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

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

As per the MHCTR, the “licensing authority” is responsible for clinical trial authorization. Pursuant to the MMDAct, the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is authorized to make clinical trials regulations and amend or supplement the law relating to human medicines, taking into consideration the safety of human medicines and the availability of human medicines. As indicated in GBR-71 and GBR-90, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is an executive agency, sponsored by the DHSC, and is responsible for regulating medicines and medical devices in the United Kingdom (UK) (i.e., it is the licensing authority).

MHRA-More states that the MHRA regulates medicines, including vaccines, supplied in the UK, spanning the whole of a medicine’s lifecycle. The MHRA decides whether medicines should be granted licenses (i.e., marketing authorizations) and whether licenses can be varied. These decisions are based on safety, quality, and effectiveness data submitted. Further, the MHRA conducts several regulatory activities including the following:

• Inspecting facilities that manufacture and carry out safety tests on medicines to ensure they comply with Good Manufacturing Practice and Good Laboratory Practice standards
• Approving UK-based clinical trials and inspecting them to ensure they comply with Good Clinical Practice standards
• Carrying out vital research to support the development of new biological medicines and vaccines
• Developing reference materials for biological medicines to ensure their quality can be assessed in a standard way
• Monitoring the safety of the medicine while on the market, for example by actively assessing post-market safety reports
• Reclassifying existing medicines, if there is evidence to safely support doing so
• Regulating the importation of licensed medicines to the UK from European Union countries
• Carrying out inspections to ensure that medicines are developed, manufactured, distributed, and monitored to internationally recognized standards
• Helping set and enforce the legal advertising regulations for medicines in the UK
• Independent quality testing of batches of biological medicines before they go onto the market to make sure that it is consistent with batches previously shown to be safe and effective
• Regulating the supply of unlicensed medicines into the UK
• Carrying out enforcement activities to prevent the illegal supply of unlicensed medicines, to or within the UK

In addition, according to GBR-57, the MHRA’s responsibilities are to:

• Ensure that medicines, medical devices, and blood components for transfusion meet applicable standards of safety, quality, and efficacy
• Ensure that the supply chain for medicines, medical devices, and blood components is safe and secure
• Promote international standardization and harmonization to assure the effectiveness and safety of biological medicines
• Help to educate the public and healthcare professionals about the risks and benefits of medicines, medical devices, and blood components
• Enable innovation and research and development that is beneficial to public health
• Collaborate with partners in the UK and internationally to enable the earliest access to safe medicines and medical devices and to protect public health

For a listing of MHRA services and information, see GBR-36.

G-ATMP states that the MHRA is also the competent authority for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) and for UK manufacturers or importers of ATMPs. An ATMP is a medicinal product which is either a gene therapy medicinal product, a somatic cell therapy medicinal product, or a tissue engineered product.

Changes to the UK Clinical Trials Regulations

As summarized in the CT-Hub and the MHCTR-Chgs, the amended MHCTR updates the UK framework for clinical trials involving investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), including changes relating to definitions and terminology, the approvals process, ethics committee review, simplified consent arrangements, pharmacovigilance, risk proportionality, and transparency requirements. The MHCTR-Chgs also provides an overview of the changes to policies and standards. The amended regulations apply across all four (4) nations of the UK. The CT-Transtn lays out the transitional provisions because some requirements depend on whether the application for trial approval was submitted before or on/after April 28, 2026, and certain amended requirements will also apply to older trials from that date. (Note: Transitional details are described in the relevant sections of this profile.)

International Alignment

Per GBR-44, the MHRA is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The MHCTR requires that all clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP), including the ICH GCP, as amended from time to time. The UK-ICHE6-Comply explains that this legal requirement applies to the ICH E6 GCP conditions and principles rather than the entirety of the guideline. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the MHRA has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—to support compliance with the ICH efficacy guidelines by clarifying how the ICH provisions should be read alongside applicable UK legal requirements and by directing users to relevant UK requirements. (Note: As these applicable requirements are addressed throughout the profile, the annotations are cited only where they provide additional UK-specific clarification, exceptions, or requirements.) See ICH-UKimp for all the current ICH guidelines that have been implemented by the MHRA.

In addition, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) except where it would be a contravention of the MHCTR. The Hlsnki-Align explains that reference to specific versions of GBR-81 have been removed as compliance is expected with the principles of GBR-81 rather than with a specific version.

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

Please note: The UK is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (GBR-5), 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 GBR-48.

Contact Information

Per GBR-58, the following is the MHRA’s contact information:

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 4PU
United Kingdom

Main Phone: +44 020 3080 6000
General Email: info@mhra.gov.uk
Clinical Trials of Medicines:
Email: clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk
Telephone: +44 020 3080 6456

Pharmacovigilance: vigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk and gpvpinspectors@mhra.gov.uk
Data Protection Email: DataProtection@mhra.gov.uk
Importing or Exporting Investigational Medical Products Email: for queries, complete the GMP contact form and email it to gmpinspectorate@mhra.gov.uk
Scotland-related regulatory matters: Scotland-support@mhra.gov.uk
Wales-related regulatory matters: Wales-support@mhra.gov.uk
Northern Ireland-related regulatory matters: NI-support@mhra.gov.uk

See GBR-58 for additional MHRA contact information.

For help with setting up and conducting research in the National Health Service (NHS) across multiple UK nations, the UKwide-Rsrch provides the following emails for queries:

• England: queries@hra.nhs.uk
• Northern Ireland: Research.Approvals@hscni.net
• Wales: healthandcareresearch@wales.nhs.uk
• Scotland: enquiries@nrs.org.uk

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 MHCTR and as described in GBR-71, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the licensing authority responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving applications for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs). Per the MHCTR and the CTApp-Appvl, a person must not start or conduct a clinical trial without prior MHRA authorization and a favorable ethics committee (EC) opinion. The CTApp-Appvl calls it a joint ‘clinical trial approval’. The MHCTR-Chgs states that a clinical trial application is submitted to the MHRA and the EC using the combined review part (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78). As explained in GBR-72, clinical trial applications must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process, which offers a single application route and parallel/coordinated review from the MHRA and the EC (and study-wide review, which is discussed below) leading to a single United Kingdom (UK) decision for clinical trials. See GBR-72 for additional updates and information on combined review.

Per the G-Biosimilars, the MHRA also regulates the licensing of biosimilars (i.e., similar biological medicinal products).

See Schedule 14 of the MHCTR, and the CT-Transtn for background information on transitional arrangements from the ‘old rules clinical trial’ to the ‘new rules clinical trial’.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Per the MHCTR, the MHRA and the EC — collectively, “the authorities” — must confirm whether a request for approval is valid within seven (7) days beginning with the date of submission and must notify the sponsor. Once the request for approval is deemed valid, the MHRA must assess the request for authorization, and the EC must assess the application for an EC opinion. The MHCTR-Chgs indicates that the authorities will aim to notify sponsors of the outcome of the validation check within one (1) working day. As indicated in the CTApp-Appvl, the outcome of these checks will be communicated by email and through IRAS within seven (7) calendar days of submission. As soon as possible during this 7-day period, and no later than on the fifth calendar day, the MHRA may notify the applicant by email of any deficiencies identified during the validation checks and allow them to be addressed. If these deficiencies remain unresolved by the end of this 7-day period, the application will be invalidated, and the applicant will need to resubmit the application with the deficiencies corrected. The MHRA’s CTApp-Appvl and the Health Research Authority (HRA)’s MHCTR-Chgs provide operational guidance on the joint review and approval process laid out in the MHCTR.

The CT-Transtn provide that the “new rules” under MHCTR apply to the whole process of requesting approval for a clinical trial that is submitted on or after April 28, 2026. If an application to approve a clinical trial is submitted before April 28, 2026:

• The “old rules” apply to the whole process of requesting approval (even after April 28, 2026, if the MHRA and the EC have not issued a decision or opinion by then)
• If the MHRA issues a notice of grounds for non-acceptance after April 28, 2026, the old rules still apply following the applicant’s response to the grounds for non-acceptance
• The provision that a clinical trial approval will lapse two (2) years from the date on which the trial was approved if no participants have been recruited to take part does not apply

As part of its assessment, MHCTR states that the MHRA must consider the safety of the clinical trial and the safeguarding of clinical trial participants. The MHRA may consider whether the sponsor has failed to comply with clinical trial transparency requirements in relation to another clinical trial and, if so, whether the failure has been rectified (e.g., registering a previous clinical trial and/or publishing a summary of final results). Where the request for authorization contains a statement that the trial is a notifiable trial (i.e., eligible low-risk trials), the MHRA may, if it considers appropriate and without undertaking further assessment, rely on that statement to provide an automatic authorization of the clinical trial (more details below). The MHRA may consult a relevant committee and/or a specialist group or committee if it considers it appropriate (more details on this below). The authorities must not authorize a clinical trial involving products for gene therapy if the use of those products in that trial would result in modifications to any participant’s germ line genetic identity. Also see the CTApp-Appvl, and the MHCTR-Chgs for additional details.

After completing the initial review, MHCTR stipulates that the MHRA must provide its decision on the request for authorization, and the EC must give its opinion on the clinical trial. The authorities must notify the sponsor in writing of the joint outcome, which is one (1) of the following:

• Approve the request for approval
• Approve the request for approval, subject to conditions specified in the notice
• Not approve the request for approval, setting out the grounds for the decision and requesting the further information (RFI) required for the application to be reconsidered

Per the MHCTR, subject to applicable extensions and special circumstances, the authorities must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the joint notice is given within 30 days beginning with the date on which the authorities notified the sponsor that the request for approval was valid. Where approval is subject to conditions, the notice must specify whether the conditions relate to the MHRA’s decision, the EC opinion, or both. The clinical trial is treated as approved only if the conditions specified in the notice are satisfied. Following an RFI, the amended request for approval must be reviewed by the appropriate authority. The MHRA reviews the amended request where the RFI relates to the MHRA’s authorization decision; the EC reviews it where the RFI relates to the EC opinion; and both authorities review it where the request relates to both.

Next, the MHCTR states that applicants have 60 calendar days from the date on which the decision letter was issued to provide the requested information for the application to be reconsidered. The CTApp-Appvl indicates that the applicant’s submittal can be either a written response or an amended application for approval. The application is treated as rejected if this deadline is not met. However, extensions to this deadline can be requested by contacting the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk (or by contacting the EC directly, if the information requested relates only to its opinion), explaining why the extension is needed and proposing an alternative submission date. The MHCTR-Chgs explains that the applicant must wait for the full RFI (issued in GBR-125) before responding to any points received individually from the MHRA or EC. The full RFI will have the final consolidated feedback, including any queries or issues, from both the MHRA and EC. See G-IRASCombRev and IRAS-User for additional details on using GBR-125 during the review process.

Next, MHCTR provides that after reviewing the amended request, the appropriate authority must notify the sponsor in writing of the outcome, which is one (1) of the following:

• Approve the amended request
• Approve the amended request, subject to conditions specified in the notice
• Not approve the amended request, setting out the grounds for the decision

As per the MHCTR, subject to applicable extensions and special circumstances, the appropriate authority must take all reasonable steps to ensure that notice is given within 10 days beginning with the date of receipt of the amended request. The CTApp-Appvl further provides that for approvals with conditions, it is not necessary to inform the authorities that the conditions have been met before starting the trial, unless otherwise specified in the approval letter. In some cases, the MHRA and/or the EC may allow a condition of approval to be fulfilled at a specific timepoint after the trial begins. In these cases, the trial may begin before meeting the condition, but failure to meet the condition by the specified timepoint will mean that the approval is not valid and the trial must be stopped until the condition is discharged. A substantial modification can then be submitted requesting approval to restart the trial.

For the initial review, the MHCTR provides that the 30-day period is extended by 90 days where the MHRA or the EC consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee. For review of an amended request, the 10-day period is extended by 30 days where the MHRA or the EC consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee, or by 60 days where the investigational medicinal product (IP) is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) and such consultation occurs. If the clinical trial involves a medicinal product for xenogenic cell therapy, the usual time periods do not apply. See below and the Submission Process section for more details on consultations.

Per the MHCTR, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in an urgent situation where it would be beneficial to progress one (1) request or application while preparing the other), and if agreed in advance by the MHRA or the EC, a request for authorization and an application for an EC opinion may be made separately outside of combined review. Where an agreement has been reached, the MHRA or the EC must confirm which of the particulars and documents specified in Part A1 of Schedule 3 must accompany the request for authorization and the application for an EC opinion; and the arrangements for the payment of the fee.

The MHCTR-Chgs states that the sponsor can appeal an MHRA non-approval or an EC unfavorable opinion by contacting appeals@hra.nhs.uk within 28 calendar days of receiving the outcome. In their appeal, the sponsor must explain why they disagree with the outcome. See the CTApp-Appvl for additional details on the appeals process and requirements.

See GBR-82 for a flowchart summarizing the process of applying for clinical trial approval. In addition, see MHCTR-Chgs for more descriptions of the approval process to the MHCTR.

Per the MHCTR, if a clinical trial is to be conducted in another country as well as the UK, the MHRA may require the sponsor, and/or the owner or occupier of any premises in that country, to permit those premises to be inspected by or on behalf of the MHRA for the purpose of establishing whether the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP) are satisfied or adhered to in relation to that trial.

The MHCTR and the EndingCT state that a clinical trial approval will lapse two (2) years from the date on which the trial was approved if no participants have been recruited. The EndingCT indicates that the MHRA will monitor the status of the trial’s approval. If the approval lapses, the sponsor will be contacted via email to confirm this. The sponsor will then need to submit an end of trial notification. To enable the MHRA to monitor approval status, all sponsors will need to notify the MHRA and the EC of the date on which the first participant was recruited to a clinical trial through the modification of an important detail process. Sponsors can apply to the authorities for an extension of this period by emailing clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk, explaining both why the extension is needed and the length of the proposed extension. The authorities can grant an initial extension of up to 36 months beyond the lapse date and a further extension of up to 24 months, which must be requested (through the same process) before the previous extensions end. The MHRA and the EC will respond to extension requests via email within 30 calendar days or, if the trial is awaiting approval, at the same time as the outcome of the application for clinical trial approval is issued.

Per the MHCTR, the MHRA may, by notice, require that a clinical trial, or the conduct of a trial at a particular trial location, be suspended or terminated where it has objective grounds for considering that an applicable condition, restriction, or limitation is no longer satisfied, has information raising doubts about the safety or scientific validity of the trial, or where the trial has lapsed and the sponsor has not notified the MHRA that the trial has ended. The notice must specify whether it applies generally or to specific trial locations, whether it requires suspension or termination in whole or in part, and when it takes effect; for a suspension, whether it continues until further notice or for a specified period and any conditions for recommencement. The notice must be served to the sponsor or the investigator(s) at the relevant trial location(s). Additionally, the MHRA must inform the relevant EC and the sponsor (if the notice was not served to the sponsor). Unless the MHRA believes there is an imminent risk to the health or safety of any participants, the MHRA must inform the sponsor or investigator in writing of its intent to issue the notice at least one (1) week before issuance, and provide an opportunity for written representations within one (1) week as to whether the trial should be suspended or terminated. A person served with the notice of suspension or termination may, within 28 days or an extended period as allowed, give notice of a wish to make written or oral representations to the appropriate committee, and any referred suspension or termination remains in force unless revoked in accordance with Schedule 5.

