In Uganda, the National Drug Authority (NDA) and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), in collaboration with the Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), are involved in clinical trial oversight.

National Drug Authority

As per the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-TrialsGCP, the NDA is the regulatory authority responsible for clinical trial approval and inspections in Uganda. The NDA grants permission for clinical trials to be conducted in Uganda in accordance with the provisions of the NDPA-Act.

As stated in the NGHRP, the NDA regulates safety, quality, efficacy, handling, and use of drugs or drug related products and devices in research, and monitors product safety and pharmacovigilance. According to UGA-29, the Clinical Trials Unit in the NDA’s Directorate of Product Safety is responsible for reviewing and approving clinical trial applications, conducting clinical trial site inspections for compliance with good clinical practice, and developing guidance documents.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

The NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct indicate that in addition to obtaining the NDA’s permission to conduct research in Uganda, an applicant must obtain approval from the UNCST, or from an institution authorized by the UNCST. The NGHRP specifies that all persons intending to carry out research in Uganda must register their research activities with and obtain a research permit from the UNCST. Prior to approval and registration with the UNCST, approval for a clinical trial must be obtained from the ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) and/or the UNCST’s National Biosafety Committee (NBC), as applicable.

As per UGA-30, the UNCST was established by the UNCST-Act as a semi-autonomous government agency under the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation. The mandate of the UNCST is to develop and implement policies and strategies for integrating science and technology into national development policies; to advise the government of Uganda on policy matters necessary for promoting science and technology; and coordinate and guide national research and development in Uganda.

As per the NGHRP, the UNCST registers and, in liaison with the Research Secretariat in the Office of the President of Uganda, clears all research intended to be carried out in the country.

Uganda National Health Research Organisation

The UNHRO-Act authorizes the UNHRO to register and renew research protocols, and to implement and enforce an ethical code of conduct for health research in Uganda. The UNHRO, in collaboration with the UNCST, conducts a scientific and ethical review of all health research protocols for approval. According to the NGHRP, the UNCST consults the UNHRO, where applicable, on identified health protocols through the UNHRO’s National Health Research Ethics Advisory Board (NHREAB). The research follows established research regulatory processes, and final research clearance and registration is carried out by the UNCST. The NHREAB is advisory and provides advice on broader national political and safety issues related to research. It also provides advice related to arbitration on appeals from scientists. Expert working groups also support the NHREAB as requested.

Other Considerations

Please note: Uganda is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (UGA-3), which may have implications for studies of investigational products developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see UGA-21.

Contact Information

National Drug Authority

According to UGA-23, the NDA’s contact information is as follows:

National Drug Authority - Head Office
NDA Tower
P.O. Box 23096
Kampala, Uganda
Plot 93, Buganda Road, after St. Catherine Hospital

Reception Phone: +256 [0]417 788 100
Directorate of Product Safety Phone: +256 [0]417 788 124
Directorate of Inspectorate Services Phone: +256 [0]417 788 129
WhatsApp: +256 740002080

Email: ndaug@nda.or.ug

UGA-10 also provides the following contact information for the NDA’s Innovation & Research Desk:

Phone: [0]800 101 999
WhatsApp: 0740002070
Email: research@nda.or.ug

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

As per UGA-25, the UNCST’s contact information is as follows:

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology
Plot 6, Kimera Road, Ntinda
P.O. Box 6884
Kampala, Uganda
Phone: +256 414 705500
Email: info@uncst.go.ug

Uganda National Health Research Organisation

Per UGA-42, the UNHRO’s contact information is as follows:

Uganda National Health Research Organisation
Plot 2, Berkeley Lane, Entebbe
P.O. Box 465
Entebbe, Uganda

Tel/Fax: +256 414 321766
Email: unhrodesk4@gmail.com

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

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

Office for Human Research Protections and Common Rule Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Alignment

Per USA-16, the US is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The FDA has implemented the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3) in US-ICH-GCP, along with other ICH guidance. See USA-19 for the implementation status of all ICH guidelines. Additionally, see USA-22 and USA-47 for links to ICH guidance documents implemented by the FDA.

Contact Information

Food & Drug Administration

As per USA-81, USA-90, and USA-91, the contact information for the FDA is as follows (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

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

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
CBER Telephone: (800) 835-4709 or (240) 402-8010
CBER Email (manufacturers assistance): Industry.Biologics@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (imports): CBERimportinquiry@fda.hhs.gov
CBER Email (exports): CBERExportCert@fda.hhs.gov

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
Division of Drug Information
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Building 51, Room 1109
Silver Spring, MD 20993
CDER Telephone (drug information): (301) 796-3400
CDER Email: druginfo@fda.hhs.gov

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

Department of Health & Human Services

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

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

Overview

In accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-TrialsGCP, the National Drug Authority (NDA) is responsible for reviewing, evaluating, and approving clinical trial applications for registered or unregistered medicines in Uganda. The scope of the NDA’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV).

The NGHRP states that research approval must be obtained from the institutional level ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) and/or National Biosafety Committee (NBC), as applicable, prior to approval and registration with the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). Per the NDPA-CTReg, proof of institutional EC approval must also be submitted in a clinical trial application to the NDA. However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that parallel submissions may be made to the NDA and the UNCST. In that instance, the NDA would not make a final decision until after the trial receives ethical clearance. NDA approval will be dependent on receipt of the protocol’s approval by the institutional EC in consultation with the UNCST. As per the NGHRP, Joint Scientific and Ethical Review (JoSER) involving the UNCST, the Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), the NDA, and the EC, as applicable, is also available for research that involves a novel technology, product, study design, or intervention that addresses a public health need or/and emergency. See below for more information on JoSER.

Clinical Trial Review Process

National Drug Authority

The NDPA-CTReg, the G-TrialsGCP, and the G-CTConduct indicate that upon receipt of a clinical trial application, the NDA initially screens the application for completeness. If the NDA is not satisfied with the information provided, the applicant will be advised in writing to provide further information or clarification. According to the G-CTConduct, the applicant must submit their responses in writing or in any other format as advised by the NDA, and in the timeframe determined by the NDA. NDA reviews are performed following a first-in first-out principle, except for clinical trials that are to be conducted in public health emergencies such as disease outbreaks, which may be exempted.

The NDPA-CTReg indicates that in considering an application for a clinical trial, the NDA must take into account the following:

• Relevance of the clinical trial
• Suitability of the principal investigator (PI)
• Quality of the facilities to be used for the clinical trial
• Adequacy and completeness of the information and procedures to obtain consent from the clinical trial participants
• Provision for indemnity for the PI and insurance for the clinical trial participants
• Terms of the agreement between the sponsor and the PI

Per the G-CTConduct, complete applications are given a Clinical Trial Application code. Applications verified as complete will undergo one (1) of three (3) types of reviews:

• Internal review, which is further subdivided into expedited or routine review
• Expert review, which involves external reviewers co-opted by the NDA following internal procedures
• Joint reviews, which are carried out jointly with other regulatory bodies including the UNCST, the UNHRO, and the primary EC. These reviews will be coordinated by the UNCST

As stated in the G-CTConduct and the NDPA-CTReg, fast track review/authorization of an application is applicable for the following (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Clinical trial applications for investigational drugs to provide treatment where no therapy exists (decision will be given to the applicant within 30 working days)
• Clinical trials conducted in an emergency, such as during a disease outbreak (eligible for fast track review with a timeline of 15 working days)
• Clinical trial applications that do not explicitly meet either above criterion, but are led by the Ministry of Health in the interest of a public health intervention
• Any other circumstance that the NDA may determine

According to the G-CTConduct, the NDA may decide to a) authorize the clinical trial and issue a clinical trial certificate; b) request additional information to support the application; or c) reject the clinical trial application, providing reasoning. The NDA’s decision is communicated to the applicant in writing. The clinical trial certificate is valid for one (1) year from the date it is awarded. Per the NDPA-CTReg, the NDA may also issue a clinical trial certificate with conditions. See Appendix XI of the G-CTConduct for the NDA clinical trial process flowchart and Form 34 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg for the format of the clinical trial certificate.

See the Submission Content section for detailed information on the contents of the clinical trial application.

The G-CTConduct states that any new information that becomes available regarding the product, such as new adverse effects or changes in formulation or the manufacturer, must be submitted to the NDA as soon as possible. Unless otherwise stated, additional information that is submitted prior to issuance of a clinical trial certificate will be considered as part of the submission and reviewed accordingly. The NDA may request supplementary information or documentation when appropriate, which should be submitted within the stated timeline, usually four (4) weeks. The NDA secretariat may grant additional time to provide information upon request by the applicant on a case-by-case basis. If the requested information is not submitted, the application will be archived within 50 working days. The application will need to be resubmitted for review.

Per the G-CTConduct, annual renewal of authorization to conduct the clinical trial is required for the trial prior to expiration of the validity. For studies that have completed follow-up for the last participant where there is no product or human participant, oversight will be deferred to the primary EC and the UNCST.

The NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct indicate that the NDA may, on its own initiative, make amendments to the conditions for conducting a clinical trial where it is necessary for the safety or scientific validity of the clinical trial. The NDA will give 15 days’ notice of the intended amendment to the sponsor and the PI with reasons for the amendment and request a written response to the proposed amendments prior to effecting the amendments. As stated in the NDPA-CTReg, the NDA will, in making amendments to the conditions of conducting a clinical trial, take into consideration the response of the sponsor or PI.

The NDPA-CTReg indicates that a sponsor who intends to amend any condition of the clinical trial specified in the clinical trial certificate, or who intends to add investigators, add clinical trial sites, or change investigators, must make an application to the NDA for authorization of the amendment. The amendment applications will be considered using the procedure and requirements for an application for authorization to conduct a clinical trial.

The G-CTConduct specifies that the application to amend the conditions of a clinical trial will be screened for completeness and will essentially be complete in the first instance if it includes all the required documents, appendices, and finished checklist. Applications which are incomplete will not be evaluated, and a letter documenting the deficiencies in the application will be issued to the applicant. The NDA may request supplementary data or documentation where applicable. The NDA will consider the favorable opinion of the EC(s), the UNCST, and other relevant information, and may request that the applicant submit an interim clinical trial study report to support the decision. Additionally, the NDA may take other regulatory action such as an inspection of the clinical trial site or investigational product (IP) manufacturing facility for regulatory and protocol compliance prior to making a decision. The NDA may approve or reject the application and specify the reasons for rejection. The decision will be communicated to the applicant in writing. Changes made to the informed consent forms will be acknowledged electronically unless they are directly related to the safety of the IP. Additionally, the NDA must be notified within 90 days about delays in trial initiation once a clinical trial has been approved and a clinical trial certificate issued.

See the G-CTConduct for detailed NDA amendment review procedures and Appendix IV of the G-CTConduct for the Categorization of Amendments.

As per the G-CTConduct, the NDA may at any reasonable time conduct inspections of the trial site prior to or after issuance of a clinical trial certificate. The purpose of the inspections is to assess the staff and facilities to be used or that are being used for the conduct of the clinical trial, and to verify the availability of the necessary resources and feasibility of conducting the study at the proposed site(s). These inspections will assess the compliance of the trial conduct with the conditions of the certificate. The NDA secretariat may contact the PI or sponsor notifying them of the date(s) of inspection. The secretariat will conduct inspections routinely, or as a result of a trigger. In addition, the inspections may be done jointly with the UNCST and/or the EC.

As indicated in the G-TrialsGCP, an inspection by the NDA may involve a comparison of the practices and procedures of the clinical trial with the commitments made in the application to conduct the trial; a comparison of the data submitted to the sponsor and the NDA with the source data; and a system inspection of the sponsor, clinical laboratory, or contract research organization generating data for submission to regulatory authorities. For more information on NDA inspections, see the G-TrialsGCP.

The NDPA-CTReg states that the NDA may, by notice, suspend or terminate a clinical trial where the conditions of a clinical trial certificate are not complied with or the NDA has information regarding the safety or scientific validity of the clinical trial or the conduct of the clinical trial. The NDA notice, which must be delivered to the sponsor or PI, will apply to the clinical trial generally or to one (1) or more of the clinical trial sites. Where a notice is for the suspension of the clinical trial, the suspension must be for the period specified in the notice. The notice must indicate, where applicable, the conditions to be fulfilled before the clinical trial or, as applicable, the conduct of the clinical trial at a particular site, may resume. Before issuing a notice, the NDA must inform the sponsor or PI of the notice and the reasons for the notice, and then advise the sponsor or PI to make a written representation on the intended suspension or termination within five (5) days. The NDA must consider the written representation and inform the sponsor or PI of its decision within seven (7) working days. However, the NDA is not required to inform the sponsor or PI of the notice if it appears that there is an imminent risk to the health or safety of any person participating in or involved in a clinical trial.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the NGHRP, and the G-CTConduct, an applicant must also submit a research proposal for review and approval to the UNCST. The NGHRP indicates that the UNCST liaises with the Research Secretariat in the Office of the President on national security issues in respect to research conducted in Uganda. All persons intending to carry out research in Uganda must register their research activities with and obtain a research permit from the UNCST. The UNCST registration process is normally completed within 10 working days.

According to the NGHRP, the UNCST handles appeals arising from ECs, research institutions, and the community in consultation with other regulatory agencies. It will also act as an arbiter for a research applicant dissatisfied with a decision from the EC. A researcher who is dissatisfied with an EC’s decision may appeal to the Executive Secretary of the UNCST within 30 days from the date of receipt of EC decision. The UNCST will carry out an independent review in collaboration with other regulatory bodies where applicable. For health research, the UNCST will carry out an independent review in collaboration with the UNHRO.

See the NGHRP for information on research in advanced therapy medicinal products/advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMPs), traditional and complementary medicine, and genetics and genomics.

