, scientific validity and integrity, and compliance with regulatory requirements. See LBR-31 for details.

Per LBR-20, the committee members also assess the ethical implications of the proposed research, including the risks and benefits to participants, the adequacy of the informed consent process, the protection of vulnerable populations, and the equitable distribution of research burdens and benefits. The review process may involve discussions, debates, and deliberations among committee members to reach consensus on the ethical acceptability of the research proposals. See also LBR-23 for additional EC review guidelines.

LBR-20 further explains that the NREB communicates the outcomes of the ethical review process to researchers, including decisions on protocol approval, conditional approval pending revisions, or rejection. Researchers receive feedback and recommendations from the EC to address any ethical concerns raised during the review process and may be required to revise their proposals, provide additional information, or address specific ethical issues before final approval is granted.

The LibCTReg also notes that a request for clinical trial authorization from the NREB may only be refused in the following cases:

• The documents submitted are incomplete after the expiration of an appropriate deadline given to the applicant for their supplementation
• The documents submitted—including the trial protocol, the investigator’s brochure, the methods for selecting trial participants, and informed consent/assent materials—do not correspond to the current state of scientific knowledge, and particularly when the clinical trial is unsuitable for providing IP(s) proof of safety or efficacy, or
• The applicable requirements specified in the general conditions for conducting clinical trials (see Part II (Section 1) of LibCTReg) are not fulfilled

Per the G-NREB, a principal investigator (PI) will be contacted in writing (by letter or email) if the NREB determines that additional materials are required to complete its review. PIs may also be asked to be available to provide presentations and/or be contacted during the meetings. The G-NREB further explains that, where applicable, the NREB should notify PIs in writing of its decision within two (2) weeks following a board meeting, after a complete review of the protocols. The NREB will also communicate its decisions to the NREB Secretariat. An approval expiration date is not specified. Pursuant to the G-NREB, PIs may also re-submit previously considered protocols, which will require a full NREB review. Per LBR-20, once all the ethical requirements have been met, the NREB grants final approval for the research proposals to proceed.

As indicated in the G-NREB, the NREB Secretariat reviews continuing review reports submitted by the PI at least eight (8) weeks prior to the approved protocol’s expiration date. If the NREB has not reviewed and approved a continuing review request by the current expiration date, study activities should cease until the board determines whether continuation of the research is in the best interest of all previously enrolled participants. Prior to the expected NREB approval expiration date, the NREB also reviews continuing review submissions for ethical approval extension requests to continue research project implementation. See LBR-6 for the NREB Continuing Review Form. See the Progress Reporting section for additional information on continuing review.

Additionally, per LibCTReg, the NREB’s clinical trial authorization must be suspended or withdrawn if the NREB subsequently becomes aware that grounds for a refusal as referred to in the clinical trial authorization procedures (see Part II (Section 5 (1)) of LibCTReg) existed at the time the authorization was issued. The authorization must be withdrawn if the NREB subsequently becomes aware that at least one (1) of the following is true:

• Requirements regarding the suitability of the investigator, the investigator’s deputy, or the trial site are no longer fulfilled
• Trial participants are no longer properly insured or the prerequisites for an exception to the insurance obligation no longer exist
• Modalities for selecting trial participants no longer correspond to the current state of medical knowledge and, especially, the clinical trial is unsuitable for providing proof of the IP(s) safety or efficacy
• Prerequisites for the inclusion of persons pursuant to the general conditions and special preconditions for conducting a clinical trial (see Part II (Sections 1-2) of LibCTReg) are no longer fulfilled. The NREB must inform the LMHRA through written communication.

For protocol amendments, per the G-NREB, the NREB must review and approve any protocol amendments prior to implementation. The NREB secretariat must first consult with the NREB Chair to determine the type of review required (full board review or expedited review based on the risk). Protocols that pose no or minimal risk to participants, have no formal informed consent process, or are subject to NREB continuing review, may be considered exempt and may qualify for expedited review. Refer to the G-NREB for detailed information on decision types and various review processes the NREB uses to consider protocol submissions.

Additionally, the G-NREB explains that, as a condition of research protocol approval, the NREB requires the PI to provide regular updates to the Secretariat from the date of approval. LBR-20 also notes that researchers are required to report any significant deviations from the approved protocol or ethical concerns arising during the course of the research to the NREB for review and guidance. The NREB may also provide ongoing monitoring and oversight to ensure continued compliance with ethical standards and regulatory requirements. The G-NREB specifies that the NREB must conduct site visits at appropriate intervals, which may, in certain cases, be unannounced to ensure the integrity of the study.

Reviews During Public Health Emergencies

As delineated in the G-CTEmergncy, in the event a public health emergency is declared in Liberia or a neighboring country by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Ministry of Health (MoH), or the National Public Health Institute of Liberia (NPHIL), the NREB will expedite the initiation of research. During such emergencies, many processes (i.e., drafting documents, translations, and obtaining approvals) will occur in parallel, rather than sequentially, as is typical during non-emergency situations.

Per the G-CTEmergncy, in addition to the NREB review form (if applicable), the following checklist will be included to streamline fast-tracking of epidemic-related research:

• Identify the research as epidemic or outbreak-related to facilitate fast-tracking
• Specify whether prior research data on the disease exists, referencing relevant local and international studies
• Ensure the inclusion of at least one (1) (preferably two (2)) PIs or co-PIs from the country where the research and review take place
• Provide qualifications of key investigators, including details of their previous experience with outbreak-relevant research
• Indicate if the protocol is part of a multicenter trial. If so, describe the status of ethics approval for the master protocol or the ethics approval from the sponsoring country

The G-CTEmergncy indicates that the NREB will also use the following guidelines to ensure compliance during health emergencies:

• Establish surge capacity for protocol reviews and implement systems for virtual discussions (via platforms like Zoom)
• Identify core members to handle the majority of the review burden, providing specialized training in outbreak-related research review to ensure high standards without compromising ethical considerations. Additional members can be called upon as demand increases
• Ensure that the Director alerts members and determines whether they are available for emergency review
• Identify subject experts (technical and ethical) within the country and abroad who are willing to serve as ad-hoc or co-opted members during outbreaks, anticipating the need to review multiple studies in a short time
• Establish a quorum consisting of one-third of NREB members, including pre-identified subject matter experts. If a pre-identified member submits their review but cannot attend the meeting, the member will still count towards the quorum

The G-CTEmergncy further states that revised SOPs will be circulated to all review committee members. Meetings may be virtual or electronic to reduce health risks during highly infectious outbreaks (e.g., COVID-19, Ebola). Protocols should be submitted electronically for efficiency, with hard copies to follow, if mandatory. PIs must inform the NREB as early as possible of their intent to submit a high-level overview of their research (e.g., trial of a new medicine or vaccine, observational study, or survey) to prepare the committee for forthcoming protocols. Face-to-face meetings with PIs are not mandatory and may be conducted electronically or virtually, if necessary. Also, protocols will be sent to reviewers within 48 hours of submission. Reviewers should complete their reviews within five (5) days during an outbreak. The PI should receive consolidated reviews with suggestions or approval within 10 working days and should respond to the review within 48 hours. The director of the NREB secretariat will be the primary contact for communication with PIs, and all communications will be documented and archived for future reference.

Overview

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expedited Review

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

Rapid Review

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

Joint Review

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

Foreign Research Collaboration

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

Artificial Intelligence

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

• Transparency
• Extent and communication of researchers’ interpretation of AI models
• Responsibility and accountability of the researchers
• Equity and fairness
• Benefit sharing
• Safety risks and attack vulnerabilities
• Safety prioritization and risk mitigation strategies

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

As described in the G-NREB, the NREB must charge a minimal fee for the review of each submission type. Submissions include research protocols, re-submissions, amendments, and continuing reviews. The fee structure is based on the following application types: research protocol, behavioral research, investigational product (IP) (clinical trial), non-clinical trial, or waiver/exemption. Fees specifically associated with conducting a clinical trial involving IPs are based on a project’s scope, duration, sample size, and complexity, as well as the types and quantities of IPs, among other criteria. The fees delineated in the G-NREB are as follows:

• Clinical trial: $7,000 USD
• Re-submission: $1,500 USD
• Continuing Review: $1,500 USD
• Amendment: $1,500 USD

Payment Instructions

No information is currently available regarding payment instructions for the NREB.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

As per the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB fees for protocol review other than clinical trials are as follows:

• Health, Behavioral and Education Research: $500 USD
• Re-Submission: $500 USD
• Continuing Review: $500 USD
• Amendment: $250 USD
• Foreign Student: $300 USD
• Liberian Student: $100 USD

The fee for non-sponsored research conducted by individual investigators is 50 percent of the sponsored research fee.

Payment Instructions

No information is currently available regarding ACRE IRB payment instructions for protocol review other than clinical trials.

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

Overview

There are no applicable regulations or guidance regarding the authorization of ethics committees (ECs) in Liberia. However, per G-NREB, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) is responsible for maintaining a registry of health research ECs and mitigating conflicts among ECs, researchers, and research entities.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

No information is currently available on registration, auditing, and accreditation requirements.

Overview

As stipulated in the NHA, ethics committees (ECs) in South Africa are governed by the National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC), which is a statutory body established under the NHA. NHREC determines guidelines for the functioning of ECs and registers and audits ECs, among other functions. The NHREC was created by the Minister of Health to provide ethical oversight of clinical research and to safeguard the rights and welfare of human participants involved in clinical studies. According to ZAF-52, NHREC gives direction on ethical issues relating to health and develops guidelines for the conduct of research involving humans and animals. Further, NHREC oversees and supports ECs across the country, ensures that health research involving human participants upholds the highest ethical standards, and promotes alignment with international best practices through global collaboration.

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

• Determine guidelines for the functioning of ECs
• Register and audit ECs
• Set norms and standards for conducting research on humans including clinical trials
• Adjudicate complaints about the functioning of ECs
• Refer professional misconduct to the relevant statutory councils
• Recommend disciplinary action for violations of ethical research standards
• Advise the national department and provincial departments on any ethical issues concerning research

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

As delineated in the NHA, the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, and the SA-GCP, all ECs are required to register with the NHREC in order to undertake the ethical review of a clinical study. As indicated in the ECRegstrn, applications from ECs whose scope does not align with the mandate of the NHREC, as defined by the NHA, will not be accepted. The application form requires a clear description of the types of health or health-related research the EC reviews, or will review and monitor. The submission must demonstrate how these activities fall within the mandate of the NHREC. Only applications that clearly align with the NHA and the NHREC's scope will be considered for registration.

Registration information is available on the NHREC webpage (ZAF-12), and a list of ECs currently registered with NHREC is available at ZAF-13. The application to register an EC is at ZAF-53. ZAF-54 states that the EC registration is recorded and publicly listed by the NHREC.

