Upstanding, Legal, and Regulatory Issues

Richard Chin , Bruce Y. Lee , in Principles and Practice of Clinical Trial Medicine, 2008

2.3.1 Institutional Review Lath (IRB)/ Independent Ethics Committee (IEC)

An IRB [or independent ideals committee (IEC), as IRBs are referred to outside the U.s. and Canada] is a group officially responsible for reviewing and monitoring biomedical enquiry involving human being subjects and imbued with the power to approve, require alterations in, or disapprove clinical studies. The primary purpose of the IRB is to safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects. Clinical studies cannot embark without IRB approval (or the IRB indicating that formal approval is non necessary). The IRB volition not only review study protocols before studies begin simply also periodically monitor clinical inquiry as information technology progresses.

An institution does not have to have an IRB to engage in research. If you do not belong to an institution with an IRB, you can institute formal relationships with an "outside" contained IRB (eastward.g., community hospital, university, contained IRB, or government agency) to oversee your research activities. If you cannot detect an outside IRB, you tin contact the FDA for assistance. If your study is rejected by an contained IRB, you have the right to submit it to another IRB just must provide the documentation from the commencement IRB that rejected your written report (including the reasons for rejecting your study protocol). However, you lot may non accept this recourse if your study is rejected by your institution'south IRB.

Remember the primary purpose of an IRB is to protect report subjects, non the institution or the investigator. An IRB should not turn down a study simply to protect the reputation of the establishment (due east.g., a study showing the number of medical mistakes occurring in a hospital) or accept a study merely because it may bring positive publicity for the institution.

A researcher may exist function of an IRB simply may not review whatever studies for which he or she may have a conflicting interest (east.one thousand., the researcher'southward study or a potential competitor). The IRB should accept a reasonable amount of diversity (due east.g., gender, race, ethnicity, scientific disciplines, and professional backgrounds) and consist of both scientists and nonscientists. While IRB members may be paid for their services, payment cannot in any way be tied to their decisions. Since members volition not always be bachelor, the IRB should formally appoint adequate alternates to make full in whenever an IRB member cannot nourish a meeting.

When your clinical study involves minimal gamble to its subjects, you may request an expedited review, that is, the chairperson or certain designated members of the IRB may review and approve the study protocol without convening a formal coming together. This reviewer (or reviewers) has (or have) all the power of the IRB except the right to refuse a study protocol (the full committee must meet to do then). Modest changes in an existing IRB-approved study protocol also may qualify for expedited review.

The IRB has the right to notice (or designate someone else to observe) any function of your research process (due east.g., the subject recruitment and informed consent process). You should notify your IRB of patient adverse events and whatsoever significant modify in your written report protocol or procedures. The IRB must review and corroborate all amendments to the report protocol before the changes are implemented, unless an emergent protocol change is needed to protect patients from imminent danger. You should inform patients of any changes that may affect their desire to participate in the study and give them the opportunity to withdraw from the study if they choose.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123736956000028

Stakeholder Views on Returning Inquiry Results

Susanne B. Haga , Jennifer Q. Zhao , in Advances in Genetics, 2013

4.2 IRBs

IRBs serve to protect the welfare of research participants, but it is not quite clear what their function is with respect to returning results. Despite the many recommendations that have been adult, there is no national consensus policy, and thus, IRBs are left with developing their ain institutional policy or adopting an existing prepare of recommendations deemed appropriate for their establishment and community. A review of publicly available documents from IRB websites showed variability and sometimes conflicting statements with respect to the type of result mentioned and institutional policy on (non)disclosure in informed consent templates or guidance documents (Simon, Shinkunas, Brandt, & Williams, 2012). However, the small number of reported IRB policies suggests that research institutions are struggling to develop policies on returning enquiry results, leaving researchers unsure about how to address the issue, if at all (Kozanczyn, Collins, & Fernandez, 2007; MacNeil & Fernandez, 2006a). Indeed, most researchers in i study reported that they were unaware of their institution's policy regarding return of research results or believed that they did not have a specific policy available (Fernandez et al., 2013).