To support compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91), the GCP-Inspct states that the MHRA:

• Requires organizations sponsoring clinical trials to notify them of serious breaches
• May conduct triggered inspections of organizations where serious breaches are suspected
• May conduct routine risk-based inspections of organizations that sponsor or conduct clinical trials
• May conduct inspections of clinical trials, and associated activities, submitted in support of a marketing authorization application

The G-GMP-GDP specifies that the MHRA follows a risk-based approach to inspections. Once an inspection has been completed, a formal report outlining the findings will be sent to the inspected organization.

Consultations for Expert Advice

Regarding consultations, the CT-Experts explains that the MHRA or the EC may consult a relevant committee or specialist group before issuing a clinical trial decision, including for certain scientifically complex or higher-risk trials. In deciding whether to seek expert advice, the authorities may consider factors such as the IP’s mode of action, the nature of the target, and the relevance of animal species and models; examples include novel compounds and certain first-in-human trials. See the CT-Experts for additional details and a process flowchart. (See Submission Process section for more details.)

Modifications to a CTIMP Approval

Per the MHCTR and the CTMod, a clinical trial approval may be modified by the trial’s sponsor, the MHRA, or the EC. Modifications to a clinical trial approval can be categorized into substantial modifications (Route A or Route B), modifications of an important detail, and minor modifications. Approval to make substantial modifications must be received from the MHRA and EC before implementation. The exception to this is for substantial modifications that relate to urgent safety measures. When considering implementing substantial modifications, sponsors should assess whether such modifications alter the original clinical trial approval to the extent that it should be considered a new clinical trial. If this is the case, a new application for clinical trial approval should be submitted. As described in the CTMod, the sponsor is responsible for using a risk-based approach to determine which of the following modification categories applies:

• Minor modifications: A sponsor may make a minor modification to a clinical trial approval at any time and without submitting a modification request or informing the MHRA and the EC at the point of implementation; the sponsor must keep records and provide them if requested.
• Modifications of an important detail: These do not significantly impact the safety or rights of the participants, but the authorities need to be aware of them for administrative or oversight purposes. Instructions for notifying the authorities about a modification of an important detail are provided on completion of the Modification Tool in GBR-125. See the CTMod for examples of modifications of an important detail.
• Route A substantial modification: This modification to a clinical trial approval is likely to have a substantial impact on the safety or rights of the participants or on the reliability or robustness of the data generated in the trial. If the sponsor proposes to make a substantial modification of this kind, the sponsor must submit a modification request to the authorities before implementation.
• Route B substantial modification: This modification poses no new significant safety concerns with any IP and the modification meets Condition A, B, or C. Condition A applies where the trial does not involve an IP used for the first time in humans and the modification has already been reviewed and approved by the clinical trials authority in the European Union (EU), an European Economic Area (EEA) State, or the United States, based on the same particulars and documents submitted in the UK, excluding UK-specific particulars. Condition B applies where the modification is limited to certain protocol changes. Condition C applies where the modification is limited to certain changes to the investigator’s brochure or summary of product characteristics. These modifications are eligible for automatic approval by the MHRA, with EC approval issued within 35 days of validation if needed.

Per GBR-83, the MHRA and the EC will manage submitted modifications in the Modification Tool of GBR-125. See GBR-106 for help using the Tool. For additional resources on clinical trial modifications, see the following:

• GBR-84: A decision tree for determining the correct category for a modification
• GBR-88: A flowchart for applying for approval of Route A substantial modifications
• GBR-85: Table of Route B substantial modifications
• GBR-134: Notification form for a substantial modification when the Modification Tool is not appropriate (for example for bulk modification (See CTMod, for more information on this))
• MHCTR-Chgs: Background on amendment/modification terminology updates, modification process overview, and examples
• GBR-98: Examples of modification types

With regard to transitional arrangements (i.e., old rules clinical trials vs. new rules clinical trials) relating to approval for modifications, CT-Transtn explains that the applicable regulations are determined by the date on which the application to approve the substantial modification was submitted. Therefore, if the sponsor submits an application to approve a substantial modification (or receives notice of a proposed modification by the MHRA or EC) prior to April 28, 2026, the old rules clinical trials apply to the whole process of requesting approval (even after April 28, 2026, if the authorities have not issued a decision by then). If an application to approve a substantial modification is submitted on or after April 28, 2026, the new rules (i.e., the MHCTR) apply to the approval process even if the clinical trial approval to be modified is for an old rules clinical trial.

Per the CTMod, to request approval for a Route A or Route B substantial modification, applicants must submit a single application, including all documentation, through IRAS (GBR-125) for trials approved through the combined review process. Applications undergo validation checks, with the outcome communicated within seven (7) calendar days. Any deficiencies must be resolved within that period or the application will be invalidated and must be resubmitted. A joint decision on a valid Route A application will be issued within 35 calendar days of validation. For an eligible Route B modification, automatic approval from the MHRA will be issued within 14 calendar days; however, the modification cannot be implemented until a combined decision approving it, or approving it with conditions, is received. If the MHRA or EC do not approve the applicant’s proposed substantial modification, the applicant will be given one (1) opportunity to provide further information and have the application reconsidered. The additional information needed will be specified in the notice stating that the application has not been approved, and it will be made clear whether the additional information requested relates to the MHRA’s decision, the EC’s opinion, or both.

Next, the CTMod states that applicants have 60 calendar days from the date on which the decision letter was issued to submit the RFI, either as a written response or an amended application for approval, in order for the application to be reconsidered. The application will be treated as rejected if this deadline is not met. Note that it is not currently possible to submit a response to an RFI about a substantial modification through IRAS (GBR-125). The response must be submitted to the MHRA through MHRA Submissions (GBR-13) and to the relevant EC via email. The MHRA cannot accept responses to RFIs that are submitted via email to an assessor or via the Clinical Trial Helpline unless this has been agreed to in advance. Extensions to the 60-day deadline can be requested by contacting the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk or by contacting the EC directly, and the applicant should explain why the extension is needed and propose an alternative submission date. A decision will be issued by email within 10 calendar days of the response being submitted, stating that the application is either approved, approved with conditions, or not approved. If the application is still not approved, the reasons will be outlined and the application will be treated as rejected.

As per MHCTR and the CTMod, either or both the MHRA or EC may require the sponsor to make modifications to a clinical trial to ensure the trial’s safety or scientific validity or to ensure adherence to the principles of GCP. Sponsors will receive a notification of the proposed modification, and the reasoning behind the proposal via email at least seven (7) calendar days before the modification is set to take effect. The sponsor may accept the proposal, or otherwise has seven (7) calendar days to submit representations against the proposal in writing to the relevant authority. The appropriate authority will issue a final decision on whether the modification must be implemented after considering the sponsor’s representations. The date on which the proposed modification is to take effect may be delayed so that the MHRA and/or the EC has sufficient time to consider these proposals. The CTMod states that where the appropriate authority makes a final decision to modify a clinical trial approval, the sponsor has 28 calendar days from the date on which the decision letter was issued to provide written notice to the authorities of their intention to appeal. This notice should be sent to appeals@hra.nhs.uk, after which the authorities will contact the applicant to discuss the appeals process.

Notifiable Trials

The MHCTR includes a notifiable trial pathway under which certain eligible low-risk trials may receive automatic authorization from the MHRA (but an EC review is still mandatory). A notifiable trial is a trial in which, as far as the sponsor is aware having made reasonable inquiries, there are no significant safety concerns with any IP; the trial meets Condition A, Condition B, or Condition C; and the trial does not involve participants who are under 18 years of age, pregnant, or breastfeeding, or an IP that is an advanced therapy medicinal product or is used for the first time in humans. Following are the requirements for each Condition:

• Condition A: The IP/s is/are authorized for use in the UK and is used either in accordance with that authorization or in a manner supported by established clinical practice
• Condition B: A trial relating to the IP/s has/have been approved in the UK within the preceding two (2) years of the request for approval, and in that approved trial, the IP was investigated at the same or higher dose, same or higher frequency, and same or longer duration; the same manufacturing process was used; and the product was administered by the same route of administration and investigated for the same indication
• Condition C: The trial has undergone assessment and been approved by the authority responsible for licensing clinical trials in the EU, an EEA State, or the United States

Per the MHCTR, where the request for approval contains a statement confirming that the trial is a notifiable trial, the MHRA may, if it considers appropriate and without undertaking further assessment, rely on that statement to provide an authorization of the clinical trial.

The CT-Ntfble states that notifiable trial applications undergo the same validation checks as non-notifiable trial applications. After validation, the MHRA assesses whether the application meets the eligibility criteria for automatic authorization. If the criteria are met, the MHRA will issue confirmation of automatic authorization within 14 calendar days of validation. Next, a combined decision is issued, following EC review, within 30 calendar days of validation. If the MHRA finds that the application does not meet the eligibility criteria, or otherwise decides that a full review is needed, it will notify the applicant, and the application will automatically proceed through the non-notifiable review pathway. The MHRA also reserves the right to undertake a full review before issuing a decision, even where the trial is otherwise eligible for notification. See the CT-Ntfble for more details and a process flowchart.

UK-wide Research

The UKwide-Rsrch indicates that the UK’s four (4) nations—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—work together and with a range of organizations to support and regulate different aspects of health research. Study-wide review is the process by which all research in the UK is reviewed and approved, bringing together the assessment of governance and legal compliance of research in healthcare. The UK nations take a consistent approach to study-wide reviews, so sponsors only need to submit one (1) application in GBR-125 (combined review section of IRAS) or GBR-78 (non-combined section of IRAS). GBR-78 explains that the system generates the IRAS ID and uses filters to ensure that the data collected and collated is appropriate to the type of study, and consequently the permissions and approvals required. The system helps applicants meet the regulatory and governance requirements. As described in GBR-67, approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) is required for all National Health Service (NHS) project-based research led from England or Wales. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance. If a project is led from Northern Ireland or Scotland and involves NHS sites, then applications should be made through the appropriate permission process for that lead nation. Studies with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland are supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems where each country accepts relevant centralized assurances from national coordinating functions to avoid duplication.

The UKwide-Rsrch specifies that each UK nation will take assurances from the study-wide review conducted by the lead nation (the nation conducting the initial review). The following outlines key differences in approvals from UK nations:

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

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.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

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

As indicated in the CTMod, the applicable fees for submission of an application to modify a clinical trial approval are in G-MHRAFees. If the MHRA determines that a Route B substantial modification does not meet the eligibility criteria, the applicant may withdraw the application before it undergoes Route A review and receive a refund of the application fee. If an applicant withdraws a substantial modification application before a decision or request for further information is issued, part of the application fee may be refunded depending on how much of the review has been completed. There are no fees for a modification of an important detail.

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

• 4,656 British Pounds – Applications with an Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) dossier (higher fee for phase 1, full and simplified IMP dossier)
• 343 British Pounds – Applications without an IMP dossier (lower fee for phase IV, cross referral, additional protocol)
• 343 British Pounds – Clinical trial variation/amendment
• 343 British Pounds – Assessment of annual safety reports (which are in the form of a development safety update report (DSUR) per the CT-Sfty)

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

Payment Instructions

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

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

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

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

Per the CT-Sfty, fees applicable to submission of a DSUR must be paid through the MHRA payment center on the dedicated DSUR payments page (GBR-43). Following payment, a receipt will be sent by email to the payee, which must be included in the submission in its original format as a standalone document that serves as proof of payment. Failure to provide this evidence of payment will result in the submission being invalidated.

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

Per MHCTR, research ethics committees (ECs) in the United Kingdom (UK) are established, recognized, and monitored by the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA). As explained in the REC-Policy, UKECA is responsible for recognizing ECs that can review clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in the UK and ensuring compliance with MHCTR. Per the REC-Policy and GBR-62, ECs are part of an accountable and independent Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62). The REC-Policy indicates that the Health Research Authority (HRA) and Devolved Administrations (i.e., Governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland responsible for health and social care services in their nations) work together to deliver the RES through the UKECA. For ECs that review CTIMPs, Appointing Authorities in each UK nation operate and work on behalf of UKECA to enable the discharge of its functions. Outside of CTIMP reviews, REC-Policy explains that ECs also review a broad range of proposed research in health and care settings in the UK, and certain functions may be carried out under nation-specific arrangements or bilateral agreements.

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

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

As stated in the REC-Policy, the RES encompasses England’s HRA under the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Northern Ireland’s Department of Health, the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Finance Directorate, and the Welsh Government’s Health, Social Care and Early Years Group. In addition to its functions as the Appointing Authority for the RES for England, by agreement and through consultation with the Devolved Administrations (i.e., Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the HRA performs national coordinating functions for the RES. Per GBR-90, HRA is “an arm’s length body” of England’s DHSC, which means the government has devolved some of its responsibilities to HRA.

GBR-9 establishes an EC allocation framework for CTIMP ethics review, under which CTIMP applications must be reviewed by an EC recognized by UKECA to review the appropriate type of CTIMP as well as flagged ECs (e.g., for gene therapy or research on children). See GBR-9 for more guidance and the EC allocation categories.

See GBR-111 for an overview of ECs and GBR-112 to search listings, contact information, and meeting dates for ECs.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in the MHCTR, an EC must be constituted of five (5) or more members, appointed by the Appointing Authority, who collectively have the qualifications and experience to review and evaluate the science, medical aspects, and ethics of the proposed trial; and include one (1) member appointed to be a chairperson. The REC-Policy additionally provides that each EC should comprise a range of people with individual expertise and experience, including registered health and social care professionals, research professionals, and members of the public who have experience using health and social care services and no professional knowledge. EC members are appointed to provide a broad range of perspectives on the committees, which scrutinize the rationale, aims, and objectives of the proposed research to reconcile this effectively with protecting the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of potential participants. They are appointed independently of their employing organization and are expected to reflect their own experience and ethical judgement on an individual basis, bringing sound judgement and personal experience, underpinned and supported by relevant training and RES standard operating procedures (SOPs) (GBR-9).

Per the REC-Policy, each EC will be established and membership maintained by the Appointing Authority to ensure that the EC collectively has the qualifications and experience to review the ethics of proposed research. Where an EC member has an interest in a research proposal or affiliation with a research organization where impartiality and independence cannot be maintained, the declaration of interest process is followed. Each EC must have a chair and a vice-chair and the option to appoint an alternate vice-chair, which are appointed by the relevant Appointing Authority. Chairs, vice chairs, and alternate vice chairs are appointed for a specified period not exceeding five (5) years, but can resign anytime. An acting chair’s appointment ceases when the chair, vice chair, and alternate vice chair of that EC becomes available again or when their term as a member expires, whichever is sooner. EC members are appointed for up to five (5) years, but can resign at any time. Members may stay on for another term of five (5) years, subject to agreement with the Appointing Authority. After this time, they will be required to join a different EC if their membership extends for longer than a 10-year period. The Appointing Authority may extend a member’s term while new members are appointed, to ensure continuity of service. Former members may be reappointed to the same EC no sooner than one (1) year after the end of their last term, or to another EC without interval.