Joint Scientific and Ethical Review

As stated in the G-JoSER, a submission for joint review may be initiated by the investigator, the national regulatory agencies (NRAs) (the NDA, the UNHRO, and the UNCST), or the EC. The UNCST Secretariat will coordinate the JoSER and be present during discussions regarding the research application under review. Additionally, the final decision on whether a study is eligible for JoSER is made by the UNCST, based on the assessment of the EC and/or any other reason as determined by the NRAs.

Per the G-JoSER, an investigator must have consultations with the EC chairperson prior to submitting the research application for pre-screening. The pre-screening will take a maximum of three (3) working days. After the NRAs and EC pre-screen the documents, administrative comments, together with the scheduled date and program for the joint review, will be sent to the applicant within three (3) working days. The request for JoSER may be rejected or accepted. For accepted applications, the UNCST, in collaboration with the NRAs, will identify subject matter experts and interested parties and notify them about the review meeting within the three (3) working days. Following the identification of reviewers, a joint review meeting will be convened by the UNCST within 10 calendar days. The NGHRP notes that quorum of the primary EC is required for the joint review, and the investigator/sponsor is responsible for any logistical requirements for the review meeting.

The G-JoSER indicates that the UNCST will submit a consolidated list of comments from the joint review within three (3) days after a convened meeting. The PI must submit a formal response to the comments received at the JoSER and then submit a cover letter with required documentation to the local EC for review. The EC will convene a meeting to review the responses within five (5) working days and decide whether to approve or reject the proposal. Following EC approval, the PI must submit the approved documents to the UNCST and submit them in parallel to the NDA (where necessary). The UNCST, in collaboration with the UNHRO, will review the documentation for completeness within two (2) working days, after which a research permit may be issued. The NDA will review the clinical trial application and provide a regulatory decision within five (5) working days, after which a certificate may be issued. However, a clinical trial certificate will only be granted after a research permit is obtained from the UNCST. The EC must co-opt at least two (2) members from the JoSER committee in case of any major amendments to the previously reviewed proposal.

According to the G-JoSER, an investigator who is dissatisfied with a JoSER decision may appeal to the UNCST Executive Secretary within 15 days of the date of receipt of the decision. The UNCST, together with the relevant regulatory bodies, will carry out an independent review and make a final decision. An investigator who is dissatisfied with the EC’s decision may also appeal to the UNCST Executive Secretary within 15 days of the date of receipt of the EC’s decision. The UNCST will carry out an independent review in collaboration with other regulatory bodies where applicable.

The NGHRP states that where possible, joint monitoring of the research studies may be carried out by the EC together with the UNCST, and where applicable, the UNHRO, the NDA, and other relevant regulatory organizations.

See the G-JoSER and the NGHRP for more information on JoSER.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A drug is involved as defined in the FDCAct

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

• The clinical investigation is not otherwise exempt from 21CFR312

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the G-BiorsrchInspct, the FDA developed a Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) program to assess the quality and integrity of data submitted to the FDA in support of regulatory decision-making, as well as to provide for protection of the rights, safety, and welfare of human trial participants involved in FDA-regulated research. The BIMO program, which involves on-site inspections, investigations, and remote regulatory assessments, assesses compliance with statutory requirements and the FDA’s regulations governing the conduct of nonclinical and clinical studies, as well as applicable postmarketing activities. See the G-BiorsrchInspct and USA-20 for more information on FDA inspections and the BIMO program.

Expedited Processes

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

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

National Drug Authority

In accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the NDPA-FeesReg, applicants are responsible for paying certain non-refundable fees to the National Drug Authority (NDA) related to clinical trial applications. As set forth in the NDPA-FeesReg, the following fees apply for clinical trials involving human drugs and vaccines (except herbal drugs):

• Application to conduct a clinical trial for a registered drug – $5,000 USD
• Application to conduct a clinical trial for an unregistered drug – $8,000 USD
• Application to conduct an adaptive clinical trial – $10,000 USD
• Application to conduct a clinical trial for locally manufactured drugs – 10,000,000 Ugandan shillings
• Application for major amendment of clinical trial protocol – $700 USD
• Application for minor amendment of clinical trial protocol – $300 USD
• Notification of amendment to clinical trial protocol – $50 USD
• Application for major amendment of protocol for an adaptive clinical trial – $2,000 USD
• Annual renewal of clinical trial certificate – $500 USD
• Extension of period for a clinical trial – $1,000 USD
• Fast tracking applications – 200% of applicable fees

See the NDPA-FeesReg for NDA fees regarding the inspection of local and foreign manufacturing plants for good manufacturing practice (GMP). Additionally, see the NDPA-FeesReg and the NDPA-AmendFeesReg for drug importation fees.

Payment Instructions

The NDPA-FeesReg notes that the prescribed fee is payable at the same time that an application is made to the NDA. The NDA will not accept an application with respect to which the prescribed fee is not paid.

According to the G-CTConduct, the application fee payment details are as follows:

National Drug Authority: TIN 1000054563
Bank: Stanbic Bank Uganda
Account numbers: 9030008068851 (US Dollars) and 9030005759829 (Ugandan shillings)
Swift code: SBICUGKXXXX
Sort Code: 040147
Acceptable forms of payment: cash in the bank, real time gross settlement (RTGS), electronic funds transfer (EFT), telegraphic transfer (TT), or check

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

As stated in UGA-20 and UGA-45, the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) charges a research administration and clearance fee of $300 USD, or $50 USD for East African students (except those pursuing post doctorates), to register a research proposal.

The G-JoSER indicates that research proposals submitted for Joint Scientific and Ethical Review (JoSER) have an administrative fee, which must be paid by the sponsor/principal investigator. The JoSER fee excludes the fees at the respective national regulatory agencies and ethics committees. The fees may vary depending on administrative circumstances.

Payment Instructions

According to UGA-20 and UGA-45, the payment information for UNCST fees is as follows:

Bank: Any Standard Chartered Bank
Account title: Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST)
Account numbers: 8705611811400 (US Dollars) and 0105610632101 (Ugandan shillings)
Swift code: SCBLUGKA

No additional information is available for payment of JoSER fees.

Food & Drug Administration

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

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

Overview

The NGHRP indicates that research involving human participants must be approved by an institutional ethics committee (EC) (referred to as a research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda), which must be accredited by the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST)’s Accreditation Committee for Research Ethics Committees in Uganda (ACRECU).

Ethics Committee Composition

The NGHRP states that an EC must be composed of:

• At least five (5) members
• Individuals of varying backgrounds, including consideration of gender, cultural backgrounds, and sensitivity to social issues in the community from which research participants are drawn
• At least one (1) individual whose primary concern is scientific, and at least one (1) whose primary concern is non-scientific
• At least one (1) individual who is unaffiliated with the institution
• At least one (1) lay person from the community, whose primary background is not in scientific research involving human participants, and who is capable of sharing insights about the community from which participants are likely to be drawn

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

According to the NGHRP, EC members and administrators must receive a face-to-face training in human research participant protection before initiation of EC activities, and must undergo continuous education on good research regulatory practice at least once every three (3) years. Additional training in other aspects of research ethics, such as responsible conduct of research, is desirable. An EC membership term is three (3) years, after which a member is eligible for reappointment twice. A person may not serve as a member in more than two (2) ECs concurrently.

As set forth in the NGHRP, each EC must have written standard operating procedures (SOPs), including a process to be followed for conducting reviews. The following minimum requirements must be met:

• Meet at least once every three (3) months
• Research protocols must be reviewed at convened meetings at which quorum is 50% of EC members, including at least one (1) lay member. Quorum must be maintained at all times during the meeting and at voting
• Protocol approval requires a two-thirds majority of the members present at the meeting

Additionally, the NGHRP states that the EC is obligated to respond to any allegations of ethical violations in approved or rejected research studies, liaise with other ECs within and outside the country to better carry out its functions, and submit annual performance reports to the ACRECU.

The NGHRP further indicates that no EC member may participate in the EC’s initial or continuing review of any protocol for which the member has a conflict of interest, except to provide information as may be requested by the EC. An EC may also, at its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of protocols which require expertise beyond, or in addition to, that available in the EC. These individuals do not vote at EC meetings. See the Scope of Review section and the NGHRP for additional EC review requirements.

As per the NGHRP, an EC must also prepare and maintain documentation of their activities, including the following:

• Detailed written SOPs
• Copies of reviewed research protocols, including scientific evaluations, approved consent documents, progress reports submitted by investigators, reports of injuries to research participants, and all related documents submitted with the protocols
• Meeting minutes showing attendance, conflicts of interests declared, actions taken by the EC and the vote (including number of members voting for, against, and abstaining), the basis for requiring changes or disapproving research, and a written summary of discussions of controversial issues and their resolution. ECs will provide a summary for approved protocols to the principal investigator
• Copies of confidentiality agreements, CVs, and training records of members and the EC
• Records of approvals, suspensions, amendments, and continuing review activities
• Copies of all correspondence between the EC and investigators and/or their institutions
• Statements of significant new findings provided to research participants

Documents relating to research protocols must be retained for at least five (5) years after the research study has been completed. See the NGHRP for additional EC recordkeeping requirements.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on EC composition, functions, and operations.

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

Per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, 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, 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-supported or conducted non-exempt human subjects research. See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

Overview

In accordance with the NGHRP, the central scope assessed by institutional ethics committees (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda) relates to safeguarding the rights and welfare of all trial participants. An EC’s primary functions include:

• Maintaining ethical standards of practice in research
• Protecting participants and investigators from harm or exploitation
• Preserving the participants’ rights and welfare
• Providing assurance to society of the protection of participants’ rights and welfare
• Ensuring adherence to an ethical conduct of research protocol

ECs are responsible for determining whether the objectives of a research study are responsive to the needs and priorities of the proposed target population and of Uganda in general. An 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, and Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information about these populations).

Additionally, the NGHRP provides a list of the basic ethical considerations for an EC’s approval of research protocols, which includes a provision for community involvement and determining whether the methods used are scientifically valid and practically feasible. See the NGHRP for the full list of basic ethical considerations.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

The NGHRP states that research approval must be obtained from the institutional EC and/or National Biosafety Committee (NBC), as applicable, prior to approval and registration with the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). Per the NDPA-CTReg, proof of institutional EC approval must also be submitted in a clinical trial application to the National Drug Authority (NDA). However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that parallel submissions may be made to the NDA and the UNCST. In that instance, the NDA would not make a final decision until after the trial receives ethical clearance. NDA approval will be dependent on receipt of the protocol’s approval by the institutional EC in consultations with the UNCST. As per the NGHRP, Joint Scientific and Ethical Review (JoSER) involving the UNCST, the Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), the NDA, and the EC, as applicable, is also available for research that involves a novel technology, product, study design, or intervention that addresses a public health need or/and emergency (see the Scope of Assessment section for more information on JoSER).

As stated in the NGHRP, the EC is obligated to review research protocols in a timely manner, within at least 60 calendar days from the date of receipt of a research protocol. In the case of annual continuing review, the EC must maintain the same anniversary date of approval for any given research protocol. Additionally, the EC must notify investigators in writing about the outcome of its review of a research protocol within 14 calendar days from the date of review. If the EC does not approve a protocol, it will include a written notification with reasons for its disapproval.

As per the NGHRP, an investigator may request a fast track/speedy review of a protocol, and the EC reserves the right to accept or reject the request. This review will occur as an extraordinary meeting of the EC, and the protocol will undergo review by the full committee. The meeting and voting will be done within 14 calendar days after submission of the protocol.

Additionally, the NGHRP indicates that the ECs may use an expedited review process for research involving no more than minimal risk or for minor changes in previously approved research protocols during a period of one (1) year or less from which approval was given. Minor changes include the addition of a collaborator or spelling corrections. Expedited review processes may also be applied to annual renewal of studies, in which the only outstanding activity is data analysis and report writing. Each EC must develop standard operating procedures to define eligibility for expedited review. Expedited review may be done by the EC chairperson and/or one (1) or more EC members and must be done within 21 calendar days. The reviewers may exercise all of the authority of the EC except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. Major changes are not eligible for expedited review, and include, but are not limited to, changes in the research methodology or a change in study procedures. See the NGHRP for more details on expedited review procedures.

As stated in the NGHRP, studies that are low risk are eligible for exemption from EC review. The EC chairperson will screen the application to ensure that the protocol satisfies the requirements and grant exemption within seven (7) working days, as applicable. For complex and high-risk studies, the UNCST will designate ECs for review, or the ECs will refer them to the UNCST for JoSER. See the NGHRP for more information on low risk studies.

According to the NGHRP, organizations participating in a collaborative research study, which involve multiple organizations locally and/or internationally, may enter into a joint EC review arrangement. Each participating organization is responsible for safeguarding the rights and welfare of research participants and complying with the NGHRP, which may involve securing EC approvals from the foreign country prior to local EC review and approval and UNCST registration. The local EC overseeing an international collaborative research study is the EC of record. Additionally, an international collaborative research study must have a Uganda-based principal investigator (PI)/co-PI listed on the protocol, who must be employed at and/or affiliated with a recognized local organization that is relevant to the area of the proposed research. Where there is conflict between national and international policies, the Ugandan standards take precedence. The UNCST will be responsible for dialogue and harmonization if local bodies are conflicting.

The NGHRP states that investigators may, with justification, request UNCST permission to submit their protocols to another accredited EC. Where the organization of primary affiliation or host institution does not have an EC, the researchers are free to choose any accredited EC to review their research protocols. For multicenter studies in-country, a single EC will conduct a review. The organization where research is to be conducted will grant administrative clearance for the study, even if that organization has an EC. The administrative clearance, which is given by the head of the organization, must be submitted prior to UNCST approval. The clearance must clearly specify the conditions under which the research is to be conducted, including meeting minimal standards of the host institution, and any research costs such as bench or other administrative fees, which the investigator must pay. The approving EC has the primary responsibility for monitoring approved studies regardless of where they are conducted. The host institution must be made aware of the monitoring activity, including the findings. Where the host institution has an EC, joint monitoring must be conducted by the approving EC of the study and the EC of the host institution.

