National Institute of Health (INS)

As per Decree021-2017, Res006-2023, and the G-CTInspec, Peru’s INS is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, oversight, and inspections. The INS, through the Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) (formerly known as the General Office for Research and Technology Transfer (Oficina General de Investigación y Transferencia Tecnológica (OGITT))), grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in Peru in accordance with Decree021-2017, Res184-2023, Decree028-2023 (amending Decree021-2017), Res006-2023, the INS-CTManual, and Res252-2022 (amending the INS-CTManual).

As indicated in Law27657 and Decree001-2003, the INS, a decentralized public executive agency within the Ministry of Health of Peru (Ministerio de Salud del Perú (MINSA)), was granted authority to approve clinical trials by the MINSA in 2003. Decree021-2017, Res006-2023, and the INS-CTManual explain that the DIIS carries out the INS’s mandate to authorize and supervise the conduct of clinical trials in the country to ensure the quality and integrity of the data or other elements related to the trial; to protect the rights and well-being of research participants; to ensure the safety of the investigational products (IPs) used in the trials; and to establish procedures within the framework of Decree021-2017, Res184-2023, Decree028-2023, the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (PER-53), and other applicable national and international standards and regulations. Additionally, per Res006-2023, PER-20, and PER-55, the DIIS is also responsible for regulating, promoting, developing, and disseminating research, innovation, and technology transfer; proposing policies related to regulating and standardizing clinical trials; providing technical assistance for clinical trial development; and issuing binding technical opinions and answering queries related to the promotion, management, and dissemination of health research and innovation as well as clinical trials (see PER-55 for additional DIIS responsibilities).

Res006-2023 and PER-56 further explain that the Clinical Trials Subdirectorate (Subdirección de Ensayos Clínicos (SUDEC)) (formerly known as the Executive Office of Investigation (Oficina Ejecutiva de Investigación (OEI))), operates under the DIIS, and is responsible for formulating policies, strategies, and regulations as well as authorizing and supervising clinical trials. According to Decree001-2003, the DIIS, through SUDEC, also implements the INS’s objectives to promote, develop, disseminate, and manage scientific and technological research; establish administrative and technical procedures related to biomedical research; propose health research and technology transfer policies and guidelines; and provide health services to the Peruvian population. According to PER-68, the DIIS’s Health Research Subdirectorate (Subdirección de Investigación en Salud) is responsible for organizing and maintaining REPEC (PER-89) (also referred to as REPECv2), the national registration system for clinical trials, institutional ethics committees (ECs) (los Comités Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEIs)), research centers, and contract research organizations (CROs). See also PER-120 for frequently asked questions about REPEC. Refer to the Scope of Assessment, Submission Process, and Initiation, Agreements & Registration sections for additional information on PER-89.

National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (ANM)

As stated in Decree016-2011 and PER-119, the National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (la Autoridad Nacional de Productos Farmacéuticos, Dispositivos Médicos y Productos Sanitarios (ANM)) is the line agency of MINSA, serving as the national technical and regulatory authority of pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and healthcare products for human use as established by Law29459. Per Law29459 and PER-119, the ANM is responsible for proposing regulations and standards, and for evaluating, implementing, controlling, inspecting, supervising, monitoring, auditing, certifying, and accrediting matters related to the provisions of Law29459, among other functions.

As delineated in Decree021-2017, the ANM is responsible for issuing binding technical opinions on the safety and quality of IPs according to the stage and type of research; evaluating research protocols for bioequivalence studies to demonstrate interchangeability as part of the requirement for health registration in the country; authorizing, exclusively for research purposes, the import or manufacture of IPs and complementary products through a registration process and certificate (i.e., health registration); and authorizing the use of an IP under post-study access conditions. Pursuant to Law29459 and Decree016-2011, the ANM also provisionally authorizes the importation, manufacture, and use of pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and health products without granting health registration in the following cases:

• For use in emergency or declared emergency situations
• For individual prevention and treatment, with due medical justification
• In public health situations in which the need for the product is demonstrated and the product is not available on the national market
• Exclusively for research involving human beings

Per Law29459 and Decree016-2011, the ANM’s other responsibilities center on risk prevention and pharmacovigilance and technovigilance activities associated with pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and health products, as well as regulating, developing, promoting, monitoring, supervising, and evaluating the Peruvian Pharmacovigilance and Technovigilance System (Sistema Peruano de Farmacovigilancia y Tecnovigilancia). (Note: The ANM is also referred to as the General Directorate of Medicines, Supplies and Drugs (La Dirección General de Medicamentos Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID)) (PER-109)).

Other Considerations

Please note: Peru is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (PER-11), which may have implications for studies of IPs developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see PER-57.

Contact Information

National Institute of Health (INS)

According to PER-63, the INS contact information is as follows:

Instituto Nacional de Salud
Sede Central
Jirón Cápac Yupanqui 1400 - Jesus Maria - Lima - Lima - Perú
Phone: (01) 748 1111
Email: comunicaciones@ins.gob.pe

According to PER-13, the DIIS contact information is as follows:

Instituto Nacional de Salud
Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud 
Sede Chorrillos
Av. Defensores del Morro 2268 (Ex Huaylas) - Chorrillos
Lima 9
Perú

National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (ANM)

PER-109 indicates the ANM’s contact information is as follows:

DIGEMID
Av. Parque de las Leyendas 240
San Miguel
Perú

Phone: 1-631-4300 Extension: 6700, 6705, and 6501
Email: atenciontramite@minsa.gob.pe

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to the UK Clinical Trials Regulations

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

International Alignment

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

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

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

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

Contact Information

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

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

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

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

See GBR-58 for additional MHRA contact information.

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

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

Overview

In accordance with the provisions delineated in Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, and Res252-2022 (amending the INS-CTManual), Peru’s INS is responsible for reviewing and approving clinical trial applications using registered or unregistered investigational drug products. As per Decree021-2017, the scope of the INS’s assessment includes Phases I through IV clinical trials for pharmaceuticals including medicines, herbal medicines and other complementary products, dietetic products and sweeteners, biological products, and compounded (galenic) products. As specified in Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022, and PER-61, the INS’s review and approval of a clinical trial application is dependent upon obtaining proof of approval from an accredited ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)). Therefore, the INS and EC reviews may not be conducted in parallel.

Per the INS-CTManual and Res252-2022, EC approval of the research protocol and the informed consent form (ICF) must be submitted as part of the clinical trial application dossier in order for the INS to conduct its review. PER-83 further specifies that the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) must provide a copy of the research protocol and ICF that is stamped and signed by the EC in its entirety as evidence that the approved version is being presented. Refer to the INS-CTManual and Res252-2022 for additional submission information. Per Res0423-2019, the application for clinical trial authorization is in PER-24.

In addition, per Decree021-2017, the sponsor must also ensure authorization by the research institution where the clinical trial will be carried out.

Decree021-2017 states that the IP must meet at least one (1) of the following conditions to be authorized for use in clinical trials in Peru:

• Must be approved for use in humans by drug regulatory authorities of countries with high health surveillance
• Is produced in Peru, is used in preclinical research, and complies with Ministry of Health of Peru (Ministerio de Salud del Perú (MINSA))’s political and/or research priorities
• Will serve to establish pharmaceutical therapeutic equivalence
• Is considered a priority for the country’s public health or is within the scope of MINSA policies and/or research priorities
• At the request of the National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (la Autoridad Nacional de Productos Farmacéuticos, Dispositivos Médicos y Productos Sanitarios (ANM)), requires a clinical trial to support its efficacy and safety for the health registry

Per Decree016-2011, the following are considered to be countries with high health surveillance: France, Holland, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Belgium, and Sweden.

Clinical Trial Review Process

In accordance with Decree021-2017, Res184-2023, Decree028-2023 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022, and Decree010-2025, the INS’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)), is responsible for conducting the review and approval of clinical trial applications. As per Decree021-2017 and Res252-2022, the INS also requests that the ANM assess the safety and quality of the IP to be used in a clinical trial and issue a binding technical opinion as part of the INS’s application review and approval process. Following a review of the research protocol, the ANM technical opinion, and other required documentation included in the application package, the INS will approve the clinical trial. (Note: The ANM is also referred to as the General Directorate of Medicines, Supplies and Drugs (La Dirección General de Medicamentos Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID)) (PER-109)).

Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, and Res252-2022 also note that the Clinical Trials Subdirectorate (Subdirección de Ensayos Clínicos (SUDEC)) can convene a technical commission of experts when controversial situations arise during the authorization process.

In addition, per Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, and Res252-2022, if the clinical trial is related to an IP for the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS infection, the specific technical opinion of the MINSA’s General Directorate of Strategic Interventions in Public Health (Dirección General de Intervenciones Estratégicas en Salud Pública (DGIESP)) will be requested to ensure the study does not interfere with its strategic interventions regarding these diseases.

Decree021-2017 and the INS-CTManual state that the DIIS grants clinical trial authorization for the total period of time scheduled for its completion as indicated in the REPEC (PER-89) registration form submission. Further, per Decree021-2017, once the INS has completed the authorization process, the agency will post the approval status of a clinical trial via PER-89. The following application requirements, which align with the World Health Organization’s Trial Registration Data Set (PER-86), will also be provided in the approval status record: study title, sponsor and investigators, IP, condition under study, study design, and number of participants. See PER-111 for additional information on REPEC’s trial data record requirements. Refer to the INS-CTManual and Res252-2022 for details on the DIIS application review process and a flowchart delineating the clinical trial authorization process (see Annex 1).

As explained in the INS-CTManual and Res252-2022, as part of the application evaluation process, the Documentary Processing Area (Área de Trámite Documentario (ATO)) reviews the file to ensure completeness. The applicant has a maximum of two (2) business days to make any corrections that have been identified. If the file is deemed complete and any required corrections have been addressed, the file is assigned a registration number. An identification number is also assigned to the clinical trial in PER-89. Per Res252-2022, the file is then forwarded to the Clinical Trial Processing Area (Área de evaluación de Ensayos Clínicos (AEC)) for review. The list of clinical trial supplies (PER-42), along with the required documentation in Annex 5 of Decree021-2017, is then forwarded to the Research Product Safety Surveillance Area (Área de Vigilancia de la Seguridad del Producto en Investigación (AVISPI)). AVISPI, in turn, sends this documentation to the ANM to request a binding technical opinion on the IP safety and quality. Once the AEC review is completed and the ANM binding technical opinion is received, a report is prepared for the SUDEC Executive Director’s review. If the SUDEC Executive Director approves the report, it is sent to the DIIS, which also reviews and approves the file and signs off on the project. If the file is found to be non-compliant, it is returned to the SUDEC. Otherwise, the sponsor or the CRO is notified of the approval, and the documentation is registered in PER-89. Per Decree021-2017 and Decree010-2025, the sponsor has the right to appeal when the DIIS does not grant authorization. See the Submission Process, Submission Content, and Timeline of Review sections for detailed submission and DIIS timeline requirements.

