Study guide
11.4 Regulatory Reporting Requirements Before and After Marketing Authorisation
ACRP Certified Professional ACRP-CP
Track your progress as you read
Finished sections get a check mark.
1 Chapter 1: GCP Principles, Roles & Delegation
1.1 The Eleven ICH E6(R3) Principles of GCP & Guideline Structure 1.2 Sponsor & Investigator Responsibilities and Delegation of Authority 1.3 Staff Training, Qualifications & Delegation of Authority Log (DOAL) 1.4 CRO Oversight, Vendor Management & Transfer of Regulatory Obligations (TORO)
2 Chapter 2: Essential Records, Source Documentation & Data Confidentiality
2.1 Essential Records Before, During and After the Trial (ICH E6(R3) Appendix C) 2.2 Trial Master File (TMF) and Investigator Site File (ISF) Structure & Inspection Readiness 2.3 Source Documentation, ALCOAC Principles & Medical Record Standards 2.4 Confidentiality, Privacy & Protection of Participant Personal Information
3 Chapter 3: Monitoring, Quality Management & Audits
3.1 Risk-Based Quality Management (RBQM) & Quality Management Systems (QMS) 3.2 Monitoring Visit Types: Site Selection, SIV, IMV, and Close-Out 3.3 Risk-Based Monitoring (RBM), Centralized Monitoring & Source Data Verification (SDV vs SDR) 3.4 Quality Audits, Regulatory Inspections, Non-Compliance & Root Cause Analysis / CAPA
4 Chapter 4: Site Feasibility, Start-Up, Facilities & Laboratory Operations
4.1 Site Feasibility Assessment, Capability Analysis & Investigator Selection 4.2 Contractual Agreements: Clinical Trial Agreements, Budgets, Indemnification & Financial Arrangements 4.3 Site Initiation Preparation, System Access & Regulatory Greenlight 4.4 Protocol Review, Operational Feasibility & Institutional Approvals 4.5 Site Facilities, Equipment Maintenance, Calibration & Trial Supplies 4.6 Biological Samples & Hazardous Goods: Collection, Storage, Disposal & Shipment
5 Chapter 5: Subject Recruitment, Retention & Study Visits
5.1 Subject Recruitment Strategies, Advertising Guidelines & Ethical Constraints 5.2 Screening, Eligibility Verification & Inclusion/Exclusion Adherence 5.3 Subject Retention, Compliance, Visit Scheduling & Protocol Window Management 5.4 Managing Lost to Follow-Up, Subject Withdrawal & Early Termination Procedures
6 Chapter 6: Protocol Compliance, Deviations & Site Close-Out
6.1 Protocol Compliance, Waivers vs. Violations & Deviation Management 6.2 Investigational Site Close-Out Activities & Final Reconciliations 6.3 Record Retention, Archiving Requirements & Post-Trial Responsibilities
7 Chapter 7: Research Ethics, Vulnerable Populations & Research Integrity
7.1 Historical Milestones: Nuremberg Code, Belmont Report & Declaration of Helsinki 7.2 Ethical Principles: Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Autonomy, Justice & Equipoise 7.3 Vulnerable Populations (Pediatrics, Pregnant Women, Prisoners, Cognitively Impaired, Economically Disadvantaged) 7.4 Conflict of Interest, Research Misconduct & Fraud in Clinical Research
8 Chapter 8: Informed Consent & Institutional Review Boards (IRB/IEC)
8.1 Informed Consent Elements, Process & Ongoing Consent / Re-Consent Requirements 8.2 Assent in Minors & Legally Acceptable Representative (LAR) Requirements 8.3 IRB/IEC Composition, Functions, Review Types (Full, Expedited, Exempt) & Continuing Review
9 Chapter 9: Safety Reporting & Adverse Event Management (ICH E2A)
9.1 Adverse Events (AE) vs. Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) & Serious Adverse Events (SAE) Definitions 9.2 Causality Assessment, Expectedness, Reference Safety Information (RSI) & SUSARs 9.3 Expedited Reporting Timelines (7-day fatal/life-threatening, 15-day other serious) & Periodic Safety Updates (DSUR)
