Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone

As per the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, oversight, and inspections in the country. SLE-22 states that the PBSL was originally established through an Act of Parliament in 1988, and re-established in 2001 by the PDA2001, to regulate pharmaceutical products, medical devices, cosmetic chemical substances, food and dietary supplement and herbal products, the practice of pharmacy, and any other related matters. The PBSL operates within the Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MoHS). Per SLE-13, the PBSL is responsible for the safety, efficacy, and quality of all locally manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, sold or used drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and nutritional agents.

Per the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL monitors a clinical trial from beginning to end in order to ensure adequate protection of the general public against the risk of adverse events from authorized clinical trials. The PBSL also conducts on-site inspections of the clinical trial site, sponsor, or manufacturing facilities to ensure the safety of clinical trial participants, the quality and reliability of data obtained in a trial, and that the facilities used continue to be acceptable throughout the clinical investigation.

The G-SLAppClinTrial requires that the PBSL establish an Expert Committee on Pharmacovigilance and Clinical Trials to provide support in reviewing and authorizing clinical trial applications, and to give medical and scientific opinions on issues related to clinical trials and medicines safety. The PBSL acts as the Secretariat for the committee. For more information, see the G-SLAppClinTrial.

SLE-15 indicates that the PBSL’s Pharmacovigilance and Clinical Trials department is responsible for ensuring that the PBSL’s legal obligations in relation to drug safety are fulfilled in accordance with PDA2001.

Other Considerations

Please note: Sierra Leone is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (SLE-2), 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 SLE-18.

Contact Information

According to the PBSL website, the contact information for the PBSL is as follows:

Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone
Central Medical Stores Compound
New England Ville, Freetown
P.M.B. 322
Sierra Leone
Phone: +232 73994830 and +232 99117117
Email: info@pharmacyboard.gov.sl; registrar@pharmacyboard.gov.sl

SLE-4 provides the following details for the Pharmacovigilance and Clinical Trials Department:

Head of Department: Pharm. Onome Abiri Thomas
Phone: +232 78534757

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

As per the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approvals, oversight, and inspections in the United Kingdom (UK). The MHRA grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in the UK in accordance with the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006.

According to GBR-57, the MHRA is an executive agency within the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). 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
• Support innovation and research and development that is beneficial to public health
• Influence UK and international regulatory frameworks so that they are risk-proportionate and effective at protecting public health

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the agency’s Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) focuses specifically on reviewing applications to conduct clinical trials of medicinal products. For a listing of MHRA services and information, see GBR-36.

G-ATMP states that 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.

Pursuant to the MMDAct, the Secretary of State for 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, the availability of human medicines, and the likelihood of the UK being seen as a favorable place to carry out research relating to human medicines, conduct clinical trials, or manufacture or supply human medicines.

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
UK

Main Phone: +44 020 3080 6000
Fax: +44 0203 118 9803
General Email: info@mhra.gov.uk
Data Protection Email: DataProtection@mhra.gov.uk
Importing Investigational Medical Products from Approval Countries Email: for queries, complete this contact form and email to gmpinspectorate@mhra.gov.uk

Clinical Trials of Medicines:
Email: clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk
Phone: +44 020 3080 6456

In addition, the G-CTAuth-GBR includes other email addresses for specific purposes related to submissions.

Overview

In accordance with the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) is the regulatory authority responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving applications for clinical trials using registered and unregistered investigational products (IPs). The scope of the PBSL’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV). As delineated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, clinical trial application submissions to the PBSL and the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), may be made in parallel in the case of a public health emergency or as deemed fit by the PBSL.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As set forth in the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, the PBSL coordinates the clinical trial application process. The SL-GCPs states that the sponsor/principal investigator (PI) must apply to the PBSL for approval to conduct a trial for a non-registered drug or a registered drug for new indications. The PBSL is responsible for reviewing the study design, which involves reviewing all significant ethical questions. The PBSL does a thorough scientific review of all applications for clinical trials to be conducted in Sierra Leone. According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL must issue a Clinical Trial Certificate to authorize the initiation and conduct of the clinical trial.

As delineated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL will inform the applicant in writing about the receipt of a valid clinical trial application or the formal grounds for non-acceptance, and the applicant must address formal grounds for non-acceptance. If changes are required and the applicant fails to modify the application correspondingly within a maximum of 30 working days, following the reasoned objections, the application will be deemed rejected. During evaluation, additional documents or changes may be requested through a query letter. Once a query has been raised and issued to the applicant, the process stops until the PBSL receives a written response to the query. If the PBSL requires changes to the application and the applicant fails to modify the application correspondingly within a maximum of 90 days following the reasoned objections, the application will be deemed rejected. See Figure 1 in Section 5.17 of the G-SLAppClinTrial for more details on the PBSL’s clinical trial authorization process.

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that any proposed amendment to the trial application, trial arrangements, and IP must be submitted to the SLESRC and the PBSL for approval before such amendments are carried out. If the amendments are substantial and are likely to have an impact on the safety of the trial participants, or are likely to change the interpretation of the scientific documents in support of the conduct of the trial, the sponsor must notify PBSL of the reasons for, and the content of, the amendments. For more details on amendment requirements, see the G-SLAppClinTrial.

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the Clinical Trial Certificate must be renewed annually with an application for renewal to the PBSL. A Clinical Trial Certificate will be revoked if conditions for which the certificate was issued are violated.

The G-SLAppClinTrial further states that if a clinical trial application is rejected by the PBSL, any person or institution may appeal the decision in writing within 60 days after receipt of the decision, to request PBSL review or reconsideration of the initial decision. The applicant must give grounds for review for each reason given in the clinical trial rejection. The grounds for the request must be based on the information that was submitted in the application. Upon review of the appeal application, the PBSL must provide the appeal application decision in writing, including a statement of reasons (e.g., findings, references to evidence, and reasons for the decision). For more information on appeal contents and timelines, see the G-SLAppClinTrial.

The G-SLInspect indicates that clinical trial inspections through on-site visits form part of the PBSL’s monitoring activities. Periodic good clinical practice (GCP) inspections of trial sites are conducted to ensure that the facilities used continue to be acceptable throughout the clinical investigation. The inspections may be carried out randomly and/or for specific reasons and are either announced or unannounced. An inspection would consist of a comparison of the procedures and practices of the PI with the commitments set out in the protocol and reports submitted to the PBSL by the investigator or the sponsor. See the G-SLInspect for more information.

Expedited Review During a Public Health Emergency

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, if expedited review of a clinical trial during a public health emergency is anticipated, the applicant should inform the PBSL in writing. This will allow for a review team to be assembled and plans to be made to manage the workload as well as interactions with other oversight bodies such as the SLESRC. To ensure a rapid start of the clinical study, the PBSL will conduct simultaneous review, rather than sequential review, of the application with the SLESRC. For more information on expedited review, see the G-SLAppClinTrial.

Other Considerations

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that the PBSL may accept the decisions or scientific opinions of other national regulatory authorities, regional bodies, and international bodies if the IP or trial has been authorized by:

• International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) founding regulatory members
• ICH standing regulatory members
• ICH regulatory members
• ICH legislative and administrative authorities
• The African Vaccine Regulatory Forum (AVAREF) at a joint review meeting facilitated by the World Health Organization (WHO) with the provision of a favorable scientific opinion
• Any other regulatory decision deemed appropriate by the PBSL

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL may also consider an application for joint or assisted review by multiple national regulatory authorities and ECs for certain medical products of high public health value to countries on the African continent. For more information, see the G-SLAppClinTrial.

For information on applications involving biosimilar products, see the G-SLBiosimilar.

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving applications for clinical trials using registered or unregistered investigational products (IPs). (Note: IPs are known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)). The G-CTApp specifies that the scope of the MHRA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases 1-4). Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, all new 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 MHRA and the ethics committee (EC) leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials.

Regarding licensing of biosimilars (i.e., generic biotech medicines), see the G-Biosimilars for details on the UK’s recent regulatory changes to ease or remove clinical trial requirements for the MHRA’s review and approval of biosimilars.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Per GBR-72, under combined review, research teams make a single application using a new part (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78), which goes to both the MHRA and an EC at the same time. The regulatory and ethics reviews are done in parallel and any requests for further information are raised jointly. A single response to these requests leads to a single decision from both reviews. The G-CTApp states that the initial combined review assessment will be completed within 30 days of application submission. Applications for healthy volunteer trials and sponsor-determined phase 1 trials in non-oncology participants may qualify for a shortened assessment time and the MHRA will work with the EC to expedite these applications. When applications need expert advice, the MHRA will seek advice from the Clinical Trials, Biologicals and Vaccines Expert Advisory Group (CTBV EAG) of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM). In addition, the CHM will then discuss the trial at their meeting, which will take place later in the same week as the CTBV EAG meeting. See the G-CTApp for examples of which trials require expert advice and for detailed requirements. The MHRA also supports the conduct of trials with complex innovative designs such as umbrella, basket, platform, and master protocol plus submodules. These trial designs are characterized by the presence of prospective major adaptations, such as the addition of new IPs or introducing new trial populations. Before submitting a clinical trial application with a complex innovative design and/or an amendment requesting approval of major adaptations, sponsors are recommended to establish a dialogue with the MHRA and seek advice.

The G-CTApp states that under the combined review process, the MHRA will inform applicants of the outcome of the submission along with the EC’s review and decision. The outcomes could be one (1) of the following:

• Acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorization
• Acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorization subject to conditions
• Grounds for non-acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorization

As indicated in the G-CTApp, with respect to grounds for non-acceptance, applicants will have the opportunity to respond, usually within 14 days; however, this may be extended on request. A communication informing the applicant of the combined MHRA and EC decision will usually be sent within 60 days of receiving the original valid application. If an extension to the response date has been agreed to, then this will impact the final decision timeline. Notification of a decision relating to a gene therapy product, somatic cell therapy (including xenogenic cell therapy) product, tissue engineered product, or products containing genetically modified organisms will be sent within 90 days of receiving the original application, unless otherwise advised. Communications will be sent electronically via email from MHRA_CT_Ecomms@mhra.gov.uk. The MHRA will only send official correspondence to the named applicant email address. According to the MHCTR, if the sponsor or the designated representative does not receive a request for additional information from the MHRA within 30 days, the application is considered authorized. (See the Timeline of Review section for additional details.)

Per GBR-9, the EC’s ethical opinion applies for the duration of the study, which was stated in the clinical trial application and protocol. An extension of the study period is not in itself a substantial amendment, except where it is related to other amendments that would be substantial, such as an increase in target recruitment, addition of new procedures or sub-studies, or extension of follow-up. Where the duration of the study is to be extended beyond the period specified in the application form, the EC should be notified.

IRAS (GBR-78) is a single system for applying for the permissions and approvals for health and social care/community care research in the UK. It 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. For any new studies led from Scotland or Northern Ireland but have English and/or Welsh NHS sites, the national research and development coordinating function of the lead nation will share information with the HRA and HCRW assessment teams, who can issue HRA and HCRW approval for English and Welsh sites and thereby retain existing compatibility arrangements. Studies led from England or Wales with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland will be supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems, by which each country accepts the centralized assurances, as far as they apply, from national coordinating functions without unnecessary duplication. For details on HRA’s assessment criteria and standards for approval, see GBR-29.

UK-wide Research

The UKwide-Rsrch specifies that the four (4) UK nations take a consistent approach to study-wide reviews with one (1) application for all relevant UK sites. 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 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

Notification Scheme

Per the G-CTApp, MHRA’s notification scheme enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to processing clinical trial authorization for “initial” applications. The scheme only applies to clinical trial applications for Phase 4 and certain Phase 3 clinical trials deemed to be of lower risk. Interest in the notification scheme should be registered via the combined review process described above (GBR-125). MHRA acceptance of an application under the notification scheme will be confirmed within 14 calendar days from the application received effective date and authorization by the MHRA will be granted unless any criterion is not suitably met. If the MHRA determines the application does not meet the notification scheme criteria, an objection decision will be communicated within 14 calendar days from the application received effective date, and the application will continue under full clinical trial assessment with a decision communicated within the 30-day statutory timeframe.

As indicated in the G-CTApp, the notification scheme acceptance criteria are as follows:

Phase 4 trials must meet both of the following criteria:

• All IPs are licensed and used according to the relevant UK, United States of America (USA), or European Union (EU) marketing authorization (except for placebo)
• There are no ongoing safety concerns with the IP(s) that the sponsor is aware of, for example other trials on temporary halt/clinical hold, other trials with unresolved urgent safety measures or post-marketing regulatory restrictions

Phase 3 trials must meet at least one (1) of the following criteria:

• The trial is already approved in the USA or EU based on the same protocol and Investigator’s Brochure (IB) versions submitted to MHRA, and for EU approvals, the same version of the IP dossier. For trials approved in the USA only, the IP dossier submitted to the MHRA must document the same IP manufacturing process
• The MHRA has approved in the last two (2) years a previous Phase 3 clinical trial of the IP(s) at the same dose (or a higher dose), dosing frequency (or a higher frequency) and route of administration, and for the same indication (even if the trial was with a different sponsor) and utilizing the same manufacturing process
• IPs are licensed and used according to the relevant UK, USA, or EU marketing authorization (except for placebo)

In addition, the G-CTApp states that to be eligible for the scheme, a Phase 3 trial must not include any of the following:

• Complex, innovative trial design (e.g., basket, umbrella, and platform) that allows for prospective major adaptations such as the addition of indications or IPs via future amendments
• Includes pediatric participants
• Includes pregnant or breastfeeding participants
• IP is first in class
• IP is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP)

Brexit Background

Per the G-MHRASubmiss, Brexit, the EUCouncil-Brexit, the WithdrlAgrmt, and the G-AfterTransition, the UK withdrew from the EU on January 31, 2020. The MHRA updated and published clinical trials guidance that became effective on January 1, 2021. G-AfterTransition summarizes the guidance to sponsors and researchers. Furthermore, the G-MHRASubmiss describes how to make certain regulatory submissions to the MHRA (substantial amendments, end-of-trial notifications, and developmental safety update reports (DSURs)). Per the MHCTR-EUExit and as explained in GBR-115, the new guidance went into force via the MHCTR-EUExit (also known as the “Exit Regulations”). The Exit Regulations also update existing UK legislation by, for example, replacing references to EU databases with newly established UK databases. The G-IPsNIreland delineates that the supply and use of IPs in Northern Ireland must follow EU laws as per the Northern Ireland Protocol. For policy papers and details on the Northern Ireland Protocol, see GBR-119. For broader information and a comprehensive Brexit “checker” of new rules in the UK, see GBR-60.

To help ensure the continuity of supply of IPs for clinical trials the BrexitLtr-IPs indicates that the UK will unilaterally recognize certain EU regulatory processes for a time-limited period. This recognition is known as “standstill.”

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.

Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone

As per the G-SLAppClinTrial, the applicant is responsible for paying a non-refundable fee to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) to submit a clinical trial application for authorization. As delineated below, the authorization fees for foreign sponsored clinical trials of therapeutics, vaccines, and other biological products are as follows:

• Industry Funded (Phase I): $6,500 USD
• Industry Funded (Phase II): $6,500 USD
• Industry Funded (Phase III): $7,000 USD
• Research Institution Funded: $5,000 USD
• Protocol Amendment: $1,000 USD
• Expedited Protocol Review: $1,200 USD
• Renewal of Clinical Trial Certificate (yearly): $100 USD

For locally sponsored clinical trials of therapeutics, vaccines, and other biological products the fees are as follows:

• Investigator/Local Phases: $2,000 USD
• Protocol Amendment: $750 USD
• Expedited Protocol Review: $900 USD
• Renewal of Clinical Trial Certificate (yearly): $50 USD

Payment Instructions

No information is currently available regarding payment instructions for the clinical trial application fee to the PBSL.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and the G-CTApp, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for paying a fee to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to submit a clinical trial application for authorization. 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 delineated in the G-MHRAFees, the MHRA levies the following clinical trial processing fees:

• 3,366 British Pounds – Applications with an Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) dossier (higher fee for phase 1, full and simplified IMP dossier)
• 248 British Pounds – Applications without an IMP dossier (lower fee for phase IV, cross referral, additional protocol)
• 248 British Pounds – Clinical trial variation/amendment
• No cost – Phase 4 notification
• 248 British Pounds – Assessment of annual safety reports

Note per the G-MHRAFees, there is no annual clinical trials fee and no fee for Phase IV notifications. 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.

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the fees for the annual safety reports are applicable to annual progress reports and Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs). From June 1, 2024, MHRA will only accept online payment of this fee via MHRA’s payments service (GBR-26) prior to submission of an annual safety report. Receipts generated will be sent by email and must be included in the report submission as proof of payment. Failure to provide evidence of payment will result in the submission being made invalid.

The G-CTApp further indicates that no fees are required for applications submitted and authorized under the Notification Scheme.

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, 2^nd 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. 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.

The G-CTApp indicates that invoices for clinical trial authorization applications and substantial amendment applications are sent directly to the applicant shortly after a valid submission has been established. The applicant’s cover letter should clearly highlight the purchase order (PO) number where available. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure timely payment of invoices for their submissions. Invoices must be settled on receipt of invoice. For additional information, applicants may contact the MHRA Finance Department at 020 3080 6533 or sales.invoices@mhra.gov.uk.

Overview

The G-SLAppClinTrial states that in Sierra Leone, the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC) fulfills the functions of the ethics committee (EC) (known as an Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) in Sierra Leone). Ethical clearance for all phases of clinical trials involving humans must be sought from the SLESRC. The SLESRC is responsible for ensuring the protection of the rights, safety, and well-being of trial participants, and providing assurance of that protection by reviewing, approving, and providing comments on trial protocols and the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and the methods and materials to be used in obtaining and documenting informed consent of the trial participants.

Ethics Committee Composition

As per the SL-GCPs, the EC (i.e., the SLESRC) should consist of members who collectively have the qualifications and experience required to review and evaluate the scientific, medical, and ethical aspects of a proposed clinical trial. Specifically, it is recommended that the EC should include:

• At least five (5) members

• At least one (1) member whose primary area of interest is nonscientific

• At least one (1) member who is independent of the institution/trial site

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As set forth in the SL-GCPs, the EC (i.e., the SLESRC) must perform its functions according to written standard operating procedures (SOPs), maintain written records of its activities and meeting minutes, and comply with good clinical practice (GCP) and other applicable regulatory requirements. An EC must make its decisions at announced meetings where a quorum, as stipulated in the SOPs, is present. Only those EC members who are independent of the trial’s principal investigator (PI) and sponsor should vote or provide an opinion on any trial-related matters. In addition, only members who participate in the EC review process and discussion should vote and provide their opinion.

The SL-GCPs also states that the EC must retain all relevant records (e.g., written procedures, membership lists, lists of occupations/affiliations of members, submitted documents, minutes of meetings, and correspondence) for at least three (3) years after the study’s conclusion, and make them available to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) upon request. The EC may be asked by investigators, sponsors, or the PBSL to provide its written procedures and membership lists.

Overview

As set forth in GAfREC, the United Kingdom (UK) has a centralized recognition process for ethics committees (ECs), known as research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK. ECs are part of an accountable and independent Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62).

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 GAfREC, the RES encompasses England’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Northern Ireland’s Department of Health, the Scottish Government Health and Social Care, Finance, Digital and Governance Directorates, the Welsh Government’s Department of Health and Social Care as well as the ECs that are collectively recognized or established by these authorizing bodies. The UK Health Departments have authorized the head office of the RES in England, within the Health Research Authority (HRA), to perform some UK-wide functions on behalf of the other head offices, including performing some of the functions of the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA), which is the statutory body that recognizes ECs for the review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs). (See Oversight of Ethics Committees section for more details on RES and UKECA functions.) In accordance with the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, ECs recognized to conduct reviews of clinical trials for CTIMPs are authorized by the UKECA. The UKwide-Rsrch reaffirms that GAfREC is the UK policy document governing the RES function and EC reviews in each country.

All recognized RES ECs are required to comply with the provisions delineated in GAfREC, the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and GBR-9. However, specific ECs within the RES are recognized, or otherwise designated, to review certain types of research proposals. A list of recognized ECs within the RES is available through GBR-111. Also see GBR-64 for EC definitions.