Per Decree021-2017 and Decree010-2025, any modifications of the conditions under which a clinical trial was authorized, and amendments to the research protocol and/or informed consent, require prior authorization from the DIIS. The following are grounds for modification of clinical trial authorization conditions (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Expansion of the number of research centers
• Expansion or modification of the list of supplies to be imported
• Change of sponsor or CRO
• Change of principal investigator (PI)
• Extension of time for conducting the clinical trial
• Closure of a research center for a clinical trial
• Suspension of clinical trial
• Cancellation of clinical trial
• Research protocol and/or ICF amendments (e.g., clinical trial title change or new version of protocol report and/or ICF)

Decree028-2023 and Res184-2023 further modify Decree021-2017 to distinguish between amendments and minor changes to the protocol and/or ICF. The updated definition of amendment specifies that an amendment refers to a substantial change(s) that modifies the original version of the protocol and/or ICF and requires INS and EC reauthorization. A minor change(s) is defined as one proposed by the sponsor that complies with Decree028-2023 and the DIIS issued standards delineated in Res184-2023, and the responsibility for executing the protocol remains with the sponsor. Per Decree028-2023, a minor change(s) only requires the approval of the INS registered and accredited EC that originally approved the current version, and the sponsor must communicate the change(s) in writing to the DIIS prior to its implementation. Decree028-2023 and Res184-2023 also note that a minor change does not generate a new version of the protocol or ICF; however, if a subsequent amendment is made to the protocol, it must also contain the minor change(s) made.

Res184-2023 further states that changes or modifications must meet certain criteria to be considered minor changes. For changes that are not considered minor, it is necessary to initiate the corresponding amendment procedure delineated in Decree021-2017. Moreover, any new safety information derived from the Investigator’s Brochure is not considered a minor change. See the Scope of Review section and Res184-2023 for detailed descriptions of minor changes to the protocol and/or ICF that do not require DIIS approval. See the Timeline of Review section for DIIS amendment timeline requirements.

See also the Submission Process section for additional information on trial extension documentation and review requirements.

Inspection

As indicated in Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, and the G-CTInspec, the DIIS inspection team is responsible for overseeing the conduct of clinical trials in Peru at the national level to ensure data quality and integrity or other trial elements, and to protect the rights and well-being of research participants. Inspections may occur any time during the trial at the respective research center, the IP manufacturing site, and/or the sponsor, CRO, EC, or PI facilities. Qualified DIIS personnel carry out inspections in accordance with G-CTInspec requirements and good clinical practice (GCP) standards. Decree021-2017 and the G-CTInspec specify that based on the severity of the inspection findings, the DIIS will apply one (1) or more safety measures, and sanctions, if appropriate, directed at the sponsor, the CRO, the research institution, or the PI before, during, and after the trial is conducted. Decree021-2017 also notes that in the case of violations by foreign sponsors, the INS will inform the authorities of their respective country(ies) so that they can take the appropriate legal action. See also the G-CTFines for additional information on how the DIIS assesses and grades fines.

In addition, refer to Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, and the G-CTInspec for detailed DIIS clinical trial inspection procedures and the application of safety measures, sanctions, and penalties. See PER-100 for the clinical trial inspection sheet form (FOR-DIIS-049). See also the Risk & Quality Management section for sponsor or CRO responsibilities to address inspection violations and/or sanctions.

Overview

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultations for Expert Advice

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

Modifications to a CTIMP Approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notifiable Trials

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

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

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

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

UK-wide Research

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

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

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

National Institute of Health (INS)

Per Decree021-2017, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for paying a fee, as applicable, to the National Institute of Health (Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS)) to submit a clinical trial application for authorization. Additionally, INS payments are required as delineated by Decree010-2025 below.

• Request for clinical trial authorization: 3446.50 Peruvian Soles
• Request for clinical trial cancellation: 304.80 Peruvian Soles
• Authorization to change a clinical trial title: 305.10 Peruvian Soles
• Authorization to amend a report: 726.60 Peruvian Soles
• Request to expand the number of research centers: 450.60 Peruvian Soles
• Request to change the sponsor or contract research organization: 433.40 Peruvian Soles
• Request to change the principal investigator: 299.00 Peruvian Soles
• Request for a clinical trial extension: 306.40 Peruvian Soles
• Request for closure of a research Center: 308.40 Peruvian Soles
• Request for Suspension of the clinical trial: 303.00 Peruvian Soles
• Request to register a research center: 2524.60 Peruvian Soles

Per Res0423-2019, the forms required to modify the trial may be obtained from PER-26, PER-27, PER-28, PER-43, and PER-31.

As stated in Decree010-2025, the INS may be contacted by phone at (01) 748 1111 ext. 2191 or email at consultaensayos@ins.gob.pe for any additional fee-related questions.

Pursuant to Res655-2019, which amends Decree021-2017, in the case of multicenter clinical trials, the sponsor or the CRO must submit a clinical trial application along with proof of payment information for the processing fee rather than requiring each of the participating research centers in Peru to submit their payment separately, as originally required.

Payment Instructions

As indicated in Decree010-2025, fees must be paid directly to the INS via the following options:

• In person at the INS
• Via the Virtual Submission Platform (Mesa de Partes Virtual (MPV)) (PER-106)

For questions on submitting a payment electronically via PER-106, send an email to: mesadepartesvirtual@ins.gob.pe. See also PER-105 and G-MPVManual for more information on PER-106 or via the MPV link on the INS webpage.

Decree010-2025 indicates that payments may also be made via electronic transfer. Transfers should be sent to:

Account Name: Banco de la Nación CTA
Account Number: 0000282413
Interbank Account Code: CCI 01800000000028241304

See PER-71 for payment receipt requirements to request authorization of a clinical trial via PER-106. See PER-72 for a list of trial procedures and associated payment receipt requirements, if applicable. Refer to the Submission Process section for additional information on application submission requirements.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

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

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

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

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

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

Payment Instructions

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

As set forth in Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, and Res252-2022 (amending the INS-CTManual), and PER-71, Peru requires clinical trial approval from an institutional ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)) that is accredited by the INS’s National Registry of Accredited Institutional Ethics Committees (PER-61). There are no stated requirements regarding which EC the sponsor should choose to conduct the clinical protocol review. In addition, as noted in Decree021-2017, those research institutions that do not have their own EC may select an INS-accredited EC, preferably located in the same region.

Ethics Committees for Human Subjects Health Research Other than Clinical Trials

Res233-2020, which regulates human subjects research other than clinical trials of drugs or devices, states that health institutions or entities may establish one (1) or more ECs in order to fulfill their requirements to conduct health research with human beings. Per Res233-2020, ECs that conduct health research with humans are created by statute, resolution, or other document that establishes, as a minimum, among others, the committee’s mission, its members, and their respective positions. An EC may be constituted within a public, private, or mixed health institution that provides health services and is registered with the National Registry of Institutions that Provide Health Services (Registro Nacional de Instituciones Prestadoras de Servicios de Salud (RENIPRESS)). An EC may also be an entity within the Ministry of Health of Peru (Ministerio de Salud del Perú (MINSA)), one (1) of the Peruvian universities, or a non-profit legal organization. If the entities or institutions do not have an EC, they may select another INS-registered EC to evaluate their investigations. This arrangement may occur following a written agreement between the authorities of the entities or institutions involved and the respective EC. See the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for information on registering a health service provider institution in RENIPRESS.

Institutional Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Health (CIEI-INS)

As described in PER-94, Peru’s Institutional Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Health (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación del Instituto Nacional de Salud (CIEI-INS)) is an advisory committee that aims to protect the rights, life, health, privacy, dignity, and well-being of research participant(s) while adhering to the ethical principles accepted by national and international regulations, and the agreements signed by Peru on research ethics. According to PER-77, the CIEI-INS is not accredited to approve clinical trials. It approves research with human participants conducted with the involvement of the INS except for clinical trials with drugs or devices. (See PER-102 for a list of accredited ECs.) See PER-126 for EC registration instructions.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in Decree021-2017, institutional ECs must be multidisciplinary, with the participation of civil society, and be composed of at least five (5) regular members, who must ensure independence in their decision-making process.

Decree021-2017 lists the following membership requirements:

• Persons with scientific expertise in the health field, including those with expertise in behavioral or social sciences
• Persons with expertise in ethical matters
• Persons with expertise in legal matters
• Community representatives, whose primary function is to share their views on the communities where research participants are likely to come from
• At least one (1) full member must be from the community and not belong to the health field, or to the research institution

In addition, Decree021-2017 specifies that all members must have at least one (1) certificate of basic training in research ethics and one (1) of its members must have training in bioethics. Per Decree021-2017, the EC may consider the assistance of expert consultants on different topics, and the committee must also make the list of all members publicly accessible.

Ethics Committees for Human Subjects Health Research Other than Clinical Trials

As indicated in Res233-2020, ECs are multidisciplinary, reflecting the country’s social and cultural diversity, and must be comprised of at least five (5) members.

Res233-2020 lists the following membership requirements:

• Persons with knowledge in research methodology and knowledge in the health field as well as in behavioral or social sciences
• Persons with knowledge of legal and ethical matters
• Community representatives; people outside the entities and institutions that comprise the ECs should also be included

In addition, Res233-2020 states that researchers must possess the relevant qualifications to carry out the investigation proposal, including basic training in ethics of research with human beings with the corresponding diplomas, certifications, titles, among others. Res233-2020 further indicates that the authorities, managers, or the main persons in charge of the entities and institutions that constitute the ECs cannot be members or preside over the members; the list of all members must be publicly accessible.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

Pursuant to Decree021-2017, for their operations, ECs must have stated rules and prepare a procedures manual that is approved by the research institution. Per Decree021-2017, the manual must provide rules and procedures for the following:

• Composition and requirements that must be met by its members
• Minimum EC infrastructure requirements (e.g., specific areas that allow for work performance under conditions that guarantee confidentiality; adequate computer equipment; and administrative personnel to allow an EC to function properly)
• Meeting frequency
• Specific quorum requirements
• Administrative requirements for the presentation of files
• Monitoring authorized research protocols
• Preparing and approving meeting minutes
• Filing related documentation
• Obtaining specialist(s) advice on diseases or methodologies outside the EC’s expertise
• Ensuring alternate committee members have been selected
• Replacing a member with a conflict of interest
• Renewal procedures

See Title IV, Chapter 7 of Decree021-2017 for detailed EC requirements.