See the REC-Policy and GBR-9 for additional details.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

Per the MHCTR, an EC must make standing orders and adopt SOPs for its proceedings and business. The meetings and proceedings of an EC and its sub-committees must be conducted in accordance with the standing orders made, and the SOPs adopted. All applications for an EC opinion must be considered by a full meeting of an EC. REC-Policy states that a volunteer agreement outlining the expectations of appointment for EC members is required and includes: duration of appointment, renewal policy, process for resignation, process to be followed if a member who is a registered professional becomes disqualified, and the policy relating to declaration of interests. Also see REC-Policy for additional guidance.

As delineated the MHCTR and GBR-9, the quorum for EC meetings is five (5) members. However, GBR-9 states that ECs should always aim to have seven (7) members at a meeting where possible. The EC meeting will include at least the following: a chairperson (this can be a chair, vice chair, or alternate vice chair); at least one (1) lay member; and at least one (1) member with a healthcare designation. The EC membership will collectively reflect the qualifications and experience to review the science, medical aspects, and ethics of the research applications. For applications relating to research with funding support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or one of its agencies, the quorum is a majority of the EC membership. Where the EC has an even number of members, a majority means 50% of the members plus one (1). A co-opted member should also be counted for the purpose of the quorum. An EC may co-opt additional members at any EC meeting only if they are a member of another EC within the RES or a member of Ministry of Defense Research Ethics Committee. A CTIMP review meeting may not co-opt more than two (2) members. Where a quorum is not present, the EC may not give an ethics opinion on any new application for ethics review.

REC-Policy states that members are expected to attend as many full meetings as possible, as well as participate in proportionate review and sub-committee meetings. Expenses incurred during an EC members’ duties are reimbursed, which may cover travel, subsistence, and care arrangements, but not loss of earnings. EC members are required to complete specific training modules to ensure that the approach to reviewing research is consistent across the RES and that members have the right information to support their reviews. EC members have a duty to maintain confidentiality regarding applications, meeting deliberations and any other information about research applications that they have access to. Each Appointing Authority provides indemnity cover for their EC members.

GBR-9 specifies that ECs should normally hold at least 10 scheduled full meetings each year for ethics review of applications, at 1-month intervals, with schedules staggered to ensure valid applications can be reviewed within the relevant time limit. The annual schedule should be agreed to by December 1 for the financial year beginning April 1 and should include meeting dates, times, and application closing dates. Closing dates for full applications should normally be 14 calendar days before the EC meeting, with later closing dates permitted for Phase 1 healthy volunteer trials in certain circumstances. A standard agenda should be prepared for each EC meeting and should include quoracy, declarations of interest, previous minutes, previous matters to discuss, applications for ethics review, lead reviewers, and the EC Report. Agendas may also include general ethics issues, EC establishment or membership matters, procedures, training issues, quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA) reports, and workload or decision-making data. ECs should review around 3–4 new applications per meeting on average. The EC Report should notify members in writing of business undertaken outside EC meetings, including delegated decisions or actions, sub-committee decisions, conclusions or early termination of research, minor modifications, and final study reports. ECs are strongly recommended to appoint one (1) or more lead reviewers for each full application, and a lead reviewer must be appointed for each application reviewed by a proportionate review sub-committee. Documents for meetings should be made available as soon as possible after the agenda is finalized and applications are validated, and in any case no later than 10 calendar days before the meeting, except for expedited, proportionate review, and Phase 1 applications where agreed.

In accordance with GBR-9, the chief investigator (CI) or delegated representative should be invited to attend the meeting, and the sponsor’s representative and other research team members may attend alongside the CI. Attendance is intended to allow the EC to request further information, clarification, or reassurance directly, but it is not compulsory and the application should not be prejudiced if the CI is unable or unwilling to attend. The CI should not make a formal presentation at the meeting. EC members who cannot attend may submit written comments which should be recorded in the minutes. An EC may seek referee advice on aspects of an application relevant to forming an ethics opinion where the issue lies beyond members’ expertise or where the EC is unable to agree. Referees may provide written advice before or after the meeting or may attend the meeting to discuss the application, but they are not voting members and should not question the CI or take part in EC business beyond the application for which advice is sought. The application clock does not stop while referee advice is sought, only once a written request for further information is made to the CI. EC meetings should be held in private so members can discuss applications freely, and members are required to keep EC business confidential. EC members should delete any saved electronic copies of documents after a final ethics opinion has been issued. Internal and external observers may attend meetings subject to applicable requirements, including confidentiality arrangements for external observers, but observers should take no part in EC deliberations or ethics decisions. The Chair is responsible for the conduct of business and for ensuring that the EC reaches clearly agreed decisions. The meeting should reach unanimous decisions by consensus wherever possible; where consensus is not achievable, a formal vote should be taken by show of hands, with the decision determined by a simple majority of members present and entitled to vote. Where the vote is tied, the Chair may give a casting vote but should first consider other options to reach a more consensual decision.

Next, GBR-9 provides that EC meeting minutes should be prepared by the relevant staff and should contain an accurate record of what was discussed during the meeting. For each study, the minutes should record:

• The members, co-opted members, referees, and observers present for the review
• Any material interests declared and the EC’s decision on the member’s participation
• Any written comments submitted by members or deputy members
• The substance of any referee advice
• The EC’s decision on the application
• A summary of the main ethics issues considered
• For a favorable opinion, any conditions to be met before the study starts or any additional non-binding advice
• For an unfavorable opinion, the predominant reasons for the decision, clearly distinguished from other comments or advice
• For a provisional opinion, the further information requested and the arrangements for considering the information and issuing the final opinion
• The outcome of any vote taken
• Any formal dissent by a named member, with reasons
• Whether the application was reviewed voluntarily rather than as a requirement of policy or legislation

GBR-9 further indicates that minutes should be presented as the outcome of collective discussion, written in the third person, and should not attribute statements to individual members or include verbatim comments. A draft version should be provided to the Chair, and in England and Wales the Approvals Specialist, within two (2) working days of the meeting, and checked within three (3) working days. Draft minutes should be uploaded to the HRA Assessment and Review Portal (HARP) (GBR-139), with a watermark “management in confidence”; once ratified, the final signed minutes must be uploaded to HARP, and the draft version should be deleted. Signed final copies of the minutes of full EC meetings and sub-committee business, where relevant, should be retained electronically for at least 20 years and then transferred to the place of deposit, as per the records management policy in the relevant UK nation. See GBR-9 for a list of other EC documents that should be retained and their associated retention dates.

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

The REC-Policy states that the role of the ethics committee (EC) is to help ensure that proposed research conforms to recognized ethical standards, which includes respecting the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of the people who will take part. In addition, per GBR-46, the ethical review process should evaluate how the study involves the public in research, especially at the design stage (e.g., the participant information sheets).

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

In accordance with the MHCTR, the EC is responsible for giving an opinion on applications for clinical trials using investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs). As explained in the REC-Policy, ECs recognized by the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) can review CTIMPs. Per the MHCTR and the CTApp-Appvl, a person must not start or conduct a clinical trial without a favorable EC opinion and prior Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) authorization. The CTApp-Appvl calls it a joint ‘clinical trial approval’. The MHCTR-Chgs states that a clinical trial application is submitted to and managed by the EC and MHRA using the combined review part (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78). As explained in GBR-72, the combined review process offers a single application route and parallel/coordinated review from the EC and MHRA leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials. See GBR-72 for additional updates and information on combined review.

Per the MHCTR, the EC and the MHRA — collectively, “the authorities” — must confirm whether a request for approval is valid within seven (7) days beginning with the date of submission and must notify the sponsor. Once the request for approval is deemed valid, the EC must assess the application for an EC opinion and the MHRA must assess the request for authorization. The MHCTR-Chgs indicates that the authorities will aim to notify sponsors of the outcome of the validation check within one (1) working day. As indicated in the CTApp-Appvl, the outcome of these checks will be communicated by email and through IRAS (GBR-78) within seven (7) calendar days of submission. As soon as possible during this 7-day period, and no later than on the fifth calendar day, the MHRA may notify the applicant by email of any deficiencies identified during the validation checks and allow them to be addressed. If these deficiencies remain unresolved by the end of this 7-day period, the application will be invalidated, and the applicant will need to resubmit the application with the deficiencies corrected. The MHRA’s CTApp-Appvl and the Health Research Authority (HRA)’s MHCTR-Chgs provide operational guidance on the joint review and approval process laid out in the MHCTR.

As part of its review, MHCTR and the REC-Policy require the EC to consider whether the anticipated benefits to participants and other individuals or groups affected by the medical condition under investigation outweigh the anticipated risks and inconveniences. In doing so, the EC must take into account the risks to participants’ health posed by the condition under investigation and the nature of the intervention compared to normal clinical care. The EC must also consider the measures used to seek and obtain informed consent and to protect and promote the interests of participants and the general public, including by promoting transparency in research. The EC may also consider and give an opinion on any other issue relating to the clinical trial if the sponsor has asked the EC to consider the issue and, in the EC’s opinion, the issue is relevant to the other matters the EC must consider. Before giving its opinion, the EC may obtain expert advice on any field relating to the clinical trial. The MHCTR-Chgs, explains that the EC conducts its initial review of the application at a full meeting of the EC.

After completing the initial review, MHCTR stipulates that the EC must give its opinion on the clinical trial, and the MHRA must provide its decision on the request for authorization. The authorities must notify the sponsor in writing of the joint outcome, which is one (1) of the following:

• Approve the request for approval
• Approve the request for approval, subject to conditions specified in the notice
• Not approve the request for approval, setting out the grounds for the decision and requesting the further information (RFI) required for the application to be reconsidered

Per the MHCTR, subject to applicable extensions and special circumstances, the authorities must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the joint notice is given within 30 days beginning with the date on which the authorities notified the sponsor that the request for approval was valid. Where approval is subject to conditions, the notice must specify whether the conditions relate to the EC opinion, the MHRA’s decision, or both. The clinical trial is treated as approved only if the conditions specified in the notice are satisfied. Following an RFI, the amended request for approval must be reviewed by the appropriate authority. The EC reviews the amended request where the RFI relates to the EC opinion, and the MHRA reviews it where the RFI relates to the MHRA’s authorization decision; both authorities review it where the request relates to both.

The MHCTR states that applicants will have 60 calendar days from the date on which the decision letter was issued to provide the requested information for the application to be reconsidered. The CTApp-Appvl indicates that the applicant’s submittal can be either a written response or an amended application for approval. The application will be treated as rejected if this deadline is not met. However, extensions to this deadline can be requested by contacting the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk (or contacting the EC directly, if the information requested relates only to its opinion), explaining why the extension is needed and proposing an alternative submission date. The MHCTR-Chgs explains that the applicant must wait for the full RFI (issued in GBR-125) before responding to any points received individually from the EC or the MHRA. The full RFI will have the final consolidated feedback, including any queries or issues, from both the MHRA and EC. See G-IRASCombRev and IRAS-User for additional details on using GBR-125 during the review process.

The MHCTR specifies that after reviewing the amended request, the appropriate authority must notify the sponsor in writing of the outcome, which is one (1) of the following:

• Approve the amended request
• Approve the amended request, subject to conditions specified in the notice
• Not approve the amended request, setting out the grounds for the decision

As per the MHCTR, subject to applicable extensions and special circumstances, the appropriate authority must take all reasonable steps to ensure that notice is given within 10 days beginning with the date of receipt of the amended request. The CTApp-Appvl further provides that for approvals with conditions, it is not necessary to inform the authorities that the conditions have been met before starting the trial, unless otherwise specified in the approval letter. In some cases, the EC and/or the MHRA may allow a condition of approval to be fulfilled at a specific timepoint after the trial begins. In these cases, the trial may begin before meeting the condition, but failure to meet the condition by the specified timepoint will mean that the approval is not valid and the trial must be stopped until the condition is discharged. A substantial modification can then be submitted requesting approval to restart the trial.

For the initial review, the MHCTR specifies that the 30-day period is extended by 90 days where the EC or the MHRA consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee. For review of an amended request, the 10-day period is extended by 30 days where the EC or the MHRA consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee, or by 60 days where the investigational medicinal product (IP) is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) and such consultation occurs. If the clinical trial involves a medicinal product for xenogenic cell therapy, the usual time periods do not apply. See the Regulatory Authority and Submission Process sections for more details on consultations.

Per the MHCTR, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in an urgent situation where it would be beneficial to proceed with one (1) request or application while preparing the other), and if agreed in advance by the EC or the MHRA, an application for an EC opinion and a request for authorization may be made separately outside of combined review. Where an agreement has been reached, the MHRA or the EC must confirm which of the particulars and documents specified in Part A1 of Schedule 3 must accompany the request for authorization and the application for an EC opinion; and the arrangements for the payment of the fee.

The MHCTR-Chgs states that the sponsor can appeal an MHRA non-approval or an EC unfavorable opinion by contacting appeals@hra.nhs.uk within 28 calendar days of receiving the outcome. In their appeal, the sponsor must explain why they disagree with the outcome. See the CTApp-Appvl for additional details on the appeals process and requirements. Also see GBR-9 for standard operating procedures for ECs giving an ethics opinion.

Per GBR-9, the EC’s favorable ethics opinion for a specific research study applies for the duration of the study, except where action is taken to suspend or terminate the opinion. Where the duration of the study is to be extended beyond the period specified in the application form, the EC should be notified. For additional information on the duration of the EC opinion, see the CTIMP-Condtns.

Per the UKannot-E6R3, there is no legal requirement in the UK for the EC to undertake periodic reviews of a clinical trial once approved. However, the EC will review documentation relating to an ongoing trial under specific circumstances, such as in the event of an urgent safety measure or serious breach, or as part of its review of an application to make a substantial modification. GBR-9 indicates that the EC should continue to assess whether its favorable ethics opinion remains appropriate if significant developments arise during the research, but it is not responsible for proactive monitoring of the study. Rather the sponsor is responsible for EC notification of urgent safety measures; pharmacovigilance and safety reporting; and EC notification of the conclusion or early termination of the trial. The EC may request that the CI and representatives of the sponsor attend a meeting of the EC or sub-committee at any time to discuss any ethical or safety concerns about the research. For additional information on the EC’s right to review an opinion, see the CTIMP-Condtns. In addition, GBR-9 lays out circumstances when the EC should notify the MHRA of CTIMP compliance issues.

See GBR-68 for an overview of the EC review process.

(Because the MHRA and EC review processes are integrated under the UK’s joint/combined review framework, this section does not repeat the identical process information for modifications, notifiable trials, ending a clinical trial, and lapses where no participants are recruited. Refer to the Scope of Assessment section for those joint EC/MHRA review requirements.)

Fast Track Ethics Review

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

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

Fast-track ethics review is not available for any CTIMP involving a gene therapy medicinal product, any CTIMP funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and any other type of clinical trial or research study. Also see GBR-9 for more information on the fast-track ethics review.

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 set forth REC-Policy, ethics committees (ECs) may not charge an application fee or seek any other financial contribution or donation to consider a research proposal for which their review is required. Members receive no payment for contributing to the review of applications at scheduled meetings or for attending such meetings. EC members are volunteers and are not paid for their role as part of the Research Ethics Service.

