Thai Food and Drug Administration

As per the DrugAct, ClinSampleProd, and ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) is the regulatory authority responsible for controlling the import of drugs for research purposes, and it also uses this authority to indirectly regulate drug clinical trials in humans. Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the Thai FDA is also responsible for approving requests for permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies. As set forth in the DrugAct, THA-33, and THA-49, the Thai FDA is a regulatory body under the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH)'s Cluster of Public Health Service Support, and is granted control by the MOPH to protect consumer health. The agency is also authorized to ensure the quality, safety, and efficacy of health products including foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices in Thailand.

In addition, per the DrugAct’s 2019 amendments and according to THA-6, the MOPH has the authority to establish and/or amend drug research-related procedures, regulations, and conditions via Government Gazette announcements. The Thai FDA’s Secretary-General is also permitted to control drug research study activities by issuing temporary suspensions, requesting specific improvements, or completely discontinuing a study that fails to comply with the Minister’s published guidelines.

As indicated in the DrugAct, the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division is a member of the Drug Board (also referred to as the Drug Committee in the English translation of the DrugAct). Per the DrugAct, the board must consist of MOPH departmental directors-general and representatives from related organizations, as well as five (5) to nine (9) drug experts. Every two (2) years, the Minister of Public Health appoints the Committee, which is chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the MOPH. The DrugAct also indicates that the board should appoint a subcommittee to study the drug review and approval process. The subcommittee should include at least the following: an office representative and Office of Consumer Protection Board representatives including association, foundation, and drug industry representatives whose purpose is to produce, sell, import, or order drugs for use in Thailand.

THA-49 further explains that the Medicines Regulation Division is in charge of reviewing licenses to import or order drugs used for clinical research in Thailand that are exempt from drug registration, issuing licenses to produce drug samples for drug formula registration, and issuing licenses to import or order drug samples for research purposes in Thailand. See THA-49 for additional information on the Medicines Regulation Division’s responsibilities. (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for appendices included in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

As described in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division is responsible for application review and recommendation for approval. Per ClinSampleProd, and according to the Thai FDA’s organizational structure depicted in THA-33, the Secretary-General of the Thai FDA then makes the final decision to approve the application.

Division of Innovative Health Products and Services

As explained in THA-91, the Thai FDA’s Division of Innovative Health Products and Services is a service center that provides advice regarding health product authorization and research and development, product classification, and also accepts requests regarding health products. Its responsibilities include reviewing requests for one-stop service, locally researched and produced health products and innovative products. The Division also develops innovative health product authorization processes through electronic channels; conducts research to develop work systems, creates standards for innovative products as well as the locations and processes for production, import, sale, clinical research, and advertising; and develops policies, regulations, criteria, and practices regarding the licensing of health products. Per THA-66, the Division also houses the agency’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) within the Comprehensive Health Products Service Center. OSSC services include providing preliminary consultations, processing product application submissions (e.g., applications submitted to obtain drug import licenses for clinical research purposes), and handling payment services (e.g., permissions and licensing) for various health products including drugs. See the Submission Process section for more details on the import application submission process.

Contact Information

Per THA-72, the Thai FDA’s contact information is as follows:

Medicines Regulation Division
Food and Drug Administration
Ministry of Public Health
88/24 Tiwanon Road
Talat Khwan Subdistrict
Mueang District, Nonthaburi Province 11000

Email: drug@fda.moph.go.th
Email: saraban@fda.moph.go.th (General FDA Correspondence)
Phone: 0 2590 7000
Phone: 0 2590 1556 (FDA Call Center)
Fax: 0 2590 7116

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

An overview of the FDA structure is available in USA-33. Several centers are responsible for pharmaceutical and biological product regulation, including the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Additionally, per USA-88, the Office of Clinical Policy (OCLiP) develops good clinical practice and human subject protection policies, regulation, and guidance.

See USA-47 for a list of FDA clinical trials related guidance documents.

Office for Human Research Protections and Common Rule Agencies

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

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

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

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

See USA-54 for additional information regarding compliance with the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule.

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

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

Other Considerations

Per USA-16, the US is a founding regulatory member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The US has adopted several ICH guidance documents, including the E11(R1) Addendum: Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population (US-ICH-E11), E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multiregional Clinical Trials (US-ICH-E17), and E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1) (US-ICH-GCPs), which are cited throughout this profile.

Contact Information

Food & Drug Administration

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

Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Telephone (general inquiries): (888) 463-6332

CDER Telephone (drug information): (301) 796-3400
CDER Email: druginfo@fda.hhs.gov

CBER Telephone: (800) 835-4709 or (240) 402-8010
CBER Email (manufacturers assistance): Industry.Biologics@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (imports): CBERimportinquiry@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (exports): CBERExportCert@fda.hhs.gov

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

Department of Health & Human Services

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

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

Overview

In accordance with the DrugAct and ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) is responsible for overseeing the import or ordering of drugs for clinical research purposes, and also uses this authority to indirectly regulate drug clinical trials in humans. Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the Thai FDA is also responsible for approving requests for permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies. As per G-ResEthics, the scope of the Thai FDA’s assessment includes Phases I through IV clinical trials for new drugs (also referred to as “modern drugs”), traditional drugs (drugs intended for use in the practice of traditional medicine or to cure animal disease), unregistered drugs, registered drugs being studied in new doses or for indications not previously approved, and locally produced drugs that require efficacy testing.

As indicated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and ECRegProc, the Thai FDA’s approvals of a drug import license and of a request for permission to produce sample drugs for human research studies are dependent upon obtaining proof of ethics committee (EC) approval to conduct the clinical trial by a Thai FDA approved EC. ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr further specify that for both types of approval requests, the application is either submitted to the Thai FDA after the research project and all of the research site(s) have been approved by an EC, or in parallel, pending review by the relevant EC.

Clinical Trial Review Process

As set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and G-CT-DIPApp, the Thai FDA coordinates the review of applications submitted to obtain drug import licenses for clinical research purposes (N.Y.M.1) and applications submitted to request permission to produce drug samples for human research studies (P.Y.8). Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, an applicant should submit the application along with supporting documents to the Medicines Regulation Division.

Per G-CT-DIPApp, upon receipt of a drug import license application (N.Y.M.1) package, the Thai FDA’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) sends the application package to an officer in the Thai FDA’s International Affairs and Investigational Drug Section. After administrative processing and troubleshooting, the officer will send the application package to the assigned reviewer to proceed. The reviewer then receives the application package and performs a technical assessment. If the reviewer determines the package is technically correct, then it will be forwarded to the Thai FDA for approval. ClinImprtOrdr specifies that the Secretary-General is responsible for authorizing all drugs to be imported into the country. (See Submission Process and Timeline of Review sections for details on the administrative and technical processing and review timelines.)

According to the DrugAct, the Thai FDA’s approval of a drug import license application for clinical research purposes also serves as an import license that allows the sponsor to import investigational drugs into Thailand. The license will remain valid until December 31^st of the year of issue. The license holder who would like to renew the license must file an application for renewal prior to the license expiration date. (See the Manufacturing & Import section for detailed license renewal instructions).

Per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must inform or request permission from the Thai FDA prior to initiating the following:

• Changes to clinical trial drug supplies
• Changes to an approved protocol (protocol amendment) or changes related to or affecting participant safety

In cases where the sponsor is required to immediately make one (1) or more amendments because the clinical trial or the use of investigational products in the trial endangers the health of a clinical trial participant or other person, the applicant may immediately make the amendment without prior review by the Thai FDA. A corresponding notification clearly identifying the change and the rationale for immediate implementation of the change must be filed within 15 working days after the amendment implementation date. A corresponding notification letter referring to the related approved import license along with supplemental documents to be provided in the Form for Requesting Corrections/Additional Clarifications are also required (see ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 12) and THA-18 (Appendix 12)).

Per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must also notify the Thai FDA of changes to the protocol that do not affect the safety of the trial participants.

No information is currently available on the review process for P.Y.8 application submissions.

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) may also establish an academic committee or subcommittee for certain drugs requiring special supervision (e.g., the Academic Subcommittee on AIDS Vaccine Trials).

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, the Thai FDA has procedures to monitor the research project before, during, and after the trial ends or is terminated. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd specify that the authorized Thai FDA officer will contact the licensee to schedule an inspection appointment and provide a letter notifying the licensee at least seven (7) days in advance, except in those cases where the Thai FDA has a special request to carry out an inspection immediately and does not notify the licensee in advance. Refer to ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd for detailed licensee information on preparing for the inspection. See also THA-18 (Appendix 11) and THA-76 (Appendix 7) for the self-examination form containing the Thai officer’s inspection summary).

Refer to the Submission Process section for submission requirements.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A drug is involved as defined in the FDCAct

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

• The clinical investigation is not otherwise exempt from 21CFR312

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expedited Processes

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

Thai Food and Drug Administration

In accordance with ClinDrugFees, the applicant is required to pay a fee to the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) to submit an application to request permission to import or order drugs for research purposes in Thailand. The ClinDrugFees states that the Thai FDA requires an administrative processing fee of 1,000 Baht to review and verify the correctness of certain application requests related to authorization, including:

• Applications to request permission to import or order drugs into the Kingdom for research purposes without registering a drug formula (N.Y.M.1 form) (See ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2) for N.Y.M.1 form)
• Applications for drug samples produced for research studies (P.Y.8 form) (See ClinSampleProd (Appendix 1) and THA-76 (Appendix 1) for P.Y.8 form)

In addition, per ClinDrugFees and THA-78, the Thai FDA charges the following fees for the technical evaluation of documents of any application request related to authorization:

• Application for permission to import or order drugs for research purposes in the country (N.Y.M.1) or to request permission to register and produce sample drugs for human research studies (P.Y.8): 4,000 Baht
• Application to expand the scope of a license to produce drug samples and register new drugs for human research studies (for drugs in bioequivalence studies): 1,000 Baht
• New research drug application to expand the scope of a license to produce drug samples and register a new drug for human research studies (for drugs other than those in bioequivalence studies): 4,000 Baht
• Application to amend and request specific changes related to the application requests listed in the preceding bullets: 500 Baht
• Requesting a certificate of pharmaceutical product (Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product/Certificate of Free Sale): 500 Baht
• Request for review of accuracy and translation of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) assessment report from Thai version to English version: 1,500 Baht

In addition, per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, in the case of the applicant designating a power of attorney to submit a paper application in person or via PDF file, the Stamp Duty fee is 30 Baht per attorney designation.

Payment Instructions

According to the Thai FDA’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) and THA-66, the OSSC’s finance section provides payment services in cases where expenses need to be paid for various submissions, and accepts multiple payment methods including the cash payment counter, cashier’s check, credit cards, and mobile banking applications for the processing of application fees. However, per THA-79, in order to submit an electronic payment using the Thai FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), the applicant must first submit documentation and supporting evidence to request access as required by the OSSC. Once the OSSC approves e-submission system access, the applicant can submit a payment electronically to request a drug importation waiver via THA-54. See Submission Process section for detailed submission instructions and documentation requirements to access THA-54. Refer to THA-57 for the Skynet e-submission user manual and THA-87 for a guide to request a drug importation waiver via THA-54.

Food & Drug Administration

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

However, per the FDCAct, FDARA, and USA-45, the FDA has the authority to assess and collect user fees from companies that produce certain human drug and biological products as part of the New Drug Application (NDA). Per USA-43, the NDA is the vehicle through which drug sponsors formally propose that the FDA approve a new pharmaceutical for sale and marketing in the United States. The data gathered during the animal studies and human clinical trials of an investigational new drug become part of the NDA.

Overview

As per ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and ECRegProc, clinical trials require ethics committee (EC) approval for each trial site from an EC recognized by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA). ECRegProc indicates that an EC may function as a committee under a government agency (e.g., the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH)); as a committee affiliated with a private hospital/institution licensed to comply with the HospitalAct; or, as a committee operating as a part of a non-profit partnership between a government agency and a private organization(s) (e.g., the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC)). ECRegProc states that the Thai FDA posts a list of the approved/renewed ECs on its website (see THA-90), and as noted in THA-3, this usually occurs every two (2) years. According to THA-4, the ECMOPH and the CREC are both government ECs whose approvals are still active. As discussed in THA-63, the ECMOPH and the CREC are also collaborating on a multi-institutional clinical research project to reduce redundancy during the review process and to develop joint human research ethics guidelines. (See THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.) (Note: The ECMOPH website is not accessible to users residing outside of Thailand.)

