Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS)

As set forth in GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is the regulatory authority responsible for approving all clinical studies in human beings and/or their biological samples, for scientific research purposes. COFEPRIS is authorized to monitor and verify approved clinical studies to be conducted in Mexico in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned documents.

Under the terms of Reg-COFEPRIS and GenHlthLaw, the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) supervises the regulation, control, and promotion of health through COFEPRIS. Per MOH-Org, COFEPRIS, a decentralized administrative body, reports directly to the head of the Ministry of Health. Reg-COFEPRIS and GenHlthLaw state that COFEPRIS is headed by a Federal Commissioner appointed by the President of Mexico, upon the Ministry’s recommendation. Per GenHlthLaw, the Ministry of Health is also responsible for supervising COFEPRIS. Per Reg-COFEPRIS and GenHlthLaw, the agency has technical, administrative, and operational autonomy in regulating, evaluating, controlling, promoting, and disseminating the conditions and requirements to prevent and manage health risks in the Mexican population.

Reg-COFEPRIS specifies that COFEPRIS comprises eight (8) administrative units and four (4) government advisory bodies that manage the agency’s organizational and operational responsibilities. Included among COFEPRIS’s administrative units, and central to the research protocol authorization process, is the Health Authorization Commission (Comisión de Autorización Sanitaria (CAS)). As delineated in Reg-COFEPRIS, GenHlthLaw, and MEX-88, CAS is responsible for issuing, extending, or revoking research protocol authorizations. According to MEX-88, CAS’s work is performed by the Executive Directorate for Product and Establishment Authorization which oversees the Coordination of Clinical Trials Area, that in turn, is responsible for research protocol authorizations. See MEX-88 for an organizational flowchart.

Other Considerations

Per MEX-41, Mexico is a regulatory member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). As indicated in MEX-2, COFEPRIS is in the process of implementing the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R2) (MEX-22). However, COFEPRIS-GCP complies with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32). Additionally, see MEX-85 for 16 ICH efficacy guidelines adopted by COFEPRIS.

Please note: Mexico is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (MEX-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 MEX-35.

Contact Information

As per MEX-71, COFEPRIS’s contact information is as follows:

Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios
Oklahoma 14
Col. Nápoles
Demarcación Territorial Benito Juárez
C.P. 03810, Ciudad de México

For general inquiries:

Phone: 55 5080 5200
Email: contactociudadano@cofepris.gob.mx

For technical inquiries:

Call Center (CAT) Phone: 800 033 5050 (toll free within Mexico) or 55 53 40 09 96 (international calls) (per MEX-37)

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

An overview of the FDA structure is available in USA-33. Several centers are responsible for pharmaceutical and biological product regulation, including the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Additionally, per USA-88, the Office of Clinical Policy (OCLP) develops clinical research policies, regulation, and guidance in collaboration with the FDA’s medical product centers.

Office for Human Research Protections and Common Rule Agencies

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

USA-65 states that the Common Rule (Pre2018-ComRule and RevComRule) outlines the basic provisions for institutional ethics committees (ECs) (referred to as institutional review boards (IRBs) in the US), informed consent, and Assurances of Compliance. See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on US departments and agencies that follow the Common Rule, which are referred to as Common Rule departments/agencies throughout the profile.

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

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

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

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

Other Considerations

Per USA-16, the US is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The US has implemented E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1) (US-ICH-GCP), among other ICH guidance. See USA-19 for the implementation status of all ICH guidelines. Additionally, see USA-22 and USA-47 for links to ICH guidance documents implemented by the FDA.

Contact Information

Food & Drug Administration

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

Main FDA Telephone (general inquiries): (888) 463-6332

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
CBER Telephone: (800) 835-4709 or (240) 402-8010
CBER Email (manufacturers assistance): Industry.Biologics@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (imports): CBERimportinquiry@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (exports): CBERExportCert@fda.hhs.gov

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
Division of Drug Information
10001 New Hampshire Avenue
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor
Silver Spring, MD 20993
CDER Telephone (drug information): (301) 796-3400
CDER Email: druginfo@fda.hhs.gov

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

Department of Health & Human Services

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

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

Overview

In accordance with GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is the regulatory authority responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving all requests for research protocol authorization in human beings and/or their biological samples using registered or unregistered investigational products (IPs). Per NOM-257-SSA1-2014, COFEPRIS requires biotechnological drugs used in clinical research studies to follow the same protocol authorization procedure as is required for all IPs. COFEPRIS-GCP and HlthResRegs specify that the scope of COFEPRIS’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV). (Note: COFEPRIS refers to applications as requests or procedures and refers to official procedure codes as homoclaves).

As indicated in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, COFEPRIS’s review and approval of a protocol authorization request is dependent upon obtaining a favorable decision from the health institution’s Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Research Committee where the study is being conducted, and when applicable, the Biosafety Committee. Therefore, the COFEPRIS and EC reviews may not be conducted in parallel. In addition, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the REC’s favorable decision is only later submitted to COFEPRIS with the protocol authorization request. Refer to the Ethics Committee section for detailed information on the REC, and the Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for additional information on the Research Committee and Biosafety Committee.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As delineated in GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, and MEX-88, COFEPRIS’s Health Authorization Commission (Comisión de Autorización Sanitaria (CAS)) is responsible for issuing, extending, or revoking requests for human research protocol authorizations. According to Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, G-HumResProt, MEX-88 and MEX-104, CAS’s technical review and approval of research protocol submissions and amendments are managed through COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86). See MEX-104 for a flowchart of CAS’s review and approval process via MEX-86.

Per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, which simplifies COFEPRIS’s administrative review process, requests for human research protocol authorization have been merged into a single procedure, the Application for Authorization of a Research Protocol on Human Beings (Homoclave COFEPRIS-04-010). The merged requests include those for medicines, biologicals, and biotechnologicals; medications (bioequivalence studies); new non-pharmacological medical methods or materials; and risk-free research (observational studies).

Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts specify that protocol modification applications (Homoclave COFEPRIS-09-012) must be submitted to CAS to amend the underlying documents including the research protocol, the investigator’s brochure (also known as researcher’s manual in Mexico), and the informed consent/assent form. Other types of amendments include: the inclusion of research centers, research center address and/or name changes, principal investigator (PI) changes, research team changes, emergency center address and/or name changes, evaluation committee changes (REC, Research Committee, or Biosafety Committee), security amendment(s), authorization holder (or owner) address and/or name changes, sponsor address and/or name changes, importer change or addition, and other modifications. See Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and MEX-87 for additional information.

As indicated in G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, CAS will begin its evaluation process once the applicant submits an application via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) to request protocol authorization or to modify/amend a protocol authorization. The stages involved in this process are as follows:

• Request (user submits an authorization application request under Homoclave COFEPRIS-04-010 or COFEPRIS-09-012)
• Evaluation (CAS reviews and processes the application)
• Verification (CAS verifies the draft resolution to confirm whether to approve, deny, or request additional information)
• Signature (CAS signs the resolution)
• Resolution (Signed resolution is released to the user)

G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts further note that once COFEPRIS issues an official authorization, some of the data provided by an applicant via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) is automatically migrated to its National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC v2.0)) database (MEX-68). Per MEX-88, MEX-68 was integrated into MEX-86 as RNEC v2.0. See Submission Process section for detailed DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) submission requirements.

(Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.)

In addition, per Reg-HlthProd, applicants must submit a request to COFEPRIS to obtain a health registration for biosimilar biotechnological drug products. The specific requirements for the approval of each biosimilar biotechnological drug (e.g., in vitro studies, preclinical study reports, and comparative pharmacokinetic study reports) will be determined by the Ministry of Health, who will take into consideration the opinion of the Committee of New Molecules. When there is no relevant information in the Pharmacopoeia of the United Mexican States (Farmacopea de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (FEUM)) and its supplements, nor in national guides or monographs, the Ministry may evaluate biosimilar tests using clinical data obtained from biosimilar biotechnological drug studies conducted in other countries. However, clinical trials are required to be conducted in Mexico when an applicant requests the renewal of an approval for a biosimilar biotechnological drug product.

Additionally, per NOM-177-SSA1-2013 and NOM-177-SSA1-2013-Mod, COFEPRIS requires interchangeability and biocomparability studies for generic and biosimilar (biocomparable) drugs; these studies maybe conducted in Mexico or in other countries and must be performed by authorized third parties in accordance with applicable testing and procedural requirements. See NOM-177-SSA1-2013, NOM-177-SSA1-2013-Mod, and MEX-120 for details.

Reliance Reviews

Under Agrmnt_FRAAuth, COFEPRIS issued an agreement establishing the list of Foreign Regulatory Authorities (FRAs) and the criteria for recognizing prior FRA authorizations of research protocols involving human beings using the regulatory “reliance” model. In evaluating applications, COFEPRIS will use reliance to consider the regulatory decisions submitted and approved by one (1) of the following FRAs:

• European Medicines Agency (EMA)
• US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
• Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), United Kingdom
• Health Canada

Agrmnt_FRAAuth also notes that human research protocol applications must only include:

• Phase III research protocol submissions
• Trials authorized through regulatory processes under an ordinary evaluation scheme (i.e., this does not include trials approved by reliance, accelerated, or expedited methods)
• Trials with non-adaptive trial designs or designs that do not allow planned changes or that do not correspond to master protocols
• Trials that correspond to the following areas: oncology, endocrinology, cardiology, rheumatology, allergology, neurology, dermatology, pulmonology, gastroenterology, hematology, ophthalmology and nephrology, and/or those that address pathologies of high epidemiological impact in Mexico (e.g., diabetes mellitus, hypertension, lung cancer, melanoma, colon cancer, B cell lymphoma)
• Active trials (i.e., trials that are not suspended or cancelled)
• Investigational product (IP) trials that do not have special alerts or warnings from other regulatory authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO)
• Trials of drugs that have not been withdrawn from the market in any country for reasons of safety, efficacy, and quality

See Agrmnt_FRAAuth the additional details. See also the Submission Process and Timeline of Review sections for information on application submission procedures and review timelines.

UHAP Evaluations

Per HlthResRegs, prior to submitting an authorization request, applicants may also obtain a pre-assessment evaluation by an authorized third party that helps to facilitate COFEPRIS’s review. MEX-21 and MEX-10 explain that rather than submitting the application directly to COFEPRIS, the applicant has the option of first choosing to obtain a pre-assessment (third party) evaluation of the application through an Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamen (UHAP)) (MEX-69) within the Coordinating Commission of National Institutes of Health and High Specialty Hospitals (Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad (CCINSHAE)) (referred to as the UHAP-CCINSHAE) or a UHAP within the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)). MEX-9 states that the CCINSHAE oversees (12) UHAPs. According to MEX-90, the Faculty of Medicine of the Autonomous University of Nuevo León (Facultad de Medicina de Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL)) UHAP is another third-party unit authorized by COFEPRIS to assist in the evaluation and assessment of human research protocols. Refer to MEX-19, MEX-69, and MEX-70 for detailed information on the CCINSHAE, the IMSS, and the UANL UHAP application submission requirements and evaluation process. See also HlthResRegs for information on the third party authorization process by the Secretariat, and MEX-10 and MEX-98 for additional information on authorized third parties. See Timeline of Review section for timeline information on submitting UHAP applications.

According to MEX-10, the UHAP has a maximum of 30 calendar days to respond to an evaluation request. See the Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for detailed UHAP information.

Inspections

As outlined in MEX-88, COFEPRIS carries out health surveillance inspections (known as health verification visits) of all the parties responsible for conducting, developing, and monitoring authorized research protocols (e.g., sponsors, owners/authorization holders, RECs, Research Committees, Biosafety Committees, the PI, research centers, emergency care centers, and contract research organizations). The inspections are intended to:

• Confirm compliance with applicable legislative requirements
• Obtain information and identify health anomalies in the establishment’s physical and sanitary conditions
• Verify the clinical research studies are carried out in accordance with the provisions of authorized research protocols, as well as national and international regulations
• Ensure compliance with standards regarding ethics in clinical research, good clinical practice (GCP) and good manufacturing practice (GMP)

Refer to MEX-93 for the verification report health inspectors use to ensure compliance in clinical trial sites. See also MEX-92 for a complete list of verification reports related to medicines and other health supplies.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A drug is involved as defined in the FDCAct

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

• The clinical investigation is not otherwise exempt from 21CFR312

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As stated in 21CFR312, the FDA will accept, as support for an IND, a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND. The study must have been conducted in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP), and the FDA must be able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the agency deems it necessary. Although the FDA will not accept as support for an IND a study that does not meet those conditions, the FDA will still examine data from such a study. See 21CFR312 and the G-FrgnCT for more details on submitting data from a foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND as support for an IND.