The existence of an institutional policy may be impacted by the attitudes and interests of IRB chairs and members on the consequence of returning results. One survey reported strong support of IRB chairs for returning results (MacNeil & Fernandez, 2006a). Lemke, Trinidad, Edwards, Starks, and Wiesner (2010) reported that 78% of individuals involved in human being subjects protections (primarily IRB members) believed that researchers had an ethical obligation to return individual results with clinical significance. Similarly, findings of a survey of IRB members institute that a high proportion agreed that individual results of clinical significance should be fabricated available to inquiry participants, but but if the participant has agreed to be recontacted well-nigh anticipated results or an incidental finding (Dressler et al., 2012). Notwithstanding, for an untreatable disease such as Alzheimer disease, one study found that IRB chairs were divided on whether results should be returned to participants (Wolf, Catania, Dolcini, Pollack, & Lo, 2008).

Alternatively, the lack of institutional policies may be due to IRBs' uncertainty regarding their exact office on returning results, maybe perceiving themselves equally more than of an overseer or partner with researchers rather than the final arbiter on returning results for a given study (Dressler et al., 2012). Furthermore, if clinical utility is a required criterion for results to be returned to participants, IRBs may find themselves in a position outside of their role of research oversight, and thus, their authority is unclear (Dressler et al., 2012). Some take suggested that IRBs need to take a more active function in reviewing studies to place potential incidental findings that should be offered to research participants (Keane, 2008), whereas others have suggested a collaborative approach betwixt participants, IRBs, and researchers to determine the most advisable policy for their local institution (Dressler, 2009; Dressler et al., 2012).

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124077034000025

Regulatory Approving

Tom Brody Ph.D. , in Clinical Trials (Second Edition), 2016

a Introduction to the IRB

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is not used for routine medical intendance, but is required for research on homo subjects. The possibility of the need for an IRB is raised in the situation where a "projection involves gathering or using specimens, tissue, cells, information, documents, or information about or derived from humans for purposes other than medical care" ( 65). An IRB must have a minimum of five members including a scientist, a nonscientist, and at least one person who is non affiliated with the IRB's supporting institution. Members review the Clinical Study Protocol, informed consent, Investigator's Brochures, and whatsoever recruitment fabric. Following review and word, the IRB will vote to corroborate, disapprove, or crave modifications for each study (66,67).

The IRB finds a ground in 21 CFR §56.201, which states that the IRB is, "any board, committee, or other grouping formally designated by an institution to review, to corroborate the initiation of, and to comport periodic review of, biomedical research involving human subjects. The primary purpose of such review is to clinch the protection of the rights and welfare of the human subjects."

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/commodity/pii/B9780128042175000333

Good Clinical Practice and Expert Laboratory Practise

Nathalie Thou. Zgheib , ... Robert A. Branch , in Clinical and Translational Science (Second Edition), 2017

Institutional Review Lath

The IRB, also known every bit independent ethics commission (IEC), is "an independent body constituted of medical, scientific, and not-scientific members, whose responsibility is to ensure the protection of the rights, safety and well-beingness of man subjects involved in a trial. Amongst other things, its functions include reviewing, approving, and providing continuous review of trial protocol, amendments and methods and material to be used in obtaining and documenting informed consent of trial subjects" (FDA, 1996). Federally funded human research is required to have IRB review and approval. Most research institutions, professional person organizations, and academic journals apply the aforementioned requirements.

A sponsor can elect to use the local IRB of each of the study sites or an outside (regional, national, or international) IRB depending on the study complexity and the local institution'south willingness to accept an outside IRB peer view over research conducted inside the institution.

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128021019000156

Institutional Review Boards

ALISON WICHMAN , in Principles and Practice of Clinical Research (Second Edition), 2007

2.iv.3 Continuing Review of Inquiry

IRBs are required to carry continuing review of approved research at least annually or sooner if they determine that the research presents significant concrete, social, or psychological risks to subjects. Continuing review is required to ensure IRBs, investigators, inquiry subjects, and the public that appropriate and ongoing measures are being taken to protect the rights and welfare of subjects. Requirements for what information investigators must submit to an IRB at the fourth dimension of its standing review vary. For example, in the Intramural Research Program (IRP) of the NIH, investigators are required to submit for review by the IRB a re-create of the currently approved protocol consent document; a curtailed summary of the protocol'southward progress to engagement; the reason(s) for continuing the study; the gender/ethnic breakdown of subjects recruited to date; and any scientific developments that bear upon the protocol, especially those that deal with risk(s), burdens, or benefits to private subjects. As well, at the time of standing review, protocol investigators must report any new disinterestedness, consultative, or other relationships with non-NIH entities that might present a existent or apparent conflict of interest in the comport of the protocol (see Chapter eleven). At its continuing review, or at any other time, an IRB may suspend, change, or terminate approval of research that has been associated with serious damage to subjects or is not beingness conducted in accord with federal regulatory requirements, ethical guidelines, and/or institutional policies.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123694409500074