The NGHRP indicates that ECs must conduct continuing/periodic review of approved trials, including site monitoring visits. The EC must conduct the continuing review at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, but not less than once a year, and have a plan for onsite monitoring of approved studies. Research monitoring will also be done off site through different data sources including annual progress reports, ethics approvals, monitoring reports, and adverse event reports. Additionally, the EC is obligated to review site assessment reports as submitted by the PI for a clinical trial. Pre-inspection will be carried out based on risk assessment at the determination of the EC.

The NGHRP further delineates that changes/amendments in the research protocol cannot be implemented without prior approval from the EC, except when necessary to eliminate an apparent immediate hazard or danger to research participants. Per the NDPA-CTReg, evidence of ethical approval of the amendment to the protocol is a required element of an application to the NDA for amendment of conditions of a clinical trial. Additionally, the NGHRP states that ECs have the authority to halt or suspend approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the EC’s requirements, has been associated with unexpected serious harm to research participants, or contravenes the NGHRP. Any suspension of approval must include a written statement of the reasons and requirements for the suspension to be lifted, and must be reported promptly to the investigator, host institution officials, the UNCST, and other relevant regulatory agencies.

According to the NGHRP, the UNCST acts as an arbiter for a research applicant dissatisfied with an EC decision. See the Scope of Assessment section for more information.

Overview

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

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

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional EC responsibilities and requirements.

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

In accordance with 21CFR56 and 21CFR312, the 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.

21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule indicate that the EC must ensure the following requirements are met prior to approving the study:

• Risks to participants are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits
• Participant selection is equitable
• Informed consent will be sought from each prospective participant or legal representative/guardian, and will be appropriately documented (the RevComRule also requires information regarding whether informed consent was appropriately waived)
• The research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of participants, where appropriate
• Adequate provisions are made to protect participant privacy and maintain confidentiality of data, where appropriate (per the RevComRule, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) will issue guidance to assist ECs in assessing what provisions are adequate to protect participant privacy and maintain the confidentiality of data)

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

See 21CFR56, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule for additional details on criteria for EC approval of research.

Refer to the G-RevComRule-FDA for information on the impact of the RevComRule on studies conducted or supported by the HHS that must also comply with FDA regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expedited Review

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

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

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

Continuing Review and Re-approval

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

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

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

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

Exemptions under the Revised Common Rule

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

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

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

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

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

Cooperative Research Studies

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

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

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

No applicable requirements.

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 delineated in the NGHRP, the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) is the central statutory body responsible for the accreditation of institutional ethics committees (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda).

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

As per the NGHRP, the UNCST’s Accreditation Committee for Research Ethics Committees in Uganda (ACRECU) must accredit all ECs. An organization that wishes to establish an EC must apply for accreditation of the EC at the UNCST, with assurance that the organization will comply with the requirements set forth in the NGHRP. At a minimum, the assurance must include:

• A statement of principles for protecting the rights and welfare of human research participants. This may include an existing code, declaration, or statement of ethics principles, or a statement formulated by the organization itself
• Assurance of availability of staff, office, and meeting space for the EC, as well as sufficient resources to support the EC’s operations
• A list of EC members appointed by the head of the organization or the head’s designee. The members must be identified by name, qualifications, profession, institution of affiliation, and designation on the EC
• Standard operating procedures for the EC

The NGHRP indicates that the ACRECU will review the organization’s application, and if satisfied, will accredit the EC. An EC is not permitted to commence its activities until it has been accredited. Additionally, the EC is obligated to prepare and submit annual reports of EC performance to the ACRECU.

Per UGA-33, the National Research Information Management System (NRIMS) (UGA-33) supports users in applying for accreditation as an institutional EC. See UGA-9 for the accreditation application form and the NGHRP for details on EC establishment requirements. A list of UNCST-accredited ECs is also available at UGA-37.

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.

Office for Human Research Protections

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

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

See USA-57 for more information on FWAs.

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

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

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

Overview

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the NGHRP, and the G-TrialsGCP, institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) approval, National Drug Authority (NDA) approval, and Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) registration are mandatory before a study may commence.

The NGHRP states that research approval must be obtained from the institutional EC and/or National Biosafety Committee (NBC), as applicable, prior to approval and registration with the UNCST. Per the NDPA-CTReg, proof of institutional EC approval must also be submitted in a clinical trial application to the NDA. However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that parallel submissions may be made to the NDA and the UNCST. In that instance, the NDA would not make a final decision until after the trial receives ethical clearance. NDA approval will be dependent on receipt of the protocol’s approval by the institutional EC in consultations with the UNCST. As per the NGHRP, Joint Scientific and Ethical Review (JoSER) involving the UNCST, the Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), the NDA, and the EC, as applicable, is also available for research that involves a novel technology, product, study design, or intervention that addresses a public health need or/and emergency (see Scope of Assessment section for more information on JoSER).

Regulatory Submission

National Drug Authority

According to the NDPA-CTReg, an application to the NDA for authorization to conduct a clinical trial is submitted by a sponsor, who must be one (1) of the following:

• The drug patent holder
• A licensed person
• The drug manufacturer
• An agent of the drug patent holder or the drug manufacturer

The NDPA-CTReg states that where an agent submits the clinical trial application, the agent must also submit a power of attorney verifying their appointment as an agent or a letter of authorization (See Form 30 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-18). Where an application for authorization to conduct a clinical trial is for a drug under patent, the principal investigator (PI) must submit a letter of authorization from the manufacturer of the drug. Furthermore, the G-CTConduct indicates that based on the clinical trial agreement between the sponsor and the PI, the NDA will liaise with the in-country PI representing the sponsor regarding the application.

As per the G-CTConduct, the sponsor or authorized person should submit one (1) copy of the completed clinical trial application form for each application. The application must be bound in a single volume (or series of volumes), and the pages numbered sequentially. Appended documents should be bound together with the application, with tabbed sections clearly identifying each appended document. The text and diagrams must be clear and legible in 12 pt Times New Roman font. Incomplete submissions will not be received at the NDA registry. See Form 29 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg, Appendix I of the G-CTConduct, or UGA-39 for the clinical trial application form.

According to the G-CTConduct, the application package should be submitted physically to the NDA or electronically. Electronic submissions should be sent by email to clinicaltrials@nda.or.ug or through the NDA’s integrated Regulatory Information Management System (iRIMS) (UGA-40). Physical applications must be submitted to:

The Secretary to the Authority
National Drug Authority
NDA Tower
Plot 93, Buganda Road
P.O. Box 23096
Kampala, Uganda
Phone: +256-417788100; Toll Free: 0800101999

As per the G-CTConduct, all applications and supporting data submitted to the NDA should be presented in English. Supporting documents that are not in English must be accompanied by an authenticated English translation.

The NDPA-CTReg and G-CTConduct further indicate that an application to amend the conditions of a clinical trial must use Form 35, in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg and Appendix III of the G-CTConduct. The G-CTConduct also notes that that the form is on the NDA website (see UGA-19). Per the G-CTConduct, the proposed changes must be listed in a cover letter signed by the applicant. In the cover letter, a clear step-by-step justification for each proposed change(s) must be provided, and the possible consequences with regard to the benefit/risk balance for participants already enrolled in the trial must be summarized. The subject of the cover letter must be “Application to amend CTA XXX” where XXX is the Clinical Trial Application code assigned by the NDA upon authorization of the clinical trial and indicated on the clinical trial certificate. Only one (1) copy of the completed form must be sent to the NDA. As stated in the NDPA-CTReg, an application for additional investigators, additional clinical trial sites, or change of the investigators must use Form 36 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-13. The application forms must, where applicable, be accompanied by evidence of ethics approval of the amendment to the clinical trial protocol and the prescribed fees. Applicants may apply for renewal of a clinical trial approval using the form found in Appendix VIII of the G-CTConduct or on the NDA website at UGA-32. See Appendix VI of the G-CTConduct for the Checklist for Application for Authorization of Renewal of Conduct of a Clinical Trial, and UGA-2 for a related clinical trial application screening renewal form.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

Applications for UNCST permission to conduct research in Uganda should be made through the National Research Information Management System (NRIMS) (UGA-33). Per UGA-33, NRIMS is an integrated online platform for accessing digital services provided by the UNCST. The platform supports users in applying for institutional EC permits and applying for UNCST approval to conduct research in Uganda. See UGA-33 for more information.

UGA-20 also provides the following contact information for further information on the UNCST research clearance process:

Beth Mutumba
Phone: 0414 557 025/0755 423 321
Email: b.mutumba@uncst.go.ug

Samuel Barasa
Phone: 0414 557 021/0779 452 441
Email: s.barasa@uncst.go.ug

Ethics Review Submission

UGA-20 indicates that for EC submissions, the applicant should contact the accredited committee at their institution of affiliation or obtain contacts via the UNCST website. After identifying the appropriate EC, the applicant must create an account and fill out the application on NRIMS (UGA-33).

Each EC has its own required submission procedures, which can differ regarding the application format and number of copies. According to the NGHRP, all ECs must develop standard operating procedures for submission of protocols and other requirements.

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.

As stated in USA-34, the electronic submission of eCTD v4.0 to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) is supported for new INDs, as well as certain other submission types, beginning September 16, 2024. Only new applications may be submitted in v4.0, and forward compatibility functionality is not yet available. Electronic submissions made in eCTD format must utilize either v3.2.2 or v4.0, which are both currently supported by the FDA.

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 CBER or CDER. See USA-35 for more information on requesting an application number.

For more information and detailed requirements on eCTD submissions, see the G-PharmeCTD, USA-34, USA-35, and USA-36. Additionally, the G-CBER-ElecINDs provides instructions on how to submit an IND using an electronic folder structure on a CD-ROM.

According to the G-eCTDspecs, eCTD submissions sized 10 GB and under for most applications must be submitted via the Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG), and the FDA also recommends the use of the ESG for submissions greater than 10 GB when possible. However, USA-44 specifies that the Electronic Submissions Gateway Next Generation (ESG NextGen) should be utilized for all electronic submissions to the FDA. See USA-102 for the ESG NextGen Unified Submission Portal (USP) Login and USA-37 for ESG NextGen submission user guides.

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

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

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

Drugs (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Therapeutic Biological Product (submitted by Sponsor-Investigators):

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

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research-Regulated Products:

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

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

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

Ethics Review Submission

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

Regulatory Authority Requirements

National Drug Authority

As per the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the NGHRP, UGA-39, and UGA-1, the following documentation must be submitted to the National Drug Authority (NDA) in a clinical trial application (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Proof of payment of the prescribed fees
• Applications for import and/or export of biological materials (if required)
• Application Form for Clinical Trial (See Form 29 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg, Appendix I of the G-CTConduct, or UGA-39)
• Trial protocol (See Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg)
• Investigator’s Brochure (See UGA-4 or Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg)
• If the investigational product (IP) is unregistered, a dossier following the Format for Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier (See Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg)
• Phytochemical analysis report and microbiological contamination report, where the clinical trial is for an herbal medicinal product
• Participant Information Leaflet and informed consent form, which must be approved by the ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda)
• Certificate of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) of the IP or other evidence of manufacturing quality, safety, and consistency
• GMP certificate of the facility where the drug was manufactured
• Package insert(s)/product information leaflet for the comparator and concomitant medications
• Certificate of GMP of the placebo, if appropriate
• Evidence of accreditation of the designated laboratories or other evidence of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and assay validation
• Insurance certificate specific for the trial sourced from a local provider or in consultation with the NDA (valid evidence of insurance for the participants by a local insurance company and of professional indemnity for the principal investigator (PI))
• Signed and completed declarations by all investigators (See UGA-16 or Form 31 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg)
• Approval of ECs for the protocol
• Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) approval
• Authorization of the clinical trial from the country of origin, if applicable
• Full, legible copies of key, peer-reviewed published articles supporting the application
• Relevant published literature on the drug
• Sample of the label for the IP
• Letter of authorization from the manufacturer/product owner (See UGA-18 or Form 30 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg)
• Pharmaceutical data on dosage form (See UGA-14)
• Duly signed declaration of the monitor (See UGA-17 or Form 32 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg)
• Clinical trial agreement between the sponsor and the PI
• Duly signed declaration by the sponsor and PI of funds of the clinical trial (See UGA-15 or Form 33 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg)
• Other supporting documents and any other requirement, as may be determined by the NDA

See Appendix II of the G-CTConduct and UGA-1 for the clinical trial application checklist.

The C-InstitutionCert further indicates that clinical trial certificates will not be issued without submission of a valid certificate of suitability of the premises supplying drugs within the respective institutions.

Applicants may apply for renewal of a clinical trial approval using the form found in Appendix VIII of the G-CTConduct or on the NDA website at UGA-32. See Appendix VI of the G-CTConduct for the Checklist for Application for Authorization of Renewal of Conduct of a Clinical Trial, and UGA-2 for a related clinical trial application screening renewal form.

As per the NDPA-CTReg, an application to amend the conditions of a clinical trial must use Form 35, and an application for additional investigators, additional clinical trial sites, or for change of the investigators must use Form 36 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-13.

According to the G-CTConduct, an application for amendment of the conditions of a clinical trial can also be found in Appendix III of the G-CTConduct and on the NDA website at UGA-19. The amendment application must be accompanied by a cover letter signed by the applicant together with required supporting documentation, including a submission of the protocol amendment in tracked changes, a clean copy clearly indicating the protocol version number, valid evidence of payment of amendment fees, and ethical approval of the proposed amendment. See the NDPA-CTReg, G-CTConduct, and UGA-19 for more detailed amendment application content requirements. See Appendix V of the G-CTConduct or UGA-22 for the amendments screening form.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

As per the NGHRP and UGA-20, the following documents must be submitted to the UNCST (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Approved protocol by an accredited EC, including an approval letter and a summary from the meeting that approved the study
• Research forms
• A letter of introduction or recommendation from the affiliated institution in Uganda (for foreign investigators only). The letter should mention the names of the foreign investigators and it should be addressed to the UNCST Executive Secretary
• An administrative clearance letter from the head of the institution where the research is going to be conducted, addressed to the PI and/or the UNCST Executive Secretary
• Admission letter for academic research (applies to only East African students)
• Curriculum vitaes (CVs) for each investigator, dated and signed or initialed on each page
• Proof of payment of research administration and clearance fees for the study

As stated in the NGHRP, investigators must file a copy of the NDA certificate authorizing the importation and/or use of the trial drug in Uganda with the UNCST. See the NGHRP and UGA-20 for detailed application requirements.