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

Per the G-FDAInspct, the FDA developed a Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) Program to help ensure the protection of the rights, safety, and welfare of human research subjects involved in FDA-regulated clinical trials, to verify the accuracy and reliability of clinical trial data submitted to the FDA in support of research or marketing applications, and to assess compliance with statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials. Among other activities, the FDA BIMO Program involves site visits to clinical investigators, sponsors, monitors, contract research organizations, ECs, nonclinical (animal) laboratories, and bioequivalence analytical laboratories. The FDA conducts both announced and unannounced inspections of clinical investigator sites. See the G-FDAInspct and USA-20 for more information on FDA inspections and the BIMO Program.

Expedited Processes

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

For information on the appropriate use of adaptive designs for clinical trials and additional information to provide the FDA to support its review, see G-AdaptiveTrials. Additionally, see the G-ExplrtryIND for FDA guidance regarding exploratory studies in humans.

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

Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS)

As indicated in G-HumResProt, G-ResProtocolAmd, MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant is responsible for paying a non-refundable fee to submit a request for research protocol authorization to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)).

G-HumResProt, G-ResProtocolAmd, and MEX-11 delineate the following fees (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Research protocol authorization (medicines, biological, and biotechnological in humans): 7,896 Mexican Pesos
• Research protocol amendment, modification, or addition of new research centers: 5,922 Mexican Pesos

For health permit authorization, the fees are as follows:

• Health permit to import investigational products for research purposes: 7,033.09 Mexican Pesos (G-UnregDrugImprts)
• Health permit to import cells and tissues including blood, its components, and derivatives: 866.45 Mexican Pesos (G-ImprtPermit)
• Health permit modification to import cells and tissues including blood, its components, and derivatives: 649.84 Mexican Pesos (G-ImprtPermitMod)
• Health permit to export cells and tissues including blood, its components, and derivatives: 866.45 Mexican Pesos (G-ExprtPermit)

As indicated in MEX-10, the fee for requesting a pre-assessment application evaluation through an Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamen (UHAP)) (MEX-69) within the Coordinating Commission of National Institutes of Health and High Specialty Hospitals (Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad (CCINSHAE)) (referred to as the UHAP-CCINSHAE) is 60,000 Mexican Pesos. The cost is the same for obtaining a review from any of the UHAPs within CCINSHAE. In addition, if the applicant selects a scientific committee within an institution that has a UHAP, the cost is 40,000 Mexican Pesos. The cost for each amendment is 3,500 Mexican Pesos, and corrections to the pre-assessment document are free.

Payment Instructions

As explained in G-HumResProt, G-ResProtocolAmd, G-UnregDrugImprts, G-ImprtPermit, G-ImprtPermitMod, and G-ExprtPermit, fees must be paid to the applicant’s preferred bank. See G-ResProtocolAmd, G-UnregDrugImprts, G-ImprtPermitMod, and MEX-84 for access to a procedure-based form to pay fees at a chosen banking institution.

Refer to G-ResProtocolAmd, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts for additional information on this process.

Food & Drug Administration

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

However, per the FDCAct, the FDARA, and USA-45, the FDA has the authority to collect user fees from persons that submit certain human drug applications for review or that are named in approved applications as the sponsor of certain prescription drug products. See USA-45 for more information.

Overview

As delineated in GenHlthLaw, HlthResRegs, REC-Op, REC-Op-Ref, G-RECs-Op-2018, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Mexico has a decentralized process for the ethics review and approval of clinical trial research. Accordingly, every health care institution which carries out research activities in human beings is required to have a Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) that is responsible for evaluating and ruling on research protocols in human beings. RECs are subject to current legislation and the criteria established by the National Bioethics Commission (Comisión Nacional de Bioética (CONBIOÉTICA)).

RECs must also comply with guidelines for the ethical evaluation of research involving human beings as delineated in GenHlthLaw, G-RECs-Op-2018, HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012. Pursuant to G-RECs-Op-2018, RECs must adhere to international guidelines relevant to research with human beings including the Declaration of Helsinki (MEX-76) and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (MEX-22)). (Note: Per MEX-2, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is in the process of implementing MEX-22).

In addition, per GenHlthLaw, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, every health institution where research is conducted is required to establish a Research Committee and a Biosafety Committee. Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, REC and Research Committee approval is required for each trial site where a study is being conducted, and when applicable, Biosafety Committee approval is required as well.

GenHlthLaw further notes that in addition to establishing a REC, public, social, or private sector health care establishments of the National Health System must have a Hospital Bioethics Committee for the resolution of problems arising from medical care along with engaging in other bioethical and ethical related activities.

As per HlthResRegs, REC-Op, REC-Op-Ref, G-RECs-Op-2018, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Hospital Bioethics Committees also operate through CONBIOÉTICA. MEX-47 specifies that CONBIOÉTICA is responsible for registering RECs and Hospital Bioethics Committees. See the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for details on ethics committee registration.

Ethics Committee Composition

Research Ethics Committee Composition

As indicated in GenHlthLaw, RECs must be interdisciplinary, gender-balanced groups composed of medical personnel from different specialties; professionals from psychology, nursing, social work, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, or law fields who have bioethics training; and community representatives affected by the health condition under study or other health services users who may or may not be attached to the health unit or institution. In addition to the previously stated criteria, G-RECs-Op-2018 indicates that these professionals should have a professional license and accredited training and experience in research ethics, good clinical practice, bioethics, and have experience related to the research area they will be evaluating. HlthResRegs further notes that the REC must consist of at least three (3) scientists including both genders and recommends that at least one (1) of them be based outside the health institution. The medical professionals should also represent the moral, cultural, and social values of the research groups. By comparison, NOM-012-SSA3-2012 states that REC health professionals should have expertise in the subjects investigated at the institution, regardless of whether the professionals have experience in the scientific methodology applied to the research. Further, the community representatives should embody the moral, cultural, and social values of the research participants.

Per REC-Op and REC-Op-Ref, the REC members must also be recognized and able to document their professional excellence in research/research bioethics, have personal records that prove ethical suitability and conduct, and advanced knowledge in qualitative and quantitative methodology. Additionally, GenHlthLaw, G-RECs-Op-2018, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 state that REC members may or may not be based at the associated institution where the study is being conducted.

Additionally, NOM-012-SSA3-2012 specifies that the REC should be composed of a minimum of three (3) scientists, plus community representatives, as deemed necessary, with a total of at least six (6) members and a maximum of 20. G-RECs-Op-2018, REC-Op, and REC-Op-Ref note that the REC should comprise a president, at least four (4) members, one (1) of whom will serve as secretary, a representative from the affected study group or other health services users, with at least one (1) member who has expertise in bioethics and research ethics, and internal or external specialists to be included on an as needed basis. G-RECs-Op-2018 also notes that the member acting as a representative is not required to have a professional license in research or medical care and may include individuals with basic education or technical training.

Hospital Bioethics Committee Composition

Per GenHlthLaw and G-CHBs-Op, Hospital Bioethics Committees must be multidisciplinary, diverse, gender-balanced groups composed of medical personnel from different specialties and the health team; professionals from psychology, nursing, social work, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy fields; lawyers with knowledge in health matters, and community representatives affected by the health condition under study or other health services users who may or may not be attached to the health unit or institution. G-CHBs-Op notes that the members must have previous bioethics training or receive the training within six (6) months after joining the Committee. See G-CHBs-Op for additional information.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

Research Ethics Committees

Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the constitution and operation of the REC will be subject to the provisions of current legislation and, where appropriate, to the criteria referred to in article 41 Bis of the GenHlthLaw. REC-Op, G-RECs-Op-2018, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP specify that RECs should operate within written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to conduct their reviews. REC-Op and G-RECs-Op-2018 indicate that the health institution owner must approve the SOPs and issue a certificate of appointment to each REC member. HlthResRegs, G-RECs-Op-2018, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 note that members must hold office for three (3) years and may be approved for an equal period.

Per REC-Op, G-RECs-Op-2018, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP, the following minimum requirements must be met (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• RECs must meet at least six (6) times a year, and at least once every two (2) months
• The minimum number of members required to complete a quorum must be greater than 50% of the members, and the president and/or secretary must be present to form a quorum
• In the evaluation of multicenter studies and when otherwise warranted, the REC may meet jointly with other RECs that belong to other establishments in the country, for the assessment and opinion for these protocols
• Minutes must be prepared for legal and administrative purposes in meetings
• An annual activities report should be presented to the institutional head in the first 30 calendar days of the year
• Conflicts of interest in protocol evaluations should be avoided or be declared disqualified for that particular review
• Participation is required in initial training and bioethics continuing education
• Liaisons with other RECs within and outside the country conducted to better carry out its functions
• A general policy on the confidentiality of information for reviewed protocols must be established and implemented
• A code of conduct for REC members must be established and implemented
• Members must refrain from participating in the evaluation and opinion of their own research
• Members will remain in office for the time established in each committee’s installation act and may be ratified at the end of each period, if applicable. Members may be replaced in a staggered manner, for which documentary evidence must be kept
• The committee will designate the person who will occupy the position of president and who will be responsible to the head of the institution or establishment and for the committee’s activities
• In the committee sessions, members of external committees may participate or have the support of external advisors, who will have a voice but no vote. In these cases, researchers from the institution or establishment itself may also participate as long as they work in areas related to the project or research protocol subject in the opinion phase
• It is the responsibility of the committee to issue the technical opinion on ethics, according to the nature of the proposed investigations

For detailed REC procedures and information on other administrative processes, see REC-Op, G-RECs-Op-2018, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP. See also MEX-72 for information on CONBIOÉTICA’s REC follow-up monitoring reports.

As per G-RECs-Op-2018, the REC should also keep documentation related to its integration, operation, and registration activities for up to three (3) years after the conclusion of the committee’s activities. The committee should also define the procedure for transferring the files and appoint the responsible person at the institution where the REC registration was granted. In addition, the REC will keep all the essential documents reviewed and related to each evaluated investigation, up to five (5) years following the end of the investigation or during the period established in the applicable provisions.

See G-RECs-Op-2018 for additional REC recordkeeping requirements.

Hospital Bioethics Committees

As indicated in G-CHBs-Op, Hospital Bioethics Committees must establish operating rules, which specify member functions as well as the internal mechanisms and procedures for operations during the sessions. Per G-CHBs-Op and GenHlthLaw, the Committee promotes, with the head of the hospital, the dissemination, elaboration, and implementation of institutional bioethical guidelines and guides for medical care and teaching. GenHlthLaw notes the Hospital Bioethics Committees must comply with current legislation and CONBIOÉTICA guidelines. For detailed Hospital Bioethics Committee procedures and information on other administrative processes, see G-CHBs-Op.

Overview

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

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

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

(See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

Additionally, 21CFR56 indicates that efforts must be made to ensure that no EC consists entirely of men or entirely of women, including the institution’s consideration of qualified persons of both sexes, so long as no selection is made to the EC on the basis of gender. No EC may consist entirely of members of one (1) profession.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, per the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the G-HHS-Inst-Engagemt, any institution engaged in non-exempt human subjects research conducted or supported by a Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-18 and USA-65) must also submit a written assurance of compliance to OHRP. According to USA-59, the Federalwide Assurance (FWA) is the only type of assurance of compliance accepted and approved by OHRP for HHS-funded research. See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

Overview

According to HlthResRegs, REC-Op, and G-RECs-Op-2018, the primary scope of information assessed by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of human research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. Per HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018, RECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed vulnerable. (See Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations.)

HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018 also state that RECs must ensure an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants, and they must verify the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. See HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018 for detailed ethical review guidelines.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant must obtain a favorable decision from the REC and the Research Committee at the health institution where the study is being conducted, and when applicable, a favorable decision from the Biosafety Committee. As per COFEPRIS-GCP, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the REC must provide a favorable decision for the research protocol and informed consent form prior to the applicant submitting a request for protocol authorization to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)). Consequently, the REC and COFEPRIS reviews may not be conducted in parallel.

HlthResRegs and GenHlthLaw, explain that the REC provides ethics recommendations on protocols for research in human beings, including a review of the research risks and benefits. HlthResRegs further notes that RECs also prepare ethics guidelines for conducting research in humans.

As delineated in G-RECs-Op-2018, the REC agenda and documents corresponding to each session should be delivered at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. It is then recommended that the REC’s decision be sent within a period not exceeding five (5) working days after the committee has met, or if applicable, not to exceed 30 calendar days from the review request date. G-RECs-Op-2018 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also state that the approval of a new application is valid for one (1) year.

After obtaining a favorable opinion from the REC that validated the initial project or protocol, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the principal investigator (PI) must submit an amended protocol to the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) to request a new authorization for any amendments to be made to the methodological design of the initial research project. In those cases where the lives of research participants are endangered, amendments can be applied immediately, prior to approval by the REC and authorization by the Ministry of Health. However, in these situations, it will be necessary for the PI to provide documentary evidence following the event to the REC and the Ministry.