Decree021-2017 and PER-21 further note that minimum infrastructure requirements for the operation of institutional ECs must include ensuring specific work environments that permit their work to be conducted under conditions that guarantee confidentiality, and computer equipment with sufficient capacity to handle all the information generated by the EC.

Ethics Committees for Human Subjects Health Research Other than Clinical Trials

As delineated in Res233-2020, ECs must have regulations and a procedures manual approved by the entity or institution that created them, specifying procedures, internal regulations, and other operational requirements.

Res233-2020 specifies that the procedures manual must include the following:

• Conditions and terms for the appointment of members
• Committee structure
• Member responsibilities
• Submitting research projects for review
• Assessing the types of review
• Classifying adopted decisions and processes to communicate these decisions
• Developing the mechanism for determining whether a research project requires ethical review or should be exempt
• Procedures for monitoring and surveillance of investigations, from the moment approved until terminated (including presenting amendments, deviations, adverse events, etc.)
• Specifying required procedures and criteria for submitting expedited reviews
• Reviewing projects based on ethical criteria (i.e., scientific validity and social value of the research, favorable benefit/risk balance ratio, equitable research participant selection, adequate informed consent process, respect for people, community participation and commitment)
• Independent deliberation by members (i.e., EC members, researchers, sponsors, or other agents related to the research project under review should not be present)
• Adopting research projects by consensus or by vote, and always with the participation of at least one (1) community representative and/or a member external to the entity or institution that constituted the EC
• Requesting external assistance from independent consultants when necessary, taking into account the specialty or complexity of research under review

See Chapter 7 of Res233-2020 for detailed EC requirements.

Res233-2020 further notes that the entities and institutions that constitute the ECs must provide all of the economic, human, logistical, infrastructure, or the availability of other resources necessary for its operation.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

According to Decree021-2017 and the G-EC-CTRev, the primary scope of information assessed by institutional ethics committees (ECs) (Comités Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEIs)) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. The EC scope also aligns with the principles delineated in the PeruConstitution and Decree011-2011, which assert that the defense of the human person and respect for their dignity are the supreme goal of society and the state.

As per Decree021-2017, Decree011-2011, and the G-EC-CTRev, ECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable. Per Decree021-2017, when a clinical trial is proposed for subordinate groups (e.g., students, health workers, employees, military members, police, prisoners, etc.), one (1) or more members of the population under study, or another person within this community capable of guarding the conditions and human rights that correspond to the group in question, should participate in the EC review. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations).

Decree021-2017 and the G-EC-CTRev also state that the INS-registered and accredited ECs are responsible for ensuring an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants; confirming the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and methods; and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards.

Res686-2020, in turn, states that in the ethical review of clinical studies of vaccines in humans, ECs must comply with the ethical criteria delineated in Res233-2020. Additionally, in all deliberations, ECs must ensure the following ethical criteria are present: social value and scientific validity of the research; favorable benefit/risk balance and risk minimization; fair selection of research participants; informed consent process; respect for people; and community participation and commitment. Therefore, per Res686-2020, an EC decision regarding the approval or disapproval of a vaccine clinical study protocol must have a solid and justified ethical basis in the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) criteria (PER-78).

Ethics Committees for Human Subjects Health Research Other than Clinical Trials

Res233-2020, which regulates human subjects research other than clinical trials of drugs or devices, similarly states that the focus of ECs that conduct human health research is to ensure the protection of the rights, safety, and well-being of the research participants. In addition, the INS must ensure the governance of all health research involving human beings is conducted ethically; the scientific validity and social value of the research is considered by the research studies; the equitable selection of research participants; the adequacy of the informed consent process; respect for the participants; and the participation and commitment of the communities. Res233-2020 further specifies that human studies include, but are not limited to, epidemiological research, genetic research, social science research, research on medical records, and research on stored samples, among others.

Per Res233-2020, the ECs are also responsible for conducting rigorous, timely, and competent ethical reviews of research projects based on the CIOMS' International Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans (PER-78). Furthermore, the ECs should monitor the progress of an approved research project until it has concluded.

Additionally, per Res233-2020, the research entities or institutions that constitute ECs conducting human health research must have policies of scientific integrity in accordance with international standards on the matter and the National Code of Scientific Integrity (PER-79), which includes appropriate investigation and sanction procedures.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As per Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022 (amending the INS-CTManual), and the G-EC-CTRev, an INS-accredited EC must provide written confirmation of review and approval of the clinical trial protocol and the informed consent form (ICF) prior to the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) submitting the clinical trial application to the INS. Therefore, the INS and EC reviews may not be conducted in parallel.

According to Decree021-2017, each institutional EC determines its own review and approval timeline and continuing review requirements based on its internal regulations and standard operating procedures.

Per Decree028-2023 (amending Decree021-2017), a minor change(s) to the protocol and/or ICF only requires the approval of the INS registered and accredited EC that originally approved the current version, and the sponsor must communicate the change(s) in writing to the INS’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) prior to its implementation. Decree028-2023 and Res184-2023 (amending Decree021-2017) also note that a minor change does not generate a new version of the protocol or ICF; however, if a subsequent amendment is made to the protocol, it must also contain the minor change(s) made. (See Timeline of Review section for timeline information on submitting minor changes to the DIIS.)

Res184-2023 specifically lists the following as minor changes to the protocol and/or ICF:

• Typographical error corrections - A material unintentional error in a word, term, or expression that results from the writing, transcription, or translation of a specific expression that does not alter the meaning, objective, or intent of the word, term, or expression.
• Modification of the conditions of clinical trial authorization or amendments - Updates made to the approved protocol and/or ICF, as a result of procedures for clinical trial modifications or amendments, linked to the change of protocol title, and/or name of the principal investigator, sponsor, and/or CRO; and/or study completion date, provided that the change is previously authorized by Director's Resolution or Official Letter issued by the DIIS, as a result of the corresponding administrative procedure.
• Clarifications and/or modifications of an administrative or operational aspect - Changes made to the approved protocol and/or ICF for strictly administrative or operational reasons. In addition, a clarification refers to a clarification of the protocol and/or ICF information or content which does not alter the meaning, objective, or intention of the document.

See Res184-2023 for detailed descriptions of minor changes to the protocol and/or ICF.

Per Decree021-2017, ECs must also conduct regular monitoring, with a frequency based on the degree of risk to participants, but no less than once a year. Further, they must suspend or cancel the trial when participants are exposed to uncontrolled risk and inform the research institution, the sponsor and/or the CRO, and the DIIS of the suspension or cancellation.

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

Overview

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fast Track Ethics Review

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

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

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

Review fees are determined by each accredited institutional ethics committee (EC) (Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)).

EC Accreditation Fees

As delineated in Decree010-2025, the fee for accreditation of an EC is 3927.10 Peruvian Soles.

Payment Instructions

As indicated in Decree010-2025, the EC accreditation must be paid directly to the National Institute of Health (Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS)) via the following options:

• In person at the INS
• Via the Virtual Submission Platform (Mesa de Partes Virtual (MPV)) (PER-106)

See also PER-105 and G-MPVManual for more information on PER-106 or via the MPV link on the INS webpage. Refer to the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for additional information on EC accreditation requirements.

Decree010-2025 indicates that payments may also be made via electronic transfer. Transfers should be sent to:

Account Name: Banco de la Nación CTA
Account Number: 0000282413
Interbank Account Code: CCI 01800000000028241304

For questions on submitting a payment electronically via MPV (PER-106), send an email to mesadepartesvirtual@ins.gob.pe.

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

Overview

As set forth in Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, and PER-61, the INS’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) is responsible for registering and accrediting institutional ethics committees (ECs) (Comités Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEIs)) listed in the INS’s REPEC (PER-89) (also referred to as REPECv2) to review and approve clinical trials. The DIIS must evaluate and verify EC compliance with the registration and accreditation standards established in the INS-CTManual. Per Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, PER-71, and PER-61, Peru requires clinical trial approval from an EC that is accredited by the INS’s National Registry of Accredited Institutional Ethics Committees (Registro Nacional de Comités de Ética en Investigación) (PER-61). See PER-102 for a list of accredited ECs and see PER-126 for EC registration instructions.

Ethics Committees for Human Subjects Health Research Other than Clinical Trials

As delineated in Res233-2020, the INS is also responsible for providing advice, guidance, and technical assistance to all ECs and their entities or institutions that review health research with human beings; organizing training and education activities for EC members and researchers; promoting integration and cooperation networks among participating ECs; promoting relations between the ECs and different entities linked to the research ethics field; providing access to international resources to strengthen research ethics; establishing flexible review procedures and mechanisms appropriate for an expedited and rigorous ethical review of human health research in disaster situations and disease outbreaks; and assigning the DIIS to disseminate information and supervising ECs at the national level per the ethical research guidelines delineated in Res233-2020.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Per Decree021-2017, each research institution may establish an EC and register it with the INS via PER-89. (Refer to PER-102 for instructions on registering in the REPEC system.)

Per Decree021-2017, Res233-2020, the INS-CTManual, the G-ECRegProcs, and Decree010-2025, INS-registered ECs are only required to obtain accreditation if they are conducting a review of a clinical trial protocol involving pharmaceutical products. Decree021-2017, Res233-2020, the INS-CTManual, the G-ECRegProcs also specify that in addition to completing the accreditation/renewal application form (see PER-85 for FOR-DIIS-025), the applicant should complete the affidavit form (see PER-21 for FOR-DIIS-026) to demonstrate compliance with the accreditation standards delineated in the INS-CTManual. Both forms must be electronically submitted via PER-89. See PER-81 for instructional videos on registering on the REPEC platform.

PER-61 explains that once the registration form is electronically submitted, the user will receive a temporary EC registration number. Both the affidavit form and the registration forms should be printed and signed, and then attached along with the other accreditation documents required to be sent to the DIIS via the Document Processing Office located in the INS headquarters (refer to PER-61 and PER-98 for detailed requirements and instructions).

Decree021-2017 and the INS-CTManual state that accreditation is temporary and must be renewed every three (3) years. However, per Decree010-2025, the EC accreditation letter issued by the INS is not subject to renewal.

Per Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, and Decree010-2025, the following accreditation requirements must be completed (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• EC accreditation application sent to INS (PER-85), per Res0423-2019
• Copy of the resolution/decision issued by the highest authority of the research institution authorizing EC operation
• Copy of institutionally approved EC regulations and its Manual of Procedures submitted in electronic form (editable PDF)
• Affidavit of compliance with INS-CTManual accreditation standards (PER-21), per Res0423-2019
• Curriculum vitaes signed by each EC member submitted in electronic form (editable PDF)

Per the INS-CTManual, it is recommended that applications for EC accreditation renewals be submitted 30 calendar days before the end of term (see PER-85 for the EC accreditation/accreditation renewal form). Additionally, the INS-CTManual provides detailed information on the inspections that the INS-accredited ECs may be subject to before, during, and after EC registration.

