Major Rule Changes Proposed for Human-Subject Studies

Mark Moran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.46.17.psychnews_46_17_4_1

2011-09-02

Psychiatric News

Abstract:Multisite trials have become more typical since the "Common Rule" was established, but under that rule every institution in the trial must have its own IRB approve the research.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

CTSA Institution Responses to Proposed Common Rule Changes: Did They Get What They Wanted?

Suzanne M. Rivera,Lisa Nichols,Lois Brako,Genevieve Croft,Toni Russo,Tara Tran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617698606

2017-03-21

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Abstract:In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and 15 other federal departments and agencies proposed revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the departments sought to strengthen, modernize, and make more effective human subjects regulations while reducing administrative burden, delay, and ambiguity. We reviewed public comments from National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions on key provisions of the NPRM to understand how the proposed changed were received at research-intensive institutions. CTSA institutions responding to the proposed rule were predominantly opposed to the major proposals, including proposed changes to the treatment of de-identified biospecimens, demonstrating a lack of support from academic medical centers. In January 2017, a Final Rule was issued. We compare the Final Rule to what was proposed.

ethics,medical ethics
Impact of Federal Regulatory Changes on Clinical Pharmacology and Drug Development: the Common Rule and the 21st Century Cures Act

James F. Burris,J. Thomas Puglisi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1026

2017-10-05

The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, generally referred to as the "Common Rule," is the basis for the human research protection policies of 16 signatory federal agencies and governs virtually all federally funded research involving humans. The Common Rule was originally published in 1991. It has been recognized that changes to the Common Rule are needed to accommodate changes in the research environment and advances in information technology. The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register in 2011 and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2015. The final rule was published on January 19, 2017, just prior to the change in presidential administrations. The long gestation of the new Common Rule reflects the difficulty of obtaining consensus on a number of controversial issues. HHS received more than 2100 public comments on the proposed rule. The revised rule introduces important changes that may be particularly relevant to clinical pharmacology research and drug development. These include: (1) revised informed consent requirements, (2) procedures for "broad consent" to facilitate secondary research use of identifiable private information and/or biological specimens, (3) a mandate to promote review by a single institutional review board (IRB) for oversight of federally funded domestic cooperative research involving multiple institutions, (4) expansion of the categories of exempt research, and (5) removal of the requirement for annual continuing IRB review of research in which the remaining activities are limited to data analysis or accessing clinical follow-up data. Also noteworthy are proposed revisions not included in the final rule, including one to extend the Common Rule to multicenter studies that are not federally funded and one to require informed consent for research use of de-identified biological specimens. Major changes could also be coming for approval of new drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), although it is not a signatory to the Common Rule. The 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in December 2016, enables faster drug approvals by expanding the kinds of evidence, beyond traditional clinical trials, that the FDA can consider when reviewing new drug applications. For example, the law allows greater use of surrogate markers and data from "real-world experience" to evaluate a drug's efficacy. The Cures Act requires HHS and the FDA to harmonize differences between the Common Rule and FDA regulations for protection of human subjects in research.
Review of the Latest Revision of Common Rule in the United States

Hai-hong ZHANG,Ya-li CONG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12014/j.issn.1002-0772.2017.11a.03

2017-01-01

Abstract:Common Rule,as the most important regulatory framework for human subject protection in the United States,initiated its first massive update since 2009.The Final Rule came out in January 2017 after the release of ANPRM and NPRM for public comments in 2011 and 2015 respectively.The Final Rule adopted new provisions and requirements on informed consent process,broad consent,single IRB review of cooperative research,exemption categories and continuing review.This article began with the background analysis of Common Rule updating,introduced the revision process and main updates adopted in the Final Rule.Interpretation and comments were elaborated for the discussion of both positive impacts and remaining challenges.To sum up,it is important for us to learn and bring in international experiences of human subject protection into Chinese contest in a timely manner,as well as more creative problem-oriented research exploration and policy innovation in the future.
Protection of Human Rights in Clinical Trials

SHAN Wei,CONG Hang-qing

2011-01-01

Abstract:With the growing legal consciousness of nation,the contradiction in the clinical trials appears gradually.Researchers and subjects face many complicated problems.In that case,the clinical investigators and patients should clearly know their rights and obligations.Then,we should propose the practical ways to protect patients.There are three ways:(1) Medical Ethics Committee set up a position and the staff should track every stage of the clinical trial;(2) Regular doctor should provide professional advices to patients and let them know the effect of the clinical trial;(3) Improvement the registry of clinical trials as soon as possible.
Single IRB Review and Local Context Considerations: A Scoping Review