Per THA-1, the ECMOPH and the CREC represent the two (2) central ECs recognized by the Thai FDA to review and approve clinical research protocols involving humans. THA-1 further explains that both the ECMOPH and the CREC are categorized as central ECs because they can accept all clinical research studies for review, regardless of the trial sites involved.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

Per THA-39, the ECMOPH is responsible for controlling, supervising, and monitoring research in accordance with international ethical principles; developing research policies; suspending unethical research programs; creating a national database of clinical research; establishing a regional/international committee network system; developing personnel capacity to support clinical research in Thailand; and other related or assigned academic projects. See THA-13 for additional details about the ECMOPH, and THA-13 and THA-39 for requirements specifically related to studies approved by the ECMOPH.

Central Research Ethics Committee

Per THA-1, the CREC was formed in 2014 through the cooperative efforts of 26 public and private institutions in Thailand, including the Thai FDA. THA-44 explains that the focus of the CREC is on reviewing multi-center clinical research projects to improve the efficiency of the EC review and to reduce the duplicative review of multi-institutional studies. See THA-44 for additional information on the CREC, and the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for detailed CREC submission requirements.

Ethics Committee Composition

As per G-ResEthics, institutional ECs should consist of at least five (5) members, both male and female, with the following qualifications:

• At least one (1) member with knowledge and experience in research fields regularly reviewed (e.g., medicine, public health, social science, etc.)
• At least one (1) member who is a lawyer or has legal expertise
• At least one (1) member who is unaffiliated with the institution, and, if possible, that member should be selected from the community where the institution is based
• At least two (2) members who have patient care, counseling, and treatment knowledge and experience
• At least one-third of the total EC should be knowledgeable or trained in human research ethics

ECRegProc, by comparison, also requires institutional ECs to have at least five (5) members who are experts on science, medicine, and ethics. In addition, the committee must include members representing the following qualifications:

• At least three (3) members who are medical professionals
• At least one (1) member must be an expert in a non-scientific category
• At least one (1) member from outside of the institution where the trial is taking place

The International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) similarly indicates that ECs should be composed of medical personnel, scientists, and non-scientists, and also notes that while these committees may have differences in legal status, composition, and function, the duties of an EC should be consistent with THA-28. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

Because each EC has its own requirements, it is recommended that the individual ECs be contacted to confirm their specific requirements.

No information is available on ECMOPH and CREC composition requirements.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

As delineated in G-ResEthics and ECRegProc, ECs must conduct clinical protocol reviews according to THA-28 using written standard operating procedures (SOPs) that are periodically updated, and develop a process for conducting reviews. The SOPs should include information on EC composition, meeting schedules, timeframes for protocol reviews, quorum requirements, decision-making procedures, channels of communicating the decision(s), complaint processes, reviewing fees (if any), protection of protocol confidentiality, and prevention of possible conflicts of interests. The G-ResEthics also states that each EC must establish the composition, member terms of service, and criteria for selecting the committee members, as appropriate. The members must also be appointed officially as evidenced by a written document.

Additionally, per ECRegProc, ECs must meet the following requirements:

• Have the legal qualifications or comply with the government regulations related to providing research or research-related services
• Have a clearly defined structure with proof of appropriately appointed members, including the secretary and secretariat
• Have voting rights and the right to issue independent research opinions without investigator/sponsor involvement, and with no direct or indirect interest or conflict of interest with the investigator or clinical research study
• Have members who are trained in conducting research and clinical trials in human participants, and who participate in ethics training or other related training at least once every two (2) years while serving on the committee
• Have experience in reviewing human research involving experimental drugs for at least 10 studies

For detailed EC requirements and information on other administrative processes, see G-ResEthics and ECRegProc.

Also, refer to THA-47 for a list of CREC forms needed to prepare for initial protocol submission, and THA-37 for a complete list of CREC SOPs.

No information is available on the ECMOPH’s terms of reference, review procedures, and meeting schedule.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

As delineated in G-ResEthics, ECRegProc, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the primary scope of information assessed by Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) recognized ethics committees (ECs) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. According to THA-10, clinical research and trials (i.e., research studies and experiments on humans) are subject to the medical ethics standards delineated in the Regulations of the Medical Council on Maintaining the Ethics of the Medical Profession (B.E. 2549) (MCEthics), the Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11), and the Researcher’s Code of Ethics (THA-14).

MCEthics explains that ECs are established to review the ethical aspects of research studies and human trials to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of participants in research studies and human trials. THA-14 further states that researchers should treat all research participants, whether animate or inanimate, with appropriate respect and consideration and should take full responsibility for the impact and consequences of their research. Researchers should also have respect for the dignity and rights of their human participants. THA-11 indicates that every patient has the fundamental right to receive professional medical and health care from health professionals without discrimination as provided for in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (B.E. 2560). Per G-ResEthics, ECRegProc, and THA-28, ECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses, and Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations).

In addition, per G-ResEthics, ECRegProc, and THA-28, ECs are also responsible for ensuring an independent, timely, and competent review of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. ECs must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved, 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. G-ResEthics further states that ECs should review the ethical aspects of the protocol in compliance with current international ethical guidelines while taking into account local or national laws, religions, traditions, and cultures. Per G-ResEthics, the appointed EC is also responsible for ensuring that research conducted within the institution adheres to ethical principles including those established in the Declaration of Helsinki (THA-45), the Council for International Organizations of Medical Science (CIOMS)’ International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (THA-7), and the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Operational Guidelines for Ethics Committees that Review Biomedical Research (THA-64). See G-ResEthics, ECRegProc, and THA-28 for detailed ethical review guidelines. MCEthics further states that the medical practitioner who conducts or participates in the research study on humans must only undertake such study or experiment after it is approved by the EC responsible for the study. The medical practitioner must also conform to G-ResEthics and THA-14 when conducting the research study.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

Pursuant to ClinImprtOrdr and ECRegProc, Thai FDA-recognized ECs are responsible for reviewing and approving protocols for clinical research related to drugs to be imported into Thailand. Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the Thai FDA is also responsible for approving requests for permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies. As stated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and ECRegProc, the Thai FDA’s approvals of a drug import license and of a request for permission to produce sample drugs for human research studies are dependent upon obtaining approval by a Thai FDA approved EC. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further specify that for both types of approval requests, the application is either submitted to the Thai FDA after the research project and all the research sites have been approved by an EC, or in parallel, pending review by at least one (1) EC involved in the study. THA-5 further notes that if an approval is obtained from the EC of the research institute or university conducting the trial, an approval from the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) is usually optional (unless it is further required by the internal rules and regulations of that research facility).

In the instance of a multicenter clinical trial, G-ResEthics indicates that protocols submitted to each institution’s EC should contain the same content substance and details, and should specify the quality control techniques to ensure that research practices are the same in each institution. Although each institutional EC may independently approve or disapprove an application, G-ResEthics advises the committees from each participating institution to consult with one another to reach a clearly agreed upon decision.

There is no stated expiration date for an EC approval in G-ResEthics, in the ECMOPH guidelines (THA-13), or on the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) website (THA-36). Per ECRegProc, ECs must provide continuous supervision and monitoring, and conduct inspections to ensure that clinical trial operations are carried out in compliance with all approved research projects and research sites without any deviations or changes from those approved by the committee, unless otherwise specified according to THA-28. ECs must also supervise and monitor research projects to ensure that participants’ rights, safety, and well-being are protected (e.g., in the case of an adverse event, etc.).

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

According to THA-13, an application submitted to the ECMOPH is initially reviewed by at least two (2) advisors, followed by a final review by the ECMOPH at its regular meeting. At this meeting, the advisors present a summary of the proposal to the committee along with their recommendations. The committee discusses the proposal and sends a list of comments to the principal investigator (PI) for clarification. Once the PI provides the requested information, the committee makes a final decision, and this is reported to the ECMOPH Chairman and the Permanent Secretary for Public Health respectively. A letter of notification signed by the Permanent Secretary for Public Health is then forwarded to the PI and the responsible organization. As earlier stated, this review and approval process is specific to the ECMOPH. However, it can be used to obtain a better understanding of the EC process within Thailand.

Central Research Ethics Committee

As indicated in THA-44 and THA-24, a research project is eligible to apply for CREC review when it meets one (1) of the following criteria:

• It is a pharmaceutical-sponsored multi-center clinical trial
• It is an investigator-initiated multi-site study granted by a research funding organization (e.g., the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, the Health Systems Research Institute (HSRI), etc.)
• It is assigned by the Thai Health Board of Directors for review
• It is a single center, multi-site study of researchers at partner institutions with co-researchers from each site (THA-24)

Per THA-44, when a research proposal is submitted to the CREC for review, the committee will cooperate with all the participating ECs to confirm the researchers are qualified, the institution has adequate facilities, and the proposed research is compliant with institutional regulations, applicable laws, local contexts, and standards of professional conduct and practice. The CREC will also consider the concerns and attitudes of the various communities participating in the project. Once the review process is completed, the decision will be documented in a formal letter. The issued decision letter will be sent to the PI, the contract research organization, and all of the participating ECs. Refer to THA-44 and THA-24 for additional CREC requirements.

Overview

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

Expedited Review

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

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

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

Continuing Review and Re-approval

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

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

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

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

Exemptions under the Revised Common Rule

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

Per USA-54, for secondary research that does not qualify for an exemption under the RevComRule, the applicant must either apply for a waiver of the informed consent requirement from the EC, obtain study-specific informed consent, or obtain broad consent.

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

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

See the G-IRBFAQs, the G-OHRP-IRBApprvl, and USA-54 for frequently asked questions regarding EC procedures, approval with conditions, example research, expedited review, limited review, and continuing review.

Other Considerations

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

Cooperative Research Studies

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

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

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

As explained in G-ResEthics, Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA)-recognized ethics committees (ECs) should review their research budgets to ensure that fee information is addressed. In general, the sponsor will pay the investigator based on the number of research participants. The Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) are both ECs recognized by the Thai FDA to review and approve clinical trial protocols.

G-ResEthics further states that research conducted in public hospitals or public health care facilities involves expenditures such as laboratory tests and lump sum fees determined by the institution. The disclosure of these payments and other budget items enables the EC to evaluate any conflict of interest and helps the investigator to decide whether to conduct the trial.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

No information is currently available on ECMOPH fees.

Central Research Ethics Committee

As set forth in CRECFees, the CREC requires investigators to pay a nonrefundable fee to submit a clinical trial research protocol for ethical review and approval.

CRECFees and THA-50 specify the following fees for the ethical review of research projects funded by private capital (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• New research project: 50,000 Baht

· Request for certification renewal of old research project: 20,000 Baht

• Amendments to the research project (research outline amendments/adding a research location): 10,000 Baht
• Report requesting amendments to the research outline: Amendment certified by the local EC of the joint research institute in the CREC-certified research project, followed by a report submitted for CREC consideration (site-specific amendment): No fees charged
• Reporting adverse events, reporting non-compliance, notifying the CREC of a research project closure, and various other reports: No fees charged
• Edit the Certificate of Approval (COA) document: 1,000 Baht
• Edit certification/acknowledgement: 500 Baht
• Edit document with certified seal: 500 Baht

For research projects funded by government agencies, royal colleges, medical professional associations, or personal capital, CRECFees and THA-50 delineates the following fees:

• New research project: 25,000 Baht
• Request for certification renewal of old research project: 10,000 Baht
• Amendments to the research project (research outline amendments/adding a research location): 5,000 Baht
• Report requesting amendments to the research outline: Amendment certified by the local EC of the joint research institute in the CREC-certified research project, followed by a report submitted for CREC consideration (site-specific amendment): No fees charged
• Reporting adverse events, reporting non-compliance, notifying the CREC of a research project closure, and various other reports: No fees charged
• Edit the Certificate of Approval (COA) document: 500 Baht
• Edit the certification/acknowledgement: 250 Baht
• Edit document with certified seal: 250 Baht

Payment Instructions

THA-42 explains that investigators should submit ethics application fee payments to the following bank:

Bank Name: Krungthai Bank
Bank Address: 2/1 SOI Phahonyothin, Phahonyothin Road 40, Sena Nikhom, Jatujak, Bangkok 10900
Swift Code: KRTHTHBK
Branch: Phahonyothin 39
Account Type: Savings Account
Account Name: Foundation for Human Research Promotion in Thailand
Account number: 981-2-84782-0

Per CRECFees and THA-25, the investigators must submit proof of payment with the application submission. CRECFees indicates that the investigators and research sponsor are responsible for paying the fees and preparing the documentation to submit to the research institute. In the case of an investigator having transferred fees for a project that has been cancelled, the investigator may request a refund. The Foundation will deduct 20% of the transferred fee. The investigator should contact the bank for any service fee applied.