Ethics Committee Composition

As delineated in the MHCTR and GAfREC, a RES-recognized EC, which includes those recognized by UKECA, may consist of up to 18 members. Collectively, members must encompass the qualifications and experience required to review and evaluate the scientific, medical, and ethical aspects of a proposed clinical trial. The ECs should include a diverse mixture of members in terms of age, disability, gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation. One third of the committee must also be lay members, and half of the lay members must be persons who are not and never have been health care professionals, clinical researchers, or managers of clinical research (also known as lay members). Additionally, GAfREC states that a quorate meeting must be attended by at least seven (7) members and include the chair, at least one (1) expert member, and one (1) lay member. GBR-9 mirrors this requirement, but adds that when investigational products are reviewed, a lay member must be present. See GBR-113 for additional recommendations for composition.

Per GBR-9, in order to accommodate the United States’ (US) quorum definition pursuant to regulations for the protection of human subjects in research (45 CFR 46) and the Common Rule (45 CFR 46 Subpart A), the RES also makes special arrangements to review UK-based research funded by US Federal Government departments and their agencies. In such cases, the quorum is a majority of the EC. See the ClinRegs United States page, Ethics Committee topic for more information on ethics review requirements in the US.

As indicated in GAfREC, committee member appointments are valid for up to five (5) years. Appointments may be renewed; however, members should not normally serve more than two (2) consecutive terms of five (5) years on the same EC, and members may resign at any time. Members must maintain confidentiality regarding all ethical review related matters and refuse any projects in which they have a conflict of interest. See the MHCTR and GAfREC for additional EC composition requirements.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

In addition to complying with composition requirements, GAfREC, GBR-113, and GBR-9 state that an EC must also adopt written standard operating procedures (SOPs). The SOPs should cover the entire review process from application submission to opinion and notification, amendments, and annual reporting.

Per GBR-9, applications that have been submitted via the CTIMP combined review service will be validated by the MHRA, and EC staff do not need to undertake a formal validation check. ECs should check the application against the validation checklist and request any missing information or clarifications from the applicant if required. All validated clinical trial applications for an ethical opinion should be reviewed at a full meeting of an EC. An EC should normally hold at least 10 scheduled full meetings in each year for the purpose of ethical review of applications. Additional meetings may be held where necessary to ensure that an ethical opinion on an application is given within the relevant time limit (or to discuss matters relating to the establishment or operating procedures of the EC or for training purposes). Meetings to review applications should normally be held at intervals of one (1) month unless there are holidays. The schedule of EC meetings for the financial year commencing on April 1^st should be agreed to by December 1^st in the previous financial year. The schedule should set out the dates, times, and venues of meetings, and the closing date for applications for each meeting. All members and deputy members of the EC should receive details of the schedule. The closing dates for full applications should normally be 14 calendar days prior to each EC meeting. In the case of applications for Phase 1 clinical trials in healthy volunteers, Type 1 ECs may adopt a later closing date for applications not less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the meeting and may accept applications booked in advance of the closing date which are submitted up to seven (7) days before the date of the meeting.

According to GBR-9, the EC Chair is responsible for ensuring that the EC reaches clearly agreed to decisions on all matters. If the Chair is unavailable, then the meeting should normally be chaired by the vice-Chair or, if the vice Chair is also unavailable, by the alternate vice-Chair. The EC meeting should reach unanimous decisions by consensus wherever possible. Where a consensus is not achievable, a formal vote should be taken by a counting of hands. The decision of the EC should be determined by a simple majority of those members present and entitled to vote. A record should be kept of the number of votes, including abstentions, in the minutes. Where the vote is tied, the Chair may give a casting vote, but should first consider any other options to arrive at a more consensual decision. Where any member wishes to record a formal dissent from the decision of the committee, this should be recorded in the minutes but should not be included in the opinion letter. An agenda should be prepared for an EC meeting and EC staff must prepare minutes of the EC meetings. See GBR-9 for additional requirements on the agenda, meeting conduct/decisions, and minutes during full EC meetings.

As per GBR-9, documents for EC meetings should be distributed as soon as possible after the agenda is finalized and applications have been validated, and in any case no later than 10 calendar days prior to the meeting (with the exception of expedited, proportionate review, and Phase 1 applications where there has been prior agreement). Under no circumstances should full applications be tabled at the meeting. Applications should be made available to members via the HRA Assessment and Review Portal (HARP) as soon as the application is validated, and an email sent to the EC members to inform them the application is now viewable.

GBR-9 requires ECs to retain all the documentation relating to a CTIMP on which it gives an opinion:

• Where the trial proceeds, for at least three (3) years from the conclusion or early termination of the trial
• Where the trial does not proceed (e.g., it is given an unfavorable opinion, or does not start following a favorable opinion), for at least three (3) years from the date of the opinion

In accordance with GBR-9, documentation should be retained on all invalid applications for at least one (1) year from the date of invalidation; and for three (3) years where the application is withdrawn by the EC, the chief investigator, or the sponsor after the EC review but before a final opinion is given. Signed final copies of the minutes of full EC meetings and sub-committee business should be retained electronically for at least 20 years. Where paper records are destroyed in accordance with this policy, they should be shredded and disposed of as confidential waste. Electronic records of studies will be retained indefinitely.

For detailed EC procedures and information on other administrative processes, see GAfREC, GBR-113, and GBR-9.

Overview

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, the primary scope of information assessed by the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), relates to protecting the well-being and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial.

As per the SL-GCPs, the EC (i.e., the SLESRC) must also pay special attention to trials that may include vulnerable subjects.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As indicated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, clinical trial application submissions to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) and the SLESRC may be made in parallel in the case of a public health emergency or as deemed fit by the PBSL. For parallel submissions, the PBSL requires proof of the application’s submission to the SLESRC, as well as any updated versions of documents or information as requested by the SLESRC.

The G-SLEthics further specifies that the principal investigator (PI) must obtain approval for a clinical trial from the SLESRC. The PI should submit a proposal along with other required documentation to the SLESRC Chair at least two (2) calendar months prior to the anticipated commencement of the proposed study.

The SL-GCPs requires that the EC review a proposed clinical trial within a reasonable time and document its views in writing, clearly identifying the trial, the documents reviewed, and the dates for the following: approval/favorable opinion; modifications required prior to its approval/favorable opinion; disapproval/negative opinion; and termination/suspension of any prior approval/favorable opinion. The EC must conduct continuing review of each ongoing trial at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk to human participants, but at least once per year.

There is no stated expiration date for EC approval in the G-SLAppClinTrial, the SL-GCPs, or the G-SLEthics.

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

Overview

According to GAfREC, the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and GBR-9, the primary scope of information assessed by ethics committees (ECs) within the United Kingdom (UK) Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. (Note: ECs are known as research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK). GAfREC specifies that ethical review is required for research proposals that involve investigational products (IPs), material consisting of human cells, and other situations that are described in GAfREC.

As per GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the MHCTR2006-No2, and GBR-113, ECs must pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations).

As indicated in GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-113, and GBR-9, 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. See GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-9 for detailed ethics review guidelines.

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; research involving prisoners or prisons; or fast-track ECs.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As described in GBR-9, GBR-66, and GBR-95, the type of EC responsible for approval (known as a “favorable opinion” in the UK) within the RES depends on the type of research being conducted. Per GAfREC and GBR-9, ECs are recognized or established by the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) to conduct reviews of clinical trials for IPs (known as clinical trials for investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in the UK). Per GAfREC, RES-recognized ECs established under Health Department policy within each of the four (4) UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) review research studies other than IP clinical trials. Also see GBR-64 for definitions of EC terminology and GBR-111 and GBR-112 to search for ECs within the RES.

As indicated in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GAfREC, IP applications require the favorable opinion of a UKECA-recognized EC, and approval by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) prior to the sponsor or the designated legal representative initiating the trial. The G-CTApp states that all new clinical trial applications must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process, wherein a single application route and coordinated review by MHRA and the EC leads to a single UK decision. New clinical trial applications for combined review are prepared and electronically submitted to the new combined review section of Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). Per GBR-78, IRAS does not change the requirements for review, including authorizations or signatures, of any regulatory authority or National Health Service (NHS) body. Therefore, it requires different authorizations depending on the type of study and the applicable review bodies. According to GBR-9, submissions of the electronic application must be made to IRAS on the same day that a booking is made to schedule an EC review through the NHS REC’s Online Booking Service (GBR-95).

According to the MHCTR, GAfREC, and GBR-9, for all studies, only one (1) EC review (referred to as the “main EC”) is needed for a project taking place in the UK, regardless of the number of sites. Furthermore, GBR-9 states that the Chief Investigator (CI) should be based in the UK and that the REC may agree exceptionally to an application being submitted by a CI based outside the UK, but should consider as part of the ethical review whether adequate arrangements are in place for supervision of the study in the UK. The ethical review includes an assessment of the suitability of each site or sites at which the research is to be conducted in the UK. The site assessment is not a separate ethical review, but forms part of the single ethical review of the research. Management permission is still required from the organization responsible for hosting the research before it commences at any site. In the case of international studies, an application must be made to an EC in the UK, whether or not the study has a favorable ethical opinion from a committee outside the UK, and whether or not it has started outside the UK.

Per GBR-68, unless an application is being processed under the proportionate review service, the applicant should attend the EC meeting if possible. The EC will notify the sponsor of its decision, usually within 10 working days of the EC meeting. GBR-9 indicates that the EC should reach one (1) of the following decisions on any application reviewed at a full meeting or a proportionate review sub-committee meeting:

• A final opinion, which may be either favorable with standard conditions, favorable with additional conditions, or unfavorable
• Provisional opinion with request for further information, which means the EC may decide that a final opinion cannot be issued until further information or clarification has been received from the applicant

The MHCTR, GBR-9, and GBR-68 state that the EC must give its opinion within 60 calendar days of receipt of a valid application. When an EC requires further information before confirming its opinion, it may give a provisional opinion and may make one (1) written request for further information, clarification, or changes to documentation. The time required for the EC to receive a complete response to its request does not count against the 60-day timeline. Certain studies, including gene therapy studies, will take 90 days, or 180 days if a specialist group or committee is consulted. For other exceptions, see GAfREC and the MHCTR. (See the Submission Process and Timeline of Review sections for detailed submission process requirements.)

Per GBR-116, the Health Research Authority (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 US Department of Health and Human Services, and any other type of clinical trial or research study.

Per GBR-9, the EC’s favorable ethical opinion applies for the stated duration of the study, except where action is taken to suspend or terminate the opinion. The MHCTR, GAfREC, and IRAS (GBR-78) require the applicant to identify an expected end date for the study. A change to the definition of the end of the study is a substantial amendment. Extension of the study beyond the period specified in the application form is a non-substantial amendment.

GBR-9 describes EC processes related to reviewing and approving clinical trial amendments and any related notifications. The sponsor of a CTIMP may make an amendment to a clinical trial authorization, other than a substantial amendment, at any time after the trial has started. These do not need to be notified. If the amendment is substantial, the sponsor is required to submit a valid amendment to the MHRA and/or the REC that gave the favorable opinion of the trial. Where the sponsor requests an ethical opinion on a CTIMP, the EC should provide this in all cases within 35 calendar days of receiving a valid amendment. If the opinion is unfavorable, the sponsor may then modify the proposed amendment. A written notice of the modification should be sent to the main EC at least 14 calendar days before it is due to be implemented. The EC may then give an unfavorable opinion on the modified amendment within 14 calendar days, otherwise it may be implemented. See GBR-9 and GBR-98 for guidance on what changes qualify as a substantial amendment, which requires notification to the EC and MHRA. GBR-9 states that while the EC is not responsible for proactive monitoring, it has a duty to keep the favorable ethical opinion under review in the light of progress reports and significant developments and may review the opinion at any time. If information raises concerns about the suitability of the site or investigator, the favorable opinion may be reviewed.

Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee

The G-SLEthics indicates that the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), requires the principal investigator (PI) to pay a nonrefundable administrative fee to submit a protocol for ethical review and approval. The fees are as follows:

• For self-funded, individual Sierra Leonean researchers based in Sierra Leone: 300,000 Leones
• For graduate students studying in Sierra Leone: 200,000 Leones
• For Sierra Leonean students studying abroad: $100 United States Dollars (USD)
• For Sierra Leonean academics abroad: $150 USD
• For all foreign students studying abroad: $200 USD
• For self-funded, international researchers: $400 USD
• For national/local non-governmental organizations (NGOs)/community-based organizations (CBOs): 2,000,000 Leones
• For international NGOs based in Sierra Leone and international universities conducting non-clinical research: 4,000,000 Leones
• For multinational institutions, donor agencies, and institutions not ordinarily based in Sierra Leone: $1,500 USD
• For exclusively government funded studies: 500,000 Leones (must be submitted with a cover letter from the Permanent Secretary of the relevant Ministry or the Chief Medical Officer in the case of the Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MoHS))
• For any amendment made to a previously approved application: 25% of the current fee for the first request, 50% for the second, and 100% for subsequent ones. Sierra Leonean students are exempt from this charge.
• For an application extension: 25% of the original fee
• For exclusively electronic applications: additional $50 USD

Payment Instructions

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

As set forth in GAfREC, ethics committees (ECs) are not permitted to charge an application fee or seek any other financial contribution or donation for reviewing research proposals. Additionally, EC members receive no payment for contributing to the application review process at scheduled meetings or for attending these meetings.

Overview

SLE-3 indicates that the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), does not have a supervisory or oversight mandate over institutional ECs for health research. Few institutions have their own institutional ECs.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

No applicable requirements.

Overview

As stated in GAfREC and GBR-9, the United Kingdom (UK)-wide Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) provides proportionate and responsive ethical review of research through its “recognized” ethics committees (ECs), known as research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK. Per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GAfREC, the UK Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) is the statutory body that recognizes ECs for the review of clinical trials of investigational products (CTIMPs). The UK Health Departments have authorized England’s Health Research Authority (HRA) to perform some of the RES functions (more details below).

As indicated in the MHCTR and GBR-9, the UKECA recognizes two (2) types of ECs for new CTIMPs:

• Type 1: Reviews Phase 1 clinical trials of investigational products (IPs) taking place at any site in the UK, where the sponsor has no knowledge of any evidence that the product has effects likely to be beneficial to the participants of the trial, and the participants are healthy and not suffering from the disease or condition to which the trial relates.
• Type 3: Reviews clinical trials of IPs taking place at any site in the UK, including first-in-person studies involving people with the target disease or condition to which the trial relates.

As stated in GAfREC, the HRA performs the following EC oversight activities on behalf of the UKECA:

• Develops and manages a national training program for ECs
• Develops, implements, and maintains standard operating procedures (SOPs) for ECs and provides advice and support to ECs on procedural issues
• Develops a quality assurance program, including accreditation of ECs, based on regular monitoring and audit of their operation and performance
• Provides guidance and advice to assist ECs in their work and encourage consistency of approach to common issues in research ethics
• Acts for UKECA to provide a national mechanism for operational advice and assistance to ECs recognized to review and approve clinical trials
• Acts for UKECA to handle appeals against the unfavorable opinions of ECs in respect of CTIMPs
• Acts for UKECA to transfer to a successor EC the functions of an EC that has ceased to operate or that has been varied, abolished, or had its recognition revoked
• Acts for UKECA to reallocate to ECs applications made to the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee which do not require its review

Further, per GAfREC, the following oversight functions are the responsibility of UKECA for the purposes of clinical trials:

• Establishes or recognizes ECs
• Establishes or recognizes ECs to act in relation to such descriptions or classes of research as it considers appropriate
• Abolishes or revokes the recognition of ECs that it has established or recognized
• Monitors the extent to which ECs adequately perform their functions, including through annual reports from ECs it has recognized
• Approves standing orders and SOPs for EC business and operations, as well as variations and revocations to these orders and procedures

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Per GAfREC, HRA, acting for 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 HRA implements a rolling accreditation program to audit UK ECs against standards as detailed in GAfREC 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, HRA’s latest accreditation report is at GBR-124. In addition, quality control checks are undertaken, and results are shared with management teams. For example, operational managers observe EC meetings and provide a check against agreed-upon standards relating to meeting conduct and minute taking. Findings from the meeting observations are shared with the EC chair and staff and collated to identify common themes to inform improvements. For more information about quality assurance, contact quality.assurance@hra.nhs.uk.

Overview

In accordance with the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, Sierra Leone requires the sponsor and principal investigator (PI) to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) before commencement of the clinical trial. Furthermore, per the G-SLEthics, the PI is required to obtain ethics approval from the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC).

As indicated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, a favorable opinion from the SLESRC is a required element of a clinical trial application to the PBSL. However, submissions to the PBSL and the SLESRC may be made in parallel in the case of a public health emergency or as deemed fit by the PBSL.

Regulatory Submission

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that applicants must submit 15 hard copies of all clinical trial application documents to the PBSL, as well as one (1) soft copy in Microsoft Word format (Acrobat PDF files are also acceptable).

As per the G-SLAppClinTrial, the delivery address for a clinical trial application is as follows:

The Registrar
Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone
Central Medical Stores
New England Ville, Freetown
P.M.B. 322
Sierra Leone

As per SLE-23, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided in English.

Ethics Review Submission

The G-SLEthics states that the PI should submit to the SLESRC five (5) hard copies of the full research proposal (and all supporting documents) detailing the ethical issues in the study and how they will be addressed (only three (3) copies for extensions), each in a separate envelope. In addition, an electronic copy of the application should be emailed to efoday@health.gov.sl. The G-SLEthics also indicates that the PI may submit an exclusively electronic application for an additional fee. See the Ethics Committee Fees section for more information.

The G-SLEthics states that PIs should submit their applications with a cover letter addressed to the Chair of the SLESRC at least two (2) calendar months before the anticipated commencement of the proposed study.

Per the G-SLEthics, the delivery information for the SLESRC is as follows:

Office of the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee
Ministry of Health and Sanitation
Directorate of Policy, Planning & Information (DPPI)
Youyi Building, Fifth Floor, East Wing
Freetown
Sierra Leone
Phone: +23278 366493

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, and GBR-9, the United Kingdom (UK) requires the sponsor or the designated legal representative to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) prior to initiating the trial. Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, the UK’s combined review process offers a single application route and coordinated/parallel review from MHRA and the ethics committee (EC) leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials.

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

Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, all new clinical trials applications of investigational products (CTIMPs) must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process using the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). For support and getting started, users should review GBR-72 and contact the combined review team at cwow@hra.nhs.uk. Step-by-step instructions are provided in G-IRASCombRev. As delineated in GBR-9, applications submitted via the combined review service are submitted jointly by the chief investigator and the sponsor. Per GBR-116, applicants seeking fast-track review of clinical trial applications must also apply via combined review on GBR-125. Per the G-CTApp, MHRA’s notification scheme enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to processing clinical trial authorization for “initial” applications. The scheme only applies to clinical trial applications for Phase 4 and certain Phase 3 clinical trials deemed to be of lower risk. Interest in the notification scheme should be registered via the combined review process (GBR-125). Per G-ATMP, all advanced therapy medicinal products must submit clinical trial applications using the same processes as all other medicines. See Scope of Review section for fast-track eligibility criteria.

Per GBR-122, for studies that were submitted before combined review, these applicants should continue to submit amendments and reports for these studies at IRAS via GBR-78’s log-in. HRA will update sponsors and applicants with full instructions and plenty of notice for any planned changes in the future, such as the migration of existing, ongoing studies. See GBR-122, for additional details on the migration of existing materials in IRAS. GBR-72 includes learning resources and a video on the combined review process.

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 and submit application

G-IRASCombRev indicates that when selecting an EC meeting that is not the first available meeting, the 60-day regulatory clock for both the EC and the MHRA will start on the cutoff date for the meeting that is chosen, which is 14 days before the meeting date. Once booked, the EC booking page will update to show the confirmed booking details. The applicant will then be able to scroll down the page to select the option to “submit to the regulators.” See G-IRASCombRev for detailed step-by-step instructions.

For overall help during the submission process, see the CTapp-Issues which identifies common issues with validation and assessment of clinical trial applications and how to avoid them.

