Clinical Research Regulation For United Kingdom and Vietnam

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

Clinical Trial Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK-wide Research

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

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

Notification Scheme

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

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

Phase 4 trials must meet both of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit Background

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

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

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

6

10.9

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

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

Part 4 (Article 126)

Part 2 (Chapter 1)

Introduction and Article 1

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

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Overview

In accordance with the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, and ASTTReg, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) manages the clinical trial review process for registered and unregistered investigational products (IPs). The ASTT is responsible for reviewing all clinical study documents, and per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, the ECReg, and the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), is responsible for approving the research protocol. The ECReg further indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. (Note: institutional level ECs are known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.) For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

According to the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT reviews a clinical trial registration dossier submitted by the sponsor, as well as a study approval dossier submitted by the institution. Evidence of institutional EC approval from a CEBRGL is a required element of the study approval dossier, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

As per the ClinDrugTrial and PharmLaw-VNM, the scope of the MOH’s assessment includes all clinical trials (Phases I-IV) for the following:

Drugs that contain a new active ingredient, or products with a new combination of marketed ingredients
Newly developed biologics or biologics with a new combination of marketed ingredients
Newly developed vaccines that are manufactured and used for the first time in Vietnam
Drugs, biologics, and vaccines which have been legally marketed for a period of less than five (5) years in the country of origin (or a country of reference if provided for under international treaties to which Vietnam is a signatory)
Drugs, biologics, and vaccines for which a clinical trial has been conducted, but have not met the MOH’s or internationally recognized good clinical practice (GCP) requirements

In addition, per the TradMedicine, the MOH also reviews and approves traditional medicines to be used in clinical trials (Phases I-IV) unless deemed exempt by the agency. The category of traditional medicine includes drugs developed from a provincial-level scientific research project or higher, drugs that were granted a certificate, or drugs used for treatment at health establishments at a provincial level or higher for 10 years or more and for 200 or more patients. The drugs must also have been approved by a Science and Technology Council or an EC specialized in traditional medicine as effective and safe to treat traditional medical diseases. Traditional medicines also include ancient methods.

For information on bioequivalence trials and testing, see the BioequivTrial and the BioTestReq.

Clinical Trial Review Process

Registration Dossier Review

According to the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT requires the sponsor to submit a clinical trial registration dossier. Upon receipt of the appropriate files, the ASTT will check the validity of the dossier. If the dossier is incomplete, the ASTT will provide a written notice and specific instructions for the sponsor to supplement the dossier. The sponsor is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier within a maximum of 60 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the submitted application is no longer valid. Following the review of a complete and valid dossier, the ASTT Director will either issue a written approval (see Form 13 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) or clearly state the reason for disapproval in writing.

See the Submission Process, Submission Content, and Timeline of Review sections for more information on registration dossiers.

Approval Dossier Review

Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, research institutions must submit dossiers requesting clinical drug trial approval to the ASTT. The ASTT checks the validity of the dossier, and if it is incomplete, the ASTT will provide a written notice and specific instructions for the institution to supplement the dossier. The institution is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier within a maximum of 60 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the research approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that following receipt of a complete and valid dossier, the MOH will organize a meeting of the NECBR. After receiving the NECBR’s evaluation report of the research protocol, the ASTT will synthesize and complete the dossier, then submit it to the Minister of Health for approval if the protocol meets the requirements. If the protocol is not approved or needs correction, the ASTT will notify the institution in writing and clearly state the reason. If the protocol needs to be modified, the institution is responsible for coordinating with the ASTT to complete the dossier in up to 90 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. Past this time limit, the protocol approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

Procedures for the approval of research protocol amendments follow the same procedure described above for clinical drug trial approval. For more information, see the ClinDrugTrialGCP.

See Submission Process, Submission Content, and Timeline of Review sections for more information on the approval dossier.

Inspection

The BioequivTrial indicates that the ASTT may conduct inspections to ensure the rights and health of participants in the trial, ensure the quality and integrity of the research data, ensure that the responsibilities of stakeholders in the research are implemented in accordance with applicable regulations, and promptly detect violations of the research protocol. The MOH will determine the inspection scale and frequency based on the objective, purpose, design, complexity, blinding technique, scale, and end date of the research. The MOH must send an inspection notice to the sponsor and institution at least five (5) days before the inspection, and the inspection report must be completed and sent to the sponsor and institution within 20 days of the inspection.

Clinical Trial Exemptions

The DrugRgstrtn indicates that based on the opinion of the MOH’s Advisory Council, the Minister of Health may exempt certain new drugs, vaccines, and biological products from one (1) or more phases of a clinical trial (including clinical data exemption or reduction). Registration certificates may be issued with the clinical trial phase exemption in the following cases:

Medicines that meet urgent needs for national defense and security, epidemic prevention and control, and overcoming the consequences of natural calamities and catastrophes in which other drugs are not yet available on the market
The drug has been licensed for circulation by at least one (1) of the reference regulatory agencies specified in Article 2 of the DrugRgstrtn
Medicines used to treat rare and fatal diseases
Vaccines and biological products manufactured in Vietnam in the form of technology transfer in one (1), several, or all phases of the finished product manufacturing process, which have clinical data on the products prior to the technology transfer in compliance with the DrugRgstrtn

See the DrugRgstrtn and the PharmLaw-VNM for more information on drugs that are exempted from a trial or certain phases of a trial.

Article 5

Articles 89 and 94

Articles 2, 13, and 17

Appendix (Articles 1, 8, and 18 and Form 1)

Articles 1 and 7

Articles 19, 21-23, and 29 and Appendix III (Form 13)

Articles 3 and 15

Articles 1-3

Regulatory Fees

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Payment Instructions

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

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

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

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

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

Fees

Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs)

8. Clinical trials - application fees

11, 13, and Explanatory Note

Part 3 (17)

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

No information is currently available regarding fees required to submit a clinical trial application for authorization to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT).

Ethics Committee

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Committee Composition

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

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

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

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search Research Ethics Committee

Definitions of Authorised REC and Recognized REC

Research Ethics Committee (REC) Scope

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

Effective February 1, 2025, the Ministry of Health’s Circular No. 43/2024/TT-BYT provides for the establishment, organization, and operation of the National Biomedical Research Ethics Council and the Grassroots Biomedical Research Ethics Council and repeals the ECReg.

Overview

As per the ECReg, the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), and PharmLaw-VNM, Vietnam requires institutional and national level ethics committee (EC) approval for clinical trials. According to the ECReg and VNM-12, institutional level EC approval is provided by a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL). PharmLaw-VNM states that national level EC approval is conducted by the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR).

Ethics Committee Composition

The ECReg details general EC requirements applicable to both the CEBRGLs and the NECBR, as well as specific requirements for each type of EC.

Per the ECReg, EC membership should include the following:

Members with a professional degree in the health sector related to the common research areas assessed by the EC, including at least one (1) person independent from the organization that establishes the EC
Clinical doctors
Members with legal expertise or knowledge of ethical principles in biomedical research, with a university degree or higher
Members with no expertise in the health sector
Members under 40 years of age, members from 40 years old to under 50 years old, and members aged 50 or older
Male and female members (neither gender may be less than 20% of the total membership)

The ECReg further indicates that EC members must have the necessary experience, knowledge, skills, and ability to perform their duties in order to validate the science and protect the interests of research participants. Members with expertise in the health sector must have at least five (5) years of experience working in the field of research assessed by the EC. All members must also have time to participate in and perform the duties of the EC, and keep confidential any information related to the research, opinions discussed during the meeting, commercial secrets of individuals and organizations participating in the study, and personal information about the research participant. Members must also receive training and certification from the MOH or MOH-accredited organizations in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the EC’s standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level

As explained in the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg, institutional ECs, known as CEBRGLs, should consist of at least five (5) members. The ECReg states that a CEBRGL consists of one (1) chair, one (1) to two (2) vice-chairs, a standing division, and specialized subcommittees (if necessary).

The CEBRGLReg further indicates that CEBRGLs may have at most 11 members. All members must be honest, objective, and have biomedical research ethics knowledge and expertise. The chair and vice-chair should be prestigious scientists.

The ECReg requires that the chair and vice-chairs have at least 15 years of experience working in the field of research evaluated by the EC, a good reputation, and the capacity to independently manage and run the EC. The chair and vice-chairs must also be fair and impartial, and not be pressured by the research institution, investigators, and other agencies, organizations, and individuals. An individual cannot be appointed as the chair of the EC for more than two (2) consecutive terms.

According to the ECReg, a CEBRGL should have no more than two (2) professional secretaries and no more than two (2) administrative secretaries. Professional and administrative secretaries must be honest, objective, and university educated. Furthermore, professional secretaries must have knowledge about scientific and technological management, scientific research, and ethics in biomedical research, while administrative secretaries must have administrative, clerical, and archival skills.

According to the CEBRGLReg, a secretariat based in the host institution’s Science Research Management Office should assist the CEBRGL with application processing and other administrative tasks.

