Search

Introduction: Institutions conducting research involving human subjects establish human research protection programs to ensure the rights and welfare of research participants as well as to meet ethical and regulatory requirements. It is important to determine whether human research protection programs have achieved these objectives., Methods: The Department of Veterans Affairs has developed quality indicators and annually collected human research protection program quality indicator data from its 108 research facilities since 2010., Results: Analysis of Department of Veterans Affairs human research protection program quality indicator data revealed that facilities using affiliated university institutional review boards performed as well as those using their own Department of Veterans Affairs institutional review boards and that facilities with small research programs, that is, less than 50 human research protocols, performed at least as well as those with larger research programs. These quality indicator data also provided Department of Veterans Affairs facilities with valuable information for quality improvement. Many of these quality indicators have improved in subsequent years, and none has deteriorated. Lapse rates in institutional review board continuing reviews remained high and relatively constant at above 6.0% over a 4-year period from 2010 through 2013., Discussion: Future efforts should be directed at developing a set of human research protection program quality indicators truly reflecting the quality of human research protection programs that are applicable to both Department of Veterans Affairs and non-Department of Veterans Affairs institutions and determining whether high-quality human research protection programs as measured using these quality indicators translate into better human subject protections., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Context: Advances in communication technologies over the last two decades have transformed the way medical education research is conducted, creating opportunities for multi-institution national and international studies. Although these studies enable researchers to gain broader understandings of educational processes across institutions, they increase the need for multiple institutional review board (IRB) reviews to ensure the protection of human subjects., Objectives: This study describes the process of obtaining multiple IRB approvals of the same protocol for a multi-site, low-risk, medical education research project in the USA. The burden of obtaining those reviews and their consistency are assessed. The associated time and costs, and implications for the research process are detailed., Methods: Following review by the investigators' parent institution IRB, the project team circulated a uniform protocol for conduct of a low-risk, medical education survey to the IRBs of 89 US medical schools for review. The processes and time required to obtain approvals were recorded to estimate associated research team personnel costs., Results: Approval could not be obtained from five IRBs as a result of insurmountable procedural barriers. A total of 67 IRBs eventually deferred to the parent IRB determination. The remaining IRBs required a variety of additional procedural processes before ultimately agreeing with the original determination. The personnel costs associated with obtaining the 84 approvals amounted to US$121,344., Conclusions: Considering the value of multi-site designs to address a range of research questions, enhance participant diversity and develop representative findings, solutions must be found to counter inefficiencies of current IRB review processes for low-risk research, such as that usually conducted in medical education. Although we acknowledge that local review is an essential protective measure for research involving identifiable communities that are uniquely susceptible to social or economic harm, this report suggests that proposals to modernise and streamline IRB review processes for low-risk research are timely and relevant., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues warning letters to all research stakeholders if unacceptable deficiencies are found during site visits. Warning letters issued by the FDA between January 2011 and December 2012 to clinical investigators and institutional review boards (IRBs) were reviewed for various violation themes and compared to similar studies in the past. Warning letters issued to sponsors between January 2005 and December 2012 were analysed for the first time for a specific set of violations using descriptive statistics. Failure to protect subject safety and to report adverse events to IRBs was found to be significant compared to prior studies for clinical investigators, while failure to follow standard operating procedures and maintain documentation was noted as significant in warning letters to IRBs. Failure to maintain minutes of meeting and to follow written procedures for continuing review were new substantial violations in warning letters issued to IRBs. Forty-six warning letters were issued to sponsors, the most common violations being failure to follow a monitoring schedule (58.69%), failure to obtain investigator agreement (34.78%), failure to secure investigators' compliance (30.43%), and failure to maintain data records and ship documents to investigators (30.43%). Appropriate methods for handling clinical trial procedural violations should be developed and implemented worldwide., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Reviewing clinical trial site performance identifies strategies to control outcomes. Performance across 5 geographical regions (36 sites across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and Latin America) was investigated in a study that randomised 322 HIV-infected individuals., Methods: Regional performance was compared using descriptive analysis for time to site opening, recruitment, quality of data and laboratory samples. Follow-up consisted of 10 visits (96 weeks), electronic data collection (EDC) within 7 days of a visit and serious adverse events (SAEs) reported within 24 hours of site awareness., Results: Median days to site opening was 250 (188 to 266), ranging from 177 (158 to 200) (Australia) to 265 (205 to 270) (Europe). Median days to ethics and regulatory approval was 182 (120 to 241) and 218 (182 to 341) days, respectively. Within regions, time to approval ranged from 187 (91 to 205) days (Australia) to 276 (175 to 384) days (Europe). Time to first randomisation ranged from 282 (250 to 313) days (Australia) to 426 (420 to 433) days (North America). Recruitment was lower than forecasted in Asia, Australia, Europe and North America at 89%, 77%, 91% and 43%, respectively. The converse was true in Latin America where despite ethics, regulatory and contractual delays, recruitment was 104% of predicted. Median days to EDC was 7 (3 to 16), ranging from 3 (1 to 16) (Asia) to 13 (8 to 14) days (North America). Median days for initial SAE submission to sponsor was 6 (2 to 20), ranging from 4 (2 to 18) (Latin America) to 24 (5 to 46) days (Australia). Sites took longer to submit final reports, overall median of 28 (7 to 91) days, ranging from 7 days (Australia) to 67 (23 to 103) days (Europe)., Conclusions: Population availability and time to ethics and regulatory approvals influence recruitment; therefore accurate feasibility assessments are critical to site selection. Time to ethics and regulatory approval may not limit site inclusion if compensated by rapid recruitment. Identifying potential delays and methods for reduction can decrease time and costs for sponsors., Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.Gov identifier: NCT00335322. Date of registration: 8 June 2006.