THA-50 and THA-25 indicate that any questions regarding the payment submission process may be directed to the following contact:

Miss Netdao Kanseecha
Financial Officer
Phone: 061-089-9966
Email: natdown@crecthailand.org

Per THA-25, if the CREC has no evidence of payment, the application submission will be considered incomplete. See THA-50 for additional information on fee rate based on funding source and fee receipts.

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

Overview

As indicated in ECRegProc, ClinImprtOrdr, and ClinSampleProd, institutional ethics committees (ECs) and other types of ECs, including the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC), must be authorized by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) to conduct ethical reviews of drug clinical trial protocols. ClinImprtOrdr and ECRegProc specify that authorized ECs are responsible for reviewing and approving protocols for clinical research involving drugs to be imported into Thailand. (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices relating to EC authorization in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd.)

As per ECRegProc, an acceptance letter issued to the ECs by the Thai FDA is valid for two (2) years and may be obtained by applying to the agency using the Jor Thor Form EC-1 (THA-23). Each EC is also required to submit an annual report (THA-21) to the Thai FDA, and to apply for an acceptance extension no later than 60 days before the expiration date.

ECRegProc states that the Thai FDA posts a list of the approved/renewed ECs on its website (see THA-90) and as noted in THA-3, this usually occurs every two (2) years. These ECs are approved in addition to the centralized ECMOPH and the CREC.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

Pursuant to EC-QualAccredReq, in addition to the ECRegProc approval and renewal of approval documentation requirements, the Thai FDA requires ECs to submit proof of accreditation based on an evaluation by a quality accreditation agency in compliance with international accreditation standards. The following organizations are approved by the Thai FDA to provide quality accreditation reviews:

• National Ethics Committee Accreditation System of Thailand (NECAST)
• The Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER)/The Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP)
• The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP)
• Other Thai FDA-approved quality accreditation agencies

Per EC-QualAccredReq, EC submissions will be reviewed and completed within one (1) business day.

Overview

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

Per USA-54, institutions do not need to change an existing FWA because of the RevComRule. See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

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

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

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

Overview

In accordance with ClinImprtOrdr and G-CT-DIPApp, the sponsor or the contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for submitting a drug import license application for clinical research purposes to the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA). Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the Thai FDA is also responsible for approving requests for permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies.

As set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and ECRegProc, the Thai FDA’s approvals of a drug import license and of a request for permission to produce drug samples for human research studies are dependent upon obtaining proof of ethics committee (EC) approval from the Thai FDA to conduct the clinical trial. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further specify that for both types of approval requests, the application is either submitted to the Thai FDA after the research project and all the research sites have been approved by an EC, or in parallel, pending review by at least one (1) EC involved in the study. (Note: Per ClinImprtOrdr, the sponsor is also referred to as the applicant or importer.)

Regulatory Submission

OSSC Pre-Submission Permission

According to THA-77 and THA-75, prior to submitting a drug import license application (N.Y.M.1 form), an applicant must first request permission from the Thai FDA’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) to use the OSSC’s online consultation system (E-Consult) (THA-77). Per THA-65, requesting E-Consult permission is a two-part process that initially requires applicants who are Thai citizens to create a user account and register via Digital ID (THA-89) which enables Thai citizens to access all government agency electronic services using a single user account/password. The user account can then be used to submit applications and supporting documentation to the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54).

Per THA-65 and THA-77, once registered in THA-89, Thai applicants (i.e., the general public, entrepreneurs, or researchers) are subsequently required to provide documentation to E-Consult (THA-77) to confirm that they, or representatives authorized to act on their behalf, are authorized to use the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54). Although non-citizens cannot register directly with THA-89, they can request permission to authorize a juristic person who receives power of attorney (i.e., agency representatives, registration agents, or researchers who submit applications on behalf of an agency). Documentation should be submitted to E-Consult (THA-77) either in person or via email (econsultcenter@fda.moph.go.th) specifying in the subject line: “Request to open the right to use the information system.”

Per THA-77, for Thai applicants, this documentation includes:

• Form for Requesting Permission to Use the Health Product Consultation Information System (E-Consult) (THA-80)
• Copy of identity card

Per THA-77, for juristic applicants with power of attorney, this documentation includes:

• Form Requesting Power of Attorney Permission to Use the Health Product Consultation Information System (E-Consult) (THA-81)
• Copy of juristic person certificate (if any)
• Power of attorney form
• Copy of identity card of grantor (the national identity card issued to Thai citizens)
• Copy of identity card of attorney-in-fact (refers to a passport)

THA-66 indicates that when an applicant completes the process of submitting an in-person request within one (1) day at the service center, a service provider can then forward the request for review and may receive a response within one (1) day. For requests that take more than one (1) day to be reviewed, the service center will forward the application to the Product Division for consideration. See also THA-51 for additional information on services provided by the OSSC’s E-Consult Service.

Import and Export Division Pre-Submission Permission

Per THA-79, the Thai FDA’s Import and Export Inspection Division also requires applicants to request permission to access the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54) prior to being permitted to submit a drug import waiver application for clinical trial purposes. Applicants requesting access may submit documentation via email to bie.thaifda@gmail.com to open temporary rights first. After reviewing the emailed documentation for correctness/completeness, the officer will reply to the email and request original copies of the documents. A request for permission can also be mailed to the OSSC (THA-35), 4th floor. Also, per THA-87, Thai applicants may register and submit authorization documentation via THA-54 once they have obtained access.

THA-79 states that for Thai applicants, the required authorization documentation includes:

• Copy of the registration certificate of the company or partnership, or a copy of the commercial registration (which has been issued no more than six (6) months and has a grantor to sign)
• Copy of grantor’s identity card (which has not expired on the date of document submission along with a signature to certify the copy)
• Copy of the identity card of the attorney-in-fact (which has not expired on the date of document submission along with a signature to certify the copy)

THA-79 further notes that the applicant has the right to use the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54) for import/export purposes for no more than one (1) year. The following forms are also provided on the Import and Export Inspection Division webpage (THA-85) to complete these requests: Form Requesting Access to the FDA E-Submission System for Permission to Import Drugs for Other Purposes (THA-83), Form Requesting Power of Attorney Access to the FDA E-Submission System for Permission to Import Drugs for Other Purposes (THA-82), and Application Form for Medicine Importation (THA-84). See also THA-85 for additional related forms that may be useful.

Submissions

N.Y.M.1

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai FDA accepts paper and electronic clinical trial application submission packages for requests to import or order drugs for clinical research. However, paper applications are only to be submitted at the discretion of an agency officer when it is determined that the application process cannot be completed electronically via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54) for Medicines Regulation Division review and approval (see Submission Content section for content details).

As per ClinImprtOrdr, for paper submissions, sponsors must submit two (2) original sets with real signatures of the completed N.Y.M.1 form (ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2)) with the required attachments to the Thai FDA. For paper submissions, the applicant must also submit an MS Word template file for importing the data electronically, so that the file can be connected to the information in the drug importation and clinical research sections in the information system. A copy of all the submitted documents should also be provided in PDF format. G-CT-DIPApp also states that two (2) sets of the application package must be submitted to the Thai FDA. Per ClinImprtOrdr, if the Thai FDA reviewer determines that submitted documents require correction or additional documentation needs to be submitted, the applicant must make corrections/clarifications based on the evaluation results within the specified time by submitting a correction/clarification request form (see ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 12) and THA-18 (Appendix 12)).

Additionally, per ClinImprtOrdr, the non-local applicant must authorize a qualified person through a power of attorney to submit an application and respond to requests to provide clarification, amend, and/or receive documents related to the submission. The attorney-in-fact should be someone who has knowledge in pharmacy or a related medical field as well as an understanding of requests, permissions, etc. relating to the application submission and associated documentation. The scope and responsibilities of the attorney-in-fact must be specified in the authorization to include filing application submission clarifications and corrections. The authorization documentation should be submitted with the paper application. ClinImprtOrdr further notes that one (1) set of power of attorney submission documentation may only be used for one (1) application submission request.

ClinImprtOrdr also states that the application submission should include documentary evidence for quality control and drug production separated by drug. The identification of the manufacturer of each drug included in the submission must match the one specified in the Microsoft Excel files for the Logistics System (See ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 7) and THA-18 (Appendix 7) for the manufacturer’s form).

As indicated in ClinImprtOrdr and G-CT-DIPApp, Thai and English are the preferred languages for use in preparing an application package for requests to import or order drugs for clinical research. The following requirements are specified (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Research project name and summary of research project in Thai
• Drug packaging documents for already registered drugs presented in Thai or English (Note: if drug formula documentation from abroad is in a foreign language other than English, then it should be translated into Thai or English and certified that the text matches the Thai/English language version)
• Protocol synopsis in Thai
• Detailed study protocol specification (completed version of study protocol) in Thai or English
• Patient information sheet in Thai or translated to an appropriate language and certified the text matches the Thai version
• Drug labels for every package size in Thai or English
• EC approval document in Thai
• Certificate of Free Sale in English and translated by a trusted certification authority and any other language in which it has been originally issued
• Progress report in Thai

Additionally, as explained in THA-79, once the applicant has obtained permission from the Import and Export Inspection Division to access the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), a drug import waiver application (N.Y.M.1) may be submitted electronically. Per THA-87, following official review of the submitted documentation, a response will sent within one (1) business day. THA-87 and THA-79 indicate that once the request is approved, a License Per Invoice (LPI) number will be used in making a goods declaration with the Thai Customs Department. See THA-48, THA-86, and THA-88 for additional information and instructions on submitting an LPI to Customs). Refer to THA-57 and THA-87 for detailed instructions on submitting a drug importation waiver request via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54).

P.Y.8

As indicated in ClinSampleProd, the Thai FDA also accepts paper and electronic clinical trial application submission packages for requests for permission to produce sample drugs for human research studies. However, if the electronic system is not available, the application must be submitted in paper form, along with the appropriate supporting documentation (see Submission Content section for content details). In the case of filing via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), information will be filled in the system in a P.Y.8. form, and the research project information will be created automatically. If the Thai FDA reviewer determines that submitted documents require correction or additional documentation needs to be submitted, the applicant must make corrections/clarifications based on the evaluation results within the specified time by submitting a correction/clarification request form (see ClinSampleProd (Appendix 8) and THA-76 (Appendix 8)). The paper documentation should be submitted to the New Drugs and Drug Research Promotion Group within the Medicines Regulation Division or submitted electronically via THA-54. When submitting a paper application, the applicant must also submit a template file for importing the data via THA-54 to serve as a starting point for operators in the electronic process and for use in overseeing the trial. A copy of all the submitted documents should also be provided in PDF format.

Additionally, per ClinSampleProd, the non-local applicant must authorize a qualified person through a power of attorney to submit an application and respond to requests to provide clarification, amend, and/or receive documents related to the submission. The attorney-in-fact should be someone who has knowledge in pharmacy or a related medical field as well as an understanding of requests, permissions, etc. relating to the application submission and associated documentation. The scope and responsibilities of the attorney-in-fact must be specified in the authorization to include filing application submission clarifications and corrections. The authorization documentation should be submitted with the paper application, or via the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), if the application is being submitted electronically. ClinSampleProd further notes that one (1) set of power of attorney submission documentation may only be used for one (1) application submission request.

As indicated in ClinSampleProd, Thai and English are the preferred languages for use in preparing an application package to request permission to produce investigational drugs for clinical research. The following requirements are specified:

• Research project name in Thai and English
• Summary of research project in Thai
• Drug labels for every package size in Thai or English
• Patient Information Sheet in Thai
• EC approval document in Thai
• Complete research project details in Thai or English

OSSC Contact Information for Application Submissions

Per THA-74, THA-65, and THA-77, the following is contact information for submitting an application to the OSSC (THA-35) in person or via email, and for requesting permission to access the Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54):

One Stop Service Center (OSSC) 
Building 6, 5^th Floor
Food and Drug Administration Building
Ministry of Public Health
88/24 Tiwanon Road
Talat Khwan Subdistrict
Mueang District, Nonthaburi Province 11000

Email (E-Consult): econsultcenter@fda.moph.go.th
Phone: 02 590 7614 (Consultation E-service for general inquiries, reporting usage problems, and issues related to requesting permissions)

See also THA-52 for the Medicines Regulation Division staff list.