10 Chapter 10: Investigational Product (IP) Management & Accountability
10.1 Investigational Product Lifecycle, Labeling, Packaging & Blinding Procedures 10.2 IP Shipping, Receipt, Temperature Monitoring, Excursion Handling & Chain of Custody 10.3 IP Storage, Dispensing, Accountability Logs & Destruction/Return Procedures 10.4 Emergency Unblinding (Code Breaking) Protocols & Subject Safety Procedures
11 Chapter 11: Regulatory Frameworks, Submissions & Product Reference Information
11.1 Stakeholders, Regulatory Institutions & Global Frameworks in Clinical Research 11.2 Protocol Submission, Approval & Amendment Processes 11.3 Investigator's Brochure, Instructions for Use & Reference Product Information 11.4 Regulatory Reporting Requirements Before and After Marketing Authorisation
12 Chapter 12: Clinical Data Management, EDC & Electronic Records
12.1 Electronic Data Capture (EDC), eCRF Design & Clinical Data Management Systems (CDMS) 12.2 Computerised Systems, Data Governance & Audit Trails (ICH E6(R3) Annex 1 §4) 12.3 Data Validation, Edit Checks, Discrepancy / Query Management & Resolution 12.4 Medical Coding (MedDRA, WHO Drug), SAE Reconciliation, Data Transfer & Database Lock
13 Chapter 13: Trial Design, Biostatistics, Data Monitoring & Transparency
13.1 Phases of Clinical Research (Phase 0, I, II, III, IV) & Translational Medicine 13.2 Study Designs: Parallel, Crossover, Factorial, Adaptive & Non-Inferiority / Equivalence 13.3 Randomization Schemes, Stratification, Blinding Methods & Minimizing Bias 13.4 Endpoints (Primary, Secondary, Surrogate, Composite), Sample Size & Biostatistical Concepts (p-values, CI, ITT vs PP) 13.5 Interim Analyses, DSMB/IDMC Oversight & Efficacy and Safety Evaluation Milestones 13.6 Trial Registration, Results Transparency & Communicating Results to Participants
11.4 Regulatory Reporting Requirements Before and After Marketing Authorisation
Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI
ICH E6(R3) Annex 1 section 3.13.2(b) requires the sponsor to expedite reporting of all suspected, unexpected serious adverse reactions to regulatory authorities in accordance with ICH E2A.
Expectedness for regulatory reporting is assessed against the applicable product information, normally the Reference Safety Information within the Investigator’s Brochure.
Section 3.13.2(e) requires urgent safety issues to be reported to the IRB/IEC, regulatory authorities and investigators without undue delay.
Alternative safety reporting arrangements are permitted but must be prospectively agreed with the regulatory authority and IRB/IEC and described in the protocol — never adopted unilaterally.
Premature termination or suspension of a trial triggers reporting obligations on both the investigator (Annex 1 section 2.6) and the sponsor (section 3.17.1).
Last updated: August 2026
Regulatory Reporting Before and After Marketing Authorisation
Quick Reference: Section 9.3 teaches the clocks — the 7-day and 15-day expedited timelines under ICH E2A and the periodic safety reports. This section teaches the architecture : the full set of reporting obligations across a product's lifecycle, who owns each one, and where the information flows. Learn the routing here and the timing there; the exam tests both.
Why this is tested
The ACRP-CP Exam Content Outline lists 2C, "Regulatory reporting requirements (e.g., pre- and post-approval, safety)" in Domain 2, and 3E, "Study reporting requirements (e.g., SAEs, deviations, INDs, IRB)" in Domain 3. Between them they ask a single question in many forms: given this event, who has to tell whom?