Increasingly, public sector programmes respond to complex social problems that intersect specific fields and individual disciplines. Such responses result in multi-site initiatives that can span nations, jurisdictions, sectors and organisations. The rigorous evaluation of public sector programmes is now a baseline expectation. For evaluations of large and complex multi-site programme initiatives, the processes of ethics review can present a significant challenge. However in recent years, there have been new developments in centralised ethics review processes in many nations. This paper provides the case study of an evaluation of a national, inter-jurisdictional, cross-sector, aged care health initiative and its encounters with Australian centralised ethics review processes. Specifically, the paper considers progress against the key themes of a previous five-year, five nation study (Fitzgerald and Phillips, 2006), which found that centralised ethics review processes would save time, money and effort, as well as contribute to more equitable workloads for researchers and evaluators. The paper concludes with insights for those charged with refining centralised ethics review processes, as well as recommendations for future evaluators of complex multi-site programme initiatives., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Many research ethics committees (RECs) have been established in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in response to increased research in these countries. How well these RECs are functioning remains largely unknown. Our objective was to assess the usefulness of a self-assessment tool in obtaining benchmarking data on the extent to which RECs are in compliance with recognised international standards., Methods: REC chairs from several LMICs (Egypt, South Africa and India) were asked to complete an online self-assessment tool for RECs with a maximum score of 200. Individual responses were collected anonymously., Results: The aggregate mean score was 137.4±35.8 (∼70% of maximum score); mean scores were significantly associated with the presence of a budget (p<0.001), but not with duration of existence, frequency of meetings, or the presence of national guidelines. As a group, RECs achieved more than 80% of the maximum score for the following domains: submission processes and documents received, recording of meeting minutes, criteria for ethical review and criteria for informed consent. RECs achieved less than 80% of the maximum score for the following domains: institutional commitment, policies and procedures of the REC, membership composition and training, policies and procedures for protocol review, elements of a decision letter and criteria for continuing review., Conclusions: This study highlights areas where RECs from LMICs can improve to be in compliance with recommended international standards for RECs. The self-assessment tool provides valuable benchmarking data for RECs and can serve as a quality improvement method to help RECs enhance their operations., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

It has been suggested that community advisory boards (CABs) can play a role in minimising exploitation in international research. To get a better idea of what this requires and whether it might be achievable, the paper first describes core elements that we suggest must be in place for a CAB to reduce the potential for exploitation. The paper then examines a CAB established by the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit under conditions common in resource-poor settings - namely, where individuals join with a very limited understanding of disease and medical research and where an existing organisational structure is not relied upon to serve as the CAB. Using the Tak Province Border Community Ethics Advisory Board (T-CAB) as a case study, we assess the extent to which it might be able to take on a role minimising exploitation were it to decide to do so. We investigate whether, after two years in operation, T-CAB is capable of assessing clinical trials for exploitative features and addressing those found to have them. The findings show that, although T-CAB members have gained knowledge and developed capacities that are foundational for one-day taking on a role to reduce exploitation, their ability to critically evaluate studies for the presence of exploitative elements has not yet been strongly demonstrated. In light of this example, we argue that CABs may not be able to perform such a role for a number of years after initial formation, making it an unsuitable responsibility for many short-term CABs., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In 2006, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) published its 'Ethical guidelines for Biomedical Research on human participants'. The intention was to translate international ethical standards into locally and culturally appropriate norms and values to help biomedical researchers in India to conduct ethical research and thereby safeguard the interest of human subjects. Unfortunately, it is apparent that the guideline is not fit for purpose. In addition to problems with the structure and clarity of the guidelines, there are several serious omissions and contradictions in the recommendations. In this paper, we take a close look at the two key chapters and highlight some of the striking flaws in this important document. We conclude that ethics committees and national authorities should not lose sight of international ethical standards while incorporating local reality and cultural and social values, as focusing too much on the local context could compromise the safety of human subjects in biomedical research, particularly in India.