Stephanie R Morain,Megan K Singleton,Kate Tsiandoulas,Juli Bollinger,Jeremy Sugarman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500215

Abstract:A leading concern about single IRB (sIRB) review for multisite studies, as is now required by federal policies, is whether and how sIRBs consider local context in their review. While several types of local context considerations have been proposed, there is no shared agreement among those charged with the ethics oversight of human subjects research as to the goals and content of local context review, nor the types of research studies for which sIRB review might be inappropriate. Through a scoping review of published scholarship, public comments, and federal guidance documents, we identified five assumed goals for local context review: protecting the rights and welfare of local participants; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and policies; assessing feasibility; promoting the quality of research; and promoting procedural justice. While a variety of content was proposed to be relevant, it was largely grouped into four domains: population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws. Proposed characteristics for exclusion from sIRB requirements reflected both protection- and efficiency-based concerns. These findings can inform ongoing efforts to assess the implications of policies mandating sIRB review, and when exceptions to those policies might be appropriate.
Ethical and regulatory oversight of clinical research: The role of the Institutional Review Board

Lindsay McNair

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15353702221078216

2022-02-16

Experimental Biology and Medicine

Abstract:The history of clinical research is, unfortunately, filled with examples of research studies that took advantage of and harmed research participants, to fulfill the research goals of scientists. Over time, we have created a system of ethical codes, principles, and regulations that are designed to prevent these abuses and to ensure that the rights and welfare of research participants are protected and honored. This review article will provide a brief history of clinical research ethics and ethical codes, outlining how those codes developed into the current regulatory requirements for the ethical oversight of clinical research. Understanding the current human subject protection systems will allow researchers to use best practices for planning and conducting rigorous, scientifically valid and ethical clinical studies. Understanding the history, principles, and foundations of the development of this system will equip researchers to understand what resources are available to them and how to make the best decisions when confronted with unique ethical situations in the conduct of their research.

medicine, research & experimental
Oversight of Human Participants Research: Identifying Problems To Evaluate Reform Proposals

Ezekiel J. Emanuel,Anne Wood,Alan Fleischman,Angela Bowen,Kenneth A. Getz,Christine Grady,Carol Levine,Dale E. Hammerschmidt,Ruth Faden,Lisa Eckenwiler,Carianne Tucker Muse,Jeremy Sugarman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-4-200408170-00008

IF: 39.2

2004-08-17

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:The oversight of research involving human participants is widely believed to be inadequate. The U.S. Congress, national commissions, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine, numerous professional societies, and others are proposing remedies based on the assumption that the main problems are researchers' conflict of interest, lack of institutional review board (IRB) resources, and the volume and complexity of clinical research. Developing appropriate reform proposals requires carefully delineating the problems of the current system to know what reforms are needed. To stimulate a more informed and meaningful debate, we delineate 15 current problems into 3 broad categories. First, structural problems encompass 8 specific problems related to the way the research oversight system is organized. Second, procedural problems constitute 5 specific problems related to the operations of IRB review. Finally, performance assessment problems include 2 problems related to absence of systematic assessment of the outcomes of the oversight system. We critically assess proposed reforms, such as accreditation and central IRBs, according to how well they address these 15 problems. None of the reforms addresses all 15 problems. Indeed, most focus on the procedural problems, failing to address either the structure or the performance assessment problems. Finally, on the basis of the delineation of problems, we outline components of a more effective reform proposal, including bringing all research under federal oversight, a permanent advisory committee to address recurrent ethical issues in clinical research, mandatory single-time review for multicenter research protocols, additional financial support for IRB functions, and a standardized system for collecting and disseminating data on both adverse events and the performance assessment of IRBs.

medicine, general & internal
U.S. agency drops controversial changes to misconduct rules

Jeffrey Mervis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt2251

IF: 56.9

2024-09-21

Science

Abstract:In first regulatory overhaul in 20 years, Office of Research Integrity takes modest steps toward greater transparency

multidisciplinary sciences
Patients come from populations and populations contain patients. A two-stage scientific and ethics review: The next adaptation for single institutional review boards

David Knopman,Eli Alford,Kaitlin Tate,Mark Long,Ara S Khachaturian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.001