Other regulatory information aside from new clinical trial applications are to be submitted pursuant to the G-MHRASubmiss. These submittals include substantial amendments for existing clinical trials, end-of-trial notifications, and developmental safety update reports (DSURs). The G-CTAuth-GBR also states that clinical trials not approved or yet transitioned over to the combined review process should continue to use the online MHRA Submissions portal (GBR-13). The steps for gaining access to GBR-13 are contained in the G-MHRASubmiss and GBR-11.

For overviews of submittals to MHRA, see GBR-18. Also see the Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for information on obtaining a trial identification number during trial registration.

The UKwide-Rsrch provides guidance and requirements for research in more than one (1) United Kingdom (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 described in GBR-78, other relevant approvals can be sought on the IRAS site. For example, applicants can request inclusion in the National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Portfolio, which comprises high-quality clinical research studies that receive support services from the Clinical Research Network in England.

Per G-CTApp, MHRA supports the conduct of trials with complex innovative designs such as umbrella, basket, platform, and master protocol plus submodules. When submitting a clinical trial application for a trial with innovative designs that involve prospective major adaptations, the sponsor must justify the choice of a complex trial design, ensure that each adaptation as well as the entire trial are safe and scientifically sound, and describe how the integrity of trial results will be maintained throughout the conduct of the trial. See G-CTApp for example scenarios of when it is appropriate to propose major adaptations via submission of a substantial amendment request. Before submitting an application for authorization of a trial with a complex innovative design and/or an amendment requesting approval of major adaptations, sponsors are recommended to establish a dialogue with the MHRA and seek advice.

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As per the G-SLAppClinTrial and SLE-9, the following documentation must be submitted to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Cover letter, including the list of documents submitted and their version number and date
• Non-refundable application fee as specified in the PBSL’s Fee Schedule (see Appendix I of the G-SLAppClinTrial)
• Protocol with all the relevant sections including site-specific addendums (see below for detailed protocol requirements)
• Two (2) copies of the completed clinical trial application forms signed by authorized persons, including cover page (see Appendix II of the G-SLAppClinTrial)
• Proof of registration with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) (SLE-19) or an internationally recognized PBSL-approved online registry
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB)
• Synopsis of previous trial(s) with the investigational product(s) (IP(s)), if applicable
• Summary of product characteristics or other professional information for all registered medicines used in the trial, or the international equivalent if the medicines are not registered in Sierra Leone
• A list of the planned clinical trial sites and the planned number of trial participants at the sites
• The name and position of the principal investigator(s) (PI(s)) who will be responsible for the sites where the trial is to be conducted, who must be registered with the relevant statutory health council, where applicable, and a resident in Sierra Leone
• Signed curriculum vitae(s) (CVs) for all key staff participating in the conduct of the clinical trial, as well as other relevant documents (see Annex 8 of SLE-6 for the recommended CV format for staff conducting clinical trials)
• Proof of current training in good clinical practice (GCP) for investigator(s), pharmacist(s), and monitor(s)
• Proof of registration of the key investigators with a professional statutory body, if applicable
• Any previous training in the principles of GCP or experience obtained from work with clinical trials and patient care
• Any conditions, such as economic interests and institutional affiliations, that might influence the impartiality of the investigator(s)
• Proof of current, relevant, and appropriate study insurance for all participants undertaken by the sponsor
• Proof of sponsor indemnification for investigator(s) and trial site(s) (see Annex 7 of SLE-6 for suggested wording of the sponsor indemnification)
• Professional indemnity insurance for investigator(s) and other trial staff
• Details of the site(s) where the trial is to be conducted and a duly justified written statement on the suitability of the clinical trial sites adapted to the nature and use of the IP. This should include a description of the suitability of facilities, equipment, and human resources, and a description of expertise, issued by the head of the clinic/institution at the clinical trial site or other responsible party
• A favorable opinion from the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC). In the case of a parallel submission, proof of clinical trial application submission to the SLESRC and the updated versions of documents or information as requested by the SLESRC are required
• Recruitment arrangements
• Signed joint financial declaration between the sponsor and the PI (see Appendix IIIc of the G-SLAppClinTrial and Annex 4 of SLE-6)
• Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) membership, CVs, and signed charter
• IP dossier and label
• Product information if the IP is registered: summary of product characteristics, patient information leaflet/package insert, and labelling
• Current good manufacturing practice (GMP) certificate issued from the national regulatory authority of the country where the IP is manufactured
• Product information and certificate of analysis for the concomitant and rescue medications
• Certificate(s) of analysis of the IP
• Certificate(s) of accreditation for the central laboratories
• Participant information sheet, informed consent form (ICF), and informed consent procedure
• Signed declaration by the applicant (see Annex 2 of SLE-6)
• Sponsor/PI contractual agreement, including the study budget
• Signed declaration by the PI and the sponsor of the trial that they are familiar with and understand the protocol, and will comply with GCP as determined by the PBSL in the conduct of the trial (see Appendix IIIa of the G-SLAppClinTrial and Annex 4 on page 12 of SLE-6)
• Workload forms for investigator(s)
• Signed declaration(s) by the local PI, as well as each investigator and key staff participating in the clinical trial (see Appendix IIIb of the G-SLAppClinTrial and Annex 5 of SLE-6)
• Signed declaration(s) by the sub-investigators and key staff participating in the clinical trial

• CVs and signed declaration by regional monitor(s) (see Annex 6 of SLE-6)

• Copies of recruitment advertisement(s) and questionnaires, if applicable
• Electronic copies of key peer reviewed publications following International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations to support the application, if applicable
• Labelled CD-ROM (list of files submitted on CD-ROM)

See the G-SLAppClinTrial for more details, including the application submission checklist (Appendix IIa) and the application form (Appendix IIb). The application checklist and form are also available at SLE-9 and SLE-6, respectively.

Additionally, see Appendix V of the G-SLAppClinTrial for the Clinical Trial Amendment Form. See also SLE-8 for the amendment checklist.

Ethics Committee Requirements

As per the G-SLEthics, the SLESRC requires the PI to submit the following documentation for ethics approval:

• Cover letter to the Chair of the Committee
• ICF attached to each proposal (Committee does not accept verbal consent, except where it is supported by an independent witness)
• Completed checklist for the Essential Elements in the Application for Approval (see the G-SLEthics)
• Brief CV for the PI and associates clearly stating their roles (not more than four (4) pages each)
• Study proposals submitted for award of a degree must be accompanied by a letter of confirmation from the supervisor and approval by the institution’s review board
• Requests for amendment or extension of study should include a copy of the previous approval letter
• A non-refundable administrative fee for each proposal submitted (see the Ethics Committee Fees section for detailed fee information)

Clinical Protocol

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that the clinical trial protocol must comply with the International Council for Harmonisation's (ICH) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (SLE-24) and the SL-GCPs. Accordingly, the protocol must include:

• General information (protocol title, identifying number, and date; contact information for the sponsor, medical expert, investigator(s), trial site(s), qualified physician(s), and laboratory and/or institutions involved in the study)
• Background information
• Objectives and purpose
• Trial design
• Selection, withdrawal, and treatment of participants
• Assessment of efficacy
• Assessment of safety
• A description of the statistical methods to be used in the trial
• Direct access to source data and documents
• Quality control and quality assurance
• Ethical considerations
• Data handling and recordkeeping
• Financing and insurance
• Publication policy

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As specified in the G-CTApp, a clinical trial submission package to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should contain the following documents:

• Cover letter (when applicable, the subject line should state that the submission is for a Phase 1 trial and is eligible for a shortened assessment time, or if it is submitted as part of the notification scheme); this letter should clearly highlight the Purchase Order (PO) number to help the MHRA invoice and allocate payments promptly and efficiently
• Clinical trial application form in PDF and XML versions
• Protocol document
• Investigator’s brochure (IB)
• Investigational medical product dossier (IMPD) or a simplified IMPD
• Summary of scientific advice obtained from the MHRA or any other regulatory authority, if available
• Manufacturer’s authorization, including the importer’s authorization and Qualified Person declaration on good manufacturing practice for each manufacturing site if the product is manufactured outside the European Union (EU) (See G-ImportIMPs and the Manufacturing & Import section for more information)
• Copy of the United Kingdom (UK) or the European Medicines Agency’s decision on the pediatric investigation plan and the opinion of the pediatric committee, if applicable
• Content of the labelling of the investigational product (IP) (known as investigational medicinal product (IMP) in the UK) (or justification for its absence)

Ethics Committee Requirements

As per the MHCTR, the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), ECs require the chief investigator (CI) to submit the following documentation for ethics approval:

• Application for an EC opinion
• A summary of the trial, including justification, relevance, and methodology to be used
• Research hypothesis
• Statistical analysis and justification for the numbers of participants to be recruited
• Protocol
• IB
• Peer review process details
• Sponsor name and contact information
• Financial arrangements for the trial (e.g., funding sources, participant reimbursement, compensation provisions in the event of trial-related injury or death, and insurance or indemnity coverage for sponsor and investigator(s)) (See the Insurance & Compensation section for additional information)
• Terms of agreement between sponsor and participating institution(s)
• Material to be used (including advertisements) to recruit potential research participants (See the Initiation, Agreements & Registration section for additional information on participant recruitment)
• Informed consent form and copies of materials to be provided to participants (See the Required Elements section for additional information)
• Participant treatment plans
• Benefit/risk assessment for participants
• Investigator(s) Curriculum Vitaes (CVs)
• Trial design and suitability of facilities

Further, to help with planning before seeking EC approval, GBR-18 provides a checklist for CIs.

Clinical Protocol

Per GBR-9, the protocol describes the objectives, design, methodology, statistical considerations and organization of a clinical trial. According to GBR-113, the clinical protocol should contain the following elements:

• Protocol summary
• Sponsor or designated representative name and contact information
• Investigator(s) CV(s) and contact information
• IP description (See the Investigational Products topic for detailed coverage of this subject)
• Form, dosage, route, method, and frequency of administration; treatment period
• Trial objectives and purpose
• Trial design, random selection method, and blinding level
• Participant selection/withdrawal
• Participant treatment
• Summary of potential risks and known benefits to research participants
• Safety and efficacy assessments
• Adverse event reporting requirements (See the Safety Reporting section for additional information)
• Statistics and methods to track trial data
• Sponsor specifications for direct access to source data/documents
• Quality control/quality assurance procedures and practices
• Ethical considerations
• Data management and recordkeeping
• Financing and insurance details
• Publication policy

For complete protocol requirements, refer to GBR-113.

Overview

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) and the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC) reviews may be conducted in parallel in the case of a public health emergency or as deemed fit by the PBSL. For parallel submissions, the PBSL requires proof of the application’s submission to the SLESRC, as well as any updated versions of documents or information as requested by the SLESRC.

Regulatory Authority Approval

Per the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL’s processing times of clinical trial applications for different investigational products (IPs) are as follows, unless otherwise specified by the PBSL on a case-by-case basis:

• Medical devices - 40 working days
• Pharmaceuticals - 50 working days
• Biological and biotechnology medical products - 60 working days
• Genetically modified organisms - 120 working days

As delineated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL will inform the applicant in writing about the receipt of a valid clinical trial application or the formal grounds for non-acceptance within 10 working days from the receipt of the application. The applicant must address formal grounds for non-acceptance within 10 working days. If changes are required and the applicant fails to modify the application correspondingly within a maximum of 30 working days, following the reasoned objections, the application will be deemed rejected. If the PBSL requires changes to the application and the applicant fails to modify the application correspondingly within a maximum of 90 days following the reasoned objections, the application will be deemed rejected. See Figure 1 in Section 5.17 of the G-SLAppClinTrial for more details on the PBSL’s clinical trial authorization process.

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, if expedited review of a clinical trial during a public health emergency is anticipated, the applicant should inform the PBSL in writing. The timeline for processing such applications is 10-20 working days. For more information on expedited review, see the Scope of Assessment section and the G-SLAppClinTrial.

The G-SLAppClinTrial further indicates that any proposed amendment to the trial application, trial arrangements, and IP must be submitted to the SLESRC and the PBSL for approval before such amendments are carried out. The PBSL’s processing time for protocol amendment applications is 30 working days. For more details on amendment requirements, see the G-SLAppClinTrial.

The G-SLAppClinTrial states that the PBSL must issue a Clinical Trial Certificate to authorize the trial to be conducted, which must be renewed annually. The PBSL’s processing time for a Clinical Trial Certificate renewal application is 15 working days.

The G-SLAppClinTrial further states that if a clinical trial application is rejected by the PBSL, any person or institution may appeal the decision in writing within 60 days after receipt of the decision, to request PBSL review or reconsideration of the initial decision. The PBSL’s response to the appeal application must be addressed to the affected person or institution within 90 days of the appeal’s submission. For more information on appeal contents and timelines, see the G-SLAppClinTrial.

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL’s processing time for IP import permits is 10 working days.

Ethics Committee Approval

No information is currently available on the SLESRC’s timeline of review.

Overview

Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, all new clinical trials applications for investigational 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 G-CTApp and GBR-72, the initial combined review assessment will be completed within 30 days of being submitted. The G-CTApp indicates that applications for healthy volunteer trials and sponsor-determined phase 1 trials in non-oncology participants may qualify for a shortened assessment time and MHRA will work with the EC to expedite these applications. The MHRA and the EC will inform applicants of the outcome of a submission. If there are grounds for non-acceptance of the application, the applicant will have the opportunity to respond, usually within 14 days, though this may be extended on request. Communication informing the applicant of the MHRA and EC decisions following receipt of the responses will usually be sent within 60 days of receiving the original valid application. If an extension to the response date has been agreed to, then this will impact the final decision timeline. Notification of the decision relating to a gene therapy, somatic cell therapy (including xenogenic cell therapy) product, tissue engineered product, or products containing genetically modified organisms will be sent within 90 days of receiving the original application unless otherwise advised.

The G-CTApp states that the MHRA uses automated electronic communication. To ensure receipt of MHRA correspondence, applicants should add MHRA_CT_Ecomms@mhra.gov.uk to their safe sender email list. MHRA will only send official correspondence to the named applicant email address. According to the MHCTR, if the sponsor or the designated representative does not receive a request for additional information from the MHRA within 30 days, the clinical trial application is treated as authorized.

Regarding the new notification scheme, the G-CTApp states that this pathway enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to processing clinical trial authorization for “initial” applications for Phase 4 and certain Phase 3 clinical trials deemed to be of lower risk. Applications submitted under this scheme will be processed by the MHRA within 14 calendar days from the application received effective date, provided the sponsor can demonstrate the trial meets the inclusion criteria. Authorization by the MHRA will be granted unless any criterion is not suitably met. If the MHRA determines the application does not meet the criteria, an objection decision will be communicated within 14 calendar days from the application received effective date, and the application will continue under the full authorization assessment with a decision communicated within the 30-day statutory timeframe.

In addition, as stated in the G-CTApp, certain first-in-human (Phase 1) trials of investigational products with higher risk or greater elements of uncertainty require the MHRA to seek advice from the Clinical Trials, Biologicals, and Vaccines Expert Advisory Group (CTBV EAG) of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) before approval for the trial can be given. See the G-CTApp for detailed requirements.

Overview

In accordance with the G-SLAppClinTrial, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor and the principal investigator (PI) receive authorization from Sierra Leone’s Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) via a Clinical Trial Certificate. Additionally, per the G-SLAppClinTrial, the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC) fulfills the functions of the ethics committee (EC) (known as an Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) in Sierra Leone) in the country. Ethics approval must be obtained from the SLESRC prior to initiating a study. The G-SLEthics indicates that the PI must obtain the SLESRC approval.

In addition, as per SLE-23, no waiting period is required following the applicant’s receipt of PBSL and SLESRC approval. According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL must be informed of the trial’s initiation in writing on the exact date the study commences. If the trial does not begin or is delayed, then the PBSL must be informed of the new commencement date within 90 days of the Clinical Trial Certificate’s issuance. SLE-23 further indicates that investigators are required to notify their local institution prior to initiating a trial.

As per the G-SLAppClinTrial, a permit from the PBSL is required for the import of an investigational product (IP) to be used in a trial. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information.)

Clinical Trial Agreement

The G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs state that the clinical protocol submitted to the PBSL must include a signed contractual agreement between the sponsor and the PI.

As required by the G-SLAppClinTrial, the sponsor/PI contractual agreement must have sections indicating:

• Study title
• Protocol version and date
• Trial site
• IP information
• Definitions of all terms
• Effective date of agreement
• Outline of the sponsor’s responsibilities, which must include general management of the trial; provision of adequate funding, resources/logistics and IPs for the study; and insurance for the study participants
• Outline of the PI’s responsibilities, which must include retaining all trial related essential documents until the sponsor informs the PI these documents are no longer needed
• Term (period of study duration) and termination of agreement (conditions for this)
• Confidentiality

Per the SL-GCPs, the sponsor should obtain the investigator’s/institution’s agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP), with the applicable regulatory requirement(s), and with the PBSL-approved protocol
• Comply with procedures for data recording/reporting
• Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection

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

Clinical Trial Registration

The G-SLAppClinTrial states that proof of trial registration with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) (SLE-19), or an internationally recognized PBSL-approved online registry, must be submitted as part of a clinical trial application to the PBSL.

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GAfREC, a clinical trial can only commence after the sponsor or the designated representative receives authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the chief investigator (CI) receives an approval from a recognized ethics committee (EC). In addition, GBR-9 clarifies that a favorable EC opinion does not imply that research activity at sites can begin. Confirmation of management permission or approval from relevant care organization(s) to proceed with the research also needs to be in place. In addition, if the EC issued a favorable opinion with additional conditions, the clinical trial cannot start until these conditions are met. GBR-18 indicates that once all the relevant approvals are in place, all documentation has been finalized, and all participating sites have the information they need, the trial can begin. This process is often achieved by holding a start-up meeting at each site so that the CI ensures all technical aspects of a trial and protocol requirements are fully understood by relevant site staff. Trial-specific training (protocol and procedures) and review of trial conduct (e.g., safety reporting) is often undertaken at this stage. For clinical trials of an investigational product (IP), this communication should also include pharmacy staff, if applicable, so that they can confirm all requirements are in place before dispensing IPs to participants.

See GBR-40 for information about DigiTrials, which supports clinical trials in England to provide safe, authorized access to patient data to help set up trials. DigiTrials includes recruitment and feasibility services to identify whether there are enough suitable participants, as well as participant communication and outcomes services.

Per the MHCTR and GBR-18, specific documentation, including MHRA licensing, must be in place before an IP can be released for a clinical trial.

As stated in the MHCTR, clinical trials should be conducted in compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and laboratory practices for IPs must comply with the UK-GLPs. Per the CTIMP-Condtns, MHRA assumes that the trial will commence within 12 months of the date of the favorable ethical opinion. The EC must be notified of the trial start date with evidence of the authorization. Further, the trial should not commence at any site until management permission has been obtained from the organization responsible for the care of the participants at the site. If the trial does not commence within 12 months of the favorable opinion being issued, the sponsor should send the EC a written explanation for the delay. A further written explanation should be sent after 24 months if the research has still not commenced. If the trial does not commence within 24 months of the favorable opinion being issued, the EC may recommend to the MHRA that the clinical trial authorization should be suspended or terminated. See CTIMP-Condtns for additional information on standard conditions for clinical trials.

Per GBR-78, all project-based research must also have governance and legal compliance approvals from the appropriate lead United Kingdom (UK) Health Department. The Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78) facilitates this process. 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. For any new studies that are led from Scotland or Northern Ireland but have English and/or Welsh NHS sites, the national research and development coordinating function of the lead nation will share information with the HRA and HCRW assessment teams, who can issue HRA and HCRW approval for English and Welsh sites and thereby retain existing compatibility arrangements. Studies led from England or Wales with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland will be supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems, by which each country accepts the centralized assurances, as far as they apply, from national coordinating functions without unnecessary duplication. For more information on HRA’s assessment criteria and standards for approval, see GBR-29.