Refer to the INS-CTManual and PER-61 for detailed submission instructions, and PER-85, PER-21, PER-22, and PER-35 for the EC accreditation application and EC affidavit of compliance forms.

Ethics Committees for Human Subjects Health Research Other than Clinical Trials

Res233-2020, which regulates human subjects research other than clinical trials of drugs or devices, requires ECs to be registered with the INS via the National Registry of Research Ethics Committees (Registro Nacional de Comités de Ética en Investigación), per the G-ECRegProcs. The G-ECRegProcs establishes standardized procedures for the DIIS to conduct EC registration evaluation in compliance with Res233-2020. As specified in the G-ECRegProcs, the DIIS’s Clinical Trials Subdirectorate (Subdirección de Ensayos Clínicos (SUDEC)) is responsible for receiving, evaluating, and responding to EC registration requests. Depending on the implementation period, registration can be immediate, in which registration occurs at the time of the request, or progressive, in which implementation is carried out over a maximum period of two (2) years after initial EC registration. During the implementation of progressive requirements, the DIIS can provide advice and guidance to the EC upon request.

Per the G-ECRegProcs, in the case of immediate registration approval, once the registration application file is initially reviewed for completeness, it is forwarded to the application evaluator who verifies whether the file minimally complies with all the immediate requirements within 30 days. If the registration file meets the immediate requirements and the information provided complies with the INS-CTManual and the G-ECRegProcs provisions, the evaluator prepares a favorable response report and a draft record of registration, addressed to SUDEC. Once the favorable response report has been received, SUDEC evaluates and endorses it, sending the report and draft record of registration to the DIIS. The DIIS issues the EC certificate of registration and incorporates registration into the National Registry of Research Ethics Committees database. In addition, per the G-ECRegProcs, an EC registration may be suspended if the EC has not completed implementation of the progressive registration requirements within the two-year term. Refer to G-ECRegProcs for additional information on the DIIS’s registration review and approval process.

Overview

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

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

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

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

Overview

In accordance with Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022 (amending the INS-CTManual), and Decree010-2025, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for submitting a clinical trial application to the INS to obtain approval to conduct a clinical trial in Peru. Per Decree021-2017, Res655-2019, the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022, and the G-EC-CTRev, the INS-accredited ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)) must first approve the research protocol and informed consent form (ICF), and the sponsor or the CRO must submit this information as part of the application dossier in order for the INS to conduct its review. Therefore, the INS and EC reviews may not be conducted in parallel. Decree021-2017 also states that sponsors not based in Peru are required to appoint a legal representative in the country who coordinates all communication with the INS’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) for the trial’s duration, unless such responsibility is delegated to a CRO.

Regulatory Submission

REPEC Pre-Submission Registrations

As delineated in Decree021-2017, Res655-2019, Res252-2022, the INS-CTManual, PER-60, PER-59, PER-115, and Decree010-2025, prior to submitting an application for clinical trial authorization, the sponsor and the CRO must register with REPEC (PER-89) (also referred to as REPECv2). The INS-CTManual also notes that the sponsor registration application (PER-36) must be submitted in Spanish or accompanied by a proper translation if issued in a language other than Spanish. See the INS-CTManual, PER-60, and PER-59 for detailed sponsor and CRO registration instructions and PER-36 and PER-37 for the sponsor and CRO registration forms. Refer to Res393-2021 for additional information on the updated sponsor registration form (PER-36). See also PER-81 for instructional videos on registering with PER-89.

Additionally, as specified in PER-89, the REPECv2 platform should be used to obtain information or request feedback on procedures and operations related to a newly submitted clinical trial, to track the status of the authorization process, to identify critical events that require immediate attention via an alert system (e.g., expiring or expired authorizations and necessary notifications per Decree021-2017), and to obtain updated information on clinical trials being conducted in Peru. Also, as explained in PER-114, DIIS has initiated the process of migrating information from the older platform (REPECv1) (PER-91) to PER-89 to receive and manage clinical trial information on a single platform, therefore all new requests for clinical trial procedures should be entered through PER-89. However, per PER-88, any requests for procedures related to an already active clinical trial must still be requested using the older REPEC platform (PER-91). PER-114 further notes that requests for clinical trials that are in progress and have been entered through REPECv1 will not be migrated to REPECv2 until the procedure is concluded. See also PER-120 for frequently asked questions on REPEC.

Submissions

Pursuant to Res252-2022, all application related documents must be electronically submitted through the Virtual Submission Platform (Mesa de Partes Virtual (MPV)) (PER-106). According to PER-103, all notifications relating to procedures submitted via PER-106 will only be responded to in the PER-106 notification mailbox; notifications will not be communicated via email or other forms of communication.

Per PER-104, users must also register for the MPV system via PER-106 prior to submitting any application related documents. Registration is done through PER-106. Although, as indicated in PER-106, non-citizens cannot register directly with PER-106, and require an in-country representative to provide proof of citizenship to register using either a national identity document or an immigration card. Refer to the G-MPVManual and the G-VirtSubPlatfrm for detailed user instructions and procedures, and PER-105 and PER-127 for additional information on the MPV system.

As explained in Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022, PER-71, and PER-115, once the sponsor or the CRO is registered in the REPEC and MPV systems, a request for clinical trial authorization must be submitted electronically via PER-89. (See PER-24 for the online clinical trial application request form.) Per Res252-2022, the completed electronic request form should then be submitted via PER-106 along with the required documentation as set forth in Decree021-2017 and Res655-2019. PER-115 further explains that once the user receives a notification confirming that their registration request for clinical trial authorization has been approved, the online application request form (PER-24) should be printed, signed, and submitted in PDF or paper format along with the required documentation via PER-106.

Decree021-2017 and Res655-2019 further indicate that the clinical trial application and accompanying material (including the updated Investigator’s Brochure (IB)) must be provided in Spanish. Any document not in Spanish must be submitted with a corresponding translation. Decree021-2017 also states that if the protocol title is written in English, a single title in Spanish must be assigned for all purposes. In addition, per Decree021-2017 and Decree010-2025, the research protocol and the ICF must also be in Spanish and in the original language, if different from Spanish, and include a copy of the approval by an INS-accredited EC. Per Decree021-2017, research and complementary investigational product (IP) media labeling must also be printed in indelible ink in Spanish or English. The INS-CTManual also notes that notification reports for IPs should contain a translated summary in English and Spanish.

For amended protocols or ICF submissions, Res655-2019 and Decree010-2025 state that any changes should be electronically submitted (editable PDF) with track changes in Spanish and in the original language. The final protocol and ICF should include all of the incorporated amendments in an editable PDF file and comply with all of the previously discussed protocol submission requirements. PER-118 also notes that to modify the conditions of a clinical trial authorization, the sponsor or legally authorized representative in Peru must be previously registered and have a username and password to access PER-89. Refer to PER-118 for a detailed list of amendments with corresponding instructions that may be submitted for modification.

See also Res655-2019, PER-33, PER-34, PER-35, and PER-72 for additional details on submitting protocol amendments and the related forms. See PER-105 and G-MPVManual for information on submitting documents electronically via PER-106 or via the MPV link on the INS webpage.

PER-92 indicates that for questions or problems with PER-89, contact:

Jenny Parillo, Engineer
Phone: (511) 748 0000 Extension: 2616 or 984108368 (Cell)
Email: jparillo@ins.gob.pe

(Note: Application submission instructions in some sources including Res655-2019, the INS-CTManual, and PER-71, do not reflect this new electronic submission option.)

For reference, the following are applications and forms that may be used to submit various procedures via PER-106:

• PER-24 for the clinical trial application for authorization
• PER-28 for the application to change the principal investigator (PI)
• PER-29 for the application to change the sponsor/CRO
• PER-31 for the application to cancel a clinical trial
• Res090-2025 for the form and requirements to request INS approval to supervise a clinical trial virtually (See Annex 1)

See also PER-123 for additional clinical trial forms.

Refer to the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022, and PER-71 for additional submission information. See Annex 1 in Res252-2022 for a flowchart delineating the clinical trial authorization process. See also the Submission Content section for detailed documentation requirements.

Ethics Review Submission

Because the submission process at individual institutional ECs will vary, applicants should review and follow their institution’s specific requirements.

Overview

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

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

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

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

Combined Review Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultation

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As specified in Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022 (amending the INS-CTManual), Decree010-2025, PER-71, PER-83, and PER-115 a clinical trial application submission must include the following documents (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Application for clinical trial authorization and proof of payment (PER-24) (per Annex B in Res655-2019)
• Approval(s) issued by legal representative of institution(s) where research will be conducted (per Annex 1 in INS-CTManual and Annex 2 in Res252-2022)
• Copy of the approved research protocol and informed consent form (ICF) stamped and signed by the ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)) in its entirety (per Annex 3 in INS-CTManual and Annex 3 in Res252-2022)
• Research protocol in Spanish, and in the original language if different from Spanish, submitted in electronic form as an editable PDF (per Annex B in Res655-2019)
• ICF in electronic form as an editable PDF (per Annex B in Res655-2019)
• Updated Investigator’s Brochure (IB) in Spanish, and in the original language if different from Spanish, submitted in electronic form as an editable PDF (per Annex B in Res655-2019)
• Affidavit stating no conflict of financial interest signed by the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) and the principal investigator (PI) (PER-34)
• Affidavit signed by the PI and sponsor on preparation of research institution for trial (PER-35)
• In the case of foreign sponsor: copy of proof of delegation of functions to the sponsor representative, duly authenticated by Peru’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Affidavit on compensation for participants signed by the sponsor or the CRO and PI (covers budget and expenses for any trial-related injuries) (PER-51)
• Copy of current insurance policy purchased by the sponsor
• List of clinical trial supplies (PER-42)
• Information related to the investigational product (IP) quality (electronic form) (per Annex B in Res655-2019)
• Updated curriculum vitaes (CVs) of all research team members with attached copies (PER-50) (per Annex B in Res655-2019)
• Copy of documents demonstrating training in Good Clinical Practices and Research Ethics in human beings for the entire research team within the past three (3) years (PER-50) (per Annex B in Res655-2019)
• Detailed national budget total for trial form (PER-25)
• Copy of current record of authorized research institution(s) for clinical trials
• Payment receipt for research center registration; in the case of multicenter trials, proof of payment for processing fee (per Annex B in Res655-2019)

Refer to Decree021-2017, Res655-2019, the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022, and PER-71 for detailed submission information.

