Clinical Research Regulation For Tanzania and United Kingdom

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

As indicated in the TMMDAct and the CT-Regs, the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) is responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving clinical trial applications in Tanzania. The scope of the TMDA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV). As delineated in the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, and the G-AppConductCT, the TMDA’s approval of a clinical trial application is dependent upon obtaining proof of national ethics committee (EC) approval from the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC). According to the G-AppConductCT and TZA-4, the TMDA and national EC reviews may be conducted in parallel. However, the TMDA application must include a copy of the national EC's acknowledgement of receipt for the study protocol. In addition, the TMDA's approval will only be finalized once national EC approval is obtained.

As described in TZA-2, TMDA’s Clinical Trials Control and Pharmacovigilance (CTPV) section is responsible for the regulation of clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, and post-marketing surveillance. Its functions include the following:

Review and assess applications to conduct clinical trials in Tanzania, including evaluating clinical trial protocols, including preclinical studies, clinical data, and quality of investigational products (IPs)
Approve clinical trial applications with minimum requirements
Inspect clinical trial sites to ensure compliance with good clinical practices (GCPs), good clinical laboratory practices (GCLPs), clinical trials regulations, guidelines, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and internationally accepted standards
Update and maintain the Tanzania Clinical Trials Registry, which is accessed via the Regulatory Information Management System (RIMS) Customer Self Service Portal (TZA-34)
Review and evaluate all safety information (adverse events) from clinical trials
Review and evaluate progress reports of all approved clinical trials
Serve as Secretariat to Tanzania’s Clinical Trials Technical Committee
Monitor and respond to all inquiries regarding conduct of clinical trials in Tanzania

Per the G-ResearchClearance, the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) must review and approve all research in Tanzania to:

Ensure research conduct complies with national laws and regulations
Document and register research
Secure research results and promote its use in policy and practice
Safeguard the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of research participants
Reduce systemic risks imposed through the research
Provide research permits

Clinical Trial Review Process

Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority

As set forth in the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, and G-AppConductCT, the TMDA coordinates the clinical trial application process. Upon receipt of a clinical trial application, the TMDA initially screens the application for completeness. If complete, the TMDA officer acknowledges receipt of the application by returning a signed copy of the cover sheet to the applicant (see Annex 1 of the G-AppConductCT). The TMMDAct states that the TMDA Director General must issue a Clinical Trial Certificate to authorize the trial to be conducted. (See the Submission Content section for submission requirements.) TZA-4 indicates that the TMDA may request a clarification or additional documents through the online submission system (TZA-34). The assessment will resume once the applicant has provided clarification and responded to the queries.

Per the G-AppConductCT, the TMDA reviews clinical trial applications and amendments to assess the quality of the products and determine that the use of the IP for the purposes of the clinical trial does not endanger the health of participants or other persons, the clinical trial is not contrary to the best interests of a participant, and the objectives of the clinical trial may be achieved. Evaluation of applications is conducted on a first-in, first-out basis unless the IP meets the fast-track criteria. The application assessment must involve the TMDA and external evaluators. If the TMDA requests additional information from the applicant, the evaluation process will stop until the TMDA receives a written response to the query. The response should be submitted within six (6) months after being issued with a query letter. All queries issued in the same letter must be submitted together in one (1) transaction. Non-compliance to these requirements in content and format will lead to rejection of the clinical trial. Evaluation of applications will be completed within 60 working days of receiving the application. A new clinical trial application may be fast tracked and assessed within 30 working days of its submission if the applicant has requested this and paid twice the prescribed clinical trials application fees. If authorization is not granted, an appeal may be submitted to the TMDA within 60 days of the TMDA’s decision. If no appeal is submitted by the applicant within this period or, if after consideration of any comments submitted, the TMDA is still not satisfied, it must reject the application. In an appeal, the applicant must give grounds for review for each reason given for the rejection of a clinical trial. The grounds for the appeal request must be based on the information that was submitted in the application. Any additional or new information that was not earlier submitted will only be considered upon submission of a new application. The TMDA may review, reject, or vary its own decision.

Per the G-AppConductCT, the clinical trials certification will be valid up to the proposed duration of the study indicated in the application. However, the validity will not extend beyond five (5) years. If the trial will last more than five (5) years, the applicant must request an extension. Further, the TMDA must approve amendments to a previously authorized protocol for changes that affect participant selection and monitoring; changes that affect clinical efficacy and safety requirements; changes that affect participant discontinuation; addition/deletion of an investigational site(s); changes that result in the extension of trial duration; and/or changes that relate to the chemistry and manufacturing information that may affect drug safety and quality. An application for amendment(s) must be accompanied by clearance or authorization from NatHREC.

The G-AppConductCT indicates that the TMDA must not authorize a clinical trial where it finds that:

The information and documents as set out in the guidelines have not been provided
The application contains false or misleading information
The information provided is insufficient to enable the TMDA to assess the safety and risks of the IP or clinical trial
Queries raised by the TMDA in relation to the application were not adequately responded to
The applicant has not submitted an ethical clearance from any approved medical research institute
The use of the IP for the purposes of the clinical trial endangers the health of a clinical trial participant or any other person
The objectives of the clinical trial will not be achieved
It is not in the public interest to authorize the clinical trial
Any other reasonable grounds as may be determined by the TMDA

Next, the G-AppConductCT states that following the TMDA’s authorization of a new clinical trial or amendment, information regarding refusals by other regulatory authorities or ECs should be submitted as a notification. Further, the TMDA may suspend, terminate, or withdraw authorization of a clinical trial if it finds that the conditions of authorization of a trial have been violated; or there is information raising doubts about the safety or scientific validity of the trial or the conduct of the trial at a particular trial site. For additional information, see TZA-4.

(See the Submission Process section for additional details on the clinical trial application and amendments submissions.)

Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology

As for COSTECH review, the G-ResearchClearance indicates that once COSTECH receives a new application, the Secretariat screens the application for completeness; registers the application; sends an acknowledgement to the applicant; submits the application for the appropriate expert, local, and National Research Clearance Committee (NRCC) review; records NRCC’s final decision; and informs the applicant of the decision. COSTECH’s NRCC must reach a decision through a consensus of members forming a quorum at their meeting. The decision may be approval without amendments, approval subject to minor or major amendments, a denial, or a postponement pending further information. If approved, researchers should collect their permit within 90 days after the decision is communicated, and failure to do so requires a new application.

Per the G-ResearchClearance, permits are valid for one (1) year, and can be renewed, provided that COSTECH receives satisfactory progress reports for the previous periods. COSTECH must review the research to ensure compliance with the approved permit and see if any material changes have occurred in the research or if there are findings that may cause termination. The principal investigator (PI) must write to COSTECH two (2) months before the expiration date to request a renewal of the permit. For renewals, COSTECH will submit the registered application to an internal reviewer for evaluation, and otherwise, follow the same review and notification procedures as outlined above for a new permit. Regarding applications for amendments, if there is a change in PI, the affiliate institution must notify COSTECH within one (1) month of the departure of the outgoing PI in writing with an accompanying progress report. If a new researcher joins an ongoing project, the PI must submit a request for a research permit for the new member to COSTECH at least two (2) months prior to joining the team, accompanied with a detailed CV and rationale. Changes to the study site, objectives, and methodologies for an ongoing research project must be submitted in writing to COSTECH at least two (2) months prior to implementing the change.

See TZA-47 for additional information about national research registration.

Regulatory Overview and Clinical Trial Review Process

Questions 1-18

Definition of Terms, Module 1 (1.4, 1.10-1.11, 1.13, 1.16, and 1.19), and Annex 1

1.4, 2.0-8.1

Part IV (c)

Part II (3-5) and First and Second Schedules

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the MHCTR and the MHCTR2006, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving applications for clinical trials using registered or unregistered investigational products (IPs). (Note: IPs are known as investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in the United Kingdom (UK)). The G-CTApp specifies that the scope of the MHRA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases 1-4). Per G-CTApp and G-IRASCombRev, all new clinical trial applications must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed via the combined review process, which offers a single application route and parallel/coordinated review from MHRA and the ethics committee (EC) leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials.

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

IRAS (GBR-78) is a single system for applying for the permissions and approvals for health and social care/community care research in the UK. It generates the IRAS ID and uses filters to ensure that the data collected and collated is appropriate to the type of study, and consequently the permissions and approvals required. The system helps applicants meet the regulatory and governance requirements. As described in GBR-67, approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) is required for all National Health Service (NHS) project-based research led from England or Wales. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance. For any new studies led from Scotland or Northern Ireland but have English and/or Welsh NHS sites, the national research and development coordinating function of the lead nation will share information with the HRA and HCRW assessment teams, who can issue HRA and HCRW approval for English and Welsh sites and thereby retain existing compatibility arrangements. Studies led from England or Wales with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland will be supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems, by which each country accepts the centralized assurances, as far as they apply, from national coordinating functions without unnecessary duplication. For details on HRA’s assessment criteria and standards for approval, see GBR-29.

UK-wide Research

The UKwide-Rsrch specifies that the four (4) UK nations take a consistent approach to study-wide reviews with one (1) application for all relevant UK sites. Each UK nation will take assurances from the study-wide review conducted by the lead nation (the nation conducting the initial review). The following outlines key differences in approvals from UK nations:

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

Notification Scheme

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

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

Phase 4 trials must meet both of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit Background

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

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

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

6

10.9

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

When a clinical trial authorization (CTA) is needed, Trial Sponsor and legal Representative, Registration of your clinical trial, Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products, Documents to send with your application, Assessment of your submission, New notification scheme, Requesting approval of trials with complex innovative designs, and Applications that need expert advice

Part 4 (Article 126)

Part 2 (Chapter 1)

Introduction and Article 1

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (2), Part 2 (5, 6, and 7), Part 3 (12, 14, 15, 17, and 18), and Schedule 2

Approvals for project-based research in the National Health Service (NHS) and Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care (HSC) Service

Regulatory Fees

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority

As per the G-AppConductCT and the TMMDAFees, applicants are responsible for paying a processing fee to submit a clinical trial application. The TMMDAFees indicates that the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) levies the following processing fees:

$3,000 USD for submitting a clinical trial application
Double the cost of registration and analysis fee for fast-track clinical trial applications
$500 USD for amendments for major changes in clinical trials
$300 USD for amendments for minor changes in clinical trials

See the TMMDAFees for a complete list of TMDA fees and charges.

Payment Instructions

The G-AppConductCT states that the fee must be paid to the order of the TMDA directly to the bank by draft electronic transfer through the following accounts:

Foreign applicants: Account Numbers 100380013 Citibank (T) and 02J1021399100 CRDB
Local applicants: Account Number 2041100069 NMB

Applicants are responsible for all bank charges when payment is made by bank transfer. In addition, applicants must include a note with payment details, including the applicant’s name, the product(s) paid for, and the amount of fees paid.

TZA-4 indicates that the banks accounts are linked to Government Electronic Payment Gateway (GEPG) payments as follows:

Name: GEPG TMDA Collection Account (USD), Bank: NMB Revenue Bank, Account No: 20810015291, Branch University
Name: GEPG TMDA Collection Account (USD), Bank: NBC USD, Account No: 040105002468, Branch: UDSM
Name: GEPG TMDA Collection Account (USD), Bank: CRDB Bank US, Account No: 0250021399100, Branch: Holland House

The Pay-Overseas reiterates that overseas customers must make all payments via GEPG. Before making any payment, TMDA customers should receive the special payment identification number (Control Number) indicated on a Proforma Invoice issued by the TMDA as per the TMMDAFees. The TMDA’s external customers who pay for services from abroad must fill the relevant payment form (swift form), especially item/section No. 70 by ensuring that no other information is entered in this section except the payment identification number (Control Number). However, the payer should select “OUR” in the charge mode section 71A. Any payment made without a Control Number will not be reflected in any invoice. Further, payments of more than one (1) Control Number(s) cannot be combined. Note that deposited money in the TMDA’s account cannot be refunded.

Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology

As delineated in the G-ResearchClearance, the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) charges an application fee of $50 USD to review and register a research proposal. The principal investigator (PI) should pay the nonrefundable research application fee, which is paid per project. Before the permit is issued, COSTECH requires foreign researchers to pay a research permit fee of $300 USD.

Payment Instructions

Per the G-ResearchClearance and TZA-47, foreign researchers can pay the research permit fee via the following bank account:

Account name or beneficiary: Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology
Bank Name: National Bank of Commerce Ltd
Branch: Samora Avenue, P.O. Box 9002, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Account Number: 012105018998
Account Currency: US Dollars
Swift Number/Code: NLCBTZTX

According TZA-47, in-country applicants can pay the fee with a control number (payment bill), which will be used for a deposit. A control number for payment can be obtained through an email request to COSTECH at rclearance@costech.or.tz.

Fees and Charges and Payment Instructions

Questions 4 and 17

Module 1 (1.9 and 1.12) and Annex 1

3 and 10-11

First Schedule (Lines 65-68)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

As per the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and the G-CTApp, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for paying a fee to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to submit a clinical trial application for authorization. According to the G-MHRAPaymt, applicants will receive an invoice to make a payment for the outstanding amount after validation of the application. Applicants must pay invoices upon receipt or they will incur penalty fees. Non-payment may also result in suspension of any license or authorization, followed by legal proceedings for any unpaid amounts.

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

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

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

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

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

Payment Instructions

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

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

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

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

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

Fees

Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs)

8. Clinical trials - application fees

11, 13, and Explanatory Note

Part 3 (17)

Ethics Committee

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

As indicated in the G-AppConductCT, all clinical trials require national ethics committee (EC) approval for each trial site. Per the G-TMRCC and TZA-50, the national EC in Tanzania is the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC), which focuses on the ethical issues surrounding submitted research proposals. As delineated in the G-TMRCC, NatHREC-Charter, TZA-5, and TZA-18, NatHREC is a subcommittee of the Medical Research Coordination Committee (MRCC), which serves as the national health research coordinating body, and is responsible for supervising, controlling, coordinating, evaluating, and promoting health research in Tanzania or elsewhere on behalf of or for the benefit of Tanzania. The MRCC, which is part of the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), delegates the registration, review, approval, and monitoring of clinical research to the NatHREC.

As delineated in NatHREC-Charter, NatHREC provides ethical review and clearance of health research protocols and monitors and evaluates research studies. In addition, NatHREC conducts the following activities:

Receiving and registering all health research carried out in Tanzania
Ensuring that all health research protocols are thoroughly reviewed to safeguard the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of research participants
Advising researchers on the risks and responsibilities of conducting research
Recommending to the MRCC for ethics clearance approval, all health research protocols that have complied with the country’s ethics regulations and guidelines
Monitoring and coordinating all approved health research conducted in Tanzania
Advocating for and overseeing all issues pertaining to health research data and material sharing and/or transfer
Supporting health research institutions in Tanzania to establish institutional ECs or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
Accrediting health research institutions’ ECs

Per the G-AppConductCT, G-EthicsHR-TZA, the G-ResearchIntegrity, the G-RevPrtcl, TZA-18, TZA-5, and TZA-1, all health research involving foreign collaborators must get ethics approval from both the institutional EC and NatHREC. In addition, TZA-5 specifies that the following also require review by both NatHREC and the zonal or institutional EC: all clinical trials; research dealing with vulnerable, special, or marginalized groups; and sensitive topics or indigenous communities. Protocols that do not involve foreign collaborators and non-clinical trials of investigational products (IP) can be reviewed and given ethics clearance at the zonal or institutional level. NatHREC may request zonal or institutional EC reviewers to assist in review or joint review of protocols when needed. The NatHREC-Charter indicates that institutional and zonal ECs complement NatHREC’s function of issuing institutional ethics clearance certificates and monitoring the approved research at their institutions. TZA-18 states that if there is no institutional EC available, the approval must be obtained from NatHREC.

The G-EthicsHR-TZA further states that institutional ECs should monitor their hosted research activities to ensure compliance. Institutional ECs may function at the institutional, zonal, or national levels. ECs act as independent reviewers of any proposed study on human research participants, to ensure ethical conduct of research, and that participant’s rights and welfare are not violated. The major responsibility of ECs is to safeguard the rights, safety, and well-being of research participants. See the Oversight of Ethics Committees section for information on the registration and accreditation of ECs by NatHREC.

Ethics Committee Composition

National Health Research Ethics Committee

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA and TZA-5, the Director General of NIMR is responsible for appointing NatHREC members. Members are selected based on their capacity, interest, ethical and scientific knowledge, and expertise, as well as their commitment and willingness to volunteer the necessary time and effort for the NatHREC’s work. NatHREC must consist of not less than nine (9) and up to 15 members with the relevant qualifications and experience to review and evaluate the science, medical, and ethical aspects of health research protocols. In addition, NatHREC must be composed of members with varying backgrounds to promote a complete and adequate review of health research protocols commonly received by the NatHREC. Per TZA-5, committee members must include medical scientists, biomedical scientists, social scientists, legal representatives, unaffiliated community representatives, representatives of religious or faith-based organizations, a representative from the President’s Office-Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG), and a representative from the Tanzania Ministry of Health. The Director General may appoint additional members depending on the need for expertise and/or representation and not exceeding the maximum number of members. Regarding leadership, the NatHREC Chairperson must be elected from among appointed members but must not be an employee of NIMR. The NatHREC Secretary, however, must always be an employee of NIMR. See TZA-5 for additional information on NatHREC’s standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Per the G-TMRCC, the NatHREC is represented by the following organizations:

NIMR
Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH)
Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS)) (formerly known as Muhimbili University College of Health Science (MUCHS))
Christian Social Services Commission (CSSC)
The National Muslim Council of Tanzania (BAKWATA)
Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF)
Tanzania Gender Networking Programme (TGNP)
Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC)
University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM)
Ministry of Health (MoH)
Ministry of Education (MoE)

Institutional Ethics Committees

As per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, institutional ECs must have members capable of providing a competent and thorough review of research protocols. Membership typically includes physicians, scientists, laboratory experts, nurses, lawyers, ethicists, and other professionals. In addition, the above membership also includes community members or representatives of patients’ groups who can represent the cultural and moral values of study participants. When a proposed study involves vulnerable individuals or groups, as may be the case in research involving prisoners or illiterate persons, representatives of relevant advocacy groups should be invited to meetings where such protocols will be reviewed. Regular rotation of members is desirable for balancing the advantage of experience with that of fresh perspectives. In addition, each institutional EC must include at least one (1) member who is not affiliated with the institution and is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution. Further, an EC may invite individuals with competence in particular areas to assist in the review of issues, which require expertise beyond, or in addition to that available in the EC; these individuals do not vote with the EC.

