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.

Selecting trial centers using a standardized, automated site assessment survey instrument (SASI)

Criteria for site selection in industry-sponsored clinical trials: a survey among decision-makers in biopharmaceutical companies and clinical research organizations

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

Optimizing clinical research in a regional cancer center network: A survey-based approach.

"The Truth Is, We Must Miss Some": A Qualitative Study of the Patient Eligibility Screening Process, and Automation Perspectives, for Cancer Clinical Trials

Redefining feasibility in clinical trials: Collaborative approaches for improved site selection

Factors influencing clinical trial site selection in Europe: the Survey of Attitudes towards Trial sites in Europe (the SAT-EU Study)

Assessing readiness to use electronic health record data for outcome ascertainment in clinical trials – A case study

A self-assessment survey to identify the risk of screen failure in phase I clinical trials (SCITEP score).

Development and implementation of standardized study performance metrics for a VA healthcare system clinical research consortium

Central site monitoring: Results from a test of accuracy in identifying trials and sites failing Food and Drug Administration inspection

Abstract 999: Clinical trial matchmaking: Connecting sites to sponsors

Using a Cascading Approach to Improve Multisite Study Procedures

A study of implementation factors for a novel approach to clinical trials: constructs for consideration in the coordination of direct-to-patient online-based medical research

Evaluating the impact of a SIMPlified LaYered consent process on recruitment of potential participants to the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform trial: study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic nested randomised clinical trial (SIMPLY-SNAP trial)

Designing a Website to Support a Multisite, International Clinical Trial

Clinical trial facilitators: A novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level

A multifunctional online research portal for facilitation of simulation-based research: a report from the EXPRESS pediatric simulation research collaborative

Leveraging Real-World Data for the Selection of Relevant Eligibility Criteria for the Implementation of Electronic Recruitment Support in Clinical Trials

A collaborator-engaged approach to tailoring strategies for implementing systematic health-related social needs assessment: Results from a cross-center study.

A Time-and-Motion Study of Clinical Trial Eligibility Screening in a Pediatric Emergency Department