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

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections and Common Rule Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

Contact Information

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

Department of Health & Human Services

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A drug is involved as defined in the FDCAct

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

• The clinical investigation is not otherwise exempt from 21CFR312

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expedited Processes

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

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.

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

According to 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

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

Expedited Review

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

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

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

Continuing Review and Re-approval

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

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

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

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

Exemptions under the Revised Common Rule

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

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

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

Cooperative Research Studies

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

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

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

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.

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

Overview

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

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

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

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

Overview

In accordance with 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

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

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

Regulatory Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drugs (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Therapeutic Biological Product (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research-Regulated Products:

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

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

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

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

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

Ethics Committee Approval

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

Overview

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See 42CFR11 for detailed adverse event reporting requirements.

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

See G-InvstgtrResp for more information on investigator responsibilities.

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

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

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

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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

Insurance

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

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

Compensation

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

Injury or Death

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

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

Trial Participation

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

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

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

Electronic Data Processing System

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

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

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

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

Records Management

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

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

No information is currently available regarding personal data protection requirements.

Responsible Parties

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

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

Data Protection

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

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

NIH Privacy Requirements

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

See USA-86 for more information on these circumstances.

Obtaining Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Consent

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

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

Language Requirements

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

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

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

Documenting Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waiver of Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule specify that although voluntary informed consent is always a requirement for every trial, the EC may approve a waiver or alteration of consent if the study involves a public benefit and service program conducted by or subject to the approval of state or local officials and could not be carried out without the waiver or alteration.

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 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the informed consent form (ICF) must 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 expected duration of the trial
• Identification of any experimental procedures
• Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo or fetus
• Any expected benefits to the participant
• Disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures that might be advantageous to the participant
• Confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained and the possibility that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) may inspect the records
• Compensation and/or treatment available for the participant in the case of trial-related injury
• Contact information for relevant individuals to contact in the event of a trial-related injury
• That participation is voluntary, that refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled, and that the participant can withdraw from the trial at any time without penalty or loss of otherwise entitled benefits
• Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator may remove the participant without consent
• Any expenses the participant needs to pay to participate in the trial
• The consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the study, and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant
• Any significant new findings developed during the study that may affect a participant’s willingness to continue participation
• Approximate number of participants in the study

As per 21CFR50, for FDA-regulated research, the following statement must be included on the informed consent documents: “A description of this clinical trial will be available on https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, as required by U.S. Law. This Web site will not include information that can identify you. At most, the Web site will include a summary of the results. You can search this Web site at any time.”

In the G-InfrmdCnsnt, the FDA also recommends the consent document advise participants that data collected on them up until the point of their withdrawal from a study will remain part of the study database and may not be removed. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

Additionally, the G-DecentralCT provides FDA recommendations for clinical trials with decentralized elements. The G-DecentralCT indicates that, as applicable, the informed consent process in a decentralized clinical trial should inform trial participants: whether local healthcare providers will be used in the conduct of the trial; which trial activities will take place at their homes; and who will have access to their protected health information.

The RevComRule also requires the following statements to be included in the ICF:

• Whether research results will be disclosed to participants
• Whether or not the participant’s information or biospecimens will be used or distributed for future research
• That participant’s biospecimens (even if identifiers are removed) may be used for commercial profit and if the participant will share in this profit
• Whether biospecimens research may include whole genome sequencing

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

Compensation Disclosure

The FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt further states that if no compensation in the event of injury is available, the consent process should include a statement informing the participant. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for an example statement.

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 21CFR50, 21CFR312, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, the United States’ (US) ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. 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 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, a potential participant or legal representative/guardian must 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 delineated in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, 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.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, participants should be given a statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying them will be maintained. Per the US-ICH-GCP, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. It is the responsibility of the investigator(s) to safeguard the confidentiality of research data to protect the identity and records of research participants.