See the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg for additional CEBRGL membership criteria.

National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research

The ECReg requires the NECBR to have at least nine (9) official members, including one (1) chair, three (3) vice-chairs, and other official members, including professional and administrative secretaries. The NECBR also includes data monitoring and other subcommittees as needed. The Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) and the MOH act as standing members of the office of the NECBR.

The ECReg requires that the chair and vice-chairs have at least 15 years of experience working in the field of research evaluated by the EC, a good reputation, and the capacity to independently manage and run the EC. The chair and vice-chairs must also be fair and impartial, and not be pressured by the research institution, investigators, and other agencies, organizations, and individuals. An individual cannot be appointed as the chair of the EC for more than two (2) consecutive terms.

According to the ECReg, the NECBR should have no more than three (3) professional secretaries, and two (2) administrative secretaries at most.

The ECReg states that professional and administrative secretaries must be honest, objective, and university-educated. Professional secretaries must have knowledge about scientific and technological management, scientific research, and ethics in biomedical research, while administrative secretaries must have administrative, clerical, and archival skills.

See the ECReg for additional NECBR membership criteria and VNM-1 for the list of 2023-2028 NECBR term members.

Terms of Reference, Review Procedures, and Meeting Schedule

According to the ECReg, both CEBRGLs and the NECBR have five (5) year terms. However, the CEBRGLReg indicates that CEBRGLs have three (3) to five (5) year terms, as specified in the EC’s establishment decision. The ECReg also stipulates that the EC must be established or reorganized at the end of the term. The EC for the next consecutive term must include at least 25% new members.

As stated in the ECReg, EC activities are non-profit. The EC must fully apply the ethical principles prescribed in the ECReg and relevant legal documents, and comply with ethical guidelines of international organizations. The ethical guidelines used by the EC should be clearly stated and disseminated to investigators. In addition, ECs function on the principles of collectivity, democracy, and independence when evaluating research proposals and making decisions. If necessary, ECs may invite an independent consultant to provide a professional opinion to the EC. ECs should also facilitate the coordination of and/or reference the evaluation results of other domestic or foreign ECs.

According to the ECReg, the EC’s decision for a research proposal should be based on the consensus of the EC members and must be recorded in the EC’s meeting minutes. In case it is difficult to reach a consensus, the EC’s chair has the right to decide to immediately commence voting, or request that the principal investigator supplement the research dossier for the EC to consider and vote on during the next EC meeting. Research is approved only when there is no more than one (1) disapproval vote out of the total number of valid votes.

In addition, the ECReg states that ECs must conduct periodic assessments of ongoing studies within a time period that is consistent with the level of risk for study participants, but at least once a year on or before the date the EC approved the research protocol. The conclusion of the periodic assessment results should state that the EC’s previous decisions are still valid, or have been changed, suspended, or revoked.

The ECReg requires that EC members be trained prior to appointment and provided with updated and supplementary training in the ethical and scientific aspects of biomedical research. The head of the organization that establishes the EC is responsible for assigning a unit to manage scientific research activities to develop and deploy training plans for EC members. The updated and supplementary training must be conducted at least once every two (2) years. For more information on training requirements for EC members, see the ECReg.

As set forth in CEBRGLReg, the CEBRGLs should operate within written SOPs to conduct their reviews. The chair oversees the meetings, makes conclusions, and reports this information to the institutional head. Voting members must have no conflict of interest with the research. The CEBRGL members must review research documentation and prepare comments for the secretary prior to the meeting. Most CEBRGLs do not meet regularly but instead meet upon request for review and on the availability of the majority of its members. The CEBRGLs should also refer to the NECBR’s SOPs to develop their own SOPs. See CEBRGLReg for detailed CEBRGL review procedures.

Article 94

Articles 3-4 and Chapters II-III

Appendix (Article 8)

Articles 19 and 22

Articles 3, 5-9, 13, 15, 18, and 21

Scope of Review

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

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

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

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

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreword, 1.27, 2, and 3

Search Research Ethics Committee

2.3, 3, 4.3, and 5.4

Combined review of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products

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

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Overview

According to the ECReg, the CEBRGLReg, the ClinDrugTrialGCP, and the PharmLaw-VNM, the primary scope of information assessed by ethics committees (ECs) relates to maintaining and protecting the dignity and rights of research participants and ensuring their safety throughout their participation in a clinical trial. The ECs involved in clinical trial approval in Vietnam include institutional level ECs, called Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs), and the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR).

As per the ECReg, the CEBRGLReg, and the PharmLaw-VNM, ECs must also pay special attention to reviewing informed consent and to protecting the welfare of certain classes of participants deemed to be vulnerable or those with limited or no legal capacity. The ECReg further indicates that when considering research related to vulnerable groups, representatives of the research participants or experts with knowledge and experience working with the groups must participate in the EC meeting. (See the Vulnerable Populations; Children/Minors; and Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates sections for additional information about these populations.)

The ECReg and the CEBRGLReg also state that CEBRGLs and the NECBR are responsible for ensuring independent, timely, and competent reviews of all ethical aspects of the clinical trial protocol. They must act in the interests of the potential research participants and the communities involved by evaluating the possible risks and expected benefits to participants; confirming the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and methods; and verifying the adequacy of confidentiality and privacy safeguards. See the ECReg and the CEBRGLReg for detailed ethical review guidelines.

The ECReg indicates that when ECs conduct research record evaluations, ongoing research supervision, and research results evaluations, they should evaluate the following:

Research design and conduct
Potential risks and benefits
Selection of research populations and participant selection and protection
Financial benefits and financial costs related to research participants
Protecting the research participants’ privacy and confidentiality
The process of providing information and obtaining participants’ written consent to participate in research
Impact of research on the participants’ community
Researcher capacity and research goal

Role in Clinical Trial Approval Process

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is responsible for reviewing the clinical trial registration and study approval dossiers for completeness. Evidence of institutional EC approval from a CEBRGL is a required element of the study approval dossier, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, the ASTT’s review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

The ECReg indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

The ECReg indicates that ECs may assess a research dossier or application under an expedited process if:

The research involves minimal risk
The research documents have been previously reviewed by an EC
The research documents have been reviewed and approved by an EC of the same level
It is a periodic report on implementation of research that has already been approved
It is an application for amendment and supplementation of a research protocol that has already been approved
It is reporting adverse events occurring in research that has already been approved
It is reporting violations of an approved research protocol

According to the ECReg, research dossiers are reviewed under the EC’s full process if they do not qualify for expedited review as stipulated above, or if the evaluator requests that the dossier be examined according to the full process. The EC’s decision under the full review process is legally valid when at least five (5) members (including at least one (1) member with appropriate expertise in the health sector, one (1) member with no expertise in the health sector, and one (1) independent member), including members of both sexes, are present at the EC’s meeting and vote in the decision. The meeting must also have been convened by the EC’s chair or vice-chair (if authorized), and record meeting minutes. The EC's expedited review process decision is legally valid when at least two (2) members of the EC have reviewed and evaluated the dossier. See the Timeline of Review section for more information on the expedited and full review processes.

According to the ECReg, the EC must send a written notification of its evaluation to the leading research institution and principal investigator (PI), and publish the evaluation results on a bulletin board or on the website of the EC or the organization that established the EC. The EC may approve, conditionally approve, or decide not to approve a research dossier, and the written notifications must be issued accordingly.

Per the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), for administrative changes to the clinical trial protocol, the research institution must report in writing to the ECs at all levels and the ASTT. Changes that do not affect the health and interests of trial participants, or the research designs, processes, and procedures, must be approved by the CEBRGL and the NECBR. The application and evaluation process are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the ECReg. Changes affecting the health and interests of trial participants, or the research designs, processes, and procedures, must be approved by competent regulatory agencies. The application for approval of changes and procedures must comply with the ClinDrugTrialGCP. See the ECReg and the ClinDrugTrialGCP for more information.

For internal NECBR forms and documents, see VNM-3.

According to the BioequivTrial, ECs may also conduct periodic or unscheduled inspections. The sponsor and EC should determine the scale and frequency of the inspections based on the objectives and design of the research. The purpose of the inspection should be to evaluate trial conduct and PI/study team compliance with the protocol, standard operating procedures (SOPs), good clinical practices (GCPs), and other applicable regulatory requirements. The sponsor or the EC must send an inspection notice to the institution and PI at least five (5) days before the inspection, and the inspection report must be completed and sent to the institution and PI within 20 days of the inspection.

The ECReg indicates that ECs must conduct periodic reviews of ongoing studies within a time period that is consistent with the level of risk for study participants, but at least once a year on or before the date the EC approved the research protocol. The conclusion of the periodic review results should state that the EC’s previous decisions are still valid, or have been changed, suspended, or revoked. Circumstances for unscheduled reviews include:

Modification of the protocol that has the potential to affect the rights, safety, and/or interests of the research participants or investigators
A serious adverse event related to the research or the research product
Discovery of new facts or information that could affect a potential benefit or risk of harm related to the study
A request to suspend all or a portion of the study by the sponsor or regulatory agency

Articles 90 and 94

Articles 5 and 8-9

Appendix (Articles 8 and 18)

Articles 2, 19, and 22-23

Articles 3, 15-21, and 24

Ethics Committee Fees

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

4.3

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

As stated in the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) should indicate the fee structure (if any) required to assess a proposed study. Fee requirements should be included in the written instructions provided to investigators for submitting research dossiers for evaluation. The head of the organization that establishes the EC is responsible for allocating sufficient resources for the EC to perform its duties effectively.