Abstract:Introduction: For nearly 50 years, institutional review boards (IRB) and independent ethics committees have featured local oversight as a core function of research ethics reviews. However growing complexity in Alzheimer's clinical research suggests current approaches to research volunteer safety is hampering development of new therapeutics. As a partial response to this challenge, the NIH has mandated that all NIH-funded multi-site studies will use a single Institutional Review Board. The perspective describes a joint program to provide a single IRB of record (sIRB) for phases of multi-site studies. Methods: The approach follows two steps. One, an expert Scientific Review Committee (SRC) of senior researchers in the field will conduct the review principally of scientific merit, significance, feasibility, and the likelihood of meaningful results. The second step will be the IRB's regulatory and ethics review. The IRB will apply appropriate regulatory criteria for approval including minimization of risks to subjects and risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, equitable subject selection, informed consent, protections for vulnerable populations, and application of local context considerations, among others. Results: There is a steady demand for scientific, ethical and regulatory review of planned Alzheimer's studies. As of January 15, 2017, there are nearly 400 open studies, Phase II and III, industry and NIH sponsored trials on disease indications affecting memory, movement and mood in the US. Conclusions: The effort will initially accept protocols for studies of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and related disorders effecting memory, movement and mood. Future aims will be to provide scientific review and, where applicable, regulatory and ethical review in an international context outside North America with sites possibly in Asia, Europe and Australia.
Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

Mark Yarborough

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00170-8

Abstract:There is substantial published evidence showing that countless people enroll each year in ethically deficient clinical trials. Many of the trials are problematic because the quality of the science used to justify their launch may not be sufficiently vetted while many other trials may lack requisite social value. This poses the question: why do people volunteer for them? The answer resides in large part in the fact that informed consent practices have historically masked, rather than disclosed, the information that would alert research candidates to the ethically problematic nature of the trials. The "reasonable person" and "key information" provisions in the revised US Common Rule create the opportunity to correct this historical shortcoming. Two sources are employed to shed light on what the "key information" is that should be disclosed to a "reasonable person": the original disclosure aims of the Nuremberg Code, as well as an extensive body of meta-research evidence. Those sources jointly support a range of new disclosures in the informed consent process that would unmask the heretofore undisclosed information. The resulting proposed new disclosures pertain to the overall success prospects of clinical trials, the quality of the prior research that both forms the basis of clinical trials and informs assessment of their risks and benefits, the potential social value of clinical trials, and the commercial purposes of clinical trials.
Streamlining regulatory review in a multicenter platform trial: Opportunity to enhance patient centered care and drive innovation and efficiency.

Alexis Colley,Teresa L. Helsten,Brian Moore,Linda Neuhauser,Barbara Keenoy LeStage,Paolo Castillo,Maria Pitsiouni,Anthony D. Elias,Carla Isadora Falkson,Alexandra Thomas,Claudine Isaacs,Amy Sanders Clark,David Potter,Evanthia T. Roussos Torres,Rita Nanda,Chaitali Nangia,Laura Esserman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.1572

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:1572 Background: In addition to being required by the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects for United States-based institutions that receive federal funding and are engaged in cooperative research projects, the use of a central Institutional Review Board (cIRB) has multiple benefits. Yet more advanced trial designs have unique needs and challenges that may hinder adoption of an efficient cIRB. Platform trials, which require both a master protocol and successive individual protocol amendments for each new agent, are prone to high regulatory burden that can slow trial recruitment, representing a significant workload for study personnel. Specific challenges for platform trials include high burden of new amendments and IRB review schedules staggered across sites, making it challenging to have all sites operating under the same amendment concurrently. Methods: Administrative assessments were collected over the course of the I-SPY2 trial. The primary outcome of interest was time from amendment submission to approval (calculated as the number of days from submission to the local IRB by the site investigators to approval by the local IRB). Quantitative data in terms of hours spent on regulatory tasks pre- and post-cIRB implementation was estimated. Site investigators were asked in December 2022 to complete a brief questionnaire to investigate perceptions on changes to workload and level of comfort using a cIRB. Results: Amendments were activated when 50% of high accruing sites had IRB approval. The number of sites with approval for an amendment to go live was < 25% prior to cIRB adoption, and 83% after. Following transition to the cIRB in February 2021, the mean time from amendment submission to approval decreased from 54.4 to 20.7 days by Jan 2023. Changes to the informed consent were possible once the cIRB was adopted, including: standardizing site-specific IRB language in a section of the consent, so it need not be adjusted with every new agent amendment; standardizing site-specific workflows; shortening consent and making it more patient friendly. The average time that CRCs spent on regulatory work at each site decreased by an average of 160 minutes, but was variable, revealing continued use of local IRB, other committees at some sites. A total of 14 respondents completed the survey; most respondents indicated that keeping up with the amendment approval process was easier post-cIRB and 94% were comfortable relying on a cIRB. The short time for cIRB approval revealed the inefficiency of other processes, including coverage analysis and building of drug order sets. Conclusions: Active engagement of cIRB leadership and IRB working group has enabled regulatory review that now takes less than 30 days. The cIRB is now the standard for the I-SPY family of trials. Other services can also be shared and will continue to drive efficiency and reduce the regulatory burden for sites.