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

Per MHCTR, research ethics committees (ECs) in the United Kingdom (UK) are established, recognized, and monitored by the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA). As explained in the REC-Policy, the UKECA is responsible for recognizing ECs that can review clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in the UK and ensuring compliance with MHCTR.

As stated in REC-Policy, for ECs that review CTIMPs, Appointing Authorities in each UK nation operate and work on behalf of the UKECA to enable the discharge of its functions. Appointing Authorities are responsible for setting up ECs, appointing members, and overseeing delivery of the Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) for the ECs within their remit. Their functions include establishing ECs to act for the whole or part of their geographical area, establishing ECs to review particular descriptions or classes of research, appointing EC members and chairs, approving EC standard operating procedures (SOPs), and monitoring the extent to which their ECs adequately perform their functions. Where an EC will review CTIMPs, the Appointing Authority must seek UKECA recognition of the EC. The UKECA may also adjust the extent to which an EC is authorized to act and/or abolish or revoke recognition of an EC.

Per the REC-Policy, in addition to its functions as England’s Appointing Authority for the RES, by agreement and through consultation with the Devolved Administrations (i.e., Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the Health Research Authority (HRA) performs national coordinating functions for the RES. Following are some of the HRA’s functions relating to management of GBR-62 outside of England in consultation with the UKECA:

• Develops and manages a national training program for EC members and EC operational lead staff and provides resources to support this training
• Develops, implements, and maintains SOPs (see GBR-9) for ECs and provides advice and support to ECs on procedural issues
• Develops a quality assurance program, including accreditation of ECs
• Provides and supports information systems for all nations
• Provides guidance and advice to assist ECs in their work and encourages consistency of approach to common issues in research ethics
• Provides advice on the practical implications of implementing legislation, policy, and guidance across the UK
• Acts for the UKECA to provide a national mechanism for operational advice and assistance to ECs recognized for the purposes of clinical trials regulations and to receive, on the UKECA’s behalf, the EC’s annual report
• Acts for the UKECA to handle appeals against the unfavorable opinions of ECs in respect of clinical trials of investigational products
• Acts for the UKECA to transfer an EC’s functions to a successor EC if the original EC has ceased to operate, has been varied or abolished, or had its recognition revoked

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

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

In accordance with the MHCTR, the sponsor must request Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) authorization and apply for an ethics committee (EC) opinion to conduct a clinical trial by submitting a single application dossier, referred to as “request for approval.” GBR-72 explains that in this combined review framework, the regulatory and ethics reviews are done in parallel and any requests for further information (RFIs) are raised jointly. A single response to these requests leads to a single decision from both reviews. See CTApp-Appvl and the MHCTR-Chgs for operational guidance.

Per the MHCTR, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in an urgent situation where it would be beneficial to progress one (1) request or application while preparing the other), and if agreed in advance by the MHRA or the EC, a request for authorization and an application for an EC opinion may be made separately outside of combined review.

See the Scope of Review section for details on the transitional arrangements for applying for clinical trial approval or modifications.

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

Combined Review Submission

In accordance with the MHCTR, the combined request for approval application (i.e., the request for authorization and the application for EC opinion) must be submitted via the online portal and include any required notifiable trial statement, required documentation, and applicable fee. Per the CTApp-Appvl, the MHCTR-Chgs, and GBR-72, the combined request for approval for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) are submitted through the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). The G-ATMP states that all advanced therapy medicinal products must submit clinical trial applications using the same processes as all other medicines. As described in GBR-78, IRAS is a single system for applying for the permissions and approvals for health and social care/community care research in the United Kingdom (UK). The system generates the IRAS ID, which has been adopted by stakeholders across the UK as the common study identifier, and enables the applicant to enter required information once. The filters collect and collate the data appropriate to the type of study, and consequently the permissions and approvals required. Further, IRAS helps the applicant submit information needed for other relevant review bodies (e.g., the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, the Confidentiality Advisory Group, or the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC)).

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

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

IRAS-User indicates that the sponsor/sponsor delegate and chief investigator (CI) “authorize” an application in the system; the application cannot be submitted until the CI has accepted the project, and the sponsor or sponsor delegate has reviewed the completed dataset and confirmed the submission. Once the sponsor or sponsor delegate has confirmed the submission, the applicant must complete the EC booking. The task 'Complete REC booking' is assigned to the individual who sent the request to the sponsor or sponsor delegate for review. To book using the online booking service (GBR-95), applicants should select 'Create booking' on the EC booking page. The EC booking page also provides instructions on what to do if the booking was made directly with the EC, via telephone (or email). When the EC booking page shows the confirmed booking details, the applicant can select “Submit to the regulators” to submit the application.

Per IRAS-User, fast-track EC review is also available for global clinical trials and Phase 1 trials. The Phs1CTs provides that applicants undertaking Phase 1 clinical trials may reserve an EC meeting slot before submission, and most ECs recognized to review Phase 1 healthy volunteer trials accept applications submitted up to seven (7) days before the meeting date. To make a request for 7-day submission for an application, applicants should contact their preferred EC which is flagged to review Phase 1 clinical trials. Per GBR-116, applicants seeking fast-track ethics review of clinical trial applications must also apply via combined review on GBR-125.

GBR-9 reiterates that an application for ethics review via the combined review service is submitted jointly by the CI and the sponsor. Only one (1) application for ethics review should be submitted for any research protocol to be conducted in the UK; however, for research projects with separate protocols governing one (1) or more sub-studies in addition to the main study, a full application should be submitted for each protocol. The MHCTR delineates that the CTIMP application must be made to one (1) EC only, regardless of the number of trial locations at which the trial is to be conducted. The application must be made to a UKECA-recognized EC for the entire UK and in relation to a description or class of clinical trial into which the proposed trial falls. However, an exception is when an application must be made to an EC constituted by regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (AIA2000) when a clinical trial is conducted at one (1) or more trial locations in Scotland; the trial involves adults unable by virtue of physical or mental incapacity to give informed consent; and the CI is professionally based at a hospital, health center, surgery, or other establishment or facility in Scotland.

As detailed in GBR-9, when the application is ready to submit, the applicant should book an agenda slot at the next meeting of an appropriate EC. For full meetings, the applicant may decline the first available slot in the UK if they have a preference for a particular EC (for example, it has reviewed an earlier phase of the trial). Once the booking has been accepted, the application form and supporting documentation must be submitted the same day the booking is made. An email confirmation of the booking will be sent to the applicant and the EC to which the application has been allocated. If the applicant is not ready to submit the application including all required authorizations and supporting documentation on the same day, the booking should not be completed. Applications received up to 16:00 hours are considered to be received that working day. Applications received after 16:00 are considered to have been received the following working day.

In accordance with the MHCTR, the CT-Ntfble explains that applications for approval of a notifiable trial must be submitted through the same combined review process as applications for non-notifiable clinical trials. See Scope of Assessment section for details on criteria, eligibility, and other requirements for notifiable clinical trials; and refer to the CT-Ntfble for additional guidance and a process flowchart.

Regarding the exceptional circumstances in which a CTIMP application may be submitted outside of combined review, the MHCTR requires this approach to be agreed in advance by the MHRA or the EC. Per the CTApp-Appvl, applicants must obtain written approval/agreement in advance by contacting the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk. Once this approach has been agreed to, the process for submitting separate applications to the MHRA and the EC will be communicated to the applicant.

The CTapp-Issues offers guidance on common issues identified during clinical trial applications to help applicants avoid requests for further information or grounds for non-acceptance. See the CTApp-Appvl, the MHCTR-Chgs, the G-IRASCombRev, the IRAS-User, and GBR-72 for additional guidance on submitting via GBR-125.

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

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

See IRAS-User and G-IRASCombRev for detailed help on submitting CTIMP applications.

As indicated in the MHRA-advice, applicants can seek scientific advice from the MHRA at any stage of a product’s development or regulatory lifecycle. The MHRA encourages applicants to seek advice on clinical trial topics, including first-in-human studies and design of pivotal clinical trials. See MHRA-advice for details on how to request advice.

Consultation

Per the CT-Experts, prior to submitting an application for clinical trial approval, the applicant should use the criteria in CT-Experts to assess whether their trial may need to be reviewed by a specialist group or relevant committee. If unsure, applicants should contact the MHRA for advice by emailing clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk with a summary of the nature of the compound, its target and mechanism of action, and the relevance of the animal models. If the applicant believes that expert review is required, they should email the MHRA at clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk at least 28 calendar days before submitting the application, stating their intention to submit an application for clinical trial approval that may require review by the Clinical Trials Biologicals and Vaccines Expert Advisory Group (CTBVEAG) of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) and specifying their preferred CTBVEAG meeting date. The MHRA will confirm by email that the review has been scheduled. Note that where expert advice from any specialist group or relevant committee other than CTBVEAG is required, the MHRA will discuss this with the applicant. The application should be submitted to IRAS (GBR-125) (using the same process as for trials not identified as requiring expert advice) at least four (4) weeks in advance of the CTBVEAG meeting at which the trial will be discussed. See the CT-Experts for additional details and a process flowchart.

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).

Combined Submission Requirements

As required by the MHCTR, the request for approval (application) in the single application dossier to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the ethics committee (EC) must include the following material:

• A completed application
• A statement or cover letter drawing attention to any features which are particular to the clinical trial, if required
• The protocol for the proposed trial describing the objective, design, methodology, statistical considerations, purpose, and organization of the clinical trial
• The investigator’s brochure (IB) or equivalent document
• Documentation relating to compliance with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice, where applicable
• A dossier providing information on the quality of any investigational medicinal product (IP), the manufacture and control of the IP, and data from non-clinical studies and from clinical use of the IP
• A copy of the scientific advice of the licensing authority, or of any third country, with regard to the clinical trial
• A description of the content of the labelling
• All information given to the participants, or their legal representatives, before their decision to participate or abstain from participation in the clinical trial
• Proof of insurance, a guarantee, or any other similar arrangement, where applicable
• Responses to areas for discussion raised by the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), where applicable

See the CTApp-Appvl for additional detailed requirements and guidance for each item listed above. In addition, the DocMgt-Apps lists the document types for combined review applications, identifies which are mandatory, and shows which review body each document is sent to upon submission.

Per the MHCTR, where separate applications are permitted in exceptional circumstances, the MHRA or EC must confirm with the applicant which documents must accompany each submission.

In accordance with the MHCTR, the CT-Ntfble indicates that applications for approval of a notifiable trial must include the same documents as applications for non-notifiable clinical trials. In addition, the applicant must also submit the confirmation of notifiable trial criteria form (GBR-135). The cover letter must include a statement that the application is for approval of a notifiable clinical trial.

Per the MHCTR, a request for modification must include the following material:

• The identifying details of the trial, including the title of the trial and any number allocated to the trial by the authorities
• A description of the proposed modification
• A statement of the reasons for proposing that modification, and if more than one (1) modification, a statement for each modification
• A copy of the proposed changes to the clinical trial protocol or any other particulars or documents accompanying the request for approval
• Summaries of any data submitted in support of the proposed modification or modifications, and any change to the summary assessment of the potential risks and benefits of using the product in the proposed trial

Clinical Protocol

Per the CTApp-Appvl, the clinical trial protocol describes the objectives, design, methodology, statistical considerations, and organization of a clinical trial and should include (where applicable):

• A descriptive title, a sponsor-created identification number, the version number, and the date of the last update
• Discussion of the trial’s relevance, design, anticipated risks and benefits, and participant recruitment and informed consent procedures (setting out any particular considerations with respect to inclusion of participants unable to provide informed consent or belonging to other special populations); for a multi-part trial where the submission does not include full details to enable the conduct of all the trial parts, outline any adaptive elements and plans for future substantial modifications
• Justification for the use of placebos, standard of care arms, or real-world data comparators
• An unambiguous definition of the end of the trial; this should usually be the date of the last visit of the last participant, and a justification should be given for any exceptions (e.g., for trials involving human tissue, analysis of samples should be undertaken as part of the data collection before the end of trial is declared)
• A description of any additional care for trial participants once their participation has ended
• A description of any sub-studies conducted at any trial locations
• A discussion of safety events and recording and reporting procedures
• Procedures for unblinding of the IP in the case of an adverse reaction
• A synopsis of the protocol
• A signature from the sponsor and the chief investigator (for single-location trials) or overall coordinating investigator (for multi-center trials) (electronic signatures are acceptable)

For more detailed guidance on the content and format of the protocol, see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) which the UK is implementing.

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

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

Combined Review

Per the MHCTR, the MHRA and the EC must confirm whether a CTIMP request for approval is valid within seven (7) days beginning with the date of submission and must notify the sponsor. The MHCTR-Chgs indicates that the authorities will aim to notify sponsors of the outcome of the validation check within one (1) working day. As indicated in the CTApp-Appvl, the outcome of these checks will be communicated within seven (7) calendar days of submission. As soon as possible during this 7-day period, and no later than on the fifth calendar day, the MHRA may notify the applicant by email of any deficiencies identified during the validation checks and allow them to be addressed. If these deficiencies remain unresolved by the end of this 7-day period, the application will be invalidated and the applicant will need to resubmit the application with the deficiencies corrected.

Once the request for approval is deemed valid, the MHCTR states that the authorities must take all reasonable steps to issue the joint outcome within 30 days from the date the sponsor is notified that the request is valid. The joint outcome may approve the request, approve it subject to conditions, or not approve it and request further information for reconsideration. If further information is requested, applicants will have 60 calendar days from the date of the decision letter to submit a written response or amended application; otherwise, the application will be treated as rejected. Extensions to this 60-day deadline may be requested.

As per the MHCTR, after the applicant submits the amended request, the appropriate authority — the MHRA, the EC, or both, depending on the nature of the request for information — must take all reasonable steps to notify the sponsor of the outcome within 10 days beginning with the date of receipt of the amended request. The amended request may be approved, approved subject to conditions, or not approved.

For the initial review, MHCTR provides that the 30-day period is extended by 90 days where the MHRA or the EC consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee. For review of an amended request, the 10-day period is extended by 30 days where the MHRA or the EC consults a relevant committee and/or specialist group or committee, or by 60 days where the investigational medicinal product (IP) is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) and such consultation occurs. If the clinical trial involves a medicinal product for xenogenic cell therapy, the usual time periods do not apply.

The MHCTR-Chgs states that the sponsor can appeal an MHRA non-approval or an EC unfavorable opinion by contacting appeals@hra.nhs.uk within 28 calendar days of receiving the outcome. In their appeal, the sponsor must explain why they disagree with the outcome.

See GBR-82 for a flowchart summarizing the timelines and the process of applying for clinical trial approval.

Governance

Per the UKwide-Rsrch, centralized, study-wide review (for a study involving sites across one (1) or more UK nations) coordinates the assessment of governance and legal compliance for healthcare research. GBR-72 indicates that study-wide review is usually issued at the same time as the MHRA and EC decision but may come later if there are still issues to discuss with the applicant. GBR-18 further explains that, during the trial approvals phase, local research and development site review occurs in parallel with the MHRA and EC submissions so that organizations can assess and confirm their capacity and capability to deliver the study at the sites. See Site/Investigator Selection section, GBR-63, and GBR-106 for more information on the UK Local Information Pack (LIP) to support study setup and delivery.