Clinical Trial Agreement

According to GBR-107 and GBR-70, contracts and agreements should be in place prior to the initiation of a trial. GBR-107 provides model templates for industry-sponsored clinical trials with the NHS/Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) participants in hospitals throughout the UK Health Services, which encompasses England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Applicants are advised to use the templates without modification. Any proposed modifications will not be accepted unless first agreed to by the UK Contracting Leads. Proposing modifications to the templates is likely to result in significant delay.

GBR-107 also provides the model non-commercial agreement (mNCA) template to meet the requirements of non-commercial sponsors and the NHS/DHSC bodies undertaking the research. This agreement has been developed as a single, UK-wide agreement template, meaning that it can be used irrespective of where the sponsor and research site are established. It is designed to be used without modification or negotiation. The mNCA has been developed for a range of interventional research scenarios, including clinical trials, medical device studies, research using participant data, and research using human tissue. The terms and conditions are suitable for all such scenarios and only the completion of highlighted sections, including the schedules of the agreement, will differ depending on the study involved.

The UKwide-Rsrch reiterates that national model contracts are available and, as such, 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. In England and Wales, sponsors must obtain a waiver from HRA and HCRW to use a modified or bespoke agreement (an agreement that differs from a published UK-wide model agreement template). This waiver allows NHS sites to freely negotiate all the contractual terms of the agreement; in Wales, this negotiation is carried out with a central team. In Northern Ireland, to modify the UK-wide model agreement template, a waiver is needed from the Health and Social Care R&D Approvals Service, which allows sites to freely negotiate all the contractual terms of the agreement. In Scotland, sponsors can expect to carry out a single contract negotiation for all Scottish sites, which will be negotiated with a nominated lead site or central team. If the study is single center, it will be negotiated at the relevant site.

Additional details and templates are available in GBR-107 and GBR-70.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per the GBR-102 and the G-CTApp, the sponsor or investigator is required to register the clinical trial in a publicly accessible database as a condition of a favorable ethical opinion. Registration should occur before the first participant is recruited and no later than six (6) weeks after recruitment of the first participant. To help researchers meet the UK’s transparency requirements, GBR-102 indicates that the HRA will automatically register approved clinical trials with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry (GBR-47) to ensure that information is publicly available. ISRCTN is the UK’s preferred clinical trials registry. HRA’s commitment to register clinical trials on behalf of sponsors and researchers is in line with the “Make It Public” research transparency strategy (see GBR-55).

Per GBR-18, each clinical trial must have a unique trial number. Clinical trials with sites in the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA), or Northern Ireland should also apply for a European number. Per GBR-87, as of January 31, 2023, all new clinical trials with sites in Europe should register on the new Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) (GBR-39). GBR-39 specifies that by January 31, 2025, any ongoing trials must be transitioned from EudraCT (GBR-87) to GBR-39. For more information, see the EudraCT transition fact sheet (GBR-16). CTIMP-Condtns indicates that for clinical trials involving sites in both the UK and the EU, a record in EU’s GBR-39 does not satisfy the public registry condition because the UK component of the trial will not be visible in CTIS (GBR-39). Failure to register is a breach of the clinical trial conditions unless a deferral has been agreed to.

Per GBR-102, HRA also recognizes any registry covered by the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), such as clinicaltrials.gov (GBR-49). For any submissions prior to December 31, 2021, the applicant should have registered their clinical trial on an established international register.

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Sierra Leone’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event (or Adverse Experience) (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant to whom an investigational product (IP) has been administered, including occurrences which are not necessarily caused by or related to that product

• Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – Any noxious and unintended response to an IP which is related to any dose administered to that participant

• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) or Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect

• Unexpected Adverse Event/Adverse Drug Reaction – An adverse reaction where the nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information

Safety Reporting Requirements

As stated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, the sponsor and the principal investigator(s) (PIs) are responsible for proper reporting of AEs and SAEs. The sponsor should expedite the reporting of all AEs that are both serious and unexpected. Any SAEs/SADRs must be reported to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) immediately where possible. In any event, the SAEs/SADRs must be reported to the PBSL within 48 hours of site awareness, but no later than 15 calendar days.

The SL-GCPs indicates that all SAEs/SADRs should be reported immediately except for those incidents documented by the protocol or the investigator’s brochure that do not require immediate reporting. The immediate reports should be followed promptly by detailed, written reports. The reports should identify participants by unique code numbers. AEs and/or laboratory abnormalities identified in the protocol as critical to safety evaluations should be reported to the PBSL. Furthermore, per the G-SLAppClinTrial, any SAE/SADR related to the IP should receive immediate medical attention.

In addition, per the G-SLAppClinTrial, any frequent AEs/ADRs should be reported to the PBSL immediately where possible, and in any event, within seven (7) days of site awareness. Non-serious AEs must be reported to the PBSL on request and, where applicable, submitted as part of an application for registration.

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that non-serious AEs must be reported on request and where applicable, submitted as part of an application for registration.

Investigator Responsibilities

The G-SLAppClinTrial states that in the event of an SAE/SADR, the PI is required to submit follow-up information (e.g., copies of diagnostic test results, laboratory reports, medical record progress notes) as soon as it becomes available. This information should be clearly marked as updated information and include the protocol and participant numbers. Follow-up reports must be submitted immediately when there is a change in the severity of the SAE/SADR initially reported, whenever there is any new development on an initially reported SAE/SADR, and/or when the SAE/SADR is resolved. Follow-up reports must include an assessment of the importance and implication of any findings. All fatal cases must be accompanied by a formal autopsy report. In exceptional circumstances where a formal autopsy is not practicable, provision of a verbal autopsy report must be prior approved by the PBSL and be given with ample reasons. SLE-23 indicates that the investigator is responsible for submitting these follow-up reports, but the sponsor can also report through the contract research organization.

As per the SL-GCPs, the investigator should also comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to reporting unexpected SAEs/SADRs to the PBSL. For a reported death, the investigator should supply the PBSL with any additional requested information (e.g., autopsy reports and terminal medical reports).

Sponsor Responsibilities

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, the sponsor is required to expedite the reporting of all AEs/ADRs that are both serious and unexpected to the PBSL. The SL-GCPs further indicates that the sponsor must also expedite the reporting of all AEs/ADRs that are both serious and unexpected to all concerned investigator(s)/institutions(s) and the ethics committee(s).

Per the SL-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for the ongoing safety evaluation of IPs, and should promptly notify the investigator(s)/institution(s) and the PBSL of findings that could adversely affect participant safety, impact the conduct of the trial, or alter the PBSL’s approval of the trial.

Other Safety Reports

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that notifications of changes in nature, severity, or frequency of risk factors must be submitted to the PBSL within 28 days, and new information that impacts the risk benefit profile of the product or conduct of the trial must be reported within seven (7) days.

Per the G-SLSftyMntrng and the G-SLAppClinTrial, a Development Safety Update Report (DSUR) must be submitted annually to the PBSL.

According to the G-SLSftyMntrng, the main objective of a DSUR is to present a comprehensive, thoughtful annual review and evaluation of pertinent safety information collected during the reporting period related to a drug under investigation, whether or not it is marketed, by:

• Examining whether the information obtained by the sponsor during the reporting period is in accord with previous knowledge of the IP’s safety
• Describing new safety issues that could have an impact on the protection of clinical trial participants
• Summarizing the current understanding and management of identified and potential risks, and
• Providing an update on the status of the clinical investigation/development program and study results

For more information on DSURs, see Section 12 of the G-SLSftyMntrng.

For safety reporting from foreign sites and other reporting requirements, see Appendicies VIa – VIc of the G-SLAppClinTrial.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the SAE/SADR report form must include detailed information to enable a causality assessment report to be prepared by the PBSL’s Expert Committee on Drug Safety. The SAE/SADR form must conform to the format of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences’ (CIOMS) Form I (SLE-7), or must be previously approved by the PBSL. Furthermore, all SAEs/suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (SUSARs) and AEs/ADRs must be reported using the SLE-7 form format and also electronically through the PBSL’s online reporting platform (SLE-14). Frequent AEs/ADRs should be reported to the PBSL in a line listing and through the PBSL’s online reporting platform. Electronic submissions must be E2B compliant. See SLE-12 for the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s E2B Guidelines.

For non-serious AEs, the G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that individual reporting must be formatted in accordance with the data elements specified in the ICH Harmonised Tripartite Efficacy Guideline on Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (see SLE-12).

Safety Reporting Definitions

According to GBR-1 and GBR-64, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event or Adverse Experience (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, including occurrences which are not necessarily caused by or related to that product
• Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – Any untoward and unintended response in a participant to an investigational medicinal product which is related to any dose administered to that participant
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE), Serious Adverse Drug Reaction (SADR), or Unexpected SADR – Any AE, ADR, or unexpected ADR that results in death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or a congenital anomaly/birth defect
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – An adverse reaction where the nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information
• Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) – A suspected serious adverse reaction, which is also “unexpected,” meaning that its nature and severity are not consistent with the information about the medicinal product in question

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advises that the guidance on reference safety information (RSI) contained in GBR-30 (developed by the Clinical Trials Facilitation Group of the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA)) remains applicable. For clinical trials that are being conducted in the UK, an RSI cannot be used for expectedness until the RSI has been approved by the MHRA. Additional SUSARs that occur before the new RSI is approved should be reported in the usual expedited manner. If sponsors wish to harmonize the implementation date of an RSI in a trial that includes European Union (EU) and UK sites, then they can use the date when approval is granted in all member states and the UK. In the interest of efficiency and harmonization for multinational trials, the MHRA recommends that amendments including changes to the RSI are submitted to the UK and EU at the same time. The RSI in place at the time the SUSAR occurred should be used to assess expectedness for follow-up reports.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Per GBR-99, a sponsor or investigator may take appropriate urgent safety measures (USMs) to protect research participants against any immediate hazard to their health or safety, without prior authorization from a regulatory body. The main ethics committee (EC), and the MHRA for clinical trials for investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs), must be notified immediately (no later than three (3) days) in the form of a substantial amendment that such measures have been taken and the reasons why. GBR-9 states that for trials which have been submitted via the combined review service, one USM notification is made via the combined review part of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125) and received by the MHRA. No additional notification is required directly to the EC. GBR-32 reaffirms this stating that SUSARs and safety reports for CTIMPs that were approved by combined review should be submitted to the MHRA only. If the safety report requires action, the MHRA will instruct the study team to submit a substantial amendment. Any other SUSARs or annual safety report submitted UK wide will be acknowledged by email by the EC. The submitted cover report for the SUSAR or annual safety report will not be signed and returned, and the email will act as the formal acknowledgement.

In addition, the G-CTAuth-GBR states that the sponsor should call the MHRA’s Clinical Trials Unit at 020 3080 6456 to discuss the issue with a safety scientist, ideally within 24 hours of measures being taken, but no later than three (3) days. If key details are not available during the initial call, then the sponsor should inform the MHRA no later than three (3) days from the date the measures are taken by email to clintrialhelpline@mhra.gov.uk. Written notification in the form of a substantial amendment is also required. The substantial amendment covering the changes made as part of the USM is anticipated within approximately two (2) weeks of notification to the MHRA. Any potential reason for delay of substantial amendment submission should be discussed and agreed upon with the MHRA at the time of initial notification or through a follow-up call. Submission of the substantial amendment must not be delayed by additional changes outside of those taken and required as an urgent safety measure. Unrelated and unacceptable changes may result in rejection. For more details on how submissions should be made using MHRA Submissions, see G-CTAuth-GBR.

Investigator Responsibilities

As specified in the MHCTR, GBR-1, and GBR-30, the investigator is responsible for reporting all SAEs/SADRs immediately to the sponsor. The report may be made orally or in writing and followed by a detailed report no later than 24 hours after the event. When the reported event results in a participant’s death, the investigator must provide the sponsor with any requested information. According to the MHCTR, in cases where reporting is not immediately required according to the protocol or the Investigator’s Brochure (IB), the investigator should report an SAE/SADR within the appropriate timeframe based on the trial requirements, the seriousness of the SAE/SADR, and protocol or IB guidelines. Per GBR-1, the investigator and the sponsor share responsibility for the assessment and evaluation of adverse events with regard to seriousness, causality, and expectedness.

See GBR-18 for a safety reporting flowchart that gives an overview of the investigator’s expedited safety reporting requirements to the sponsor for a clinical trial in the UK.

Sponsor Responsibilities

According to the MHCTR, the G-CTAuth-GBR, and the MHCTR-EUExit, the sponsor is required to record and report all relevant information about fatal or life-threatening SUSARs as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days to the MHRA, to the institution in which the trial is being conducted, and to the EC. Any additional relevant information should be sent within eight (8) days of the initial report. The sponsor must also report any non-fatal or non-life threatening SUSARs no later than 15 calendar days following first awareness of the event. Per GBR-1, the investigator and the sponsor share responsibility for the assessment and evaluation of adverse events with regard to seriousness, causality, and expectedness. Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, sponsors must report all UK-relevant SUSARs to the MHRA. The agency’s definition of ‘UK-relevant’ includes:

• SUSARs originating in the UK for a trial
• SUSARs originating outside the UK for a trial
• If the sponsor is serving as a sponsor of another ongoing trial outside the UK involving the same medicinal product
• SUSARs involving the same medicinal product if the sponsor of the trial outside the UK is either part of the same mother company or develops the medicinal product jointly, on the basis of a formal agreement, with the UK sponsor

Per GBR-18, sponsors should develop formal, written processes for the management of adverse events and safety reports, including the handling of both expedited reports and annual safety reporting.

Other Safety Reports

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, sponsors must submit Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs) to the MHRA. The DSUR should consider all new available safety information received during the reporting period. The DSUR should include:

• A cover letter listing all relevant clinical trial numbers of trials covered by the DSUR and an email address for correspondence (Note: per GBR-18, every clinical trial with a European site must include a European number. GBR-87 indicates that as of January 31, 2023, all new clinical trials with sites in Europe should use the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) (GBR-39)
• An analysis of the participant’s safety in the concerned clinical trial(s) with an appraisal of its ongoing risk/benefit
• A listing of all suspected serious adverse reactions (including all SUSARs) that occurred in the trial(s)
• An aggregate summary tabulation of SUSARs that occurred in the concerned trial(s)

As stated in the G-CTAuth-GBR, at the end of the DSUR reporting period, the sponsor may assess the new safety information that has been generated and submit any proposed safety changes to the IB as a substantial amendment. This amendment must be supported by the DSUR and approved before the RSI is changed. A shortened DSUR is available for approved trials under MHRA’s notification scheme that are not part of a multi-study development program. Phase 4 national (UK only) trials of licensed products, which commanded a low fee from the MHRA, and where all participants have completed treatment and are only in the follow-up stage will also be suitable for submission of a short format DSUR. As an alternative to producing a full DSUR for these trials, the Health Research Authority Annual Progress Report (GBR-27) may be used.

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 investigational product (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.

See the G-CTAuth-GBR, the MHCTR, GBR-1, GBR-18, GBR-30, and GBR-99 for detailed reporting requirements for the investigator and sponsor.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, SUSARs during clinical trials should be reported to the MHRA in one (1) of the following ways:

• Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) Submissions (GBR-126) (which replaces the EudraVigilance website (EVWEB)) – The ICSR Submissions route is used to submit single reports. (Note that per GBR-127, MHRA also decommissioned the eSUSAR reporting platform.)
• MHRA Gateway (which replaces the EudraVigilance 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.

See the Regulatory Fees section for information on fees for annual safety reporting and DSURs. See the G-CTAuth-GBR and GBR-99 for more details on submittal and delivery requirements.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

Per the SL-GCPs, the investigator should submit written summaries of the trial status to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) as required in the G-SLAppClinTrial, or more frequently, if requested by the PBSL. The investigator should also promptly provide written reports to the PBSL on any changes that significantly affect the conduct of the trial and/or increase the risk to participants.

As set forth in the G-SLAppClinTrial, quarterly reports must be submitted starting from the date the Clinical Trial Certificate is issued using the Quarterly Progress Report Form provided in Appendix VIIb. The reports must be submitted to the PBSL within 21 days following the end of the previous quarter, and an interim report must be submitted within 21 days after the end of the first half of the trial period, and as stipulated in the protocol. If the trial is interrupted, the reason must be communicated in writing to the PBSL within 10 working days. See the G-SLAppClinTrial for additional details on preparing progress reports.

Final Report

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the principal investigator (PI) or the sponsor must notify the PBSL no later than 30 days following the trial’s completion and submit a preliminary report on the trial. This report, referred to as a close-out report in the G-SLAppClinTrial, must be submitted to PBSL after study completion in the recommended format as per Appendix VIII.

The G-SLAppClinTrial delineates that in addition to the close-out report, the PI or the sponsor must compile and submit a comprehensive formal report to the PBSL no later than 90 days following the trial’s completion. The report should conform to the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Harmonised Tripartite Guideline - Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) (SLE-11). The report must include a short but comprehensive summary of the essential findings of the trial, as well as its methodology and course, and be submitted in hard and soft copies. Publication(s) of the study in a scientific journal or other medium for the purpose of disseminating the information obtained to stakeholders may be done only after notification of the PBSL.

The SL-GCPs indicates that the investigator is responsible for submitting the final report summarizing the trial’s outcome to the PBSL.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As indicated in the G-CTAuth-GBR and GBR-9, the investigator and the sponsor share responsibility for submitting progress reports to the ethics committee (EC), as required, on the status of a clinical trial and for submitting a final study report upon the trial’s completion. These requirements comply with the progress and final reporting requirements delineated in the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113).

In accordance with GBR-32 and GBR-65, it is no longer a requirement to submit annual progress reports to the EC. However, GBR-65 states that depending on the type of approval, a progress report may be requested to track progress.

In addition, GBR-65 states that if the study was reviewed by an EC in Scotland or Northern Ireland, an annual progress report should be submitted 12 months after the date on which the favorable ethics opinion was given, except in the following instances:

• If the study is expected to run for less than two (2) years in duration
• If the study received a proportionate review
• If the study received a favorable ethics opinion from an EC in England or Wales

Furthermore, GBR-65, states that if a study was given a favorable ethics opinion by an EC in Scotland or Northern Ireland, there are separate forms for submitting progress reports, depending on the type of research. The form for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (GBR-27) should be completed in typescript and authorized by the Chief Investigator (CI) or the sponsor/sponsor representative. An electronic copy should be emailed to the EC within 30 days of the end of the reporting period.

See the Regulatory Fees section for information on fees for annual progress reports.

Final Report

As per the MHCTR and the G-CTAuth-GBR, the sponsor must notify the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the EC in writing that a clinical trial has ended within 90 days of the conclusion of the trial. 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 Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). When completing the final report form, IRAS guides the user with instructions next to each question.

The G-CTAuth-GBR further specifies that a declaration of the end of a clinical trial should be sent to the MHRA within 90 days of the global end of the trial and within 15 days of the global premature end of the trial. The submission must include an end of trial form (GBR-133) and a cover letter. Note that only the global end-of-trial notification is required to be submitted. However, a facility may inform the MHRA of the local (UK) end of trial via the end-of-trial notification form, but these local notifications will not be officially acknowledged and the MHRA Submissions automatic email confirmation should be considered as evidence of submission. If a local end of trial is submitted, the MHRA would still expect to receive relevant safety updates and substantial amendments for the ongoing trial until the global end of trial notification is received. An exemption to this requirement must be requested via a substantial amendment for approval. The amendment must clearly state to what documents the proposal relates and provide a robust rationale for the request. All safety documentation must be submitted unless there are no other trials ongoing with the same product in the UK. Any trial activities (such as follow-ups, visits) must be completed before the submission of the global end-of-trial declaration form. It is not possible to submit amendments to the trial or the Development Safety Update Report (DSUR) once the global end-of-trial declaration form has been received by the MHRA. If the end-of-trial declaration has been received within a reporting period, or within 60 days following the data lock point, the corresponding DSUR will not be required.

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR, the timeframe for publishing the summary of results is within one (1) year of the end of trial. Sponsors should publish summary results within this timeframe in the public register(s) where they registered the clinical trial. While it is not required to submit this clinical trial summary report to the MHRA, sponsors must send a short confirmation email to CT.Submission@mhra.gov.uk once the results-related information has been uploaded to the public register and provide the relevant link.