In this paper, we describe the potential role laypersons on ethics committees can play in ensuring community concerns are addressed in the design and implementation of genomic research. We draw inferences from the outcome of an empirical study of the impact of training of laypersons to address community engagement issues in ethics review of research protocol. While this paper does not advocate a particular solution, it describes the importance of community engagement in genomic research, the current limitations there are in engaging communities in the design of these research projects and how communities can be indirectly engaged in the design and implementation of genomic research through the engagement of laypersons on ethics committees. However, to ensure that these laypersons can play this role, their capacity needs to be built to play this role appropriately. There is evidence to show that where resources are invested in building the capacity of laypersons to play their role as community 'watchdogs' in research, they play this role aptly. Community engagement is important in genomic research as genomic researchers will increasingly require community perspectives in critical ethics decision making., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This article explains the difficulties innovative pharmaceutical firms have in repaying shareholders with attractive dividends. The problem is the result of the expiration of the patents of blockbuster drugs and the difficulties that the firms have in bringing new blockbuster drugs to the market. One of the solutions companies have found has been to accelerate the implementation of clinical trials in order to expedite the commercialization of new drugs. Doing so increases the period in which they can sell drugs at monopoly prices. We therefore discuss how innovative pharmaceutical firms shorten the implementation time of clinical trials in Latin America and the consequences such actions have on the quality of the collected data, the protection of human rights of the subjects of experimentation, and compliance with the ethical principles approved in international declarations.

In May 2014, the European Union Parliament and Council published a new regulation on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, which is designed to replace Directive 2001/20/EC. It will not come into effect until 2016. Nevertheless, it is essential to examine its relationship with national legislation, i.e. the Jardé Act, whose implementation has been delayed pending publication of the European regulation. The Giens workshop identified and examined the various issues that this relationship is bound to raise. In particular, it looked at trial methodology assessment procedures, the working relationship between the French National Agency of Drug Safety and Health Products (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé, ANSM) and ethics committees during the authorization application evaluation phase, review of post-authorization/registration studies on medicinal products and medical devices, and data transparency., (© 2015 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

The purpose of this column is to consider if research using only an interview should be evaluated by an institutional review board (IRB) or if it may be considered exempt. A review of atrocities committed by researchers both in the biomedical and psychosocial domains will be considered as a backdrop to the discussion. Issues that plague IRBs will be examined including lack of transparency, overreach of the process, and stipulations that change the nature of research. Finally, recommendations for reform will be entertained., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

The main task of research ethics committees (RECs) is to assess research studies before their start. In this study, 24 RECs that evaluate medical research were sent questionnaires about their structure and functions. The RECs were divided into two separate groups: those working in university hospital districts (uRECs) and those in central hospital districts (non-uRECs). The two groups were different in many respects: the uRECs were bigger in size, covered a wider range of disciplines (both medical and non-medical), had better resources and more frequent and regular meetings. After the survey was performed and analysed, the Medical Research Act was amended so that only hospital districts with a medical faculty in their region had a duty to establish ethics committees. After the amendment, the number of RECs evaluating medical research in Finland decreased from 25 to 9. The ethics committees that remained had wider expertise and were better equipped already by the time of this survey. Only one non-uREC was continuing its work, and this was being done under the governance of a university hospital district. Simple measures were used for qualitative analysis of the work of RECs that evaluate medical research. These showed differences between RECs. This may be helpful in establishing an ethics committee network in a research field or administrational area., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical research, including clinical trials, is the bedrock of evidence-based medicine and is the most reliable method of generating credible data. Over the last decade, India has been one of the preferred destinations for clinical research activities. However, a couple of trials generated widespread media coverage due to alleged ethical transgressions, which generated debate among various stakeholders and dented the overall image of clinical research activities in the country. One of the major issues which has emerged is of compensation to research participants for clinical trial-related injury or death. To address this question, the Government of India has come up with regulations regarding compensation for research participants. While these rules provide a robust framework for compensation, some concerns have been raised regarding interpretation and implementation of these guidelines. In this article, we have tried to raise some debatable issues that need to be addressed to bring more clarity to this subject. These issues need to be handled in a balanced manner so that they are able to address the concerns of all stakeholders. It is envisaged that once clarity emerges, confidence in the clinical research process will be restored.