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

Per the MHCTR, the REC-Policy, and the CTApp-Appvl, a person must not start or conduct a clinical trial of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) without prior Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) authorization and a favorable ethics committee (EC) opinion. In addition per GBR-9, some health and social care research projects require regulatory approvals under a range of legislation applicable to the United Kingdom (UK) as a whole or to particular countries. It is the responsibility of the sponsor to ensure where necessary that a research study has appropriate regulatory approval. GBR-18 states that contracts and agreements should be in place before the start of a trial and should be subject to periodic review to ensure they remain up to date and relevant.

The MHCTR and the UKannot-E6R3 state that all CTIMPs must be conducted in accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) conditions and principles, as amended from time to time. The UK-ICHE6-Comply explains that this legal requirement applies to the ICH GCP conditions and principles rather than the entirety of the guideline. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91). Per the UKannot-E6R3, unlike the stated scope of GBR-91, the UK GCP requirement applies to all UK CTIMPs, whether or not the trial is intended to support a marketing authorization application.

Per the CTIMP-Condtns, if a CTIMP does not recruit within 24 months of the date of the favorable ethical opinion, the approvals are deemed to have lapsed but can be extended upon request. In addition, the trial should not commence at any location until management permission has been obtained from the organization responsible for the care of the participants at the location. For information related to participant recruitment and communication during clinical trial setup, see DigiTrials (GBR-40).

See GBR-55 for an overview of research transparency requirements.

Clinical Trial Agreement

According to GBR-107 and GBR-18, contracts and agreements should be in place prior to the initiation of a trial. GBR-107 provides model templates that apply UK-wide (unless otherwise indicated) and should be used unmodified to avoid delays, including:

• Model Clinical Trial Agreement (mCTA) and Clinical Research Organization mCTA (CRO-mCTA)
• Commercial mCTA for Investigational Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP-mCTA and CRO-ATMP-mCTA)
• Commercial Primary Care mCTA
• Model Clinical Investigation Agreement (mCIA) and CRO-mCIA
• Model Non-Interventional Study Agreement (mNISA) and CRO mNISA (CRO-mNISA)
• Model non-commercial agreement (mNCA)
• UK template Hub and Spoke Agreements
• Model agreements for Participant Identification Centres (mC-PICA and mNC-PICA)
• Model Material Transfer Agreement
• Model Confidentiality Disclosure Agreements (mCDA and mMCDA)
• Model Commercial Chief Investigator Agreement (mCCIA) and clinical research organization mCCIA (CRO-mCCIA)
• Model Non-commercial Research Grant Collaboration Agreement
• Other model agreements

The UKwide-Rsrch states that contracting expectations and arrangements across the four (4) UK nations are broadly similar. For all four (4) nations:

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

The UKwide-Rsrch also highlights national differences relating to the way contractual agreements are reviewed and agreed to. Additional details and templates are available in GBR-107.

Clinical Trial Registration

As delineated in the MHCTR and the CTApp-Appvl, the sponsor must register a clinical trial in a public registry by the earliest of the following: the date the first participant is recruited or 90 days after the clinical trial is approved. MHCTR-Chgs explains that this registration requirement applies to CTIMP applications submitted from April 28, 2026; for trials submitted before that date, the requirement depends on whether the trial ended before April 28, 2026, whether it was already registered, and whether the first participant has already been recruited. (See CT-Transtn for additional details on transitional arrangements.) Per the MHCTR and the MHCTR-Chgs, the sponsor may request a deferral or waiver of the registration requirement, including at the time of the request for approval or before the registration deadline. Where appropriate, the MHRA may defer registration for up to 30 months after the trial concludes, including to protect commercially confidential information, or waive the requirement in exceptional circumstances, such as national defense or security reasons. Phase I clinical trials may be eligible for an automatic deferral of up to 30 months from the conclusion of the trial, provided that the required minimum information is registered in a public registry before the aforementioned clinical trial registration deadline.

Per the MHCTR-Chgs, the public registry must be a primary or partner registry of, or data provider to, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (GBR-93), which allows public access to UK trial information. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (GBR-47) and ClinicalTrials.gov (GBR-49) satisfy the public registry requirement, although sponsors should generally register with ISRCTN unless there is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirement to register with GBR-49. Registration with the European Union’s Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) (GBR-39) or previous registration with EudraCT does not satisfy the MHCTR registration requirement because these systems do not facilitate public access to information about trials taking place in the UK.

Further, per the MHCTR-Chgs, if a clinical trial application is submitted in the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125), the system will share basic trial information with GBR-47 to support registration, but this does not mean that the trial is registered; GBR-47 will contact the sponsor for additional details to complete registration. If the sponsor intends to register with GBR-49 instead, this may be indicated in the IRAS application. Sponsors must also confirm the date the first UK participant was recruited by using the Modification Tool in IRAS to submit a modification of an important detail confirming that first recruitment has occurred.

As indicated in the Phs1CTs, if a sponsor submits a Phase 1 CTIMP application only involving healthy volunteers, it will automatically be deferred for all transparency requirements until 30 months after the end of the trial. However, the sponsor must still publish a minimal record on a publicly accessible registry, which can be done with ISRCTN.

See GBR-102, GBR-18, and CTIMP-Condtns for additional information on clinical trial registration.

Governance

Study-wide Review

The UKwide-Rsrch indicates that the UK’s four (4) nations—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—work together and with a range of organizations to support and regulate different aspects of health research. Study-wide review is the process by which all research in the UK is reviewed and approved, bringing together the assessment of governance and legal compliance of research in healthcare. The UK nations take a consistent approach to study-wide reviews, so sponsors only need to submit one (1) application in the combined review section of IRAS (GBR-125). As described in GBR-67, Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval applies to all project-based research taking place in the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance with the EC opinion. Projects led from Northern Ireland or Scotland that involve NHS research sites should follow the appropriate permission process for that lead nation. Studies with research sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland are supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems, where each country accepts relevant centralized assurances from national coordinating functions to avoid duplication. Also see the Stdy-wide for information on study-wide governance criteria.

The UKwide-Rsrch specifies that each UK nation will take assurances from the study-wide review conducted by the lead nation (the nation conducting the initial review). The following outlines key differences in approvals from UK nations:

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

Research & Development Review

As explained in GBR-18, CTIMPs within the NHS need permission from the local NHS R&D office. The review process varies across the UK, depending on the lead NHS R&D office, typically where the Chief Investigator is based. In England and Wales, HRA and HCRW provide an integrated governance and legal compliance review through the combined review process, submitted via GBR-125 alongside ethics and MHRA applications. Each NHS organization then assesses their capacity and capability before confirming participation. In Scotland, the NHS Research Scotland Permissions Coordinating Centre has a national system that provides a single point for the governance and legal compliance review. The combined review process covers MHRA and ethics approvals. Each NHS Board completes a local capacity and capability assessment before confirming participation. In Northern Ireland, the HSC R&D Approvals Service coordinates governance reviews in secondary care studies. Each HSC Trust completes a local capacity and capability assessment before confirming participation.

Per GBR-106, the UK Local Information Pack is the UK-wide mechanism for setting up participating NHS/HSC organizations. It is used for all studies with participating NHS/HSC organizations. See Site/Investigator Selection section, GBR-63, and GBR-106 for more information on the UK Local Information Pack to support study setup and delivery.

GBR-18 indicates that researchers without contractual arrangements with NHS organizations, but whose research involves direct patient contact or access to NHS premises, may need an Honorary Research Contract (HRC) or Letter of Access (LoA). HRA will determine if an HRC or LoA is required during the governance review. Where a study does not involve the NHS (i.e., patients, their data, tissues, or NHS resources), NHS permission is not required. Investigators should follow their own organization’s governance processes.

GBR-9 states that ECs do not undertake location-specific assessments. A standard condition of a favorable EC opinion is obtaining applicable organization-level capacity, capability, or management approvals before any research project activity begins at an investigator location within the NHS or Northern Ireland Health and Social Care. For non-NHS locations, it is expected that sponsors have arrangements in place to ensure selection of suitable locations and investigators. For CTIMPs, these arrangements need to be submitted to the EC for review with the initial application, and significant changes to these arrangements treated as a substantial modification.

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

Per the MHCTR and the CT-Sfty, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of the United Kingdom (UK)’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse event (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
• Adverse reaction – Any untoward and unintended response in a participant to an investigational medicinal product (IP) which is related to any dose administered to that participant
• Serious adverse event (SAE), serious adverse reaction (SAR), or unexpected serious adverse reaction (SUSAR) – Any AE, adverse reaction, or unexpected adverse reaction, respectively, that (a) results in death, (b) is life-threatening, (c) requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, (d) results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or (e) consists of a congenital anomaly or birth defect
• Unexpected adverse reaction – An adverse reaction the nature and severity of which is not consistent with the information about the medicinal product in question set out in (a) the case of a product with a marketing authorization, the summary of product characteristics, or equivalent document, for that product, and (b) in the case of any other IP, in the investigator’s brochure (IB) relating to the trial in question

See the CT-Sfty and GBR-30 for guidance on reference safety information, including its role in expectedness assessments for SUSARs and annual safety reporting.

See the CT-Transtn for transitional arrangements for pharmacovigilance. See GBR-18 and GBR-9 for additional summaries of safety reporting.

The MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP), including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. In addition, see CT-Sfty for additional ICH guidance that are relevant to safety reporting, including the Development Safety Update Report (E2F) (GBR-61).

Safety Reporting Requirements

Urgent Safety Measure

Per the MHCTR and the CT-Sfty, an urgent safety measure (USM) is an action that the sponsor and investigator may take to protect the participants of a trial against any immediate hazard to their health or safety. As stated in the CT-Sfty, once trial participants have been recruited, appropriate USMs may be taken at any time to protect the participants from any immediate hazard to their health or safety. USMs may be implemented without first notifying the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and ethics committee (EC). No later than three (3) days after the measures are taken (but ideally within 24 hours), the sponsor must contact the MHRA through an initial telephone conversation or email. Failure to notify the MHRA of the implementation of an USM for safety reasons may be considered a serious breach.

Per the MHCTR and the CT-Sfty, following the initial telephone conversation or email with the MHRA, the sponsor must provide a written notice to the MHRA and the relevant EC, describing the events requiring action to be taken, and the measures taken in response to those events, including any additional actions requested by the MHRA. The written notification must be done within seven (7) calendar days from the date the measures are taken, or as soon as possible during any period where a disease is pandemic and is a serious or potentially serious risk to human health. The CT-Sfty states that the MHRA will review the written notification and may request additional information. Once the MHRA has sufficient information, it will decide whether the measure taken is a USM and communicate the outcome to the sponsor by email (and through Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125), if this route of submission was used). If the MHRA agrees that the measure is a USM, the sponsor should submit a substantial modification that covers the USM (with no additional changes) within two (2) weeks of the date on which the MHRA was first informed (via telephone) of the USM. If the MHRA does not agree that the measure is a USM, it will confirm with the sponsor whether any further actions are needed. See the CT-Sfty for process flowcharts and GBR-18 and GBR-9 for an overview of USMs.

Investigator Responsibilities

Per MHCTR, and the CT-Sfty, the investigator’s responsibilities include reporting of SAEs to the sponsor and reporting of certain non-serious AEs and/or laboratory abnormalities to the sponsor. The CT-Sfty indicates that an investigator must report any SAE that occurs to a participant at a trial site immediately to the sponsor, and no later than 24 hours following knowledge of the SAE. The MHCTR clarifies that the immediate report may be made orally or in writing, but the investigator must follow it with a detailed written report. These immediate reporting requirements do not apply to SAEs specified in the protocol or IB as not requiring immediate reporting. AEs other than immediately reportable SAEs that are identified in the protocol as critical to safety evaluations must be reported to the sponsor in accordance with the reporting requirements specified in the protocol. Reports must identify each participant by the number assigned to that participant in accordance with the protocol. Where the reported event consists of, or results in, the death of a participant, the investigator must provide any additional information requested by the sponsor or EC (if the death has been reported to that EC).

After the immediate report, the CT-Sfty states that the investigator must send a detailed, written follow-up report to allow the sponsor to determine whether the SAE requires a reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the clinical trial, if the relevant information was not already available and provided in the initial report. In cases where an initial/immediate report is not required, the investigator should report within the appropriate timeframe, taking account of the specificities of the trial and of the SAE, as well as possible guidance in the protocol or the IB. The investigator does not need to actively monitor participants for AEs once the trial has ended, unless provided otherwise in the protocol. SAEs considered related to the IP occurring to a participant after the treatment of that participant has ended should be reported to the sponsor if the investigator becomes aware of them. Clinically significant abnormal laboratory findings are considered AEs; however, abnormal laboratory findings may not be considered as AEs if there is no change compared to baseline values. Certain abnormal laboratory parameters should also be specified in the protocol as requiring reporting within the same timeframes as SAEs, depending on the IP safety profile. These must be clearly stated in the protocol and made clear to the concerned laboratory to ensure that these alert values are reported immediately to the investigator for onward reporting to the sponsor.

See GBR-18 for an overview including a safety reporting flowchart.

Sponsor Responsibilities

Per the MHCTR, the sponsor must keep detailed records of all SAEs and SARs, including SUSARs, that occur during a UK clinical trial. The sponsor must evaluate these events and reactions with a view to minimizing and preventing risks presented by use of the IP and must take appropriate measures as soon as reasonably practicable to investigate the risks and implement actions for minimizing and preventing them. In addition, the sponsor must keep detailed records of all AEs relating to a clinical trial that are reported by the investigators. The MHRA may require the sponsor, by written notice, to send those records, or copies of those records. The sponsor must ensure that all relevant information about a SUSAR that occurs during a UK clinical trial and is fatal or life-threatening is reported to the MHRA as soon as possible, and no later than seven (7) days after the sponsor is first aware of the reaction. The sponsor must send any additional relevant information to the MHRA within eight (8) days of that report. SUSARs that are not fatal or life-threatening must be reported as soon as possible, and no later than 15 days after the sponsor is first aware of the reaction. These SUSAR reporting timelines do not apply where the protocol specifies that certain SUSARs do not require immediate reporting; in those cases, the SUSARs must be reported to the MHRA in accordance with the protocol.

As specified in the CT-Sfty, there is no mandatory requirement for the sponsor to inform the EC or investigators of SUSARs. However, to comply with the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91), notification of safety information to investigators (which includes SUSARs) may be appropriate. The sponsor may wish to notify investigators of an occurrence through a letter to the investigator or an updated IB. Where urgent action is required because of a SUSAR, the sponsor should also consider whether a USM is required. See the CT-Sfty for additional guidance on sponsor’s causality, seriousness, and expectedness analyses. The UKannot-E6R3 clarifies, with respect to GBR-91, that individual SUSARs are not required to be reported to investigators or the EC under UK law and must instead be reported to the MHRA.