See also the Submission Process section for additional submission requirements, and Annex 1 in Res252-2022 for a flowchart delineating the clinical trial authorization process.

Trial Extensions

Decree021-2017, Res655-2019, Decree010-2025, PER-72, PER-27, and PER-93 indicate that the sponsor or the CRO must submit the following documents for clinical trial application extensions: (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Application for extension of time to conduct the clinical trial, explaining the reasons for such request and stating the number and date of the proof of payment of processing fees (using FOR-DIIS-037 (PER-27)) per PER-72
• Copy of the document approving the time extension granted by the legal representative of the research institution(s) where the trial will be conducted
• Copy of the document containing the time extension approval by an INS-accredited EC
• Report justifying the reasons for submitting the request
• Current insurance policy

Ethics Committee Requirements

Specific institutional EC requirements for the documentation to be submitted by PIs are not provided in Peru’s regulatory sources. Although each EC has its own requirements, according to PER-77, ECs generally require PIs to submit the following documentation for ethics approval:

• Letter from the PI to the EC Chairman
• Basic format application as established by the corresponding EC
• Research protocol
• ICF and all the documentation related to the informed consent process
• PI and co-investigator(s) CV(s)
• Declaration of the PI and research center director/research institution head
• Declaration of financial details and potential conflicts of interest of the PI
• Sponsor’s insurance policy
• PI’s training in good clinical practices and human research ethics

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in Decree021-2017, the clinical protocol should contain the following elements:

• General information
• Protocol summary
• Background and justification (including IP description) (See Investigational Products topic for detailed coverage of this subject)
• Objectives, valuation criteria, or specific results and hypotheses
• Test design
• Participant selection/withdrawal
• Participant treatment
• Study evaluation and procedures
• Adverse events (See Safety Reporting section for additional information)
• Statistical considerations
• Data collection and monitoring
• Data management and record maintenance
• Ethical aspects
• Publications results
• Bibliography
• Appendices

For complete protocol requirements, refer to Annex 1 of Decree021-2017.

Combined Submission Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

Overview

Based on Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, and Res252-2022 (amending the INS-CTManual), the INS’s review and approval of an application to conduct a clinical trial is dependent upon obtaining ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)) approval from an INS-accredited EC. Therefore, the INS and EC reviews may not be conducted in parallel.

Regulatory Authority Approval

As per Law27444, Decree004-2019 (amending Law27444), and Decree010-2025, the INS is required to complete its review and approval of a clinical trial application in a maximum of 30 working days. Per Decree021-2017, this timeline includes the 30-day requirement for the National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (la Autoridad Nacional de Productos Farmacéuticos, Dispositivos Médicos y Productos Sanitarios (ANM)) to issue a binding technical opinion on the safety and quality of the investigational product (IP). (Note: The ANM is also referred to as the General Directorate of Medicines, Supplies and Drugs (La Dirección General de Medicamentos Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID)) (PER-109)).

Per Decree010-2025, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) may file an appeal within 15 business days if the INS’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) does not respond by the 30-day review deadline. Upon receipt of the DIIS’s decision, the sponsor or the CRO may also file an appeal within 15 business days to challenge the decision and request reconsideration. The INS Executive President must respond within 30 business days to the appeal.

Per Decree021-2017 and Decree010-2025, any modifications of the conditions under which a clinical trial was authorized, and amendments to the research protocol and/or informed consent, require prior authorization from the DIIS.

Per Decree010-2025, for requests to make minor change(s) to the protocol and/or informed consent form (ICF), the DIIS is required to complete its review and respond within 30 business days. If the DIIS does not respond by the 30-day review deadline, the sponsor or the CRO may file an administrative appeal within 15 business days of this deadline. Upon receipt of the DIIS’s decision, the sponsor or the CRO may also file a second appeal within 15 days to challenge the decision, and the INS Executive President must respond within 30 days. The approval and timelines specified for minor changes to the protocol report are applicable to requests to change the sponsor or the CRO of the clinical trial, requests to change the clinical trial title, and requests to extend the trial’s duration. Decree028-2023 (amending Decree021-2017) further specifies that a minor change(s) to the protocol and/or the ICF, also requires approval from the INS-registered and accredited EC that originally approved the current version. The sponsor or the CRO must also communicate the change(s) in writing to the DIIS within 10 business days prior to its implementation.(See Scope of Assessment and Scope of Review sections for additional information on submitting minor changes to the DIIS.)

Per Decree021-2017, Res655-2019, PER-72, and PER-93, the sponsor or the CRO should also request a trial extension within 30 calendar days prior to the trial’s expiration. The authorized trial extension will be valid for a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue.

Ethics Committee Approval

The EC review and approval process timeline varies by institution.

Overview

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

Combined Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governance

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

Overview

In accordance with Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), the INS-CTManual, and Res252-2022 (amending the INS-CTManual), a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) receives authorization from Peru’s INS and approval from an INS-accredited institutional ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)). No waiting period is required following the applicant’s receipt of these approvals.

According to Decree021-2017, Decree016-2011, the INS-CTManual, and Res252-2022, the sponsor or the CRO must also obtain approval from the National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (la Autoridad Nacional de Productos Farmacéuticos, Dispositivos Médicos y Productos Sanitarios (ANM)) to manufacture or import investigational products (IPs) and to obtain an import license for the shipment of IPs to be used in the trial. (Note: The ANM is also referred to as the General Directorate of Medicines, Supplies and Drugs (La Dirección General de Medicamentos Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID)) (PER-109)). (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information).

Additionally, per Decree021-2017 and Res252-2022, the sponsor must ensure authorization by the research institution where the clinical trial will be carried out. Decree021-2017 further states that the sponsor must inform the INS’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) when the first research participant is enrolled in Peru as well as the enrollment termination date in the country.

The INS-CTManual further specifies that the trials should be conducted in compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (PER-53).

Res686-2020, in turn, states that clinical studies of vaccines in humans must be conducted in accordance with PER-53 and current national clinical trial regulations (Decree021-2017). Refer to Res686-2020 for detailed information and requirements associated with clinical vaccine studies.

Clinical Trial Agreement

According to Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022, and PER-71, the sponsor and principal investigator (PI) must sign an affidavit of compliance with the minimum requirements of the research center where the clinical trial will be executed (see PER-35). Further, per Res252-2022 and PER-71, both the sponsor and the PI must sign an affidavit establishing that there is no conflict of financial interest in executing the trial (PER-34).

In addition, per Decree021-2017, the DIIS refers to the requirements laid down in PER-53 for topics not addressed in Decree021-2017. Accordingly, PER-53 states that prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor or the CRO should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an investigator’s brochure (IB), and ensure that they agree to comply with good clinical practices and ethical standards. The sponsor and the investigator/institution should sign the protocol, or an alternative document, to confirm this agreement.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, Res252-2022, and PER-71, the sponsor or the CRO must register the clinical trial application electronically using the INS’s REPEC (PER-89) (also referred to as REPECv2), at which time, a registration code is assigned to the application.

As specified in PER-89, the REPEC platform should be used to register all requests for procedures related to newly submitted clinical trials, to track the status of the authorization process, to identify critical events that require immediate attention via an alert system (e.g., expiring or expired authorizations and necessary notifications per Decree021-2017, and to obtain updated information on clinical trials being conducted in Peru). However, per PER-88, any requests for procedures related to already active clinical trials must still be submitted using the older REPEC platform via PER-91. See PER-81 for instructional videos on registering with the new REPEC platform. Refer to the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for instructions on EC registration/accreditation and the Submission Process section for instructions on sponsor/CRO registration.

Overview

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

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

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

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

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

Governance

Study-wide Review

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

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

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

Research & Development Review

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to Decree021-2017, Decree021-2017-Correct, the G-SafeRpt, and the G-CTSafety, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Peru’s safety reporting requirements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Adverse Event (or Adverse Experience) (AE) – Any event or situation harmful to the health of the research participant to whom an investigational product (IP) has been administered, which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with its administration
• Adverse Reaction (AR) – Any AE in which there is a clearly defined causal relationship with an IP or there is at least a reasonable possibility of causation, which occurs regardless of any dose administered to that participant
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Reaction (SAR) – Any AE/AR that results in death, is life threatening, requires or extends hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or causes a congenital anomaly/birth defect
• Unexpected Adverse Reaction – An AR where the nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable IP information, i.e., it is not described in the investigator’s brochure (IB) and/or the technical data sheet
• Suspected Unexpected and Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) – Any serious AE/AR in which there is at least a reasonable possibility of a causal relationship with the IP and the nature and severity of the event/reaction is not described in the IB and/or technical data sheet

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

According to Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, and the G-SafeRpt, the principal investigator (PI) and the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) are responsible for monitoring the safety of the IP. As specified in Decree021-2017 and the G-SafeRpt, the PI is also responsible for notifying the sponsor or the CRO or the ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)) of any SAEs/SARs and SUSARs within a period not exceeding one (1) calendar day from the date the event occurs, or, the PI becomes aware of the incident.

Decree021-2017 notes that the PI must also follow up with a detailed written report. Per the G-SafeRpt, the PI must record the SAEs/SARs and notify the sponsor according to the procedure described in the study protocol.

Furthermore, per Decree021-2017, the PI must inform the sponsor or the CRO and the EC of the following:

• Any SAE/SAR that has occurred to a participant following the trial’s completion
• Any non-serious AEs/ARs identified as determinants of safety assessments in the protocol within the periods specified

In addition, the G-SafeRpt states that if the PI becomes aware of SAEs/SARs occurring after the end of the trial, they should notify the sponsor or the CRO and the EC.

Lastly, per Decree021-2017, the PI must provide the sponsor or the CRO, the EC, and the Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) within Peru’s INS with any additional safety information requested.

Res233-2020, which regulates human subjects research other than clinical trials of drugs or devices, indicates that investigators should immediately report to the EC and the corresponding authorities any AE or unanticipated risk to research participants related to the research. Furthermore, in cases where protocol or informed consent process changes are necessary to prevent harm to the participants, the investigators must submit report deviations within 24 hours.

Sponsor Responsibilities

According to Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, the G-SafeRpt, and PER-72, the sponsor or the CRO should report IP-related AEs/ARs, SAEs/SARs, and SUSARs and provide these reports to the DIIS. Decree021-2017 also notes that the sponsor or the CRO should also maintain detailed records of all AEs/ARs communicated by the PIs.