As per GBR-9, the investigator is also required to submit a summary of the final study report to the main EC within one (1) year of the trial’s conclusion. 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 UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (GBR-62). The information contained in this final report helps the Research Ethics Service 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.

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

As per the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, a sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization that takes ultimate responsibility for the initiation, management, and financing of a trial.

In accordance with the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, the sponsor may authorize a contract research organization (CRO) to perform one (1) or more of its trial-related duties and functions. However, the ultimate responsibility for the trial’s data quality and integrity always resides with the sponsor.

The SL-GCPs further requires that any trial-related duty and function that is transferred to and assumed by a CRO should be specified in writing. The sponsor should ensure oversight of any trial-related duties and functions carried out on its behalf, including trial-related duties and functions that are subcontracted to another party by the sponsor’s contracted CRO(s). Any trial-related duties and functions not specifically transferred to and assumed by a CRO are retained by the sponsor.

Additionally, as delineated in the SL-GCPs, a sponsor-investigator is defined as an individual who both initiates and conducts, alone or with others, a clinical trial, and under whose immediate direction the investigational product is administered to, dispensed to, or used by a participant. The term does not include any person other than an individual (e.g., it does not include a corporation or an agency). The obligations of a sponsor-investigator include both those of a sponsor and those of an investigator.

Per SLE-23, a foreign individual/organization may be the sponsor of a clinical trial, but a local representative in Sierra Leone is required.

As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, GBR-103, GBR-9, GBR-2, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization who takes ultimate responsibility for the initiation, management, and financing (or arranging the financing) of a trial. The sponsor must ensure that the trial design meets appropriate standards and arrange for the trial to be properly conducted and reported. In addition, per GBR-101, 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.

In accordance with GBR-113, the United Kingdom (UK) also permits a sponsor to transfer any or all of its trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO) and/or institutional site(s). However, the ultimate responsibility for the trial data’s quality and integrity always resides with the sponsor. Any trial-related responsibilities transferred to a CRO should be specified in a written agreement. The CRO should implement quality assurance and quality control. Per the G-CTApp, G-SubtlAmndmt, and the GBR-103, the clinical trial sponsor or legal representative needs to be established in the UK or a country on an approved country list which initially includes the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) countries per G-CTApprovedCountries. A change in sponsor or legal representative for a UK trial is a substantial amendment requiring submission to both the MHRA and the ethics committee. GBR-103 specifies that 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 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; but may, in some cases, enter into 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

The MHCTR also permits two (2) or more parties to take responsibility for the sponsor’s functions. When this applies, the MHCTR requires one (1) of the parties to submit the clinical trial application for authorization to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and to specify who is responsible for carrying out the following functions:

• Communications relating to substantial amendments, modified amendments, and trial conclusion
• Communications relating to urgent safety measures
• Pharmacovigilance reporting

Overview

The SL-GCPs states that the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial and for ensuring that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Additionally, the sponsor must define and allocate all trial-related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties. Prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an investigator’s brochure.

As stated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, the principal investigator (PI) directly in charge of a trial, and at each site in a multi-center trial, must possess appropriate qualifications, training, and experience. The PI must be a scientist and domicile in Sierra Leone.

The G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs further indicate that the PI must be responsible for the proper conduct of the trial(s), have previous experience as a co-investigator in at least two (2) trials in the relevant professional area, and have proof of formal training in good clinical practice (GCP) for at least two (2) years. See the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs for additional requirements.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

Per SLE-23, a foreign individual/organization may be the sponsor of a clinical trial, but a local representative in Sierra Leone is required.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

As indicated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, the sponsor must establish an independent data-monitoring committee, such as a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), to regularly assess the trial’s progress and analyze safety data. The applicant must provide a copy of the DSMB’s membership, curriculum vitaes, and signed charter in the clinical trial application package submitted to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL). However, the SL-GCPs indicates that establishing a DSMB is optional.

The G-SLAppClinTrial further indicates that a duly signed and authenticated DSMB report(s) and/or minutes must be forwarded to the PBSL upon request. For more information on DSMB requirements, see the G-SLAppClinTrial.

Multicenter Studies

As delineated in the SL-GCPs, 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 the approvals of the PBSL and the ethics committee
• The case report forms (CRFs) are designed to capture the required data at all multicenter trial sites
• Investigator responsibilities are documented prior to the start of the trial
• All investigators are given instructions on following the protocol, complying with a uniform set of standards to assess clinical and laboratory findings, and completing the CRFs
• Communication between investigators is facilitated

In addition, the sponsor may organize a coordinating committee or select coordinating investigators.

Overview

As set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the sponsor 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. The MHCTR2006 indicates that the sponsor must also ensure that the investigator(s) are qualified by training and experience. Additionally, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. GBR-9 states that the chief investigator (CI) should be based in the United Kingdom (UK). In rare cases when this is not required, adequate arrangements must be in place for supervision of the study in the UK.

As delineated in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-113, prior to entering into an agreement with the investigator(s) and the institution(s) to conduct a study, the sponsor should provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and an investigator’s brochure. Per GBR-113, if a multicenter trial is going to be conducted, the sponsor must organize a coordinating committee or select coordinating investigators. Per GBR-18, for clinical trials of investigational products (CTIMPs) conducted at National Health Service (NHS) sites, the addition of a new site and/or addition or change of a principal investigator (PI) is no longer considered a substantial amendment. No changes have been made to the classification of amendments relating to new sites/change of PI at non-NHS sites. If a site is added in a nation not previously involved in a study, this should be indicated in the combined review section (GBR-125) of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) for CTIMPs, and made clear in a cover letter when submitting the amendment to the lead nation.

UK Local Information Pack

GBR-113 recommends establishing a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) to assess the progress of a clinical trial, including the safety data and the critical efficacy endpoints at intervals, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial.

Per GBR-63, researchers working with NHS/Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland (HSC) organizations across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales should use the UK Local Information Pack (LIP), which provides one (1) consistent package to support study setup and delivery across the UK.

The UKwide-Rsrch explains the LIP ensures that consistent information is given to all UK research sites and indicates that there are national differences in the LIP. In England and Wales, the LIP should include the Initial Assessment Letter, which may be shared with sites. Additionally, the sponsor should send the LIP directly to the site’s Research and Development (R&D) department, delivery team, and local clinical research network (if a National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Portfolio) using the England and Wales non-commercial email template or commercial email template, as appropriate. For Welsh sites, it is expected that the sponsor has a process to translate patient-facing documents into the Welsh language if requested by sites or participants. In Northern Ireland, the sponsor may send the LIP to each participating site’s R&D department and delivery team once the application has been validated and once instructed to do so by the Health and Social Care R&D Approvals Service. The LIP should be shared using the Northern Ireland non-commercial email template or commercial email template, as appropriate. In Scotland, the NHS Research Scotland Permissions Coordinating Centre makes the LIP available to participating R&D departments and the appropriate Network or Portfolio Manager. The sponsor is responsible for making the information available to the research teams using the Scotland email template, which covers both non-commercial and commercial studies.

For help with LIP packages, email templates and other requirements, see GBR-106.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

GBR-103 provides that if a sponsor(s) is not established in the UK or on an approved country list (which initially includes European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) countries), 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. Per the G-CTApprovedCountries, the UK published 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 EU and EEA. The G-SubtlAmndmt delineates that a change in sponsor or legal representative for a UK trial is a substantial amendment requiring submission to both the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the ethics committee (EC), pursuant to the guidelines in the G-CTAuth-GBR. Where the sponsor is from the rest of the world, and the legal representative is established in the UK, and there are sites in the EU/EEA, the sponsor will need to assign an EU/EEA legal representative for these sites via a substantial amendment to the relevant EU/EEA competent authorities. No amendment submission to the MHRA is required where the sponsor or legal representative for an ongoing trial is established in the EU/EEA as the UK will continue to accept this approval. Further, no amendment will need to be submitted in the UK if the sponsor retains the UK legal representative for the UK study. Similarly, no amendment will need to be submitted in the UK if a sponsor remains in the UK and a legal representative is added to cover EU/EEA sites.

Additional foreign sponsor requirements are listed in Section 5.2 of GBR-113.

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

Per GBR-18, the chief investigator should ensure that arrangements are made for a data safety and monitoring board (known as a data monitoring committee (DMC) in the UK). GBR-113 recommends establishing a DMC to assess the progress of a clinical trial, including the safety data and the critical efficacy endpoints at intervals, and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or stop a trial.

Multicenter Studies

Per GBR-18, for multicenter trials, the careful selection and evaluation of investigator sites is critical for the successful completion of a trial within budget, timelines, and to ensure the generation of high-quality data. When undertaking site selection, the preparation of ‘reserve’ investigator sites (so that the trial may be extended to these sites if recruitment issues arise) should be considered as part of proactive trial planning. Factors that should influence investigator site selection include:

• Interest in the research question
• Experience and qualifications of the investigator
• Sufficient staff to conduct the study and their experience and qualifications
• Availability of a suitable patient population
• Adequate time to conduct and oversee the trial
• Adequate facilities
• Previous track record with similar trials
• Geographic location
• Contractual and budgetary negotiations and arrangements

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.

Further, as delineated in GBR-113, 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
• The case report forms (CRFs) are designed to capture the required data at all multicenter trial sites
• Investigator responsibilities are documented prior to the start of the trial
• All investigators are given instructions on following the protocol, complying with a uniform set of standards to assess clinical and laboratory findings, and completing the CRFs
• Communication between investigators is facilitated

Insurance

The G-SLAppClinTrial states that for all sponsor-initiated trials, a valid insurance certificate for the duration of the study must be provided before initiating the study, and a copy of this coverage must be included in the clinical trial application submission to the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL). Sponsors and principal investigators (PIs) must ensure insurance cover for clinical trial participants and must submit a certificate of insurance cover for participants as evidence. The certificate must at least contain:

• Insurance company
• Policy number
• Initial date
• Expiry date
• Insured (Policy Holder/Sponsor)
• Description of activity (purpose of the policy)

The G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs also state that the sponsor must provide insurance or indemnify the investigator(s)/institution(s) against claims arising from the trial, except for those claims arising from malpractice and/or negligence as stipulated in the G-SLAppClinTrial. See Annex 7 of SLE-6 for suggested wording of the sponsor indemnification.

Compensation

Injury or Death

The SL-GCPs indicate that the sponsor's policies and procedures should address the costs of treatment of trial subjects in the event of trial-related injuries in accordance with the applicable requirement(s). In addition, when trial participants receive compensation, the method and manner of compensation should comply with the PBSL's requirements.

Trial Participation

According to the SL-GCPs, the ethics committee (EC) (i.e., the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC)) should review both the amount and method of payment to participants to assure that neither presents problems of coercion or undue influence. Payments to a participant should be prorated and not wholly contingent on the participant’s completion of the trial. The EC should also ensure that information regarding payment to participants, including the methods, amounts, and schedule of payment, is set forth in the written informed consent form and any other written information to be provided to participants. The way payment will be prorated should be specified.

Insurance

As set forth in the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, it is a legal requirement for an insurance and indemnity provision to be made to cover the liability of the investigator and sponsor for trial-related injuries. The MHCTR does not ascribe responsibility to the sponsor or the designated representative to obtain insurance and indemnity. However, GBR-2, GBR-103, GBR-101, and GBR-18 state that the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for ensuring adequate insurance and indemnity arrangements are in place to cover the sponsor’s and the investigator’s potential liability, and for providing a copy of this coverage in the clinical trial application submission.

In addition, 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.

The International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113) also guides sponsors on providing insurance.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the MHCTR, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for providing compensation to research participants and/or their legal heirs in the event of Phase 1 trial-related injuries or death. According to GBR-33, 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.

GBR-113 also provides guidance for sponsors on providing compensation to research participants in the event of trial-related injuries or death. The sponsor must explain to participants the compensation and/or treatment available to them in the event of trial-related injuries.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the SL-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol, good clinical practice (GCP), and the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL)’s regulatory requirement(s). The sponsor is responsible for obtaining agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed.

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the SL-GCPs notes that the sponsor may choose to perform a clinical trial audit. The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, the PBSL, and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor should ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and that their qualifications are documented. The sponsor must also ensure that the audit is conducted in accordance with the sponsor’s own written procedures on what to audit, how to audit, the frequency of audits, and the form and content of audit reports. The observations and findings of the auditor(s) should be documented. No specific timeframe is provided for the audit process. See the SL-GCPs for detailed audit requirements.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

As per the SL-GCPs, if a trial is terminated or suspended prematurely, the sponsor should promptly inform the investigator(s)/institution(s) and the PBSL of the termination or suspension, and explain the reason(s) for the termination or suspension. The ethics committee (EC) (i.e., the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC)) should also be informed promptly and provided the reason(s) for the termination or suspension by the sponsor or by the investigator/institution.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-92, the sponsor is responsible for maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113). The sponsor is required to obtain agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, reports for monitoring and auditing purposes, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. The sponsor must also obtain the investigator(s) and the institution(s) agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with GBR-113 and the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and approved by the ethics committee (EC)
• Comply with data recording and reporting procedures
• Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• Retain essential documents until the sponsor informs them that they are no longer needed

MHCTR2006 requires the sponsor to notify the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of serious breaches of good clinical practice (GCP) or the trial protocol. A serious breach is defined as one that 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. Per G-MHRA-SeriousBreaches, the sponsor or delegated party should notify the MHRA GCP Inspectorate within seven (7) days of becoming aware of a serious breach. Further, the sponsor should investigate and take action simultaneously after the MHRA notification. Notifications should primarily be sent to the following email address: GCP.SeriousBreaches@mhra.gov.uk.

Per the G-RiskAssmt, 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 and the potential category of IP for eventual marketing authorization. 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 ethics committee (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. Also see GBR-34 for investigator training and guidance on implementing people-centered research.

Monitoring Requirements

Per GBR-18, the sponsor must develop an audit plan to assess and assure the reliability and integrity of the clinical trial systems against all relevant written standards. 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 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.

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 good clinical practice (GCP) as prescribed in GBR-92 and GBR-113. 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 GBR-92 for pre-inspection checklists and other resources. Per G-RiskAssmt, GCP Inspectors will review risk assessments. The risk assessment should provide the rationale behind trial management/monitoring and GCP activities applied, or not, to the trial.

Finally, the sponsor’s audits and inspections should be conducted in compliance with GBR-113, which calls for a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. The extent and nature of monitoring is flexible and permits varied approaches that improve effectiveness and efficiency. The sponsor may choose on-site monitoring, a combination of on-site and centralized monitoring, or where justified, centralized monitoring. The sponsor should document the rationale for the chosen monitoring strategy (e.g., in the monitoring plan). The G-Ovrsight provides additional guidance to assist sponsors and those conducting trials on implementing adequate oversight and monitoring processes for clinical trials.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

The G-CTAuth-GBR states that the MHRA has the authority to suspend or terminate a trial. In addition, the sponsor can contact the MHRA to put a trial on temporary halt or terminate a trial. If a sponsor suspends a trial temporarily, the MHRA must be notified. Sponsors of clinical trials of investigational products (CTIMPs) must use the combined review part of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125) to submit this notification as a substantial amendment. Per GBR-122, for studies that were submitted before combined review, these applicants should continue to submit this notification at IRAS via GBR-78. The G-CTAuth-GBR indicates the notification should be made as a substantial amendment using the amendment tool, clearly explaining what has been stopped and the reasons for the suspension. To restart a trial that has been temporarily suspended, you must make the request as a substantial amendment using the notification of amendment form, providing evidence that it is safe to restart the trial.

Per the G-CTAuth-GBR and GBR-18, to terminate a CTIMP, the sponsor must notify (as a substantial amendment) the MHRA and the EC via the combined review part of IRAS (GBR-125). For studies that were submitted before combined review, the submission should be made at GBR-78, using the end-of-trial form (GBR-133). GBR-128 specifies that for CTIMPs, the declaration of end of trial must be sent to the MHRA within 15 days of the global premature end of trial. Before declaring an end of the study, sponsors should review the plans that were approved by the EC for use of tissue and data collected in the course of the study, providing information to participants, and dissemination of results. If changes need to be made to these agreed upon arrangements, the sponsor should consider whether an amendment is required before submitting the end of study notification. GBR-65 also states that if research is terminated early or is temporarily suspended, then all relevant review bodies should be notified within 15 days.

According to GBR-113, if it is discovered that noncompliance significantly affects or has the potential to significantly affect participant protection or reliability of trial results, the sponsor should perform a root cause analysis and implement appropriate corrective and preventive actions. Further, the sponsor should also inform the EC promptly and provide the reason(s) for the termination or suspension.

Electronic Data Processing System

As delineated in the SL-GCPs, when using electronic trial data handling and/or remote electronic data systems, the sponsor must ensure and document that the electronic data processing system(s) conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance, and that the sponsor maintains standard operating procedures (SOPs) for using these systems. The responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties with respect to the use of these computerized systems should be clear, and the users should be provided with training in their use. Refer to the SL-GCPs for detailed information on electronic trial data systems.

Records Management

As set forth in the SL-GCPs, the sponsor, or other data owners, should retain all sponsor-specific essential documents pertaining to the trial for at least two (2) years after formal discontinuation of the trial or in conformance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s) of the country(ies) where the product is approved, and/or where the sponsor intends to apply for approval(s). In addition, all clinical and experimental data (electronic or paper) must be kept in a secure place for a period of five (5) years, or 20 years for a new drug application, after a trial’s completion. The data must also be readily available for review upon request by the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL).

See the SL-GCPs for a list of essential documents for the conduct of a clinical trial.

Electronic Data Processing System

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

According to GBR-113, when using electronic trial data handling processing systems, the sponsor must ensure and document that the electronic data processing system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance. To validate such systems, the sponsor should use a risk assessment approach that takes into consideration the system’s intended use and potential to affect human participant protection and reliability of trial results. In addition, the sponsor must maintain standard operating procedures (SOPs) that cover system setup, installation, and use. The SOPs should describe system validation and functionality testing, data collection and handling, system maintenance, system security measures, change control, data backup, recovery, contingency planning, and decommissioning. With respect to the use of these computerized systems, the responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties should be clear, and the users should receive relevant training.

Records Management

As set forth in GBR-113, sponsor-specific essential documents should be retained until at least two (2) years after the last approval of a marketing application, until there are no pending or contemplated marketing applications, or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of the investigational product’s clinical development. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

However, per the MHCTR2006, the sponsor and the Chief Investigator must ensure that the documents contained in the trial master file are retained for at least five (5) years following the trial’s completion. The documents must be readily available to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) upon request and be complete and legible. The sponsor should ensure that trial participant medical files are also retained for at least five (5) years after the trial’s conclusion.

In addition, GBR-113 states that the sponsor and investigator/institution should maintain a record of the location(s) of their respective essential documents including source documents. The storage system used during the trial and for archiving (irrespective of the type of media used) should allow for document identification, version history, search, and retrieval. The sponsor should ensure that the investigator has control of and continuous access to the data reported to the sponsor. The investigator/institution should have control of all essential documents and records generated by the investigator/institution before, during, and after the trial.

No information is currently available regarding personal data protection requirements.

Responsible Parties

For purposes of data protection requirements, the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, and the G-GDPR delineate that the sponsor acts as the “controller” in relation to research data. This is because the sponsor determines what data is collected for the research study through the protocol, case report form, and/or structured data fields in a database. GBR-7 provides guidance on key data protection requirements to consider in the post-Brexit environment. Among other things, it describes how data can continue to flow to and from the United Kingdom (UK), as well as controller responsibilities.

Data Protection

Per the UK-GDPR, the UK-DPAct, the G-GDPR, and GBR-89, the sponsor (known as the “controller” in data protection legislation) must comply with the following principles of the data protection legislation:

• Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency
• Purpose limitation
• Data minimization
• Accuracy
• Storage limitation
• Integrity and confidentiality (security)
• Accountability

The sponsor must show that each data processing activity has a lawful basis under this legislation, in addition to the common law basis. For health and social care research, the lawful basis is determined by the data controller’s organization type:

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

As described in the G-GDPR, with regard to transparency, the sponsor should understand whether personal data is collected indirectly from a third party or directly, as these determine the actions to take to comply with data protection requirements. In most cases, the sponsor will need to provide transparency information about the legal basis and other details of processing personal data. See the table in G-GDPR, which sets out the specific transparency requirements for personal data. In addition, GBR-100 contains a series of templates by the Health Research Authority (HRA) with suggested transparency language. Further, the sponsor should take measures to ensure data is processed securely, giving consideration to security, storage, and pseudonymization/anonymization when possible. For details on complying with security and storage requirements, see GBR-100.