Under the MHCTR, if a clinical trial is being conducted at a trial site in another country in addition to UK sites, the sponsor must ensure that all SUSARs occurring at the non-UK site are reported to the MHRA as soon as possible. Fatal or life-threatening reactions must be reported within seven (7) days beginning with the day after the sponsor is first aware of the reaction, and all other SUSARs must be reported within 15 days beginning with the day after the sponsor is first aware of the reaction.

Per MHCTR, within 60 days beginning with the day after the reporting year ends, the sponsor must provide the MHRA with a report on the safety of the participants of those trials for each IP tested in a clinical trial. The annual safety report must include records and evaluations of SARs and SAEs that occurred during the reporting year, including SUSARs; the record of measures taken to investigate, minimize, and prevent risks; a description of how safety concerns in the clinical trial have been assessed and managed; and a description of the overall safety profile of each IP, along with a summary description of the sponsor’s processes to monitor the overall safety profile. The MHRA may request that the sponsor provide a list of SARs and SAEs, including SUSARs, that occurred at any time during the reporting year where necessary to investigate specific safety issues. The sponsor must provide the requested list within 30 days of receiving the request, or within any shorter period specified by the MHRA. The CT-Sfty states that the annual safety report should be submitted in the form of a Development Safety Update Report (DSUR). This includes clinical trials approved via automatic authorization under the notifiable trials pathway, as well as DSURs covering a combination of notified and non-notified trials. A single DSUR may cover multiple trials as it relates to a single IP and not a specific trial. See CT-Sfty for details on the required contents of the DSUR.

See the CT-Sfty and GBR-18 for additional guidance on safety reporting.

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Transitional Arrangements

Per GBR-99, for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), the submission of some of the reports may differ depending on whether the study was submitted through combined review or not. From April 28, 2026, the safety reporting requirements for CTIMPs change in line with the amended MHCTR. The new requirements apply to all CTIMPs whether they were submitted before or from this date. For example, SUSARs and annual safety reports for CTIMPs are only to be reported to the MHRA (not the EC). If any ethical issues are identified by the MHRA when they receive these reports, they will liaise with the EC directly. See CT-Transtn for additional details on transitional arrangements.

Urgent Safety Measures

As stated in the CT-Sfty, USMs must be reported to the MHRA through an initial telephone conversation or email no later than three (3) days after the measures are taken (but ideally within 24 hours). The sponsor should contact the MHRA through the Clinical Trial Helpline (020 3080 6456) to discuss the USM. If the sponsor is unable to report the USM by telephone, they should email clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk with contact details, the trial’s ID, a description of the USM, and an explanation as to why it was not reported via phone. The MHRA will then contact the sponsor with further actions. The follow-up written report should be submitted to the MHRA and the EC no later than seven (7) days from the date the measures are taken via IRAS (GBR-125). Guidance on submitting an USM through IRAS can be found in the G-IRASCombRev, GBR-9, and GBR-99. If the clinical trials affected were approved through separate applications to the MHRA and the EC, email the report to clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk.

SUSARs

Per the CT-Sfty, SUSARs should be reported to the MHRA in one (1) of the following ways using the format in the ICH E2B(R3) Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) Specification and Related Files (GBR-94):

• ICSR Submissions (GBR-126) – The ICSR submissions route is used to submit single reports
• MHRA Gateway – To gain access to the MHRA Gateway, which is used to submit bulk reports, users must first register via MHRA Submissions (GBR-13). The steps for gaining access to MHRA Submissions are contained within the G-MHRASubmiss and GBR-11

The CT-Sfty further explains that following submission of a SUSAR, the sponsor should expect to receive acknowledgement of the submission within 48 hours. If an acknowledgement is not received, then the sponsor should contact the E2B support team (E2B.support@mhra.gov.uk) to determine next steps, including whether resubmission is required. See the CT-Sfty for SUSAR submission content.

Annual Safety Report

For the annual safety report, CT-Sfty states that the fee for the MHRA to review a DSUR must be paid online (GBR-43) at the point of submission, not in advance. If at least one (1) of the clinical trials covered by the DSUR was approved through the combined review process, the report should be submitted through the combined review section of the IRAS (GBR-125). If all the clinical trials covered by the DSUR were approved through separate applications to the MHRA and the EC, the report should be submitted through MHRA Submissions (GBR-13). As explained in GBR-96, following payment, the emailed receipt must be included with the DSUR submission in its original format as a standalone document serving as proof of payment; failure to provide this evidence will result in the submission being invalidated. The payment reference number must follow the required format: “DSUR-[5 digit MHRA company number]-[Investigational Medicinal Product name]-[Payment date DD/MM/YYYY]”. The company number should be the first five (5) digits of either the product license number or the clinical trial application number from a trial the organization has previously submitted. The format must be adhered to so the MHRA can match the payment to the DSUR submission and allocate monies correctly. The reference number must not be duplicated for future DSUR submissions. Submissions reflecting a fee waiver will be considered valid. DSUR submissions that do not provide proof of payment indicate a failure to submit annual safety reports. Fee-related inquiries should be sent to DSURfees@mhra.gov.uk.

Per the CT-Sfty, ICH DSUR (E2F) (GBR-61) is relevant to the report format.

The CT-Sfty states that after submission, the DSUR undergoes validation checks. The person that submitted the DSUR will receive acknowledgement of their submission by email. If the submission is invalidated, the person that submitted the DSUR will be informed by email and will need to resubmit the DSUR with the deficiencies corrected. Valid DSURs are reviewed and requests for additional information may be made by email (and through IRAS (GBR-125), if this route of submission was used), with a timeline for response set by the MHRA. Once the MHRA has sufficient information, the person that submitted the DSUR will be informed by email (and through IRAS (GBR-125), if this route of submission was used) that the DSUR has been accepted.

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 GBR-18 and GBR-65, it is not a requirement to submit annual progress reports to the ethics committee (EC) for all studies receiving a final EC opinion in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. However, the MHCTR and CT-Sfty indicate that an annual safety report must be submitted to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the form of a Development Safety Update Report (DSUR). See the Safety Reporting section for more details on this annual report.

As a best practice, GBR-18 points out that sponsors should ensure that arrangements are in place for reporting trial progress to stakeholders throughout the life of the study. These stakeholders commonly include Trial Steering Committees, Data Monitoring Committees, funders, sponsors, and governance bodies at each participating site. For research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), regular progress reports are required in line with funding agreements.

Final Report

As per the MHCTR and the EndingCT, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day after the conclusion of the clinical trial, the sponsor must:

• Publish a summary of the results of the clinical trial in the same public registry or registries (if more than one (1)) as the trial was registered in
• Offer to all relevant persons a summary of the results written in a manner that is understandable to laypersons

The MHCTR and the EndingCT state that at any point before the 12-month deadline, sponsors may apply for a deferral or waiver to one (1) or both requirements, explaining why this is needed. Phase I clinical trials may be eligible for an automatic deferral of up to 30 months from the conclusion of the trial, which may be further extended on request.

As indicated in GBR-128, all project-based research (not research tissue banks or research databases) that has been reviewed by an EC needs to submit a final report within 12 months of the end of the study. The final report should be completed and submitted in the combined review part of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125).

As per GBR-9, for all project-based research that have received a favorable ethics opinion from an EC, a final report on the research should be submitted to the UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) within one (1) year of the trial’s conclusion. In the case of early termination, the provision of a final report is at the discretion of the sponsor. All final reports will be acknowledged within 30 days. The EC should be notified of receipt of the report, and the EC can ask to see a copy of the final report on request. In addition, GBR-20 clarifies that the form in GBR-20 should be used for this submittal, which includes submitting a lay summary of results. This is a UK-wide final report for all project-based research studies that have been reviewed by an EC within the RES (GBR-62). The information contained in this final report helps the RES to monitor whether the research was conducted in accordance with the EC’s favorable opinion and applicable transparency requirements. Per the GBR-120, sponsors should include a plain language summary of their findings in the final report, which will be published on HRA’s website alongside the study research summaries. See GBR-120 for guidance on writing a good plain language summary for a general audience.

Other Reporting Requirements

Per the MHCTR-Chgs, the sponsor must publish a summary of the trial results in all registries the trial is registered in. It is not acceptable for a sponsor to publish the summary of results in another location (for example the sponsor's website) and insert a link to that in the registry.

The MHCTR and the EndingCT specify that within 90 days of the conclusion of a clinical trial, the sponsor must notify the MHRA and the relevant EC in writing that the trial has ended. If a trial is terminated prior to the date or event specified in the protocol, the sponsor must notify the MHRA and the relevant EC in writing of the termination of the trial within 15 days of the date of termination. According to the EndingCT, if the clinical trial that has ended was approved through the combined review process, the end of trial declaration form should be submitted through Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). Guidance on using IRAS to submit an end of trial declaration form can be found in G-IRASCombRev and IRAS-User. If the clinical trial was approved through separate applications to the MHRA and the EC, the end of trial declaration form should be submitted to the MHRA via MHRA Submissions (GBR-13) and to the EC via email. The steps for gaining access to MHRA Submissions are contained within the G-MHRASubmiss and GBR-11. After submission, an acknowledgement will be issued by email (and through IRAS for combined review trials). No acknowledgement will be issued if the submission was related to the local end of trial. Details of where the results have been published should be provided to the MHRA and the EC within 12 months of trial completion (except for some pediatric trials involving the use of authorized medicinal products).

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

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 per the MHCTR, a sponsor of a clinical trial is the person who takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and financing (or arranging the financing) of that trial. If two (2) or more persons take responsibility for these matters, they may either take joint responsibility for carrying out the functions of the sponsor or allocate responsibility for carrying out the sponsor’s functions. Where two (2) or more persons take joint responsibility, any reference to the sponsor in the regulations is construed as a reference to those persons. If responsibility is allocated instead, one (1) person must be responsible for carrying out the sponsor’s functions related to the clinical trial approval process and for making the request for authorization to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and an ethics committee (EC) opinion. The request for approval must specify who is responsible for carrying out the sponsor’s functions related to the approval process, good clinical practice (GCP) and conduct of the clinical trial, and pharmacovigilance. After the clinical trial has been approved, a different person may be specified as responsible for carrying out the sponsor’s functions by making a modification of an important detail to the terms of the clinical trial approval.

As delineated in the MHCTR, a sponsor must be established in the United Kingdom (UK) or in a country included in a list published by the MHRA, or have a legal representative who is so established. The MHRA’s list is published at G-CTApprovedCountries and initially includes European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) countries.

Further per the MHCTR, a sponsor may delegate any or all of its functions to any person, but such delegation does not affect the responsibility of the sponsor. The functions of the sponsor include the development and maintenance of trial-specific computerized systems, and the selection and oversight of a laboratory in relation to the analysis or evaluation of human samples collected as part of the clinical trial.

GBR-101 provides that the sponsor is the individual, organization, or partnership that takes on overall responsibility for proportionate, effective arrangements being in place to set up, run, and report a research project. All health and social care research has a sponsor. The sponsor is normally expected to be the employer of the chief investigator in the case of non-commercial research or the funder in the case of commercial research. The sponsor has overall responsibility for the research, including:

• Identifying and addressing poorly designed or planned research and poor-quality research proposals, protocols or applications and ensuring that research proposals and protocols take into account systematic reviews of relevant existing research evidence and other relevant research in progress; make appropriate use of patient, service user, and public involvement; and are scientifically sound, safe, ethical, legal, and feasible and remain so for the duration of the research, taking account of developments while the research is ongoing
• Satisfying itself that the investigators, research team, and research sites are suitable
• Ensuring that roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the research and any delegation by the sponsor of its tasks are agreed and documented
• Ensuring adequate provision is made for insurance or indemnity to cover liabilities which may arise in relation to the design, management, and conduct of the research project
• Ensuring appropriate arrangements are made for making information about the research publicly available before it starts (unless a waiver or deferral is agreed by or on behalf of the EC); agreeing appropriate arrangements for making data and tissue accessible, with adequate consent and privacy safeguards, in a timely manner after it has finished; and ensuring arrangements for information about the findings of the research to be made available, including, where appropriate, to participants
• Ensuring that, where expected or required, the research has approval from an EC and any other relevant approval bodies before it begins
• Verifying that regulatory and practical arrangements are in place, before permitting the research to begin in a safe and timely manner
• Putting and keeping in place arrangements for adequate finance and management of the research project, including its competent risk management and data management
• Ensuring that effective procedures and arrangements are kept in place and adhered to for reporting (e.g., safety reports) and for monitoring the research, including its conduct and the ongoing suitability of the approved proposal or protocol in light of adverse events or other developments

Per GBR-103, sponsors of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) have particular legal duties. The sponsor of a CTIMP is responsible for ensuring that a clinical trial complies with the MHCTR and GCP. Regarding GCP compliance, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of GCP, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others.

GBR-103 states that where it is necessary to appoint a legal representative based in the UK or a country on the MHRA’s list, the details of the legal representative should be entered into Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). The legal representative:

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

As explained in GBR-103, in all cases, evidence should be provided with the CTIMP application that the legal representative is willing to take on the role of legal representative and is established at an address in the UK or a country on the approved country list. For example, a copy of correspondence between the sponsor and legal representative on appropriate headed paper could be supplied, or a copy of a contract. Where the legal representative is also a co-sponsor, this should be separately recorded on the application form and details given of the allocation of sponsorship responsibilities.

See GBR-103, GBR-9, GBR-18, and GBR-2 for additional guidance on sponsors.

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

Per the MHCTR, the investigator for a clinical trial must be a health care professional who is appropriately trained to undertake that role in a clinical trial. Health care professional means a doctor, dentist, registered nurse, pharmacist, optometrist, relevant Health and Care Professions Council registrant, registered osteopath, registered chiropractor, anaesthesia associate or physician associate, or registered midwife. The investigator is responsible for the conduct of the trial at its trial location(s). The CT-Roles states that the appointment of an investigator is the responsibility of a sponsor, and this person must be qualified by education and experience, having the scientific background and experience in participant care required for the clinical trial. Organizations conducting clinical trials should consider what training and support is required for investigators. Consideration should be given to participation in suitable training and provision of mentoring support, for example. The type and level of training for an investigator should facilitate knowledge and understanding of the relevant regulations and guidance, and expectations associated with the role, while being proportionate to the type of trial being conducted. Sponsors should also note that a qualified doctor (or, where appropriate, a qualified dentist) who is an investigator for the trial should have the overall responsibility for trial-related medical care and decisions on behalf of participants.

GBR-18 lists examples of factors that should influence investigator/site selection:

• Interest in the research question
• Experience and qualifications of the investigator
• Sufficient staff to conduct the study and their experience and qualifications
• Availability of suitable patient population, including anticipated rate of patient recruitment (determined through feasibility assessments) and conflicting studies
• Adequate time to conduct and oversee the trial
• Adequate facilities such as the availability of any specialized diagnostic, therapeutic equipment required by the protocol, adequate space and storage conditions (including archive), and available resources in support departments
• Previous track record with similar trials
• Geographic location
• Contractual and budgetary negotiations and arrangements

Regarding investigator training, CT-Roles explains that both the Health Research Authority (HRA) and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advocate a proportionate approach to the application of good clinical practice (GCP) to the conduct of clinical trials and the appropriate training of staff involved. Training needs may range from detailed knowledge to just awareness of GCP principles and the MHCTR, and training can be tailored accordingly. For certain trials it may be necessary for staff involved in trial activities to be aware of other regulatory requirements outside those of GCP. For example, healthcare professionals retaining tissue samples should be aware of relevant human tissue and blood safety legislation and regulations. Per the CT-Roles, It is expected that organizations involved in the conduct of clinical trials have considered staff training needs in regard to the MHCTR and GBR-91 (and GBR-104 where relevant).