Per IERC-Accredit, following are the membership requirements for ECs accredited with NIMR:

The Chairperson must have adequate experience in health research, leadership, and have basic knowledge of bioethics
An EC must comprise at least five (5) members or more, and the total must be an odd number
At least one-third of the members of the EC must be of either gender
At least one (1) member should come from outside the institution
At least two (2) members should have research expertise and experience, and one (1) of these should be in the health field
At least one (1) member should represent a lay group
For ECs reviewing clinical research, the committee should have representation from medicine, laboratory, pharmacy, and nursing as needed; a clinician who is active in clinical practice (with a valid practicing license) or in clinical research is mandatory
At least one (1) member of the EC should possess knowledge and understanding of Tanzanian law
Where an EC has been formed to serve more than one (1) institution, the institution hosting the Secretariat is responsible for the functioning of the EC in all aspects
Where multiple institutions are involved in one (1) EC, the appointing authority must make appointments in consultation with the relevant heads of the respective institutions

The G-ResearchIntegrity recommends that composition should not only be multi-disciplinary and multi-sector but should also balance scientific expertise, age, and gender distribution, and should have a non-technical member representing community interests. The institution should determine the type of members needed and establish procedures for selecting/appointing members and number of persons. It is recommended that ECs have seven (7) to 15 members. See the G-ResearchIntegrity and TZA-23 for additional recommendations.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

National Health Research Ethics Committee

The G-TMRCC and TZA-5 state that the NatHREC must operate within written SOPs, including a process to be followed for conducting reviews. The G-TMRCC states that the SOPs should include information on NatHREC composition, meeting schedules, frequency of reviews, requirements for initial and ongoing evaluation of the research study, and requirements for notifying the investigator and the institution of results related to the study’s initial and ongoing evaluation. Committee members should agree to disclose their names, occupations, and affiliations, and to sign the confidentiality and conflict of interest agreements. Per TZA-5, the SOPs facilitate and support ethical review by improving the standard and uniformity of decision-making and assuring and gaining the confidence of the public in the NatHREC. Membership must be for three (3) years, renewable once, under the discretion of the MRCC Chairperson. A member of the NatHREC may resign by submitting an official letter of resignation to the MRCC Chairperson. A member of the NatHREC may also be disqualified from membership should the appointing authority provide adequate written reasons to the NatHREC and there is unanimous agreement. The NatHREC must request a replacement of any member when there is protracted illness that prevents the member from participating; persistent absenteeism or missing three (3) consecutive committee meetings; voluntary withdrawal or resignation; and/or ethical misconduct.

According to TZA-5, the NatHREC Secretary oversees the daily operations of the Secretariat and arranges training and educational programs to new and continuing committee members and the scientific community on health research ethics. The training must include programs about the basic principles of human participant protection, current literature, and regulations and guidelines affecting the committee and NIMR. Further, the Secretary assists in recruiting new committee members, as well as preparing and submitting an annual committee operational budget and plan to NIMR in consultation with the Chair. See TZA-5 for details on the functions of the NatHREC Secretariat.

Per TZA-5, NatHREC members must fulfill the following responsibilities:

Review, discuss, and consider health research protocols submitted for ethical clearance evaluation
Review research study progress reports and monitor on-going studies as appropriate
Review reports on adverse events, serious adverse events, and/or suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, as well as any other safety reports and recommend appropriate actions
Maintain professional confidentiality of documents and deliberations of the committee review proceedings and meetings
Declare conflicts of interest when they exist
Participate in continuing education activities in biomedical ethics and research
Undertake committee duties assigned to them by the NatHREC Chairperson
Attend NatHREC meetings regularly and participate actively during deliberations
Participate in the review of NatHREC SOPs
Conduct research site monitoring visits as deemed necessary

According to TZA-5, the NatHREC must convene at least once a month with a quorum of at least half the number of committee members. The NatHREC Secretary, with support from the Secretariat, must prepare an annual almanac of meetings. The meeting package must include the agenda; all research protocols; and all related materials including, but not limited to, copies of the protocols, informed consent materials, continuing and final reviews, and safety reports. The Secretariat must keep a record of attendance as well as meeting deliberations, indicating which members were present and the discussions of review applications. If members have reviewed a protocol and identified issues that require the principal investigator (PI) to be present during the meeting for further deliberations, then the PI of that research protocol may be invited to answer questions or clarify issues. The meeting members must reach decisions by a consensus; however, if a consensus cannot be achieved, a formal vote must be taken. All members have the right to vote. The committee must provide formal recommendations to the MRCC on the approval of applications, along with minutes that include protocol title and date of review, a checklist of documents reviewed, and a decision reached by the committee, whether approved, approved with stipulation, recommended for resubmission after revision, or not recommended with reasons. For detailed NatHREC procedures and information, see TZA-5.

Institutional Ethics Committees

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the EC members are appointed by institutional appointing authorities. The EC must be constituted according to a document that specifies the manner in which members and the Chair will be appointed, reappointed, and replaced. EC members must regularly update their knowledge about the ethical conduct of health-related research. If committees do not have the relevant expertise to adequately review a specific protocol, they must consult external persons with the required skills or certification. Each EC member must undergo at least one (1) basic training in research ethics within one (1) year of appointment and, thereafter, should undergo continued ethics training at least once every two (2) years. Members of an EC must serve for a term of three (3) years. EC members must guard against any tendencies of unethical conduct on their part. For example, they must protect the confidentiality of research projects, documents, and discussions; an EC member must not appropriate the submitted protocol for their own use; and they must not compel investigators to submit to an unnecessary repetition of review.

In addition, as delineated in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, ECs are responsible for determining whether the research objectives are responsive to the health needs and priorities of the proposed study population, particularly in Tanzania. The ability to judge the ethical acceptability of various aspects of a research protocol requires a thorough understanding of a community’s customs and traditions. For example, the EC should include members that are able to indicate suitable community members to serve as intermediaries between investigators and research participants and to advise on whether material benefits or inducements may be regarded as appropriate considering a community’s gift exchange and other customs and traditions. ECs must have mechanisms to ensure the independence of their operations. They must avoid undue influence and minimize and manage conflicts of interest. ECs must require that their members disclose to the committee any interests that could constitute a conflict of interest or otherwise bias their evaluation of a research protocol. ECs must evaluate each study considering any disclosed interests and ensure appropriate steps are taken to mitigate possible conflicts of interest. ECs may receive a fee for reviewing protocols, and this need not constitute a conflict of interest.

As required in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, ECs should hold meetings as frequently as possible to facilitate timely ethical clearance. ECs must review proposed research at convened meetings where at least 50 percent of the members are present, including at least one (1) member who represents the interests of the community. The Chairperson may be given powers to approve minor matters on behalf of the EC but ensure that the papers are made available to the rest of the EC members at the next meeting. ECs should have the power to co-opt professional or lay members where necessary. For a research protocol to be approved, it must receive the approval of a simple majority of those members present at the meeting; the only exception to the simple majority requirement is in the case of expedited review.

Regarding documentation, per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the institution must ensure that the EC prepares and maintains adequate documentation and retain the records for at least five (5) years after the completion of the study. All records must be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives, including the following:

Detailed written procedures for the EC
Copies of all research protocols reviewed, scientific evaluations that accompany the protocols, approved sample consent documents, progress reports submitted by the investigator(s), reports of injuries to research participants, etc.
Minutes of EC meetings that must be in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions, including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controversial issues and their resolution
Records of continuing review activities
Copies of all correspondence between the EC and investigator(s)
Statements of significant new findings that were provided to research participants

Per the G-ResearchIntegrity, institutions should have clear documentation of candidacy requirements and procedures for identifying or recruiting EC members. The recruitment methods, duration of membership, terms of service, qualifications, disqualifications, resignation procedures, re-appointment/renewal, and other duties and responsibilities should be documented in EC SOPs. Appointment of EC members must be done at the institutional managerial level in consultation with experts, relevant boards, and peer institutions. Institutions should minimize conflicts of interest and establish mechanisms for maximizing transparency and confidentiality of review processes. These qualities may be enhanced by rotation and turnaround of members to allow inflow of new ideas and accountability. The conditions of appointment must clearly indicate the decision on whether to release professional profiles to the public, level of accessibility, members’ cost recovery ceilings for EC-related activities, confidentiality, and any other mechanisms geared to enhancing confidence over the EC’s operations. The pros and cons of each option must be carefully considered and communicated to candidates. Both scientific and support staff must sign a confidentiality agreement and declare any conflicts of interest from the outset.

Introduction, SOPs (01-05, 08-09, and 29), and Appendices (Forms 1A, 1B, 2, and 10)

The Role of NIMR as National Regulator for the Conduct of Health Research

3.2

Definition of Terms, 1.4, 1.10, and 1.13

3.1 and Annex 1 (3-4)

Preface, 1, and 5

Composition

Section B (3)

2.2 and Chapter 3

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-6, Glossary, Annex A, Annex C, Annex E, and Annex F

Part 2, Part 3 (11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18), and Schedule 2

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Introduction (Purpose and Scope, and Implementation), Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1, 2, 3, and 15

Foreword, Introduction, 1.24, 1.27, 2.6, 3, and 5.11

Search Research Ethics Committee

Definitions of Authorised REC and Recognized REC

Research Ethics Committee (REC) Scope

Scope of Review

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

According to the G-TMRCC and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the primary scope of information assessed by the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) and the institutional ethics committees (ECs) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in health research studies. The NatHREC and the institutional ECs 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 NatHREC is responsible for ensuring an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. TZA-5 states that the NatHREC must function in accordance with national and international standards and guidelines on health research, and guided specifically by the ethical principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki (TZA-30), international ethical guidelines such as the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13), and the G-EthicsHR-TZA.

As indicated in the G-ResearchIntegrity, institutional ECs review, approve, and recommend for approval, research proposals that have met scientific merit, ethical, and professional standards. The institutional ECs are expected to provide recommendations on proposals that would need approval from a nationally overseeing ethics body where available. Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, institutional ECs act as independent reviewers of any proposed study on human research participants to ensure ethical conduct of research and that participant’s rights and welfare are not violated. The major responsibility of institutional ECs is to safeguard the rights, safety, and well-being of research participants. In addition, it is essential that they review the scientific soundness of the research protocols, which involves a proper scientific review to verify that a competent expert body has determined the research to be scientifically sound, or consult with qualified experts to ensure that the research design and methods are appropriate. If the EC does not have expertise to judge science or feasibility, they must draw on relevant expertise. See G-EthicsHR-TZA for more information on the scientific review.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

National Health Research Ethics Committee

As per the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, and the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) and the NatHREC must approve a clinical trial application prior to the sponsor, the contract research organization (CRO), or the principal investigator (PI) initiating the clinical trial. According to the G-AppConductCT and TZA-4, the TMDA and NatHREC reviews may be conducted in parallel. However, the TMDA application must include a copy of the national EC's acknowledgement of receipt for the study protocol. In addition, the TMDA's approval will only be finalized once national EC approval is obtained.

As described in TZA-31, the NatHREC’s ethics review is managed through its Research Ethics Information Management System (REIMS) (TZA-32) (also referred to as the National Health Research Management Information System (NHRMIS)), an online web application for the submission of research protocols for NatHREC’s review, validation of protocols per NatHREC checklist (TZA-1), online review of proposals, and application status tracking. The G-RevPrtcl indicates that the NatHREC Secretariat will validate submissions for completeness upon receipt in REIMS. The G-RevPrtcl recommends the following review sequence after the materials are checked for completeness: write comments in an MS Word document; read the PI’s cover letter, the institution’s commitment letter, and other supporting letters; review the abstract/summary; review the application form, protocol, and appendices; and synthesize and submit comments online through REIMS (TZA-32). Per TZA-5, following successful validation of an application to the REIMS, the system generates a unique protocol number/identifier; this unique identifier must be used in reference to all communications to the PI or applicant regarding the application. Depending on the research area of the submitted protocols, at least two (2) primary reviewers must be assigned to review a new protocol by the NatHREC Secretariat. Comments from reviewers will reach the PI within two (2) days, depending on the type of study protocol. If the applicant fails to respond to the comments within 30 days, the NatHREC Secretariat must notify the PI of its intent to remove the protocol from the REIMS. Once the research protocol is removed from the REIMS, the PI must re-apply for ethical clearance and pay the application fee. For clinical trial applications, reviewers’ comments and the outcome of the NatHREC meeting must be forwarded to the PI within 30 days from the date of acceptance by the NatHREC. If the research protocol is cleared and the ethical clearance certificate is issued, the PI must receive it via mail at the institution’s postal address. Additionally, the PI may be able to download the soft copy of the ethical clearance certificate from the REIMS account. A PI may appeal a decision in writing to the Medical Research Coordination Committee (MRCC) Chairperson within 30 days of receipt of the decision, stating the precise issues upon which the appeal is based. The MRCC will respond to PIs in writing within 30 days or upon scrutiny of the appeal. The MRCC Chairperson may invite the PI to appear in person to the MRCC within 30 days of receiving the written appeal.

Expedited Review

TZA-5 delineates the categories of research that qualify for NatHREC expedited review:

Research activities that present no more than minimal risk to human participants
Minor changes (modification or amendment) to a previously approved research proposal
Studies that involve interviews of a non-confidential nature and not likely to harm the status or interest of study participants
Studies that involve collection of small amounts of biological specimens by non-invasive means (e.g., body fluids, excreta, hair or nail in non-disfiguring or threatening manner) for local analysis and no transfer of specimens outside of Tanzania
Collection of data for research purposes through non-invasive procedures (not involving general anesthesia or sedation), routinely employed in clinical practices and using medical devices which have been already approved for use
Research involving data, documents, or specimens that have been already collected or will be collected for on-going medical treatment or diagnosis
Continuing review of certain research previously approved by the NatHREC
Research that aligns with disease outbreaks or public health emergencies

TZA-5 states that expedited review must be conducted by two (2) or more experienced reviewers designated by the Secretariat. The expedited review must include a review of the complete study protocol with all required attachments. Results of the review process may be communicated to the PI even before being reported to the NatHREC. Expedited reviewers may exercise all the authorities of the committee except that the NatHREC reviewers may not disapprove of the research. Any research activity may be disapproved only after reviewing the protocol in accordance with the non-expedited procedure. Approval for expedited protocols is given by the MRCC through the Chairperson upon recommendation for approval from the reviewers. Once expedited approval has been granted, the protocol may be implemented as approved. Clinical trials with investigational products (IP) are not eligible for expedited review but may be considered for accelerated review. The final decision for a protocol to undergo an expedited review is determined by the NatHREC Chairperson, the NatHREC Secretariat, and/or the MRCC Chairperson, as needed. The Secretariat must notify the NatHREC of all expedited reviews at the next scheduled meeting through a listing in the meeting agenda.

Reviews During Public Health Events

Per TZA-5, rapid review of public health research and clinical trials may be implemented during public health events of national and/or international concern. During public health emergencies, the declaration will come from the public health authority of the country or an internationally recognized organization responsible for international public health. To expedite commencement of the research, many of the preliminary research processes (drafting of documents, translations, approvals) will be allowed to happen in parallel. Protocols should be sent to reviewers within 24 hours of submission by the Secretariat, and reviewers should complete their reviews within three (3) days. The consolidated review and suggested revisions (or approval) should be communicated to the PI(s) within five (5) days. The PI should respond to the review notification within 48 hours. See TZA-5 for additional details on the emergency review requirements.

Approval Duration

Regarding duration of the NatHREC approval, per TZA-5, the NatHREC Secretariat determines how often the committee must re-evaluate the research study, appropriate to the degree of risk, but not less than once per year. Studies whose approval has expired must be suspended until an extension through a renewal process is approved. The PI must submit an electronic continuing review report through REIMS with a frequency as indicated in the terms and conditions of the ethics clearance certificate. The NatHREC Secretary must place the continuing review report on the next meeting’s agenda for review. The NatHREC may provide directives or guidance to the study following review that will be communicated to the PI. In addition, the committee may recommend that the research study is halted.

Protocol Amendments

Per TZA-5, the NatHREC recognizes certain protocol amendments as minor/insubstantial or major/substantial; see TZA-5 for examples of each type. Amendments made to protocols may not be implemented until approved by the NatHREC. Upon receipt of the amendment package, the Secretariat must follow the receiving and validation procedures of submitted protocols. After review of the amendment submission, the Secretariat must determine whether the protocol requires expedited or full review. The amended protocol will be sent to the reviewers of the original submission; in absence of the original reviewers, the Secretariat must appoint and send the amendment application to another reviewer with the same or similar expertise. The number of reviewers will range from one (1) to three (3), depending on the number of the amendments. Minor amendments may be reviewed by members of the Secretariat. If the committee requires modifications to any of the documents, specific changes required must be communicated to the PI with instructions to make the necessary changes and resubmit the documents to the Secretariat. If the committee does not recommend approval of the protocol amendment, this information will be communicated to the MRCC who will review the decision and make the final decision on the approval. If an application is not approved, the PI must be informed of the reasons for not approving the amendment.

Institutional Ethics Committees

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, ordinary review is the institution’s normal process for reviewing minimal or more than minimal risk studies. For research that is externally sponsored, the ethical standards should not be less stringent than they would be for research carried out in the country of the sponsoring organization. Local ECs must be fully empowered to disapprove a study they believe is unethical. An EC must require that information given to research participants as part of informed consent complies with the general requirements for informed consent. However, the EC may require that more information be given to the research participants, provided such additional information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and the welfare of the research participants. An EC must generally require documentation of the informed consent process. For certain types of research, however, the EC may need the investigator to administer a comprehension test (or test of understanding) to ensure that prospective research participants have acquired adequate knowledge of the relevant facts and consequences of participation in the study. Within 14 days of its review, the EC must notify investigators in writing of the outcome of the research protocol review. If an EC does not approve a research activity, it must include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision.

The G-ResearchIntegrity states that ECs must review protocols in accordance with their standard operating procedures (SOPs) and in a timely and professional manner. Names, titles, and institutional affiliation of reviewers for each proposal will be kept confidential. The decision should be communicated to the investigators in a written letter that is signed or stamped by the EC chair. The letter should include the research/study title as written in the application, the name of the applicant, research site, draft number, date submitted, name and date of EC sitting for that proposal, suggested changes, and a clear statement of final decision by EC. The investigators must notify the EC of protocol amendments, unforeseen circumstances affecting the study, termination of the study, progress reporting, and study termination before or at completion. ECs should also establish monitoring and/or inspection mechanisms for ongoing research projects to ensure compliance with approved criteria.

Expedited Review

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, expedited review is a process by which studies that involve no more than minimal risk may be reviewed and approved in a timely manner by an individual EC member or a designated subset of the full EC. Relevant authorities or ECs must establish a list of criteria for protocols that qualify for an expedited review process. Further, relevant authorities or ECs may establish procedures for the expedited review of research protocols, which should specify the following:

The nature of the applications, amendments, and other considerations that will be eligible for expedited review
The minimum number of committee members required for expedited review
The status of decisions (for example, subject to confirmation by a full EC or not)

Accelerated Review

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, an accelerated review process may be used for a clinical trial protocol submitted for ethical approval. In reviewing a clinical trial, reviewers may exercise all the authorities of the committee to recommend approval of the submitted protocol. Final approval for protocol is granted in accordance with the standard procedures outlined above. However, applications for accelerated review of clinical trial protocols will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the EC, and the applicant may be required to undergo an ordinary review process due to the nature of the trial or else, as determined by the EC.

Continuing Review

As required in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the EC must conduct additional reviews on approved studies as necessary, particularly if there are significant changes in the protocol that require re-consent by participants or affect the safety of participants, or if other ethical matters emerge during the study. These further reviews include amendments, progress reports submitted by researchers, and possible monitoring of researchers’ compliance with approved protocols. For approved studies, ECs must conduct continuing review of research at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, but not less than once a year, and must have authority to observe or have a third party observe the informed consent process. The EC must investigate research fraud and take appropriate action where scientific fraud has been suspected or proven.

Suspension or Termination

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the EC has the authority to halt, suspend, or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the EC’s requirements, or research that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to research participants. For example, the EC may suspend research when:

It finds that the investigator has implemented significant changes in the research protocol without the prior approval of the EC
The investigator has failed to follow specific procedures or requirements articulated by the EC in its initial review of the research protocol
When there is severe unexpected harm to the research participants, including, but not limited to, serious physical injury or death

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, any suspension or termination of ethics approval must include a written statement of the reasons for the EC’s action. It must be reported promptly to the investigator(s), appropriate institutional officials, and the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) Director General.