Background: In order to ensure an adequate and ongoing protection of individuals participating in scientific research, the impacts of new biomedical technologies, such as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), need to be assessed. In this light, a necessary reexamination of the ethical and legal structures framing research could lead to requisite changes in informed consent modalities. This would have implications for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), who bear the responsibility of guaranteeing that participants are verifiably informed, and in sufficient detail, to understand the reality of genetic research as it is practiced now. Current literature allowed the identification of key emergent themes related to the consent process when NGS was used in a research setting., Methods: We examined the subjects of secondary use, sharing of materials and data, and recontacting participants as outlined in the Canadian Informed Consent templates and the accompanying IRB instructions for the conduct of genetic research. The research ethics policy applied by the three Canadian research agencies (Tri-Council Policy Statement, 2nd Edition) was used to frame our content analysis. We also obtained IRB-approved consent forms for genetic research projects on brain and mental health disorders as an example of a setting where participants might present higher-than-average vulnerability., Results: Eighty percent of documents addressed different modalities for the secondary use of material and/or data, although the message was not conveyed in a systematic way. Information on the sharing of genetic sequencing data in a manner completely independent of the material from which it originated was absent. Grounds for recontacting participants were limited, and mainly mentioned to obtain consent for secondary use. A feature of the IRB-approved consent documents for genetic studies on brain and mental health disorders using NGS technologies, offered a complete explanation on sharing material and data and the use of databases., Conclusions: The results of our work show that in Canada, many NGS research needs are already dealt with. Our analysis led us to propose the addition of well-defined categories for future use, adding options on the sharing of genetic data, and widening the grounds on which research participants could consent to be recontacted.

Tensions between researchers and ethics committees have been reported in several institutions. Some reports suggest researchers lack confidence in the quality of institutional review board (IRB) reviews, and that emphasis on strict procedural compliance and ethical issues raised by the IRB might unintentionally lead to delays in correspondence between researchers and ethics committees, and/or even encourage prevarication/equivocation, if researchers perceive committee concerns and criticisms unjust. This study systematically analyzed the efficiency of different IRB functions, and the relationship between efficiency and perceived quality of the decision-making process. The major purposes of this study were thus (1) to use the IRB Metrics developed by the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand (FTM-EC) to assess the operational efficiency and perceived effectiveness of its ethics committees, and (2) to determine ethical issues that may cause the duration of approval process to be above the target limit of 60 days. Based on a literature review of definitions and methods used and proposed for use, in assessing aspects of IRB quality, an "IRB Metrics" was developed to assess IRB processes using a structure-process-outcome measurement model. To observe trends in the indicators evaluated, data related to all protocols submitted to the two panels of the FTM-EC (clinical and non-clinical), between January 2010-September 2013, were extracted and analyzed. Quantitative information based on IRB Metrics structure-process-outcome illuminates different areas for internal-process improvement. Ethical issues raised with researchers by the IRB, which were associated with the duration of the approval process in protocol review, could be considered root causes of tensions between the parties. The assessment of IRB structure-process-outcome thus provides a valuable opportunity to strengthen relationships and reduce conflicts between IRBs and researchers, with positive outcomes for all parties involved in the conduct of human-subject research.