Ethics Committee Requirements

The NGHRP further indicates that all ECs must develop standard operating procedures for submission of protocols and other requirements. However, at a minimum, the requirements must include:

• Research protocol with version and date
• A site-specific implementation plan for multi-site/multicenter studies
• Study instruments such as questionnaires, case report forms, videos, flip charts, data abstraction forms, and any other data collection tools or forms
• Samples of trial drugs
• Informed consent documents in English and relevant local language (where applicable)
• Data sharing and use agreement (where applicable)
• Material transfer agreement (where applicable)
• Evidence that the investigator(s) and team are appropriately qualified, experienced and, where applicable, licensed, and have adequate facilities for the safe and efficient conduct of research
• For foreign investigators, copies of work permits (where applicable)

As stated in the NGHRP, investigators must file a copy of the NDA certificate authorizing the importation and/or use of the trial drug in Uganda with the relevant EC.

Clinical Protocol

As delineated in Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg and UGA-12, the clinical protocol submitted to the NDA should contain the following information (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• General information (trial identification; contact information of sponsor, monitor, sponsor’s medical expert, and qualified physician; name and title of investigator(s); name(s) and address(es) of clinical trial laboratory(ies) and other medical and/or technical department(s)/institutions involved in the trial; etc.)
• Background information (product name, dosage form, description of population to be studied, etc.)
• Trial objectives and purpose
• Trial design
• Selection and withdrawal of participants
• Treatment profile
• Trial parameters
• Assessment of efficacy
• Assessment of safety
• Operational aspects
• Adverse event reporting methods
• Evaluation of results, including statistics
• Direct access to source data/documents
• Quality control and quality assurance
• Description of ethical considerations relating to the trial
• Data handling and recordkeeping
• Financing and insurance, if not addressed in a separate agreement
• Publication policy, if not addressed in a separate agreement
• Supplements/appendices

For detailed information on these elements, please refer to the NDPA-CTReg and UGA-12.

The NGHRP indicates that the research protocol, with version and date, submitted to an EC should include the title and list of investigators, summary/abstract, background to the study, problem statement, significance, justification, objectives, literature review, methodology, workplan, dissemination plan, community engagement plan, data sharing and ownership (where applicable), environmental impact assessment (where applicable), budget, and references/bibliography. See Annex IV of the NGHRP for a list of items to be considered for inclusion in a protocol.

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. Also see USA-100 for Phase 1 IND resources, and USA-39 for information on first in human Phase 1 INDs.

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

Each EC has its own application form and clearance requirements, which can differ regarding application content requirements.

Clinical Protocol

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

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

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on clinical protocol contents.

Overview

The NGHRP states that research approval must be obtained from the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) and/or National Biosafety Committee (NBC), as applicable, prior to approval and registration with the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). Per the NDPA-CTReg, proof of institutional EC approval must also be submitted in a clinical trial application to the National Drug Authority (NDA). However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that parallel submissions may be made to the NDA and the UNCST. In that instance, the NDA would not make a final decision until after the trial receives ethical clearance. NDA approval will be dependent on receipt of the protocol’s approval by the institutional EC in consultation with the UNCST. As per the NGHRP, Joint Scientific and Ethical Review (JoSER) involving the UNCST, the Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), the NDA, and the EC, as applicable, is also available for research that involves a novel technology, product, study design, or intervention that addresses a public health need or/and emergency (see the Scope of Assessment section for more information on JoSER).

Regulatory Authority Approval

National Drug Authority

Per the G-CTConduct, NDA reviews for clinical trials are performed following a first-in first-out principle, except for clinical trials conducted in public health emergencies such as disease outbreaks, which may be exempted.

According to UGA-24, the NDA will screen and acknowledge receipt of a clinical trial application within 10 working days and reach a decision on the application within 50 working days. The G-CTConduct further specifies that the total processing time for a new clinical trial application routine review is 60 working days. Fast track reviews, under which a regulatory decision is given to the applicant within 15 or 30 working days, are applicable for certain clinical trial applications. See the Scope of Assessment section for more information.

The G-CTConduct states that the NDA may request supplementary information or documentation when appropriate, which should be submitted within the stated timeline, usually four (4) weeks. The NDA secretariat may grant additional time to provide information upon request by the applicant on a case-by-case basis. If the requested information is not submitted, the application will be archived within 50 working days. The application will need to be resubmitted for review. If the NDA, on its own initiative, makes amendments to the conditions for conducting a clinical trial for safety reasons or the scientific validity of the clinical trial, the NDA will give 15 calendar days’ notice to the sponsor or the principal investigator (PI) and request submittal of a written response to the proposed amendments.

Additionally, according to UGA-24, the NDA conducts annual reviews of ongoing trials within 20 working days and reviews amendments of clinical trial authorization within 20 working days. Per the G-CTConduct, the NDA review timelines published on UGA-24 do not include the time taken by the applicant to respond to any NDA requests for additional information. A stop-clock mechanism is applied each time the NDA requests additional information.

See Appendices X and XI of the G-CTConduct for the Service Delivery Timelines for Submitted Documents by the Authority and for the Clinical Trial Process Flow, respectively.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

According to the NGHRP, the UNCST registration process is normally completed within 10 working days.

Joint Scientific and Ethical Review

The G-JoSER states that the national regulatory agencies (NRAs) (the NDA, the UNHRO, and the UNCST) and the EC will pre-screen a request for JoSER and notify the applicant within three (3) working days. For accepted applications, the UNCST, in collaboration with the NRAs, will identify subject matter experts and interested parties and notify them about the review meeting within three (3) working days. Following the identification of reviewers, a joint review meeting will be convened by the UNCST within 10 calendar days.

The G-JoSER indicates that the UNCST will submit a consolidated list of comments from the joint review within three (3) days after a convened meeting. The PI must submit a formal response to the comments received at the JoSER and then submit a cover letter with required documentation to the local EC for review. The EC will convene a meeting to review the responses within five (5) working days and decide whether to approve or reject the proposal. Following EC approval, the PI must submit the approved documents to the UNCST, and submit them in parallel to the NDA (where necessary). The UNCST, in collaboration with the UNHRO, will review the documentation for completeness within two (2) working days, after which a research permit may be issued. The NDA will review the clinical trial application and provide a regulatory decision within five (5) working days, after which a certificate may be issued.

According to the G-JoSER, an investigator who is dissatisfied with a JoSER or an EC decision may appeal to the UNCST Executive Secretary within 15 days of the date of receipt of the decision.

Ethics Committee Approval

Per the G-TrialsGCP and the NGHRP, an applicant must also submit the clinical trial protocol for review and approval by a UNCST-accredited institutional EC. As indicated in the NGHRP, the EC is required to review a clinical protocol within 60 calendar days from the date of its receipt. In the case of an annual continuing review, the EC must maintain the same anniversary date of approval for any given protocol. Review outcomes must be communicated to the applicant within 14 calendar days of the EC’s review.

The NGHRP states that an investigator may request a fast track/speedy review of a protocol, for which the EC meeting and voting will be done within 14 calendar days after submission of the protocol. The expedited EC review process, for research involving no more than minimal risk or for minor changes in certain previously approved research protocols, must be done within 21 calendar days. For studies that are eligible for exemption from EC review, the EC chairperson will screen the application to ensure that the protocol satisfies the requirements and grant exemption within seven (7) working days, as applicable. For more information on the aforementioned EC review processes, see the Scope of Review section and the NGHRP.

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.

Overview

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the NGHRP, and the G-TrialsGCP, institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) approval, National Drug Authority (NDA) approval, and Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) registration are mandatory before a study may commence.

The UNHRO-Act indicates that the Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), in collaboration with the UNCST, conducts a scientific and ethical review of all health research protocols for approval. According to the NGHRP, the UNCST consults the UNHRO, where applicable, on identified health protocols. The research follows established research regulatory processes, and final research clearance and registration is carried out by the UNCST.

The G-CTConduct and the NDPA-CTReg indicate that following the NDA’s approval of the clinical trial application, the applicant is also required to obtain a permit from the NDA to import investigational products (IPs) approved for the clinical trial. See the Manufacturing & Import section for more information on IP import permit requirements.

The NGHRP requires that investigators make reasonable efforts to involve community stakeholders in the research process, where appropriate, right from the inception of research to post research period. As stated in the G-TrialsGCP, research intended to be carried out at the community level (e.g., vaccine trials) should ideally ensure adequate consultation with civil society organizations that may exist within affected communities at all phases of the trial. Sponsors are encouraged to establish Community Advisory Groups/Community Advisory Boards (CAGs/CABs), which act as liaisons between the investigator and the community. Additionally, per the NGCER, community engagement is an opportunity for communities to participate in the design and conduct of research, and enhances the relevance, ownership, and applicability of research findings.

See the G-TrialsGCP for more information on CAGs/CABs. See the NGHRP and the NGCER for detailed UNCST guidance on community engagement.

Clinical Trial Agreement

As delineated in the NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct, before the trial begins, the sponsor must sign a clinical trial agreement with the principal investigator (PI).

According to the G-TrialsGCP, if the sponsor decides to use a contract research organization (CRO) to conduct the trial, the transferred duties should be specified in writing and evidence of a mutual agreement must be provided. The sponsor is responsible for securing agreement from all involved parties to ensure direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, and reports for the purpose of monitoring and auditing by the sponsor, and inspection by domestic and foreign regulatory authorities. A signed agreement between involved parties (such as the PI/institution and sponsor; the PI/institution and CRO; and the sponsor and CRO), is considered an essential document before a clinical trial can commence.

Per the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should obtain the investigator's agreement to:

• Conduct the trial in compliance with the G-TrialsGCP, the principles of good clinical practice (GCP), the requirements of the NDA, and the protocol agreed upon by the sponsor and given approval by the relevant EC
• Comply with procedures for data recording/reporting
• Permit monitoring, auditing, and inspection
• Retain the trial-related essential documents until the sponsor informs the investigator/institution that these documents are no longer needed

Clinical Trial Registration

The G-CTConduct states that clinical trial registration with a publicly accessible clinical trial registry is a requirement for all industry-funded trials in Uganda. Details of registration should be provided with the clinical trial application. It also states that clinical trials conducted in Uganda must be registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (UGA-35) and any other publicly accessible clinical trials registry recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO). The respective number should be submitted upon application. Additionally, the NDA maintains a clinical trials register (see UGA-36) that details all clinical trials that have received a regulatory decision. This includes information on clinical trial applications that are authorized, suspended, rejected, terminated, and completed.

As stated in the NGHRP, the investigator must prospectively register clinical trials in a publicly available registry at the UNCST.

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-CTPrtcptn for FDA guidance on enrollment practices to enhance participation in 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.

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on clinical trial agreements.

Clinical Trial Registration

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

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

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued NIHTrialInfo to complement 42CFR11 requirements. This policy requires all NIH-funded awardees and investigators conducting clinical trials, funded in whole or in part by the NIH, regardless of study phase, type of intervention, or whether they are subject to the regulation, to ensure that they register and submit trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov (USA-78). See USA-98 for the NIH’s definition of a clinical trial.

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 the NDPA-CTReg, the NDPA-PVReg, the NDPA-PVRegAmdt, the G-CTConduct, the NGHRP, and the G-TrialsGCP, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Uganda’s safety reporting requirements (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Adverse Event (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence in a research participant who is administered an investigational product (IP), and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment
• Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) – All noxious and unintended responses to a medicinal product related to any dose
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or results in a congenital anomaly/birth defect
• Unexpected Adverse Drug Reaction – An adverse reaction, the nature or severity of which is not consistent with the applicable product information (e.g., Investigator's Brochure for an unapproved IP)

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As per the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP, the principal investigator (PI) must report all SAEs to the sponsor within 48 hours of first knowledge. The report must identify each participant by an assigned number. When the SAE results in a participant’s death, the PI must supply the sponsor, the National Drug Authority (NDA), and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) with any additional information requested.

The NGHRP states that the investigator must properly document the occurrence of SAEs or unexpected events, as well as their management. The investigator must also identify, manage, and promptly report SAEs to the EC and the NDA with a notification to the UNCST. All SAEs, SUSARs, and unexpected events of greater than moderate severity must be reported to the local EC, and to the NDA if appropriate, as soon as possible and no later than seven (7) calendar days of awareness. A detailed report of the applicable event must be submitted within seven (7) calendar days from the date it is reported to the EC. A notification of these events must be made to the UNCST, and a final report must be submitted to the local EC, UNCST, and NDA, if appropriate, after resolution of the event. SAEs and actions taken to ensure the safety of research participants must also be reported by the investigator to the EC, research partners, and sponsor.

As set forth in the NDPA-CTReg, the PI must record and report to the sponsor any suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction (SUSAR) that occurs during the course of the trial.

According to the NGHRP, all other reportable events must be reported to the EC and the UNCST as soon as possible, but no later than 14 calendar days. Other reportable events may include notifiable diseases, criminal acts, injury, social harm, economic harm, psychological harm, deaths and life-threatening events in studies, and any other events deemed reportable by the law and the investigator. See the NGHRP for more information on other reportable events.