In addition, G-RECs-Op-2018 indicates that the REC should establish procedures for monitoring approved studies, from the point at which the decision was made until the completion of the investigation and reporting of results. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and G-RECs-Op-2018, the REC must assess and approve the research protocol at the beginning of the project, and periodically throughout the project’s duration to ensure conformance with ethical principles and applicable regulations. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 further specifies that the REC must propose to the head of the institution or establishment where health research is carried out that the research be suspended or cancelled in the presence of any adverse effect that is an impediment from an ethical or technical point of view to continue with the study.

(See Submission Process and Timeline of Review sections for detailed REC submission process and timeline details.)

Overview

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

See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule indicate that changes in approved research may not be initiated without EC review and approval except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to participants.

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

See the G-IRBResp for FDA guidance for ECs on reviewing the adequacy of investigators and research sites, and determining if an IND or investigational device exemption is required. The FDA’s G-SubRecruit also provides guidance for ECs on reviewing participant recruitment methods.

Expedited Review

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

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

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

Continuing Review and Re-approval

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

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

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

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

Exemptions under the Revised Common Rule

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

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

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

USA-32 notes that the regulations do not specify who at an institution may determine that research is exempt, and that institutions should implement exemption policies that most effectively address the local setting and programs of research. The HHS retains final authority as to whether a particular human subjects research study conducted or supported by HHS is exempt.

See the G-IRBFAQs, the G-OHRP-IRBApprvl, and USA-32 for frequently asked questions regarding EC procedures, approval with conditions, example research, expedited review, limited review, continuing review, and exempt research.

Other Considerations

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

As stated in the G-IRBWaiver, sponsors and sponsor-investigators may request a waiver of EC requirements for drug and biological product studies regulated by the FDA. The most common circumstance for which the FDA receives a waiver request is when a sponsor wishes to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. In this case, typically sponsors utilize an independent ethics committee (IEC) that operates in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP). See the G-IRBWaiver for more information.

Additionally, see the G-IRBTransfer for FDA guidance on the regulatory responsibilities of ECs, clinical investigators, and sponsors when oversight of a previously approved, ongoing clinical investigation under the FDA’s jurisdiction is transferred from one (1) EC to another EC.

Cooperative Research Studies

In the event of multicenter clinical studies, also known as cooperative research studies, taking place at US institutions that are subject to the RevComRule, the institutions must rely on a single EC to review that study for the portion of the study conducted in the US. The reviewing EC will be identified by the Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-18 and USA-65) supporting or conducting the research or proposed by the lead institution subject to the acceptance of the department/agency. The exceptions to this requirement include: when multicenter review is required by law (including tribal law) or for research where any federal department or agency supporting or conducting the research determines that the use of a single EC is not appropriate.

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

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

As set forth in G-RECs-Op-2018, COFEPRIS-GCP, and REC-Op, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) (Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEIs)) do not charge sponsors/investigators for their review. Rather, the health institution must finance REC operating expenses, without this causing any conflict of interest in the committee’s functions.

G-RECs-Op-2018 further states that the institution may also receive support from external sources for evaluating protocols. However, this funding should not be given directly to any of the REC members, and the contributions should not lead to a conflict of interest between the funding source and the REC’s functions. Similarly, the committee’s evaluations should not result in financial gains as a result of these contributions.

Per G-RECs-Op-2018, REC financial support should not be used for purposes other than for its operation, and all activities should be handled with full transparency. Support is provided for the following activities:

• Time for participation in committee meetings
• Work recognition for their performance in the REC
• Support for training in bioethics and research ethics inside and outside the institution
• Physical space for the REC headquarters, both for meetings and receipt of documents, and safeguarding of documentation protocols, opinions, and minutes
• Administrative assistance for REC activities

No information is available on Hospital Bioethics Committee fees.

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

Overview

The National Bioethics Commission (Comisión Nacional de Bioética (CONBIOÉTICA)) was established as a decentralized entity of the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) in 2005, as specified in D-CONBIOETICA. According to D-CONBIOETICA and MEX-55, the agency has technical and operational autonomy in defining and establishing national bioethics policies in medical care and health research. Per D-CONBIOETICA, GenHlthLaw, G-RECs-Op-2018, and MEX-57, CONBIOÉTICA is also responsible for promoting the organization and operation of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) (Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEIs)) and Hospital Bioethics Committees in public and private health institutions, for establishing and disseminating criteria to support development of REC activities, and for providing committee member training support.

In addition, per D-CONBIOETICA, CONBIOÉTICA’s other roles include:

• Exercising the Commission’s legal authority and head Commission operations
• Presiding over the Commission’s Advisory Council
• Issuing positions on bioethical issues relevant to society
• Establishing links with federal entities to promote the creation and operation of state bioethics commissions
• Signing and implementing collaborative agreements with organizations and opportunities that favor the development and consolidation of bioethical culture
• Carrying out activities assigned by the Secretary of Health
• Providing information and technical cooperation required by the Ministry of Health’s administrative units and other dependencies/entities within the Federal Public Administration

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Research Ethics Committees

As delineated in HlthResRegs, REC-Op, REC-Op-Ref, REC-Op-Amd, G-RECs-Op-2018, G-RECReg, and MEX-57, all RECs are required to register with CONBIOÉTICA in order to conduct health research in humans.

G-RECs-Op-2018, and G-RECReg further state that CONBIOÉTICA has 10 working days from the business day following application receipt to accept the application, or require the applicant to correct omissions in the application within 15 working days from the business day following the date when the applicant is notified. If the applicant fails to respond within this timeframe, the application must be deemed not filed. Once the application has been admitted for processing, the Commission has 30 working days to notify the applicant of receipt, and if appropriate, to issue the corresponding registration certificate, which will be valid for three (3) years. The registration record must also be visibly displayed in the institution where REC operations occur and on its website, if applicable. Additionally, the registration number must be included in all official committee communications.

Per REC-Op-Amd, MEX-58, and G-RECReg, the REC registration form (MEX-29) is available for completion or download via MEX-58 or G-RECReg, and should be submitted in person according to the requirements outlined in REC-Op-Amd, MEX-58, and G-RECReg. The application must include the REC’s health institution identification data, an email address in order to receive Commission notifications, and the name and signature of the responsible person heading the REC. G-RECReg specifies that the applicant may request an appointment by phone or email to deliver all the documentation in printed form to CONBIOÉTICA, or send the application documentation via certified mail.

Refer to REC-Op-Amd, G-RECs-Op-2018, MEX-58, and G-RECReg for detailed registration application instructions and documentation requirements. See also MEX-57 for a list of registered RECs. See MEX-100 for REC registration renewal instructions.

As delineated in REC-Op-Amd, G-RECs-Op-2018, and G-RECRegRenew, a registration renewal application must be submitted by the principal or owner of the health establishment or by the legal representative to CONBIOÉTICA within 45 working days prior to the expiration of the validation period covered by the registration certificate. From this point, the timing requirements are the same as for the initial application. See REC-Op-Amd, G-RECs-Op-2018, and G-RECRegRenew for detailed registration renewal application requirements and the application form.

In addition to CONBIOÉTICA’s REC registration requirement, per GenHlthLaw, G-RECs-Op-2018, REC-Op, and REC-Op-Ref, RECs must be installed under the responsibility of the head of the health institution where the study is taking place. They are required to sign a REC Installation Certificate (MEX-27), which stipulates its characteristics and functions. Refer to G-RECs-Op-2018 for detailed certificate requirements. See also MEX-72 for information on CONBIOÉTICA’s REC follow-up monitoring reports.

According to NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the research institution owner must also register the REC with the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud), and report on the modification, designation, or substitution of any of its members. Additionally, an annual report documenting the integration and activities of these committees must be submitted to the Ministry during the first 10 business days of June each year.

Hospital Bioethics Committees

G-CHBs-Op indicates that Hospital Bioethics Committees must also register with CONBIOÉTICA, who is, in turn, required to issue a registration record within a maximum of 15 business days. However, G-CHBReg states that CONBIOÉTICA is required to issue a registration within 25 days. CONBIOÉTICA’s registration is valid for three (3) years. Per G-CHBs-Op, the Hospital Bioethics Committee registration form must be submitted electronically through CONBIOÉTICA’s website. The application for registration renewal can be submitted one (1) month prior to the registration’s expiration date. Refer to G-CHBs-Op, MEX-56, MEX-59, and G-CHBReg for additional Hospital Bioethics Committee registration information.

Overview

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and RevComRule, institutions engaging in research conducted or supported by a Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-18 and USA-65) must obtain an approved assurance that it will comply with the Pre2018-ComRule or RevComRule requirements and certify to the department/agency heads that the research has been reviewed and approved by an EC provided for in the assurance.

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

See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

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

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

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

Overview

In accordance with GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Mexico requires the applicant to submit a request to obtain research protocol authorization from the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)). Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant must also obtain a favorable decision from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee at the health institution where the study is being conducted, and when applicable, a favorable decision from the Biosafety Committee. Because COFEPRIS’s review and approval of a protocol authorization request is dependent upon obtaining a favorable decision from the REC and Research Committee, the COFEPRIS and ethics committee (REC and Research Committee) reviews may not be conducted in parallel.

Regulatory Submission

Pre-submission Registrations

As delineated in G-DIGIPRiS-Regis, prior to submitting a protocol authorization request to COFEPRIS, an applicant must first register in COFEPRIS’S digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86), using an e.signature (also known as e.firma) digital certificate. An e.signature can be obtained from the Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT)) as described in MEX-83. See G-DIGIPRiS-Regis, G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess, and MEX-89, for additional details on registering in MEX-86. See also MEX-106 for an instructional tutorial on registering in MEX-86, and see G-DIGIPRiS-FAQs for frequently asked questions on using MEX-86.

DIGIPRiS Submissions

As per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, G-HumResProt, and MEX-89, research protocol authorization and amendment/modification requests must be submitted electronically via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86). MEX-89 specifies that an exception to this requirement is if the user is required to present printed documents with a handwritten signature, or a physical inspection is required. Per G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts and MEX-89, the application request will be considered active when the documentation is signed and submitted, otherwise it will only remain in the system for 90 calendar days. According to G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, and MEX-89, once the procedure has begun, the user will be notified in MEX-86 of all request-related administrative acts (known as resolutions) (e.g., approvals, denials, and requests for additional information). Additionally, per G-DIGIPRiS-SystAccess, multiple requests and procedures can be in process simultaneously in MEX-86. Refer to G-DIGIPRiS-DocComp for instructions on validating and comparing research protocol documents issued through MEX-86. See also MEX-106 for additional DIGIPRiS user guides. (Note: COFEPRIS refers to applications as requests or procedures).

Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and MEX-87 further indicate that COFEPRIS will not request documentation in its physical or electronic files if the information was previously obtained in paper or electronic form. Per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, once the research protocol has been authorized, applicants must submit the required documentation within 15 business days (See the Submission Content section for details.) Applications that do not include all required and accurate information outlined in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs may be revoked. If this occurs, applicants must resubmit their application to prevent delays in processing.

Per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, for protocol authorization and protocol modification/amendment requests, the application must also include the original proof of payment along with two (2) copies of the receipt, as well as one (1) copy of a simple power of attorney for natural persons (i.e., a third-party signature, validation, certification, authorization, or approval), or, a public instrument which accredits legal representation must be presented for legal entities, if applicable. The G-HumResProt also indicates the same requirements for protocol authorization.

Per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, all documents uploaded to DIGIPRiS (MEX-86) must be in “.pdf” format (unrestricted text file), unless another format is specified. In addition, G-HumResProt and G-ResProtocolAmd indicate that all documentation related to submitting applications for research protocol authorization and protocol modification/amendment must be in Spanish. MEX-84 also specifies that the protocol, investigator’s brochure (known as the researcher’s manual in Mexico), and the informed consent forms should be in Spanish.

(Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.)

In addition, as specified in Agrmnt_FRAAuth, research protocol applications relying on prior authorizations from Foreign Regulatory Authorities (FRAs) under the regulatory “reliance” model must be submitted exclusively via DIGIPRiS (MEX-86). A certified, legalized, or apostilled copy (with Spanish translation) of the FRA’s authorization to conduct the clinical protocol must be attached under “Other documents.” The authorization must be issued within one (1) year to ensure document traceability. Copies of the protocol and the investigator’s brochure (IB) in English with Spanish translations must also be provided; only the Spanish versions require approval by the respective committees in Mexico. See the Scope of Assessment section for additional requirements governing the FRA reliance model.

As per MEX-71, for technical inquiries related to submitted procedures, applicants may contact the Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS):

Call Center (CAT) Phone: 800 033 5050 (toll free within Mexico) or 55 53 40 09 96 (international calls) (per MEX-37)
Email: contactociudadano@cofepris.gob.mx

See also MEX-37, G-CIS, and G-CISMod for additional information on the CIS.

Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (UHAP) Evaluation Submissions

Per MEX-21 and MEX-10, rather than submitting an application directly to COFEPRIS, an applicant may choose to have their application pre-assessed through an Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamen (UHAP)) (MEX-69). A UHAP may be selected from the Coordinating Commission of National Institutes of Health and High Specialty Hospitals (Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad (CCINSHAE)) (referred to as the UHAP-CCINSHAE) or from the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)). See Scope of Assessment section for detailed information on UHAPs.

Ethics Review Submission

As earlier stated, per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, all requests for research protocol authorization in human beings and/or their biological samples in Mexico require the applicant to obtain a favorable decision from the REC and the Research Committee, and when applicable, a favorable decision from the Biosafety Committee. Because the submission process at individual institutional RECs will vary, applicants should review and follow their institution’s specific requirements.

Overview

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

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

Regulatory Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the G-eCTDspecs, eCTD submissions sized 10 GB and under for most applications must be submitted via the Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG), and the FDA also recommends the use of the ESG for submissions greater than 10 GB when possible. However, USA-44 notes that the ESG has been retired and the Electronic Submissions Gateway Next Generation (ESG NextGen) should be utilized for all electronic submissions to the FDA. See USA-37 for ESG NextGen submission user guides.

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

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

Based on information provided in 21CFR312, for paper IND submissions, the sponsor must submit an original and two (2) copies, including the original submission and all amendments and reports. According to USA-41 and USA-94, paper submissions of INDs should be sent to CDER or CBER at the following locations, as appropriate:

Drugs (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Therapeutic Biological Product (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research-Regulated Products:

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

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

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As delineated in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, the following documentation must be submitted to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) as part of the approval process (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Online application form (Authorization, Certificates and Visits form) (MEX-25) (see MEX-18 for instructions on completing MEX-25)
• Simple power of attorney, for natural persons (i.e., a third-party signature, validation, certification, authorization, or approval), or a public instrument which accredits legal representation for legal entities, if applicable
• Payment receipt and request letter
• Duly completed single form by institutional/establishment head where research will be conducted (one (1) copy) (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
• Duly completed single form by principal investigator (PI)/research team (including certificates of studies accrediting technical competence, good clinical practice (GCP), and specialized experience by PI/research team (one (1) copy)) (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
• Duly completed single form by sponsor (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
• Single Committee form which consolidates approvals from applicable committees, duly required (one (1) copy) (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
• Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) Registry (one (1) copy)
• Research protocol (one (1) copy)
• Study schedule (one (1) copy)
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB) (also known as Researcher’s Manual in Mexico) or equivalent document (one (1) copy)
• Informed consent form
• Research site(s)
• Emergency care center (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs)
• Certificate of compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) for investigational products (IPs) or equivalent document, stability report, and IP/placebo results, except for risk-free research (observational studies) (one (1) copy)

(Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.)

In addition, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs states that once the research protocol has been authorized, applicants must submit within 15 business days, the following:

• Consent and/or informed assent, previously approved by the Research Ethics Committee
• Study insurance (Policy/Certificate) or current financial fund that certifies coverage for research participants, and
• Standard form for medical emergencies and the agreement or contract for the care of medical emergencies, if applicable

Risk-free research (observational studies) only requires the REC-approved consent and/or informed assent form to be submitted per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs.

Refer to Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts for more detailed submission information. See also MEX-36 for information on obtaining a certificate of GMP.

As outlined in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, for any protocol authorization amendment or modification (COFEPRIS-09-012), applicants must submit a Single Amendment or Modification Request Form (See form in Single Annex in Agrmnt_ResProtProcs) and proof of payment. If applicable, a simple power of attorney for natural persons (i.e., a third-party signature, validation, certification, authorization, or approval), or a public instrument which accredits legal representation for legal entities, if applicable, must also be provided. In addition, per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, specific documentation are required depending on which of the following amendment/modification categories is being updated:

• Protocol, informed consent/assent, or IB
• Center inclusion
• Research center change
• PI change
• Research team changes
• Emergency care center changes
• Evaluation committee changes
• Security amendment
• Establishment owner change
• Sponsor change
• Change/addition of importer
• Other modifications

See also Scope of Assessment and Timeline of Review sections for additional COFEPRIS review process and timeline information.

Ethics Committee Requirements

As indicated in MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the following documentation should be submitted to obtain the favorable opinion of the REC, the Research Committee, and where appropriate, the Biosafety Committee:

• Full title and number of the research protocol
• Research protocol with the version and date in Spanish
• IB with the version and date in Spanish
• Full name of the IP corresponding to the research center
• Research center company name and address
• Informed consent forms with the version and date in Spanish
• Protocol summary
• Detailed description of the documents evaluated and approved in Spanish, citing version and date
• Validity of the approval opinion (not greater than one (1) year)
• Name, position, and signature of the person responsible who supports the opinion
• Confirmation of the evaluation of aspects of a scientific nature, the risk/benefit of the protocol as well as the guarantee and well-being of the participants

Additionally, a signed opinion issued on letterhead should be submitted that includes:

• Committee name and address (in accordance with its current registration)
• Date the opinion was issued
• PI name
• Company name and address of the research center
• Title of the study and protocol number
• Status/result of the evaluation of the documents (must be approved)
• Date of issue of the opinion (day, month, and year)
• Name and position of the signatory who supports the opinion (must be the President or the Secretary Member)

G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, also notes that only the opinions with the signature of the President of the REC (or, where appropriate, the Secretary-Vocal) will be accepted with a letter attached stating “NO VOTE” or a justification for the absence of the president. See MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts for additional ethics committee requirements.

However, per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, COFEPRIS has published a Single Committee form, which merges the REC, Research Committee, and where applicable, Biosafety Committee documentation requirements into a single form. The form includes a section for the appropriate committee to provide information concerning its review and approval of the research protocol based on the following elements:

• PI and research center names
• Committee session data (including folio, protocol number, session data, approval date, session type (ordinary/extraordinary), and minutes number)
• Research protocol data (including protocol number, study phase, title, short title, study risk level, research sponsor)
• List of approved documents (including document names, versions, and dates)
• List of committee members (including names, professions/disciplines, and positions)
• Committee registration data (including establishment name or business name, address, registration number, start of validity or issue date, validity, expiration date)
• Declaration of no conflict of interest and confidentiality
• Research monitoring (periodic and continuous monitoring)
• Express declaration of no vote for each member who is part of the research team

See Agrmnt_ResProtProcs for detailed requirements.

G-HumResProt also indicates that the Single Committee form should provide information related to the tests performed on the IP for a specific period of time under the influence of temperature, humidity, or light in the container that contains it, to ensure its shelf life from the date of manufacture to the date of the last administration.

Clinical Protocol

As set forth in MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, which are in compliance with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (MEX-22) and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the research protocol should include the following elements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Title, acronym, and protocol number (corresponds to the opinion of the committee(s) evaluators)
• Document version and date, and amendments (if applicable) (corresponds to the opinion of the committee(s) evaluators)
• Sponsor name/address and monitor, if different from sponsor
• Theoretical framework (IP name/description, preclinical findings summary, etc.)
• Definition of problem
• Participant selection and withdrawal criteria
• Statement that the clinical trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol, good clinical practices, and local regulatory requirements
• Background
• Rationale
• Hypotheses (if applicable, includes statistical hypotheses)
• General objective (if applicable, includes specific, primary, secondary, or exploratory objectives)
• Materials and methods
• Study design (e.g., inclusion/exclusion and elimination criteria; information input, processing, analysis, and interpretation)
• Phase and type of study
• Study duration
• Sample size (global and local, as appropriate)
• Countries where the research will be carried out
• Health conditions or problems studied
• Capture, processing, analysis, and interpretation of the information obtained
• Route of administration, dose, dosing regimen, and treatment period(s) and justification
• Accountability procedure for handling the IP and placebo (if applicable)
• Mechanisms for maintaining randomization and blinding (if applicable), and codes for breaking them (e.g., criteria for premature unblinding, etc.)
• Statistical considerations
• Ethical considerations
• Efficacy and safety assessments
• Study schedule (document detailing activities to be carried out during the investigation)
• Bibliographic references and relevant trial data
• Names and signatures of PI and associate researchers (no more than five (5), classified according to their involvement in the research project)
• Other documents related to the research project or protocol
• Optional pre-assessment evaluation opinion (See Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for details on pre-assessment evaluations)

In addition to the protocol submission, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, an additional letter should accompany the application. Please refer to NOM-012-SSA3-2012 for more specific letter instructions. See also MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts for more detailed protocol requirements. (Note: Per MEX-2, COFEPRIS is in the process of implementing MEX-22).

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

See 21CFR312 and the G-IPCharge for additional submission requirements if a sponsor is seeking FDA authorization to charge for the use of its own IP in a clinical trial.

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

As per 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the EC should obtain the following documents and must ensure the listed requirements are met prior to approving the study (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

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

Per the RevComRule, where limited EC review applies, the EC does not need to make the determinations outlined above. Rather, limited EC review includes determinations that broad consent will be/was obtained properly, that adequate protections are in place for safeguarding the privacy and confidentiality of participants, and (for secondary studies) that individual research results will not be returned to participants. See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

Additionally, the G-DecentralCT provides FDA recommendations for clinical trials with decentralized elements. According to the G-DecentralCT, the protocol should include specific instructions for limiting variability in the data collected. The protocol should specify which visits will be conducted at traditional clinical trial sites, which visits will be conducted remotely, and which visits can be left to participants’ choice. See the G-DecentralCT for additional guidance.

Overview

As delineated in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS))’s review and approval of a protocol authorization request is dependent upon obtaining a favorable decision from the health institution’s Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee, and where applicable, the Biosafety Committee. Therefore, COFEPRIS and ethics committee (REC, Research Committee, and Biosafety Committee) reviews may not be conducted in parallel. However, per HlthResRegs, the REC, the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee may meet together to decide whether to authorize a protocol to conduct research on humans, as appropriate.

Regulatory Authority Approval

Pursuant to HlthResRegs, COFEPRIS must approve a request for research protocol authorization within 30 business days from the day following an application’s filing. However, according to Agrmnt_ResProtProcs and G-HumResProt, COFEPRIS is required to complete its review of research protocol authorization requests within 30 calendar days. Agrmnt_ResProtProcs further specifies that this timeline applies to the review of human research protocols that have already been authorized by a foreign regulatory authority, as well as to research protocol modifications or amendments.

In addition, per G-HumResProt, during the prevention period, COFEPRIS has 10 calendar days to notify an applicant of any deficiencies or request additional information, and an applicant must respond within five (5) business days. If COFEPRIS does not respond within the 30-day timeline, the application will be deemed denied.

See the Scope of Assessment section for additional information on COFEPRIS’s evaluation process, and see Submission Process section for details on tracking submitted procedures via COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86).

Also, as specified in Agrmnt_FRAAuth, COFEPRIS must issue a decision within 45 calendar days for research protocol applications involving human beings submitted under the regulatory “reliance” model, which are based on prior authorization from a Foreign Regulatory Authority (FRA). See the Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for additional requirements governing the FRA reliance model and submission procedures.

Per Reg-HlthProd and G-UnregDrugImprts, COFEPRIS has 10 days to approve import requests for investigational drug products. If COFEPRIS does not respond within this timeframe, the request is deemed approved. G-UnregDrugImprts also notes that COFEPRIS has eight (8) business days to send the applicant a prevention notification regarding missing or additional information required. The applicant, in turn, has five (5) business days to respond.

Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Unit (UHAP) Evaluations

Per HlthResRegs, prior to submitting an authorization request, applicants may also obtain a pre-assessment evaluation by an authorized third party that helps to facilitate COFEPRIS’s review. Per MEX-21 and MEX-10, third parties are also known as Enabled Pre-Assessment Support Units (Unidad Habilitada de Apoyo al Predictamens (UHAPs)) (MEX-69) within the Coordinating Commission of National Institutes of Health and High Specialty Hospitals (Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad (CCINSHAE)) (referred to as the UHAP-CCINSHAE) or UHAPs within the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)). According to MEX-10, the UHAP has a maximum of 30 calendar days to respond to an evaluation request. See MEX-10 and MEX-98 for additional information on authorized third parties. See the Scope of Assessment and Submission Process sections for detailed UHAP information.

Ethics Committee Approval

As delineated in G-RECs-Op-2018, the REC agenda and documents corresponding to each session should be delivered at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. It is then recommended that the REC’s decision be sent within a period not exceeding five (5) working days after the committee has met, or if applicable, not to exceed 30 calendar days from the date of request for its review. G-RECs-Op-2018 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also state that the approval of a new application is valid for one (1) year.

In addition, G-RECs-Op-2018 indicates that the REC should establish procedures for monitoring approved studies, from the point at which the decision was made until the completion of the investigation and reporting of results. RECs should conduct at least one (1) review a year.