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

For more information on data protection requirements following the UK’s transition out of the European Union (EU), see GBR-7.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

The UKwide-Rsrch describes the following differences among the UK nations regarding accessing identifiable data without consent, including for potential participants:

• England and Wales – If the project involves access to identifiable patient data relating to people living or receiving care and treatment in England and Wales without consent, the sponsor may need to apply to the HRA via the Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) (GBR-38). The CAG provides advice to the HRA on the use of confidential patient information for research uses. See GBR-41 for details and resources on the CAG.
• Northern Ireland – There is currently no legal basis for those outside of the direct care team to process identifiable data without consent. The Health and Social Care Privacy Advisory Committee can provide advice on any options available in Northern Ireland. The Health and Social Care Honest Broker Service does not provide identifiable data for consented studies or trials but may be able to offer advice on options to access anonymized data to support research
• Scotland – If a project is multi-center, a sponsor will need to obtain permissions through the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care. For single center studies, applicants should contact the Caldicott Guardian at the research site to discuss the requirements for accessing the data

UK-US Data Bridge

As explained in GBR-22, under the “UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework” (GBR-23), businesses in the UK can transfer personal data to certified U.S. organizations without further safeguards as defined in the GBR-23. US organizations that have been certified can opt in to receive data from the UK through the UK-US data bridge. Per GBR-19, before transferring personal data, UK organizations must verify that the receiving US organization is certified pursuant to GBR-23. Sensitive personal data must be appropriately identified as sensitive when transferred under the UK-US data bridge to ensure it receives appropriate protections under the framework. Under the UK extension, sensitive personal information includes genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, and data concerning sexual orientation. See GBR-22, GBR-23, and GBR-19 for additional information about the UK Extension to the Data Privacy Framework.

Obtaining Consent

In all Sierra Leone clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the SL-GCPs. In obtaining and documenting informed consent, the investigator should comply with Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) requirements and should adhere to good clinical practice (GCP) and to the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki (SLE-5), which is available in Appendix 3 of the SL-GCPs.

As per the SL-GCPs and the G-SLAppClinTrial, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document. The sponsor and principal investigator (PI) must submit the ICF to the PBSL with the clinical trial application. The G-SLEthics further indicates that the PI must also submit the ICF to the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), for review. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

The SL-GCPs states that the investigator, or the investigator’s designated representative, must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. In addition, the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the ICF, should be easy to understand and presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant or legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

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

Re-Consent

According to the SL-GCPs, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participation in the trial. The communication of this information should be documented, and the participant or legal representative/guardian should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF updates, including a copy of any amendments to the written information provided to the participants.

Language Requirements

As per SLE-23, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided to the PBSL in English.

Documenting Consent

The SL-GCPs states that the participant or legal representative/guardian, as well as the investigator(s), must sign and date the ICF.

Where the participant is illiterate or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. The witness should sign and date the ICF after:

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

According to the G-SLEthics, the SLESRC does not accept verbal consent, except when supported by an independent witness.

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

Waiver of Consent

The SL-GCPs delineates that where the protocol indicates that prior consent of the participant or legal representative/guardian is not possible, the EC (i.e., the SLESRC) should determine whether the proposed protocol and/or other document(s) adequately addresses relevant ethical concerns and meets applicable regulatory requirements for such trials. See the Emergencies and Mentally Impaired sections for more information.

Obtaining Consent

In all United Kingdom (UK) clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113). As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-9, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an ethics committee (EC) recognized by the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA) (henceforth referred to as a “recognized EC”) and operating according to standard operating procedures (GBR-9) issued by England’s Health Research Authority (HRA).) Refer to GBR-18 and GBR-69 for more on informed consent in the UK.

The MHCTR and G-ConsentPIS, state that the investigator(s) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. The MHCTR and G-ConsentPIS also specify that the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the ICF, should be easy to understand and presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant and the legal representative/guardian, should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. Per G-ConsentPIS, the Participant Information Sheet (PIS) supports the consent process to help ensure participants have been adequately informed. In addition, the PIS forms part of the transparency information that must be provided to participants under the data protection legislation for the use and processing of personal data. (See the Personal Data Protection section for more information on data protection requirements.) For more guidance on the PIS, see the PrtInfoQty-Stds, the PrtInfo-DesignPrin, and GBR-14, which include FAQs, information principles, and standards.

Per GBR-31, the HRA guides researchers and ECs in taking a proportionate approach to seeking consent. A proportionate approach adopts procedures commensurate with the balance of risk and benefits so that potential participants are not overwhelmed by unnecessarily lengthy, complex, and inaccessible information sheets. Participants should be provided with succinct, relevant, truthful information in a user-friendly manner that promotes their autonomy. Specifically, the methods and procedures used to seek informed consent and the level of information provided should be proportionate to:

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

Per GBR-113, none of the oral and written information concerning the clinical trial, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive any legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator, the institution, the sponsor, or their agents from liability for negligence.

Re-Consent

According to GBR-113, the EC should approve any change in the ICF due to a protocol modification before such changes are implemented. The participant or legal representative/guardian will also be required to re-sign the revised ICF and receive a copy of any amended documentation.

Per GBR-18, during a clinical trial, researchers should periodically reaffirm the willingness of participants to continue. If significant new information becomes available, participants should be reconsented using revised (and re-approved) consent documents so that their continued consent is confirmed.

Language Requirements

As stated in the MHCTR, applications to the EC and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and any accompanying material, such as the ICF content, should be presented in English.

Documenting Consent

The MHCTR states that the participant or legal representative/guardian, and the investigator(s) must sign and date the ICF. Where the participant is illiterate, or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of and countersigned by an impartial witness. As provided in G-ConsentPIS, consent can be documented electronically or in writing. A physical or electronic copy of the signed consent form will still need to be provided to the participant. To record consent electronically, electronic signatures will be needed. Because there are different forms and classifications of electronic signatures, the researcher should determine what is appropriate for the particular study. GBR-6 sets out the legal and ethical requirements for seeking and documenting consent using electronic methods (also known as eConsent in the UK), as well as expectations regarding the use of electronic signatures. eConsent enables potential research participants to be provided with the information they need to make a decision via a tablet, smartphone, or digital multimedia. It also enables their informed consent to be documented using electronic signatures. This approach can supplement the traditional paper-based approach or, where appropriate, replace it.

Waiver of Consent

No information is currently available.

Based on the SL-GCPs, the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable:

• The study involves research and an explanation of its nature and purpose

• Trial procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures

• Expected duration of participation

• Participant’s responsibilities in the trial

• Experimental aspects of the study

• Approximate number of participants involved in the trial

• The trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment

• Any foreseeable risks or discomforts, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant

• Any expected benefits or prorated payment; if no benefit is expected, the participant should also be made aware of this

• Alternative procedures or treatment that may be available

• Compensation and/or medical treatment available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury

• Person(s) to contact for further information regarding the trial and the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury

• Any additional costs that may result from participation in the research

• That the monitor(s), the auditor(s), the ethics committee (EC) (i.e., the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC)), and the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) will be granted direct access to the participant’s original medical records to verify clinical trial procedures and/or data without violating the participant’s confidentiality

• That records identifying the participant will be kept confidential and, to the extent permitted by applicable laws and/or regulations, will not be made publicly available. If the results are published, the participant’s identity will remain confidential

• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without the participant’s consent

• That participation is voluntary, the participant may withdraw at any time, and refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits, or reduction in the level of care to which the participant is otherwise entitled

• The participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified in a timely manner if significant new findings develop during the course of the study which may affect the participant's willingness to continue

Additionally, see Annex 1 of SLE-6 for standardized wording for the ICF.

Based on the MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The study purpose, procedures, and duration
• Study title and the study Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) ID are clearly displayed
• Approximate number of participants involved in the trial
• The participant’s responsibilities in participating in the trial
• Trial treatment schedule and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
• Experimental aspects of the study
• Any foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
• Any benefits or prorated payment to the participant or to others that may reasonably be expected from the research; if no benefit is expected, the participant should also be made aware of this
• A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or treatments, and their potential benefits and risks
• Compensation and/or medical treatment available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury
• Any additional costs to the participant that may result from participation in the research
• That participation is voluntary, the participant may withdraw at any time, and refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits, or reduction in the level of care to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, and the possibility of record access by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the ethics committees (ECs), the auditor(s), and the monitor(s)
• That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified if significant new findings developed during the study may affect the participant's willingness to continue
• Individuals to contact for further information regarding the trial, the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent

ICF examples and templates are provided in the G-ConsentPIS.

For more information about informed consent required elements, see GBR-18, GBR-113, GBR-100, GBR-31, and GBR-69.

Overview

In accordance with the SL-GCPs, which is guided by the International Council for Harmonsation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (SLE-24), the Declaration of Helsinki (SLE-5), and other international guidelines, Sierra Leone’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The SL-GCPs and the G-SLAppClinTrial state that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the SL-GCPs, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As per the SL-GCPs, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation or treatment in the case of injury, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to the SL-GCPs and the G-SLAppClinTrial, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The SL-GCPs states that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries and/or the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

As set forth in the SL-GCPs and the G-SLAppClinTrial, the research participant’s dignity, safety, and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

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

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-ConsentPIS, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The MHCTR states that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in the MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-113, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that they may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As delineated in the MHCTR, the G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-113, a potential research participant or legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

Also see GBR-117 for an interactive web-based communications toolkit to help researchers and participants keep in touch after participation in a research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the MHCTR and GBR-113, the arrangements to protect participants’ privacy should be provided in the application to the ethics committee, and the ICF should inform potential participants of any potential risk to their confidentiality.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The MHCTR and GBR-113 state that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-113 state that a research participant’s rights, safety, and well-being must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

The SL-GCPs make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when the procedure is complicated by emergency situations.

As delineated in the SL-GCPs, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) cannot be obtained from the research participant in an emergency, then the consent of the legal representative/guardian, if present, should be obtained. If prior consent of the participant or legal representative/guardian cannot be obtained, then the participant’s enrollment should follow measures specified in the protocol, and/or elsewhere, with documented approval/favorable opinion by the ethics committee (EC) (i.e., the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC)) and the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of the participant and ensure compliance with EC and PBSL requirements. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial and provide consent as soon as possible.

In addition, per the SL-GCPs, because the participants who are experiencing medical emergencies are usually extremely vulnerable, these individuals should be excluded from all but minimally invasive observational research. ECs must also take great care when assessing emergency care research. Once the researcher has presented clear reasons to justify the initiation of emergency care research without consent to the EC, the EC may approve the research provided it is satisfied that:

• Reasonable steps are being taken to ascertain the religious and cultural sensitivities of participants experiencing medical emergencies
• The condition of the participant precludes the giving of consent
• Inclusion in the trial is not contrary to the interests of the participant
• The research is intended to be therapeutic and poses no more risk than is inherent to the patient’s condition or would be caused by alternative methods of treatment
• The participant and the legal representative/guardian will be informed as soon as is reasonably possible of the patient’s inclusion in the study and of the option to withdraw from the research project at any time
• The participant will be informed, and consent obtained, once the participant who has undergone the necessary emergency procedures has regained consciousness
• The research is based on valid scientific hypotheses and offers a realistic possibility of benefit over standard care

The MHCTR, the MHCTR2006-No2, the MHCTR-BSQ, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113) make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when a clinical trial of an investigational product (IP) is complicated by medical emergencies. As delineated in the G-ConsentPIS and GBR-18, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) cannot be obtained from the research participant, the consent of the legal representative/guardian should be obtained. If the prior consent of the participant or legal representative/guardian cannot be obtained, the participant’s enrollment should follow measures specified in the protocol, and the ethics committee (EC) must provide documented approval in order to protect the participant’s rights, safety, and well-being. The participant or legal representative/guardian should provide consent as soon as possible.

The MHCTR-BSQ amends the MHCTR and creates an exception for minors participating in a trial where urgent treatment is required and prior consent cannot be obtained. This situation also requires the EC to issue its approval beforehand.

The MHCTR2006-No2 amends the MHCTR and creates an exception to the general rule in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales that incapacitated adults cannot be included in a clinical trial under medical emergencies. If the treatment to be provided is a matter of urgency and obtaining prior consent is not possible, incapacitated adult participants may be included in the trial once EC approval has been obtained. In Scotland, the provisions of Section 51 of the AIA2000 govern the inclusion of adults lacking capacity in research.

The G-ConsentPIS states that the United Kingdom allows adults not able to consent for themselves to be recruited into clinical trials without prior consent in emergency situations if the following conditions exist:

• Treatment needs to be given urgently
• It is also necessary to take urgent action to administer the drug (IP) for the purposes of the trial
• It is not reasonably practicable to obtain consent from a legal representative
• The procedure is approved by an EC
• Consent is sought from a legal representative as soon as possible

Overview

As per the SL-GCPs, in all Sierra Leonean clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process.

According to the SL-GCPs and the G-SLAppClinTrial, vulnerable populations include individuals whose willingness to volunteer in a clinical trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with the participation, or of a retaliatory response from senior members of a hierarchy in case of refusal to participate. The SL-GCPs states that other participants representing vulnerable populations include patients with incurable diseases, persons in nursing homes, unemployed or impoverished persons, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent. Additionally, types of research that need additional attention include research involving collectivities, indigenous medical systems, innovative therapy or interventions, HIV and AIDS clinical and epidemiological research, and emergency care research.

The SL-GCPs indicates that the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), must pay special attention to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants, including minors, women, persons with mental disabilities or substance abuse related disorders, persons in dependent relationships or comparable situations, prisoners, and persons highly dependent on medical care.

Persons Highly Dependent on Medical Care

According to the SL-GCPs, participants who are highly dependent on medical care must be given special attention to protect the welfare of this vulnerable study population. Researchers need to acknowledge that the participant’s medical condition may compromise the participant’s informed consent and affect the participant’s ability to form an opinion or to communicate. There may also be a perception of coercion if a participant is reluctant to refuse consent for fear that it may compromise the participant’s medical treatment.

As delineated in the SL-GCPs, the following research areas require investigators to pay special attention to these participants to safeguard their welfare and ensure proper consent:

• Intensive care research – Characteristic features are the difficulties in communicating with participants receiving ventilatory assistance and the impairment of cognition in heavily sedated participants. Whenever possible, information should be obtained from potential participants prior to their admission to intensive care. These participants should be excluded from all but minimally invasive observational research due to their extreme vulnerability.
• Neonatal intensive care research – Research involving infants should be conducted in strict accordance with the principles discussed in the Children/Minors section. These principles do not permit research that is contrary to the child’s best interests.
• Terminal care research – Research in terminal care is distinguished by the short remaining life expectancy of participants and potential vulnerability to unrealistic expectations of benefits. Researchers must ensure that the prospect of benefit from research participation is neither exaggerated nor used to justify a higher risk than that involved in the participant’s current treatment.
• Research involving persons with impaired capacity to communicate or unconscious persons – Refer to the Mentally Impaired section.

Persons in Dependent Groups

As set forth in the SL-GCPs, for participants whose proposed involvement in research arises from dependent or comparable relationships, the EC must be satisfied that the participants’ consent is both adequately informed and voluntary. The following list provides some examples of hierarchically structured groups and the junior or subordinate relationships that may exist in these groups:

• Older persons and their caregivers
• Persons with chronic conditions or disabilities and their caregivers
• Wards of the state and guardians
• Patients and healthcare professionals
• Students and teachers
• Prisoners and prison authorities
• Persons with life-threatening illnesses
• Employees and employers (e.g., farm workers and their employers, members of the uniformed services and hospital staff and their employers)

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

Overview

As per the MHCTR and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), in all United Kingdom (UK) clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process.

Per GBR-131, vulnerability may be defined in different ways and may arise as a result of being in an abusive relationship, vulnerability due to age, potential marginalization, disability, and due to disadvantageous power relationships within personal and professional roles. Participants may not be conventionally vulnerable but may be in a dependent relationship that means they can feel coerced or pressured into taking part.

As stated in GBR-131, researchers must assess potential vulnerability within the context of the research, in terms of potential consequences from their participation (immediate and long-term) or lack of positive impact where this is immediately needed or expected. Further, researchers should make the participants aware of the limits to confidentiality and decide whether verbal or written consent will be more appropriate and protective of the participants’ interests. In addition, researchers should consider the following:

• Participants’ vulnerability
• Potential negative consequences or lack of personal benefits from their involvement in research where these are expected
• Providing appropriate information to elicit freely-given informed consent for participation as well as information regarding data deposit and data re-use (where deposit is possible)
• Limits to confidentiality and occasions where this may occur
• Legal requirements of working with the specific population
• Incentives and compensation for participation

In addition, GBR-131 states that when working with participants who are considered vulnerable, researchers may find themselves in a position of increased responsibilities or expectations. Researchers should endeavor to assess the likelihood of additional ethics issues and develop strategies and a framework of clear responsibilities they can refer to should such issues arise. They should also use their research ethics committee as a resource for advice and guidance. Researchers should be able to justify the approach they take in dealing with unforeseen ethics issues and maintain the integrity of the research.

As per GBR-131, in cases where research involves potentially vulnerable groups, every effort should be made to secure freely given informed consent that participants have actively provided. Every effort should be made to ensure that they have the time and opportunity to access support in their decision-making, for example by discussing their choice with a trusted adult or relative. Passive assent, including group assent (with consent given by a gatekeeper) should be avoided wherever possible, and every effort should be made to develop methods of seeking consent that are appropriate to the groups studied, using expert advice, support, and training, where necessary. Vulnerability should be considered on a case-by-case basis; many groups or individuals not traditionally considered as vulnerable could be exposed to issues from participating in research that make them vulnerable. See GBR-131 for additional resources and case studies.

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

According to the SL-GCPs, a minor is someone under 18 years of age.

As set forth in the SL-GCPs, when the participant is a minor, informed consent must be obtained from the participant’s parent/legal guardian. Assent from the minor must also be obtained where the minor is capable of understanding. A minor’s refusal to participate in research must be respected.

The SL-GCPs indicates that the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), must pay special attention to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants, including minors. Research involving minors should be approved only if:

• The research interventions, including those in observational research, presents the participant with no greater than minimal risk; or
• The research interventions present more than minimal risk but hold out the prospect of direct benefit for the participant; or
• The research interventions, including those in observational research, present more than minimal risk and do not hold out the prospect of direct benefit to the participant, but have a high probability of yielding generalizable knowledge.

In all cases, the protocol must provide sufficient information to justify clearly why minors should be included as participants.

Assent Requirements

The G-SLAppClinTrial also states that in trials involving minors, the parent/legal guardian of a minor is required to sign an informed consent form (ICF). In addition, an assent form similar to the ICF must also be signed and dated by a minor who is capable of understanding as a confirmation of the minor’s willingness to participate in a trial, after having been informed of all aspects of the trial that are relevant to the minor’s decision to participate.

As delineated in the SL-GCPs, assent refers to a minor’s affirmative agreement to participate in research. If a minor fails to object, this should not be construed as assent. The EC (i.e., the SLESRC) must ensure that adequate steps are specified in the protocol to obtain the minor’s assent when, in the EC’s judgment, the minor is capable of providing such assent. Additionally, when the EC determines that assent is required, it must also indicate whether and how such assent must be documented.

According to the MHCTR and GBR-4, a minor in the United Kingdom (UK) is an individual under 16 years of age.