oncology
FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

Benjamin R Rossen

Abstract:On December 14, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed two new regulations in the Federal Register amending current regulations governing expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use and charging for investigational drugs. The proposals come at a time when FDA has found itself under new pressure to provide seriously ill patients with early access to investigational drugs outside the framework of clinical trials. In recent years, patient advocacy groups have filed citizen petitions with FDA asking the agency to provide specific criteria to patients and sponsors seeking expanded access or to create an early approval mechanism to permit easier access to investigational therapies. Further, FDA has seen proposed federal legislation intended to ensure early patient access to investigational treatments and nearly lost a lawsuit in federal court in which terminally ill patients sought a fundamental right of access to investigational therapies under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The proposed rules seek to assuage patient activists, physicians, drug sponsors and other critics who contend that FDA must strike an appropriate balance between allowing patient access to promising treatments while protecting against undue risk and safeguarding the clinical trials process. Although FDA heralded the announcement of the rules as a key step forward to improving patient access, the proposal does not expand access beyond measures currently available under longstanding agency practice and, in fact, creates new regulatory barriers and disincentives to industry participation in expanded access programs. This article examines the proposal in light of historical agency regulation and recent pressures to expand access. Section II describes the historical development of FDA's statutory authority to regulate drugs and the traditional new drug approval process. Section III describes the various methods through which FDA has allowed expanded access to investigational treatments since 1962. Section IV recounts various recent pressures on FDA to reform its expanded access procedures and describes the context in which FDA's recent proposal arises. Section V examines the changes proposed in both the proposed rules to expand access to investigational treatment and charging for investigational drugs. Section VI evaluates the rules and argues that the proposal will fail to expand access for patients because new restrictions on charging provide no incentive for industry participation and the proposed regulations create increased regulatory barriers to access inconsistent with FDA's statutory mandate
The Efficiency of Single Institutional Review Board Review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network–initiated Clinical Trials

Michael P. Diamond,Esther Eisenberg,Hao Huang,Christos Coutifaris,Richard S. Legro,Karl R. Hansen,Anne Z. Steiner,Marcelle I. Cedars,Kurt T. Barnhart,Tracy Ziolek,Tracey Thomas,K. W. Maurer,Stephen A. Krawetz,Robert A. Wild,J.C. Trussell,Nanette Santoro,Heping Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774518807888

2018-01-01

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Timely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network.Collection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included.While time required for actual institutional review board submission's review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7-24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities.A single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health's goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.
Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board

Kelly McBride Folkers,Alison Bateman-House

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018759661

2018-05-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The FDA allows patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening illness to use investigational medical products outside of clinical trials through its "expanded access" program. In response to criticism that the process to apply for expanded access is too onerous, numerous changes have been made over the last few years. These have been largely focused on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, while institutional review boards (IRBs)-which must approve expanded access protocols, except in emergencies when there is not time to do so-have remained relatively unstudied. We conducted a pilot study to review a sample of publicly available IRB policies from the United States to investigate how these entities handle expanded access.METHODS: We performed an online search to find publicly available policies for IRBs operating in the United States, utilizing a convenience sampling strategy, selecting the first 100 eligible policies we identified.RESULTS: Of the 95 policies reviewed, the majority (92.6%, n = 88) contained language referencing nonemergency expanded access and/or expanded access for emergency requests for a single patient. Of these 88 policies, 11.4% (n = 19) did not explicitly specify detailed procedures for handling nonemergency single-patient expanded access requests. Of the 88 policies that mentioned expanded access in nonemergency situations, 11.5% did not explicitly specify whether full IRB review was required, as was the rule at that time. There was considerable variation in other aspects of these policies, including charging patients for use of investigational products and the use of data from expanded access.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of our pilot, IRB policies on expanded access vary considerably. It is often difficult to find, interpret, and understand IRB policies on expanded access. Further research is needed to determine if and to what extent this negatively impacts patient access to investigational products outside of clinical trials.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Must research benefit human subjects if it is to be permissible?