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, the criteria for the NHREC registration assessment and the eligibility audit for ECs are based on the G-EthicsHR-ZAF and other internationally recognized guidelines. ZAF-12 indicates that ECs must comply with the NHA and the G-EthicsHR-ZAF to be eligible for NHREC registration. As required in the G-EthicsHR-ZAF, members of the NHREC undertake the assessment and auditing to ensure that ECs comply with capacity and operational requirements. After the first pre-registration audit, guidance and recommendations for improvement are provided with specific timelines for improvements. Before the registration is completed and a registration number is issued, NHREC conducts a follow-up audit to ensure that required revisions have been completed. Voluntary deregistration can occur when an EC is no longer active and closes. Per ZAF-12, once approved, the EC is formally recognized as a NHREC-registered research EC. To maintain registration, RECs must submit annual reports (ZAF-54), implement any required improvements, and respond to audit outcomes.

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

Overview

In accordance with the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the sponsor, the legal representative, the principal investigator (PI), or the sponsor-investigator is required to submit a clinical trial application to the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) and obtain written permission from the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) to be granted authorization to conduct a clinical trial in Liberia. However, per the G-NREB, the PI must obtain ethics committee (EC) approval. The LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial state that the NREB and LMHRA reviews may be conducted in parallel. Per the G-LibClinTrial and the G-NREB, the LMHRA will only issue final approval once NREB approval is obtained.

Regulatory Submission

As indicated in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the sponsor or the representative should submit the application form and associated documents along with the prescribed fee. Also, per the G-LibClinTrial, four (4) sets of the application should be submitted both electronically and as printed copies to the LMHRA. The clinical trial application and any accompanying material must be submitted in English. If the documents are written in another language, a certified translation is required. Per LBR-29, the sponsor's representative must also submit a power of attorney attesting that the representative is a duly appointed agent.

Additionally, per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, any substantial amendment to the approved clinical trial documentation, trial arrangements, or the investigational product must be submitted by the applicant to the LMHRA and the NREB, together with the prescribed fee, for the evaluation and authorization related to such amendment. Per the G-LibClinTrial, the submitted amendment(s) must be indicated in a signed cover letter that specifies the clinical trial and the sponsor (applicant), and must describe the possible consequences for clinical trial participants already enrolled in the trial as well as the possible consequences for the evaluation of the results. The amendment(s) must also be described in a completed Clinical Trial Amendment form (Annex 2 of the G-LibClinTrial). The amended documents should include updated version numbers and dates. In addition, the submitted documents should clearly present scientific arguments justifying the classification of the amendment to the LMHRA and the NREB, and, where applicable, supporting information must be included with the submission.

Per the G-LibClinTrial, the signed cover letter and clinical trial application dossier should be sent to the following:

The Managing Director
Liberia Medicine and Health products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA)
2^nd & 3^rd Floors Clay Building
Sekou Toure Avenue
Mamba Point
Monrovia, Liberia

Ethics Review Submission

Note: Per LBR-38, the NREB has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

As delineated in the LibCTReg, application submissions to the NREB must include all of the information and documents as required for the board’s opinion. According to the G-NREB, PIs must submit typed, dated, and signed submissions electronically and in hard copy to the NREB. The documents should be formatted in standard 12-point font, double-spaced, with the pages printed on one (1) side only. The NREB requires 15 comb-bound copies of the complete research protocol, along with the attachments listed in the G-NREB, and where applicable, an email version that includes the protocol title and the PI’s name. All protocols must also be numbered appropriately and separately from all other supporting documentation (e.g., letters, participant information sheets and consent forms, questionnaires, curriculum vitae(s) (CVs), etc.). Supporting documents should also be numbered separately. Refer to LBR-32 for the NREB Research Protocol Template.

In addition to protocol submission requirements, the G-NREB also specifies that the PI should submit the complete application for ethical review and approval of a proposed health research study to the NREB Secretariat three (3) weeks prior to the next NREB meeting. Applications submitted by a PI and researchers from foreign institutions must also include a local (resident) Liberian researcher on the research team as well as support letters and CV(s). See the G-NREB for detailed application submission requirements.

Per the G-NREB, NREB submissions should be submitted to the following address:

Director
National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB)
First Floor West, John F. Kennedy Medical Center
Monrovia, Liberia
Email: nreb.liberia.gov@gmail.com

As delineated in the G-CTEmergncy, during a public health emergency in Liberia or in a neighboring country, the NREB requires protocols to be written in English and include, at a minimum, the proposed study, the corresponding ethics approval, consent or assent forms, and data collection tools and forms. In addition, along with the standard documents for review (protocols, CVs, Human Subject Protection Certificates, Good Clinical Practice, etc.), the following must be submitted:

• A collaboration letter (in the form of an MOU) with sponsor institutions and research funders, including declarations of interest, when possible
• A monitoring and safety management plan for the project provided by the PI and the study sponsor
• Data-sharing and material transfer agreements for data and biological materials, especially if samples will be exported out of the country, to ensure compliance with the Laws of Liberia (a draft version may be submitted initially)
• Clear procedures for dissemination, publication, co-authorship, co-presentation, and intellectual property rights
• Plans to disseminate findings to the affected community, to ensure continued engagement and trust, especially among research participants
• Depending on the type of research, a local insurance policy for trials and interventions may be required

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

As indicated in the G-ACRE-IRB, PIs are required to submit the research protocol as part of an application packet that includes the documentation specified by the ACRE IRB submission form (see Article XXV in the G-ACRE-IRB). According to LBR-28, the ACRE IRB has not reinstated the requirement for PIs to submit eight (8) hard copies of the protocol. Applications should be submitted electronically. See the Submission Content section for additional documentation requirements.

Per the G-ACRE-IRB, all research proposals are to be submitted (either via electronic mail or in person) to:

The IRB Coordinator
Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation (ACRE)
Ground Floor, Graduate School Building
University of Liberia
Capitol Hill
Monrovia, Liberia

Per LBR-28, proposals submitted electronically should be sent to ulpireirb@gmail.com and smithedwardg@yahoo.com, in copy.

Overview

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

Regulatory Submission

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

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

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

Per the ZAF-40, during a public health emergency, applicants should use the modified clinical trial application form in ZAF-40. This form recognizes the constraints on the availability of information posed by the emergency. SAHPRA may accept clinical trial applications with reduced information together with a commitment to update and complete the required information as soon as possible. However, all documents submitted must be organized with zipped folders according to the checklist in ZAF-40 and correctly labelled to ensure easy validation by SAHPRA (See the Submission Content and Emergencies sections for more details).

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As set forth in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the sponsor, the legal representative, the principal investigator (PI), or the sponsor-investigator is required to submit the following documentation to the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Cover letter (signed, witnessed, and notarized) including list of documents submitted and their version numbers and date
• Clinical trial application form, including cover page
• Clinical trial protocol (see below for detailed protocol requirements)
• A list of the planned clinical trial sites and the planned number of study participants to be recruited at the sites located in Liberia
• Details of the site(s) where the trial is to be conducted, and a duly justified written statement on the suitability of the clinical trial sites adapted to the nature and use of the investigational product (IP) and including a description of the suitability of facilities, equipment, human resources, and description of expertise, issued by the head of the clinic/institution at the trial site or by some other responsible person
• Participant information sheet, informed consent form(s) (ICF(s)) or video(s), or assent form(s) in case of minor(s) or persons under legal disability who are to participate in the trial, and informed consent procedures for clinical trials in humans
• Product information for registered IPs (e.g., summary of product characteristics, patient information leaflet/package insert, and labelling)
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB) containing relevant chemical, pharmaceutical, pre-clinical pharmacological and toxicological data, and where applicable, human or animal pharmacological and safety and efficacy clinical data about the IP
• If applicable, synopsis of previous trials with the IP(s)
• If applicable, electronic copies of key, peer-reviewed publications following the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations to support the application
• Copies of recruitment advertisement(s), if applicable, and questionnaires
• Investigational medicinal product (IMP) dossier, if applicable
• Product information and certificate of analysis (CoA) for concomitant and rescue medications
• Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificate issued from the national regulatory authority of the country where the IP is manufactured, translated into English
• CoA of the IP(s)
• Certificate(s) of accreditation for the central laboratories
• Workload forms for investigators
• Signed declaration by the applicant (including a commitment to adhere to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (LBR-27) and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8))
• Signed declaration by the national PI
• Signed curriculum vitae (CV) for all key staff participating in the conduct of the clinical trial (e.g., PI and/or co-investigators, study coordinator, regional and local monitor, contract research affiliate, etc.)
• Signed declaration(s) by each investigator(s)
• Signed joint financial declaration between the sponsor and the PI
• Signed declaration by the sub-investigators and key staff participating in the trial
• Signed declaration by the regional clinical trial monitor(s)
• Signed declaration by the sponsor/sponsor-investigator
• Proof of registration with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR) (LBR-36) or another World Health Organization (WHO) Primary Registry (LBR-35)
• Active clinical trial insurance for Phase I, II, and III trials
• Evidence of insurance coverage for prospective participants
• Proof of sponsor indemnification for investigators and trial site
• Good Clinical Practice (GCP) certificates for the investigators
• Proof of registration of the key investigators with a professional statutory body, if applicable
• Proof of residence in Liberia for the PI
• Proof of professional indemnity (i.e., malpractice insurance)
• Study budget
• In case of parallel submission, proof of submission of the clinical trial application to the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB)
• The written permission of the NREB in case of sequential submission, and in case of parallel submission, the updated versions of documents or information as requested by the NREB, for the conduct of the clinical trial, if applicable
• Information on the composition of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB)—including the list, terms of reference, and CVs for its members—justifying their expertise as members of the DSMB
• Summary of product characteristics or other professional information for all registered medicines used in the trial, or the international equivalent if the medicines are not registered in Liberia
• Registered IPs should include the registered indication or registered dosage regimen
• Recruitment arrangements
• Request for authorization of export of biological samples out of Liberia as well as the respective material transfer agreement (MTA), if applicable
• Summary of the clinical trial (100-150 words) to be made publicly available on the LMHRA website
• Proof of payment of the appropriate application fee

Refer to the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial for detailed application requirements and expedited application documentation requirements.