Sponsor Responsibilities

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor is responsible for the ongoing safety evaluation of the IP(s). The sponsor should promptly notify all concerned investigator(s), the NDA, and the EC in writing of findings that could adversely affect the safety of participants, impact the conduct of the trial, or alter the EC's approval to continue the trial. Study participants should also be informed of any new information that could adversely affect their safety. Per the NGHRP, the sponsor must also ensure the timely reporting and management of AEs.

The NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP state that the sponsor should keep detailed records of the trial-related AEs/ADRs reported by the PI.

The G-CTConduct delineates that the sponsor (or the PI, when delegated) must report all SAEs to the NDA as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days upon receiving notice of the event. Additional follow up information must be made available to the NDA as soon as possible, but in any case, no later than 15 calendar days. However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that the PI is responsible for the aforementioned reporting of SAEs to the NDA.

In addition, according to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should expedite the reporting of all AEs/ADRs that are both serious and unexpected to all concerned investigator(s)/institutions(s), EC(s), and to the NDA. The expedited reporting should occur within the timeframe and format specified by the NDA. Serious and unexpected AEs/ADRs suspected to be related to the IP(s) should be reported to the relevant EC as soon as possible. If the study is multicenter, the sponsor should ensure that all serious and unexpected AEs/ADRs that occur in other study sites are also reported within 15 calendar days of becoming aware of them.

As set forth in the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor and the PI must also take appropriate safety measures to protect participants against any immediate hazards to their health and safety. When safety measures are taken, the sponsor must, within three (3) working days, provide written notice to the NDA of this action and the reasons why this action was taken.

As set forth in the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor or their appointed representative must report any SUSARs within seven (7) days of first knowledge to the NDA and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), or a UNCST-accredited EC.

The G-CTConduct further specifies that the sponsor (or the PI, when delegated) must report all SUSARs to the NDA as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) calendar days of becoming aware of the event. If the initial report is not complete within the seven (7) days, a completed report should be submitted within 15 calendar days of the initial report. SUSAR reports originating from other studies using the same IP internationally must be submitted as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days following notification of the PI by the sponsor.

However, the G-TrialsGCP indicates that the sponsor should report any SUSARs to the NDA within 15 calendar days of becoming aware of the event. The initial reports should be followed promptly by detailed, written follow-up reports after investigations have been completed, no later than 15 calendar days of becoming aware of the event.

According to the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should also inform the PI of any SUSARs which occur during the course of another trial for which the sponsor is responsible, where the reaction relates to the IP used in the trial. The NDA should maintain a record of all IP-related SUSARs reported to the authority.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Per UGA-44, clinical trial sponsors can submit AE reports to the NDA via email to clinicaltrials@nda.or.ug. The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) form (UGA-8) may be used.

Safety Reporting Definitions

In accordance with 21CFR312, the G-SpnsrRpt, the G-InvstRpt, the US-ICH-E2A, 42CFR11, and USA-99, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of safety reporting requirements in the United States (US) (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Adverse Event – Any untoward medical occurrence associated with the use of a drug in humans, whether or not considered drug related
• Suspected Adverse Reaction – Any adverse event where there is a reasonable possibility that the drug caused the adverse event
• Adverse Reaction – Any adverse event caused by a drug. Adverse reactions are a subset of all suspected adverse reactions where there is reason to conclude that the drug caused the event
• Serious Adverse Event (SAE)/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 in the study population; 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, in the view of either the investigator or sponsor, 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 Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule for further information.

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

Additionally, see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for guidance on safety reporting.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

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

• SAEs, whether or not considered drug related, must be reported immediately to the sponsor
• Study endpoints that are SAEs 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-SAEs 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

The G-InvstRpt adds that although the investigator must immediately report any SAE to the sponsor, more data may be collected and submitted after submitting the initial report. For the purposes of the G-InvstRpt, the FDA interprets “immediately” to be as soon as feasible after the investigator recognizes an event is an SAE and obtains relevant information for the sponsor. The FDA recommends that this timeframe for submitting initial information also be specified in the protocol and anticipates that the timeframe for submission of initial information will generally not exceed one (1) calendar day.

Sponsor Responsibilities

As delineated in 21CFR312, the G-SpnsrRpt, and USA-99, the sponsor must report in an investigational new drug application (IND) safety 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 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. Any relevant information obtained by the sponsor that pertains to a previously submitted IND safety report must be submitted as a follow-up IND 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, the G-SpnsrRpt, and USA-99,the sponsor must also report the following to the FDA in an IND safety report:

• Any findings from animal or in vitro testing, epidemiological studies, pooled analyses of multiple studies, or clinical studies (other than those reported in the safety report) that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug, regardless of whether they are conducted under the IND or by the sponsor
• Any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or IB

In each IND safety report, the sponsor must identify all IND 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, the G-SpnsrRpt, and USA-99 for more details on these safety reporting requirements.

The G-SpnsrRpt notes that the sponsor is ultimately responsible for evaluating the available information and deciding whether there is a reasonable possibility that the drug caused the adverse event, and therefore that the event meets the definition of a suspected adverse reaction. Aggregate analyses are needed for (1) anticipated SAEs for which it is difficult or impossible to make a causal determination based on a single case or a small number of cases; or (2) expected serious suspected adverse reactions that must be reported if there is a clinically important increase in the rate over that described in the protocol or IB. See the G-SpnsrRpt for additional FDA guidance on aggregate analyses.

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

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

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

Per 42CFR11, 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 a responsible party submits a certification that: 1) the FDA has not approved, licensed, or cleared the investigational product (IP) being studied for any use before the primary completion date of the trial; and 2) the sponsor intends to continue with product development and is either seeking, or may at a future date seek, FDA approval.

See 42CFR11 for detailed adverse event reporting requirements.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

The G-SpnsrRpt indicates that as of April 1, 2026, IND safety reports of serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions (which contain individual data from one (1) or more participants) should be submitted as individual case safety reports (ICSRs) to the FDA’s Adverse Event Monitoring System (AEMS) (formerly FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)) (USA-50). As per the G-SpnsrRpt, the G-INDElecSubs, and USA-46, sponsors must submit such IND safety reports to USA-50 using either the Electronic Submissions Gateway Next Generation (ESG NextGen) or the Safety Reporting Portal (SRP) (USA-51). See USA-102 for the ESG NextGen Unified Submission Portal (USP) Login, as well as USA-37 and USA-44 for more information on ESG NextGen. Also see USA-46 for more information on making submissions to USA-50.

The G-SpnsrRpt notes that other types of required IND safety reports (overall findings or pooled analyses from published and unpublished in vitro, animal, epidemiological, or clinical studies and reports of increased rates of occurrences of expected serious suspected adverse reactions) should be submitted by the sponsor in a narrative format in electronic common technical document (eCTD) format, and should not be submitted to USA-50.

See USA-99 for additional information on submitting IND safety reports.

According to the G-SpnsrRpt and the G-INDElecSubs, submissions regarding non-commercial INDs are exempt from the above electronic submission requirements. The G-SpnsrRpt states that sponsors with INDs that are exempted from the electronic submission requirement, and who are not submitting IND safety reports of serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions to USA-50 or the other types of IND safety reports with eCTD format submission requirements, should submit IND safety reports in an alternate electronic format or using other means of rapid communication. When utilizing an alternate electronic format (see the G-AltrntElecSubs) or other means of rapid communication, Form FDA 3500A (USA-75) may be used. For additional information on other reporting using Form FDA 3500A (USA-75), see the G-SpnsrRpt and USA-48.

Per USA-90, fatality reports to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) should be sent to fatalities2@fda.hhs.gov.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

As per the G-TrialsGCP, the principal investigator (PI) is obliged to submit progress reports as required by the sponsor, the institutional ethics committees (ECs) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), and the National Drug Authority (NDA). These reports should contain information on:

• How the study is progressing
• The number of participants included in relation to the number screened and the target sample size
• The number of dropouts and withdrawals
• Adverse events
• If the planned time schedule is still appropriate

The format and frequency of reporting is as prescribed by the relevant authorities.

The NDPA-CTReg and the G-CTConduct also state that the NDA may request the sponsor to submit an interim report. See Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-6 for the format of the clinical trial report.

As stated in the NGHRP, the PI must notify the EC (and the collaborating organization’s EC and the UNCST, where applicable) in the annual report of any minor deviations to the protocol.

Final Report

The NGHRP states that the sponsor is responsible for approving a final study report, regardless of whether the trial has been completed. Additionally, a standard operating procedure for study closure and a budgetary provision for end of study are required.

The NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP require the sponsor to inform the NDA in writing of the conclusion of the trial within 90 days, using the format of the clinical trial report in Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg. However, according to the G-CTConduct, either the sponsor or PI must notify the NDA upon conclusion of a trial within 90 calendar days using the format conforming to the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports (E3) (UGA-38). This notification must be accompanied by:

• The final soft and hard copies of the clinical trial report as specified
• A comprehensive summary of the essential findings of the trial
• Evidence of destruction or shipment of remaining investigational products or any other course of action approved by the sponsor

As stated in the G-CTConduct, the definition of the end of the study will be as defined by the specific study protocol. The NDA requires that the PI submit an end of study notification according to the end as defined in the study protocol. End of trial reports will be submitted once the trial data can answer the study endpoints. The NDA defines the end of the trial as a time when the trial ends and end points are available.

The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that upon completion of the trial, the investigator, where applicable, should inform the institution. The investigator/institution should provide the EC with a summary of the trial’s outcome and furnish the regulatory authorities with any reports required. All aspects (statistical and clinical) of the protocol should be integrated in order to obtain a final study report that is entirely consistent with the study data generated. Essential elements in the presentation of the results include:

• Baseline comparisons between the treatment groups
• The number of participants actually randomized into the study by treatment group and the number of participants excluded from any of the analyses, by reason and by treatment group
• Major efficacy and safety results by treatment group in the form of tables, graphs, test variables, and statistical parameters, as appropriate
• An assessment of between-group differences with confidence intervals

An account must be made of missing, unused, or spurious data during statistical analyses. All omissions of this type must be documented to enable review.

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, the institutional ethics committee (EC) (institutional review board (IRB) in the United States (US)) must have written procedures for determining which projects need verification from sources other than the investigator that no material changes have occurred since the previous EC review.

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

Additionally, see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for guidance on clinical trial reports.

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.

Additionally, per 42CFR11, the responsible party 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 responsible party submits a certification that indicates: 1) the FDA has not approved, licensed, or cleared the IP being studied for any use before the primary completion date of the trial; and 2) the sponsor intends to continue with product development and is either seeking, or may at a future date seek, FDA approval. The clinical trial results information must include data on the following:

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

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

As defined in the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, the G-GMPAnnexes, and the G-TrialsGCP, a sponsor is the person, company, institution, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, or financing of a clinical trial. The NGHRP specifically assigns responsibility to the sponsor for providing all the necessary financial support to initiate and complete a research study.

The NDPA-CTReg also specifies that in order to submit a clinical trial application, the sponsor must be one (1) of the following:

• The drug patent holder
• A licensed person (a pharmacist)
• The drug manufacturer
• An agent of the drug patent holder or the drug manufacturer

As stated in the G-TrialsGCP, a sponsor may transfer any or all of the sponsor's trial-related duties and functions to a contract research organization (CRO), but the ultimate responsibility for the quality and integrity of the trial data always rests with the sponsor. The CRO must have the required skills, experience, and competencies to safely conduct clinical trials. Any trial-related duty and function that is transferred to and assumed by a CRO should be specified in writing and evidence of a mutual agreement provided. The sponsor should ensure oversight of any trial-related duties and functions carried out on the sponsor’s behalf, including trial-related duties and functions that are subcontracted to another party by the sponsor's contracted CRO(s). Any trial-related duties and functions not specifically transferred to and assumed by a CRO are retained by the sponsor.

Per the NDPA-CTReg, a local company in Uganda may act as an agent in the clinical trial for a foreign sponsor.

As per 21CFR312 and 21CFR50, 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 and 21CFR50 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 states 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 must be described 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.

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

Overview

As per the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor oversees the selection of the investigator(s) and the institution(s) for the clinical trial. The G-CTConduct indicates that based on the clinical trial agreement between the sponsor and the principal investigator (PI), the National Drug Authority (NDA) will liaise with the in-country PI representing the sponsor regarding the application. The PI should be a Ugandan resident (local) and licensed by the relevant body in Uganda.

The G-TrialsGCP states that before entering an agreement with an investigator to conduct a trial, the sponsor should provide the investigator with the protocol and an up-to-date Investigator's Brochure (IB). The investigator should also be given sufficient time to review the protocol and the information provided. The PI/investigator(s) should be qualified by education, training, and experience to assume responsibility for the proper conduct of the trial, meet all the qualifications specified by the applicable regulatory requirement(s), and provide evidence of such qualifications through an up-to-date curriculum vitae and/or other relevant documentation requested by the sponsor, the accredited institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda), and/or the NDA. The PI/investigator(s) should also be thoroughly familiar with the appropriate use of the investigational product(s) (IP(s)), as described in the protocol, current IB, product information, and other information sources provided by the sponsor. Furthermore, the PI/investigator(s) should be aware of, and comply with, good clinical practice (GCP) and the applicable regulatory requirements.

Per the NGHRP, initial face-to-face training before study commencement is encouraged. Research teams must receive training before initiation of study activities and undergo continued research ethics education at least once every three (3) years. An investigator must be qualified and licensed to carry out the study being proposed. Foreign investigators must have a valid work permit where applicable, especially when actively involved in the research implementation within Uganda. According to the NDPA-CTReg, an application for additional investigators, change of investigator, or additional clinical trial sites must be made using Form 36 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or using UGA-13. The application must be accompanied by evidence of ethical approval of the clinical trial protocol amendment, where applicable, and the prescribed fees.