The RevComRule does allow the use of identifiable private information or biospecimens in instances where the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) determines the research could not practicably be carried out without the information. Furthermore, it removes the requirement for the investigator to seek a waiver of informed consent to obtain information or biospecimens to screen, recruit, or determine eligibility of prospective participants. See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and see the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

The G-InfrmdCnsnt, which is the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50, delineates how data should be handled when an enrolled participant decides to withdraw from a trial. Data collected on participants up to the time of withdrawal from clinical investigations of drugs conducted under an investigational new drug application (IND) must remain in the study database to maintain the scientific validity of the research. The FDA recommends that participants be advised in the consent document that the data collected on them up until the point of their withdrawal will remain part of the study database and may not be removed. If a participant withdraws from the interventional portion of the clinical investigation but agrees to continued follow-up not addressed in the original consent document, the investigator must obtain the participant’s informed consent for this limited participation using an EC-approved consent document. If a participant withdraws from the interventional portion of a clinical investigation and does not consent to continued follow-up of associated clinical outcome information, the investigator must not access the participant’s medical record or other confidential records that would require additional consent from the participant. However, such records may be accessed consistent with the original consent process, without additional consent, to obtain information collected prior to the participant’s withdrawal from the study. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt and the G-DataReten for additional information.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP 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 and/or to appeal against a violation of the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The US-ICH-GCP clearly states that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare 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

21CFR50, 21CFR56, the US-ICH-GCP, and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs make provisions to protect the rights of a research participant during the informed consent process when the procedure is complicated by life-threatening medical emergencies, public health emergencies, or military operations.

Medical Emergencies

The US-ICH-GCP states that in emergency situations, when prior consent of the research participant is not possible, the consent of the legal representative/guardian, if present, should be requested. When prior consent of the participant is not possible and the legal representative/guardian is not available, enrollment of the participant should require measures described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval/favorable opinion by the institutional ethics committee (EC) (referred to as an institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)). The participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

Emergency Use Situation

21CFR56 describes emergency use as the use of a test article, such as an investigational product (IP), on a human participant in a life-threatening situation in which no standard acceptable treatment is available, and in which there is not sufficient time to obtain EC approval.

21CFR50 and the G-EmrgncyUse indicate that even in an emergency use situation, obtaining participant consent is required unless the investigator and a physician not participating in the trial certify in writing the following:

• The participant is confronted by a life-threatening situation
• Informed consent cannot be obtained due to an inability to communicate with the participant
• Time is insufficient to obtain consent from the participant’s legal representative/guardian
• No alternative methods of approved or generally recognized therapy are available

Per 21CFR50 and the G-EmrgncyUse, if immediate use of the IP is, in the investigator's opinion, required to preserve the participant’s life and time is not sufficient to obtain an independent physician’s determination prior to using the IP, the investigator’s determinations should be carried out. However, within five (5) working days following the use of the IP, the investigator’s decision must be reviewed and evaluated in writing by a physician not participating in the investigation. According to 21CFR50, 21CFR56, and the G-EmrgncyUse, the investigator must also notify the EC within five (5) working days.

21CFR56, the G-EmrgncyUse, and the G-IRBFAQs further state that following emergency use of the IP, EC review and approval is required for any subsequent use of the IP.

Emergency Research

The G-ICEmrgncyReqs defines emergency research as a planned clinical investigation that requires prior written Food & Drug Administration (FDA) authorization to proceed, and involves participant(s) who are in a life-threatening situation for which available treatments or in vitro diagnostic tests are unproven or unsatisfactory.

21CFR50 and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs delineate that for emergency research, the EC may approve the investigation without requiring the consent of all the participants if the EC (with the concurrence of a licensed physician who is an EC member or EC consultant, and not otherwise participating in the investigation) finds and documents the following:

• The participants are in a life-threatening situation, available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory, and the collection of valid scientific evidence is necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness of particular interventions
• Obtaining informed consent is not feasible because: (i) the participants will not be able to give their informed consent as a result of their medical condition; (ii) the intervention under investigation must be administered before consent from the participants’ legal representative/guardian is feasible; and (iii) there is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation
• Participation in the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the participants
• The clinical investigation could not practicably be carried out without the waiver
• The proposed investigational plan defines the length of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator has committed to attempting to contact a legal representative/guardian for each participant within that window of time and, if feasible, to asking them for consent within that window rather than proceeding without consent
• The EC has reviewed and approved informed consent procedures and an informed consent document consistent with 21CFR50
• Additional protections of the rights and welfare of the participants will be provided

See 21CFR50 and the G-ICEmrgncyReqs for more details.