The reporting map
- Trigger From → To Governing reference
- Serious adverse event at a site Investigator → Sponsor Annex 1 2.7.2
SUSAR (suspected, unexpected serious adverse reaction) Sponsor → Regulatory authority(ies), expedited Annex 1 3.13.2(b); ICH E2A
SUSAR Sponsor → Investigators and IRBs/IECs, in a manner reflecting the urgency of action required Annex 1 3.13.2(d)
Urgent safety issue Sponsor → IRB/IEC, regulatory authority(ies) and investigators, without undue delay Annex 1 3.13.2(e)
- Safety updates, periodic reports and IB changes Sponsor → Regulatory authority(ies) Annex 1 3.13.2(a)
- Application to begin the trial Sponsor (or sponsor and investigator) → Regulatory authority(ies) Annex 1 3.8.1
Protocol and amendments Sponsor or investigator/institution → IRB/IEC (and authority where required) Annex 1 1.1, 1.4.7, 3.8.2
Deviation to eliminate an immediate hazard Investigator → Sponsor promptly, then IRB/IEC and authorities Annex 1 2.5.4, 2.5.5
Serious noncompliance Sponsor → Regulatory authority and/or IRB/IEC Annex 1 3.12.2
Premature termination or suspension Investigator → Sponsor, IRB/IEC, participants; Sponsor → authorities and IRB/IEC Annex 1 2.6, 3.17.1
- Clinical trial/study report Sponsor → Regulatory authority(ies) Annex 1 3.17.2
- Trial registration and public results posting Sponsor → Public registry Principle 9.6; see section 13.6
Exam Watchout: The site never reports a SUSAR directly to a regulatory authority. The investigator's safety obligation runs to the sponsor ; the sponsor holds the pharmacovigilance database, performs the expectedness assessment against the Reference Safety Information, and reports onward. Items that place the investigator in direct expedited correspondence with an authority are testing exactly this misconception.
- Part 1 — Reporting during development (pre-approval)
- Expedited reporting of SUSARs
Annex 1 3.13.2(b) requires the sponsor, in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and with ICH E2A , to "expedite the reporting to the regulatory authority(ies) of all suspected, unexpected and serious adverse reactions (i.e., SUSARs)."
- Three tests must all be satisfied before an event becomes a SUSAR: SERIOUS? Meets an E2A seriousness criterion
- │ yes
- UNEXPECTED? Nature or severity not consistent with the applicable
- product information — normally the RSI in the IB
- │ yes
- RELATED? A reasonable possibility of a causal relationship
- with the investigational product
- │ yes
- ───► SUSAR → sponsor expedites to authorities
Fail any one test and it is not a SUSAR. A serious, related but expected reaction is captured in the periodic safety report rather than expedited; a serious, unexpected event with no reasonable causal possibility likewise.
Expectedness is judged against the RSI
Annex 1 3.13.2(c): safety reporting to authorities "should be undertaken by assessing the expectedness of the reaction in relation to the applicable product information (e.g., the reference safety information (RSI) contained within the Investigator's Brochure or alternative documents)."
Two operational consequences that generate exam items:
The RSI version in force at the time of assessment governs. When the IB is updated, previously unexpected reactions may become expected and vice versa. Sites must know which IB edition is current — see section 11.3.
Severity is part of expectedness. An event listed in the RSI as mild is unexpected when it occurs at a severity or specificity the RSI does not describe.
Information back to the sites
Annex 1 3.13.2(d) requires SUSAR reporting to investigators and IRBs/IECs to be done "in a manner that reflects the urgency of action required" , taking account of the evolving knowledge of the product's safety profile. It expressly notes that "in some regions, periodic reporting of line listings with an overall safety assessment may be appropriate."
This is why sites receive a mixture of individual safety letters and periodic line listings. Both require the same site actions: review by the investigator, submission to the IRB/IEC per its requirements, filing in the investigator site file, and consideration of whether the consent form's risk description remains accurate.
Urgent safety issues
Annex 1 3.13.2(e): urgent safety issues requiring immediate attention or action "should be reported to the IRB/IEC and/or regulatory authority(ies) and investigators without undue delay."
Note the breadth: this is not limited to individual case reports. A newly identified interaction, a manufacturing defect affecting supplied product, or an emerging pattern across sites all qualify. It pairs with 3.13.3, Managing an Immediate Hazard , and with the investigator's own immediate-hazard route in 2.5.4–2.5.5.
Alternative arrangements are allowed — but only prospectively
Annex 1 3.13.2(f) permits alternative safety reporting arrangements, for example where certain SAEs are exempt from immediate reporting because they are protocol-defined efficacy endpoints or expected disease progression in a mortality trial. The conditions are strict: such arrangements must be "prospectively agreed upon with the regulatory authority(ies) and, if applicable, the IRB/IEC, and described in the clinical trial protocol."
Exam Watchout: "The protocol says deaths due to disease progression are not reported as SAEs" is only a valid answer if the arrangement was prospectively agreed and written into the protocol . A sponsor deciding mid-trial to stop expediting a category of events, however sensible, is not covered.