Ethics Review Submission

Per G-ResEthics, each institutional EC should establish its own requirements for protocol submission along with the required documents including the application, number of research protocol copies to be submitted, the patient information sheet, the informed consent form, and the case report form. Each EC should also communicate these requirements to personnel or staff within the institution.

According to THA-4, if a trial site is not affiliated with a Thai FDA-recognized EC, the investigator(s) usually needs to apply to two (2) ECs for approval—the unaffiliated local EC and a central EC approved by the Thai FDA. THA-1 further explains that both the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) are categorized as central ECs because they can accept all clinical research studies for review, regardless of the trial sites involved.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

According to THA-13, the ECMOPH requires one (1) original and 20 copies of the protocol submitted in Thai, and one (1) copy submitted in English for review purposes.

Per THA-41, investigators can electronically submit applications to the ECMOPH to obtain approval for new research projects or to request other services via the ECMOPH e-submission login page (THA-40).

Central Research Ethics Committee

THA-36 and THA-29 indicate that investigators applying for a new research project should submit an application to the CREC for review via its Online Submission System (THA-43).

THA-29 further explains that in some cases, hard copies may be requested by the CREC officer, with the number of additional hard copies requested subject to the reviewer’s requirements. Per THA-29, one (1) set of hard copy documents, consisting of a project folder and a CD with project information should be submitted. Documents should be placed in a folder indicating the correct number of files in order to avoid processing delays.

THA-29 also states that if a local EC requires a hard copy for the local assessment, the CREC will prepare an introduction letter and local issue assessment form. These documents will be sent to every local EC by email; the researcher/coordinator will be copied on this email. The researcher/coordinator will attach the local CREC introductory letter and assessment form to the hard copy submission package for the local EC.

See also THA-34 for detailed application package documentation submission requirements, and THA-37 for a comprehensive list of all the CREC Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

Per THA-34 and THA-38, in the case where the research project is in English, a brief research outline should be provided in Thai as well. In addition, an explanation about the research participants and letter of intent to consent should be provided, if the master version of the informed consent documents are written in English.

Overview

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

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

Regulatory Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the G-eCTDspecs and USA-7, eCTD submissions sized 10 GB and under for most applications must be submitted via the FDA Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG) (USA-44). However, the G-eCTDspecs adds that the FDA also recommends the use of USA-44 for submissions greater than 10 GB when possible. See USA-8 for information on how to create an account.

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

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

According to USA-41 and USA-94, paper submissions of INDs should be sent to CDER or CBER at the following locations, as appropriate:

Drugs (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Therapeutic Biological Product (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research-Regulated Products:

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

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

Based on information provided in 21CFR312, for paper IND submissions, the sponsor must submit an original and two (2) copies, including the original submission and all amendments and reports.

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

N.Y.M.1

As per ClinImprtOrdr and G-CT-DIPApp, sponsors must submit the following documents to the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) to request a drug import waiver request (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Cover letter
• Application for Permission to Import or Order Drugs for Research Purposes in the Kingdom (N.Y.M.1 form) (see ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2))
• Checklists and Attached Documents for N.Y.M.1 form (see appendices in ClinImprtOrdr and THA-18)
• Drug labels for every package size in Thai or English
• Package inserts (for registered drugs)
• Prescriptions (for registered drugs)
• Investigator’s Brochure (IB) (for unregistered drugs)
• Informed Consent Form in Thai
• Patient Information Sheet in Thai
• Research project summary in Thai
• Completed version of study protocol in Thai or English
• Chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information
• Ethics Committee (EC) approval from a Thai FDA-recognized institutionally-based EC and/or an independent EC. If waiting for approval from the relevant EC, instead submit the latest protocol version under consideration.
• Estimates of the amount of study drug, comparators, or other goods to be imported
• Certificate of Analysis
• Certificate of Free Sale in English and other language used
• Drug registration authorization document
• Summary of product characteristics
• Literature review
• Description (name and content) and pictures of lab/materials to be imported
• Power of attorney
• Investigational medicinal product (IMP) information

Per ClinImprtOrdr, when an applicant authorizes a qualified person through a power of attorney to submit an application package, the following documents must also be included with the submission:

• Copy of identity card of the grantor and the attorney-in-fact with signatures to certify that they are true copies
• Stamp duty in the amount of 30 Baht per one (1) power of attorney designation

As delineated in G-CT-DIPApp, applicants are also required to submit the following documents to the Thai FDA regarding EC approval:

• Protocol title
• List of principal investigator(s) (PIs)
• Proposed study site
• List of documents reviewed and approved by the EC, including the document version
• Period of approval and/or date of expired approval

As noted in ClinImprtOrdr, the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) may also establish an academic committee or subcommittee for certain drugs requiring special supervision (e.g., the Academic Subcommittee on AIDS Vaccine Trials to review AIDS vaccines, etc.). Therefore, when submitting an application to request permission to import or order a specialized drug for clinical research requiring this type of oversight, an additional approval letter from the relevant committee is also required. Additional information on obtaining the approval for the committee is not available.

P.Y.8

Per ClinSampleProd, applicants must submit the following documents to the Thai FDA to request permission to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies:

• Application for Permission to Produce Drug Samples for Drug Formula Registration (P.Y.8. Form) (see ClinSampleProd (Appendix 1) and THA-76 (Appendix 1))
• Research project summary in Thai
• Certification of compliance with the terms and conditions related to the production of drug samples for use in human research studies
• Certificate of Compliance for Principal Investigators
• Evidence of insurance or compensation
• Power of attorney (for paper submissions)
• A copy of the license to produce modern drugs (for paper submissions)
• Drug labels for every package size in Thai or English
• Copy of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Certificate
• Drug leaflet (for bioequivalence study drugs)
• IB (for research drugs)
• Patient Information Sheet in Thai
• EC approval from a Thai FDA-recognized institutionally-based EC and/or an independent EC, except in the case of waiting for approval from the relevant EC
• Drug quality control and pharmaceutical production documentation
• Documents approved by relevant technical committees (if any)
• Complete research proposal in Thai or English
• Document self-verification form (see ClinSampleProd (Appendix 7) and THA-76 (Appendix 7))

Per ClinSampleProd, when an applicant authorizes a qualified person through a power of attorney to submit an application package, the following documents must also be included with the submission:

• Copy of identity card of the grantor and the attorney-in-fact with signatures to certify that they are true copies
• Stamp duty in the amount of 30 Baht per one (1) power of attorney designation

As noted in ClinSampleProd, the MOPH may also establish an academic committee or subcommittee for certain drugs requiring special supervision (e.g., the Academic Subcommittee on AIDS Vaccine Trials to review AIDS vaccines, etc.). Therefore, when submitting an application to request permission to import or order a specialized drug for clinical research requiring this type of oversight, an additional approval letter from the relevant committee is also required. Additional information on obtaining the approval for the committee is not available.

Ethics Committee Requirements

Per G-ResEthics, each institutional EC should establish its own requirements for protocol submission along with the required documents including the application, number of research protocol copies to be submitted, the patient information sheet, the informed consent form, and the case report form. Each EC should also communicate to personnel or staff within the institution.

Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health

Per THA-13, the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) requires investigators (applicants) to submit the following documentation for ethics approval:

• One (1) original set and 20 copies of the protocol in Thai and one (1) copy in English for review
• Ethical considerations
• Combined information sheet and informed consent certificate for research participants
• Budget details and funding source
• Curriculum Vitae (CV) for each research team member
• Letter of approval from implementing institution
• Results of ethical review by EC of implementing institution, if available
• Data collection/questionnaire tools
• Letter signed by PI’s supervisor
• For an international project, Thai and foreign PIs required for each side
• Material transfer agreement for transfer of blood or biomedical samples
• References

Refer to THA-13 for detailed ECMOPH submission requirements respectively.

Central Research Ethics Committee

According to THA-34 and THA-38, investigators applying for an initial research project review by the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) should submit the following:

• Books/memorandum for research presentation signed by investigator (Word and PDF files required)
• Ethics Consideration Proposal Form for Biomedical Research Projects (CREC form AP 04-S04) signed by investigator (Word and PDF files required)
• Complete research proposal
• Brief research proposal in Thai
• Documents clarifying information about research participants and letter of intent to consent (in the case of a master informed consent form (ICF) version, single document in English is used for all institutions; alternatively, each institution may also use their own documents) (See also THA-46 for ICF template and checklist links)
• Case report form
• IB (including Investigator’s Guide; a certificate that the drug has been approved by the Thai FDA; invoice in the case of a drug that has been registered with the Thai FDA; and a drug leaflet)
• Other documents (including questionnaire or interview form; notebook; documents for invitation to participate in the research, such as brochures, posters, public relations scripts; other documents applicable to volunteers/research participants; documents requiring issuance of a certificate)
• Research injury compensation insurance documents
• Material transfer agreement (MTA) (must be uploaded according to each institution’s form)
• (Draft) Research project budget
• Letter of approval from the junior supervisor (separate documents by institution) (including a list of researchers at all data collection institutes in Thailand)
• Investigator CVs and evidence of good clinical practice (GCP) training or research ethics training
• Conflict of Interest Form completed by PIs/co-investigators (CREC form AP 06-S04) (separate documents by institution)
• Research Outline Completeness Check Form (CREC form AO 01-S04)
• PI for clinical trial phase I/II research projects (CREC form AP02-S04)
• Proof of fee payment

Refer to THA-34 and THA-38 for detailed CREC submission requirements.

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, and G-CT-DIPApp, the clinical protocol should include the following elements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Protocol summary/synopsis
• General information (e.g., sponsor and investigator(s) name(s) and address(es))
• Background information (e.g., investigational product name and description)
• Trial objectives and purpose
• Trial design
• Number of trial participants
• Participant selection/withdrawal criteria
• Participant treatment
• Safety and efficacy assessments
• Quality control/quality assurance
• 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
• Ethical considerations
• Data management and recordkeeping
• Financing and insurance details
• Publication policy
• Supplements
• Information about each research facility in Thailand
• Number of institutions participating in the research in Thailand
• Other countries where the research project is being conducted
• IMPs to be used

For complete protocol requirements, refer to ClinImprtOrdr and Annex 6 of G-ResEthics, which is directly based upon the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) and the ICH guideline Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) (THA-27). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. Both of these ICH guidelines are also referenced in G-ResEthics.

G-CT-DIPApp also provides protocol synopsis requirements for submission to the Thai FDA. Please refer to G-CT-DIPApp for detailed information.

In the instance of a multicenter clinical trial, G-ResEthics indicates that protocols submitted to each institutional EC should contain the same content and should specify the quality control techniques to ensure that the research practices are the same in each institution.

Also, see THA-13 for ECMOPH and THA-29 for CREC protocol submission requirements. (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

The FDCAct, as amended by the FDORA, requires sponsors to submit diversity action plans for certain clinical trials, such as a clinical investigation of a new drug that is a phase 3 study. See the FDORA for more details. (Note: The FDA’s guidance on diversity action plans is currently in draft. The ClinRegs team will continue to monitor this requirement and incorporate any updates as appropriate).

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

As per 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the EC should obtain the following documents and must ensure the listed requirements are met prior to approving the study (Note: The regulations provide overlapping and unique elements so each of the items listed below will not necessarily be in each source):

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

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

Overview

ClinImprtOrdr specifies that a drug import license application for clinical research purposes is submitted to the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) after the research project and all the research sites have been approved by the ethics committee (EC), or in parallel, pending review by at least one (1) EC involved in the study. Per ClinSampleProd and DrugProdReqs, the application to produce drug samples for the registration of drug formulas for human research studies must also be submitted to the Thai FDA either after the research project and all the research sites have been approved by an EC, or in parallel, pending review by at least one (1) EC involved in the study.

Regulatory Authority Approval

As specified in THA-78, the Thai FDA has 60 working days to evaluate an application to import or order drugs in the country for clinical research (N.Y.M.1); 60 working days to evaluate an application to produce drug samples to request modern drug registration for human research studies (P.Y.8); 20 working days to review an application to amend a N.Y.M.1 or P.Y.8 submission; one (1) working day to review an application for a certificate of pharmaceutical product (Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product/Certificate of Free Sale); and 30 working days to evaluate the accuracy and translation of a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) assessment report from a Thai version to an English version.