USA-60 notes that in certain emergency circumstances, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretarial waiver of informed consent under 46.101(i) of the RevComRule may be applicable. The HHS waiver applies to research that may be carried out in human participants who need emergency therapy and for whom, because of the participants’ medical condition and the unavailability of the participants’ legal representative/guardian, no legally effective informed consent can be obtained. Furthermore, if the research is regulated by the FDA, the HHS waiver permits the research to be conducted under a comparable provision. See the G-HHS-Emrgncy for additional guidance, USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the RevComRule applies to research.

Military Operations

21CFR50 and 10USC55 indicate that in the case of IP administration to a member of the armed forces in connection with participation in a particular military operation, the requirement for the member’s prior consent may be waived only by the US President. The US President may grant the waiver only after determining, in writing, that obtaining consent is not feasible; is contrary to the best interests of the military personnel; or is not in the interests of national security. See 21CFR50 and 10USC55 for detailed requirements.

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 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, in all United States (US) clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. Institutional ethics committees (ECs) (institutional review boards (IRBs) in the US) must pay special attention to protecting such participants. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

The US-ICH-GCP requires special considerations for vulnerable populations and characterize them as those whose willingness to volunteer in a trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response for refusing to participate. Examples of these participants include members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students; subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel; pharmaceutical industry employees; members of the armed forces; and persons kept in detention. Other vulnerable subjects 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. Per 21CFR56, vulnerable populations may include children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped, or mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.

The Pre2018-ComRule describes children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped persons, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons as vulnerable populations. The RevComRule describes children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons as vulnerable populations.

For more guidance documents related to vulnerable populations, see USA-64.

See the Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses, & Neonates; Prisoners; 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.

As set forth in 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, children are defined as persons who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures involved in the research, under the applicable law of the jurisdiction in which the study will be conducted. USA-25 further states that the age of majority in most states is 18 and therefore for legal purposes, children are those individuals who have not reached the age of 18. See USA-25 for a table delineating the legal age of majority by state in the United States (US).

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, children require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

As delineated in the US-ICH-GCP, when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from a parent/legal guardian. All pediatric participants should be fully informed about the trial and its risks and benefits in a language and in terms that they are easily able to understand. If capable, the participant should sign and date the written informed consent.

For all clinical trials that do not involve greater than minimal risk, 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E state that a study may only be conducted if adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their parent/legal guardian.

For all clinical trials that involve greater than minimal risk but present the prospect of direct benefit to the child, 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E indicate that a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The risk is justified by the anticipated benefit to the child
• The anticipated benefit is greater than or equal to the available alternative approaches
• Adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their parent/legal guardian

For all clinical trials involving children/minors that involve greater than minimal risk and do not present the prospect of direct benefit to the child, but will likely result in increased knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition, 21CFR50 and the 45CFR46-B-E state that a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The risk is slightly greater than minimal
• The trial presents experiences that are similar to those associated with the child’s actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situation
• Adequate provisions are made to obtain the child’s assent and the permission of their parent/legal guardian

For all clinical trials that present a reasonable opportunity to further understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children/minors but is not otherwise approvable per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, a study may only be conducted if the following applies:

• The institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) finds that the investigation presents a reasonable opportunity to further the understanding, prevention, or alleviation of a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children, and,
• The Commissioner of Food and Drugs consults with an expert panel and has an opportunity for public review and comment to determine that the investigation satisfies the conditions of one (1) of the other earlier described research types, or the following conditions are met: the investigation will be conducted in accordance with sound ethical principles and adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of children and the permission of their parent/legal guardian

Per the RevComRule, certain exemptions may apply to observational research involving children. See the RevComRule for details.