According to VNM-12, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) and institutional level ECs (known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs)) charge a fee to review clinical trial documentation. The current NECBR and CEBRGL fees are $1,000-$2,000 USD.

Articles 12 and 22

Oversight of Ethics Committees

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

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

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

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

Accreditation Scheme for Research Ethics Committees and Quality Control

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

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Overview

According to the ECReg, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is responsible for registering the institutional level ethics committees (ECs), known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.

Registration, Auditing, and Accreditation

The ECReg indicates that the ASTT is responsible for maintaining a list of ECs on the ASTT website. The ASTT must update the list within 15 days from the date of receiving a notice of establishment from the EC. ECs are periodically inspected by the ASTT to ensure that they comply with the requirements specified in the ECReg. If the EC is found to be noncompliant, the ASTT will withdraw the EC’s name from the updated list on the website. The ASTT may suspend, or propose suspension to a competent authority, of an EC’s operation in case it is found that the EC violates the provisions of the ECReg, affecting the protection of rights, safety, and health of research participants.

Article 27

Submission Process

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

Combined Review Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology (Glossary) and Sections 1.1-1.2 and 14

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

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

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

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

2

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

Amending your trial protocol or other documentation

2

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

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

Effective February 1, 2025, the Ministry of Health’s Circular No. 43/2024/TT-BYT provides for the establishment, organization, and operation of the National Biomedical Research Ethics Council and the Grassroots Biomedical Research Ethics Council and repeals the ECReg.

Overview

In accordance with the ClinDrugTrialGCP, PharmLaw-VNM, and ASTTReg, Vietnam requires the applicant to obtain clinical trial authorization from the Ministry of Health (MOH). The Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) is the department within the MOH that manages the clinical trial review process. As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), must also approve the research protocol.

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, evidence of institutional EC approval from a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) is a required element of the study approval dossier submitted to the ASTT, so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the NECBR’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

Regulatory Submission

According to VNM-12, the registration dossier and the study approval dossier should be submitted to the MOH’s ASTT at the address found in VNM-11:

Ministry of Health
Administration of Science, Technology and Training
No. 138B Giang Vo
Ba Dinh District
Hanoi City, Vietnam

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the sponsor must submit, directly or via post, one (1) copy of the clinical trial registration dossier signed by the sponsor’s representative(s) to the ASTT. Separately, research institution(s) must submit one (1) copy of the study approval dossier, signed by the principal investigator (PI) and the head of the testing facility, directly or via post to the ASTT. See Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP for the registration form and the forms that comprise the study approval dossier. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP also refers to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor” throughout the document.)

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided in Vietnamese or English. If the document is not available in Vietnamese or English, a notarized translation of the document must be provided in Vietnamese or English. The ClinDrugTrialGCP also indicates that the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) summary (also referred to as the research product profile in Vietnam) submitted to the MOH with the registration application should be in Vietnamese or in English with a supplementary summary in Vietnamese. See the Submission Content section for detailed information on documentation to be submitted.

Ethics Review Submission

As per VNM-12, the application for NECBR approval should also be submitted at the address found in VNM-11:

Ministry of Health
Administration of Science, Technology and Training
No. 138B Giang Vo
Ba Dinh District
Hanoi City, Vietnam

VNM-12 indicates that for NECBR review, the applicant must submit four (4) copies of the relevant documents directly or via post to the ASTT. Except for the IB, the Certificate of Analysis, and the good manufacturing practices (GMP) certificate, which may be in English, all relevant documents must be submitted in Vietnamese.

According to the ECReg, ECs issue their own guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. See the Submission Content section for the minimum requirements of the EC evaluation guidelines.

Article 94

Articles 19-22 and Appendix III (Forms No. 6 and 7)

Articles 15 and 22

Articles 1-3

Submission Content

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Regulatory Authority Requirements

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

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

Ethics Committee Requirements

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

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

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

Clinical Protocol

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

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

For complete protocol requirements, refer to GBR-113.

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

3.1 and 6

CI Checklist Before Seeking Approval

Documents to send with your application

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Regulatory Authority Requirements

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the following documentation must be submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) for clinical trial registration dossiers:

Clinical trial registration application form signed by a representative of the sponsor (See Form No. 6 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
Summary of the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) (also referred to as the research product profile in Vietnam) including general information about the clinical reagent (name, ingredients, indications, physical properties, chemistry, preparation, and other relevant information), pre-clinical research materials, and clinical trial study documents from previous phases

For clinical trial study approval dossiers, the ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that the following documentation must be submitted to the MOH’s ASTT:

Clinical trial approval application form signed by the principal investigator (PI) and the head of the research institution (See Form No. 7 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
Full IB, including proof of compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) for research institutions or proof of compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) (also referred to as good medicine production standards in Vietnam) for drug manufacturers, and proof of compliance with quality testing requirements from national inspection agencies or ex-warehousing certificates for vaccine or biological batches (Refer to the Quality Requirements section for detailed IB requirements)
A copy of the written approval for clinical trial registration from the MOH’s ASTT
For phase IV clinical trials, a certified or notarized copy of the written request for phase IV clinical drug testing from the respective regulatory authorities
A certified or notarized copy of the research institution’s certificate of eligibility for pharmaceutical business
Certification of participation by all study sites for multicenter research studies in Vietnam
A certified or notarized copy of the approval from the People’s Provincial Committee (for community-based studies)
Contract/agreement between the sponsor and the host institution; and contract/agreement between sponsor and the contract research organization (CRO), if applicable
Explanation of study protocol (See Form No. 8 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP)
Case report form (CRF)
PI’s Curriculum Vitae (CV) and a copy of the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) certificate issued by the MOH or an institution recognized by the MOH
Informed Consent Form (ICF) (See Form No. 9 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) (See also the Required Elements section for additional information)
Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) evaluation report
Investigational product (IP) labeling

See the ClinDrugTrialGCP for detailed requirements.

Ethics Committee Requirements

The ECReg indicates that both the institutional level ethics committees (ECs) (CEBRGLs) and the national EC (National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR)) issue guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. The guidelines include information on the following:

Name and address of the secretary, employee, or member of the EC receiving the application file, or address of the website (if any)
List of all written material in record
Specifications of the documents
Language of the document in the record
Number of copies to be submitted
Application deadline compared to evaluation date
Recording and notification processes for invalid documents
Estimated time for post-assessment decision announcement
The timeframe that should be followed if the EC requires the applicant to provide additional information or documents
Evaluation fee of research records (if any)
Procedures for requesting EC approval of an amendment of the outline or related documents
Specification of materials for selection, information, and consent to participate in the study

According to ECReg, the documents that ECs must review when evaluating a research proposal include:

Signed and dated application, including signatures of co-applicant and representative of the relevant organization
Research protocol (with version number and date), with documents and appendices (if any)
A summary of the study in simple and understandable language
Description of ethical considerations relevant to the study (may be included in the protocol); measures that will be taken to protect participant privacy and data confidentiality; protective care for participants; compensation to be provided to participants; and insurance package for participants (if applicable) (See the Required Elements and Participant Rights sections for detailed information)
IB
Study data collection forms (with version numbers and dates)
Forms, documents, and advertisements used in the participant selection process
ICF (with version number and date) for participants that are 18 years or older and have full civil capacity to give consent
ICF (with version number and date) for participants and their parents and/or legal guardian(s), if the participant is 16 years old to under 18 years old
ICF (with version number and date) for parents and/or legal guardian(s), if the participant is under 16 years old
Assent form (with version number and date) for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including children from 12 years old to under 16 years old, a person with inadequate civil act capacity, or a patient in a limited cognitive condition
Description of participant selection and ICF collection processes
Procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and managing adverse events (AEs) (See the Safety Reporting section for additional AE/serious adverse event information)
All previous decisions of other ECs or regulatory authorities regarding the proposed study (including decisions and reasons for objecting or proposing amendments to the previous protocol)
Documents demonstrating that the research institution has agreed to allow the study after the regulatory authority’s approval (if the study is conducted outside the organization that established the EC)
Investigators' commitment to agree to comply with the ethical guidelines
The PI’s current scientific background and qualifications related to the relevant research

See the ECReg for additional information on documentation requirements for research protocol re-evaluation or amendments, as well as for evaluation applications for periodic reports, AE reports, protocol violation reports, and research result reports.