The LibCTReg also notes that in the case of emergency situations, the LMHRA may also make exemptions to the documentation requirements for the submission of clinical trial applications. Refer to 2.3 of the G-LibClinTrial for additional information on how to submit an expedited clinical trial application package.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Note: Per LBR-38, the NREB has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

As indicated in the G-NREB, for clinical trials and biomedical/epidemiological study submissions, the following documents may be included, but are not limited to:

• Full protocol and executive summary (refer to LBR-32 for research protocol template)
• Sponsor’s protocol, if applicable (per LBR-32)
• Signed agreement between sponsors and PI, where applicable
• A statement that the researcher(s) agree to comply with ethical principles set out in relevant guidelines
• IB
• MTA for shipment of specimen(s)/biological material(s) outside of Liberia, where applicable (See also Specimen Import & Export and Consent for Specimen sections)
• Data Sharing Agreement, where applicable
• Administrative information on study sponsors
• Signatory page of key persons from the collaborative institutions involved in the study (i.e., Sponsor Signatory Approval Page duly signed, with date, where applicable)
• Written ICF with dates and version number and translations into the local language, where necessary
• Written parental consent form for children under 17 years of age (if study involves minors)
• Written parental consent form and assent form for children under 18 years of age (15-17 years) (if study involves adolescents)
• All forms, documents, and community engagement advertisements to be used in the recruitment of potential participants
• All data collection forms to be used in the research including, but not limited to, case report forms, questionnaires, interview schedules, etc., clearly indicated and dated
• Referral forms for treatment, where applicable
• Study budget
• Study timeline
• Any other information deemed necessary to facilitate the review process
• Current CV(s) of PI and co-investigator(s), if not submitted to the NREB in the preceding 12 months
• Profile on previous study (i.e., Phase I & Phase II studies, where applicable)
• Investigator Agreement (PI’s responsibility), page duly signed with name and date, and current Certificate of Training in GCP for PI(s)
• DSMB membership and charter of work/current member CVs
• Insurance coverage for study participants
• Scientific review approval
• LMHRA approval letter for use of the IPs/devices and clinical trial approval (this should be submitted after the NREB approval)

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

Per the G-ACRE-IRB, the following documentation must be submitted along with the application for an initial application review of a protocol for clinical research other than a clinical trial:

• Cover letter
• Protocol summary (Article XXV (Section 25.02) in the G-ACRE-IRB)
• Protocol and/or amendments (including data collection instruments, surveys, tests, questionnaires, debriefing information, etc.)
• IB, where applicable
• Evidence of submission and/or approval from other ECs, where applicable
• Proof of research ethics training (i.e., certificate in human subject protection) by research team members
• ICFs, where applicable
• Questionnaires and other study instruments, where applicable (including interview schedules, recruitment and interview scripts, and recruitment materials (Article XXV (Section 25.02) in the G-ACRE-IRB)
• DSMB and Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) records, if applicable
• MTA, if applicable (See also Specimen Import & Export and Consent for Specimen sections)
• Status report for ongoing study (applicable for continuing review)
• Letter of collaboration or support with collaborating entity/researcher(s), if applicable
• Capacity building plan for collaborating agency/researcher, if applicable
• Investigator(s) CVs
• Social corporate responsibility plan for communities, if applicable
• Letter from an appropriate official permitting research activities on their premises, if the research/recruitment will take place in or through schools, businesses, care facilities, or other organizations
• Budget

Clinical Protocol

Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority

Per the G-LibClinTrial, the contents and format of the clinical trial protocol should follow the requirements laid down in LBR-8. Refer to LBR-8 for detailed protocol guidelines.

In addition, as indicated in the G-LibClinTrial, the protocol should contain a statement indicating that the trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, GCP, and the applicable regulatory requirements, and signed and dated by both the sponsor/sponsor’s representative and the PI to document the their agreement to the protocol. If the protocol is not signed and dated by both parties, a corresponding declaration that is signed and dated by both must be submitted to the LMHRA with the application.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

The LBR-32 requires the following elements to be included in the research protocol template submission:

• Specific aims
• Background and significance of research
• Research locations and collaborating sites
• Study team
• Study design
• Recruitment methods
• Consent process
• HIPAA privacy protections
• Vulnerable populations
• Risks
• Benefits
• Participant privacy
• Data confidentiality
• Data/statistical analysis plan
• Costs and compensation
• Sharing study results
• Research related injuries
• Reportable events
• Regulatory compliance
• Data or specimen banking (repositories)
• Clinical trials
• Device, if applicable
• Drug/biologic

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia/Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

Per the NatResHlthPlcy, Liberian ECs including the NREB and the ACRE IRB, should structure the research protocol according to the follow format:

• Title
• Investigators’/researchers’ information including contact addresses
• Abstract/summary
• Background/Introduction
• Aims and objectives
• Study design and methods
• Data collection, management, and analysis
• Study administration and ethical issues
• Resource requirements
• Study plan
• Supervision
• Dissemination and outcome

For more details, see Annex 2 of the NatResHlthPlcy.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

According to the G-ACRE-IRB, the clinical research protocol should contain the elements included in the ACRE IRB submission form (see Article XXV in the G-ACRE-IRB). The initial protocol submission should also contain:

• Original protocol (including cover sheet, abstract, and research section including the Human Subjects Section)
• Application letter
• ICF and/or assent form
• Sample questions survey
• Investigator(s) CVs
• Qualification of study site(s)
• Protocol budget
• Copy of ACRE IRB approval, if available
• Study design
• Study participation, including informed consent procedures and content/language and participant information sheet content (See also the Documentation Requirements section)

Note: Per the G-ACRE-IRB, for regular renewal or interim modification reviews of a protocol, PIs should attach current consent document(s) and include instruments ONLY if changes are being proposed (Article XXV (Section 25.02) in the G-ACRE-IRB).

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

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

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

Per the ZAF-40, SAHPRA states that during a public health emergency, new and experimental treatments may become necessary and clinical trials are essential to provide the evidence to develop appropriate policies for patient treatments. Under these circumstances, there may be limited information available. However, applications need to contain a certain minimum of information to enable a meaningful evaluation and regulatory decisions. To address this, SAHPRA provides an information grading system in the ZAF-40 wherein required information is labelled. Applicants must attempt to provide the information listed below and justify when this is not available. The required information is graded as follows:

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

According to the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) and the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) reviews may be conducted in parallel. However, per the G-LibClinTrial and the G-NREB, the LMHRA will only issue final approval once NREB approval is obtained.

Regulatory Authority Approval

The LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial state that the LMHRA must inform an applicant in writing about the outcome of an assessment of a clinical trial application within a maximum of 45 working days for pharmaceutical investigational products (IPs); 60 working days for biological and biotechnology IPs; and 90 working days for genetically modified organisms. However, the G-LibClinTrial also indicates that the LMHRA must inform the applicant within a maximum of 60 working days.

As indicated in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, upon receipt of a clinical trial application, the LMHRA screens the application package for completeness and must inform the applicant in writing about the validity of the application or the formal grounds for non-acceptance of the application within 10 working days of application receipt. If applicable, the applicant, in turn, must address formal grounds for non-acceptance within 10 working days. These timelines exclude time taken for the applicant to respond to queries from the LMHRA during the review and decision process. If changes are required and the applicant fails to modify the application within a maximum of 30 working days, the application will be rejected.

Additionally, the G-LibClinTrial further notes that if the LMHRA requires changes to the application, and the applicant fails to modify the application within a maximum of 90 days, the application will be rejected.

As explained in the G-LibClinTrial, upon approval of the application, the LMHRA must issue a clinical trial certificate to the applicant that includes the LMHRA clinical trial number. The clinical trial certificate may contain conditions required by the LMHRA with respect to the conduct or reporting of the trial. If the application is rejected, the applicant can submit a written appeal to the LMHRA’s Managing Director within 60 days of receipt of the rejection notice.

Per the G-LibClinTrial, in the case of expedited clinical trial application reviews, the LMHRA will review the application within no more than 14 working days for approved products and within 21 days for new products.

Additionally, per the G-LibClinTrial, the LMHRA must respond to any substantial clinical trial amendment within 20 calendar days upon receipt of the written decision from the NREB.

Ethics Committee Approval

Note: Per LBR-38, the NREB has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

Pursuant to the G-NREB, principal investigators (PIs) are required to submit new research protocols no later than one (1) month prior to the next bi-monthly board meeting. The NREB should notify PIs in writing of its decision within two (2) weeks following a board meeting, where applicable, following a complete review of the protocols. The G-NREB does not specify an approval expiration date.

The G-NREB explains that for protocol amendments, the NREB Secretariat, in consultation with the Chair, will make a determination regarding the type of review (full board review or expedited based on the risk) and will notify the investigator within three (3) weeks upon submission per the board’s decision. Expedited reviews must take no more than three (3) weeks, and if any committee member raises a concern about a protocol that was expedited, the protocol must undergo a full board review.

Refer to the G-NREB for additional information on the various submission types that may be submitted to the board and their corresponding review and approval processes.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

As specified in the G-ACRE-IRB, PIs are required to submit all application materials to the ACRE IRB four (4) weeks in advance of the date that a decision is requested. In the case of full review studies, submission is required four (4) weeks prior to the next scheduled ACRE IRB meeting. The ACRE IRB will convene a special meeting, if necessary, to accommodate the PI’s compliance with an external funding deadline; however, submission is required four (4) weeks prior to the special meeting date.

No timeline of review is specified for the ACRE IRB’s review. However, the G-ACRE-IRB states that the clinical research protocol and accompanying documents are approved as they are submitted. Approval will commence on the day the study is approved and will expire within a defined time period based on a risk assessment and regulations. If specific conditions are stipulated in the approval letter, those conditions must be met by the designated date or approval may be withdrawn.

The G-ACRE-IRB states that the ACRE IRB must also review and approve any clinical research protocol amendments prior to those changes being implemented. The clinical research protocol submission is reviewed either via expedited procedures (for minor changes) or via full board review (for all other changes). Refer to the G-ACRE-IRB for clinical research protocol amendment documentation submission and procedural requirements.

Overview

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

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

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

Next, the CTC reviews the proposed clinical trials. CTCDates provides the dates of the 2026 CTC meetings and the SAHPRA submission due dates. It is advisable to submit clinical trial applications before these due dates. Once the reviewer approves the application, the CTC presents the committee’s/reviewer’s recommendations to SAHPRA. ZAF-1 states that applicants receive a response within 10 working days from the CTC meeting, and they must send an answer within seven (7) working days after receipt of comments. If an applicant would like to request a meeting with the CTC, the request should be submitted through the SAHPRA Chief Executive Office pursuant to the procedures in the G-ConsultMtg.

Ethics Committee Approval

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

Overview

In accordance with the LMHRA-Act, the LibCTReg, and the G-LibClinTrial, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor or the representative receives authorization from the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA). The LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial further state that the sponsor, the legal representative, the principal investigator (PI), or the sponsor-investigator must obtain written permission from the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB). In addition, per the G-LibClinTrial, the appointed PI must provide proof of residency in Liberia in the clinical trial application submission package.

As per the G-LibClinTrial, the sponsor or the representative is required to obtain LMHRA approval for the clinical trial before the import of an investigational product (IP) to be used in the trial is authorized. However, parallel submission is permitted for approval of the clinical trial and the IP import permit if the import permit application is included in the clinical trial application submission package.

In addition, per the LibCTReg, the applicant must inform the LMHRA in writing of the exact clinical trial commencement date (i.e., first patient first visit). If the trial does not begin within 90 calendar days from issuance of the clinical trial certificate, the applicant must show cause for the failure to commence as scheduled and solicit issuance of a new clinical trial certificate. Pursuant to Part VIII of the LMHRA-Act, the LibCTReg delineates that failure to inform the LMHRA of the commencement, or not starting the clinical trial within this period, will have regulatory implications including, but not limited to, the payment of administrative charges for the re-issuance of the clinical trial certificate on its expiration.

The LibCTReg also states that the sponsor, the investigator, and all of the persons involved in the clinical trial must fulfill the requirements of good clinical practice in accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) and the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products (LBR-25), as determined by the LMHRA. The G-LibClinTrial further specifies that the LMHRA has adopted LBR-8 for use along with the LMHRA guidelines.

Clinical Trial Agreement

While a formal clinical trial agreement is not an official requirement, the G-LibClinTrial states that the protocol should contain a statement that the trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, LBR-8, and the applicable regulatory requirements. The protocol should also be signed and dated by both the sponsor or the representative and the PI to document the investigator’s and the sponsor’s agreement to the protocol. If the protocol is not signed and dated by both parties, a corresponding declaration, signed and dated by both, must be provided to the LMHRA with the application.