Per G-CT-DIPApp, upon receipt of an application package, the Thai FDA’s One Stop Service & Consultation Center (OSSC) (THA-35) sends the application package to an officer in the Thai FDA’s International Affairs and Investigational Drug Section. The officer then screens the package for completeness and informs the eligible sponsor of the results within five (5) working days from the date the application was received. If deemed complete, the officer sends the package to the assigned technical reviewer to proceed. If the officer finds the package to be incomplete, a “Screening Result Notification form” will be sent to the applicant or the applicant’s attorney for correction. If the applicant or the applicant’s attorney fails to fully correct the package within five (5) working days, then the Thai FDA will send a rejection letter and return all the documents to the applicant. However, the applicant may later correct or amend the application package and resubmit it to the OSSC. Once the correction is completed, the officer will send the application package to the assigned reviewer to proceed.

Per G-CT-DIPApp, the reviewer then receives the application package and performs a technical assessment. If the reviewer determines the package is technically correct, then it will be forwarded to the Thai FDA’s Secretary-General for approval. If the reviewer finds the application package technically incorrect, then it will be forwarded to the Thai FDA’s Secretary-General for rejection. If the reviewer finds the technical information to be incomplete, then the applicant or the applicant’s attorney will be asked to clarify and/or submit additional documents/information. If the documentation or amended information is not submitted within five (5) working days, the Thai FDA will issue a rejection letter and return the package to the applicant. However, the applicant may resubmit a corrected package to THA-35 (timeline not specified in G-CT-DIPApp). If the applicant can completely correct the application package, the officer will forward the package to the assigned reviewer for re-assessment.

In addition, ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further specify that once the Thai FDA receives the EC approval documentation, the agency will complete its review within 15 days. See also THA-18 (Appendix 13) and THA-76 (Appendix 9) for the form to submit results of EC review to the Thai FDA. Refer to the Submission Process and Submission Content sections for detailed submission requirements.

Ethics Committee Approval

The review and approval process by a Thai FDA recognized EC will vary by institution. However, according to THA-13, which provides the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) requirements, and THA-5, which provides more general EC requirements, the EC review and approval process can take between two (2) and three (3) months.

Per G-ResEthics, each EC should establish its own requirements for protocol submission and timeline of review.

Overview

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

Regulatory Authority Approval

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

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

Ethics Committee Approval

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

Overview

In accordance with ClinSampleProd, ClinImprtOrdr, and ECRegProc, a clinical trial can only commence after a sponsor receives approval of a drug import application for clinical research purposes or of a request to produce drug samples for human research studies from the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA), as well as approval to conduct the clinical trial from a Thai FDA recognized ethics committee (EC). No waiting period is required following the sponsor’s receipt of these approvals. (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd.)

Additionally, the clinical trial should be conducted in compliance with the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is now implementing THA-28.

Clinical Trial Agreement

G-ResEthics and THA-28 require the sponsor to sign a letter of agreement with the participating institution(s) before the trial begins. THA-28 also notes that any agreements between the sponsor and the investigator(s)/institution(s) and any other parties involved with the trial should be in writing either as part of the protocol or in a separate agreement.

Per THA-14, researchers should also abide by research obligations and agreements specified by and entered into with fellow researchers, funding agencies, and their affiliates.

Clinical Trial Registration

The ClinImprtOrdr application document checklist (Appendix 3) includes clinical trial registry information as one (1) of the items to be included in the application submission package, specifying that sponsors may register with either the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) (THA-31) or a foreign registry. Sponsors may register in more than one (1) location.

Overview

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

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

See the G-CTDiversity for FDA recommendations to sponsors on increasing enrollment of underrepresented populations in their clinical trials.

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

42CFR11 expands the legal requirements for submitting clinical trial registration information and results for investigational products that are approved, licensed, or cleared by the FDA.

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

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

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-AEReptReqs, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Thailand’s safety reporting requirements:

• Adverse Event (AE) – Any untoward or unfavorable 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 dangerous and adverse reactions resulting from any dose of an investigational drug, for which it is at least reasonably likely that the adverse reaction is attributable to the drug being studied, that is, a relationship cannot be ruled out
• 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) – An unexpected SAE/SADR given the nature of the research procedures and the population being studied
• Unexpected Adverse Event/Adverse Drug Reaction – A reaction where the nature or severity is inconsistent with the applicable product information

Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. THA-28 also notes that the ICH Guideline for Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (THA-26) should be referenced for additional safety terms not defined in this list.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As stated in G-AEReptReqs, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for reporting all SAEs/SADRs to the sponsor and the ethics committee (EC) no later than 24 hours after the PI becomes aware of the event. The PI must also report all AEs/ADRs to the sponsor and the EC no later than seven (7) calendar days following first knowledge.

For safety reporting requirements specific to the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC), please see THA-13 and THA-37 respectively.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in THA-28, sponsors who are permitted to import or order drugs for research in Thailand and those who are licensed to produce drug samples for human research studies, must comply with the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA)’s safety monitoring and reporting requirements. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd state that the following information is viewed as urgent and is required to be reported:

• SAEs/SADRs that never occurred before because the research team used safety reporting information from other countries to substantiate investigational product (IP) use
• Other safety and security information useful to evaluating IP risk-benefit assessment, IP changes to the method of administration, or changes required to the overall research process
• Unexpected SAE/SADR incidents that never occurred before, with an increased incidence or severity and considered to be of clinical importance
• Significant harm to the participant, such as the ineffectiveness of an IP used to treat a life-threatening disease
• Significant new information about experimental animal safety studies, such as carcinogenicity

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, an ADR report must be filed in the following specified timelines:

• Unexpected SAEs/SADRs that are fatal or life-threatening must be reported to the Thai FDA within seven (7) days from the first knowledge of the incident’s occurrence. Any additional relevant information should be sent within eight (8) days of the initial report
• Unexpected SAEs/SADRs that are not fatal or life-threatening must be reported to the Thai FDA within 15 days from the date of SAE/SADR notification. A report must also be submitted periodically with any additional information.
• AEs/ADRs that occur following the research participant’s participation in the study or after the study has been completed must be reported within 15 days from first knowledge of the event

According to G-AEReptReqs and G-ResEthics, the sponsor is also required to report all SUSARs to the EC as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days for all fatal or life-threatening events, and no later than 15 calendar days for any non-fatal or non-life-threatening events. The sponsor must include the main points of concern. In addition, the sponsor must report to the EC any other non-local adverse reactions that may increase risks to participants within 15 days. Additionally, the sponsor must report any non-local SAEs/SADRs including SUSARs at least every six (6) months to the EC.

G-ResEthics and THA-28 state that the sponsor is responsible for expediting the reporting of all SUSARs to the investigator(s)/institution(s) participating in the trial, the EC(s), and to the Thai FDA. These reports should comply with G-AEReptReqs and the ICH Guideline for Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (E2A) (THA-26). See G-AEReptReqs for detailed reporting requirements for the investigator and sponsor.

Other Safety Reports

THA-28 indicates that the sponsor should submit to the Thai FDA all safety updates and periodic reports as required by applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor is also responsible for the ongoing safety evaluation of investigational drug(s) and should promptly notify all concerned parties of findings that could adversely impact the safety of research participants, the conduct of the trial, or alter the EC’s approval or favorable opinion to continue the trial.

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, annual and end of study safety reports must be provided to the New Drugs and Drug Research Promotion Group within the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division. The annual report must be submitted as a document within three (3) months of the one (1) year anniversary of the study, and the final safety report must be submitted as a document within six (6) months after the study has concluded. In addition, a list of all SAE/SADR incidents involving research participant(s) should be included in the annual report. A detailed summary table with the number of SAEs/SADRs organized by terminology (symptoms and diagnosis) should be provided. See Appendix 21 in ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 21 in THA-18) and Appendix 17 in ClinSampleProd (Appendix 17 in THA-76) for an example of the reporting form.

ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further notes that other reports must be made in writing with information such as summary of risk assessment issues and related details for submission to the New Drugs and Drug Research Promotion Group.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

As per G-AEReptReqs, all SAEs/SADRs and SUSARs must be reported on the Thai FDA’s Health Product Vigilance Center (HPVC) (THA-30) SAE reporting form (THA-22) or the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS)’ form (THA-20). According to THA-37 and THA-20, AEs/ADRs and SAEs/SADRs must be reported to the Thai FDA. THA-22 indicates that the SAE form should be sent to the HPVC via mail, fax, or email at:

Health Product Vigilance Center
Food and Drug Administration
Ministry of Public Health
88/24 Tiwanon Road
Nonthaburi 11000
Thailand

Fax: 02 590 7253 or 02 591 8457
Email: adr@fda.moph.go.th

Pursuant to ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, individual reports should be submitted electronically via the Thai FDA’s HPVC (THA-30), unless the system is unavailable. The report may also be submitted as a document to the New Drugs and Drug Research Promotion Group within the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division.

Individual report data should include at minimum the following information:

• Research participant information for those that can be identified (e.g., participant codes)
• Investigational drugs used in research study
• AE/ADR symptoms or results suspected of being connected to the drugs
• Source of follow-up reports
• Research project code or name
• Reporting numbers (e.g., report number specified by sponsor)

Per ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, for research studies involving participants whose identities are disclosed, submitted AE/ADR reports should include the participant codes unless the Thai FDA’s Office of the Board of Directors deems it necessary to reveal the code immediately.

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, 42CFR11, and USA-38, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of safety reporting requirements in the United States (US):

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in 21CFR312, the G-IND-Safety, and USA-38, the sponsor must report any suspected adverse reaction or adverse reaction that is both serious and unexpected. An adverse event is only required to be reported as a suspected adverse reaction if there is evidence to suggest a causal relationship between the drug and the adverse event.

The sponsor is required to notify the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and all participating investigators in a written safety report of potential serious risks, from clinical trials or any other source, as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting. Additionally, the sponsor must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days following receipt of the information. The sponsor is required to submit a follow-up safety report to provide additional information obtained pertaining to a previously submitted safety report. This report should be submitted without delay, as soon as the information is available, but no later than 15 calendar days after the sponsor initially receives the information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See 42CFR11 for detailed adverse event reporting requirements.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As delineated in G-ResEthics, the investigator(s) must submit progress reports on the status of the trial to the ethics committee (EC) at the designated interval (not specified). For high-risk research protocols, investigator(s) should report the progress more frequently than for a low-risk protocol. The investigator should also provide a proposed schedule to submit a progress report to the EC from the date of protocol submission for ethical review, which should be at least once a year.

The International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) further notes that investigator(s) should submit a research summary report in writing to the EC once a year, or more often, as required by the EC. Investigator(s) should send a written report to the EC and the institution, if applicable, regarding any changes that may impact the research process and/or cause increased risk to the research participants. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

In addition, according to ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, the sponsor must submit a study progress report annually to the Director of the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA)'s Medicines Regulation Division between October 1 and 31 every year until the study ends. Per ClinImprtOrdr, for N.Y.M.1/investigational product (IP) import applications, this report should be submitted using the progress report form in Appendix 15 in THA-18, and accompanied by a delivery letter to the Thai FDA’s Director of the Bureau of Medicine using the format in Appendix 14 in THA-18. Per ClinSampleProd, for P.Y.8/IP sample production applications, the report should be submitted using the progress report form in Appendix 11 in THA-76, and accompanied by a delivery letter to the Thai FDA’s Director of the Bureau of Medicine using the format in Appendix 10 in THA-76.

Requests that already have information in the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54) must submit documents according to the system’s procedures. See Submission Process section for detailed information on submitting information via the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54).

Final Report

As specified in ClinImprtOrdr, in the event of early termination of the research study, the sponsor must submit a summary report (Appendix 19 of ClinImprtOrdr) to the Thai FDA within 60 days after the closeout of the last study site.

G-ResEthics also requires investigator(s) to submit a final report to the EC upon the trial’s termination.

For reporting requirements specific to the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH), please see THA-13. Also, refer to THA-37 for Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) reporting requirements. The ECMOPH and the CREC are both ECs recognized by the Thai FDA to review and approve clinical trial protocols.

Individual ECs should be contacted to confirm their specific requirements.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

See USA-49 for more information and 42CFR11 for more detailed requirements. See NIHTrialInfo for specific information on dissemination of NIH-funded clinical trial data.