Multicenter Research

For multicenter research, the G-EthicsHR-TZA states that the study must be conducted in a methodologically identical way at each center, and ECs at individual centers have the authority to adapt the informed consent document provided by the lead institution to make it culturally appropriate. To avoid lengthy procedures, multicenter research within Tanzania should be reviewed by only one (1) EC and other applicable ECs should accept that review. To be informed of the necessary approach, the study team should be consulted. In cases of multicenter research, if a local review committee proposes changes to the original protocol that it believes are necessary to protect the research participants, these changes must be reported to the research institution or sponsor responsible for the whole research program for consideration and possible action. This should ensure that all persons are protected and that the research will be valid across sites. Ideally, review procedures should be harmonized, which may decrease the time needed for review and, accordingly, speed up the research process. Joint reviews may be organized and requested by the study team or sponsor across country borders or institutions in compliance with guidelines. Joint reviews are based on voluntary cooperation between the relevant national regulatory authorities and ECs. In the case of multi-country joint reviews, each country is solely responsible for granting regulatory or ethics approval to the sites within its borders. To harmonize review processes and to maintain sufficient quality of these processes, ECs should develop quality indicators for ethical review.

Exemption

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, some studies may be exempt from EC review. If an investigator considers that their research project satisfies the requirements for exemption from ethics review, the EC must ensure that the proposed research satisfies the requirements for exemption from EC review and grant exemption through procedures set by the EC. The following studies may be exempt from EC review:

Research with negligible risk that involves using existing collections of data or records that contain only non-identifiable data about human beings
Use of publicly available unlinked data that does not identify individuals or communities
Use of existing collections of data or records that contain only non-identifiable data about human beings
Quality assurance/evaluation activities undertaken in the normal course of conducting the business of the institution, i.e., educational assessments, student feedback surveys, audits of organizational activities and systems, and quality assurance reviews
Emergency use of a test article provided that such emergency use is reported to the EC within five (5) working days; any subsequent use of the test article at the institution is subject to EC approval
Health systems research if public officials are interviewed in their official capacity on issues that are in the public domain

SOPs (01 and 07-12) and Forms 2 and 3

Regulatory Overview and Clinical Trial Review Process

Definition of Terms, Module 1 (1.4 and 1.10), and Annex 1

3.2, 3.5, and Annex 1

1.4, 3.3, 4.2-4.6, and 4.9

Part IV (c)

Part II (3-4) and First and Second Schedules

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

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

As indicated in GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, GBR-113, and GBR-9, ECs are responsible for ensuring an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants; confirming the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and methods; and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. See GAfREC, the MHCTR, the MHCTR2006, and GBR-9 for detailed ethics review guidelines.

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fast-track ethics review is not available for any CTIMP involving a gene therapy medicinal product, any CTIMP funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, and any other type of clinical trial or research study.

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

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

Introduction (Purpose and Scope), Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10.9

Foreword, 1.27, 2, and 3

Search Research Ethics Committee

2.3, 3, 4.3, and 5.4

Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products

Amendment of the Clinical Trials Regulations; Amendment of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (2 and 3), Part 3 (11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18), Schedule 2, and Schedule 3 (Part 1)

Ethics Committee Fees

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

National Health Research Ethics Committee

According to the G-TMRCC, the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) requires the sponsor, the contract research organization, or the principal investigator (PI) to pay a nonrefundable fee to submit a clinical trial research protocol for ethical review and approval.

As per TZA-17, the fees are as follows:

Tanzanian researchers, expedited review – 3,875,000 Tanzanian Shillings
Tanzanian researchers, ordinary review – 2,625,000 Tanzanian Shillings
Tanzanian researchers, amendment – 750,000 Tanzanian Shillings
Tanzanian researchers, extension – 300,000 Tanzanian Shillings
Tanzanian students, expedited review – 390,625 Tanzanian Shillings
Tanzanian students, ordinary review – 390,625 Tanzanian Shillings
Tanzanian students, amendment – 250,000 Tanzanian Shillings
Tanzanian students, extension – 125,000 Tanzanian Shillings
International researchers, expedited review – $5,125 USD
International researchers, ordinary review – $2,625 USD
International researchers, amendment – $750 USD
International researchers, extension – $300 USD
International students, expedited review – $548 USD
International students, ordinary review – $548 USD
International students, amendment – $375 USD
International students, extension – $125 USD

See TZA-17 for appeal fees and late renewal penalties.

Payment Instructions

No information is current available regarding payment instructions for the NatHREC.

Institutional Ethics Committees

Institutionally based ethics committees (ECs) may independently decide whether to charge fees for a protocol review. Per the G-ResearchIntegrity, ECs should delineate procedures for the fee structure, mode of payment, and proof of payment in their standard operating procedures (SOPs). Applicants should contact ECs individually for specific fees and payment instructions.

Annex 1

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

4.3

Oversight of Ethics Committees

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

As mandated by the MedRsrchAct, the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) is the central body responsible for oversight, and for the promotion and coordination of research in Tanzania. The NIMR is a semi-autonomous organization under the Ministry of Health (MoH). The IERC-Accredit, the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the G-TMRCC, and TZA-5 state that the NIMR’s Medical Research Coordination Committee (MRCC) serves as the national health research coordinating body, and is responsible for supervising health research in Tanzania. The MRCC, as the NIMR’s clearance body, delegates the registration, review, approval, and monitoring of research to the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC), which is a subcommittee of the MRCC. The NatHREC focuses on the ethical issues surrounding submitted research proposals. All clinical trial protocols to be conducted in Tanzania are also reviewed by a specialized nine (9)-member Clinical Trials Sub-Committee, which meets monthly and reports to the NatHREC. For detailed information on NatHREC responsibilities, see the G-TMRCC, the G-EthicsHR-TZA, and TZA-5.

TZA-5 acknowledges that not all human subjects research requires review and approval at the national level—i.e., research that does not involve investigational products or collaboration with foreign institutions. For studies that may not need national review, the local ethics committee (EC) must submit quarterly reports listing studies that were approved by the local EC. The NatHREC may request any information related to approved research studies at the institutional level, and ECs are subject to audit.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, institutions that intend to establish an institutional EC must make a written request to the Director General of NIMR and, upon approval, submit quarterly and annual progress reports to NIMR. In the initial request, the institution must indicate that it will comply with the following minimum requirements:

A statement of principles governing the institution's discharge of its responsibilities for protecting the rights and welfare of human research participants of research conducted at or sponsored by the institution; this may include an appropriate existing code, declaration, or statement of ethical principles or a statement formulated by the institution itself
Details on ensuring meeting space availability and sufficient staff and resources to support the EC’s review and record-keeping duties
A list of members identified by name, qualifications, profession, representative capacity, indicators, or experience such as board certification, and licenses
Written procedures for monitoring the conduct of studies approved by the EC

As delineated in the IERC-Accredit, institutional ECs may apply for accreditation. Registered and accredited ECs support the NatHREC function of facilitating institutional ethical clearance and monitoring the approved research studies at the level of the institutions to which they belong or are affiliated. ECs are not mandated to approve research protocols for clinical trials and those involving foreign collaborators. These types of research are cleared at the national level only. Following are the EC accreditation assessment criteria:

Suitability of infrastructure and office space for EC activities
Adequacy of equipment to support ethics review management
Adequacy of qualified EC Secretariat staff (technical and support staff) to manage the ethics review procedures
Appropriateness of the EC governance and structure
Plan for capacity building/training program for the EC Secretariat, members, and reviewers
Plan for monitoring of research activities by the EC
Adequacy of institutional support services
Appropriateness of EC standard operating procedures (SOPs)

The IERC-Accredit indicates that ECs approved for full accreditation will be published on the NIMR website. The duration of accreditation is three (3) years from the date of notification (certification) by NIMR. Applications for renewal must be made six (6) months before the expiry of the accreditation period. Failure to renew accreditation or failure to maintain the appropriate standards for continuity of accreditation will mean that the accreditation status of the EC will lapse at the end of the current accreditation period and the committee must cease to function. Accreditation must be terminated if NIMR, in consultation with NatHREC, finds that the accredited EC has failed to maintain the required standards. See IERC-Accredit for additional accreditation information, including application procedures and reporting.

See the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology’s (COSTECH) and the G-ResearchIntegrity for institutional guidance on the introduction and strengthening of research integrity mechanisms. When such mechanisms are well established, institutional ECs can advance to a stage of accreditation.

Introduction and SOPs 01 and 29

1-2

2 and 3.1

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

Introduction (Purpose and Scope), Implementation, Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1, 2, and 3

Accreditation Scheme for Research Ethics Committees and Quality Control

1.3, 2.1, 2.3, 3.3, 5.4, Glossary, Annex C, Annex D, Annex E, and Annex F

Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 2, Part 3 (12), and Schedule 2

Submission Process

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

According to the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, and the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) requires the sponsor, the designated contract research organization (CRO), or the investigator to obtain TMDA approval. Per TZA-5, the principal investigator (PI) is required to submit an application for ethical review of a research study to the national ethics committee (EC), the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC). All clinical trials must get ethics approval from both the institutional EC and the NatHREC. TZA-18 states that if there is no institutional EC available, the approval must be obtained from NatHREC. According to the G-AppConductCT and TZA-4, TMDA and NatHREC reviews may be conducted in parallel. However, the TMDA application must include a copy of the NatHREC's acknowledgement of receipt for the study protocol. In addition, the TMDA's approval will only be finalized once NatHREC approval is obtained.

Per the G-ResearchClearance, the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) must review and approve all research in Tanzania.

Regulatory Submission

Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority

Per the G-AppConductCT, applicants must submit both paper and electronic copies of the clinical trial application (CTA). Per TZA-4 and TZA-36, electronic CTAs must be completed online via the Regulatory Information Management System (RIMS) Customer Self Service Portal (TZA-34). Applicants must fill out CTAs as per the Modules and the Common Technical Document (CTD) highlighted in the G-AppConductCT. Applications for amendment(s) to a previously authorized clinical trial must be submitted on the applicable form in RIMS. The clinical trial application form is available at TZA-38, and the application forms for protocol amendments are at TZA-43 and TZA-44. Note that a list of clinical trial forms is posted to TZA-35.

Per the G-AppConductCT, the hard copy of the application may be delivered in person or by courier to the TMDA at the following address:

Mabibo External along Mandela Express way
P.O. Box 77150
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

In addition, TZA-34 provides applicants with various online regulatory services.

As per the G-AppConductCT and the TZA-36, applicants must submit paper (A4) and electronic copies. The paper documents should be arranged in spring file folders. The G-AppConductCT specifies that the electronic documents should be in MS Word format, Bookman Old Style font size 11 and submitted on CD-ROM. TZA-36 requires electronic format on CDs. The number of copies to be submitted is not specified in the G-AppConductCT. Annex 1 of the G-AppConductCT provides the Clinical Trial Application Form template. Applicants should submit their applications as per the Modules in the G-AppConductCT and the CTD highlighted in the G-AppConductCT. The overall organization of the CTD format should not be modified.

Per the G-AppConductCT and TZA-4, all applications and supporting documents must be in English. The informed consent documents must be in both Kiswahili and English.

Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology

Per the G-ResearchClearance, the PI should submit an application for a research permit. It must be submitted to the Director General of COSTECH through the online system (TZA-48) at least three (3) months before the intended commencement of research in Tanzania. According to TZA-47, when the online COSTECH system is not working, applicants should email COSTECH at either rclearance@costech.or.tz or dg@costech.or.tz. After a foreign researcher obtains a research permit, the researcher is required to apply for a class C residence permit from the Tanzanian Immigration Services Department. See the G-ResearchClearance and TZA-47 for additional information about applying for a research permit through the National Research Clearance Committee (NRCC).

Ethics Review Submission

National Health Research Ethics Committee

The TZA-5 specifies that the NatHREC requires all applicants to complete the Application Form for Ethics Approval (see Form 03 in TZA-5) with the research protocol to obtain ethics approval. PIs or applicants must submit all required documents at least two (2) months prior to the commencement of the research study, and they must select either an expedited or ordinary review (for the case of clinical trials, an accelerated review) and pay the relevant fee. An application for ethical review of a research study should be made by the PI for that study. Applications may not be submitted by the sponsor(s) on behalf of the PI. Applications must be accompanied by a completed checklist (TZA-1). As described in the G-RevPrtcl, TZA-5, and TZA-31, applicants should submit the form to the online Research Ethics Information Management System (REIMS) (TZA-32) (also referred to as the National Health Research Management Information System (NHRMIS)).

The G-TMRCC indicates that four (4) copies of the research proposal with a cover letter should be submitted to the NatHREC.

Institutional Ethics Committees

While the submission requirements will vary by institution, the G-ResearchIntegrity indicates that the lead researcher or PI is responsible for submitting a research proposal to the EC. The institutional EC’s procedures for receiving an application should be clearly stated, and could include some of the following submission elements:

The name and/or title of the EC member who will receive applications
Application template or standard forms for submitting applications
Recommended channel for submissions (e.g., email) and format (e.g., MS word)
Proper submission of supporting documents with the application
Use of appropriate language (as recommended) and number of copies
Name and addresses of contact person for follow up with comments
Fee structure, mode of payment, and process for submitting proof of payment
Applicable procedures for proposal amendments, submissions, and supporting tools

SOP 07 and Form 03

Regulatory overview of Clinical trial in Tanzania and Clinical Trial Submission

Questions 1-3, 6, and 9

Definition of Terms, Introduction, Module 1 (1.4 and 1.10), Modules 2-5, and Annex 1

Annex 1 (6)

1 and 3

A

Part IV (c)

Part II (3-4) and Second Schedule (Declaration of Investigator)

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

Combined Review Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As described in GBR-78, other relevant approvals can be sought on the IRAS site. For example, applicants can request inclusion in the National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Portfolio, which comprises high-quality clinical research studies that receive support services from the Clinical Research Network in England.

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

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

Terminology (Glossary) and Sections 1.1-1.2 and 14

Combined Review - What will happen to ongoing CTIMP studies submitted in the standard system?

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval, CTA Submission, and Ethics Submission

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

Apply to conduct a clinical trial for an advanced therapy medicinal product

2

Trial Sponsor and legal Representative, Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products, Documents to send with your application, New notification scheme, and Requesting approval of trials with complex innovative designs

Amending your trial protocol or other documentation

2

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (3) and Part 3 (12, 14, 17, and 18)

Approvals for project based research in the National Health Service (NHS) and Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care (HSC) Service

Submission Content

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Regulatory Authority Requirements

Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority

As per the CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT, the following documentation must be submitted to the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA):

Comprehensive table of contents
Cover letter
Application form (See the Regulatory Information Management System (RIMS) Customer Self Service Portal (TZA-34) or Annex 1 of the G-AppConductCT and First Schedule of the CT-Regs)
General investigational plan
Capacity building plans (including plans for staff training and updates)
Overall summary of the protocol (See Annex 2 of the G-AppConductCT)
Protocol, signed and approved with data compiled as prescribed in Annex 3 of G-AppConductCT and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13), including case report form (CRF) copies or descriptions; See TZA-42 for a clinical trial protocol template
Participant Information Leaflet, informed consent forms (ICFs), and any other information to be given to participants
Declarations by the principal investigator (PI) (TZA-39), co/sub investigators (TZA-41), and monitors (TZA-40) (Also see Annexes 5-7 of the G-AppConductCT)
Joint declaration by sponsor and national PI in format prescribed in Annex 8 of the G-AppConductCT
Investigator’s Brochure (IB), nonclinical overall summary (See Annex 10 of the G-AppConductCT), and prescribing information data sheet, if applicable
Certified copy of insurance of research participants
Ethics clearance certificate or a copy of protocol submission acknowledgement from the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR)’s National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) or any approved medical research institute
Investigator(s) Curriculum Vitae(s) (CVs) (See Annex 9 of the G-AppConductCT)
Blank CRFs and serious adverse events reporting form to be used in the study
Certificate of good manufacturing practice (GMP) for manufacture of the trial medicine or other evidence of manufacturing quality, safety, and consistency
GMP certificate for manufacture of the placebo, if applicable
Investigational product (IP) labels and packages insert(s)
Mock-up labels for IPs
Evidence of accreditation/certifications of the designated laboratories or other evidence of good laboratory practice
Letters of access (if applicable) authorizing the TMDA to access related files
Copies of key, peer-reviewed published articles supporting the application
Completed, quality overall summary – Chemical Entities Template (See Annex 11 of the G-AppConductCT)
Investigational medicinal product dossier
Application fees
Summaries of nonclinical, clinical, and quality data (See Module 2 of the G-AppConductCT)
Quality of the IP (See Module 3 of the G-AppConductCT)
Nonclinical study reports (See Module 4 of the G-AppConductCT)
Clinical study reports (See Module 5 of the G-AppConductCT)

As delineated in G-AppConductCT, an application must not cross reference the details or documentation between different clinical trials. The applicant must include a statement indicating that all the information in the application is complete and accurate. In the case of multi-center trials, a coordinating investigator must also sign the application form. If the trial is part of an international study, information must be provided regarding the other participating countries and the part of the trial that will be conducted locally.

In addition, per the G-AppConductCT, applicants can submit an application for amendment to a previously authorized clinical trial, using the required forms (Annexes 12 and 13). The sponsor or sponsor’s agent must submit the following to the TMDA:

Amendment fees
Description and reasons for the proposed amendment
Original wording, revised wording, and the rationale for the change, including a complete protocol incorporating all amendments
Supporting data for the amendment: updated overall risk-benefit assessment, possible consequences for participants already in the trial and for assessment of trial results, and summaries of data

For details on when TMDA approval must be obtained for amendments, see G-AppConductCT.

Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology

According to the G-ResearchClearance and TZA-47, to obtain a research permit for a clinical trial, the following must be submitted to the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

A full research proposal, including a summary, abstract, introduction, research objectives, problem statement, hypotheses or questions framework, methodologies, and timeframe
Literature review
Beneficiaries of the research
Bibliography
Detailed CV(s) of all researchers
Sponsor’s cover letter
For foreign applicants, scientific and ethics committee approval from an institution in the PI’s country of residence
Clearance from the TMDA
A supporting letter from a Tanzanian affiliate institution
A Tanzanian applicant should submit either a copy of their national ID, passport details, driving license, or voters ID
A foreign applicant should submit a copy of their passport details page and a current passport size photo with a blue background
A scanned copy of a receipt as proof of payment of the non-refundable research application fee to COSTECH (See Regulatory Fees section for details)

The G-ResearchClearance indicates that an application to renew a permit must contain a renewal application form, an annual progress report, a supporting letter of recommendation from the affiliate institution, passport information, updated CVs, and an extension table form.

