Explore our webinars, covering key topics in research governance, regulations, ethics, and best practice. Navigating the New UK Clinical Trial Regulations & GCP Update This webinar walks you through everything you need to know to prepare for the updated UK Clinical Trial Regulations coming into effect on 28 April 2026.Our presenters break down the key changes, from transparency and record retention to amendment submissions, safety reporting, and data integrity, and share how ACCORD is updating systems to help researchers and sites (will be known as locations) stay aligned for a smooth transition. Recorded on 8 October 2025 Navigating the New UK Clinical Trial Regulations & GCP Update: webinar questions How is the 'trial end date' defined? Last Participant Last Visit (LPLV)? or funding end date? or other? The trial end date should be defined in the protocol. Typically, this is the LPLV and not the funding end date. The end of trial definition is used by the regulators to determine the regulatory window for publishing final results. Is there clarity about how sharing results with participants should be done, e.g. on a trial website versus sending to each participant? Clinical trial results should be proactively shared with participants in a clear, accessible format, ideally tailored to their preferences. Commonly used methods to share results include; end of study information or newsletter, verbal information provided at study visits, study websites, study social media accounts. The summary must be written in plain English and participants should be given the option to receive results, choosing how they’d like to receive them. Further information on the HRA website Can you expand on the publication of the summary of results, please? Is this a journal publication and if so, it can be challenging to publish negative results. How will this be addressed? The summary of results is not a peer-reviewed journal article. Journal publication is encouraged but separate, and often takes longer due to peer review and editorial processes. The summary of results must be published in the registry where the trial is registered, e.g. ISRCTN. Is there scope for a delay in reporting as some journals may then refuse to publish if the results are already in the public domain? No, delaying clinical trial result reporting to accommodate journal preferences is generally not acceptable and violates ethical and regulatory obligations.Clinical trial Sponsors and Investigators are ethically and legally obliged to report results within specific timeframes, regardless of journal publication concerns. Some journals may have policies against publishing results that are already publicly available. However, most reputable journals now accept prior posting of results in trial registries or institutional repositories as long as it’s not a full manuscript. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) supports public posting of trial results and does not consider registry results as prior publication. Regarding submissions e.g. MHRA validation is it calendar days or working days? Calendar days. If we are doing a paediatric trial of medication already approved in adults as a CTIMP I presume all of these would automatically become notifiable, is that a correct assumption? Not necessarily, it would need to comply with one of the conditions, most likely A (already used in clinical practice in the same way - not a given if the populations are different) or B (used at the same or higher dose in another approved trial). Is MedDRA coding limited to SOC codes? The MHRA guidance requires System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred Term (PT) codes for the SUSAR (Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction) reporting and for all the SAEs (Serious Adverse Event) mentioned in the DSUR (Development Safety Update Report).This is already what we are doing. So far there is no mention of the code that should be used for AEs (Adverse Event) so we will ask trial teams to use at least the SOC codes, until the MHRA guidance is updated with more clarification on that point. How do you ensure that data is readable for 25 years? We don’t know what will be available in 25 years time plus most of the staff on a trial will have moved on by that point. Who is then going to take responsibility for that? Ensuring clinical trial data remains readable for 25 years requires robust archiving strategies and clearly assigned long-term custodianship. Predicting tech availability decades ahead is tricky, and staff turnover is inevitable. But regulatory bodies like the MHRA mandate long-term data retention, so systems must be built to withstand time. The Sponsor is legally responsible for ensuring data is archived and accessible. Long-term data preservation strategies will be included in the study risk assessment and may include validating archiving platforms and performing periodic format migration for example reviewing the data to ensure it is readable or migrated to new formats as technology evolves.For hosted trials, archiving arrangements should be discussed with the Sponsor at the start of the trial (e.g. at Site Initiation Visit (SIV)) so there are no surprises at the end of the trial in terms of cost, where electronic data is to be stored and if this complies with local policies. For the extended archiving and costs, can we include costs for this within grants from NIHR and the major charities? Does this mean sites will no longer need to archive paper copies at sites if they are electronic? Yes, archiving costs should be included in grant applications. If the funder does not wish to pay these costs, this needs to be discussed with the Sponsor at the sponsorship review and approval stage. Are similar changes likely to come into place for non-CTIMPs? Yes, similar changes are expected for non-CTIMPs, aiming to align processes more closely with CTIMPs under the new UK clinical trial regulations.While the 2025 amendments to the UK Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations primarily target CTIMPs (Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products), the Health Research Authority (HRA) has confirmed that some changes will also affect non-CTIMP studies. These changes are designed to improve consistency, transparency, and efficiency across all types of clinical research. When should we expect updated templates to be published please? We are aiming to issue participant facing documents (protocol, consent forms etc) in January 2026. This article was published on 2025-10-15