Search

The implementation of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) can be accompanied by unique regulatory challenges. In this paper, we describe the experience and management of regulatory noncompliance during a 25-site acute care PCT. During the trial, the study team conducted a comprehensive audit of all enrollment forms (informed consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act authorization forms) and related study documentation. A review of 997 participants' enrollment forms identified 138 (13.8%) that required reporting to the institutional review board due to noncompliance. To prevent subsequent noncompliance, the study team developed and introduced a revised participant tracking system, reviewed all enrollment documentation, and retrained sites regarding study procedures. Based on these experiences, we developed a set of recommendations for future PCTs to ensure both operational success and regulatory compliance., (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine how closely institutional review board (IRB) discussions reflect the ethical criteria specified in the Common Rule federal regulations., Method: Between November 2006 and July 2009, the authors observed, audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded protocol reviews from 20 IRB meetings at 10 leading academic medical centers. They also reviewed each of the applications discussed to identify the Common Rule criteria-(1) risk minimization, (2) risk/benefit comparison, (3) equitable subject selection, (4) informed consent, (5) data monitoring to ensure safety, (6) privacy protection and confidentiality, and (7) protection of vulnerable subjects-that were both relevant to the study and not adequately addressed in the application. They then determined if the IRB addressed each of the relevant and not-discussed Common Rule criteria in their discussions., Results: IRBs made no mention of many of the Common Rule criteria that required their discussion-In 17/82 (21%) reviews, they failed to address risk minimization; in 52/91 (57%), risk/benefit comparison; in 31/52 (60%), equitable subject selection; in 32/59 (54%), data monitoring; in 13/52 (25%), privacy and confidentiality; and in 7/55 (13%), protection of vulnerable populations. However, they discussed informed consent in 102/104 (98%) reviews and raised questions about, or requested changes about, informed consent for 92/104 (88%) protocols., Conclusions: These findings suggest that essential elements of human subjects protection are not implemented uniformly across IRBs. Although not directly addressing this issue, the current proposed changes to the Common Rule offer an opportunity to improve, in general, the effectiveness of IRBs to protect human subjects.

The Indian Council of Medical Research and the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization of the Directorate General of Health Services of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare' draft guidelines for compensation of research-related injury have evoked strong responses from the clinical research community. All stakeholders, including academic researchers, teachers in medical colleges, the pharmaceutical industry and even members of Institutional Review Boards and Ethics Committees have expressed grave reservations about several clauses in the guidelines. Moreover, these two guidelines differ from each other in important areas, reiterating that more thought and discussion is necessary to refine the guidelines. We present an academic researcher's perspective of the guidelines and our views on how they will affect clinical research in the country. The paper covers the types of research-related injury that are entitled for compensation, controversies on whether injury resulting from standard care should be entitled for compensation, whether causality needs to be established as a prerequisite for eligibility for compensation and whether all forms of research should have mandatory provision for compensation. We also put forward the potential dangers of such recommendations, which could potentially be inducement for patients to participate in clinical research. Finally, we raise the philosophical issue of infringement of an individual's fundamental rights regarding what research he/she wishes to participate in. While these points are based on several formal and informal discussions with stakeholders from various fields of clinical research, the views expressed are the authors' own personal thoughts.

Government agency indicates QI projects tracking results need to obtain informed consent. Experts say regulations provide exceptions which project in question meets. Checklist had already demonstrated effectiveness in earlier research.

Arguing that the 2006 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) human-subjects rule allows use of unethical third-party research (on pregnant women and children) in setting pesticide regulations, this article first (a) provides a brief history of U.S. pesticide regulation, particularly regarding childhood safety. Next it (b) outlines ethical and scientific loopholes in the 2006 EPA rule; (c) shows how the Human Subjects Review Board, mandated by the 2006 rule, has been implemented in flawed ways; and (d) illustrates that one source of problems with the rule may be influence by those with conflicts of interest.

The system of institutional review boards (IRBs) was established about 30 years ago for the protection of human subjects and as a mechanism for assuring an independent peer review of research activities. To keep pace with an evolving environment, a new model for human research oversight is needed that focuses less on achieving regulatory compliance and more on applying our conscience to the responsible conduct of research. The recent implementation of a unified federal registration system for IRBs and a new assurance system point the way to a more effective structure for the oversight of clinical trials.