In accordance with G-ResEthics, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), a sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

Per G-ResEthics and THA-28, the Thai 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. However, the ultimate responsibility for the trial data’s quality and integrity always resides with the sponsor. Any trial-related responsibilities to be transferred and assumed by a CRO should be specified in a written agreement or contract. A sponsor may be domestic or foreign.

Per THA-65 and THA-77, although applicants residing outside Thailand cannot register directly with Digital ID (THA-89), they can request permission to authorize a juristic person who receives power of attorney to use the OSSC’s online consultation system (E-Consult) (THA-77) and to submit applications to the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54).

THA-28 also states that the sponsor may be a sponsor-investigator if the individual both initiates and conducts, alone or with others, a clinical trial, and under whose immediate direction the investigational product is administered or dispensed. The sponsor-investigator’s obligations include both those of a sponsor and those of an investigator.

According to THA-13, the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) requires the sponsor and/or CRO to be legally registered in Thailand. The ECMOPH is one (1) of the ethics committees approved by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) to approve clinical research protocols. See THA-13 for additional ECMOPH sponsor requirements.

Per ClinImprtOrdr, the sponsor is also referred to as the applicant or importer, and in ClinSampleProd, the sponsor is also referred to as applicant.

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

In addition, 21CFR312 and the US-ICH-GCPs state that a sponsor may transfer responsibility for any or all obligations to a contract research organization (CRO).

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

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

Overview

In accordance with G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), 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. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. THA-14 also states that researchers must have basic knowledge in the field of research.

Additionally, per THA-28 and G-ResEthics, the sponsor must define and allocate all study related duties and responsibilities to the relevant parties participating in the study. 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.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is available regarding foreign sponsor regulatory requirements.

Data Safety Monitoring Board

Although not specified as a sponsor requirement, G-ResEthics, G-AEReptReqs, and THA-28 encourage the establishment of a Data Safety Monitoring Board.

Multicenter Studies

As delineated in G-ResEthics and THA-28, 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 Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA), and are given ethics committee approval
• The case report forms (CRFs) are designed to capture the required data at all multicenter trial sites
• Investigator responsibilities are documented prior to the start of the trial
• All investigators are given instructions on following the protocol, complying with a uniform set of standards to assess clinical and laboratory findings, and completing the CRFs
• Communication between investigators is facilitated

Overview

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

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

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

In addition, prior to the start of the study, the sponsor must provide the investigator(s) with the protocol and the investigator’s brochure.

See G-InvstgtrResp for more information on investigator responsibilities.

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

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

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

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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

Insurance

ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd specify that financing and insurance information should be included in the study protocol and protocol summary. If not included in the protocol and research project summary, a financial/insurance agreement should be attached separately in the application package as one (1) of the documents that the ethics committee (EC) considers approved or certified (e.g., Patient Information Sheets, etc.). G-ResEthics also states that the sponsor should provide insurance or indemnify the investigator/institution against claims arising from the trial, except for claims that arise from malpractice and/or negligence, if required by applicable regulatory requirements.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), the sponsor or the designated contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for providing information related to compensation in the event of trial-related injuries or death to research participants and/or their legal heirs. ClinImprtOrdr further states that payment of compensation (if any) will be determined on a monthly basis to participants involved in the research. (See THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. The sponsor must also inform the participants of any available medical treatment in the event of trial-related injuries. MCEthics further indicates that medical practitioners are responsible for harm or damage because the research studies involving the participant were not the fault of the participant.

Trial Participation

As per G-ResEthics, Phase I trial participants should be compensated for travel, loss of work, or other expenses incurred while participating in the trial.

Insurance

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

Compensation

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

Injury or Death

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

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

Trial Participation

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

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, and G-ResEthics, the sponsor is responsible for implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)'s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

G-ResEthics and THA-28 explain that 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.

G-ResEthics and THA-28 further specify that the sponsor must also obtain the investigator(s) and the institution(s) agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with THA-28, applicable regulatory requirement(s), and the protocol agreed to by the sponsor and approved by the ethics committee (EC)
• Comply with data recording and reporting procedures
• License monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• Retain essential documents until the sponsor informs them that they are no longer needed

Any agreements should be made in writing and the sponsor should sign the protocol, or a separate agreement.

Pursuant to G-ResEthics and THA-28, QC should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been correctly processed. In addition, per THA-28, the sponsor should focus on trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results. The quality management system should also use a risk-based approach that includes:

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

ClinImprtOrdr states that the trial must be conducted in accordance with the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) principles.

Monitoring Requirements

G-ResEthics and THA-28 note that the sponsor may choose to perform a clinical trial audit as part of its QA system. The purpose of the audit should be to evaluate trial conduct and compliance with the protocol, SOPs, and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor should ensure that the auditors are qualified by training and experience, and the auditor’s qualifications should be documented. The sponsor must also ensure that the audit is conducted in accordance with the SOPs, the auditor observations are documented, and data are available as needed for the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA). No specific timeframe is provided for the audit process.

Per ClinImprtOrdr, the sponsor and investigator must facilitate the Thai FDA’s monitoring of the clinical trial to ensure compliance with GCP and GLP, safety reporting, and progress reporting requirements.

In addition, per THA-28, 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 onsite monitoring, a combination of onsite 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). See THA-28 for detailed information on the sponsor’s role in developing monitoring systems.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

G-ResEthics and THA-28 state that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended, the sponsor should promptly inform the investigators/institutions and the regulatory authority(ies) of the termination or suspension and the reason(s) for the termination or suspension. The sponsor or the investigator/institution should also promptly inform the EC and provide the reasons for the study’s termination or suspension.

G-CT-DIPApp also specifies that in the event of the premature discontinuance of a trial, the Thai FDA must be notified no later than 30 working days after the date of discontinuance. G-CT-DIPApp further notes that a corresponding notification letter referring to the related approved import license along with supplemental documents as indicated in Appendix 13 is needed, and a corresponding notification letter along with supplement documents as indicated in Appendix 14 is needed. (Note: Appendices 13 and 14 as referenced in G-CT-DIPApp are only available in the ClinImprtOrdr.) As stated in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, at the conclusion or termination of a clinical trial, a summary report must also be submitted within 60 days after the closeout of the last study site. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd further explain that details of remaining medicines to be destroyed and evidence supporting the destruction or return of the study drugs should also be included (Appendix 20 in ClinImprtOrdr and Appendix 16 in ClinSampleProd each contain a sample notification form required to be completed when terminating a research project). (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

Per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must also notify the Thai FDA when the clinical trial has been discontinued in its entirety or at any clinical trial site for reasons not related to the safety of clinical trial, or if the trial has been discontinued prematurely.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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

See the G-eHealthRecords for the FDA’s guidance related to the use of electronic health records in clinical research.

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

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

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

Electronic Data Processing System

Per G-ResEthics and THA-28, 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, and that standard operating procedures are maintained for using these systems. Per THA-28, the sponsor’s approach to validate such systems should be based 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. Refer to G-ResEthics and THA-28 for detailed information on electronic trial data systems. ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd also note that sponsors should ensure that research facilities are prepared for inspections by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) by ensuring that research participant source data and case report forms are stored in electronically based data collection systems.

Records Management

As set forth in G-ResEthics and THA-28, sponsor-specific essential documents should be retained until at least two (2) years after the last approval of a marketing application in an International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) region, until there are no pending or contemplated marketing applications, or at least two (2) years have elapsed since the formal discontinuation of an 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.

In addition, THA-28 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.

Electronic Data Processing System

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

Records Management

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

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

Responsible Parties

The PDPA defines the “data controller” as the person or juristic person having the power and duties to make decisions regarding the collection, use, or disclosure of the personal data.

Data Protection

Per the PDPA, the data controller must ensure that collected personal data remains accurate, up-to-date, complete, and not misleading. Personal data collection must be limited to the extent necessary in relation to the lawful purpose of the data controller. The data controller’s purpose for collecting data must meet one (1) of the purposes specified in the PDPA in order to be permitted to collect personal data, with the data subject’s explicit consent (see Section 23 of PDPA for details).

PDPA further specifies that personal data includes health and genetic data and requires the data subject’s explicit consent. Permissible personal data collection includes data collected in the interest of public health, such as protecting against cross-border dangerous contagious diseases or epidemics which may be contagious or pestilent, or ensuring standards or quality of medicines, medicinal products, or medical devices, provided there are measures to safeguard the rights and freedom of the data subject, including the confidentiality of personal data. Additionally, in the event that the data controller sends or transfers personal data to a foreign country, the destination country or international organization that receives such personal data must have an adequate data protection standard, and must be carried out in accordance with the rules for personal data protection as prescribed by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC). See PDPC-Estab and THA-62 for additional information on the PDPC. Refer to the PDPA for a detailed list of permissible data collection purposes.

As set forth in the PDPA, the data controller is responsible for the following duties:

• To provide appropriate security measures for preventing the unauthorized or unlawful loss, access to, use, alteration, correction, or disclosure of personal data; such measures must be reviewed when necessary, or when technology has changed in order to efficiently maintain proper security and safety, and also comply with the minimum standard specified by the PDPC
• In the case of personal data being provided to other persons or legal persons other than the data controller, the data controller must take action to prevent such person(s) from using or disclosing the personal data unlawfully or without authorization
• Establish an examination system for personal data erasure or destruction when the retention period ends, when the personal data is irrelevant or beyond the purpose necessary for which it has been collected, when the data subject has requested to do so, or when the data subject withdraws consent, except where the retention of such personal data is for the purpose of freedom of expression
• Notify the PDPC of any personal data breach without delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours after having become aware of it, unless such breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of the persons whose data have been breached

Refer to the PDPA for additional information on data controller responsibilities. See also PDPC-Breach, G-PDPBreaches, THA-15, THA-10, and THA-17 for data controller guidelines on assessing data breach risks and applicable PDPC reporting requirements.

As described in the PDPA, with regard to personal data record management, the data controller must maintain, at least, the following records in order to enable the data subject and the PDPC to monitor in either written or electronic form the following: the collected personal data; the purpose of the collection of personal data; data controller details; personal data retention period; rights and methods for access to the personal data, including the conditions regarding the person’s right to access their personal data and the conditions to access such data; personal data use or disclosure; rejection of or objection to a request for personal data; and details of the appropriate personal data security measures.

Per the PDPA, the data protection legislation states that a data protection officer must be designated in the event the data controller/data processor is deemed a public authority per the PDPC; if the activities of the data controller/data processor in the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data, or the system itself, requires regular monitoring, due to the large quantity of personal data; or, if the core activity of the data controller/data processor is the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data for which the explicit consent of the data subject has not been obtained. See the PDPA for guidance related to data protection officers. See also THA-61 for a detailed guidance on the PDPA.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

The PDPA states that the data controller must not collect, use, or disclose personal data, unless the data subject has given consent prior to or at the time of such collection, use, or disclosure, except in the case where the data controller is permitted to do so by the provisions of the PDPA or any other laws. These cases may include the preparation of historical documents or public interest archives, research, or statistics, or preventing or suppressing a danger to a person’s life, body, or health.

The PDPA specifies that a request for consent must be made explicitly in a written statement or via electronic means unless consent cannot be done by those means. In addition, the data controller must inform the data subject of the purpose for collecting, using, or disclosing the subject’s personal data. The request for consent must be presented in an easily accessible and intelligible form and with statements using clear and plain language that is neither deceptive nor misleading to the data subject. The data controller must also ensure that the data subject’s consent is freely given.

The PDPA further explains that the data subject may withdraw consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent must be as easy as giving consent, unless there is a restriction of the withdrawal of consent by law, or the contract which gives benefits to the data subject. However, the withdrawal of consent must not affect the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data that the data subject has already legally consented to. If the withdrawal of consent will affect the data subject in any manner, the data controller must inform the data subject of the consequences of withdrawal.

In the event that the data subject is a minor who is not sui juris by marriage or has no capacity as a sui juris person under the PDPA, the request for consent from such a data subject must be made as follows:

• In the event that giving consent is not an action that the minor is entitled to exercise independently, the consent of the holder of parental responsibility over the child must be obtained
• Where the minor is below the age of 10 years, the consent must be obtained from the holder of parental responsibility over the child
• In the event that the data subject is incompetent, the consent must be obtained from the custodian who has the power to act on behalf of the incompetent person
• In the event that the data subject is quasi-incompetent, the consent must be obtained from the curator who has the power to act on behalf of the quasi-incompetent person

The above stated provisions also apply to the withdrawal of data consent of the data subject, the notice given to the data subject, the exercise of rights of the data subject, the complaint of the data subject, and any other acts under the PDPA for the data subject who is a minor, an incompetent person, or a quasi-incompetent person.