For additional Food & Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on clinical research in children, see US-ICH-E11, the G-ChldrnSfgrd, and USA-60. Additionally, see the G-InfrmdCnsnt for FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

Assent Requirements

Per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, when determining whether children/minors are capable of providing assent, the EC must consider their age, maturity, and psychological state. Assent from a child/minor is not necessary for proceeding with the clinical trial if the following applies:

• The capability of some or all of the children/minors is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted
• The trial presents a potential direct benefit that is important to the health or well-being of the children/minors and is only available through the investigation

Further, the EC may waive assent, even if the children/minors are capable of providing assent, if it finds and documents the following:

• Trial involves no more than minimal risk
• The waiver will not negatively affect the rights and welfare of the children/minors
• The trial could not be implemented without the waiver
• The children/minors will be given additional information after participation, whenever appropriate

When parent/legal guardian permission is necessary, the EC must determine whether the permission of one (1) parent/legal guardian is sufficient, or if permission from both is required. If the EC determines assent is required, it must also determine whether and how assent must be documented. 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E do specify, however, that the consent of both parents/legal guardians is required in the following cases:

• When there is greater than minimal risk to the child with no direct benefit to the child, but the study will likely result in increased knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition
• Research that presents an opportunity to understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children/minors, but is not otherwise approvable

Exceptions to the consent requirement involving both parents/legal guardians include when one (1) parent/legal guardian is deceased, unknown, incompetent, or not reasonably available, or, when only one (1) parent/legal guardian has legal responsibility for the care and custody of the child.

The G-InfrmdCnsnt indicates that when obtaining parent/legal guardian permission, in the event that the parent/legal guardian of a child does not understand English, the permission must be obtained and documented in a language that is understandable to the parent/legal guardian. The child who will be participating in the research should not be used as an interpreter for the parent/legal guardian, even if the child is fluent in English and may be able to assent. Further, parent/legal guardian permission and child assent should be viewed as an ongoing process throughout the duration of a clinical investigation. If and when a child who was enrolled in a clinical investigation with parent/legal guardian permission reaches the legal age of consent, that participant no longer meets the definition of a child under 21CFR50, and the investigator should obtain the participant’s informed consent prior to performing any further research interventions and/or procedures involving that participant. See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

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.

As per 21CFR50 and 45CFR46-B-E, for studies involving women of childbearing age or who are pregnant, a statement should be provided in the informed consent form (ICF) indicating that the treatment or procedure may involve risks to the participant, embryo, or fetus, which are currently unforeseeable. According to the US-ICH-GCP, the ICF should include a statement on the reasonably foreseeable risks or inconveniences to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule, pregnant women require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. Furthermore, according to the RevComRule, all of the available exemptions of the RevComRule for observational research may be applied to research involving pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates. See the RevComRule for details. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

All Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-sponsored or -funded research involving pregnant women, human fetuses, neonates of uncertain viability, or nonviable neonates must comply with subpart B of 45CFR46-B-E.

Pregnant Women and Fetuses

As per 45CFR46-B-E, pregnant women and fetuses may participate in research if all of the following criteria are met:

• Preclinical and clinical studies have been conducted and provide data for assessing potential risks, where scientifically appropriate
• Risk to the fetus is caused solely by procedures that provide potential direct benefit to the woman or fetus. If there is no potential direct benefit, then the risk to the fetus cannot be greater than minimal, and the intent of the study is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise
• Least possible risk involved for achieving the research objectives
• Consent is obtained from the woman for studies that provide potential direct benefit to the pregnant woman and/or fetus, and studies with minimal risk to the fetus conducted to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise
• Consent is obtained from the pregnant woman and the father if the study provides potential direct benefit solely to the fetus. Paternal consent is not required if the father is unavailable, incompetent, temporarily incapacitated, or the pregnancy was a result of incest or rape
• All individuals providing consent are fully informed about the foreseeable impact on the fetus or neonate
• No inducements will be offered to terminate a pregnancy
• Participants will not be involved in determining the timing, method, or procedures for terminating a pregnancy
• Participants will not be involved in determining the viability of a neonate