As indicated in the NGHRP, the host institution is responsible for the provision of space and necessary facilities for research implementation, as well as for monitoring research progress as necessary. For new and emerging technologies, therapeutics, and designs, efforts must be made by the institution of affiliation for infrastructural capacity enhancement and professional development, which must be provided for in the protocol.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

The NDPA-CTReg states that in the case of foreign sponsors, a local company in Uganda must submit a letter of authorization from the holder of the patent of the drug, licensed person, or manufacturer of the drug to be the agent in the clinical trial that is responsible for all matters pertaining to the NDA clinical trial certificate. See Form 30 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-18 for the letter of authorization, and Form 34 in Schedule 1 of the NDPA-CTReg for the clinical trial certificate.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

According to the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor is responsible for establishing a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) (also referred to as an Independent Data-Monitoring Committee (IDMC)) prior to the trial’s commencement. Per the NGHRP, the DSMB ensures that the study is conducted in accordance with the protocol provisions, ensures the safety of study participants, and preserves the integrity and credibility of the trial. A DSMB must be established before the commencement of an interventional study, and its charter must be submitted to the EC for review and approval. All Phase IIb and Phase III clinical trials must have a DSMB, and Phase I, Phase IIa, and other high risk noninterventional studies must have a safety monitoring plan. A Safety Monitoring Committee must be established for Phase I and Phase IIa of a clinical trial before the trial’s commencement and must be based on risk categorization of the study. Its composition must be submitted to the EC.

The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that a DSMB should have written operating procedures and maintain written records of all its meetings. A duly signed DSMB charter must be submitted to the NDA prior to recruitment of participants, and any decision not to create a DSMB should be clearly documented and justified in the protocol.

For additional details on DSMB establishment and functions, see 3.7.3 of the NGHRP.

Multicenter Studies

The G-TrialsGCP indicates that multicenter trials must adhere to all national regulatory requirements, ensuring consideration and adaptation of the local context into the general study design. The following should be considered regarding multicenter trials:

• Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be appropriate to consider local realities, as well as trial site-specific differences
• The informed consent procedure must be tailored to local conditions and informed consent forms translated into the local language submitted to the EC for approval
• Study design differences between the Ugandan site(s) and other sites must be fully explained, as well as differences between sites within Uganda Study extrapolations and conclusions should be relevant to the Ugandan context
• Where necessary, site investigators should develop site-specific standard operating procedures and/or a site implementation plan to guide the respective sites on protocol implementation

Per the G-TrialsGCP, for multicenter trials, the PI is responsible for appointing co-investigators that will be responsible for the various trial sites in Uganda. However, it is the responsibility of the sponsor to ensure all investigators conduct the trial in strict compliance with the approved protocol. In addition, the sponsor should ensure that:

• 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 at the various sites is facilitated

Overview

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

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

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

In addition, 21CFR312 indicates that prior to the start of the study, the sponsor must provide the investigator(s) with the investigator’s brochure. The sponsor is also responsible for providing the investigator(s) with the information needed to conduct an investigation properly.

See G-InvstgtrResp for more information on investigator responsibilities.

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

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

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on investigator selection, qualifications, and training.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

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

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

Insurance

As set forth in the NDPA-CTReg and the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor is responsible for providing insurance coverage for any unforeseen injury to research participants. The sponsor should provide indemnity for the investigator(s) against claims arising from the clinical trial, except for claims that arise from malpractice or negligence.

According to the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-InsuranceCover, an insurance certificate must be provided to the National Drug Authority (NDA) that is specific to the trial for which the clinical trial application is being submitted. The G-CTConduct and the NDPA-CTReg also indicate that the clinical trial application must provide evidence that each member of the clinical trial team is covered by relevant malpractice insurance for the trial. The NGHRP states that medical treatment and compensation must be covered through the mandatory clinical trial insurance.

The G-InsuranceCover further states that the required insurance coverage for research participants in a specific trial at a given site must be obtained from a local insurance company that is registered and operating under law in Uganda. For additional details on the required elements of the insurance policy, see Section 7.0 of the G-InsuranceCover.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for ensuring participants obtain their claim from the local insurance company in the event of any trial-related injury and/or resultant disability.

Compensation

Per the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor must ensure that information on incentives offered to participants is included in the protocol and informed consent documents. If the study is multicenter, information on the incentives given at all the different trial sites must be provided. If the participating sites are multinational, then the differences in the incentives across the sites must also be explained.

According to the NGHRP, a care package for research participants must be prepared before initiation of a research study. Care and treatment for research participants must be provided with the ideal aim of providing the best proven intervention.

Injury or Death

In accordance with the NGHRP, the sponsor is responsible for participant compensation or indemnity in the event of trial-related injuries, disability, or death. The sponsor must ensure that participants who suffer any trial-related injuries receive free medical treatment for such injuries, and financial or other assistance that would compensate them equitably for any resulting impairment, disability, or handicap. The sponsor must provide care until complete cure or stabilization of a trial-related injury.

Additionally, the NGHRP, indicates that the investigator must refer all participants whose conditions may not be managed adequately within the expertise and licensure of the medical professionals at the study site, and/or where facilities or supplies at the study site do not allow adequate handling of the condition. The investigator and/or study sponsor must pay the cost of referral and management of the condition when a referral has been made for a trial-related injury or a serious adverse event (SAE) related to the study.

Per the NGHRP, a trial-related injury may be physical, social, economic, or psychological, and may be classified as follows:

• Definitely: When injury is directly caused by participation in a research study

• Probably: When injury is most likely explained by participation in a research study but when no definite proof of causality is evident

• Possibly: When explanation for injury is equally due to participation in a research study or other cause

• Unlikely: When injury is more likely explained by another cause other than participation in a research study
• Not related: When injury is clearly due to another cause other than participation in a research study

The NGHRP states that subject to applicable laws in Uganda, research participants will be entitled to compensation when they suffer injury classified as possibly, probably, or definitely related to their participation in the research. Before determination of relatedness, all adverse event (AE) care must be provided to the research participant at the study’s cost. The staff and clinical facilities where research will be conducted must be licensed/approved for patient care. The investigator must meet treatment costs for AEs that are deemed possibly, probably, and definitely related to the study intervention.

According to the NGHRP, research participants must not be asked to waive the right to compensation, and must retain legal rights to seek monetary compensation for research related injuries including settlements out of court. Any research regulatory body, institution, investigators, participant, or other stakeholder may initiate the compensation process. The Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), Uganda National Health Research Organisation (UNHRO), research host institution, institution of affiliation, and sponsor must agree on an appropriate mechanism for arbitration.

Trial Participation

In the clinical trial application made to the NDA, the applicant must explain how the participant(s) will be compensated for their time and other inconveniences, in accordance with the G-CTConduct and the NDPA-CTReg.

In addition, per the NGHRP, participants must be compensated for inconveniences, effort, time spent, and expenses incurred while taking part in a study, such as travel costs, as deemed relevant by the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) and the UNCST. Compensation can be in kind. Refreshments and meals are not compensation for research participation, but a welfare aspect for study participation. Research participants may also receive free medical services. The compensation or medical services must not be so out of proportion as to induce individuals to participate in the research. Incentives can be given, but must not be considered a research benefit and must not present undue inducement to potential participants, as determined by the EC.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor must ensure that participants are reimbursed for all reasonable costs incurred by their participation in the trial.

Post-Trial Access

In accordance with the NGHRP, post research responsibilities must be considered at the conception of the research study, and they must have a dedicated section in the research protocol. The duration and sustainability of care and treatment for the participant after the study must be negotiated before initiation of the study. Sponsors are encouraged, but not obliged, to care and treat for chronic and relapsing illnesses. However, investigators and sponsors are obliged to manage SAEs/harm related to the study (including paying for associated costs thereof) until they are fully resolved or stabilized. Investigators must provide relevant follow up for participants for the duration as approved. Certain categories of interventions with potential long-term effects may require extended follow-up and monitoring for SAEs. These may include investigations involving genetically modified substances, gene therapy, and DNA-based compounds. The extended follow-up and monitoring period will be determined by the EC on a case-by-case basis. Children born by participants who become pregnant during a trial must receive follow-ups for a minimum of two (2) years.

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). Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, which guides sponsors on providing compensation.

Injury or Death

As specified in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, 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

The NDPA-CTReg states that the sponsor should maintain quality assurance and quality control systems for the conduct of clinical trials and for the generation of documentation, recording, and reporting of data. The G-TrialsGCP indicates that the sponsor is also responsible for implementing the systems with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, documented (recorded), and reported in compliance with the protocol, good clinical practice (GCP), and the applicable regulatory requirement(s). Quality control should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been processed correctly.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should implement a quality management system throughout all stages of the trial process, and should focus on the trial activities essential to ensuring participant protection and the reliability of trial results. The quality management system should use a risk-based approach including critical process and data identification, risk identification, risk evaluation, risk control, risk communication, risk review, and risk reporting. For additional details, see the G-TrialsGCP.

The NGHRP requires that all research institutions have in place a research integrity policy that provides a framework for compliance and designation of a research integrity officer in accordance with international and national applicable standards. Institutions must submit reports of all cases handled at the institutional level, and refer cases not adjudged to the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). See the NGHRP for more information on research integrity requirements.

As stated in the NGHRP, protocol violations and deviations should be avoided except for purposes of intervening when a participant’s life is in danger. When a violation or deviation occurs, the principal investigator (PI) must report to the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committees (RECs) in Uganda). For a violation and major deviation, notification to the EC (and the collaborating organization’s EC and the UNCST, where applicable), must be made by the PI within seven (7) calendar days of becoming aware of the event. For a minor deviation, notification to the EC (and the collaborating organization’s EC and the UNCST, where applicable), must be made by the PI in an annual report.

Monitoring Requirements

As per the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should ensure that the auditing of clinical trials/systems is conducted in accordance with the sponsor's written procedures on what to audit, how to audit, the frequency of audits, and the form and content of audit reports. The observations and findings of the auditor(s) should be documented and accessible to the EC and the National Drug Authority (NDA). The audit report should be submitted to the NDA if evidence of GCP or protocol non-compliance is found.

The G-TrialsGCP further states that in accordance with the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor should appoint a monitor tasked with trial oversight and reporting on the progress of a study. The monitor should ideally have adequate medical, pharmaceutical, and scientific qualifications. The investigator(s) should accept the possibility of an audit or monitoring visit by an independent auditor appointed by the sponsor, and/or an inspection by the NDA, EC, or relevant local and international regulatory authorities.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

Per the NDPA-CTReg, in the case of a sponsor-initiated clinical trial termination, the sponsor must notify the NDA within 15 days using the format specified in Schedule 2 of the NDPA-CTReg or UGA-5. The notification must give reasons for the termination, indicate the disposal process for the unused investigational product, and give the effective date of the termination. The G-CTConduct further requires that the sponsor provide evidence of notification to the EC of record and the UNCST.

According to the NGHRP, the investigator must notify the EC, the UNCST, and other relevant regulatory agencies in writing about early termination of the study and the reasons for the termination. The G-TrialsGCP further specifies that if a trial is prematurely terminated or suspended for any reason, the investigator should inform the participants, assure appropriate therapy and follow-up for the participants, and inform the NDA. Furthermore, if the investigator terminates or suspends a trial without prior agreement of the sponsor, the investigator should inform the institution where applicable, and the investigator/institution should inform the sponsor and the EC. The investigator should provide the sponsor and the EC with a detailed written explanation of the termination or suspension.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See USA-97 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. Additionally, see USA-6 for other scientific data sharing policies, including genomic data.

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on sponsor responsibilities involving quality management, assurance, and control. Additionally, see USA-69 for 10 guiding principles that industry and product developers can consider when using artificial intelligence (AI) to advance drug and biological product development.

Monitoring Requirements

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. Also see the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on sponsor responsibilities involving monitoring and auditing.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

As delineated in 21CFR312, if the sponsor determines the investigational product (IP) presents an unreasonable and significant risk to the participants, the sponsor must discontinue the associated 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 stock of the IP and provide the FDA with a full report on the sponsor’s actions.

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 IP that was administered to them (e.g., immediate safety concerns, ability to participate in another clinical trial, and appropriate waiting period to do so) and what long-term follow up may be available or necessary.

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

Also see the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on sponsor responsibilities involving premature termination or suspension of a trial.

Electronic Data Processing System

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor should utilize appropriately qualified individuals to supervise the overall conduct of the trial, handle the data, verify the data, conduct the statistical analyses, and prepare the trial reports. When using electronic trial data handling or remote electronic trial data systems, the sponsor should:

• Ensure and document that the electronic data processing system(s) conform(s) to the sponsor's established requirements for completeness, accuracy, reliability, and consistent intended performance
• Maintain standard operating procedures (SOPs) for using these systems
• Ensure that the systems are designed to permit data changes in such a way that the data changes are documented and that there is no deletion of entered data
• Maintain a security system that prevents unauthorized access to the data, and a list of the individuals who are authorized to make data changes
• Maintain adequate backup of the data
• Safeguard the blinding, if any
• Ensure the integrity of the data, including any data that describes the context, content, and structure

For additional details, see Section 4.8 of the G-TrialsGCP.

The G-TrialsGCP states that quality control should be applied to each stage of data handling to ensure that all data are reliable and have been processed correctly. The sponsor should base their approach to validation of electronic data processing systems on a risk assessment that takes into consideration the intended use of the system and the potential of the system to affect human participant protection and reliability of trial results. The sponsor should maintain a documented record of SOPs that guide a step-by-step retrospective assessment of data quality and study performance. These SOPs should cover system setup, installation, and use. The SOPs should also describe system validation and functionality testing, data collection and handling, system maintenance, system security measures, change control, data backup, recovery, contingency planning, and decommissioning. The responsibilities of the sponsor, investigator, and other parties with respect to the use of these computerized systems should be clear, and the users should be provided with training in their use.

According to the G-TrialsGCP, satisfactory maintenance and back-up procedures for computer databases must be provided. Case report forms (CRFs) should be designed to meet the specific data requirements set out in the study protocol. The effects of missing and inaccurate data should be minimized to maintain data quality. The system for routinely checking the data collection and entry throughout the course of the trial should be documented. Checks for validity and consistency of the database should be on separate items as well as on predetermined combinations of items in the CRFs. The SOP for data editing should ensure that any queries about data validation are brought to the attention of the investigators. Database lock should be done after completion of the validation and editing processes are documented.