Ethics Committee Requirements

National Health Research Ethics Committee

As per the G-TMRCC, the G-RevPrtcl, and the NatHREC’s Checklist for Ethical Clearance Application Submission (see TZA-1), the NatHREC requires applicants to submit the following documentation for ethics approval (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Application Form for Ethics Approval (see Form 3 in TZA-5 and the Research Ethics Information Management System (REIMS) (TZA-32))
Full protocol, including benefits sharing, placebo rationale, information on randomization/blinding, and a commitment to register the trial in a public registry
Cover letter signed by PI or co-PI
Summary, introduction, and literature review
Statement of the problem, the rationale, and study objectives
Budget and budget justification
Ethical consideration (e.g., written information to be provided to participants in English and Kiswahili, obtaining verbal/written informed consent, obligations of investigators and sponsors, benefits and risks of study participation, recruitment, cultural values, and confidentiality measures)
Limitations of the study
Information on the study site(s)
Review of the known risks and if they are acceptable for the expected benefit
Interim analysis and stopping rules
Dissemination of research results
Commitment letter from affiliated institution and/or local government officials
Letter from student supervisors
ICFs/Assent Forms in English and Kiswahili
EC approval certificate from affiliating institution(s), where applicable
Methodology, including data collection tools in English and Kiswahili
Elaborated recruitment procedure
Research team CVs
Evidence of payment of application and registration fees (Bank slip)
Completed Data Transfer Agreement (see TZA-8) and/or Material Transfer Agreement (see TZA-10), where applicable
IBs and CRFs
Proof of insurance coverage
List of Data and Safety Monitoring Board members (with at least one (1) Tanzanian)

Per TZA-5, a request for amendment of a previously approved protocol must describe the requested amendment, provide the rationale for the amendment, and describe the impact, if any, of the amendment on the protocol’s risk-benefit profile.

Institutional Ethics Committees

While the submission requirements vary by institution, the G-ResearchIntegrity indicates that the following are typically required:

Completed application, signed by the lead investigator/researcher(s)
Full proposal completed in all sections with supporting documents
A lay summary of the application and/or a flow chart representing key milestones
Description of ethical issues pertaining to the research, and how they will be managed
Tools for operationalizing the research and how they will be applied
Safety issues related to the use of instruments, materials, and research data
Investigators’ CVs, up to date and signed
Research context, including criteria for identifying research participants, research environment, and relevant protection measures
Information to be provided to participants, which may include tools and use of local translators, if needed
Procedures for informed consent by participants
Compensation plans for research participants, if any
Description of indemnity and/or insurance coverage for participants, if applicable
A history of rejection of the same research protocol, reasons for rejection, and measures taken to address the concerns; withholding such information should be regarded as misconduct and managed in accordance with misconduct guidelines

Clinical Protocol

The G-AppConductCT indicates that the protocol should state the background, rationale, and objectives of the trial, and describe its design, methodology and organization, including statistical considerations, and the conditions under which it is to be performed and managed. In addition, Tanzania requires the following protocol contents in the format prescribed in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13):

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
Publication policy

The G-EthicsHR-TZA states that research protocols submitted for ethics review and approval must, at the least, include the following information:

A clear statement of the objectives of the research, the present state of knowledge, and a justification for undertaking the research
A precise description of all proposed procedures and interventions, including the duration of the study
A statistical analysis plan
Description of the study population, including the number of study participants to be recruited
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for study participants and procedures for the withdrawal of individual participants
Complete details of the informed consent process, including the proposed means of obtaining informed consent (or assent in case of minors)
Evidence that the investigators are appropriately qualified and experienced, and have adequate facilities for the safe and efficient conduct of the research
Provisions that will be made to protect the confidentiality of information/data obtained from research participants
The study tool(s) (e.g., questionnaires, CRFs, videos, flip charts, and other data collection tools)

Also see the G-RevPrtcl for additional guidance on the NatHREC’s review of the protocol.

SOP 09 and Form 3

Question 15

Definition of Terms, Modules 1-5, and Annexes 1-13

Annex 1 (6.1)

4.0

A and C

4.1

Part II (3-4) and First - Fourth Schedules

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

For complete protocol requirements, refer to GBR-113.

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

3.1 and 6

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval

Documents to send with your application

Part 3 (12, 14, 15, 17, and 18) and Schedule 3 (Parts 1 and 2)

Timeline of Review

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

Based on the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, and the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA)'s approval of a clinical trial application is dependent upon obtaining proof of ethical approval from the national ethics committee (EC), the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC). According to the G-AppConductCT, TMDA and NatHREC reviews may be conducted in parallel. However, the TMDA application must include a copy of the NatHREC's acknowledgement of receipt for the study protocol. In addition, the TMDA's approval will only be finalized once NatHREC approval is obtained. As per the G-ResearchClearance, after receiving TMDA and NatHREC approvals, the researcher must submit an application for research clearance to the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH).

Regulatory Authority Approval

Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority

According to the G-AppConductCT, the TMDA review process is conducted on a first-in, first out basis. The TMDA will evaluate complete applications within 60 working days of receiving the application. The fast-track evaluation provides that a new clinical trial application may be fast tracked and assessed within 30 working days of its submission if the applicant has requested and paid twice the prescribed clinical trial application fee. The CTC-Time validates the timelines in the G-AppConductCT.

As set forth in the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, and the G-AppConductCT, the TMDA coordinates the clinical trial application process. Upon receipt of a clinical trial application, the TMDA initially screens the application for completeness. If complete, the TMDA officer acknowledges receipt of the application by returning a signed copy of the cover sheet to the applicant (see Annex 1 of the G-AppConductCT or First Schedule of the CT-Regs). Per the G-AppConductCT, the TMDA may request clarification, certificates, and/or samples through a query letter. Once a query has been raised and sent to the applicant, the evaluation process stops until the TMDA receives a written response to the query. The response should be submitted within six (6) months after the query letter was issued. In addition, TMDA reserves the right to request information or set conditions not specifically described in the G-AppConductCT to allow it to adequately assess the safety, efficacy, or quality of an investigational product (IP). If authorization is not granted, an appeal may be submitted to the TMDA within 60 days of the TMDA’s decision. If no appeal is submitted by the applicant within this period or, if after consideration of any comments submitted, the TMDA is still not satisfied, it must reject the application.

The TMMDAct states that the TMDA Director General must issue a Clinical Trial Certificate to authorize the trial to be conducted. Per the G-AppConductCT, the TMDA’s clinical trial authorization will be valid up to the proposed duration of the study indicated in the application. However, the validity will not extend beyond five (5) years. If the trial needs more than five (5) years, the applicant must request an extension. If granted, the TMDA will issue an updated certificate.

Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology

The G-ResearchClearance indicates that once COSTECH receives a new application, the Secretariat screens the application for completeness; registers the application; and sends an acknowledgement to the applicant within five (5) business days. If approved after COSTECH’s review, the principal investigator (PI) is then required to collect the research permit certificate from COSTECH. Per TZA-47, COSTECH’s review committee meets every two (2) months, and applicants are advised to apply two (2) months before the research commencement date.

Ethics Committee Approval

National Health Research Ethics Committee

As set forth in the G-TMRCC and TZA-5, the NatHREC meets once a month to evaluate application submissions. TZA-5 indicates an e-mail notification acknowledging receipt and successful validation of the clinical trial application must be sent to the PI or applicant by NatHREC within two (2) working days from the date of receipt. Comments from reviewers will reach the PI within two (2) days through the Research Ethics Information Management System (REIMS) (TZA-32) (also referred to as the National Health Research Management Information System (NHRMIS)), depending on the type of study protocol. If the PI or applicant fails to respond to the committee’s and reviewers’ comments within 30 days, the NatHREC Secretariat must notify the PI of intent to remove the protocol from the REIMS. For clinical trials applications, reviewers’ comments and the outcome of the NatHREC meeting must be forwarded to the PI within 30 days from the date of acceptance by the NatHREC. A PI may appeal that decision in writing to the Medical Research Coordination Committee (MRCC) Chairperson within 30 days of receipt of the decision. The MRCC will respond to PIs in writing within 30 days or upon scrutiny of the appeal. The MRCC Chairperson may invite the PI to appear in person to the MRCC within 30 days of receiving the written appeal. For protocol reviews during public health events of national and/or international concern, protocols should be sent to reviewers within 24 hours of submission by the Secretariat. Reviewers should complete their reviews within three (3) days. The consolidated review and suggested revisions (or approval) should be communicated to the PI(s) within five (5) days. The PI should respond to the review notification within 48 hours.

Per TZA-18, the whole process of receiving, reviewing, and approving the protocols takes a maximum of six (6) weeks.

Institutional Ethics Committees

According to TZA-5, the institutional EC review may occur prior to the proposal review by the NatHREC as the application to the NatHREC requires an EC approval certificate from an affiliated institution(s), where applicable (i.e., for foreign sponsors and when an institution has an EC). As required in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the EC must notify investigators in writing of the review decision within 14 days of its review.

SOPs 01, 06-08, and 11 and Form 2

Question 43

Approval to Conduct Health Research in Tanzania

Definition of Terms, Module 1 (1.4, 1.10, 1.13, and 1.19) and Annex 1

4.0-8.0

3.5

Part IV (c)

Part II (3-4) and First and Second Schedules

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

Combined Review

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

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

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

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

Initial Process Review and Timelines

Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products, New notification scheme, Assessment of your submission, and Applications that need expert advice

Initiation, Agreements & Registration

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

In accordance with the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, and the G-AppConductCT, a clinical trial can only commence after an applicant receives permission from the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) and approval from the national ethics committee (EC), the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR)’s National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC). Per the G-ResearchClearance, following TMDA and NatHREC approvals, the applicant must also apply to the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) for review, registration, and to obtain a research permit prior to initiating a study. No waiting period is required following the applicant’s receipt of these approvals.

In addition, as per the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, the TFDCA-ImptExpt, and the G-AppConductCT, the sponsor or the principal investigator (PI) is required to obtain an import license for the shipment of an investigational product to be used in the trial. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information).

Clinical Trial Agreement

Prior to the trial’s commencement, the G-AppConductCT specifies that the protocol must be dated and signed by the investigator, the host institution, and the sponsor, and can function as a contract. In addition, as per the G-CTInsurance-TZA, a clinical trial agreement must be signed by the chief executive of the host institution, the sponsor, and the PI. G-EthicsHR-TZA also states that the PI must sign the protocol and holds primary responsibility for managing and ensuring the integrity of the research study from initiation to finalization.

Per the G-AppConductCT, the sponsor and researchers are required to conduct the clinical trial in compliance with applicable Tanzanian laws and regulations and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13). TZA-13 states that 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. Quality control 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 both parties agree to the trial protocol, the monitoring and auditing practices, the standard operating procedures (SOPs), and their respective duties. The sponsor must also obtain the investigator(s)’ and the institution(s)’ agreement to:

Conduct the trial in compliance with TZA-13, applicable regulatory requirement(s), and the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and approved by the EC
Comply with data recording and reporting procedures
Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
Retain essential documents until the sponsor indicates that they are no longer needed

Also, per the CT-Regs, the sponsor must ensure that all agreements made with the PI and any other parties involved in a clinical trial are in writing, as part of the protocol or in a separate agreement.

Clinical Trial Registration

As per the CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT, all clinical trials taking place in Tanzania must be registered with the Tanzania Clinical Trials Registry (TzCTR) which is accessed via the Regulatory Information Management System (RIMS) Customer Self Service Portal (TZA-34). An applicant must submit detailed clinical trial information to the TzCTR not later than 21 days after the first participant is enrolled in the trial. See the CT-Regs for complete registry submission requirements. The G-AppConductCT further stipulates that applicants have the option to register in any other publicly accessible registries accepting international clinical trial information and recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO). The registration number should be made available to the TMDA.

5.1 and 5.6

Definition of Terms, Introduction, and Module 1 (1.4, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.13), and Annex 1

4.5

8.1

16.1

Part IV (c)

24

Part II (3-4), Part III, Part IV (11), Part VI, and Second Schedule

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

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

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

Per GBR-78, all project-based research must also have governance and legal compliance approvals from the appropriate lead United Kingdom (UK) Health Department. The Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-78) facilitates this process. As described in GBR-67, approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) is required for all National Health Service (NHS) project-based research led from England or Wales. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval brings together the assessment of governance and legal compliance. For any new studies that are led from Scotland or Northern Ireland but have English and/or Welsh NHS sites, the national research and development coordinating function of the lead nation will share information with the HRA and HCRW assessment teams, who can issue HRA and HCRW approval for English and Welsh sites and thereby retain existing compatibility arrangements. Studies led from England or Wales with sites in Northern Ireland or Scotland will be supported through existing UK-wide compatibility systems, by which each country accepts the centralized assurances, as far as they apply, from national coordinating functions without unnecessary duplication. For more information on HRA’s assessment criteria and standards for approval, see GBR-29.

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

The UKwide-Rsrch reiterates that national model contracts are available and, as such, contracting expectations and arrangements across the four (4) UK nations are broadly similar. For all four (4) nations:

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

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

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

6

Terminology (Glossary) and Sections 1, 3, and 14

1.17, 5.1.2, and 8.2.6

About NHS DigiTrials and NHS DigiTrials - our services

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval, CTA Submission, Final Trial Management Documentation, Trial Registration, and Trial Begins

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

2-3

3.2

Registration of your clinical trial, Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products, Documents to send with your application, and Assessment of your submission

7

Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 3 (12, 13, and 18)

Contracting Arrangements

Safety Reporting

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with the CT-Regs, the G-ReptSafetyData, and the G-AppConductCT, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Tanzania’s safety reporting requirements:

Adverse Event (AE) – Any adverse medical occurrence in a research participant to whom a drug product was administered, and which does not necessarily bear a causal relationship to the treatment
Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – All noxious and unintended responses to a medicinal product related to any dose
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
Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) (also referred to as Unexpected ADR) – A serious adverse reaction where the nature and severity of the event is not consistent with the medicinal product

The PV-Regs reaffirms that the reporting of SAEs and SUSARs occurring during clinical trials should comply with the requirements in the CT-Regs.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the severity of an AE must be graded as follows:

Mild: Includes events that do not interfere with activities of daily living and do not require treatment
Moderate: Includes events that have minimal effect on activities of daily living and usually require out-patient treatment
Severe: Includes activities that significantly affect activities of daily living and may require inpatient hospitalization
Life-threatening: Includes all events that are life threatening and usually require emergency procedures
Death

The G-EthicsHR-TZA states that an AE must be deemed unexpected if:

It is previously unobserved or undocumented in humans under the health research intervention (or one substantially similar)
The nature or severity is not consistent with information in the investigator’s brochure or other safety information known at the time
The event is observed with higher frequency or severity than previously documented

See the G-EthicsHR-TZA for additional details on grading AEs.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As stated in the G-ReptSafetyData and the G-AppConductCT, the investigator is responsible for documenting and reporting all AEs/ADRs, SAEs/SADRs, and SUSARs to the sponsor using the case report form (CRF)/reporting form and the SAE/SADR Reporting Form approved in the protocol, or CIOMS Form I (TZA-7). See section 3.0 of the G-ReptSafetyData for key data elements to include on the form. TZA-5 requires the principal investigator (PI) to ensure that the protocol includes all required elements for safety monitoring, including assessment and reporting of any anticipated or unanticipated AEs and SAEs. Ethics committees (ECs) (both the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) and institutional ECs) must review and address AEs, SAEs, and/or SUSARs. Investigators must be familiar with the regulations, policies, and procedures concerning reporting and continuing review requirements, as well as timelines for submission of notifications and reports.

The CT-Regs states that the PI must immediately report to the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) any SAE/SADR that occurs to a participant at a trial site where the PI is responsible for the conduct of the trial. The report may be made orally or in writing and must be followed up with a written report in 14 days. Also, the PI must report AEs that the protocol identifies as critical to safety evaluations. The reports must identify each participant by a number assigned to that participant in accordance with the protocol.

The CT-Regs further states the PI or sponsor must record and report SUSARs that are fatal or life-threatening to the TMDA within seven (7) days and other SUSARs within 15 days.

The G-EthicsHR-TZA requires the investigator to promptly investigate all SAEs, take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of all research participants, and report these and any other information that is likely to affect the safety of the research participants or the conduct of the research events, to the regulatory authority, institutions, and sponsor within the timelines stated in standard operating procedures. Specifically, the investigator must report the following to the EC and TMDA:

All SAEs irrespective of relationship to the health-related intervention
All unexpected events of greater than moderate severity irrespective of relationship to health-related intervention
All events associated with protocol violations irrespective of severity and relationship to health-related intervention
When criteria for stopping or pausing a study as stipulated in the protocol are met
Any event mandated by regulatory authorities
Any event stipulated in the protocol as reportable to the regulatory bodies

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, all SAEs must be reported to the local EC as soon as possible and in any case no later than seven (7) days of becoming aware of the event. Thereafter, a detailed report of the SAE should be submitted within eight (8) days. All other reportable AEs should be reported to the EC as soon as possible and in any case not later than 15 days. TZA-5 requires the investigator to submit an initial report on an SAE to NatHREC within 24 hours of its occurrence and a final or followup report on the SAE within 14 days of its occurrence.

Further the G-EthicsHR-TZA requires the investigator to clearly outline in the protocol how management of both foreseeable and unforeseeable AEs will be done. Certain categories of interventions whose long-term effects are not known or cannot be extrapolated will require extended monitoring for AEs, such as genetically modified substances, gene therapy, and DNA-based therapies.

Sponsor Responsibilities

The G-ReptSafetyData states that the sponsor is responsible for the assessment and timely reporting of SAEs/SADRs and SUSARs to the TMDA. The sponsor must retain detailed records of safety information reported by the investigator(s) and ensure that all reports required by the TMDA are submitted on time. In addition, the sponsor must report all SAEs and SUSARs occurring from trial sites outside the country to the TMDA.

The G-ReptSafetyData requires that fatal or life-threatening SAEs/SADRs or SUSARs must be immediately reported to the TMDA by telephone, fax, or email followed by a complete report within seven (7) additional calendar days. The G-AppConductCT specifies that the immediate reporting period is within 24 hours. Further, the report should include an assessment of the importance and implication of the findings, including relevant previous experience with the same or similar products. All deaths during the study, including the post-treatment, follow-up period, and deaths that resulted from a process that began during the study, should be reported.

Per the G-ReptSafetyData and the G-AppConductCT, all other SAEs and SUSARs that are not fatal or life-threatening must be filed as soon as possible but no later than 14 calendar days after first knowledge by the sponsor. Please note that the CT-Regs states that non-life-threatening SUSARs should be reported in 15 days.

See the CT-Regs and the G-ReptSafetyData for detailed reporting requirements.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per the G-ReptSafetyData and the G-AppConductCT, all SAEs/SADRs and SUSARs must be reported on the protocol-approved CRF/reporting form, or CIOMS Form I (TZA-7), and should include trial specific details such as participants’ ID numbers and/or protocol number. The form must be submitted to the TMDA office by courier, mail, email (as an attachment), or by fax.

According to TZA-26, the TMDA address and contact information is as follows:

P.O. Box 1253, Dodoma or P.O. Box 77150, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Telephone: +255 22 262961989 / 262961990
Fax: +255 22 2450793
Email: info@tmda.go.tz

See Annex 15 of the G-AppConductCT and Appendix 1 of the G-ReptSafetyData for the reporting forms.

SOP 17 and Form 04

Definition of Terms, Module 1 (1.14.3), and Annex 15

16.1 and 18

47

Parts I, V, and VIII

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

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

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

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

Other Safety Reports

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

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

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) Submissions (GBR-126) (which replaces the EudraVigilance website (EVWEB)) – The ICSR Submissions route is used to submit single reports. (Note that per GBR-127, MHRA also decommissioned the eSUSAR reporting platform.)
MHRA Gateway (which replaces the EudraVigilance Gateway) – To gain access to the MHRA Gateway, which is used to submit bulk reports, users must first register via MHRA Submissions (GBR-13). The steps for gaining access to MHRA Submissions are contained within the G-MHRASubmiss and GBR-11.