Clinical Trial Registration

As delineated in the LibCTReg, the sponsor or the sponsor-investigator must register all clinical trials with a public international database. The G-LibClinTrial further specifies that the LMHRA requires the sponsor or the representative to provide proof of registration with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR) (LBR-36) or another WHO Primary Registry (LBR-35).

Overview

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

Governance

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the LibCTReg, the LibPVReg, and the G-LibPVSys, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Liberia’s safety reporting requirements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Adverse Event (or Adverse Experience) (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant to whom a medicinal product has been administered, including occurrences which are not necessarily caused by or related to that product, or any abnormal sign (e.g., any abnormal physical exam or laboratory finding), symptom, or disease, that is temporally associated with the participant’s involvement in the research; AEs encompass both physical and psychological harms
• Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – Any noxious and unintended responses in a participant to an investigational medicinal product which is related to any dose administered to that participant. A causal relationship between a medicinal product and an adverse event is at least a reasonable possibility (i.e., the relationship cannot be ruled out)
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, is a congenital anomaly/birth defect, or may jeopardize the participant’s health and may require medical or surgical intervention based upon appropriate medical judgment (e.g., the development of drug dependency or drug abuse). A causal relationship between a medicinal product and an adverse event is at least a reasonable possibility, i.e., the relationship cannot be ruled out
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction – An adverse reaction where the nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information (e.g., Investigator's Brochure for an unapproved investigational product (IP) or package insert/summary of product characteristics for an approved product)

Safety Reporting Requirements

Per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the principal investigator (PI) or the sponsor should report any SAEs/SADRs suspected to be related to the IP immediately, and in any event, no later than three (3) calendar days after becoming aware of the event, to the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) and the NREB. However, per the LibCTReg, in the case of death, all SAEs must be reported within 24 hours. Per the G-LibClinTrial, in the case of multicenter trials involving clinical trial sites both within and outside of Liberia, the PI or sponsor must submit all SAEs/SADRs deemed to be related to the IP within 15 calendar days to the LMHRA and the NREB. The PI or the sponsor is also required to indicate the timelines allocated for related investigations.

In addition, the LibPVReg provides the following serious adverse reaction reporting timelines:

• All serious adverse reactions associated with the use of a product must be reported on an expedited basis as soon as possible, but not later than 15 calendar days of initial receipt of the minimum required information. If all the information needed is not available within 15 days, the applicant should submit an initial report containing at least the minimum required data elements (i.e., patient details, suspected product details, reaction details, and the reporter details) in order to meet the expedited reporting timeframes. A follow-up report containing more detailed information should be submitted later as soon as this becomes available
• Every serious suspected adverse reaction occurring in all post-marketing studies of which the manufacturer is aware must be reported to the LMHRA on an expedited basis

However, the LibPVReg also states that the reporting of SAEs and serious unexpected adverse drug reactions (SUSARs) occurring during clinical trials must comply with the requirements stipulated under the LibCTReg.

The G-LibPVSys also notes that all SUSARs occurring in Liberian post-authorization safety studies, of which the local representative or marketing authorization holder (MAH) is aware and includes the design and conduct of company-sponsored, post-marketing surveillance studies (i.e., Phase IV clinical trials), should be reported within seven (7) days.

Investigator Responsibilities

Pursuant to the LibPVReg, for fatal or life-threatening, unexpected events during clinical development, the PI is required to alert the LMHRA as soon as possible but not later than seven (7) calendar days after first knowledge. If a case qualifies, the PI should subsequently submit a complete report as soon as possible within eight (8) additional calendar days.

The G-NREB indicates that investigators are required to submit a report to the NREB for all AEs, except those resulting in death, within seven (7) calendar days. Investigator(s) must report all deaths that are possibly, probably, or definitely related to the study within 24 hours to the NREB.

Other events that must be reported to the NREB include the following:

• Unanticipated problems involving risks to participants or others
• Non-compliance (including major protocol deviations and non-compliance unrelated to a protocol deviation)
• New information that might affect the willingness of participants to enroll or continue to participate in the study

For studies other than clinical trials that use the ACRE IRB, the G-ACRE-IRB states that the investigator must promptly report any unanticipated problems to the ACRE IRB in accordance with the following guidelines:

• Unanticipated problems that are SAEs must be reported to the ACRE IRB within five (5) business days of the investigator becoming aware of the event. The board strongly recommends that a preliminary report be submitted by the investigator within 48 hours of learning of the SAE with a formal follow-up report submitted within the above timeline
• Any other unanticipated problem should be reported to the ACRE IRB within two (2) weeks of the investigator becoming aware of the problem. The board strongly recommends that a preliminary report be submitted by the investigator within five (5) business days of learning of the unanticipated problem with a formal follow-up report submitted within the above timeline

See the G-ACRE-IRB for additional details on the information the investigator should provide.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As explained in the LibPVReg, AEs/ADRs, AEs following Immunization (AEFI) of a vaccine or biological product, fatal or life-threatening AEs of special interest (AESIs), and unexpected ADRs that occur during clinical investigations qualify for very rapid reporting. The sponsor must notify regulatory agencies (e.g., by telephone, facsimile transmission, or in writing) as soon as possible but no later than seven (7) calendar days after first knowledge that a case qualifies, followed by as complete a report as possible within eight (8) additional calendar days. The healthcare facilities, public health programs, manufacturers, MAHs, or any other designated person is required to report AEs/ADRs which include the following to the LMHRA:

• All suspected ADRs resulting from prescription and non-prescription medicinal products
• Unexpected reactions, regardless of their nature or severity, whether or not consistent with product information or labelling
• All ADRs regardless of whether or not the product was used in accordance with the product information provided by the company marketing the product
• All AEs following immunization or use of a biological product
• A serious reaction, whether expected or not
• ADRs in a special field of interest including drug abuse and drug use in pregnancy and during lactation
• ADRs occurring from overdose or medication errors

See the LibPVReg for additional reporting requirements.

Per the LibPVReg, a case initially classified as a non-expedited report, would qualify for expedited reporting upon receipt of follow-up information that indicates the case should be re-classified. The reporting timeframe begins again upon receipt of any medically relevant information for a previously reported case.

Other Safety Reports

Per the LibPVReg, every sponsor and MAH is required to submit an annual Development Safety Update Report (DSUR) to the LMHRA for drugs under development, including marketed drugs under further study. A single DSUR must be prepared for each IP with data pertinent to all dosage forms and strengths, all indications, and all patient populations under study with the IP, wherever feasible. If this is not possible, an explanation should be provided in the introduction section of the DSUR. If more than one sponsor is involved in drug development, a single DSUR can be submitted. The DSUR must provide safety information from all ongoing clinical trials and other studies that the sponsor is conducting or has completed during the review period, including the following:

• Clinical trials using an IP (e.g., human pharmacology, therapeutic exploratory, and therapeutic confirmatory trials (Phase I to III))
• Clinical trials conducted using marketed drugs in approved indications such as therapeutic use trials (Phase IV)
• Therapeutic use of an IP
• Clinical trials conducted to support changes in the manufacturing process of medicinal products
• Any significant other findings pertinent to the safety of the IP

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority

As per the G-LibClinTrial, all SAEs/SADRs and SUSARs must be reported on the LMHRA’s Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Form (Annex 3 in the G-LibClinTrial). In addition, the LibPVReg states that medication errors arising during routine clinical practice must be reported to the LMHRA. The MAHs, healthcare providers, and public health programs must also notify the LMHRA of any reports of unusual failure in efficacy using the Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Form. Additionally, patients or consumers may report any suspected ADR/AE associated with the use of a product immediately to the nearest health facility, healthcare provider, or directly to the LMHRA using the Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Form.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

Per LBR-28, since all clinical trials protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB for review, all AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs are only sent to the NREB. Safety reports for clinical research protocols other than clinical trials should be sent to the ACRE IRB.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

No information is available on NREB safety reporting forms and delivery requirements.

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

The G-SafetyRpt delineates the following reporting timeframes:

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, SAE-E2B states that SAHPRA’s Clinical Trials Unit encourages applicants to use the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Guideline E2B on Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) as an additional method for reporting SAEs during clinical trials. SAHPRA accepts both the E2B R2 or E2B R3 formats. See ZAF-31 for the ICH technical specifications for the R2 and R3 formats. For E2B submissions, the preferred encoding is ISO-8859-1 (with UTF-8 also acceptable), and SAHPRA is the organization identifier. In addition, applicants must attach a cover letter to the email that includes the SAHPRA reference number, medicine registration form number (if applicable), participant number, study title, protocol number, site name, investigator/reporter name, suspect study drug, AE, report type (initial or follow-up), and outcome. SAEs should be submitted by email to ctcsaes@sahpra.org.za and the subject line should include E2B, the SAHPRA database tracking number, the protocol number, and SAE (e.g., E2B_20220203_NER000_SAE). SAHPRA notes that the current SAE reporting methods using the ZAF-15 or ZAF-19 are still acceptable.

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority

Pursuant to the LibCTReg, the applicant must submit to the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) and the NREB progress reports containing safety updates and duly signed and authenticated Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reports, as specified in the corresponding clinical trial guidelines. As specified in the G-LibClinTrial, the applicant must provide a progress report at least annually on the clinical trial to the LMHRA, unless otherwise stipulated in the clinical trial certificate. The report should contain recruitment status, safety updates, and DSMB reports, as well as an update on the use and results collected on biological samples exported out of Liberia, if applicable.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

As indicated in the G-NREB, for continuing review submissions, PIs must submit review reports to the NREB Secretariat at least eight (8) weeks prior to the approved protocol’s expiration. See LBR-6 for the NREB Continuing Review Form. Additionally, according to LBR-38, the NREB is also using LBR-24 for continuing review, for annual reports, and as a final report to close a study.

Per the G-LibClinTrial and the G-NREB, research in Liberia should comply with the International Council for Harmonisation's (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8). Refer to LBR-8 for additional progress reporting guidance.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

For clinical research studies using the ACRE IRB, the G-ACRE-IRB requires the principal investigator(s) (PIs) to submit progress reports (also referred to as continuing review submissions in Liberia) to the ACRE IRB. If no work was conducted on a study during the last approval period, the PIs should explain why (e.g., too busy with other projects; a delay in funding; or unable to hire a graduate student to work on the project). If the PI(s) are closing the study, a copy of any publications or manuscripts resulting from the study should be attached.

See the G-ACRE-IRB for details on the required documentation to submit a continuing review to the ACRE IRB.

Final Report

Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority

The LibCTReg states that the applicant is required to submit a final clinical trial summary report to the LMHRA. As per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the applicant must notify the LMHRA within 30 business days from the end of a clinical trial. Per the G-LibClinTrial, the end of the trial definition should be documented in the clinical trial protocol.

The LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial also indicate that the applicant must submit a closeout report with a copy of the LMHRA-issued disposal certificate to the LMHRA. The G-LibClinTrial specifies this report should be submitted within 90 days from completion of the clinical trial. (See Annex 5 of the G-LibClinTrial for closeout report form).

In addition, per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the applicant must submit a comprehensive end of study report conforming to the ICH’s Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) (LBR-37) guidelines, within one (1) year from the trial’s completion.