Purpose: To investigate factors, which influence institutional review boards' (IRBs') decision to approve or not approve clinical studies, a nationwide vignette-based online survey of IRB members was conducted., Methods: A factorial design was used, whereby seven aspects of each hypothetical study were randomly varied in 15 phrases in each vignette to produce unique vignettes. Participants indicated the degree of study approval and described factors influencing approval decision. Qualitative responses were thematically content analyzed., Results: Sixteen themes were obtained from 208 participants from 42 institutions. Uncertainty, adherence, study design, and harms were frequently and intensely cited to influence study approval. Analysis of two extreme subgroups (approvers vs. nonapprovers) showed that uncertainty influenced approval decisions, odds ratios (OR) = 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-9.8) and OR = 3.2 (95% CI, 1.1-8.9), respectively, based on theme frequency and theme intensity, ignoring multiple observations per person. Taking into consideration multiple observations per person, similar results were obtained for uncertainty: OR = 8.9 (95% CI, 0.93-85.4)., Conclusions: Perceived uncertainty about benefits and harms of a proposed intervention is a key driver in IRB members' approval of clinical trials. This, in turn, calls for improved standardization in the communications of information on benefits and harms in the research protocols considered by the IRBs., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The aim of the study is to assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Rheumatology International (RI) by using three types of analytical tools. MEDLINE was used to extract RCTs from original articles published in the RI from 1981 (vol. 1) to 2012 (vol. 32). The relationship between the number of articles and RCTs with time and that between various factors and the quality of RCTs were analyzed. To analyze the methodological quality of the RCTs, the time period was divided into several sections and three tools were applied (e.g., the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool). The number of RCTs published gradually increased with time significantly (p < 0.001). The differences in RCT quality scores by each method in the publication years evaluated were not statistically significant, but RCTs that included descriptions of allocation concealment methods had received institutional review board (IRB) approval, and that conducted in the multicenter had significantly higher-quality scores than other studies. In conclusion, although the number of RCTs published in RI since its publishing in 1981 has increased with time, but no qualitative improvement of RCT was observed over time. It is necessary to improve the reporting of concealment of allocation, generation of randomization sequences, design of blinded studies, and obtaining IRB approval, all of which are criteria of high-quality RCTs.

Objective: Passive, opt-out recruitment strategies have the potential to improve efficiency and enlarge the participant pool for clinical studies. We report on the feasibility of using a passive consent strategy for a multicenter pediatric study., Methods: We assessed the response to passive and active control recruitment strategies used in a multicenter pediatric cohort study and describe the variability in acceptance among institutional review boards (IRBs) and parents of pediatric patients., Results: Twenty-six pediatric centers submitted IRB applications; 24 centers participated. Sixteen IRBs approved the proposed passive recruitment strategy, and 6 IRBs required active consent strategies; 2 centers used a modified participation mode using control subjects from neighboring centers. In all, 4529 potential participants were identified across 22 centers. In the pre-enrollment phase, opt-out rates were significantly lower in the passive consent group compared with the active recruitment centers (1.6% vs. 11.8%; P < .001). During the enrollment phase, however, refusal rates in the passive consent group were significantly higher (38.1% vs. 12.2%; P = .004). The overall refusal rate across both groups was 33.3%., Conclusions: IRB variability in interpretation and application of regulations affects consistency of study procedure across sites and may reduce validity of study findings. Opt-out consent allowed us to create a large representative pool of control subjects. Parents were more likely to refuse to be approached for a study in the pre-enrollment phase when active consent was used, but were more likely to decline actual study enrollment when passive consent was used in the pre-enrollment period., (Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objective: To determine the variability of the institutional review board (IRB) process for a minimal risk multicenter study., Methods: Participants included 24 Continuity Research Network (CORNET) sites of the Academic Pediatric Association that participated in a cross-sectional study. Each site obtained individual institutional IRB approval. An anonymous questionnaire went to site investigators about the IRB process at their institution., Results: Twenty-two of 24 sites (92%) responded. Preparation time ranged from 1 to 20 hours, mean of 7.1 hours. Individuals submitting ≤3 IRB applications/year required more time for completion than those submitting >3/year (P < .05). Thirteen of 22 (59%) study sites received approval with "exempt" status, and 6 (27%) approved as "expedited" studies., Conclusions: IRB experiences were highly variable across study sites. These findings indicate that multicenter research projects should anticipate barriers to timely study implementation. Improved IRB standardization or centralization for multicenter clinical studies would facilitate this type of practice-based clinical research.

Background: Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) present unique ethical challenges. In the absence of a uniform standard for their ethical design and conduct, problems such as variability in procedures and requirements by different research ethics committees will persist. We aimed to assess the need for ethics guidelines for CRTs among research ethics chairs internationally, investigate variability in procedures for research ethics review of CRTs within and among countries, and elicit research ethics chairs' perspectives on specific ethical issues in CRTs, including the identification of research subjects. The proper identification of research subjects is a necessary requirement in the research ethics review process, to help ensure, on the one hand, that subjects are protected from harm and exploitation, and on the other, that reviews of CRTs are completed efficiently., Methods: A web-based survey with closed- and open-ended questions was administered to research ethics chairs in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The survey presented three scenarios of CRTs involving cluster-level, professional-level, and individual-level interventions. For each scenario, a series of questions was posed with respect to the type of review required (full, expedited, or no review) and the identification of research subjects at cluster and individual levels., Results: A total of 189 (35%) of 542 chairs responded. Overall, 144 (84%, 95% CI 79 to 90%) agreed or strongly agreed that there is a need for ethics guidelines for CRTs and 158 (92%, 95% CI 88 to 96%) agreed or strongly agreed that research ethics committees could be better informed about distinct ethical issues surrounding CRTs. There was considerable variability among research ethics chairs with respect to the type of review required, as well as the identification of research subjects. The cluster-cluster and professional-cluster scenarios produced the most disagreement., Conclusions: Research ethics committees identified a clear need for ethics guidelines for CRTs and education about distinct ethical issues in CRTs. There is disagreement among committees, even within the same countries, with respect to key questions in the ethics review of CRTs. This disagreement reflects variability of opinion and practices pointing toward possible gaps in knowledge, and supports the need for explicit guidelines for the ethical conduct and review of CRTs.