Overview

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

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

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

Ethics Committee Approval

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

Overview

In accordance with GenHlthLaw, Reg-COFEPRIS, HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, COFEPRIS-GCP, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, and MEX-84, a clinical trial can only commence after an applicant receives authorization from Mexico’s Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)). Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, the applicant must also obtain a favorable decision from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee at the health institution where the study is being conducted, and when applicable, a favorable decision from the Biosafety Committee. No waiting period is required following the applicant’s receipt of these approvals.

As per GenHlthLaw, an applicant must be a resident of Mexico and is required to obtain an import license from COFEPRIS for the shipment of an investigational product to be used in the trial. The applicant must be a resident of Mexico or have a legal representative submit the application on their behalf. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information).

As set forth in NOM-220-SSA1-2016, the health record holder, principal investigator (PI), sponsor, or person responsible for a study authorized by COFEPRIS must also issue a notice of a study’s commencement (e.g., first visit of the first patient) and a notice of its completion (e.g., last visit of the last patient).

Clinical Trial Agreement

While NOM-012-SSA3-2012, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts state that prior to initiating the trial, if applicable, the sponsor must sign a letter of acceptance that serves as an agreement to assume the project obligations and rights stated in the letter, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, has eliminated this requirement as of June 2025.

Additionally, as of June 2025, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs has eliminated the requirement stated in MEX-84, G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 that the sponsor must sign a letter to ensure there are no conflicts of interest that could lead to the interruption of treatment for the research participant.

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, COFEPRIS requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (MEX-32) for conducting clinical trials. COFEPRIS-GCP indicates that the sponsor must establish in writing each of the research team member functions and responsibilities, and the financial agreement with the PI. The sponsor or the CRO must also establish a declaration of financing, sponsorship, affiliations, contracts of agreements with other institutions involved, and procedures for handling any conflict(s) of interest, and a system for providing incentives and quantity/payments to research participants. MEX-32 specifies that the financial aspects of the trial should be documented in an agreement between the sponsor and the investigator and the institution.

Further, per MEX-32, prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an investigator’s brochure and should provide sufficient time for the investigator and institution to review the protocol and the information provided.

COFEPRIS-GCP further states that in the case of delegating investigation-related activities to a CRO, the sponsor must also establish in writing each of the activities that are delegated. However, the ultimate responsibility for all CRO activities remains with the sponsor. Additionally, COFEPRIS-GCP indicates that the sponsor or the CRO must establish a declaration of financing, sponsorship, affiliations, contracts, or agreements with other institutions involved, handling of any conflicts of interest, incentives, and quantity and payments to the research participants.

According to MEX-32, the sponsor or the CRO must also obtain the investigator(s)’s and the institution(s)’s agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with MEX-32 and the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and approved by the ethics committee
• Comply with data recording and reporting procedures
• Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• Retain essential documents until the sponsor informs them that they are no longer needed

Per MEX-32, the sponsor and the investigator/institution should sign the protocol, or an alternative document, to confirm this agreement.

Clinical Trial Registration

Per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts and G-DIGIPRiS-Prots&Amdts, once COFEPRIS approves an authorization request, some of the data provided by the applicant in COFEPRIS’s digital procedures and services platform, DIGIPRiS: Online Regulation (MEX-86), is automatically migrated to COFEPRIS’s National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC)) database (MEX-68). Per MEX-88, RNEC was integrated into MEX-86 as RNEC v2.0.

Governance

Per GenHlthLaw, HlthResRegs, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, every health institution where research is conducted is required to establish a Research Committee and a Biosafety Committee. Per HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, REC and Research Committee approval is also required for each trial site where a study is being conducted, and when applicable, Biosafety Committee approval is required as well.

HlthResRegs explains that the Research Committee evaluates the technical quality and scientific merit of the proposed research, and its opinion must contain the REC opinion and, where applicable, the Biosafety Committee opinion. The Biosafety Committee, in turn, is responsible for determining and regulating the use of ionizing radiation or genetic engineering techniques within the health institution as indicated in HlthResRegs, GenHlthLaw, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012. Pursuant to HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the Biosafety Committee issues a technical opinion on the biosafety aspects of the proposed research and ensures that research study staff, research participants, the community, and the environment are protected against radiological risks.

Additionally, per MEX-47, COFEPRIS is responsible for registering Research Committees and Biosafety Committees. Refer to MEX-47, G-BiosafetyReg, G-ResCommReg, and MEX-102 for detailed Research Committee and Biosafety Committee registration requirements. See MEX-26 for COFEPRIS’s Research Committee and Biosafety Committee registration form.

Overview

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

42CFR11 expands the legal requirements for submitting clinical trial registration information and results for investigational products that are approved, licensed, or cleared by the FDA. See the G-3674Cert for additional FDA guidance on certifying compliance with applicable requirements, including the requirement to register applicable clinical trials.

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with NOM-220-SSA1-2016, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, G-ClinResPV, and G-PharmPerSafRpt, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Mexico’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/Experience (AE) – Any undesirable medical event that may occur in a research participant during the clinical investigation stage of a drug/vaccine, but does not necessarily have a causal relationship to it
• Adverse Drug Reaction or Adverse Reaction (ADR) – An unwanted response to a drug, in which the causal relationship with it is, at least, reasonably attributable
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction – One whose nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information, or in the documentation presented for its health registration
• Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction (SRAM) – Any clinical or laboratory manifestation that occurs after administration of one (1) or more drugs

Safety Reporting Requirements

As specified in NOM-220-SSA1-2016-Mod, for clinical study related incidents involving health professionals (public and private) or institutions conducting health research, notifications to the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS))’s National Pharmacovigilance Center (CNFV) must be submitted according to the following timelines:

• Serious SRAMs or serious AEs/ADRs must be reported within a maximum of seven (7) calendar days, if fatal, and within a maximum of 15 days, if not fatal (severe cases from abroad should only be included in the final study safety report, if the study has a research center in Mexico)
• Not serious SRAMs or AEs/ADRs must be reported at the end of the study
• Two (2) or more serious cases, in the same place with the same drug and the same batch, must be reported immediately, and no later than 48 hours
• When a review of scientific literature shows a safety issue, it should be reported within a maximum of 30 calendar days from first knowledge of the AE/ADR

HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 state that the institution must notify and provide a report to the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) within a period of 15 days after the suspension or cancellation of the research has been agreed upon. The report should specify the effect(s) detected, all medical care steps adopted, and the consequences produced. A detailed report on the research participant(s) physical condition should also be included. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 indicates that all serious or deadly adverse reactions or effects must be immediately reported to the Ministry. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the principal investigator (PI), the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)), the institutional head(s), or the Ministry of Health must also suspend or cancel the research as soon as any AE representing an ethical impediment to research is identified.

Additionally, per NOM-220-SSA1-2016, institutions must notify the CNFV of a study’s suspension or cancellation within a maximum of 15 days. If the study is resumed, the CNFV must also be notified within a maximum of 15 working days following the study’s recommencement.

Per MEX-2, COFEPRIS has also implemented the following International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guidelines:

• Guideline E2B(R3) on Electronic Transmission of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) – Data Elements and Message Specification – Implementation Guide (MEX-79)
• E2B(R3) Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) Specification and Related Files (MEX-101)
• ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (MEX-80)
• ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Pharmacovigilance Planning (E2E) (MEX-82)

Investigator Responsibilities

As specified in HlthResRegs, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP, the PI must report to the REC all probable AEs or any AEs directly related to the research study. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the investigator is also responsible for submitting safety reports to the CNFV.

Other Safety Reports

As indicated in NOM-220-SSA1-2016, a pharmacovigilance study protocol should be prepared and submitted to the Executive Director of Pharmacopeia and Pharmacovigilance through COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) (MEX-37).

Per NOM-220-SSA1-2016, a clinical safety report is also required to be submitted to the CNFV for all trials, sponsored or not, that have at least one (1) site or research center in Mexico. In addition, G-ClinResPV explains that a final safety report must be submitted to the CNFV in the following circumstances:

• A study is completed that has included at least one (1) research center in Mexico
• A study has been cancelled, discontinued, or permanently suspended
• A bioequivalence, bioavailability, and pharmacokinetics study is concluded

Refer to G-ClinResPV and G-PharmPerSafRpt for additional report writing instructions and criteria that align with the safety reporting requirements delineated in NOM-220-SSA1-2016 and NOM-220-SSA1-2016-Mod. See also G-PharmRptReq for detailed pharmacovigilance reporting guidelines and to extend health registrations for drug products.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

G-ClinResPV specifies that clinical safety reports must be written in Spanish and submitted electronically (in PDF format) to the CNFV. In addition, reports should be submitted by either the health record holder or the sponsor or the legal representative to avoid sending duplicate information to the CNFV. G-PharmPerSafRpt states, in turn, that the safety report must be written in Spanish in the sections delineated in Annex 1 of G-PharmPerSafRpt and submitted electronically via CD or USB in editable PDF format. As indicated in G-ClinResPV and G-PharmPerSafRpt, the annual safety report submission date is determined by the date of the study’s first national authorization by COFEPRIS.

As per MEX-117, the E-Reporting Industry platform, which is linked to VigiFlow (MEX-43), was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Uppsala Monitoring Centre for the pharmaceutical industry to manage individual case safety reports at the national level. Reports are submitted by pharmaceutical industry professionals including health registration holders or their legal representatives and institutions/establishments where research is conducted as well as contract research organizations, distributors, and marketers. MEX-117 also specifies the CNFV is responsible for granting access to the E-Reporting Industry tool, and requests can be made via email: xmlvigiflow@cofepris.gob.mx. Refer to MEX-117 for details. Additionally, per MEX-77, state centers, institutional coordinating centers, institutional centers, and pharmacovigilance units of the National Health System should also report AE/ADRs, SRAMs, adverse events following immunization (ESAVIs), and other safety issues via MEX-43.

MEX-78, in turn, provides patients, consumers, and health professionals instructions on reporting ADRs via VIGIRAM (MEX-118). See MEX-12 for instructions on using MEX-118 and see MEX-30 for the form to be completed via MEX-118. See also G-ADR-PatientRpt for information on how patients, consumers, and/or family members report suspected ADRs.

Refer to NOM-220-SSA1-2016 for detailed reporting requirements, and the G-AENotif, MEX-44, and MEX-117 for submitting safety reports via VigiFlow (MEX-43). See also MEX-54 for additional CNFV issued pharmacovigilance guidelines and requirements.

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, the US-ICH-E2A, 42CFR11, and USA-38, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of safety reporting requirements in the United States (US) (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

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

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

See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, and USA-38, the sponsor must report any suspected adverse reaction or adverse reaction that is both serious and unexpected. An adverse event is only required to be reported as a suspected adverse reaction if there is evidence to suggest a causal relationship between the drug and the adverse event. The sponsor is required to notify the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and all participating investigators in a written safety report of potential serious risks, from clinical trials or any other source, as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting. Additionally, the sponsor must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days following receipt of the information. The sponsor is required to submit a follow-up safety report to provide additional information obtained pertaining to a previously submitted safety report. This report should be submitted without delay, as soon as the information is available, but no later than 15 calendar days after the sponsor initially receives the information.

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

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

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

Per the G-IND-Safety, sponsors should have a predefined safety monitoring plan that includes processes and procedures for the review of safety information, including the frequency of review. The FDA’s G-DecentralCT further indicates that to protect the safety and welfare of trial participants in a decentralized clinical trial, sponsors should implement a safety monitoring plan that takes the decentralized nature of the clinical trial into account and ensures that adverse events and medication errors are appropriately collected and adequately addressed. As in any clinical trial, the safety monitoring plan should describe how participants are expected to respond to and report adverse events, including where to seek medical assistance locally when necessary, and where to receive follow-up care. See the G-DecentralCT for more information.

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

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

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

See 42CFR11 for detailed adverse event reporting requirements.

See the G-SESftyRprtng for the FDA’s guidance to help small businesses understand and comply with safety reporting regulations for human drug and biological products that are being investigated under an IND, and for drugs that are the subjects of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies that are exempt from the IND requirements.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

Per HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the principal investigator (PI) must prepare and submit a progress report (also referred to as a partial technical or technical-descriptive report) (MEX-31) to the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) at any time, but at least once a year, to communicate progress and partial research study results. In addition, per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, information related to any investigation that the PI submits to the Ministry of Health must be classified as confidential. The PI must also provide a copy of every report to the head of the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and the Research Committee, and if applicable, the Biosafety Committee of the institution where the research takes place.

NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and MEX-31 specify that the progress reports should describe the results obtained and at a minimum should include the following elements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Study data
• Participating research centers
• Amendments and modifications authorized during study development
• Partial technical-descriptive reports (include official responses to the partial/annual technical-descriptive reports carried out) (see Annex I of MEX-31)
• Materials and methods
• Summary of adverse event (AE) reports identified during study development (include a simple copy of the response letters (or a simple copy of the CIS entry form for the AE reports) issued by Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS))’s National Pharmacovigilance Center (CNFV), which corresponds with the reports submitted) (Annex I)
• Results
• Conclusions
• Bibliographic references (include only those references that served as the basis for the planning and execution of the research)
• Any relevant exhibits

MEX-31 also indicates the following annexes must be submitted:

• Annex I – A simple copy of the COFEPRIS’s Comprehensive Service Center (Centro Integral de Servicios (CIS)) entry form for the Free Letter of Notification of AE(s) (submitted to the CNFV); and a simple copy of the official authorization letter of the respective Security Amendment (Homoclave COFEPRIS-09-012), when applicable
• Annex II – A simple copy of the Technical Sheet of the National Registry of Clinical Trials (Registro Nacional de Ensayos Clínicos (RNEC)), duly completed and in its entirety (except for the section referring to results, which must be presented in the Final Technical Report submission)
• Annex III – A simple copy of the PI’s signed Delegation of Responsibilities Letter, which was submitted with the initial authorization process for the research protocol and/or inclusion of the research center (including a simple copy of the amendment/modification letter, if applicable)
• Annex IV – Patient materials (documents that do not require COFEPRIS authorization, but which are acknowledged and are the same as those approved by the evaluation committees) generated from the authorization of the protocol’s implementation until the clinical study’s conclusion
• Annex V – A simple copy of the signed letters from the REC (CEI), the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee (as applicable) of each center where the study is carried out; the letters should notify or acknowledge receipt of each research center’s annual activities report
• Other Annexes – The researcher may include any annexes deemed necessary to support the partial technical-descriptive report, or those documents required by the institution or establishment where the research is carried out. This section must also indicate which and how many annexes are attached to the form.

Additionally, in accordance with NOM-012-SSA3-2012, a report should be submitted annually to the Ministry of Health on the integration and activities of the REC, the Research Committee, and, if applicable, the Biosafety Committee, during the first 10 business days of June.

Final Report

As set forth in HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the PI is required to submit a final report to the Ministry of Health in order to communicate the final results of a research protocol or project as well as the major findings obtained throughout the course of the study. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the PI must also deliver a copy of this report to the research team members, the REC (CEI), the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee, as applicable, where the study was conducted.

However, per MEX-94 and MEX-28, the sponsor/the sponsor’s contract research organization (CRO) and the PI share responsibility for submitting the final report to the CIS (MEX-37). Once the final report is submitted, MEX-94 specifies that the CIS assigns an entry number to the submitted application along with the procedural code, “ES45”. The CIS’s acknowledgement of the receipt of information submitted should not be interpreted as an official authorization.

As per NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and MEX-94, the final reports should include the same basic requirements as those indicated in the Interim and Annual Progress Reports, with the following differences: they must also contain a clinical study synopsis with the main research results (including the corresponding analysis and interpretation), conclusions, and bibliographic references (including only those sources that served as a basis for planning and executing the research, as well as for analyzing the results).

Additionally, per MEX-94, the following annexes must also be submitted:

• Annex I – A simple copy of the CIS Entry Slip of the Final Safety Report Entry Form submitted to the CNFV
• Annex II – A simple copy of the RNEC Technical Data Sheet, duly completed and in its entirety
• Annex III – A simple copy of the PI’s signed Letter of Delegation of Responsibilities, which was submitted with the initial authorization process for the research protocol and/or inclusion of the research center (including a copy of the amendment/modification letter, if applicable)
• Annex IV – Patient materials (documents that do not require COFEPRIS authorization, but which are acknowledged and are the same as those approved by the evaluation committees) generated from the authorization of the protocol’s implementation until the clinical study’s conclusion
• Annex V – A simple copy of the signed letters from the REC (CEI), the Research Committee, and the Biosafety Committee (as applicable) of each center where the study was carried out, specifying that they are aware of the study’s completion
• Annex VI – Letters signed by each PI, notifying them of the study’s completion, the closure of the center's activities, and the conclusion and follow-up of the research participants enrolled at their respective research center
• Other Annexes – The researcher may include any annexes deemed necessary to support the technical-descriptive report or those required by the institution or establishment where the research is carried out. This section must also indicate which and how many annexes are attached to the form.

See section 7.4 of NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and MEX-94 for additional required report information.

HlthResRegs further states that the PI is also required to submit a final report to the Research Committee at the institution where the study was conducted. Refer to MEX-94 for the reporting form.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

See USA-49 for more information and 42CFR11 for more detailed requirements. See NIHTrialInfo for specific information on dissemination of NIH-funded clinical trial data. See the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)’s E3 Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (US-ICH-E3 and the US-ICH-E3-QA) for additional guidance on report structure.

As set forth in NOM-012-SSA3-2012, COFEPRIS-GCP, and MEX-84, a sponsor is defined as an individual or corporation willing to undertake responsibilities to participate and finance a research project or protocol, in full or in part.

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (MEX-32) for conducting clinical trials. Per COFEPRIS-GCP and MEX-32, a sponsor is an individual, company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial. A sponsor may also hire a CRO to conduct one (1) or more of the activities related to health research that are sponsored in the country. The sponsor must specify in writing any trial-related duty and function that is transferred to and assumed by a CRO. However, the ultimate responsibility for all CRO activities remains with the sponsor. Additionally, MEX-32 notes the ultimate responsibility for the quality and integrity of the trial data always resides with the sponsor, and any trial-related duties and functions not specifically transferred to and assumed by a CRO are retained by the sponsor. COFEPRIS-GCP also indicates that CROs of foreign origin must also have a registered address in Mexico, and an authorization to carry out clinical research activities in the country.

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

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

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

Overview

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1) (MEX-32) for conducting clinical trials. COFEPRIS-GCP states the sponsor or the CRO is responsible for selecting each research center and ensuring that COFEPRIS has authorized its operation as well as the human and material resources needed to conduct research. MEX-32 indicates the sponsor should ensure the investigator(s) have adequate resources to properly conduct the trial for which they are selected. Additionally, MEX-32, explains the investigator should have available an adequate number of qualified staff and adequate facilities for the foreseen duration of the trial to conduct the trial properly and safely.

Per COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor must establish in writing each of the research team member functions and responsibilities, and the financial agreement with the principal investigator (PI). G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also note the sponsor or the CRO must specify in a letter the human and material resources that will be allocated for the research and the way in which they will be provided and distributed to the research sites.

As stated in the HlthResRegs and NOM-012-SSA3-2012, all investigators must possess appropriate qualifications, training, and experience. Per COFEPRIS-GCP, the PI is also responsible for selecting a research team with knowledge, education, and training in MEX-32, and in the process of the investigation in which the investigator is involved. Per MEX-32, the sponsor must ensure each investigator is qualified by education, training, and experience to assume responsibility for the proper conduct of the trial; meets all the qualifications specified by the applicable regulatory requirement(s); and provides evidence of such qualifications through updated curriculum vitae (CV) and/or other relevant documentation requested by the sponsor, the ethics committee (EC), and/or COFEPRIS. Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, and MEX-84 also specify the PI should provide legally issued and registered documentation (e.g., certificates of studies and professional licenses) delineating appropriate academic training and experience appropriate to the research to be conducted, which includes academic preparation, representative scientific production, and good clinical practice (GCP).

Additionally, Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, G-HumResProt, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts indicate that institutions in charge of providing medical care for study related medical emergencies are required to sign an agreement or contract to provide these services, and provide a letter stating the institution’s acceptance, authorization, and description of the available resources. The agreement must comply with NOM-027-SSA3-2013, which establishes the criteria for the operation and care in providing emergency services in health care institutions.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

COFEPRIS-GCP indicates that foreign CROs must have a registered address in Mexico, and an authorization or notice specifying the activities to be carried out in the country.

Data Safety Monitoring Board

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the CRO is responsible for the continuous monitoring of the study which should be established based on the nature of the study, and must ensure study monitoring is carried out in compliance with MEX-32. Per MEX-32, the sponsor or the CRO may consider establishing an independent data monitoring committee to assess the progress of a clinical trial, the safety data, the critical efficacy endpoints, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial. The committee should have written operating procedures and maintain written records of its meetings.

Multicenter Studies

As delineated in MEX-32, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the sponsor or the CRO must ensure that:

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

Overview

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

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

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

In addition, 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP indicate that prior to the start of the study, the sponsor must provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and the investigator’s brochure.

See G-InvstgtrResp for more information on investigator responsibilities.

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

The G-DecentralCT provides FDA recommendations for clinical trials with decentralized elements. The G-DecentralCT notes that because decentralized clinical trials may involve many contracted services, sponsors should ensure proper coordination of decentralized elements (e.g., use of remote trial personnel for at-home visits, use of local health care providers (HCPs), direct shipping of the investigational product to participants, etc.). Such contracted services may be performed by networks of local HCPs (e.g., local clinic networks, pharmacy chains). Sponsors should ensure these networks of local HCPs are qualified to perform the contracted activities. Sponsors should also keep a record of these networks and other contracted service providers, including their roles and assigned activities. See the G-DecentralCT for additional guidance.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

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

Additionally, the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule indicate that for all human subjects research funded and/or sponsored by a Common Rule department/agency (as identified in USA-18 and USA-65), the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) must ensure that, when appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provisions for monitoring the data collected during the study to ensure participant safety. Moreover, per the NIHDataSftyMntrng and USA-72, all National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trials require a Data and Safety Monitoring Plan and monitoring should be commensurate with risk. DSMBs are also required for multi-site clinical trials with interventions that involve potential participant risk. See the NIHDataSftyMntrng and USA-72 for detailed Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)/NIH requirements.

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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

Insurance

As set forth in COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) must establish a financial fund or have insurance to cover serious adverse events that result from the medication or the research study.

Additionally, COFEPRIS-GCP requires the sponsor or the CRO to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (MEX-32), which states that the sponsor should provide insurance or should indemnify (legal and financial coverage) the investigator/institution against claims arising from the trial, except for those claims arising from malpractice and/or negligence. Per MEX-32, if required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), the sponsor should provide insurance or should indemnify (legal and financial coverage) the investigator and the institution against claims arising from the trial, except for claims that arise from malpractice and/or negligence.

Compensation

As specified in COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the designated CRO must establish a statement of funding and describe the quantity and payments to be allocated for research participants.

Per MEX-32, the ethics committee (EC) should review both the amount and method of payment to participants to ensure that neither presents problems of coercion or undue influence on the trial participants. Payments to a participant should be prorated and not wholly contingent on the completion of the trial by the participant.

Injury or Death

Per Agrmnt_ResProtProcs, once the research protocol has been authorized, applicants must provide the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) with a policy or certificate of study insurance or a copy of the current financial fund that certifies coverage for research participants. G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts also indicates the sponsor should provide COFEPRIS with a copy of the financial fund or current insurance policy, which guarantees the continuity of the medical treatment and the compensation to which the participant will be legally entitled in the event of suffering damages directly related to the development of the research. MEX-84 specifies that the insurance policy or current document from the financial fund should cover all study participants at the local level. The document guarantees coverage to the participant in case of any injury or damage related to the research. The insurance policy and certificate, which must be on behalf of the license holder and the sponsor, must indicate the number of participants that will be covered, the study title, and the protocol number.

(Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.)

Although NOM-012-SSA3-2012 does not specifically ascribe responsibility to the sponsor, it indicates that the research budget must include the availability of a financial fund as well as mechanisms to guarantee continuity of medical treatment and indemnity of the research participant, in the event of trial-related injuries. Additionally, the head of the institution or establishment, the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)), Research Committee, or Biosafety Committee, the PI, and, where applicable, the sponsor, will be responsible in accordance with their area of competence, for the damage to health resulting from the development of the research as well as damage resulting from the interruption or early suspension of treatment for reasons not attributable to the research participant. HlthResRegs and GenHlthLaw also specify that the health care institution and the sponsor or the CRO must provide medical attention to injured participants, and where appropriate, legally required compensation, if the injuries are directly related to the study. Medical attention that is provided to such participants will not prejudice the compensation that may be legally due from the study.

MEX-32 explains the sponsor's policies and procedures should address the costs of treatment of trial participants in the event of trial-related injuries in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s). In addition, when study participants receive compensation, the method and manner of compensation should comply with applicable regulatory requirement(s).

Trial Participation

Per COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the CRO must ensure that each and every treatment, clinical analysis procedure, and other study procedures are delivered in a timely manner, in good condition, and free of charge to the research participant.

Insurance

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

Compensation

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

Injury or Death

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

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

Trial Participation

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (MEX-32), and to ensure and control the quality of the research during a study. Per COFEPRIS-GCP and MEX-32, the sponsor or the CRO is also responsible for establishing written standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each stage of the investigation. In addition, the sponsor or the CRO must implement and maintain quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems to make certain the trial is conducted, and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol.

MEX-32 further delineates the sponsor or the CRO is required to obtain agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. The sponsor and investigator(s) agreement should be confirmed in writing prior to the trial. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed.