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

4 and 5

10

Changes to SUSARs and annual safety reports

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval, Trial Registration, Safety Reporting, and Urgent Safety Measures

SUSAR

Reference Safety Information – updated guidance, Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reactions (SUSARs), Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs), and Urgent Safety Measures

14

Part 5

Progress Reporting

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As delineated in the G-AppConductCT, the sponsor or the principal investigator (PI) must submit progress reports to the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) on a six (6)-month basis from the date of the clinical trial’s commencement. The content should be as prescribed in TZA-11. In addition, the TMDA provides a six (6)-month progress report form for clinical trials of investigational products (TZA-3). The CT-Regs states that progress reports should be submitted annually, or more frequently, as required by the TMDA.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, researchers must submit progress reports to the ethics committee (EC). The investigator must ensure appropriate and timely feedback on the research process including progress reports at regular intervals as stipulated by the EC. Periodic progress reports enable the EC to determine whether the research study is progressing according to the approved protocol.

According to TZA-5, the investigator must submit written progress reports every six (6) months to the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) for all ongoing approved health research activities in Tanzania.

In addition, per the G-ResearchClearance, the PI is required to submit annual progress reports (as part of the annual permit-renewal process) to the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) that include the title of the study, COSTECH registration reference number, study site, brief background and objective of the study, progress in the reporting period, any problems encountered, and implementation plan for the next period.

Final Report

The G-AppConductCT requires the sponsor or the PI to submit a closing report to the TMDA within 60 days of the trial’s completion. This report should be followed by a final study report within six (6) months after trial closure unless otherwise justified. The structure and content of the final report should comply with TZA-11.

In addition, per TZA-5, the PI is required to submit a final report to the NatHREC once the last participant has completed all visits and all adverse experiences have been brought to appropriate resolution. Final reports must be submitted to the NatHREC on a Close-out Form (Form 08 in TZA-5) and processed as an expedited review. The Secretariat will review the Close-out Form. The expedited reviewer will request additional information from the researcher, as needed. Written documentation acknowledging the closeout will be provided to the investigator and a copy retained in the proposal file. Further, the G-EthicsHR-TZA requires researchers to submit a final report to the institutional EC containing a summary of the study's key findings, recommendations, and conclusions.

The G-ResearchClearance requires the researcher to submit a soft and hardcopy of the final report to COSTECH. The report should be accompanied with any relevant publications, electronic raw data, and proof of dissemination if applicable. The final report should include:

COSTECH registration reference number
Title of study
Summary of report in English and Swahili
Brief background and objective of the study
Methodology, including study sites
Key findings
Constraints or problems encountered
Conclusions and recommendations

SOPs 12 and 18, and Form 08

Module 1 (1.15)

4.2 and 12.0

4.3 and 4.7

Part IV

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

As per the MHCTR and the G-CTAuth-GBR, the sponsor must notify the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the EC in writing that a clinical trial has ended within 90 days of the conclusion of the trial. As indicated in GBR-128, all project-based research (not research tissue banks or research databases) that has been reviewed by an EC needs to submit a final report within 12 months of the end of the study. The final report should be completed and submitted in the combined review part of Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) (GBR-125). When completing the final report form, IRAS guides the user with instructions next to each question.

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

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

As per GBR-9, the investigator is also required to submit a summary of the final study report to the main EC within one (1) year of the trial’s conclusion. GBR-20 clarifies that the form in GBR-20 should be used for this submittal, which includes submitting a lay summary of results. This is a UK-wide final report for all project-based research studies that have been reviewed by an EC within the UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service (GBR-62). The information contained in this final report helps the Research Ethics Service to monitor whether the research was conducted in accordance with the EC’s favorable opinion and applicable transparency requirements. Per the GBR-120, sponsors should include a plain language summary of their findings in the final report, which will be published on HRA’s website alongside the study research summaries. See GBR-120 for guidance on writing a good plain language summary for a general audience.

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

Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1 and 14

4.10 and 4.13

Final report on the research

End of Trial

Legal Background and Scope

Part 3 (Section 27)

Definition of Sponsor

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Per the CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT, a sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial. The Tanzanian government also permits a sponsor to authorize a contract research organization (CRO) to perform one (1) or more of a sponsor’s trial-related duties and functions.

As required in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the sponsor is responsible for providing all the necessary financial support for the initiation and completion of the research study. Additional sponsor responsibilities include developing the final study report; providing forms for safety monitoring and reporting; securing compensation or indemnity in the event of research-related injuries, disability, or death; and managing matters related to the investigational new drug.

The G-EthicsHR-TZA states that research may be externally sponsored, meaning that it is sponsored, financed, and sometimes wholly or partly carried out by an external organization with the collaboration or agreement of the appropriate authorities of the host community.

Definition of Terms

4.4 and 16.2

Part I (2)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Principles

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

5.1 and 5.2

Responsibilities (9.10)

Changes to the trial sponsor/legal representative

2

Trial Sponsor and legal Representative

Amendment of Regulation 3 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (3)

Site/Investigator Selection

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

The Tanzanian government complies with the requirements delineated in the G-AppConductCT and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13) for conducting clinical trials. As set forth in TZA-13, 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 study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. As delineated in TZA-13 and the G-AppConductCT, 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. Furthermore, the sponsor must sign an agreement or contract with the participating institution(s).

The G-AppConductCT delineates that the principal investigator (PI) must have the following minimum qualifications and experience:

University degree in medicine, pharmacy, pharmacology, toxicology, or biochemistry and related fields
Practical experience within the relevant professional area
Previous experience as a co-investigator in at least two (2) trials in the relevant professional area
Must be responsible for the conduct of the clinical trial at a clinical trial site
Tanzanian resident
In good standing with a professional organization
For multicenter studies where the PI is not a resident of Tanzania, the appointed national PI must be a resident and should assume full responsibilities for all local clinical trial sites
Ensure that sufficient time is available to conduct and complete the trial, and that other commitments or trials do not divert essential subjects, resources, or facilities away from the trial in hand
The maximum number of clinical trials that a PI is allowed to supervise at the same time is five (5)

All investigators in a clinical trial, as well as the trial monitor, must have had formal training in Good Clinical Practices (GCPs) within the last three (3) years. Evidence of attending the GCP course should be submitted.

Per the G-AppConductCT, clinical trials must be carried out under conditions that ensure adequate safety for the participants. The site selected should be appropriate to the stage of development of the product and the potential risks involved. The trial site must have adequate facilities, including laboratories, equipment, and sufficient medical, paramedical, and clerical staff to support the trial and to deal with all reasonably foreseeable emergencies. All laboratory assays must be validated, and principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) should be observed.

Per G-EthicsHR-TZA, institutions hosting research are overall accountable for research projects within their institutions. The institution must work closely with the investigators and monitor implementation of the research activities. Specifically, the host institution must ensure that they have qualified and competent investigators to carry out the research studies at the institution; facilitate the smooth implementation of research studies conducted at the institution; and take appropriate disciplinary action against investigators for non-compliance.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

The G-EthicsHR-TZA states that research may be externally sponsored. The ethical standards should not be less stringent than they would be for research carried out in the country of the sponsoring organization. Local ethics committees (ECs) are fully empowered to disapprove a study they believe is unethical.

The G-ResearchClearance requires all foreign researchers to identify and affiliate to a local institution that has the appropriate capacity in the relevant type of research and obtain a local collaborator. Minimum qualifications of the local collaborator should be a person with a master’s degree and an expert in the relevant field of study. There should be a memorandum of agreement between the local institution/collaborator and the foreign researcher that includes methods for sharing data, material transfer agreements, access benefit sharing agreements, managing intellectual property, and dissemination of research results.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, all Phase I, II, and III clinical trials, including drug efficacy trials, conducted in Tanzania must have a safety monitoring plan and Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) or a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). Other interventional studies, such as community trials, may be required to set up DSMBs on a case-by-case basis. The National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) must ensure the establishment of a DSMB in all clinical trials to periodically assess the progress of implementation of safety data and the efficacy endpoints and to recommend to the sponsor whether to continue, modify, or terminate a trial. See the G-EthicsHR-TZA for details on the DSMB composition, qualifications, affiliation, terms of reference, and reporting.

As delineated in TZA-5, NatHREC considers DSMBs to be relevant in the following kind of studies:

Controlled studies with mortality and/or severe morbidity as a primary or secondary endpoint
Randomized controlled studies focused on evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of a new intervention
Early studies of a high-risk intervention
Studies in the early phases of a novel intervention with very limited information on clinical safety
Studies where the design or expected data accrual is complex, particularly studies with a long duration
Studies carried out in emergency situations

The CT-Regs states that the DSMB requirement may depend on trial design and scientific background, risk and benefit assessment, or any other reasons determined by the NatHREC.

TZA-5 states that for clinical trials conducted only in Tanzania, the DSMB must include representation from Tanzania. For multi-country clinical trials, the DSMB must include regional representation, and a Tanzanian must be among the members. Where necessary, NatHREC may request that the sponsor submit the most recent report from the DSMB. In contrast, per TZA-1, for clinical trials that require a DSMB, the PI must submit a list of DSMB members, including at least one (1) Tanzanian, to the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR). Additionally, the CT-Regs requires the following information:

Trial objectives and terms of reference
Member composition, qualifications, specific roles, and relationship to the investigators and study
How meetings will be organized

The G-AppConductCT also specifies that a DSMB/DMC is required in situations where safety concerns may be unusually high. A DMC is recommended for any controlled trial of any size that will compare rates of mortality or major morbidity. It also indicates that a DSMB or DMC must be considered in the following situations:

The study endpoint is such that a highly favorable or unfavorable result, or even a finding of futility, at an interim analysis might ethically require termination of the study before its planned completion
There are a priori reasons for a particular safety concern (e.g., if the procedure for administering the treatment is particularly invasive)
There is prior information suggesting the possibility of serious toxicity with the study treatment
The study is being performed in a potentially fragile population such as children, pregnant women, the very elderly, other vulnerable populations, or those who are terminally ill or of diminished mental capacity
The study is being performed in a population at elevated risk of death or other serious outcomes, even when the study objective addresses a lesser endpoint
The study is large, of long duration, and multi-center

Additional details on the procedures and composition of the DSMB or DMC are provided in the G-AppConductCT and Part VIII of the CT-Regs. In addition, per the G-ReptSafetyData, the sponsor must also ensure that the DSMB’s interim safety data analyses are submitted to the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA).

Multicenter Studies

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, for multicenter studies, the study must be conducted in a methodologically identical way at each center. See the Scope of Review section for more details on multicenter studies.

As delineated in TZA-13, 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, if required, by the TMDA, and given ethics committee (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 between investigators is facilitated

The CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT also state that in the case of multicenter studies where the PI is foreign, the appointed national PI must be a resident and assume full responsibilities for all local clinical trial sites.

SOP 16

1.25, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.23

Foreword, Definition of Terms, and Module 1 (1.4, 1.7, and 1.13.7)

Definition of Terms and 3.0

13.0-13.1

4.4, 4.5, 16.3, and 19.4

Part I (2), Part IV (8-11, 15, and 16), and Part VIII

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

UK Local Information Pack

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

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

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

Further, as delineated in GBR-113, in the event of a multicenter clinical trial, the sponsor must ensure that:

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

1.1

5.23, 5.5, 5.6, 6, and 7

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval, Addition of New Sites & Investigators, Final Trial Management Documentation, Feasibility & Investigator Selection, Final Protocol, and Trial Master File

Preparing and Submitting Application (Site-specific information)

Changes to the trial sponsor/legal representative

2

Amending your trial protocol or other documentation

Insertion of Regulation 3A of the Principal Regulations, Insertion of Regulation 29A of the Principal Regulations, and Part 2 (Principles based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive)

Part 1 (3) and Part 3 (15)

Providing the UK Local Information Pack

Insurance & Compensation

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Insurance

As set forth in the CT-Regs, the G-AppConductCT, the G-CTInsurance-TZA, and TZA-5, the sponsor or the designated contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for providing insurance coverage for any unforeseen injury to research participants. Before a clinical trial begins, the sponsor should also provide insurance and indemnify the investigator and the institution against claims arising from malpractice or negligence, and provide a copy of a valid insurance certificate from a recognized insurer in the clinical trial application submission. Additionally, per the CT-Regs, the insurance policy should be obtained from an insurance company registered in Tanzania. The G-CTInsurance-TZA and the G-AppConductCT state that details and proof of insurance must be provided in the ethics review submission. Furthermore, per the CT-Regs, for investigator-initiated trials, proof of current malpractice insurance that covers clinical trials must be provided to the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA). (See the Submission Content section for additional submission requirements.) The G-EthicsHR-TZA requires that insurance issues are clearly described in all clinical trial protocols, and that sponsors and investigators comply with the G-CTInsurance-TZA.

As per the CT-Regs and the G-CTInsurance-TZA, the sponsor or the designated CRO must sign an indemnity agreement with the host institution and the investigator(s) to cover any risks related to a research participant being injured by an investigational product, or from any procedure deemed necessary by the protocol. The sponsor and the institution’s chief executive officer must sign the indemnity. See Appendix 1 of the G-CTInsurance-TZA for a sample agreement. Per the CT-Regs, the sponsor must also indemnify the investigator against claims arising from the trial, except for claims that arise from malpractice or negligence.

The G-CTInsurance-TZA states that the insurance policy must meet the following requirements:

Cover the conduct of the relevant clinical trial in Tanzania

Provide a policy registered by the Tanzania Insurance Regulatory Authority (TIRA)

Contain insurance coverage for an amount sufficient to meet the indemnification requirements applicable to the ethics committee (EC)-specified level of risk

Cover claims made by research participants during the trial as well as those made after the trial is completed

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the G-CTInsurance-TZA and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the sponsor or the designated CRO is responsible for providing compensation to research participants and/or their legal heirs in the event of trial-related injuries or death. The sponsor must also ensure that participants who suffer any trial-related injuries are provided with free medical treatment for such injuries. The G-EthicsHR-TZA states that research study participants must not be asked to waive the right to compensation and must retain the legal rights to seek monetary compensation for research-related injuries including settlements out of court, in accordance with applicable laws in Tanzania.

Per TZA-5, investigator(s) must ensure participants (or their dependents in case of participant death) are equitably compensated should they sustain unexpected serious injuries (physical, psychological, or social harm) that are judged to be related to the investigational product (IP) or study procedure. Participants must not be compensated if they sustain expected adverse events or those related to other licensed medicines appropriately prescribed during the trial.

As per the G-CTInsurance-TZA, the amount of compensation paid should be appropriate to the nature, severity, and persistence of the injury. Compensation should be abated, or in certain circumstances excluded, in light of the following factors (which will depend on the risk level the participant can reasonably be expected to accept):

The seriousness of the disease being treated

The degree of probability that adverse reactions will occur and any warning given
The risks and benefits of the established treatments relative to those known or suspected of the trial medicines

Trial Participation

As per the CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT, participants may also be compensated for travel and incidental expenses incurred while participating in the trial. Per the G-AppConductCT, the clinical trial application must indicate the compensation to be received by participants, including a breakdown of costs.

The G-EthicsHR-TZA indicates that research study participants may be reimbursed for lost earnings, travel costs, lunch, and other expenses incurred in taking part in a study; they may also receive free medical services. Research participants, particularly those who receive no direct benefit from the research, will be compensated for inconvenience and time spent. Compensation must not be so large as to induce potential participants to consent to participate in the research study against their better judgement (undue inducement). A local EC must approve reimbursement and compensation for research study participants. Incentives to research study participants for their participation in research studies must not be considered a research benefit, but a recruitment incentive, and should not present undue influence on potential research participants.

Post-Trial Access

Per the study protocol template in the G-AppConductCT and TZA-42, details on post-trial access to products must be provided in the study protocol.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, where appropriate, the clinical trial protocol should include a provision for the involvement of the community in the research process including the post-research period. The community in this context may be geographical or the study population. Further, there should be optimization of collateral benefits to the research communities including access to the products of the research. If the investigational product is found to be beneficial, the investigator should assist to secure its provision, without charge, to participants in the research study following the conclusion of the study.

SOP 28

19.13

Definition of Terms, Module 1 (1.4), and Annexes 1, 2, and 3

Introduction and Background, 1, 2, and Appendices I and II

5.4, 14, 15.6-15.9, 16.1, and 16.2

Part II (4), Part IV (11-12), Part IX and First Schedule

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Insurance

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

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

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the MHCTR, the sponsor or the designated representative is responsible for providing compensation to research participants and/or their legal heirs in the event of Phase 1 trial-related injuries or death. According to GBR-33, the sponsor must have agreed with the research participant to provide compensation for injury whenever a causal relationship with participation is demonstrated. This undertaking can be provided directly by the sponsor through the consent process, or through authorizing the contract research organization (CRO) or investigator on behalf of the sponsor. In addition, the sponsor should follow these practices:

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

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

3, 4, and 6

Introduction and Basic Principles

5.8

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval (Trial Planning Phase) and Final Trial Management Documentation

Responsibilities

Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 3 (15), Part 4 (8), and Schedule 1 (Part 1 (1) and (16))

Risk & Quality Management

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzanian government complies with the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13) requirement that the sponsor implement and maintain 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. Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the investigator is responsible for documenting all steps in data management to allow a step-by-step retrospective assessment of the quality of the data and the performance of the research study.

Per G-EthicsHR-TZA, during the conduct of clinical trials, deviations from the original study might occur, such as changes in the sample size or analysis of the data as described in the protocol. Deviations must be reported to ethics committees (ECs). In the case of permanent deviations, researchers may write an amendment. The EC must decide whether a deviation is accidental or purposeful. Protocol violations are deviations from the original protocol that significantly affect the rights or interests of research participants and the scientific validity of the data. In the case of protocol violations, study participants must be informed and provisions made to protect their safety and welfare. ECs may halt the continuation of a previously approved protocol if they find protocol violations or other misconduct. Any serious or continuing non-compliance with ethical standards in the conduct of previously approved research projects must be reported to the sponsor and institutional or governmental authorities by the study’s principal investigator (PI) and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB).

Per TZA-13, 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:

Identifying processes and data that are critical to ensure participant protection and the reliability of trial results during protocol development
Identifying risks to critical trial processes and data
Evaluating the identified risks, against existing risk controls
Deciding which risks to reduce and/or which risks to accept
Documenting quality management activities and communicating to those involved in or affected by these activities
Periodically reviewing risk control measures to ascertain whether the implemented quality management activities are effective and relevant
Describing the quality management approach implemented in the trial and summarize important deviations from the predefined quality tolerance limits and remedial actions taken in the clinical study report

The G-AppConductCT states that the sponsor should ensure that the protocol or other written agreement specifies that the investigator(s)/institution(s) will permit Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) inspection(s) and provide direct access to source data/documents. Further, TZA-13 indicates that 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.

As described in the G-AppConductCT, study design, statistical considerations, choice of control groups, reporting of data, and conduct of the trial should also comply with the International Council for Harmonisation’s Efficacy Guidelines (E3-E16), provided in TZA-24.

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the G-AppConductCT and TZA-13 note 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, TZA-13, and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor should appoint auditors to review the clinical trial, ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and document their qualifications. The sponsor must also ensure that the audit is conducted in accordance with any custom SOPs, the auditor observations are documented, and data are available as needed for the TMDA. No specific timeframe is provided for the audit process. 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 G-GCPInspections provides guidance on clinical trial inspections to ensure the trial is conducted in accordance with the study protocol, procedures, TZA-13, and regulatory requirements, and that the data are accurate and valid. Inspectees (i.e., sponsor, investigator site, and contract research organization) should follow the G-GCPInspections requirements to ensure consistent conduct of trial inspections, including uniform reporting.