Clinical Protocol

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the MOH requires the following elements to be included in a protocol submission:

Title
Protocol code
Duration
Management level (state/ministry/institution/province)
PI/co-investigator(s) names and contact information
Funding
Phase requested
Institution to conduct research
Sponsor and contact information
Situation of domestic and foreign research
Objectives
Methodology (including trial design, random selection method, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each research technique)
Participant selection/withdrawal
Participant treatment
AE reporting requirements (See the Safety Reporting section for additional information)
Laboratory test methods
Ethical considerations
Inspection and monitoring
Post study medical care
Study team training
International cooperation
Implementation progress
Format of the expected results
Activities of coordinating organizations

See Appendix III in the ClinDrugTrialGCP for a copy of the full form.

Article 19 and Appendix III (Forms No. 6, 7, 8, and 9)

Articles 22-23

Timeline of Review

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

Combined Review

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

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

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

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

Initial Process Review and Timelines

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Overview

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, evidence of institutional ethics committee (EC) approval from a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL) is a required element of the study approval dossier submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT), so CEBRGL and ASTT approval cannot be conducted in parallel. Additionally, the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR)’s review of the protocol is initiated by the MOH as part of the ASTT’s study approval dossier review procedures. Per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, ASTT review is finalized once NECBR approval is obtained and the entire study approval dossier is sent to the Minister of Health for final approval.

Regulatory Authority Approval

Registration Dossier Review

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the ASTT initially checks the validity of the sponsor-submitted registration dossier (which includes the registration application form and Investigator’s Brochure (IB) summary) within five (5) working days from the date of receipt of the application. If any issues are identified, the ASTT will issue a written notice to the sponsor, who must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 60 days of receipt. Past this time limit, the submitted application is no longer valid. The ASTT Director will issue a written decision within five (5) working days of receiving a complete and valid dossier.

Approval Dossier Review

The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that research institutions must submit dossiers requesting clinical drug trial approval to the ASTT. The ASTT checks the validity of the study approval dossier within five (5) working days from the date of receipt of the application. If any issues are identified, the ASTT will issue a written notice to the institution, which must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 60 days of receipt. Past this time limit, the research approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning.

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that within 25 days of receiving a complete and valid study approval dossier, the MOH will organize a meeting of the NECBR. Within five (5) working days after receiving the NECBR’s evaluation report, the ASTT gathers all materials related to the dossier and submits it to the Minister of Health for approval.

If the research protocol is not approved or needs to be corrected, the ASTT must notify the institution and state the reason, as per the ClinDrugTrialGCP. The institution must coordinate with the ASTT to complete the dossier within 90 days from the date of the notice. Past this time limit, the protocol approval procedure must be repeated from the beginning. Within five (5) working days after receiving the completed research protocol in accordance with the written notice, the ASTT gathers all materials related to the dossier and submits it to the Minister of Health for approval.

Ethics Committee Approval

The ECReg indicates that ECs issue their own guidelines for research evaluation submissions, providing information and regulatory forms for investigators. The guidelines include information regarding the application deadline in relation to the evaluation date, the expected timeframe for notification of a decision, and the timeframe to follow if the EC requires applicants to submit additional information or documents. See the Submission Content section for detailed information on minimum requirements for the EC guidelines.

According to VNM-12, the review and approval process for CEBRGLs takes 30 days. Meetings are scheduled upon request and are based on the availability of the majority of its members.

The ECReg indicates that under both the expedited and full review processes, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a complete and valid dossier, the EC must organize an examination of the dossier and notify the applicant of the EC’s decision. While both processes may take up to 30 days, the expedited review is streamlined with fewer reviewers.

According to the ECReg, within five (5) working days from the date that the research dossier evaluation results are available, the EC must send a written notification to the leading research institution and principal investigator, and publish the evaluation results on a bulletin board or on the website of the EC or the organization that established the EC.

See Scope of Review section for details on the EC’s role in the clinical trial approval process.

Article 94

Articles 19 and 21-22

Articles 15, 20, 22, and 24

Initiation, Agreements & Registration

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical Trial Registration

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

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

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

6

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

1.17, 5.1.2, and 8.2.6

About NHS DigiTrials and NHS DigiTrials - our services

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

Help (Preparing and Submitting Applications)

2-3

3.2

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

7

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

Part 3 (12, 13, and 18)

Contracting Arrangements

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Overview

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the PharmLaw-VNM, and the ASTTReg, a clinical trial can only commence in Vietnam after authorization from the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been received. The MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) manages the clinical trial review process. The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that the ASTT is responsible for reviewing the clinical trial registration and study approval dossiers. The MOH’s national level ethics committee (EC), the National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), is responsible for approving the research protocol. Once the ASTT has completed its review and the NECBR has reviewed and approved the research protocol, the Minister of Health must give final approval to the entire study approval dossier. The ECReg further indicates that for research involving humans, institutions with ECs are responsible for overseeing an initial ethical and scientific appraisal of the research before it is reviewed by the NECBR. (Note: institutional level ECs are known as Councils of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs) in Vietnam.) For institutions conducting research that do not have a CEBRGL, the review and evaluation of the research is performed by the NECBR or the CEBRGL of another institution with appropriate expertise.

As per the ExprtImprtMeds, an import license must be obtained for the shipment of an investigational product (IP) to be used in the trial from the MOH’s Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV). See the Manufacturing & Import section for additional information.

Clinical Trial Agreement

As per the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is required to enter an agreement with the participating principal investigator (PI)/host institution(s) before the trial begins to demonstrate the financial agreement between the parties. The PharmLaw-VNM also states that the sponsor is required to sign a clinical trial contract with the investigator(s).

Clinical Trial Registration

According to VNM-12, the ASTT encourages the sponsor and the PI to register their study with the United States National Institutes of Health’s ClinicalTrials.gov (VNM-13).

Articles 92 and 94

Appendix (Article 8 and Form 1)

Articles 19 and 21-22

Articles 3 and 15

Article 3

Articles 1-3

Safety Reporting

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Safety Reporting Definitions

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

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

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

Safety Reporting Requirements

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

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

Investigator Responsibilities

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

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

Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

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

Other Safety Reports

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

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

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

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

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

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

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

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

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

4 and 5

10

Changes to SUSARs and annual safety reports

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

SUSAR

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

14

Part 5

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Safety Reporting Definitions

As delineated in the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) and the AERprtingD62, the following definitions provide a basis for a common understanding of Vietnam’s safety reporting requirements:

Adverse Event (or Adverse Experience) (AE) – Any untoward medical occurrence (including any signs, symptoms, illnesses, or test results) in a participant to whom a medicinal product has been administered, including occurrences which are not necessarily caused by or related to that product
Serious Adverse Event (SAE) – Any untoward medical occurrence that may lead to death, is life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in disability or permanent incapacity, creates a congenital anomaly/birth defect, or requires appropriate medical intervention to prevent the aforementioned situations or medically important event
Unexpected AE – AEs in which the essence, severity, specificity, or consequences are different or have not been recorded or considered in the study protocol or relevant study documents

Also, according to VNM-12, the Ministry of Health (MOH) uses the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (VNM-5) to define its safety reporting terminology.

Safety Reporting Requirements

Investigator Responsibilities

As per the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for detecting and settling SAEs and updating AE/SAE information to ensure the timeliness of reporting and the safety of the research participants. The PI is required to report to the sponsor, the institutional ethics committee (EC), also known as a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL), the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), the MOH’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT), and the National Centre for Drug Information and Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring (National DI and ADR Centre).

The ECReg further states that the NECBR is responsible for assessing the PI's recording, reporting, and handling of AEs occurring during the study.

The BioequivTrial indicates that depending on the type of AE/SAE, the PI must comply with the following reporting requirements:

Fatal or life-threatening SAEs in Vietnam: A report, in accordance with Form 4 in the Appendix of the BioequivTrial, must be submitted to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National DI and ADR Centre within seven (7) working days from the date of receiving information about the SAE. Updates on the SAE must be provided in additional reports until the participant recovers or stabilizes.
SAEs that are not fatal or life-threatening in Vietnam: A report, in accordance with Form 4 in the Appendix of the BioequivTrial, must be submitted to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National DI and ADR Centre within 15 working days from the date of receiving information about the SAE.
Non-serious AEs occurring in Vietnam: The AEs must be recorded and summarized in a periodical report, and reported in the full results of the trial research results to the NECBR and the ASTT.

The BioequivTrial indicates that in the event of fatal or life-threatening AEs/SAEs, the PI and the host institution are required to suspend the trial immediately, provide care and treatment to the participant(s), overcome and resolve the consequences, and document the events. According to the AERprtingD62, the PI must also document any deaths. The BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 further indicate that the PI and the host institution must report these events to the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR.

For AEs that cause harm to the participant’s health, the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 indicate that the PI is responsible for treating and following up on the participant’s health until the person is stable.

According to the BioequivTrial, the PI should provide periodic updates regarding AEs/SAEs to the sponsor, the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR. If the extent and frequency of AEs/SAEs exceeds the allowable limit, investigators may propose to the sponsor, EC, and competent regulatory authority that the clinical trial be suspended.

The BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62 indicate that all the following must be reported:

SAEs occurring at study sites in Vietnam
SAEs occurring at study sites outside of Vietnam in a multicenter Vietnamese study that lead to cessation/suspension of the study or a change in the protocol
All other AEs occurring in clinical drug trials at study sites in Vietnam

Sponsor Responsibilities

Per the BioequivTrial and the AERprtingD62, the sponsor must coordinate with the PI to report AEs/SAEs occurring at study sites in Vietnam to the CEBRGL, the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR. The sponsor must collect AE/SAE data.

For SAEs occurring at study sites outside of Vietnam in a multicenter Vietnamese study, the BioequivTrial states that the sponsor must report to the NECBR, the ASTT, and the National Center of DI and ADR within 10 working days from the date of a decision to stop/suspend the study, withdraw participants from the study, or change the research protocol.

In addition, the AERprtingD62 requires that the sponsor report findings from clinical studies, epidemiology studies, in vitro studies, and other information that may lead to an important risk of the investigational product.

Form Completion & Delivery Requirements

Per the BioequivTrial, SAEs in Vietnam should be reported using a Reporting Form for SAEs in Clinical Trials (Appendix, Form 4).

1, 5.16-5.17, and 7

1-3

Appendix (Articles 1 and 19-20, and Form 4)

Article 15

Progress Reporting

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology (Glossary), and Sections 1 and 14

4.10 and 4.13

Final report on the research

End of Trial

Legal Background and Scope

Part 3 (Section 27)

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Interim and Annual Progress Reports

The BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) indicates that investigators are responsible for providing periodic and unscheduled reports.

According to the ECReg, progress reports submitted to ethics committees (EC) for evaluation must contain the following:

Summary of research protocol
Complete research protocol, including previously approved revisions, if applicable
Reports on research progress
Reports on the number of participants who were selected for the study, completed the study, and withdrew from the study
Detailed report on adverse events (AEs) and issues causing risks to participants, if applicable
Summary of relevant information, especially safety information
Current informed consent form (ICF)
Independent inspection report of investigator and sponsor
Notice of principal investigator (PI) or sponsor regarding early suspension/termination or completion of the study, if applicable

Final Report

The BioequivTrial and the ClinDrugTrialGCP indicate that the PI, the sponsor, and the host institution are responsible for submitting a final report to the Ministry of Health (MOH) when a study is completed. The final report, which must include an analysis of the data and information on AEs/serious adverse events (SAEs), must be submitted in accordance with Form No. 12 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP. The BioequivTrial further states that the clinical trial results must be made public within three (3) years from the date of issuance of the competent authorities' decision approving the results, and should comply with applicable copyright regulations.

Appendix (Articles 5, 20, and 23 and Form 3)

Appendix III (Form No. 12)

Article 23

Definition of Sponsor

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Principles

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

5.1 and 5.2

Responsibilities (9.10)

Changes to the trial sponsor/legal representative

2

Trial Sponsor and legal Representative

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

Part 1 (3)

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

Effective February 1, 2025, the Ministry of Health’s Circular No. 43/2024/TT-BYT provides for the establishment, organization, and operation of the National Biomedical Research Ethics Council and the Grassroots Biomedical Research Ethics Council and repeals the ECReg.

As per the ECReg and the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is defined as an individual, entity, or organization that takes responsibility for the initiation, management, and/or financing of a clinical trial. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

In addition, per the PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor may select a qualified contract research organization (CRO) (also known as a research support organization in Vietnam) to run the clinical trial. The ClinTrialSup defines a CRO as an organization with the legal status to operate in the field of clinical trial research support and that is staffed with appropriately qualified personnel.

According to the ClinTrialSup, CROs may perform clinical research support activities such as implementing sponsors’ clinical research responsibilities, carrying out administrative support activities, and conducting clinical research monitoring. The ClinDrugTrialGCP indicates that a cooperative contract should exist between the sponsor and a CRO, if applicable. According to the PharmLaw-VNM, a sponsor and the CRO may be domestic or foreign.

In addition, as per the ClinTrialSup, CROs are also responsible for registering their organizations with the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT). Before implementing any activities in support of a clinical trial, a CRO must submit a registration dossier and the applicable forms for approval. The CRO is also required to report annually on its clinical research activities to the MOH’s ASTT. (See the ClinTrialSup for detailed information on clinical trial research support activities and the related registration forms.)

Articles 1 and 92

Articles 3, 9-11, 15, and 17, and Appendix I (Forms No. 1-2)

Appendix (Article 1)

Article 19

Article 2

Site/Investigator Selection

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Overview

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

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

UK Local Information Pack

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

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

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

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

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

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

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

Data Safety and Monitoring Board

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

Multicenter Studies

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

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

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

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

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

1.1

5.23, 5.5, 5.6, 6, and 7

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

Preparing and Submitting Application (Site-specific information)

Changes to the trial sponsor/legal representative

2

Amending your trial protocol or other documentation

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

Part 1 (3) and Part 3 (15)

Providing the UK Local Information Pack

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Overview

As set forth in the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) and PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor is responsible for selecting the investigator(s), the principal investigator (PI), the consultant experts, and the research institutions, taking into account the appropriateness and availability of the study site and facilities.

As stated in the BioequivTrial, all investigators must possess appropriate qualifications, training, and experience. All investigators involved in the trial must obtain completion certificates for a good clinical practice (GCP) course and a safety reporting course, each to be updated every three (3) years, from the Ministry of Health (MOH) or an authorized training facility.

See the BioequivTrial for information on PI and investigator rights and responsibilities.

Foreign Sponsor Responsibilities

No information is currently available on foreign sponsor requirements.

Data and Safety Monitoring Board

According to VNM-12, there are no requirements for establishing a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). However, the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) may recommend the establishment of a DSMB.

Multicenter Studies

The BioequivTrial states that for multicenter studies, in addition to analyzing general research results, it is necessary to conduct a separate analysis of key safety and efficacy variables on Asian or Vietnamese research populations using drugs for which racial factors are considered to have an effect on efficiency and safety. Furthermore, per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial study approval dossier must include documentation certifying the participation of research institutions in multicenter studies in Vietnam.

Article 92

Appendix (Articles 3, 5-6, 16, and 23)

Article 19

Insurance & Compensation

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Insurance

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

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

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

Compensation

Injury or Death

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

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

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

3, 4, and 6

Introduction and Basic Principles

5.8

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

Responsibilities

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Insurance

According to VNM-12, there is no specific Vietnamese guidance that addresses indemnity agreements between the sponsor and the contract research organization (CRO), investigator(s), or institution(s). However, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) lists an insurance contract as an essential document to be obtained by the principal investigator (PI), institution, and sponsor before conducting a clinical trial. The purpose of the insurance contract is to ensure that research participants will be compensated in the event of a trial-related injury.

Compensation

Injury or Death

As specified in the PharmLaw-VNM, the sponsor is responsible for providing compensation to research participants in the event of trial-related injuries. The BioequivTrial also states investigators are responsible for compensating participants when an adverse event that seriously impacts the participant’s health was caused by the investigator’s violation of the research protocol.

Trial Participation

According to the BioequivTrial, payment and compensation, if any, to clinical trial participants must be clearly indicated in the research protocol. Per the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) must consider the amount and method of payment to ensure that there is no coercion or influence on the voluntariness of participants. Payments should be made according to each visit.

Article 92

Appendix (Articles 5-6 and 21, and Form 1)

Article 17

Risk & Quality Management

Last content review/update: October 25, 2024

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

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

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

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

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

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

Early termination or temporary halt of research

Suspend or Terminate a Trial and End of Trial

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As stated in the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the sponsor is responsible for assigning a monitor to assist in maintaining a quality assurance (QA) system with written standard operating procedures (SOPs) that ensure trials are conducted and data are generated, recorded, and reported in compliance with the protocol. In addition, the quality management system applied in clinical trials must meet International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001-equivalent standards or higher.

Per the BioequivTrial, the principal investigator (PI) is responsible for ensuring the accuracy, truthfulness, confidentiality, integrity, and verifiability of the research data. Correction of data must be in accordance with applicable regulations: without deleting the original data, the assigned researcher must name, sign for confirmation, and specify the date of correction. The lead investigator must submit an encrypted list of trial participants to the regulatory agency after the clinical trial ends. The retention and submission of the list of participants after decryption must be kept secret.

The trials should be conducted in compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) principles and standards outlined in the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial Appendix, which are based on the International Council for Harmonisation's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2) (VNM-5) and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products (Please refer to Annex 3 of The Use of Essential Drugs: Sixth Report of the WHO Expert Committee for these guidelines (VNM-10)).

Monitoring Requirements

As part of its QA system, the BioequivTrial states that the sponsor should assign a monitor to inspect the trial. The sponsor should appoint individuals who are independent from the trial and are qualified by training and experience to conduct inspections, in accordance with the ClinTrialSup. The ClinDrugTrialGCP further indicates that SOPs, the monitoring/inspection plan, and procedures must also be submitted to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT).