Neonates

45CFR46-B-E states that neonates may not be involved in research unless all of the following criteria are met:

• Preclinical and clinical studies have been conducted and provide data for assessing potential risks, where scientifically appropriate
• All individuals providing consent are fully informed about the foreseeable impact on the neonate

Neonates of uncertain viability may not be involved in research unless the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) determines the following additional conditions are met:

• Research provides the potential for increasing the probability of survival to the point of viability, and involves the least possible risk
• The purpose is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise and there is no added risk resulting from the research
• Informed consent is obtained from either parent, or if neither parent is able to provide consent, then consent is obtained from the neonate’s legal representative/guardian. Paternal consent is not required if pregnancy was a result of incest or rape.

Nonviable neonates may not be involved in research unless the following additional conditions are met:

• Vital functions will not be maintained artificially
• Research will not terminate the heartbeat or respiration
• The purpose is to develop important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained otherwise, and there is no added risk resulting from the research
• Consent is obtained from both parents. If neither parent is able to provide consent, then informed consent of one (1) parent will suffice. Paternal consent is not required if pregnancy was a result of incest or rape. Consent of a legal representative or guardian of either or both parents will not suffice.

Viable neonates may only be included in research to the extent permitted by and in accordance with the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, as applicable, and subpart D of 45CFR46-B-E.

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

21CFR56, 45CFR46-B-E, and the US-ICH-GCP include prisoners in their description of vulnerable populations. As set forth in 45CFR46-B-E, a prisoner is defined as any individual involuntarily confined or detained in a penal institution. Prisoners are considered vulnerable because incarceration could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding participation in research.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, prisoners require additional safeguards to be included in any research study in order to protect their rights and welfare. As delineated in the RevComRule, none of its observational research exemptions may be applied to research involving prisoners, except for research aimed at involving a broader subject population that only incidentally includes prisoners. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

45CFR46-B-E states that prisoners may participate in nonexempt biomedical or behavioral research conducted or supported by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) only if the following criteria are met:

• The institution conducting the research has certified to the HHS Secretary that the research has been approved by the institutional ethics committees (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)); research involves minimal risk; and studies focus on the possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration and criminal behavior, prisons as institutional structures, or prisoners as incarcerated persons
• Research should focus on conditions specifically affecting prisoners as a class, or practices that have the intent and likelihood of improving the health or well-being of participants only after the HHS Secretary has consulted the appropriate experts, and a Federal Register notice is published indicating intent to approve such research

See USA-62 for more HHS information on prisoner research.

As per 45CFR46-B-E, ECs have additional approval responsibilities when reviewing research studies involving prisoners. An EC must only approve these studies if it determines that:

• The research under review represents one (1) of the permissible categories of research delineated in Subpart C
• The prisoner’s judgement will not be impaired by any possible advantages accruing to the prisoner through participation in the research, when compared to the general living conditions, medical care, quality of food, amenities, and opportunity for earnings in the prison
• Research risks are commensurate with those that would be accepted by non-prisoner volunteers
• Procedures for participant selection within the prison are fair to all prisoners and immune from arbitrary intervention by prison authorities or prisoners
• Information is presented in a language understandable to the prisoner population
• Adequate assurance exists that parole boards will not take into account a prisoner's participation in the research in making decisions regarding parole, and each prisoner is clearly informed in advance that participation in the research will have no effect on parole
• As needed, adequate provisions have been made for follow-up examination or care of participants, taking into account the varying lengths of individual prisoners' sentences, and for informing participants of this fact

See Subpart C of 45CFR46-B-E for additional EC requirements related to prisoner research.

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

In accordance with 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the US-ICH-GCP, an institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) must approve the participation of research participants who are mentally incapable of giving consent. According to the G-InfrmdCnsnt, which is the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50, impaired consent capacity may involve partial impairment, impairment that fluctuates over time, or complete impairment. Consent capacity can be affected by a wide range of disorders and conditions, such as dementia, stroke, traumatic brain injury, intellectual and developmental disabilities, serious mental illness, intoxication, and delirium.