As per the NGHRP, utilization of electronic data requires safeguards and compliance with national laws and policies. See Annex I of the NGHRP for the minimum requirements for the establishment of research E-Systems.

Additionally, the NGHRP indicates that certain procedures and controls are required for electronic documents systems when utilizing E-Informed Consent (eIC). The procedures are designed to ensure the authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of electronic documents, and ensure that signers cannot claim the signed documents are not genuine. See the Documentation Requirements section and 5.8 of the NGHRP for more information on eIC.

The NGHRP states that before using artificial intelligence (AI) in research, the principal investigator (PI) must provide administrative clearance from the national body responsible for information systems and data protection prior to submission to the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) and final registration and clearance by the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). See the NGHRP for additional guidance regarding the use of AI in research.

Records Management

The G-TrialsGCP and the G-CTConduct state that the sponsor and the PI are responsible for archiving and ensuring the safety of all trial-related documentation. Per the NDPA-CTReg, the sponsor must keep the records, documents, and information provided to the National Drug Authority (NDA) in the clinical trial application for unregistered investigational products (IPs) at the clinical trial site for 20 years following the trial's completion. Documentation for trials involving IPs to be registered should be kept for two (2) years after the registration of the IP. For an IP used in a clinical trial, the sponsor must, at the clinical trial site, maintain:

• The Investigator's Brochure (IB) for the IP and a record of the changes made to the IB, if any, including the rationale for each change
• A record of the adverse events (AEs) of the IP that occurred inside or outside Uganda, showing the indication for use and the dosage form of the IP at the time of the AE
• A record of the participants with their identifications and contacts
• A record of the shipment and receipt of the IP and where applicable, a record of the return of the IP or a record of the destruction of the IP, which must be in accordance with the prescribed process
• A copy of the protocol and consent forms

The G-CTConduct further states that the holder of the clinical trial certificate should inform the NDA in writing prior to destroying the documents. Documents may be stored in electronic (soft and scanned) or hard copies.

In addition, the G-TrialsGCP requires that if the sponsor discontinues the clinical development of an IP, the sponsor should maintain all sponsor-specific essential documents for at least two (2) years after formal discontinuation. The sponsor should inform the investigator(s)/institution(s) in writing of the need for record retention and should notify the investigator(s)/institution(s) in writing when the trial-related records are no longer needed.

The NGHRP notes that as part of the host institution’s responsibilities, all stakeholders must maintain adequate and accurate source documents through hard or electronic copies. Additionally, all research records must meet standards for source documentation practices: attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate, complete, consistent, and available.

According to the NGHRP, collaborating research partners must agree on appropriate data access and use rights before commencement of the study. Furthermore, a collaborating research partner must not transfer data to a third party without the written consent of the other partner. Investigators must also have mechanisms for ensuring privacy and confidentiality as stated in the NITA-U-PrivAct, and a copy of the data sets must be available for access by the local institution. Investigators must ensure that research records from which personal data have been obtained are available at the research site for at least 20 years after completion of a clinical trial, and at least five (5) years after completion for any other type of study. This must include hard and/or electronic copies. The mechanism of backup must be stated in the protocol, and a local server in-country must be used for storage and backup of the data. For more information on data protection and privacy requirements, see the Personal Data Protection section.

The NGHRP further requires that collaborating research partners negotiate data ownership and use in accordance with the institution of affiliation’s data use and ownership policies. Ownership of data must be clearly stated in the research protocol and Data Transfer and Use Agreements (DTAs), which must be reviewed and approved by the EC and the UNCST. See Annex III of the NGHRP for a DTA template.

Electronic Data Processing System

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

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

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for guidance on data handling and processing, including the use of computerized systems.

Records Management

According to 21CFR312, the sponsor must maintain complete and accurate records showing financial interest paid to clinical investigators by the sponsor, as well as records concerning all other financial interests of investigators.

As set forth in 21CFR312, the sponsor must retain the above records and reports for at least two (2) years after a marketing application (known as a new drug application (NDA)) is approved for the drug; or if an NDA is not approved, until two (2) years after shipment and delivery of the IP is discontinued and the FDA has been notified. Additionally, upon request from the FDA, the sponsor must 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.

Also see the ICH’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on record keeping and management.

Responsible Parties

As per the NITA-U-PrivAct, the data controller determines the purposes for and the manner in which personal data is processed or is to be processed. The “data processor” processes personal data on behalf of the data controller. Data controllers and processors must be registered with the Personal Data Protection Office (PDPO) of the National Information Technology Authority - Uganda (NITA-U). See the NITA-U-PrivAct, the NITA-U-PrivReg, and the PDPO-Note for detailed registration requirements.

Data Protection

As per the NITA-U-PrivAct, a data controller or processor must:

• Be accountable to the data subject for data collected, processed, held, or used
• Collect and process data fairly and lawfully
• Collect, process, use, or hold adequate, relevant, and not excessive or unnecessary personal data
• Retain personal data for the period authorized by law or for which the data is required
• Ensure quality of information collected, processed, used, or held
• Ensure transparency and participation of the data subject in the collection, processing, use, and holding of the personal data
• Observe security safeguards in respect of the data

The NITA-U-PrivReg indicates that every data collector, data processor, and data controller registered under the NITA-U-PrivReg must submit an annual report to the PDPO within 90 days after the end of every financial year. The report must contain a summary of all complaints received and the status of such complaints (including whether the complaint was resolved or is still pending), as well as all data breaches and the action taken to address such data breaches. See UGA-41 for a template of the annual report. See Part III of the NITA-U-PrivAct and NITA-U-PrivReg for detailed requirements on data processing, record retention, and processing of personal data outside Uganda.

Additionally, as per UGA-43, the PDPO launched a Data Protection and Privacy Compliance Toolkit to help organizations comply with NITA-U-PrivAct. The Toolkit is a comprehensive resource that includes practical tools, templates, and step-by-step guidance that organizations can use to assess their data protection practices, identify gaps, and take corrective actions. For more details and to access the toolkit, individuals should contact compliance@pdpo.go.ug.

According to the NGHRP, investigators must have mechanisms in place for ensuring safety, privacy, confidentiality, and proper disposal of research data, including electronic domains, such as anonymization delinking and/or strict custody of delinked identifiers. Data must be disposed of in a way that protects participant confidentiality. Disposal can be in the form of delinking, deleting, or destruction, and documents must be disposed of in a way that prevents reconstruction in an intelligible form. Request for disposal must be submitted to the institutional ethics committee (research ethics committee in Uganda) for approval with a notification to the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) prior to disposal of data.

For information on privacy and confidentiality requirements regarding open databases and digital migration, see the NGHRP.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

As delineated in the NITA-U-PrivAct, for the purposes of processing personal data, consent means any freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wish which, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the collection or processing of the data subject’s personal data.

According to the NITA-U-PrivAct, a data controller or data processor must obtain the consent of the data subject before collecting or processing personal data, and the data must be collected for a lawful, specific purpose. Unless otherwise provided under the NITA-U-PrivAct, a data subject has the right to object to the collection or processing of personal data at any time. See the NITA-U-PrivAct and NITA-U-PrivReg for detailed requirements on consent to data collection or processing, record retention, and processing of personal data outside Uganda.

The NITA-U-PrivAct and NITA-U-PrivReg further state that data subjects have a right to (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• Request a data controller to give a description of the personal data held by the controller
• Prevent processing of personal data
• Appeal a decision to continue processing personal data
• Request a data controller to correct or delete personal data about the data subject that is inaccurate, irrelevant, excessive, out of date, incomplete, misleading, or obtained unlawfully

See the NITA-U-PrivAct and NITA-U-PrivReg for more information on data subject rights.

Children

According to the NITA-U-PrivAct, personal data relating to children must not be collected or processed unless it is carried out with the prior consent of the parent/legal guardian; is necessary to comply with the law; or is for research or statistical purposes. The NITA-U-PrivReg further requires that every data collector, data processor, and data controller establish a system to determine the age of participants whose personal data is to be collected, processed, or stored, and where the data relates to a child, describe the manner of obtaining consent of a parent/legal guardian, where necessary.

Responsible Parties

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

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

Data Protection

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

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

NIH Privacy Requirements

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

See USA-86 for more information on these circumstances.

Obtaining Consent

In all Ugandan clinical trials, a freely given informed consent is required to be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP.

As per the NGHRP, the NDPA-CTReg, the G-CTConduct, and the G-TrialsGCP, the informed consent form (ICF) and the participant information leaflet are viewed as essential documents that must be reviewed and approved by an accredited institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) and provided to the National Drug Authority (NDA) with the clinical trial application. (See the Required Elements section for details on what should be included in the ICF.)

The G-TrialsGCP states that before informed consent may be obtained, the principal investigator (PI), or a person designated by the PI, should provide the participant or legal representative/guardian ample time and opportunity to inquire about details of the trial and to decide whether or not to participate in the trial. All questions about the trial should be answered to the satisfaction of the participant or legal representative/guardian. The NGHRP further indicates that seeking consent must be carried out under circumstances that provide the prospective research participant or legal representative/guardian sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate, and that minimize the possibility of undue influence.

As stated in the NGHRP, an investigator must seek informed consent only after ascertaining that the prospective research participant has adequate understanding of the relevant facts and of the consequences of participation. The EC will require the investigator to administer a comprehension test (or test of understanding) to ensure that prospective research participants have acquired an adequate understanding of the relevant facts and of the consequences of participation.

Per the G-TrialsGCP, if a participant is unable to read or if the legal representative/guardian is unable to read, an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent discussion. The written ICF and any other written information to be provided to participants should be read and explained to the participant or legal representative/guardian. According to the NGHRP, the ICF must be read to illiterate prospective research participants in the presence of a literate witness. Verbal consent may be obtained in studies that present no more than minimal risk or in studies where for justifiable reasons written consent may not be feasible. ECs reserve the right to determine when verbal informed consent may be appropriate and acceptable.

Additionally, as stated in the G-TrialsGCP, the language used in the oral and written information about the trial, including the written ICF, should be as non-technical as practical and should be understandable to the participant or legal representative/guardian and the impartial witness, where applicable. Neither the PI, nor the trial staff, should coerce or unduly influence a participant to participate or to continue to participate in a trial. None of the oral and written information concerning the trial, including the written ICF, should contain any language that causes the participant or legal representative/guardian to waive or to appear to waive any legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator, the institution, the sponsor, or their agents from liability for negligence and/or malpractice. The NGHRP adds that the investigator/designee must not interpret and must only read out or allow the potential/prospective participant to read the approved and stamped ICFs.

See the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP for detailed requirements for obtaining consent. Additionally, see the NGHRP for information on deferred, tiered, broad, and blanket consent.

Re-Consent

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the written ICF and any other written information to be provided to participants should be revised whenever important new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s consent. Any revised written ICF and written information should receive the EC's approval/favorable opinion in advance of use. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the participant’s willingness to continue participation in the trial. The communication of this information should be documented.

The NGHRP specifies that re-consent from participants must be obtained if there are changes in the conditions or procedures of the research or if new information becomes available that could affect the participant’s willingness to continue in the research. A surrogate/proxy must consent for a prospective participant who is unable to comprehend information for participation in the study. When the participant is able to comprehend, the participant must be re-consented to continue in the study.

Language Requirements

As per the NGHRP, the ICF should be provided in English and the relevant local language (where applicable). The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that for multicenter trials, the informed consent procedure must be tailored to local conditions, and ICFs must be translated into the local language and submitted to the EC for approval.

Documenting Consent

The G-TrialsGCP and the NGHRP state that prior to participation in the trial, the written ICF should be signed and personally dated by the participant or legal representative/guardian, and by the person who conducted the informed consent discussion.

The G-TrialsGCP delineates that the impartial witness for participants unable to read should sign and personally date the ICF, after the participant or legal representative/guardian has orally consented to the participation in the trial. If capable of doing so, the participant or legal representative/guardian should sign and personally date the ICF. By signing the ICF, the impartial witness attests that the information in the ICF and any other written information was accurately explained to, and apparently understood by, the participant or legal representative/guardian, and that informed consent was freely given.

According to the NGHRP, where the use of signed consent forms is not feasible, alternative viable methods like thumbprint must be employed.

The G-TrialsGCP and the NGHRP indicate that a copy of the signed ICF must be offered to the participant or legal representative/guardian prior to participation in the trial. The G-TrialsGCP further specifies that during the course of the trial, the participant or legal representative/guardian should receive a copy of the signed and dated consent form updates and a copy of any amendments to the written information provided to the participant.

As per the NGHRP, E-Informed Consent (eIC) must contain all the required components of informed consent. The use of eIC requires prior approval from the EC. The EC submission must also include the appropriate information materials, such as videos and web-based presentations. The investigator must demonstrate that the study population is able to comprehend and use E-consenting mechanisms. The copy of the eIC form provided to the participant may be in paper form, on an electronic storage device, or via email. If the copy includes one (1) or more hyperlinks to information on the Internet, the hyperlinks must be maintained and information must be accessible until study close-out. Measures for privacy and confidentiality of information must be available at the research entity. The EC and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) must be granted access to records and reports made by the investigator, including site-specific versions of the eIC, materials submitted to the ECs, all amendments to the site-specific eICs, and all signed eICs. These must be available at the site, either in electronic or paper form. For more information on eIC documentation requirements, see the NGHRP.