Clinical Trials

Robert G. Califf , in Clinical and Translational Science (Second Edition), 2017

The Institutional Review Lath

The IRB continues to play a cardinal function in the behave of all types of clinical research. Approval by an IRB is more often than not required for any type of homo subjects enquiry, even if the enquiry is not funded by an external source. The IRB should consist of physicians with expertise in clinical trials and nonphysicians expert in clinical research, as well equally representatives with expertise in medical ethics and representatives of the customs in which the research is being conducted. As with the DSMC, the IRB function has come under scrutiny, especially from government agencies charged with ensuring the protection of human subjects.

Several types of studies are typically exempted from the IRB process, including studies of public beliefs, research on educational practices, and studies of existing data in which research data cannot be linked to individual subjects. Surveys and interviews may also be exempted when the subjects are non identified and the data are unlikely to event in a lawsuit, financial loss, or reduced employability of the subject.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012802101900003X

Large Clinical Trials and Registries—Clinical Research Institutes

ROBERT M. CALIFF , in Principles and Practise of Clinical Research (2d Edition), 2007

15.1.3 The Institutional Review Board

The institutional review lath (IRB) continues to play a disquisitional office in the carry of all types of clinical research. Approval by the IRB is generally required for any type of inquiry, fifty-fifty if the research is not funded by an external source. The IRB should consist of physicians with expertise in clinical trials too as representatives with expertise in medical ethics and representatives of guild in the community in which the research is existence conducted. As with the DSMC, the IRB function has come under scrutiny, peculiarly from government agencies charged with ensuring the protection of human being subjects.

Several types of studies are typically exempted from the IRB process, including studies of public beliefs, inquiry on educational practices, and studies of existing data in which the research information cannot be linked to individual subjects. Surveys and interviews may besides be exempted when the subjects are non identified and the data have a very low likelihood of leading to a lawsuit, fiscal loss, or reduced employability of the subject field.

Read total affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B9780123694409500220

Institutional Review Boards

Julia Slutsman , Lynnette Nieman , in Principles and Practice of Clinical Research (Fourth Edition), 2018

Continuing Review of Inquiry

IRBs are required to conduct continuing review of approved inquiry at least annually, or sooner if they determine that the inquiry presents pregnant concrete, social, or psychological risks to subjects (45 CFR 46.109(due east)). Continuing review is required to assure IRBs, investigators, research subjects, and the public that ongoing cess will protect the rights and welfare of subjects. Requirements regarding what information investigators must submit to an IRB at the fourth dimension of its standing review vary according to institutional requirements and whether any subjects keep to be seen. For example, in the IRP of the NIH, investigators are required to submit materials including a copy of the currently approved protocol consent document; a concise summary of the protocol's progress to date; the reason(s) for continuing the study; the gender/ethnic breakdown of subjects recruited to date; and whatsoever scientific developments that bear on the protocol, especially those that deal with adventure(south), burdens, or benefits to individual subjects. Likewise, at the time of continuing review, protocol investigators must report any new equity, consultative, or other relationships with non-NIH entities that might nowadays a existent or apparent conflict of interest in the conduct of the protocol. By contrast, if no subjects go along to be seen, a more than abbreviated and expedited process is possible.

At its continuing review, or at any other fourth dimension, an IRB may suspend, change, or finish approval of research that has been associated with serious harm to subjects or is non being conducted in accord with federal regulatory requirements, ethical guidelines, and/or institutional policies. The Final Rule allows IRBs to not require continuing review for inquiry that is no greater than minimal risk.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/commodity/pii/B9780128499054000046