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, this population requires additional safeguards to be included in any research study to protect the rights and welfare of participants likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence. (See USA-18 and USA-65 for more information on Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for additional guidance on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.)

USA-60 further indicates that while Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) regulations do not provide specific procedures, it is expected that for research involving adult participants with mental illnesses or cognitive impairments, the EC and investigator(s) must be knowledgeable about the condition and any level of impairment that is likely to be present in the participant population.

As stated in the FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt, ECs and investigators should carefully consider whether the inclusion in research of individuals who lack consent capacity is ethically appropriate and scientifically necessary. Considerations that may help address these challenges and provide additional safeguards include:

• Assessing consent capacity of prospective participants, for example, through use of an independent, qualified professional
• Establishing a waiting period in the decision-making process to allow additional time for decision-making
• Using methods to enhance consent capacity, for example through (1) simplification and/or repetition of information, (2) involvement of a participant advocate or trusted family member/friend to assist when sharing information about the clinical investigation, and (3) refraining from discussions during periods of heightened impairment, when possible
• Assessing a participant’s understanding after information about the clinical investigation has been imparted, for example, through use of a questionnaire
• Re-assessing consent capacity after initiation of the clinical investigation for participants with progressive disorders whose cognition may decline
• Involving a legally authorized representative and/or guardian either initially or later in the clinical investigation if consent capacity diminishes
• Assessing whether prospective participants who cannot provide legally effective consent on their own behalf may nonetheless be able to provide some form of oral agreement at the outset of the study and, as appropriate, throughout the course of the research (e.g., for participants with progressive disorders), and how such oral agreement would be documented
• Emphasizing the voluntary nature of the decision to participate and the right to withdraw at any time
• Determining whether the EC or a third party should observe the consent process

See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for additional information and FDA discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50.

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 21CFR312, an investigational new drug is defined as a new drug or biological drug that is used in a clinical investigation. This includes a biological product that is used in vitro for diagnostic purposes. The terms ‘investigational drug’ and ‘investigational new drug’ are deemed to be synonymous for the purposes of this part.

Additionally, the US-ICH-GCP defines an investigational product as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial, including a product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a way different from the approved form, or 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.

Manufacturing

According to 21CFR312 and USA-42, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) (also known as investigational new drugs in the United States (US)).

Per 21CFR312, sponsors that use an IP not already subject to a manufacturer’s investigational new drug application (IND) or marketing application are required to provide all of the technical chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information outlined in the application content and format requirements section of 21CFR312, unless such information may be referenced from applicable scientific literature. Sponsors using an IP already subject to a manufacturer’s application should follow the same general application format but may, if authorized by the manufacturer, refer to the manufacturer’s application to provide the technical (CMC) information supporting the proposed clinical investigation.

Moreover, as stated in 21CFR312, a sponsor may ship an IP to the investigators named in the IND under the following conditions:

• Thirty (30) days after the FDA receives the IND, or
• FDA provides earlier authorization to ship the IP

The sponsor is responsible for complying with the principles of good manufacturing practice (GMP) as specified in 21CFR210, the G-CGMP-Phase1, the G-CMC-Phase2-3, and the G-INDPrep. The US-ICH-GCP also states that the sponsor must ensure that the products are manufactured in accordance with GMPs.

Import

As set forth in 21CFR312, the FDA is also responsible for authorizing the import and export of IPs. An IP may be imported into the US if it is subject to an IND that is in effect for it and complies with one (1) of the following requirements:

• The IP consignee is the IND sponsor, or
• The consignee is a qualified investigator named in the IND, or
• The consignee is the domestic agent of a foreign sponsor, is responsible for the control and distribution of the IP, and the IND identifies the consignee and describes what, if any, actions the consignee will take with respect to the IP

See USA-23 for general FDA information on importing human drugs.