For information on ASTT and ethics committee (EC) monitoring responsibilities, see the Scope of Assessment and Scope of Review sections.

Premature Study Termination/Suspension

According to the BioequivTrial, the sponsor may terminate a trial early if the sponsor learns of any serious protocol violations that seriously affect the health of trial participants, or, the accuracy and truthfulness of the data during an inspection. The sponsor should send notices to the Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGL), the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR), and the relevant authority, in addition to notifying the institution and PI.

Annex 3 (Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products)

Article 3

Appendix (Articles 15, 17, and 18 and Forms 1-2)

Article 4 and Appendix III (Form No. 8)

Data & Records Management

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Electronic Data Processing System

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

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

Records Management

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

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

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

1.65, 5.18, and 8

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Electronic Data Processing System

According to the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), when using electronic trial data processing systems, the sponsor should use appropriate data handling programs and have adequate standard operating procedures (SOPs) for these systems. In addition, per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the research institution’s general documentation must include a brief description of any electronic document system in its technical and professional standards, if applicable.

Records Management

As per the BioequivTrial, all information on clinical trials must be recorded, handled, managed, and kept in accordance with applicable regulations in order to accurately report, interpret, monitor, and check the accuracy and reliability of clinical trial information and data. Research institution facilities for storing clinical trial records and documents must ensure confidentiality; restricted access; fire and explosion prevention and control; and avoidance of adverse effects of light, temperature, humidity, and penetration of insects and other animals. In addition, research dossiers and documents should be archived and preserved according to the contract between the sponsor and the institution. For research and development of new products, documentation needs to be kept for at least 10 years.

Appendix (Articles 2, 14, 15, and 22)

Appendix II

Personal Data Protection

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

Responsible Parties

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

Data Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consent for Processing Personal Data

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

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

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

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

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

UK-US Data Bridge

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

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

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Responsible Parties

Per Decree13, the personal data controller is an organization or individual that decides the purposes and means of processing personal data. The personal data processor is an organization or individual that performs data processing on behalf of the data controller, through a contract or agreement with the data controller. An organization or individual that both decides the purposes and means for, and directly processes, personal data is referred to as a personal data controller and processor.

Decree13 states that the personal data controller must:

Implement organizational and technical measures, as well as appropriate safety and security measures, to prove that data processing activities have been carried out in accordance with Decree13, reviewing and updating these measures as necessary
Record and store a system log of personal data processing
Notify the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) of violations of regulations on protection of personal data as prescribed in Decree13
Select a personal data processor in accordance with a clear mandate and work only with a personal data processor that has appropriate safeguards in place
Ensure the rights of data subjects as prescribed in Decree13

Additionally, Decree13 indicates that the personal data processor must:

Only receive personal data after having a contract or agreement on data processing with the personal data controller, and process personal data in accordance with the contract or agreement
Fully implement measures to protect personal data specified in Decree13 and other relevant legal documents
Delete and/or return all personal data to the personal data controller after finishing data processing

According to Decree13, both the personal data controller and processor are also responsible to the data subject for damages caused by the processing of personal data. In addition, they must cooperate with the MPS and competent state agencies in protecting personal data by providing information for investigation and handling of violations of Decree13.

Per VNM-8, the MPS is responsible for protecting the rights of data subjects against violations of Decree13, and for maintaining the National Information Portal on Personal Data Protection (VNM-7). See VNM-7 for additional personal data protection resources.

Data Protection

Per Decree13, organizations and individuals involved in personal data processing must apply personal data protection measures to prevent unauthorized collection of personal data from translation systems and equipment. It is illegal to set up software systems, enact technical measures, or organize activities of collecting, transferring, buying, and selling personal data without the consent of data subjects.

According to Decree13, personal data protection measures must be applied from the beginning and throughout the processing of personal data, including management, technical, investigational, and procedural measures. Network security for the data processing system, as well as the means and equipment, must be checked before processing data, irrecoverably deleting data, or destroying devices containing personal data.

Decree13 states that in the case of sensitive personal data, a department with the function of protecting personal data must be designated, personnel in charge of personal data protection must be appointed, and information about the department and individual in charge of personal data protection must be exchanged with the agency specializing in personal data protection (e.g., MPS). Additionally, data subjects must be notified that their sensitive personal data is being processed.

Decree13 states that if a violation of Decree13 has been detected, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must notify the MPS’s Department of Cybersecurity and Prevention within 72 hours after the violation occurs using Form No. 03 (see Appendix of Decree13 or VNM-9). If the notification is submitted after 72 hours, the reason for the late notice must be attached. Additionally, the personal data processor must notify the personal data controller of the violation as quickly as possible. See Decree13 and VNM-9 for more information on notification requirements for violations of personal data protection regulations.

Consent for Processing Personal Data

Decree13 delineates that a data subject’s consent is only valid when the data subject voluntarily and clearly knows the type of personal data to be processed; the purpose of processing personal data; that organizations and individuals are allowed to process the personal data; and the rights and obligations of data subjects. The data subject’s consent must be expressed clearly, specifically in writing, by voice, by ticking the consent box, in the syntax of consent via text message, by selecting consent technical settings, or through another action that demonstrates consent. When there are multiple purposes for the data collection, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must list the purposes for the data subject to agree to one (1) or more of the stated purposes, and consent must be given for each purpose. The data subject’s consent must be expressed in a format that can be printed or reproduced in writing, including in electronic or verifiable formats. Silence or non-response of the data subject is not considered as consent, and the data subject may give partial or conditional consent. The data subject’s consent is valid until the data subject decides otherwise or when the competent state agency requests in writing.

Per Decree13, data subjects also have a right to: be aware of data processing activities; access their data; delete data; restrict data processing; provision of data; object to data processing; complain, denounce, and initiate lawsuits; claim damages; and self-defense. For the processing of sensitive personal data, the data subject must be informed that the data to be processed is sensitive personal data.

Decree13 states that in certain cases, the data subject’s consent is not required for the processing of personal data. This includes urgent cases where it is necessary to immediately process relevant personal data to protect the life and health of the data subject or others, and in the event of a state of emergency on national defense, security, social order and safety, major disasters, or dangerous epidemics.

See Decree13 for more details on obtaining consent from data subjects; the rights of data subjects; and situations where consent is not required for the processing of personal data.

Withdrawal of Consent

According to Decree13, withdrawal of consent must be in a format that can be printed or reproduced in writing, including in electronic or verifiable format. Upon receiving a request from a data subject to withdraw consent, the personal data controller/personal data controller and processor must notify the data subject of possible consequences and damages that may occur when consent is withdrawn. The personal data controller, personal data processor, personal data controller and processor, and any third parties must stop, and request any relevant organizations and individuals to stop, processing the data of the data subject that has withdrawn consent. Withdrawal of consent does not affect the legality of the data processing that was agreed to prior to the withdrawal.

Children

Per Decree13, children’s personal data must be processed in accordance with the principle of protecting the rights and ensuring the best interests of the children. The processing of children’s personal data must have the consent of the child if the child is seven (7) years of age or older, as well as the consent of the parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The personal data controller, personal data processor, personal data controller and processor, and any third parties must verify the age of the children before processing the children's personal data. The relevant parties must stop processing the children’s personal data and/or irreversibly delete or destroy the children’s personal data in the following cases:

The data was processed for improper purposes, or the purpose of processing personal data with the consent of the data subject has been fulfilled, unless otherwise provided for by law
The child’s parent(s) or legal guardian(s) withdraws consent for the processing of the child’s personal data, unless otherwise provided for by law
At the request of a competent authority when there are sufficient grounds to prove that the processing of personal data affects the children’s legitimate rights and interests, unless otherwise provided for by law

Articles 2, 9, 11-12, 17, 20, 22-23, 26-28, and 38-39 and Appendix (Form No. 03)

Documentation Requirements

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Obtaining Consent

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Consent

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

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

Language Requirements

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

Documenting Consent

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

Waiver of Consent

No information is currently available.

1 and 2

2, 4.4, 4.8, 8.2, and 8.3

Informed Consent

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

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

New Info (Not Yet in Profile)

Effective February 1, 2025, the Ministry of Health’s Circular No. 43/2024/TT-BYT provides for the establishment, organization, and operation of the National Biomedical Research Ethics Council and the Grassroots Biomedical Research Ethics Council and repeals the ECReg.

Obtaining Consent

In all Vietnamese clinical trials, a freely given informed consent must be obtained from each participant in accordance with the requirements set forth in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), and the PharmLaw-VNM. As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial, and the ECReg, the informed consent form (ICF) is viewed as an essential document that must be sent to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) as part of the clinical trial study approval dossier, for which the Minister must issue final approval.

The ECReg indicates that a research proposal involving humans, including the ICF, must undergo ethical and scientific review by the MOH’s National Ethics Committee in Biomedical Research (NECBR) and an institutional level ethics committee (EC) (known as a Council of Ethics in Biomedical Research at the Grass Root Level (CEBRGLs)).