Per Pub-Rpts, to promote transparency of clinical trial oversight in the country, the TMDA will publish to its website clinical trial public assessment reports (CTPAR) and clinical trial public inspection reports (CTPIR) of all approved and ongoing clinical trials on an annual basis. The publication will only be undertaken after obtaining the consent of the respective PIs and sponsors. The PIs and sponsors are required to provide their consent within 14 days from the TMDA’s notification letter. Failure to respond is assumed to mean that the PIs and sponsors have consented to the publication of the CTPAR and CTPIR. For further clarification on this notice, contact TMDA at clinicaltrials@tmda.go.tz or info@tmda.go.tz.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

The CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT state that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the PI or the sponsor must inform the TMDA no later than 15 days after the date of the termination, and explain the reason(s) for the termination and its impact on the proposed or ongoing clinical trials. The sponsor or PI must also inform all co-investigators of the termination, the reasons for the termination, and advise them in writing of potential health risks to research participants. For each discontinued clinical trial site, the sponsor must stop the use or importation of the investigational product (IP) from the date of the trial’s discontinuation and take all reasonable measures to ensure the recovery of all unused quantities of the IP.

The G-EthicsHR-TZA also indicates that in the event of early termination of the research study, the investigator must inform, in writing, the appropriate EC, the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), the TMDA, and the research sponsor of the early termination and the underlying reason for such termination. Per TZA-5, the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) should be notified if the investigator chooses to suspend the study. To resume a suspended study regardless of who initiated the suspension, the PI must submit a request to the Medical Research Coordination Committee (MRCC) with a report on the progress of addressing corrective actions. Research studies may be terminated based on the recommendation of the NatHREC, zonal or institutional ECs, DSMB, study sponsor, PI, or regulatory authority. In addition, a research study can be terminated due to an arising conflict of interest among investigators or financial misuse, which negatively affects implementation of the research project.

According to TZA-13, 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.

SOP 21

5.0-5.2, 5.18, 5.19, 5.21, and 6.10

E3-E16

Foreword, Definition of Terms, Module 1 (1.4 and 1.16), and Annexes 1 and 3

4.8 and 16.1

Part IV (8, 10, 11, and 16)

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

See GBR-10 for best practices in improving clinical trial setup to reduce timelines and increase citizens’ access to research. Also see GBR-34 for investigator training and guidance on implementing people-centered research.

Monitoring Requirements

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

Interview staff to assess whether they are appropriately trained; understand their role(s); and are working to all relevant standards, the protocol, and SOPs.
Tour the facility to assess if there are adequate resources and if the equipment is fit for its intended use.
Review documents to evaluate whether data reported is verifiable from source data and that written records confirm that the trial was conducted appropriately.

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

Per GBR-18, the MHRA may conduct inspections to ensure the clinical trial is being conducted in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) as prescribed in GBR-92 and GBR-113. The MHRA takes a risk-based approach to inspections depending on the type of trials and risk rating. Once an inspection has been completed, a formal report outlining the findings will be sent to the inspected organization. A response to this report (describing any corrective and preventive actions) must be produced. See GBR-92 for pre-inspection checklists and other resources. Per G-RiskAssmt, GCP Inspectors will review risk assessments. The risk assessment should provide the rationale behind trial management/monitoring and GCP activities applied, or not, to the trial.

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

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

5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.18, 5.19, 5.21, and 6.10

Ongoing Management & Monitoring, MHRA Inspection, Audit, Temporary Halt, Early Termination, and End of Trial Declaration

Early termination or temporary halt of research

Suspend or Terminate a Trial and End of Trial

Amendment of Regulation 31 of the Principal Regulations and Part 2 (Principles Based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive)

Part 3 (15), Part 4 (28), Part 6 (36 and 38), and Schedule 7 (Parts 2 and 3)

Data & Records Management

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Electronic Data Processing System

As stated in the CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzanian government complies with the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13). As per TZA-13, when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor must ensure that the electronic data processing system conforms to the sponsor’s established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistency of intended performance. Per TZA-13, the sponsor should base their approach to validate such systems on a risk assessment that takes into consideration the intended use and the potential of the system to affect participant protection and reliability of trial results. In addition, the sponsor should maintain standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the systems that cover system setup, installation, and use. The responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties should be clear, and the system users should be provided with training. Refer to TZA-13 for additional information.

Records Management

The CT-Regs states that the investigator and the sponsor must retain all trial-related records, documents, and information at the trial site for a period not less than 20 years following the trial’s completion. Further, documentation should be retained for at least two (2) years after the last approval of a marketing application. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s) and the institution(s) in writing when trial-related records are no longer needed. See the CT-Regs for detailed record retention requirements. As set forth in TZA-13, all sponsor-specific essential documents used in the trial should be retained for at least two (2) years after formal discontinuation of the trial.

In addition, TZA-13 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.

1.65, 5.5, and 8

Foreword

Part IV (8 and 15) and First Schedule (Part 6)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Electronic Data Processing System

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

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

Records Management

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

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

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

1.65, 5.18, and 8

Part 2 (Principles Based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive)

Personal Data Protection

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Responsible Parties

For the purposes of data protection requirements, PDP-Act delineates that the “data controller” (i.e., the natural/legal person or public body designated by law) is responsible for determining the purpose and means of processing personal data. The "data processor" processes personal data on behalf of the data controller. The “data protection officer” is an individual appointed by the data controller or data processor to ensure compliance with the PDP-Act and its regulations. Data controllers and processors must be registered with the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC). See the PDP-Reg-TZA for detailed procedures on registering with PDPC.

Data Protection

Per the PDP-Act, the data controller or data processor must protect personal data by ensuring that it is:

Processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently
Collected for explicit, specified, and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner incompatible with those purposes
Adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which it is processed
Accurate and where necessary, kept up to date, with every reasonable step taken to ensure that any inaccurate personal data is erased or rectified without delay
Stored in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data is processed
Processed in accordance with the rights of a data subject
Processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorized or unlawful processing and against any loss, destruction, or damage
Not transferred abroad contrary to the provisions of the PDP-Act

Regarding transborder data flow, the PDP-Act prohibits the transfer of personal data outside of Tanzania except under the following circumstances:

If the data is transferred to a country that also has a data protection law enacted
If the country does not have a data protection law, data may only be transferred outside of Tanzania based on several factors, including the recipient state's federal legal frameworks, security and privacy principles, the type of information being shared, the data transfer mechanisms in place, the specific reason for the transfer, and the proposed length of data processing (See the PDP-Act for more details)

See the PDP-Reg-TZA for detailed implementation requirements.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Per the PDP-Act, before collecting data, a data controller must ensure that the data subject is aware of the purposes for which the personal data is collected; the fact that collection of the personal data is for authorized purposes; and any intended recipients of the personal data. However, the data controller is not required to inform the data subject if the personal data is publicly available, the data subject concerned authorizes the collection of the personal data from a third party, compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the particular case, non-compliance is necessary per other written laws, or compliance would prejudice the lawful purpose of the collection.

As required in the PDP-Act, sensitive personal data must not be processed without obtaining prior written consent of the data subject, which may be withdrawn by the data subject at any time and without any explanation or charges. If the data subject is a minor, a person of unsound mind, or any other person unable to consent, such person’s consent must be obtained or sought from the legal representative(s)/guardian(s). Exceptions to this rule apply where the processing is necessary in these circumstances:

Compliance with other written laws
To protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another person, where the data subject is incapable of giving consent or is not represented by a legal representative
Necessary for the institution, trial, or defense of legal claims
Relates to personal data that has been made public by the data subject
The purposes of scientific research and the PDPC has, by special guidelines, specified the circumstances under which such processing may be carried out
For the purposes of medical reasons in the interest of the data subject and the sensitive personal data concerned is processed under the supervision of a health professional in accordance with the law

Further, the PDP-Act delineates that data collected may only be disclosed if the data subject has consented to such disclosure and if the disclosure is authorized or required by law, directly related to the purpose for which such data was collected, and/or would preserve health or reduce harm to another person or the society. Disclosure of information may also be permitted where the data subject is not identified for statistical or research purposes and where it is guaranteed that such data will not be published in a manner that will identify the data subject. Additionally, data collectors must establish a code of ethics for personal data protection during collection or processing of personal data, and they must maintain a proper security system.

Per the PDP-Reg-TZA, the rights of participants regarding their personal data are the autonomous right to control their personal data, the right to communicate and exercise their data rights, and the right to human intervention to minimize biases that automated processes may create. In addition, per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, researchers using online and digital tools must protect the individual’s right to privacy and confidentiality including whether they knew or were expected to know that records and data were being kept. If individuals have reasonable expectations of privacy and impermanence of their online activities, then researchers may need to take specific measures to inform the respondents and obtain their consent to use their data for research. Further, if studies use artificial intelligence, the participant’s “right to be forgotten” must be protected by enabling their ability to request that a search engine remove information about them.

Chapters 10 and 11

Parts I-VI

Parts II-V

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Responsible Parties

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

Data Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

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

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

UK-US Data Bridge

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

Principles, Lawful Basis for Processing, Individual Rights, Accountability and Governance

Part 1, Part 2 (Chapter 2), and Schedules 2-4

Will identifiable, confidential patient data be accessed outside the care team without prior consent at any stage of the project (including identification of potential participants)?

Documentation Requirements

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Obtaining Consent

In all Tanzanian clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the CT-Regs, the G-AppConductCT, and the G-EthicsHR-TZA. As per the G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by the national ethics committee (EC), the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC), and provided to the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) for approval with the clinical trial application. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.)

The G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA state that the investigator, or the designated representative, must provide detailed research study information to the participant or the legal representative/guardian. The G-AppConductCT, the G-EthicsHR-TZA, and TZA-5 also specify that the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the ICF, should be easy to understand and presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The participant and the legal representative/guardian, should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. The G-EthicsHR-TZA indicates that informed consent protects the individual’s freedom of choice and respects the individual’s autonomy. The consent process should be a flow of information exchange between the researcher and research participants during the whole research process. The information provided should be adequate, and clearly understood by the research participants. Seeking consent must be carried out under circumstances that provide the prospective research participant or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether to participate and minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information given to the research participant or the representative, whether it is conveyed orally, in writing, or another delivery mechanism, must be in a language and form understandable to the participant or the legal representative/guardian.

As per the G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or the legal representative/guardian to waive or to 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.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, for verbal consent, the procedures used to obtain consent must be described within the ethics application, and the verbal consent must still contain all of the elements required for informed consent.

Re-Consent

According to G-AppConductCT, any change in the ICF due to a protocol modification or an alteration in treatment modality, procedures, or site visits, should be approved by the NatHREC and the TMDA prior to implementing any changes. The participant or the legal representative/guardian should also be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participation in the trial. The communication of this information should be documented.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the investigator must ensure that there is continued adequacy of the informed consent process and renewal of informed consent if there are significant changes in the conditions or procedures of the research project or if new information becomes available that could affect the research participant’s willingness to continue in the research project.

Regarding secondary use of materials or data in databases, registries, and repositories, the G-EthicsHR-TZA states that in the absence of broad consent to future use of material or data, including images, for research purposes, the following is recommended:

The nature of the previously obtained consent should be determined to ascertain whether subsequent usage was envisaged and whether it falls within the scope of the current protocol. If so, new consent is not required
If the scope of the current protocol is different, then new consent may be required
If samples are anonymous and the results of research would not place any individual, family, or community at social, psychological, legal, or economic risk of harm, then new consent is not required
If the link to identifiers exists but is not provided to the research team and the results of research will not place any individual, family, or community at social, psychological, legal, or economic risk of harm, then new consent is not required. The person who holds the code or link should sign an explicit written agreement not to release the identifiers to the research team. This agreement should be submitted to the EC
If the samples can be linked to identifiers, the EC must decide on a case-by-case basis whether expedited or full review is necessary

Language Requirements

As stated in the G-AppConductCT, the ICF content should be presented in both English and Kiswahili, and all information given to participants, both oral and written, must be in both English and Kiswahili.

Documenting Consent

The G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA state that the participant or the legal representative/guardian, and the person who conducted the informed consent discussion must sign and date the ICF. Where the participant is illiterate and/or the legal representative/guardian is illiterate, verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of and countersigned by an impartial witness. Before participating in the study, the participant should receive a copy of the signed and dated ICF, and any other written information provided during the informed consent process. The G-AppConductCT states that the participant or the legal representative/guardian should also receive a copy of any updates to the signed and dated ICF, and copies of any amendments to the written information originally provided.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the study participant may imply consent by voluntary actions (e.g., express consent verbally or sign (written consent form)). A verbal or oral consent process is where the researcher and participant have a conversation to give information and obtain consent. Usually, oral consent is used when it is not possible to get written consent. The verbal consent may be deemed appropriate and applied under the following situations where:

The study is deemed to be of minimal risk
There are cultural or political concerns with signing contract-like documents
The researcher and or participants could be put at risk by the existence of a paper record
The study is conducted remotely via video conferencing software, telephone, etc.
It may not be feasible in large information-taking settings (e.g., some focus group discussions (FGDs)); however, documentation of verbal consent for participants in FGDs must be written down to include the names of participants who consented verbally and those that did not

Waiver of Consent

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, for research that is no more than minimal risk, the EC may approve a request to waive some or all of the required elements of informed consent under specific circumstances. Waivers of informed consent are primarily requested for projects involving the secondary analysis of existing data. To waive or alter informed consent elements, the following conditions must be met:

The study could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration (whenever appropriate the study participants will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation)
In situations where deception needs to be applied to achieve the objectives of the study
The only record linking the study participant and the study would be the consent document and the principal risk to the research participant would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality
The study participant presents in an emergency situation and informed consent cannot be reasonably obtained (See the Emergencies section for more information)

The G-EthicsHR-TZA states that if a waiver of written informed consent is granted by the EC, then each study participant should be asked whether they wish to have documentation that links them with the study; and the participant’s wishes must govern.

SOP 26

Definition of Terms, Module 1 (1.4), Annex 3 (3.12), and Annex 4

6.1-6.2, 6.4-6.5, and 6.9-6.10

Part IV (8)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Obtaining Consent

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Consent

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

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

Language Requirements

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

Documenting Consent

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

Waiver of Consent

No information is currently available.

1 and 2

2, 4.4, 4.8, 8.2, and 8.3

Informed Consent

Principles of consent - General principals and Role of Participant Information Sheets; Content - Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form; and Examples and Templates

Amendment of Regulation 3 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 12 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 15 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Schedule 3 to the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Principles Based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive and Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (3), Part 3 (12, 15, 17, and 18), Schedule 1 (Part 1 (3) and Part 2), and Schedule 3 (Parts 1 and 3)

Required Elements

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Based on the G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the informed consent form (ICF) should include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable. (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

The study purpose, procedures, and duration
Approximate number of participants involved in the trial
Experimental aspects of the study
The participant’s responsibilities in participating in the trial
Expected risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant
Disclosure of alternate procedures or treatments available to participants
Clinical trial treatment schedule(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
Benefits or prorated payment to the participant or others reasonably expected from the research; if no benefit is expected, the participant should be made aware of this
Compensation and/or treatment available for the participant in the case of trial-related injury, with a description of such compensation/treatment and where further information may be obtained
Participation is voluntary, and that the participant can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits, including medical treatment, to which the participant is otherwise entitled
A statement of the extent of the investigator’s responsibility, where applicable, to provide medical services to the study participant
A statement of the nature, form, and extent of compensation for study participation (e.g., reimbursement for transport, time, and meals)
A brief description of the research project sponsors and the investigators’ institutional affiliation
Extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained, and the possibility of record access by the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA)
The participant or the 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
Individuals to contact for further information regarding the trial, the rights of trial participants, and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury; these contacts must speak the participant’s language
Foreseeable circumstances under which the investigator(s) may remove the participant without consent
Consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the research, and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant
A statement that study participants will get feedback on findings and the progress of the study and that any new information that affects the study or data that has clinical relevance to the participants will be made available to the participants or their health care providers
Where necessary (e.g., illiterate, mentally incapacitated, or physically disabled study participants), the provision for a witness at appropriate stages of the informed consent process should be ensured
A statement that the study has been approved by a recognized Tanzanian-based ethics committee (EC)
Whether, when, and how any of the products or interventions proven by the study to be safe and effective will be made available to the study participants at the end of the study and whether they will be expected to pay for them
With regard to research involving the collection of biological/genetic materials, an explanation should be provided on how specimens will be managed at the end of the study; if the samples are stored for future use, separate consent should be obtained
Additional costs to the participant that may result from participation in the research

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, for protocols involving verbal consent, the following minimum information must be communicated to the participant:

Introduction - who is the caller/interviewer, affiliation, organization
A statement that the study involves research
Study purpose
What the participant will be asked to do and the time commitment
Any compensation and any information to be collected to make that payment (mailing address, email address, etc.)
The voluntary nature of participation in the study
Any risks or benefits associated with participating (leave this out if there are none)
That notes are being taken or data is being recorded, if applicable
Whether the information collected will remain confidential or if it is planned to keep identifiers with the research data
Contact information for the researcher and/or the EC
Ask if the participant has any questions
Ask explicitly, “Do you agree to participate in this study?”
Depending on the nature of the study and the participant pool, the researcher may offer other pertinent information to ensure that participants are fully informed about the study and any risks or benefits from participating in it

Compensation Disclosure

Regarding compensation, TZA-5 states that investigator(s) must ensure participants are aware of the compensation guidelines and that their rights regarding compensation are protected. Participants must not be asked to waive their rights to free treatment or compensation for research-related harms, nor must they be required to show negligence or lack of a reasonable degree of skill on the part of the researcher to claim free treatment or compensation. The informed consent process or form must not contain statements that would absolve a researcher from responsibility in the case of harm, or that would imply that participants waive their right to seek compensation.

See the Vulnerable Populations and Consent for Specimen sections for further information.

Definition of Terms, Module 1 (1.4), Annex 1, Annex 2, Annex 3 (3.12), and Annex 4

6.3-6.5

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

1 and 2

4.4 and 4.8

Informed Consent

Principles of consent - General principles and Role of Participant Information Sheets; Content - Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form

Part 1 (3), Part 3 (12 and 15), and Schedule 3 (Parts 1 and 3)

Participant Rights

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

As stated in the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzanian government complies with the ethical principles set forth in the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13) and the Declaration of Helsinki (TZA-30), which 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. (See the Required Elements and Vulnerable Populations sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.)

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in the G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the participant or the 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 delineated in the G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, a potential research participant or the legal representative/guardian has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study. (See the Required Elements section for more detailed information regarding participant rights.) The G-EthicsHR-TZA states that information about the research study must be communicated in understandable and legally accepted language and format, and in a conducive environment, at all stages of the research.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per the G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, 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 G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA state that the research participant or the legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries. (See the Required Elements section for more detailed information regarding participant rights.)

The Right to Safety and Welfare

As specified in the CT-Regs, the G-EthicsHR-TZA, and the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzanian government complies with the principles in TZA-13 that state 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.

Definition of Terms, Annexes 4, 16, and 17

6.3 and 13.1-13.2

Part IV (8)

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

The Right to Information

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

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

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

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

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

The Right to Safety and Welfare

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

4.8

Principles and Content

Amendment of Regulation 3 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Principles Based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive and Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (3 and 15), Schedule 1 (Parts 1, 2, and 5)

Emergencies

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

As per the G-AppConductCT, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) cannot be obtained from the research participant, the consent of the legal representative/guardian should be obtained. If prior consent from the participant or the legal representative/guardian cannot be obtained, participant enrollment should require measures described in the protocol and/or elsewhere. Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) approval should also be obtained in order to protect the participant’s rights, safety, and well-being and to ensure compliance with National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) and TMDA requirements. The participant or the legal representative/guardian should provide consent as soon as possible.