Periodic reports and IB updates
Annex 1 3.13.2(a) requires the sponsor to submit "safety updates and periodic reports, including changes to the Investigator's Brochure, as required by applicable regulatory requirements." The Development Safety Update Report and its relationship to the annual reporting cycle are covered in section 9.3.
- Part 2 — Reporting at the end of a trial, or before it
- Premature termination or suspension
Both parties carry obligations, and they are examined as a pair:
Party Obligation Reference
Investigator/institution Where the investigator terminates or suspends without prior sponsor agreement: inform the sponsor and the IRB/IEC and provide a detailed written explanation. Where the sponsor terminates or suspends: inform the IRB/IEC. Where the IRB/IEC terminates or suspends its approval: inform the sponsor. In all cases, inform the participants and assure appropriate therapy and follow-up Annex 1 2.6
Sponsor Promptly inform investigators, institutions and regulatory authorities of the termination or suspension and the reasons Annex 1 3.17.1
The obligation candidates most often forget is the one to the participants : people who are mid-treatment must be told, and their continuing care arranged.
Clinical trial reports
Annex 1 3.17.2 requires the sponsor to ensure that clinical trial or study reports are prepared and provided to regulatory authorities as required, whether the trial completes or terminates early. A trial that stopped early still produces a report.
Part 3 — After marketing authorisation
Once a product is authorised, the reporting obligations do not end; they change shape. The ACRP-CP Exam Content Outline explicitly says "pre- and post-approval" , so the categories are worth knowing even though the exam does not test any one country's post-marketing statute.
Activity What it is
Routine pharmacovigilance Ongoing collection and assessment of spontaneous reports from healthcare professionals, participants and patients
Signal detection and management Systematic review of accumulating data for previously unrecognised associations, then assessment and action
Periodic benefit–risk reporting Scheduled cumulative reassessment of whether benefit still outweighs risk in authorised use
Product information updates Adding newly established adverse reactions, contraindications or warnings to the approved labelling
Post-authorisation studies Phase IV and observational studies, some required as a condition of authorisation, others voluntary
Risk minimisation measures Controlled distribution, prescriber or pharmacy certification, patient registries, pregnancy prevention programmes
Exam Watchout: A Phase IV trial of an authorised product is still a clinical trial , and every GCP obligation in this guide applies to it in full — IRB/IEC approval, informed consent, the protocol, essential records, safety reporting. What changes is that the product is authorised, so Principle 7.2 becomes central: the relevant risk is the increment beyond usual medical care, not the total risk of treating the condition, and oversight is calibrated accordingly.
Realistic exam scenario
Scenario: On a Tuesday morning a coordinator learns that a participant enrolled in a Phase II hepatology trial was admitted overnight with acute liver failure and died. The protocol lists "elevated transaminases" as an expected reaction in the Reference Safety Information; acute liver failure is not listed. The coordinator's institution requires all in-hospital deaths to be reported to its patient safety office. The site's monitor is on annual leave. The principal investigator asks whether the site should file an expedited report with the national regulatory authority itself, since "seven days is not long and nobody is answering at the sponsor."
Evaluation:
The event is serious (fatal), unexpected — acute liver failure is not the same as elevated transaminases, and severity is part of the expectedness judgement — and there is at least a reasonable possibility of causality in a hepatology trial. On the face of it, a SUSAR .
The site must not report to the regulatory authority. Under Annex 1 2.7.2 the investigator's obligation runs to the sponsor , and under 3.13.2(b) the sponsor performs the expectedness assessment against the current RSI and expedites onward. A site-initiated regulatory filing bypasses the pharmacovigilance database and risks duplicate, inconsistent or incomplete reporting.
The monitor's absence is irrelevant. Safety reporting goes to the sponsor's designated safety contact through the route named in the protocol and safety management plan, not through the monitor.
The institutional patient safety report is a separate internal obligation that runs in parallel; it neither satisfies nor replaces the trial safety report.
Correct actions: report the SAE to the sponsor's safety contact immediately using the protocol's route; complete the SAE form with the information available rather than waiting for the full picture, and follow up; notify the IRB/IEC per its own requirements; record the event in the source documents and eCRF; file the institutional report separately; and, once the sponsor's assessment returns, review whether the consent form's risk description and the IB's Reference Safety Information need to change — and whether other participants require additional monitoring under 3.13.3.