Refer to the G-PDPConsent for detailed data controller guidance on obtaining consent, and the G-PDPNotif for data controller guidelines on the conditions to be assessed when notifying a data subject of the purpose and details related to collecting their personal data. THA-16 also provides useful information on these guidelines.

Responsible Parties

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

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

Data Protection

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

NIH Privacy Requirements

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

See USA-86 for more information on these circumstances.

Obtaining Consent

In all Thai clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. MCEthics further states that a medical practitioner who conducts research studies and human experiments must obtain the consent of the participant and must be ready to protect the participant from harm arising from that experiment.

As per ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, and THA-28, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) recognized by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA), and provided to the Thai FDA with the drug import license application to conduct a clinical trial. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the form.) (Note: The ICF is referred to as the Patient Information Sheet in G-CT-DIPApp.) (See also THA-18 and THA-76 for the forms included in the appendices in ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr.)

G-ResEthics and THA-28 state that the investigator(s) or the representative(s) must provide detailed research study information to the participant or legal representative/guardian. G-ResEthics and THA-28 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 legal representative/guardian, should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate. THA-11 also explains that patients who seek medical treatment have the right to receive truthful and adequate information about their illness, examination, treatment, advantages and disadvantages from the examination, and treatment from health professionals, in a language that patients can easily understand. Patients can then choose to make decisions about consenting or not consenting to the health professionals treating them, except in cases of urgent and life-threatening emergencies. THA-14 further states that researchers should take pains to explain the objectives and scope of their research to the human participants without deceiving or coercing them and they should not violate their participants’ rights as private individuals. Researchers should respect the rights and dignity of their human participants and enlist their consent prior to any research experiments involving human participants.

As per G-ResEthics and THA-28, none of the oral and written information concerning the research study, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive 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.

THA-13 provides informed consent documentation guidelines required by the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH), which is one (1) of the institutional ECs approved by the Thai FDA.

As noted in THA-34, the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) does not have its own informed consent documentation guidelines and directs investigators to the ICF template and checklist provided by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Thailand (FERCIT) (see THA-46 for document links).

Re-Consent

No information is currently available regarding re-consent requirements.

Language Requirements

As stated in ClinImprtOrdr and ClinSampleProd, the ICF content and accompanying information (Patient Information Sheet) should be presented in the participant’s language, must be submitted in Thai and translated to English, and certify that the text in other languages aligns with the Thai translation. G-CT-DIPApp also indicates that the Patient Information Sheet should be presented in Thai.

Documenting Consent

G-ResEthics and THA-28 state 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. The NatHlthAct also indicates that the participant’s consent must be obtained in writing prior to conducting the trial.

Waiver of Consent

As per G-ResEthics, the EC should establish the conditions under which an informed consent discussion and/or signing the ICF can be waived. In these cases, the investigator must explore other means to protect the participant’s confidentiality. For example, if the investigator uses information from a participant’s medical records, the investigator must also ensure that the ICF is kept in the medical record by having the participant sign the form in advance and keep it in the records, or by having the participant sign the ICF later. The EC will then consider waiving the informed consent as long as the investigator provides proof that the participant is informed about the method for collecting the data, and that the participant’s privacy is protected.

Obtaining Consent

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, per the RevComRule, participants must be provided with the information that a “reasonable person” would want to have in order to make an informed decision and an opportunity to discuss that information. Furthermore, the RevComRule requires that the informed consent, except for broad consent, must begin with a concise and focused presentation of the key information and organized to facilitate comprehension. Broad consent may be obtained in lieu of a full informed consent only with respect to the storage, maintenance, and secondary research uses of private identifiable information and identifiable biospecimens. See USA-54 and USA-60 for additional information regarding informed consent and broad consent requirements.

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

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

See the G-InfrmdCnsnt for the FDA’s discussion of the regulations in 21CFR50. Also, see USA-54 and USA-60 for additional information regarding informed consent.

Re-Consent

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

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

Language Requirements

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

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

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

Documenting Consent

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

Per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, if the consent information is only presented orally using the short form, the participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s) must sign the form, the witness must sign both the short form and a copy of the summary once consent has been provided, and the person obtaining the consent must sign a copy of the summary. A copy of both the summary and the short form must be given to the participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s). The FDA’s G-InfrmdCnsnt further states that participants who cannot write can instead indicate their consent by "making their mark" on the consent document. In these situations, a note should be included in participant case histories indicating the reason for the lack of a signature and date as required in 21CFR50. The date consent was obtained should be recorded in this note.

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

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

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

Waiver of Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the G-MinRiskWaiver, the FDA informs sponsors, investigators, and ECs that it does not intend to object to an EC waiving or altering informed consent requirements for certain minimal-risk, clinical investigations.

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

Based on ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, the G-ResEthics, and the G-CT-DIPApp, the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as the Patient Information Sheet in G-CT-DIPApp) 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 and objectives
• The expected duration of research participant’s involvement in the trial
• Experimental aspects of the study
• The participant’s responsibilities in participating in the trial
• Any 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, including the benefits and risks
• The trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment
• The research procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
• The expected benefits that can be obtained from the study; 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
• Payment of compensation (if any) determined on a monthly basis to research participants
• Various expenses (if any) for research participants
• That participation is voluntary, and that the participant may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without guilt or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• That the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA), research investigators, the ethics committee (EC), and regulatory agencies are permitted to directly inspect participant’s original medical records to validate the accuracy of clinical research procedures and/or other information without violating the participant's right to maintain confidentiality beyond the limits allowed by laws and regulations, and that, by signing a written ICF, the participant or legal representative/guardian is authorizing such access.
• The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained
• That the participant or legal representative/guardian will be notified in a timely manner if significant new findings develop during the course of the study which may affect the participant's willingness to continue
• 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
• Estimated number of participants participating in research for the entire project, and the number of participants at each institution in Thailand

THA-13 provides information sheet guidelines required by the Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH), which is one (1) of the institutional ethics committees approved by the Thai FDA.

As noted in THA-34, the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) does not have its own informed consent documentation guidelines and directs investigators to the ICF template and checklist provided by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Thailand (FERCIT) (see THA-46 for document links).

See the Vulnerable Populations and Consent for Specimen sections for further information. See also Appendix 11 (Part 4) in THA-18 and Appendix 7 (Part 4) in THA-76 for a checklist of items to be included in the ICF.

Based on 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the informed consent form (ICF) must include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: The regulations provide overlapping and unique elements so each of the items listed below will not necessarily be in each source):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compensation Disclosure

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

Overview

In accordance with G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), Thailand’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. The Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11) also states that every patient has the fundamental right to receive professional medical care and health care from health professionals without discrimination as provided for in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (B.E. 2560). Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, THA-28, the NatHlthAct, and G-CT-DIPApp, state that a participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) (also referred to as the Patient Information Sheet) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and THA-28, the participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled. NatHlthAct also states that the participant may withdraw consent at any time. THA-11 similarly states that the patient has the right to be fully informed in order to make a decision to participate or withdraw from being a participant in a health practitioner’s research.

The Right to Information

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, the NatHlthAct, G-CT-DIPApp, and THA-28, 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. THA-11 states that patients who seek medical treatment have the right to receive truthful and adequate information about their illness, examination, treatment, advantages and disadvantages from the examination, and treatment from health professionals, in a language that patients can easily understand. Patients can then choose to make decisions about consenting or not consenting to the health professionals treating them, except in cases of urgent and life-threatening emergency.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and THA-28, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right. In addition, per G-ResEthics, which incorporates the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (THA-45), every precaution should be taken to respect the privacy of the participant, the confidentiality of the participant’s information, and to minimize the impacts of the study on the participant. THA-11 further states that unless the patient’s permission or approved legal authorization is obtained, healthcare personnel cannot disclose the patient’s information.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

ClinImprtOrdr, ClinSampleProd, G-ResEthics, G-CT-DIPApp, and THA-28 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. THA-11 similarly indicates that every patient has the right to know the name, surname, and profession of the healthcare personnel in charge.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

G-ResEthics states that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society. THA-14 explains that researchers should take full responsibility for the impact and consequences of their research regarding themselves, their research participants, and society at large.

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

Overview

In accordance with 21CFR50, 21CFR312, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, the United States’ (US) ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As set forth in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, a potential participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s) must be informed that participation is voluntary, that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time, and that refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled.

The Right to Information

As delineated in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs, a potential research participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s), has the right to be informed about the nature and purpose of the research study, its anticipated duration, study procedures, any potential benefits or risks, any compensation for participation or injury/treatment, and any significant new information regarding the research study.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

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

The RevComRule does allow the use of identifiable private information or biospecimens in instances where the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the US) determines the research could not practicably be carried out without the information. Furthermore, it removes the requirement for the investigator to seek a waiver of informed consent to obtain information or biospecimens to screen, recruit, or determine eligibility of prospective participants. See USA-54 for additional information on identifiable private information or biospecimens, USA-65 for a list of Common Rule departments/agencies, and the Regulatory Authority section for more information on when the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule apply to research.

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

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, the RevComRule, and the US-ICH-GCPs state that the research participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s), should be provided with contact information for the sponsor and the investigator(s) to address trial-related inquiries and/or to appeal against a violation of the participant’s rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The US-ICH-GCPs clearly states that a research participant’s right to safety and the protection of the participant’s health and welfare must take precedence over the interests of science and society.

Per the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), research participants involved in clinical research under emergency circumstances are viewed as vulnerable and should be provided additional protections to ensure their safety and well-being. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28. In addition, per the Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11), patients who are in a life-threatening condition are entitled to immediate, urgent assistance from a healthcare practitioner as required, regardless of whether the patient requests assistance.

THA-28 explains that 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 cannot be obtained from the legal representative/guardian, the participant’s enrollment should follow measures specified in the protocol, and/or elsewhere, to ensure compliance with ethics committee (EC) and other applicable regulatory requirements. Documented EC approval to protect the participant’s rights, safety, and well-being must also be obtained. The participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible and provide consent. Consent should also continue to be obtained throughout the trial as appropriate per THA-28. However, THA-11 further notes that except in an emergency, every patient has the right to obtain sufficient information regarding their illness from healthcare personnel prior to deciding to allow any treatment.

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

Medical Emergencies

As per the US-ICH-GCPs, in an emergency, if the signed informed consent form (ICF) has not been obtained from the research participant and/or a legal representative(s) or guardian(s), or if an effective treatment is lacking but the investigational product (IP) could address the participant’s emergency needs, the clinical trial may be conducted. However, the method used on the participant must be explained clearly in the trial protocol, and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (referred to as an institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) must approve the protocol in advance. The participant and/or the legal representative(s) or guardian(s) should be informed about the trial as soon as possible, and consent to continue and other consent should be requested, as appropriate.

Emergency Use Situation

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

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

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

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

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

Emergency Research

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

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

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

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

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

Military Operations

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

Overview

As per G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), in all Thai 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 an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

G-ResEthics characterizes vulnerable populations as those who are dependent on others and are unable to express their opinion freely or make their own decisions. THA-28 adds that, whether reasonable or not, the participant may also consent to participate out of fear that they will be penalized for not participating. This may apply, for example, to members of a hierarchical organization such as medical, pharmacy, dental, or nursing students and lower-level hospital personnel and staff rooms. THA-28 also notes that participants in this study population may be persuaded to enter a trial with the hope of obtaining benefits from their participation in the research. Per G-ResEthics, these participants may include hospitalized patients, prisoners, children, the mentally impaired, critically ill and psychotic patients, pregnant women, and the disadvantaged. Per THA-28, other vulnerable participants may include drug company employees, soldiers, prisoners, patients with incurable diseases, emergency patients, unemployed or poor people, members of minority groups, the homeless, immigrants, and young people who are unable to give consent on their own.