Regarding GCP compliance, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of GCP, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others.

GBR-106 provides a site-selected email template, which should be used as the formal notification from the commercial sponsor (or delegated agent) confirming that the organization has been selected to participate as a site in a commercial-contract clinical trial or clinical investigation. Also see GBR-18 additional resources to support investigator and site selection.

The UKannot-E6R3 states that unlike in the GBR-91, there is no regulatory requirement for an investigator to inform the authorities that they are withdrawing from a trial. However, depending on the circumstances of the investigator’s withdrawal, the sponsor may need to temporarily halt the trial or report a serious breach to the MHRA in accordance with the MHCTR. In addition, if the investigator that has withdrawn from the trial is the chief investigator (CI), then the sponsor will need to submit a substantial modification to the authorities with the details of the new CI.

As described in GBR-18, for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), adding a new trial location not listed with the original application is considered a modification of an important detail. In addition, if a trial location is added in a UK nation that was not previously involved in the project, the sponsor should ensure that:

• The change is correctly categorized using the Modification Tool and submitted through the combined review process of Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125)
• The appropriate nation-specific study set-up processes are followed for the new trial location(s)

UK Local Information Pack

Per GBR-63 and GBR-106, the HRA's UK Local Information Pack (LIP) provides a consistent set of documents to support study setup and delivery across National Health Service (NHS) organizations in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. While the core contents are standardized, country-specific processes govern how the LIP is distributed and used:

• England and Wales: the sponsor should send the LIP directly to the site's R&D office, delivery team, and local network (if applicable, the National Institute for Health and Care Research's Research Delivery Network Portfolio)
• Scotland: the NHS Research Scotland Permissions Coordinating Centre distributes the LIP to R&D offices and relevant portfolio managers, while sponsors provide it to research teams using a Scotland-specific email template.
• Northern Ireland: the sponsor may send the LIP to participating sites after receiving instruction from the Northern Ireland Health and Social Care (HSC) R&D Approvals Service.

For templates, detailed instructions, and contact information by country, refer to UKwide-Rsrch, GBR-106, and GBR-63.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

GBR-103 provides that if a sponsor(s) is not established in the UK or on an approved country list, it is a statutory requirement to appoint a legal representative based in the UK or a country on the approved country list for the purposes of the trial. See the G-CTApprovedCountries for a list of countries where a sponsor of a clinical trial, or their legal representative, may be established; currently listed countries are those in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA).

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

Per GBR-18, the CI should plan oversight structures as appropriate including a data safety and monitoring board (known as a data monitoring committee (DMC) in the UK).

Multicenter Studies

Per the G-Ovrsight, for multi-country trials, global documentation for the trial is acceptable, but it may be necessary to include specific procedures to mitigate any country-specific risks that were identified from the risk assessment – for example, differences in clinical practice or local regulations. It may be necessary to include some site-specific actions such as additional monitoring checks at the CI’s site (for example, if the sponsor has delegated numerous functions) or the site may be responsible for undertaking a specific trial activity or where a site-specific risk may have been identified.

As described in GBR-18, for CTIMPs, change of a principal investigator (PI) (other than a CI) in a multicenter trial is considered a modification of an important detail.

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

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 MHCTR, all clinical trials must make provisions for insurance or indemnity to cover all liabilities of the investigator and sponsor. Proof of insurance, a guarantee, or any other similar arrangement, must accompany a request for approval, a modification request, and a notification of the conclusion of a trial; or an explanation of why the proof is not being provided. Per GBR-103, if a sponsor of a clinical trial of an investigative medicinal product (CTIMP) is a commercial body, a copy of an insurance or indemnity certificate should normally be included with the ethics committee (EC) application as evidence of the cover in place for the potential liability of the sponsor. This may be a certificate for a trial-specific policy or a block policy covering a number of trials conducted by the sponsor. If the certificate is not yet available, the EC will require as a condition of its favorable opinion that a copy of the certificate is provided prior to the start of the trial. See UKannot-E6R3, GBR-2, GBR-9, GBR-103, GBR-101, and GBR-18 for additional guidance.

The MHCTR requires that clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the principles of good clinical practice (GCP) set out in the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the United Kingdom (UK) is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others.

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

According to GBR-33, before the start of a Phase I study, the sponsor must have agreed with the research participant to provide compensation for injury whenever a causal relationship with participation is demonstrated. This undertaking can be provided directly by the sponsor through the consent process, or through authorizing the contract research organization (CRO) or investigator on behalf of the sponsor. In addition, the sponsor should follow these practices:

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

Trial Participation

Per Compstn, where payment is proposed for trial participation, the payment should be proportionate to the burden imposed by the research. Such burdens may often be significant without involving excessive risk (e.g., number of hospital visits, tissue samples taken, lifestyle restrictions, diaries, questionnaires, use of technology such as electronic patient reported outcomes, interaction with apps, etc.). Where the risk and burdens of the research are considered by an EC to be justified by the potential benefits, then it will normally be acceptable for competent adults to participate in the research study without being paid (including reimbursement of expenses). Where it is considered ethically acceptable for individuals to take part in a study for no payment, it would also be acceptable to pay individuals for participation in that study proportionate to the level of burdens and/or risk. Financial or other incentives, of themselves, are not considered coercive nor do they present an undue inducement to a potential participant where the risks and burdens involved are those that a competent, adult participant might reasonably accept for no payment. Regarding payment to participants who use drugs to take part in research, where payment is deemed to be acceptable for taking part in research, it is acceptable for that payment to be made in cash or vouchers.

As delineated in the MHCTR, incentives and financial inducements must not be given to a minor or a legal representative/guardian, except provision for compensation in the event of injury or loss. Similarly, incentives and financial inducements must not be given to a participant who is an incapacitated adult or their legal representative, except provision for compensation in the event of injury or loss.

Post-Trial Access

As explained in the Hlsnki-Align, the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) requires arrangements for post-trial access to beneficial interventions, whereas the MHCTR does not impose this as a statutory obligation. In practice, GBR-81 and the MHCTR are aligned regarding expectations. Sponsors should aim to comply with both, but where strict adherence to GBR-81 would undermine UK statutory safeguards or operational feasibility, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) expects sponsors to prioritize compliance with UK law while documenting the rationale for deviations.

The UKannot-E6R3 clarifies, with respect to GBR-91, that there is no specific regulatory requirement for the sponsor to provide the investigator with information about the treatment taken by participants for blinded trials. However, clinical trials should be designed and conducted in ways that ensure the rights, safety, and well-being of participants, which includes the post-trial transition back to standard of care, and to support this, it may be necessary to know which treatment the participant received. The sponsor should act in accordance with the approved clinical trial protocol.

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

As stated in the MHCTR, a person must not conduct a clinical trial or perform the functions of the sponsor of a clinical trial unless it is in accordance with the conditions and principles of good clinical practice (GCP). The GCP conditions and principles include those in the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the United Kingdom (UK) is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—to support compliance with the ICH efficacy guidelines by clarifying how the ICH provisions should be read alongside applicable UK legal requirements and by directing users to relevant UK requirements. Regarding GCP, the CT-Transtn states that from April 28, 2026, the new GCP rules under MHCTR apply to all clinical trials, whether the application was submitted before or after April 28, 2026. The only exception relates to retention of the trial master file for trials where the application was submitted before April 28, 2026.

Per the MHCTR, the sponsor of a clinical trial must put and keep in place arrangements for the purpose of ensuring that the conditions and principles of GCP are satisfied or adhered to. This includes developing and maintaining trial-specific computerized systems, selecting and overseeing a laboratory for human samples, and analyzing and evaluating human samples collected as part of the clinical trial. Further, the sponsor must ensure that the investigational medicinal products (IPs) used in the trial are made available to the participants free of charge.

The Qlty-Risk provides an explanation of the interconnected quality concepts embedded within GBR-91, such as quality by design, risk-based quality management, and risk proportionality, and outlines the practical implications for trial conduct, oversight, and compliance. In addition, the Qlty-Risk should be read in conjunction with GBR-104, which establishes the overarching scientific and quality principles for clinical study design and conduct, including the application of quality by design approaches. See the Qlty-Risk and GBR-18 for additional details on implementing proportionate, risk-based systems for clinical trials.

The MHCTR and the SrsBreachNotif state that the sponsor of a clinical trial must notify the MHRA in writing of any serious breach of the conditions and principles of GCP in connection with that trial or the protocol within seven (7) days of becoming aware of that breach. A serious breach is a breach which is likely to affect to a significant degree the safety or physical or mental integrity of the trial participants or the scientific value of the trial.

To make the MHRA notification, the SrsBreachNotif emphasizes that the serious breach notification should be carried out by the sponsor or a person legally authorized by the sponsor to perform this function (for example, a legal representative or service provider), if delegated by the sponsor. The sponsor retains legal responsibility even if the function is delegated. To ensure participant safety, reporting should not be delayed by debates about reporting responsibility. If the sponsor does not report a breach to the MHRA but the investigator or institution believes a serious breach has occurred, due diligence is necessary. Investigators or institutions should consider whether to continue with the trial and/or report the breach directly to the MHRA. If the sponsor obtains clear and unequivocal evidence that a serious breach has occurred, the default position should be for the sponsor to notify the MHRA first, within seven (7) days, and investigate and take action simultaneously or after notification. In this case, the sponsor should not wait to obtain all the details of the breach prior to notification. In other cases, some degree of investigation and assessment may be required by the sponsor prior to notification, to confirm that a serious breach has occurred. It is expected that this investigation is expedited to meet the timeline as closely as possible. If in doubt about whether and when to notify, contact the MHRA GCP Team via GCP.SeriousBreaches@mhra.gov.uk. Organizations should also consider if there are any other relevant MHRA units that should be notified.

Per the SrsBreachNotif, GBR-9, and CTIMP-Condtns, the EC must also be notified of a serious breach within seven (7) days. The SrsBreachNotif instructs that organizations should use the MHRA form (GBR-108) to ensure all required information is submitted, and the form should be sent as an MS Word document. Wherever possible, the MHRA will provide an acknowledgement of receipt for notifications. It is recommended that the organization also informs the relevant chief investigator and/or principal investigators (as applicable) of the breach to facilitate the implementation of corrective and preventative actions.

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

See GBR-10 for best practices in improving clinical trial setup to reduce timelines and increase citizens’ access to research. In addition, see GBR-34 for resources and training on developing and implementing people-centered research.

Monitoring Requirements

Per GBR-18, sponsors should define a monitoring strategy that focuses on critical data and processes, ensuring timely identification of issues that may affect participant safety or data integrity. Proportionate approaches are supported through resources listed at GBR-18. Sponsors should ensure there are clear processes for the identification and escalation of issues, identified through monitoring, as well as implementing and documenting corrective and preventive actions. Further, the sponsor of a clinical trial is responsible for establishing and maintaining robust quality systems, including designing and implementing a formal audit plan. The following activities and checks could include the following:

• Interview staff to assess whether they are appropriately trained; understand their role(s); and are working to all relevant standards, the protocol, and standard operating procedures (SOPs)
• Tour the facility to assess if there are adequate resources and if the equipment is fit for its intended use
• Review documents to evaluate whether data reported is verifiable from source data and that written records confirm that the trial was conducted appropriately
• System audits, which look at the performance of specific functions, such as the systems and processes used for data management

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

Per GBR-18, the MHRA may conduct inspections to ensure the clinical trial is being conducted in compliance with GCP as described in GCP-Inspct and GBR-91. The MHRA takes a risk-based approach to inspections depending on the type of trials and risk rating. Once an inspection has been completed, a formal report outlining the findings will be sent to the inspected organization. A response to this report (describing any corrective and preventive actions) must be produced. See GCP-Inspct for pre-inspection documentation and other resources. Also see Inspct-Resp for information on formulating responses to GCP inspection findings. Per G-RiskAssmt, GCP inspectors will also review risk assessments. The G-Ovrsight provides additional guidance to assist sponsors and those conducting trials on implementing adequate oversight and monitoring processes for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs).

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Per the MHCTR and the EndingCT, the sponsor must provide written notice to the MHRA that a clinical trial has ended (and this notice should also be provided to the EC). Where a clinical trial is terminated early, this notice must be provided within 15 days.

MHCTR states that the MHRA may require a trial, or the conduct of the trial at a particular trial location, be suspended or terminated if it has objective grounds for considering that any condition, restriction, or limitation which applies to the conduct of the trial is no longer satisfied; has information raising doubts about the safety or scientific validity of the trial; or the trial has lapsed and the sponsor has not notified the MHRA that the trial has ended. The notice will specify whether it applies to the trial generally or to one (1) or more trial locations; whether it requires suspension or termination of the trial in whole or in part; any period of suspension and any conditions to be satisfied before the trial, or the conduct of the trial at a particular location, may be recommenced; and whether suspension or termination takes effect immediately on receipt of the notice or on a specified date. Except where it appears to the MHRA that there is an imminent risk to the health or safety of any of the participants of the clinical trial, the MHRA must give the sponsor or investigator at least one (1) week’s written notice that it is minded to issue a notice suspending or terminating the trial, in whole or in part, or the conduct of the trial at a particular location, and the reasons why. The sponsor or investigator may, within one (1) week of the date of the notice, furnish the MHRA with written representations as to whether the trial, or the conduct of the trial at a particular location, should be so suspended or terminated. A person on whom a suspension or termination notice has been served may, within 28 days, or such extended period as the MHRA may allow, give notice of their wish to make written or oral representations to the appropriate committee.

Per the EndingCT, if the clinical trial that has ended was approved through the combined review process, the end-of-trial declaration form (GBR-133) should be submitted through the combined review part of IRAS (GBR-125). If approved through separate applications to the MHRA and the EC, it should be submitted to the MHRA via MHRA Submissions (GBR-13) and to the EC via email. For trials terminated prior to the date or event specified in the protocol:

• The end of trial declaration will be reviewed by the MHRA and requests for additional information may be raised
• Once MHRA has sufficient information, the sponsor will be informed that the end of trial declaration has been accepted
• Details of where the results have been published should be provided to MHRA and the EC within 12 months of trial completion (except for some pediatric trials involving the use of authorized medicinal products)

Also see GBR-91, which the MHRA has implemented in ICH-UKimp, for additional guidance on sponsor responsibilities involving premature termination or suspension of a trial. In addition, the MHCTR advises that the investigator and sponsor must have regard to all relevant guidance with respect to conducting a clinical trial.

Also see GBR-18 and GBR-128 for more information and resources.

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

The MHCTR states that the sponsor’s functions include the development and maintenance of trial-specific computerized systems, which supports compliance with good clinical practice (GCP), including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the United Kingdom (UK) is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. Per GBR-18, the trial-specific computerized system must be fit for its intended use and appropriately validated, ensuring that electronic data meets GCP and regulatory requirements. See GBR-18 for additional resources.