Per Decree021-2017, Decree021-2017-Correct, the INS-CTManual, PER-72, and PER-38, the sponsor or the CRO and the PI are required to submit all expected and unexpected SAEs/SARs (related or not per PER-72) and SUSAR reports electronically through the Serious Adverse Events Virtual Reporting System (Sistema de Reporte de Eventos Adversos Serios (REAS-NET)) (PER-69) to the DIIS within seven (7) calendar days from the occurrence of the incident, or as soon as the sponsor is aware of the incident. According to PER-77, PER-69 should be used to follow up on already reported SAEs, while REPEC (PER-89) (also referred to as REPECv2) should be used to report new SAEs.

The G-SafeRpt specifies that the sponsor or the CRO is responsible for evaluating, categorizing, and reporting all SAEs/SARs and SUSARs that occur within the country through REAS-NET (PER-69). The notification should be completed using the online form, FOR-DIIS-046 (PER-38).

Per the INS-CTManual, the electronic form (PER-38) submitted via REAS-NET (PER-69) should be printed and signed by the sponsor or the CRO. The INS-CTManual and the G-SafeRpt state that the submitted information above must be updated with any additional relevant information in a follow-up tracking report within eight (8) calendar days. The G-SafeRpt also notes that if the causality assessment of the SAE conducted by the investigator differs from the causality assessment made by the sponsor, the investigator’s assessment cannot be modified. The INS-CTManual further states that both the follow-up report and the final report completed in REAS-NET (PER-69) should be submitted electronically and in print formats to the DIIS.

In addition, per Decree021-2017, Decree021-2017-Correct, and PER-72, the sponsor or the CRO must notify the DIIS, the ECs, and the PIs within a maximum period of seven (7) calendar days of any findings that could adversely affect the safety of research participants, have an impact on the conduct of the study, or alter the benefit/risk balance. This report should be prepared independently and separately from other required AE/AR submission deadlines outlined in this section. Decree021-2017, Decree021-2017-Correct, PER-4, and PER-12 further state that the sponsor or the CRO is also required to notify the DIIS of critical or very serious and major or serious deviations to the clinical trial protocol within a maximum period of seven (7) calendar days from the time of becoming aware of the incident.

The G-SafeRpt further explains that if the sponsor or the CRO is aware of safety findings that are not covered within the scope of an SAE/SAR or SUSAR, these findings require another measure or action such as a security emergency measure, an amendment to the protocol or informed consent, or the suspension or cancellation of the clinical trial. The sponsor should communicate this information to the DIIS through a detailed report that includes the measures and actions taken at the local and international levels, if already established. The ECs and PI should also be notified within seven (7) calendar days. The information must be written in Spanish and English, be contained in an electronic medium (CD), and be delivered to the DIIS’s Document Processing Office. The sponsor is subsequently required to initiate administrative procedures that correspond to the measure or action taken, and in accordance with the requirements established by the clinical trial regulations. Refer to the G-SafeRpt for examples of administrative procedures.

As delineated in Decree021-2017, the G-SafeRpt, and PER-72, the sponsor is also required to submit, electronically on a quarterly or semi-annual basis, SAE/SAR and SUSAR reports occurring internationally, to the DIIS and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) whether they have occurred in the authorized trial, in other trials with the same IP, or in a context of different use. The G-SafeRpt specifies that the information should be presented on magnetic media. Refer to Annex 1 in the G-SafeRpt for data requirements. PER-72 further indicates that the sponsor should send the SUSAR reports for events that have occurred abroad as soon as possible to the investigator using CIOMS Form I (PER-18). The investigator, in turn, will send the reports to the EC. Further, per Decree021-2017, the DIIS must notify the National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (la Autoridad Nacional de Productos Farmacéuticos, Dispositivos Médicos y Productos Sanitarios (ANM)) of any SAEs/SADRs and SUSARs caused by an IP being used in an authorized trial in Peru within a maximum period of 15 working days after receiving notification about the incident. The INS-CTManual also indicates authorized ANM personnel will have access to SAEs/SADRs and SUSARs that have occurred in Peru via REAS-NET (PER-69). (Note: The ANM is also referred to as the General Directorate of Medicines, Supplies and Drugs (La Dirección General de Medicamentos Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID)) (PER-109)). See also the G-CTSafety for information on actions taken by the DIIS in response to SAEs/SARs, SUSARs, and safety reports.

Other Safety Reports

As delineated in the INS-CTManual and the G-SafeRpt, the sponsor or the CRO must also submit an annual IP safety report (DSUR) to the DIIS. Decree021-2017 further specifies that the DSUR should be sent to the DIIS and the ANM. Per the INS-CTManual, the translation of the annual report summary must be presented in English and Spanish. The G-SafeRpt explains that the DSUR should be prepared after the first authorization of the clinical trial in any country. This is referred to as the Development International Birth Day (DIBD). The report should comply with the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (PER-52). The sponsor must complete form FOR-DIIS-048 (PER-45) online in Spanish as well as submit a copy of the DSUR to the DIIS on CD.

In addition, per the G-SafeRpt, the sponsor or the CRO must describe in the protocol the SAEs that will not be reported promptly because they are expected to occur in the study population with a frequency independent from their exposure to the IP. The sponsor or the CRO is also required to describe in the protocol the procedures for monitoring SAEs produced by the IP. Moreover, depending on the trial design, the pathology, and the IP, the sponsor or the CRO will describe in the protocol the notification procedures for non-serious AEs. Decree021-2017 also notes that the sponsor or the CRO should continuously evaluate IP safety and implement an IP security monitoring system.

According to the INS-CTManual and the G-SafeRpt, in cases of prenatal exposure due to a pregnant woman’s participation in a clinical trial, the PI, the sponsor or the CRO is required to submit form FOR-DIIS-047 (PER-39) to notify the DIIS of the SAE/SAR or SUSAR. Per the G-SafeRpt, the sponsor submits the form and the procedures for monitoring and controlling the pregnancy and newborn on magnetic media. The notification of a pregnancy must be made within seven (7) calendar days. The INS-CTManual also indicates prenatal monitoring reports must also be prepared during pregnancy, childbirth, and for six (6) months postpartum following the occurrence. See the Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates section for additional information on this population.

See Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, the G-SafeRpt, and PER-38 for detailed sponsor/CRO reporting requirements.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, the G-SafeRpt, and PER-72, all AEs/ARs, SAEs/SARs, and SUSARs must be reported electronically by the sponsor or the CRO using REAS-NET (PER-69). PER-12 specifies that notifications of very serious and major or serious protocol deviations should be submitted using FOR-DIIS-053 (PER-40) via (REPEC) (PER-89). According to PER-77, PER-69 should be used to follow up on already registered SAEs, and new SAEs must be reported via PER-89. PER-114 further notes that reports of SAEs (Reportes de eventos adversos serios (REAs)) and deviations can be submitted via PER-89, regardless of the year of trial authorization. However, REAs and deviations that have been submitted via the older REPECv1 platform (PER-91) will remain on this platform for consultation, if required.

(Refer to PER-38 for the DIIS SAE/SAR form, FOR-DIIS-046. All SAEs/SARs and SUSARs must also be reported on the CIOMS Form I (PER-18). The INS-CTManual further notes that the sponsor or the CRO should also submit a printed copy of the CIOMS report in Spanish or English to the DIIS.

Pursuant to the G-SafeRpt, to report post-study AEs, the sponsor or the CRO should send an email to consultaensayos@ins.gob.be to coordinate with the person in charge of computer systems and grant the person access to REAS-NET (PER-69) to complete and submit the online form FOR-DIIS-046 (PER-38). SAEs/SAR notifications following a trial’s completion should remain in the research center archives.

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Urgent Safety Measure

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

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

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Transitional Arrangements

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

Urgent Safety Measures

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

SUSARs

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

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

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

Annual Safety Report

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

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

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

National Institute of Health (INS)

As delineated in Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, PER-72, PER-47, and PER-14, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) must submit a progress report for each institution in which a trial is conducted from the date of the study’s authorization to the Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) within Peru’s INS. The report should be submitted quarterly or biannually to the INS’s REPEC (PER-89) (also referred to as REPECv2) for each of the approved research centers. Per the INS-CTManual, this report should be submitted regardless of the enrollment status in each site. The INS-CTManual and PER-14 further specify that the submission deadline is up to seven (7) calendar days after completing the quarterly or half-yearly period. The sponsor or the CRO should print and sign the electronic form and deliver it to the INS’s Document Processing Office within 20 working days. Refer to the INS-CTManual for additional information, and PER-47 for the progress report form and detailed submission instructions.

PER-92 further notes that while the older REPECv1 platform (PER-91) is closed for the entry of progress reports, research center final reports, national final reports, and international final reports, the reports will remain in the system for consultation.

In addition, Decree021-2017 and PER-72 state that the progress report must be sent in print and electronic media, and include the following information:

• Number of patients enrolled in the study and status (e.g., in treatment, retired from study, completed study, or who are not ready to enroll) (Decree021-2017)
• Summary of serious adverse events/adverse reactions (SAEs/SARs) and non-serious adverse events (AEs)/adverse reactions (ARs) related to the investigational product (IP), and deviations occurring in the corresponding period (Decree021-2017)
• Number of patients who failed the screening (PER-72)
• Number of patients with clinical failure (PER-72)

According to PER-72, the following documentation should also be attached to the progress report:

• Quarterly or half-yearly report of deviations/breaches to the protocol that occurred during the stated timeframe for every research center
• Quarterly or half-yearly report of the serious and unexpected adverse reactions (SUSARs) related to the IP that have occurred abroad

Ethics Committees

As per Decree021-2017, the principal investigator (PI) is also responsible for submitting clinical trial progress and final reports to the research institution and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)).

Res233-2020, which regulates human subjects research other than clinical trials of drugs or devices, indicates that researchers should submit progress reports, final reports, suspension reports, and early termination reports, among others, to the EC per the terms established by the committee.

Final Report

As delineated in Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, PER-72, PER-48, and PER-14, the sponsor or the CRO must submit a research center final report via PER-89 for each of the participating sites for a specific clinical trial within 30 calendar days following the closing visit made by the monitor. Per the INS-CTManual, this information should be provided regardless of the enrollment status of each site. The INS-CTManual notes that the electronic form should also be printed and signed by the sponsor or the CRO and delivered to the INS’s Document Processing Office within 20 working days. Refer to the INS-CTManual for additional information, and PER-48 for the final report form.

Decree021-2017 also states that the final report should include the following information:

• Number of screened, enrolled, and retired patients who completed the trial
• Summary of SAEs/SARs and non-serious AEs/ARs related to the IP, and deviations occurring since the date of the last progress report

National Final Reports

Per Decree021-2017, Decree021-2017-Correct, the INS-CTManual, PER-72, and PER-14, national final reports should be submitted via PER-89 for the DIIS review within 60 calendar days following the date of the final report submission of the last research center. Per the INS-CTManual and PER-72, the national final reports (PER-49) should be electronically submitted.