Per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the end of study report must also contain any AEs reported by the PIs.

National Research Ethics Board

The LibCTReg states that the applicant is required to submit a final clinical trial summary report to the NREB. The applicant must also notify the NREB within 30 business days from the end of a clinical trial.

Additionally, per the LibCTReg, the PI must also inform the NREB of any AEs as part of the end of study report.

The LibCTReg further specifies that the applicant must submit a comprehensive end of study report to the NREB conforming to the LBR-37 guidelines, within one (1) year from the trial’s completion.

According to LBR-38, the NREB is using LBR-24 for continuing review, for annual reports, and as a final report to close a study.

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

Per the G-ACRE-IRB, PI(s) should complete Section 12 (Disposition of Project) of the ACRE IRB Submission Form (Section 25.02 in Article XXV of the G-ACRE-IRB) for the final ACRE IRB review. For the board’s purposes, the project has ended when there is no further participant enrollment, intervention(s), or data collection, and the remaining data are either de-identified or maintained with safeguards. The PI(s) should use this section to describe the disposition of the project and its data and to provide a brief summary of their findings.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

As stated in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with LMHRA guidelines. Per LibCTReg, the sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial.

LibCTReg also defines a sponsor-investigator as an individual who both initiates and conducts an investigation, alone or with others, and under whose immediate direction the investigational product is administered or dispensed. The term does not include any person other than an individual. The obligations of a sponsor-investigator include both those of a sponsor and those of an investigator.

In addition, per the LibCTReg, the sponsor may hire a contract research organization (CRO) (commercial, academic, or other) to perform one (1) or more of the sponsor’s trial-related duties and functions. See LBR-8 for additional guidance on sponsor responsibilities.

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

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

Overview

According to the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with LMHRA guidelines. Refer to LBR-8 for additional guidance on sponsor site/investigator selection requirements.

As stated in the G-LibClinTrial, all investigators must be trained in good clinical practice (GCP), as documented by the provision of training certificates that are no more than three (3) years old at the time of application. Any other training or experience from previous clinical trials and patient care, as needed for the conduct of the trial, must be provided for the investigators to prove their qualifications. The principal investigators (PIs) should have acted as a PI, or at least as an investigator, in at least one (1) prior clinical trial and must provide proof of residency in Liberia in the clinical trial application submission package. The LibCTReg further states that the trial is to be conducted in an appropriate facility by a suitably qualified investigator in a responsible manner and managed by an investigator who can provide evidence of sufficient experience in the conduct of clinical trials, as determined by the LMHRA.

Per the G-NREB, PIs are also required to be able to provide a current Certificate of Training in GCP for PIs, be qualified to undertake the particular study, and be knowledgeable in the values and tenets of ethical and regulatory principles and scientific method applications associated with conducting research in human participants.

In addition, the G-LibClinTrial requires the applicant to provide details of the site(s) where the clinical trial is to be conducted, along with a duly justified written statement on the suitability of the trial sites, adapted to the nature and use of the investigational product in the clinical trial application submission package. The statement should include a description of the suitability of facilities, equipment, human resources, and description of expertise, issued by the head of the clinic/institution at the trial site or by some other responsible person.

See also LBR-8 for information on sponsor agreements with investigators/institutions.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available on foreign sponsor requirements.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

As per the G-LibClinTrial, the sponsor or the representative should provide information on the composition of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) in the clinical trial application submission package. This information should include the list of members, the terms of reference, and the CVs of its members to justify their expertise as members of the DSMB.

See LBR-8 for additional DSMB guidance.

Multicenter Studies

See LBR-8 for guidance on sponsor requirements for multicenter clinical trials.

Overview

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

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

Capacity Building & Training

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

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

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

Management of Investigators

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

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

Insurance

As set forth in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the applicant should include documentation in the clinical trial application submission package to verify active clinical trial insurance that covers Phases I, II, and III; proof of professional indemnity (malpractice insurance); and proof of sponsor indemnification for investigators and the trial site. The LibCTReg also notes that an indemnity, in the form determined by the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA), is to be signed by the participant to protect the LMHRA from liability related to an injury or an adverse event that may be sustained by a person, directly or indirectly, as a result of the conduct of the trial and that occurs or reveals itself at the time of the trial or subsequently. The LibCTReg further notes that any person(s), institution(s), corporate entity(ies), their designees, or legal representative(s) who fail to provide insurance coverage for prospective participants as required, and where bodily injury or substantial harm results in the course of the research, commits a first degree misdemeanor.

The G-LibClinTrial also specifies that a study insurance certificate and an indemnity provision should be current and valid for the full duration of the trial and follow-up period. If the validity is shorter, a written renewal commitment for the trial duration is required. The certificate should contain a reference to the clinical trial, the clinical trial protocol number, and the countries to which the insurance cover is extended. The insurance cover should be provided from an internationally recognized company. Additionally, the LibCTReg, requires an insurance policy to be in place to provide benefits in the event that a clinical trial participant suffers injury or death related to the study.

In addition, per the G-LibClinTrial, under certain circumstances, the LMHRA may accept an expedited application and review process for clinical trials (e.g., epidemics or other urgent public health interests requiring fast use of new medicines or health products and/or fast gathering of health product information). In the case of trials involving human participants, the applicant must provide proof of current, relevant, and appropriate study insurance for all participants, or professional indemnity insurance for investigators, as part of the application submission package to be sent to the LMHRA. Furthermore, as specified in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the LMHRA has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. See LBR-8 for additional sponsor insurance requirements.

Compensation

Injury or Death

Pursuant to Part VIII of the LMHRA-Act, the LibCTReg specifies that the principal investigator (PI) or organization is subject to an action of damages for any Serious Adverse Event (SAE)/Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) that is life-threatening, or results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity or congenital anomaly/birth defect, during the conduct of a clinical trial. Additionally, any SAE/SADR that is life-threatening or results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect to a participant during the conduct of a clinical trial, subjects the PI or organization to an action of damages.

See LBR-8 for additional sponsor compensation requirements related to trial-related injuries.

Trial Participation

See LBR-8 for guidance on sponsor compensation requirements for trial participants.

Insurance

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

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

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

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

CTInsurance indicates that when applying to SAHPRA for approval of a new clinical trial, proof of active participant insurance cover for the trial must be included in the submission. The insurance quotation letters, letters of intent, or pro forma certificates are not acceptable. As indicated in the clinical trial application form (ZAF-23), applications submitted without an insurance certificate will be rejected at the screening phase and will not be accepted for review.

Compensation

Injury or Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Participation

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

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

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

Post-Trial Access

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

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As specified in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)'s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. Refer to LBR-8 for guidance on sponsor responsibilities related to quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems throughout the conduct of the trial.

Monitoring Requirements

See LBR-8 for sponsor monitoring requirements.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Pursuant to the LibCTReg, if the trial is suspended or terminated before its purpose is achieved, the applicant must convey the reason(s) in writing to the LMHRA and the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) within 10 working days, and all information must be provided as determined by the LMHRA. The G-LibClinTrial also states that the applicant must inform the LMHRA of a clinical trial suspension or premature termination of a clinical trial within 10 working days, and clearly explain the reasons for this decision. See also LBR-8 for additional guidance on sponsor requirements related to premature study terminations/suspensions.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

Electronic Data Processing System

As specified in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)'s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. See LBR-8 for sponsor requirements when using electronic data processing systems.

Records Management

The G-LibClinTrial specifies that the principal investigator (PI) must keep an Investigator Site File (ISF), and the sponsor must keep a Trial Master File (TMF) containing essential documents relating to the clinical trial, which provide verification for the trial conduct and the quality of the data generated, taking into account all trial characteristics. The files must be readily available and directly accessible upon request from the LMHRA. The sponsor and the investigator must archive the contents of the TMF and ISF, respectively, for at least 25 years after the end of the trial including the medical files of study participants.

See also LBR-8 for additional sponsor requirements related to record management.

As per the G-LibClinTrial, data handling and recordkeeping should be conducted in conformity with the World Health Organization's Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (LBR-25) (refer to Section 8 for details).

Per the G-ACRE-IRB, for clinical research studies using the ACRE IRB, research records from a study must be retained by the investigator(s) for a period of no more than five (5) years following the closure date. If other regulations and policies apply to a particular protocol, then the duration of protocol retention is in accordance with the applicable regulations/policies. For detailed ACRE IRB recordkeeping requirements, refer to the G-ACRE-IRB.

The G-ACRE-IRB also specifies that although a research protocol has been closed, the investigator(s) should keep the data they have collected, including identifiable private data, in a manner consistent with the board-approved protocol and participant consent requirements. The investigator(s) must continue to honor any confidentiality protections applicable to the data. Refer to the Informed Consent topic for additional information on documentation requirements and research participant rights during the informed consent process.

Electronic Data Processing System

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

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

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

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

Records Management

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

Responsible Parties

No information is currently available related to responsible parties for personal data protection.

Data Protection

No information is currently available related to data protection.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

As stated in the LibCTReg, the clinical trial participant must be informed of the purpose and scope of the collection and use of personal data, especially medical data. The trial participant must be informed especially of the fact that, where necessary, the collected data should be:

• Kept available for inspection by the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) or for monitoring or auditing by the sponsor in order to verify the proper conduct of the clinical trial
• Be passed on to the sponsor and the LMHRA without disclosing the identity of the trial participant

The LibCTReg further notes that a declaration of consent to participate in a clinical trial can be revoked at any time in the presence of the investigator or a member of the investigating team, orally or in writing, without disadvantage to the trial participant. In the case of a revocation of consent, the study participant must decide whether their stored data may continue to be used.

Responsible Parties

For the purposes of data protection requirements, the POPIA provides that the “responsible party” is a public or private body or any other person that, alone or in conjunction with others, determines the purpose of and means for processing personal information. In addition, an "information officer" is the designated head or deputy of a public or private body responsible for fulfilling the duties and functions related to personal information.

Data Protection

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

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

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

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

The POPIA establishes a duty requiring a public or private body to register its Information Officer with the Information Regulator (South Africa) on the eServices platform (ZAF-14). Per the POPIA, the Information Officer is responsible for compliance with lawful processing of information and working with and responding to requests by the Regulator. Per the POPIA-Regs, the Information Officer has further responsibilities to:

• Develop, implement, monitor, maintain, and continually improve a compliance framework
• Conduct a personal information impact assessment to ensure compliance with the conditions for the lawful processing of personal information
• Develop internal measures and systems to process requests for information or access
• Conduct internal awareness sessions on protection of personal information requirements

As indicated in the POPIA-Regs, a data subject may object to the processing of personal information at any time during office hours and free of charge. The objection must be made on a form substantially similar to Form 1 (in the POPIA-Regs), and the responsible party must make the form reasonably accessible by hand, fax, post, email, SMS, WhatsApp, or any other expedient means. The responsible party must notify the data subject of the right to object when collecting personal information. If an objection is made telephonically, it must be electronically recorded and made available to the data subject upon request. In addition, a data subject may request the correction, destruction, or deletion of personal information at any time and free of charge, where the information is inaccurate, irrelevant, excessive, out of date, incomplete, misleading, obtained unlawfully, or no longer authorized to be retained. Requests must be made on a form substantially similar to Form 2 (in the POPIA-Regs), which must be reasonably accessible through various means, including hand delivery, fax, post, email, SMS, WhatsApp, or any expedient manner. If a request is made telephonically, the responsible party must record it and make it available on request. The responsible party must also notify the data subject in writing within 30 days of the action taken in response to the request. Also see ZAF-4 for voluntary guidance on complying with the POPIA and the POPIA-Regs.