Summary: Institutional review boards have come under fire for being burdened with work, causing delays in the progress of human subject research without improvements in the protection of human subjects. Over the years, there have been increases in the numbers of clinical trials, the use of multisite studies, and the amount of bureaucracy, but there have been no changes to the system to accommodate these advancements. Proposed changes include the use of a centralized institutional review board for multisite studies and harmonization of reporting requirements among agencies. The purposes of this article are to review the history, structure, and purpose of the institutional review board, to assess the criticisms of the current system, and to discuss solutions for improvement.

International public health and infectious diseases research has expanded to become a global enterprise transcending national and continental borders in organized networks addressing high-impact diseases. In conducting multicountry clinical trials, sponsors and investigators have to ensure that they meet regulatory requirements in all countries in which the clinical trials will be conducted. Some of these requirements include review and approval by national drug regulatory authorities and recognized research ethics committees. A limiting factor to the efficient conduct of multicountry clinical trials is the regulatory environment in each collaborating country, with significant differences determined by various factors including the laws and the procedures used in each country. The long regulatory processes in resource-limited countries may hinder the efficient implementation of multisite clinical trials, delaying research important to the health of populations in these countries and costing millions of dollars a year.

Qualitative research is reported which explores the perceptions of members of the U.K.'s independent Phase I ethics committees (IECs) about key issues identified following a literature review. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted with ten expert and ten lay members from all IECs except the one to which the lead author was attached. Transcripts were thematically analyzed following a broadly hermeneutical approach. The findings-dealing with such matters as recruitment strategies and length of service; attitudes towards member categories, published ethics guidelines, and the adequacy of insurance; levels of training and views on achieving a recognised level of competence-have an intrinsic interest, but it is when the findings are considered collectively using Freidson's theory of professional dominance that they reveal the influence the medical profession can have in shaping ethics review.

In practice, the role of lay members of research ethics committees (RECs) often involves checking the accessibility of written materials, checking that the practical needs of participants have been considered and ensuring that a lay summary of the research will be produced. In this brief report, I argue that all these tasks would be more effectively carried out through a process of patient involvement (PI) in research projects prior to ethical review. Involving patients with direct experience of the topic under investigation brings added value beyond the contributions typically made by lay REC members, who are often not patients themselves. This is because PI tailors the design and conduct of research to the specific interests and concerns of the people who will actually take part in a project and make use of its findings. If a project has PI in its early stages, then a similar input from lay REC members could at best result in duplication of effort and at worst create the potential for conflict. The rationale for lay REC membership will therefore need to change from 'contributing a patient perspective' to 'ensuring transparency and public accountability in REC decisions'. This has implications for addressing more strategic questions about lay REC membership, including who is best recruited to the role and how they should be expected to contribute in practice.

Importance: Risk communication and management are essential to the ethical conduct of research, yet addressing risks may be time consuming for investigators and institutional review boards may reject study designs that seem too risky. This can discourage needed research, particularly in higher-risk protocols or those enrolling potentially vulnerable individuals, such as those with some level of suicidality. Improved mechanisms for addressing research risks may facilitate much needed psychiatric research., Objective: To provide mental health researchers with practical approaches to (1) identify and define various intrinsic research risks, (2) communicate these risks to others (eg, potential participants, regulatory bodies, and society), (3) manage these risks during the course of a study, and (4) justify the risks., Evidence Review: As part of a National Institute of Mental Health-funded scientific meeting series, a public conference and a closed-session expert panel meeting were held on managing and disclosing risks in mental health clinical trials. The expert panel reviewed the literature with a focus on empirical studies and developed recommendations for best practices and further research on managing and disclosing risks in mental health clinical trials. No institutional review board-review was required because there were no human subjects., Findings: Challenges, current data, practical strategies, and topics for future research are addressed for each of 4 key areas pertaining to management and disclosure of risks in clinical trials: identifying and defining risks, communicating risks, managing risks during studies, and justifying research risks., Conclusions and Relevance: Empirical data on risk communication, managing risks, and the benefits of research can support the ethical conduct of mental health research and may help investigators better conceptualize and confront risks and to gain institutional review board-approval.