In addition, per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, an EC may approve a waiver of consent if the study participant presents in an emergency situation and informed consent cannot be reasonably obtained from the participant or the legal representative/guardian. During a public health emergency of national and international concern, some of the activities focusing on diseases or events threatening national and international health security are considered non-research and need immediate attention. Informed consent may not be required in non-research activities.

Annex 4

6.6, 24.1.5, and 24.4

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

4.8.15

Informed Consent

Principles of Consent - Emergency Research

Section 51

4 and Explanatory Note

2 and Explanatory Note

Schedule 1 (Parts 4 and 5)

Vulnerable Populations

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Overview

As per the G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, in all Tanzanian clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. Vulnerable populations include those who are incapable of protecting their own interests due to a lack of autonomy, intelligence, education, resources, strength, or other necessary attributes, and have an increased likelihood of being wronged or of incurring additional harm during clinical trials. For example, the G-AppConductCT includes persons who are illiterate, marginalized by their social status or behavior, or living in an authoritarian environment. Vulnerable groups include individuals in hierarchical relationships, institutionalized persons, nomads, refugees or displaced persons, people living with disabilities, people with incurable or stigmatized conditions or diseases, and people faced with physical frailty. The G-EthicsHR-TZA additionally identifies children, mature and emancipated minors, street children, prisoners, the homeless, substance abusers, handicapped (mentally and physically), armed forces, and pregnant women. In some cases, willingness to volunteer to participate in research is unduly influenced by the expectation of benefits associated with their participation, or fear of retaliation from interested senior members of the hierarchy in case of refusal to participate. Characteristics that constitute vulnerability with reference to communities include one (1) or more of the following:

Limited economic empowerment
Inadequate protection of human rights
Discrimination on the basis of health status
Inadequate understanding of scientific research
Limited availability of health care and treatment options
Limited ability in the community to provide informed consent

As per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, clinical trials involving vulnerable persons require additional attention to ensure their protection. Where factors relating to vulnerability are an aspect of the research study, ethics committees (ECs) must ensure that researchers specify how that vulnerability would be addressed, particularly:

Selection of the particular communities is justified by the research goals
Research study is relevant to the needs and priorities of the community in which it is to be conducted
Research study is beneficial to that community
The community can access products of the research
Where appropriate, feedback of results should be provided to the community
Study participants must be fully aware that they are participating in the research and should provide informed consent
Special attention should be paid to the content, language of the consent document, procedures for obtaining informed consent, monitoring of the process, and testing comprehension

TZA-5 requires the investigator to specify in the clinical trial application if a research protocol involves a vulnerable population or special group, provide adequate justification for their involvement, and provide information on how the participants’ rights and welfare will be safeguarded. Further, the investigator should include information about how they will assess the participants’ capacity to consent for themselves. If the participant is not able to consent, the researcher should include information about how consent will be obtained from the participant’s legal representative/guardian and how assent will be obtained from the participant (where appropriate).

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

Information on the specific vulnerable populations specified in the G-EthicsHR-TZA is provided below.

Persons Highly Dependent on Medical Care

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, persons highly dependent on medical care, such as those living with disabilities (physical or mental) or terminally ill patients, require special attention because they are prone to being socially marginalized. Therefore, their dignity, rights, and well-being in research must be respected. For persons living with disabilities, careful consideration should be made where proxy consent is used, and where the use of signed consent forms is not feasible, alternative viable methods should be employed. Persons living with disabilities should not be unfairly excluded from participating in research. Researchers should make efforts to address communication, disability, and comprehension constraints. (See Mentally Impaired section for requirements on persons with mental disabilities). For terminally ill patients, their dire state may affect their ability to make voluntary decisions regarding participation in research studies. A research protocol involving terminally ill patients as study participants must meet the following additional requirements: the research can only be conducted with terminally ill patients; if the research objectives of the study cannot be addressed using another non-vulnerable group; and the risk-benefit ratio should be favorable to the patients.

Elderly Persons

As per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, it is important to exercise special care when involving the elderly who have been in the hospital or in a residential home for a long time because they may be more dependent on others for their care. Independent, but caring observer(s) for the elderly must be fully informed about the study and be satisfied that the elderly participant understands the intended research activities prior to consent.

As per the G-AppConductCT, TZA-14 should be followed for clinical trials that involve:

New investigational products that are likely to have significant use in the elderly
New formulations and new combinations of established medicinal products when there is specific reason to expect that conditions common in the elderly are likely to be encountered and are not already dealt with in current labeling
New formulation or new combination is likely to alter the geriatric patient’s response in a way different from previous formulations
New uses that have significant potential applicability to the elderly

Students

The G-EthicsHR-TZA states that research studies involving students can be conducted as long as the following conditions are met:

The tutor involved in the tuition of the student should not be involved in the recruitment and other negotiations on the terms and research conditions
The informed consent should clearly state that the student may wish at any stage of the research study to withdraw without any undue consequences
An impression should not be created that acceptance to participate in the study will benefit the student in the passing of their examinations
An impression should not be created that non-acceptance will result in discrimination and consequences on the student’s studies
There should not be any form of coercion, pressure, or financial inducement other than that proposed as reimbursements for participants

Homeless Persons

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the category of homeless persons includes street children, adults staying on the street, refugees, and internally displaced persons. In conducting research with people who are homeless, researchers should be guided by the following principles:

Research must be conducted with respect to the human rights, welfare, and dignity of study participants
The research study must be conducted in a non-judgmental way regarding the person’s appearance, strategies for making money, or personal habits
The right to privacy and security must be respected at all times for people who are homeless

Armed Forces

For research involving participants in the armed forces, the G-EthicsHR-TZA requires the following consent conditions:

Any possible advantages accruing to participants through their participation in the research study (when compared to the general living conditions, medical care, quality of food, amenities, and opportunity for earnings) are not of such magnitude so that it might impair participants’ ability to weigh the risks of the study against the value of these advantages in the military environment
The risks involved in the research study are commensurate with the risks that would be accepted by non-armed force volunteer participants
Procedures for the selection of study participants from within the military are fair to all military personnel and insulated from arbitrary intervention by military authorities or by other members of the armed forces
The information conveyed to the participants is presented in a language that is understandable to them
There is adequate assurance that a participant’s participation or refusal to participate in the study will not be considered in decisions regarding their promotion, pay, or any other career opportunities

SOP 25

Module 1 (1.13.1)

14, 14.4-14.5, and 14.8-14.10

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.61, 3.1, and 4.8

Schedule 1 (Parts 1, 4, and 5)

Children/Minors

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

The ChildAct states that a person less than 18 years of age should be known as a child. As per the G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA, when the research participant is a child, the informed consent form (ICF) must be signed by the child’s parent/legal guardian.

According to the G-EthicsHR-TZA, research involving greater than minimal risk, but presenting the prospect of direct benefit to a child, may be conducted only if:

The risk is justified by the anticipated benefit to the child
The relation of the anticipated benefit to the risk is at least as favorable to the research study participants (children) as that presented by available alternative approaches
Adequate provisions have been made for the solicitation of the child’s assent and the informed consent of the child’s parent/legal guardian

Further, per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, research that involves greater than minimal risk and entails no prospect of direct benefit to the individual child participant, but is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition may not be conducted unless:

The risk represents a minor increase over minimal risk
The intervention or procedure presents experiences that are commensurate with those inherent in their actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situations
The intervention or procedure is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the child’s disorder or condition that is of vital importance for the understanding or amelioration of that disorder or condition
Adequate provisions have been made for the solicitation of the child’s assent and their parents’/legal guardians’ informed consent
When the child’s participation is indispensable and participation is not contrary to the child’s best interest

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, mature minors are individuals 14 to 17 years of age who are able to demonstrate the ability and capacity to manage their own affairs and to live wholly or partially independent of their parent/legal guardian. This is someone who has not reached adulthood (as defined by country law) but who may be treated as an adult for certain purposes (e.g., consenting to medical care). Emancipated minors refer to persons who have not reached the age of majority (18 years) and are empowered by law to make autonomous decisions. They are free from control by their parent/legal guardian, and the parent/legal guardian is free from the responsibility for the child. Mature and emancipated minors may independently provide informed consent to participate in research if:

In the ethics committee’s (EC’s) view, the research is not objectionable to parents/legal guardians in the community (established with evidence from the community)
The research protocol includes clear justification for targeting mature and emancipated minors as participants, and a clear justification for not involving parents/legal guardians in the consent process

The G-AppConductCT delineates that data on the appropriate use of investigational products (IPs) in the pediatric population should be generated unless its use in pediatric patients is clearly inappropriate. The pediatric development program should not delay completion of adult studies and availability of IPs for adults. The decision to proceed with a pediatric development program for an IP and the nature of that program should follow the requirements in TZA-12.

Assent Requirements

The G-EthicsHR-TZA, states that the child’s assent takes precedence over the parent’s/legal guardian’s consent. For all research involving children, there must be no financial or other inducements to participate for the parent, guardian, or child, although reimbursements and a token for the child after completion of the study may be acceptable.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, children and adolescents who are minors cannot give legally-valid informed consent, but they may be able to give assent. To give assent means that the child or adolescent is meaningfully engaged in the research study discussion in accordance with their capacities. Assent must be considered as a process and is not merely the absence of dissent. Furthermore, the researcher must involve the child or adolescent in the actual decision-making process and use age-appropriate information. It is particularly important to inform the child or adolescent and obtain assent as described above, preferably in writing for children who are literate. Specific protections to safeguard children and adolescents’ rights and welfare in the study are necessary. Before undertaking research studies involving children and adolescents, the researcher and the ECs must ensure that:

A parent/legal guardian of the child or adolescent has given permission
Assent of the child or adolescent has been obtained, after having been provided with adequate information about the study tailored to the child’s or adolescent’s level of maturity
If children reach the legal age of maturity during the study period, their consent to continued participation should be obtained

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, children or adolescents are required to assent if they are between 10 and 17 years old and can read and write, as well as understand the description of the study. In general, the refusal of a child or adolescent to participate or continue in the study must be respected unless, in exceptional circumstances, where participation is considered the best medical option. For research interventions or procedures that have the potential to benefit children or adolescents, the risks must be minimized and outweighed by the prospect of potential individual benefit. For research interventions or procedures that have no potential individual benefits for children/adolescents, the interventions should be studied in adults first, unless the necessary data cannot be obtained without participation of children/adolescents and the risks are minimized.

Module 1 (1.13.3) and Annex 17

6.7 and 14.1

Part II (Section 4 (1))

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

GBR-4 provides additional best practices:

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

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

Assent Requirements

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

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

Guidance (Consent)

2.51-2.58

4.8.12

Clinical Trial of an Investigational Medicinal Product (Consent for under 16)

Style and Examples & Templates

Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 15 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive)

Part 1 (2) and Schedule 1 (Part 4)

Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

The G-AppConductCT recommends that women of child-bearing potential be included at the earliest possible stages of clinical trial research so that potential sex-related differences are identified and taken into consideration when planning Phase III trials. The timing of including women of childbearing potential or pregnant women in clinical trials should comply with guidance in the International Council for Harmonisation's Guidance on Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals (TZA-15). Any research involving pregnant women should be individualized and based on a careful risk/benefit assessment, considering:

The nature and severity of the disease
The availability and results of previous nonclinical and clinical data
The availability of alternative therapy and knowledge about their risks
The stage of pregnancy in relation to the overall development of the fetus, especially regarding fetal brain development
The potential for harm to the woman, the fetus, or child
The long-term follow up of the pregnancy, fetus, and child, when possible

Additional considerations for including pregnant women in clinical trials are provided in the G-AppConductCT.

The G-AppConductCT identifies the following considerations for deciding whether to include breastfeeding women in clinical trials:

A new indication is being sought for an approved therapeutic product and there is evidence of use or anticipated use by breastfeeding women
After market authorization, use of a therapeutic product in breastfeeding women becomes evident
There is concern that the consequences of uninformed dosages for use while breastfeeding are potentially serious and/or severe
A therapeutic product is under review for market authorization and is expected to be used by women of reproductive age
The trial involves marketed medications that are commonly used by women of reproductive age
The risk to the infant or mother is not greater than that from established procedures routinely used during breastfeeding, is comparable to those being studied, and the purpose of the research is the development of biomedical knowledge which cannot be obtained by any other means

As per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, research studies relating to pregnant women or fetuses may be undertaken under the following conditions:

The risk to the fetus is minimal and is the least possible risk for achieving the objectives of the research study, except where the purpose of the research study is to meet the health needs of the mother and the fetus, and the foreseeable benefits outweigh the potential risks
No procedural changes that could cause greater than minimal risk to the fetus or to the pregnant woman may be introduced into the procedure for termination of the pregnancy
No inducements, whether financial or any other form, may be offered to terminate the pregnancy for the purposes of the research study
Appropriate studies on animals and non-pregnant individuals have been completed
The purpose of the proposed research is to meet the health needs of the mother and the fetus will be placed at risk to the minimum extent necessary to meet these needs or the risk to the fetus is minimal
The mother and the father are both legally competent and have been fully informed of the possible impact on the fetus and have given their informed consent to proceed; however, the father’s consent is not required if the purpose of the research is primarily to meet the health needs of the mother, the father’s identity and/or whereabouts are unknown, the father is not available, or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest

Module 1 (1.13.2) and Annexes 14 and 17

14.6

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content - Participant Information Sheet

Prisoners

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

According to the G-EthicsHR-TZA, prisoners are vulnerable to abuse by research because their freedom for consent can easily be undermined, which could affect their ability to make a voluntary decision regarding their participation in research. Research involving prisoners may not be approved unless the proposed research has the intent and a reasonable probability of improving the health and well-being of the study participants, and appropriate knowledgeable persons in penology, medicine, and ethics have been consulted in the course of reviewing the research protocol. Further, research with prisoners can be conducted only if:

The research offers a distinctly favorable benefit to risk ratio, not because the prisoners are a convenient source of participants
The research improves the well-being of prisoners while taking great care to protect their health, well-being, and human rights
The ethics committee (EC) reviews and verifies that the criteria for permissible research are satisfied
EC members have no association with the prison(s) involved other than their status as members of the EC reviewing the proposed research study
Where possible, a prisoner or an ex-prisoner should be co-opted to the EC in reviewing the proposed research study
The risks involved in the research study are commensurate with risks that will be accepted by non-prisoner volunteers
The procedure for selecting participants in the prison are fair to all prisoners
There is adequate assurance that a prisoner’s participation or refusal to participate will not be considered in decisions regarding their release or further detention and each prisoner is clearly informed in advance that participation in the research study will have no effect on their release
Any possible advantages accruing to the prisoner through participation in the research study, when compared to the general living conditions, medical care, quality of food, amenities, and opportunity for earnings in the prison, are not of such magnitude that the prisoner’s ability to weigh the risks of the research against the value of these advantages in the prison environment is impaired

14.3

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

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

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

1.61

Do you plan to include any participants who are prisoners, young offenders or on probation?

Mentally Impaired

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

As indicated in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, persons living with mental disabilities require special attention because they are prone to being socially marginalized, and therefore, their dignity, rights, and well-being in research must be respected. Careful consideration should be made where proxy consent is used. Where the use of signed consent forms is not feasible, alternative viable methods should be employed. Persons living with disabilities should not be unfairly excluded from participating in research. Researchers should make efforts to address communication, disability, and comprehension constraints. Persons with mental health conditions including psychiatric, cognitive, or developmental conditions, and substance abuse related disorders at times may be hospitalized or institutionalized, which may further compromise their ability to make voluntary decisions to participate in a research project. Research must not be conducted if the purpose of the research is not relevant to the particular health needs of persons living with disabilities, or alternative interventions exist that are at least as advantageous to the individual participant as that under the proposed study. Further, the following should be scrutinized:

There is sufficient justification for inclusion
There are appropriate evaluation procedures for ascertaining study participants’ ability to give informed consent; if such study participants are deemed unable to understand and to make an informed decision, then an appropriate proxy should be identified
An informed consent process that is free from coercion
Be of no more than minimal risk; if minimal risk is involved, the risk is outweighed by the anticipated benefits of the research study to the participants

The G-EthicsHR-TZA outlines the requirements to safeguard the rights and welfare of adults who are incapable of giving informed consent in research studies. Before undertaking research with adults who are not capable of giving informed consent, the researcher and the EC must ensure that:

A legal representative of the person who is incapable of giving informed consent has given permission and this permission takes account of the participant’s previously formed preferences and values (if any)
The assent of the participant has been obtained to the extent of that person’s capacity, after having been provided with adequate information about the study at the level of the participant’s capacity for understanding this information
If participants become capable of giving informed consent during the study, their consent to continued participation must be obtained; in general, a potential participant’s refusal to enroll in the study must be respected, unless in exceptional circumstances where study participation is considered the best available medical option for an individual who is incapable of giving informed consent

6.8 and 14.5

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

2.51-2.58

Principles of Consent - Adults Who Are Not Able to Consent for Themselves

Part 1 (15), Schedule 1 (Parts 1 and 5)

Definition of Investigational Product

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

As delineated in the G-AppConductCT, an investigational medicinal 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. Further, per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, an IP refers to a preventative (vaccine), therapeutic (drug or biologic), device, diagnostic, or palliative used in a clinical trial. The G-AppConductCT and the G-EthicsHR-TZA state that an IP 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
When used to gain further information about an approved use

Definition of Terms

Appendix 1

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

1.3

Part 1 (2)

Manufacturing & Import

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Manufacturing

According to the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, and the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Tanzania. The TMDA will approve the manufacture of an IP after the clinical trial application has been approved via the Regulatory Information Management System (RIMS) Customer Self Service Portal (TZA-34). Regarding inspection frequency, the GMP-Insp and TZA-19 state that a domestic manufacturing facility must be inspected once a year to renew its annual business permit. The GMP-Insp also states that a manufacturing facility must be inspected once every three (3) years. However, a facility may be inspected at any time when necessary. See the G-AppConductCT for details on the quality requirements for manufacturing IPs.

Per the GMP-Insp, domestic and foreign manufacturing facilities of human medicinal products must comply with the good manufacturing practice (GMP) in the latest versions of the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Technical Report Series (WHO-TRS). In addition, other guidelines—such as those by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme—may be used as supplementary guidance when establishing compliance of facilities to GMP requirements. See the GMP-Insp for additional details and information on the inspection of manufacturing facilities of human medicinal products.

Import

Per the TMMDAct, the CT-Regs, the TFDCA-ImptExpt, the G-AppConductCT, and the G-ImpExp, the TMDA is also responsible for authorizing the import of IPs. As per the TMMDAct, the TFDCA-ImptExpt, and the G-ImpExp, the sponsor or the principal investigator (PI) may apply for an import license once the clinical trial application has been approved by the TMDA. The TFDCA-ImptExpt specifies that in order to be granted an import license, the applicant must:

Have a pharmacist registered by the Pharmacy Council who must be a Superintendent of the business
Have premises registered by the TMDA
Hold a valid business permit

The G-ImpExp states that importation of pharmaceutical products and raw materials must be done by importers whose premises are registered by the TMDA or the relevant government institutions. All importers should import pharmaceutical products and raw materials through authorized ports of entry. A person must not import any pharmaceutical product with a shelf life of more than 24 months whose remaining shelf life is less than 60%, or a pharmaceutical product with a shelf life of less than or equal to 24 months whose remaining shelf life is less than 80%.