Monitoring Requirements

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the sponsor or the CRO must ensure and control the quality of the research through periodic monitoring visits and audits to verify compliance with the protocol and the SOPs, and if necessary, compliance with reports derived from inspections or verifications by COFEPRIS. The principal investigator (PI) is responsible for reporting and guaranteeing the quality and validity of the data obtained during the investigation. MEX-32 indicates the sponsor should ensure that the trials are adequately monitored and determine the appropriate extent and nature of monitoring, which should be based on considerations such as the objective, purpose, design, complexity, blinding, size, and endpoints of the trial.

Additionally, per MEX-32, the sponsor should also appoint monitors who should be appropriately trained, and have the scientific and/or clinical knowledge needed to monitor the trial adequately. A monitor’s qualifications should be documented. Monitors should also be thoroughly familiar with the investigational product(s), the protocol, written informed consent form, any other written information to be provided to research participants, the sponsor’s SOPs, COFEPRIS-GCP, and the applicable regulatory requirement(s).

MEX-32 further indicates the sponsor should appoint individuals, who are independent of the clinical trials/systems, to conduct audits and ensure the auditors are qualified by training and experience to conduct audits properly. An auditor’s qualifications should be documented. The sponsor should also ensure the auditing of clinical trials/systems is conducted in accordance with the sponsor's written procedures on what to audit, how to audit, the frequency of audits, and the form and content of audit reports. The sponsor's audit plan and procedures for a trial audit should be guided by the importance of the trial submissions to regulatory authorities, the number of study participants, the type and complexity of the trial, the level of risks to the study participants, and any identified problem(s). Auditor(s) observations and findings of the auditor should be documented.

Pursuant to MEX-32, noncompliance with the protocol, SOPs, good clinical practice (GCP), and/or applicable regulatory requirement(s) by an investigator/institution, or by member(s) of the sponsor's staff should lead to prompt action by the sponsor to secure compliance. If the monitoring and/or auditing identifies serious and/or persistent noncompliance on the part of an investigator/institution, the sponsor should terminate the investigator's/institution’s participation in the trial and notify promptly the regulatory authority(ies). Also, upon the request of the monitor, auditor, ethics committee (EC), or COFEPRIS, the investigator/institution should also make available for direct access all requested trial-related records. See MEX-32 for detailed monitoring and auditing requirements.

Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012, the institutional head, the Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)), the Research Committee, or the Biosafety Committee (where applicable), the PI, and the sponsor, must be responsible, in accordance with their area of competence, for monitoring the research. Agrmnt_ResProtProcs specifies that the sponsor is required to submit a monitoring and audit plan to ensure that clinical trial oversight mechanisms are in place to verify that all trial-related activities are subject to quality and other controls to reduce errors, increase objectivity, and ensure consistent processes. However, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, MEX-84, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts require the sponsor or the CRO to provide a letter to COFEPRIS describing the monitoring and auditing plan to be carried out during the investigation. MEX-84 and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts specify the letter must contain the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Type of plan: audit or monitoring
• Frequency of application
• Responsibility for monitoring, and where appropriate, cite the third party to carry out the activity
• Objective and scope of monitoring
• Evaluation tools and methodology implemented
• Methodology to carry out scientific, technical, and ethical monitoring
• Communication and notification strategies between the investigator, sponsor, ECs, and COFEPRIS
• Profile of the monitor or auditor
• Classification of findings and decision-making
• Decision-making derived based on severity classification
• Notification mechanism to the PI, ECs, and COFEPRIS
• Design of the Action Plan: Corrective, Improvement, or Preventive
• Reporting results through the partial and annual technical report (See MEX-31 for the partial reporting form)

Note: COFEPRIS has not yet updated MEX-84, G-ResProtocolAmd, and G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts to align with the Agrmnt_ResProtProcs requirements. However, the ClinRegs team is regularly monitoring the COFEPRIS website for new developments and will post the most current sources when they become available.

COFEPRIS-GCP also states that the PI is responsible for reporting and guaranteeing the quality and validity of the data obtained during the investigation.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Per HlthResRegs the PI, the REC (CEI), the institutional head or other authorized institutional officers, or the Ministry of Health (Secretaría de Salud) must order the immediate suspension or cancellation of a research study as soon as any adverse effect is identified that might become an ethical or technical impediment to continuing with the study. The health care institution will submit a report to the Secretariat within 15 business days following the day in which the suspension or cancellation of the study was agreed to, specifying the effect noticed, the measures adopted, and consequences produced. NOM-012-SSA3-2012 similarly states the head of the institution or establishment, the REC (CEI), the Research Committee, the Biosafety Committee (where applicable), or the PI must order the immediate suspension or cancellation of research, in the presence of any severe adverse effects, which become an ethical or technical impediment to continue with the study and notify the Secretariat in detail. The institutional head must notify the Secretariat of any adverse effect resulting from the experimental research within a maximum period of 15 working days from the event occurrence, including the care measures adopted, the identified sequelae, as well as a detailed report on the physical condition of the patient, which mentions whether the patient is free of any risk at the time of notification. In such case, the resumption of the research will require a new authorization. The investigator is also responsible for suspending the investigation if there is a risk of serious injury, disability, or death of the research participant in accordance with GenHlthLaw. Additionally, per NOM-220-SSA1-2016, institutions must notify the National Pharmacovigilance Center (CNFV) of a study’s suspension or cancellation within a maximum of 15 days. If the study is resumed, the CNFV must also be notified within a maximum of 15 working days following the study’s recommencement. The investigator is responsible for submitting safety reports to the CNFV.

MEX-32 delineates if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should promptly inform the investigators/institutions and the regulatory authority(ies) of the termination or suspension and the reason(s) for the termination or suspension. The EC should also be informed promptly and provided the reason(s) for the termination or suspension by the sponsor or by the investigator/institution, as specified by the applicable regulatory requirement(s). The EC should also be provided with a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension.

MEX-32 further indicates that if the trial is prematurely terminated or suspended for any reason, the investigator/institution should promptly inform the trial participants, ensure appropriate therapy and follow-up for the participants, and, where required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), inform the regulatory authority(ies). If the investigator terminates or suspends a trial without the sponsor’s prior agreement, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should promptly inform the sponsor and the EC and provide the sponsor and the EC with a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension. If the EC terminates or suspends its approval/favorable opinion of a trial, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should promptly notify the sponsor and provide the sponsor with a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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

The G-DecentralCT provides FDA recommendations for clinical trials with decentralized elements. The G-DecentralCT states that to account for multiple sources of data collection in a decentralized clinical trial, the sponsor should include at least the following in a data management plan or other trial-related documents: data origin and data flow from all sources to the sponsor (e.g., a diagram that depicts the flow of data from creation to final storage); methods and technologies used for remote data acquisition from trial participants, trial personnel, and contracted service providers (e.g., local clinical laboratory facilities and local health care providers who perform trial-related activities); and a list identifying service providers for data collection, handling, and management.

The G-DecentralCT further indicates that to protect the safety and welfare of trial participants in a decentralized clinical trial, sponsors should implement a safety monitoring plan that takes the decentralized nature of the clinical trial into account and ensures that adverse events and medication errors are appropriately collected and adequately addressed. When applicable, the safety monitoring plan should describe the type of information that will be collected by a digital health technology, how that information will be used and monitored, and what action trial participants or personnel should take in response to abnormal findings or electronic alerts. See the G-DecentralCT for additional information.

See the G-eHealthRecords for the FDA’s guidance related to the use of electronic health records in clinical research, and see the G-RemoteData for recommendations on the use of digital health technologies for remote data acquisition from participants in clinical investigations that evaluate medical products. Furthermore, see the G-ESourceData for FDA guidance regarding the capture, review, and retention of electronic source data, particularly for use in filling the predefined fields in an electronic case report form.

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

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

See the FDA’s G-EnrchStrat for enrichment strategies that can be used in clinical investigations intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of drug and biological products, and the G-DataCollect for recommendations on the use of a standardized approach for collecting and reporting race and ethnicity data in submissions for clinical trials.

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

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

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

Electronic Data Processing System

According to COFEPRIS-GCP, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) requires the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (MEX-32) for conducting clinical trials. Per MEX-32, the sponsor should utilize appropriately qualified individuals to supervise the overall conduct of the trial, to handle the data, to verify the data, to conduct the statistical analyses, and to prepare the trial reports.

In addition, per MEX-32, when using electronic trial data processing or handling systems or remote electronic trial data systems, the sponsor should:

• Ensure and document that the electronic data processing system(s) conform(s) to the sponsor's established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistent intended performance
• Maintain standard operating procedures (SOPs) for using these systems
• Ensure that the systems are designed to permit data changes in such a way that the data changes are documented and that there is no deletion of entered data
• Maintain a security system that prevents unauthorized access to the data
• Maintain a list of the individuals who are authorized to make data changes
• Maintain adequate backup of the data
• Safeguard the blinding, if any

See MEX-32 for additional data processing requirements.

Records Management

As indicated in MEX-32, the sponsor, or other owners of the data, should retain all of the sponsor-specific essential documents pertaining to the trial (see section 8 of MEX-32). The sponsor should retain all sponsor-specific essential documents in conformance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s) of the country(ies) where the investigational product (IP) is approved, and/or where the sponsor intends to apply for approval(s). If the sponsor discontinues the clinical development of an IP (i.e., for any or all indications, routes of administration, or dosage forms), the sponsor should maintain all sponsor-specific essential documents for at least two (2) years after formal discontinuation or in conformance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s).

MEX-32 also states the essential documents should be retained until at least two (2) years after the last marketing approval or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of clinical development of the IP. These documents should be retained for a longer period, however, if required by the applicable regulatory requirement(s) or if needed by the sponsor. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s)/institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and should notify the investigator(s)/institution(s) when trial-related records are no longer needed.

In addition, as delineated in COFEPRIS-GCP, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for preparing, integrating, using, filing, and ensuring the safekeeping of the research participant’s clinical file for a minimum of five (5) years in accordance with NOM-004-SSA3-2012, MEX-32, and Good Documentation Practices per NOM-164-SSA1-2015.

Per NOM-004-SSA3-2012, clinical records are the property of the institution or the medical services provider that generates them. However, the patient/participant has ultimate ownership rights over this information to protect their health and the confidentiality of their data. Consequently, because the documents are prepared in the interest and benefit of the patient/participant, they must be kept for a minimum period of five (5) years, which is calculated from the date of the last medical procedure/visit.

Electronic Data Processing System

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

As per the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s G-DecentralCT, electronic systems can be used to perform multiple functions to manage decentralized clinical trial (DCT) operations. Training should be provided to all parties (e.g., trial personnel, local health care providers, and trial participants) who are using electronic systems to support the conduct of DCTs. Electronic systems that are used to produce and process trial records required by the FDCAct and FDA regulations are subject to 21CFR11. These systems must ensure data reliability, security, privacy, and confidentiality.

See 21CFR11 and the G-Part11 for general FDA regulations and guidance on electronic records and systems. Additionally, see the G-ElecSyst for guidance specific to clinical investigations.

Records Management

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

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

Responsible Parties

For the purposes of data protection in Mexico, PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public delineate responsibilities of the “data controller.” In PDP-PrivateLaw, which regulates the right of private individuals and legal entities to protect their personal data, the data controller who carries out the processing of personal data is the “responsible” party (or “regulated subject”). The “person in charge” is a natural or legal person who, alone or jointly with others, processes personal data on behalf of the controller.

In comparison, in PDP-Public, which regulates personal data held by public entities, the data controller who decides on the processing of the data is the “responsible” party (or “obligated subject”). The “person in charge” is a natural or legal person, public or private, outside the organization of the responsible person, who alone or jointly with others, processes personal data on behalf of and for the account of the responsible person. Public entities that process personal data include government authorities at all levels (federal, state, municipal, and Mexico City), the three (3) branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), autonomous bodies, political parties, and public trusts and funds.

In addition, PDP-Trnspcy, which guarantees access to public information and promotes transparency and accountability, also addresses personal data protection. It requires public entities to manage and safeguard personal data as part of their broader mandate to ensure access to publicly available information. Oversight is carried out by “guarantor authorities,” which are the federal and local authorities that oversee compliance across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and independent constitutional bodies.

Data Protection

PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public provide the requirements, responsibilities, and restrictions for handling personal data in the private and public sectors respectively. Under both laws, the data controller or responsible party must comply with the principles of data protection: legality, purpose, loyalty, consent, quality, proportionality, information, and responsibility in the processing of personal data. The data controller or responsible party must also ensure that the personal data contained in the databases are accurate, complete, correct, and updated for the purposes for which they were collected.