Review boards responsible for vetting the ethical conduct of research have been criticised for their costliness, unreliability and inappropriate standards when evaluating some non-medical research, but the basic value of mandatory ethical review has not been questioned. When the standards that review boards use to evaluate research proposals are applied to review board practices, it is clear that review boards do not respect researchers or each other, lack merit and integrity, are not just and are not beneficent. The few benefits of mandatory ethical review come at a much greater, but mainly hidden, social cost. It is time that responsibility for the ethical conduct of research is clearly transferred to researchers, except possibly in that small proportion of cases where prospective research participants may be so intrinsically vulnerable that their well-being may need to be overseen.

Introduction: In the United States, institutional review boards (IRBs) oversee the scientific, ethical, and regulatory aspects of research conducted on human subjects. Institutional variations in the interpretation and application of federal and local regulations concerning genetic testing can have significant impact on the implementation of such studies., Objective: We assessed variability in IRB review of a multi-center Emergency Department-based study examining genotypic and phenotypic predictors of pain and psychological outcomes after minor motor vehicle collision (Project CRASH). This is one of the first multi-center genetic research protocols based solely in the Emergency Department (ED)., Methods: We performed an observational study of sites participating in Project CRASH. We collected IRB information and correspondence from each site. We collected data that included information regarding institution demographics, original IRB application characteristics, subsequent IRB correspondence, and time interval between submission and approval. Descriptive statistics were used in analysis., Results: All sites that initially agreed to participate in Project CRASH also participated in this study (n = 7). The time interval in receiving IRB approval varied between 20-760 days (median 105, IQR 21-225). One site appeared to be an outlier (760 days). The most commonly requested changes were changes to the consent form., Conclusion: Institutional interpretation of regulations regarding our ED-based genetic study was highly variable. Although the majority of our results are consistent with other similar published studies, the mean time interval for approval for this genetic study is far greater than other reported studies., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Premise: Ethical considerations are made when an experiment is planned and take a regulatory system of moral principles into account., Discussion: Ethical considerations should first and foremost be made in order to protect the individual subject/animal from being exposed to any unethical and perhaps even illegal intervention and to ensure that the experimental conditions used are appropriate., Summary: The main role of research ethics committees is to assess the scientific and ethical aspects of submitted protocols and follow up the trial until its closure.

We compared the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) quality indicator data of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities using their own VA institutional review boards (IRBs) with those using affiliated university IRBs. From a total of 25 performance metrics, 13 did not demonstrate statistically significant differences, while 12 reached statistically significance differences. Among the 12 with statistically significant differences, facilities using their own VA IRBs performed better on four of the metrics, while facilities using affiliate IRBs performed better on eight. However, the absolute difference was small (0.2-2.7%) in all instances, suggesting that they were of no practical significance. We conclude that it is acceptable for facilities to use their own VA IRBs or affiliated university IRBs as their IRBs of record.

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) was correct in determining that the consent forms for the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored SUPPORT study were seriously flawed. Several articles defended the consent forms and criticized the OHRP's actions. Disagreement focuses on three central issues: (1) how risks and benefits should be described in informed consent documents; (2) the meaning and application of the concept of "standard of care" in the context of research; and (3) the proper role of OHRP. Examination of the consent forms reveals that they failed to disclose the reasonably foreseeable risks of the experimental interventions in the study, as well as the potential for differences in the degree of risk between these interventions. Although the concept of "standard of care" may be helpful in determining the ethical acceptability of other aspects of research, such as clinical equipoise, it is not helpful in discussing consent requirements.

As Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs proliferate, effective collaboration with institutional review boards (IRBs) is important to protect human subjects. It is particularly important that faculty and students recognize which DNP students' projects should be considered as "human subjects research" or "quality improvement." The former require IRB review, whereas the latter may be eligible for expedited review or may be considered exempt. We report outcomes following implementation of a combination of didactic training, one-to-one consultation, and a decision support protocol to improve preparation for and collaboration with the IRB at a large university. In the first year of using this protocol, 53% of projects were deemed human subjects research and received IRB review. The other 47% were deemed quality improvement projects and did not require IRB review. We offer our experience as an approach for teaching students how to protect the subjects included in their quality improvement activities., (Copyright 2012, SLACK Incorporated.)