The BioequivTrial states that the principal investigator (PI) or the clinical testing facility is responsible for obtaining written consent from trial participants before carrying out any study procedures.

As per the ECReg, the ICF should be provided in easy-to-understand language, suitable for potential research participants to support their ability to give fully informed consent. For participants with limited education, the ICF should be provided and explained verbally. According to the BioequivTrial and the ECReg, the information should also be presented without coercion or unduly influencing a potential participant to enroll in the clinical trial. The ClinDrugTrialGCP further states that the participant or legal representative/guardian should also be given the opportunity to ask questions about the research, and given adequate time to consider whether to participate.

Re-Consent

No information is currently available on re-consent.

Language Requirements

As delineated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the clinical trial application and accompanying material must be provided in Vietnamese or English. If the document is not available in Vietnamese or English, a notarized translation of the document must be provided in Vietnamese or English.

VNM-12 indicates that the ICF content should be presented in Vietnamese and English for global clinical studies, but for studies with domestic sponsors, only Vietnamese is required. The English copy serves as a reference to the NECBR. The study information sheet should be in Vietnamese.

Documenting Consent

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the BioequivTrial, the ECReg, and the PharmLaw-VNM, the participant or the legal representative/guardian must sign and date the ICF. No information is provided in these sources concerning copies to be issued to the participant or legal representative/guardian.

Waiver of Consent

The ECReg indicates an EC may waive the requirement for written voluntary consent from research participants if the study requires absolute confidentiality. The EC’s decision to waive the voluntary written consent requirement must consider the benefits and risks of the study to the participants, as well as measures to protect the rights and safety of the participants.

Articles 90 and 91

Appendix (Forms 1-2)

Articles 19-20 and 22 and Appendix III (Form No. 9)

Articles 2, 15-17, and 23

Required Elements

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

1 and 2

4.4 and 4.8

Informed Consent

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

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

Description of research with an explanation of its purpose and objectives
Expected duration of study
Research methods to be followed
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for research participants
Identification of investigator(s) who will be responsible for assessing confidential medical information to select study participants
Number of participants involved in the study
Description of any foreseeable risks to the participant
Any expected benefits to the participant and/or the community, and any study-related payment to the participant
Alternative procedures or treatment that may be available to the participant
The extent to which confidentiality of records identifying the participant will be maintained
Selection of those parties who will be able to access, inspect, supervise and monitor the participant’s records
Compensation and/or medical treatment available in the event of a trial-related injury
Person(s) to contact for further information regarding the trial and the rights of trial participants and whom to contact in the event of trial-related injury
Statement that participation is voluntary and the participant may withdraw at any time for any reason

See Form No. 9 in Appendix III of the ClinDrugTrialGCP for a copy of the ICF.

Compensation Disclosure

Per the ECReg, ethics committees (ECs) must ensure that information relating to payment for study participants, including the method, amount, and payment schedule, is included in the ICF and other documents given to participants.

Articles 19 and 22 and Appendix III (Form No. 9)

Article 17

Participant Rights

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

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

The Right to Information

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

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

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

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

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

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

The Right to Safety and Welfare

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

4.8

Principles and Content

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Overview

In accordance with the ClinDrugTrialGCP, Vietnam’s ethical standards promote respect for all human beings and safeguard the rights of research participants. A participant’s rights must also be clearly addressed in the informed consent form (ICF) and during the informed consent process.

The Right to Participate, Abstain, or Withdraw

As stated in the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, the participant or the legal representative/guardian should be informed that participation is voluntary and that the participant may withdraw from the research study at any time for any reason without being held liable.

Additionally, the PharmLaw-VNM states that participants have the responsibility to comply with investigators’ instructions according to approved clinical trial documents.

The Right to Information

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, 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, and any compensation or treatment in the case of injury.

The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality

According to the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the PharmLaw-VNM, all participants must be afforded the right to privacy and confidentiality, and the ICF must provide a statement that recognizes this right.

The Right of Inquiry/Appeal

The ClinDrugTrialGCP states that the research participant or legal representative/guardian should be provided with contact information for a person to contact regarding trial-related inquiries.

Furthermore, the PharmLaw-VNM states that the participant has the right to file a complaint or lawsuit against any illegal acts committed by the sponsor or investigator.

The Right to Safety and Welfare

As set forth in the ECReg, the risks to the research participant must take precedence over any anticipated benefits to the participant and the interests of society.

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

Articles 90 and 91

Appendix III (Form No. 9)

Article 17

Emergencies

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

4.8.15

Informed Consent

Principles of Consent - Emergency Research

Section 51

4 and Explanatory Note

2 and Explanatory Note

Schedule 1 (Parts 4 and 5)

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

The ECReg indicates an ethics committee (EC) may waive the requirement for written voluntary consent from research participants for research in emergency situations where the participant or the legal representative/guardian cannot voluntarily agree to participate in the study. The EC’s decision to waive the voluntary written consent requirement must consider the benefits and risks of the study to the participants, as well as measures to protect the rights and safety of the participants.

Article 16

Vulnerable Populations

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.61, 3.1, and 4.8

Schedule 1 (Parts 1, 4, and 5)

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Overview

As per the ECReg and VNM-4, in all Vietnamese clinical trials, research participants selected from vulnerable populations must be provided additional protections by the ethics committee and the investigator(s) to safeguard their health and welfare during the informed consent process. VNM-4 characterizes vulnerable populations as those incapable of giving consent, which may include children, pregnant women, people with mental disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, people who are illiterate, prisoners, detainees, sex workers, and other special populations.

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

Approval of Protocol, Monitoring and Evaluation, Final Review, and Dissemination of Research and Ethical Aspects of Biomedical Research

Article 17

Children/Minors

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

GBR-4 provides additional best practices:

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

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

Assent Requirements

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

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

Guidance (Consent)

2.51-2.58

4.8.12

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

Style and Examples & Templates

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

According to ChildLaw, a child is someone under 16 years of age.

As set forth in the PharmLaw-VNM, when the participant is a minor, informed consent must be obtained from the legal representative/guardian.

Per the ECReg, signed informed consent forms (ICFs) are required for:

The parent/legal guardian, if the participant is under 16 years old
The participant and the parent/legal guardian, if the participant is 16 years old to under 18 years old
Participants that are 18 years or older and have full civil capacity to give consent

Assent Requirements

The ECReg further specifies that a signed assent form is required for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including children from 12 years old to under 16 years old. The assent form should contain information similar to an ICF, but be simpler, shorter, and easier to understand. For participants from seven (7) years old to under 12 years old, the assent form content should be provided and explained verbally.

Article 90

Chapter I (Article 1)

Articles 2 and 23

Pregnant Women, Fetuses & Neonates

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content - Participant Information Sheet

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

The PharmLaw-VNM states that for studies involving women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, the rationale for participant selection and appropriate protection measures for these participants must be clearly stated in the study approval dossier.

Article 90

Prisoners

Last content review/update: January 21, 2025

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

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

1.61

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

No information is currently available.

Mentally Impaired

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

2.51-2.58

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

The ECReg states that a signed assent form is required for participants who do not have the capacity to give legal consent, including people with inadequate civil act capacity or in a limited cognitive condition. The assent form should contain information similar to an informed consent form (ICF), but be simpler, shorter, and easier to understand.

Article 2

Definition of Investigational Product

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

Terminology (Statutory Definitions Relating to CTIMPs)

1.3

Part 1 (2)

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

The ClinDrugTrial defines an investigational product (IP) as a pharmaceutical product, biomedical product, vaccine, traditional medicine, or herbal medicine that contains a new active ingredient or substance, or a product with a new combination of already marketed pharmaceutical substances.

Chapter II (Article 5)

Manufacturing & Import

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annex 2

Manufacture of unlicensed ATMPs in the UK

Documents to send with your application

Overview

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Manufacturing

As set forth in the PharmLaw-VNM, Decree54, and the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) has overall responsibility for authorizing the manufacture of all drug products. According to VNM-4, once the ASTT reviews and the Minister of Health approves the study approval dossier, the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) coordinates with the ASTT to review and approve the investigational product (IP) for manufacture or import.

In addition, the ClinDrugTrialGCP states that IPs which are under review for phase IV clinical trials require a certified or notarized copy of the written request for phase IV clinical drug testing from the respective regulatory authorities.

Import

As delineated in the ExprtImprtMeds, the MOH’s DAV is responsible for authorizing the import and export of drugs in Vietnam. According to ExprtImprtMeds, IPs for use in clinical trials are categorized as finished drugs without registration numbers. Once the MOH approves the study approval dossier, an import permit application must be submitted to the MOH’s DAV for approval of the IP. The import permit is valid for one (1) year.

The PharmLaw-VNM further indicates that a drug/medicinal ingredient that does not have a certificate of free sale must be licensed for import with a quantity not exceeding that which is written on the import license when it is to be used in a clinical trial, a bioequivalence study, a bioavailability assessment, or as a sample for registration, testing, scientific research, or display at a fair or exhibition.