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

See ZAF-4 for voluntary guidance on complying with the POPIA, and ZAF-28 for more background on information officers. For additional guidance on processing personal data, including guidance on “special personal information” (e.g., health history) and personal information of children, see the Information Regulator website.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data of Minors

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

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

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

Obtaining Consent

In accordance with the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. According to the G-ACRE-IRB and the G-NREB, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an ethics committee (EC).

As delineated in the LibCTReg, the trial participant should be informed of the nature, significance, and implications of the clinical trial and should provide a voluntary written informed consent. The trial participant or witness, if applicable, must be informed by an investigator, who is a healthcare professional or by a person designated by the investigator, and who is knowledgeable about the nature, significance, risks, and implications of the clinical trial, as well as about the participant’s right to withdraw from the clinical trial at any time. A generally comprehensible information sheet is to be handed out to the participant. The trial participant is also to be given the opportunity to have a counseling session with an investigator or a person designated by the investigator about the other conditions surrounding the conduct of the clinical trial.

The LibCTReg further notes that a declaration of consent to participate in a clinical trial can be revoked at any time in the presence of the investigator or a member of the investigating team, orally or in writing, without disadvantage to the trial participant. In the case of a revocation of consent, the study participant must decide whether their stored data may continue to be used. See also LBR-8 for additional consent guidelines.

Per the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB must assess the research study to ensure the voluntary, non-coercive recruitment of research participants.

(See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the ACRE IRB and NREB forms. Refer to LBR-33 for the NREB Exempt Human Research Consent Script Form and LBR-34 for the NREB Short Consent Form.)

Re-Consent

Refer to LBR-8 for re-consent guidelines.

In addition, per the G-ACRE-IRB, in the case that ACRE IRB approval for a research protocol is reinstated, the ACRE IRB may require previously enrolled participants to re-consent.

Language Requirements

As stated in the G-LibClinTrial, all clinical trial application documentation must be submitted in English. If documents are written in another language, a certified translation is required.

Documenting Consent

As explained in the LibCTReg, if the trial participant is unable to read or write English, the informed consent should be obtained in the language the participant understands and in the presence of at least one (1) witness. The witness, who should be able to read and write English and understand the local language in which the trial participant is informed, should not be a member of the investigating team. The consent given by the trial participant must be documented in writing, dated, and signed by the witness and thumb printed by the trial participant.

LBR-34 also provides a sample NREB ICF for adults capable of consent. A witness must also be present during the consent process and must sign and date the ICF. The number of copies to be signed and distributed is not specified.

Waiver of Consent

No information is currently available from the LibCTReg, G-LibClinTrial, or G-NREB regarding clinical trial waivers.

As specified in the G-ACRE-IRB, to obtain a waiver or alteration of informed consent, the investigator must include the request (and provide justification for the waiver or alteration) in the protocol submission to the ACRE IRB. The request for waiver or alteration will be reviewed by the convened board, the ACRE IRB Chair, or the designated expedited reviewer. The ACRE IRB reviewer (Chair or designee) may approve the waiver or alteration of informed consent, if the board reviewer can establish that the research is to be conducted by or subject to the approval of state or local government officials and is designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine:

• Public benefit or service programs
• Procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs
• Possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures, or
• Possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs

Per the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB reviewer should also be able to ascertain that the research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration. In cases where the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide participants with a written statement regarding the research, such as an information sheet, instead of an informed consent document.

Additionally, per the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB reviewer may approve the waiver or alteration of informed consent, if the reviewer determines the following:

• The research involves no more than minimal risk to the participants
• The research could not practicably be conducted without the requested waiver or alteration
• 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
• The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the participants, and
• Whenever appropriate, the participants or legal representative/guardian will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation. The ACRE IRB reviewer will document the findings for waiver or alteration of informed consent. An alteration to informed consent may apply when conducting a study where there is deception or an incomplete disclosure (for example, studies that require deception because the study would be compromised if participants were told the true purpose)

In addition, the G-ACRE-IRB explains that a waiver of a signed ICF may be appropriate for some research studies such as survey or interview studies containing highly sensitive questions (e.g., health status, sexual practices, criminal behavior, etc.), or surveys containing non-sensitive information. To obtain a waiver of documented (signed) informed consent, the investigator must include the request (and provide justification for the waiver or alteration) in the protocol submission process. The request for waiver or alteration will be reviewed by the convened ACRE IRB, the Chair, or the designated expedited reviewer. The ACRE IRB reviewer will consider the investigator’s request and review the request to determine if:

• The only record linking the participant and the research would be the consent document, and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality
• The research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to participants and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context
• The participants or legal representative/guardian are members of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing forms is not the norm, that the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to participants, and provided that there is an appropriate alternative mechanism for documenting that informed consent was obtained. In cases where the documentation requirement is waived, the ACRE IRB may require the investigator to provide participants with a written statement regarding the research, such as an information sheet, instead of an informed consent document

Obtaining Consent

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Consent

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

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

Language Requirements

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

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

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

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

Documenting Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waiver of Consent

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority

As specified in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. Refer to LBR-8 for additional guidance on informed consent.

National Research Ethics Board of Liberia

The following elements are to be included in the NREB’s Exempt Human Research Consent Script Form (LBR-33) and the NREB Short Consent Form (LBR-34) respectively (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Statement indicating that the person is being asked to take part in a research study
• Research study purpose and the reason for participant’s eligibility to participate in study
• Duration of research study
• Participation is voluntary and participant may withdraw at any time
• Explanation of study-specific procedures and sample questions provided to participants
• Possible risks associated with participating in study
• Benefits to the participant or to others from participating in study
• Appropriate alternative procedures, or courses of treatment, if any
• Explanation of what is experimental vs. routine standard of care
• Statement regarding who will have access to the participant’s personal information
• Participant’s right to decline participating in any part of the study for any reason, their right to end participation at any time, and that refusal to participate will not be held against the participant
• Researcher’s contact information for any questions the participant may have prior to deciding to participate and throughout the participant’s involvement in the study

See LBR-33 and LBR-34 for additional details.

Per LBR-34, if applicable, the following information is also included in the NREB Short Consent Form:

• Whether the participant will get treated or paid if injured
• The possibility of unknown risks
• When the participant may be taken off the research study without the participant’s agreement
• Added costs from taking part in the study
• What will happen if the participant stops taking part
• Steps to safely stop taking part
• What new information will be shared with the participant
• The number of participants expected to take part in the study
• What happens to the participant’s collected data if the participant withdraws from the trial
• An explanation of the ClinicalTrials.gov (LBR-40) website

Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board

The G-ACRE-IRB indicates that the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for preparing the informed consent form (ICF) and that the ICF should include the following statements or descriptions:

• The study involves research and an explanation of its purpose
• The expected duration of a participant’s involvement in the research
• A description of the procedures to be followed
• Identification of any experimental study procedures
• Any foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant
• Any benefits to the subject or to others that may reasonably be expected from the research
• Alternative procedures or treatment that may be available to the participant, and if any, which might be advantageous to the participant
• A statement describing the extent to which, if any, confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained
• A statement noting the possibility that the EC (or its designees) and the study sponsor may inspect the study records, if the research is sponsored by a funding source
• For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation of compensation and/or medical treatment available to the participant, or to the participant’s family or dependents, in the event of a trial-related injury, and if injury occurs, what the medical treatments consist of, or where further information may be obtained
• The person(s) to contact for further information regarding the trial and the rights of research participants, and whom to contact in the event of research-related injury
• 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

In addition to the required elements listed above, per the G-ACRE-IRB, for research involving the collection of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, one (1) of the following must be included in the informed consent:

• A statement that identifiers will 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 without additional informed consent from the participant or legal representative/guardian
• A statement that the participant'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

See also the Consent for Specimen section for additional information on informed consent relating to specimens.

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

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

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

Overview

As specified in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. The G-ACRE-IRB also complies with the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS)’ International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans (LBR-2) and the national ethical guidelines for research on human participants.

The G-ACRE-IRB states that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in the G-ACRE-IRB, LBR-33, and LBR-34, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As per the G-ACRE-IRB, LBR-33, and LBR-34, 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. (See the Required Elements section for a more detailed list.)

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the G-ACRE-IRB, 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-ACRE-IRB, LBR-33, and LBR-34, state that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The G-ACRE-IRB states that ethics committees review and approve all research proposals involving research participants with a view to safeguarding their dignity, rights, safety, and well-being. The goals of research, however important, should never be permitted to override the health and well-being of the participants.

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

Overview

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

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

The Right to Information

According to the G-GPHlthCare-IC, a potential research study participant has a right to information about any condition or disease from which they are suffering, and investigators must inform users of their health status (except where there is substantial evidence that disclosure would be contrary to the user’s best interests), the range of diagnostic procedures and treatment options generally available, the benefits, risks, costs and consequences generally associated with each option, and the user’s right to refuse health services and the implications, risks, and obligations of such refusal. (See the Required Elements section for a more detailed list of the ICF’s contents.

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

Per the G-EthicsHR-ZAF and the G-GPHlthCare, participants have the right to privacy and confidentiality. The G-GPHlthCare states that the researcher must ensure that where personal information about research participants or a community is collected, stored, used, or destroyed, it is done in ways that respect the privacy or confidentiality of participants or the community and complies with any agreements made with the participants or the community.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The SA-GCP indicates that potential participants must have the identity of the person(s) to contact for trial-related queries and injuries, the ethics committee’s contact details for information and concerns on the rights of trial participants, and the identity of the sponsor. The G-EthicsHR-ZAF also indicates that all research study-related information and consent documentation must include contact details for a participant to make a complaint about being a research participant.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

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

As set forth in the LibCTReg, in an emergency situation where consent cannot be obtained, treatment which is necessary without delay to save the life of the trial participant can be started immediately. Such situations must be defined by the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) and consent for continued participation must be obtained as soon as possible, and not later than the timeframe specified by the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) for a given clinical trial. Additionally, in these cases, the LMHRA may apply an expedited application and review process for clinical trials and make exemptions to the documentation requirements for clinical trial application submissions.

The LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial further explain that the LMHRA has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. Refer to LBR-8 for additional guidelines on emergency consent requirements.

Per the G-LibClinTrial, examples of emergency situations are epidemics or other urgent public health interests that require fast utilization of new medicines or health products and/or fast gathering of information on products. Information provided to clinical trial participants about the process of obtaining consent must be included in the documents submitted to the LMHRA. Refer to 2.3 of the G-LibClinTrial for additional information on how to submit an expedited clinical trial application package.

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

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

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

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

Per the ZAF-40, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) states that during a public health emergency, informed consent and the patient information sheet(s) remain essential documents that must be reviewed and approved by an EC and provided to SAHPRA with the clinical trial application.