As set forth in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-ConsentPIS, GBR-4, GBR-9, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from a parent/legal guardian. As per GBR-4, the researcher needs only to obtain consent from one (1) person with parental responsibility. GBR-130 further indicates that the parent/legal guardian must not be connected with the conduct of the trial, is suitable to act by virtue of their relationship with the child/young person, and is available and willing to do so. A legal representative should only ever be approached if someone with parental responsibility cannot be contacted prior to the proposed inclusion of the child/young person due to the urgent nature of the treatment provided as part of the trial. In this situation, a professional legal representative (e.g., a doctor) can be responsible for the medical treatment of the child/young person if they are independent of the study, or a person nominated by the healthcare provider.

Additionally, GBR-130 states that researchers must ensure that the parent/legal guardian:

• Understand that they are being asked to give consent on behalf of the child/young person
• Understand the objectives, risks, and inconveniences of the trial and the conditions under which it is to be conducted
• Have been informed of the right to withdraw the child/young person from the trial at any time
• Have a contact point where further information about the trial can be obtained

The MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-4, state that a study may only be conducted on minors if several conditions are fulfilled including:

• An ethics committee (EC), following consultation with pediatric experts, has endorsed the protocol
• The parent/guardian has had an interview with the investigator(s) to understand the trial objectives and risks, been provided with a point of contact for further information, and been informed of the right to withdraw the minor from the trial at any time
• No incentives or financial inducements are given to the minor or the parent/guardian except in the event of trial-related injury or loss
• The trial relates directly to a condition from which the minor suffers, or is of such a nature that it can only be carried out on minors
• The participant(s) will derive some direct benefit from their participation in the trial
• The trial is necessary to validate data obtained in other trials involving persons able to give informed consent, or by other research methods
• The trial has been designed to minimize pain, discomfort, fear, and any other foreseeable risk in relation to the disease and the minor’s stage of development

GBR-4 provides additional best practices:

• Children and their parents (or those with parental responsibility) should be involved in the decision-making process around consent to take part in research, regardless of whether the child or young person is legally competent to give consent. This includes involving children or young people who are not considered competent to give consent.
• Assent should be sought from a child who is not considered competent as long as this is practicable and the child is not too young.
• In some situations, a young person who is competent may object to the involvement of their parents and their confidentiality should be respected.
• Before giving consent, children and young people should be provided with age-appropriate information that enables them to understand participation in research. Information may be provided using a layered or staged approach so that it is more easily understood.
• Children and young people should be given the opportunity to ask questions and to get support in their decision-making, such as talking to a trusted adult.
• Good records should be kept of any discussions about consent and of the final decision.
• Inducements and coercion must be avoided.
• Seeking consent is a process and it is good practice to engage regularly with the child and family over the course of research to confirm they are willing to continue. In studies in which children who are not competent will become competent during the study period, then consent from young people should be sought as soon as possible after competency is reached. A decision about how this will be managed should be made at the start of the study and included in the protocol.

See the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-4, and GBR-9 for detailed requirements. The G-ConsentPIS provides style guidance and suggestions for presenting age-appropriate information in the participant information sheet.

Assent Requirements

As indicated in GBR-4, whenever practical and appropriate, a child's assent should be sought before including them in research. Even when a child or young person is competent, it is still normally good practice to involve the family in the decision-making process; however, if the young person objects, researchers should respect their privacy.

As per GBR-4, for clinical trials of investigational products (IPs), it is usually inappropriate to ask very young children (e.g., under five (5) years old) to sign an assent form; however, their views should be considered. Researchers must make an informed judgment to determine when seeking assent is appropriate; the age of a child can only be taken as a guide. The child's developmental stage, knowledge of illness and experience of health care should also be considered. Although there is a danger that children can be asked to exercise greater autonomy than normal, this must be balanced with the potential loss of trust associated with denying their assent. Such judgment needs a framework of considerations for analysis, a record of observations, and discussions and a documented decision. In circumstances where seeking assent at the outset is not appropriate, the researcher could provide the child with information as and when required.

The SL-GCPs requires that the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), pay special attention to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants, including women who are or may become pregnant.

The SL-GCPs states that the following conditions must be met for research conducted with pregnant women and fetuses:

• Applicable studies on animals and non-pregnant individuals have been completed
• The purpose of the study is to meet the health needs of the mother of the particular fetus, the risk to the fetus is minimal and, in all cases, presents the least possible risk for achieving the study’s objectives
• Individuals engaged in the study will have no part in any decision as to the timing, method, and procedures used to terminate the pregnancy, and determining the viability of the fetus at the termination of the pregnancy
• No procedural changes that could cause greater than minimal risk to the fetus or the pregnant woman will be introduced into the procedure for terminating the pregnancy solely in the interest of the activity

Per the SL-GCPs, for any study to be conducted that is associated with either the fetus in utero or ex utero, the parents should be legally competent and have given their informed consent.

The SL-GCPs also specifies that the father’s informed consent does not need to be obtained if any of the following applies:

• The study purpose is to meet the mother’s health needs
• The father’s identity or whereabouts cannot be reasonably established
• The father is not reasonably available
• The pregnancy is the result of rape

Further, per the SL-GCPs, no fetus in utero may be involved as a research participant unless:

• The purpose of the study is to meet the health needs of the particular fetus, and the fetus will be placed at risk only to the minimum extent necessary to meet these needs
• The risk to the fetus in the proposed study is minimal, and the study’s objective is to obtain biomedical knowledge that cannot be achieved by other means

According to the SL-GCPs, until it has been established whether a fetus ex utero is viable, a fetus ex utero may not be involved as a participant in any research study unless one (1) of the following conditions is met:

• The fetus faces no added risk from participation in the study, and the purpose of the study is to develop biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained by other means
• The purpose of the study is to enhance the possibility of survival of the particular fetus to the point of viability

The SL-GCPs states that nonviable fetuses may not be involved as participants in any research activity unless both of these conditions are met:

• The vital functions of the fetus will not be artificially maintained; experimental activities that would terminate the heartbeat or respiration of the fetus will not be employed
• The purpose of the study is to acquire biomedical knowledge not otherwise obtainable

Participants engaged in the study will have no part in any decision as to timing, method, and procedures used to terminate the pregnancy, and/or determining the viability of the fetus at the pregnancy’s termination.

The G-ConsentPIS states that researchers must give a clear warning to potential participants when there is a risk of harm to an unborn child and/or risk when breastfeeding. The Participant Information Sheet (PIS) should provide specific advice to potential participants about the risks of becoming pregnant, of fathering a child, or of breastfeeding while taking part in the research including the need for pregnancy testing, contraceptive requirements, and how to report a pregnancy during the study. The PIS should also provide information about what will happen if a participant becomes pregnant, including whether and how the researcher will monitor the pregnancy. This would include access to the mother's and/or child's notes, and any possible follow up of the child including post-natal examinations. For men, researchers must provide clear warnings and advice if the research treatment could damage sperm and consequently pose a risk to possible pregnancies. Specific advice for pregnant partners may be needed, including information on any compensation arrangements.

Further, the G-ConsentPIS finds that the risk of harm caused during pregnancy is most likely when recruiting young people to a clinical trial for an investigational medicinal product (CTIMP). In this case, there should be consent from someone over the age of 16, and the following should be done:

• Discuss the risk of pregnancy, pregnancy testing, and the use of appropriate contraception with their parents (or their legal guardian) during the consent process and with young potential participants as part of the assent process
• Consider local social beliefs
• Involve pediatricians and the ethics committee in preliminary discussions if this is a concern
• Consult young people when designing consent and writing information
• Respect the young person's autonomy but encourage involvement of the parents
• Be aware that in CTIMPs, it is the parents of children under 16 who legally provide consent, and this will include consent to pregnancy testing and discussion of contraception
• Information needs to go beyond "We will do a pregnancy test…" to include what will happen in broad terms

In accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), informed consent requirements for conducting clinical trials with pregnant or nursing women or fetuses follow the general requirements listed in the Required Elements section. Specifically, the informed consent form should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant.

As set forth in GBR-35, any research studies involving women capable of becoming pregnant and breastfeeding women require additional safeguards to ensure the research conforms to appropriate ethical standards and upholds societal values. According to GBR-35, the following conditions are required for research to be conducted with this population:

• Reproductive toxicology studies have been completed and the results support conducting a trial, or there is a good reason not to conduct the reproductive toxicology studies and/or the risk of pregnancy is minimized (e.g., because she agrees to adhere to a highly effective method of contraception); Women using a hormonal contraceptive, such as “the pill,” should use an alternative method of contraception until the possibility of an interaction with the investigational product has been excluded
• The female participant is not pregnant according to her menstrual history and a pregnancy test, and is not at risk of becoming pregnant during, and for a specified interval, after the trial
• The female participant is warned about the potential risks to the developing child should she become pregnant, and she is tested for pregnancy during the trial, as appropriate
• The female is tested for pregnancy before dosing starts and possibly during the trial, as appropriate

The SL-GCPs indicates that the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), must pay special attention to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants, including prisoners. Prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. A research study may only involve prisoners as participants when the EC (i.e., the SLESRC) has ensured that the clinical trial involves:

• The study of the possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration and of criminal behavior with no more than minimal risk and inconvenience to the participants
• The study of prisons as institutional structures or of prisoners as incarcerated persons
• Research on conditions particularly affecting prisoners as a class (e.g., vaccine trials and other research on diseases that may be more prevalent in prisons, and research on social and psychological problems such as alcoholism, drug addiction, and sexual assaults) only after appropriate experts have been consulted
• Research on practices, both innovative and accepted, that have the intent and probability of improving the health or wellbeing of prisoners

In addition, per the SL-GCPs, in a study where some prisoners may be assigned to control groups that may not benefit from the research, the study may proceed only after appropriate experts have been consulted. Research that could be conducted on a population other than prisoners should not be permitted unless the EC is presented with a valid case and is convinced that the study does not represent exploitative research.

The SL-GCPs also states that when the EC reviews research involving prisoners, the following requirements must be met:

• The majority of the EC members, other than prison members, must have no association with the prison(s) involved
• At least one (1) member of the EC must be a prisoner, or a prisoners’ representative with appropriate background and experience to serve in that capacity. Where a research project is reviewed by more than one (1) EC, only one (1) EC need satisfy this requirement

Per the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research. A research study involving prisoners should ensure that these prospective participants are informed and are given the opportunity to make their own decisions without any interference from a higher authority. The ethics committee must also ensure that the study will be independently monitored to assure the dignity and rights of the prisoners involved in the research.

Per the UKwide-Rsrch, a prisoner or young offender is defined as any inmate of the prison systems of England and Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. It does not include patients detained under the MHAct at special hospitals or other psychiatric secure units, or juvenile offenders detained in local authority secure accommodation or secure training centers. Health research involving prisoners or young offenders should relate directly to their health care and be of such a nature that it could only be conducted in this population. See the UKwide-Rsrch for details on differences between the four (4) United Kingdom nations with regard to research on prisoners.

According to the SL-GCPs, the national ethics committee (EC), the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (SLESRC), must pay special attention to research participants with mental disabilities, including those with psychiatric, cognitive, or developmental disorders, or participants with substance abuse related disorders. Individuals who have been institutionalized may be further compromised in terms of their capacity to make a truly voluntary decision to participate in a study.

Per the SL-GCPs, research involving people with mental disabilities or with substance abuse related disorders must therefore:

• Be relevant to mental disabilities or substance abuse related disorders so that it is necessary to involve people who have a mental disability and/or a substance abuse related disorder(s)
• Justify the involvement, as the study population, of institutionalized people with mental disabilities
• Ensure appropriate evaluation procedures for ascertaining the participants’ ability to provide informed consent. If participants are deemed unable to understand and make a choice, then consent should be obtained from the participant’s legal representative/guardian
• Ensure that consent is free from coercion and risk to participants
• Ensure that only minimal risk is involved, and that the risk is outweighed by the anticipated benefits for the participants and by the importance of the knowledge that will be derived from the research

In addition, the SL-GCPs notes that persons with intellectual or mental impairment should not participate in research that might be conducted equally well with individuals without those impairments. Consent cannot be given that is contrary to the interests of a participant with mental or intellectual impairment, and the person's refusal to participate in research must always be respected. Accordingly, consent must be obtained from one (1) of the following:

• The participant to the extent that the participant is competent to give informed consent
• The participant’s legal representative/guardian when the participant is deemed not competent to do so
• An authority, organization, or individual legally authorized to do so

The SL-GCPs further states that research involving participants with impaired capacity to communicate also requires special attention. The distinguishing features of research involving participants with impaired capacity to communicate include acute impairment states requiring medical care, as well as non-acute states. In acute impairment states, the condition and medical care may mask the participant’s degree of cognition and require different means of expression. In non-acute impairment states, the condition may prevent the participant from expressing wishes at all.

As indicated in the SL-GCPs, research involving unconscious persons requires consent to be provided by the participant’s legal representative/guardian, including any relevant statutory authorities, on that person’s behalf. Because of their extreme vulnerability, unconscious persons should be excluded from all but minimally invasive observational research. When neither the prospective participant nor the legal representative/guardian is able to give consent in advance, the EC (i.e., the SLESRC) may approve a research project without prior consent if it is satisfied that:

• Inclusion in the trial is not contrary to the interests of the participant
• The research is intended to be therapeutic and poses no more risk than is inherent to the participant’s condition or would be caused by alternative methods of treatment
• The participant and the legal representative/guardian will be informed as soon as is reasonably possible of the participant’s inclusion in the study and of the option to withdraw from the research project at any time
• The research is based on valid scientific hypotheses and offers a realistic possibility of benefit over standard care

As per the MHCTR and GBR-9, a recognized ethics committee (EC) within the Health Research Authority (HRA), must approve the participation of adult research participants who are incapable by reason of physical and mental capacity to give consent, and must obtain advice from professionals with expertise in handling this population.

The MHCTR and the G-ConsentPIS, specify that when a study involves adult participants with mental incapacities, informed consent should be obtained from the legal representative/guardian. This consent should only be provided once the legal representative/guardian has had an interview with the investigator(s) to understand the trial objectives and risks, been provided with a point of contact for further information, and been informed of the right to withdraw the participant from the trial at any time. The G-ConsentPIS provides additional country-specific information on legal representative requirements.

As delineated in the MHCTR, a clinical trial of an investigational product may involve participants with mental incapacities under the following conditions:

• The participant has received information according to the participant’s capacity of understanding regarding the trial, its risks, and its benefits
• No incentives or financial inducements are given to the participant or legal representative/guardian except in the event of trial-related injury or loss
• The trial relates directly to a condition from which the participant suffers, or is of such a nature that it can only be carried out on participants with mental incapacities
• The participant(s) will derive some direct benefit from their participation in the trial, or produce no risk at all
• The trial is necessary to validate data obtained in other trials involving persons able to give informed consent, or by other research methods
• The trial has been designed to minimize pain, discomfort, fear, and any other foreseeable risk in relation to the disease and the participant’s stage of development

See the MHCTR, G-ConsentPIS, and GBR-3 for detailed requirements.

As delineated in the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, an investigational product (IP) is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes a product with a marketing authorization when it is used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form, when used for an unapproved indication, or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

As delineated in the MHCTR, the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), and GBR-9, an investigational product (IP), referred to as an investigational medicinal product (IMP) in the United Kingdom (UK), is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active substance or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes a product with a marketing authorization when it is used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form; when used for an unapproved indication; or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

Manufacturing

As set forth in the PDA2001, the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of all drug products in Sierra Leone. According to the SL-GCPs, the sponsor must ensure that the investigational product (IP) is manufactured in accordance with applicable good manufacturing practice (GMP).

The G-SLAppClinTrial states that a GMP certificate from the national competent authority of the country of origin is required when the IP has no marketing authorization in Sierra Leone, or has marketing authorization but its original indication is modified for the purpose of the trial. The GMP certificate should conform to the World Health Organization (WHO) format.

Import

The G-SLAppClinTrial states that the PBSL is responsible for authorizing the import of IPs. A request to import an IP may be submitted after the PBSL has approved the clinical trial application.

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that the import application submission must include the following documentation:

• Letter stating the name/description and quantities of each IP, placebo, and trial related product to be imported as well as the details of the location where the product is coming from and details of the recipient in Sierra Leone
• Certificate of analysis of IP and placebo for all batches to be imported
• Lot release certificate (where applicable) for all batches to be imported
• Investigator, sponsor, and recognized clinical research entity’s name and address

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL’s processing time for IP import permits is 10 working days. Imported IPs may be inspected by PBSL officials at the port of entry before they are released to the recognized clinical research entity. The PBSL may order for destruction or re-exportation of the IPs if it has any reason to believe that there is a protocol violation resulting in the termination of the study. See the G-SLAppClinTrial for detailed IP import requirements.

As per the G-FastReg, if a product being registered in Sierra Leone is going to be used in a clinical trial, the registration application may be expedited. If the conditions for expedited registration are fulfilled, the PBSL will process the application and communicate its decision within 21 calendar days.

Please note: Sierra Leone is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (SLE-2), 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 SLE-18.

According to the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-CTApp, and the G-GMP-GDP, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)) to be used in a trial. A Manufacturer’s Authorization for Investigational Medicinal Products (MIA(IMP)) must be obtained by the person responsible for the manufacture of any IP to be used in the trial. The sponsor or the designated representative must include a copy of the MIA(IMP) in the clinical trial application submission to the MHRA. The applicant must complete the form listed in GBR-28 to obtain an MIA(IMP) from the MHRA. The MHCTR defines “manufacturing authorization” to include importing and assembly authorizations, as applicable. The G-CTApp states that if an IP is manufactured outside the European Union (EU), the clinical trial application should include an MIA(IMP), importer authorization, and qualified person (QP) declaration on good manufacturing practice (GMP) for each site. The MHRA will approve the manufacture or import of an IP after the clinical trial application has been approved.

Per G-ATMP, a manufacturer’s license from MHRA is needed to manufacture unlicensed advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) in the UK. See G-ATMP for guidance on the two (2) ATMP manufacturer license pathways: the hospital exemption or the “specials” scheme.

As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, the G-GMP-GDP, and GBR-15, and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the MIA(IMP) holder must also comply with the GMP guidelines and provide an IMP Certificate of Analysis. In addition, the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006 specify that the holder of an MIA(IMP) must always have the services of at least one (1) QP at their disposal. The QP must satisfy the qualification and experience requirements delineated in the aforementioned sources. The QP’s primary legal responsibility is to certify batches of IPs prior to use in a clinical trial, or prior to release for sale and placement in the market. See Part 6 and Schedule 6 of the MHCTR for detailed applicant requirements.

In accordance with the G-ImportIMPs, IPs that have been QP-certified in countries on the list of approved countries (initially, EU and European Economic Area (EEA) countries per G-CTApprovedCountries) do not need to be re-certified when importing to the UK. However, the sponsor must require the MIA(IMP) holder to put in place an assurance system to check these IMPs have been certified by a QP in a listed country before release to the trial. A sponsor may perform verification of QP certification in a listed country themselves if they are the holder of a UK MIA(IMP). Alternatively, they may outsource this verification to a third party who holds a UK MIA(IMP). IPs coming to Great Britain from Northern Ireland do not require this additional oversight. IPs coming directly to the UK from third-party countries that are not on the list of approved countries will continue to require import and QP certification in the UK by the MIA(IMP) holder as per the existing requirements. See the G-ImportIMPsAuth, for additional details on the authorizations and procedures. For additional details on what is new from Brexit, see the Scope of Assessment section.

The G-IPsNIreland delineates that the supply and use of IPs in Northern Ireland must follow EU laws as per the Northern Ireland Protocol. For policy papers and details on the Northern Ireland Protocol, see GBR-119.

Per the G-SubtlAmndmt, for any change to IP manufacturing, importation, or certification relevant to the supply of IPs in an ongoing UK trial, a substantial amendment must be submitted to the MHRA. However, if the sponsor chooses to retain an existing UK release site for the ongoing UK trial but includes an additional EU/EEA site for trials in the EU/EEA only, then no substantial amendment to the MHRA will be required.

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

Investigator’s Brochure

In accordance with the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs, the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) is a compilation of the clinical and nonclinical data on the investigational product(s) (IP(s)) which is relevant to the study of the IP(s) in human participants.

As per the SL-GCPs, the sponsor is responsible for providing the investigators with an IB, and the sponsor should update the IB as significant new information becomes available. The G-SLAppClinTrial further specifies that an updated IB should be submitted at least once a year, or whenever it is updated within this period. Additional information and any changes that have been incorporated in the updated IB should be highlighted for ease of review and evaluation.