The TFDCA-ImptExpt specifies that the import license application should be accompanied by the clinical trial approval letter issued by the TMDA. The applicant must fill out the Application for Importation of Pharmaceutical Products provided in the First Schedule of the TFDCA-ImptExpt and pay the fee pursuant to the TMMDAFees. In addition, the application should be accompanied by three (3) copies of the proforma invoice numbered, dated, and signed by the superintendent of the business. (A proforma invoice is an abridged or estimated invoice sent in advance of a shipment or delivery of goods.) The proforma invoice should include the following:

Name and address of the supplier
Name and address of the manufacturer of each product
Trade or proprietary name of each product
The international nonproprietary name (generic name) of the drug and its strength
In the case of the product containing more than one (1) active ingredient, the name and strength of each product
The pharmacopoeia specification of the ingredient of each product
Product registration number issued by the authority for each product
The quantity, pack size, unit value, and total value in convertible currency
Batch or lot number where applicable for each product
Manufacturing and expiration date, where applicable, for each product
Mode of shipment (sea, air, or road)
Authorized port of entry
Signature and stamp of the supplier

Per TZA-34, the import license application can be submitted to the TMDA via TZA-34, which can be accessed by first creating a trader account. An online access registration form is available in Annex I of the G-ImpExp.

As delineated in the TFDCA-ImptExpt and the G-ImpExp, the import permit is valid for six (6) months, not transferable, and issued to cover only one (1) shipment. Per the G-ImpExp, in the case of partial shipments, two (2) shipments may be allowed based on the initial import permit. See the TFDCA-ImptExpt and the G-ImpExp for detailed import application requirements.

The TFDCA-ImptExpt and the G-ImpExp identify the authorized ports of entry for pharmaceutical products imported into Tanzania. The TFDCA-ImptExpt states that an importer must provide all necessary documents as may, from time to time, be requested by the inspector. When it is deemed necessary to collect samples or where the inspector suspects that any product may contravene any regulation or law, the inspector may take samples for further investigation.

GMP Applications and Import and Export

1, Module 1 (1.14.2) and Module 3

2.2-2.5, 3.0, and Annex I

Part IV (c)

3, 14, 16-17, 24, First Schedule (Forms IV and VI), and Second Schedule

First Schedule (Lines 65-68)

Part IV

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application for New Manufacturer’s Authorization for Investigational Medicinal Products MIA (IMP) (Human Use)

Annex 2

Manufacture of unlicensed ATMPs in the UK

Documents to send with your application

Overview

Amendment of Regulation 13 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 42 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 44 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 (Principles based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive, Conditions Based on Article 3 of the Directive and Amendment of Schedule 6 to the Principal Regulations)

Part 1 (2), Part 3 (13), Part 6, Schedule 1 (Part 2), Schedule 3 (Part 2), Schedule 6, and Schedule 7

Quality Requirements

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Investigator’s Brochure

In accordance with the CT-Regs and the G-AppConductCT, the Tanzanian government follows the International Council for Harmonisation's (ICH) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13), and requires the sponsor or the designated contract research organization (CRO) to provide investigators with an Investigator’s Brochure (IB). The G-AppConductCT states that the IB should be presented in a concise, simple, objective, balanced, and non-promotional form that enables a clinician, or potential investigator, to understand it and make an unbiased risk-benefit assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed trial. The contents of the IB should be approved by the disciplines that generated the described data and a medically qualified person should generally participate in the editing of an IB. If the investigational product (IP) is locally marketed and its pharmacology is well established and widely understood by medical practitioners, an extensive IB may not be necessary, and a current summary of product characteristics may be submitted as an alternative. If a marketed product is being studied for a new use (i.e., a new indication), an IB specific to that new use should be prepared. The IB should be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary in compliance with a sponsor’s written procedures. More frequent revision may be appropriate depending on the stage of development and the generation of relevant new information.

TZA-13 specifies that the IB must contain all of the relevant information on the IP(s) obtained through the earlier research phases, including preclinical, toxicological, safety, efficacy, and adverse event data. Per the CT-Regs, the sponsor should also update the IB as significant new information becomes available and maintain records of each change.

TZA-13 requires the IB to 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; regulatory and post-marketing experiences)
Summary of data and guidance for the investigator(s)
Bibliography

See Section 7.3 of TZA-13 for detailed content guidelines.

Quality Management

Per the G-AppConductCT, the sponsor must document details regarding the chemistry, manufacturing, and control of the IP as prescribed in Module 3. This should include data to demonstrate the quality of the IP, including relevant batch analyses results. If a comparator medicinal product is used, the proprietary name of the medicinal product, non-proprietary or common name of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, company name, country from which the clinical supplies were obtained (as well as the market status in that country), dosage form(s), and strength(s) should be listed. Batch analysis results for the active pharmaceutical ingredient may be provided in either the quality summary or by providing a copy of the certificate of analysis. The certificate of good manufacturing practice should also be included in the clinical trial application.

As delineated in the GMP-Insp, domestic and foreign manufacturing facilities of human medicinal products must comply with good manufacturing practice (GMP) in the latest versions of the World Health Organization’s Technical Report Series (WHO-TRS). In addition, other guidelines—such as those by the ICH and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme—may be used as supplementary guidance when establishing compliance of facilities to GMP requirements. The manufacturing facilities are subject to inspection by the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA). The GMP-Insp describes the types of inspections, inspection fees, and other procedures. If the TMDA finds noncompliance, the manufacturer must prepare and implement a Corrective Action and Preventive Action plan (CAPA). The CAPA plan must be prepared based on quality risk management principles and submitted to the TMDA. The CAPA report must indicate root cause analysis, corrections, corrective actions and preventive actions, timelines, and evidence of implementation for each non-compliance observation. Manufacturers must be allowed a maximum of two (2) rounds to submit CAPA responses. The first CAPA response must be submitted within 90 calendar days of the TMDA’s inspection report cover letter. If the assessment of the first CAPA response is deemed to be non-satisfactory, the manufacturer will have an opportunity to submit a second CAPA response within 60 calendar days. If the assessment of the second CAPA response is still non-satisfactory, the facility must be re-inspected. If the company fails to submit CAPA report within the prescribed period without any request for extension, the facility is deemed non-compliant.

2.12, 5.13, 7.3, and 8.2

1.4, 1.13.2, 1.14, Module 3, and Module 4 (4.6-4.11)

4.0 and 5.0

Part IV (8 and 11) and First and Second Schedules

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Investigator’s Brochure

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

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

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

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

Quality Management

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

5.12 and 7

Overview

Insertion of Regulation 3A of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 13 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 15 of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 42 of the Principal Regulations, Amendment of Regulation 44 of the Principal Regulations; and Part 2 Principles based on Articles 2 to 5 of the GCP Directive

Part 1 (2), Part 3 (13), Part 6, Schedule 6, and Schedule 7

Labeling

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Tanzania must comply with the requirements set forth in the CT-Regs, the TFDCA-ImptExpt, and the G-ImpExp. The TFDCA-ImptExpt and the CT-Regs state that for an IP to be used in a clinical trial, it must be properly labeled in English or Kiswahili (also known as Swahili) language or both, and the information printed on the labels must be indelible, engraved, or embossed on a primary and secondary container.

As set forth in the CT-Regs, the TFDCA-ImptExpt, and the G-ImpExp, the following information must be included on the label (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Statement indicating that the product is for “clinical trial purpose only”

Name, number, or identifying mark

Recommended storage conditions

Sponsor name and address

Protocol code or identification

Trade or brand name where appropriate

International Non-Proprietary Name (INN, Generic name)

Active ingredient quantities listed in the formulation

Manufacture and expiration dates

Batch or lot number

Storage conditions

Manufacturer name and address

Product registration number issued by the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) included in the outer and inner packaging, where applicable

Immediate outer packaging and the enclosed and accompanying literature must be in English or Kiswahili

Active pharmaceutical ingredient specification (BP, USP, etc.)

According to the CT-Regs, where applicable, investigational medicinal products must be labeled in a manner that protects the blinding. Also, re-labelling of any remaining investigational medicinal product from previously manufactured batches must be performed in accordance with established written procedures and good manufacturing practice principles.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the sponsor is responsible for proper labelling of the IP(s). The investigational and comparator products must be labelled in conformity with the research protocol and the labelling must state that the product is for investigational purposes only.

2.2.6

16.2

26

Part VII

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

Article 15

Annex 1-3 - Investigational Medicinal Products - Packaging, Labelling, and Table 1

5.13

Amendment of Regulation 46 of the Principal Regulations

Part 1 (2) and Part 7, and Schedule 3, Part 2 (12)

Product Management

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

Per the G-AppConductCT, the sponsor must obtain approval from the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) for the investigational product (IP) dossier in the clinical trial application and any changes to the IP that relate to the chemistry and manufacturing information that may affect drug safety and quality. For example, specifications for the IP where limits of the test are relaxed or deleted; where a new impurity or degradation product has been identified; and addition of new raw materials, solvents, reagents, catalysts, or any other materials used in the manufacture of the active pharmaceutical ingredient.

The G-AppConductCT requires researchers to comply with the CT-Regs and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (TZA-13). Per TZA-13, the sponsor must supply the investigator(s)/institution(s) with the IP(s), but not until the sponsor obtains approvals from the TMDA and an ethics committee. The sponsor must ensure the following:

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)
Records maintained for document shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction of the IP(s)
Acceptable storage temperatures, conditions, and times for the IP
Timely delivery of the IP(s)
Written procedures including instructions for handling and storage of the IP(s), adequate and safe receipt of the IP(s), dispensing of the IP(s), retrieval of unused IP(s), return of unused IP(s) to the sponsor, and disposal of unused IP(s) by the sponsor
Maintain sufficient quantities of the IP(s) to reconfirm specifications, should this become necessary

See the GSDP-Reg and the G-GSDP for requirements and guidance on good storage and distribution practice, including on quality management, the design of premises, receiving areas, storage practices and conditions, stock control and rotations, and traceability of products.

The G-AppConductCT further requires the sponsor to be responsible for the destruction of unused and/or returned IPs. IPs should not be destroyed without prior written authorization by the sponsor. The delivered, used, and recovered quantities of product should be recorded, reconciled, and verified by or on behalf of the sponsor for each trial site and each trial period. Destruction of unused IPs should be carried out for a given trial site or a given trial period only after any discrepancies have been investigated and satisfactorily explained and the reconciliation has been accepted. Requests to dispose IPs must be made to and authenticated by the TMDA. The destruction must be done in accordance with applicable environmental regulations.

The TFDCA-ImptExpt requires that every importer or exporter of a pharmaceutical product must, in respect to the premises, make available the following information to the TMDA: an appropriate inventory control system; an inspection reports file; procedures for handling complaints; and registers for unfit medicines, controlled drugs, recalls, and customers. Further, an importer should maintain the following documents on the premises for a period of not less than one (1) year after the expiration date of the pharmaceutical product: final invoices with corresponding import permits; copies of delivery notes; and sales invoices.

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, the sponsor must:

Provide to the ethics committee (EC) and all other regulatory authorities, a description of the investigational and comparator drugs and a dossier
Ensure that the IP and any comparator products are of appropriate quality and are subject to quality assurance procedures
Promptly provide the investigator with any relevant new information that arises during the course of the trial, including information relating to IP safety
Be responsible for proper packaging and labelling of the IP
Retain sufficient samples of each batch of the IP and a record of analyses and characteristics so that, if necessary, an independent laboratory may check the product for quality control or bioequivalence

Record Requirements

As set forth in the G-AppConductCT, which complies with TZA-13, the sponsor must ensure maintenance of the following:

Records documenting IP(s) handling, storage, shipment, receipt, disposition, return, and destruction
A system for retrieving IPs and documenting this retrieval
A system to dispose of unused IP(s) and corresponding documentation
Sufficient quantities of the IP(s) used in the trial to reconfirm specifications, should this become necessary, and maintenance of records of batch samples analyses and characteristics

Per the GSDP-Reg and the G-GSDP, good distribution and storage practices of pharmaceutical products must ensure the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Documentation is an essential part of the quality management system and must cover all written procedures, instructions, records, contracts, reports, and data, whether in paper or electronic form
Documents must be appropriately designed, completed, reviewed, authorized, distributed, and maintained as required
Documents must be readily available and retrievable for inspection by the TMDA
The nature, content, and retention of documentation related to distribution and investigations should be retained for at least one (1) year after the expiry date of the product of concern
Documents must be stored in facilities that safeguard against unauthorized access, modification, damage, deterioration, or loss
Written procedures must exist for the preparation, review, approval, use, and control of all documents
Documents must be laid out in an orderly format for easy completion, review, and verification
Documents should be reviewed regularly and kept up to date; they must use version control mechanisms
Outdated procedures should be removed from workstations and archived
Records must be accurate, legible, traceable, attributable, unambiguous, and maintained with backup and restoration procedures in place
Documents must not be hand-written unless necessary, in which case sufficient space should be provided
Any alterations to documents must be signed and dated, ensuring the original information remains visible; if applicable, reasons for changes must be recorded
Documents should be retained for at least five (5) years or as required by regulatory guidelines
Electronic and physical records must be stored securely, ensuring confidentiality and restricted access
Electronic storage and signatures may be employed, but access must be restricted, and electronic records must conform to regulatory requirements
Where applicable, electronic records must be backed up following written procedures; backups should be maintained both within and outside the facility to prevent accidental data loss
Dealers must maintain comprehensive records of all receipts, storage, issues, and distribution activities. These records must include at minimum: date of receipt or dispatch; Product name (brand and generic); Strength and dosage form; pack size (stock-keeping unit); quantity received or supplied; name and address of the supplier and customer; batch number and corresponding date markings; manufacturing and expiry dates; suitability of the supplier and qualification of customers
Written documentation must be sufficient to permit tracing and tracking of operations throughout the distribution process
Records should be created at the time each operation is undertaken
Internal and external audit reports must be retained along with records of complaints, investigations, and any corrective or preventive actions taken
Mechanisms must exist for the transfer of information, including quality or regulatory data, between distributors, customers, and the regulatory authority

Permanent records, written or electronic, must exist for each stored product, specifying recommended storage conditions and any necessary precautions

The G-AppConductCT further requires the sponsor to record and retain destruction operations of IPs. These documents should clearly identify, or allow traceability to, the batches and/or patient numbers involved and the actual quantities destroyed.

See the Data & Records Management section for information about clinical trial-related records retention requirements.

2.12, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, and 7

Definition of Terms, 1.4, 1.11, 1.14, and 1.17

16.2

26

Part IV and First and Second Schedules

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Record Requirements

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

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

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

Annex 13 – Investigational Medicinal Products – Packaging, Labelling

5.12-5.15, 5.5, and 7

Insertion of Regulation 3A of the Principal Regulations; Amendment of Regulation 15 of the Principal Regulations; and Amendment of Regulation 31 of the Principal Regulations

Part 3 (13 and 15), Part 4 (28), Part 6 (36 and 38), and Schedule 7 (Parts 2 and 3)

Definition of Specimen

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Per the G-EthicsHR-TZA, human biological materials include any substance obtained from a human research participant including, but not limited to, blood, urine, stool, saliva, hair, nail clippings, skin, and microorganisms and other associated bio-products. In Tanzania, specimens are biological materials transferred between researchers/organizations for medical research use only (see TZA-10).

Article I (1.1)

20

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

Bodily Material and Tissues

Definition of Relevant Material

Glossary

Part 3 (45 and 53)

Specimen Import & Export

Last content review/update: April 3, 2025

Import/Export

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, investigators, sponsors, and collaborators must ascertain that in-country capacity to perform the required investigations/testing is not sufficient for the investigations before considering import of human biological materials outside the country. The only exception to this is when samples are being transferred for external quality assurance purposes. Investigators, sponsors, and collaborators are encouraged to build, develop, or strengthen local capacity for any investigative testing to fulfill the objectives of the proposed research study. All exchanges and transfers (including importation) of biological materials for research purposes requires approval from the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC).

The G-ResearchClearance requires foreign researchers to identify and affiliate with a locally-recognized institution. The local institution should support foreign partners in permit acquisition, communicating with relevant government offices, and facilitating the material transfer arrangements and access benefit sharing arrangements.

As indicated in TZA-5, when sharing or transferring material and/or data into or outside Tanzania, materials and/or data may be subject to government regulation and import/export control laws that define the conditions under which certain information, technologies, and materials can be transferred or shared. In situations where materials and/or data are shared or transferred from foreign or international investigators to Tanzania, the provider’s country regulations for sharing or transferring materials and/or data will guide the initial process. After sharing and/or transferring material and/or data outside Tanzania, the principal investigator should provide NatHREC with proof of shipment.

Material Transfer Agreement

As delineated in the G-ResearchClearance, all researchers granted Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) research permits that involve the collection of human data intended to be exported outside Tanzania must submit to COSTECH a signed Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) (TZA-10) and a Data Transfer Agreement (DTA) (TZA-8) between the Tanzanian institution and its foreign counterpart. The MTA and DTA will specify the terms for collecting, storing, managing, transporting, and disposing or returning the materials and data to Tanzania. TZA-5 also requires submittal of the MTA and DTA to the NatHREC during the ethics review. Investigators who wish to share or transfer materials and/or data should complete an MTA or a DTA before any research samples/materials or data are transferred or shared with another institution, laboratory, or researcher. Authorized investigators and signatories from the recipient’s and provider’s institutions must complete the MTA and/or DTA and submit them to NatHREC for certification before any research samples, materials, and/or data is transferred or shared to another institution, laboratory, or researcher.

As delineated in the G-EthicsHR-TZA, when it is necessary to transfer samples for storage abroad, the host institution must negotiate an MTA with the recipient institution. The specific details of the MTA should include, among others, purpose for the transfer/export, clear arrangements for collaboration and benefit sharing, a framework for accessing and sharing data, restrictions to third-party transfer, and annual reports to the host institution and the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) on the status of the samples. Applications for permission to exchange or transfer human biological materials must be made to NIMR. The following are the necessary steps for the exchange or transfer of materials for research purposes:

The research study that involves the exchange or transfer of human biological material must first be registered and approved by the ethics committee (EC) through the established procedures for research approvals in Tanzania
The applicant must be a legal resident of Tanzania or be affiliated with a local legally recognized institution in Tanzania
A request for the exchange or transfer of human biological material must be made in writing to the Director General of NIMR
An MTA and any other document related to the exchange or transfer of human biological material must accompany the request for the exchange or transfer of the material
The MTA, after review and approval, is signed by the NIMR Director General or a delegate
After receipt of a signed MTA, the investigator is required to secure an export or import permit from the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) to finalize the process that allows the movement of biological samples outside the country or to enter the country
The investigators must abide by any other requirements that are to be followed to facilitate the exchange or transfer of human biological material

SOP 31 and Forms 2-3

Article I (1.1)

8.1 and 13.0-13.1

20-20.2

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Import/Export

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

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

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

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

Human Tissues, Cells, and Blood as Starting Material

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

Section 12 and Annex H

1 and 3

Import and Export of Tissue

Human tissues and cells in ATMPs and Blood and blood components in medicinal products

Introduction to the Human Tissue Authority Codes of Practice, Licensing – Import and Export, Licensing – HTA Licensing Standards, and Annex A

Glossary/Definitions, Import and Export

Part 5 (53 (6))

Section 3 - Licenses and Section 7 - Licenses - general provisions

Part 2 (13, 14, 16, 26, and 41)

Part 1 (6), and Part 2 (7), and Part 3

Consent for Specimen