According to both PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public, the data controller or responsible party must also establish and maintain administrative, physical, and technical security measures to protect personal data against damage, loss, alteration, destruction, or unauthorized use, access, or processing. Under PDP-Public, the controller must also guarantee the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data. PDP-PrivateLaw requires the data controller or responsible party to report immediately any security breaches occurring at any stage of personal data processing that significantly affect the property or moral rights of the data owners, so that they can take appropriate measures to defend their rights. Additionally, the data controller or responsible party must establish controls or mechanisms to ensure that all persons involved in processing maintain confidentiality. This obligation must continue even after their relationship with the data controller ends.

PDP-Public further provides that the data controller or the responsible party must analyze the causes of the breach and implement preventive and corrective actions in its work plan to adapt security measures and the processing of personal data, if applicable, to prevent the breach from recurring. The data controller or responsible party must promptly inform the data owner, and as appropriate, the Secretariat and the guarantor authorities (i.e., government bodies that oversee compliance with data protection obligations), of any violations that significantly affect property or moral rights. Notification must be made as soon as the violation is confirmed and once the responsible party has begun to take steps to initiate a comprehensive review of its impact, so that the affected data owners can take the appropriate measures to defend their rights.

PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public also both delineate that any time, a data owner, or where applicable, their legal representative, may exercise their rights of access, rectification, cancellation, and opposition, known as ARCO rights. The exercise of any of the ARCO rights is not a prerequisite, nor does it prevent the exercise of any other rights. The data owner must have the right to:

• Access their personal data, as well as to know information related to the conditions and generalities of their processing
• Request the rectification or correction of their personal data when they are found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated
• Request the erasure of their personal data from the files, records, files, and systems, so that they are no longer in the data controller’s or responsible party’s possession
• Object to the processing of their personal data or demand its cessation when: even if the processing is lawful, to prevent it from causing harm or damage; or, the personal data is subject to automated processing, which produces undesired legal effects or significantly affects the data owner’s interests, rights, or freedoms, and is intended to evaluate, without human intervention, certain personal aspects of their data, or to analyze or predict, in particular, their professional performance, economic situation, health status, sexual preferences, reliability, or behavior

Per PDP-PrivateLaw, the data owner’s right to object will not be exercised in cases where processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation imposed on the data controller. Additionally, the data controller should not be obliged to erase personal data when:

• The data relate to the parties of a private, social, or administrative contract and are necessary for its development and fulfillment
• The data must be processed by a legal provision
• The erasure hinders judicial or administrative proceedings related to tax obligations, the investigation and prosecution of crimes, or the updating of administrative sanctions
• The data are necessary to protect the data owner’s legally protected interests
• The data are necessary to carry out an action based on the public interest
• The data are necessary to comply with a legal obligation acquired by the data owner
• The data are processed for prevention or for medical diagnosis, or for the management of health services, provided that such treatment is carried out by a health professional subject to a duty of secrecy

Please refer to PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public for detailed information on the principles guiding the protection and handling of personal data. See also MEX-95 for additional information on the protection of personal data held by private parties.

Additionally, per PDP-Trnspcy, obligated subjects and individuals must be responsible for the personal data in their possession, and may not disseminate, distribute, or commercialize the personal data contained in the information systems, developed in the exercise of their functions, unless there has been the express consent, in writing or by a similar means of authentication, of the persons to whom the information refers. See PDP-Trnspcy for detailed requirements.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

As explained in PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public, the consent document or “privacy notice” is a physical, electronic, or any format document generated by the data controller or responsible party, that is made available to the data owner prior to processing that informs them of the purpose of collecting their data. Processing must be limited to the fulfillment of purposes delineated in the privacy notice. If the data controller or responsible party intends to process the data for another purpose, the data owner’s consent must be obtained again. PDP-Public specifies that the data controller or responsible party may process personal data for purposes other than those established in the privacy notice, provided that it has the authority granted by applicable law and the data owner has given their consent, unless the data owner has been reported missing, in accordance with the terms set forth in this law and other applicable provisions.

PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public further explain that the consent may be given expressly or tacitly. Consent is understood to be expressed when the data owner’s will is expressed verbally, in writing, by electronic means, optically, with unequivocal signs, or by any other technology. Consent is tacit when the privacy notice has been made available to the owner, but the owner does not express their will to the contrary. As a general rule, tacit consent will be valid, unless the applicable legal provisions require that the data owner’s consent will be expressly stated. Per PDP-PrivateLaw, consent may be revoked at any time without retroactive effects being attributed to it. To revoke consent, the data controller must specify the mechanisms and procedures to be followed in the privacy notice.

PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public state that in the case of sensitive data, the data owner or responsible party is required to obtain the data owner’s express written consent. PDP-PrivateLaw further indicates that the consent should be obtained through a written or electronic signature, or any authentication mechanism established for that purpose. Databases containing sensitive personal data may not be created without justifying their creation for legitimate, concrete purposes, and in accordance with the specified activities delineated and pursued by the data controller or responsible party. The data controller or the responsible party must also make reasonable efforts to limit the processing to the minimum time necessary.

As delineated in PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public, the data controller or the responsible party will not be required to obtain consent when processing sensitive data in the following cases (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• When an applicable law authorizes such processing
• There is a court order, resolution, or well-founded and reasoned mandate from a competent authority
• When sensitive personal data transfers are made between those responsible, the transfers are compatible with the original purpose that motivated the processing of personal data
• When there is a judicial order, resolution, or well-founded and motivated mandate of the competent authority
• For the recognition or defense of the owner's rights before the competent authority
• When personal data is required to exercise a right or fulfill obligations derived from a legal relationship between the owner and the person in charge
• When there is an emergency that could potentially harm an individual or the individual’s property
• When personal data is necessary to carry out a treatment for the prevention, diagnosis, or provision of health care
• When the personal data is contained in publicly accessible sources
• When personal data is subject to a prior dissociation procedure
• When the owner of the personal data is a person reported missing under the terms of the law on the matter

Also, as outlined in PDP-PrivateLaw, when a data controller or responsible party intends to transfer personal data to national or foreign third parties, the privacy notice and the purposes to which the data owner subjected the processing must be communicated. National or international data transfers carried out with the data owner’s consent may be necessary when it is:

• Provided for in a law or treaty to which Mexico is a party
• Necessary for medical prevention or diagnosis, the provision of health care, medical treatment, or the management of health services
• Made to holding companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates under the data controller’s common control, or to a parent company, or to any company of the same group that operates under the same internal processes and policies
• Necessary by virtue of a contract entered into, or to be entered into, in the data owner’s interest, by the data controller and a third party
• Necessary or legally required to safeguard a public interest, or to procure or administer justice
• Necessary for the recognition, exercise, or defense of a right in a judicial proceeding
• Necessary for the maintenance or fulfilment of a legal relationship between the data controller and the data owner

Please refer to PDP-PrivateLaw and PDP-Public for detailed consent and privacy notice requirements.

Consent for Processing Personal Data of Minors

Per PDP-Public, in processing the personal data of minors, the best interest of the children and adolescents must be prioritized in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.

MEX-4 further states legal guardians must always give consent when processing children’s personal data. This applies to any individual younger than 18 years of age.

(See the Children/Minors section for additional information on consent requirements for children/minors.)

Responsible Parties

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

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

Data Protection

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

28CFR202 prohibits certain data transactions that involve giving a country of concern or covered person access to: 1) bulk US sensitive personal data that involves bulk human ‘omic data; or 2) to human biospecimens from which bulk human ‘omic data could be derived. Human ‘omic data includes human genomic data, human epigenomic data, human proteomic data, and human transcriptomic data. However, 28CFR202 notes that there is an exemption for data transactions involving regulatory approval data, which refers to sensitive personal data that is de-identified or pseudonymized and that is required to be submitted to a regulatory entity, or is required by a regulatory entity to be submitted to a covered person, to obtain or maintain authorization or approval to research or market a drug, biological product, device, or combination product. Data transactions that are necessary to obtain or maintain regulatory authorization or approval to research or market a drug, biological product, device, or combination product may also be exempt. See 28CFR202 for more information on countries of concern, exempt transactions, and reporting requirements.

NIH Privacy Requirements

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

See USA-86 for more information on these circumstances.

Obtaining Consent

In all Mexican clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in HlthResRegs, GenHlthLaw, NOM-004-SSA3-2012, and COFEPRIS-GCP. Per COFEPRIS-GCP, the principal investigator (PI) is required to comply with the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) (MEX-32) in obtaining and documenting informed consent, and per G-RECs-Op-2018, the PI must also comply with consent requirements as delineated in the Declaration of Helsinki (MEX-76). (Note: Per MEX-2, the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS)) is in the process of implementing the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (MEX-22)).

As per HlthResRegs and G-RECs-Op-2018, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by a Research Ethics Committee (REC) (Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI)) and provided to COEFPRIS with the request for research protocol authorization. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

HlthResRegs, COFEPRIS-GCP, and NOM-012-SSA3-2012 state that the PI must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. As delineated in HlthResRegs, G-RECs-Op-2018, NOM-012-SSA3-2012, MEX-32, and MEX-84, the ICF content should be presented with a clear explanation and provided in a format that facilitates understanding. Per NOM-012-SSA3-2012 and MEX-32, the participant or legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. GenHlthLaw and MEX-84 further note the ICF should be expressed in writing in an accessible, timely manner and in an understandable language, using accurate and complete information, including the possible benefits and expected risks, and the treatment alternatives, to ensure that services are provided on the basis of free and informed consent. Once comprehension of the information is guaranteed through the necessary means and supports, individuals have the right to accept or reject consent. G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, MEX-84, and G-HumResProt indicate the ICF and/or assent form, as applicable, is a document through which the research participant agrees to voluntarily participate in a research study and to undergo experimental procedures when the information is presented in a sufficient, timely, clear, and truthful manner regarding the expected risk and benefits.

As per HlthResRegs, G-RECs-Op-2018, and MEX-32, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or appear to waive their legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator(s), the institution, the sponsor, or their representatives from their liabilities for any negligence.

Re-Consent

According to G-RECs-Op-2018 and MEX-32, any change in the ICF that is relevant to the participant’s consent should be approved by the REC (CEI) prior to implementing any changes. Per G-RECs-Op-2018 and MEX-32, the participant or legal representative/guardian should also be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participating in the trial. MEX-32 further states the communication of this information should be documented.

Language Requirements

G-HumResProt states that the applicant must submit the request for protocol authorization application and all associated documentation (including the protocol and the ICF) in Spanish.

Documenting Consent

As delineated in HlthResRegs, G-RECs-Op-2018, and MEX-32, the participant or legal representative/guardian, as well as two (2) witnesses, must sign the ICF. MEX-32 specifies that the ICF should be dated, and any updates must also be signed, and a copy of the amendments provided to the participant or legal representative/guardian. If the participant does not know how to sign, the participant will provide a fingerprint and will also need to designate someone to sign the participant’s name on their behalf. A copy of the signed ICF will be provided to the participant or legal representative/guardian. Per G-DIGIPRiS-ResProts, which complies with MEX-22, the ICF version and date must coincide with what is recorded as approved in the opinions of the ethics committees (ECs). G-HumResProt further specifies the ICF should be signed by the PI, the participant and the participant’s family, or a legal representative and two (2) witnesses. The names of the witnesses, the addresses, and the relationships the witnesses have with the research participant must be indicated. MEX-84 also notes a section in the ICF should be provided for the participant or the legal representative to sign the document to indicate express acceptance. The section must include general data (full name, address, relationship with the participant) and signatures of two (2) witnesses.

Waiver of Consent

No information is currently available regarding waiver requirements.

Obtaining Consent

In all United States (US) clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in 21CFR50 for Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulated clinical trials, and the Pre2018-ComRule or the RevComRule for federally funded or sponsored clinical trials. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on agency-specific compliance.) Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-funded or sponsored clinical trials must also comply with 45CFR46-B-E. The FDA has also adopted the US-ICH-GCP as guidance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per the FDA’s G-DecentralCT, obtaining informed consent remotely may be considered as part of a decentralized clinical trial. EC oversight is required to ensure the process is adequate and appropriate. See the G-DecentralCT for more information.

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

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

Additionally, see the FDA’s G-SEInfrmdCnsnt for guidance intended to help small businesses better understand the informed consent requirements set forth in 21CFR50.

Re-Consent

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

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

Language Requirements

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

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

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

Documenting Consent

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

Per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, if the consent information is only presented orally using the short form, the participant or the legal representative/guardian must sign the form, the witness must sign both the short form and a copy of the summary once consent has been provided, and the person obtaining the consent must sign a copy of the summary. A copy of both the summary and the short form must be given to the participant or the legal representative/guardian.

The FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt further states that participants who cannot write can instead indicate their consent by "making their mark" on the consent document. In these situations, a note should be included in participant case histories indicating the reason for the lack of a signature and date as required in 21CFR50. The date consent was obtained should be recorded in this note. See 21CFR11 and the G-Part11 for general FDA regulations and guidance on electronic signatures. Additionally, see the G-ElecSyst for guidance specific to clinical investigations.

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

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

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

Waiver of Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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