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the content and structure of the IB must comply with the SL-GCPs and the International Council for Harmonisation’s (ICH) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (SLE-24). Accordingly, the IB must provide coverage of the following areas:

• Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties and formulation parameters
• Non-clinical studies (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, and metabolism profiles)
• Effects of IP in humans (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and pharmacodynamics; safety and efficacy; and regulatory and post-marketing experiences)
• Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)
• Toxicological effects in any animal species tested under a single dose study, a repeated dose study, or a special study

See the SL-GCPs and SLE-24 for detailed content guidelines.

Quality Management

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, a good manufacturing practice (GMP) certificate from the national competent authority of the country of origin is required when the IP has no marketing authorization in Sierra Leone, or has marketing authorization but its original indication is modified for the purpose of the trial. The GMP certificate should conform to the World Health Organization (WHO) format.

Investigator’s Brochure

In accordance with the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-92, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for providing investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB), which must contain all of the relevant information on the investigational product(s) (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)) obtained through the earlier research phases, including preclinical, toxicological, safety, efficacy, and adverse events data. The sponsor or the designated representative should also update the IB as significant new information becomes available.

As specified in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the IB must provide coverage of the following areas:

• Physical, chemical, and pharmaceutical properties and formulation parameters
• Non-clinical studies (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, and metabolism profiles)
• Effects of IPs in humans (pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and pharmacodynamics; safety and efficacy; regulatory and post marketing experiences)
• Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)
• Bibliography

See Section 7 of GBR-113 for detailed content guidelines.

Quality Management

Per GBR-113, the sponsor must maintain a Certificate of Analysis to document the identity, purity, and strength of the IP(s) to be used in the clinical trial.

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Sierra Leone must comply with the requirements set forth in the G-SLAppClinTrial and the SL-GCPs. As stated in the G-SLAppClinTrial, all label information should be in English and the print should be clear, legible, and indelible.

As set forth in the G-SLAppClinTrial, the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) requires the following information be included on the labels:

• Sponsor details
• Pharmaceutical dosage form, route of administration, quantity of dosage units, and in the case of open trials, the name/identifier and strength/potency
• Batch number
• Trial reference number
• Trial subject identification number
• Name and address of the clinical trial site and the principal investigator
• Directions for use and any warnings or precautions that may be necessary
• Statement indicating “For clinical trial/research use only”
• Storage conditions
• Period of use (use-by date, expiry date, or re-test date as applicable), in month/year format and in a manner that avoids any ambiguity as well as date of dispensing, if applicable
• Statement indicating “Keep out of reach of children” except when the product is for use in trials where the product is not taken home by participants

The SL-GCPs further states that in blinded trials, the coding system for the IP(s) should include a mechanism that permits rapid identification of the product(s) in case of a medical emergency, but does not permit undetectable breaks of the blinding.

Labeling for investigational products (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)) must comply with the requirements set forth in the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-15, the EU Good Manufacturing Practice Directive (GBR-12), and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113). Per GBR-12, labeling for IPs must ensure protection of the participant and traceability, to enable identification of the product and trial, and to facilitate proper use of the IP. As specified in GBR-15, for an IP to be used in a clinical trial, it must be properly labeled in the official language of the country where the trial is being conducted.

As set forth in GBR-15, the following labeling information must be included on the primary package label (or any intermediate packaging), and the outer packaging:

• Name, address, and telephone number of the sponsor, contract research organization (CRO), or investigator
• Pharmaceutical dosage form, route of administration, quantity of dosage units, and in the case of open trials, the name/identifier and strength/concentration
• Batch and/or code number to identify the contents and packaging operation
• Trial reference code allowing identification of the trial, site, investigator, and sponsor (if not given elsewhere)
• Trial participant identification number/treatment number and where relevant, the visit number
• Investigator name (if not already included above)
• Instructions for use (reference may be made to a leaflet or other explanatory document intended for the trial participant or person administering the product)
• “For clinical trial use only” or similar wording indicating the IP is clinical trial material
• Storage conditions
• Expiration date (use by date, expiration date, or re-test date as applicable), in month/year format and in a manner that avoids any ambiguity
• “Keep Out of Reach of Children” except when the product is not going to be taken home by participants

As per the MHCTR, a sample of the labeling is required as part of the clinical trial application submission. (See the Submission Content section for detailed clinical trial application submission requirements). Furthermore, according to GBR-15, the IP must also be suitably packaged in a manner that will prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage.

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As delineated in the SL-GCPs, the sponsor must supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the investigational product(s) (IP(s)). The sponsor should not supply either party with the IP(s) until obtaining approval from the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL).

The SL-GCPs specifies that the sponsor must:

• Ensure timely delivery of the IP(s) to the investigator(s)

• Maintain records that document shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction of the IP(s)

• Maintain a system for retrieving IPs and documenting this retrieval
• Maintain a system for the disposition of unused IP(s) and documenting this disposition

• Take steps to ensure IP stability over the period of use
• Maintain sufficient quantities of the IP(s) to reconfirm specifications, if needed, and maintain records of batch sample analyses and characteristics

• Ensure the IP is manufactured according to any applicable good manufacturing practice (GMP)

• Ensure proper coding, packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)

Refer to the SL-GCPs for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements.

Per the SL-GCPs, the IP(s) should be packaged to prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage. Additionally, per the G-SLAppClinTrial, the PBSL requires the IP packaging to comply with the following requirements:

• The container in which the product is contained should be of good quality
• The container and closure should be properly sealed in order to protect the product from the impact of outside environmental factors
• Each sample should contain an insert

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial, the principal investigator (PI) must notify the PBSL of each consignment of IP batches received on site. The notification must include the product name(s), quantities received, and batches received. The PBSL must approve destruction of IPs, which should be carried out in such a manner that all operations may be accounted for. These documents should clearly identify, or allow traceability to, the batches and/or participant numbers involved, and the actual quantities destroyed. A destruction certificate will be issued by the PBSL.

Record Requirements

The G-SLAppClinTrial indicates that for IPs purchased locally, the PI must document the source, proof of purchase, quantities purchased, and the Certificate of Analysis for each batch of IPs. Copies of all documents on the IP(s), whether purchased locally or imported, must be kept on site for verification and accountability during good clinical practice (GCP) inspections.

As per the SL-GCPs, the sponsor should retain all sponsor-specific essential documents in conformance with the applicable regulatory requirement(s) of the country(ies) where the product is approved, and/or where the sponsor intends to apply for approval(s). All sponsor-specific essential documents should be retained for at least two (2) years after formal discontinuation of the trial or in conformance with applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, all clinical and experimental data (electronic or paper) should be kept in a secure place for a period of five (5) years, and 20 years for a new drug application after a trial’s completion, and be readily available for review upon request by the PBSL.

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

As defined in the MHCTR and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (GBR-113), the sponsor must supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the investigational product(s) (IPs) (known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)), including the comparator(s) and placebo, if applicable. The sponsor should not supply either party with the IP(s) until obtaining Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approval and a favorable opinion from a recognized ethics committee (EC).

Per the MHCTR and GBR-113, the sponsor must ensure the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• IP product quality and stability over the period of use
• IP manufactured according to good manufacturing practice guidance (G-GMP-GDP and GBR-15)
• Proper coding, packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)
• IP use record including information on the quantity, loading, shipment, receipt, dispensing, handling, reclamation, and destruction of the unused IP
• Acceptable storage temperatures, conditions, and times for the IP
• Written procedures including instructions for handling and storage of the IP, adequate and safe receipt, dispensing, retrieval of unused IP(s), and return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor
• Timely delivery of the IP(s)
• Establishment of management and filing systems for the IPs
• Sufficient quantities of the IP for the trial

As delineated in GBR-15, IPs should remain under the control of the sponsor until after completion of a two-step procedure: certification by the Qualified Person (QP) and release by the sponsor for use in a clinical trial. Both steps should be recorded and retained in the relevant trial files held by or on behalf of the sponsor. Shipping of IPs should be conducted according to instructions given by or on behalf of the sponsor in the shipping order. De-coding arrangements should be available to the appropriate responsible personnel before IPs are shipped to the investigator site. A detailed inventory of the shipments made by the manufacturer or importer should be maintained and include the addressees’ identification.

Refer to the MHCTR and GBR-113 for detailed, sponsor-related IP requirements.

To help ensure the continuity of supply of medicines for clinical trials from January 1, 2021, the BrexitLtr-IPs indicates that the UK will unilaterally recognize certain European Union (EU) regulatory processes for a time-limited period. This recognition is known as “standstill.”

Record Requirements

As per GBR-113, the sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and should notify the investigator(s) and institution(s) in writing when the trial-related pharmacy records are no longer needed. Additionally, the sponsor must ensure sufficient quantities of the IP(s) used in the trial to reconfirm specifications, should this become necessary, and should maintain records of batch sample analyses and characteristics.

As set forth in GBR-113, sponsor-specific essential documents should be retained until at least two (2) years after the last approval of a marketing application, until there are no pending or contemplated marketing applications, or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of the IP’s clinical development. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed.

However, per the MHCTR2006, the sponsor and the chief investigator must ensure that the documents contained in the trial master file are retained for at least five (5) years following the trial’s completion. The documents must be readily available to the MHRA upon request and be complete and legible. The sponsor should ensure that trial participant medical files are also retained for at least five (5) years after the trial’s conclusion.

The term “specimen” is not referenced within the United Kingdom (UK). However, the following terms are used relating to specimens:

• Relevant material: As per the UK-HTA, Code-E, GBR-73, and GBR-76, “relevant material” or “human tissue” is any material from a human body, other than gametes, that consists of, or includes, cells. This also includes blood (except where held for transplantation). Hair and nails from living persons are specifically excluded from this definition, as are gametes and embryos outside the body.
• Bodily material: UK-HTA and GBR-64 defines “bodily material” as material from a human body that consists of, or includes, human cells. Unlike relevant material, this includes gametes, embryos outside the human body, and hair and nails from the body.
• Tissue: GBR-64 defines “tissue” as any human material (e.g., blood, biopsies, urine) and includes relevant and bodily material.

According to the G-SLAppClinTrial and SLE-23, the Pharmacy Board of Sierra Leone (PBSL) is responsible for authorizing the import and export of all biological specimens in Sierra Leone. However, the G-SLAppClinTrial does not have any additional information regarding specimens import.

Export

As set forth in the G-SLAppClinTrial, all institutions or individuals that wish to export any clinical information, medical records, and/or biological samples from Sierra Leone to an institution outside of the country must complete the PBSL’s requirements for material transfer authorization. The sponsor must provide annual updates on the use of, and results obtained from, biological samples exported out of Sierra Leone.

Per the G-SLAppClinTrial and the G-MTA, the local principal investigator or study lead must submit an application for an export permit submitted through the Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MoHS) to the PBSL. All applications must be accompanied by the following documents:

• Evidence of informed consent for use of medical records, clinical information, and biological samples from living participants
• MoHS authorization for deceased patients
• Memorandum of understanding (MOU) between MoHS and the applicant
• Signed and dated Material Transfer Agreement (MTA)
• Payment of PBSL prescribed export permit fee

Please refer to SLE-1 for the materials transfer template.

Import/Export

As specified in the UK-HTA, the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) has jurisdiction regarding the import and export of specimens (known as “relevant materials” or “human tissue” in the United Kingdom (UK)) and complies with the Code of Practice on import and export set forth in Code-E. According to the UK-HTA, Code-E, GBR-56, GBR-73, and GBR-52, the import and export of relevant material/human tissue is not in itself a licensable activity under the UK-HTA. However, once the material is imported, storage of this material may be licensable unless it is for a specific research project with ethical approval from an ethics committee (EC). GBR-73 explains that it is preferable for imported human tissue to be stored in a licensed establishment where possible, and if so, there is no requirement for EC approval to undertake research. However, if the premises where the human tissue will be held are not covered by a HTA license, each research project using the human tissue will require EC approval.

If relevant material/human tissue is being imported or exported for an application, the HTRegs specify that this must be carried out under the authority of a license or third-party agreement with an establishment licensed by the HTA to store material for human application. See G-Tissues-Brexit for guidance on Brexit-related regulatory changes that apply to the movement of human tissues and cells between Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and Europe. Establishments importing or exporting human tissues and cells intended for human application may require an HTA license covering these activities. For additional help, clinical trial staff should contact the HTA at enquiries@hta.gov.uk. For more information about Brexit, see the Scope of Assessment section.

Code-E requires imported and exported material to be procured, used, handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with the donor’s consent. In addition, due regard should be given to safety considerations, and with the dignity and respect accorded to human bodies, body parts, and tissue as delineated in Code-E. Any individual or organization wishing to import human bodies, body parts, and tissue into England, Wales, or Northern Ireland must comply with the guidelines set forth in Code-E. For exports, donors should be provided with adequate information upon providing consent, that their samples may be transported as exported samples for use abroad. It is the responsibility of the recipient country to ensure that, prior to export, the material is handled appropriately and that the required country standards have been met.

In addition, the G-QualityBlood lists the quality and safety standards when importing or exporting blood into or from the EU/European Economic Area (EEA). The UK maintains the existing quality and safety standards for the collection, testing, processing, storage, and distribution of human blood and blood components. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should be consulted before importing or exporting blood or blood components. See the G-QualityBlood for relevant EU quality and safety directives.

Human Tissues, Cells, and Blood as Starting Material

Per G-ATMP, if tissues and cells are being used as starting materials in a medicinal product, the donation, procurement, and testing of the cells are covered by the HTRegs under the authority of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) for the use of gametes and embryos, which may be used in the derivation (development) of cells in the manufacture of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), and under HTA for the licensing and inspection for all other tissues and cells. Once the starting materials have been made available, medicines legislation applies to and is regulated by the MHRA.

Per G-ATMP, the HTA and the MHRA have agreed that the collection of blood as a starting material for an ATMP can be carried out under either a tissues and cells license or a blood establishment license.

Other Considerations

As set forth in the UK-HTA, the HTRegs, and GBR-9, the HTA also regulates the storage and use of specimens from the living, and the removal, storage, use, and licensing of relevant materials/human tissue from the deceased for specified health-related purposes in the UK. The UK-HTA refers to specified purposes as “scheduled purposes.” Per GBR-9, the HTA and the Health Research Authority (HRA) have agreed to collaborative arrangements in a Memorandum of Understanding.

Note that per GBR-9 and GBR-105, an HTA license is not needed for the storage of specimens for certain research projects that have been approved by an ethics committee (EC). The HTA and the UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (RES) (GBR-62) have agreed that an EC can give generic ethical approval for a research tissue bank’s arrangements for collection, storage, and release of specimens, provided the specimens in the bank are stored on HTA-licensed premises. This approval can extend to specific projects receiving non-identifiable tissue from the bank. The specimens do not then need to be stored on HTA-licensed premises, nor do they need project-specific ethical approval. However, a license is required for specimens stored for which there is no ethical approval (e.g., in large biobanks).

Per the UK-HTA, the G-QAHumTissue, and Code-E, the scope of the UK-HTA provisions specifically cover England, Northern Ireland, and Wales. The UK-HTA licensing requirements do not apply in Scotland, with the exception of those provisions relating to the use of DNA. Scotland complies with the Scotland-AnatAct and the Scotland-HTA for the removal, retention, use, licensing, and import of human organs, tissue, and tissue samples specifically removed post mortem, and subsequently used for research. Per GBR-52, the Scotland-HTA does not regulate the use of tissue from the living for research.

In accordance with the UK-HTA, Code-A, GBR-59, and GBR-9, prior to collecting, storing, or using a research participant’s specimens (known as relevant material/human tissue in the United Kingdom (UK)), consent from the participant or legal representative and ethics committee (EC) approval must be obtained. The scope of the UK-HTA provisions specifically cover England, Northern Ireland, and Wales. The UK-HTA licensing requirements do not apply in Scotland, with the exception of those provisions relating to the use of DNA. Scotland complies with the Scotland-AnatAct and the Scotland-HTA for the removal, retention, use, licensing, and import of human organs, tissue, and tissue samples specifically removed post mortem, and subsequently used for research.

Per G-ConsentPIS, the Participant Information Sheet (PIS) supports the consent process to help ensure participants have been adequately informed. In addition, the PIS forms part of the transparency information that must be provided to participants under the data protection legislation for the use and processing of personal data. As delineated in the UK-GDPR and UK-DPAct, personal data includes genetic data and biological samples. G-GDPR indicates that for the purposes of the UK-GDPR, the legal basis for processing data for health and social care research should not be consent. This means that requirements in UK-GDPR relating to consent do not apply to health and care research, and therefore, do not change the consent requirements to participate in a clinical trial and remove human tissue samples. For more information about the sponsor and investigator’s responsibilities to comply with the data protection requirements (e.g., transparency, safeguards, and data rights), see the Sponsorship topic.

Human Genetic Research Consent Requirements

As set forth in the UK-HTA and GBR-9, the UK-HTA considers it a UK-wide offense to have relevant material/human tissue with the intention of conducting a DNA analysis or using the results of this analysis without “qualifying consent” from a participant or legal representative, unless the information is being used for an “excepted purpose.” The UK-HTA states that “qualifying consent” is consent required in relation to the analysis of DNA manufactured by the human body. An “excepted purpose” is defined as the following:

• Medical diagnosis/treatment
• Coroner purposes
• Crime prevention/detection
• Prosecution
• National security
• Court/tribunal order
• An existing holding to be used for research

In addition to participant consent, EC approval is required for the analysis of DNA in material from the living, where the research is not within the terms of consent for research from the person whose body manufactured the DNA. Please refer to the UK-HTA, GBR-9, and GBR-75 for detailed DNA analysis consent requirements.

Donor Consent Requirements

In accordance with the UK-HTA, Code-A, and GBR-9, prior to removing, storing, or using any living or deceased person’s organs, tissues, or cells for the purpose of research in connection with disorders in, or the functioning of the human body, investigators must obtain “appropriate consent” from the trial participants or their legal representative as well as EC approval. The UK-HTA and Code-A define “appropriate consent” in terms of the person who may give consent. This person may be either the trial participant, the legal representative (referred to as “nominated representative” in the UK-HTA), or, in the absence of either of these, the consent of a person in a “qualifying relationship” with the participant immediately prior to death.

As indicated in the UK-HTA and Code-A, in the case of a living child donor, “appropriate consent” must be obtained from the child’s parent/legal guardian. If the child has died, the written consent must have been obtained from the child’s parent/legal guardian prior to the child’s death in the presence of at least one (1) witness, or it must be signed at the direction of the child concerned by the parent/legal guardian, in the child’s presence, and in the presence of at least one (1) witness.

As indicated in the UK-HTA and Code-A, in the case of an adult donor 18 years or older, consent must be obtained prior to removing any bodily materials. If the adult has died, the written consent is only valid when it is signed by the person prior to death in the presence of at least one (1) witness at their direction, or it is contained in the person’s will. An adult donor may also appoint one (1) or more people (“nominated representative(s)”) to consent on their behalf in the event of death. This consent may be obtained orally or in writing. If the deceased donor has neither provided consent nor an appointed or nominated representative, appropriate consent may be given by someone in a “qualifying relationship” with the donor immediately prior to death. Refer to the UK-HTA and Code-A to obtain a complete list of relatives in hierarchical order who may qualify to provide this consent.

In the case of obtaining materials from an adult donor who lacks the capacity to consent, and neither a decision to consent or not consent is in force, the UK-HTA, the MCA2005, and GBR-9, state that approval by an EC is required. In addition, a living person’s organs, tissues, or cells may be stored and used without consent if the investigator is unable to identify the individual and it is being used for an EC-approved research project. Please refer to the UK-HTA and Code-A for detailed consent requirements.

Per GBR-59, the legal exemptions to consent for research with relevant material are as follows:

• The relevant material is an existing holding held prior to September 1, 2006
• The relevant material is imported
• The relevant material is from a living person when the sample was taken, is non-identifiable, and will be used in research with/pending project-specific EC approval
• The relevant material is from a person who died more than 100 years ago

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