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 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP, the sponsor is responsible for providing investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB). The IB must contain all of the relevant information on the investigational new drug(s)/investigational product(s) (IPs) obtained through the earlier research phases. The sponsor must also update the IB as significant new information becomes available.

As specified in 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP, the IB must provide coverage of the following areas (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• A brief description of the drug substance and the formulation, including the structural formula, if known
• A summary of the pharmacological and toxicological effects of the drug in animals and, to the extent known, in humans
• A summary of the pharmacokinetics and biological disposition of the drug in animals and, if known, in humans
• A summary of information relating to safety and effectiveness in humans obtained from prior clinical studies
• A description of possible risks and side effects to be anticipated on the basis of prior experience with the drug under investigation or with related drugs, and of precautions or special monitoring to be done as part of the investigational use of the drug
• Summary of data and guidance for the investigator

See 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP for detailed IB content guidelines.

For investigational new drug applications (INDs) that include clinical data provided from studies conducted outside of the United States (US), 21CFR312 states that the sponsor or applicant must submit a description of the actions taken to ensure that the research conformed to good clinical practice (GCP). See Section 312.120 of 21CFR312 for detailed requirements.

Quality Management

According to USA-39, submitting a copy of the Certificate of Analysis (CoA) of the clinical batch is suggested, but not required by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

The US-ICH-GCP state that the sponsor must maintain a CoA 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.

Investigational new drug/investigational product (IP) labeling in the United States (US) must comply with the requirements set forth in Section 312.6 of 21CFR312, which include the following:

• The immediate package of an IP intended for human use must bear a label with the following statement: “Caution: New Drug-Limited by Federal (or US) law to investigational use”
• The label or labeling of an IP must not bear any false or misleading statements and must not represent that the IP is safe or effective for the purposes for which it is being investigated

The appropriate Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Center Director may grant an exception or alternative to the requirements above for specific lots, batches, or other units of a human drug or biological product that is or will be included in the Strategic National Stockpile.

In addition, the US-ICH-GCP states that the IP must be coded and labeled in a manner that protects the blinding, if applicable.

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 US-ICH-GCP, the sponsor must supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the investigational new drug(s)/investigational product(s) (IP(s)), including the comparator(s) and placebo, if applicable. The IPs must also be suitably packaged in a manner that will prevent contamination and unacceptable deterioration during transport and storage.

Per 21CFR312, the US-ICH-GCP, the G-CGMP-Phase1, the G-CMC-Phase2-3, and the G-INDPrep, the sponsor must ensure the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• IP product quality and stability over the period of use
• IP manufactured according to any applicable good manufacturing practices (GMPs)
• Proper coding, packaging, and labeling of the IP(s)
• Acceptable storage temperatures, conditions, and times for the IP
• Timely delivery of the IP(s)

Refer to the US-ICH-GCP, the G-CGMP-Phase1, the G-CMC-Phase2-3, and the G-INDPrep for detailed sponsor-related IP requirements.

The FDA’s G-DecentralCT states that in some cases, decentralized clinical trials may involve the direct distribution of IPs to trial participants or local health care providers (HCPs). In these cases, investigators must remain responsible for supervising the supply of IP to trial participants or local HCPs. When applicable, trial personnel should be trained on procedures and appropriate documentation for handling, packaging, shipping, and tracking IPs. See the G-DecentralCT for detailed information.

Record Requirements

According to 21CFR312, the sponsor must maintain adequate records showing the receipt, shipment, or other disposition of the IP. These records are required to include, as appropriate, the name of the investigator to whom the drug is shipped, and the date, quantity, and batch or code mark of each such shipment. The sponsor is also required to maintain records showing financial interest paid to investigators. See 21CFR312 for more details.

As per 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCP, the sponsor and the investigator(s) must retain the clinical investigation records and reports for two (2) years after a marketing application (known as a New Drug Application (NDA)) is approved for the IP; or, if an NDA is not approved, until two (2) years after shipment and delivery of the IP is discontinued for investigational use and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has been so notified.