Overview

The LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial explain that the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. Refer to LBR-8 for consent guidelines applicable to vulnerable populations.

Persons with Diseases

As indicated in the LibCTReg, in the case of a clinical trial involving a person of legal age who is suffering from a disease for which the investigational product (IP) is to be used, one (1) of the following conditions should be applied along with the general clinical trial requirements delineated in the LibCTReg:

• The use of the IP is indicated according to the findings of medical science in order to save the person's life
• The IP must be of direct benefit to the group of patients who are suffering from the same disease as this person

Persons Under Legal Disability

As set forth in the LibCTReg, “persons under legal disability” are defined as being under the same category as a minor in terms of the individual’s ability to grant consent, except that the person under disability may be above the age of consent (18 years), but may be too ill to participate in decisions regarding their own health. In this case, priority is not given to parents or next of kin to petition the Probate Court for Guardianship, but priority is given to any natural person who demonstrates best interest in the welfare of the disabled.

The LibCTReg further explains that a person under legal disability may participate in a trial, if their parents/legal guardians have been informed of the nature, significance, and implications of the clinical trial and have given a written voluntary informed consent. If the informed implication is grave, it may be necessary for the guardian to secure the permission from the Probate Court before granting consent, due to the fact that the Decree of Guardianship has a clause that the Court appointed guardian should not release the disabled person to any other body in which case their welfare will be put at peril. Otherwise, it can be argued that the appointed guardian has breached their fiduciary duty to the Court by releasing the disabled person to peril.

See the Children/Minors and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these vulnerable populations.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons in Dependent Relationships or Hierarchical Situations

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

Persons Highly Dependent on Medical Care

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

Persons with Physical Disabilities

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

Elderly Persons

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

Research Involving Collectivities

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

According to the LibCTReg and the G-NREB, Liberia defines children and minors as those persons under 18 years of age. The G-NREB also defines adolescents as those between the ages of 15 and 17.

The LibCTReg also states that the definition of a legal guardian or “legal representative of a minor” is based on the premise that a minor cannot grant consent or enter into an agreement. The interest of a minor must be firstly protected by the parents (the father, if the parents are married or the child is legitimized), or the mother of the child, if the parents are not married. Where there is no parent alive, especially the mother, if the child is not born out of wedlock or not legitimized, any next of kin, preferably the grandparents first, the siblings second, or any person with interest in the welfare of the child, may petition the Probate Court for Decree of Guardianship. A guardian must be authorized to give consent for the minor child. No institution can serve as guardian and give consent for research on the child. A guardian must be a natural person, not an institution.

Additionally, per the LibCTReg, a minor may participate in a trial if their parents/legal guardians have been informed of the nature, significance, and implications of the clinical trial and have given a written, voluntary informed consent. If the implication of the trial is grave, it may be necessary for the guardian to secure permission from the Probate Court before granting consent, due to the fact that the Decree of Guardianship contains a clause stating that the Court appointed guardian should not release the minor to any other body where their welfare will be put in peril. Otherwise, it can be argued that the appointed guardian has breached their fiduciary duty to the Court by releasing the minor or disabled to peril.

Also, as indicated in LibCTReg, in the case of a clinical trial on a minor who suffers or may suffer from a disease for which the investigational product (IP) is to be used, the following conditions should be applied:

• The use of the IP must be indicated according to the findings of medical science in order to save the life of the trial participant, to restore the participant to health, to alleviate suffering, or to prevent a disease
• The clinical trial must be of direct benefit to the group of patients suffering from the same disease as the trial participant
• The research must be absolutely necessary in order to confirm data obtained in clinical trials on other persons or by means of other research methods
• The research must relate to a clinical condition from which the minor concerned is suffering or may suffer
• The research may cause only minimal risk and minimal burden to the trial participant

LBR-34 provides a sample NREB informed consent form (ICF) for children that explains the parents’ or guardian’s signatures document their permission for the child to take part in a research study as well as their permission for the use and disclosure of the child’s protected health information. If a second parent’s signature is not obtained, the first parent or guardian needs to choose one (1) of the following options on the form to justify why this is not possible:

• The ethics committee (EC) has determined that the permission of one (1) parent is sufficient (this option is only listed on the form if it has been approved by the EC)
• Second parent is deceased
• Second parent is unknown
• Second parent is incompetent
• Second parent is not reasonably available
• Only one (1) parent has legal responsibility for the care and custody of the child

In addition, per LBR-34, an individual may provide permission as a guardian for a child only if that individual can provide a written document indicating that the individual is legally authorized to consent to the child’s general medical care and this documentation must be attached to the signed ICF. The EC must also approve the consent form, a witness must be present during the consent process, and the witness must sign and date the ICF.

As delineated in the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB must classify research involving children into one (1) of four (4) categories and document its discussion of the risks and benefits of the research study in order to approve such research. The risk/benefit categories are as follows:

• When the ACRE IRB determines that the risk is no more than minimal to children in a study, it may approve the research only if adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children and the permission of their parents or legal guardians
• When the ACRE IRB determines that more than minimal risk to children is presented by a procedure that holds the prospect of direct benefit to an individual child, or by a monitoring procedure that is likely to contribute to the child’s well-being, the ACRE IRB may approve the research if it is established that: the risk is justified by the anticipated benefit to the children; the relation of the anticipated benefit to the risk is at least as favorable to the children as that presented by available alternative approaches; and adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children and permission of their parents or legal guardians
• When the ACRE IRB determines that the study presents more than minimal risk to children and does not hold out the prospect of direct benefit for the individual child, but is likely to contribute generalizable knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition, the board may approve the research if it established that: the risk represents a minor increase over minimal risk; the study intervention or procedure presents experiences to participants that are reasonably commensurate with those inherent in their actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situations; the intervention or procedure is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the participants’ disorder or condition that is of vital importance for the understanding or improvement of the participants’ disorder or condition; and adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children and permission of their parents or legal guardians
• When the ACRE IRB determines that the research does not meet the requirements in any of the above three (3) categories, the board may only approve the research if it finds that the study presents a reasonable opportunity to further the understanding, prevention, or alleviation of a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children

The G-ACRE-IRB further states that the ACRE IRB should ensure that adequate permissions are made for soliciting the permission of each child’s parent/legal guardian. The following provisions are used depending on the category of research:

• Research not involving greater than minimal risk to children: Where parental permission is to be obtained, the ACRE IRB may suggest that the permission of one (1) parent is sufficient for research not involving greater than minimal risk
• Research involving greater than minimal risk but presenting the prospect of direct benefit to the individual child: Where parental permission is to be obtained, the board may suggest that the permission of one (1) parent is sufficient for research involving greater than minimal risk but presenting the prospect of direct benefit to the individual participants
• Research involving greater than minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit to the individual child, but likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition: When the research is approved under this category, both parents must give their permission unless one (1) parent is deceased, unknown, incompetent, not reasonably available, or when only one (1) parent has legal responsibility for the care and custody of the child

If the ACRE IRB determines that a research study is designed for a participant population for which approval from the parents and/or legal guardian(s) or representative(s) is not reasonably required to protect the participants (e.g., neglected or abused children), the G-ACRE-IRB indicates that the consent requirements may be waived. In order to protect the rights and welfare of children in a research study, the board should consider the involvement of a court appointed guardian.

Assent Requirements

Per the LibCTReg, an assent form must be signed, and, if possible, dated by the minor. Similarly, per the G-LibClinTrial, when the research participant is a minor, the investigator must obtain assent from the child/minor. The G-NREB also indicates that both written parental consent and assent forms should be completed for children less than 18 years of age. Per LBR-34, the child’s assent should also be attained unless this can be justified by one (1) of the following reasons:

• The EC determined that assent of the child was not a requirement
• The capability of the child is so limited that the child cannot reasonably be consulted

According to LBR-34, the EC must approve the assent form, a witness must be present during the consent process, and the witness must sign and date the ICF.

As indicated in the G-ACRE-IRB, for research reviewed and approved by the ACRE IRB, adequate provisions for the assent of children include the following:

• Children capable of assenting: After the ACRE IRB determines that a child is capable of assenting, the proposed research procedures should be explained to the child in a language that is appropriate to the age, experience, maturity, and condition of the child and should include any discomforts and inconveniences the child may experience if the child agrees to participate in the study
• The option to withdraw: As they are in the developmental stage, children should be asked if they do or do not wish to participate in the research, especially where the research does not involve interventions likely to be of benefit to the participants but that they will be volunteers for the benefit of others
• The signing of assent or consent: When an assent requirement is established, the investigator or the designee and the child (when appropriate) will sign the study consent form. When it is inappropriate for the child to sign the form (due to age or ability), the board requires that the document be signed by the investigator (or the designee) and the parent/legal guardian

Per the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB may determine that assent may be waived if the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted; or the intervention or procedure involved in the research has a direct benefit to the health or well-being of the children and is available only in the context of the research. In such instances, a child’s dissent which should normally be respected, may be overruled by the child’s parents at the discretion of the board (for example, when a research study involves providing experimental therapies for life-threatening diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease, severe COVID-19, or cancer, parents may wish to try anything to help their children, even with the likelihood of success being uncertain). If the child is a mature adolescent, the child’s wishes should be respected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assent Requirements

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

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

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

As set forth in the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. Refer to LBR-8 for additional guidance on informed consent applicable to embryos, fetuses, and nursing infants.

As stated in the G-ACRE-IRB, for clinical research studies using the ACRE IRB, pregnant women or fetuses may be involved in research if all the following conditions are met:

• Where scientifically appropriate, preclinical studies, including studies on pregnant animals, and clinical studies, including studies on non-pregnant women, have been conducted and provide data for assessing potential risks to pregnant women and fetuses
• The risk to the fetus is caused solely by the interventions or procedures considered directly beneficial for the woman or the fetus; or, if there is no such prospect of specific benefit, the risk to the fetus is not greater than minimal and the purpose of the research is for the development of important biomedical knowledge which cannot be obtained by any other means
• Any risk is the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research
• Consent is obtained in accordance with the informed consent provisions in the G-ACRE-IRB if the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to a pregnant woman; the prospect of a direct benefit both to the pregnant woman and the fetus, or no prospect of benefit to either the woman or the fetus when risk to the fetus is not greater than minimal; and the purpose of the research is the development of important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained by any other means
• If the research holds the prospect of direct benefit solely to the fetus, then the consent of the pregnant woman and the father is obtained in accordance with the informed consent provisions in the G-ACRE-IRB, except that the father’s consent need not be obtained if he is unable to consent due to unavailability, incompetence, or temporary incapacity, or, the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest (close relationship)
• Each person providing consent is fully informed regarding the foreseeable impact of the research on the fetus and/or resultant child
• For children who are pregnant, assent and permission are obtained in accordance with the provisions for children indicated in this guideline
• No inducements, monetary or otherwise, will be offered to terminate a pregnancy
• Individuals engaged in the research will have no part in any decisions as to the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate a pregnancy
• Individuals engaged in the research will have no part in determining the viability of a fetus

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

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

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

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

Note: Per LBR-38, the National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) has sole responsibility to review all clinical trial protocols in Liberia. Per LBR-28, due to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NREB and the Atlantic Center for Research and Evaluation Institutional Review Board (ACRE IRB) in 2022, all clinical trial protocols submitted to the ACRE IRB are referred to the NREB. Therefore, the information and requirements from the G-ACRE-IRB described in the ClinRegs Liberia profile only apply to human participants research other than clinical trials.

