Institutional Review Board Approval of Practice-based Research Network Patient Safety Studies (original) (raw)
Related papers
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2013
Data from clinical studies generated by Practice Based Research Networks should be generalizable to the profession. For nationally representative data a broad recruitment of practitioners may pose added risks to IRB's. Infrastructure must assure data integrity while minimizing risk to assure that the clinical results are generalizable. The PEARL Network is an interdisciplinary dental/medical PBRN conducting a broad range of clinical studies. The infrastructure is designed to support the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and create a data audit trail to ensure data integrity for generalizability. As the PBRN concept becomes of greater interest, membership may expand beyond the local community, and the issue of geography versus risk management becomes of concern to the IRB. The PEARL Network describes how it resolves many of the issues related to recruiting on a National basis while maintaining study compliance to ensure patient safety and minimize risk to the IRB.
Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System
We undertook a qualitative e-mail survey of federally-funded principal investigators of their views of the US human subjects protection system, intended to identify the range of investigator attitudes. This was an exploratory study with a 14% response rate. Twenty-eight principal investigators responded; their comments were analyzed to show underlying themes, which are here presented along with supporting quotations. There was consensus that it is important to protect human subjects from research abuse, but disagreement over how well the IRB system is functioning. Some researchers felt that the system is effective and serves its purpose well. Of those who support the system, some endorse its methods, purpose, and daily functioning, as they experience it, without reservation. Others, while expressing some frustration, feel that the purpose is important and their local IRB does its best to make a difficult system work well. Those investigators who were more harshly critical commented on multiple flaws in the system, including (1) consent forms that are inappropriate and incomprehensible, (2) an emphasis on minutiae, and (3) concern with protecting the institution more than research subjects. Respondents told us that the IRB system is a particular burden for research in neurology, emergency medical conditions, repositories, and social sciences in general; a more comprehensive study might identify other problematic areas. Significant concern was expressed about the cost, inefficiency, and irrationality of IRB review. The IRB system works well for some researchers, but our results indicate that other investigators feel the costs outweigh the benefits.
A Survey of IRB Process in 68 U.S. Hospitals
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2004
Purpose: To compare IRB processes in 68 U.S. hospitals for the same multicenter study. Design: Survey of IRB processes in 68 U.S. hospitals during 2001-2002. Methods: Requirements of IRB submission including type and duration of review and qualifications of principal investigator were compared by hospital bed size, region, and academic affiliation. Findings: The majority of hospitals (63.2%) were on the East coast, and mean bed size was 465 (range: 77-2,112). About one-third (33.8%) required that the principal investigator listed on the application be from within the institution, 26.5% required evidence of human subjects research training, 10.3% required a conflict of interest statement. Mean number of pages for the application was 5.24 (1-31) and up to eight copies were requested. Time from submission of the IRB application to approval averaged 45.4 days (range, 1-303 days), and the majority of reviews were "expedited" (61.8%). Expedited reviews required more time (mean, 54.8 days) than did either exempt (mean, 10.8 days) or full (mean, 47.1 days) reviews. Conclusions: Current IRB review processes are cumbersome and nonstandardized, and review time varies widely. The absence of efficient and streamlined review might unnecessarily impede national clinical research projects without improving participant safety.
Changes in the institutional review board submission process for multicenter research over 6 years
Nursing Outlook, 2010
Although collaborative research across sites is essential to increase the statistical power and generalizability of research findings, the need to undergo multiple institutional review board (IRB) reviews is a challenge. The purposes of this paper are to describe changes in the IRB submission process in 2 national multisite studies before and after the implementation of the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy rule (2002 and 2008) and to discuss implications for policy and practice related to human subjects research. In the second study, there was a shorter mean approval time and reduced variability in the decision about the level of review, the mean number of pages per application doubled, and an increased proportion of IRBs required conflict of interest and data use agreements. Possible approaches to further enhance the efficiency and streamlining of the research review process are suggested.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 2012
Background: The Department of Health and Human Services recently called for public comment on human subjects research protections. Objective: To assess variability in reviews across institutional review boards (IRBs) for a multisite, minimal-risk trial of financial incentives for evidence-based hypertension care and to quantify the effect of review determinations on site participation, budget, and timeline. Design: A natural experiment occurring from multiple IRBs reviewing the same protocol for a multicenter trial (May 2005 to October 2007). Participants: 25 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Measurements: Number of submissions, time to approval, and costs were evaluated; patient complexity, academic affiliation, size, and location (urban or rural) between participating and nonparticipating VA medical centers were compared. Results: Of 25 eligible VA medical centers, 6 did not meet requirements for IRB review and 2 declined to participate. Of 17 applications, 14 were approved. The process required 115 submissions, lasted 27 months, and cost close to $170 000 in staff salaries. One IRB's concern about incentivizing a particular medication recommended by national guidelines prompted a change in our design to broaden our inclusion criteria beyond uncomplicated hypertension. The change required amending the protocol at 14 sites to preserve internal validity. The IRBs that approved the protocol classified it as minimal risk. The 12 sites that ultimately participated in the trial were more likely to be urban and academically affiliated and to care for more complex patients, which limits the external validity of the trial's findings. Limitation: Because data came from a single multisite trial in the VA system that uses a 2-stage review process, generalizability is limited. Conclusion: Complying with IRB requirements for a minimal-risk study required substantial resources and threatened the study's internal and external validity. The current review of regulatory requirements may address some of these problems.
A Program to Provide Regulatory Support for Investigator-Initiated Clinical Research
Academic Medicine, 2006
Investigator-initiated clinical trials represent a small but extremely important portion of medical research. In the process of translating basic science discoveries to novel therapies, new drugs or devices may be developed and tested. In light of increased compliance scrutiny, the need to streamline research projects, and the growing complexity of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulations, the research leadership at the University of Minnesota Academic Health Center (AHC) determined in 2002 that a service should be established to address these issues. The assumption was that providing a service to assist researchers with regulatory obligations would result in additional clinical research that might not have been pursued due to perceived regulatory hurdles. The authors present an overview of the FDA regulatory process as it applies to investigator-initiated research involving investigational new drugs and investigational medical devices. The rationale for creating a program designed specifically to assist faculty with investigational new drug (IND) applications and investigational device exemption (IDE) applications is discussed. The services provided by the IND/IDE Assistance Program (IAP) at the University of Minnesota Academic Health Center are described. The value of the IAP to the AHC is presented along with examples of successes attributable to the IAP and lessons learned so far.