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

Records Management

Per MHCTR and the CTRecords, the sponsor must keep a trial master file (TMF) for a clinical trial and ensure that the TMF is readily available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or any person appointed by the sponsor to audit the arrangements for the trial. The TMF must always contain the essential documents relating to that clinical trial. The sponsor must ensure that any alteration to a document contained in the TMF is traceable. The sponsor and the chief investigator (CI) must ensure that the documents contained, or which have been contained, in the TMF (including documents contained in electronic form) are retained for at least the period of 25 years beginning with the day after the conclusion of the trial and that during that period are readily available to the MHRA upon request and complete and legible. If, at the date of the expiration of the 25 years, the data generated by the trial is being used to support an application for a UK marketing authorization, the sponsor must ensure the documents are retained for a period of at least two (2) years beginning with the day after the UK marketing authorization is granted. Further, the sponsor and CI must ensure that the medical files of trial participants are retained for a period of at least 25 years beginning with the day after conclusion of the trial, or such period as is required by any other enactment, if longer. The sponsor must appoint individuals to be responsible for archiving the documents in the TMF and restrict access to those appointed individuals. See CTRecords and GBR-91 for guidance on what is an essential document.

Per the UKannot-E6R3, in relation to GBR-91, transfer of ownership of essential records must be documented by the sponsor but does not have to be reported to the UK authorities. If the transfer of ownership is related to a change in sponsor, this must be reported to the authorities as a modification of an important detail.

Regarding transitional arrangements, CTRecords specifies that for trials submitted before April 28, 2026, the old rules (pre-2025-amendments) continue to apply for TMF documents. This means the sponsor and CI must keep the TMF documents for at least five (5) years after the trial ends and ensure they remain complete, legible, and readily available to the MHRA upon request. If the trial data is being used to support a UK marketing authorization application when the 5-year period ends, the sponsor must keep the essential records for at least two (2) years after the UK marketing authorization is granted. The sponsor and CI must keep trial participants’ medical files for at least 25 years after the trial ends, or longer if another law requires it. For all trials involving an authorized product, other trial documentation must be kept for as long as the product remains authorized. The final clinical study report must be kept for five (5) years after the product is no longer authorized.

CTRecords states that documents must not be destroyed before the end of the retention period. If documents have been damaged or destroyed accidentally then an assessment should be conducted to determine the extent and impact of the lost or damaged documents. If the assessment is found to impact the ability to present the documents for inspection, then a serious breach notification should be considered.

Per GBR-18, the sponsor should maintain documented procedures for computerized trial-specific systems, including system validation, user training, access and permissions management, security and integrity controls, change control and system updates, back up, disaster recovery and incident management, and ongoing technical support and maintenance. See GBR-18 for additional resources.

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 purposes of data protection requirements, the UK-GDPR the UK-DPAct, and the G-GDPR delineate the following responsible parties (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Controller – the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data
• Processor – a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller
• Recipient – a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or another body, to which the personal data are disclosed, whether a third party or not; however, public authorities which may receive personal data in the framework of a particular inquiry in accordance with domestic law must not be regarded as recipients
• Third party – a natural or legal person, public authority, agency, or body other than the data subject, controller, processor and persons who, under the direct authority of the controller or processor, are authorized to process personal data

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

Data Protection

Per the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, the G-GDPR, and GBR-89, the controller must comply with the following principles of the data protection legislation:

• Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency
• Purpose limitation (See the DUAA for clarifications on purpose limitation and further processing)
• Data minimization
• Accuracy
• Storage limitation
• Integrity and confidentiality (security)
• Accountability

As stated in the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, the G-GDPR, and GBR-89, it must be shown that each data processing activity has a lawful basis under United Kingdom (UK) legislation, in addition to the common law basis. For health and social care research, the lawful basis is determined by the data controller’s organization type:

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

As described in the G-GDPR, with regard to transparency, the sponsor should understand whether personal data is collected indirectly from a third party or directly, as these determine the actions required to comply with data protection requirements. In most cases, the sponsor will need to provide transparency information about the legal basis and other details of processing personal data. See the table in G-GDPR, which sets out the specific transparency requirements for personal data. Per GDPR-Trspcy, to help ensure research participants have all the information they need to make an informed decision about the use of their data, sponsors are expected to use the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) template at GDPR-Trspcy, which includes information on:

• When the GDPR wording should be used
• If individual bespoke GDPR wording is used
• If the GDPR wording in open studies is updated
• Instructions for use
• The GDPR transparency wording for all sponsors
• Definitions
• Communicating GDPR information to children and young people

For international transfers of personal information, per the UK-GDPR, a controller or processor may transfer personal data to a third country or international organization only where the transfer is covered by adequacy regulations, is subject to appropriate safeguards, or relies on a derogation for a specific situation, and otherwise complies with the UK-GDPR and any applicable transfer restrictions. The GBR-138 contains guidance, templates, and other resources that are suitable for all types of organizations, and covers areas such as adequacy regulations, appropriate safeguards, completing a transfer risk assessment, using an exception, and receiving personal information from the European Economic Area.

As explained in the DUAA-Org, the DUAA amends, but does not replace, the UK-GDPR and the UK-DPAct. The DUAA-Sum contains a summary of clarifications on changes to data protection law from the DUAA amendments. DUAA-Cmmct brings many of the provisions of the DUAA into force, including those related to the definition of research, consent to processing for purposes of scientific research, and transfers of personal data to third countries. See GBR-136 and DUAA-Org for more details on the DUAA and what it means for organizations and research. See DUAA-Sum for additional clarifications on data protection, including safeguards and restrictions when using automated decision-making. In addition, GBR-100 contains additional templates to help sponsors comply with the UK-GDPR.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

Per GBR-100, children must be provided with the same information as adults regarding what will be done with their personal data, even if consent is sought from the parent/legal guardian. The UK-GDPR states that information provided to individuals should be in a concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.

For variations among the UK countries regarding accessing identifiable data without consent, see information on the Confidentiality Advisory Group at the UKwide-Rsrch, CAG-Applcts, and GBR-38.

UK-US Data Bridge

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

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 United Kingdom (UK) clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the MHCTR, which states that a person gives informed consent to take part in a clinical trial only if the decision is given freely after that person is informed of the nature, significance, implications, and risks of the trial.

Further, the MHCTR requires the following conditions to obtain consent from an adult able to consent or who has given consent prior to the onset of incapacity:

• The participant has had an interview with the investigator, or another member of the investigating team, in which there was an opportunity to understand the objectives, risks, and inconveniences of the trial and the conditions under which it is to be conducted
• The participant has been informed of the right to withdraw from the trial at any time
• The participant has given informed consent to take part in the trial
• The participant may, without being subject to any resulting detriment, withdraw from the clinical trial at any time by revoking informed consent
• The participant has been provided with a contact point where more information about the trial may be obtained

Regarding ethics committee (EC) review, the MHCTR stipulates that where the EC receives a valid request for approval, it must consider the measures used to seek and obtain informed consent for participation in the trial.

G-ConsentPIS states that the investigator(s) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The oral and written information concerning the trial should be easy to understand and presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant and the legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. A signature on a consent form does not in itself make consent valid. A person’s agreement with each statement contained in the consent form can be indicated by initialing or ticking boxes, or by providing the answers ‘yes’ or ‘no’ after each statement. The form itself is then signed by the parties involved in the consent conversation. The Participant Information Sheet (PIS) supports the consent process to help ensure participants have been adequately informed. In addition, the PIS forms part of the transparency information that must be provided to participants under the data protection legislation for the use and processing of personal data. (See the Personal Data Protection section for more information on data protection requirements.) Testing the PIS with an appropriate group of people (patient groups or other members of the public) is strongly encouraged to ensure the language used is appropriate, the PIS format aids understanding, and the PIS covers risks and benefits that are relevant to potential participants. EC approval is not needed to test the PIS in this manner. For more guidance on the PIS, see the PrtInfoQty-Stds, the PrtInfo-DesignPrin, and GBR-14, which include frequently asked questions (FAQs), information principles, and standards. G-ConsentPIS provides PIS and consent form templates suitable for different types of research.

The MHCTR and MHCTR-Chgs further provide that the protocol may make provisions for simplified arrangements for obtaining and evidencing consent if the following conditions are met:

• The investigational medicinal product (IP) is authorized for use in the UK and is used in accordance with that authorization
• The IP is given to the participant during that participant’s routine health care
• The participant receives no additional medication and undergoes no additional intervention or diagnostic procedure, solely for the purposes of the clinical trial

As explained in the MHCTR-Chgs, if a sponsor is planning to use simplified arrangements, these will need to be detailed in the protocol including the reason for obtaining consent using simplified arrangements, the information to be provided to the participant, the means of providing that information, and the means by which consent shall be evidenced. These arrangements may include proportionate approaches to the information provided, the way consent discussions are undertaken, and how consent is evidenced, provided that consent remains informed, freely given, explicit, and prospectively obtained. Any such arrangements must be clearly described in the protocol and approved by an EC. See the MHCTR-Chgs for additional information.

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

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

For more guidance on obtaining consent, see GBR-69, GBR-18, and GBR-9.

Regarding consent in good clinical practice (GCP), the MHCTR requires that all clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of GCP, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—which discuss consent requirements.

In addition, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) except where it would be a contravention of the MHCTR.

Re-Consent

Per GBR-18, during a clinical trial if new information arises during a study that may affect participants' willingness to continue, they should be re-consented using updated, EC-approved documents.

Language Requirements

As stated in the MHCTR, applications to the EC and the MHRA and any accompanying material, such as the informed consent material, should be presented in English.

Documenting Consent

The MHCTR states that consent must be evidenced in writing, dated, and signed, or otherwise marked, by that person so as to indicate consent, or if the person is unable to sign or to mark a document, is communicated (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means) in the presence of at least one (1) witness and recorded in writing. As provided in the G-ConsentPIS, consent for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) must be in writing. Electronic methods for documenting consent, including the use of electronic signatures, are also considered to be in writing. A physical or electronic copy of the signed consent form will still need to be provided to the participant. To record consent electronically, electronic signatures will be needed. Because there are different forms and classifications of electronic signatures, the researcher should determine what is appropriate for the particular study. GBR-6 sets out the legal and ethical requirements for seeking and documenting consent using electronic methods (also known as eConsent in the UK), as well as expectations regarding the use of electronic signatures. eConsent enables potential research participants to be provided with the information they need to make a decision via a tablet, smartphone, or digital multimedia. It also enables their informed consent to be documented using electronic signatures. This approach can supplement the traditional paper-based approach or, where appropriate, replace it.

Waiver of Consent

The MHCTR-Chgs states that consent must not be waived or presumed.

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.

As required in the MHCTR, informed consent is only valid if the person’s decision is given freely after being informed of the nature, significance, implications, and risks of the trial. The G-ConsentPIS specifies that the participant information sheet (PIS) should include the following:

• Title – Head the document “Patient information sheet,” “Participant information sheet,” or “Information about the research;” use a consistent study title across documents, understandable to the intended audience, and explaining the study in simple English
• Invitation – Make clear that potential participants are being invited to consider taking part and that participation is entirely voluntary; briefly explain how they were identified and why they were selected
• Summary of the research – Provide a short, clear summary explaining why the research is being done, what research question is being addressed, why it is relevant/important, what is being studied or tested, what participants will have to do, who is eligible, where the study will take place, and how long it will last
• Purpose and background – Explain the purpose of and background to the research, giving enough context for participants to understand why the study is being conducted
• What taking part involves – Describe what will happen to participants during and after the research study, including what they will have to do and what taking part will mean for them
• Research vs standard care – For studies involving therapeutic interventions, clearly explain which elements are research and which constitute standard care
• Alternatives to participation – Explain alternatives to taking part, especially in therapeutic trials involving patients
• Possible benefits – Describe the potential benefits participants might expect from taking part, where applicable
• Possible disadvantages, risks, inconveniences, or restrictions – Explain the potential risks, disadvantages, inconveniences, or restrictions participants might expect
• Treatment that may be withheld
• Participant responsibilities
• Results and study arm information – Explain when and how participants will find out the results of the study, and when/how it is planned to reveal which arm of the study they have been on, where applicable
• What if something goes wrong? – Explain what will happen if something goes wrong during the study
• Withdrawal from the study – Explain what will happen if the participant does not want to carry on with the study
• Confidentiality – Explain whether and how the participant’s information will be kept confidential
• Use and publication of results – Explain what will happen to the results of the study
• Organization and funding – State who is organizing and funding the study
• Patient and public involvement – Explain how patients and the public have been involved in the study
• Review/approval – State who has reviewed and approved the study
• Further information and contact details
• Version control of the information sheet
• Consent process – Explain the consent process, including how consent will be sought and documented

Next, G-ConsentPIS indicates that a consent form should be used to record the consent process and the participant’s agreement to take part in the study. The form should be on headed paper or equivalent, including where consent is recorded electronically, and include the following information:

• Study identifiers – Study title and IRAS ID; a study identification number may also be included
• Site/participant identifiers
• Multiple consent forms – Clear labels if using more than one (1) consent form, for example for different types of participants or different UK nations
• Content of form – Information should be appropriate for the type of study and the participants involved
• PIS acknowledgement – A statement confirming that the participant has read the PIS, including its date and version number, and has had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions, and receive satisfactory answers
• Voluntary participation and withdrawal – A statement that participation is voluntary and that the participant is free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason, and without medical care or legal rights being affected
• Access to medical notes/data – A statement that relevant sections of medical notes and study data may be looked at by individuals from the company or regulatory authorities, and that the participant gives permission for access to those records
• Future research/data sharing – Where appropriate, a statement that information collected about the participant will be used to support other research in the future and may be shared anonymously with other researchers
• General practitioner notification – Where appropriate, include a statement that the participant agrees to their General Practitioner being informed of their participation
• Agreement to participate – Include a clear statement that the participant agrees to take part in the study
• Specific agreement for each item – Provide a box after each item for participants to initial, tick, or answer “yes” or “no” to indicate specific agreement with each statement
• Legal representatives – If consent forms are used by legal representatives, ensure the language addresses them appropriately and makes clear that they are being asked to give consent on behalf of, or advice with respect to, a child/young person or adult lacking capacity
• Itemizing specific elements – For some studies, consider itemizing specific elements of consent so participants can clearly indicate agreement to particular parts of the study

See the G-ConsentPIS for examples and templates on various scenarios. For more information about informed consent required elements, see Cnst-Proprt, GBR-18, GBR-100, and GBR-69.

Regarding consent in good clinical practice (GCP), the MHCTR requires that all clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the conditions and principles of GCP, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) GCP, as amended from time to time. ICH-UKimp indicates that the UK is implementing the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) (GBR-91) and the ICH’s General Considerations for Clinical Studies E8(R1) (GBR-104), among others. As explained in the UKannot-ICH, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued UK-specific annotations—UKannot-E6R3 and UKannot-E8—which discuss consent requirements.

In addition, the MHCTR requires that clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (GBR-81) except where it would be a contravention of the MHCTR.

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.)