Pursuant to the G-ACRE-IRB, for clinical research studies using the ACRE IRB, due to the vulnerability of prisoners, research involving prisoners should be reviewed by a fully convened ACRE IRB. Per the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB may only approve research projects involving prisoners if the research falls under one (1) of the following categories:

• Study of possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration, and of criminal behavior, provided that the study presents no more than minimal risk or inconvenience to the participant
• Study of prisons as institutional structures or of prisoners as incarcerated persons, provided that the study presents no more than minimal risk and no more than inconvenience to the participants
• Research on conditions particularly affecting prisoners as a class
• Research on practices that are intended and have the probability of improving the health or well-being of the participants

In addition, per the G-ACRE-IRB, the ACRE IRB must review research involving prisoners and approve such research only if it finds that:

• The risks involved in the research are commensurate with risks that would be accepted by non-prisoner volunteers
• Procedures for the selection of participants within the prison are fair to all prisoners, and free of arbitrary interference by prison authorities or prisoners. Other than the investigator’s justification to the ACRE IRB, the use of other procedures, and the selection of control participants from the available prisoner population for a particular research study should be randomly done
• The information is presented in a language that is understandable to the participant population
• There is adequate assurance that parole boards will not take into account a prisoner’s participation, withdrawal, or lack of participation in the research in making decisions regarding parole, and each prisoner is clearly informed in advance that their participation, withdrawal, or lack of participation in the research will have no effect on their parole
• The ACRE IRB should ensure that adequate provisions are made where there will be a follow-up examination or care of participants after the end of their participation, considering the variable lengths of individual prisoners’ sentences, and informing participants of this information

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

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

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

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

As set forth in the LibCTReg, “persons under legal disability” is defined as being under the same category as a minor in terms of the individual’s ability to grant consent, except that the person under disability may be above the age of consent (18 years) even though the person may lack the mental capacity to reason properly and grant consent. In this case, priority is not given to parents or next of kin to petition the Probate Court for Guardianship, but priority is given to any natural person who demonstrates the best interest in the welfare of the disabled.

The LibCTReg further explains that a person under legal disability may participate in a trial, if their parents/legal guardians have been informed of the nature, significance, and implications of the clinical trial and have given a written voluntary informed consent. If the informed implication is grave, it may be necessary for the guardian to secure permission from the Probate Court before granting consent, due to the fact that the Decree of Guardianship has a clause that the court-appointed guardian should not release the disabled person to any other body where their welfare will be put at peril. Otherwise, it can be argued that the appointed guardian has breached their fiduciary duty to the court by releasing the disabled person to peril.

Also, as indicated in LibCTReg, in the case of a clinical trial on a person of legal age who is incapable of comprehending the nature, significance, and implications of a clinical trial and of determining their will in light of these facts, and who is also suffering from a disease which is to be treated by the investigational product (IP), the following conditions should be applied:

• The use of the IP must be indicated, according to the findings of medical science, in order to save the life of the trial participant, to restore the participant to health, or to alleviate suffering
• The research must relate directly to a life-threatening or to a highly debilitating clinical condition suffered by the trial participant, and the clinical trial may involve as little burden and other foreseeable risks as possible for the trial participant. Both the degree of burden and the risk threshold must be defined specifically in the trial protocol and monitored constantly by the investigator. The clinical trial may only be conducted if there is a justified expectation that the benefits of using the IP for the trial participant outweigh the risks
• Consent should be given by the legal representative/guardian after the participant has been duly informed per the general clinical trial requirements in LibCTReg
• The research must be absolutely necessary for the confirmation of data obtained from clinical trials conducted on persons capable of granting informed consent or by means of other research methods
• With the exception of adequate compensation, no advantages may be granted

Additionally, as per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines.

LBR-34 provides a sample National Research Ethics Board of Liberia (NREB) informed consent form (ICF) for adults unable to consent, which explains that the signature of the legally authorized representative documents their permission for the participant named in the ICF to take part in this research study, as well as their permission for the use and disclosure of the participant’s protected health information. The participant’s assent should also be attained unless this can be justified by one (1) of the following reasons:

• The EC determined that assent of the participant was not a requirement
• The capability of the participant is so limited that the participant cannot reasonably be consulted

The previously listed options are only available if they have been approved by the ethics committee. A witness must also be present during the consent process and the witness must sign and date the ICF.

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

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

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

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

Per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) has adopted the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. Refer to LBR-8 for detailed investigational product guidelines and definitions.

As delineated in LibCTReg, an investigational product (IP) is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes a product with a marketing authorization when it is used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form, when used for an unapproved indication, or when used to gain further information about an approved use. In Liberia, IPs are referred to as investigational medicinal products (IMPs).

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

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

Manufacturing

As set forth in the LMHRA-Act, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA) is responsible for issuing licenses or permits for premises and personnel to engage in the manufacture of medicinal products in Liberia. The LibCTReg also states that investigational products (IPs) for clinical trials must be manufactured according to internationally accepted good manufacturing practice (GMP) principles.

Per the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the LMHRA has also adopted the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)'s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (LBR-8) for use along with the LMHRA guidelines. Refer to LBR-8 for additional IP guidelines. Per LBR-29, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) GMP Guidelines for IPs (LBR-26) and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Harmonised Tripartite GMP Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (LBR-9) must also be complied with during the IP manufacturing process.

As explained in G-Inspec-PMS, where pharmaceutical factories have not yet established validated manufacturing processes for pharmaceuticals for use in clinical trials, or have not yet established comprehensive manufacturing control standards, the factories must establish written operational procedures and keep detailed and accurate records for each batch of products manufactured, and each batch of raw material used. Batch manufacturing records must be kept until clinical trials are completed, or until at least two (2) years after the product is completed, whichever period is longer. Additionally, where pharmaceutical factories produce biopharmaceuticals or biotechnology products for use in clinical trials, impurities caused by virus inactivation/removal or other organisms may not exceed the limits imposed on other similar products on the market; where operational procedures for said products have not yet been validated, quality control tests must be performed.

Import

As set forth in the LMHRA-Act, the LibCTReg, and the G-LibClinTrial, the LMHRA is also responsible for issuing licenses or permits for the import/export of medicinal products in Liberia. Pursuant to the G-Inspec-PMS and the LibCTReg, authorization must be obtained from the LMHRA for the importation of medicines to be used in clinical trials. Per LBR-30, the Clinical Trials Unit within the LMHRA’s Pharmacovigilance & Clinical Trials Department is responsible for reviewing importation permits for IPs that are required for the conduct of clinical trials. Per LibCTReg, the LMHRA Managing Director is responsible for receiving application requests to obtain an import permit.

According to the LibCTReg and the G-LibClinTrial, the import permit application must contain the following information and documentation:

• Name and address of the sponsor, the sponsor’s legal representative, or the sponsor-investigator (both physical and postal)
• Principal investigator’s name, address (both physical and postal), and contact details (e.g., phone number and email)
• The clinical trial for which the application is made
• The planned clinical trial sites and the planned number of participants at the sites
• IP(s) description by name or code, strength, and dosage form
• IP(s) unit of issue, total quantity, batch number, manufacture, and expiry dates
• Sample labels of the primary and secondary containers
• Planned return of unused IP(s) to sponsor or destruction at the clinical trial site
• Manufacturer name and address

The LibCTReg also notes that an application letter should be sent to the LMHRA Managing Director along with the required documentation.

In addition, per G-LibClinTrial, a parallel submission for approval of the clinical trial and the import permit application is possible. In this case, the import permit application can be included in the clinical trial application package.

The G-LibClinTrial further explains that if the IP(s), health products, or any auxiliary medicinal product must be imported, the clinical trial must be approved by the LMHRA before the import can be authorized. IPs may only be imported if they are not locally available, or if the need for importation is otherwise justified. The justification must be stated in the import permit application letter.

Please note: Liberia is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (LBR-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 LBR-17.

Manufacturing

According to the SA-GMP and the GRMRSA, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in South Africa. As delineated in the G-ManuImpExp, a manufacturer’s license for IPs is required for both total and partial manufacture, and for the various processes of dividing up, packaging, or presentation, in accordance with the MRSA. To obtain a license, the application form (ZAF-55) should be emailed to SAHPRA at gmplicensing@sahpra.org.za, accompanied by the following information:

• Proof of payment
• Existing SAHPRA license for renewal and amendment applications
• Cover letter
• Site Master File
• Signed declaration
• SAHPRA inspection resolution
• Intellectual property documentation
• Department of Health premises license
• Registration of responsible pharmacist
• South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) Record of a Pharmacy
• SAPC Record of a Pharmacy Owner
• Municipal Approval/Zoning Certificate

Per ZAF-55, the license is valid for five (5) years and the application to renew the license must be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration of the current license.

In addition, per ZAF-23, a clinical trial application to SAHPRA must include a certificate of good manufacturing practice (GMP) for manufacture of the IP(s). The SA-GCP also states that the sponsor must ensure that the IP (including active comparator and placebo, if applicable) is manufactured in accordance with applicable GMP standards.

Pursuant to the SA-GMP, South Africa adopted the PIC-S-GMP-Guide for the manufacturing of therapeutic goods. The PIC-S-GMP-Guide includes requirements for a Certificate of Analysis to be issued by the manufacturer for all IPs to be used in a clinical trial. For GMP agreements with competent international regulatory authorities, the SA-GMP states that these agreements do not permit automatic acceptance but may be used to enhance regulatory oversight and compliance. SAHPRA may request additional documentation and/or schedule an inspection to ensure GMP compliance. The following conditions demonstrate GMP compliance:

• The site has been approved by a recognized regulatory authority (RA) within the previous three (3) years
• The dosage form of the IP within the application is within the same dosage form grouping as the dosage form approved by the RA
• The product type applied for is the same as the product type approved by the recognized RA
• The activities applied for by the applicant are the same activities that have been approved by the recognized regulator

Import

The SA-GCP states that IPs may be imported into South Africa only after approval of the protocol by SAHPRA. Samples of the IP to be imported before trial approval require a SAHPRA license under MRSA. The sponsor must ensure that the IP (including active comparator and placebo, if applicable) is manufactured in accordance with any applicable GMP standards. Per G-ManuImpExp to import an IP, the applicant must submit an application form (ZAF-55) to SAHPRA.

The CTA-Import indicates that there have been delays in the release of IPs at the SAHPRA border control because the import licenses (clinical trial approval letters) have not specified the quantities of study medication authorized for importation. To address this problem, a protocol amendment application (ZAF-20) is required to request the approval of the remaining study medication to be imported for these specific trials. Applicants will be allowed six (6) months from the date of the CTA-Import (i.e., from September 19, 2024) to obtain the necessary approvals.

Per the G-ImprtPorts, SAHPRA’s Regulatory Compliance Unit is responsible for ensuring that health products at ports of entry meet importation requirements under MRSA, including for IPs. Imported IPs must be accompanied by the certificate of registration that proves authorization under the MRSA.

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