The DIIS will send a copy of the final national report of clinical trials to the National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (la Autoridad Nacional de Productos Farmacéuticos, Dispositivos Médicos y Productos Sanitarios (ANM)) within 30 business days following receipt of the report. (Note: The ANM is also referred to as the General Directorate of Medicines, Supplies and Drugs (La Dirección General de Medicamentos Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID)) (PER-109)).

Per the INS-CTManual, the electronic form should be printed and signed by the sponsor or the CRO and delivered to the INS’s Document Processing Office within seven (7) working days. If applicable, a report of the study results and conclusions must be attached as established in the INS-CTManual.

For clinical trials performed only in Peru, the report must also be submitted with the final results and conclusions per the G-CTReptReslts within a maximum period of six (6) months following the trial’s conclusion as indicated in Decree021-2017, Decree021-2017-Correct, the INS-CTManual, and PER-72. The G-CTReptReslts provides guidelines on the presentation, structure, and content of the information to be presented in PER-49, and recommends that structure and content of the report follow the guidelines specified in the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) (PER-124). The study report must be submitted electronically and attached to the printed form (PER-49). If the report information is not available when PER-49 is submitted, it should be submitted at a later date by simple letter addressed to the DIIS General Directorate, with the information electronically attached as copyable text. A justification must be included if the deadlines specified in Decree021-2017 have been met.

In addition, per the G-CTReptReslts, the structure and content may be adapted by the sponsor based on the clinical trial design, objectives, and type of IP. The report may be submitted in English. The following must also be included as part of this report:

• A list of protocol versions and amendments under which the clinical trial was conducted
• A list of research participants (identification codes) who received the IP(s) according to specific lots (if more than one lot was used) and by research center
• A table of randomization codes, research participant (identification codes), and assigned treatment according to research center

Decree021-2017 also explains that the national final report should include the following information:

• Number of screened, enrolled, retired patients who completed the trial
• Summary of SAEs/SARs and non-serious AEs/ARs related to the IP, and deviations that occurred
• For trials performed only in Peru, the report should also include the final results and conclusions of the trial

Refer to the INS-CTManual and G-CTReptReslts for additional information, and PER-49 for the national final report form.

International Final Reports

As delineated in Decree021-2017, the INS-CTManual, and PER-72, international final reports should be submitted to PER-89 within 12 months following the completion of the last clinical trial in all international research centers. Per the INS-CTManual, the sponsor or the CRO should also print and sign the electronic form and deliver it to the INS’s Document Processing Office within 20 working days. In addition, a report of the study results and conclusions should be attached as established in the INS-CTManual. PER-72 notes that the report should include the results and the study conclusions before publication. Refer to the INS-CTManual for additional information, and PER-46 for the international final report form.

Per G-CTReptReslts, the national final report guidelines are also applicable to international final reports. See the National Final Reports section above for details that are also applicable to PER-46.

Results Publication

Further, according to Decree021-2017, the INS, in coordination with the sponsor, must submit a Results Publication after the final national or international report is completed to provide the results of authorized and performed clinical trials through PER-89 using form FOR-DIIS-058 (PER-23). The sponsor is also obligated to submit an article to a national or international scientific journal that strictly reflects the final report submitted to the DIIS and notify DIIS of this submission using form FOR-DIIS-059 (PER-41). The published article must also be sent to the INS and the research institution in print and electronic media.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

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

Other Reporting Requirements

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

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

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

Decree021-2017 defines a sponsor as an individual, group of individuals, company, institution, organization, including academic organizations, with legal representation in the country, and duly registered in the corresponding public registries. The sponsor assumes responsibility for the initiation, maintenance, completion, and financing of a clinical trial. The sponsor must be registered in the INS’s REPEC (PER-89) (also referred to as REPECv2) prior to requesting trial authorization. When an independent researcher initiates and assumes full responsibility for a clinical trial, they assume the role of sponsor.

Decree021-2017 also states that sponsors not based in Peru are required to appoint a legal representative who channels all the communication with the INS’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)) or the trial’s duration.

In addition, per Decree021-2017, a sponsor can authorize a contract research organization (CRO) with legal status and an office in Peru to carry out certain work and obligations regarding the trial. However, the sponsor is ultimately responsible for the execution of the research protocol and the results of the trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

Per Decree021-2017, the INS’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)), follows the requirements provided in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (PER-53) for topics not addressed in Decree021-2017. Accordingly, PER-53 states that the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities. Investigators should also be qualified by education, training, and experience to assume responsibility for the proper conduct of the trial. Decree021-2017 further specifies that, in addition to professional competence, the sponsor or the CRO should also ensure that investigators have enough time to conduct the trial and agree to comply with good clinical practice (GCP) and ethical standards. Res233-2020 also requires investigators to have basic training in ethical research with human beings. Refer to PER-53 for additional information on investigator requirements.

Additionally, per Decree010-2025, to change the principal investigator (PI) to an approved clinical trial, the sponsor or the CRO is required to submit the following:

• Request for PI change justifying the reasons, including the number and date of the payment receipt of the processing fee (See Regulatory Fees section)
• Updated undocumented curriculum vitae of the proposed PI (per the INS-CTManual and form FOR-DIIS-031 (PER-50))
• New informed consent form(s) (ICFs) approved by the ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI))

Per Decree021-2017 and Res655-2019 (amending Decree021-2017), research institutions must also register with the INS’s REPEC (PER-89) (also referred to as REPECv2), but are no longer required to provide proof of this registration in the clinical trial authorization application. As delineated in Res655-2019 and Decree010-2025, the research institution’s legal representative must submit an application for registration that includes the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• A code from the National Registry of Institutions that Provide Health Services (Registro Nacional de Instituciones Prestadoras de Servicios de Salud (RENIPRESS)) (Refer to PER-80 for instructions on how to register a health service provider institution in RENIPRESS.)
• Details of the categorization level assigned to the research institution interested in obtaining registration as a research center to conduct clinical trials (per Res546-2011, categorization is based on the institution’s levels of complexity and functional characteristics)
• Number and date of processing fees proof of payment
• Duly completed registration form prepared (per Annex 3 of Decree021-2017)

In addition, Decree021-2017 requires research centers to register with REPEC (PER-89) to carry out clinical trials at the research institution’s request. According to PER-73, research centers should apply electronically via REPEC (PER-89), submit the printed application form, FOR-DIIS-022 (see Res085-2025) per Res0423-2019, and complete the printed affidavit form, FOR-DIIS-023 (PER-44). Research center registration is valid for three (3) years. Refer to PER-73 for detailed registration instructions and PER-90 for a research center registration checklist. According to PER-73, public and private sector research centers must also be registered in (REPEC) (PER-89), at the request of the research institution, to carry out clinical trials. See also FOR-DIIS-036 (PER-26), FOR-DIIS-040 (PER-43), and FOR-DIIS-031 (PER-50) for related research center applications and forms. Refer to the Regulatory Fees section for research center registration fee information.

Decree010-2025 states that the sponsor or the CRO also must submit the following documents to expand the number of research centers participating in a clinical trial:

• Request to expand the number of research centers, justifying the reasons for the expansion and including information on proof of payment
• Approval(s) issued by legal representative of institution(s) where research will be conducted (per Annex 1 in INS-CTManual and Annex 2 in Res252-2022)
• Copy of the approved research protocol and ICF issued by the accredited EC (CIEI) (per Annex 3 in INS-CTManual and Annex 3 in Res252-2022)
• ICF(s) prepared (per Annex 4 of Decree021-2017)
• Affidavit stating no conflict of financial interest signed by the sponsor or the CRO and the PI (per Annex 4 in INS-CTManual, Annex 4 in Res252-2022, and form FOR-DIIS-063 (PER-34))
• Affidavit signed by the PI and sponsor on preparation of research institution for trial (per Annex 4 in INS-CTManual, Annex 5 in Res252-2022, and form FOR-DIIS-064 (PER-35))
• Updated undocumented curriculum vitaes (CVs) of all research center team members with attached copies of documents demonstrating training in GCP within the past three (3) years (per the INS-CTManual, Annex 7 in Res252-2022, and form FOR-DIIS-031 (PER-50))

Per PER-113, the DIIS has established the Validity of the Record of Registration of Research Center in compliance with Law1452 (amending Law27444). In accordance with Law1452, any Research Center Registration Certificate (Constancia de Registro de Centros de Investigación (RCI)) that is valid as of September 16, 2018, and all those certificates subsequently issued, are valid for an indefinite period, and are therefore exempt from the registry renewal process delineated in Decree021-2017. However, the DIIS may continue to carry out subsequent scheduled or unscheduled audits in accordance with its authority, and may revoke the certificate, if it verifies changes in the conditions essential to obtaining the registration.

PER-131 further states that the RCIs are no longer valid for research centers that do not have active clinical trials and whose RCI was issued prior to September 16, 2015. Research institutions that intend to continue carrying out clinical trials may request an update of the RCI validity by completing and signing the printed application form, FOR-DIIS-022 (see Res085-2025), and affidavit form, FOR-DIIS-023 (PER-44), and submitting them via REPEC (PER-89). Research institutions must also notify the Virtual Submission Platform (Mesa de Partes Virtual (MPV)) (PER-106) of the submitted procedures, and attach form FOR-DIIS-022 (see Res085-2025) and form FOR-DIIS-023 (PER-44). Additionally, as indicated in PER-130, sponsors or CROs are obligated to verify that the research center where a clinical trial will be conducted is authorized in the specialty related to the proposed trial. If the research center did not provide the related specialty information in its REPEC registration, the research institution’s legal representative, as research center administrator, must submit a request to the DIIS to modify the registration to include the required specialty. The new RCI must also include the required specialty. All of these procedures must be carried out prior to the request for authorization of a clinical trial.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

Decree021-2017 states that the sponsor is required to appoint a legal representative in the country for the trial’s duration when based outside of Peru. Per Decree021-2017, the in-country legal representative channels all communication with the DIIS during the study’s execution, unless this responsibility is delegated to a CRO. As specified in Decree021-2017, the sponsor may transfer any or all of the study related duties and functions to a CRO. However, the sponsor is ultimately responsible for the execution of the research protocol and results of the clinical trial.

See PER-7 for detailed documentation submission requirements for a foreign sponsor to delegate an in-country legal representative or for a local sponsor to appoint a legal representative. Decree021-2017 further explains that the in-country representative must also be registered in REPEC (PER-89) for the trial’s duration. Refer to the Submission Process section for additional REPEC registration instructions.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

Decree021-2017 requires the sponsor to provide data on the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) including its composition, a summary of its role and notification procedure, a statement of independence from the sponsor, and any conflicts of interest. Additionally, the sponsor should specify where to find other details about the by-laws not included in the protocol or explain why a DSMB is not necessary.