Waiver of Consent

According to the NGHRP, an EC may waive some or all of the requirements for the investigator to obtain informed consent for some or all of the research participants if the EC determines that:

• The research study carries no more than minimal risk (risk that is no more than the risks encountered in daily life in a stable society)
• The research study could not practically be carried out without the waiver or alteration (whenever appropriate, the research participants will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation)
• Deception needs to be applied to achieve the objectives of the study
• The only record linking the research participant and the research study would be the ICF which would cause risk to the research participant resulting from a breach of confidentiality
• The human materials and data have been de-identified or anonymized

The NGHRP notes that many studies are carried out using data abstracted from clients’ records or other record sources, and the clients may not be reasonably available to provide informed consent. The investigator must request a waiver of consent from the EC to use such records for research. Relevant mechanisms must be put in place to ensure privacy and confidentiality in relation to identifiable data, including procedures such as anonymization and de-linking.

Obtaining Consent

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

As per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, 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).

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, and the RevComRule, no investigator may involve a human being as a participant in research unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the participant or the legal representative/guardian. The participant or the legal representative/guardian should also be given adequate time to consider whether to participate to minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence.

As indicated in 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, no informed consent, whether oral or written, may contain any language that causes the participant or the legal representative/guardian to waive or appear to waive legal rights, or that releases or appears to release the investigator, sponsor, institution or its agents from liability for negligence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on obtaining consent.

Re-Consent

According to 21CFR50 and the G-IRBFAQs, participants who are enrolled and actively participating in a study must be informed of significant new findings which may relate to their willingness to continue participation in the study.

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, and the RevComRule state that any information provided must be in a language understandable to the participant or the legal representative/guardian.

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

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

Documenting Consent

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

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

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

Waiver of Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The study involves research and an explanation of its nature and purpose
• The procedures to be followed, including all invasive procedures
• The expected duration of the trial
• The trial treatment(s) and the probability for random assignment to each treatment (where appropriate)
• The participant's responsibilities
• Those aspects of the trial that are experimental
• Any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the participant (when applicable, to an embryo, fetus, or nursing infant), and whether the project involves more than minimal risk
• Where relevant, any benefits to the participant and/or their community that may be reasonably expected from the study, including potential benefits of commercial value; if no benefit is expected, the participant should also be made aware of this
• The alternative procedure(s) or course(s) of treatment that may be available to the participant, and their potential benefits and risks
• The extent, if any, to which the participant’s privacy and confidentiality will be maintained, including anonymization and de-identification of data and biological samples
• Allowed access by the sponsor, National Drug Authority (NDA), Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), relevant institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda), and/or other regulatory authority including international regulatory authorities (pending that they have received permission to do so from UNCST) to participant records
• The policy on compensation and/or medical treatment(s) available to the participant in the event of a trial-related injury within the framework of clinical trials insurance and where further information may be obtained
• Where applicable, a statement of how the investigator will provide or facilitate access to medical services to the participant
• The nature, form, and extent of compensation for participation (e.g., reimbursement for transport, time, effort, inconvenience, and refreshments)
• The identity of a sponsor and any potential conflict of interests
• A brief description of sponsors of the research study and the organizational affiliation of the investigators
• A contact name and number of the principal investigator and/or site investigator
• Names and contact details of individual(s) to be contacted at any time in case of questions about the research study, and/or about the participants’ rights and welfare
• The individual(s) obtaining informed consent must be able to communicate in a language understandable to the participant
• Participation is voluntary, the participant can withdraw from the study at any time, and withdrawal or refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which the participant is otherwise entitled
• A statement that participants will get feedback on findings and progress of the study, and that any new information that affects the study will be made available to research participants and/or their health care providers, including the participant’s willingness to continue participation
• The study has been approved by an accredited Ugandan-based EC
• A statement that a particular treatment or procedure may involve risks to the participant (or to the embryo or fetus, if the participant is or may become pregnant), which are currently unforeseeable
• The foreseeable circumstances and/or reasons under which the investigator may terminate participation in the trial, whether or not the participant consents to such termination
• Additional costs/expenses to the participant that may result from participation in the study
• The consequences of a participant’s decision to withdraw from the research and procedures for orderly withdrawal by the participant. Participants may withdraw at any time without further notice, and investigators must not follow up with participants who have withdrawn from the study
• The approximate number of participants in the research study
• For new and emerging technologies and innovations in treatment and/or intervention that have been shown to be efficacious, efforts for post-research access must be made
• If the research involves collecting human materials, participants must be provided with an explanation on how specimens will be managed at the end of the study. If samples will be stored for future use, a separate consent must be obtained
• That data and/or biological specimens may be used for commercial purposes and the extent to which the participants and/or their communities may benefit directly or indirectly
• Whether, when, and how any of the products or interventions proven by the study to be safe and effective will be made available to participants at the end of the study, and if the participants will be expected to pay for them

Compensation Disclosure

According to the G-TrialsGCP, the sponsor must ensure that information on incentives offered to participants is included in the informed consent documents. If the study is multicenter, information on the incentives given at all the different trial sites must be provided. If the participating sites are multinational, then the differences in the incentives across the sites must also be explained.

Based on 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, the informed consent form (ICF) must include the following statements or descriptions, as applicable (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in all sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

• The study purpose, procedures, and expected duration of the trial
• Identification of any experimental procedures
• Any expected risks or discomforts to the participant, and when applicable, to an embryo or fetus
• Any expected benefits to the participant
• Disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures that might be advantageous to the participant
• The extent, if any, to which 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 additional costs to the participant that may result from participation in the research
• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the FDA has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on the informed consent discussion and materials that should be provided to participants.

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

The G-TrialsGCP states that in obtaining and documenting informed consent, the principal investigator (PI) or delegate should comply with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki (UGA-27), the NGHRP, and the G-TrialsGCP. Additionally, in accordance with the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP, a participant’s rights must be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

See the Required Elements; Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates; Prisoners; and Mentally Impaired sections for additional information regarding requirements for participant rights.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

The Right to Information

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

The NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP indicate that 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 Right of Inquiry/Appeal

As per the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP, the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for the investigator(s) and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) to address trial-related inquiries in the event of any injury and/or to appeal against a violation of the participants’ rights.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

The NGHRP states that research and development, including scientific investigations involving humans as research participants, must be conducted for the benefit of communities without causing unnecessary harm or inconvenience and must not compromise the rights and welfare of participants. In order to protect the rights and welfare of participants, research must be conducted in accordance with the basic research ethics principles: respect for persons, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

Overview

In accordance with 21CFR50, 21CFR312, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, 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.

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on participant rights.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

The Right to Information

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

As per 21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule, participants must be given a statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying them will be maintained.

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

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

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

21CFR50, the Pre2018-ComRule, and the RevComRule state that the research participant or legal representative/guardian must be given an explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and the participants’ rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

21CFR50 indicates that compliance with FDA regulations, including 21CFR50, is intended to protect the rights and safety of participants involved in investigations filed with the FDA. As per the Pre2018-ComRule and the RevComRule, an EC may require that additional information be given to participants if the EC determines the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of participants.

The NGHRP allows the use of deferred consent in emergency clinical research where the participant or legal representative/guardian is incapable of providing informed consent. The participant must consent once the participant is able to comprehend the information provided, and relevant documentation of this instance(s) must be provided by the investigator. Deferred consent must be clearly justified by the investigator, and the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) must give approval to the research procedure.

The G-TrialsGCP further states that in emergency situations, when prior consent of the participant is not possible, the consent of the legal representative/guardian, if present, should be requested. When prior consent of the participant is not possible and the legal representative/guardian is not available, enrollment of the participant should require measures that are described in the protocol and/or elsewhere, with documented approval by the EC, to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of the participant and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The participant or legal representative/guardian should be informed about the trial as soon as possible and provide consent to continue or other consent as appropriate, should this be requested.

21CFR50, 21CFR56, 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.

Also see the International Council for Harmonisation’s Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R3), which the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has implemented in US-ICH-GCP, for additional guidance on obtaining consent in emergency situations.

Medical Emergencies

Emergency Use Situation

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

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

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

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

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

Emergency Research

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

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

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

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

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

Military Operations

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

Overview

According to the NGHRP, additional safeguards must be included in a study to protect vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations are characterized as groups or individuals who are incapable of protecting their interests due to insufficient power, intelligence, knowledge, education, resources, strength, or other requisite attributes. Those with a limited capacity or freedom to freely provide or decline consent may also be considered vulnerable. Vulnerable populations include children/minors, older persons, prisoners, the homeless, refugees, internally displaced persons, substance abusers, mentally and physically handicapped, armed forces personnel, terminally ill, pregnant women, fetuses, and minority groups. Characteristics that constitute vulnerability in such populations include one (1) or more of the following:

• Limited economic empowerment
• Conflict and post-conflict situations and inadequate protection of human rights
• Discrimination on the basis of health status
• Limited availability of health care and treatment options
• Communities in acute disaster and disease epidemics
• Communities that may criminalize certain behavior

As per the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP, vulnerable participants also include individuals whose willingness to volunteer in a clinical trial may be unduly influenced by the expectation, whether justified or not, of benefits associated with participation, or of a retaliatory response from senior members of a hierarchy in case of refusal to participate. The G-TrialsGCP adds that examples include members of a group with a hierarchical structure, such as medical, pharmacy, dental, and nursing students, subordinate hospital and laboratory personnel, employees of the pharmaceutical industry, workers in settings where research studies are conducted, members of the armed forces or police, and persons kept in detention.

The NGHRP states that there must be a provision for involvement of the community in the research process right from inception to post research period. Additionally, to protect vulnerable individuals or groups/communities, the institutional ethics committee (EC) (research ethics committee (REC) in Uganda) must ensure that:

• Selection of communities is justified by the research goals
• Research is responsive to the needs and priorities of the community where it is to be conducted
• Research can only be conducted in the group and with the individuals if the objectives of the research cannot be addressed using non-vulnerable groups and individuals
• Risk of participating in research is justified by anticipated benefits
• The intervention or procedure presents experiences that are commensurate with those inherent in their actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situations
• The intervention or procedure is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the group or individual’s disorder or condition that is of vital importance for the understanding or amelioration of that disorder or condition
• ECs must co-opt a person knowledgeable about and that has experience working with the vulnerable group and/or individuals
• For pregnant women and fetuses, relevant studies on animals and non-pregnant individuals have been completed

The G-TrialsGCP further indicates that special protections for vulnerable populations can include:

• Allowing no more than minimal risks for procedures that offer no potential individual/direct benefits for participants
• Supplementing the participant’s agreement by the permission of family members, legal guardians, or other appropriate representatives
• Requiring that the research be carried out only when it is targeting conditions that affect these populations
• Safeguards can be designed to promote voluntary decision-making, limit the potential for confidentiality breaches, and otherwise work to protect the interests of those at increased risk of harm
• Appointment of advocates to the EC when such proposals for clinical trials on institutionalized individuals are under review

See the Children/Minors and Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates sections for additional information about these vulnerable populations. See the NGHRP and the G-TrialsGCP for more examples of and details on vulnerable populations.

Overview

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

Per 21CFR56, vulnerable populations may include children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped, or mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons. The Pre2018-ComRule describes children, prisoners, pregnant women, handicapped persons, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons as vulnerable populations. The RevComRule describes children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons as vulnerable populations.

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

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

The NGHRP and the G-CTChldrnWmn define a child as a person below the age of 18.

According to the G-CTChldrnWmn, data supporting the conduct of a clinical trial involving children should demonstrate that the benefit to the population outweighs the risk. For interventions or procedures that have no potential individual benefits for children:

• The risks must be minimized and no more than minimal;
• The purpose of the research must be to obtain knowledge relevant to the particular health needs of the population;
• The social value of the research for the children is compelling, and the research cannot be conducted in any other population; and
• Any research-related risk is the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research

Assent Requirements

The NGHRP requires assent to participate in research from all children aged eight (8) to 17. A researcher intending to conduct research involving children must obtain informed consent from the parents/legal guardians. However, the child’s assent or dissent takes precedence over the parent’s/legal guardian’s consent. For research involving more than minimal risk, parental consent must be sought from both parents of a child unless one (1) of the parents is reasonably unavailable. If the parents/legal guardians of the child cannot be reasonably traced, and the child needs to participate in research, the investigator must apply to a court for an order to waive the consent requirement.

According to the NGHRP, the assent forms must be in a language that is comprehensible by an eight (8) year old. Where applicable, relevant illustrations of the study procedures may be used. The investigator must ensure continued adequacy of the informed consent process, and obtain re-consent from participants, including consent for continued storage of samples, when they attain the age of majority (18 years).

The G-CTChldrnWmn further indicates that for pediatric studies, adequate provisions should be made for soliciting the assent of the children and permission of their parents/legal guardians. Investigators should provide an understandable age-specific informed assent and information sheet for children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assent Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The G-CTChldrnWmn states that data supporting the conduct of a clinical trial involving pregnant/lactating women should demonstrate that the benefit to the population outweighs the risk. For interventions or procedures that have no potential individual benefits for pregnant/lactating women:

• The risks must be minimized and no more than minimal;
• The purpose of the research must be to obtain knowledge relevant to the particular health needs of the population;
• The social value of the research for the pregnant/lactating women is compelling, and the research cannot be conducted in any other population; and
• Any research-related risk is the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research

According to the G-CTChldrnWmn, legally valid consent should be obtained from the participant or spouse as appropriate and in line with the NGHRP. The NGHRP indicates that for interventional research involving pregnant women, informed consent must be obtained from both the mother and father of the fetus. However, the father's consent is not required if: (i) the purpose of the study is primarily to meet the mother's health needs; (ii) the father's identity and/or whereabouts are unknown; (iii) the father is not reasonably available; (iv) the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest; and (v) the father is incompetent to give consent.

The G-CTChldrnWmn further indicates that for clinical trials involving pregnant women that have the potential for harm to the fetus, the participant should be informed about the potential risks, and research should be conducted only after assessing that the benefits (to the mother or fetus, as appropriate) outweigh the risk involved, and with informed consent of the participants.

(See the Required Elements section for general informed consent form requirements.)

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.

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

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

Pregnant Women and Fetuses

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

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