The ExprtImprtMeds and Decree54 require the following documents to be included in an import permit dossier (Note: Each of the items listed below will not necessarily be found in both sources, which provide overlapping and unique elements):

Import order form (three (3) copies)
Copy of study protocol approved by the MOH
A Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product (CPP) (may be substituted with a Free Sale Certificate (FSC) or Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificate)
The importer’s document bearing the importer’s seal, specifying the purposes and quantity of imported drugs and commitment to use the drugs for its intended purposes
Quality standards and testing methods
Drug label(s) and instruction manual(s) with importer seal (See the Labeling section for detailed labeling requirements)
Preclinical and clinical records for drug(s) containing new pharmaceutical substances, or drug(s) with new combinations of circulating pharmaceutical substances, and an information sheet on placebo’s composition, if applicable

According to the ExprtImprtMeds, dossiers and documents attached to the order form must be prepared on size A4 paper and bound into a solid set. The records must be arranged in the order of the table of contents, with separation between the sections. The separators must be numbered for easy reference and must be affixed for certification by the importing enterprise on the first page of each section of the entire dossier and must have a cover page clearly stating: the name of the importer, order number, date of order, and type of order. The application for foreign drug import must be written in Vietnamese or English. If the application is written in English, the information in the package insert must be written in Vietnamese, except for the following information that may be written in other languages with Latin origin:

Brand name, generic name, or international generic name of the drug
International generic or scientific name of ingredient or ingredient quantity of the drug in case it cannot be translated into Vietnamese
Name and address of the foreign enterprise that manufactures or franchises the drug

The MOH’s DAV will review and approve the import permit application within 15 working days from the date of receipt. According to VNM-12, however, the DAV review and approval process may take two (2) to eight (8) weeks if the DAV requires further clarification on the application. See the ExprtImprtMeds for applicable forms.

Please note: Vietnam is party to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (VNM-2), which may have implications for studies of IPs developed using certain non-human genetic resources (e.g., plants, animals, and microbes). For more information, see VNM-6.

Approval of Protocol, Monitoring and Evaluation, Final Review; Procedures for Manufacture and Import of Medicinal Drugs for Clinical Research

Chapter II (Article 10) and Chapter V Section 2 (Article 60)

Article 19

Chapter I (Articles 4-5), Chapter III (Articles 11 and 17), and Annex I (Form 11a)

Articles 1 and 73

Quality Requirements

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Investigator’s Brochure

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

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

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

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

Quality Management

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

5.12 and 7

Overview

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Investigator's Brochure

According to the BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP), the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) is considered an essential document to submit before a clinical trial may be conducted. Vietnam requires the sponsor to submit a summary of the IB to the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s Administration of Science, Technology and Training (ASTT) in the clinical trial registration dossier. Research institutions are required to submit the full IB to the ASTT in the study approval dossier. (Note: The ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial also refer to the sponsor as “organizations and individuals with clinical reagents” or “donor”.)

As per the ClinDrugTrialGCP and the BioequivTrial, the IB contains information and data about preclinical research and clinical trials on the investigational product(s) (IPs). The IB also demonstrates that clinical information related to the IP has been provided to the principal investigator (PI).

As specified in the ClinDrugTrialGCP, the IB must provide coverage of the following areas:

Information about the IP, including the ingredients, production processes, and quality standards
For pharmaco-chemical drugs, pharmaceutical drugs, traditional medicines: proof of compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) for research institutions or proof of compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) (also referred to as good medicine production standards in Vietnam) for drug manufacturers
For vaccines: proof of compliance with quality testing requirements from national inspection agencies or ex-warehousing certificates for vaccine or biological batches
Preclinical research documents for the IP: research reports on pharmacological effects, toxicity, safety, recommendations on dosage, route of administration, and usage
Clinical research papers from the previous phases (if clinical trials are recommended in the next phase and the IP is not subject to exemption from previous phases)

Quality Management

The ClinDrugTrialGCP specifies that the IPs must be manufactured in a GMP-certified facility. The research institutions must also include a copy of the GMP certificate in the study approval dossier that is submitted to the ASTT.

(See the Product Management section for additional information on IP supply, storage, and handling requirements).

Appendix (Form 1)

Articles 3, 19, and 22

Labeling

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

Article 15

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

5.13

Amendment of Regulation 46 of the Principal Regulations

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Investigational product (IP) labeling in Vietnam must comply with the requirements set forth in PharmLaw-VNM. Per VNM-12, the requirements in Articles 7 and 8 of the MedLabel should also be applied to IP labeling.

According to the MedLabel, the outer packaging label of the drug must show the following:

Drug name
Dosage form
Ingredients, content, and volume or concentration of pharmaceutical ingredients and medicinal materials in the drug formula
Packaging specifications
Indications, usage, and contraindications of the drug
Circulation registration number or import license number (if any)
Production batch number, date of manufacture, expiry date of the drug, quality standards, and drug storage conditions
Signs to note and recommendations when using the drug
Name and address of the drug manufacturing facility
Name and address of the import facility (for imported drugs)
Origin of the drug

Additionally, as stated in the MedLabel, the intermediate packaging label of the drug must contain at least the following information:

Drug name
Production batch number
Expiry date

As set forth in PharmLaw-VNM, the IP must also be clearly labeled with the wording: “Products used for clinical trials. Use for other purposes is prohibited.” While there is no specified language requirement for IP labeling in the regulatory resources, according to VNM-12, this wording should be in Vietnamese. A sample IP with the label in the smallest packed unit must also be included in the study approval dossier.

(See the Product Management section for additional information on IP supply, storage, and handling requirements).

Article 88

Articles 7-8

Product Management

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Record Requirements

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

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

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

Annex 13 – Investigational Medicinal Products – Packaging, Labelling

5.12-5.15, 5.5, and 7

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Supply, Storage, and Handling Requirements

The BioequivTrial (which amends Appendix I of the ClinDrugTrialGCP) indicates that at the end of a clinical trial, the principal investigator (PI) must inventory the investigational product (IP). The sponsor is responsible for storing the IP and for working with the host institution to withdraw and destroy the unused or remaining products, in accordance with applicable regulations.

Record Requirements

As stated in the BioequivTrial, the sponsor and the PI are responsible for filing the following essential documents before the trial begins and during the conduct of the trial:

Sample(s) labels attached to IP container(s) (only the sponsor is required to file this information)
Instructions for handling IPs and trial-related materials (if not included in protocol or Investigator’s Brochure (IB))
Shipping records for IP- and trial-related materials

In addition, the sponsor and the PI are responsible for maintaining records of handling instructions and shipping records for IPs and trial-related materials.

Appendix (Article 22 and Forms 1-2)

Definition of Specimen

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

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

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

Bodily Material and Tissues

Definition of Relevant Material

Glossary

Part 3 (45 and 53)

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

In Vietnam, as per Decree89 and the MgmtInfctSpcmn, specimens are defined as human blood, serum, plasma, urine, feces, human body fluids, and other specimens that contain infectious substances and microorganisms pathogenic to humans. In addition, as per the MgmtInfctSpcmn, infectious substances are those that are known or expected to contain pathogens affecting humans, and are classified as Category A and B. Category A specimens are those capable of causing life-threatening diseases, death, or permanent disability to humans when they are exposed (see Appendix I of the MgmtInfctSpcmn). Category B specimens are those not listed in Category A. Specimens are also referred to as “medical microbiological samples” in Decree89.

Chapter I (Article 2) and Appendix I

Article 2

Specimen Import & Export

Last content review/update: May 16, 2024

Import/Export

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

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

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

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

Human Tissues, Cells, and Blood as Starting Material

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

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

Other Considerations

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

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

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

Section 12 and Annex H

1 and 3

Import and Export of Tissue

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

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

Glossary/Definitions, Import and Export

Part 5 (53 (6))

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

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

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

Last content review/update: May 22, 2024

Import

As set forth in the MgmtInfctSpcmn, the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s General Department of Preventive Medicine (DPM) is responsible for regulating the transportation of infectious specimens.

According to Decree89, samples of medical microorganisms, biological products, tissues, and organs transported across the Vietnamese border must be medically declared (See Form No. 13 in the Decree89).

VNM-12 further states that an import license from the DPM is required only if the specimens are infectious. Decree155Amend requires that application dossiers for the import of infectious specimens include:

A written request for the grant of an import license
A copy of the competent agency’s approval permitting the implementation of a valid research project, a copy of the approved project proposal or project document, or a copy of the valid written agreement between domestic and foreign establishments regarding the import of specimens
A declaration regarding compliance with applicable biosafety standards

As delineated in Decree155Amend, establishments applying for import permits must submit their dossiers directly or by post to the MOH. If there is no request to amend or supplement the dossier, the MOH must grant the import license within 15 days from the date of receipt of the application. See Decree155Amend for additional information on import licensing procedures.

Export

Per VNM-12, no license is required for the export of specimens.

Chapter III (Article 11) and Appendix II

Article 15

Article 34 and Appendix (Form No. 13)

Consent for Specimen