Adolescent Participation in Research

Lorah D. Dorn PhD , in Adolescent Medicine, 2008

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

The IRB is an administrative body that is designed to protect the rights and welfare of individuals who are approached for research participation, as well equally individuals who are participating in enquiry. The IRB has the authority to corroborate, disapprove, and regulate all research inside an institution based on the federal guidelines mentioned previously. An IRB may be within 1 establishment (due east.k., university, hospital, medical heart) and serve only that institution, or it may exist within the private sector and serve many institutions. Different interpretation and awarding of the federal regulations across IRBs outcome in dissimilar allowable research practices beyond institutions. For instance, some institutions never permit waiver of parental consent despite federal regulations allowing it in certain circumstances.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323040730100093

Clinical Study Conduct and Monitoring

Edda Gomez-Panzani , in Global Clinical Trials, 2011

nineteen.ten.1 Institutional Review Board

The IRB (called the IEC in the EU) is equanimous of a group of at least five members (and a few alternatives) that ensures that the rights and welfare of humans participating every bit subjects in a research study are maintained throughout the subjects' participation. To eliminate any diversity bias members must come up from dissimilar disciplines [scientific (at least one md) and non-scientific (at least one non-scientific or layperson)] and ethnic backgrounds and both genders must be represented. The IRB membership normally consists of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, statisticians, an ethicist, and a patient advocate. In that location are 2 main types of IRBs, a key IRB and a local IRB.

Primal IRBs oversee multicenter trials and are at a location different from the clinical written report sites. They can be established by public agencies [such every bit the National Institutes of Wellness (NIH)] or by individual enterprises. They normally run into every week or two weeks and on occasion will concord to an unscheduled coming together if the lack of a prompt IRB approving could considerably delay the clinical report timelines.

Local IRBs are affiliated with the institution or study site that is conducting the clinical study (east.yard. medical center, academy) and are commonly located at the same institution or report site. They usually meet less oftentimes than the primal IRBs (once a month or even in one case every two months). This can upshot in lengthy approval times, especially if revisions are required later on the first review and the documents have to be resubmitted for review at the side by side scheduled coming together.

Information technology is very important to select an IRB properly. Some researchers take evaluated dissimilar IRBs and take found inconsistencies in both their review processes and their recommendations [1,seven]; therefore, to forestall option bias and to make the review procedure more efficient, it is advisable whenever possible to utilize 1 very experienced, single, qualified central IRB for the review of all documents. Occasionally, a local IRB volition be preferred (eastward.g. for a single-center study) or required (some institutions, especially medical centers affiliated to academic institutions will not participate in any clinical research study that has not been approved by their own IRB). Either one is adequate as long every bit such IRB has a clear agreement regarding the context of the study and the values of the customs where the enquiry is taking place.

When evaluating an IRB it helps to continue in mind the top IRB deficiencies identified by the CDER for the financial year 2009 [8] (Effigy 19.1).

Figure nineteen.ane. Height institutional review board deficiencies as per Center for Drug Evaluation and Inquiry, fiscal year 2009. NAI: No Action Indicated

 (With permission from Barnett International [viii]). (Please refer to colour plate section)

No research involving human being subjects tin commence without IRB approval except for research that involves the collection and analysis of existing information (e.g. records, biological and medical specimens) and where the subjects to which the information pertains cannot be identified.

Documents that require IRB approval include, simply are non limited to, the clinical study protocol, study-specific informed consent, referral letters to be used during the study, investigator brochure (IB) and patient information brochure. The ICH-GCP guidelines describe the IB equally "a compilation of the clinical and nonclinical data on the investigational product(due south) that are relevant to the written report of the product(s) in human subjects".

Approval should be obtained not merely before the bear of the clinical written report, but besides at any time any changes are fabricated to the documents already canonical by the IRB or if any new documents related to written report-specific activities are generated.

The IRB will go on to review the study on an ongoing basis. The frequency with which the IRB chooses to receive updates is determined by the perceived hazard to the subjects/patients; yet, an annual report is expected throughout the duration of the study. Serious/life-threatening adverse events (SAEs) must likewise be reported to the IRB. During monitoring, ensuring that all SAE reports have been forwarded to the IRB is of utmost importance.

All IRBs have the authorization to approve, require modifications (to secure approval), or disapprove research [9], and are subject to the rules and guidelines outlined by the Usa Department of Health and Human being Services' Function for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the FDA.

Later completion of the report, a final study providing a summary of the last enrollment numbers, adverse consequence summaries and updates, equally well as the conclusions of the written report (equally available) must be submitted to the IRB.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/commodity/pii/B9780123815378100196