Daniel Wikler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103123

2016-08-29

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:Must medical experiments with human subjects offer them a 'favourable risk-benefit ratio', that is, more expectation of benefit than harm or burden, if they are to be judged as ethically justified? Ethical justification is easier for experiments that do offer net benefit to subjects, but ethical justification is possible also for some experiments that do not. Basic science experiments with healthy volunteers and 'Phase I' drug trials that seek to determine tolerable dosage levels are routinely approved by ethical review committees; moreover, guidance they receive from government funding agencies specifically asks them to weigh risks to subjects against benefits to subjects and also benefits to those who may benefit from the knowledge gained in the experiment. If a puzzle remains, it is why there remains any assumption that research ethics requires a 'favourable risk-benefit ratio' for the individual research subject.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Increasing Burden of Institutional Review in Multicenter Clinical Trials of Infertility: the Reproductive Medicine Network Experience with the Pregnancy in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PPCOS) I and II Studies

William D. Schlaff,Heping Zhang,Michael P. Diamond,Christos Coutifaris,Peter R. Casson,Robert G. Brzyski,Gregory M. Christman,Kurt T. Barnhart,J. C. Trussell,Stephen A. Krawetz,Peter J. Snyder,Dana Ohl,Nanette Santoro,Esther Eisenberg,Hao Huang,Richard S. Legro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.069

IF: 6.7

2011-01-01

Fertility and Sterility

Abstract:Many clinical investigators think that the burden of Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements has been consistently increasing over recent years, although there are few objective data describing these trends. Over a period of 7 years, the Reproductive Medicine Network observed a significant increase in the size and requirements of IRB submissions and significant variability of IRB performance in reviewing multicenter trials. These additional regulatory and administrative demands represent substantial burdens to researchers and to the IRBs themselves. It is timely to consider whether these changes better protect the interests and safety of human research participants. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00068861 and NCT00719186. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011; 96: 15-8. (C) 2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
Making the Ethical Oversight of All Clinical Trials Fit for Purpose

Nancy E Kass,Ruth R Faden,Derek C Angus,Stephanie R Morain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.0269

IF: 11.816

2024-10-19

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: With the increase in trials assessing comparative effectiveness of approved products and alternative care strategies, guidance is needed to ensure ethical oversight is fit for purpose for the risks, burdens, and constraints on choice this research presents. Observations: US regulations governing human research emerged in response to horrific research abuses, reinforcing the view that research holds greater risks, uncertainties, and potential for abuse than clinical care, and thus protections and oversight are required for research, but not for care. The research oversight system established by these regulations has been effective, with most clinical research reviewed in advance for possible risk and burdens and for threats to autonomy and justice. For clinical research, however, it has become too much of a one-size-fits-all mechanism. As more comparative effectiveness and other research on widely used clinical interventions are conducted, research oversight should be fit for purpose for these kinds of trials, with the degree of oversight based on 2 morally relevant features of a trial. The first of these features is the degree to which risks and burdens increase or change when research is integrated into clinical care compared with what patient-participants would have experienced in care absent the research. The second is whether the activity restricts meaningful patient decision-making about care in morally important ways: (1) does the research restrict a choice or decision that patients ordinarily are or should be involved in and (2) does research participation remove from patients the ability to make a decision that may be meaningful to them, one based, at least in part, on their values, priorities, logistical or practical considerations, and the like? Whether clinical trials add risk or burden to what patients would otherwise have experienced, and whether studies restrict meaningful decisions patients would or should have had the opportunity to make, should help to determine whether clinical studies are designated as greater than vs minimal risk. Further, it is recommended that investigators and oversight bodies consider streamlined consent procedures for research presenting minimal additional risk or burden and that does not constrain meaningful patient decisions, rather than assuming that waiving all consent requirements is the only alternative. Conclusions and relevance: Ethical oversight of clinical research must be fit for purpose-with greater oversight for studies with greater risks, uncertainties, and impacts on meaningful patient decisions-and more streamlined oversight for other types of research.
Inclusion of special populations in clinical research: important considerations and guidelines

Stuart S Winter,Janet M Page-Reeves,Kimberly A Page,Emily Haozous,Angelica Solares,Carla Nicole Cordova,Richard S Larson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18053/jctres.04.201801.003