The G-ResEthics specifies that trials involving vulnerable persons must meet the following requirements:

• Irrefutable rationale for conducting research clearly explained in the protocol
• Precautions against possible physical and mental harms exercised
• Appropriate research procedures used
• Ensure that, as applicable, the participant’s parents or legal representative/guardian are fully informed about the study
• Proof that the participants are voluntarily participating in the study
• Ensure that the possible risks should not be greater than minimal when a study will not have a direct health benefit to the vulnerable group, unless the ethics committee permits a greater than minimal risk study to be conducted

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

Overview

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

21CFR56 and the US-ICH-GCPs require special considerations for vulnerable populations and characterize them as those whose willingness to volunteer in a trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response for refusing to participate. Examples of these participants include members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students; subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel; pharmaceutical industry employees; members of the armed forces; and persons kept in detention. Per 21CFR56 and US-ICH-GCPs, other vulnerable subjects include children, pregnant women, physically or mentally disabled persons, patients with incurable diseases, persons in nursing homes, economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, patients in emergency situations, ethnic minority groups, homeless persons, nomads, refugees, minors, and those incapable of giving consent.

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

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

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

According to the ThaiCode, a minor is someone under 20 years of age or unmarried. The Ethical Review Committee for Research in Human Subjects, Ministry of Public Health (ECMOPH) guidelines (THA-13) specifies that the age suitable to give consent is 18 years or older. The Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11) also indicates that a child is someone under 18 years of age.

As set forth in G-ResEthics, when the research participant is a minor, informed consent should be obtained from the parents, guardians, or legal representatives. Additionally, precautions against possible physical and mental harms should be exercised. Furthermore, the rights of the minors should be respected for their voluntary decision to participate in a clinical study. THA-11 similarly indicates that parents or legal guardians may exercise their rights on behalf of a child patient who is not over 18 years of age.

The International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) states that when a clinical trial includes minors, the minor should be informed about the trial to the extent compatible with the minor’s understanding and, if capable, the minor should sign and personally date the written informed consent. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

Assent Requirements

THA-13 specifies that assent is required for minors seven (7) through 18 years of age. Different assent forms should be created for the following age groups: seven (7) to 13 and over 13 until 18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assent Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exceptions to the two (2) legal representatives’ and/or guardians’ consent requirement are when one (1) legal representative or guardian is deceased, unknown, incompetent, or not reasonably available, or, when only one (1) legal representative or guardian has legal responsibility for the care and custody of the child.

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

As per G-ResEthics, any Thai clinical studies involving pregnant women and fetuses require additional safeguards to ensure that the research conforms to appropriate ethical standards and upholds societal values. Adequate information on the safety and impacts to the fetus should also be made available.

In addition, the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28) indicates that 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. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

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

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

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

Pregnant Women and Fetuses

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

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

Neonates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viable neonates may only be included in research to the extent permitted by and in accordance with the RevComRule and subparts B and D of 45CFR46-B-E.

According to G-ResEthics, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per G-ResEthics, informed consent should be obtained from the legal representatives or guardians of participants for studies involving psychiatric or mentally incapacitated patients. The Declaration of Rights and Code of Conduct for Patients (THA-11) also states that parents or legal representatives may exercise their rights on behalf of a physically or mentally handicapped child patient who cannot exercise their rights on their own.

As further explained in MentalHlthAct, any research to be conducted with patients who are mentally impaired have the right to:

• Receive treatment according to medical standards that protect human dignity
• Have information about their illness and treatment kept confidential other than what is required to be disclosed by law
• Sign an ethics committee (EC) approved consent form prior to participation
• Receive equal access to state health insurance and social security systems

In addition, MentalHlthAct prohibits disclosure of health information of mentally impaired participants in a manner that may damage the individual, except in the event that the patient or others may be in danger, for public safety, or specific laws require this information to be disclosed.

MentalHlthAct also states that any research involving patients who are mentally impaired can only be performed after obtaining their consent as well as EC approval and approval from other relevant authorities to conduct the study. The patient’s approval may be revoked at any time. Treatment may only be administered once the patient has been informed as to why the treatment is necessary and provided with the details and benefits prior to giving consent. In the case of a patient under 18 years old, or one who lacks the ability to make decisions, the patient’s parent or legal guardian should provide consent. If the patient is to be admitted to a public hospital or treatment facility, signed consent is necessary. Research is permitted in the case of patients with mental impairments who are either facing dangerous conditions or compulsory treatment is required.

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

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

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

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

• Assessing consent capacity of prospective participants, for example, through use of an independent, qualified professional

• Establishing a waiting period in the decision-making process to allow additional time for decision-making

• Using methods to enhance consent capacity, for example through (1) simplification and/or repetition of information, (2) involvement of a participant advocate or trusted family member/friend to assist when sharing information about the clinical investigation, and (3) refraining from discussions during periods of heightened impairment, when possible

• Assessing a participant’s understanding after information about the clinical investigation has been imparted, for example, through use of a questionnaire

• Re-assessing consent capacity after initiation of the clinical investigation for participants with progressive disorders whose cognition may decline

• Involving a legally authorized representative and/or guardian either initially or later in the clinical investigation if consent capacity diminishes

• Assessing whether prospective participants who cannot provide legally effective consent on their own behalf may nonetheless be able to provide some form of oral agreement at the outset of the study and, as appropriate, throughout the course of the research (e.g., for participants with progressive disorders), and how such oral agreement would be documented

• Emphasizing the voluntary nature of the decision to participate and the right to withdraw at any time

• Determining whether the EC or a third party should observe the consent process

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

In accordance with G-ResEthics and the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (THA-28), an investigational product is defined as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial. This includes a product with a marketing authorization when it is used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a different way from the approved form, when used for an unapproved indication, or when used to gain further information about an approved use. Per an in-country subject matter expert, Thailand is implementing THA-28.

G-ResEthics states that an investigational drug used in a clinical trial falls into one (1) of four (4) categories:

• New drugs
• Unregistered drugs in Thailand
• Drugs registered by the national drug authority, but being studied in new doses or indications not previously approved
• Locally produced drugs that require efficacy testing

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

Additionally, the US-ICH-GCPs defines an investigational product as a pharmaceutical form of an active ingredient or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial, including a product with a marketing authorization when used or assembled (formulated or packaged) in a way different from the approved form, or when used for an unapproved indication, or when used to gain further information about an approved use.

Manufacturing

According to the DrugAct, ClinSampleProd, and ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) is responsible for authorizing the manufacture of investigational products (IPs) in Thailand. The Thai FDA will approve the manufacture of an IP after the clinical trial application has been approved.

As explained in ClinSampleProd, the Thai FDA’s approval of a request to manufacture drug samples for investigational purposes is obtained using the P.Y.8 form (ClinSampleProd (Appendix 1) or THA-76 (Appendix 1)).

ClinSampleProd specifies that the following information must be included with the P.Y.8 form (Appendix 1):

• Detailed list of manufactured drugs
• Appearance and color of medicine
• Number or quantity to be produced
• Quantity of drug ingredients (must be reported in metric units or in a percentage)
• Packaging size (packaging details)
• Specifying if drug samples are for human research studies or cases other than human research studies
• Drug label (two (2) copies)
• Medicine package document (two (2) copies)
• Other documents in the case of producing drug samples for human research studies

See also the Appendix 6 (Evidence of Drug Quality Information) in ClinSampleProd and (THA-76 (Appendix 6)) for additional requirements included on this form.

ClinSampleProd and ClinImprtOrdr, also state that the IP must be manufactured in accordance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) guidelines.

In addition, per ClinSampleProd, following the Thai FDA’s approval to manufacture IP samples, the applicant must also obtain approval prior to implementing changes in the following categories:

• Changes that must be notified
• Changes that require a change request to be submitted before proceeding, and
• Changes that require a new production permit request to be submitted

ClinSampleProd indicates that when the change complies with one (1) of the listed categories, the applicant should:

• Prepare documents and evidence according to the document self-check form for requesting changes using the Appendix 13 form or (THA-76 (Appendix 13))
• Submit a request to amend the details regarding permission using the Appendix 14 form or (THA-76 (Appendix 14)) (1 set)

Per ClinSampleProd, along with the Appendix 14 form, the applicant should attach relevant documents showing the revised section(s) and one (1) set of power of attorney documentation for each paper submission. ClinSampleProd notes that one (1) request can only change one (1) main issue. For example, in the case of requesting to extend the validity of medicines, this is a change in quality and results in a new expiration date label) to be submitted in one (1) request. Additionally, for amendment requests that refer to information already submitted via the FDA’s Skynet E-Submission System (THA-54), the applicant must submit documents according to the system's procedures.

For changes that require the Thai FDA’s Medicines Regulation Division to be notified, ClinSampleProd states that the applicant should submit a letter of explanation, refer to the sample drug production license for human research studies that has been received, and attach related documents showing the revised sections or other information that needs to be notified as detailed in the Appendix 15 form or (THA-76 (Appendix 15)).

Import

As delineated in ClinImprtOrdr, the Thai FDA is also responsible for authorizing the import of IPs. The Thai FDA’s approval of a drug import license application for clinical research purposes serves as the import license using the N.Y.M.1 form (ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2)). Per DrugImprtRules-1989 and DrugImprtRules-2009, all requests approved by the Thai FDA to order or import drugs into the country for research purposes are exempt from registration.

According to ClinImprtOrdr and THA-18, the following documents are also required to be submitted to the Thai FDA:

• Import license application/N.Y.M.1 (ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2))
• Summary of research project (Thai)
• Ethics committee (EC) approval letter
• Patient Information Sheet (in Thai)
• Complete research project details (in Thai or English)
• Drug labels for every package size (in Thai or English)
• Drug documentation (for drug formulas that have already been registered)
• Investigator’s brochure (IB) (for drugs not yet registered)
• Pharmaceutical quality control and production documents
• Drug name(s) (including dosage form, quantity, and details of every packaging size)

ClinImprtOrdr also states that the quantity of the IP must be calculated based on the number of study participants of each institute for the whole study duration in accordance with the information in the study protocol. The amount of the IP cannot exceed 20% to cover drug damage. Please refer to ClinImprtOrdr for more detailed IP supply requirements.

In addition, per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must inform or request permission from the Thai FDA prior to initiating the following:

• Changes to clinical trial drug supplies
• Changes to an approved protocol (protocol amendment) or changes related to or affecting participant safety
• In cases where the sponsor is required to immediately make one (1) or more amendments because the clinical trial or the use of IP in the trial endangers the health of a clinical trial participant or other person, the applicant may immediately make the amendment without prior review by the Thai FDA. A corresponding notification clearly identifying the change and the rationale for immediate implementation of the change must be filed within 15 working days after the amendment implementation date. A corresponding notification letter referring to the related approved import license (see ClinImprtOrdr (Appendix 2) and THA-18 (Appendix 2) for N.Y.M.1 form), along with supplemental documents as stated in Appendix 12, are also required. (Note: The Additional Amendment/Clarification Request Form referenced in G-CT-DIPApp as Appendix 12 is only available in ClinImprtOrdr and THA-18 (Appendix 12))

Furthermore, per G-CT-DIPApp, after the import license is granted, the applicant must also notify the Thai FDA in the following cases:

• Changes to the protocol that do not affect the safety of the trial participants
• When the clinical trial has been discontinued in its entirety or at any clinical trial site for reasons not related to the safety of clinical trial participants
• IB changes
• Chemistry and manufacturing or quality changes that do not affect drug quality or safety
• Premature discontinuation of a trial (See the Risk & Quality Management section for detailed notification requirements)

Per THA-19, a request for an expedited license to order or import IPs may also be submitted to the Thai FDA for the following:

• Clinical research purposes
• To produce sample IPs for human research
• To expand the scope of drug results for human research to include a new research project
• To address a public health emergency
• To address an urgent clinical research need, in the event a facility runs out of an IP (an EC waiver may be required)

See the Regulatory Fees section for information on IP import fees. See also the Submission Process section for instructions on submitting a drug import waiver request to the Thai FDA.

The DrugAct states that a license will remain valid until December 31st of the year of issue. The license holder who would like to renew the license must file an application for renewal prior to the license expiration date. Once the renewal application has been filed, the license holder may continue to conduct business unless the renewal request is denied. A license holder whose license has expired for not more than one (1) month may file an exemption indicating the reason for obtaining a license extension. However, an application renewal request submitted after one (1) month from the date of license expiration is not permitted. In the event that the Thai FDA does not issue or grant a license renewal request, the applicant may appeal in writing to the Minister within 30 days from the date of receiving the notice rejecting the request. The applicant may obtain a temporary license to operate the business until a final decision is issued by the Minister.

Manufacturing

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

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

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

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

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

Import

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

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

Investigator's Brochure