Multicenter Studies

Per Decree021-2017, multicenter clinical trials are carried out by more than one (1) investigator and require an appointed coordinator responsible for processing all of the data and analyzing the results.

In addition, according to PER-53, 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 (CIEI) 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

In addition, the sponsor is responsible for the organization of a coordinating committee and/or selection of coordinating investigator(s), if they are to be utilized.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK Local Information Pack

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

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

Insurance

As set forth in Decree021-2017, the G-EC-CTRev, and PER-71, it is a legal requirement for the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) to carry a valid insurance policy for the expected duration of the study for any unforeseen injury to research participants. Per Res0423-2019, the sponsor or the CRO should sign an affidavit (PER-51) guaranteeing an active insurance policy is in place according to requirements in the INS-CTManual.

Decree021-2017 also specifies that the sponsor or the CRO must obtain insurance coverage in Peru or have a legal representative in Peru who will represent the sponsor or the CRO, if the policy is from a foreign company. The insurance policy must be in force until the date of submission of the National Final Report. At the end of this period, it should be renewed whenever there is still a possibility of late damages arising from the adjudication of injuries resulting from the clinical trial.

Compensation

Injury or Death

According to Decree021-2017 and PER-71, in addition to guaranteeing an active insurance policy is in place, the affidavit (PER-51) submitted by the sponsor or the CRO also certifies a financial fund is immediately and conveniently available. The fund ensures free medical treatment to participants who suffer any trial-related injuries as long as the insurance policy is activated.

In addition, as described in Decree021-2017, compensation will be awarded in the following circumstances:

• Any damage to the research participant as a result of participation in the clinical trial
• Any damage that occurred during pregnancy or that would have occurred to the newborn in the case of pregnancy in a female research participant or in the couple of the male research participant, as long as it is a result of their participation in the trial
• Economic damages derived directly from earlier stated damages, provided that the damage is not inherent to the pathology under study, or to the individual evolution of the research participant

The sponsor’s obligation to award compensation is independent of the validity or available coverage of the contracted insurance.

Trial Participation

Per Decree021-2017, research participants may receive reasonable compensation from the sponsor for extraordinary expenses incurred and loss of productivity arising from their participation, which will be specified in the informed consent. The institutional ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)) will evaluate this form of compensation on a case-by-case basis and determine whether it unduly influences the consent of the research participant.

PER-15 further states the following:

• Research participants may receive compensation in order to reimburse them for expenses (e.g., transportation, accommodation, communication, food expenses) and/or compensate the loss of productivity, time, among others, derived from their participation. Any compensation to the participants of the investigation must be reasonable and proportionate and, in no case, may it constitute undue influence.
• In order to safeguard the rights of research participants, researchers and sponsors should take into account the personal and specific considerations of each research participant for the calculation of compensation for expenses incurred arising from their participation and,
• ECs must evaluate the compensation amount, paying special attention to the information that appears in the informed consent forms to ensure that the established compensations consider the possible conditions of each research participant

Post-Trial Access

As delineated in Decree021-2017, post-study access to investigational product(s) must be anticipated before the study commences, and this information must be provided to research participants during the informed consent process. In order to require post-study IP access, the following will be considered: the severity of the medical condition in question and the expected effect of withdrawing or modifying treatment (whether discontinuing treatment could negatively affect the research participant’s health or well-being); the absence of satisfactory therapeutic alternatives in Peru for the participant’s medical condition; sufficient information on the IP’s efficacy and safety; and a positive benefit-risk balance for the intervention. In addition, the principal investigator (PI) must be able to demonstrate that the IP is beneficial to the participant. Post-study IP access is contingent upon the PI's discretion and will be provided as long as a benefit exists. The sponsor must also ensure that the participant has access to the IP until it is accessible through the general directorates of the Ministry of Health of Peru (Ministerio de Salud del Perú (MINSA)).

Additionally, Decree021-2017 explains that authorization for post-study IP access may be granted through the following mechanisms:

• Authorization of a clinical trial corresponding to a Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS))-approved study extension
• IP authorization by the National Authority for Pharmaceutical Products, Medical Devices and Medical Products (la Autoridad Nacional de Productos Farmacéuticos, Dispositivos Médicos y Productos Sanitarios (ANM). In this case, the PI considering post-study IP access for the research participant must notify the trial sponsor, who must, in turn, request ANM authorization, which is granted on a case-by-case basis.

(See Title X of Decree021-2017 for documentation submission requirements) (Note: The ANM is also referred to as the General Directorate of Medicines, Supplies and Drugs (La Dirección General de Medicamentos Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID)).

Insurance

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

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

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

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

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

Trial Participation

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

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

Post-Trial Access

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

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in Decree021-2017, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for ensuring that all the information on the investigational product (IP) and the additional documentation corresponds to the research protocol and complies with good clinical practice (GCP) as provided in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (PER-53), as well as the requirements established in Decree021-2017. PER-53 further explains that the sponsor or the CRO 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 are generated, documented (recorded), and reported in compliance with the protocol, PER-53, Decree021-2017, and other applicable regulatory requirements.

Per Decree021-2017, the sponsor or the CRO must sign a declaration guaranteeing that the investigators will allow institutional ethics committee (EC) (El Comité Institucional de Ética en Investigación (CIEI)) supervision and clinical trial inspections by the National Institute of Health (Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS))’s Directorate of Health Research and Innovation (Dirección de Investigación e Innovación en Salud (DIIS)), including direct access to the clinical trial documentation. PER-53 further states the sponsor is responsible for securing agreements from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, and reports for the purpose of monitoring and auditing by the sponsor and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities.

In addition, per PER-53, the sponsor or the CRO 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, identification of processes and data that are critical to ensure participant protection and the reliability of trial results
• Identification of risks to critical trial processes and data
• Evaluation of the identified risks against existing risk controls
• Decisions on which risks to mitigate and/or which risks to accept
• Documentation of quality management activities and communication to those involved in or affected by these activities
• Periodic review of risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented quality management activities are effective and relevant
• In the clinical study report, a description of the quality management approach implemented in the trial and a summary of important deviations from the predefined quality tolerance limits and remedial actions taken

Monitoring Requirements

As part of the clinical protocol requirements, Decree021-2017 notes that the following data collection and monitoring activities should be implemented:

• Develop plans to evaluate and collect baseline, outcome, and other study data, including a process to improve data quality and a description of instruments used in the study along with their reliability and validity, if known
• Prepare plans to promote participant retention and complete follow up, including a list of data to be collected from participants who leave the trial or deviate from it
• Document (or provide) data monitoring committee details including its composition, a summary of its role and notification procedure, a statement of its independence from the sponsor, and its conflicts of interest. Details about by-laws not included in the protocol should be specified, or an explanation about why this committee is not needed
• Describe trial monitoring arrangements/audits and sponsor’s statement to ensure that investigators will allow monitoring, audits, EC monitoring, and DIIS trial inspections, including direct access to clinical trial documentation
• Provide plans to enter, encode, protect, and save data, including any process to improve its quality
• Specify where data management procedure details not included in the protocol can be found

No specific timeframe is provided for the audit process.

Per the INS-CTManual, for regular clinical trial inspections scheduled by the DIIS, when inspection findings are critical, the sponsor or the CRO is required to submit a defense within a period of no more than seven (7) working days following receipt of the inspection report. If the inspection observations are minor or major, the sponsor or the CRO should submit their defense within a period of no more than 15 working days, after receiving the inspection report. The inspector will issue an official notice of compliance within a period of no more than 15 business days if the sponsor or the CRO addresses the issues identified in the report in a timely way. Please refer to section 7.9 of the INS-CTManual for detailed information on preparing for the DIIS scheduled clinical trial inspections and responding to the inspection reports received.

By comparison, the G-CTInspec indicates that the inspected subject must present their case no later than 10 working days following receipt of the observations notice. If the inspected subject corrects the observations, the inspection team will send an Observations Notice to remove the issues identified within 15 working days. If there is no correction and the inspected subject is required to submit administrative documentation (in addition to technical support when applicable) to remove an observation, a second Observations Notice is sent, granting a new deadline and urging compliance. If the inspected subject submits the required documentation, an official letter of conformity shall be given within 15 working days. See the G-CTInspec for additional information. See also Scope of Assessment section for detailed DIIS inspection team responsibilities.

Per Decree021-2017 and Res064-2021, in the event of a DIIS inspection during which violations in the implementation of a clinical trial are identified, the sponsor or the CRO will be subject to the following sanctions: a warning(s) and a fine for the infraction(s). In addition to the warning(s) and fine, the sponsor will also be required to cancel the trial. See also G-CTFines for additional information on how fines are assessed and graded.

As explained in Res064-2021, once an investigation is initiated, the DIIS’s Clinical Trials Subdirectorate (Subdirección de Ensayos Clínicos (SUDEC)) notifies the participant(s) responsible for conducting the trial of the possible sanction(s) and the charges being made. The participant(s) then has five (5) business days from the date of notification to dispute the charges. SUDEC may subsequently carry out an examination to determine the existence of the liability(ies) subject to sanction within a maximum period of 30 business days. A final instructional report by SUDEC is prepared within no more than 15 business days and submitted to the DIIS. Once the report is received, within a maximum term of 15 business days, the DIIS decides on the application of the sanction and may order the performance of complementary actions if considered essential to resolving the procedure. Within a term not exceeding 15 business days, the DIIS then issues a resolution that applies the sanction or the decision to archive the procedure and the participant will be notified. The participant has 15 business days to file an appeal to the DIIS which will then be resolved within 30 business days.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Decree021-2017 and Decree010-2025 state that the sponsor or the CRO is responsible for submitting the required documentation to the INS to request a trial’s suspension or cancellation. Per Decree021-2017, Res655-2019 (amendingDecree021-2017), and Decree010-2025, an application must be submitted that substantiates the reasons for the suspension/cancellation and describes the data obtained until the time of the suspension/cancellation. If applicable, a report on the measures to be adopted with the research participants should also be included per Decree010-2025.

Decree021-2017 and Decree010-2025 also explain that to close a research center participating in a clinical trial the sponsor is required to submit the following documentation to the INS:

• Request justifying the reasons for the research center’s closure
• Final report from the research center, including all the data obtained up to the time of closure
• Report on the measure to be adopted with research participants, if applicable

Decree021-2017 also indicates that a copy of the EC (CIEI) letter of acknowledgment of the approved study must be submitted to the INS.

Refer to PER-43 for the clinical trial research center closure application form, PER-30 for the clinical trial suspension application form, and PER-31 for the clinical trial cancellation request form.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electronic Data Processing System