Background: Research ethics guidelines are essential for conducting medical research. Recently, numerous attempts have been made to establish national clinical research documents in the countries of the Middle East. This article analyzes these documents., Methods: Thirteen Arab countries in the Middle East were explored for available national codes, regulations, and guidelines concerning research ethics, and 10 documents from eight countries were found. We studied these documents, considering the ethical principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) guidelines, and the International Conference of Harmonization-Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP). Our paper comprises a complete list of protections, such as confidentiality, informed consent, ethics committees, and others., Results: This study found different levels and kinds of research ethics regulations and guidelines in the countries examined. Two groups can be distinguished: the countries in the first group have one or more research ethics regulations or guidelines, while the countries in the second group have not yet established any. Most of the documents showed various degrees of deficiencies in regard to ethical protection. The majority of the documents that were examined refer to one or more international documents on biomedical research ethics., Conclusions: Recently, a lot of efforts have been made in many countries in the Middle East. However, compared with international documents, most of the research ethics documents in use in this region demonstrate numerous deficiencies. As it relates to these documents, extensive differences could be observed in regard to development, structure, content, and reference to international guidelines.

The concept of mandatory ethical review of research involving human participants is gradually taking root in Pakistani institutions. Based on the opinions of Institutional Review Board (IRB) members from institutions across the country, the process faces several challenges which threaten its integrity. The lack of registration or accreditation for IRBs has resulted in a wide variation in the calibre and working of such Boards. Despite the recent growth in numbers of people with formal bioethics degrees in the country, a majority of membership remains without any formal training for the work expected from them in ethical review. External pressures to influence deliberations, conflict of interest issues within board leadership and inconsistent application of review requirements all contribute in undermining the reliability of the process. Some of the most significant threats to independent and uninfluenced functioning of such boards arise from institutional leadership itself. In the opinions of IRB members, the review process has to be uniform, consistent and trustworthy if it is to gain the respect of researchers, and IRB need to be given the autonomous space to make independent decisions. Otherwise there is a real danger of IRBs being relegated to being no more than rubber stamping committees.

Deception, cheating, and loopholes within the IRB approval process have received significant attention in the past several years. Surveys of clinical researchers indicate common deception ranging from omitting information to outright lying, and controversy surrounding the FDA's decision not to ban "IRB shopping" (the practice of submitting protocols to multiple IRBs until one is found that will approve the protocol) has raised legitimate concerns about the integrity of the IRB process. While at first blush these practices seem to cast aspersions on the integrity of clinical researchers, the moral issues raised go deeper than the ethics of cheating. To the extent that these practices are common, or represent an IRB system that places unreasonable burdens on those seeking IRB approval, we should consider whether non-compliance reflects problems of normative legitimacy for the IRB system itself., (© 2012 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group in June 2011 to examine alternative institutional review board (IRB) models. The working group was held in response to proposed changes in the regulations for government-supported research and the proliferation of multicenter clinical trials where multiple individual reviews may be inefficient. Group members included experts in heart, lung, and blood research, research oversight, bioethics, health economics, regulations, and information technology (IT). The group discussed alternative IRB models, ethical concerns, metrics for evaluating IRBs, IT needs, and economic considerations. Participants noted research gaps in IRB best practices and in metrics. The group arrived at recommendations for process changes, such as defining specific IRB performance requirements in funding announcements, requiring funded researchers to use more efficient alternative IRB models, and developing IT systems to facilitate information sharing and collaboration among IRBs. Despite the success of the National Cancer Institute's central IRB (CIRB), the working group, concerned about the creation costs and unknown cost-efficiency of a new CIRB, and about the risk of shifting the burden of dealing with multiple IRBs from sponsors to research institutions, did not recommend the creation of an NHLBI-funded CIRB.

Evaluating the practice of ethical review by Research Ethics Committees (REC) could help protect the interests of human participants and promote scientific progress. To facilitate such evaluations, we conducted an ethnographic study of how an REC reviews research proposals during its meetings. We observed 13 meetings of a Dutch REC and studied REC documents. We coded this material inductively and categorised these codes in two repertoires of evaluation: a repertoire of rules and a repertoire of production. In the repertoire of rules the REC applies rules, weighs scientific value and burdens to the participants and makes a final judgment on a research proposal in a meeting. In the repertoire of production, REC members check documents and forms and advise researchers on how to improve their proposals and can use informal communication. Based on these findings, we think that evaluations of the practice of ethical review should take into account the fact that RECs can use a repertoire of rules and a repertoire of production to evaluate research proposals. Combining these two repertoires can be a viable option so that the REC gives researchers advice on how to improve their proposals to prevent rejection of valuable research., (© 2012 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness © 2012 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)