2018-01-01

Journal of Clinical and Translational Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Trials that involve human participants call for experiments or observations that are performed in a clinical research setting. Currently, there are over 16,000 clinical trials open in the United States. Despite continuing efforts to include "special populations" in clinical trials, there are gaps in participation for people who are either minors or elderly adults, are from historically under-represented minorities, or live in rural communities. The inclusion of these special populations in clinical trials research is essential for conclusions that benefit all populations. Data suggest that study partic-ipation rates for special populations have fallen to levels that could endanger the successful performance of some types of research. This is particularly concerning in the 21st century, where demographic trends in the United States continue to shift towards an older and Hispanic population with fewer rural dwellers. Trends in New Mexico and other minority-majority states mirror many of these shifts.RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS: In this review, we highlight improvement strategies for enhanced clinical trial participation by members of special populations. Key drivers for disparate clinical trials participation and outcomes often include differences in genetics, physiology, and perceptions of mistrust towards researchers. To overcome these barriers, we focus on best practices in recruitment strategies from the perspectives of the participants, the researchers and the institutions that support clinical trials.
IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA)

Darren McCausland,Margaret Haigh,Philip McCallion,Mary McCarron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13854.1

2024-02-12

Abstract:A shift from single to multi-site health studies enabled a range of research benefits including faster recruitment of larger and more diverse samples; increased statistical power, greater rigour, generalisability, and external reliability; and increased likelihood of impacting policy and clinical practice. However, ethical review of multi-site studies by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) raises specific challenges compared with single site studies, with requirements to apply to multiple local IRBs increasing the burden on research, possibly endangering the integrity of the research process or inhibiting development of multi-site studies. The option of a single centralised IRB may offer a clearer, more consistent and efficient review process. This study presents a case report and commentary from 15 years engaging with IRBs in multiple sites in Ireland by the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). It examines the ethics review process for IDS-TILDA through its first four waves. While the majority of 48 IRBs granted ethical approval within 13 weeks, six IRBs took 21-47 weeks to approve, leading to delays in data collection of up to 11 months. Despite additional review time, no changes were required to the study protocol. Therefore, a critical impact of the process was the delay in starting data collection within a small number of organisations, and reduced involvement in the study for one organisation. The ethical review process with multiple IRBs increased the degree of complexity of the process, with added bureaucracy and far greater communication required across 48 IRBs, substantially adding to the resource commitment for the review process. The relatively quick approval from the majority of IRBs was partially a result of the longitudinal study building relationships with organisations throughout multiple waves. That other health studies may not accrue this benefit supports calls for a single IRB system for multi-site health studies.
Human Subjects Protections in Clinical Drug Trials in China

Jiaqi Xu,Benfu Li,Qiang Ma,Haitao Heidi Liu,Yali Cong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00124363-200620060-00005

2006-01-01

International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine

Abstract:With the increasing number of clinical trials being undertaken in China over the last few years, stakeholders in human subjects protections (HSP) are facing many new challenges; currently, these challenges in HSP are largely taken up by the ethical review committees and study investigators. This article identifies a number of issues with the present system and suggests ways to resolve these issues at the institutional level. Though the Chinese government has developed a basic regulatory framework for HSP, further work still needs to be done.

Major Rule Changes Proposed for Human-Subject Studies

CTSA Institution Responses to Proposed Common Rule Changes: Did They Get What They Wanted?

Impact of Federal Regulatory Changes on Clinical Pharmacology and Drug Development: the Common Rule and the 21st Century Cures Act

Review of the Latest Revision of Common Rule in the United States

Protection of Human Rights in Clinical Trials

Single IRB Review and Local Context Considerations: A Scoping Review

Ethical and regulatory oversight of clinical research: The role of the Institutional Review Board

Oversight of Human Participants Research: Identifying Problems To Evaluate Reform Proposals

U.S. agency drops controversial changes to misconduct rules

Patients come from populations and populations contain patients. A two-stage scientific and ethics review: The next adaptation for single institutional review boards

Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

Streamlining regulatory review in a multicenter platform trial: Opportunity to enhance patient centered care and drive innovation and efficiency.

FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

The Efficiency of Single Institutional Review Board Review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network–initiated Clinical Trials

Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board

Must research benefit human subjects if it is to be permissible?

Increasing Burden of Institutional Review in Multicenter Clinical Trials of Infertility: the Reproductive Medicine Network Experience with the Pregnancy in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PPCOS) I and II Studies

Making the Ethical Oversight of All Clinical Trials Fit for Purpose

Inclusion of special populations in clinical research: important considerations and guidelines

IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA)

Human Subjects Protections in Clinical Drug Trials in China